Follow this request

There is 1 person 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?

Notice: Affidavit of Interest & Claim of Birth Right

Mrs Williams (Account suspended) made this Freedom of Information request to Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

From: Mrs Williams (Account suspended)

6 October 2009

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please state how many Notice(s): Affidavit of Interest & Claim of
Birth Right have been filed into the Family Court(s) in particular
Medway Family Court (on the private side) by relatives of children
who have been placed on care/adoption/special guardianship/ orders.

Regards,

Mrs Williams

Link to this

From: Customer Services (CSHQ)

8 October 2009

Dear Mrs Williams

Thank you for your e-mail. I have forwarded it to the Data Access and Compliance Unit for them to reply direct.

Russell Meek

Case Worker
Customer Service Unit

Customer Services Division Her Majesty's Courts Service Operations and Performance Directorate - Supporting our people, courts & processes

Customer Services Division

1st Floor - 1.42

102 Petty France

London SW1H 9AJ

': 0845 4568770 8: [email address] : http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: Wright, Hannah
Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service

12 October 2009


Attachment Acknowledgement 61611 Williams.doc
51K Download View as HTML


Dear Mrs Williams,

Please find attached your acknowledgement to your Freedom of Information
request.

Yours sincerely,

Hannah Wright
(Sent on behalf of Amrit Lotay)
Ministry of Justice | Data Access & Compliance Unit | 0203 334 5249

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Link to this

Mrs Williams (Account suspended) left an annotation (27 October 2009)

Another stolen granddaughter for FORCED ADOPTION

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

Link to this

From: Mrs Williams (Account suspended)

4 November 2009

Dear Hannah Wright,

This request is overdue a response. By law, Her Majesty's Courts
Service should normally have answered by 3 November 2009. If you
needed extra time it is expected that you would have stated why.

Regards,

Mrs Williams

Link to this

From: Lotay, Amrit
Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service

4 November 2009

Dear Mrs Williams,

Thank you for your email below. I apologise for the delay in responding
to your request, which is currently under consideration. We hope to be
able to reply to you by close of play tomorrow, 05/11/09.

Kind regards

Data Access & Compliance Unit
Information Directorate
Ministry of Justice
6th Floor, Zone B
102 Petty France
London SW1H 9AJ

show quoted sections

Link to this

From: McGahren, Emma

5 November 2009


Attachment Mrs Williams FOI 61611 2.doc
209K Download View as HTML


<<Mrs Williams FOI 61611 (2).doc>> Dear Mrs Williams,

Please find attached the response to your request made under the freedom
of information Act.

Kind regards,

Emma McGahren
PA to Regional Leads
Tel: 020 7921 2065
Fax: 020 7921 2017

South East Regional Directors Office
3rd Floor | Rose Court | 2 Southwark Bridge | London | SE1 9HS
DX 154 262 Southwark 12

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Link to this

J Webb (Account suspended) left an annotation ( 6 November 2009)

"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.

Link to this

From: Mrs Williams (Account suspended)

20 November 2009

Dear Emma,

Of course the Medway Courts response is absolute rubbish and an
obvious attempt to conceal the truth, which is why they are
referred to as 'the secret courts'

May be your corporation would care to comment on why children are
being placed with strangers for adoption , over perfectly 'good
enough'grandparents and why the courts and local authorities are
acquiring children and benefiting from 'unjust enrichment'

The annotations attached to this request alone, paint a very morbid
but truthful picture of in-justice, which thankfully the men &
women of this nation are increasingly aware of and continue to
speak out against, unlike the highly controlled censored media.

Regards,

Mrs Williams

Link to this

Ms Chadwick (Account suspended) left an annotation (21 November 2009)

You are completely correct, they talk nothing but rubbish

Michelle Chadwick.Grand daughters stolen by Kent County Council & Medway County family court

My Beautiful grand daughters Kianna and Tia my last contact with them 5th December 2008. I miss them with all my heart. Love you both so much where ever you are.

Link to this

Things to do with this request

Anyone:
Her Majesty’s Courts and the Tribunals Service only: