Follow this request

There are 3 people following this request

Act on what you've learnt

Similar requests

More similar requests

Event history details

Are you the owner of any commercial copyright on this page?

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

Link to this

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

Link to this

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

Link to this

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

Link to this

Wilson, A (Account suspended) left an annotation (17 August 2009)

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.

Link to this

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)

Link to this

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.

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
House of Lords only: