RSS Feed


It’s Dr SUESS plus SUSPICIOUS MINDS    (it’s like a Mash-up, if you’re simultaneously down with the kids and about 8 years late to the slang)

It is family law, mostly child protection; and a blog that is mainly centred around showing you the key bits of stuff that you didn’t have time to read in full, and adding cynical asides. In my own description, it is “cut and paste plus sarcasm”

Suesspicious minds is overly fascinated by law, and particularly child protection law – I’ll write mainly with a slight Local Authority slant, though I’ve walked in various shoes during my time in family law, so I’m no rabid pro-eugenicist.  I appreciate that not everyone else is quite as law-geeky as me, so I will be trying to break up the very technical law posts with opinion and newsy stuff.  Outside of law, I love sport, fashion, music, beer and cheesecake.  None of the stuff on this blog will ever be a substitute for legal advice, and I won’t ever be talking about individual cases, nor reading (or printing)  any comments that talk about individual cases.  [unless they’re law report cases]

Oh, and obviously, the name is derived from a combination of healthy cynicism, a talent for doing impressions of the vocal style of Roland Gift, and a love of Dr Suess.

A quick addition on comments – I do have to come in and approve them if you’re a first time poster, so don’t automatically assume that you’re being censored, when it may just be that I haven’t gone in to approve them yet.  And after twenty eight days, any individual post is locked down for comments.

I have censored some posts, but with reluctance, as well as the incredible amount of fascinating spam that I get, but I’ve posted a truckload of comments which have had a starkly different view to mine, many of which have been fair, eloquent and reasonable, and some which have not been,  including some which come pretty close to calling me crooked and corrupt.

Boo, hiss, censorship, what about Voltaire and free speech etc. You’re free to have whatever rules or policies you want on your own blog, but  this one is mine, and after twenty eight days on a topic, I’ve run the course of wanting to log in each day to read posts about how I’m a nazi in the pocket of the system, sorry.

421 responses »

  1. Pingback: What Should You Do If Social Services Steal Your Children? A Lesson in How Culture Can Cloud Common Sense « Researching Reform

  2. I read quite a lot of your blog etc. You say that your a family lawyer and you dont believe that social workers lie. I can not only prove that wrong but show you just how corrupt some of them can be. Also my sons can likewise (especially now they are over 21yrs old and allowed to speak for themselves) It is dangerous to think there is no smoke without fire, especially when it involves breaking up the family that can destroy, yes, destroy a child’s life. Care, whether fostering or children’s homes is (and proven) highly damaging to a child, emotionally and educationally. Forced adoption for many is no better.

    • Dear Sheila

      Do I believe that social workers don’t lie? I don’t know that I would go that far. I believe that, as with every profession, there are good and bad people within it, and that even those good and bad people have good and bad days. I think more often than not, where mistakes are made, they are where a social worker has a professional opinion and it is wrong [sometimes they can be very wrong in their opinions, even unfair, without lying], rather than them actively lying; but very very sadly, I do know that social workers, being human beings, do sometimes tell lies.

      It has happened to me very rarely in Court, maybe twice in nearly twenty years but I can think of a telling example where my social worker had filed a statement and was about to give evidence about very detailed conversations they had had at a meeting on X date, and I was taken aside by a group of troubled advocates to tell me that such a meeting had never taken place. On further enquiries, yes, it turned out that the social worker had filed a statement lying about a meeting that had never occurred, and he was sacked that same day. So yes, it happens.

      Do I think it happens routinely? I hope not. Does it happen to some families and do awful things happen as a result? I’m afraid so. Does every single instance of that come to light by careful cross-examination of the social worker and the truth revealed before the Judge makes decisions? It should always do, and the system is based on that being the protection a parent has against professionals telling lies. But in reality, does it always? I’m afraid probably not. Mostly it does, but even a tiny fraction of cases where the truth doesn’t come out, such as yours are tragedies.

      • Dear Suesspiciousminds

        I was encouraged to read your blog as I am currently embroiled in Childrens’ Services myself.

        I would very much like to discuss engaging you to act on my behalf.

        How would we go about having an initial consultation?
        In anticipation


      • Hi Daniel, I’m afraid that this is a law and child protection discussion blog, not a business where I take cases on. I actually work for what a lot of my readers would term “the bad guys”…. I think just above your comment, should be some suggestions I made for good places to get help. I wish you luck.

      • Hi,
        Expert Speakers This is a free event.
        Children screaming to be heard and The Silent Witnesses Conference to be held on July 25th 9am to 5pm at the resource Centre for London on the Holloway road.
        We Invite you or any member of your organization to attend this seated and ticketed event.
        There is no charge a donation to the registered charity is appreciated on the day all tickets can be collected on the day from a member of our team.
        The aims of the conference is to which aims to prevent physical, emotional and sexual abuse and neglect of children
        by promoting the physical, emotional, and social well-being of children. We aim to promote the rights of children
        as citizens, through multi-disciplinary collaboration, education, campaigning and other appropriate activities’
        1:-The fact is that parents who have committed no crime are losing their children to forced adoption!
        2:-Experts who depend on court appearances for a living, nearly always agree with the local authority.They make predictions that parents just might abuse their children (including newborn babies) in the future ,so these parents lose their children to permanent fostercare or adoption,not for something they have done but for something they might (or might not) do!
        3:-Over 1000 UK children /month are taken into care ,Fosterers are paid an average £400/week per child (birth mothers get around £20/week),and a foster agency founded by social workers getting around £1500/week per child was recently sold for £130million !A real money driven industry !!
        4:-Parents whose children have been taken are gagged and threatened with prison if they protest publicly;At contact parents are gagged again and forbidden to get emotional,to speak any foreign language,or to discuss the case with their children otherwise contact will be stopped.
        5:-More children are taken for emotional abuse than physical and sexual abuse added together.Despite “baby P” the number taken for physical abuse is steadily falling as a percentage of the total number of children taken.
        6:-What are the solutions?
        (a)Impose criminal rules of evidence in family courts so children cannot be taken unless parents are proved to have committed a crime affecting their children. Also parents would be free to obtain a second opinion from an expert of their own choosing.
        (b)Abolish all gagging of parents leaving them free to protest openly if their children are taken, and also to say what they like to them at contact without censorship ! Two very simple changes, two very obvious solutions.,but will anyone impose them and derail the money-train ?
        Don’t hold your breath.
        Our Facebook Page
        Email Andy
        Telephone 01469 510 558 Mobile 07827731060

      • i cannot help but notice that you mentioned cross examination of the local authority, i sadly in all honesty can say that the only persons that were cross examined in the family law court were myself and my partner, niether of our barristers cross examined anyone, with the end result being forced adoption of our children, was this fair, i think not

      • That is very sad. You would have been entitled to have had questions asked of the Local Authority witnesses. Ultimately, whilst a barrister may give you advice and they may well have damn good reasons for that advice, if you disagree with them, you can still tell them what you want them to do on your behalf.

        There is a principle of advocacy that you only ask questions if it will improve your case, so that might be a reason for them advising against it; but a barrister does have a duty to ‘fearlessly represent’ you and your instructions, even if you are going against their advice.

      • Dear suesspiciousminds, in the article DAM (I think I like you) you state: “I think there’s at least an argument to be had on that aspect. I have seen a Parker J case in which it was posited that this formulation applies to interim care orders as well, which I think goes too far.” Do you know the name of the Parker J case that you are referring to?

      • I can’t recall it, but there’s certainly an argument that re B in Supreme Court hints at it by saying necessary (as in article 8) means nothing else will do

      • Is it lawfull and allowed for cafcass court workers to connect on social media with social workers and managers working on the same family court case, where the local authority are holding the children, plus cas a cafcass service manager also run their own fostering agency ltd company .

      • Yes social services do lie, I’ve had social services lie doctor report make false allegations about my criminal record when I ask for access to my children’s record social service intervened and there was 51 pages missing yes 51 pages and a lot of the page just had a few words at the top the rest of the page blank when making complaints they cover for each other when sending all proof to the onbudsman they also cover for the social service so where do you go from there???? My case is one of the worst cases I ever heard of in my 54 years on this earth I’m know going to try make it public because social services have committed so many criminal offices that all involved should be charge oh and by the way I’ve done my home work every thing they’ve done I’ve been online at all the @gov there not allowed to do what they’ve done but because I don’t have the money to take this further my poor children are stuffing. All these professionals under the @gov are not doing there jobs just covering for each other so they don’t look bad there not there for are children there for a big pay packet and do not care about children what a good country we live in NOT!!!!

      • I did not know of the existence of social care child care assessment teams until 8 months after I spoke to a charity {which turned out to be a SARC – official Sexual Assault Referral Centre} seeking urgent counselling after one of my children advised me of a sexual assault to her by a peer. When the charity learned my child was 15, I was advised they would report this to my social services who would involve the police. In short, I learned 8 months later that section 47 enquiries had been made, two strategy discussions held, a strategy meeting held – all without my knowledge or that of my child. It turned out that there were too many conflicts of interest between a school child protection officer, a school teacher, police officers and social care. The impact of NOT being told anything by CPO, police nor social worker/s, receiving no ‘outcomes letter’, meant that my child was impacted for the school year by a lack of any child protection. The impact on this child and other siblings was truly dreadful and the disruption to our lives enormous. I have butted heads with my council (and police) for four years and the Ombudsman has now issued a draft report, which is pretty damning. I would dearly love to see some advice on where to seek advocacy from child protection lawyers. People with conflicts of interest do lie and do hide material facts from families, in my experience. This has shot my trust in my Council, School and the Police and will take much to restore.

      • Really sorry to hear that. There’s some very clear High Court guidance about information sharing and s47 investigation and a situation should not be opened as s47 before hearing the parents account of events (unless there are very compelling reasons why that would be dangerous for the child). You probably want a civil lawyer or human rights lawyer rather than a specialised child protection lawyer because this is more apology/compensation rather than an ongoing court case. The ombudsman was a good route to take. You may also want to think about a complaint to the Information commissioner.

    • Wendy Wolfendale

      Please can anyone help.
      My daughter and her partner have no idea what happened to our 3 year old back in September 12.(she had been smoking weed for some years – so not completely a Mary Poppins) But a consultant said it was “child abuse” -nb he specializes in this subject. A further £3000 report basically said “I don’t KNOW either, so I’ll agree with him”. Suddenly they are in the “pool of perpetrators”. Self infliction or a medical condition are just ruled out – bang.
      So a Lancashire in January. No more contact from Social Services or the Guardian; done deal as far as they are concerned.
      Relationship broken, new house, drug free, city and guilds in Childcare course. Counted for NOTHING.
      Friday 17th May – adoption.
      Friday 24th May – final goodbye booked.
      This is madness, sheer madness – she has lost her baby for something that NO-ONE saw or knew about. Police have said from day 1, there is no case to answer as there is NO evidence at all that they “injured” him.
      We hardly have time to breath, let alone launch and appeal –

    • I know some of them lie I’ve been on the backend of their lies managed to win the case but it destroyed my career and left my future in doubt if I can’t go back to work how am I meant to provide a role model and a decent living for my children. Something which social services don’t give a shit about having told me it isn’t their problem and I should retrain get a new career despite being highly qualified and experienced in childcare

      • You can sue them and get the S47 removed.

      • Hi my wife and I had 7 children removed after years of being harassed by social services. My wife had the misfortune to have had some psychiatric problems as a child. We didn’t know that everywhere we lived we were under covert social services supervision and a file was being added to in preparation of removing the children. When care proceedings were commenced the evidence of significant harm was all based on multiple hearsay and a dossier that had been prepared of anonymous multiple hearsay allegations. A police officer produced this dossier at the magistrates court. An example of the kind of abuse of power is that the children were removed by 15 armed police officers in full riot gear accompanied by 3 social workers two environmental health officers 2 midwives 3 firemen. An anonymous person alleged the mother was being held in a cellar with her children. The police found the mother and children fit and well. They were still taken into care. The first judge to hear the case took 9 months and then became mentally ill. The second judge returned the children to parents and found that the whole case had been concocted by social workers and police on false evidence. However 3 years later police and social workers returned and took the children again on false evidence. The high court judge who returned them had retired. The children are now stuck in care. They have been physically sexually and mentally abused by foster carers. according to social services files. If you are targeted by social workers you will be harassed until they get their way. There is a public judgement in the administrative courtj on this case which confirms the above facts.

      • Lulu sorry it showed you stood up for truth and decency, there always a cloud with a silver linning

    • Paul Summerfield

      Dear Sheila

      I do love the way that you write the unspeakable.

      Because you are if fact correct.

      The SS were there once to help families that once was there role.

      But now sadly they are there not to protect you and I but to protect doctors,,solicitors and they also have a percentage figure given by the government to take our children away from us.

      And they will use every trick in the book just to take our children away from us.

      As in peter pan every fib the tale another fairy dies

      • Paul Summerfield

        As in peter pan every fib they tale another fairy dies

      • This is true as I am 47and was in and out care and in all onisty I can say it was ok socal worker was a social worker and we became friends for long time after she gave me nolige and confidence she was a friend and a good person that did her job because that’s what she wanted to do now it’s not social work it’s dangerous with human cost that can never be turned back effect is life long because SoCal worker s do lie do cover each other and because you think different this is why ther3 will be no change we’re the lier

      • Lies told now are a winner , hard to beat lies of so many, well thought out justice ministers of both parties , Cafcass evil of secret liars

  3. I totally agree with Sheila. My 12 year old daughter and I are currently waiting for final assessments , so we can go to court and have the Care Order lifted.
    She has been in care for nearly 5 years.
    ‘Risk of Emotional Abuse’ category ( seeing her dad had anger management issues NEVER directed at her, but only towards others, sometimes in her presence).
    The most tragically absurd thing is: she suffers FAR GREATER EMOTIONALLY in her foster placement, her health suffered SIGNIFICANTLY due to poor nutrition and constant worry and stress in her life. She is also subjected to RACIAL discrimination – being of a mixed race ( almost porcelain-fair skin complexion), SW decided to place her with Jamaican foster carer, her daughter and another Jamaican fostered child.
    So my daughter is always told she is not ‘full-black’. not ‘one of them’, et cetera.
    Its all too much for anyone to comprehend these atrocities happen in this day and age in the modern society, the country that signed the European Convention of Human Rights.
    My little girl developed more ’emotional issues’ during this 5 years in ‘so-called care’,
    she is now scarred for life. We will be bearing these scars for the rest of our lives.
    Dont tell us about good and bad people and social workers.
    The amount of harm to come from an average bad person before they end up is jail is nothing compared to the amount of harm from a social worker throughout their questionable career-and ,surprisingly,its very rare they get prosecuted/convicted and locked up.
    Any action taken against them is investigated by their own… you get my drift.

    • andrea marley

      I totally agree with you Anastasia in everything you say. My wee boy is mixed race wuth a white family. He’s broken hearted. Them sw don’t realise they damage the child. They do lie and they are heartless. I’ve seen it all. My boy has only been away a week over nothing saying my mental health is doolally which I was diagnised with diabetis and the medication was making me I’ll. I hope them sw get what’s coming to them. Theyr evil demons. Andrea

  4. I totally agree with Sheila. My 12 year old daughter and I are currently waiting for final assessments , so we can go to court and have the Care Order lifted.
    She has been in care for nearly 5 years.
    ‘Risk of Emotional Abuse’ category ( seeing her dad had anger management issues NEVER directed at her, but only towards others, sometimes in her presence).
    The most tragically absurd thing is: she suffers FAR GREATER EMOTIONALLY in her foster placement, her health suffered SIGNIFICANTLY due to poor nutrition and constant worry and stress in her life. She is also subjected to RACIAL discrimination – being of a mixed race ( almost porcelain-fair skin complexion), SW decided to place her with Jamaican foster carer, her daughter and another Jamaican fostered child.
    So my daughter is always told she is not ‘full-black’. not ‘one of them’, et cetera.
    Its all too much for anyone to comprehend these atrocities happen in this day and age in the modern society, the country that signed the European Convention of Human Rights.
    My little girl developed more ‘emotional issues’ during this 5 years in ‘so-called care’,
    she is now scarred for life. We will be bearing these scars for the rest of our lives.
    Dont tell us about good and bad people and social workers.
    The amount of harm to come from an average bad person before they end up is jail is nothing compared to the amount of harm from a social worker throughout their questionable career-and ,surprisingly,its very rare they get prosecuted/convicted and locked up.
    Any action taken against them is investigated by their own… you get my drift.

