Abuse of Care Proceedings - Torturing parents and Children for profit.
LS Palmer (Account suspended) made this Freedom of Information request to Improvement and Development Agency for local government
This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.
Dear Improvement and Development Agency for local government,
Considering there are laws such as:
Children and Young Persons Act 1933 Section 1 - Cruelty to children.
Sexual Offences Act 2003 - Covering all inappropriate sexual behaviour involving children.
Mental Capacity Act 2005 s44 Ill treatment / Wilful neglect
It can be demonstrated that an act of abuse or neglect towards a child is a crime.
Where a 'Professional' working with children is accused of abuse of a child that is not their own they are entitled to a Criminal trial with evidence and the case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt to a Jury. The accused is considered innocent until proved guilty, and are often saved a trial and just secretly struck off.
Whereas when a Parent (professional or otherwise) is accused by a Social Worker of risking the abuse or neglect of their own child/ren,
the child/ren are immediately removed from them to Foster carers who are effectively strangers
and for the next 40 weeks the parents have a trial in the Secret family court
which is typically a series of 15 minute direction hearings every 8 weeks where all directions the parent requests are ignored and everything the Local Authority request is Ordered,
the case can be decided without any evidence, relying solely on the hearsay of social workers
who receive bonuses for meeting permanency targets if they permanently place children away from families,
and make a case against the parent for the children to be adopted.
and an 'expert' instructed and paid £10,000+ by the Social Workers to report what they want and that the parent has not agreed to, nor has the 'expert' ever seen the children and the parent together.
all other witnesses are excluded from the proceedings, there is no real avenue of redress or appeal,
the case is decided on balance of probability therefore the parent is considered guilty because the social worker is presumed to be telling the truth
evidence is suppressed, assessments are not carried out, the parents and children go through a level of grief and distress through their separation which is tantamount to torture, and their emotional distress is used against them.
the most important bond in a child's life is damaged or destroyed;
the mother becomes socially labelled and a discretionary note is placed on her enhanced criminal record stating that her children were removed due to suspected abuse/neglect.
The child is then made subject to increased risk of abuse and neglect by strangers that are not biologically programmed to protect the child.
Adopters prostitute the children.
Children are abused in children's homes
to the point they commit suicide.
A disproportional number of children are dying in care.
Foster Carers are molesting children.
Adoptive parents torture children.
Children are left in uninhabitable accommodation.
And those who survive fair worse than those who are not taken from their families
resulting in that child's children being removed from them when they have any, as the child was not properly nurtured they are deemed unable to care for children guaranteeing an endless supply for babies and the money making cycle continues.
I refer you to the following link:
This story relates to a regime of government child trafficking in Spain involving snatching children from parents simply because they have the wrong political views, or even any child because it was realised the profits involved.
I now refer you to the various roles of Anthony Douglas in the removal of children from their families:
1. He writes the law for the Judges to follow
2. Anthony Douglas has been chief executive of Cafcass, the specialist national agency representing children and families in family. The Courts are obliged to follow the recommendations of CAFCASS.
3. He was director of social services in the London borough of Havering.
4. He was a social worker.
5. He is a visiting fellow of the University of East Anglia who teach Social Work.
6. He is Chair of the British Association for Adoption and Fostering (BAAF).
7. He writes the books that Social Workers study
8. He has formed a partnership between Court Advisory Service who are supposed to be independent and one of the largest adoption agencies CORAM.
I refer you also to MARGARET HODGE MP who in 2003 it was brought to light that she was defaming survivors of sexual abuse in care homes she was responsible for:
But after being heavily criticised in her role as Education Minister
Her friend and neighbour Labour PM Tony Blair creates a new role for her as Children's minister where she and Tony Blair's other life long friend Lord Falconer fired the board of CAFCASS and committed contempt of parliamentary privilege against whistle blower Judy Weleminsky when dismissing her for exposing that CAFCASS were running a business placing their corporate interests first and neglecting the principles of public service.
Adoption and Child Protection Managers celebrate their gain on the misery of the parent and children's loss as adoption targets of a 40% rise are met.
In 2006 the government index is introduced registering every child whose records of every scratch, bruise or off day can be used as grounds to take the child from their parents.
A Child who had been severely neglected and abused under the supervision of Islington Social Services while under Margaret Hodge's supervision, married a man 17 years her senior to whom she immediately had 4 children. 2 of which were severely abused by someone who had befriended the young mother shortly after she left her husband. The friend then killed the toddler. The toddler is commonly known as Baby P.
In April 2010 the President of the Family Division LJ Wall declared that Social Workers are behaving like something out of Stalin's Russia or Mao's China, ruthlessly snatching children from loving parents.
