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
Thursday, 9 July 2009
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
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
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
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
Saturday, 20 June 2009
DAILY MAIL - Vanessa ALLEN - 20-Jun-2009
DAILY MAIL - Vanessa ALLEN - 20-Jun-2009
'Social workers took away my twins after I'd joked that birth spoilt my body'
By Vanessa Allen
20th June 2009
'All we want is a family':
But the couple face losing their six-month-old babies, after the mother joked the caesarean had ruined her body
A mother had her twin babies taken from her by social workers after she joked that their caesarean birth had ruined her body.
She and her husband endured five rounds of IVF costing £38,000 to start a family, only to have social services take their children within weeks.
The parents insist social workers acted needlessly, but have been warned their six-month-old boy and girl could be put up for adoption following a secret Family Court hearing last week.
The babies, who were born six weeks prematurely, were taken into care after hospital staff warned that the first-time parents were struggling to care for them.
Nurses reported that the mother appeared to feel ' bitter' towards her children after her joke about the caesarean's effect on her body.
And when the desperate woman lost her temper at social workers who had taken her babies, officials said she had 'anger problems' and could pose a threat to her twins.
The babies were born in December, at the height of nationwide fury that social workers had failed to step in and halt the abuse and tragic death of Baby Peter in Haringey, North London.
The alarm over Peter's death has raised the prospect that some innocent families have been caught up in the backlash.
The couple, from Hornchurch, Essex, can be identified only as Mr and Mrs N to protect the identity of their children.
They are allowed only supervised contact for ten hours a week with their son and daughter, and have been warned that the babies could be handed to strangers for adoption if a judge rules they cannot care for them.
Mrs N, a 36-year-old who has been told she cannot try for more children for medical reasons, said: 'Social services should step in where there's violence or abuse but we would never hurt our children.'
Her 42-year- old husband added: 'No one is born with parenting skills - you have to learn them.'
The couple have been married for five years.
A childhood infection left Mrs N suffering from a rare hormone disorder and unable to conceive naturally, and she suffers from short-term memory loss because of a car accident when she was a teenager, but doctors said there was no reason why she should not undergo IVF treatment.
The babies were delivered on December 30 after Mrs N was admitted to Whipps Cross Hospital in East London with high blood pressure.
They both weighed little more than 3lb and were kept in incubators at the NHS hospital's neonatal unit, where their parents were eventually able to help feed and care for them.
But staff became concerned that they were not giving the twins enough milk or changing them often enough.
On January 29 a senior nurse referred the family to social services.
Mrs N said: 'The hospital could see we were struggling but they made no attempt to help us. They just decided we didn't have the parenting skills to look after the babies.
'They wrote down everything we did and said so they could use it against us. They twist everything. I remember talking to my son while he was in his cot, and saying jokingly, "You want to see what you have done to your Mummy's body".
'It didn't mean I felt bitter towards him or didn't want him - I've never wanted anything as much as I wanted children - I was just joking about the state of my stomach.'
Social workers visited the couple and asked to take the children into foster care. When the parents refused, Havering Borough Council took the case to court and in February was granted an interim care order to give the twins to a foster carer.
Mr and Mrs N were allowed to visit but have found it difficult to see their babies in a stranger's care, and Mrs N admits she has shouted at the foster mother and social workers during angry confrontations over the twins' welfare.
The petite, 5ft 2in woman was accused of throwing her mobile phone at a social worker, and officials once called the police during an angry case conference.
Mrs N said: 'Who wouldn't be emotional, watching another woman with my children? How am I supposed to stay calm? I'm terrified that they are going to take my babies away.
'Of course I get frustrated and I sometimes lose my temper, but never with the children. We don't drink, smoke or take drugs. Neither of us has a criminal record. All we wanted was to have a family.'
A council spokesman said: 'Only in exceptional circumstances would we seek to separate a child of any age from their parents. This decision was undertaken with a great deal of thought and following thorough assessment.'
To view the original article CLICK HERE
To view the comments CLICK HERE
'Social workers took away my twins after I'd joked that birth spoilt my body'
By Vanessa Allen
20th June 2009
'All we want is a family':But the couple face losing their six-month-old babies, after the mother joked the caesarean had ruined her body
A mother had her twin babies taken from her by social workers after she joked that their caesarean birth had ruined her body.
She and her husband endured five rounds of IVF costing £38,000 to start a family, only to have social services take their children within weeks.
The parents insist social workers acted needlessly, but have been warned their six-month-old boy and girl could be put up for adoption following a secret Family Court hearing last week.
The babies, who were born six weeks prematurely, were taken into care after hospital staff warned that the first-time parents were struggling to care for them.
Nurses reported that the mother appeared to feel ' bitter' towards her children after her joke about the caesarean's effect on her body.
And when the desperate woman lost her temper at social workers who had taken her babies, officials said she had 'anger problems' and could pose a threat to her twins.
The babies were born in December, at the height of nationwide fury that social workers had failed to step in and halt the abuse and tragic death of Baby Peter in Haringey, North London.
The alarm over Peter's death has raised the prospect that some innocent families have been caught up in the backlash.
The couple, from Hornchurch, Essex, can be identified only as Mr and Mrs N to protect the identity of their children.
They are allowed only supervised contact for ten hours a week with their son and daughter, and have been warned that the babies could be handed to strangers for adoption if a judge rules they cannot care for them.
Mrs N, a 36-year-old who has been told she cannot try for more children for medical reasons, said: 'Social services should step in where there's violence or abuse but we would never hurt our children.'
Her 42-year- old husband added: 'No one is born with parenting skills - you have to learn them.'
The couple have been married for five years.
A childhood infection left Mrs N suffering from a rare hormone disorder and unable to conceive naturally, and she suffers from short-term memory loss because of a car accident when she was a teenager, but doctors said there was no reason why she should not undergo IVF treatment.
The babies were delivered on December 30 after Mrs N was admitted to Whipps Cross Hospital in East London with high blood pressure.
They both weighed little more than 3lb and were kept in incubators at the NHS hospital's neonatal unit, where their parents were eventually able to help feed and care for them.
But staff became concerned that they were not giving the twins enough milk or changing them often enough.
On January 29 a senior nurse referred the family to social services.
Mrs N said: 'The hospital could see we were struggling but they made no attempt to help us. They just decided we didn't have the parenting skills to look after the babies.
'They wrote down everything we did and said so they could use it against us. They twist everything. I remember talking to my son while he was in his cot, and saying jokingly, "You want to see what you have done to your Mummy's body".
'It didn't mean I felt bitter towards him or didn't want him - I've never wanted anything as much as I wanted children - I was just joking about the state of my stomach.'
Social workers visited the couple and asked to take the children into foster care. When the parents refused, Havering Borough Council took the case to court and in February was granted an interim care order to give the twins to a foster carer.
Mr and Mrs N were allowed to visit but have found it difficult to see their babies in a stranger's care, and Mrs N admits she has shouted at the foster mother and social workers during angry confrontations over the twins' welfare.
The petite, 5ft 2in woman was accused of throwing her mobile phone at a social worker, and officials once called the police during an angry case conference.
Mrs N said: 'Who wouldn't be emotional, watching another woman with my children? How am I supposed to stay calm? I'm terrified that they are going to take my babies away.
'Of course I get frustrated and I sometimes lose my temper, but never with the children. We don't drink, smoke or take drugs. Neither of us has a criminal record. All we wanted was to have a family.'
A council spokesman said: 'Only in exceptional circumstances would we seek to separate a child of any age from their parents. This decision was undertaken with a great deal of thought and following thorough assessment.'
To view the original article CLICK HERE
To view the comments CLICK HERE
To understand the Concept & Service of StolenKids-
where you can help yourself and others at:
where you can help yourself and others at:
StolenKids-
To See The Links Page
CLICK HERE
CLICK HERE
Sunday, 14 June 2009
SUNDAY TIMES - Daniel FOGGO - 14-Jun-2009
SUNDAY TIMES - Daniel FOGGO - 14-Jun-2009
From The Sunday Times June 14, 2009
More ‘stupid’ mothers prevented from fighting adoptions
Daniel Foggo
A SECOND case has emerged of a woman who has had her children taken away from her and been prevented from objecting because she was judged “too stupid” by the authorities.
Lawyers acting for the 24-year-old from Nottingham, who has had two daughters adopted, say she has since shown herself far brighter than was believed when the original judgment was made.
But it is now too late for her to go back to court for the return of her children.
Last month, The Sunday Times reported a similar case of a mother deemed too unintelligent to care for her child.
New figures show that hundreds of parents have had the official solicitor, currently Alastair Pitblado, imposed.
Since January 2006 his department has been brought in to represent 588 parents deemed to “lack the mental capacity” to instruct lawyers in cases where their children faced the possibility of adoption.
Last month The Sunday Times highlighted the case of Rachel, also a 24-year-old from Nottingham, who is taking her legal challenge to the European Court of Human Rights after her three-year-old daughter was ordered to be adopted because she was ruled not to be intelligent enough to care for her.
