ABOUT THE CONCEPT

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/

Pages

Wednesday, 29 July 2009

EASTBOURNE TODAY - 29-Jul-2009 - SADS FEATURE in PMQs

EASTBOURNE TODAY - 29-Jul-2009 - SADS FEATURE in PMQs

A repeat of the article in The Hailsham Gazette 22-Jul-2009
CLICK HERE

&
To view StolenKids-SADS blog CLICK HERE

MP takes parents' fight for daughter to the PM



Published Date: 29 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) in Warwickshire, 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 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 locked up his wife whilst she had a miscarriage and will his children be stolen to put them up for forced adoption?

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

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

To understand the Concept & Service of StolenKids-
where you can help yourself and others at:
StolenKids-
To See The Links Page
CLICK HERE

Saturday, 25 July 2009

TELEGRAPH - Patrick SAWYER - 25-Jul-2009 FALSE ALLEGATIONS

TELEGRAPH - Patrick SAWYER - 25-Jul-2009 FALSE ALLEGATIONS

Father banned from family home by social workers over unfounded allegations

A father of four who was forced out of his own home by social workers over unfounded allegations of sexual abuse has been reunited with his family.

By Patrick Sawer
Published: 9:30PM BST 25 Jul 2009


Man cleared of child abuse at Derby Family Court and allowed to rejoin his family. Photo: RII SCHROER
In a three-year ordeal, 48-year-old 'Anthony' remained barred from living with his wife and younger children even after a jury acquitted him on 15 charges of abusing his eldest daughter.

Despite reports from schools and independent assessors which raised no concerns over the children's welfare, Derbyshire social services decided not to accept the 'not guilty' verdict of the criminal trial, and instead to take the case to a family court, where there is a lesser burden of proof.

That tactic failed on Friday when a family court judge found that none of the allegations against Anthony, a care worker, had been proved.

Following the judge's verdict, he told The Sunday Telegraph: "I'm absolutely overwhelmed and overjoyed. It's such a relief to be able to go home now and be with my family again and see my children normally instead of for just a few hours a week.

"It was the intention of social services to split me and my wife up, but they have only made us stronger."

Anthony's wife 'Christine' – who has backed him at every stage – said: "Justice has been done at last and it's absolutely fantastic. There were many times when I feared we would not win because it felt the entire system was against us. But now we can go home together and start rebuilding our family life."

Christine, a computer consultant, added: "We were persecuted because social services refused to change their attitude and admit their mistakes."

The churchgoing couple, who live in a detached house in a country town, found their life turned upside down three years ago when their eldest daughter, now in her early twenties, accused her father of having sexually abused her since the age of 12. The shocking claim came after a series of angry teenage rows with her parents over her future education and the kind of boyfriend she was seeing.

The rows culminated in the daughter leaving the family home and telling her boyfriend that she had been sexually abused by her father.

The boyfriend reported this to police, who arrested Anthony in spring 2007. Four months later he was charged with sexual abuse and released on bail.

Christine said: "We were totally stunned. We had never had any trouble from her before and she had always got on so brilliantly with her dad. It was a complete bolt from the blue."

When Anthony was eventually cleared of all charges, following a four day trial in April last year, during which his eldest daughter gave evidence against him,

the couple were ecstatic.

But a further bombshell awaited them. A few days later social services informed them the not-guilty verdict had made little difference to their attitude.

Christine, 42, said: "Social services said there was not enough evidence to prove he was not a risk to the children. Despite my husband being found not guilty by a jury they wanted to hold a family court hearing to determine that on the balance of probabilities something had taken place. That's a far lower standard of proof than was required in the crown court."

Last December, five months after Anthony's acquittal, social services told him that if he didn't leave the family home altogether they would start proceedings to have his daughters taken into care.

This came despite the fact the girls were being regularly interviewed by independent welfare professionals – who reported no concerns about their

home lives – and that social services had up until that point agreed to Anthony living at home

The girls' primary and secondary schools even wrote letters to the social services department saying they had no concerns about their welfare.

At the same time, a report by social workers handling the case admitted: "There appear to be no concerns with regard to their [the children's] presentation. There are been no concerns expressed with regard to the parents' capacity to parent their children. Social care recognise that the children are not currently presenting in a concerning way."

Yet despite the report noting that Anthony had been found not guilty of all charges, it still insisted that "he presents as a potential risk to the children".

Desperate not to have the children taken into care, Anthony moved out just before the New Year into rented accommodation five miles from the family home.

He was only allowed to see his other daughters for two hours a day, under supervision.

Last week a family court in Derby held a hearing to determine whether Anthony posed a threat to his children or could be allowed home.

Following several days of evidence, in which the couple's eldest daughter again took the stand against her father, Judge James Orrell found in favour of Anthony.

He said: "This has been one of the most difficult fact-finding hearings of this kind I've had to deal with. The evidence on both sides has been finely balanced.

"Although I do not find that [the couple's eldest daughter] has lied to me, her evidence has not persuaded me that on the balance of probability her father sexually assaulted her. I do not find any of the allegations proved."

The Judge also found that Christine had acted in the best interests of her daughters at all times.

Though jubilant at the outcome, the case has left Anthony and Christine bitter. Christine, who was supported by John Hemming MP, said: "Social services don't have many resources but they don't seem to be able to focus on the right priorities. Instead they focus on easy targets like us.

"We are a nice, quiet, middle-class family they feel they can just push around and bully. 'B', the original social worker, believed my daughter's claims, that became the official line, and it's hard for that sort of institution to change its view."

Derbyshire social services said: "We always act in what we believe to be the best interests of the children involved. We believed we had grounds for pursuing this case and we await the final judgement in four to five weeks' time."


* Names have been changed to protect their identities.

To view the original of this article CLICK HERE



To understand the Concept & Service of StolenKids-
where you can help yourself and others at:
StolenKids-
To See The Links Page
CLICK HERE

Friday, 24 July 2009

David ICKE - Newsletter - 24-Jul-2009

David ICKE - Newsletter - 24-Jul-2009

Hi,

First may I thank David Icke for picking up the cudgel in the fight for StolenKids & their families but also for his generous offer:

Hello Greg ... thanks for the email, mate. I have sent your link for posting on my headlines page and asked my webmaster to add a permanent link on a side column.

All the best with it,
David


David Icke Newsletter Preview
THEY WANT YOUR CHILDREN ...
... IT'S TIME TO GET INVOLVED

The David Icke Newsletter Goes Out On Sunday

Most disturbing is the way the state is taking children away from parents via secret 'family courts' for the most extraordinary reasons. These courts have no jury and the standard of proof required is lower than in criminal courts.

The authorities do not have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a child has been abused, only that on the 'balance of probabilities' this might be the case. We have had mothers acquitted of abuse in a criminal court who have still had their children stolen by the state in the family courts which demand lower standards of evidence.

Arrogant, mind-programmed 'social workers' are using this rigged system to seize children and hand them to foster parents of their choice while warning the parents that if they challenge this outrage they will never be allowed to even see their children again.

If you are new to this information, that last paragraph is worth a second read.

A mother in the UK had her twin babies taken from her by social workers for joking that the caesarean birth had ruined her body. She spent £38,000 on IVF treatment in a desperate attempt to have children and these deeply disturbed people removed them within weeks. When she lost her temper at what they had done they reported that she had 'anger problems' which could be a threat to her twins.

The authorities exploit high-profile real abuse cases to scan the community for fake 'abuse' that they can use to steal children from their parents. This is becoming commonplace now, but the public don't realise that because its all done in secret.


To view the full article on the twins CLICK HERE

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

StolenKids-


To See The Links Page
CLICK HERE

Wednesday, 22 July 2009

TELEGRAPH - Graeme PATON - 22-Jul-2009 FIRST STEP TO STATE OWNED KIDS!

TELEGRAPH - Graeme PATON - 22-Jul-2009 FIRST STEP TO STATE OWNED KIDS!

IS THIS THE FIRST STEP
TO STATE OWNERSHIP OF YOUR KIDS?


All parents to sign 'behaviour contracts'
All parents will be forced to sign "contracts" to ensure their children behave at school, the Government has announced.

By Graeme Paton, Education Editor

Published: 6:40PM BST 22 Jul 2009

Pupils and their families will be required to agree to the deal - setting out minimum standards of behaviour and attendance - before the start of term. Contracts, known as Home School Agreements, will also establish parents' responsibilities for the first time.

They face court action and possible fines of up to £1,000 for repeatedly breaking rules.

'The contracts will become compulsory in all English state schools under plans laid out in a Government White Paper.

Ministers suggested that "good" parents would be able to complain about other mothers and fathers who fail to ensure their children behave.

Ed Balls, the Schools Secretary, said the changes would help stop a single student disrupting the education of his or her classmates.

"If the large majority of parents are doing the right thing but a small minority do not engage you can have one lesson for 30 kids disrupted by one child," he said.

"Every parent will have to, as part of the admissions process, say they take on board the obligations in the Home School Agreement, and every parent will be expected to reaffirm that every year.

"If other parents feel that the HSA is not being enforced against other parents they will be able to tell the local education authority."

HSAs are already in widespread use. They are currently imposed on the parents of unruly children, forcing them to take responsibility for their behaviour.

But under new rules, all parents of children starting school for the first time will be required to sign them, the Government said.

It will set out rules on behaviour, attendance, school uniform and homework. Parents will have a duty to ensure children meet the tough code.

Ministers have already announced plans to toughen up the contracts.

Under the White Paper, parents may be hauled before the courts by local authorities if they repeatedly break the contract.

They can be served with civil "parenting orders" by magistrates' courts, forcing mothers and fathers to attend parenting courses or counselling sessions and ensuring children are at home at night or kept clear of bad influences. Orders are backed by fines of up to £1,000.

The details of the contracts form part of the updated Youth Crime Action Plan, published on Wednesday by the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Children, Schools and Families.

Mr Balls added: "Heads will be able to say to the recalcitrant parents, if you do not sign this or make sure they do the homework, or support discipline, then we will take that as evidence in the magistrates' court."


To view the original article CLICK HERE

HAILSHAM GAZETTE - 22-Jul-2009 - MP's FIGHT for SADS FAMILY in HAILSHAM GAZETTE

HAILSHAM GAZETTE - 22-Jul-2009 - MP's FIGHT for SADS FAMILY

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) in Warwickshire, 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 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 locked up his wife whilst she had a miscarriage and will his children be stolen to put them up for forced adoption?

