Child Protection or Child Trafficking for Anthony Douglas?

LS Palmer (Account suspended) made this Freedom of Information request to Buckinghamshire County 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 refused by Buckinghamshire County Council.

LS Palmer (Account suspended)

Dear Buckinghamshire 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

LS Palmer (Account suspended)

Dear Buckinghamshire 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

Doling, Neil, Buckinghamshire County Council

Dear LS Palmer

Thank you for contacting Buckinghamshire County Council.

This email is to confirm receipt of your request.

Regards
Neil Doling
Freedom of Information Officer and Modern Records Manager
Freedom of Information Team
[Buckinghamshire County Council request email]
01296 383960 (or 01296 382907)
http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/bcc/foi/freedo...
Buckinghamshire County Council
County Hall
Walton Street
Aylesbury
Buckinghamshire
HP20 1UU

show quoted sections

Doling, Neil, Buckinghamshire County Council

Dear LS Palmer

Thank you for contacting Buckinghamshire County Council.

This email is to confirm receipt of your request.

Regards
Neil Doling
Freedom of Information Officer and Modern Records Manager Freedom of Information Team [Buckinghamshire County Council request email]
01296 383960 (or 01296 382907)
http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/bcc/foi/freedo...
Buckinghamshire County Council
County Hall
Walton Street
Aylesbury
Buckinghamshire
HP20 1UU

show quoted sections

Freedom of Information Mailbox, Buckinghamshire County Council

Dear Sir/Madam

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 - INFORMATION REQUEST

Thank you for contacting Buckinghamshire County Council.

Your, and others, requests for information have now been considered and our response is as follows:

We are sorry but your, and others, requests for information, as they stand, will not be processed further.

Section 12 of the FOIA provides that public authorities are not obliged to respond to a request or the same or similar requests, from one person or persons acting together, for information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with the request, or requests, would exceed the "appropriate limit", (Section 12(4) - ".where two or more requests for information are made to a public authority. by one person, or.different persons who appear to the public authority to be acting in concert or in pursuance of a campaign, the estimated cost of complying with any of the requests is to be taken to be the estimated total cost of complying with all of them").

The appropriate limit for local authorities as stated in the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004 is currently £450. This is calculated as being work resulting in up to 18 hours of staff time at £25 per hour. Accordingly, where a request or aggregated requests is/are likely to take longer than 18 hours to answer, the authority is not compelled to respond.

The Council reasonably estimates that the aggregated costs of providing (indeed, searching for) the information that you alone and, additionally, others acting together, have requested well exceeds the appropriate limit (individually and together).

We would note that there are 40 separate (and sometimes very detailed) questions contained in these requests, many of which would take several hours to respond to on their own. Accordingly, we believe that it is self evident, from the nature and breadth of these requests, that an estimate of the cost of determining whether the requested information is held would be above the appropriate limit, therefore, we are not required to conduct searches for the information at this stage, as carrying out searches alone would exceed the appropriate limit - please see Randall v Information Commissioner and Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, where the Tribunal stated that "the effect of section 12 is not to impose a limit, leaving the authority obliged to carry out work up to that limit; it is to remove the information from the scope of the section 1 duty to disclose altogether".

We think that the nature of your, and others, extensive requests show clearly that your, and others, requests (both individually and together), in their current format, will require searches of much more than 18 hours to determine whether we hold the information requested. For example:

Some of the questions asked drill down to very specific aspects of care and would require interrogation of each child's record to establish the information requested e.g. at the end of 2010, there were 2105 cases held on ICS (our Children's database), and it is reasonably estimated that it would take approximately 3 minutes per record to establish just one specific detail (bearing in mind that your requests ask for numerous specific details covering several years). 2105 cases at 3 minutes each equates to approximately 105 hours.


Aggregation of requests

The test for aggregation, of same or similar requests, under Regulation 5 of the Fees Regulations is very wide. The requests need only relate to any extent to the same or similar information. Requests will be similar where there is an overarching theme or common thread running between them in terms of the nature of the information that has been requested. Please see Ian Fitzsimmons and Department for Culture, Media and Sport where the Tribunal made the following general observation at paragraph 43:

"The test in Regulation 5 of the Fees Regulations seems to us to be very wide; the requests need only relate to any extent to the same or similar information [Tribunal emphasis]".

We would note that there is a common thread running between your, and others, requests in terms of the nature of the information that has been requested i.e. social care for children and families. We have also taken note of other information publicly available on the 'whatdotheyknow' website. Moreover, we have also taken into account information revealed by some of the requests themselves, which suggest that the requests are similar in terms of their references to dates, wording and subject matter.

Taking the above into account, it is reasonably estimated that the authority will incur costs substantially in excess of £450.00 on the following activities in complying with your, and others, requests:

. Determining whether we hold the information requested,
. Locating the information, or a document containing it,
. Retrieving the information, or a document containing it, and
. Extracting the information from a document containing it.

Accordingly, in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, this email acts as a Refusal Notice under Section 12(1).

Nevertheless, you and others may wish to refine and resubmit your requests so that it reduces the overall cost to within the "appropriate limit". For instance, you and others may wish to:

1) Specify a narrower timeframe for your requests,
2) Narrow the information requested or reduce the number of questions asked,
3) Identify which areas are priorities and request that the Council respond to these queries up to the appropriate limit.

Given that it would be inappropriate for the Council to make assumptions as to what information most interests you and others, we would need you to state which elements of your requests are of the most interest/importance to you.

Please contact us if you would like to establish a dialogue to explore available options for refining/narrowing your, and others, requests or advice as to what information could be provided within the time allowed by the appropriate limit.

If you have any further queries or concerns then please contact us.

If you have a complaint about the handling of your request then please use the Council's complaints procedure (at Stage 3) in the first instance. This is available at:
http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/sites/bcc/abou...
Or by writing to:
FOI Monitoring Officer
Head of Legal and Democratic Services
Buckinghamshire County Council
County Hall
Aylesbury
Bucks
HP20 1UA
Or via email: [Buckinghamshire County Council request email]

You can also then complain to the Information Commissioner at:
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Tel: 0303 123 1113
Fax: 01625 524510
Email: [email address]
http://www.ico.gov.uk/

Regards
Freedom of Information Team
[Buckinghamshire County Council request email]
http://www.buckscc.gov.uk/bcc/foi/freedo...
Buckinghamshire County Council
County Hall
Walton Street
Aylesbury
Buckinghamshire
HP20 1UU

show quoted sections