In the latest case the mother’s two daughters were both adopted in 2006 after a health worker noticed that her living conditions were unsatisfactory.
Before the case was finalised in court, however, it was decided that the woman lacked the intelligence to instruct her own lawyer, which led to the official solicitor being brought in. A psychologist’s report gave her a low IQ but said her learning disability would improve in time.
The mother insisted that she wanted to keep her girls but the official solicitor said she did not have a case at the time and did not contest the adoptions on her behalf.
Her solicitor, Simon Leach, who runs Nottingham Family Law Associates, said: “I would have liked her to have given evidence, or certainly have someone speak on her behalf, so it could be explained at length why she should keep her children. But the system would not allow it.
“At that time she had little or no understanding of what her children needed but she was very loving of her children and still is.
“But I sat down with her last week and she was using words she could never have used before. It was clear to me that her level of understanding had improved considerably.”
Leach said there were still question marks over whether she would be able to care properly for the girls but since the adoption had already happened the issue could no longer be addressed. “It’s too late now,” he said. He added that his firm had been involved in up to 20 cases in which their clients were handed over to the official solicitor.
The official solicitor typically declines to contest any final care orders.
Leach said this was because the system did not allow the official solicitor to do so.
He said: “I think the official solicitor should be able to put a case. It’s not just about justice, it’s about justice being seen to be done.”
To view the original article CLICK HERE
From The Sunday Times June 14, 2009
More ‘stupid’ mothers prevented from fighting adoptions
Daniel Foggo
A SECOND case has emerged of a woman who has had her children taken away from her and been prevented from objecting because she was judged “too stupid” by the authorities.
Lawyers acting for the 24-year-old from Nottingham, who has had two daughters adopted, say she has since shown herself far brighter than was believed when the original judgment was made.
But it is now too late for her to go back to court for the return of her children.
Last month, The Sunday Times reported a similar case of a mother deemed too unintelligent to care for her child.
New figures show that hundreds of parents have had the official solicitor, currently Alastair Pitblado, imposed.
Since January 2006 his department has been brought in to represent 588 parents deemed to “lack the mental capacity” to instruct lawyers in cases where their children faced the possibility of adoption.
Last month The Sunday Times highlighted the case of Rachel, also a 24-year-old from Nottingham, who is taking her legal challenge to the European Court of Human Rights after her three-year-old daughter was ordered to be adopted because she was ruled not to be intelligent enough to care for her.
In the latest case the mother’s two daughters were both adopted in 2006 after a health worker noticed that her living conditions were unsatisfactory.
Before the case was finalised in court, however, it was decided that the woman lacked the intelligence to instruct her own lawyer, which led to the official solicitor being brought in. A psychologist’s report gave her a low IQ but said her learning disability would improve in time.
The mother insisted that she wanted to keep her girls but the official solicitor said she did not have a case at the time and did not contest the adoptions on her behalf.
Her solicitor, Simon Leach, who runs Nottingham Family Law Associates, said: “I would have liked her to have given evidence, or certainly have someone speak on her behalf, so it could be explained at length why she should keep her children. But the system would not allow it.
“At that time she had little or no understanding of what her children needed but she was very loving of her children and still is.
“But I sat down with her last week and she was using words she could never have used before. It was clear to me that her level of understanding had improved considerably.”
Leach said there were still question marks over whether she would be able to care properly for the girls but since the adoption had already happened the issue could no longer be addressed. “It’s too late now,” he said. He added that his firm had been involved in up to 20 cases in which their clients were handed over to the official solicitor.
The official solicitor typically declines to contest any final care orders.
Leach said this was because the system did not allow the official solicitor to do so.
He said: “I think the official solicitor should be able to put a case. It’s not just about justice, it’s about justice being seen to be done.”
To view the original article CLICK HERE
Monday, 25 May 2009
25-May-2009 - Irish Mail, Mary Ellen SYNON - Pedophilia and the dark heart of the EU’s
26-May-2009 - Irish Mail, Mary Ellen SYNON - Pedophilia and the dark heart of the EU’s
Irish Daily Mail: Pedophilia and the dark heart of the EU’s parliament *
Wise Up Journal
26.05.2009
The following text was printed on page 12 of the Irish Daily Mail newspaper, Monday the 25th of May 2009:
Irish Daily Mail
Monday, May 25th, 2009
By Mary Ellen Synon
The horror at the dark heart of a sordid, arrogant parliament
Here we are, a few words about Brussels and how it feels about child abuse. I’ll move onto the elections for the European parliament in a moment, but given the horrors of the Ryan report last week, I thought that you ought to know how seriously the euro-elite treat any suggestion of improper behaviour by adults towards children.
In other words I give you Daniel Cohn Bendit, an MEP for the German Green Party. He is a self-confessed kiddie-fiddler, but pulling down his trouser zip for tiny children hasn’t stopped him becoming one of the most influential members of parliament. Here is his story. Keep in mind this man has more power over the legislation of this country than does any member of the Dail.
Mr Cohn-Bendit is better known as Dany the red of the 1968 Paris Barricades. He is a kind of mid-century leftover leftie who was active in squatting, street fighting and agitation before he re-invented himself as a Green and was elected to the European parliament. Last month I went to watch him in a debate with Declan Ganley. The thing was standing-room only in a ballroom in a Brussels hotel.
Excuses
Mr Ganley produced a book Cohn-Bendit wrote in 1975. He read out Mr Cohn-Bendit`s account of how he had worked in a kindergarten and allowed the children to pull down the zip on his trousers and touch him intimately. In the book he had asked them why they wanted to play with him and not with each other, but in the end he ‘caressed’, his word- them too.
Mr Cohn-Bendit disputed none of it. Indeed when Mr Ganley finished reading, the former kindergarten teacher whooped that he had just won €500 because he had bet someone that Mr Ganley would read out that bit of his auto-biography. When Mr Cohn-Bendit’s supporters in the room did not give him quite give the sound of applause he seemed to be looking for with that reply, he changed tack and insisted that everything in the book had been discussed in Germany and France years ago and the parents of the children had never raised any concerns. Mr Ganley asked: ‘And the children, what did they say?’ Dany the Red assured him and the audience that years later the children had all said their time at the school was extremely happy. And then he went on about how attitudes were different in the 1970s.
And if none of those excuses sounds familiar to you - in particular, the excuse about how attitudes were different in the 1970s - then you weren’t paying attention last week.
But let me give you another example of how ’seriously’ the euro-elite take the protection of children. You may remember the Marc Dutroux case in Belgium. It could be called the most horrific example of child rape and murder in Europe since the war.
Known as the beast of Belgium, Dutroux is now serving a life sentence for a series of child kidnappings, rapes and murders in 1995-96. He kept some of his victims locked in a dungeon he had built in his basement. Two eight-year-old girls starved to death there after Dutroux was arrested and served a short prison sentence for car theft: his wife didn’t bother to open the dungeon door to feed the girls.
Part of the great mystery and scandal that accompanied the case was the relentless incompetence of the authorities, at that time led by the Justice Minister, Melchior Wathelet. For years, as victims were kidnapped and murdered, police files were full of reports and tip-offs that Dutroux was selling young girls. Yet Dutroux stayed free. In the end Mr Wathelet was forced to resign in disgrace. And his reward for incompetence in the administration of Justice was - to be appointed a judge at the European Court of Justice.
That would be like our chief executive of the Financial Regulator, Patrick Neary, being appointed head of NAMA. Which would be a joke. But having anyone involved in any way with the horrors of the bungled Dutroux investigation appointed to one of Europe’s most senior judicial positions is no joke. It is, however, a good measure of the arrogance of the euro-elite towards what might be called the plain people of Europe.
Arrogance
But still back to the elections of the European parliament. And that also takes us back to the arrogance of the euro-elite. Just in case it had slipped past you, the voters of Europe are supposed to be voting to determine the membership of the next European parliament which, under existing European law, that is to say, the Nice Treaty, will have 736 seats. But the euro-elites are manoeuvring to make the voters elect 754 MEPs - that is, to elect an extra 18 politicians to the lushly-paid parliament, even though these politicians will have no seat to fill. The euro-elite want the 18 to have full salary, full tax-free allowance for every day they turn up at the European parliament building, full expenses, business-class travel allowances and all the rest. The 18 will be given everything except a job.
The excuse given? That the Lisbon Treaty allows for the creation of an extra 18 seats. So even though the treaty is not yet ratified, the 18 extra politicians ought to be elected and paid as MEPs until the Lisbon Treaty comes into force. Note that arrogance: the treaty has not yet been ratified, and indeed,
may yet come totally off the rails if Gordon Brown is forced to call a general election in the Britain. It may never become law. Yet the euro-elite intends to ignore that fact. They expect the European voters, sheep that we are all assumed to be (and given the docility of the Irish in accepting a second referendum yet again, we have certainly proved to be sheep) to ‘baaaa-baaaa’ their way into the polling booths and deliver 754 MEPs for 736 seats.
The extra 18 are supposed to act as observers until the Lisbon Treaty comes into force, and then they will take their newly-created seats. But for technical reasons the earliest that could possibly happen is two years after the European elections. So we will have 18 politicians pouring money into their bank accounts for at least two years in return for doing no work at all as MEPs. Remember: any member of the European parliament who plays all the angles can bank €1m over the five-year term of a parliament. This euro-wheeze makes the scandal of British MPs’ expenses look like nothing worse than pilfering Biros from the stationery cupboard.
It can be a useful wheeze to us, though. It can remind us of how the idea that we - any of us, any of the voters of Europe - have ever had democratic power over Lisbon Treaty is a lie. The French and Dutch voters rejected the text when it was called the European Constitution, the Irish voters rejected the text when it was called Lisbon. The 27 member states have not finished with ratification. And yet the euro-elite have been proceeding for years as though the treaty were already law. And in their minds, of course, it is law: for European law is whatever the euro-elite say it is. Like Dutroux with the young girls, they do not consider that ‘NO’ is an available answer.
I will remind you of just a few examples of how the euro-elite have been for years seizing important new powers which were supposed to theirs only after the treaty was made law by the member states. There is the European Space Policy (which is now developing military use for the European Gallileo GPS system),the European Defence Agency, the borders agency called Frontex, and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. Each of these institutions was meant to be created only after the ratification of the European Constitution. When that collapsed, and even before it was re-packaged as the Lisbon Treaty, the euro-elite used legal trickery to start constructing these new institutions anyway.
To repeat: European law is whatever the euro-elite say it is.
____________
Comments from Wise Up Journal - by Gabriel O’Hara
MEP vs MP
Although members of the European parliament can only make suggestions (their votes not being legal binding) and since over 80% of laws each year come from the EU a Euro MP gives the appearance of having more power than a national MP who rubber stamps the remaining 20% of legislation (no doubt the majority of that 20% being recommend by well funded unelected non-governmental organisations and the United Nations).
Declan Ganley and Libertas
Declan Ganley is the chief executive of Rivada Networks and leader of Libertas. Libertas is the pro-EU opposition of the EU. Libertas have people up for MEP elections in all nations under the EU. Unlike other parties who have MEPs up for election Libertas is not a national Irish, Czech, Spanish or any other nation party it is a European party, a pro-EU European Party with their headquarters in Brussels. Libertas is also the media’s choice to represent anti-EU opposition against the Lisbon Treaty.
Major clients of Ganely’s business Rivada are the U.S. military and other branches of the U.S Government: “Rivada’s current customers consist of a diverse range of federal, state, and local agencies including USNORTHCOM, the National Guard Bureau, DHS, FEMA, multiple states, and various state and local agencies.” - http://www.rivada.com/7130879/aboutus.htm (Stated on Rivada’s website as of the 26th of May 2009)
The U.S. vs EU false argument
Don’t fall for the U.S. vs EU false argument that pro-EU bureaucrats pushed to try and make the Irish vote yes. The U.S. are pro EU and have been integrating into the EU themselves with the “Framework for Advancing Transatlantic Economic Integration”. The Lisbon Treaty is great for NATO. Pro Lisbon treaty Irish politicians play a part in the public show when they criticize Pro-EU Ganely on connections to the U.S. Government when it is a fact that politicians in the Irish government made it legal for the U.S. Government’s CIA to land at Shannon airport. CIA flights involved in the Middle East wars with captured Muslim prisoners on board.
To sum it up: The U.S. are pro EU. The EU are pro U.S. NATO are pro EU-U.S. Ganely’s company makes money from the U.S. government. Libertas, a European party, is the Pro-EU “opposition” of the EU. Yes, the world is a stage and it’s similar to a boxing event with the contracts of the big fighters owned by the same interest… sometime more like tag-team wrestling entertainment than boxing with a public variable added that occasionally throws a spanner in the “great” works (when a public referendum legally can not be wormed out of). Despite the Lisbon treaty not being legal the EU are currently allowing 18 extra MEPs to be elected which the Lisbon treaty proposed, showing even when people vote no the agenda carries on.
The Guardian: “New pact would give EU citizens’ data to US
“A comprehensive transatlantic pact clearing the way for the unprecedented supply of private data on European citizens to the American authorities”
France 24 / AFP: “EU chief urges next US president to work closely with Europe
“In these times of uncertainty, the EU needs the US and, yes, the US needs the EU more than ever,” said European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso.
The Telegraph: “The No side won, not because of Mr Ganley or his cash, but because the majority of Irish people (as with the French and Dutch before) rejected the uniform outlook of their rulers”
For more information on the EU watch Wise Up Journal’s documentary End of Nations.
Irish Daily Mail: Pedophilia and the dark heart of the EU’s parliament *
Wise Up Journal
26.05.2009
The following text was printed on page 12 of the Irish Daily Mail newspaper, Monday the 25th of May 2009:
Irish Daily Mail
Monday, May 25th, 2009
By Mary Ellen Synon
The horror at the dark heart of a sordid, arrogant parliament
Here we are, a few words about Brussels and how it feels about child abuse. I’ll move onto the elections for the European parliament in a moment, but given the horrors of the Ryan report last week, I thought that you ought to know how seriously the euro-elite treat any suggestion of improper behaviour by adults towards children.
In other words I give you Daniel Cohn Bendit, an MEP for the German Green Party. He is a self-confessed kiddie-fiddler, but pulling down his trouser zip for tiny children hasn’t stopped him becoming one of the most influential members of parliament. Here is his story. Keep in mind this man has more power over the legislation of this country than does any member of the Dail.
Mr Cohn-Bendit is better known as Dany the red of the 1968 Paris Barricades. He is a kind of mid-century leftover leftie who was active in squatting, street fighting and agitation before he re-invented himself as a Green and was elected to the European parliament. Last month I went to watch him in a debate with Declan Ganley. The thing was standing-room only in a ballroom in a Brussels hotel.
Excuses
Mr Ganley produced a book Cohn-Bendit wrote in 1975. He read out Mr Cohn-Bendit`s account of how he had worked in a kindergarten and allowed the children to pull down the zip on his trousers and touch him intimately. In the book he had asked them why they wanted to play with him and not with each other, but in the end he ‘caressed’, his word- them too.
Mr Cohn-Bendit disputed none of it. Indeed when Mr Ganley finished reading, the former kindergarten teacher whooped that he had just won €500 because he had bet someone that Mr Ganley would read out that bit of his auto-biography. When Mr Cohn-Bendit’s supporters in the room did not give him quite give the sound of applause he seemed to be looking for with that reply, he changed tack and insisted that everything in the book had been discussed in Germany and France years ago and the parents of the children had never raised any concerns. Mr Ganley asked: ‘And the children, what did they say?’ Dany the Red assured him and the audience that years later the children had all said their time at the school was extremely happy. And then he went on about how attitudes were different in the 1970s.
And if none of those excuses sounds familiar to you - in particular, the excuse about how attitudes were different in the 1970s - then you weren’t paying attention last week.
But let me give you another example of how ’seriously’ the euro-elite take the protection of children. You may remember the Marc Dutroux case in Belgium. It could be called the most horrific example of child rape and murder in Europe since the war.
Known as the beast of Belgium, Dutroux is now serving a life sentence for a series of child kidnappings, rapes and murders in 1995-96. He kept some of his victims locked in a dungeon he had built in his basement. Two eight-year-old girls starved to death there after Dutroux was arrested and served a short prison sentence for car theft: his wife didn’t bother to open the dungeon door to feed the girls.
Part of the great mystery and scandal that accompanied the case was the relentless incompetence of the authorities, at that time led by the Justice Minister, Melchior Wathelet. For years, as victims were kidnapped and murdered, police files were full of reports and tip-offs that Dutroux was selling young girls. Yet Dutroux stayed free. In the end Mr Wathelet was forced to resign in disgrace. And his reward for incompetence in the administration of Justice was - to be appointed a judge at the European Court of Justice.
That would be like our chief executive of the Financial Regulator, Patrick Neary, being appointed head of NAMA. Which would be a joke. But having anyone involved in any way with the horrors of the bungled Dutroux investigation appointed to one of Europe’s most senior judicial positions is no joke. It is, however, a good measure of the arrogance of the euro-elite towards what might be called the plain people of Europe.
Arrogance
But still back to the elections of the European parliament. And that also takes us back to the arrogance of the euro-elite. Just in case it had slipped past you, the voters of Europe are supposed to be voting to determine the membership of the next European parliament which, under existing European law, that is to say, the Nice Treaty, will have 736 seats. But the euro-elites are manoeuvring to make the voters elect 754 MEPs - that is, to elect an extra 18 politicians to the lushly-paid parliament, even though these politicians will have no seat to fill. The euro-elite want the 18 to have full salary, full tax-free allowance for every day they turn up at the European parliament building, full expenses, business-class travel allowances and all the rest. The 18 will be given everything except a job.
