Wednesday 22 July 2009

SADS011 - MP's FIGHT for SADS FAMILY in HAILSHAM GAZETTE

SADS011 - MP's FIGHT for SADS FAMILY in HAILSHAM GAZETTE

MP takes parents' fight for daughter to the PM


Published Date: 22 July 2009

By Andrew Raeburn

A COUPLE'S fight to stop their seven-year-old daughter being put up for adoption has been taken to the Prime Minister.

Hailsham MP Charles Hendry has backed the parents' protracted court battle and raised the case with Gordon Brown during Prime Minister's Questions in the Commons last Wednesday.

Mr Hendry's intervention comes after appeal judges prevented the couple
ADVERTISEMENT from challenging a court ruling saying the girl was at risk of psychological harm at her Hailsham home.

As reported in last week's Gazette, the girl, then aged five, was taken into care in 2007 after witnessing her parents' confrontation with police at their home.
Judges were told by the couple's lawyer that unsanitary conditions at the house were not typical and the girl, aged five at the time, was happy at home.

But the Court of Appeal said any improvement in the parents' attitudes was 'too little and too late' to give them the chance of trying to overturn an adoption placement order.

The 32-year-old father and his 43-year-old wife, neither of whom can be named for legal reasons, were refused permission to appeal against the order.

But, speaking at Prime Minister's Questions, Mr Hendry said there was no suggestion the girl's wellbeing was at threat and asked to discuss the issue with Mr Brown. The Prime Minister said either he or a minister would meet the MP.

Mr Hendry asked Mr Brown, "Does he share my concern that too often these cases go through the courts in a manner that can do lasting damage to the child and that parents cannot ever hope to match the resources being allocated by the local authorities?

"Will he have a meeting with me and others, so we can discuss this in order to ensure that the children's interests will be paramount and that parents can be assured of a fair hearing?"

In response, the Prime Minister said it was difficult for him to discuss individual cases publicly, but that he or a minister would meet Mr Hendry.

Mr Brown added, "Local authorities are unable to place a child for adoption with prospective adopters without their parents' consent unless they have a placement order issued by the court.

"I should tell him (Mr Hendry) that we have tried to streamline the family courts to make them far more responsive to the needs of all concerned, particularly the children."

A spokesman for Mr Hendry told the Gazette the MP was compiling background information on the case ahead of a meeting with either Mr Brown, or children's secretary Ed Balls.

The parents have publicly stated their intention to challenge the ruling in the European court system.


to view the original of this article CLICK HERE

One is forced to wonder if the police officer from Warwickshire, who has been suspended (no doubt on full pay), as reported in the media this week, for leaving his dogs to suffer a long and excrutiating death in the back of a van, as they slowly cooked in the sun has he had his home raided?

Was the dog mishandler's home raided by 18 police officers, using pepper spray, and virtually trashing it in a pretence of a search, having handcuffed him in front of his children. Then having left his dogs with free roam of the house, did they drag him and his wife off to police cells and lock up his wife whilst she had a miscarriage and will his children be stolen to put them up for forced adoption, without any sign of valid reason?

Is it unreasonable to ask why not since that is what they have done to this family in the Hailsham region, reported on above!

Clearly the police as enforcers for the state are out of control - just consider the number of murders they have carried out, yet without prosecution - see CLICK HERE

It will be noted that today sentencing was handed down in another SS catastrophic failure of duty - where The SS made the decision to leave a small child, registered originally on the at risk register, with its socially inadequate Mother and her boyfriend - both unemployed drug addicts. The autopsy of the child showed from its hair, its exposure to Cannabis Resin and Methadone and found the cause of death was ingestion of Methadone - when the home was searched there were found to be 43 bottles of Methadone (prescription?) within reach of the child!

The sentence for the killers means they will serve 6 months each in prison yet no one from The SS will go to prison for gross dereliction of duty!

Clearly The SS, Police, RSPCA etc. and Family Courts are out of control - to date there has not been one shred of valid evidence led that this family had ever or would ever harm their daughter. This is not Justice nor is it seen to be justice.

Who from the Police, SS, RSPCA, authorities & Family Courts with which lawyers will be forced to suffer one iota of the harm they have colluded in inflicting on the child in this case - what compensation will this family receive that could begin to compensate them for the damage done to them by The State?

Sunday 19 July 2009

SADS010 - PMQs FEATURES SADS - Hansard!

SADS010 - PMQs FEATURES SADS - Hansard!
Hi,

SADS was a matter of Parliamentary debate at Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) on Wednesday the 15th. July 2009.

Thanks to SADS's MP Charles Hendry for asking Her Majesty's Government in Parliament to intercede on their behalf.

Here is the extract from Hansard.


Q2. [286658] Charles Hendry (Wealden) (Con):

I think that the Prime Minister will be aware of the case of a young girl in my constituency who was taken into care two years ago, at the age of five, and is now being proposed for permanent adoption, even though there is


15 July 2009 : Column 288


no suggestion that her well-being was under threat at home.


East Sussex has a very good reputation for its children’s services, but does he share my concern that too often these cases go through the courts in a manner that can do lasting damage to the child and that parents cannot ever hope to match the resources being allocated by the local authorities?


Will he have a meeting with me and others, so that we can discuss this in order to ensure that the children’s interests will be paramount and that parents can be assured of a fair hearing?

The Prime Minister:


It is of course, as the hon. Gentleman will recognise, very difficult for me to enter into a discussion of an individual case, but if it is essential, either I or a Minister will meet him to discuss this.


Local authorities are unable to place a child for adoption with prospective adopters without their parents’ consent unless they have a placement order issued by the court.


The debate that the hon. Gentleman has about what is happening in his constituency centres on that issue. I should tell him that we have tried to streamline the family courts to make them far more responsive to the needs of all concerned, particularly the children.

To see the relevant section of Hansard CLICK HERE

Saturday 18 July 2009

SADS009 - TELEGRAPH - Christopher BOOKER - 18-Jul-2009

SADS009 - TELEGRAPH - Christopher BOOKER - 18-Jul-2009

'Evil destruction' of a happy family
A system involving social workers, police and courts took a child away from loving parents for no apparent reason, writes Christopher Booker


By Christopher Booker
Published: 5:48PM BST 18 Jul 2009

Comments 57 Comment on this article can be seen if you
CLICK HERE

Two weeks ago I reported as shocking a story as this column has ever covered. It described how a loving family was torn apart when the parents were arrested by police on what turned out to be wholly spurious charges, so that their three children could be taken into care by social workers. As reported on another page, it now seems this awful episode has come to a happy ending.

However a new case has lately been surfacing, if anything even more shocking. This also involved the arrest of two parents and the abduction of their child by social workers, in a story so bizarre that, at last week's Prime Minister's Questions, Gordon Brown was asked about it by the family's MP, Charles Hendry, who has long been concerned with the case because the mother is a vice-chairman of his local Conservative Association. The family's horrified GP says that, in 43 years of medical practice, he has never "encountered a case of such appalling injustice".

I first planned to describe this case in April, but was pre-empted by the draconian reporting restrictions on family cases, which, for reasons which will become tragically clear, have now been partly lifted.

The story began in April 2007 when "Mr Smith", as I must call him, had a visit from the RSPCA over the dog-breeding business he ran from the family home. He had docked the tails of five new-born puppies – a procedure that had become illegal two days beforehand. Unaware of this, he promised in future to obey the new law.

Three days later, however, at nine o'clock in the morning, two RSPCA officials returned, accompanied in cars and riot vans by 18 policemen, who had apparently been tipped off, quite wrongly, that Mr Smith had guns in the house.

Armed with pepper spray, they ransacked the house, looking for the nonexistent guns. The dogs, released from their kennels, also rampaged through the house. When Mr Smith and his wife, who was three months pregnant, volubly protested at what was happening, they were forcibly arrested in front of their screaming five-year-old daughter "Jenny" and taken away. Two hours later, with the house in a shambles – the dogs having strewn the rabbit entrails meant for their dinner across the floor – social workers arrived to remove the crying child.

