Dear Sir or Madam,
Information regarding Forced Adoption to strangers is freely
available on the Internet and many families are speaking out. Many
conflicts of Interest can be found on this website alone
Could it be that parents and relatives are being frightened into
silence; there are so many links and conflicts of interest that
seem to be occurring on a regular basis, (according to information
placed on the link below). If correct, basically atrocities are
being carried out against children who should clearly be placed
either with their parents or at the very least MUST be placed with
relatives first, with equal support offered, as afforded to
An industry appears to have grown out of children being trafficked
for profit, whilst support for relatives is virtually nil. The
Family Courts are hidden from Public Scrutiny, which could allow
professionals a virtual free-hand.(Approved media cannot be classed
as transparent) Many parents including Councillors are complaining
that children are being taken on the mere opinion of these
professionals and Judges are rubber-stamping ‘care’ and ‘adoption ‘
orders at the whim of the Authorities without evidence or facts.
1) What safeguards are in place to ensure a completely Independent
Public Service is being offered to these vulnerable families by the
Public Servants who operate them.
2) Under what Law and whose Authority, does it state that
grandparents and relatives are required to have psychological
/assessments comprising of in-depth social worker assessments, when
they are considered ‘good enough parents’ to raise their own
children by the House of Lords and Courts; with references to
support.Unless of course it is correct that relatives are also
considered guilty unless they agree to prove otherwise.
3) Are the same requirements afforded to the Judges, Social
Workers, Cafcass Officers ,Independent Witnesse, regarding their
parenting skills/mental capacity ;if not why not.
4) Many children are being removed on opinion of emotional abuse
alone, please define the Courts definition of emotional abuse and
under what Law not Act this applies.
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.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
Dear Ms Chadwick
Thank you for your e mail of 27 October which refers to matters
relating to the operation of family proceedings in Her Majesty's Court
Service which is part of the Ministry of Justice.
As the Supreme Court is a Non Ministerial Government Department and is,
therefore, completely separate from Her Majesty's Court Service may I
suggest that you raise these issues with them via the Ministry of
Justice at [email address].
Information held by the Supreme Court which is covered by your request
is in relation to your first question about independence. This is
contained in the Supreme Court's Guide to Judicial Conduct (2009), a
copy of which is attached. 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 FOIA gives people the right to ask for recorded information held by
public authorities, and if it is held, to be provided with a copy of it,
subject to certain exemptions. Court records are exempt from release
under section 32 of the Freedom of Information Act. The Supreme Court
does not hold the information which you request in your remaining
questions in its administrative records.
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
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
Ann Achow (Mrs)
Departmental Records Officer
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
Tel: 020 7960 1983
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