RSS Feed

Police ignore Judge’s order , to help Latvian family escape social workers


This is Christopher Booker’s latest column


There is not a judgment up yet, that would allow me to give you an account of what has happened from someone who has heard both sides of the case, rather than just one side. I will keep an eye out.


The column does have the usual Booker hallmarks – the account provided by a single source, the cosying up to the President of the Family Division as being the only person who is trying to put things right, his habit as a ‘journalist’ of confusing making an argument with simply putting words in quotation marks to show his contempt for them,  his misunderstanding of many basic legal principles, and his unappealing habit of throwing the Judge’s first name around like confetti  – I imagine this is done to belittle them and diminish respect for them. It is a cheap shot.


It still surprises me, though it really shouldn’t after all this time, that when there is a Court case where the Judge actually uncovers the sort of dark dealings by social workers or a cock-up or mistake by professionals that led to children being wrongly separated from families, Booker is always silent.  Where are his columns on Al Alas Wray, on the foster carer who used racially abusive language to the mother, on the mother who wasn’t told for six months that whilst she’d been in a hospital having mental health treatment that social workers had taken the child away from the neighbours she’d left them with, on the Hampshire case from last week?

There are genuine scandals that happen in family Courts – appeal Courts showing why less senior Judges had made mistakes or had not been fair, Circuit Judges uncovering wrong-doing or errors or even conspiracies involving lying to the Court. They do happen – you’d be a fool to say that they didn’t.  And maybe those uncovered cases are the tip of the iceberg, and it is right for journalists applying the usual codes of practice that govern journalism to dig and investigate and bring them into the light. I’ve no problem at all with a journalist attacking the system and wanting to reform it. But if you were a columnist crusading for reform of the family justice system, why wouldn’t you be interested in writing about these cases where the facts absolutely demonstrate that there had been something rotten in the State of Denmark? They aren’t conspiracy theories, they are facts.

I’d welcome a column from Booker on the Hampshire case – it deserves attention, he’s a ‘journalist’, he’s angry about social work corruption and bad practice – he’s a good person to write the story.


Note to Ian from Forced Adoption – I am sure that you can give me and other readers chapter and verse on the background to this column. Please don’t.  I’ll read it from the Judge who heard both sides of the story rather than just one. Perhaps the Judge still got it wrong, people are only human, but I do think that hearing both sides doesn’t half give you an advantage before reaching a conclusion.


As ever, if I read the reported judgment and it shows that Mr Booker is factually correct in the substance of his claims, I will let you all know.  (I haven’t had to do that in four years of running the blog and checking Mr Booker’s reports of dire misdeeds against the actual judgments, but there’s always a first time).  Equally, if I think that the reported judgment shows that mistakes were made or that those involved were treated badly, I’ll say so.  I ran stories on Al Alas Wray, on the foster carer who used racially abusive language to the mother, on the section 20 abuses, on the Hampshire case where social workers lied, and sadly I think that I’ll have to run similar cases in the future. But I show the readers where my source comes from, and they are free to read that source for themselves and reach their own conclusions.




About suesspiciousminds

Law geek, local authority care hack, fascinated by words and quirky information; deeply committed to cheesecake and beer.

141 responses

  1. This clearly is an interpretation (or should that be “an interpretation”) of a story with huge chunks missing from the facts. And it’s classic Booker – from the minor marks that a teacher apparently felt needed raising with social services (“look, social workers are draconian and don’t live in the real world and will punish you if your child hurts themselves innocently”) to the description of the family being cultured (“they will nick nice, middle class children too”). All designed to panic families into thinking a minor, everyday injury can result in children being removed.
    I shall wait for the full facts to be disclosed and wait (without holding my breath) for Bookers apology or explanations if it isn’t as clear cut as he presents here.

  2. ashamedtobebritish

    I’ve had the pleasure of meering Mr B and we have talked on the phone, he is a thoroughly nice person, I assure you, he writes his coloumns purely because he is so aware of the corruption and how far the local authority will go in order to get their own way, silence parents and generally conduct themselves disgracefully.
    He is doing this to get it out there and make sure all parents are aware that they could be the next victim, or where to get help if already a victim.

    I also acknowledge that you do report/blog on the real issues at hand and you also back your writings with source, that is not in question.

    Christopher, imo, is far too trusting, he believes what he is told, some of the cases I know personally, and actually, he has got it very wrong and should have dug deeper, however, the LA have got it more wrong and did not need to remove or adopt the child.

    I think the bottom line is, you are a lawyer, you have to do things right, he’s a journalist, he can write what he wants as long as there is some truth in it, he has a poetic license that you don’t hold

    • A journalist doesn’t have “poetic license” – his job is to write facts and to verify those facts. Otherwise he is just writing fiction . Or lies.

      • I agree with claire. You can’t pretty up ‘lying’ by calling it ‘poetic’. Its like the boy crying wolf – he has misreported so many things, so many times when he does get it right, no one will notice or believe it.

  3. Reblogged this on | truthaholics and commented:
    Surely the fact that yet another family has had to flee the country – as fugitives – speaks for itself about the disrepute UK family law flounders in?

  4. Andrew ,I respect your blog because on the whole you do not abuse those who disagree with you.You do however repeat ad nauseam that Booker only listens to one source ,implying the parents and not the judge.
    Every case that he has written concerning social workers and family courts in the Telegraph in the last five years or so has been preceded by a careful study by him and myself of both the position statement of social workers and also the judgement when available; We start from the point of assuming the allégations of social workers to be true and even then their taking the baby or child into care or subsequent adoption is very rarely justified.

    • Ah but Ian, you also start from the premise that children shouldn’t be taken into care and that adoption without parental consent is always wrong. You are absolutely entitled to have that view, but it must surely make it hard to be completely dispassionate and objective.

      • Being fair to journalists, the system currently in place where Local Authorities give a ‘we can’t comment on individual cases’ response if asked, doesn’t really help. It would be nice if the President, in his many other strictures and guidances and policies would take those handcuffs off. You might get more nuanced and balanced recording if Local Authorities were able to give a response to a journalist’s request as to whether the story they are given by a parent has substance or whether there’s a different way of looking at things. So it is harder for journalists to fact-check than it ought to be, and that’s a really legitimate area of complaint.

      • I never said children shouldn’t be taken into care ! It is too easy to attribute false views to someone and then demolish them ! Forced adoption =contested adoption is always wrong but of course criminal parents may well deserve to have their children removed .Law abiding parents should never suffer because so called experts predict risks that may never happen !

      • That’s a fair point Ian, your position is more nuanced than I gave credit for. Would it be fair to say that if a parent is not charged with (or capable of being charged with) a criminal offence you don’t think their children should be removed?

    • That’s interesting, because when I asked you what information you looked at when deciding to assess parents deserving your cash to leave the country, you said you carried out no assessments and kept no records.

      Can you confirm what kind of information and from what source you do consider in your deliberations about whether or not to pay people to enable them to leave the country?

      • Dear Sarah

        Is it alright if you and Ian take that particular dispute over to your own blog? It is an interesting debate, but my refereeing skills aren’t quite up to it this week…

      • Simple Sarah ! Any pregnant mother deserves a chance to keep her baby for at least a trial periond and never desrves to have it adopted by force ! That is why I help pregnant mothers find refuge in more civilised countries with friendly helpful social workers.
        Andrew yes I believe parents like anyone else should be punished if they break the law but NOT if they are law abiding citizens who keep our laws. Social workers and family court judges decide parents are a risk and remove children even after a criminal appeal court has found them not guilty of any crime and that is clearly wrong.

      • I wouldn’t disagree with you on that, and neither would the law. A mother would have that chance unless the Court decide after hearing evidence and argument (from both sides) that that simply cannot be done in a way that will keep the child safe. The law is strongly on the side of the parents in that debate, unless the child’s safety would be imperilled.

    • So you and Booker have access to documents that are the property of the court?

      • Well we look at the position statements of the L.A to see if they justify removal of children to fostercare or adoption;They seldom do !

      • In what capacity do you have those documents?

      • I (Grandmother) have Full Case file of my Grandsons Case, Given to me by QC Focke, the QC involved in my Grandsons Case, A Case that has now been heard in
        OPEN COURT, prior to receiving the file QC Focke gave me the SUPPOSED 8 man signed doctors agreement report which only has 2 doctors signatures, and all information that it was faxed to his hotel room by Sally Cahill QC for Guardian Ad Litem, So you are talking Rubbish, or how you want the secrets/injustice to stay within the Behind Closed Door system

      • Not quite sure why you think I am talking rubbish notinmyname? I was just asking 2 questions about having access to court documents and how they were obtained – I thought that was reasonable. Perhaps you were responding to something else?

        Re “secrecy” am actually in favour of transparency and of judgements being published. It is also quite right and proper that things going wrong are exposed (as Andrew says). Transparency would be helpful in debunking the myths around secrecy and conspiracy that only serve to scare vulnerable families.

        My only caution is that transparency would also expose the behaviour of birth families and the reasons the state has intervened in their lives. There is a balance to be struck because jigsaw ID is remarkably easy and some families would find it humiliating to have their issues exposed.

        Overall I think a lack of secrecy would probably result in a large number of people reversing their position because they would be able to see who social workers and the courts are working with and why. Most people would understand that a criminal burden of proof is too high a bar to protect children.

  5. Andrew, Mr B is entitled to record an document cases ,he is no different to a firm of solicitors who carefully select the so called evidence from all kinds of sources.There lies the problem,with the way that some cases evidence is concealed ,take the Sally Clark case ,read the book, but can’t remember the slime ball who was prosecuted for non disclosure of medical records proving that she did not murder her babies.
    Need I go on?
    What is needed here is for you,an the legals an the Judge to take on board this,we now know how corrupt the system is,an just like a game of chess,who the players are,who are not to be trusted.
    One mum said to me,”the Legal Guardian is on my side ,an she says this”I said nothing in response, until the mum rang me back.Mum says am right,an she is wrong, an she can’t win.
    i waited to say this, the LG is there to keep parents going the whole distance with false hope.How do I know this?
    I am a good listener .
    This mother win her case, an she also got her children back ,an no legal, or SW helped her understand the system,she learnt the hard way,an learnt fast .
    Mr B reads the paperwork he needs to ,to write ,what he writes.

  6. This is not the only ‘Miscarriage of Justice’ Case that the public would not have known about. There are many many more but, we are GAGGED by strict and face imprisonment if we dear talk about it. Reporters seems more reluctant to write about them because of fear from the draconian ‘Secret Behind the Doors Family Court System’. At least these Policemen had a HUMANE heart while the Social Workers who tell non-stop lies to which Judges not only accepts.. but ENCOURAGES. This is the same cruel, unjust and diabolical pattern used to disappear my son who I have NOT seen nor heard from for 3 years now while they wrongfully states ” he has gained the Capacity to decide not to se you again” but, where is the evidence of that? It is all HEARSAY which the corrupt Judge embraces and invokes the inherent jurisdiction for no proper reason and this gagging and breaches of our Human Rights continues relentlessly with no route for redress while, the entire Family Court System Law needs reforming with dedicated Parents views and commitments being listened to. This UK Government has gone totally MAD and into reckless overdrive and it must be STOPPED immediately for the sake of the vulnerable.

  7. Pingback: Police ignore Judge’s order , to help Lat...

  8. I repeat no child should be take unless a parent has been charged with or has committed a crime.
    All gagging orders that do not involve national security are an infringement of fee speech and should be declared illegal .

    • Then you are not interested in protecting children, because a lot more children would be harmed or die that way? There is an argument for parents having rights above those of their children, it isn’t our current legal framework, but you are responding as if they are your chattels rather than vulnerable little people who have the right to thrive.

      • No Helen ,children should have the right to live with loving non criminal parents and not to be handed over like Xmas parcels to unknown strangers.
        Children taken into care have their phones and laptops confiscated and when parents visit they are forbidden to converse in their own language (if they are foreign),forbidden to discuss coming home, or abuse they have suffered in care.
        It is us critics who protect children not establishment figures upholding the present system.

      • Children have the right to live with their family absolutely but unfortunately harm does not necessarily reach the criminal burden of proof, the CPS don’t always prosecute because there is insufficient evidence, but finding of facts is exactly that. Children have the right to be safe and to grow up with a family who loves, respects, cares for and protects them. Children in care have mobiles and phones age appropriately, unless there is a known risk, in which case they are usually monitored rather than removed. Abuse in care is always investigated, as are any allegations children make, which are often made because parents tell children that if they say xyz they will come home so they do. Because what children want is to be with their parents, they just want them to stop doing whatever it was they were doing.

        We’d agree that loving families and children should stay together but it does seem that some parents who express love for their children also harm them. Your bar for that doesn’t correlate to the current legislative framework, it is centuries old. I would rather children weren’t in care but I would rather parents met their needs and protected them.

  9. WE did nothing wrong to our son, there is no evidence of any crime committed but, yet still we face imprisonment if we dear go where he is held prisoner or if we were to meet him on the streets and talk to him or brings him home.. we face jail as well.. Is this Democracy or imperial iron-fisted Communism?

    • Ge tfree help from,or Fassit,or “justice for families ! Nothing happens unless youmake it happen !

    • I don’t know your case, and I am sorry it has turned out this way, but the burden of proof is different in family courts because it keeps children safe. The court has decided yours are not safe with you, this in a neoliberal democracy which could not be further from communism if it tried.

      • That’s right. Helen, you don’t know my case but, would you like to know all the facts and the flaws that led to this great miscarriage of justice? My son was and is SAFER with us.. He was never threatened with Violence 3 times, he did not get thrown out of his friends home for touching his girlfriend’s breasts, he did not get slapped for touching a schoolgirl’s bottom on a bus, he did not get sacked for stealing at stores and LOST his jobs for stealing. He got Obese. His behaviour got worse and we lost contact gradually. All of this and the substandard care was visible to me and once I complained about them.. I was gagged and they then decided to bewilderingly invoke the inherent jurisdiction and fabricate he has gained Capacity NOT to see us again while a money hungry aunt GETS contact because she was the mastermind and worked alongside the OS, the LA, NHS and the corrupt prejudicial Judge. My Barrister had said to the CoA “An apology is NOT enough for this will-full denial of contact with my son who lived with us safely for many years”. The aunt stole his money and abuses him mentally while the contact continues regardless. How can this be just? My son was very close to me, he alaways came to me for assurance, security and any problems he has but, now he runs away from me if I see him on the streets “By Chance”. Don’t you think that Family Law in this country needs to be reformed with Family involved rather than Dedicated Alienating Dedicated Parents from their loved one’s lives whereby breaching their Human Rights?

      • What I do know is the outcomes for children in care are not great and the greater responsibility of that lies with those who so badly traumatised and abused them prior to them entering the care system.

      • EXACTLY! This what I am experiencing. They STOLE him but, cannot provide the 24/7 care that I provided with distinction and has GAGGED me whereby unfairly invoking the dreaded inhumane inherent jurisdiction in order to CONTINUE WITH THE NEGELCT AND POOR CARE WHILE HE DETERIORATES DAILY.

      • Burden of proof???????????? Keeps Children Safe??????????????
        Courts that can change a Childs Birth Certified name to a name of a child that has never existed because the parents were not married???????????? How do parents make any challenge, when only social services can produce evidence in the name of a child that has never existed for the first half of a split court case, then change the childs name to its birth certified name for the second half for FULL Care Order
        OBVIOUSLY in your mind to Keep Children Safe
        What about justice for all

      • I am not quite suer what your comment means.

        Burden of proof equates to a criminal bar, instead we have finding of facts and balance of probabilities in family law. Some crimes at not even prosecuted for various reasons and he said she said cases are notoriously hard to reach a verdict on. So what we have keeps children safe. I have no idea what you mean about names and challenges. Children’s names are generally not changed unless there is a very high risk around parents. All parents in public law proceedings have the right to free representation so any changes would be documented with reasons, or shared with you as a LiP.

      • dandymanyahoocouk I think you must have misread my comment which is that the outcomes for children in care are largely predicated on the abuse and trauma they experienced prior to being accommodated by the LA. You are probably being asked not to make comments because they would upset your child, which I am sure you would appreciate, this doesn’t mean that you can’t complain to the professionals who you will be in touch with if you are not confident about the standard of care being received.

  10. Simple !Do not take children from law abiding parents ! Take children when parents are charged with or convicted of cruelty,neglect,sex abuse, etc but if the parent is found “not guilty” give them back. Fosterers in Suffolk sought to be paid £590/week per child,Special schools raking in £ 3000-£4000/week per child(triple the fees at Eton)?The National Fostering agency (one of many agencies) founded several years ago by two social workers sold for£130million+
    Money talks………………….

    • Once Social Services gets their hands on your children.. they and you are DOOMED if you do not agree with their inhumane sub-standard treatments. They are then taught to HATE you. There is NO chance of then returning home. SS will twist and turn and do every possible thing to have them hate you and NEVER RETURN HOME. I dunno why Helen defends these heartless monsters!!!!!!!!!!! It is about MONEY.

      • It has nothing to do with money, the state intervening in family’s lives costs huge amounts, there is no profit or bonuses. Targets are around children moving quickly through the courts or to permanency once the case is clear. I am so bored with saying this it is untrue. Social workers don’t hate you, they don’t like what some parents do, but they carry on working with them until it is clearly not safe for CHILDREN that they do and then they go to court where everyone is represented legally. Oh but we are all in cahoots right? Sub human is the treatment of children harmed physically and emotionally by those who are supposed to love and protect them.

      • I Loved and protected my son from their abuse but, yet still they found a way to remove him a second time because he has an aunt who CRIES to get her way. She worked alongside them all along while crying and LYING But, they have become ENEMIES now as she cannot get his MONEY.

      • Please do note I do not call anyone subhuman, just the behaviour.


      • What was there then, on what grounds was your child removed? Because the state can’t kidnap children.

      • Well they sure KIDNAPPED him and has him hidden while we did him no wrong. The cruel aunt worked alongside them coz she uses him as her Goldmine but, they now realizes that and they have become enemies now.

  11. This is the judgment isn’t it?

    This is what was said by the judge about the injury

    The written evidence available to me indicates that on 12th November 2015 D was seen at school with a burn mark on his neck and another mark on his thigh. The appearance suggested injury with a rope. He said his father was responsible for the neck, an injury inflicted, he said, with a belt. He said his mother was responsible for the injury to the thigh. N was examined and was found to have bruising to the cheek for which he does not appear to have provided an explanation.
    The parents have been seen. The father says that the injury to the neck was caused by him in unclear accidental circumstances which I am afraid need more explanation. The mother said that the injury to N’s cheek arose from an incident in school but on investigation the only relevant incident at school concerned the oldest child. The parents agreed with Police and local authority that while investigations took place, the children’s safety would be ensured by their temporary residence with the grandparents.

    If this chid was hurt by his parents – as he says he was – and they go on to hurt him again, would Josephs and Booker accept ANY responsibility?

    (This is of course a rhetorical question. Of course they won’t)

  12. Oh dear ! In fact the parents told me that the social workers said they would take the kids at once if they did not sign admitting liability and asked me what to do. I told them signing under duress was not binding so sign whatever the ss wanted then get the hell out of UK and back to civilisation and safety in Latvia preferably going via Ireland .This they did and the happy family are all home together leaving stupid social workers furious; having unsuccessfully tried to get them stopped by police both in Ireland and Latvia

  13. So you think the SW are ‘stupid’ to be concerned about injuries that look like a rope mark? When the child says he was injured by both parents? the children were to be placed with their grandparents, not whisked off for forced adoption.

    So If this child gets hurt again and says it was inflicted by his parents, that will be nothing to do with you? That won’t give you any reason to stop and think about what you are doing and the information upon which you base your decisions?

    I am sorry, I know suesspciousminds has asked me to take this fight onto my blog, so I apologise for breaching that request. I am happy to take up the argument elsewhere; but I think it is important. I think the people reading this need to have the fullest possible information about your activities and your motivations.

  14. The authorities in both Ireland and Latvia had no concerns because boys are always getting bruises and in this case I am assured that the boy retracted his statement as he only said it to annoy his father ; I believe that because there were no previous complaints of bruising or other injuries unlike baby P who was continuously injured and had 57 visits to hospital according to press reports at the time and was still left to die ! !
    Yes the social workers were stupid to try and remove all the children because of bruises reported for the first time on an otherwise healthy and happy boy,Yes they were very stupid to force parents under threats to sign an incriminating document for the judge to read,,,and yes they were even more stupid not to rely on the Latvian authorities to sort things out if need be rather than squander taxpayers money on expensive but absolutely useless and ineffective court proceedings in the UK taken up long after the family had escaped to safety .

  15. Pingback: Helping parents leave the jurisdiction | Child Protection Resource

  16. children most certainly are NOT always getting marks like rope burns on their faces or necks. And what else was the child going to say, having been removed from the country by his parents? Clearly his faith in adults to protect him was going to be pretty law by now. Maybe better not to further anger the person who hit you?

    But of course, I am only speculating – I don’t KNOW that this child was hit by either or both of his parents. BUT NOR DO YOU.

  17. All you say about these so called rope marks is hearsay and your philosophy seems to be “one strike and you’re out …..The FACT is that both Irish and Latvian authorities were satisfied that the children were ok so why not leave it to the decent social workers in those countries instead of siding with the miserable UK social worker creeps who masquerade as saviours when they actually make a living snatching children from happy families??

  18. Pingback: The Latvian case – the judgment is up | suesspiciousminds

  19. Hearsay eh? So when the school contacted the LA because they were worried about the child, that is just worthless hearsay? What would satisfy you? The child paraded before you so you could inspect his injuries? Will you become the arbiter of every child abuse case? Or do you accept that experienced school teachers who see the child frequently might be very well placed to notice and be worried about bruises to the face and neck?