Held for hours in a police cell, Mrs Smith had a miscarriage. When she was finally set free, she returned home that evening to find her daughter gone. It was the beginning of a barely comprehensible nightmare.

Her husband was charged with various offences connected with the dogs, including the tail-docking, but was eventually given a conditional discharge by a judge who accepted that he was "an animal lover" who had not been cruel to his dogs.

Far more serious, however, was that the social workers seemed determined to hang onto the child, now in foster care, on the sole grounds that they had found the house dirty and in a mess (the "animal entrails" played a large part in their evidence). This was despite the testimony of a woman Pc (who had visited the house a month earlier on a different matter) that she found it "clean and tidy". Two hundred horrified neighbours, who knew the couple as doting parents of a happy, well-cared-for child, were about to stage a protest demonstration when they were stopped by the police, on the social workers' instructions that this might identify the child.

For more than two years the couple have been fighting through more than 100 hearings in the courts to win their daughter back. From a mass of evidence, including psychiatric reports and tape recordings made at meetings with her parents (only allowed in the presence of social workers), it is clear she has been desperate to return home. It is equally clear that considerable pressure has been brought on the child to turn her against her parents,

One particularly bizarre psychiatric report was compiled after only an hour-long interview with the little girl. When she said she had once choked on a lollipop, this was interpreted as signifying that she could possibly have "been forced to have oral sex with her father".

After Mrs Smith alone had been subjected to four different psychiatric investigations, which came up with mixed findings, she refused to submit to a fifth, and this apparently weighed heavily with the judge who last December ordered that "Jenny" should be put out to adoption.

In the Appeal Court 11 days ago, Mr Justice Bodey ruled that, because the mother had refused that fifth test, indicating that the parents put their own "emotional wellbeing" in front of that of their child, the adoption order must stand. When this judgment was reported, an independent social worker, who had earlier been an expert witness in the case, wrote to Mr and Mrs Smith to say he was "horrified" to learn that Jenny was "not back in their care", having assumed for over a year that "she must have been returned home".

Their equally horrified GP, saying that he had never "encountered such a case of appalling injustice", wrote "the destruction of this once happy family is in my opinion evil". So shocked was their MP, Mr Hendry ,that he last Wednesday took the highly unusual course of raising the case with the Prime Minister at question time. Numerous others who know the family well have expressed similar dismay. One neighbour, herself a former social worker, whose own daughter often played with "Jenny", said: "I worked with children in social services for 25 years and I have never seen anything like this. It is disgusting."

What is clear in this case, as in so many others, is that a system involving social workers, police and courts in what is an obviously very close alliance should yet again have left a happy, loving family destroyed for no very obvious reason, Almost equally alarming is the way that system manages to shield itself from the world, through reporting restrictions which it claims are designed to protect the children but which too often end up by protecting only the system itself.

To view the original article & comments CLICK HERE

SADS008 - Colin PETERS' letter > Charles HENDRY MP 18-Jul-2009

SADS008 - Colin PETERS' letter > Charles HENDRY MP 18-Jul-2009

From: cp014d2774 @ blueyonder co uk
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Subject: I want to come home mummy: Aged five, 'Jenny' was torn from her parents
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 01:52:22 +0100


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1198957/I-want-come-home-mummy-Aged-Jenny-torn-parents-social-workers-RSPCA-raid-Now-court-says-adopted-.html#comments



Dear Charles Hendry,

I am just one of many people who are alarmed and concerned at the plight of the mother and father and their young daughter, who are suffering at the hands of members of the 'system' in your constituency.

I pay tribute to you for your willingness to become involved in this atrocity and for publicly expressing your concern and misgivings about a little girl who has been dragged away from her loving parents by police and social workers, and whose cruel acts have been approved of, and rubber stamped by the judiciary.

In the Holy Name of God Almighty through His Son Jesus Christ, I beg of you to do all in your power to stop this evil, or at least expose it to wide an audience as possible in the hope that public outrage might influence the decision makers.

We are supposed to live in a Christian and democratic country aren't we?

What is Christian about what is happening here?

Democracy is about the will of the people. I cannot, and will not believe that the will of the people would condone this evil.

I ask that all recipients of this email contact you to show their support for your actions in supporting your constituents, and I ask that they contact their own MP, as I am doing, expressing their concern.

There must be something that can be done.

Yours Sincerely,



Colin Peters

Friday 17 July 2009

SADS007 ARGUS - 10-Jul-09 COMMENTS

SADS007 ARGUS - 10-Jul-09 COMMENTS

& this is what the public think of this case - these are the comments from The Argus about Alison Cridland's article which you can read if you CLICK HERE

Your Say YourThe Argusbibble, London (but visit Brighton regularly) says...
5:09pm Fri 10 Jul 09
This is a case of kidnapping by the state. The judges and police are the kidnappers.This is a case of kidnapping by the state. The judges and police are the kidnappers.
Report this post »
John Steed, worthing says...
6:25pm Fri 10 Jul 09
disgusting situation, shame on the english justice system and on the 3 law lords who were prepared to see this injustice continue ESCC social services have a lot to answer for they are not fit for purpose, they have been disgustingly lax for many years and responsible for much heartache and broken lives, this matter should be taken to the european court of human rights, because in this case two parents & one childs rights have been terribly abuseddisgusting situation, shame on the english justice system and on the 3 law lords who were prepared to see this injustice continue ESCC social services have a lot to answer for they are not fit for purpose, they have been disgustingly lax for many years and responsible for much heartache and broken lives, this matter should be taken to the european court of human rights, because in this case two parents & one childs rights have been terribly abused
Report this post »


puddingandpi, Brighton says...
7:27pm Fri 10 Jul 09
I think being taken from your family & forced into adoption is more psychologically damaging than seeing your parents involved in confrontations.
Anyway, "they **** you up, your parents do. They don't mean to but they do." I think being taken from your family & forced into adoption is more psychologically damaging than seeing your parents involved in confrontations. Anyway, "they **** you up, your parents do. They don't mean to but they do."
Report this post »

puddingandpi, Brighton says...
7:28pm Fri 10 Jul 09
I think being taken from your family & forced into adoption is more psychologically damaging than seeing your parents involved in confrontations.
Anyway, "they fvck you up, your parents do. They don't mean to but they do." I think being taken from your family & forced into adoption is more psychologically damaging than seeing your parents involved in confrontations. Anyway, "they fvck you up, your parents do. They don't mean to but they do."
Report this post »

rs, says...
8:52pm Fri 10 Jul 09
what a shocking story, unless i'm missing something here, this is completly over the top behaviour from social services.

when you have cases such as baby p when they stand back and give the parents chance after chance even with serious physical abuse going on. this doesn't make sense.

the result two heartbroken parents and a child who's old enough to ensure that she will be emotionally scarred forever.what a shocking story, unless i'm missing something here, this is completly over the top behaviour from social services. when you have cases such as baby p when they stand back and give the parents chance after chance even with serious physical abuse going on. this doesn't make sense. the result two heartbroken parents and a child who's old enough to ensure that she will be emotionally scarred forever.
Report this post »

TheInsider, Brighton says...
9:36pm Fri 10 Jul 09
It is difficult to make assumptions either way in a few paragraphs in a local paper about a child's situation.
I have close friends who have fostered dozens of children for many years and these days children are not taken into care at the drop of a hat.
There has been a move in recent years to keep children with chaotic, drunk, druggie, dysfunctional families as it was considered to be better for a child to be with a parent no matter how capable they were. However, more recently the damage this does is now turning the tide again back to the long-term needs of children.
It's a sad fact of life that even in the 21st century some parents are not able to provide a nurturing home.
It is difficult to make assumptions either way in a few paragraphs in a local paper about a child's situation. I have close friends who have fostered dozens of children for many years and these days children are not taken into care at the drop of a hat. There has been a move in recent years to keep children with chaotic, drunk, druggie, dysfunctional families as it was considered to be better for a child to be with a parent no matter how capable they were. However, more recently the damage this does is now turning the tide again back to the long-term needs of children. It's a sad fact of life that even in the 21st century some parents are not able to provide a nurturing home.
Report this post »

