Follow this request
There are 3 people following this request
Act on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Justification for taking children from their families.
To Lancashire County Council by Sophie Rises (Account suspended) 24 January 2011
Abuse of Care Proceedings - Torturing parents and Children for profit.
To House of Lords by LS Palmer (Account suspended) 29 January 2011
Double Standards - Parents and Professionals who abuse children should be treated the same.
To Family Justice Council by LS Palmer (Account suspended) 28 January 2011
Abuse of Care Proceedings - Torturing parents and Children for profit.
To Supreme Court of the United Kingdom by LS Palmer (Account suspended) 29 January 2011
The law isn't clear enough - Children are being removed from families for Profit!
To Department for Education by LS Palmer (Account suspended) 29 January 2011
Social Workers Abusing Care Proceedings - Is this allowed in the GSCC Code of Conduct?
To General Social Care Council by LS Palmer (Account suspended) 28 January 2011
Abuse of Care Proceedings - PHSO as watchdog for CAFCASS and GSCC
To Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman by LS Palmer (Account suspended) 28 January 2011
Reform of Family Law - Care Proceedings are being abused.
To Law Commission by LS Palmer (Account suspended) 29 January 2011
Abuse of Care Proceedings - Torturing parents and Children for profit.
To House of Commons Commission by LS Palmer (Account suspended) 29 January 2011
FORCED ADOPTION COMPLAINTS
I Peroll (Account suspended) made this Freedom of Information request to House of Lords
The request was refused by House of Lords.
From: I Peroll (Account suspended)
22 June 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,
Please supply the figures that relate to Lord's receiving
complaints
with regards to concerns relating to 'forced adoptions' i.e.
without parental consent.
In particular how many have replied to the thousands of desperate
families, parents,grandparents etc trying to save their heritage
from being destroyed forever, behind the closed doors of family
courts, away from the public gaze.
Yours faithfully,
I Peroll
From: House Of Lords Information Office
House of Lords
22 June 2009
Thank you for your email.
The House of Lords Information Office receives large numbers of e-mails
and we aim to reply within 10 working days. If you need the information
sooner please telephone the House of Lords Information Office on 020
7219 3107.
The Information below may answer many of your enquiries:
For queries about Judicial Work -please call the Judicial Office on 020
7219 3111.
If you have access to the Internet you may find the answers to most of
your queries on the House of Lords pages of the parliament web site:
www.parliament.uk
For queries about Appointments to the House of Lords, contact the House
of Lords Appointments Commission, which is a separate independent body
and NOT part of the House of Lords:
Write: The House of Lords Appointments Commission
35 Great Smith Street
London
SW1P 3BQ
Telephone: 020 7276 2005
For an Information Pack call: 020 7276 2315
Web: www.lordsappointments.gov.uk
Thank you.
show quoted sections
From: RM Advisory
House of Lords
22 June 2009
Dear I Peroll,
Thank you for your recent request to the House of Lords Administration
for information under the Freedom of Information Act, which we received
on the 22 June 2009. We will reply to your request promptly and no later
than 20 July 2009.
Yours sincerely,
Hedda Shackleton
(On behalf of the Freedom of Information Officer, House of Lords)
show quoted sections
From: FOI LORDS
House of Lords
20 July 2009
Dear I. Peroll,
I am writing further to your email of 22 June, in which you requested
under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 ("the 2000 Act") information
relating to members of the House of Lords and complaints they had received
regarding forced adoptions. Having searched the recorded information we
hold, we have established that the House of Lords administration does not
hold information relevant to your request.
You have made your request to the House of Lords administration. The House
is cited as a public authority in Schedule 1 of the 2000 Act. However,
the provisions of the Act only apply to recorded information held by the
House of Lords administration. For the purposes of the Freedom of
Information Act, members are regarded as separate entities from the "House
of Lords". Accordingly members of the House of Lords are not themselves
public authorities under the Act. The provisions of the Act will
therefore not apply to information held only by an individual member e.g.
their private correspondence or to correspondence they may have received.
I trust that the above explains why the administration does not hold the
information you have requested.
You may, if dissatisfied with the handling of your request for
information, ask the House of Lords to conduct an internal review.
Requests for an internal review should be addressed to
[email address] or to the Freedom of Information Officer, House of
Lords, London. SW1A 0PW. Arrangements will be made for someone who has
not been involved in dealing with your request to conduct an internal
review within 20 working days.
If, following your review, you remain dissatisfied with the House's
treatment of your request for information then you may take your complaint
to the Information Commissioner's Office at Wycliffe House, Water Lane,
Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF.
Yours sincerely
Frances Grey
Freedom of Information Officer
House of Lords
show quoted sections
Ms S Foster (Account suspended) left an annotation (25 August 2009)
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)
Mr B Gerrish (Account suspended) left an annotation (29 August 2009)
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.
Mr B Gerrish (Account suspended) left an annotation (29 August 2009)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colum...
correct link
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






Wilson, A (Account suspended) left an annotation (17 August 2009)
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.
Link to this