Dear Staffordshire County 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) [2007] 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.

Yours faithfully,

LS Palmer

Dear Staffordshire County Council,

To Clarify:

Anthony Douglas has a number of roles in the 'child removing process':

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) have to 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:

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-off...

[ potentially defamatory text removed ] [ potentially defamatory text removed ] [ potentially defamatory text removed ]

My question is in order to research whether Local Authorities are parties to this child trafficking scam by starting 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 this clear abuse of power, the Local Authority 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.

My research in asking the above question and subsequent questions is therefore to ascertain whether your local authority are really protecting children that you are certain are being abused/neglected because the parents have been convicted of a criminal offence against the children and you have carried out a full 3 month residential family assessment to ensure that the parent cannot be rehabilitated to stop offending against the children or whether your local authority are complicit in a child trafficking scam taking healthy and well cared for children from parents who have done the children no wrong and are only guilty of 'complaining'

Yours faithfully,

LS Palmer

Dear Wiles, Michelle (L&D),

I have made 2 other requests

The majority of the information that I am after is described in the other 2 requests. This was my first request and I have streamlined the information I am after since I wrote it.

I am looking to make a comparison on how much is spent on
1. keeping children within their families - helping families in need.

2. Removing children from families - care proceedings.

I am also looking to see if:

3. The children removed from their families were 'known' to be children definitely at risk of SIGNIFICANT harm ie there was enough evidence to remove them, all procedures and laws were followed and human rights were respected.

4. The children removed were not placed in a position that they became at risk of SIGNIFICANT harm due to their removal from their family.

I think information since 1 April 2009 would be sufficient however it may help to provide information for other years if you have it to hand.

I do intend to make further requests for information that I have missed that can help me build a picture on the points above, such as regarding failed adoptions, and other information to do with proceedings. I will look at other questions that others have asked
to see if the information is already available.

Yours sincerely,

LS Palmer