Bex24, Burgess Hill says...
9:37pm Fri 10 Jul 09
The authorities wouldn't have prevented the child from being reunited with the family if they felt there was no risk. They do what is best for the children at the end of the day, and without knowing the full story how can any of you comment?!
We don't know the circumstancesThe authorities wouldn't have prevented the child from being reunited with the family if they felt there was no risk. They do what is best for the children at the end of the day, and without knowing the full story how can any of you comment?! We don't know the circumstances
Report this post »

bibble, London (but visit Brighton regularly) says...
10:27pm Fri 10 Jul 09
Bex24 wrote:
The authorities wouldn't have prevented the child from being reunited with the family if they felt there was no risk. They do what is best for the children at the end of the day, and without knowing the full story how can any of you comment?! We don't know the circumstances
You are assuming that the social workers were right.

Have a read here:
http://tinyurl.com/n8dwa8

[quote][p][bold]Bex24[/bold] wrote: The authorities wouldn't have prevented the child from being reunited with the family if they felt there was no risk. They do what is best for the children at the end of the day, and without knowing the full story how can any of you comment?! We don't know the circumstances[/p][/quote]You are assuming that the social workers were right. Have a read here: http://tinyurl.com/n 8dwa8
Report this post »

dodgy, hove says...
10:53pm Fri 10 Jul 09
This kind of thing is just the start of state domination.
Check out the Badman report on home educators. Pretty soon they will have the right to enter your home uninvited and without a search warrant and be able to question your children without your presence.
As far as the Father "losing it!" any loving parent would do just that.This kind of thing is just the start of state domination. Check out the Badman report on home educators. Pretty soon they will have the right to enter your home uninvited and without a search warrant and be able to question your children without your presence. As far as the Father "losing it!" any loving parent would do just that.
Report this post »

Chicken and Beans, says...
12:46am Sat 11 Jul 09
bibble wrote:
This is a case of kidnapping by the state. The judges and police are the kidnappers.
Perhaps it's a case of preemptive action, you complete moron. Save the child before she ends up as retarded as her parents.[quote][p][bold]bibble[/bold] wrote: This is a case of kidnapping by the state. The judges and police are the kidnappers.[/p][/quote]Perhaps it's a case of preemptive action, you complete moron. Save the child before she ends up as retarded as her parents.
Report this post »

Sweepster, Brighton says...
7:31am Sat 11 Jul 09
The parents were given the chance to 'prove' they can parent this child. They were assessed by an independent psychologist who then gave their report to the court. There is a lot more to this than this short article.

No child should be left to live in an volatile environment.The parents were given the chance to 'prove' they can parent this child. They were assessed by an independent psychologist who then gave their report to the court. There is a lot more to this than this short article. No child should be left to live in an volatile environment.
Report this post »

Acheron, Hove says...
7:32am Sat 11 Jul 09
Insider is right here, we've got so little information to go on from this report and it is rather onesided. All that is reported is the parents arguement, and every parent would say just about anything to get their own child back, its totally natural. Unforturnately with some parents 'saying' is all that happens, the doing or changing doesn't.

It's very easy to bash social workers, they are an easy target when they do act and when they don't, putting them in a no win situation. While I'm not saying this case is anywhere near the same, we only have to look at the Baby P case to see what happens when they don't act.

Taking a child away from the family home won't have been done on a whim. Conditions were described as unsanitory. That doesn't happen just because of an arguement, thats something that happens over time.

The judges will have had a large dossier of information to make their decision, if they thought the social services had over-reacted it would be clear. It's ashame the Argus didn't report more on the other side of the story, just putting the parents view is bias and bound to cause an emotional reaction.Insider is right here, we've got so little information to go on from this report and it is rather onesided. All that is reported is the parents arguement, and every parent would say just about anything to get their own child back, its totally natural. Unforturnately with some parents 'saying' is all that happens, the doing or changing doesn't. It's very easy to bash social workers, they are an easy target when they do act and when they don't, putting them in a no win situation. While I'm not saying this case is anywhere near the same, we only have to look at the Baby P case to see what happens when they don't act. Taking a child away from the family home won't have been done on a whim. Conditions were described as unsanitory. That doesn't happen just because of an arguement, thats something that happens over time. The judges will have had a large dossier of information to make their decision, if they thought the social services had over-reacted it would be clear. It's ashame the Argus didn't report more on the other side of the story, just putting the parents view is bias and bound to cause an emotional reaction.
Report this post »

Osama bin there, Brighton says...
9:26am Sat 11 Jul 09
They sound like hideous parents who don't deserve to have children.
Other than that, due to the lack of evidence in the article, I can't comment.They sound like hideous parents who don't deserve to have children. Other than that, due to the lack of evidence in the article, I can't comment.
Report this post »

puddingandpi, Brighton says...
12:32pm Sat 11 Jul 09
rs wrote:
what a shocking story, unless i'm missing something here, this is completly over the top behaviour from social services.

when you have cases such as baby p when they stand back and give the parents chance after chance even with serious physical abuse going on. this doesn't make sense.

the result two heartbroken parents and a child who's old enough to ensure that she will be emotionally scarred forever.
My cousin was the foster carer for baby P & her grandfather is a convicted paedophile, so they didn't check her out very well, did they?
[quote][p][bold]rs[/bold] wrote: what a shocking story, unless i'm missing something here, this is completly over the top behaviour from social services. when you have cases such as baby p when they stand back and give the parents chance after chance even with serious physical abuse going on. this doesn't make sense. the result two heartbroken parents and a child who's old enough to ensure that she will be emotionally scarred forever.[/p][/quote]My cousin was the foster carer for baby P & her grandfather is a convicted paedophile, so they didn't check her out very well, did they?
Report this post »

Sweepster, Brighton says...
12:45pm Sat 11 Jul 09
puddingandpi wrote:

rs wrote:
what a shocking story, unless i'm missing something here, this is completly over the top behaviour from social services.

when you have cases such as baby p when they stand back and give the parents chance after chance even with serious physical abuse going on. this doesn't make sense.

the result two heartbroken parents and a child who's old enough to ensure that she will be emotionally scarred forever.
My cousin was the foster carer for baby P & her grandfather is a convicted paedophile, so they didn't check her out very well, did they?

If everyone that was related to a sex offender was barred from working with children there would not be many people available to work. [quote][p][bold]puddingandpi[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]rs[/bold] wrote: what a shocking story, unless i'm missing something here, this is completly over the top behaviour from social services. when you have cases such as baby p when they stand back and give the parents chance after chance even with serious physical abuse going on. this doesn't make sense. the result two heartbroken parents and a child who's old enough to ensure that she will be emotionally scarred forever.[/p][/quote]My cousin was the foster carer for baby P & her grandfather is a convicted paedophile, so they didn't check her out very well, did they? [/p][/quote]If everyone that was related to a sex offender was barred from working with children there would not be many people available to work.
Report this post »

yorkie44, Woodingdean says...
5:00pm Sat 11 Jul 09
The people who think this is wrong should rememeber that about 1 child a week is killed by their parents. In most cases the parents are known to have problems themselves - obviously.

After the Baby P case there could be some over-reaction but what is best a dead child or a child in care?

The real problem is how has this country got to this state when children are increasingly at risk from their own parents?The people who think this is wrong should rememeber that about 1 child a week is killed by their parents. In most cases the parents are known to have problems themselves - obviously. After the Baby P case there could be some over-reaction but what is best a dead child or a child in care? The real problem is how has this country got to this state when children are increasingly at risk from their own parents?
Report this post »

rs, says...
6:17pm Sat 11 Jul 09
yorkie44 wrote:
The people who think this is wrong should rememeber that about 1 child a week is killed by their parents. In most cases the parents are known to have problems themselves - obviously. After the Baby P case there could be some over-reaction but what is best a dead child or a child in care? The real problem is how has this country got to this state when children are increasingly at risk from their own parents?
there's no mention of the child being at any physical risk:

"They were good parents, she said, and their daughter, now aged seven, had been happy at home and there was no question of her having been harmed in any way.

Yet, at the age of five, she was taken away from them within hours of the incident, had remained in foster care ever since and was now up for adoption.
[quote][p][bold]yorkie44[/bold] wrote: The people who think this is wrong should rememeber that about 1 child a week is killed by their parents. In most cases the parents are known to have problems themselves - obviously. After the Baby P case there could be some over-reaction but what is best a dead child or a child in care? The real problem is how has this country got to this state when children are increasingly at risk from their own parents?[/p][/quote]there's no mention of the child being at any physical risk: "They were good parents, she said, and their daughter, now aged seven, had been happy at home and there was no question of her having been harmed in any way. Yet, at the age of five, she was taken away from them within hours of the incident, had remained in foster care ever since and was now up for adoption.
Report this post »

Tye, Brighton says...
5:22pm Sun 12 Jul 09
this is truly a terribly sad story.

i wonder how these people can sleep at night?

It does remind me a little of "One flew over the cuckoos nest?"

a brain op on a patient who did not conform with authority so he was "taught a lesson"this is truly a terribly sad story. i wonder how these people can sleep at night? It does remind me a little of "One flew over the cuckoos nest?" a brain op on a patient who did not conform with authority so he was "taught a lesson"
Report this post »

To view the originals of these Comments CLICK HERE

SADS006 Argus - 10-Jul-09 Alison CRIDLAND

SADS006 Argus - 10-Jul-09 Alison CRIDLAND

Sussex couple lose battle to stop daughter's adoption3:00pm Friday
10th July 2009

By Alison Cridland »

A couple whose daughter was taken into care more than two years ago after she witnessed their belligerent confrontations with police and teachers have failed in a final court bid to prevent her being adopted.

Three appeal judges in London held that any improvement in the parents' insight into their own attitudes was "too little and too late" to give them the chance of trying to overturn an adoption placement order.

The 32-year-old father and his wife, 43, who live in Hailsham were refused permission to appeal against orders granted to East Sussex County Council by a judge at Brighton County Court.

The Court of Appeal was told that the bitterly contested case had involved no fewer than 73 hearings.

Alison Ball QC, for the mother, said that chaotic and unsanitary conditions found at the couple's home by police during a heated and confrontational incident in April 2007, during which the girl saw her father handcuffed, were not typical.

They were good parents, she said, and their daughter, now aged seven, had been happy at home and there was no question of her having been harmed in any way.

Yet, at the age of five, she was taken away from them within hours of the incident, had remained in foster care ever since and was now up for adoption.

Miss Ball claimed the parents, whose immediate reaction was that their precious child had been kidnapped, were not given a proper chance to disprove a finding that they put their own interests before the welfare of their child.

The father admitted he had "lost it" on occasions - including the confrontation with the police and an incident at their daughter's school - and the mother was now willing to undergo a psychological assessment of her abilities as a parent.

Miss Ball urged Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice Longmore and Mr Justice Bodey to cancel the adoption placement and make a further interim care order pending an assessment of the parents.

But Mr Justice Bodey, giving the court's judgment, said that, "sadly for the parents", there were no grounds for challenging the county court judge's finding that the girl was at risk of psychological harm


To view the original article CLICK HERE

SAD005 - Telegraph 09-Jul-09 Murray Wardrop

SAD005 - Telegraph 09-Jul-09 Murray Wardrop

Couple fail to prevent daughter being adopted after 'kidnap' by social services
A couple yesterday failed in a two-year legal battle to prevent their daughter being adopted after they claim she was "kidnapped" by social services.


By Murray Wardrop
Published: 7:00AM BST 09 Jul 2009

The girl was taken into care in 2007 after police and animal welfare officers raided the parents' home, but she has never been returned to them since.

The parents, who cannot be named for legal reasons, have fought in vain at 73 previous court appearances for the right to bring up their own child.

Yesterday, they took their case to London's Court of Appeal where they applied for the right to appeal against a final decision in March that their daughter be placed with foster parents.

However, their application was turned down on the grounds that their level of cooperation with social workers came "too little and too late".

It is claimed that the girl was taken into care despite being "thriving and happy" in the care of her parents.

The court heard that concerns over the child's welfare were first raised in April 2007 when police and RSPCA inspectors visited the couple's Sussex home.

Acting on reports that they were docking the tails of dogs - a practice which had just been outlawed at the time - 18 police officers raided the property and arrested the couple.

Their daughter was taken into care by East Sussex County Council after she was left "traumatised" by the "chaotic" scene and the sight of her parents being handcuffed.

Social workers raised fears for the child's emotional wellbeing due to her parents' allegedly volatile behaviour during the raid and at a subsequent contact meeting with the girl.

There were also concerns about the cleanliness of their home after officers found the walls and floors caked in dog faeces and dead rabbits, the court heard.

However, the mother's barrister, Alison Ball QC, claimed the incident was a "one off for a family where the child was being well looked after and happily brought up".

She said: "She (the girl) did appear to be a child who was thriving and happy in the care of her parents.

"They (the parents) saw it as their child being kidnapped, and one can see why.

"They woke up one morning and the police and RSPCA came into their house, and within a few hours their child was taken away and they have not had her back since."

Ms Ball added that the parents "overreacted" at a series of court appearances, talks with social workers, and contact meetings with their daughter because they feared there was "no way of getting their child back".

She said this was "unhelpful" and that their lack of cooperation ultimately led to the courts' decision for the girl, now aged seven, to remain in care.

The court heard that the couple underwent four psychological tests, to assess whether they were fit to look after their daughter.

When these produced conflicting results, a fifth assessment was ordered.

After the parents refused this, a judge issued a care and placement order.

At yesterday's hearing, the mother said she was now willing to have a further assessment, but her husband said he would not.

Representing himself in court, the father said: "If no one can answer after four assessments what kind of parents we are, there has to be something wrong with the handling of the case.

"The parents have been forced to jump through every hoop and the child has been pulled backwards.

"I think it's now time to bring us back together as a family because this is what our daughter needs." However, Mr Justice Bodey, sitting with Lord Justice Thorpe and Lord Justice Longmore, refused their application to appeal.

He said the judge who issued a care and placement order for their daughter in March had given them every opportunity to cooperate, so that their child could be returned to them.

The judge said the fact the mother had agreed to a psychological assessment, but the father had not was "too little and too late".

He added that the previous judgement had said the parents had failed to put their child's emotional wellbeing before their own.

Following the ruling, the mother fought back tears and shouted at the judges: "Why can't I fight for my child?"

However the couple last night vowed to continue their battle. In a statement outside court, they said: "The fight goes on.

"If it is a case of taking it the next step, to the European Court, then so be it."


To view the original article CLICK HERE

SADS004 - Shannon SIMS WAS TAKEN BY THE SS because of THE RSPCA

SADS004 - Shannon SIMS WAS TAKEN BY THE SS because of THE RSPCA

LITTLE MIRACLE CALLED SHANNON
Published Date: 26 June 2003


AN Eastbourne woman became the first in Britain to have a child through a controversial new fertility treatment – four years after NHS staff wrongly labelled her husband infertile.
Debra Sims, 38, of Brodrick Road, fell pregnant after taking part in an 'egg giving' programme.
She is now the proud mother of a beautiful baby daughter named Shannon.



But Debra spoke of her nighmare at the hands of NHS experts, who wrongly branded her husband Tony as infertile for THREE YEARS after getting his files mixed up with another man's.
The couple had been trying for a baby for 12 months before seeing a specialist.
However, NHS fertility doctors told them they had little – if any – hope of success.
Debra said that during the ordeal, when she nearly gave up on having a baby, her marriage came close to collapse and she was even driven to contemplate suicide.



She said, 'I only went through all the treatment because we were told my husband was infertile.
'The clinic for IVF patients was in the same place as the maternity unit. When you had an appointment you would be sitting there for five hours before you were seen.


'Try sitting there for that time when there are pregnant women walking in and out. It used to devastate me. I used to think I can't take it any more.'
Debra only realised the specialists' blunder by chance, when she spotted the name on his file was wrong.


'I said, 'That's not my husband'.
The file had a completely different christian name on it. But they maintained it was his file and they insisted Tony was infertile.


'That was until we pointed out the age on the file was also different to my husband's. All they said was 'Oh dear, it looks like we've made a mistake'.


'I was disgusted. To think that we had gone through years of hell for nothing and that Tony had been told he was infertile was devastating.'


But then, just a few weeks later, Debra saw an advert in the Evening Standard which read, 'Women wanted to give eggs'.


Debra said she answered the advertisment simply to have her eggs tested. 'I wanted to see if I could have children,' she said.


The clinic was the Logan Centre for Assisted Reproduction in London and the man in charge of the programme was Professor Ian Craft.


Debra gave a number of her eggs free of charge which were to be used by another woman who was unable to produce her own.


But Debra said, 'The professor told me I had a few problems of my own but he could help me.'
Using her own eggs and Tony's sperm, Debra fell pregnant after the second round of treatment.
Trials of the treatment were launched in 2001 following Debra's success. Professor Craft formally launched the cut-price fertility treatment this week. The programme will cost women who agree to donate eggs £950, compared to around £2,500 for full-price private IVF treatment.


Critics, who include Lord Winston, claim it will exploit women, especially those who cannot afford the full cost of IVF treatment and might be tempted to donate some eggs in exchange for the chance to try for a bargain price test-tube baby.


But Debra said, 'More and more women are deciding to have babies later in life. At least one in four of those will have a problem with fertility.


By the time they find out they've got a problem and get seen and dealt with, they're 40 and told that they're too old for IVF. They have to face being childless forever.


'That was the prospect Tony and I faced.


'But Shannon is our little miracle.


To view the original article CLICK HERE

To see more CLICK HERE

This child has been Kidnapped by the SS & The Vile British Families Courts see the details CLICK HERE

SADS003 - Debra SIMS & BABY SHANNON - THEN THE SS!!


SADS003 - Debra SIMS & BABY SHANNON - THEN THE SS!!

Baby joy for 'infertile' couple

first published Wednesday 25th Jun 2003.

A woman gave birth to a baby girl four years after she was wrongly told her husband was infertile.

Debra Sims, 38, fell pregnant after becoming the first woman to try a controversial new fertility treatment.

She is now nursing a healthy daughter named Shannon but has told how, during her ordeal, she had almost given up hope of having a baby, her marriage was close to collapse and on her darkest days she even contemplated suicide.

She and her husband Tony had been trying for four years for a baby but NHS fertility doctors had told them there was little hope.

With Mr Sims unemployed, there was no chance the couple could raise the thousands of pounds needed for private IVF treatment.

However, following years of heartache, Mrs Sims found the NHS had confused two files and wrongly told her husband, 12 years her junior, he was infertile.

She made the discovery after approaching Professor Ian Craft, of the Logan Centre for Assisted Reproduction in London, who she had heard wanted to run a controversial private project called Egg Giving.

She was told she could receive the treatment for free and agreed to be the first to try it.

Mrs Sims, of Brodrick Road, Eastbourne, said: "When I was told Tony was infertile I was devastated. I wanted children so much and being told I was unlikely to have any made me want to kill myself. My marriage almost broke up because of the pressures and I was a nervous wreck.

"I was disgusted to find out it was all a lie and that Tony had a healthy sperm count. We have been through hell for nothing."

The egg giving procedure means women donate a cycle of eggs, stimulated from the ovaries with drugs, to an infertile woman.

In return, the donor has IVF treatment, using a second cycle of her eggs, for £950 - seven times less than the average private cost and about half of that on the NHS.

Mrs Sims fell pregnant with the second cycle of eggs, using her husband's sperm.

She spoke of her joy at giving birth to Shannon, now 15 month old, yesterday when Prof Craft began offering the treatment to other woman at a cost of almost £6,000.

The Prof launched the treatment, trials of which began in 2001, following Mrs Sims' success.

Critics, including fertility expert Lord Winston, said it exploited women. Fertility support groups gave the scheme a cautious welcome, saying there was a dire shortage of so-called altruistic donors in Britain.

Mr and Mrs Sims, however, care little about the controversy. Mrs Sims said: "Shannon is our little miracle."


To view the original article CLICK HERE

To view more on this subject CLICK HERE

This child has been Kidnapped by the SS & The Vile & secretive British Families Courts see the details CLICK HERE

SADS002 - AN OBSCENE LEGAL TRAVESTY

SADS002 - AN OBSCENE LEGAL TRAVESTY

Child snatched in RSPCA raid must be given up for adoption, rules judge


IS THIS MAN IN HIS FANCY DRESS JUST AN EVIL SADIST HIDDEN BY THE TRAPPINGS OF AN ARCANE SELF IMPORTANCE?

it does look as if debbie's mp has doubts!


Hi,

there are times when one wonders whether one should be proud to be British or whether it is a cause for shame - there are increasingly causes for shame - any decent moral individual must be ashamed of having Blair as a Prime Minister with his lies, his criminality, his much vaunted perversion, his smug indifference, his abuse of Parliament, his crimes against humanity, his war crimes and the staggering number of innocent people who have been slaughtered in his name based upon his lies.

Then there comes a moment when one is more personally touched as with the obscene travesty of justice below.

Shortly after the whole sorry shabby saga began Fenris Wolf who I have known for many years put Debbie in touch with me.

Fenris is best known for her involvement with animals and I was much in touch during the period I was working to save animals from the ghastly mismanagement and slaughter of animals during the Foot & Mouth Virus where they so obscenely, needlessly and cruelly slaughtered so many animals - have a look at Fenris' web sites and see if you can help at:
RSPCA-Animadversion
http://cheetah.webtribe.net/~animadversion/
SHG
http://the-shg.org/
RSPCA Injustice Blog
http://www.rspcainjustice.blogspot.com/

I, like Debbie, have been angered and disgusted by the behaviour of The RSPCA, The Police, The SS and The Courts and interestingly so was Debbie's MP and various Barristers who tried to help.

If this is British Justice then the soon our Government is shut down and run by The EU the better - however I do not believe this IS British Justice I preffer to believe it is something of a 'one off', as are all the other 'one offs' I seem to be embroilled in assisting in.

Whether we are talking of the 'one off' of the massacre in Iraq, the 'one off' of the obscene liar Tony Blair (now we have Brown!!), The 'one off' of Generals doing NOTHING whilst in office and bravely speaking out once they have secured their pensions - surely they must be 'one offs'.

The 'one off' of Holly who as a Downs Patient was passed around as a sex toy! The 'one off' when her mother was held down and had her knickers removed was injected and dragged off to custody leaving Holly to the tender mercies of her abusers, One Offs do all too often seem to involve the vile Families Courts with their policy of secrecy, control, intimidation and abuse.

Fortunately they are 'one offs' so let us NOT surrender to the serial abuse of EU Corpus Juris and vassal status just yet!


Child snatched in RSPCA raid must be given up for adoption, rules judge

By Tom Kelly

Last updated at 7:51 AM on 09th July 2009

My Stories Too little too late: Appeal Court judge Mr Justice Bodey said the parents had been given ample opportunity to help

A couple who say their daughter was 'kidnapped' by social services yesterday lost a two-year legal battle to stop her being adopted.

The child was taken away from her parents at the age of five after they were arrested for failing to co-operate with police during a raid on a dog-breeding business run from their home.

But the girl had never been physically harmed and was 'thriving and happy' before being taken away, the Court of Appeal was told.

The mother, a 43-year-old former vice chairman of the local Conservative Association, and her husband, 31, launched a desperate legal fight to try to get their child back.

But yesterday, after 74 separate court hearings, they were told that they had failed to show they could put their daughter's 'emotional well being' before their own and that she should be adopted.

Alison Ball QC, for the mother, told the hearing: 'As the parents saw it, their child had been kidnapped.

'They woke up one morning and the police came into their house and within a few hours their child was taken into care and has not been returned since.

She acknowledged there 'may have been some behavioural issues' but added: 'This was not a case where the parents have broken the children's bones.'

As the judge refused permission to appeal, the tearful mother cried out: 'Why can't you let me fight for my child?'

Concerns about the parents had been raised when the father threatened staff at her school after an unfounded claim that a teacher had hit the child, the court heard.

A few weeks later, in March 2007, the police and the RSPCA raided the family home after a tip-off that the father was mistreating dogs.

After the parents refused to allow a search, 18 officers using pepper spray descended on the house, prompting 'chaotic scenes'.

In front of their daughter, both parents were handcuffed and arrested, with the father hurling abuse at the officers.

Police who carried out the raid said the house was covered in rabbit entrails and animal excrement.

The child's bedroom also had a hole in the roof and the duvet was filthy.

The couple claimed most of the mess was caused during the raid and that they were about to move house, which is why the bedroom was in such a state.

A policewoman who had visited the house a month earlier on an unrelated matter said that it was a clean and tidy house and that the girl seemed 'happy.'

The child was taken into care by East Sussex County Council following the raid, and later put into the care of foster parents.

When the couple were allowed to see their daughter a week later the father 'lost it' and confronted social workers, which scared his daughter, the court heard.

Miss Ball said this was because he feared for his child's welfare after the building they met her in was surrounded by 'rubbish, dirty nappies and syringes'.

The parents also underwent psychological tests to assess if they were fit to look after their child. The results were conflicting and a judge ordered a fifth test.

When the parents refused, the judge ordered the child to be put up for adoption at a hearing in March.

Yesterday the mother said she was willing to undergo the new psychological test. But the father said he did not want to as this would further delay getting their daughter back.

But Appeal Court judge Mr Justice Bodey said the parents had been given every opportunity to help the court. The fact that the mother was now prepared to have the assessment was 'too little too late', he said.

The couple released a joint statement vowing to fight on. 'If it is a case of taking it to the next step, the European Court, then so be it,' they said.


To view the article + ALL Comments
CLICK HERE

I commented:

I know these parents (Debbie & Tony) and have received many phone calls seeking assistance & support (especially from Debbie AND she has been working closely with a freelance media friend of mine, Dennis Rice, whom I introduced her to).
I do NOT believe the Court Verdict is fair, honest or just.

Consider in context: the judge said they had done too little, too late yet in the 2 years since their daughter was kidnapped by The SS they have been in Court hearings 74 times (YOUR REPORT!) that averages out at too little being a Court apprearance almost once a week!

That they turned up shows no sign of indifference.

Were this the ONLY case where The SS get it tragically wrong I MIGHT believe it, but it varies from gross abuse in SS Homes, to Baby Peter, to Oliver & Melissa in Plymouth - she a nurse and he a care assistant having their children stolen due to a Doctor's wrong diagnosis as proven!

What about Holly who received a cash settlement for her Mother Ann to take the case no further!

How many people are PERFECT parents? We all do the best we can but I can assure you Debbie & Tony go that extra mile.

Good Luck Shannon

There is a limit on Daily Mail comments of 1,000 words or I would have gone on to say:

1. when running a commercial kennels it is clear they used fresh food.

2. No evidence of cruelty to animals was EVER substantiated the initial raid looks all too much like a 'fishing expedition' - Tony was right to resist forced entry without the correct paperwork - no search warrant seems ever to have been produced.

3. Yes perhaps Tony IS short tempered in defence of his family (are you?)

4. If the home was filthy why did the Police Woman say it wasn't?

5. What state would YOUR home be in after 18 police officers and various RSPCA had trashed it?

6. Did I mention the photos used by the police showed almost new white furniture upended and the linings cut to search for non existent drugs?

7. When preparing food for dogs in the kitchen skinned rabbits, tripe and entrails which ARE dog food are always unattractive - had it been as the Court implied there would within mere hours have been many flies and maggots if it was not fundamentally clean?

8. Was the allkeged hole in Shannon's room a hole in the roof as claimed or a hole in the ceiling made by a clumsy oaff of a copper trying to plant drugs as evidence? The rest of the police evidence seems unsound!

9. 18 Police with pepper sprays to overpower a small child and her parents - Where are we Chile!

10. In my conversations with Debbie I have observed sadness, anger, betrayal, confussion, despair, astonishment, determination but NEVER indifference - we all manifest our emotions differently and how Debbie kept going I do not know!

11. They had their child stolen, without any visible coherent reason, their home trashed, their business destroyed and some clown of a Judge has the timerity to criticise how they handled these catastrophies - how would he handle his systematic destruction by a self serving monolithic uncaring State? We note how some amongst his number handle problems they either screw their illegal Phillipino maids, assault their partners or jump from high buildings!

12. One only has to visit the bars in the proximity of the Inns of Court to understand how seriously other peoples' lives are treated by all too many Barristers & Judges! It seems with all the integrity and probity one finds with their chums the bankers!



I want to come home mummy:

Aged five, 'Jenny' was torn from her parents by social workers after an RSPCA raid.

Now a court says she must be adopted...

By Paul Bracchi and Dennis Rice

Last updated at 10:57 PM on 10th July 2009

We reveal disturbing questions about the fate of this bewildered child who faces fears of abandonment for years to come but who just wants to come home to mummy and daddy
Much-loved: 'Jenny's' parents are devoted to their daughter


The recording begins with the sound of a child's voice. It belongs to a little girl and she is clearly bewildered and distressed.

At one point she begins to cry. At other times she is sobbing uncontrollably. 'Have you seen the judge yet?' she can be heard asking pitifully in between the tears before pleading: 'I want to go home with [you] Mummy and Daddy.'

The recording - and dozens of others just like it - was made during a supervised meeting between the youngster and her parents after their daughter was taken away from them by social workers.

They are known as 'contact visits' in the soulless vernacular of the care system, and took place in a room with a table and chairs and a few toys.

One hour. Once a month. That's the extent of the relationship now between this little seven-year-old girl and her traumatised parents.

There are some parents who do not deserve to see their children more than once a month. Irresponsible parents. Neglectful parents. Abusive parents.

According to care workers, the mother and father of this little girl were found to fall into this category after their home was raided by the RSPCA and at least 18 police officers to deal with a complaint about supposed mistreatment of dogs.

But what if social workers have got it wrong? In the light of Baby P and so many other scandals, it's hardly impossible is it?

Certainly, the recordings stored on a computer at the family's home on the South Coast seem to contradict the damaging claims by social services that the girl, whom we shall call Jenny - the girl's real identity has been suppressed by the courts - did not wish to return to live with her parents.

Jenny's father spent months taking down every word of the recordings by hand, only to be told by a judge that they had to be professionally transcribed.

By the time they were, it was too late. Moves to put Jenny up for adoption were under way.
This week, after 74 separate court hearings over two harrowing years, the family finally lost their fight to have Jenny returned to them.

