#SADS016* - TELEGRAPH - BOOKER 21-Nov-2010

#SADS016* - TELEGRAPH - BOOKER 21-Nov-2010

The Sunday Telegraph

Based on the prepublication embargoed proof.

Booker Column 21 Nov 2010

According to the family’s GP, in 43 years of medical practice he had ‘never encountered a case of such appalling injustice’. To their neighbours it was so shocking that up to 100 of them were ready to stage a public protest, until being banned from doing so by social workers and the police.

This was the case of Tony and Debbie Sims, which I first reported in July 2009 under the headline “Evil destruction’ of a happy family’, and whom I can now name because their daughter, torn from them for no good reason, has now, after three years of misery in foster care and 74 court hearings, finally been adopted.

The story of Mr and Mrs Sims was my first introduction to that Kafka-esque world of state child-snatching which I have so often reported on since, and illustrates so many of the reasons why, hidden behind its self-protective wall of secrecy, this ruthless and corrupt system has become a major national scandal.

Until April 2007, Mr Sims, a professional dog-breeder, and his wife, then a branch vice-chairman of the local Conservative Party, were a respectable middle-class couple living happily with the five-year old daughter who was the apple of their eye. Shortly after Mr Sims had been interviewed by the RSPCA over his unwitting infringement of a new law banning tail-docking of puppies, their home was invaded by two RSPCA officials and 18 policemen, who had been given a wholly erroneous tip-off that there were guns on the premises,

When the dogs were released from their kennels and rampaged through the house, ripping apart his daughter’s pet boxer, Mr Sims strongly protested - verbally but not physically. He was arrested, his wife likewise and they were taken away, leaving their little girl, aged five, screaming amid the chaos. Social workers were called and the child was removed into foster care, While Mrs Sims was being held for several hours in a police cell she had a miscarriage. She returned home that night to find her daughter gone.

When the couple next saw their child at a ‘contact’ months later, she said she had been told they were dead and had gone to heaven. For three years they tried to get her back through those 74 court hearings, The social workers claimed the child had been maltreated because her home was an unholy mess. But this was only because of the police raid and the dogs - a WPC who visited the house a month earlier on other business reported that it had been ‘neat and tidy’.

The child could not understand why she was not allowed to go back home with her parents, The courts were unable to consider a report by an experienced independent social worker which the couple were told described them as responsible and loving parents. The only evidence the court heard was that from the social workers and their own ‘experts’. When the couple were eventually told that their child would be adopted, they appealed.

In a judgment which was last year allowed to be reported, Mr Justice Boden ruled that, because the parents had not shown sufficient co-operation with the authorities (after four psychiatric assessments of the couple, the father refused to submit to a fifth), the adoption must go ahead, One of the first people to contact the parents when this was reported was the independent social worker expressing astonishment, saying he had assumed that, because the social workers’ case seemed so flimsy, the family would have long since been reunited. Last week Mr and Mrs Sims had a two-sentence note to say their daughter has now been adopted.

Since I first wrote about this case in 2009 I have come to recognise many of its features in dozens of others I have followed: the mob-handed involvement of the police; the seizing of children for no good reason; the inability of social workers to admit they have made a mistake; lawyers supposedly acting for the parents who seem to be on the other side; the refusal of judges to look objectively at all the evidence, and their willingness to accept nonsense told them by social workers and their ‘experts’. Too often these proceedings get away with standing every honourable principle of \British justice on its head.

Such is the Frankenstein’s monster created by Parliament in the 1989 Children Act. Yet apart from the tireless John Hemming, and a handful of other MPs shocked into awareness by individual cases in their constituencies, the majority seem wholly unconcerned. So what do we pay them for?

'Open the curtains, throw open the windows and permit the light of investigation and fresh air into family courts and sexual, emotional and physical abuse of the vulnerable - expose the abuse & the abuse of authority of those acting in OUR name!

No child asked to be or enjoys abuse,
it is for the gratification of the inadequate'.

To understand the Concept & Services of
Stolen????- where you can help yourself and others:
StolenKids- 4 Those losing kids due to 'authorities' ie Forced Adoption & Care!
GO TO http://stolenkids-bloggers.blogspot.com/
Or perhaps more suited to YOUR needs:
StolenChildhood- 4 those facing abuse past or present sexual or other!
GO TO http://stolenchildhood-bloggers.blogspot.com/ or
StolenTrust- 4 those where or have suffered abuse within a relationship!
GO TO http://StolenTrust-bloggers.blogspot.com/ or
StolenOyster- 4 those who have been abused or raped by a stranger or stalker
GO TO http://StolenOyster-bloggers.blogspot.com/
To See The Links Page
CLICK HERE

#SADS015* - TELEGRAPH BOOKER 10-Oct-09

#SADS015* - TELEGRAPH BOOKER 10-Oct-09

The SUNDAY TELEGRAPH by: Christopher BOOKER 11-Oct-09

Adoption system is UK's shameful secret
Britain is the only country in Europe where children are routinely removed from their parents without consent, says Christopher Booker

By Christopher Booker
Published: 7:08PM BST 10 Oct 2009



This week I return to one of the most disturbing stories this column has ever reported. It began on a morning in April 2007 when the home of a respectable middle-class family in Sussex was overrun by 18 policemen and two RSPCA officials, supposedly looking for guns. When the father, a professional dog breeder, volubly protested, he and his pregnant wife were arrested and handcuffed, to the horror of their watching five-year old daughter (whom I call, for legal reasons, "Jenny").

East Sussex social workers were then called to remove the little girl. Her mother had a miscarriage while in custody and returned to an empty home, left in chaos. Jenny has remained in foster care ever since, and despite her parents pleading for her return through 74 legal hearings, the ruling by a family court judge last March that she be put out for adoption was upheld in July by the Appeal Court.

Having now seen further documents relating to this saga, I can understand why the family's GP wrote that in 33 years as a doctor he had never come across "such an appalling case of injustice". The first document was her parents' careful chronology of every step in the story, including transcriptions of many of their telephone conversations and meetings with Jenny, invariably under strict surveillance by social workers or the foster carer.

The dominant impression from these recordings is of Jenny's desperation to be reunited with her parents, and of an increasingly distraught child who cannot understand what has been done to her. The parents claim that pressure was put on her constantly to say that she didn't want to see them again. Why did the family court judge not allow this evidence to be heard in court, although she did admit accounts of these "contacts" by the social workers?

A second document is the judgment by Mr Justice Bodey in the Appeal Court confirming that Jenny must be put out for adoption. No evidence had been produced that her parents ever caused Jenny physical or mental harm. His ruling centred on two points. One was evidence that her home was a mess on the day of the raid, although those who knew the house well testify that it was normally clean and tidy. The other was that, when the family's home was invaded by 18 policemen (a figure confirmed by one policeman in evidence), the father verbally abused them in colourful fashion (but didn't attack them physically). Are these really adequate grounds for tearing a child and her parents permanently apart?

A third document is the book Forced Abduction by Ian Josephs, a businessman who has taken an active interest in the removal of children from their parents by social workers ever since he was a Tory county councillor in the 1960s. He acted in part of the Jenny case as a "Mackenzie friend", that is, an informal assistant and adviser.

Mr Josephs shows that Britain is almost the only country in Europe which routinely allows children to be separated from parents without their consent. Indeed, he reproduces a press release put out in 2003 by Hammersmith & Fulham Council boasting how, under a Local Public Service Agreement, it had received a reward of £500,000 from central government for hitting its target of 101 adoptions in the year. This particular, highly controversial scheme of cash bonuses has, thankfully, since been abandoned.

The impression given by these documents supports the GP's view that this is an "appalling case of injustice". Social workers, lawyers and judges seem enmeshed in a system heavily skewed towards putting children out for adoption – by a process so shrouded in secrecy that it seems designed more to protect the system itself than the interests of the child. Most alarming of all is that there seems no one with the authority to intervene in cases such as Jenny's, where that system appears to have left both a loving family and justice horribly betrayed.

Email Print
Share
Email Print Text Size
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6292708/Adoption-system-is-UKs-shameful-secret.html
TelegraphNews

Comments: 9

What is the difference between a Rottweiler and a social worker?
You will get your child back from a Rottweiler.
The Hitler's Nazis had the brown shirts and the SS to do their dirty works. Brittan and Australia now have the RSPCA. No government would do this as it would be political suicide so they get a "well respected" "caring charity" to do it for them. The World is becomming fascist. Hitler is alive and well in England and Australia. It is now pet lovers, not the Jews, that must be prepared to emigrate to a safe haven. The new Israel will be the first country that allows people to OWN their pets and, not just be their "carers" managed and supervised by a private "charity".
Digger09
on October 11, 2009
at 10:00 AM


