Dear Redbridge Borough Council,
The standard letter from the Department of Education states:
"The law is clear: children should live with their parents wherever possible and, when necessary, families should be given extra support to help keep them together. In most cases, support from the local authority enables any concerns to be addressed and children remain with their families."
S17 of the Children Act places a duty on Children's Services to assist families in need.
Please could you provide a year by year breakdown since 2003 of how much of your budget has been allocated for assisting families in need and give general information as to what that budget is spent on.
Please could you further provide a year by year breakdown of how much of your budget is allocated to families subject to 'care proceedings'.
Please confirm you abide by the following laws:
1. All families subject to care proceedings have had the benefit of a Residential Family Assessment before the child's permanent removal in accordance with L (A Child) and H (A Child)  EWCA Civ 213 which held:
"before removing children from their natural families and placing them for adoption with strangers the court should be astute to ensure that the case had been fully investigated and that all the relevant evidence necessary for the decision was in Place, Art 6 of the ECHR required it…..There would of course be cases in which a s38(6) assessment would be a waste of public funds: parents who had inflicted injuries on their child but had failed to acknowledge their responsibility or a woman who did not accept that a paedophile partner was a risk to the child"
2. All parents who are guilty of abusing/neglecting their children to the extent that nothing short of removal from the parents will protect the children from SIGNIFICANT HARM have been convicted of a criminal offence for abuse/neglect and have been referred to the Independent Safeguarding Authority.
Please provide a positive or negative affirmation in relation to the following statements:
3. That since removal of children from the parents no child in the care of the Local Authority has:
a. Suffered sexual abuse
b. Suffered physical abuse.
c. Suffered emotional abuse.
(In this respect data referring to convictions/complaints of misconduct of social workers/foster carers/care workers and statistics relating to child suicides/children running away would provide the relevant assertion as to whether or not children were suffering 'in care')
4. That since removal of the children from the parents no child in the care of the Local Authority has been used for medical testing or registered on any program by the NIHR, MRCN or any other medical research program without the explicit consent from the biological parent.
5. That since removal of the children from the parents the children have been raised in the same faith they would have been raised in if they had not been removed from their parents.
6. That no child has been returned to the care of the local authority post adoption.
7. That no child in the care of the Local Authority has been criminalised, ie gained a criminal record having not previously had a criminal record while in the care of their biological parents.
Dear Mr Palmer
Re: Request for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Please find attached our acknowledgement to your above-referenced request
for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Deputy Freedom of Information Coordinator, Children's Trust
London Borough of Redbridge
Join the Redbridge Conversation 2010
The Council must save ?25 million pounds. We want your view.
LONDON BOROUGH OF REDBRIDGE DISCLAIMER
This e-mail contains proprietary confidential information some or all of which may be legally privileged and/or subject to the provisions of privacy legislation. It is intended solely for the addressee.
If you are not the intended recipient, an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail; you must not use, disclose, copy, print or disseminate the information contained within this e-mail.
Please notify the author immediately by replying to this e-mail. Any views expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states these to be the views of the London Borough of Redbridge.
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses and all reasonable precautions have been taken to ensure that no viruses are present.
The London Borough of Redbridge cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this e-mail or attachments.
Dear Rose Hyman,
Thank you for your response. It may help you to know that I am investigating an allegation that Anthony Douglas is operating a secretive child trafficking organisation where 'adoptable' children are removed from families that are able and willing to safely care for their children. He does this by having a role in every aspect of the removal of children.
He is the Chief Executive of CAFCASS who provide the Court Advisors whose recommendations as to what is in the best interest of the children (Usually Adoption if the child is young, healthy and adoptable) MUST be followed.
Anthony Douglas is Chair of British Agency of Adoption and Fostering. Who provide Foster carers and Foster/Adopters who are often 'good friends' with the CAFCASS court advisor and who are paid £400 per child PER WEEK. The cared for children are often described as 'delightful' and therefore a pleasure to care for, the
only thing wrong with the children is that they miss their parents. The Foster carer will have to constantly interrogate the child for any instances of punishment they may have been subject to by their parent in order to help make the case that the parent is 'horrible'. Then the child will constantly be told 'your parent is
horrible' so the child stops asking to see the parent and adoption is made easier.
Anthony Douglas writes the books that Child Protection Social Workers study for their tactics for removing children such as telling parents they 'are placing their own needs above the needs of the children by going to work/College etc.