    This case didn’t come about because of some sneaking worm of a SW – the SCHOOL noticed his injuries and were worried.

    I can do no better than quote suesspiciousminds on his most recent post about this case:

    But you see the difference between a Judge deciding, and Christopher Booker deciding what happened, is that (a) The Judge hears BOTH sides (b) The Judge hasn’t made their mind up who to believe before you even start and (c) If the Judge gets it wrong, the decision can be appealed and put right. What’s the appeal process for Christopher Booker deciding that this child is safe with mum and dad? And if we have Christopher Booker deciding what’s going to happen in these cases, what stops Katie Hopkins doing it?

    Your behaviour, together with that of Booker is disgraceful. Once again, the right of a child to be protected is overriden by your crusade to permit adults to do whatever they want to the children in their care.

    • OH Sarah what rubbish you talk ;”the judge heard both sides” ?? Well he didn’t ! He just relied on bits of paper written by social workers out for “a kill !”
      Appeal? No! ,family court judges deliberately deceive hapless parents in family courts when granting interim care orders or final care orders.They finish up saying “I refuse the right to appeal” without explaining to any parent that they can actually request an oral hearing before a different judge to ask permission to appeal ! The lawyers keep quiet about that too because it is difficult for the to get funding for this ;so it is left to people like Christopher,John Hemming,and myself to tell them what they can do and how to do it.
      Lastly the ridiculous assertion that local authorities avoid taking children into care because they lose money doing it.Since when did civil servants working for councils care if the State lost money? Six figure salaries for the “top dogs” and damn the expense.All concerned are making a good living out of the adoption and fostering industries and some make outrageous profits as I illustrated earlier. No conspiracy necessary all have their snouts in the trough rather like those of our MPs who fiddled their expenses and the victims are innocent children…………

      • Amber, Parents Against INjustice

        Hemming/JFF knew Baby No Name HAD a name, yet would not be honest. They get paid full salaries & sometimes money from LA’s to supposedly assist cases SO WHY then charge £1500 plus to parents???

      • Ian, just to be really clear, what do you think that social workers should do if a child says that he has been hit with a belt around the neck and the parents say that it didn’t happen?

      • I have never claimed the Judge ‘heard both sides’. You have made sure that is going to be very difficult for him, given that you have assisted this family to leave the country. What the Judge did do however was consider the evidence from the school and the fact that neither parent could explain how a child got these types of injuries. These are not commonplace injuries. The child also claimed his parents hit him.

        What I have said is that YOU do not know what happened to this child, yet you felt perfectly ok with sending him off, in the company of adults who may have hit him. And who may do it again.

        But that’s ok! because they haven’t been convicted in a criminal court. Because you have advised them to leave the country so they can’t be charged.

        Do you respect what children are saying only when it chimes with your agenda?

      • Sarah, In my 7 years of hell in the CoP where all I did wrong was being a DEDICATED PARENT… I just went there for a bruising and battering and the Judge was prejudicial who ACCEPTED FALSE REPORTS BY IS’W AND SW’S, ADVOCATES AND NHS STAFF. Whilst my Legal Team and myself told THE TRUTH ONLY TO BE DEFEATED WHILE ALL THEIR FLAWS ARE VISIBLE. I told the told “THE TRUTH” but, boldly was not listened to.. but, someone who is always CRYING AND LYING was listened to and believed. And the cruel Judge based her decisions on this DECEPTIVE LYING PROCESS AND REFUSED ANY APPEALS. They took my son and cannot care for him like I did {Stephen Neary’s Case} and has GAGGED ME AND IMPLEMENTED NO CONTACT IN A COVERTED WAY. I cannot see why you are defending a scandalous corrupt Family Court System that DESTROYS AND BREACHES DEDICATED FAMILIES HUMAN RIGHTS ND THEIR LOVED ONES. { You must one of the cruel Judges, a SW or related to them}

    • The school made a referral,tell us more.My friend works for the same school my son went to,an they had their so called input.We had known each other years.Which is relevant.
      Anyway she tells me about this new person employed by the schools who is totally useless,but makes referrals to SS.
      In all the years she’s been working at the school,she’s never been so concerned.So say that again,the school made a referral,or a newly registered doctor,its a concern for innocent parents!

  20. John Hemming has no need of money ap

  21. The above cut off but I can’t imagine John charging any parent anything .We occasionally help parents together paying half each and never ask for anything.

    • Amber, Parents Against INjustice

      Tim and Julie Haines do charge & they are co-directors of JFF, yet he pays them BOTH full-time salary. He is fully aware of this.

      • They evidently make a living being McKenzie friends and are cheaper than lawyers.
        I can only say that John himself as you admit ;pays staff out of his own pocket and certainly never charges anybody for advice that he gives.
        If you were not satified with Julie and Tim I should take it up with John Hemming.

      • Amber, Parents Against INjustice

        John ignores complaints. MANY have complained to him.Their salary from him is what they should be making a living from. They are NOT cheaper that some direct access barristers.

  22. Andrew it dépends how old and how truthful the chilmd seems to be.Assuming the story is true and if the child seems ok and no affected by the bruise then the parent should probably be warned that if it happens a second time they will be prosecuted.If the child is injured badly then the police should be called and the parent(s) arrested and charged with assault.


  24. Sarah I have every confidence in the social services in S.Ireland and in Latvia so why do you doubt them .The judge just awarded an emergency protection order now expired on the basis of bits of paper written by social workers. If the alleged injuries had been significant the police would have arrested the parents.There are too many of these wretched uk social workers pretending to be police and deciding about the faults of parents on dodgy evidence .Leave the police to deal with crime and ignore the impersonators !

  25. My Grandson has a right to his birth certified name, any righteous, sane minded person could not possibly accept a court of law changing the childs birth certified name to cover-up evidence that my Grandson was SENT by his GP to a local hospital for experts to investigate BRAIN DAMAGE, which stands within the hospital records (withheld) Due to the court orders within the proceedings made in a name of a child that the hospital (which I have in writing) has no legal standing for them to submit their records of a child in a different name to court.
    If as you profess to be, are such an expert of family law you would know children are covered by the 1989 Childrens Act, also a warning on all court orders, pertaining to the illegality of changing a childs name, for FCP’s
    I have Full File (QC Focke) that proves my Grandsons Case was first dealt with in Magistrates in birth certified surname, Within 300Yds changed to Family procedure Court then his name to his Mothers surname added ie, (I am writing the initials only RB TO RBM the RBM went right through the case Full Care Order RBM stands in the High Court of Appeal London, split Case joined, No further Appeal to Change Childs Name,
    You obviously know a Child can only be adopted with a Full Care Order in the childs birth certified name that the Application is made, Where did the Care Order come from? Not from the court proceedings?

    • I am having a great deal of trouble following your post. I reply from what I understand.

      I am not an expert in family law as I’m not a lawyer but I do know the 1989 and subsequent Acts. Not sure what relevance that has in regard to the issue you raise. In regard to names, it sounds as if the issue here is that mother’s surname was added which is not unusual when parents have different names.

