'Secret agenda to score adoptions'
described East Sussex's behaviour as 'disgraceful?
Photo: UPPA
A judge has condemned the "disgraceful" conduct of social workers over an adoption case, says Christopher Booker.
By Christopher Booker
22 Aug 2009
The revealing of the names of those responsible for the killing of Baby P reminded us yet again of the failure of Haringey social workers to avert the child's death. What a shocking contrast this provides to the behaviour of East Sussex social workers in the case I reported a month ago, which led to their seizure and putting out for adoption of a girl, now seven years old, from a respectable middle-class home, to the anguish of both her parents and the little girl herself.
The chief reason offered by the social workers for abducting the girl two years ago was that her home had been left in an appalling mess after a raid by RSPCA officials and 18 policemen. They ransacked the premises looking for non-existent guns, and released into the house a pack of dogs kept in kennels outside by her father, a professional dog-breeder. The parents were arrested for protesting at what was happening (the mother suffering a miscarriage while in police custody) and the social workers were summoned to remove their daughter.
Everything about this case is bizarre, not least the apparent complicity of social workers, lawyers and the courts in determining that the child should not be returned to her parents, as she wishes, but rather, after two years in foster care, sent for adoption.
I have now been able to read through many papers relating to the case, including the judgments resulting from the 74 hearings in which the parents attempted to get their daughter back. What stands out is the startling contrast between the two totally different versions of the case given by the social workers and the courts on one hand and, on the other, that presented by the parents themselves and by many who knew them. The latter include their GP, who recently wrote that he had never "encountered such a case of appalling injustice".
The most impressive document was a report by an independent social worker, based on many interviews with those involved, including the child herself and the chief social worker in charge of her. In measured terms, this made mincemeat of the council's case. Nothing about it is more suspicious than the contrast between descriptions of the "clean and tidy" home reported by those who knew the family well and the mess allegedly found by the policemen who burst into it mob-handed on the day in question.
The report found an equally glaring contrast between the social workers' insistence that the child was quite happy to have been removed from her parents, and the abundant evidence, observed at first-hand, that the little girl had an extremely good relationship with her parents and wants nothing more than to be reunited with them. The courts seem to have totally ignored this report, whose author last month expressed astonishment that the child had not been returned home.
What has also come to light is a remarkable judgment by Lord Justice Thorpe and Lord Justice Wall in the Appeal Court last year, in another case which also involved the apparently ruthless determination of East Sussex social workers to send a child for adoption. The judges were fiercely critical. The social workers' conduct, said Lord Justice Thorpe, could only reinforce the suspicions of those who believe "councils have a secret agenda to establish a high score of children they have placed for adoption".
Lord Justice Wall described East Sussex's conduct as "disgraceful – not a word I use lightly" and also as "about the worst I have ever encountered in a career now spanning nearly 40 years". "The social workers in question," he said, appeared "not only to have been inadequately managed, they do not appear to have been properly trained". As for the barrister who represented East Sussex (and who also appeared in most of the hearings in the "dog-breeder" case), Lord Justice Wall said "her attitude came across, to me at least, as – in effect – so what?" She had demonstrated, he said, "profound misunderstanding" of the council's legal position vis à vis adoption. He ordered his comments to be circulated to family courts and adoption agencies across the land.
Though the circumstances are different, anyone reading the documents could not fail to be struck by how many of the judges' comments are relevant to the case I reported. The same council's social workers have again pushed for a child to be adopted in a way which prompts the family's GP to say "the destruction of this once happy family is, in my opinion, evil". And that barrister who was involved in both cases is now – a family court judge.
To view the original article CLICK HERE
"Nothing about it is more suspicious than the contrast between descriptions of the "clean and tidy" home reported by those who knew the family well and the mess allegedly found by the policemen who burst into it mob-handed on the day in question."
Curiously, in the Baby Peter case, the social workers failed to consider the squalid state of the household, which included human and dog feces and rotting animal residue, as to do so would apparently have been considered "judgemental".
Catweazle
on August 22, 2009
at 10:38 PM
So the barrister who was condemned by the judge is now a judge herself. I doubt Cameron is interested in doing anything, but we need a clear out of these judges. The law already provides a mechanism: impeachment at the bar of the house of Lords. Why not? Our Common Law is a dead letter without it.
djw2009
on August 22, 2009
at 10:29 PM
"Destroy the family and you destroy society." V.I. Lenin taught us that pearl of wisdom, and Social Services, local councils and by extension HMG have learned the lesson well.
All part of the plan, British pals. Britain�s fast becoming a police state. So hate it and leave it, while you still can.
Jack, Japan Alps.
Jackthesmilingblack
on August 22, 2009
at 10:29 PM
I have been representing Parents that could easily had their Children removed, Siblings all to be split up, and put into Foster Care, all in the best interests of the Children.
Mother, has been diagnosed with MSBP, a theory that was discredited over ten years ago, a so called medical expert, that is not qualified to make that kind of diagnosis.
The Guardian stated that Mothers personality disorder was having a detrimental effect on the Children.
At Court the Judge, on advice of the Guardian, ordered the Parents to hand over their passports to the Court and the holiday of a lifetime, they had booked over a year ago, at a cost of �3000, would have to be cancelled, on the fear that they would skip the Country.
They were more or less placed on house arrest until an emergency
Family Court hearing last week, they had twice daily visits from Social Workers.
This lovely Family have only managed to keep their Children at home due to the incredible skills of a Children's Panel Solicitor, which we use on a regular basis.
A draft written agreement was drawn up, for the Parents to sign and some of the clauses written into this document was a violation of civil liberties and Human Rights, one clause was that the Local Authority could take pictures of every room in the house, including the loft and that the Parents would have to get permission from Social Workers, to leave their house, for more than a few hours and no GP appointments to be made, without informing the Social Worker.
If they didn't agree, they faced loosing their Children yesterday.
The Solicitors team that represents PAIN clients managed to seal a compromise, with the Court and they would not be allowed to take photographs in the house.
The Family still face months of torment, with Psychological and other assessments without this dedicated team of Solicitors, things could of been a lot different.
Alison Stevens Parents Against Injustice
Alison Stevens
on August 22, 2009
at 10:29 PM
WELL DONE FOR PUTTING THIS IN THE PUBLIC EYE I APPLAUD YOU !
Jane Webb FAMILY JUSTICE GROUPS UNITED
on August 22, 2009
at 09:18 PM
Hi,
Our thanks must go to both Christopher Booker who wrote of this on page 37 of his 1994 book written with Dr. Richard North 'The Mad Officials' which drew its title from a story by G.K. Chesterton before WWI about a British Court abusing parents and children - Just because they could!
This family is far from alone as you will find at:
http://stolenkids-sads.blogspot.com/
which offers help to others with the same plight at:
http://stolenkids-bloggers.blogspot.com/
If you can help or need help this is the place for self help and those who care!
Thanks again to Christopher, Richard & The Sunday Telegraph - these people being abused by the state deserve all the help we can give them.
Regards,
Greg L-W.
http://greglancewatkins.blogspot.com/
To understand the Concept & Service of StolenKids-
where you can help yourself and others at:
CLICK HERE
I have been keeping a blog diary since last year on my experiences with Social Services in Jersey, Channel Islands, it is a long still ongoing story, with one child still 'stolen'. It saddens me greatly when I hear of others facing the same situation, and many in a worse position than ourselves.
ReplyDelete