Follow this request
There is 1 person following this request
Offensive? Unsuitable?
Requests for personal information and vexatious requests are not considered valid for FOI purposes (read more).
If you believe this request is not suitable, you can report it for attention by the site administrators
Report this requestAct on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Conflicts of Interests
To Office for Judicial Complaints by Susan Web (Account suspended) 18 September 2009
Family Courts
To Legal Complaints Service by Susan Web (Account suspended) 7 September 2009
Family Courts(Service) Complaints
To Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service by Susan Web (Account suspended) 7 September 2009
Family Courts(Service) Complaints
To House of Lords by Susan Web (Account suspended) 7 September 2009
Family Courts(Service) Complaints
To House of Commons by Susan Web (Account suspended) 7 September 2009
Family Courts(Service) Complaints
To House of Commons by Susan Web (Account suspended) 7 September 2009
Shocking abuse of power by Childrens Services
To Prime Minister’s Office by A Freeman (Account suspended) 29 September 2009
Shocking abuse of Childrens Services
To Office of the Public Guardian by A Freeman (Account suspended) 29 September 2009
Shocking abuse of power by Childrens Services
To Social Care Institute for Excellence by A Freeman (Account suspended) 29 September 2009
Conflict of Interests
Susan Web (Account suspended) made this Freedom of Information request to Office for Judicial Complaints
Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Office for Judicial Complaints should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.
From: Susan Web (Account suspended)
18 September 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,
Can you please provide details of how many complaints received
about unlawful practices of Judges and Council SS Legal Team
(children social services) , barrister's etc Cafcass Legal teams
etc , regarding Children taken into ‘care’ by Kent County Council.
Relatives who put themselves forward are considered guilty until
proven innocent, and demands are made that they jump through
assessment hoops, when the House of Lords made it quite clear that
grandparents only have to be good enough parents. The system as it
stands is no better than a 'child trafficking ring.'
It is appalling that in Family Court’s so many children are being
taken into care based on mere opinion of – so-called professionals
and placed for adoption with strangers rather than relatives.
In 2007,local authorities in England applied for 8,173 care orders.
7,624 orders were made. 336 applications were withdrawn, 290 "no
orders" decisions and 21 orders were refused.
In other words, the judgement of the social workers working for the
council was so good, they were only refused by the judge 21 times
(0.27%)
More importantly 93% of the time the judge merely rubber-stamped
the care orders.
House of Lords - Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust.
Baroness Hale of Richmond. Judgement
34. There is, so far as the parties to this case are aware, no
European jurisprudence questioning the principle of freeing for
adoption, or indeed compulsory adoption generally. The United
Kingdom is unusual amongst members of the Council of Europe in
permitting the total severance of family ties without parental
consent. (Professor Triseliotis thought that only Portugal and
perhaps one other European country allowed this.) It is, of course,
the most draconian interference with family life possible.
Although kinship placements are supposed to be the preferred option
in this country, only 1 per cent. of social worker-instigated
placements ended up with kinship carers, compared with 45 per cent.
in Denmark, for example(EVIDENCE given in parliament 16th June 2008
by Tim Loughton MP shadow minister for children)
Yours faithfully,
Susan Web
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




