Gross Conflict of Interest CAFCASS Guardian & Judges

P.Adams made this Freedom of Information request to Supreme Court of the United Kingdom This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

The request was partially successful.

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please declare the fiduciary interests of appointed officers &
judges that ensures honesty and fair play in the best interests of
the 'child'

State how many cafcass officers & judges have committed acts of
gross mis-conduct by not declaring a conflict of interest.i.e.
having worked formerly for and/or in a local authority and
pretending to act independently whilst the same authority is
removing children from families.

Many local authorities are breaking mandatory procedures whilst the
same guardians & judges turn a blind eye.

Unfortunately the system as it stands is completely un-just and is
more crooked than a dog's hind-leg.

Please do not avoid answering, as it is clearly in the people's
best interest in-order to demand the changes needed.



Achow, Ann,

I am now out of the office retuning on Monday 9 November. My e mails are
not being forwarded or monitored. If your query is urgent please contact
Christine Younger [email address] for matters
concerning the library , information management or Freedom of Information
or Rake Orekie on [email address] for matters
concerning IT. Alternatively please ring the UKSC main enquiry point on
020 7960 1900.
Ann Achow , Departmental Records Officer, The Supreme Court of the United
Kingdom, Parliament Square, London SW1P 3BD Tel 020 7960 1983

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the
addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not
permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when
deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read
at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when
composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Ms Chadwick (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

Brian Gerrish

Presentation: Child Stealing by the State

Uncovering a conspiracy between public authorities, Social Services, the Police, courts and Government to unlawfully take children from their parents, and pass them into a frightening and often abusive Social Services system. This system is so powerful that local councillors cannot challenge their own Social Services departments about their actions.


In Britain today, a secret court system is stealing and trafficking people’s children. The author Jack Frost summed it up in his book “Gulag of the Family Courts”. Other journalists have described it as – “Child Stealing by the State”.

When a small community newspaper, ‘the UK Column’, was set up in Plymouth to expose massive public sector fraud and corruption, the volunteers had no idea of what was to come. They were shocked at reports of child stealing sent in by parents from across Britain.

In the beginning it was hard to accept some stories as true. Some mothers and fathers appeared traumatised. Could their claims be believed? And then the first mother with evidence arrived in the UK Column office. Ring files of letters, emails and court documentation. The evidence was overwhelming – lies, false evidence, perjury, false psychiatric assessments, kidnapping, psychological pressure, police threats, blatant collusion of defence and prosecution legal teams against the parent, failure to prosecute the perpetrators of medical incompetence and child abuse, and blatant victimisation of the innocent parent – the mother.

Most distressing of all was that the courts had taken absolutely no notice of the child’s own wishes - there existed a brutal conspiracy between public authorities, Social Services, the Police, courts and Government. That conspiracy still exists, and so does the evidence.

In the latest case brought to the UK Column, a young Down’s syndrome girl was repeatedly raped and abused, causing physical injury. The abusers were known and identified by the girl, but no charges were ever brought. Instead her mother who fought to protect her daughter and seek justice was committed to a psychiatric unit. Are these cases mistakes, or failures of the care and family court system? The facts suggest otherwise, and they are reinforced by ‘template’ cases reported from across the UK, Europe and the USA. The events are planned and orchestrated, with support and common purpose at the highest levels.

Within secret family courts, under the total control of a single Judge, who knowingly or unknowingly relies on false evidence, children are being unlawfully taken from their parents, and are passed into a frightening and often abusive Social Services system. This system is so powerful and secretive that not even elected councillors can challenge the actions of their own Local Authority Social Services department. The child snatch cases are gagged under family court confidentiality rules and data protection. The victimised parents and children are denied justice in a corrupt and circular appeal process, which is also held in secret.

In helping parents and children tell their stories, the UK Column has received no less than four injunctions, preventing detailed reporting. In one recent court case, regarded by those present as biased against the mother, the court used the Peter Wright MI5 ‘Spycatcher’ official secrets act case as the precedence case to prevent the mother publishing her story of child kidnap. When other parents reported that SS officials were like emotionless ‘little robots’, the truth began to unfold. Hear the full truth at AVIII.

Achow, Ann,

1 Attachment

Dear Mr/Ms Adams

Thank you for your e mail of 27 October.

In connection with the first part of your request concerning honesty and
fair play in the interests of the child I am providing a copy of The
Supreme Court's Guide to Judicial Conduct (2009). The Guide covers the
judicial independence, impartiality, integrity, propriety and competence
and diligence standards which apply to all Justices of the Supreme Court
of the United Kingdom. This document will also shortly be available on
our website at

The second part of your request seeks information about the number of
misconduct cases concerning CAFCASS and judges. The Supreme Court does
not hold such information nor would we have knowledge of whether that
information exists elsewhere. May I suggest that you direct these
enquiries to Her Majesty's Court Service via the Ministry of Justice and

As part of our obligations under the FOIA, we have an independent review
process. If you are dissatisfied with this decision, you may write to
request an internal review. The internal review will be carried out by
someone who did not make the original decision, and they will re-assess
how your request was handled.

If you wish to request an internal review, please write or send an email
to the Director of Corporate Services within two months of the date of
this reply, at the following address:

Director of Corporate Services
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Parliament Square

If you remain dissatisfied after an internal review decision, you have
the right to apply to the Information Commissioner's Office under
Section 50 of the FOIA. You can contact the Information Commissioner's
Office at the following address:

Information Commissioner's Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane


Yours sincerely,

Mrs A Achow
Departmental Records Officer
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Parliament Square

Tel: 020 7960 1983

show quoted sections