Follow this request
There is 1 person following this request
Act on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Judge Polden - Medway County Family Court
To Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service by Mr D Ferguson (Account suspended) 10 August 2009
Child Protection or Child Trafficking for Anthony Douglas?
To Shetland Islands Council by LS Palmer (Account suspended) 18 January 2011
Child Protection or Child Trafficking for Anthony Douglas?
To Redbridge Borough Council by LS Palmer (Account suspended) 18 January 2011
Abuse of Care Proceedings - Torturing parents and Children for profit.
To Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service by LS Palmer (Account suspended) 29 January 2011
Child Protection or Child Trafficking for Anthony Douglas?
To East Renfrewshire Council by LS Palmer (Account suspended) 18 January 2011
RBKC Violating Human Rights / Disability LAW
To Home Office by Liz R (Account suspended) 23 February 2011
Abuse of Power by Local Government
To Government Office for East Midlands by LS Palmer (Account suspended) 18 January 2011
Kidnap and Deprivation of Liberty by RBKC and Treehouse Trust in Haringey
To Department for Education by Liz R (Account suspended) 9 March 2011
Anthony Douglas' many roles in Removing children from families.
To Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service by LS Palmer (Account suspended) 20 January 2011
Are Judges allowed to put pressure on families to give up their children for adoption?
Mr D Ferguson (Account suspended) made this Freedom of Information request to Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service
The request was partially successful.
From: Mr D Ferguson (Account suspended)
8 September 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,
Please can you state for the record if it is correct that Family
Court Judges are allowed to put pressure on parents in care
proceedings, to place their children for adoption.
Would it be correct to say that this is a regular occurrence in the
Family Courts.
Could it be that judges are treating children like movable chattel
that belongs to the State rather than their natural parents, please
supply all evidence that relates to complaints and if it is indeed
lawful to defend oneself by recording such events.
Otherwise how would the Public be any the wiser as to what is
happening behind closed doors.
Yours faithfully,
Mr D Ferguson
From: Data Access & Compliance Unit
Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service
11 September 2009
Dear Mr Ferguson,
Please find attached your response to your Freedom of Information
request.
Yours sincerely
Hannah Law
Data Access & Compliance Unit
Postal Point 6.25, Zone B
102 Petty France
London SW1H 9AJ
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
show quoted sections
From: Mr D Ferguson (Account suspended)
18 September 2009
Dear Hannah Law Data Access & Compliance Unit,
Having run this request past several members of the public , we can
not understand why you are having a problem with its content.
Please respond to the best of your understanding, any confusion
will be addressed promptly.
Yours sincerely,
Mr D Ferguson
From: Data Access & Compliance Unit
Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service
18 September 2009
This is an Auto Reply from the Data Access & Compliance Unit.
Thank you for your e-mail.
If your message was a request for information please be advised that your
request is being dealt with and you will receive a written ackowledgement
shortly.
Data Access & Compliance Unit
Information Directorate
Ministry of Justice
6th Floor, Zone B, Postal Point 6.23
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ
Fax: 0203 334 2245
E-mail: [HMCS request email]
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the
addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not
permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when
deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read
at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when
composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
show quoted sections
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
From: Gill, Matthew
Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service
7 October 2009
Mr. Ferguson, please find attached a reply to your e-mail from 8
September 2009. If you wish to contact us again in the future, you may
e-mail General Inquiries, their address is
[email address]. Their information is contained in
the letter as well.
Matthew
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
show quoted sections
From: Mr D Ferguson (Account suspended)
13 October 2009
Dear Matthew,
Thank you for your reply and non-avoidance of the subject.
You have you put forward a very good pre-amble of what should be
happening in the family courts but this is not fact.
The Trust in HMCS is broken, until we have judges that judge,
professionals who act professionally and hold unscrupulous
authorities who are far from independent to the courts to account
and all fictitious dealings stopped this will remain the case.
Any pretense of anything otherwise is an absolute insult to all the
families who have had their children stolen by the state.
Best regards,
Mr D Ferguson
From: Gill, Matthew
Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service
19 October 2009
It has come to our attention that the letter sent to you contained an
out of date address in the header, one from which we have moved.
