Family Courts - Lack of Transparency/Conflict of Interest

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...

The comments on here say it all nobody expects to get any justice in any court in the UK, they never have and never will

With family courts being held in secret there is absolutely no chance

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

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

"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.

Say NO to gagging orders, how dare they! We know its not in the interests of the child, its in the interests of the perverse judgments and scrappy evidence that could never stand up in a ‘proper’ court furthermore it could cause a public outcry if it ever got out. We’ve had enough of the injustice and the secret courts, this must end and it must end NOW,

Please see the link to our story. I now have much more to add to this. Since 2003 our family have had nothing but injustice dished out by Cumbria police, with attempts to set up direct and extended family members with crimes they have not committed. My MP, since 2005, Mr. Tim Farron of Westmorland and Lonsdale, inspite of being provided with evidence of abuse, including sexual abuse, in care in Cumbria and attempt to steal my grandchild for forced adoption, has done nothing to represent my requests to Parliament. He has shown blatent disregard to the concerns I have raised with him, as my MP, on a continued basis, even in full knowledge along with every MP in Parliament, that these attrocities continue to go unchallenged.

It has become clear to us that MP's are either complicit with this social engineering policy of destroying healthy families or they are mear Gatekeepers for the criminal elites.

here is a link which might interest you.

http://www.no2abuse.com/index.php/articl...

Thousands are affected by this criminal conduct of our elected MP's and MEP's, no child is safe, no family is immune.

Mr B Gerrish is to be supported and assisted as he, in my opinion, is the only one doing anything at all to address these grave concerns, which affect us all.

ivanataylor left an annotation (6 October 2010)
Another letter to my MP, anyone can copy and paste this and send it to theirs.

Dear ? MP

Question to be asked of Minister of Education Rt Hon Michael Gove on 11 Oct 2010 to be Televised at 2:30pm

I am contacting you as one of your constituents regarding the number of parents that are desperately fighting for the return of their children in a legal maze they cannot understand. It seems we are losing our children due to not knowing court procedure and our legal rights rather than because we are unable to safely care for our children.

Please could you ask the Minister of Education a question. I understand that he will be answering questions in the House of Commons on 11 Oct 2010 at 2:30 which will be broadcast to the public as part of a democratic procedure. The question is “Who is accountable when children are removed from their parents unlawfully and illegally?”

I have watched Tim Yeo MP and John Hemming MP ask similar questions in parliament, the videos of which are available on youtube.

I am disturbed by the number of empty seats in Parliament at the time and wonder why there are so few MPs interested in the matter of children being taken from their parents using illegal and unlawful practices by Civil Servants, paid by the government.

Who will investigate? Will you as my MP or will you only pass my question on to someone else who won't investigate?

It has become clear that the courts don't accept evidence, only professional hearsay. The Council complaints or the Director of Children's Services won't respond to letters, the LGO won't investigate, nor the IPCC or GCSS, nor CAFCASS complaints, nor publicly funded solicitors, nor the LCS, nor LSC, nor the JCC but will my MP?

I appreciate from the case of Margaret Hodge and the Islington abuse scandal that it is impossible to hold an MP, who is complicit in state kidnap and institutional child abuse, accountable. I believe MPs that will take a positive stance against this corruption do so because their conscience tells them that they cannot turn a blind eye, even where asking questions makes them unpopular with many other MPs.

In searching for someone who has the power to put this right, affected parents have written to the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Education, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Prime Minister, 600 MPs and 200 Lords and the Law Commission, but there is no reply!

Appeals to the Royal Courts of Justice are impossible because parents are not given permission to appeal to either the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court unless they know the law as well as the Lord giving permission. The ECHR confirm that the Social Workers Practice and the Procedure of the Family Court is against Human Rights but while they can fine the UK if a victim family manages to get all the way up through the levels, they don't have the power to correct things.

As every Government funded solicitor claims that the LSC won’t fund an appeal very few parents are able to make a complaint to the ECHR, the UK therefore prefers to pay the fine than hold civil servants accountable for unlawful practice. Many parents don’t even know what stage they are at in the lower courts, let alone make an appeal!

Who supports the family in getting justice when their children are taken for financial incentive rather than for protection? There are a number of voluntary services but their capacity is limited and they cannot possibly help every one of the eight thousand families that are targeted each year.

Every government funded solicitor in the country refuses to take on the case of a parent who claims their child was taken wrongfully. Instead parents are coerced under duress to admit things they have not done. Quite often proceedings are started because the parent complained about the wrong doing and the Council use the excuse that the matter is now subject to Court proceedings, rather than investigate the complaint of wrong doing.

One of my Facebook friends has a mother who is a retired family lawyer that devotes tremendous time to her case. The mother herself has studied law to postgraduate level and works 17 hours a day on her case. Her work is checked by her mother, Mensa level proof readers and top voluntary lay advisers from PAIN. They confirm the illegalities and the unlawfulness.

This same mother has the same qualifications required by Ofsted to be a childminder. One of the best psychologists in the world has confirmed she is an honest, devoted mother with a good brain with no mental illness. Her children's health was unremarkable and their development was beyond expectation at the time they were taken. They had no emotional or behavioural problems but now, after being alienated from everyone and everything they have ever known in the course of Care proceedings they are said to be suffering post traumatic stress.

This mother has not been allowed to see her children since 28 April 2010 because the judge says it's harmful to the children to have contact with her while she believes they have been taken unlawfully.

Her children are being threatened with forced adoption. Justice is not being done.

While she waits over 2 weeks for a reply to the letter she sent the guardian's solicitor all she gets is threats of committal proceedings for her activity on Facebook. They seem to have plenty of time to search the internet for trace of her and print off and read anything she publishes but they won't reply to the letter she wrote them on 10 September 2010 asking for her children to be properly represented. The children's solicitor seems far more interested in imprisoning her than in the welfare of the children and their complaints partner fully supports that.

If this mother cannot achieve justice, who can? Like many other children, her children should never have been taken. As every MP states in their standard letter sent in reply to parents desperate for help: "The law is clear – children should live with their parents wherever possible and, when necessary, families should be given extra support to help keep them together."

In Re B (children) FC 2008 UKHL Baroness Hale of Richmond stated:

'Taking a child away from her family is a momentous step, not only for her but for her whole family and for the local authority which does so. In a totalitarian society, uniformity and conformity are valued. Hence the totalitarian state tries to separate the child from her family and mould her to its own design. Families in their subversive variety are the breeding ground of diversity and individuality. In a free and democratic society we value diversity and individuality. Hence the family is given special protection in all modern human rights. The child is not the mere creature of the state.

In EH v Greenwich [2010] EWCA Civ 344 Lord Justice Wall stated:

"Social workers are perceived by many as the arrogant and enthusiastic removers of children from their parents into an unsatisfactory care system, and as trampling on the rights of parents and children in the process. This case will do little to dispel that perception.”

The question of ‘who is accountable when the Law that is so clear is not abided by?’ remains pertinent.

I would also like to know if I live in a democratic country where the government works for the governed or are we all just slaves of the government as in a dictatorship, like Mao’s China and Stalin’s Russia? It seems clear to me from the many parents who speak about the torture of care proceedings on Facebook that the EH v Greenwich case is a typical example of what is happening throughout the country.

WILL MY QUESTION BE ASKED IN PARLIAMENT?

Do you work for your constituents or for the Medical schools, Universities, Drugs Companies who require human guinea pigs or do you work for Child Traffickers who supply the sex trade with children? Can you provide evidence that when our children are removed from their parents they go on to live happy lives, free from emotional harm?

Will you represent your constituents in Parliament and take the moral stance that government funded kidnap is inhumane, even where you have no financial incentive to do so? The people of this country want to know which MPs are working for us!

I very much look forward to watching the broadcast of the House of Commons question time scheduled for 11 October 2:30 with Rt Hon Michael Gove answering questions and seeing you in attendance showing your commitment to Justice, democracy and the Protection of Human Rights.

If you are unable to attend please could you send me a copy of your written question which you will be asking the Rt Hon Michael Gove.

I look forward to hearing

I have to inform all interested parties that my MP again did nothing after i sent the above letter to him.

Euphanasia for Peodophiles?
News out from the Reuters agency has reported that sex offenders are going to get the right to appeal being on the sex offenders register.

Currently anyone sentenced to at least thirty months in prison for sexual offences is automatically placed on the sex offenders register.

This current position stems from two convicted sex offenders who won the right to appeal being on the sex offenders register in the Supreme Court last year, giving the argument that being on the register would have a disproportionate interference on their family lives.

A government source told the BBC "we have no choice but to implement the Supreme Court judgment"

We are sure you reading this will be equally appalled as we are at this move.

There is a clear agenda being rolled out by the government where paedophiles and paedophilia related activities are being normalised and the fact that the two convicted sex offenders are not paedophiles is only a smoke screen created by the media, and when it has blown away and you are used to the idea you will see paedophiles applying for appeal under the same rules.

Behind this agenda are subtle campaigns in the media to promote the legalisation of paedophilia, one such supporter of paedophiles is Miranda Sawyer (in the picture to the right).

We found recently that the tone of her articles are written in such a way to support the agenda of gays and paedophiles, even going as far as to argue the case to legalise it in an article she wrote in 2003 which can be found still live on the links at the bottom of the page, the article was titled "Sex is not just for grown ups" , we would advise taking precautions before you read it as it is stomach churning to say the least.

So why does this matter?

The government has simply run out of ideas to keep screwing the population for taxes and treat them like slaves, so they are dumbing down society to legalise paedophilia and take children off loving families, so in turn they are distracted as to what is going on, the children are then placed with single people, or couples of the same sex as the government agenda is pushing via third way agencies such as the NSPCC to make sure that the next generation of children do not know what family is.

Family is a unit that you cannot divide and rule, this is difficult to swallow for those that wish to rule over us and treat us as their slaves, so therefore in their eyes the family must be destroyed.

What we are left with once they have destroyed the natural family units of the population , is a set of individuals that can be ruled over easily, otherwise known as compartmentalisation.

So as the Children's Minister Tim Loughton MP (in the picture on the left) slams Christopher Booker for reporting on child stealing, we can only believe that he is part of the agenda especially as it is announced he has authorised on behalf of the government £11.2 million pounds cash injection into third way agency NSPCC who has made clear that its role is to place children with single people and couples of the same sex as a priority, we have previously reported on this.

What is going on is a total disgrace and you should now be asking yourself if you agree with what we have written and if you do what are you going to do about it?

It is time to stand up for your right and the rights of the natural family unit, write to your local MP, publish it online, let us name and shame all those that support paedophiles and related criminal activities.

Sources:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/art...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2003...

http://www.education.gov.uk/inthenews/pr...

http://socialservicehell.org/index.php/n...