The excuse given? That the Lisbon Treaty allows for the creation of an extra 18 seats. So even though the treaty is not yet ratified, the 18 extra politicians ought to be elected and paid as MEPs until the Lisbon Treaty comes into force. Note that arrogance: the treaty has not yet been ratified, and indeed,
may yet come totally off the rails if Gordon Brown is forced to call a general election in the Britain. It may never become law. Yet the euro-elite intends to ignore that fact. They expect the European voters, sheep that we are all assumed to be (and given the docility of the Irish in accepting a second referendum yet again, we have certainly proved to be sheep) to ‘baaaa-baaaa’ their way into the polling booths and deliver 754 MEPs for 736 seats.
The extra 18 are supposed to act as observers until the Lisbon Treaty comes into force, and then they will take their newly-created seats. But for technical reasons the earliest that could possibly happen is two years after the European elections. So we will have 18 politicians pouring money into their bank accounts for at least two years in return for doing no work at all as MEPs. Remember: any member of the European parliament who plays all the angles can bank €1m over the five-year term of a parliament. This euro-wheeze makes the scandal of British MPs’ expenses look like nothing worse than pilfering Biros from the stationery cupboard.
It can be a useful wheeze to us, though. It can remind us of how the idea that we - any of us, any of the voters of Europe - have ever had democratic power over Lisbon Treaty is a lie. The French and Dutch voters rejected the text when it was called the European Constitution, the Irish voters rejected the text when it was called Lisbon. The 27 member states have not finished with ratification. And yet the euro-elite have been proceeding for years as though the treaty were already law. And in their minds, of course, it is law: for European law is whatever the euro-elite say it is. Like Dutroux with the young girls, they do not consider that ‘NO’ is an available answer.
I will remind you of just a few examples of how the euro-elite have been for years seizing important new powers which were supposed to theirs only after the treaty was made law by the member states. There is the European Space Policy (which is now developing military use for the European Gallileo GPS system),the European Defence Agency, the borders agency called Frontex, and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. Each of these institutions was meant to be created only after the ratification of the European Constitution. When that collapsed, and even before it was re-packaged as the Lisbon Treaty, the euro-elite used legal trickery to start constructing these new institutions anyway.
To repeat: European law is whatever the euro-elite say it is.
____________
Comments from Wise Up Journal - by Gabriel O’Hara
MEP vs MP
Although members of the European parliament can only make suggestions (their votes not being legal binding) and since over 80% of laws each year come from the EU a Euro MP gives the appearance of having more power than a national MP who rubber stamps the remaining 20% of legislation (no doubt the majority of that 20% being recommend by well funded unelected non-governmental organisations and the United Nations).
Declan Ganley and Libertas
Declan Ganley is the chief executive of Rivada Networks and leader of Libertas. Libertas is the pro-EU opposition of the EU. Libertas have people up for MEP elections in all nations under the EU. Unlike other parties who have MEPs up for election Libertas is not a national Irish, Czech, Spanish or any other nation party it is a European party, a pro-EU European Party with their headquarters in Brussels. Libertas is also the media’s choice to represent anti-EU opposition against the Lisbon Treaty.
Major clients of Ganely’s business Rivada are the U.S. military and other branches of the U.S Government: “Rivada’s current customers consist of a diverse range of federal, state, and local agencies including USNORTHCOM, the National Guard Bureau, DHS, FEMA, multiple states, and various state and local agencies.” - http://www.rivada.com/7130879/aboutus.htm (Stated on Rivada’s website as of the 26th of May 2009)
The U.S. vs EU false argument
Don’t fall for the U.S. vs EU false argument that pro-EU bureaucrats pushed to try and make the Irish vote yes. The U.S. are pro EU and have been integrating into the EU themselves with the “Framework for Advancing Transatlantic Economic Integration”. The Lisbon Treaty is great for NATO. Pro Lisbon treaty Irish politicians play a part in the public show when they criticize Pro-EU Ganely on connections to the U.S. Government when it is a fact that politicians in the Irish government made it legal for the U.S. Government’s CIA to land at Shannon airport. CIA flights involved in the Middle East wars with captured Muslim prisoners on board.
To sum it up: The U.S. are pro EU. The EU are pro U.S. NATO are pro EU-U.S. Ganely’s company makes money from the U.S. government. Libertas, a European party, is the Pro-EU “opposition” of the EU. Yes, the world is a stage and it’s similar to a boxing event with the contracts of the big fighters owned by the same interest… sometime more like tag-team wrestling entertainment than boxing with a public variable added that occasionally throws a spanner in the “great” works (when a public referendum legally can not be wormed out of). Despite the Lisbon treaty not being legal the EU are currently allowing 18 extra MEPs to be elected which the Lisbon treaty proposed, showing even when people vote no the agenda carries on.
The Guardian: “New pact would give EU citizens’ data to US
“A comprehensive transatlantic pact clearing the way for the unprecedented supply of private data on European citizens to the American authorities”
France 24 / AFP: “EU chief urges next US president to work closely with Europe
“In these times of uncertainty, the EU needs the US and, yes, the US needs the EU more than ever,” said European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso.
The Telegraph: “The No side won, not because of Mr Ganley or his cash, but because the majority of Irish people (as with the French and Dutch before) rejected the uniform outlook of their rulers”
For more information on the EU watch Wise Up Journal’s documentary End of Nations.
'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!
Or perhaps more suited to YOUR needs: StolenChildhood-
4 those facing abuse past or present sexual or other!
or StolenTrust-
4 those where or have suffered abuse within a relationship!
or StolenOyster-
4 those who have been abused or raped by a stranger or stalker
To See The Links Page
Sunday, 24 May 2009
PAEDOPHILE RINGS & HOW SECRET SOCIETIES WORK
I have posted this but do NOT endorse it however I would ask you to consider what you can irrefutably discount and what is your provenance - that is what COMMENTS is for!
Thanks - the aim is that we all stop and think about what is, or is NOT being done TO US!
Once you realise that even The British police murder innocent citizens with virtual impunity - once you realise these Government Enforcers killing innocent citizens ARE acting as hit squads you start to realise what else the State may be doing to you.
HOW THE SECRET SOCIETIES PAEDOPHILE RINGS WORK
by oceanlblue @ 2009-05-24 – 12:07:49
Certain Clandestine Networks within our Government authorities who have created and are running our social structure, are psychologically, emotionally and sexually abusing our children.
These authorities are presently being exposed and FULL public awareness of ALL those involved in this horrendous atrocity by our
Worldwide Masonic Secret Society-run social system, is only a matter of time.
From the top of the web, of this Black-Occult-Ritual Child Abuse & Murder Network all the way down to the bottom, they will be held accountable.
EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM.
Let's stop Masonic Government Child Abuse NOW - Please be informed
Now and then, a fraction of paedophile ring cases make national headlines because of mass public pressure. However the wholehearted truth of the matter is this - these, and other Masonic government-run child abuse cases are NOT isolated - they are all part and parcel of the intricate global network of child abuse - engineered, by the CORE OF RAPE within our Government Intelligence Network. Whenever public pressure on these atrocities creates exposure throughout the public domain via the mass media as well as alternative publications and over the internet - it is ALL just the tip of the iceberg - of what is going on - all the time.
When the rare child abuse scandal by the authorities does hit the headlines and is then systematically covered up, it does not stop. The abuse continues underground as it always has - powered by the all-knowing, all-seeing eye of the secret societies hierarchy. The documented cases in this website are but a few of the countless cases which are presently being exposed.
The abuse is rife - yet it is only a matter of time when the veil will be lifted for everyone within society to fully acknowledge the absolute truth of what is going on behind our backs, since the secret societies have existed. All the perpetrators involved will then be held directly accountable by us - the people.
When we ALL become fully aware, then and only then, will these Government paedophile rings be completely destroyed and all sexual abuse against children can be, and will be stopped.
The facts in the following documentation are NOT isolated events. They are all clandestinely connected nationally and internationally, through a network of deceit, lies, deception, propaganda, greed and a lust for power within the Secret Societies networking regime.
For the seeker of truth - a person must research the numerous ways in which the Secret Societies work, to propagate their atrocities - cover up their atrocities - and attempt to destroy any evidence or anyone that may threaten their insidious crimes and agenda. When the truth is sought with an open mind and heart - the truth will come to you!
A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF SOME OF THE ATROCITIES
HOW IT WORKS
Global Secret Societies Child Abuse Network is clandestinely engineered and run identically to a Trans-national Corporation.
SECRET SOCIETIES ARE BLACK-OCCULT NETWORKS
The Secret Societies Ceremonial Rituals are steeped in ancient Black-Occult Magical Practices toward gaining occult power and control over others.
PAEDOPHILE POLICE ESCAPE PROSECUTION
High Level Masons such as Chief Superintendent Gordon Angelsea and at least 12 of his colleagues were "let off the hook" for sexual abuse crimes on children (some of who are now dead) in the North Wales Paedophile Ring Cover-Up.