Attached, find an updated letter which reflects our current address.
Matthew Gill
Care Proceedings Programme
Family Law & Justice Division
Ministry of Justice
4th Floor, 102 Petty France SW1H 9AJ
Tel: 0203 334 5049
Email: [email address]
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
show quoted sections
J Webb (Account suspended) left an annotation ( 6 November 2009)
"The 11 MILLION children and young people in England have a voice"
Children's Commissioner for England, Professor Sir Albert Aynsley-Green
WHAT VOICE ? NOT ACCORDING TO THIS THEY DONT
http://nameshamesocialworkers.blogspot.c...
[A letter a dear friend of mine sent to the Judge in the Family Court,( edited to protect identities) the Judge used paragraph 4 to remove them as party. Yet he failed to answer when asked in Court what would stop children’s services coming after their own children if they failed ‘so-called assessments including a psychological assessment that the Council and Judge were trying to rail road them into.]
After our recent LIP experience of the Family Courts regarding contesting the ICO (at your suggestion), in the hope our granddaughters would be returned to live with their grandparents. We now have ‘little faith’ in either the LA professionals who unfortunately, do not appear to act in the ‘best interests of the children’ or the present system that fails to make them accountable for their actions.
It may just be coincidental that I was standing for election in November 2007 after I had complained to the Director of Children’s Services , on a separate issue and took my complaints to the LGO.
Apparently, we could risk being labelled mad or worse if we go to the press; yet it seems pointless to Appeal without the media.
Regretfully, our stance on being assessed has not changed for the reasons given at the initial hearing; having young children of adoptable ages and no belief in the CSW comment ‘that the SS do not canvas for work’ our family has already been destroyed.
Please do not think us paranoid. A continuous stream of high calibre news articles including award winning Journalists, looking into ‘children’s services’ alongside the UN investigation into our Family Courts, EDM’s signed by numerous MP’s and
Jack Straw’s announcement to allow the press (April2009); all suggest otherwise.
There appears to be a mass of contradictions/inaccuracies and double standards.
Selective incomplete evidence, (mainly opinion based) interpreted as ‘fact’ without the full information requested from September 2002 including ‘notes’ from both the SS and CG. A different criteria/ model supplied (non-relative assessment), which is neither objective nor subjective. And discerning to note that there is no record of us receiving £100 cash from the SS .
Ironically, a Councillor on the ‘Children’s Champion Board’ sort my advice about ‘children’s services’ and is aware of our previous experience.
Although I did not ask him, he seems to have attempted to help; I am not his constituent nor did I ask about kinship care allowance and our children are not known to social care or receive services.
Charles J in Re R [2002] 1 FLR 755 and Munby J in Re L (Care Assessment: Fair Trial) [2002] 2 FLR 730In Re R,
Relatives are expected to jump through hoops and endure fishing trips that were simply not required on the two previous occasions, when XXXX and XXXX were placed in our care, on the second occasion after an interview with CPO.
The LA may have been concerned about a possible Judicial Review and this may have contributed to why an offer of a mandatory referral for (FGC) ‘not best practice’ as suggested in Court, was not forthcoming.
D-v- Southwark LBC [2007] EWCA Civ 182
. Munby J Manchester City Council – V – F (2002) 1FLR 43
What is the definition of better than good enough parenting?
The House of Lords (2008) ‘grandparents only have to be reasonable enough parents’
“Innocent yet presumed guilty unless we comply - On the balance of probabilities?”
We probably have far more experience than many of the professionals involved, having raised 6 children.
Supervisory contact is only required we believe, if there is a danger to the children.
Being a XXXX/CRB checked with no previous concerns, it is insulting and degrading to be only offered expensive supervised contact in an unnatural environment. While our offer of contact in our home (with foster carers if need be) and Cllrs/Corporate Parents offering to be present, is ignored/rejected.
Whilst bizarrely XXXX & XXXX have been transported by taxi virtually on a daily basis from XXXX that is 5 minutes from XXXX, to XXXX approximately a hours drive by their first set of inexperienced carers; all at the taxpayers expense?