Well said Caroline.
Sadly, there are a great number of British parents that need to be removed from their children.
More sadly is that we have to do it the other way around for the sake of the children.
The trouble is the body in charge of doing these unpleasant things does not always get it right and that is the nub of the problem.
Britain carries far too many Jobsworths for it's own good. British people seem to have a need to look up to somebody or other and will follow blindly. The Blair years are demonstrable proof of far down a Country can go in a relatively short space of time. We need real leadership with people at the top setting the right example.
The Mps expenses scandal has blown the lid off leadership, may be for ever. I wish Cameron luck but he should beware that NOT identifying with being British may well be his downfall.
However, this probably does not sit well with the NuLabour/EU friendlies out there.
C.Brooks
on October 11, 2009
at 09:54 AM

I left Britain 12 years ago, thoroughly disillusioned after my Asian wife and I were turned down for adoption because we were 'racially naive' (ie we said we had experienced no racial problems in our home county of Norfolk). The case received a lot of publicity, and I was left with two over-riding impresssions of The System: 1) That Social Services are out of control; 2) That there are many more sinister cases which never see the light of day, often hidden by the 'respect for confidentially' - so convenient for the power-mad social engineers who run The System. The politicians made all kinds of promises to reign them in, but as we see, as usual this has come to naught.
To emigrate was the best decision I ever made. If anyone wants to join me in lovely central Portugal, contact me to find out how.
James Lawrence
on October 11, 2009
at 09:47 AM

"Caroline" are you by any chance carrying Stalin's brain?
dominic lennon
on October 10, 2009
at 11:07 PM
Report this commentI tend to agree with Jackthesmilingblack. I left UK 10 years ago because I could not face living in a country so bereft of its own sense of identity. The intervening years have only reinforced the correctness of my decision. Britain is now an open sewer of political correctness, small minded bureaucracy, and an obsession with race. Any right minded person would just have to leave. I have renounced my British citizenship and insist to everyone who asks that I am not British, even though I sound like it. I truly hope David Cameron can make a difference, but I fear the problem is now with the Brits themselves. They are a shallow people, the great heroes of the past must be looking on with contempt.
Kev Cooper
on October 10, 2009
at 10:56 PM

Why doesn't a national newspaper mount a campaign ? How is it that social workers can kidnap children ?

Why doesn't the Misister for Children or Harriet Harman intervene and show she cares about humanity?

This country is as bad as any communist state and nothing ever gets done to stop it. That is why extremist parties will gain votes.
Darren Himmler , Brentwood Essex
on October 10, 2009
at 10:19 PM

This is state-sponsored kidnap. Any populace with a notion of civil liberties would have taken it to the street by now, burning local government offices and police stations to the ground. But not those "take it in the ass" losers in UK. Truly Britisher pals, your best, indeed only option is to hate it and leave it. While you still can.

Jackthesmilingblack
on October 10, 2009
at 10:00 PM

Well Booker
If you make proceedings
public what you will "achieve " is that children will not be able to disclose. They will not disclose out of love and they will not disclose out of fear. Well done super. Lots of children will end up remaining with abusive and or neglectful parents. We have much too high a tolerance for neglect in this country. Other countries may leave children nominally in their parents care ,but not in their homes. They end up long term fostered. This is good for the foster parents who get paid, but offers no emotional security for the child. They are forever obliged to take notice of the emotional needs of inadequate parents.
These are not matters for your personal ambition Booker. Put a journalistic sock in it.
Caroline
on October 10, 2009
at 08:47 PM

Christopher, have you sent this to the President of the Family Division? If not you should, along with an ultimatum that he hold a no-holds barred investigation into this case or you will ask the UN Commissioner for Children to investigate. The resulting report would no doubt be hideously embarrassing.

You should also send these documents to the local police force, and ask them to investigate whether there is sufficient evidence to charge the social workers with child abduction.

To View The Original Article CLICK HERE

ALSO:

Hi,

Yet more about StolenKids can be found in general at:
http://stolenkids-bloggers.blogspot.com/
& in specific at:
http://stolenkids-sads.blogspot.com/

Story after story about children seized by The Social Services. Yes of course they get it right on lots of occasions but due to secrecy of Courts & procedures to protect them they can get away with this obscene behaviour.

StolenKids is for people who have been abused by the Courts & Civil Servants IN OUR NAME; there they can air their own story for help, support or just for catharsis.

By drawing back the curtains to let the light in, and opening the windows to let fresh air in, you can help these unfortunate people to gain Justice.

Help expose the vile behaviour of Courts, Police & Social Services when they occur and also examples where they got it spot on when they occur!

It is up to us to help make sure our society functions and children get the very best.

Regards,

Greg L-W.