Anthony Douglas has a relationship with CORAM who advise on Contact and Expert reports and then social workers tell parents 'if you get positive assessments you can have your children back- Coram adoption agency therefore advise on how to avoid that happening such as making rules for contact impossible by telling parents they are not allowed to show emotion, mention clothing or talk about wider issues in contact. Social Workers will also make false allegations of assault in order to prevent contact. Expert reports are also impossible to pass because Expert Psychologists give parents a test in order to determine which personality disorder the
parent has. If the parent's answers do not disclose any personality disorder then the parent has a low disclosure score which indicates they are lying which is therefore an indication of the worst personality disorder possible ie Narcissm.
Anthony Douglas also writes the Public Law Outline which is the guidance that Judges have to follow in the removal of children which tells Judges they can remove children with no notice, no evidence, no investigation, no Police Protection Order and just get the child into care and then CAFCASS will arrange that the child will never return to the parent which makes CARE Proceedings an ideal opportunity for Local Authorities to avoid dealing with complaints (they can simply torture any complainant parent by starting care proceedings and therefore effectively steal their children for complaining).
From my questions of CAFCASS and from Whistle Blower's evidence which resulted in the dismissal of the whole board of CAFCASS in 2003 (including dismissal of the whistleblower) which can be read about here:
It is becoming apparent that there are no standards or safeguards in place such as:
a. All children permanently removed from parents and placed for adoption must first have been given a full assessment with their parents at an independent family assessment centre.
b. Any parent who is accused of abuse or neglect is considered innocent until PROVED guilty of neglect or abuse by being convicted of a criminal offence using criminal standards and a Jury.
C. Families are entitled to a second or third opinion from an independent social worker as to the interests of the children whose opinion is not simply ignored if it conflicts with the views of the LA or CAFCASS social worker.
What safeguards are in place to ensure that Local Authorities and Cafcass do not abuse Care Proceedings against families who complain, by arranging the permanent removal of children from parents who have neither been properly assessed in contravention of
their Human Rights, nor have the parents been guilty of any behaviour which would constitute any criminal offence ie. neglect/child abuse.
So far in my research I have discovered there are many Local Authorities who will readily commence Care Proceedings in response to a parent who complains about the Local Authority, and due to the various Ombudsmans being reluctant to investigate (Parliamentary Ombudsman investigated 1 out of 140 complaints about CAFCASS last
year and they have never investigated the GSCC) this clear abuse of power, the Local Authority and CAFCASS/BAAF, the Secret Family Courts all too often 'get away with it'.
It has further become clear to me in my research to date that it is not uncommon for children to lose their biological parents with NO GOOD REASON WHATSOEVER and to be exposed to serious child abuse once 'in care' often resulting in the child self harming, committing suicide, running away, becoming mentally disturbed, turning to drugs, alcoholism and crime.
Please could you therefore provide me with the safeguards and procedures that ensures that Anthony Douglas' 'conflicts of interest' are not the basis for the child protection procedures being used as a secretive child trafficking organisation.
While it is very easy for a Local Authority to simply respond - We didn't do anything wrong, we just followed the Court Order and therefore if the Court was wrong the parent can appeal - as It is the Local Authorities that apply for the Court Order and as Courts are following the guidelines written by Anthony Douglas this does not confirm to the Public that a Local Authority is 'Protecting children' rather than 'Trafficking Adoptable children'.
Evidence of how much the Local Authority spends on keeping families together (counselling, housing, parenting skills, childcare, healthcare) as opposed to seeking to remove children (legal costs, accommodation and upkeep, contact) would be helpful.
It would further be helpful to not assume that children have been through any trauma with their parent unless their parent has been found guilty and convicted of a criminal offence against the child.
It would further be helpful to assure members of the public that a full investigation has been made of the family INCLUDING an assessment where the whole family attends for 3 months and are watched 24/7 before making such a drastic decision to permanently remove the children from families in contravention of their Human Rights, except in very limited circumstances such as where the parent has been convicted of sexually abusing the child.
What assurances are you able to give that children are:
1. Not abused in care - please consider your track record for complaints, allegations, runaways, suicides, health problems.
2. Not removed from families that are able and willing to care for the children.
Other than stating 'We succeeded in getting the Judge to give us the Order we applied for'.
Dear Mr Palmer,
Re: Request for information Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000
Please find attached our response to your above-referenced request for
information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
Deputy Freedom of Information Coordinator, Children's Trust
London Borough of Redbridge
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