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

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

Tuesday, 21 July 2009

21-Jul-2009 - WORCESTER NEWS - CARER SEX ATTACK

Carer put hand down woman’s trousers

Tuesday 21st July 2009

Print Email Share

A judge will have to view a 40-minute video of a care home employee mounting a sex attack on a woman suffering from a mental illness.

The film was secretly shot in the Droitwich home for adults with autism.

It shows Nigel Hoskins putting his hand down the trousers of the victim, who is in her 20s, and making her do the same to him, Worcester Crown Court was told.

It also reveals him kissing the woman and straddling her, said Susan Cliff, prosecuting.

Hoskins, aged 45, of Whites Road, St John's, Worcester, pleaded guilty to sexual activity with a woman with a mental disorder while acting as her carer.

Judge John Cavell adjourned the case for a pre-sentence report and granted Hoskins bail.

He will be dealt with in the week beginning August 17.

Mrs Cliff said Hoskins’ mobile phone was also seized by police. Six indecent images were found on it.

She said the judge who sentences Hoskins needed to view the video first.

Hoskins was ordered to sign the sex offenders' register before leaving court.

To view the original article CLICK HERE

To view sentencing report CLICK HERE


To understand the Concept & Service of StolenKids-
where you can help yourself and others at:
StolenKids-
To See The Links Page
CLICK HERE

Saturday, 18 July 2009

TELEGRAPH - Christopher Booker -18-Jul-2009

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 & 311 comments CLICK HERE

To view more on this case CLICK HERE

The Parents said of the article and comments:

A STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF JENNYS PARENTS:
We are overwelmed by all the comments that the good people are leaving on the blog. It seems there is too many people that understand that there is a huge problem with the family courts in the uk. In the time this case has been run for we have heard a huge number of complaints from other parents who have been trapped in this evil web of destruction .children are being abused by being seperated by their biological parents for no good reason this is such an evil crime being comitted. we will be running a campain to have family courts open their doors to the press and to have peoples cases brought to the media attension and their local mps so the goverment can be made aware of so many peoples complaints and its just not swept under the carpet . we would like to give the ultimate respect for the people who are working in our case and others alike our hearts go out to you all a big thankyou to dennis rice for making this case public to the media and all the support he has given to us.We would also like to thank charles hendry mp from the conservative party who has been involved for over two years and has supported us fully .John hemming mp from the libral dems who is totally commited and a compationate man to have family courts open to the press and also chris brooker who led the story in the sunday telegraph.And all of the other journilist who believe that this should be stopped which they are growing in numbers to get a better system in the courts so that familys can have a fair trial. and for this abuse to be stopped on inocent children.Yes we are devostated beyond belief jenny was our world and we feel that our hearts have been ripped out there is not a second that goes by without thinking about jenny. We are not prepaired to sit back and let her be adopted lets make a stand and do something about family law in this country.To many people do not protest and let these evil ss have their own way its time to make a stand dont keep quiet tell your mp.Our hearts go out to everyone in the same situation just remember your not alone, we will support you as much as we can god bless you all from jennys parents


jennys parents
on July 20, 2009
at 11:22 PM

Wednesday, 15 July 2009

PARLIAMENT - SADS & PMQs - HANSARD - 15-Jul-2009

PARLIAMENT - SADS & PMQs - HANSARD - 15-Jul-2009

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



To view more on this case CLICK HERE

Sunday, 12 July 2009

SK-TP - TELEGRAPH - Criminalising The Middle Classes

SK-TP - TELEGRAPH - Criminalising The Middle Classes

Criminalising the middle classes
Discretion and common sense are the supposed watchwords of police officers.


By Richard Edwards, Crime Correspondent

Published: 12:11PM BST 12 Jul 2009

Comments 35


Which is why cases like the Devon doctor punished for leaving his son in his car while he went to the bank are so inexplicable.

The 51-year-old father had asked his son Henry, eight, if he wanted to come along but the boy preferred to remain in the car and play on his computer.

Returning 20 minutes later, the doctor was confronted by two police officers to account for his actions.

Discretion and common sense should have told the officers to warn the father and move on.

But instead they took his details and those of his wife and their four children – all of whom have now been placed on a police and social services register until the age of 18.

The doctor contacted The Daily Telegraph to tell of his anger at an “over-reaction” from police.

We are collecting other such stories to highlight and fight this worrying trend of criminalising innocent children and adults.

Have you experienced a similar injustice? Tell us about it on the form below



Comments: 35

My daughter is an enthusiastic explorer of old and decaying buildings which she catalogues and photographs for social history purposes. She was arrested in one such place recently on a visit to Scotland. The poor girl was arrested without having her rights read, interviewed without a lawyer or a tape recording being made and then charged with being in an enclosed space with the intention to steal. Furthermore they confiscated all her camera equipment and threw her in the cells for six hours. A nice way to treat a very small 22 year old girl. Well done coppers. She now has to travel from Brighton to Brechin to attend a court hearing and still doesn't have any legal representation. How just is that?
MarkS
on July 21, 2009
at 11:07 PM
Report this commentSomething very similar to other people's experiences happened to me.However I am too scared that the local police might read this comment and do something to me to even post the facts. I would always avoid the police in future. I think that says it all really.
mary
on July 21, 2009
at 10:56 PM
Report this commentSome weeks ago I was involved in an accident caused by an aggressive and possibly drunken yob. He got out of his land rover and forgot the handbrake and it rolled into my car.

While trying to his details he left the scene, attempting to drive over my wife. The police who reluctantly attended the scene did not want to talk to my witnesses, did not want to talk to me or my wife or take a statement from either of us.

After several phone calls to the police (but never getting a call back from the officers,) a pair of statement forms arrived, which were exclusively to do with traffic incidents. We tried to use them to report the assault as best we could.

Since we sent the forms back, they have vanished into a black hole. No-one has called us about them. No-one has done anything about them and no-one has called us back despite messages left.

Well done Wiltshire Police (motto making Wiltshire safer.) They do not seem to give a stuff.

Tony Nicholls
on July 21, 2009
at 10:22 PM
Report this commentAnd let us not forget that other source of interference with ordinary family life - Esther Ranzen's 'Childline'. The fact is that New Lab has totally altered the social landscape in a way that a right of centre party would never dare attempt to correct - listen to Cameron.What New Lab has constructed is here to stay.
B.D. Kelly
on July 21, 2009
at 10:22 PM
Report this commentThe biggest challenge to society is the slow but sure erradication of the stable working class family in this country. The current tax & benefit system was created to smash working class "traditional" households those with or without children. The blunt instrument used is the tax credit system which is abused by the majority of claimants and discrimnates against stable couples especially those who are Married and on moderate incomes. The rules are so unfair and benefit the so called single parent greatly (up to 70% do have a partner they just do not declare it) it's simple NO PROOF OF INCOME, HOUSEHOLD STATUES IS REQUIRED) simply make a claim over the phone they say. Ha Ha. When fraud is at an all time high (2 billion a year and rising, make that 5 billion) why does Gordon Brown believe everyone tells the truth when making a claim for tax credits and no proog is required? Why are maintenance payments disregared as income when making a claim for tax credits, why can someone have thousands upon thousands of pounds held in various ISA's and also disregared as income for TC purposes, why can someone still recieve working tax credit for the current year despite an increase of up to �25,000 yes �25,000 in their income in the same year. In other words someone can recieve WTC, get free prescriptions, dental treatment, even loft insulation etc etc and a higher rate taxpayer in the same year. Crazy but true. It is all in the masterplan of this government ridding its self of the traditional family/household at the expense of the "alternative family" and the country will pay a massive price indeed not only in ������.
N James
on July 21, 2009
at 10:15 PM
Report this commentSteven Kseizak 01.08 has been taken in by the very Enemy Class which I refer to in my comment of 6.20 pm.

He thinks they are working "for our good".

Nobody, I repeat nobody, knows what is for our good except ourselves. If Steven Ksiezak (who I presume is a Pole, or at least of Polish extraction and therefore ought to know better in either case for grave historical reasons which we have not time to go into heer) thinks that The Enemy Class have his, or his children's, or our children's, interests at heart, in these matters, then he is sadly mistaken and will have to relearn about 100 years of recent history.

It /must/ be understood as regards my commen above (06.20 pm) that I am not blaming the Police, or even the very officers who did this thing in the article. They are merely doing what they are ordered by their masters, who are our government and who are the real danger. What they did is not the right purpose of the Police, who oought to have more important things to do like nicking hoodlums and thuggers, rievers chunderers and murgulators, who are, through the education policies of ZanuLieBorg, the real problem of today.
David Davis
on July 21, 2009
at 10:15 PM
Report this commentEveryone thinks I'm having them on when I draw comparisons between the present-day UK and the social conditions which prevailed in the neighborhoods of Detroit several years prior to the riots of 1967 and 1968, yet this micro-management of British citizens exactly mirrors how blacks were hounded from the time of the first truly major strikes of the Detroit steel and auto industries and the subsequent pitting of black versus white factory worker against each other when in the formative days of the CIO right through around 1960 or so during the post-war boom years, there was solidarity. When the American workforce was 50% organized as it was then, this anti-working class "keep 'em down" strategy was the default setting for police forces nationwide. It still is, unions or no unions, the malice is simply free-floating instead of focused.

These black neighborhoods were socially and economically nearly self-sufficient, with their community leadership living downtown amongst their constituencies. The Michigan State Police "Red Squad" in conjunction with the all-white Detroit police force made it their business to hound any black man who had ever walked a picket line alongside white workers. It got to the point that on West Warren, if your trash left out for the collection trucks fell over or a dog got at it, you got fined. Jay-walking tickets were the order of the day, and arbitrary parking tickets in zones where cars had parked for years.


Few respect police more than me, as I was affiliated with MP units and related functions during my entire military experience, which baffles me, but I suppose the assigners of occupational specialties saw the last name, and figured Sure and Begorrah, give him a nightstick. (I hated it bitterly and do not know how I kept my cool to this day; anyone who can do the work, to me, deserves the Nobel Prize for patience). But when the British populace of all classes, creeds, and colours make like the brain-eating zombies in the last reel of "Resident Evil," PC Plod, you shall very well know why. What is an evolving transformation of a bitter annoyance into a perfectly avoidable and tragic inevitability is not without precedence. You did not make these policies and rules, you are just the messenger of the tidings and the will of the state, but you shall be witness to what I saw at the tender ages of 17 and 18. You will not like it one bit.


Walt O'Brien
on July 21, 2009
at 08:55 PM
Report this commentI have been compiling a list of similar goings on and had been publishing them on my blog. But I am so terrified of our government and their jobsworths now, I have disabled my blog for fear of being somehow 'punished'. How worrying is that?

The Daily Telegraph is the last bastion of common sense in the UK. Once it has gone, we are doomed.
Oflife
on July 21, 2009
at 08:42 PM
Report this commentA female friend of mine always recycles her empty bottles.

One fine Saturday, following a dinner party at her house on the Friday, she dutily packed various boxes with the empty wine bottles.

She put them in the back of her car.

Within minutes, the blue flashing lights appeared in her rear view mirror.

"Been drinking have we?" said the officer in that nasal, patronizing tone that only officers of the law have the ability to produce.
John Henry
on July 21, 2009
at 07:37 PM
Report this commentAh, looks like the Stasi-fication of Socialist Britain is now well-underway...

Reject Christ and His common-sense at your worsening peril.
Ming Ye
on July 21, 2009
at 07:30 PM
Report this commentAnother unintended consequence of 'targets'. A nice easy conviction to boost the numbers. If the police are re-empowered and relieved from an obligation to secure n convictions a year the problem will go away.
Geoff
on July 21, 2009
at 07:30 PM
Report this commentI am a Police Officer and I would deal with it this way. I don�t want to though, but I feel it would be necessary. I suspect those Officers are simply covering their backsides as would I. Professional Standards within Police Forces (sorry, Police Services) go to great length and expense to eek out any wrong doing by a Police Officer. Even if they don�t get you on something, once you are known to them they are on your case like nothing you�ve ever known. I have seen it happen to several Officers who had acted in good faith at the time. Perhaps like acting in good faith during this incident and simply giving the doctor words of advice. If it is found later he wasn�t of good character and the child came to harm then those Officers would be very well be for the high jump. A recent court case found that Police Officers now have a duty of care which is more graded and more specific to a particular situation. In this instance, Officers are more likely to be personally culpable for the welfare of the child. So what would you do? Take a risk for someone you don�t know? I have a family to support, I�m not going to lose that over any member of the public. What is wrong with the Police at the moment is the working environment. Officers are first and foremost human beings and will react to their working environment the same as anyone else. Detections are a bit part of this folly. We live in a democratic society, if you don�t like it do something about it. I am.
PC Plod
on July 21, 2009
at 06:43 PM
Report this commentForget pursuit of petty misdemeanours. What about pursuit of the victim to get a 2nd arrest. I am a barrister in my forties. I was cycling to court for a case one morning last summer in London. A youth of about 20 on a bicycle rode off the pavement on which he was riding, across a pedestrian crossing & across my path at a traffic light which was green for me. As I rode behind him to avoid him he swore at me very aggressively for riding towards him and then rode off. I went on my way in the opposite direction. Several hundred metres down the road and a minute or two later(far out of his way) he caught up with me, swung at me and punched me about the face 3 times very hard cutting me across the bridge of the nose. This was witnessed by numerous passers by and shopkeepers and the aftermath with him aggressively assailing me was seen by 3 police fire arms officers. We were less than 100m from a police station. I was asked if I wanted to press charges. I said that I felt the matter should be investigated properly as my assailant was plainly dangerous and volatile and likely to hurt someone else. We waited 50 minutes for local officers to arrive. When they did they released the fire arms officers and spoke to no witnesses, despite my pointing out a shopkeeper witness still on the scene who had brought me a cloth to staunch blood and had seen my being hit and the fact that my assailant was unmarked. They refused to speak to her before arrested both of us and processing us at the station. This took 2 hours. I was kept in a cell for 7 further hours before being medically examined, interviewed and giving my account. I was repeatedly asked to agree to drop my allegation. The investigating officer insisted that the witness had said that I had struck my assailant after being struck first myself (which was untrue and not what she had said to me) but the WPc improperly refused to let me see the statement asserting this. I declined to drop the matter and was released on bail. I missed my hearing and had my holiday spoiled.I was informed 14 days later that I could accept a caution. When I declined this on grounds that I was the victim and not admitting any act against my assailant. I was told that there was no public interest in pursuing the matter and released from my bail without apology or further comment. Moral of the story : one former police supporter disenchanted, one law abiding citizen fewer to assist the police when they need help; one more person on the DNA data base.
James
on July 21, 2009
at 06:35 PM
Report this commentThe Badman Report into Home Education treats parents as worse than criminals. It presupposes that our educational choice puts our children at risk and validates forced entry into our homes and the removal of our children by local authority functionaries for 'questioning.' These powers far exceed those used against, say, ex-convicts, who only need allow access to their homes if there is a reason to suspect wrong doing. Local Authorities alreasy have powers to intervene when they suspect abuse. What is happening here is the vilification of an entire community in order to destroy the only educational arena, ironically enough for the current debate, in which working class children outperform their middle class, schooled peers. What, one wonders, is Ed Balls' real motivation?
Roger Machin
on July 21, 2009
at 06:35 PM
Report this commentThe kid's 8 years old. I used to be out and about on my own at that age. Make my own way to school etc. What law has been broken? What a pathetic country this is!
james
on July 21, 2009
at 06:27 PM
Report this commentWe should be entirely unsurprised by things like this.

The Law and the Police have been deliberately taken over and retargetted by a Gramsco-Fabian system of objective and deliberate wickedness.

Causing terror and unhappiness to those who would be most likely to not want the sort of society this Class wants, is all part of the early-endgame.

In the West, this system is called socialism.

The purpose of this "agent of change" is precisely to do such things to such people, as part of its strategy of dissolving the normally-evolved familial and societal bonds which hold a peaceable and Classical liberal civilisation together.

The result is unimaginable wealth and power for the new ruling Enemy-Class, and neo-barbarism for everyone else. It is what the Enemy Class wish for, and they probably will get it as things are rather too far gone now. We were all asleep in the early 1990s, when we could have got serious about them and they might not have been able to resist honest ideological pressure to become good.

It is deliberate and objectively wicked, they know it, and that's why they do it.
David Davis
on July 21, 2009
at 06:20 PM
Report this commentWelcome to totalitarian Britain. I wonder if the police were alerted via CCTV. Perhaps a "good citizen", like our red friend here, alerted them to the doctor's "crime of neglect".

If Ksiezak enjoys heavy handed socialism so much, then perhaps he should sod off to North Korea.
Nufffrespect
on July 21, 2009
at 06:13 PM
Report this commentThe biggest risk to any totalitarian regime is the threat of revolt from the middle class, keep the middle class under thumb and you can rule safely. Allow thugs the freedom to do their damage and run a mock of the law whilst oppressing the working population, a double whamy and extremely affective. New Labour...
Gary
on July 21, 2009
at 06:13 PM
Report this commentThe Police are now the paramilitary wing of the Guardian - blindly following the edicts of Pol Toynbee as she strives for her very own kind of Year Zero.
Paul
on July 21, 2009
at 06:08 PM
Report this commentTo see first hand how the police waste time and money going for the"lowest apples on the tree", I recommend attendance at your local Magistrates Court. Prepare to be shocked.
David Mann
on July 21, 2009
at 05:48 PM
Report this commentre: "Prevention and Dection of Crime", I've yet to see comment on the much publicised Harry Potter actor drug story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8161154.stm)

Obviously I don't condone the conduct for which he has been charged, but when I read that the evidence as discovered when "Police seized the camera after he was arrested for taking a picture of officers as he and his friend John Innis, 20, drove past"

Presumably in order to facilitate this seizure, sirens were engaged and a chase ensued.

It seems a further Police mandate is 'prevent photographic capture of a uniformed officer'.

Is this an offence, and am I alone in feeling that this has become more prevalent since the contraversial images captured at the G8 protests?
Owen M. Robson
on July 21, 2009
at 05:48 PM
Report this commentRE: What does this have to do with the middle classes?

If nothing else, this shows that the middle classes are not immune from the predatory reach of Socialist Services.

The two scheming hags in question may well have had it in for him because of his background.

This is an absolutely disgraceful breach of human rights, both the father's and the children's.

We must open up the secret family courts immediately.
Colin
on July 21, 2009
at 05:47 PM
Report this commentIdiotic Exeter Police raided a family barbecue of 15 people with riot police and the police helicopter and said it was a rave. Dimwits!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8155441.stm
Anthony
on July 21, 2009
at 05:40 PM
Report this commentCan the police be charged with wasting their own time?
Pipkins
on July 21, 2009
at 05:30 PM
Report this commentLabour has succeeded in politicising the police
Douglas
on July 21, 2009
at 04:15 PM
Report this commentWhat happened to the old definition of 'Prevention and Detection of crime'as the task of the Police Force? The first seems forgotten, the second appears now to read 'Detection of petty misdemeaners.'
Michael White
on July 21, 2009
at 03:55 PM
Report this commentKsiezak - yes, a good British name ! Obviously one of the Marx-Stalinist Brits !
OZ
on July 21, 2009
at 02:52 PM
Report this commentRe: Eating an apple whilst driving: They called out the Helicopter for it as well. http://archive.thenorthernecho.co.uk/2005/1/24/25235.html
John Kirkpatrick
on July 21, 2009
at 02:13 PM
Report this commentEminently sensible in my opinion. now can the police turn their attention to the Dr's McCann and their negligent child rearing. Nothing would have happened to Madeleine if they had not left the children on their own that fateful night
Suusi M-B
on July 21, 2009
at 02:13 PM
Report this commentMr Ksiezak.
You seem just the sort of chap to live in our Brave new World.
The police are behaving like social controllers,their job is catching criminals, not persecuting the citizen.
This chap should have insisted on being charged with an offence, the database society is a disgrace, freedom is destroyed.
john bonny
on July 21, 2009
at 01:40 PM
Report this commentWhat does this have to do with the middle classes? The police overreacted, it has nothing to do with the fact that the gentleman in question was of the middle class. Is the correspondent feeling a little victimised today?
Parbo Kimz
on July 21, 2009
at 01:27 PM
Report this comment"The lowest apples on the tree."

"The easy pickings."

Police officers all over the country admit that they go after trivial 'crimes' because they can quickly reach their targets by doing so.
james
on July 21, 2009
at 01:23 PM
Report this commentI have been involved in two instances of over the top Police behaviour. The most petty was whilst I was a student at Manchester University when I jumped a red light on my bike. I admitted that I was wrong to the Polce officers and apoligised, but they became aggressive and threatened to have me banned from driving. I explained that I thought they were making heavy weather of this and that I did not believe they could take away mr driving licence for a minor cycling offence (which I later found out was correct). I was therefore shocked to receive a summons for dangerous cycling a few weeks later which was accompanied by a four page witness statement from the Police officers. The matter went to court at great public expense and two Police officers spent an afternoon at court. I am in no way trying to belittle what I did and I admitted I was wrong. However I thought it was completely disporportinate for Manchester Police and the CPS to deal with the matter in this way. The Magistrate who dealt with the matter agreed that it was over the top, he asked the Police officers to leave the court saying he had heard enough from them already and fined me �60 costs. I just cannot believe that in a City with all the crime that Manchester has, that this was a sensible use of Police resources. It is no wonder people have such a cycnical view of the Police when they repeatedly behave like this.
Ed Marcus
on July 21, 2009
at 01:10 PM
Report this commentWell I think the police should have gone further and charged him with Child Neglect. The Middleclass are only too happy to blame lower earners about their irresponsible behaviour and here we see the hypocrisy and percieved superiority of the middle class. So, as I have heard from many of the middle class, these parents should go to parenting classes....I bet he calls himself a professional too.
Steven Ksiezak
on July 21, 2009
at 01:08 PM
Report this commentFour years ago a young lady was charged and convicted of driving without due care and attention near Newcastle. Her "crime" was she was eating an apple whilst driving.
Roland G. Adams
on July 21, 2009
at 01:06 PM
Report this comment


Well the above can all be seen at CLICK HERE

I have added my own comment and wonder if it will be published!

Usually the Telegraph is prety fair!

Hi,

sorry - time pressure but have a look at:
http://stolenkids-bloggers.blogspot.com/

AND:
http://stolenkids-documents.blogspot.com/

Then for Police Malpractice:
http://gl-w.blogspot.com/2009/06/g123-but-police-are-allowed.html

Or even Police utter incompetence at all levels:
http://gl-w.blogspot.com/2009/06/g119-pc-idiot-police-failure.html

ALSO I am sure I have Missed Many of the Police Murders:
http://gl-w.blogspot.com/2009/05/g103-another-police-murder-added.html

Then of course THE State has grown whilst commerce and the economy shrinks.

We now have 30,000 assorted politicians at a cost of over £500,000,000 a year.

Our Government has so mishandled the economy that we now OWE £800Billion they admit to - 57% of our GDP.

Our Ministry of Defeat has lost £150Million of radio equipment!

Our Ministry of Defeat has bungled the payroll of the army to the tune of £150,000,000.

The Government has proved so dishonourable most informed people do not believe a word of the Global Warming / Climate Change tax raising scam with huge % of independent scientists speaking out and telling the truth at the risk of never getting more government grant money!

A huge % of our peoples so distrust the Government an self serving politicians that they believe Swine Flu is a deliberate medium for a trial run on vaccination to reduce population.

Meanwhile we squander £1,800,000 per hour OVER £40Million every single day on membership of The EU when not one honest politician has EVER given an honest and convincing reason for membership or gain.

Meanwhile the police batter and bully those who peacefully protest - see the videos of G20 etc.

Brown clearly hasn't a clue what he is doing, after 12 years of his control of the economy he is still too stupid to realise it was HIS incompetence and tinkering NOT other Countries, there was no need for him to lead OUR Country into such lunacy!

We have Generals keeping quiet as Generals for fear of damaging their pensions and the Exec. Directorships they aim for.

Just look at Guthrie who cow towed for his peerage and some of the biggest income exec. directorships even of Colt as a nothing more than an arms dealer. Pays better than drug dealer but equally as dishonourable.

You will note John Major draws down £1M a year as a director of Carlysle Group 'payolla'? What does he DO worth that to arms dealers?

Blair was near penniless until he took office and rampped up a property portfolio in the 10s of Millions. He was GIVEN a £1M as a boncella the other day. What has that liar done for mankind besides lie to dupe Britain & America to war - a war criminal based on the killings he is responsible for personally.

Consider how much an MP makes yet they make less than 20% of our laws yet even those have to comply with their masters in the EU.

MEPs are no more than Massively Expensive Parasites - they have no effective job other than trying to con us into stuffing their pockets with unaccounted cash.

We were roundly and soundly defeated in Iraq and driven out due to incompetent management.

We have inadequate helicopters in Afghanistan - more mismanagement - now in panic they are to get Merlin 4tonners at £31M what for? they won't be there as more than ornaments as they have forgotten to put the armamour into them, so they can't legally carry soldiers!!!

Hueys or Blackhawks can be delivered within 1month @ £4M each + £2M each conversion and maintenance OFF THE SHELF!

Why then are we spending £1.7Billion on future Lynx for delivery in 2014? I understand conversion for theatre is extra. At this cost of £14,000,000 each dare we use them and risk losing one?

One wonders by what contorted logic Common Purpose with its Government affiliations, massive grants and government contracts that make it a multi, multi £Million profit making business registered as a charity!!

Then we see banks making Billions in profits and paying massive bonuses - yet their chums in the treasury have given them unlimited bail outs rather than prison sentences.

We all pay masasively more taxes yet all that happens is politicians grow the Kleptocratic QUANGOcracy and swan off to make their £Millions take long holidays and feather their ducks nests.

They have no meaningful job when they are at work now so that there is more time needed to rubber stamp by Statutory Instrument or Order In Council to oblige their EU masters.

The answer has been to send the useless MPs on holday as they get in the way!

Our Politicians have destroyed our industry - we no longer make ANYTHING to export at a cost it will be purchased and having deliberately destroyed our economy now we watch helplessly as our Politicians determinedly force on an unwilling and increasingly resentful public the New Constitution risibly sold as The Lisbon Treaty.

So that will liberate relocation of the financial core of Britain's City to Frankfurt!

Do any of our 30,000 over paid politicians have any honourable patriotic ideas or ability?

One wonders why so little of the truth is published by the meeeja!

'We live in hope' - minded of the fact that the balance of the quote is 'and die in despair' but it is our duty to inform!

Regards,
Greg L-W.

Friday, 10 July 2009

ARGUS - Alison Cridland - 10-Jul-2009

ARGUS - Alison Cridland - 10-Jul-2009

Sussex couple lose battle to stop daughter's adoption
3:00pm Friday 10th July 2009

Comments (18) Have your say »

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 with comments CLICK HERE

To view more on this case CLICK HERE

Thursday, 9 July 2009

MAIL - Tom KELLY - 09-Jul-2009

MAIL - Tom KELLY - 09-Jul-2009

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

By Tom Kelly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


To view the original article CLICK HERE
&
To view the article and more CLICK HERE

TELEGRAPH - Murray WARDOP - 09-Jul-2009

TELEGRAPH - Murray WARDOP - 09-Jul-2009

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.
To view more of the same ilk CLICK HERE


Related ArticlesSocial services cut dying mother's time with children
Madonna allowed to adopt second child Mercy from Malawi
British baby siezed in Ireland after parents flee social workers over custody row
Couple kept their three children in squalid 'hell hole'
Mother fights claims she is 'too stupid' to bring up childYesterday, 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

See Also CLICK HERE
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, 4 July 2009

TELEGRAPH - Christopher BOOKER 04-Jul-2009

TELEGRAPH - Christopher BOOKER 04-Jul-2009

Is the state guilty of child kidnap?

Social workers are still too keen to split up families, says Christopher Booker.


By Christopher Booker

Published: 6:07PM BST 04 Jul 2009

Comments 124 Comment on this article

One of the most disturbing features of life in modern Britain has been the extraordinary powers given to social workers to seize children from their parents, too often – when those powers are abused – supported by the police and family courts. What makes this still more alarming is the legal bar on reporting these episodes, supposedly to protect the children, which again too often works to protect the social workers themselves at the expense of the children.

Details of yet another shocking case, which comes to its climax in a county court in eastern England this week, have recently been placed in the House of Lords Library. This follows a comprehensive investigation carried out on behalf of the family by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, who, as a hereditary peer, does not sit in the Lords, but has passed his dossier both to an active life peer and to this column.


Related Articles
Latest troop deaths were preventable
Children taken into care after father raises abduction fears
Eighth suspicious death of child in Doncaster
US student becomes anti-abortion star for clandestine filming
'Vast majority' of allegations against teachers are false
Ed Balls urges teachers and lawyers to become social workersUntil six weeks ago, Mr and Mrs Jones, as I must call them under reporting restrictions, lived happily with their three young children, two sons and a daughter, aged under 13. Mr Jones, a business consultant, is related to various European royal families and his brother is a senior Army officer seconded to the UN. If he has one weakness, as he admits, it is to refer to these connections, as he did to the heads of the schools attended by his two older children, saying that he was particularly concerned for their security. He asked that he could be allowed to drive into the school grounds when picking up his daughter, because he did not want to leave her waiting, potentially vulnerable, in the road outside.

The headmistress agreed to this, but, concerned about other children's safety, contacted the local police, who in turn passed on their concerns to social services. The result of this was that, on May 18, when Mr and Mr Jones, accompanied by their younger son, arrived at school to pick up their daughter, they were met by a group of strangers, one as it turned out a female social worker. She asked, without explaining why or who she was, whether he was Mr Jones. When she three times refused to show him any ID, he was seized from behind by two policemen, handcuffed and put under arrest.

He was driven by a policeman to a nearby mental hospital where he was told that, because of "a number of concerns", he was being detained under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act and "sectioned" under S.2 as of "unsound mind". His wife, it turned out, had been similarly arrested, for loudly protesting at the handcuffing of her husband and the forcible seizing from her arms of her young son. The three children had been taken into care by social services.

Mrs Jones was allowed to return to an empty home that evening. Mr Jones was permitted to attend court two days later, to hear the magistrates grant an interim order for the children to remain in the care of social services. Because he was "sectioned", he was not allowed to speak. The chief magistrate, it later emerged, was chairman of the trustees of the mental hospital in which he was being detained.

On May 28, Mr Jones appeared before a mental health tribunal which, after hearing all the facts relating to his case, gave him a complete discharge. He returned home to his wife and immediately contacted his MP, a local MEP, lawyers and others he thought might be able to help, one of whom set in train the investigation by Lord Monckton that led to this story appearing here.

Despite the finding of the tribunal, the social workers have remained determined to hold on to the children, with a view to their care being determined in a county court on Wednesday. The voluminous dossier setting out this extraordinary sequence of events not only includes lengthy statements from Mr and Mrs Jones but copies of detailed statements by the social worker and policewoman most closely involved in the case (along with a good deal more circumstantial evidence).

The only reason offered in these documents for the abduction of the children is Mr Jones's "delusional belief system" that special care should be taken of his children because of their elevated family connections. The only harm done to the children is their very evident unhappiness at being separated from their parents.

It must be hoped that the court this week recognises how grotesquely this tragic case has been blown out of all proportion, and rules that a loving family should immediately be reunited
.

To view the original article with comments CLICK HERE
Enhanced by Zemanta