PAEDOPHILE POLITICIANS ESCAPE PROSECUTION
High Level Government Masons such as Lord McAlpine, ex aid to Margaret Thatcher, was accused by numerous children of sexual crimes in the North Wales Child Abuse Cover-Ups. He escaped public exposure by a specifically appointed Masonic Paedophile Judge.
CATEGORY 1 PAEDOPHILE PROTECTOR LORD CULLEN
Lord Cullen who was appointed to the investigation and "100 year cover up" of Thomas Hamilton’s Mass Murder spree – were BOTH members of the same “boy’s club”.
SOHAM PAEDOPHILE POLICE
The two Liaison Officers assigned to the murder investigation of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman were known to the British Police hierarchy as Paedophiles at least 3 months prior to the investigation, due to Operation Ore.
PAEDOPHILE POLITICIANS ESCAPE MASS MEDIA EXPOSURE
Prime Minister Tony Blair's senior clerk Phillip Lyon is charged by police for possessing child pornography, yet there was mass media censorship regarding his arrest.
MASONIC PAEDOPHILE DOCTOR ESCAPES PUBLIC EXPOSURE
Paedophile masons can escape public exposure of their atrocities by giving the Masonic "Signal of Distress" to a freemason "brother" judge, in a court of law.
CONDEMNED AND SACKED FOR EXPOSING THE NORTH WALES PAEDOPHILE RINGS
Alison Taylor the social worker who constantly complained for 14 years to the North Wales Police and Parliament (both run by Masons) of the North Wales Child Abuse Network, was ignored, condemned and sacked for telling the truth.
MASONIC PROPAGANDA MASS MEDIA MACHINE "COVER-UP"
Although the North Wales Child Abuse Cover-Up was the Biggest Paedophile Ring Expose in Britain's history, the Mass Media machine (rife with masons) did their damnedest to keep the case "unreported" and therefore out of societies awareness.
MASONIC INTELLIGENCE MASS MEDIA MACHINE "DECEPTION"
The mass media propaganda machine, introduce Government intelligence agents trained in the art of provocation, disinformation and deception. They clandestinely thwart the truth of societies "paedophile problem", on national TV documentaries, discussing the social problem of sexual child abuse.
MASONIC MASS MEDIA PROPAGANDA MACHINE "BRAINWASHING"
Mass media propaganda machine are brainwashing society that all child molesters cannot be cured. They also use so-called satire, to instigate violence against paedophiles as a "solution". These tactics are executed to further propagate society's paedophile problem as a whole - therefore covering up where the root of the real problem lies - The Masonic Child Abuse Network.
FREEMASON PAEDOPHILE MASS MURDERER THOMAS HAMILTON
The freemason mass murderer Thomas Hamilton was granted a gun licence by his Masonic "brother" Inspector McMurdo, to a amass his arsenal of weapons, even although he was well known to be of "odd character" with paedophilic tendencies.
GOVERNMENT INTELLIGENCE INTERNET CHILD PORNOGRAPHY "PROBLEM" PROPAGANDA
The World-wide Government Intelligence Network (run by freemasonry and other interconnecting secret societies) are informing society with blatant contradictions on societies Child Pornography "Problem" via the internet, to cover up the truth of their own Child Abuse Network of molestation and murder.
C.I.A.'s Pseudo-science - false memory syndrome
The C.I.A. (run by masons) created the pseudo - science and organisation "Institute of False Memory Syndrome" to whitewash children's experiences of sexual abuse.
C.I.A. PAEDOPHILES APPOINTED AS FALSE MEMORY SYNDROME "EXPERTS" - The CIA appointed some of their top psychiatric trained in the art of mind-control to run the "False Memory Syndrome Institute". One has admitted to being a paedophile as well as others who have been publicly exposed for sexually abusing their own children.
MASONIC BLACK-OCCULT HUMAN SACRIFICE RITUAL UPON WACO
The women and children who were executed at Waco were first psychologically tortured, incinerated alive by flame-throwers, before Government Intelligence went in to dismember their heads and limbs. This was not only to destroy vital evidence. The main agenda of this Masonic atrocity was perpetrated toward a mass Black-Occult Human Sacrifice on innocent men, woman and in particular, children.
WACO EXPOSES THE C.I.A.'s PAEDOPHILE NETWORK
One of the reasons, the Branch Davidson's were "executed", in the black-occult ritual by the F.B.I. and the B.A.T.F. (run by masons) is that they had discovered and were distributing documentation pertaining to the C.I.A.'s paedophile rings.
SACRIFICING A CHILD EFFIGY BY HIGH LEVEL SECRET SOCIETY INITIATES
High Level Secret Society initiates of world-wide notoriety burn the effigy of a small child in a Black-Occult ritual to one of their satanic "gods" - Molec, every year at Bohemian Grove. This is symbolic of what these same people do for real, in less public ceremonies,
U.S. GOVERNMENT HIERARCHY RIDDLED WITH MASONIC PAEDOPHILES
33 degree Mason President George Bush Senior, has been linked to the Franklin Child Abuse Cover-Up. He is also exposed along with numerous U.S. Political Figures for paedophilic and murder atrocities at Bohemian Grove - in the book - Trance Formation of America.
HIGH LEVEL SECRET SOCIETY INITIATE AND CHILD SACRIFICER ALISTAIR CROWLEY
Alistair Crowley, high level initiate of Freemasonry, Order of the Golden Dawn, O.T.O. and the Knights Templar admits to sacrificing children, and quoted - "a white male child of perfect innocence and intelligence makes the most suitable victim."
CORRUPT UK JUDGES, POLICE, SOCIAL WORKERS AND PSYCHIATRISTS DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN PROTECTING PAEDOPHILES AND PROPAGATING RITUAL CHILD ABUSE
Corrupt Masons within our social structure are "hand-picked" to deal with allegations of Ritual Satanic Child Abuse. Time after time the same "officials" are chosen to cover-up and compound these atrocities against innocent children, as well as "threatening" the loving, caring parent when they complain.
MASON PAEDOPHILES USE "COVER MEMORIES" TO ABUSE CHILDREN
High level paedophile Masons are Black-Occult initiated with psychic abilities and mind control techniques which they use to give a child a "cover memory" while they are being sexually molested.
GOVERNMENT INTELLIGENCE BLACK OCCULT RITUALS AT STONEHENGE
British Government intelligence and Senior Police (both rife with Masons) are directly involved in clandestine Black-Occult Rituals involving agent provocateurs trained in the art of psychic warfare. Young babies are also part of their rituals at public gatherings on ancient sites of worship. Stonehenge Summer Solstice Festival 2002.
BRITAIN - THE LAND OF FREE SPEECH - UNLESS YOU PUBLICLY EXPOSE THE MASONS CHILD ABUSE NETWORK - THEN YOU'RE A CRIMINAL!
Britain is the land of "free speech", up to a point. If a person publicly exposes the Governments Secret Society run Child Abuse Network, then they will be liable to receive Death Threats and violent assaults by Government Intelligence agent's provocateurs as well as unprovoked violent assaults by Masonic Police.
There will be constant cover-ups regarding violent assaults by corrupt Police, Procurator Fiscals and Judges, The Paedophile Protectors. Criminal charges and imprisonment will be enforced onto anyone actively involved in publicly exposing the Masonic Child Abuse Network and their supporters. Especially when campaigning in the centre of the Masons Control Centre - The Scottish Houses of Parliament and the Edinburgh High Court.
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/stopchildrape.net/index.html
To view the original article CLICK HERE
Thanks - the aim is that we all stop and think about what is, or is NOT being done TO US!
Once you realise that even The British police murder innocent citizens with virtual impunity - once you realise these Government Enforcers killing innocent citizens ARE acting as hit squads you start to realise what else the State may be doing to you.
HOW THE SECRET SOCIETIES PAEDOPHILE RINGS WORK
by oceanlblue @ 2009-05-24 – 12:07:49
Certain Clandestine Networks within our Government authorities who have created and are running our social structure, are psychologically, emotionally and sexually abusing our children.
These authorities are presently being exposed and FULL public awareness of ALL those involved in this horrendous atrocity by our
Worldwide Masonic Secret Society-run social system, is only a matter of time.
From the top of the web, of this Black-Occult-Ritual Child Abuse & Murder Network all the way down to the bottom, they will be held accountable.
EVERY LAST ONE OF THEM.
Let's stop Masonic Government Child Abuse NOW - Please be informed
Now and then, a fraction of paedophile ring cases make national headlines because of mass public pressure. However the wholehearted truth of the matter is this - these, and other Masonic government-run child abuse cases are NOT isolated - they are all part and parcel of the intricate global network of child abuse - engineered, by the CORE OF RAPE within our Government Intelligence Network. Whenever public pressure on these atrocities creates exposure throughout the public domain via the mass media as well as alternative publications and over the internet - it is ALL just the tip of the iceberg - of what is going on - all the time.
