conflicts of interest - CAFCASS and Social Services

Mrs Barden, Amanda Jane CANTERBURY E/1008145 Registered Social
Worker, now works as a childrens guardian.

It is our understanding
that she may have worked previously for Kent County Council (maybe
under her maiden name) as a social worker/manager for childrens
services.

This is a complete conflict of interests; does Ms Helen Fountain have any connections to Canterbury Cafcass or ever worked in Kent?

There appears to be a massive fraud occurring within the family court system and authorities ,court's,cafcass are all interlinked and involved and struggling to remain hidden.

I don't know about any connection to Canterbury, but she did state under oath that she held a diploma in Child & Social Care.

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 June 16th 2008 by Tim Loughton MP shadow minister for children)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colum...

Will be interesting to see if Medway Family Court takes any notice of Lord Justice Thorpe and Lord Justice Wall's criticisms, the latter ordered his comments to be circulated to family courts and adoption agencies across the land.
(Could his comments be referring to the Law of the Land)

The Lords appear to recognize that there is a clear difference between the LAW and legal child kidnap; there cannot be Lawful child kidnap.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colum...

correct link

http://www.familylore.co.uk/2009/07/bare...

Barely Functioning
written by John Bolch on Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Following Sir Mark Potter's recent comments regarding the crisis in the family courts, I requested an interview with His Honour Judge Polden, the designated Family Law Judge for Kent, on the subject. I chose him because I have always practised in Kent and therefore know something about the courts in this county. He declined the interview. Perhaps this is not entirely surprising, given the state of some of the courts over which he presides.

As I will shortly be no longer using the courts for my work, I feel I can now say something about their state. Take my local court, Medway County Court, for instance. I would not say that it was any exaggeration to state that it is barely functioning at all, with even the most straightforward matters taking months to deal with.

Like other local solicitors, I have been issuing in other courts, just to avoid the delays at Medway. Perhaps that is the plan: reduce the service to such a level that everyone goes elsewhere - problem solved!

I would be interested to hear the experiences of others up and down the country.

This about sums it up

No such request for clarification was ever received, however if needs must:

What is the interest of Ms. Fountain in ensuring that care orders in which she is involved, are rubberstamped by the family court service? Is the duty of care of CAFCASS not the proper representation of the "wishes and feelings" of the children? Or is the public face of CAFCASS in polar opposition to its actual mission, which is looking more and more like toeing the line of local authorities to remove children and destroy families?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iFSL2u_kgw

this is so sad , another nanna saying goodbye to her stolen grandchild

SS are trying the propaganda route to gaining public confidence and support. Behind the scenes we all know it will generate more referals, mainly malicious which will cost children and families dearly. This is simply to generate more snatches, aim = ......'More adoptions, especially as Cafcass is being crippled because they are paving the way for Coram to take over the cases they say they can't handle'.

Watch the CON-servative party and others appear to come to the rescue and raise this issue suddenly next year in order to get more votes. Dont be fooled they are all defacto and in this up to their necks and will use any issue to fool the sheeple.

What are any of them doing about this NOW - NOTHING

http://www.notbornyesterday.org/scandal,...

Some strange goings on down Plymouth way, it seems - where earlier this month (October 2009) three police cars and five police officers were required to remove five small children from a mother's home in her absence. In my neck of the woods, you'd be lucky to get that kind of turnout for a murder.

CAFCASS are committing PERJURY and FRAUD and CONSPIRACY TO AID KIDNAP. My request couldn't be CLEARER. Your reply couldn't be a clearer indication that I have HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD.

DO NOT TRUST CAFCASS. THEY DO NOT WORK ON BEHALF OF CHILDREN.