      As long as it is clearly the right child being identified the name used to grant an application for a care order would therefore not necessarily be in their certified name. It is legal to change a name. You seem to be saying that an order was granted in the wrong name so the child cannot be adopted, this is not the case. Names are also changed in cases where there is a high risk presented by parents.

      A change of name would not affect the ability of professionals to access health records which seems to be your implication. Records in regard to a chid can be requested under their name, the name they use, or even an alias. Since you have QC I would be surprised that this was an issue.

      I have no idea what FCPs is but if it is foster carers, you are right they don’t change a name, and adopters are asked only to change the surname to their name. Again though this differs when there is a high risk from family members of identification, either now or later.

      Presumably as grandma you have been ruled out as a carer, otherwise adoption would not have been the outcome. I don’t know your case but cases where family members minimise or deny the risks are those where children are placed outside their families.

      • What you are stating about the mis/use of a childs name by adding the mothers surname to a childs birth registered name proves you as a Social Services worker are the only public agency that believes the name of a child makes no difference on court orders, WELL I have news for you, it is a let out for the refusal to comply by any other public agency, which I have in writing, entered into court for our next court hearing, I have also the typed OPEN court proceedings in which Judge G Matthews stated a childs name could only be changed after adoption
        I also think you should publish the name of your employers, they have also questions to answer on the legality of doing so, and how many times EVIDENCE has been covered-up by changing a childs birth registered name to the name of a child that has never existed

    • I think you need to ask your lawyer to check that out before the next court hearing. Names are very rarely changed prior to adoption order and never the certified name. It does happen that aliases are used for a number of reasons but if for example I need information from the police or health, I obviously have to prove I have a right to access that info and know who the person is but that is usually obvious from knowing both their given name and allies. It is true that a member of the public and litigant in person may not have that access, but you are in public law proceedings so presume you have accessed free advice?

  26. Injuries to children and to adults in suspicious cercumstances should be left to the police and not to ignorant bullies calling themselves social workers who are in fact just a bunch of unpleasant childsnatchers !

    • THEY ARE! Your lack of understanding of the child protection process is quite scary given how willing you are to write about it in a way which can only scare parents.

      I shall repeat what I have said many a time, social workers are agents of the state, they work within a legislative and political framework and always have, attack that perhaps not them?

      • If the police do not prosecute the ss should not intervene trying to replace the police by taking parents to court and persuading judges to take their children away even when the police are satisfied that the parents have not committed any crimes.Social services usurp the functions of the police when they do this and should all either be sacked or at least be ordered to concentrate on familt support instead of child “protection =child snatching!
        I ca only repeat what the deputy chair ofthe association of social workers said to the first speaker at the meeting.
        ” I was talking to Maggie Mellon who is the Deputy Chair of the British Association of Social Workers and this is what she said:

        “The policy imperative towards more and quicker forced adoption means we may well look back at this period in horror as we do now to the forcible removal of thousands of children to Australia in the 1930s, forties and fifties without their parents’ knowledge and consent. That was done because it was felt it was the right thing but now we think how on earth could we possibly have done that?”

      • Please stop using SS, I am Jewish and we aren’t sending anyone to gas chambers as far as I can tell. If you think social workers are social engineering, well talk to the government because social workers work within a legal and political framework.

        The reason I engage here with you is partly because I am not necessarily pro adoption, I do think it draconian, and a last resort. Transplanting children is bound to be fraught with difficulties regardless. Anyone who says only parents who commit a crime should be subject to child protection processes should be considered someone who doesn’t wish to protect children.

        If we look at other he said she said crimes, like rape, and look at the conviction rates or even those cases prosecuted, we know that the stats do not reflect that a crime was committed. Evidence is all. It is the criminal courts burden of proof which rules.I can’t join you in a crime means your children are removed because I know too much about the impact of trauma and abuse.

        We could renegotiate on where the bar is in family courts and make a different decision about keeping children safe. BUT one case I know of, it took 7 years for the most sadistic sexual abuse inflicted on 5 children to go to trial. 7 years when those children were in the care of fantastic foster carers or adopters because social workers knew but had accommodate the children on ground of neglect. Social workers were not usurping, they were risk assessing, mostly with the support of the police and medics. Finally there was enough evidence and people went to prison.

        Lastly I would just say that any parent who is honest about an injury, accidental or otherwise, is someone a social worker can work with. & that doesn’t mean their child will be removed, it means some kind of safety planning which can involve those they are close to. The he said she said, the finding of fact, the civli proceedings

    • Cleveland police did a criminal investigation into my grandsons alleged injuries from the hospital, (well doctors only) ended in Released UNCONDITIONALLY, informed no injuries that had been put forward, but they did not know what they (referring to SS were going to do)

  27. Sorry that last line was in the composing and cutting and pasting , please ignore “The he said she said, the finding of fact, the civli proceedings”

    • EVIDENCE covered up
      Birth details Breech, Cord wrapped round his neck,
      No sucking reflex, constant eyes infected, constant wringing of fisted hands, Cat like Cry,
      jerking back spasms
      6 weekly doctors visits, referred to Family Clinic Head measurement Chart, head not growing: To be referred to paediatrician
      Head jerking back getting stronger, Reported to doctors surgery, Referred to hospital for investigation Skull XRay, CT Scan suspicious front of brain too far back from skull, Suspect Cerebral Atrophy, transferred to different hospital for MRI Scan
      Sent with a different Childs accident details (which was nothing to do with my Grandson) 48hrs later sent home, after interview with hospital SS Workers, no MRI, Discharge letter, duly given to Family Doctor (Would not return it to us) I have written details Solicitor acting for family at hospital, R was presented to A&E Accident Details Mother went to fridge to get babies bottle hit head on fridge door, never discussed in court, and had absolutely nothing to do with my Grandson
      4 days after discharge, abusive telephone call to my home, hospital doctor bring child back, MRI taken. Cerebral Atrophy confirmed 1 week later,
      Then the realisation by the hospital legal they had confirmed a birth negligence claim against themselves

      • Helen, the SS had a programme called lebensborn removing children with aryan characteristics,blue eyes blonde hair etc (not jewish certainly) from poor families and giving them to the ss to bring up ! That is what our “SS” in the uk do now.
        As to the time it takes for criminal cases to come to court I can only repeat that if the parent is merely charged with a significant crime against their child then the child should be taken into care but returned at once if the parent is found “not guilty” ;which is not the case now as family courts go on probabilities
        . The judge will usually believe that the social worker is probably more truthful than the parent the child is still removed and kept even though a criminal court has declared the parent not guilty!
        By the way Christopher was quite accurate about the judge ordering that the local authority not be disclosed in public (see para 3 of the judgement. handed down by Duggan on nov 20th)
        More importantly you do not seem to realise the social workers usurp the work of the police by deciding things like unexplained injuries .They decide(helped by hired gun experts) and more often than not the judge rubberstamps their decision so they can blame the courts for their cruelty.
        Pregnant mothers flee every week mainly to Ireland and France thanks to the excellent support networks we have there and to the mainly friendly and understanding social workers in those countries.The UK is the ONLY country in the world where a constant stream of pregnant mothers escape the social services in this way.Brian Rothery can give you figures for Ireland as most going there pass through his capable hands.
        It is ridiculous how social workers pursue escapees as far as Laos and Uganda to try and recover babies that have eluded them rather than leave the authorities in those countries to deal with any situation that does exist.
        Lastly any mother hearing that a social worker wants to see her would not reply “how nice” but would immediately think “my God they are after my children” ;That is why social workers are the most hated profession in the country.A corrupt and cruel extra police force that should be disbanded immediately ;

      • May I add the explanation as to why 4 days later from my Grandsons discharge, I had a pre appointment with our Family doctors I explained what had happened in the hospital (which the surgery had advised us to do) and handed him the release letter (unopened) This same doctor must have contacted the hospital doctor and informed him about the wrong accident details on this form, and the actual facts, it was not 30minutes later a very abusive phone call to my home from the doctor in charge, and demand fetch my grandson back immediately, which we duly did

  28. Dear all – I am very happy to host both (or indeed all) sides of the debate here. Comment rules apply though. Quick reminder that you can disagree with someone’s views and opinions, you can say why you think they are wrong, you can refute their claims. But here, we play the ball and not the man.