In October 2010 In an Agreement between the President of Family law and Anthony Douglas it is decided that children will get a CAFCASS Social worker sooner and therefore the CAFCASS Social Worker's voice/opinion will be heard rather than the child's and the Judge won't have to make any decisions as he can simply follow the recommendations of Cafcass.
In November 2010, In Labour MP Margaret Hodge's new role as Chair of Public Accounts Committee - the Watchdog of the Public Purse - She declares that CAFCASS are struggling to cope with the fall out of the death of Baby P because of the massive increase of cases, thereby approving increased public funding for CAFCASS.
And so the industry grows.
WHO PROTECTS THE GOVERNED FROM GOVERNMENT ABUSE?
The Watchdogs - Parliamentary Ombudsman - Appeal Courts
In the last year 148 complaints regarding CAFCASS were referred to Parliamentary Ombudsman - 1 was investigated but not upheld.
Numerous applications to appeal unjustified Court decisions to follow CAFCASS recommendation to permanently remove children, are made to the Court of Appeal - but permission to appeal is rarely ever given.
The Family and Justice Council has been costing the public purse approximately £300,000 per year and has been in existence since 2005.
Since the existence of the Family Justice Council the public now pay double through the Legal Services Commission funding the defence of applications to the family courts regarding children. 40% more children are being taken from families each year and figures are rising.
The courts are struggling with all the applications:
to the point that proposals are being made to do away with the Courts from the child removing process altogether.
MY REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
1. Please provide all recorded data you hold that justifies the permanent removal of children from families where ALL the following apply:
a. No criminal conviction for abuse or neglect of children despite abuse/neglect being a crime (due to lack of evidence).
b. No full assessment at a Residential Family Assessment Centre despite this being declared an ECHR Art 6 right in Case Law.
c. No resolution to the parents complaints made immediately before Care proceedings were issued due to the matter being in the Court Arena.
d. No access to Local Government Ombudsman due to C above.
e. No access to a Jury or any other accountability in the Family courts.
f. No assistance or support ever received from Social Services in relation to their Duty under S17 of the Children Act.
g. No plan for rehabilitation despite this being recommended by the Experts.
h. No access to their children to find out what their children are really saying so they have to accept what CAFCASS is saying is true even though it does not make any logical sense and contradicts previous evidence in the case.
i. No mental illnesses/disabilities.
j. No record of any criminal behaviour.
k. No evidence of any significant harm to the children.
l. Refusal of investigation from GSCC and rejected CAFCASS Complaints.
M. Refusal of all applications for permission to appeal
N. No right to speak publicly due to Media Injunctions and the threat of imprisonment for contempt.
O. Refusal of assistance from their MP other than to sign PHSO referral.
P. Refusal of investigation by Parliamentary Ombudsman.
q. No health problems of either parent or children.
r. No habitual drug use / drug addiction of illegal or prescribed drugs.
2. What Safeguards are in place so that families described in 1. above do not become victims of abuse of Care Proceedings resulting in families having their children permanently removed?
3. How many cases have been brought to the attention of Agency regarding abuse of care proceedings?
4. In relation to 3 above did you investigate any of the cases?
5. In relation to 4 above, If you did not investigate, what was your reason for refusing to investigate the complaint?
6. In relation to 4 above, if you did investigate, which agency did you find at fault and what laws/guidelines/codes were breached?
7. When do you propose to seek reform so that care proceedings is about child protection of children who are being harmed, rather than children who are 'adoptable'?
Dear LS Palmer
Thank you for your request made under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
on Saturday 29 January 2011. As the request was made outside of working
hours, please note that it will be treated as being submitted on Monday 31
January 2011. We will endeavour to respond to your enquiry within 20
We will process your request in due course, but should you need to query
anything further, please email [IDeA request email] quoting Case
Dear LS Palmer
Thank you for your request for information made under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 (FOIA) on 31 January 2011. Please note that Local
Government Improvement and Development is not covered by the provisions of
the Act, but we always try to deal with such requests within the spirit of
LG Improvement and Development are not a local council, therefore we do
not hold the information you are requesting, nor do we investigate cases
of this nature.
In regards to questions 2 and 7 of your request, all the information the
LG Group holds on safeguards, and on lobbying work on care proceedings,
can be seen from the weblinks below. I've divided them into categories for
ease of reference;
Stories in "First" magazine
Children and Young People Bulletins
Responses to Government
I hope that this helps
We work to defend the right to FOI for everyone
Help us protect your right to hold public authorities to account. Donate and support our work.Donate Now