Where are our granddaughter’s Human Rights to a family life? Having been placed in foster care, where their well-being has deteriorated after being separated and passed from ‘pillar to post’ and respite care, instead of with relatives.
DCSF – figures suggest that at least 2 children a week die and/or are abused in care.
Research suggests that there are well-evidenced advantages1 for children who cannot live with their parents to be raised by relatives or friends:
Farmer E and Moyers S (2008)‘Kinship Care: Fostering Effective Family and Friends Placements’ (Jessica Kingsley); Doolan et al (2004) Growing up in the Care of Relatives and Friends (Family Rights Group); Hunt J (2003) Family and Friends Care; coping Paper for Dept of Health; Broad, B (ed) (2001) Kinship Care: the placement of choice for children and young people (Russell House; Hunt Waterhouse & Lutman (2008forthcoming) Keeping them in the family (BAAF) Dr Lynne Wrenndall, Charles Pragnell. Lisa Blakemore-Brown, Brian Morgan, Dr Helen Hayward-Brown, Bruce Irvine,
Dr Clive Baldwin, Stephen Clark, Cathy Johnson (2004) Taking the stick away: the service users’ joint statement
It is hoped that XXXX (babies are far more sort after for adoption and a marketable commodity) will be given a Voice Child Advocate, (the CSW rejected this in favour of the CG only).
The FGC Co-ordinator’s comment ‘ holding a FGC at a late stage “energises families” is insulting and worthless when the LA holds all the power and should not be advising family members that I must agree to be assessed.
The joint comments from the LA solicitor and CG who later offered to alter her notes? The LA solicitor told me ‘ the LA only had a duty to consider family members.’
If Human Rights and the PLO can be so brazenly be disregarded/ ignored, is it any wonder that ¾ of children end up adopted or on SGO with strangers instead of relatives.
The CG Solicitor’s remarks outside the Court ‘that LA Counsel could speak for me, or XXXX a passing Solicitor could represent me or they would adjourn and the Court would/could not allow my grandchildren to be placed with us on ICO’ (reiterated the CG comment) and meeting immediately after Court, with the CSW/Counsel, but not us. And the CG & ISW lunching in the Café across the road, all show how cosy the relevant professionals appear to be, hardly independent.
‘ Generally speaking, guardians act as cheerleaders for social services departments. They are entirely compliant, and seem incapable of doing more than being a cheering section’. Eric Pickles MP. (We cannot disagree.)
As Corporate Parents we should act in the way we would if the children were our own. I am appalled at what I perceive to be professionals who fail to act in a professional manner and seem to have no intention of working to reunite children with families. The public would be astonished at the costs involved and outraged that relatives are over looked in favour of expensive foster care.
Totally amazed that such draconian measures of removing children without a mandatory referral for (FGC) can amount to; crystal ball gazing opinion backed up by expensive reports paid for from the public purse.
How is it possible to review a past non event and make a decision based on what may or may not have happened if a FGC had been held, when it could/did not take place?
Children are not mere commodities to be passed around for profit; clearly everyone involved is being paid, (the larger the bundle the more costly?), which could be better spent on ‘real’ child protection and desperately needed front line services to support families to ensure that mandatory FGC referrals are completed; improved services.
I came into politics in order to defend the children of the poor and help make sure that families receive the services they deserve. Councillors are more aware of their responsibility to ‘looked after children’ and the CEO is reviewing the case following a subsequent meeting with the XXXX Leader.
The one simple thing that can never be altered is my granddaughters’ heritage, we are blood relatives, our granddaughters will always be dearly loved and wanted; this can never be obliterated. Hopefully they will be reunited with family members, who if given the opportunity could have applied (if need be) for a RO via private law.
The Court has the power to remedy matters and take the more proportional approach that the LA has not done to-date. Please take into consideration our views and concerns when making your decisions about our granddaughters futures.
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Make and explore Freedom of Information requests






Ms Chadwick (Account suspended) left an annotation ( 8 October 2009)
http://stolenkids-nottingham.blogspot.com/
Link to this