    That does count for both sides – there are areas of substantial disagreement here, but if you are getting to the point where you are attacking the person making the argument or calling names, then you need to step away from the keyboard and come back when you can make your points without it.


    Comment Rules are quite clear that Godwin’s Law applies here.

    There are diffferent views and perspectives (and as long as they aren’t utterly indefensible like pro-paedophilia, or defamatory, or naming individuals from real cases if not named on Bailii), just as you are free to express your views and perspectives, so are those who have different ones. Other people have different perspectives.

    And to quote Jay-Z, “If you can’t respect that, your whole perspective is whacked”

    • Andrew,if you are referring to my post I would never compare anyone on a blog to a Nazi or abuse any PERSON in any way. However John Hemming in parliament once compared the adoption SYSTEM to lebensborn which was the practice of the ss in the thirties. Surely the abreviation “SS” for social services is a case of “if the cap fits wear it !”
      Similarly the very typical agreement between parent and social services for contact visits restricting the subjects discussed and the language to be used was made long after the court finished and was never part of any court proceedings; Children were never named.
      I know you have to be careful but so do I !

      • My Grandchilds change of Birth Certified name and the change of his name from one court to another on Social Services LEGAL Department Applications was OPENLY discussed in an OPEN COURT PROCEEDINGS, not FCP (Family Court proceedings) If the case of a childs name is as Helen@helensparkles states in her comment, this is how Family Court Proceedings can change the truth to possibilities and probabilities and cover-up the evidence truth

      • Ian, no I wasn’t highlighting you in particular, others introduced the issues I was trying to bring to an end.

        But that abbreviation thing is not really worthy of the debate – I do think that you make important points about the prevalance of adoption in the UK, the lack of confidence amongst parents in the system being fair, misbehaviour of professionals, and the difficulty of fairly and accurately predicting risk. I think those are important points and you often make them very well. The abbreviation and comparison I think diminishes the proper legitimate debate, and frankly it is offensive to the memory of those people who suffered in the 1930s and 1940s. It’s beneath us.

        [I’ve always considered Ian, that although we have different ideas and philosophies that we’ve generally debated them with respect and I think we will continue to do so, so I’m sorry if you thought my ‘cool it’ piece was intended to be critical of you personally]

      • I have found your references to the SS “Helen, the SS had a programme called lebensborn removing children with aryan characteristics,blue eyes blonde hair etc (not jewish certainly) from poor families and giving them to the ss to bring up ! That is what our “SS” in the uk do now.” etc. and the way you are happy to diss social workers and lawyers really difficult to engage with. I would prefer to be able to debate the issues not work my way through a smokescreen.

        You would be surprised how many families thank me for my help and are pleased I can work with them, the voice of the few who scare them witless affects our ability to do so and increases risk, as does leaving the country.

        I am never going to agree with you about the need for a criminal conviction before children can be removed but social workers can’t decide if an injury is non accidental without medical corroboration. If you just think we are all in collusion, not a lot I can do about that.

      • There was nothing personal Helen as I never make personal attacks but I do feel free to attack ideas and institutions in any way I choose. In 12 years+ and well over 1000 cases per year I have never heard anyone have anything nice to say about social workers ;universally known to parents as child snatchers. Judge Hedley was so right on the bbc video when he deplored the shift of social workers from family support to child protection.That is why I urge social workers to simply return to dealing only with family support and leave all such issues as child cruelty, abuse or neglect to the police and to take no part whatever in the removal of children by the police which should happen only when those police have reasonable cause to believe that a crime has been committed;

      • Social workers can do nothing until the political and legislative framework alters. They are tasked within that context very clearly to protect children, you can not ask them to do anything else. I won’t repeat myself about the way agencies work together but you really are aiming your vitriol in the wrong direction. Your numbers are minuscule in the scheme of things and not representative. I did take it personally when someone said “if the jackboot fits” I thought that was highly offensive and as I keep saying here, it isn’t a way I would treat anyone. I work with families who do harm their children, quite severely, and not for one second would I not show them respect.

  29. The legislative Framework (as you call it ) does not forbid social workers to support families (very much the reverse according to the children Act 1989 ) and certainly does not forbid them to secure the safety of children by reporting any crimes to the police and then playing no further part until it was established whether parents or other carers were guilty or innocent. “guilty or innocent”.
    What you call the” political Framework “has no force in law and like the rest of the public I have no idea what such a term could include.

    • It would be I think obtuse to think that all of my comments about supporting and working with families means that I would say anything forbids social workers from supporting families! I just said that social work also encompasses child protection. My comment about asking them to do anything else was a response to you asking them to drop that aspect of their work, they can’t, any more than they can stop trying to work with families to keep them all together.

      It is disingenuous to imply that you have no idea what I mean by the legislative and political framework which enshrines social work, unless you really don’t know that laws are made by parliament, statutory guidance is legally binding, and all of the tasks of social workers are set out in that way?

      It is also slightly worrying that you work with families who are involved with all that child protection entails and are not aware that it is law and statutory guidance which dictate the way that families are supported, and children protected, as well as the responsibilities of social workers, and where thresholds are met for legal proceedings.

      The state dictates exactly what social workers do, they ask social workers to both support families and protect children, so social workers can’t just stop doing one of those things! (They ask social workers to do a whole lot of things actually but I shall limit it to those two we are discussing).

      Social work changes with every political regime, social workers operate within that system, they are not autonomous beings, they are agents of the state. Vote for the party which represents what you would like social work to look like. I would vote for a party that provides more services to the vulnerable because generally there is more chance of families being supported and change being effected where necessary in that environment and families staying together safely.

      I have also mentioned repeatedly that the police do investigate, medics give their opinions, lawyers advise. Social workers do not try to do any of those things.

      • there is no legislation at all that forces social workers to apply to take children into care and no legislation at all that prevents them leaving that aspect of protection entirely to the police.It is a contradiction for them to both support families and snatch their children so they should concentrate on the support angle and leave the police to decide initially if children should be removed and the parents taken to court for abuse or neglect.
        You cannot quote legislation that would stop them doing this tomorrow as this is the way it was theoretically mean’t to work in the first place.

      • Well, the police’s power to have children in foster care expires after 72 hours, so the police power is nothing more than a short term measure. You simply can’t read the Children Act 1989 as not placing duties on Local Authorities to keep children safe (and the Courts have established that children can sue in later life for failure to remove or protect them. Rotherham, for example have lost their entire democratically elected Council because of failures to protect children.