The Court of Appeal in London ruled that their daughter must be given up for adoption. If and when she is, they may never see her again.

Jenny was five when she was taken away, and seven now. Before we examine the peculiarly troubling details of this case, it is worth considering the comments of the family's MP, Charles Hendry.

He says:
'This case has concerned me more than any other in my 13 years as a member of Parliament.' And, he went on to describe Jenny's mother and father as 'devoted parents'.

Furthermore, one of the experts brought in to examine the child's removal, a psychiatric social worker, concluded the local authority had 'mismanaged the case'. Needless to say, his advice was ignored.

They are not lone voices: more than 200 local people, including neighbours, friends and members of the couple's church, planned to take part in a march through their village shortly after the family's ordeal began in April 2007.

Posters were printed, which read 'Social Services Have Kidnapped Our Daughter. Please Help The Fight To Get Her Back Where She Belongs.' Above the words was a picture of Jenny.

Of course, you won't have read about the protest, because it never took place. The march was just about to begin when the police, acting on the advice of social services, stepped in.

'It's hard to go into my girl's room without crying'

They warned Jenny's parents they risked being jailed, as they had broken the law by identifying their daughter on the placards.

Just another example of the terrifying lack of transparency that now surrounds the removal of children from their families.

Reforms to open up cases such as Jenny's to public scrutiny were introduced earlier this year. But the truth is, an almost Stalinist culture of secrecy still exists in family courts.

Jenny was never physically harmed, and was 'thriving and happy before being taken away', the Court of Appeal was told.

One of the reasons for the decision was that Jenny's father had been unwilling to undergo a further assessment.

Wouldn't other parents in his position have done the same?

After all, the case had already dragged on for two years and he believed yet another 'assessment' would delay the tortuous process even more.

Yet, here we are today on the cusp of Jenny being spirited away from her family for ever.
No one suggests that Jenny's parents - whom we'll call Susan and Richard - are perfect. But over the past few weeks, our reporters have come to know the family. And one thing seems undeniable - their love for their daughter, and her love for them.

Jenny is a beautiful child with a mop of chestnut hair. She loved ballet, swimming and Susan and Richard paid for her to have private tennis lessons.

Her bedroom - with her own ensuite bathroom - in the family's home is almost unchanged from the day she last slept there.

Her favourite pink teddy bear is still sitting under the windowsill. And a collection of her videos are on a shelf.

'She loved Grease and pretending to be Olivia Newton-John,' her mother told me last night as her eyes filled up with tears. 'It's hard to come into my daughter's room without crying.'

Susan, in her 40s and involved in her local Conservative Association, used to be a beautician before becoming a fulltime mother - that was how important her child was to her.

Her husband Richard, 32, runs a dog breeding business from their home. They have been married for 13 years.

They were just a normal, happy family, it seems, until the RSPCA, backed up by 18 police officers, arrived at their house early one April morning in 2007, following a tip-off that dogs were being mistreated, and that there might be guns in the house.

No guns were ever found. No criminal charges were brought, nor does Richard have a criminal record.

He was later, however, convicted of docking the tails of his puppies. But the raid was to have far more catastrophic consequences.

Both Richard and Susan were arrested for failing to cooperate with officers. By the time they were released from custody later that day, Jenny was the subject of an emergency protection order.

So an operation which had begun for entirely different reasons had ended with the heartbreak of their daughter being taken away.

There were two reasons for what happened, and both have been bitterly contested by the family.

The first was the state of the house. Police said it was covered in rabbit entrails - used as food for the dogs they raised - and animal excrement.

The couple claim most of the mess was caused during the raid. They say, the doors were left open, allowing the dogs in. Normally, they insisted, their home was 'clean and tidy'.

Only a few weeks earlier a policewoman had visited them - after a puppy had been stolen - and backed up what they said.

She also said that Jenny was 'happy'. Their home, it should also be stressed, was always immaculate when we visited the couple.

Attention was drawn to the fact that there was a hole in a downstairs bedroom ceiling. But the family point out that a pipe had recently leaked and could not be repaired until the beams had dried out. It has now been fixed.

Nor, it was claimed by the authorities, were there any clothes for Jenny in her wardrobe. Did the police look in the wrong wardrobe - the one in her parent's bedroom?

The wardrobe in Jenny's own bedroom, her parents say, was full of her belongings.

'We always put Jenny first,' said Susan. 'We have receipts from Monsoon [the fashion store] proving we spent hundreds of pounds on Jenny in the couple of months before she was taken from us. If anything, we spoilt her.'

The second reason, according to social services, that Jenny was not returned to her parents, was that she had apparently made it clear she didn't want to return to the house.

But why would she? Jenny was later diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) following the raid.

'They were raided like criminals, it is disgusting'In fact, it would be impossible to imagine a more traumatic situation than the 'chaotic scenes' which unfolded at the house that morning and which culminated in her mother and father being led away in handcuffs.

In other words, not wanting to return home didn't necessarily mean she didn't want to be with her parents.

Those tapes made during 'contact meetings' in which she tearfully begs to be returned to her 'Mummy and Daddy' would seem to confirm this.

'She was hysterical when the police came in,' says Susan. 'It's the damage they have done to our little girl which really concerns us. I fear she will never be the same.'

There is also another sad twist to this troubling story. Susan and Richard didn't just lose Jenny that day.

Susan was three months pregnant with twins. She says she was in a police cell when she began to miscarry.

'I started bleeding heavily and knew that could only mean one thing,' she said. 'I was taken to hospital where doctors confirmed my worst fears.'

Even so, she was taken back to the police station later, where she says she suffered another haemorrhage. 'I rang the buzzer and they brought me sanitary towels. Later, I was allowed home.'

But another nightmare was just unfolding. Susan was charged with neglecting Jenny - on the strength, she says, of the conditions in the house.

Three months later, all the charges were dropped.

Many would also argue that this is when the social services case against the couple should also have been dropped.

But, like other families who have been through a similar experience, once they were in the 'system' they found it impossible to get out.

Support: MP Charles Hendry said the case has concerned him more than any other in 13 years as a member of Parliament

It is a view supported by their MP. 'I was very concerned about the case from the outset,' says Mr Hendry.

'Every time I have attempted to discuss it with the director of children's services for the county council, I have been told they cannot discuss it because of the legal proceedings.

'What it has brought home to me is how difficult it is for parents to get back a child once a decision has been made to take the child away.

'It is clear to me they are devoted parents whose only goal is get their child returned. I have never seen the evidence to justify taking their daughter away from them.'

In fact, the 'evidence' is based on the testimony of two independent experts. Two others gave the couple positive assessments. But let's deal with the critical reports.

One 'expert' suggested, after spending just one hour with Jenny, that she had been sexually abused by her father.

And the proof? He came to this conclusion, it seems, after Jenny had described choking on a lollipop which, so the expert said, could 'signify the child being forced to have oral sex with her father'.

There was indeed an incident, says her mother, in which Jenny got a lolly (a sugar-free one from the health shop, incidentally) stuck in her throat when she was playing.


'She started coughing,' says Susan. I thought: "Oh my God, she is choking." I patted her on the back and she was OK.'

The second expert concluded that Susan and Richard were suffering from 'paranoid personality disorders'.

On one occasion, the police were called when Richard began taking photographs of the social services centre where a 'contact meeting' with Jenny was taking place.

Why? Because the grounds of the building were littered with syringes and mounds of rubbish - not a fit place, he claimed, for them to meet their bewildered child.

'The social workers didn't want to challenge these experts, at all,' says Richard. 'I would say to them: "Where is the evidence for this allegation or that allegation?" Or "produce a witness".
'They felt we were being obstructive to the local authority's care plan. But what we supposed to do? Just give up. We would never do that.'

The allegations about the sexual abuse and the paranoia were dismissed by other experts, including Dr Peter Dale, a psychiatric social worker, who concluded the local authority had 'mismanaged the case'.

