Added to The Sunday Telegraph today:
Hi,
thanks again to the Sunday Telegraph and Booker in particular for their valued and well placed tennacity in this case.
It may interest some that despite Mr. Hendre (MP)'s involvement, that the case was brought to The PM's attention in PMQs several weeks ago and that I have known this couple ever since they first contacted me for help some 2 years ago - NO ONE seems able to obtain honest, straight, simple answers as to WHY was the child effectively kidnapped.
Are East Sussex SS and the Family Court, like the police, no longer answerable to either our elected politicians nor even our Prime Minister?
I was asked by another MP involved to take care NOT to upset the Courts and to refrain from drawing attention to the corruption of The EU 'As our best chance of cleaning up our corrupt system was via Europe'.
This an MP who draws a salary at Westminster wishes to use The Human Rights Courts
to 'clean up Britain' - was that not what MPs used to be paid for?
Further there is some bizarre belief that the corrupt and centralised EU might administer some sort of Justice!
Firstly the EU doesn't 'do' Justice - it doesn't even do Democracy - Note Ireland where they democratically voted against Lisbon as did France and Holland but they are being forced to vote again to get it right!
Yet the killings, intimidation, murders and vote rigging in Afghanistan is pronounced acceptable!
Do NOT look to The EU for Justice, save in its abuse!
May I also remind the MP in question that the European Courts of Human Rights are neither under the control of nor any part of the corrupt EU!
It may further horrify the reader that this morning the Mother in question phoned me to tell me that she was being denied her Court approved visitation.
One can only assume as an act of punishment for the publicity!
Told that her 7 year old who had NEVER refused to see them and who had been whispering please could she have their phone number at the last meeting - the little girl stolen from her parents without even trumpped up cause when she was only 5 at the last meeting said she didn't care if she was adopted as she would just run away and find her way home!
ALLEGEDLY so say the SS had declined to see her parents!!
Advised that there was a letter relevant The Father decided to visit the SS offices to collect the letter, only to find there was no letter but The Guardian, the SS, etc. etc. were all in a meeting when he was told they were not in the building - this he ascertained from the car number plates in the car park.
It does look as if East Sussex are only likely not to lie when in their coffins - may I submit it is time to bury this clearly corrupt organisation and release the children they have stolen - read the case of Legoman whom it seems East Sussex swore on a stack of bibles had deliberately broken his own childs leg, leading to all three of his children being taken prisoner by the SS - it transpires now, long after the event that when investigated by an INDEPENDENT DOCTOR his baby has a bone disease!
East Sussex is still hanging onto his children, no doubt having frantic meetings to dream up further cover stories.
The SS and the State would seem to be some of the worst parents and guardians on record - one need only consider the fact that so many seem to consider the buggery and rape of children in their care to be a perk of the job - read Waterhouse 'Lost In Care' The report of 'Kincorra Boys School' the abuses at QVS in Dunblane, New Labour's buddy on Hackney Council Mark trotter, Tony Blair's constituency agent (Trotter as head of children's services is now dead of AIDS having been sent to prison for servicing too many children!) (Blair's agent is in prison for the rape and sodomy of boys and girls in his care) - the list is long!
However consider TODAY - when 80% of the British born who are in prison were at some stage or throughout childhood in the care of Social Services and over 40% of under age prostitutes are currently in care!
Is it that in the gross cases such children with broken limbs, haunted looks, mal nourished and covered in cigarette burns are hard to place for adoption whilst pleasant cared for children are more easily and more profitably fitted in the quota?
Consider the couple in Plymouth who have had 6 cared for children stolen including from the delivery room - and despite some 90 hearings no reason has been clearly given yet the easier ones have been forced into adoption against the parents will and with no clear reason show!
The entire incident stems from asking for a second opinion before bone marrow tests were done on their eldest! It transpired that the Doctor was a regular witness for the SS and he took umbrage and took ALL the children into care and forced the child to have the test!!
She was found NOT to have any bone marrow defect, merely a condition the parents told him before hand which was familial!
They are still fighting for Justice for their children.
We try to provide self help at:
http://StolenKids-Bloggers.blogspot.com but for us it is early days - one MP we deal with has almost 600 similar cases, of relatively different strength but it is rare that the SS and the courts acting in shameful secrecy prove the best solution.