        It is an extremely valid point to say that the Children Act 1989 also has other important pillars such as providing services to support families which have been downgraded – an awful lot of that is due to the howls from the Press and politicians when a child dies. That debate has been driving the agenda in social work for many years now, and many professionals think that it is not a very helpful approach – there’s a difficult balance to be had in social work between family preservation and child rescue. At the moment, child rescue dominates. And one can see why – the Press coverage of the Hampshire social workers who lied to the Court and faked evidence was miniscule compared to the attacks on social workers in Baby P, Daniel Pelka et al. That can’t be right.

        Nobody in the Press is going to say with the next Baby P – well, social workers aren’t to blame, the police could have arrested the parent.

        What Louise said in the Family Justice Debate was very resonant – just as you can’t judge the whole system by the Hampshire type of case, nor can you assume that every case of bruising is going to end up with a Baby P. But the Press coverage of a child who died where there had been evidence of bruising would absolutely be that it was negligent and ridiculous not to remove the child. There would be a witch hunt for someone to blame.

        You can’t separate out that culture from decisions on the ground. Brid Featherstone’s book is extremely good on this.

      • Thats right! SW’s are NOT impartial and they go into overdrive to remove children lying along the way.

    • I assume you are aware of both legislation and statutory guidance, this might help from Working Together to Help Safeguard Children “32. Practitioners should be rigorous in assessing and monitoring children at risk of neglect to ensure they are adequately safeguarded over time. They should act decisively to protect the child by initiating care proceedings where existing interventions are insufficient.” it is one example of where support should be provided but action taken when this is not effecting change. There are others.

  30. Andrew ,yes police protection lasts 3 days (but sometimes runs on a couple more) and emergency protection orders last about 5 days also I think, so SWs and police are virtually in the same boat ,being obliged to go to court if they wish to extend the period of fostercare to be authorised by a judge. I say the SWs should leave it to the police to take children initially and also to take parents to court when they believe the law has been broken.
    Of course SWs must still help to keep children safe and report any likely crimes to the police but without getting involved in any subsequent removal or court proceedings except as possible witnesses if called to testify by the police.
    Yes social workers are obliged to keep children safe and they can do this best by informing police of suspicious circumstances and leaving the police to do their duty ,arresting , charging criminals and then leaving it to the CPS to prosecute them
    No social workers would be sued if police failed to act on their information .The police would quite rightly be blamed but I cannot see them removing babies for” risk of emotional abuse “in any circumstances.That alone would be a great improvement……………
    Helen the word” should “infers a choice otherwise it would be “shall” especially as initiating court proceedings is only one of various actions recommended by the guide ! I repeat that removals and the initiating of court proceedings should be the work of police and CPS not SWs who should be there to befriend ,and support children and parents not snatch their kids !

    • The Children Act doesn’t authorise police offices to issue care proceedings, and hence obtain Care Orders or Interim Care Orders. Fine to argue that the law should be changed, if that’s your stance, but the law as it has been for 25 years has been that only Local Authorities can commence care proceedings.

      Also the 1 in 400 stat is just not right. I very recently went through the Court statistics as to the number of applications made and the type of orders made as a result. About half of care proceedings end with Care Orders, and half with something different. Again, you might still think that 200 in 400 is too high, and that’s a fair view, but it must surely influence your view as to whether parents should stand and fight their case if you think that 399 of 400 lose by doing that, rather than a parent having a 50-50 chance.

      I think the stat you have is probably right for only 1 case in 400 ends with no order of any kind being made (but those orders include supervision orders, residence orders, contact orders, even parental responsibility orders, as well as the Care Orders)

      These are stats published by the Courts, independent of anyone else. You want the folder that says “Family Court statistics”

      I think the number-crunching I did might be up on Sarah’s website, if not I’ll find it and post it up here.

      [I’ll be utterly honest with you – if a parent only had a 1 in 400 chance of keeping their child if Care proceedings started, then everything you believe and say about family Courts would be true and I’d be supporting you completely. But that’s simply not right. About half of my cases end with the child being with mum or dad, and it has always been around that level. I do about 40 cases a year – on your figures of a Care Order being refused only 1 in 400 times, it would take me about 10 years to see a single case where the parent keeps their child or gets the child back. I don’t. I see 15-20 of them a year. ]


        In 2011, there were 32,739 children involved in disposals of public law cases, including 31,515 orders made, 792 applications withdrawn, 350 orders of no order and 72 orders refused.

        Only 72 care orders refused out of 32,739 cases !What chance do these poor parents have in our hopelessly prejudiced “family courts”?

        Judicial and Court statistics 2011 –

      • What a total crying disgrace. It makes me wonder whether these fecking Judges, Social Workers, CADCASS, so-called Ind. SW’s, Advocates, Official Solicitor, NHS Staff and Care Home Staff are HUMANS or some bloodless vampires who has no feelings for these innocent children and vulnerable people. The RAF is dropping their BOMBS in the wrong place.

      • In response to the fact that only local authorities can issue care proceedings ;that is fine.
        If the police obtain a conviction on a parent for a serious offence against children the legal department of the local authority should issue care proceedings and the police should bring evidence to court of the crime if necessary .Social workers should still be there to comfort and support the family and try to find ways to keep the family together (maybe with just one parent or a relative)instead of attacking enemies.

      • This is what I was talking about – the 31,515 orders made are not all Care Orders – about half of them are. But the other half are Supervision Orders, residence orders, contact orders, parental responsibility orders; none of which end up with the child being in Care. The 350 “no orders” will all be cases where everyone agreed that it wasn’t necessary to make any order at all.

        So it simply isn’t right to just work on the basis that parents “lost” in all but 72 of 32,739 cases. That would be hopelessly inaccurate. And as I said to you, if that was right, I’d only get to see a happy ending for the parent in Court cases about once every 10 years. Whereas I get about 20 of them a year. I honestly don’t think I could do the job I do if the system was as hopeless as you think it is.

      • The parents want “no order” as anything else is a restriction of their freedom and is a loss.
        In criminal cases there are many possibilities,prison,community service,probation,conditional discharge,electronic anklet,psychiatric examination,etc etc All are different examples where the case is lost.The same conclusion applies to the various differen orders made in the family court.

      • Well, not for the first time, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I think that parents in care proceedings primary focus is to end the case with their children living with them.

      • Win lose is generally a unhelpful dynamic in public or private law proceedings and I’d be interested in genuinely exploring a less adversarial process, the “battle” overshadows the children.

      • That’s true, but we do need to also recognise that with the current system it is hard for a parent to think about much other than how it will end, and whether their children will still be with them afterwards. That’s an understandable human reaction. Ian categorises the making of any order at all as ‘losing’ and I would say that there are a range of orders that parents can leave the end of Court proceedings feeling that they are acceptable conclusions, and that about half the time that’s exactly what happens. When the public debate is skewed by a false perception that only 1 case in 400 ends with something the parents can feel okay about, it is little wonder that some parents believe the myth that it is hopeless and that the only thing to do is flee the country.