I further commented:

Gladiatrix - with respect is it not OUR duty to take these actions and thank Reporters for Reporting?

Caroline - you are quite right, in a communist country, or you will note from The Lisbon Constitution in Britain also secrecy is the cloak behind which state crime is conducted and the State machine takes control of our lives.

Your summary is bunkum - it is ONLY with exposure that such criminal State activities are overturned.

With your duplicitous advice Thalidomide victims would never have gained compensation, or do you not remember Harold Evans. Was it not the reporters of The Washington Post who exposed the criminality of Richard Nixon?

The more light and fresh air Booker can let in the better - I have known him for many years & respect his lack of personal ambition at the expense of innocent victims.

As for the family concerned I have tried to support them since their daughter was first seized and there has NEVER been any claim EVER that was in any way sustainable that they have or ever would do anything other than spoil their daughter and both love and care for her.

There are clear and unequivocal independent expert medical reports that their daughter HAS been traumatised and harmed by the system.

As an uninformed critic may I suggest the sock is best placed in your opinions, but unlike the parents you have a fundamental human right of freedom of speech!

Regards,
Greg L-W.
http://StolenKids-Bloggers.blogspot.com

To understand the Concept & Service of StolenKids-
where you can help yourself and others at:

StolenKids-

GO TO
http://stolenkids-bloggers.blogspot.com/

To See The Links Page
CLICK HERE

#SADS014* - SADS JUDGEMENT 08-July-2009

#SADS014* - SADS JUDGEMENT 08-July-2009

Herewith below:

The Full Judgement of the case

No.: B4/2009/0755

~~~ B4/2009/0775

heard on 08-July-2009

In: The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)

On Appeal from The Brighton County Court

(His Honour Judge Coates)


EACH OF THE EIGHT (8) PAGES BELOW
CAN BE ENLARGED TO READ

IN THEIR ORIGINAL TEXT

By: DOUBLE CLICKING on its text.

as supplied to the parents of the kidnapped child
by The Courts who seemingly without a single item of evidence being led to show that harm had EVER come to the child at the hands of the parents and in the pretence that The RSPCA, The Police, The Social Services and the various self defined expert witnesses of the court & The SS were acquitting their duty in the best interest of anyone but themselves.

It is a clear intent stated in the spirit of the care of children that the removal of a child from its natural parent must be shown to be indubitably in the best interest of the child.

This has clearly failed to be proven as no evidence has ever been led that harm had EVER come to the child at the hands of either parent.

It is also understood that adoption shall be considered as a last resort.

This child has NEVER had the opportunity of return to its home which has been shown to be both loving and caring.

This child has bee abused by the system in a manner which has brought much public revulsion at the venality of the system in its own interests to cover its very clear errors.

Judges have in Court openly criticised the Social Services and their method of behaviour in this region:
Lord Justice Wall described East Sussex's behaviour as 'disgraceful?

Do please read the details as enumerated in The Official Full Judgement as supplied Officially by The Court - being the shameful Judgement of:

Lord Justice Thorpe

&

Lord Justice Longmore

sitting with Mr. Justice Bodey

SIMS JUDGEMENT 08Jul09 page 01



SIMS JUDGEMENT 08Jul09 page 02



SIMS JUDGEMENT 08Jul09 page 03



SIMS JUDGEMENT 08Jul09 page 04



SIMS JUDGEMENT 08Jul09 page 05



SIMS JUDGEMENT 08Jul09 page 06



SIMS JUDGEMENT 08Jul09 page 07



SIMS JUDGEMENT 08Jul09 page 08

#SADS013 - Added to The Sunday Telegraph today

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.

SADS012 - S.Tel. - 23-Aug-2009 - Christopher BOOKER

Sunday Telegraph - 23-Aug-2009 - Christopher BOOKER

'Secret agenda to score adoptions'

Lord Justice Wall
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-

GO TO
http://stolenkids-bloggers.blogspot.com/

To See The Links Page
CLICK HERE

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?

SADS010 - PMQs FEATURES SADS - Hansard!

SADS010 - PMQs FEATURES SADS - Hansard!
Hi,

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

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

Here is the extract from Hansard.


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

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

15 July 2009 : Column 288

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

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

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

The Prime Minister:

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

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

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

To see the relevant section of Hansard CLICK HERE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To view the original article & comments CLICK HERE

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

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

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


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



Dear Charles Hendry,

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

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

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

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

What is Christian about what is happening here?

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

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

There must be something that can be done.

Yours Sincerely,



Colin Peters

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