Child Protection or Child Trafficking for Anthony Douglas?

LS Palmer (Account suspended) made this Freedom of Information request to Swindon Borough Council

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

The request was partially successful.

LS Palmer (Account suspended)

Dear Swindon 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) [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

LS Palmer (Account suspended)

Dear Swindon Borough 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

Customer Services, Swindon Borough Council

Thank you for your enquiry. This has been passed to the Freedom of Information department, who will contact you directly.

Kind regards

Customer Services

Swindon Borough Council

Wat Tyler House

Swindon SN1 2JG

Phone: 01793 445500

E-mail: [Swindon Borough Council request email]

Website: www.swindon.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Sally Jansen, Swindon Borough Council

Dear Sir / Madam,

Ref Freedom of Information Request 101000254993

Thank you for your Freedom of Information request regarding Child
Protection information dated 18^th January 2011 and received on 18^th
January 2011:

Under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Council has a
duty to respond `promptly' or no later than 20 working days, which in this
case is 15th February 2011.

If you have any queries about this please contact me as detailed, quoting
the above reference number.

Yours sincerely,

Sally Jansen ([email address])

Freedom of Information & Data Protection Coordinator

Adult Social Care / Safeguarding & Corporate Parenting

Swindon Borough Council

Tel: 01793 466824

Web: [1]www.swindon.gov.uk

show quoted sections

Sally Jansen, Swindon Borough Council

Dear Sir / Madam,

Ref Freedom of Information Request 101000254993

Further to my email dated 21^st January 2011, please see below the
response to your Freedom of information request:

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"

Response 1)There would not be a residential assessment in all cases, only
in those cases where it would be appropriate in all the circumstances of
the case.

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:

Response 2) Not all parents of children who have been removed because of
significant harm will have been convicted of an offence - the test for a
criminal conviction is "beyond reasonable doubt"; in care proceedings it
is "balance of probabilities". The local authority is not involved in the
issue of criminal offences; this would be a matter for the criminal
courts.

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')

Under the provision of the Freedom of Information Act, information has to
be provided free of charge, if it does not exceed the statutory limits,
which for Local Government, is £450.00. This equates to one person
spending 18 hours determining whether the Council holds the information,
locating, retrieving and extracting the information.

I can confirm that the Council holds the information specified in your
request, however, we have estimated that it will cost more than the above
limit to extract this information.

The Council is not obliged by the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to
respond to your request. However, we are still happy to do so and issue a
fees notice in accordance with Section 13 of the Freedom of Information
Act 2000 and the Freedom of Information Fees Regulations if you confirm
you still wish to proceed with this part of your request.

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.

Response 4). Confirmed.

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.

Response 5) Parents wishes are always taken into account, however, some
children may have been placed with adopters of a different faith in
exceptionally rare cases.

6. That no child has been returned to the care of the local authority post
adoption.

Response 6) A number of children are returned to the 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.

Response 7) Not confirmed. Given for example typical adolescent behaviour
it is inevitable that some looked after children will come in to contact
with the police.

If you are not satisfied with the service you have received in relation to
your request and wish to make a complaint or request a review of our
decision, you should write to:

Customer Services

Civic Offices

Euclid Street

Swindon

Website: [email address].

The complaints/review procedure involves a full review and an examination
of all the information by the Council's Monitoring Officer.

If you are not content with the outcome of our conclusion, you may apply
directly to the Information Commissioner's Office for a decision, before
contacting the Council. Generally, the ICO cannot make a decision unless
you have exhausted the Council's own complaints procedure.

The Information Officer can be contacted at:

The Information Commissioner's Office,

Wycliffe House

Water Lane

Wilmslow

Cheshire

SK9 5AF

Email: [1][email address]

Tel: 01625 545700 (ask for Freedom of Information)

If you have any queries about this, please contact me as detailed, quoting
the above reference number in any future communications.

Yours sincerely

Sally Jansen ([email address])

Freedom of Information & Data Protection Coordinator

Adult Social Care / Safeguarding & Corporate Parenting

Swindon Borough Council

Tel: 01793 466824

Web: www.swindon.gov.uk

show quoted sections