They made, he said, fixed assumptions about the parents at the outset, and had not done the necessary investigations to check whether those assumptions were correct.

Dr Dale said: 'Jenny had suffered significant harm as a result of being removed from her parents, and was likely to suffer fears of abandonment by them for some time to come and would be particularly at risk during adolescence.

'She needed urgent therapeutic input to help her make sense of what had happened to her.'

He continued: 'Plans for reunification [with her parents] should be established on a very urgent basis.'

Instead, Jenny is being put up for adoption. If Susan and Richard refuse to accept the decision, they could be prevented from ever seeing their daughter again. It is an outcome which their neighbours and friends can barely contemplate.

One couple are among dozens of people who have supported the couple in their desperate fight to get their only daughter back.

The pair, who have both worked in social services, say they are 'disgusted' with the way the case has been handled, and yesterday insisted the parents were 'the best mother and father a child could wish for'.

The 44-year-old woman, says: 'I worked with children in social services for 25 years and I have never seen anything like this.

'We have been friends with the family for about five years and the only criticism I could ever make of them is that they love their little girl too much. They spoil her rotten.

'She has spent a lot of time in our home playing with our daughter, who is a bit older, and our daughter was always over at their home.

'She is a bright, funny, intelligent child. She is always happy and giggling. Every time we saw her she was immaculately dressed, often showing off a new frock or jewellery.

'The way they were raided like criminals and their child snatched from their arms is disgusting.

'There are so many children out there who do need to be monitored by social services, as demonstrated by Baby P. This little girl is not one of them.'

Last night, Jenny's mother, tears rolling down her cheeks, described the impact on the family.

'I go to bed thinking about Jenny and I wake up thinking about Jenny,' she said. 'There's hardly a moment in the day when we are not thinking about her. It's torture.

'To think that our beautiful daughter is probably going to be advertised on a social services website is unbearably painful.'


No one - particularly a newspaper - has a copyright on wisdom in tragic cases such as this. But surely - in the name of justice - there are too many questions raised by the couple's MP, neighbours and independent experts, for anyone to be certain that it's right for Jenny to be torn away from her biological family.


To view this original article CLICK HERE

IF YOU are as disgusted by this obscene concept of 'Justice', carried out in YOUR name, may I remind you I have known Debbie and had MANY long conversations with her to try to help as best I could, commencing when her daughter was first stolen by the State - I believe her and I have neither seen nor heard of ANY evidence of mistreatment or cruelty, either to Shannon or to their dogs.

The Country is littered with the broken lives of children raped and sodomised by parents, boyfriends, priests and social workers - Shannon almost choked on a lollipop once when there are children being systematically starved!

Tony Blair's political agent went to prison for the rape of children in his care, wards of the State and whilst on bail to the Court he was invited by Blair to a pub to drink with Bill Clinton & other leaders - this is the measure of our 'one off' State's depravity!

This verdict after 74 hearings without one shred of evidence against Debbie & Tony is a disgrace and even the Courts have heard from Doctors that the child has been harmed by the DUE PROCESS and the obscene travesty carried out by The State.

Do bear in mind that every word that Dennis and the other journalists have written, not only corroborates what I have heard and know but also the Lawyers of The Daily Mail have corroborated the story to ensure their paper was not sued.

PLEASE - PLEASE send a copy of this Blog to everyone you know with YOUR name added at the end after mine - I accept the full liability for publishing this on the internet and the full liability for its circulation.

Add your Initials or name
Add your House Number
Add your Post Code
Add your Town
Add Your County
Add Your Country

and mail it to YOUR MP, Your Local Paper, ALL Your Friends and around the world.

PLEASE - PLEASE - PLEASE try to help Debbie, Tony & Shannon to be a happy functional family again.

I would not ask you to do this if I had ANY doubts, if the material had not been vetted by professional Journalists and if it had not been checked out in detail by The Daily Mail's Lawyers.

PLEASE HELP NOW - Every copy in circulation counts.

There are others who are prisoners of the State let us first free this family.

Do you remember Jon Venables & Robert Thompson who stole a child and abused him, little Jamie Bulger had batteries shoved into his rectum, paint smeared in his eyes, was kicked slapped and punched - was tortured and had stones thrown at him to kill him aged 3.
Robert Thompson and Jon Venables KNEW the awfull wrong they had done and they placed his broken body on a railway line to destroy the evidence!

John Venables & Robert Thompson have been given new identities, security and a new life in Australia.

Jamie Bulger's Mother will NEVER have a reprieve and the events destroyed her marriage and her life, just as did Ian Brady and Myra Hindley destroy the lives of the parents of Pauline Reade, John Kilbride, Keith Bennett, Lesley Ann Downey & Edward Evans.

Fred & Rosemarie West destroyed many lives by their actions.

I do not condone The State destroying the lives of Debbie, Tony & Shannon by kidnapping Shannon - the actions of the State may pretend to be in my name but they are shamefull and evil based on all the available evidence.

Please.... . If you feel as strongly as we do,
that this is a grave Miscarriage of justice (and if you haven't already signed this petition ) - Hit the
forward button and add your name at the end, and send it to everyone you can !

If you are the 500th person to sign, please
forward this e-mail to:

Public.Enquiries@HomeOffice.gsi.gov.UK

Marked for the attention of The Home Secretary
Home Office
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
General enquiries
020 7035 4848
public.enquiries@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk
Monday to Friday 9.00 am to 5.00 pm

Then continue on until it hits 1,000, before you
email the list again.
TO: Public.Enquiries@HomeOffice.gsi.gov.UK
attention The Home Secretary.

PLEASE also send a copy to:
Dennis B. RICE (DennisRiceMedia@yahoo.co.UK)
newsdesk@notw.co.uk
News@MailOnSunday.co.UK
Editor@Spectator.co.UK
News@The-Sun.co.UK
News@Sunday-Times.co.UK
News@Telegraph.co.UK

SEE ALSO: http://www.MoneyForYourStory.com

There is power in numbers & these petitions do help.
Maybe it'll prevent another child from a violent
death & maybe it'll get greater, more appropriate
convictions for these criminals, whatever their age.

Please take a few seconds to forward this petition to your
mail list & don't forget to add your name to the list.

PLEASE NOTE Your signature is only valid if you give
your NAME (or clear initials)
+ Street Number
+ Town
+ County
+ Post Code / Zip Code
+ Country

Thank you.

YOU CAN LOCATE A FRESH COPY OF THIS PETITION AT:
http://gl-w-docs.blogspot.com/2009/07/gl-w002-obscene-legal-travesty.html

0001.
0002.
0003.
0004.
0005.
0006.
0007.
0008.
0009.
0010.
0011.
0012.
0013.
0014.
0015.
0016.
0017.
0018.
0019.
0020.
0021.
0022.
0023.
0024.
0025.
0026.
0027.
0028.
0029.
0030.
0031.
0032.













0500.
PLEASE MAIL AS EXPLAINED & CONTINUE WITH

0501.


1000. PLEASE MAIL AS EXPLAINED & CONTINUE WITH

A COPY OF THE PETITION & DETAILS.
REMOVE 0001 > 1,000 and start your new Petition
with YOU in position 0001

Thank YOU.

YOU CAN ALSO LOCATE A FRESH COPY OF THIS PETITION AT:
http://gl-w-docs.blogspot.com/2009/07/gl-w002-obscene-legal-travesty.html
Or Just CLICK HERE

Do Also Visit The Web Site at:
http://theytookourchild.wordpress.com
OR Just CLICK HERE

PLEASE HELP

SADS001 - ShannonAnthonyDebraSims

SADS001 - ShannonAnthonyDebraSims



Shannon Anthony Debra Sims

Shannon Anthony & Debra Sims

Anthony & Debra Sims

Want their daughter

Shannon Sims, now aged 7,


Shannon Sims, now aged 7,