When the rare child abuse scandal by the authorities does hit the headlines and is then systematically covered up, it does not stop. The abuse continues underground as it always has - powered by the all-knowing, all-seeing eye of the secret societies hierarchy. The documented cases in this website are but a few of the countless cases which are presently being exposed.
The abuse is rife - yet it is only a matter of time when the veil will be lifted for everyone within society to fully acknowledge the absolute truth of what is going on behind our backs, since the secret societies have existed. All the perpetrators involved will then be held directly accountable by us - the people.
When we ALL become fully aware, then and only then, will these Government paedophile rings be completely destroyed and all sexual abuse against children can be, and will be stopped.
The facts in the following documentation are NOT isolated events. They are all clandestinely connected nationally and internationally, through a network of deceit, lies, deception, propaganda, greed and a lust for power within the Secret Societies networking regime.
For the seeker of truth - a person must research the numerous ways in which the Secret Societies work, to propagate their atrocities - cover up their atrocities - and attempt to destroy any evidence or anyone that may threaten their insidious crimes and agenda. When the truth is sought with an open mind and heart - the truth will come to you!
A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF SOME OF THE ATROCITIES
HOW IT WORKS
Global Secret Societies Child Abuse Network is clandestinely engineered and run identically to a Trans-national Corporation.
SECRET SOCIETIES ARE BLACK-OCCULT NETWORKS
The Secret Societies Ceremonial Rituals are steeped in ancient Black-Occult Magical Practices toward gaining occult power and control over others.
PAEDOPHILE POLICE ESCAPE PROSECUTION
High Level Masons such as Chief Superintendent Gordon Angelsea and at least 12 of his colleagues were "let off the hook" for sexual abuse crimes on children (some of who are now dead) in the North Wales Paedophile Ring Cover-Up.
PAEDOPHILE POLITICIANS ESCAPE PROSECUTION
High Level Government Masons such as Lord McAlpine, ex aid to Margaret Thatcher, was accused by numerous children of sexual crimes in the North Wales Child Abuse Cover-Ups. He escaped public exposure by a specifically appointed Masonic Paedophile Judge.
CATEGORY 1 PAEDOPHILE PROTECTOR LORD CULLEN
Lord Cullen who was appointed to the investigation and "100 year cover up" of Thomas Hamilton’s Mass Murder spree – were BOTH members of the same “boy’s club”.
SOHAM PAEDOPHILE POLICE
The two Liaison Officers assigned to the murder investigation of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman were known to the British Police hierarchy as Paedophiles at least 3 months prior to the investigation, due to Operation Ore.
PAEDOPHILE POLITICIANS ESCAPE MASS MEDIA EXPOSURE
Prime Minister Tony Blair's senior clerk Phillip Lyon is charged by police for possessing child pornography, yet there was mass media censorship regarding his arrest.
MASONIC PAEDOPHILE DOCTOR ESCAPES PUBLIC EXPOSURE
Paedophile masons can escape public exposure of their atrocities by giving the Masonic "Signal of Distress" to a freemason "brother" judge, in a court of law.
CONDEMNED AND SACKED FOR EXPOSING THE NORTH WALES PAEDOPHILE RINGS
Alison Taylor the social worker who constantly complained for 14 years to the North Wales Police and Parliament (both run by Masons) of the North Wales Child Abuse Network, was ignored, condemned and sacked for telling the truth.
MASONIC PROPAGANDA MASS MEDIA MACHINE "COVER-UP"
Although the North Wales Child Abuse Cover-Up was the Biggest Paedophile Ring Expose in Britain's history, the Mass Media machine (rife with masons) did their damnedest to keep the case "unreported" and therefore out of societies awareness.
MASONIC INTELLIGENCE MASS MEDIA MACHINE "DECEPTION"
The mass media propaganda machine, introduce Government intelligence agents trained in the art of provocation, disinformation and deception. They clandestinely thwart the truth of societies "paedophile problem", on national TV documentaries, discussing the social problem of sexual child abuse.
MASONIC MASS MEDIA PROPAGANDA MACHINE "BRAINWASHING"
Mass media propaganda machine are brainwashing society that all child molesters cannot be cured. They also use so-called satire, to instigate violence against paedophiles as a "solution". These tactics are executed to further propagate society's paedophile problem as a whole - therefore covering up where the root of the real problem lies - The Masonic Child Abuse Network.
FREEMASON PAEDOPHILE MASS MURDERER THOMAS HAMILTON
The freemason mass murderer Thomas Hamilton was granted a gun licence by his Masonic "brother" Inspector McMurdo, to a amass his arsenal of weapons, even although he was well known to be of "odd character" with paedophilic tendencies.
GOVERNMENT INTELLIGENCE INTERNET CHILD PORNOGRAPHY "PROBLEM" PROPAGANDA
The World-wide Government Intelligence Network (run by freemasonry and other interconnecting secret societies) are informing society with blatant contradictions on societies Child Pornography "Problem" via the internet, to cover up the truth of their own Child Abuse Network of molestation and murder.
C.I.A.'s Pseudo-science - false memory syndrome
The C.I.A. (run by masons) created the pseudo - science and organisation "Institute of False Memory Syndrome" to whitewash children's experiences of sexual abuse.
C.I.A. PAEDOPHILES APPOINTED AS FALSE MEMORY SYNDROME "EXPERTS" - The CIA appointed some of their top psychiatric trained in the art of mind-control to run the "False Memory Syndrome Institute". One has admitted to being a paedophile as well as others who have been publicly exposed for sexually abusing their own children.
MASONIC BLACK-OCCULT HUMAN SACRIFICE RITUAL UPON WACO
The women and children who were executed at Waco were first psychologically tortured, incinerated alive by flame-throwers, before Government Intelligence went in to dismember their heads and limbs. This was not only to destroy vital evidence. The main agenda of this Masonic atrocity was perpetrated toward a mass Black-Occult Human Sacrifice on innocent men, woman and in particular, children.
WACO EXPOSES THE C.I.A.'s PAEDOPHILE NETWORK
One of the reasons, the Branch Davidson's were "executed", in the black-occult ritual by the F.B.I. and the B.A.T.F. (run by masons) is that they had discovered and were distributing documentation pertaining to the C.I.A.'s paedophile rings.
SACRIFICING A CHILD EFFIGY BY HIGH LEVEL SECRET SOCIETY INITIATES
High Level Secret Society initiates of world-wide notoriety burn the effigy of a small child in a Black-Occult ritual to one of their satanic "gods" - Molec, every year at Bohemian Grove. This is symbolic of what these same people do for real, in less public ceremonies,
U.S. GOVERNMENT HIERARCHY RIDDLED WITH MASONIC PAEDOPHILES
33 degree Mason President George Bush Senior, has been linked to the Franklin Child Abuse Cover-Up. He is also exposed along with numerous U.S. Political Figures for paedophilic and murder atrocities at Bohemian Grove - in the book - Trance Formation of America.
HIGH LEVEL SECRET SOCIETY INITIATE AND CHILD SACRIFICER ALISTAIR CROWLEY
Alistair Crowley, high level initiate of Freemasonry, Order of the Golden Dawn, O.T.O. and the Knights Templar admits to sacrificing children, and quoted - "a white male child of perfect innocence and intelligence makes the most suitable victim."
CORRUPT UK JUDGES, POLICE, SOCIAL WORKERS AND PSYCHIATRISTS DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN PROTECTING PAEDOPHILES AND PROPAGATING RITUAL CHILD ABUSE
Corrupt Masons within our social structure are "hand-picked" to deal with allegations of Ritual Satanic Child Abuse. Time after time the same "officials" are chosen to cover-up and compound these atrocities against innocent children, as well as "threatening" the loving, caring parent when they complain.
MASON PAEDOPHILES USE "COVER MEMORIES" TO ABUSE CHILDREN
High level paedophile Masons are Black-Occult initiated with psychic abilities and mind control techniques which they use to give a child a "cover memory" while they are being sexually molested.
GOVERNMENT INTELLIGENCE BLACK OCCULT RITUALS AT STONEHENGE
British Government intelligence and Senior Police (both rife with Masons) are directly involved in clandestine Black-Occult Rituals involving agent provocateurs trained in the art of psychic warfare. Young babies are also part of their rituals at public gatherings on ancient sites of worship. Stonehenge Summer Solstice Festival 2002.
BRITAIN - THE LAND OF FREE SPEECH - UNLESS YOU PUBLICLY EXPOSE THE MASONS CHILD ABUSE NETWORK - THEN YOU'RE A CRIMINAL!
Britain is the land of "free speech", up to a point. If a person publicly exposes the Governments Secret Society run Child Abuse Network, then they will be liable to receive Death Threats and violent assaults by Government Intelligence agent's provocateurs as well as unprovoked violent assaults by Masonic Police.
There will be constant cover-ups regarding violent assaults by corrupt Police, Procurator Fiscals and Judges, The Paedophile Protectors. Criminal charges and imprisonment will be enforced onto anyone actively involved in publicly exposing the Masonic Child Abuse Network and their supporters. Especially when campaigning in the centre of the Masons Control Centre - The Scottish Houses of Parliament and the Edinburgh High Court.
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/stopchildrape.net/index.html
To view the original article CLICK HERE
To understand the Concept & Service of StolenKids-
where you can help yourself and others at:
where you can help yourself and others at:
StolenKids-
To See The Links Page
CLICK HERE
CLICK HERE
Sunday, 10 May 2009
Sunday Times - Daniel Foggo - 10-May-2009 - Mum Jailed
Sunday Times - Daniel Foggo - 10-May-2009 - Mum Jailed
From The Sunday Times May 10, 2009
Mum jailed for telling son she loves him
A woman has been denied access to her children for three years, accused of trying to turn them against their father
Daniel Foggo
AS the wife of a successful City financier with three young boys, she seemed to have it all.
Yet after a bitter divorce and a protracted battle with Britain’s family courts system, the woman now finds herself bereft. She no longer lives in an imposing home counties farmhouse and for the past three years she has been denied any direct access to her children.
Barred from approaching them in any way, she has been repeatedly arrested for breaching the terms of the injunction against her.
She was once even jailed after encountering her eldest son in the street and telling him she loved him. Now she faces the prospect of incarceration once more. This summer the woman will be hauled before the courts again for having posted a video of her case on the internet.
The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, has not been excluded from her children’s lives because she presents a physical danger to them. Her failing, in the eyes of the courts, was to have turned the boys against their father.
The remarkable case is likely to prompt fresh calls for more open scrutiny of the family courts system. Although recent reforms allow limited reporting of some hearings, most remain secret.
The family began to break up in 2004, when the eldest child was nine. The woman, in her forties, said: “Looking back, I think I was still suffering from post-natal depression and I was unhappy with the way my husband was talking to me and towards the children. The rapid expansion in the size of the family was quite stressful and our marriage just disintegrated.”
When she made it clear she was considering a divorce, the fallout affected the children’s behaviour and social services were called in. The boys were placed on an at-risk register for the possible emotional abuse they were suffering. It was agreed that the mother would care for them during the day but vacate the family home in the evening and stay with her own mother. “I was told by the social services that if I did not agree to that, then they would take the children away from me,” she said.
“When they asked me about my drinking, I naively thought honesty was the best policy and told them I was drinking two or three glasses of wine in the evening.” Before the marriage broke up, she had asked her GP for help over her alcohol use.
She subsequently agreed to attend a clinic for treatment but stayed for only a short time, emerging to find that the police wanted to arrest her over an allegation by her husband that she had scratched his arm.
She was convicted of assault and given a conditional discharge, while the husband applied for a non-molestation order to prevent her from going back to the family home.
Although the children were removed from the at-risk register, the couple’s relationship deteriorated further, with the husband reporting her for breaches of her bail, such as living at the wrong address, while she made a number of serious allegations about him that the authorities considered groundless.
While the children were in their mother’s care they were also noted by a social worker to be making serious allegations about their father’s treatment of them. However, the social services team came to the opinion that the mother was encouraging them to do so.
Questions were also raised over her willingness to discipline the children when she saw them.
The wife said: “They said I was not strict enough, but I was seeing them for an hour a week, and telling them off for minor things was not the foremost thing on my mind.
“When they said things about their father I was alarmed and wanted them investigated, but when I realised how the social workers were viewing things, I tried to restrain them from talking that way.”
A report from a psychiatrist brought in by social services said: “[The mother’s] willingness to listen and agree with the children’s complaints . . . has undermined any attempts made to provide better management of the children.
“Consideration should be given to terminating [the contact], unless [the mother] has completed in a satisfactory way a suitable parenting course and has accepted responsibility for the confusion caused the children by her permissive approach and other actions.”
The wife completed a parenting course, but it was felt that she was still allowing the children to “run riot” when she saw them, treating them in an “infantile” way and “encouraging them to make complaints against their father”.
The wife said: “When I held my three-year-old son on my hip and hugged him they said I was treating him in an infantile way. I couldn’t win.”
Matters came to a head in August 2006 when a family court judge ruled that her contact with the children should be stopped, even though it was conceded that all of them had a “constant wish” to see her.
The wife, now divorced, had made her own case more difficult by trying to see one of her children outside the supervised sessions and calling the police after another contact meeting descended into an unseemly squabble with the social worker.
Judge Isobel Plumstead said the woman could have no direct contact with the boys for two years in order to “give them a break”.
Although that order expired last year, the court has continued to stop the ex-wife having any direct access. She is permitted only to write to the children and send them presents worth up to £25.
The husband, who has an injunction preventing his former wife from contacting him or the children or even going near their village, has since repeatedly reported her for breaching it.
In October 2007 a court jailed her for a month after it heard that she had approached the eldest child in the street. When he ran off, she went after him, pleading that she loved him and only wanted to help.
She also sent her former husband text messages, which each resulted in a one-week jail sentence. One of the texts, which Plumstead said was “harassing or pestering”, read: “Why are you doing this to my kids? I will do whatever you say.” Another said she was sorry and offered to look after the children for free as her former husband was employing a nanny.
She has another hearing to re-new her plea for access to the children, but her former husband has applied to have her jailed for posting a video about the case on YouTube.
A solicitor for the former husband said his client declined to comment. The council’s social services department said it could not comment.
To view the original article CLICK HERE
From The Sunday Times May 10, 2009
Mum jailed for telling son she loves him
A woman has been denied access to her children for three years, accused of trying to turn them against their father
Daniel Foggo
AS the wife of a successful City financier with three young boys, she seemed to have it all.
Yet after a bitter divorce and a protracted battle with Britain’s family courts system, the woman now finds herself bereft. She no longer lives in an imposing home counties farmhouse and for the past three years she has been denied any direct access to her children.
Barred from approaching them in any way, she has been repeatedly arrested for breaching the terms of the injunction against her.
She was once even jailed after encountering her eldest son in the street and telling him she loved him. Now she faces the prospect of incarceration once more. This summer the woman will be hauled before the courts again for having posted a video of her case on the internet.
The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, has not been excluded from her children’s lives because she presents a physical danger to them. Her failing, in the eyes of the courts, was to have turned the boys against their father.
The remarkable case is likely to prompt fresh calls for more open scrutiny of the family courts system. Although recent reforms allow limited reporting of some hearings, most remain secret.
The family began to break up in 2004, when the eldest child was nine. The woman, in her forties, said: “Looking back, I think I was still suffering from post-natal depression and I was unhappy with the way my husband was talking to me and towards the children. The rapid expansion in the size of the family was quite stressful and our marriage just disintegrated.”
When she made it clear she was considering a divorce, the fallout affected the children’s behaviour and social services were called in. The boys were placed on an at-risk register for the possible emotional abuse they were suffering. It was agreed that the mother would care for them during the day but vacate the family home in the evening and stay with her own mother. “I was told by the social services that if I did not agree to that, then they would take the children away from me,” she said.
“When they asked me about my drinking, I naively thought honesty was the best policy and told them I was drinking two or three glasses of wine in the evening.” Before the marriage broke up, she had asked her GP for help over her alcohol use.
She subsequently agreed to attend a clinic for treatment but stayed for only a short time, emerging to find that the police wanted to arrest her over an allegation by her husband that she had scratched his arm.
She was convicted of assault and given a conditional discharge, while the husband applied for a non-molestation order to prevent her from going back to the family home.
Although the children were removed from the at-risk register, the couple’s relationship deteriorated further, with the husband reporting her for breaches of her bail, such as living at the wrong address, while she made a number of serious allegations about him that the authorities considered groundless.
While the children were in their mother’s care they were also noted by a social worker to be making serious allegations about their father’s treatment of them. However, the social services team came to the opinion that the mother was encouraging them to do so.
Questions were also raised over her willingness to discipline the children when she saw them.
The wife said: “They said I was not strict enough, but I was seeing them for an hour a week, and telling them off for minor things was not the foremost thing on my mind.
“When they said things about their father I was alarmed and wanted them investigated, but when I realised how the social workers were viewing things, I tried to restrain them from talking that way.”
A report from a psychiatrist brought in by social services said: “[The mother’s] willingness to listen and agree with the children’s complaints . . . has undermined any attempts made to provide better management of the children.
“Consideration should be given to terminating [the contact], unless [the mother] has completed in a satisfactory way a suitable parenting course and has accepted responsibility for the confusion caused the children by her permissive approach and other actions.”
The wife completed a parenting course, but it was felt that she was still allowing the children to “run riot” when she saw them, treating them in an “infantile” way and “encouraging them to make complaints against their father”.
The wife said: “When I held my three-year-old son on my hip and hugged him they said I was treating him in an infantile way. I couldn’t win.”
Matters came to a head in August 2006 when a family court judge ruled that her contact with the children should be stopped, even though it was conceded that all of them had a “constant wish” to see her.
The wife, now divorced, had made her own case more difficult by trying to see one of her children outside the supervised sessions and calling the police after another contact meeting descended into an unseemly squabble with the social worker.
Judge Isobel Plumstead said the woman could have no direct contact with the boys for two years in order to “give them a break”.
Although that order expired last year, the court has continued to stop the ex-wife having any direct access. She is permitted only to write to the children and send them presents worth up to £25.
The husband, who has an injunction preventing his former wife from contacting him or the children or even going near their village, has since repeatedly reported her for breaching it.
In October 2007 a court jailed her for a month after it heard that she had approached the eldest child in the street. When he ran off, she went after him, pleading that she loved him and only wanted to help.
She also sent her former husband text messages, which each resulted in a one-week jail sentence. One of the texts, which Plumstead said was “harassing or pestering”, read: “Why are you doing this to my kids? I will do whatever you say.” Another said she was sorry and offered to look after the children for free as her former husband was employing a nanny.
She has another hearing to re-new her plea for access to the children, but her former husband has applied to have her jailed for posting a video about the case on YouTube.
A solicitor for the former husband said his client declined to comment. The council’s social services department said it could not comment.
To view the original article CLICK HERE
Sunday Times - Daniel Foggob- 10-May-2009
Sunday Times - Daniel Foggob- 10-May-2009
From The Sunday Times May 10, 2009
Mother denied all access to her children
Daniel Foggo
A COURT has denied the former wife of a rich City financier all access to their three children after she was found to be turning them against him.
In an extraordinary ruling, the woman, who was also judged to be too indulgent a parent, has been legally barred from seeing her children for three years. She was jailed for approaching one of them in the street and telling him she loved him in breach of a court order. She is facing a possible return to jail this summer for posting a video about her plight on the internet.
The woman judge presiding over the case justified banning contact between the mother and her children because they were being placed in “an intolerable situation of conflict of loyalties resulting in them suffering serious emotional harm”.
During supervised visits with her, the children made serious allegations about their father which were later shown to be unfounded. Social workers believed the mother was either prompting them to make the claims or they were saying them just to please her.
A psychiatrist who assessed the case said the mother “loved her children” but had harmed their development by trying to be always “available” to them.
The judge said she had “serious concern about [the mother] infantilising the children, encouraging them to make complaints about the father and encouraging them to want to take an inappropriate part in these proceedings”.
The mother breached an injunction excluding her from her children’s lives by approaching her son in public. She also sent texts to her former husband, including one saying she was sorry. Another said she would do whatever he wanted to get access. She was sentenced to a month in prison.
The case has prompted an outcry from campaigners who want the family courts to be more publicly accountable. Although recent changes have allowed a small number of cases to be reported, most are still conducted in secret.
A spokeswoman for Mothers 4 Justice, a pressure group, said: “When you consider what this woman was put in prison for, it is absolutely appalling. She was put in a jail with murderers and criminals.”
She said she disagreed with punishing a mother for her children making allegations about their father.
Anthony Douglas, chief executive of Cafcass, a body that looks after children’s welfare during court cases, said: “In a small minority of cases, continuing contact with a parent who is determined to continue a relationship battle after separating can cause their child immense long-term emotional harm.
“Ending contact with a parent can help children grow up and move on from events to which they were often only miserable witnesses.”
To view the original article CLICK HERE
From The Sunday Times May 10, 2009
Mother denied all access to her children
Daniel Foggo
A COURT has denied the former wife of a rich City financier all access to their three children after she was found to be turning them against him.
In an extraordinary ruling, the woman, who was also judged to be too indulgent a parent, has been legally barred from seeing her children for three years. She was jailed for approaching one of them in the street and telling him she loved him in breach of a court order. She is facing a possible return to jail this summer for posting a video about her plight on the internet.
The woman judge presiding over the case justified banning contact between the mother and her children because they were being placed in “an intolerable situation of conflict of loyalties resulting in them suffering serious emotional harm”.
During supervised visits with her, the children made serious allegations about their father which were later shown to be unfounded. Social workers believed the mother was either prompting them to make the claims or they were saying them just to please her.
A psychiatrist who assessed the case said the mother “loved her children” but had harmed their development by trying to be always “available” to them.
The judge said she had “serious concern about [the mother] infantilising the children, encouraging them to make complaints about the father and encouraging them to want to take an inappropriate part in these proceedings”.
The mother breached an injunction excluding her from her children’s lives by approaching her son in public. She also sent texts to her former husband, including one saying she was sorry. Another said she would do whatever he wanted to get access. She was sentenced to a month in prison.
The case has prompted an outcry from campaigners who want the family courts to be more publicly accountable. Although recent changes have allowed a small number of cases to be reported, most are still conducted in secret.
A spokeswoman for Mothers 4 Justice, a pressure group, said: “When you consider what this woman was put in prison for, it is absolutely appalling. She was put in a jail with murderers and criminals.”
She said she disagreed with punishing a mother for her children making allegations about their father.
Anthony Douglas, chief executive of Cafcass, a body that looks after children’s welfare during court cases, said: “In a small minority of cases, continuing contact with a parent who is determined to continue a relationship battle after separating can cause their child immense long-term emotional harm.
“Ending contact with a parent can help children grow up and move on from events to which they were often only miserable witnesses.”
To view the original article CLICK HERE
Wednesday, 22 April 2009
Payout for sex abuse SHROPSHIRE STAR 22-Apr-2009
Payout for sex abuse SHROPSHIRE STAR 22-Apr-2009
Payout for sex abuse victim
A Shropshire woman has been awarded criminal injuries compensation after she was sexually abused even though no-one has been charged or brought before the courts over it.
Medical evidence showed that 28-year-old Hollie Greig, who has Downs Syndrome, was a victim of abuse and had undergone a traumatic experience.
Hollie and her mother Anne Greig fled from Aberdeen when Anne discovered what had been happening.
They came to live in Shropshire eight years ago.
The two have been fighting to bring the man they said caused the abuse to justice but say no charges have ever been brought.
They say Hollie had been the victim of a paedophile ring since the age of six, for 14 years, before she moved to Shropshire.
Now the two are calling on Grampian police to re-investigate the allegations.
Speaking at her home yesterday, Hollie said she was pleased that her case had been made public.
Her 58-year-old mother said the criminal injuries compensation of £13,500 that her daughter had just received from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority was a confirmation that people believed her.
“It is not the money that is important. It is a way of protecting her in the future against the person or people that abused her,” she said;.
“These people are still walking about free to abuse other children.”
“I was accused of putting the allegations into my daughter’s head and was even sectioned and taken to hospital and my daughter taken into care.”
A letter written by Detective Inspector Iain Allen from the community protection and investigation team at Grampian Police, to the criminal injuries compensation authority said: “Officers who have dealt with Hollie have taken the view she was a truthful witness to the best of her ability and an entirely innocent victim.
“She appears to have been distressed by what happened to her. This would have been particularly traumatic for such a vulnerable person.”
Grampian Police Chief Inspector Murray Main today said: “Decisions in Scotland on whether or not to prosecute are the responsibility of the Procurator Fiscal.
“If any new evidence was to come to light we would re-open the investigation.”
By Sue Austin
To view the original article CLICK HERE
Payout for sex abuse victim A Shropshire woman has been awarded criminal injuries compensation after she was sexually abused even though no-one has been charged or brought before the courts over it.
Medical evidence showed that 28-year-old Hollie Greig, who has Downs Syndrome, was a victim of abuse and had undergone a traumatic experience.
Hollie and her mother Anne Greig fled from Aberdeen when Anne discovered what had been happening.
They came to live in Shropshire eight years ago.
The two have been fighting to bring the man they said caused the abuse to justice but say no charges have ever been brought.
They say Hollie had been the victim of a paedophile ring since the age of six, for 14 years, before she moved to Shropshire.
Now the two are calling on Grampian police to re-investigate the allegations.
Speaking at her home yesterday, Hollie said she was pleased that her case had been made public.
Her 58-year-old mother said the criminal injuries compensation of £13,500 that her daughter had just received from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority was a confirmation that people believed her.
“It is not the money that is important. It is a way of protecting her in the future against the person or people that abused her,” she said;.
“These people are still walking about free to abuse other children.”
“I was accused of putting the allegations into my daughter’s head and was even sectioned and taken to hospital and my daughter taken into care.”
A letter written by Detective Inspector Iain Allen from the community protection and investigation team at Grampian Police, to the criminal injuries compensation authority said: “Officers who have dealt with Hollie have taken the view she was a truthful witness to the best of her ability and an entirely innocent victim.
“She appears to have been distressed by what happened to her. This would have been particularly traumatic for such a vulnerable person.”
Grampian Police Chief Inspector Murray Main today said: “Decisions in Scotland on whether or not to prosecute are the responsibility of the Procurator Fiscal.
“If any new evidence was to come to light we would re-open the investigation.”
By Sue Austin
To view the original article CLICK HERE
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)