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!
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 Injustice Blog
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 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.
'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:
Marked for the attention of The Home Secretary
2 Marsham Street
London SW1P 4DF
020 7035 4848
Monday to Friday 9.00 am to 5.00 pm
Then continue on until it hits 1,000, before you
email the list again.
attention The Home Secretary.
PLEASE also send a copy to:
Dennis B. RICE (DennisRiceMedia@yahoo.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
+ Post Code / Zip Code
YOU CAN LOCATE A FRESH COPY OF THIS PETITION AT:
PLEASE MAIL AS EXPLAINED & CONTINUE WITH
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
YOU CAN ALSO LOCATE A FRESH COPY OF THIS PETITION AT:
Or Just CLICK HERE
Do Also Visit The Web Site at:
OR Just CLICK HERE