      • I’d agree with all of that & of course it is the current system. I suppose I am responding to the need for change with something I am confident I am not the first person to moot. The FDAC model is interesting in the way the court works with parents/families and I’d have them and PAUSE nationwide. I just think that family courts should be courts of enquiry rather than following the usual system, alongside transparency. It isn’t hard to understand (& have empathy for) the way all parents feel once the case has reached court. Nobody goes home feeling good after what would be a win in Ian’s book, the only win is really that the children are ok,

      • Parents primary focus is to get the detested social workers off their backs and those of their children.A supervision order for example is a defeat for parents scared out of their wits that they will do something wrong and that their children will then be taken again.
        Parents want their children home free of the attentions of their enemies the social workers and only then do they feel they have won.A court is always about winning or losing and only 1 in 400 parents win coming out free and clear of their monstrous oppressors.
        Foreign parents especially curse the day they ever came to UK when their children are forced into care and forbidden to speak their own language when parents have supervised visits. How emotionally abusive can that be ? When pregnant mothers escape to France or Ireland to have their babies and keep them why cannot vindictive social workers leave them alone instead of sometimes pursuing them in foreign courts and telling horror stories to foreign police?Claiming the habitual residence of a baby is a country (uk) that the baby has never been to ! Luckily nowadays such claims nearly always fail and just waste the money of uk taxpayers.
        The social workers in other EU countries are just as good at their jobs as those in UK even if they are much kinder and do not believe in snatching babies at birth to feed the greedy forced adoption industry………..

    • There are of course a range of outcomes, as Andrew points out in terms of orders, and I would add for children because few are removed from their family of origin. Should is a direction. Linguistics are as much about the way language is used as it is the word itself.

      Child protection is a multi agency process with the social worker taking the lead, mainly because social workers are usually best placed to coordinate health, police and education. The police can of course prosecute parents, this is not always in the best interests of their children, and I would argue that social work intervention is less punitive.

      Police Protection Powers are 72 hours and there is no facility for extending this time. This is because they require the police to immediately remove the child to a place of safety. This is about immediate risk and it would include emotional abuse. I think perhaps you underestimate the level of emotional abuse that warrants child protection intervention.

      Emergency protection orders are different because they require a court application so are subject to scrutiny. An EPO can be made for 8 days at the first hearing and can be extended for a further 7 days on further application. The police have no capacity to place children with foster carers, they often are with the support of a social worker, but that can only be undertaken with a registered body. Mainly to make sure those who we want children to be safe with they are.

      Lastly I don’t really understand how anyone would trust social workers more or not be scared of them if (the law changes) and I am solely to befriend and support, but report anything suspicious. That doesn’t seem to change anything and doesn’t do anything to help prevent children being removed, it makes it all rather worse as far as I can tell.

      • I would argue that social work intervention is less impunative??
        It is a life sentence, falsely acussed, possibility and probability, no evidence, legally allowed to change a childs birth certified name to the name of a child that has never existed (Covering up the truth), no access to the truth, How could any Court of Law even consider evidence in the name of a child that has never existed to be allowed as EVIDENCE
        Never allowed to have another child without removal
        Less impunative??
        It is barbaric

  31. Reporting something suspicious is one thing and actually removing children ,taking parents to court,and fighting them in court in a fierce and adversarial way is quite different and 100 times worse ! Health visitors are bound to report anything suspicious as are teachers at school and even doctors if they think a crime has been committed,,but they are not hated and feared like social workers who gleefully tell pregnant mothers “we are going to take your baby as soon as it is born so do not try and leave the hospital before we come ” UGH !
    Leave criminals to the police and leave law abiding parents in peace !

    • Why are they allowed to do this? because Social Services with the LA legal support, whether it be inhouse or Family Court Area Solicitors, all speak in the same voice, Cover-up, completely falsify that a simple visit to a hospital (as investigated by Cleveland
      Police) Arranged by Family doctor can become an accident detailed investigation by a Social Service Dept, making up false accident details of 6week old child barely weighing
      10lb fell to a heavy tiled kitchen floor and getting doctors to predict injuries that the child would have suffered, As a grandparent (including Grandfather) I still believe Cleveland police have a lot of questions to answer for allowing this not only to have allowed this to happen, but also of being party to iit for putting into court later doctors reports and knowing the childs name on the reports entered was changed by Social Service Department Legal

      • To further my case of wrongful procedures being allowed, Photographic evidence, every picture tells a story, as in my grandsons case falsely, suffered a 5ft fall to ceramic tiled kitchen floor at 6weeks old, the injuries we were accussed of? did not have a mark on him, not a mark, neither any photographic evidence by the police or the hospital to prove their case

      • The judgement you posted was really clear that he did experience serious injury. They are not always visible in photographs, so that would prove nothing, internal injuries are much more dangerous.

    • That isn’t possible unless the law changes.

      You are quite wrong about other professionals reporting, they become hated at that point.

      I completely agree about the adversarial nature of court, most family cases are much less so than criminal, and everyone works hard to ensure that.

      Social workers do say that they are removing babies from hospital, but it is not with glee, it is with an extremely heavy heart & is because we are very worried about a vulnerable baby.

      Parents are not always prosecuted and anyway not sure what we are doing with children whilst they wait 2 years to go to trial?

      It is really simple. If people keep their children safe, like most do, children will be able to stay at home.

      • If parents are as you say “often not prosecuted” then they should KEEP their children.It is as simple as that .Taking kids from law abiding UK citizens is an outrage and should be stopped immediately.
        As I said before if a parent is charged with a serious crime then the child can be put into care and only returned if the parent is found to be “not guilty”.
        Glad that you now admit “the professionals are hated” but none so vehemently as social workers who pursue parents through a profusion of court cases until they achieve permanent fostercare or adoption.

      • I do not experience hate in my role, please don’t extrapolate, just making the point that anyone reporting suspicions is likely to become more hated than friend and then you have a family not engaging with a profession and a child potentially at risk.

        The burden of evidence is different in criminal cases and we already know we disagree about that so not really going to comment further.

  32. Fractures of the skull?????? cannot happen without external evidence,
    @ Helen@helensparkles or helensparkles2015 Are you one and the same commentor???????

    • “I would argue that social work intervention is less impunative?? It is a life sentence, falsely acussed, possibility and probability, no evidence, legally allowed to change a childs birth certified name to the name of a child that has never existed (Covering up the truth), no access to the truth, How could any Court of Law even consider evidence in the name of a child that has never existed to be allowed as EVIDENCE Never allowed to have another child without removal Less impunative?? It is barbaric”

      I don’t actually know what impunative means, could you explain?

      • Helen I think you know quite well that the contributor above means that punishments caused by social worker’s intervention is much worse than anything else.
        Talking of language ;how can anyone justify the fact that foreign children in care are forbidden to speak their own language when parents visit? A barbaric violation of their free speech and worse emotional abuse than any they could have suffered if left with their parents.

      • Not really, I found it quite hard to work out what any of that message meant really.

      • Well this comment is very confusing?????????? any other commentor with the ability to help me out here, I have no idea what impunative means either??????????
        Possibly the site administrator could help, is this comment to me or Forced Adoption

      • You used the world NOTINMYNAME so I was asking what it meant?

  33. I am and I have no idea why it comes up differently. Fractures of the skull could show on x ray not necessarily externally.

    • Fractures of the skull have often been mis-diagnosed on Skull X Ray??? but not on MRI Scan, Funnily as it may seem my name never changes on this site, complain, people might think you are 2 different commenters

      • Not sure that warrants a complaint, it’s probably my fault. I’ve been on 2 different devices. You didn’t mention X-rays or MRI scans, just photos. Perhaps you could clarify.

%d bloggers like this: