Child Protection or Child Trafficking for Anthony Douglas?
Dear Durham 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
Our Ref: 4907811
18-JAN-11
Dear LS Palmer,
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT - REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
I acknowledge your request for information received today.
Your request is currently being considered and if the information
requested is held by the County Council it will be sent to you within the
statutory timescale of 20 working days as defined by the Freedom of
Information Act 2000, subject to the information not being exempt or
containing a reference to a third party.
If appropriate, the information will be provided in paper copy, normal
font size. If you require alternative formats, e.g. language, audio,
large print, etc. then please let me know.
For your information, the Act defines a number of exemptions that may
prevent release of the information you have requested. There will be an
assessment and if any of the exemption categories apply then the exempt
information will not be released. You will be informed if this is the
case, including your rights of appeal.
If the information you request contains reference to a third party then
they may be consulted prior to a decision being taken on whether or not to
release the information to you.
There may a fee payable for this information to cover photocopying,
postage and any other production costs. This will be considered and you
will be informed if a fee is payable. In this event the fee must be paid
before the information is processed and released. The 20 working day time
limit for responses is suspended until receipt of the payment.
In line with the Information Commissioner's directive on the disclosure of
information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 your request will
form part of our disclosure log. Therefore, a version of our response
which will protect your anonymity will be posted on Durham County Council
website.
If you have any queries or concerns then please contact:
The Information Management Team
Durham County Council
Assistant Chief Executive's Office
Room 4/140
County Hall
Durham
DH1 5UF
Tel. 0191 372 8371
Email: [Durham County Council request email]
Further information is also available from the Information Commissioner
at:
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Telephone: 01625 545 745
Fax: 01625 524 510
Email: [email address]
www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk
Yours sincerely,
Neale Boswell
Information Management
Dear LS Palmer,
Could you please provide clarification on the year range you would like us to look back into? For example the last 2 years, 5years?
Please note - The 20 working day time scale inline with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, will be on hold until we receive clarification back from you to enable us to answer your request.
Yours Sincerely,
Tracy Millmore
Dear Freedom of Information,
The question relates to information since 2003 as stated, however if you do not have this information please provide the relevant information that you do have.
This request is part of extensive research I am making in order to find out whether happy healthy loved children are being permanently removed from families in need because they are 'adoptable' or whether only children at risk of real significant harm ie subject to harm that constitute a criminal offence and cannot be prevented in any other way than to remove the children from the family permanently.
I am further looking into whether removing children from families really does protect them from harm or whether it exposes the children to significant harm.
I will be asking further questions but as much information that you can give me in relation to the above question would be appreciated.
Yours sincerely,
LS Palmer
Our Ref: 4909519 19-Jan-2011
Dear LS Palmer,
I refer to your recent freedom of information request received 19-Jan-2011.
Could you please clarify what it is you are asking - Are you asking for the adoption criteria? Could you also explain the reference to Anthony Douglas - Are you asking on behalf of this person or about this person? - We do need this clarified as it affects how we would respond to you. In accordance with the Freedom of Information ACT 2000, the 20 working day time limit for a response to this request will be on hold until we hear from you.
Yours Sincerely,
Tracy Millmore
Information Management Assistant
Dear Freedom of Information,
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.
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 sincerely,
LS Palmer
Our Ref: 4909519
10-FEB-11
Dear LS Palmer,
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT - RESPONSE TO REQUEST
Your request for information received on 19-JAN-2011 has now been
considered.
You requested: 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.
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
office.co.uk/pa/cm200203/cmselect/cmlcd/614/614w64.htm
It is becoming apparent that Anthony Douglas is the ring leader in what
seems to be a child trafficking scam. Further supporting evidence that
this is the case is that it is backed by none other than MP Margaret
Hodge, the same person who ignored and attempted to cover up claims that
every children home she was responsible for in Islington had been
infiltrated by Paedophiles. Further Margaret Hodge supplies the steel to
make the weapons that the UK provide to Israel (via Qatar) in order for
Israelis to commit horrific war crimes against many innocent Palestinian
children.
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'
Our response: These are statements of points of view about a person who
has no role or responsibility in Durham County Council and as such, they
do not constitute data requests.
Durham County Council is therefore not in a position to respond to this.
I hope that this information is of assistance, however, if you are
dissatisfied with the handling of your request please contact:
The Information Management Team
Durham County Council
Assistant Chief Executive's Office
Room 4/140
County Hall
Durham
DH1 5UF
Tel. 0191 372 8371
Email: [1][Durham County Council request email]
After you have exhausted our internal appeals procedure you also have a
right of appeal to the Information Commissioner at:
Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire
SK9 5AF
Telephone: 01625 545 745
Fax: 01625 524 510
Email: [email address]
Most of the documents that we provide in response to Freedom of
Information Act requests will be subject to copyright protection. In most
cases the copyright will be owned by Durham County Council. The copyright
in other documents may be owned by another person or organisation, as
indicated on the documents themselves.
You are free to use any documents supplied for your own use, including for
non-commercial research purposes. The documents may also be used for the
purposes of news reporting. However, any other type of re-use, for
example, by publishing the documents or issuing copies to the public will
require the permission of the copyright owner.
For documents where the copyright is owned by Durham County Council,
please contact me for details of the conditions on re-use.
For documents where the copyright is owned by another person or
organisation, you would need to apply to the copyright owner to obtain
their permission.
Yours sincerely,
Neale Boswell
Information Management
Dear L S Palmer,
Please find attached response to your Freedom Of Information request -
4907811.
yours Sincerely,
Julie Hodgson
Freedom of Information Officer
Assistant Chief Executives
Room 4/140
Tel: 0191 372 8377
please note: my working days are Wednesday, Thursday and Friday each week
Check out our intranet team page - [1]Information Management Team
We have a new [2]information and records management webpage
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