Anthony Douglas' many roles in Removing children from families.

Dear Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service,

This question regards conflict of interest - How does Anthony
Douglas get round the law on Conflict of Interest? Please could you
provide me with the legal provision that entitles Anthony Douglas
to carry out the following roles without contravening any Conflict
of Interest Laws?

He is the Chief Executive of CAFCASS who provide the Court Advisors
whose recommendations as to what is in the best interest of the
children (Usually Adoption if the child is young, healthy and
adoptable) MUST be followed.

Anthony Douglas is Chair of British Agency of Adoption and
Fostering. Who provide Foster carers and Foster/Adopters who are
often 'good friends' with the CAFCASS court advisor and who are
paid £400 per child PER WEEK. The cared for children are often
described as 'delightful' and therefore a pleasure to care for, the
only thing wrong with the children is that they miss their parents.
The Foster carer will have to constantly interrogate the child for
any instances of punishment they may have been subject to by their
parent in order to help make the case that the parent is
'horrible'. Then the child will constantly be told 'your parent is
horrible' so the child stops asking to see the parent and adoption
is made easier.

Anthony Douglas writes the books that Child Protection Social
Workers study for their tactics for removing children such as
telling parents they 'are placing their own needs above the needs
of the children by going to work/College etc.

Anthony Douglas has a relationship with CORAM who advise on Contact
and Expert reports and then social workers tell parents 'if you get
positive assessments you can have your children back- Coram
adoption agency therefore advise on how to avoid that happening
such as making rules for contact impossible by telling parents they
are not allowed to show emotion, mention clothing or talk about
wider issues in contact. Social Workers will also make false
allegations of assault in order to prevent contact. Expert reports
are also impossible to pass because Expert Psychologists give
parents a test in order to determine which personality disorder the
parent has. If the parent's answers do not disclose any personality
disorder then the parent has a low disclosure score which indicates
they are lying which is therefore an indication of the worst
personality disorder possible ie Narcissm.

Anthony Douglas also writes the Public Law Outline which is the
guidance that Judges have to follow in the removal of children
which tells Judges they can remove children with no notice, no
evidence, no investigation, no Police Protection Order and just get
the child into care and then CAFCASS will arrange that the child
will never return to the parent which makes CARE Proceedings an
ideal opportunity for Local Authorities to avoid dealing with
complaints (they can simply torture any complainant parent by
starting care proceedings and therefore effectively steal their
children for complaining).

From my questions of CAFCASS and from Whistle Blower's evidence
which resulted in the dismissal of the whole board of CAFCASS in
2003 (including dismissal of the whistleblower) which can be read
about here:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-off...

It is becoming apparent that there are no standards or safeguards
in place such as:

a. All children permanently removed from parents and placed for
adoption must first have been given a full assessment with their
parents at an independent family assessment centre.
b. Any parent who is accused of abuse or neglect is considered
innocent until PROVED guilty of neglect or abuse by being convicted
of a criminal offence using criminal standards and a Jury.

What safeguards are in place to ensure that Local Authorities and
Cafcass do not abuse Care Proceedings against families who
complain, by arranging the permanent removal of children from
parents who have neither been properly assessed in contravention of
their Human Rights, nor have the parents been guilty of any
behaviour which would constitute any criminal offence ie.
neglect/child abuse.

So far in my research I have discovered there are many Local
Authorities who will readily commence Care Proceedings in response
to a parent who complains about the Local Authority, and due to the
various Ombudsmans being reluctant to investigate (Parliamentary
Ombudsman investigated 1 out of 140 complaints about CAFCASS last
year) this clear abuse of power, the Local Authority and CAFCASS,
BAAF, the Secret Family Courts all too often 'get away with it'.

It has further become clear to me in my research to date that it is
not uncommon for children to lose their biological parents with NO
GOOD REASON WHATSOEVER and to be exposed to serious child abuse
once 'in care' often resulting in the child self harming,
committing suicide, running away, becoming mentally disturbed,
turning to drugs, alcoholism and crime.

Please could you therefore provide me with the safeguards and
procedures that ensures that Anthony Douglas' 'conflicts of
interest' are not the basis for the child protection procedures
being used as a secretive child trafficking organisation.

Yours faithfully,

LS Palmer