Amanda Barden Cafcass Guardian/ Conflict of Interest/ Kent Family Courts

WARNING DO NOT LISTEN IF EASILY OFFENDED

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

FAMILY COURT INJUSTICES THE TRUTH

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

apologies broken link

Why is this not being dealt with as a normal foi request but as a normal business request? Their phrase not mines!

It is obvious they do not want to answer , could this be why?

"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.

Watch the CON-servative party and others appear to come to the rescue and raise this issue suddenly next year in order to get more votes. Dont be fooled they are all defacto and in this up to their necks and will use any issue to fool the sheeple.

What are any of them doing about this NOW - NOTHING

Brian Gerrish

Presentation: Child Stealing by the State

Uncovering a conspiracy between public authorities, Social Services, the Police, courts and Government to unlawfully take children from their parents, and pass them into a frightening and often abusive Social Services system. This system is so powerful that local councillors cannot challenge their own Social Services departments about their actions.

Synopsis

In Britain today, a secret court system is stealing and trafficking people’s children. The author Jack Frost summed it up in his book “Gulag of the Family Courts”. Other journalists have described it as – “Child Stealing by the State”.

When a small community newspaper, ‘the UK Column’, was set up in Plymouth to expose massive public sector fraud and corruption, the volunteers had no idea of what was to come. They were shocked at reports of child stealing sent in by parents from across Britain.

In the beginning it was hard to accept some stories as true. Some mothers and fathers appeared traumatised. Could their claims be believed? And then the first mother with evidence arrived in the UK Column office. Ring files of letters, emails and court documentation. The evidence was overwhelming – lies, false evidence, perjury, false psychiatric assessments, kidnapping, psychological pressure, police threats, blatant collusion of defence and prosecution legal teams against the parent, failure to prosecute the perpetrators of medical incompetence and child abuse, and blatant victimisation of the innocent parent – the mother.

Most distressing of all was that the courts had taken absolutely no notice of the child’s own wishes - there existed a brutal conspiracy between public authorities, Social Services, the Police, courts and Government. That conspiracy still exists, and so does the evidence.

In the latest case brought to the UK Column, a young Down’s syndrome girl was repeatedly raped and abused, causing physical injury. The abusers were known and identified by the girl, but no charges were ever brought. Instead her mother who fought to protect her daughter and seek justice was committed to a psychiatric unit. Are these cases mistakes, or failures of the care and family court system? The facts suggest otherwise, and they are reinforced by ‘template’ cases reported from across the UK, Europe and the USA. The events are planned and orchestrated, with support and common purpose at the highest levels.

Within secret family courts, under the total control of a single Judge, who knowingly or unknowingly relies on false evidence, children are being unlawfully taken from their parents, and are passed into a frightening and often abusive Social Services system. This system is so powerful and secretive that not even elected councillors can challenge the actions of their own Local Authority Social Services department. The child snatch cases are gagged under family court confidentiality rules and data protection. The victimised parents and children are denied justice in a corrupt and circular appeal process, which is also held in secret.

In helping parents and children tell their stories, the UK Column has received no less than four injunctions, preventing detailed reporting. In one recent court case, regarded by those present as biased against the mother, the court used the Peter Wright MI5 ‘Spycatcher’ official secrets act case as the precedence case to prevent the mother publishing her story of child kidnap. When other parents reported that SS officials were like emotionless ‘little robots’, the truth began to unfold. Hear the full truth at AVIII.