It is time not just to draw back the curtain on this secrecy but to throw open the windows to let in fresh air and the light of truth to ALL SS and Family Court cases.
Only two thing outside of marriage require closed doors and secrecy and they are pornography and pederasty and what is happening with the Family Courts particularly as identified in East Sussex is both obscene and an abuse of children!
IF you need help just visit the blog!
Regards,
Greg L-W.
http://GregLanceWatkins.blogspot.com
To see the full article CLICK HERE
Many other excellent comments by Ian Josephs and others.
Tuesday, 25 August 2009
Sunday, 23 August 2009
SADS012 - S.Tel. - 23-Aug-2009 - Christopher BOOKER
Sunday Telegraph - 23-Aug-2009 - Christopher BOOKER
'Secret agenda to score adoptions'
described East Sussex's behaviour as 'disgraceful?
Photo: UPPA
'Secret agenda to score adoptions'
described East Sussex's behaviour as 'disgraceful?
Photo: UPPA
A judge has condemned the "disgraceful" conduct of social workers over an adoption case, says Christopher Booker.
By Christopher Booker
22 Aug 2009
The revealing of the names of those responsible for the killing of Baby P reminded us yet again of the failure of Haringey social workers to avert the child's death. What a shocking contrast this provides to the behaviour of East Sussex social workers in the case I reported a month ago, which led to their seizure and putting out for adoption of a girl, now seven years old, from a respectable middle-class home, to the anguish of both her parents and the little girl herself.
The chief reason offered by the social workers for abducting the girl two years ago was that her home had been left in an appalling mess after a raid by RSPCA officials and 18 policemen. They ransacked the premises looking for non-existent guns, and released into the house a pack of dogs kept in kennels outside by her father, a professional dog-breeder. The parents were arrested for protesting at what was happening (the mother suffering a miscarriage while in police custody) and the social workers were summoned to remove their daughter.
Everything about this case is bizarre, not least the apparent complicity of social workers, lawyers and the courts in determining that the child should not be returned to her parents, as she wishes, but rather, after two years in foster care, sent for adoption.
I have now been able to read through many papers relating to the case, including the judgments resulting from the 74 hearings in which the parents attempted to get their daughter back. What stands out is the startling contrast between the two totally different versions of the case given by the social workers and the courts on one hand and, on the other, that presented by the parents themselves and by many who knew them. The latter include their GP, who recently wrote that he had never "encountered such a case of appalling injustice".
The most impressive document was a report by an independent social worker, based on many interviews with those involved, including the child herself and the chief social worker in charge of her. In measured terms, this made mincemeat of the council's case. Nothing about it is more suspicious than the contrast between descriptions of the "clean and tidy" home reported by those who knew the family well and the mess allegedly found by the policemen who burst into it mob-handed on the day in question.
The report found an equally glaring contrast between the social workers' insistence that the child was quite happy to have been removed from her parents, and the abundant evidence, observed at first-hand, that the little girl had an extremely good relationship with her parents and wants nothing more than to be reunited with them. The courts seem to have totally ignored this report, whose author last month expressed astonishment that the child had not been returned home.
What has also come to light is a remarkable judgment by Lord Justice Thorpe and Lord Justice Wall in the Appeal Court last year, in another case which also involved the apparently ruthless determination of East Sussex social workers to send a child for adoption. The judges were fiercely critical. The social workers' conduct, said Lord Justice Thorpe, could only reinforce the suspicions of those who believe "councils have a secret agenda to establish a high score of children they have placed for adoption".
Lord Justice Wall described East Sussex's conduct as "disgraceful – not a word I use lightly" and also as "about the worst I have ever encountered in a career now spanning nearly 40 years". "The social workers in question," he said, appeared "not only to have been inadequately managed, they do not appear to have been properly trained". As for the barrister who represented East Sussex (and who also appeared in most of the hearings in the "dog-breeder" case), Lord Justice Wall said "her attitude came across, to me at least, as – in effect – so what?" She had demonstrated, he said, "profound misunderstanding" of the council's legal position vis à vis adoption. He ordered his comments to be circulated to family courts and adoption agencies across the land.
Though the circumstances are different, anyone reading the documents could not fail to be struck by how many of the judges' comments are relevant to the case I reported. The same council's social workers have again pushed for a child to be adopted in a way which prompts the family's GP to say "the destruction of this once happy family is, in my opinion, evil". And that barrister who was involved in both cases is now – a family court judge.
To view the original article CLICK HERE
"Nothing about it is more suspicious than the contrast between descriptions of the "clean and tidy" home reported by those who knew the family well and the mess allegedly found by the policemen who burst into it mob-handed on the day in question."
Curiously, in the Baby Peter case, the social workers failed to consider the squalid state of the household, which included human and dog feces and rotting animal residue, as to do so would apparently have been considered "judgemental".
Catweazle
on August 22, 2009
at 10:38 PM
So the barrister who was condemned by the judge is now a judge herself. I doubt Cameron is interested in doing anything, but we need a clear out of these judges. The law already provides a mechanism: impeachment at the bar of the house of Lords. Why not? Our Common Law is a dead letter without it.
djw2009
on August 22, 2009
at 10:29 PM
"Destroy the family and you destroy society." V.I. Lenin taught us that pearl of wisdom, and Social Services, local councils and by extension HMG have learned the lesson well.
All part of the plan, British pals. Britain�s fast becoming a police state. So hate it and leave it, while you still can.
Jack, Japan Alps.
Jackthesmilingblack
on August 22, 2009
at 10:29 PM
I have been representing Parents that could easily had their Children removed, Siblings all to be split up, and put into Foster Care, all in the best interests of the Children.
Mother, has been diagnosed with MSBP, a theory that was discredited over ten years ago, a so called medical expert, that is not qualified to make that kind of diagnosis.
The Guardian stated that Mothers personality disorder was having a detrimental effect on the Children.
At Court the Judge, on advice of the Guardian, ordered the Parents to hand over their passports to the Court and the holiday of a lifetime, they had booked over a year ago, at a cost of �3000, would have to be cancelled, on the fear that they would skip the Country.
They were more or less placed on house arrest until an emergency
Family Court hearing last week, they had twice daily visits from Social Workers.
This lovely Family have only managed to keep their Children at home due to the incredible skills of a Children's Panel Solicitor, which we use on a regular basis.
A draft written agreement was drawn up, for the Parents to sign and some of the clauses written into this document was a violation of civil liberties and Human Rights, one clause was that the Local Authority could take pictures of every room in the house, including the loft and that the Parents would have to get permission from Social Workers, to leave their house, for more than a few hours and no GP appointments to be made, without informing the Social Worker.
If they didn't agree, they faced loosing their Children yesterday.
The Solicitors team that represents PAIN clients managed to seal a compromise, with the Court and they would not be allowed to take photographs in the house.
The Family still face months of torment, with Psychological and other assessments without this dedicated team of Solicitors, things could of been a lot different.
Alison Stevens Parents Against Injustice
Alison Stevens
on August 22, 2009
at 10:29 PM
WELL DONE FOR PUTTING THIS IN THE PUBLIC EYE I APPLAUD YOU !
Jane Webb FAMILY JUSTICE GROUPS UNITED
on August 22, 2009
at 09:18 PM
Hi,
Our thanks must go to both Christopher Booker who wrote of this on page 37 of his 1994 book written with Dr. Richard North 'The Mad Officials' which drew its title from a story by G.K. Chesterton before WWI about a British Court abusing parents and children - Just because they could!
This family is far from alone as you will find at:
http://StolenKids-SADS.blogspot.com
which offers help to others with the same plight at:
http://StolenKids-Bloggers.blogspot.com
If you can help or need help this is the place for self help and those who care!
Thanks again to Christopher, Richard & The Sunday Telegraph - these people being abused by the state deserve all the help we can give them.
Regards,
Greg L-W.
http://GregLanceWatkins.blogspot.com
To understand the Concept & Service of StolenKids-
where you can help yourself and others at:
StolenKids-
To See The Links Page
CLICK HERE
CLICK HERE
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?
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 coupleADVERTISEMENT 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
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
'Evil destruction' of a happy familyA 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
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
& 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
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
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
LITTLE MIRACLE CALLED SHANNON
Published Date: 26 June 2003AN 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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)