    • I so understand your situation. Children who know they are loved and feel secure can cope with situations where there is disagreement and even arguments between parents and even anger for other people. They actually grow up knowing that life is not perfect and that life is full of ups and downs but they can learn from it and not only survive it but do better. They also learn that in spite of life’s ups and downs and differences there is something solid that cannot be broken, the fact that no matter the parents imperfections they are loved. To a child, this is something solid that the child can build on.
      To remove a child in these circumstances not only puts the child at greater risk of ‘abuse’ of all sorts but ingrains in the child that anything less than ‘perfect’ is unacceptable.
      The truth is that no-one is perfect but a child will have a view of him/her self that he/she is also not acceptable in the path of life.
      For you, so very sadly your daughter has also suffered racial issues and it is a fact of life (unknown or ignored by some social workers) that there is many forms of racial abuse, not just between black or white but beween different ‘shades’ of black of white. Just as there is between working class to the rich. Not many want it but it exists. But like you know, life and our existence on this planet cannot be rushed and until the time is right no person or govenment can enforce a global world of harmony until its ready.
      In the meantime I send my love and respect and feel so sad that your daughter is subject to such hostility. But I think there was a short straw drawn here as so many Jamaican people are such loving people. I so hope that it is resolved soon.
      And yes, I also agree with you that to spend time in jail is nothing compared with losing your child or having social services spending every day involved in your life in a negative way.
      They are not the child protection they say they are. The problems to the child can be far more severe than anything suffered within their family. x

  5. I understand fully what you are saying, as do my sons. To put a child in care as most solicitors already know is not in the child’s best interests. Yet these care orders are still put through in their hundreds every day of the week leaving children scarred for life with terrible emotional, physical and sometimes sexual abuse received during care. The govenments answer to this is rush through adoptions. For a seriously abused child this may be the answer, the chance of a life within a family that hopefully will love and protect them. But the sad truth is many forced adoptions do not work, care has been proven not to work and there needs to be a time when the system will finally accept that for many children the answer is to work with the family. At least this should happen with most families unless there is proven sexual abuse, serious violent behaviour or serious drug problem. Would this protect the children? I think it would have a better chance than the child protection system at present. And for obvious reasons, on research there is more abuse within care than outside of it, children failure rates (education and emotional) are far higher with children who entered care, documented abuse is vast within care, a high number of children leaving care have no-one to support them, often due to the social workers and courts removing all family, including extended family from their lives, children are far too often removed from caring and loving families and the child, then adult, leaves care with an intense hatred of authority, (as do children who have suffered some emotional/physical abuse from parents) for the reason they understand that no-one helped their parent/parents in a crisis/ill health/housing etc. They then see a cruel and uncaring world where if they had a problem the system would only condemn them just at it did their parent/parents. Yes these people who remove children, from social workers to county halls to all involved need a reality check.

  6. SS lie, Cafcass lie, solicitors lie, they all collude together in this billion pound industry. They are all in bed together. They are cold hearted, emotionless people who purport to have the best interest of children and families, THEY DO NOT. The way they conduct themselves is a national disgrace, SS get millions in government funding for meeting adoption targets.
    The most disturbing part is is the trauma that parents and children suffer from being parted. You need traumatised people because they are then dependent on a health care and social care system that simply does not provide care. Traumatised people are also compliant and conform to what they are told. They never aspire to much because they have no fight left. They struggle with the trauma on a daily basis and to live a good life.

  7. I tried to comment on one of your posts (what to do when social services steal your children) i would like to share my experience both as a parent and an ex- professional. I will cut the long story short. My child disclosed that another adult exposed his penis and let my daughter touch it. i reported this. She also disclosed to police, social services and nursery. I alerted social services previously that this man had an alleged past and the mother was a risk but they failed to act, My daughter was returned a year later, and my social was accused by both myself and another social services of failing in the duty of care. On return my daughter disclosed what had happened. Social services became vexatious, altered meetings ensuring i went to the wrong location, falsified medical records, falsified reasons for child protection, falsified police investigations blah blah. They snatched my daughter last year and mislead the courts. In court we proved they had lied. I have to be supervised because i am a risk because i think pedophilia is wrong and perjury is wrong. Social Services thing is is normal what my child has said. Social Services constantly canceled contact sessions and we had evidence of police hearing them cancel contact but social services lied saying i canceled contact. The judge ignored police evidence supporting me. It came out that this man was reported my his ex wife 25 years ago for his other daughter saying similar thing. Another person came forward that he had done things to him as a child. Social Services had no concerns of sexual abuse.

    Social Services said it was emotional abuse reporting suspected abuse and also i was wrong to follow their advice – yes that is correct i followed their advice and they said i should not of done what a previous social worker to me to do.

    I was also considered a high risk because i made complaints, contacted my MP and was a fan of the X Files. These were the reasons given that social services hijacked my court case against them for failing to protect and make it public law.

    I am ordered to see a psych and until i say that child abuse is acceptable and there could be a logical explanation that 3 children from 3 different generations have all said he exposed and let him touch his penis i am a risk to my daughter.

    • Its a seriously bad situation when you try and protect your child and you have the whole weight of social services against you. Any parent who reports any abuse especially sexual will become a target for the social services and consider that parent as a greater risk than a offender.
      When you consider a child is at high risk of abuse within ‘care’ it becomes very ‘dubious’ as to what ‘care’ is really meant for. And all the knowledge and research I have done proves to me that there are some very sinsiter motives, besides financial gain, for all parties removing children.
      Yesterday I replied to a blog, again on dishonesty of social workers. And I will say it again here, most social workers are NOT angels working to protect children, nor are most carers including children’s homes, foster carers and adopting parents. If the financial rewards were taken away, not many would be left in the bag, so to speak. If these people really cared about children they would be whistleblowing most days, campaigning with the many groups, campaigning with people who have suffered abuse in care, and giving their time helping parents who have had their children wrongfully removed. They would also not work within a ‘regime’ of social services care without fully complaining about bad decisions and alerting the top of the tree. On top of that they would spend time campaigning, writing to MPs fighting for change in family law and signing petitions to open up family courts.
      Adopting couples and singles would also insist on full knowlege of any child they may consider adopting and would certainly expect the parents to have contact with their own birth child, even if this was by supervised contact until no risk is proven.
      But the sad fact is, history has proven these people do not work in the best interests of the child and so many of them have proven who and what they really are.
      Therefore it is true that social workers, carers, foster carers and adopted parents will lie, work against ethics, tamper and change reports and assessments, add false information, accuse you of the unthinkable, build a negative profile against the birth parent and fail to assist the birth family.
      In all of this, the child is of no real concern to them. They are all fighting for their own personel gain.
      It is only the birth parents and extended family who are fighting for the rights of the child. They are the only ones where the love of the child already exists.
      This means that most cases that go before a court can be broken up as such.
      Out of every 100 children there are perhaps 10 who should have been removed and given a chance of a life within another family. And those are the cases of proven serious abuse.
      The rest range from no harm to the child and moderate harm where in all the cases I know and have researched should have been resolved by no action or support by a ‘caring’ supportive social system.
      Givin that the financial burden to the country would be less, the damage to children would be less, that there would be less people obtaining financial gain, less adopting families having a chance of adopting, less private children’s homes having financial gains (some charge on average £3,500 per week) less high ranking council officials making money out of them, and the list goes on.
      I cannot see an end to all this yet, until birth parents can realize their strengths, compile their cases and unite in a large group to prove the corruption. Of course so many parents are so distraught, so damaged and so worried about their children that paperwork is bottom of the list. Parents are also not lawyers and the system is not geared ln a legal way to deal with these corrupt social workers and carers.And nor is the law itself, the family courts are not there for any form of justice.
      So ALL birth families should realise that it can happen to anyone (especially the vulnable or those in crisis) If you are not a lawyer you can lose your children. And even being one will not always protect you against the vast headhunters that exist within a corrupt system.
      For all of you fighting for your children and anyone who reads this whether in law, social services, care, carer or other please help build a better future for ALL children. A negligent and damaging system such as it stands is destroying lives every day.
      And as the letter says above. The system is also keeping sexual abuse as a taboo subject and therefore does NOT help real victims of sexual abuse to speak out nor does it encourage those who are concerned of it in reporting it.
      Just as being a victim of domestic violence, many women (and sometimes men) lose their children, every day for this reason.
      The system makes a victim a lifetime victim. It is a non-working model.

  8. Much sense spoken on this blog 🙂

    • I speak a fair bit of nonsense too though Jennifer, but thank you very much. If that is, as I suspect, a pseudoynm, then you have chosen well, it was one of my favourite songs growing up. If it is your real name, then wow, top name!

  9. I recently lost my children to a secret court and had no chance of securing their return. They were taken because we didn’t have a dentist (just moved in to the area) and the fact that my eldest son was told off for stealing at school.
    We’re an independent film company based in the UK and with out skills and knowledge already collected from families we intend to release a 90 minute Documentary in the style of Roger Cooke and Micheal Moore. We have plenty of interest from media sources.
    Below is a brief synopsis of our intentions:
    Have you been affected by the Social Services? if so we need your assistance. We’re currently making a 90 minute documentary highlighting the corruption within this department.
    We’re looking for families destroyed by trigger happy social workers, having their children taken for the most ridiculous reasons.

    If you would like to take part and get your story heard then please contact us. We can promise total privacy if you wish to stay that way or give you the airtime you deserve. I can travel to you for interviews etc, they will be no cost to you, only an hour of your time to share your story. It will also receive global coverage.
    With your help we can show the corruption within a service sworn to protect!

    If your interested please contact us via email or PM me and we’ll get back to you as soon as possible.

    Kind regards,
    Emma Ibbitson
    Producer at Pete Middleton Pictures.

    • Hi Emma,

      I hope it’s not to late to contact you, maybe you or someone else can help?

      Just found this site and the discussions within.

      Just sent my sister an email with the links and said to her this is incredible, If my family and I were not going through the hell of our family being torn apart with the same sort of trauma right now I would honestly think this was fantasy, sadly I know only too well that every comment on this site is too believable.
      I am shocked and devastated that in this country in 2013 that children can be taken away from their immediate and extended family with no abuse or neglect taking place and with the full knowledge and collusion of officials who would usually be expected to help and support being responsible for destroying families.

      I’m disgusted that anyone as long as they can afford go to university and get qualified can then act as judge, jury and exceutioner in a childs life, and yet as soon as one SW makes a biased decision or personal opinion that you are either innocent or guilty, suitable or not suitable they can freely make accusations without proof and yet with the full support and endorsement of all around them.
      My nephew has been taken into care, my mum as his guardian was given 10 mins to get a solicitor and attend court and has been battling unsuccessfully since January this year, the final court date is set for 2 weeks and yet the reports make it clear that they have no intention of returning him and in fact ending contact with all of us so he can stay with foster carers in another county.

      • Hi Donna
        I wonder if you saw our story in the Daily Mail this week. We lost our little boy in another case of SS cock-ups. Do they care what pain they leave in their wake?

    • Hi I would like more details on sharing my story on child protection that is unfair and how they stole our children in allegations against our wishes and withdrawn contact etc on emotional issues etc

  10. Dear ‘Dr Suess’

    I came across your blog as I searched how to keep your children with social services involvement, I will not go into details publishing my experiences online, I ave been sanctioned for it before but I wondered if you knew if moving from the grasps of one local authority and though it may harm my case toi say so one HIGHLY unprofessional social worker, to another would help me, you see I am now pregnant with my 3rd child and lost custody of last two. I wish to show that I have changed, made many sacrifices, found courses in confidence building, emotional management and parenting, all things I have done before but am happy to do again to prove to a judge that I am willing to do anything it takes for this child. Then one day I can apply to have my others returned to me?

    I would appreciate an email reply in your own time of course x

    Thank you

  11. Hi there, I came across your blog occidentally when searching on social services, I have been involved with them for 4 years, rather them me really but it has cost me 2 children courtesy of one social worker who I won’t go into but I can prove highly unprofessional and a downright lier, yet have never been given chance. However right now my main concern is the fact I am 10 weeks pregnant. I have already told the local authority here, I have moved towns and councils and pray this gives me a chance to be assessed as a sole carer, something that has yet to happen!

    I have given up smoking, admitted faults with first child, moved home, in fact was homeless and dragged myself with major morning sickness to estate agents begging for help till I managed to acquire a 2 bed house which is costing me £30 a week out of my £60 a week benefit just to keep hold of. I am job-seeking for the first time in a decade. I have found a women’s centre where I have applied for multiple courses, a children’s centre and applied for parenting courses, everything and anything I can think of to find support and a solicitor.

    If you can pls think of anything else that may help me then pls pls feel free to message me or email. I am so so desperate not to lose another child. I am a wonderful mother, if I could call witnesses in court I would have hundreds.

    Thank you x

    • Hello, it is a bit difficult to give advice here, but it sounds to me like you have made the best possible start, you’ve moved away and made efforts to fix the problems that were there in the past, and you’ve actually taken practical steps. You should be given the opportunity to show that the changes that you have made mean that you can safely care for a child and I would hope that you would be given that opportunity, which you need to grab hold of with both hands. It really does sound to me that you are a different person now, and I hope very much that things work out for you. Don’t lose your cool, even if the social workers don’t want to give you that chance, you can still fight the case in court.

    • I would suggest beg, borrow (but not steal 😉 ) to get a private independent parenting assessment that you have at the ready. Not sure why you would divulge to the LA that you are 10 weeks pregnant, they may see this as an invitation to harass you and prepare a case against you. If you can, also get a private, independent mental health assessment to show you are sane and possess no risk. You could try contacting charities to see if they can help with either funding or free third sector assistance with either of those things. Prepare yourself with as much evidence as possible, don’t trust anything to fate or chance. They will play dirty more than likely and you need to be prepared.

      I agree with others about social workers lying, they did it outrageously with us and sometimes knowing independent witnesses were there to prove they had made it up. Such is their arrogance and feeling of untouchableness they have no compunction in doing it. Rather than assuming most social workers are good with only a handful of rotten apples, I would say it’s more likely the other way round. There is just such an outcry out there about social services doing this. The system protects them and they know it.

  12. Sorry Moderator – I need to edit a couple of things

    I have a friend.. I know it’s a cliche – who had a quarrel with her extended family on holiday abroad -part of ongoing strife for many years.
    When she returned she was met by police at the airport – Her child (age range 10 – 12) and her sister and her niece (with both of whom she had argued) were taken by the police to another city 50 miles away for a social services interview. My friend was left at the airport unable to put her side of the case.

    The rest of the family must have planned this meeting before leaving the country where they were holidaying. They went off with her luggage and she was left alone in the airport. She had no idea who to call or what to do and it was 11pm.

    By the time Social Services arranged to see her 3 days later she was too ill to get to the appointment. Her daughter is now in the ‘protective custody’ of other family members and although they are required to make visiting arrangements they don’t respond to calls from her solicitor or social worker and my friend is not allowed to contact her daughter direct. She has not been able to contact or hear from her daughter for 9 weeks now.

    She engaged a solicitor who told her that legal aid is not available for these cases and charged over £900 for a preliminary appearance in court which achieved nothing. The police interviewed her over the family’s allegations that she beat her child – there were no marks or any other evidence. The Mum had quarrelled with her family and they had sided against her so the holiday had been ruined, There had been shouting on both sides but no evidence of any kind of abuse and any possibility of charges was dropped.

    My friend was at breaking point so we paid for her to go away for 2 weeks to come to terms with her bereavement and gather strength.

    When she returned the solicitor had done nothing to collect statements – My wife and I are both happy to testify that her daughter has shown no signs at all of physical or mental abuse over the years we have known them but he has not contacted us.

    The solicitor said he needed a copy of the report showing her innocence and charged over £90 to obtain it.

    He had to adjourn the court case for two weeks because he had not asked for the report before.

    Last week he said that the next court appearance – ‘which would definitely result in arrangements for visits’ – would cost about £300

    This week he said he needs to be paid £1000 to attend court.

    All her hopes are fixed on this court appearance. So if she does not get the £1000 she fears that she will lose her daughter. She has been told that her daughter does not want to see her but this is based on a videoed interview (which her nice lied the mother had given consent for) just after the holiday when her daughter was upset and vulnerable to suggestions and influence. We do not know of any contact between social services and the niece(who has protective custody) since the videoed interview so how do they know the daughter still feels the same way?

    My friend has no job and has suffered terribly since this happened. She is staying at our home -hates the idea of returning to her home without her daughter. We have funded her legal fees but cannot afford to any longer.

    What kind of system is this? – I phoned the social worker on her behalf when she was too ill to make the appointment and was stunned at the disbelief and cynicism in her voice. The social worker has been on holiday almost all the time since but was shocked that my friend needed a break.

    Although my friend was available by phone during her break neither solicitor or social worker contacted her for an interview or to mention the police report in her favour – they only expressed disapproval that she needed a break.

    My question is – How are people expected to pay thousands of pounds when their children have literally been kidnapped by the state and they have no income?

    Is there some support group? – Surely family law should be accessible to families – with all their faults, quarrels and financial hardship. Not run by middle class professionals with middle class incomes for middle class professionals with middle class incomes.

    Is family justice now a consumer commodity for the well off?

    Is there a way of going to mediation rather than the courts with all their costs?

    The Small Claims court provides mediation alternatives if people argue over money.

    if there is no mediation alternative to court for families this shows us all where the true heart of this nation and its governors lies. – In both senses of the word

    • This all sounds very awful. The availability of free legal advice depends on whether this is ‘private’ family law (i.e the argument is between your friend and her family) in which case most free advice has now gone due to changes in the law, or ‘public’ (i.e that the argument is between your friend and Social Services) in which case free legal advice ought to be available. It sounds to me that although the child is staying with family members, the quarrel is really between your friend and Social Services.

      I’m afraid I am not able to give specific advice on particular cases, but the first thing your friend should do is work out if this is a private family law case (in which case the applications will be for Residence or Contact) or a public law case (in which case the application would be made by Social Services and would be for a Care or Supervision Order). If the latter, she can get free legal advice.

      If the former, she won’t get free legal advice, but there are alternatives to paying the sort of sums that she is paying. One would be to find a solicitor who wouldn’t be charging so much (those rates sound on the high side to me), and another would be to find a MacKenzie Friend, who may be able to help with advice and how the court system work. Some of them do charge, but not to the levels talked about here. I also heartily recommmend Lucy Reed’s book, Family Courts without a lawyer (which is a guide to the basics of family law) and her website here

      If you want a MacKenzie Friend, several of them post on this site – it would depend whereabouts in the country you are, but if you look on this site for Jerry, I am sure he can point your friend in helpful directions, to find someone who can genuinely help your friend in this awful situation.

  13. lauri brierley

    Can you give me an email I need some emergency advice
    Regards lauri

    • Hi Lauri, I’m afraid I am not an advice site, so can’t provide advice on any individual case. Good sources of advice are Lucy’s site, linked to in one of the earlier comments, MacKenzie Friends or solicitors who are on the Children Panel. If you google “family solicitors in X” (X being your nearest big town or city) that should turn you some up.

  14. At the very beginning of this conversation you stated that not many social workers will lie, that some may be having bad days and so on. So could you answer this please.
    1/ Does a solicitor for an LA fact find before presenting a case into court for a social services department.
    2/ What are your thoughts on the huge immunity that social workers have in a family court
    3/ If it is proven in a family court that the social worker lied why do the LA solicitors continue to fight to present a case for the social worker involved and against the parents
    4/ Why do most Judges refuse to act on this contempt of court and or perverting the course of justice by the social workers and refuse to hold meetings or pass the matter to the police.
    5/ Why are the children still not returned in these cases
    6/ Why are records held at social services still not corrected by the information given in court.
    7/ Why when the evidence in court proves lies and deception by the social worker does the LA then insist on psychological reports on the parents when it should be done on the social worker who has with malice destroyed a family.

  15. And to move these questions on to a question of ‘sinister’ motives as given on so many blogs and family rights activists.
    1/ Why having realised that the above is in fact, FACTS, why is there NO legal aid assistance for parents who have proved the above to take a case against the LA and social worker.
    2/ Why are Judges refusing leave to appeal.
    3/ Why are forced adoptions allowed in this country yet banned in most other countries.
    4/ When the reason for cash incentives was made it was to help children who have been lost in the care system for some years. But it in fact brought a fast track route to forced adoptions, 4000 unborn babies on child protection registers and the list goes on. FACT most children are adopted under the age of 4yrs old because adopters want the perfect family adding to the knowledge that too many are doing it to satisfy their own needs and not for the child.

  16. Spin doctors.
    Why are cases of child deaths by parents/step parents so highlighted and for such long periods of time when:-
    1/ Cases of child deaths by adopted parents, foster carers and carers hardly ever reach the headlines.
    2/ Child deaths or serious injury have also occured by restraints against a child/young person by carers within the care system but not reported on.
    3/ LAs social workers and children’s home carers and managers are not financially punished by the system for children who are not receiving education but parents are financially punished and/or receiving prison sentences.
    4/ Why are draconian measures used by serving injunctions on parents and sometimes entire families when a social worker has been proven to lie in court,

  17. SCRs are important where child/baby serious injury or death has occured and much can be learnt from them. (sorry but usually LA or social worker or system negligence) BUT
    1/ Where are the SCRs on child suicides within the care system.and up to the age of 25yrs when the LA are stilll responsible.
    2/ Where are the SCRs on serious injury or death within LA care on illegal restraints, excessive use of legal restraints, bad drug administration, failure in duty of care, child inflcted injury, self harm, carer abuse and the many other instances where child death or serious injury has occured while under state care.
    3/ Why are there no serious case reviews of children that have been failed by the protective industry by receiving poorer care under the state care than had they remained with their birth families. i.e. Children that have experienced serious sexual, physical, emotional and neglet within the LA care.

  18. Also under the heading of serious case reviews should be the lack of care to under 25’s in accommodation assistance to those leaving care.
    The reasons being thus:-
    Most care leavers are offered hostel rooms already let down by the system of protective care. These young people are also being denied a key worker support.
    These hostels are renowned for inapproiate accommodation where drug abuse is common, no job seeking assistance, crime and lack of role model support that has led to serious injury, suicides and drug problems for young people.
    These young people have been long term seperated from their birth families and often for little or no reason. Some do not even know where or how to contact their birth families.
    For those that do manage to contact their birth families, the birth family may not be able to offer the extent of support needed for such damaged young people.
    These young people are no longer children, the system does not want to know them. The birth families are left to mop up the damage and try to reshape a better future for their off spring. Yet ironically they were the ones deemed unfit to parent in a family court.

  19. Political hypocrites
    Failure to bring in legislation to protect human rights in family courts.
    Failure to bring in legislation to protect the birth family against offences by public service workers and civil servants.
    Failure to protect children or care leavers from state abuse.
    Failure to bring in legislation to protect the children against their loss of identity or give legal assistance appropiate to their age.
    Failure to protect the children from offences by public service workers and civil servants in family court proceedings and therefore also denying their human rights.

    The Lord Justice Sir James Munby has just scratched the surface, he has been the only person to have at least attempted it. It is in the childs best interests that he continues to do so.

  20. Ashamedtobebritish

    How do you fancy writing a blog on the plight of some friends?

    The coroner did not see an inquest to be important as the local authority are blameless, this child had pneumonia, if he’d been taken to hospital as begged by the parents he’d be alive

    • Wendy Wolfendale

      My Grandson was taken from our family because of a suspected Non Accidental Injury, this was then impossible to prove so the judgement was a Lancashire Finding ie He did and she covered it up or vice versa, either way the Court couldn’t blame anyone. But then handed down the maximum sentence – adoption.
      We have NO IDEA where he is or who he is with? We don’t know if he is safe or not. Would the adopters take him to hospital if he was ill or would they be scared of the same fate we suffered because we took him to the doctors?
      This country stinks. I never thought you would hear me say that,

      • Ashamed to be British

        Am working on a case of exactly the same issue, it has been proven, child A is still displaying the same behvioural problems nearly 3 years after removal (but the LA say there is nothing wrong) and child B has been hospitalised after suffering an epileptic fit (but the LA refuse to accept this)
        So what happens next? Parents are getting frightened to get their child medical assistance in case they are accused – if they don’t take them it’s medical neglect
        I’m so sorry to hear your plight, hang on to the fact that he will come looking they always do

    • Dear Sandy, this is a very awful and sad case. I am surprised that there is not going to be an inquest, and that is obviously very disappointing. It must be right that this is properly investigated and the facts set out. An inquest would, it seems to me, to have been the best way of doing that with proper independence. This family are entitled to know whether this could have been prevented.

      • Ashamed to be British

        They already know it could have been, they begged for him to get medical help as he had breathing problems and severe conjuctivitis, all treatable with antibiotics, but they were refused
        The LA is guilty of medical neglect and causing or allowing the death of a minor under the age of 16
        The parents weren’t informed until 4 and a half hours after his death, there should be a national outrage over this, JJ was a clean, happy and well loved little boy in his parents’ care, yet dead in the ‘care’ of the LA
        The so called justice system just tried to cover his death up, disgrace

      • If it had been his natural parents there would have been an inquest, the parents implicated for neglet and a SCR.

        So sadness will not do, disappointing will not do, sympathy will not do. This child is ANOTHER one who died because of 2 reasons. The negligence of the social services, the bully tactics of over powered and corrupt social work departments and their managers who blindly take children to cover their own backs and make money at the same time. And keep a load of idiots in jobs.

        I can quite understand when f4j wanted to kidnap a politicians child to let them know how it feels. But then it would not have given the full impact, their stolen child would have at least been looked after properly until returned and returned it would have been. Unlike the thousands of innocents parents who never see them again.


    Message more important than the F word below

    Tip of the iceberg, so many children being abused and or murdered by foster carers, in children’s homes and by adopted parents.
    Forced adoption should be made illegal
    Social workers should be prosecuted for perjury and contempt in a family court.
    Anyone removing children for anything other than a serious reason are on the bandwaggon of abuse to children.
    Patch up on a non working system does not protect children or innocent parents. Social services should be removed from any child protection and made to work with birth families to trouble shoot any concerns.
    Where serious harm is suspected it should be a police matter only. And the child removed to respite care until a full and proper investigation is carried out. Supervised contact should be a must to oversee the children are properly cared for and ALL and EVERY PERSON including the parents should have the rights to have concerns investigated.
    Family court proceedings should only happen when the police can prove a crime has been committed by a parent or parents.
    No child should be subject to adoption unless a crime can be proved in a criminal court.
    Emotional should be dealt with by social workers, as poverty, crisis, ill health and relationship breakdown giving support and practical assistance.
    Unexplained minor injuries if frequent or doubtfull (cig burns, bites, etc) could mean a move to respite care for 3 months to monitor the minor but frequent injuries before police intervention.
    Fractures etc should be properly investigated for all options of a medical condition. If major concerns then respite should be used for 3 months.
    Respite carers should be properly trained and registered.

    It is quite easy to do a new blueprint. Why does it not happen. I

  22. I am tired of writing FACTUAL and proven facts and nothing being done. Blogs, campaigns, protests, letters, MPs, solicitors and all the crap. At the end of the day these social workers are gaining powers beyond all explanations, they continue to be negligent where they ARE needed and the whole system is corrupt and negligent at best. Even the decent social workers will state that. Whistleblowers are punished, parents are bereaved and in huge trauma, mental health is on the increase and children are being murdered and abused on a far greater scale than by natural parents.
    Somewhere I can see the point of taking the law into your own hands. This country is DEAD in the water. It has NO principles, does not care for those that fought for it, has NO heart and is run by those in ignorance and money powered.
    Sad but true.
    No wonder the people are demanding some power in every country around the world who are suffering the same.
    To the rich and powerful who ignor the warnings, I can only say. YOU WILL LOSE. You will have no-one left who cares or will protect you.
    As for the crap social workers who get off on these blogs. F–K you, your days will be numbered.
    You no doubt have no soldiers in your families because your all money grabbing deceitful and cowardly excuses for human beings.

  23. And no I will not take that back and will not apologise. Because I have seen too many children suffer at your dirty hands.

  24. I went to court to fight for my son. I won the case with the local authority admitting at the final hearing all their concerns about me were unfounded. My son was never removed from my care and the social services admitted their concerns were mostly relating to my son’s father however the initial court papers were full of inaccuracies most of which I could prove were not true at best and bare faced lies at worse. The haphazard apology I received from the local authority does not make up for the 7 months of hell I went through neither does it excuse the fact my career was left in tatters thanks to their actions.
    But you can win cases even if your child has been removed by doing everything they want even if you don’t agree. I gave that advice to a young girl whose son was put into care and now she has him back permanently some social workers are jobs worth but for anyone fighting the system there is hope if your a good parent who doesn’t neglect or harm your children you just have to tow the line and prove it

    This is my story. Does anyone know a doctor who would look at the photos of my grandson on that fateful hospital trip and offer an answer. My daughter or her boyfriend did not harm her baby, so there has to be a real reason – I’m not a doctor, could you help?

    [Sorry Wendy, have taken out your surname just in case it is the same surname as the child’s. If anyone is able to help Wendy though – put your email up and she can contact you directly. Suesspicious Minds]

    • Ashamed to be British

      Hi Wendy, a friend put your case before me a couple of days ago, have you looked through facebook to find family army open group? If you join there I’ll let you in, we can try to help

  26. Hiya Sues I dunno if you remember me but I was the lady who posted about being pregnant right after losing my last child to their abusive father and was determined to do all I can to keep custody of my unborn baby.

    Since then I have been working with my LA and SW’s and managed to sort a house, a voluntary position for a women’s centre as admin and found, myself, so many local networks and charities willing to support me that my SW has joked many times they should be paying me their wages!

    I have admitted my faults from the past and at the same time proven that the last SW I had in another town WAS corrupt, not only am I keeping ym unborn child BUT this has also meant I have been fast tracked to a final court hearing where I am expected to be granted weekend access to my last child.

    The SW put in a report from Feb 2013 I never reported any abuse from my ex in the past to them

    I now have in my possession an incident report from a children’s centre that not only shows I DID report abuse but the very same SW helped me find a safe place to stay for the night at a friends house!

    Ironic there were concerns on my apparent not reporting his abuse… but granting him custody when admitting he was ‘has problems’ is something the SW’s in THIS town are questioning as they know I am right.

    I wanted to update you and thank you for your advise. By maintaining a good working relationship with the SW’s here but at the same time proving myself right whilst admitting where I went wrong with my first child (not my second) and showing I am determined to do I can to prove myself with my 3rd, I am now much more hopeful for the future 🙂

    So thank you


    • Hello Kelly, I am really pleased to hear that – everyone should have the chance to show that they can change, and you are proof that people can. I am delighted that things are going well for you and your family, and wish you all the best for the future. Well done – it isn’t easy to do.

  27. Wendy Wolfendale

    Many Thanks – My daughter does Facebook, I will get her to do as you have suggested. MANY THANKS

  28. You can all say what you want,but you can’t work with people who are stealing children for money. As the more you work with them the more lies and wrongs they do to try and take you child away And whoever you were who said they come from different end of the spectrum to Ian Joseph, must be a corrupt evil sick twisted individual as Ian is a kind,honesty,helpful caring individual,who has only said the truth in his every word about the system and the people in it,why they do it and what they do.

    • Here, here! Ian Josephs doesn’t make a single penny from the free advice he gives to desperate families – unlike Social Services, Legal Aid Representatives, Adoption Agencies, Local Councils & more – who are all riding the gravy train of Forced Adoptions!

  29. Social Workers don’t lie? What planet are u living on suesspiciousminds? Take a look at the evidence submitted by ppl directly affected on your own blog already – they’ve provided links & proof to back it up! These are not stats, they’re real ppl, many who thought these so-called ‘wild rumours’ about social services would never effect them, til 1 day they did! That’s when a person wakes up to the madness of it all – secret family courts, trumped up charges of ‘potential emotional harm’, social workers, lawyers, doctors, police & judges – all going against perfectly normal & innocent families. It’s became an industry, ss & councils being paid big fat bonuses for increasing adoption numbers. Wake up & smell the coffee ppl, b4 it’s too late! Ban Secret Courts & Outlaw Forced Adoptions!

    • You probably want to read my very first response in this series of comments to the first person who said that I believe that social workers don’t lie. I’m not going to say it all again.

  30. Christopher Patch

    Lying is a pejorative term, and one that doesn’t adequately describe the process of what frequently happens as cases progress. Blind protectionism, or systemic misfeasance, might be a better description, though the outcomes for the family are much the same as less calculated lies would be.

    Accusing S/W’s of lying actually lets them off the hook by being insufficiently precise. What seems a lie from the victim’s perspective, from the S/w’s perspective begins as just a poor decision, or hasty, ill-thought phrasing in a casenote. The behaviour is wrought via inadequate training in increasingly complex procedures, pressure to meet targets, remote management, digitisation, overwork, an endlessly growing caseload, and the callous slur of demotivation which cubicles and flourescent lighting inflict on many office workers. The problem is not so much the lie – or poor decision – in the first instance. They are to be expected in the circumstances form time to time, as you rightly say in your first response.

    No, it is the routine stubbornness of clinging to that poor decision, justifying it, re-enforcing it… That is what creates intractable problems.

    But a S/w who makes a mistake these days seems to feel they have little choice but to protect that mistake in any way they can; even though it means compounding it. If they take responsibility for the mistake in this toxic climate ( post baby P..) they will quite possibly be scape-goated.

    Anyway this is our experience. A fairly innocuous series of errors has been compounded by unwarranted protectionism on the part of Social Services. It has been resource-intensive for them, and horrible for us, because in clinging to their error, they must also do their best to justify the massively inaccurate records that they are now maintaining on our children.

    As we have trudged through the complaints process, they have added layer upon layer of misrepresentation, obfuscation, tendentious interpretations… I am doing my best not to use the term ‘lie’ here, but there is in the end no option, we have demonstrable lies in writing from two different Directors of Children Services, as well as proof that the LA sent false information to the LGO. Even though this was incontrovertibly proved to the LGO, the LA were still not found guilt of any maladministration. Which lends much credence to some of the posts above – in re-enforcing how unlikely the system is to be fair to the victimised family.

    We did nothing wrong, and Social Services quite quickly accepted that. But they could not accept that they might have. As a result, our children have unlawful, unwarranted records – and we have to prepare a case to take to barristers. What an waste of life, and time!! For which the arrogant, mule-headed attitude of Social Services is entirely culpable.

    If they have behaved like this with us, where they quickly acknowledged no fault – it is no surprise that there are thousands of desperate victims of their injustice, or at least their insensitivity, baying for blood.

    • Erm, I have to say there are outright cases of lies too. Such as a SW recording that I had prevented my children from speaking at a meeting they requested, held in a public place, with witnesses that this was not the case whatsoever (quite the opposite). Multiple lies were recorded. Multiple false accusations were made. Witnesses at meetings saw how they said one thing and then changed it later. And this went on all the while there was plenty of professional evidence to counter the false accusations and claims being made, which they had been copied in on. It’s not all about errors or ignorance (though I agree there is a wealth of that too). There are nasty people working as SWs. I submitted a complaint about them – it was sent to them to investigate. There was never any official outcome, it just resulted in me sending a letter that if they ever harassed us again I would go legal.

    • Any thoughts Dr. Suess? (…or is theres rats in them hats…)

  31. Ashamed to be British

    Boom! Someone who gets it, hats off to you for your restraint in using the word ‘lies’ – because essentially that’s what they are.
    A well written response, you are so so so right in everything you have written, most cases don’t really need to go further, if someone just piped up and said “I’m so sorry, I was wrong, you have proved that” I don’t think anyone would have a problem with that, it is, as you say, when they refuse to put that right, leaving a trail of destructive untruths that stays with you for life

  32. Hi SM – I was not able to post this link at the relevant post (sexual abuse allegations of mother vs father), but this seems an interesting study about the “guaranteed outcome” in such cases. Should be of interest.

    • This article is required reading: a detailed exposition of what is, at the very least, a poor judgement. At worst, a callous and corrupt one. Either way it has no place in british justice, as it causes unwarranted suffering to all parties – the child and the parents, for no discernible good reason.

  33. Ashamed to be British for work very hard in this country and social service removed my children because we have strong family support and no arm was done I was frame by the Doctors of the Hospital in my area that baby was shaken when there was none evidence of arm two medical paper where done type and the hand written was the same day when CPO and I was home not at the Hospital then the expert witness for case used the medical papers against me when I have been with St.John Ambulance for 7 years when I have older children that I have when I complaint to cafcass I was unhappy the way i was treated even the social worker lied in court in front of the Judge that I have none medical training been around the london attacks 2005&07 I was PTS transport driver in london till I moved to Berkshire started new family then attack by Social service bring police to arrest me and my partner at how son school when there was nothing wrong just my partner was very stress and bribe by Cafcass guardian while the court was going on

  34. Dj Gadgetman: I am afraid I am having some difficulty making out exactly what you are saying. To clarify: I believe you are saying Social Services took your children. When did this happen? Was this via ICO into foster care, or for placement for adoption?

    Did you get them back?

    Who was the expert witness used?

    In what manner did cafcass guardian bribe your partner?

    Which hospital are you referring to?

  35. Dear suesspiciousminds,

    I was just wondering; if the Court of Appeal decides that a case should be remitted for a rehearing because of a bad welfare analysis, but the threshold has been crossed, what happens to the children? The care order/placement order is usually set aside by the Court of Appeal, but does that mean that the children go home to their parents?

    Thank you in advance!

    Kind regards,


    • That is a good question. If the case is resubmitted for a re-hearing, when FINAL orders have been made, the Care Order would be discharged and usually replaced with whatever order was in place as an interim order before the final hearing took place. That might be an Interim Care Order (meaning foster care) or a residence style order (meaning relatives) or an Interim Supervision Order / no order, meaning staying with parents.

      That might be a bit different if the appeal happened a long while after the final hearing and there was no stay (an order saying don’t make any changes before an appeal). If the children had already been moved to new placements, there would have to be a decision by the Court of Appeal as to whether the children should go home pending the rehearing or stay where they are.

      We often don’t see that bit in the judgments to explain what will happen to the children whilst that rehearing is awaited, so it was a really good question – I have to say that I can’t recall seeing a case where those arrangements are spelled out.

      • Thank you for your speedy reply!

        Just to be sure, if prior to the appeal there was a care order, and a case is submitted for the rehearing, the CA will then grant an interim care order under s.38 Children Act 1989?

      • That will probably be the outcome – but it might be that the Court of Appeal are asked to decide whether there should be a different arrangement – they would PROBABLY look to reset things to how they were before the Court started the final hearing (but that might be affected if the children moved after the final hearing and there’s been a long passage of time since then – for example, if the children were subject to ICOs and in foster care, Court makes a Supervision Order at final hearing and sends the children home and the LA appeal, I can imagine that the Court of Appeal would not make an ICO and have them removed all over again before the re-hearing)

        It partly depends on the case, but I think starting point will be go back to what was in place before the final hearing.

  36. Hi, I really need help. My children are wards of the court and the LA has taken them into foster care. Mitigating factors meant it was difficult for five years and we were locked into the country as a family. I struggled as a single parent with no family or friends but have a good network around us now. The main issue has been wardship which has reduced my right to move hone to cheaper accommodation and being unable to locate the absent father. With no funds to go back home to the states where I would have support of family or even take a holiday for some r and r. LA have tricked me into signing a section 20 by calling it a medical consent form and have immediately said they will be issuing care proceedings. They are refusing to do a parental assessment until after care proceedings. Kids have been in care for six weeks and no court date has been given to us. Thus is traumatising. Any feedback would be helpful. Kids taken for nessy home.

    [Have removed your name so that you don’t get in any trouble by identifying yourself or the children]

  37. A messy home does not make anyone a bad parent BTW! People have the right to live in the manner they wish, so long as the children are well-fed, safe, have necessary health care and are loved, how often or how well you do your housework is completely your business. This nanny state, this interfering dictatorial attitude from the state is appalling.

  38. Ashamed to be British

    That depends on the mess, some homes are extremely dangerous, with knives, scissors, razor blades, cables, broken glass, nails all there for the child to seriously hurt themselves (I have seen the outcome of such a home, it’s not pretty)

    On the flipside, I have OCD traits so my house is immaculate, that didn’t stop my 10 month old grandchild smacking his poor head on the table today 😦 I was more upset than him

    • That’s not a mess, that’s a danger zone. There is a big difference and I am sure Kat’s home was not full of razor blades and broken glass. If someone has some crockery in the sink, their is a bit of dust, there are bits of laundry lying around, they don’t have a clean coffee cup at that moment, etc. that is not of itself a parenting issue. Children grow up in mud huts in Africa and all sorts of other environments, well loved and cared for.

      With social services they can find any reason to condemn you. If they visited your OCD house, especially in view of your grandson’s injury, they could accuse you of being so housework obsessed that you neglected your grandson. They would prospectively accuse a parent of having their priorities wrong in that situation. They could also accuse the parent of abuse because taking a child with a head injury to hospital for injury, especially when it’s a baby who cannot explain what happened, they can think and say what they want. It’s guilty until proven innocent in the UK. child protection industry. And I use the term ‘industry’ purposefully.

  39. …hence I had said “… so long as the children are well-fed, *safe*, have necessary health care and are loved, how often or how well you do your housework is completely your business.” in my post.

  40. Ashamed to be British

    I’m not that OCD, it can wait until he goes home. But as for the rest, I totally agree, you really are preaching to the converted

  41. Oh I wasn’t suggesting you were 😉 Only pointing out that this is how social services would view it!

    • Ashamed to be British

      Your house is too clean, too messy, too many toys, not enough toys, they will manipulate ANY situation to suit their agenda

  42. Your blog was recommended to me earlier this evening. I would like to receive notification of new posts please.
    I will look forward to reading them.
    Thank you


    • We will have to see what the High Court say about it – if they make the findings it really will be a major news story. I’m of course mindful of the Orkney case, where children made these sorts of very amazing allegations leading to almost the entire island being accused of Satanic abuse and there wasn’t a grain of truth in it. The thing about accusing adults of murdering babies is, in order for them to do that, there are some missing babies to be accounted for. In England, a missing baby is front page news and lead on the television news. So, missing babies in the plural, seems a bit unlikely.

      I don’t have any more facts about the case than the claims made on that website – I’m sure the children are saying that this happened, and I’m sure there are those who believe them. I’m just with Hume on this – extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

      [For example, taking the Austrian case with the man who kept all of his children in a cellar for generations – if you heard that extraordinary claim you’d be entitled to be very sceptical – yet we know that it did happen, because there was extraordinary evidence to substantiate it. This story might be true, on face value it seems unlikely to be, but I have not seen whether there is extraordinary evidence over and above the children saying it happened]

      • I posted 3 links regarding the story (was pending moderation). Within those you will find that the children named body markings (such as red spots, warts) on a variety of the accused in private places (genitalia). The accused were challenged to be examined by an independent doctor to confirm or deny the presence of these personal marks. That would be sufficient evidence for the claims.

      • “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” I’m interested in what way you mean extraordinary.

        Not ‘every day’? As we all know, across the world heinous ritual practices have been conducted within many cultures for all sorts of reasons. Only recently think of the torso of a young boy found in the Thames.

        Extraordinary because those in positions of authority/with money are implicated? Again, we know people in those positions abuse them every day too. They are no less likely (in fact maybe more likely, because they have the money and connections to get away with it, just because they can).

        Extraordinary because it’s awful? Do you not see accusations of abuse against parent as extraordinary too? Why do family courts require so much less burden of proof of evidence than criminal courts then? Children are removed on the say-so of a social worker without a shred of evidence.

        Why should those in power who have abused children be treated any less harshly?

      • If you are making a serious allegation, you need evidence to back it up. To take a safe example (since he is dead) – if someone had said in the 1980s that Jimmy Saville was sexually abusing young people, including in hospitals and that there had been professionals who knew about that and turned a blind eye, that would be an extraordinary claim. As we now know, there really was a huge amount of evidence to prove that, and it happened. As we know from other criminal trials, serious claims have been made against a number of celebrities and some have been backed up by evidence that stood up to scrutiny, and some didn’t.

        So extraordinary things, things that at face value you wouldn’t believe CAN happen and WILL happen, but the person claiming them does have to provide evidence to show it.

  44. Ashamed to be British

    You know the kids retracted this right? The case is ongoing with mother, stepfather and MKF in exile curently

  45. Yes, I know they have retracted very early on, it’s all on the net.

    I believe there is much to be said about this case, and I do not like what was done here in the name of mob justice. Names of people who are alledged to be satanic abusers and involved in ritual murders are all over the net. Assuming these people may be totally innocent – how can anybody justify posting such things? The WHAT IF stain will forever cling on them, lives may well be destroyed. Who will apologize to these people? Fix their reputation? The various “freedom fighters” who posted their names on the net?

    Surely, I too ask myself WHAT IF this is all true? But I also ask myself WHAT IF the children were indeed coached to say all this? How can anybody really know? And is it right for the children’s faces and names to be all over the net? We may not be able to answer any of these questions satisfactory in particular since such outside pressure was created.

    I personally don’t believe this is the right way to find out about the actual truth behind the various what ifs, but I also acknowledge that the public trust in the proper working of the police and system as a whole is at a very low point and encourages such renegade behavior by the “super bloggers of the resistance”.

    • Ashamed to be British

      We’ll never know, there are so many inconsistencies it’s unreal, I’m not particularly impressed by the mother doing a runner and leaving these poor kids in care not knowing which way is up.
      My main concern is that they HAVE been abused, by someone, they have anal scarring, explained by the girl as ‘maybe i slipped in the bath or something’ it’s a bit odd that they both retracted after being so clear and adamant within a week of being in care, but there are also many ‘oh dear’ moments involving mum and partner too …

      I really am on the fence regarding this case, but these children have been emotionally wrecked by various, I hope they’re getting intense therapy now, because they’ll still be sitting in that therapy chair in 30 years time, what a terrible terrible situation for them regardless as to who did/said what

  46. It’s interesting that you are saying the children could have been coached (meaning by the parents) but have not suggested they could alternatively have been coached to retract by the authorities. There were quite a few children said to have been involved. Are you saying all their parents coached them? If you are so ready to believe there is such a high rate of abusive parents within such a small area, you should likewise be equally prepared to believe paedophilia exists in high places. Evil is evil and humans are humans. Money and power always bring corruption alongside. Let the truth be outed and those guilty of whatever crimes have been committed, punished appropriately.

  47. Ashamed to be British

    They both said, with conviction, that they were forced to say it by the stepfather, I still remain on the fence. here is the mother, the stepfather? Run away … why?


  49. Suess, can you please delete my mentioning of the school’s name. Thank you.

    • Have searched but I can’t find where you mention the school’s name. If I can find it, I’ll snip it out.

    • It doesn’t matter that you’ve named the school, it’s all over in public anyway, however it wasn’t Christchurch (although it’s mentioned as one of the schools that participate) it was Hampstead junior school.
      One thing that does disturb me is why the media weren’t all over this? It kind of sways me a little, I know they are controlled to an extent, but a story like this which is on the lips of every person surely, would be widely reported along with the retraction made

  50. Are you sure? Babies go missing from care regularly, it’s nothing new. Of this is happening I’m sure there are babies born that no one knows of, bred for just this purpose

  51. You’re speaking of ppl with real clout here, as far as I know they’ve never been asked to show what they’ve got and the head mistress has started tattoo removal therapy, I have no evidence of this

  52. I have heard the whole gruelling five hours of police interview so yes you are correct in that was what the children say, but we live in a multicultural society, an 8 and 9 year old would assume these babies are drafted in from abroad, the girl is very very specific on what country each of her school friends come from, she’s very determined to make it clear that a is Russian b is Ukraine c is polish and so on, I find it strange that she insists on telling the officer who’s from where, would she even care after suffering such abuse? Again I’m still very much on the fence

    • From the snippet I saw, the children said that it had been going in since they were younger. So when it started, they would have been too young perhaps to fully understand the gravity of it all. Maybe it seemed like a game of some sort (the alleged murders of babies). But people become numb and even immune to the horrors of things after a while, the mind blocks things out to get through what’s happening. So I do think it would be quite possible to focus on other details despite the horrors. In fact, it’s very interesting that you say she was being so specific about details, liars and story tellers are usually more vague.

    • This was one of the links I posted: According to this, the headmistress has a birthmark in a private area, I don’t think tattoo removal will work with that. The children were said to have been introduced into the paedophile group at ages 3 and 4. I just can’t see children making up things like this: “The children like Gabriel who could not tolerate the pain and screamed too much were given injections by a nurse.” If an adult (step father or whoever) really has coached them into saying everything they have said, it constitutes a sick individual who needs a lot of therapy and children with an amazing capacity for detailed story-telling without batting an eyelid at the horrors of it. It says in the article:

      “Several people are alleged to be involved and have a good opportunity to clear their names.

      “Mr Hxxxxx could for example prove that he doesn’t have red dots over his privates.

      “Miss Mxxxxx could for example prove that she doesn’t have a wart on her privates, the size of a 5p coin.”

      • Ashamed to be British

        Sabine is not nasty, she’s very naive, she just rushes in believing what she is told without question, this led to her and another being fined as MKF’s for £5k.
        (Suess did blog on this)
        She still doesn’t understand the mess she’s in, they’ll promise her the crown jewels to get her back here, she’d be arrested, these children have been physically and emotional pounded, it’s going to be lovely for them to find themselves all over youtube, facebook and other sources when they get older, what was she thinking? Getting word out there? At what cost to these two children?

        It is procedure to remove children from family contact immediately when they disclose sexual abuse, this prevents the family members from ‘coaching them’ it’s to protect the child and the resident parent, if this is not done, the accused will walk free on the basis that the child has had too much chance to be primed, Sabine needs to learn law and procedure before trying to take these cases on. By all means she should use her dwindling clout to continue her campaign against forced adoption, but playing barrister really isn’t for her

  53. I do think in order to get a grasp on the horrors these children were coming out with, you need to listen to the interviews, that’s a lot of intense questioning without one slip up from an 8 and 9 year old. Still, having said that I have been left with more questions than answers – what I can categorically conclude is these kids have been abused by someone and attempt to cover up anal scarring with excuses such as “I probably slipped in the bath” sounds like coaching to me, not so confident in their retraction statements either, how do 2 children get the same scarring by accident, their statement is very detailed in what can only be described as hard core porn, they know too much yet that’s not been questioned, just accepted. There are inconsistencies on both sides that just don’t add up, but right now I feel the LA have been ordered to get these children to retract on the hurry up, the evidence is compelling, the retraction is not

    • Do you have a link to the full interviews?

    • When I click your username, I get an error message “can’t find the server at deleted”.

      ” it’s going to be lovely for them to find themselves all over youtube, facebook and other sources when they get older”

      Isn’t that a far lesser evil than continuation of their abuse? If someone has to take extreme measures to stop such abuse, isn’t it worthwhile? A child would suffer far more by continuing to endure the abuse and to hide it and blame themselves for years.

      Why should the state punish someone who was trying to save children from abuse? It’s all the wrong way round.

      When you think about how many wrongdoers get away with things due to technicalities and loopholes, why pursue a case against someone doing something for a good reason, under extenuating circumstances?

      Why otherwise are there differences between murder and manslaughter? It’s intent and circumstances.

      The law is meant to be there to protect, not to punish the wrong people.

  54. That’s where one has to be careful – my opinion is exactly that, I don’t know as I wasn’t there, but I believed every word those kids say … Until the retraction, they retracted within days … Hmm

  55. Suess, would you mind passing my email address to planet autism? Tia x

  56. Ashamed to be British

    Lie detectors are inadmissable due to their unreliability

  57. Because it’s not my blog, I’ve just realised they’re downloads, which I can give you direct, how can I contact you?

  58. “So extraordinary things, things that at face value you wouldn’t believe CAN happen and WILL happen, but the person claiming them does have to provide evidence to show it.”

    There is already physical evidence that the children have been abused. There are also statements of bodily markings on the alleged perpetrators that can be checked out by an independent doctor.

    There are witness statements from the children, it’s important that an *independent* child psychology expert investigates whether the statements are true or there has been coaching, and if so by whom.

    The question is, why the delays, why no arrests/statements from the accused?

  59. Did anyone watch this interview: It’s very, very compelling. It’s the interview of the McKenzie Friend about the case and it is about more than just the two children in question.

    • Would it be alright not to post videos? I will let this one go, but I suspect there’s some pending litigation about this case and I don’t want the site to fall foul of any orders that the Court may make about this situation. Happy for you to have the discussion (ideally without mentioning names of those involved).

      • Surely if there are potentially pending actions, they are not yet current and no laws have been broken? These links are in various places on the internet, I would imagine they would have to apply any actions to all the websites containing them to be fair, which may prove difficult. But sure, I won’t post any further videos in respect to it being your blog and your prerogative.

      • It would be more that if the litigation ends up with orders that all offending links be taken down, I would have to go back through the comments to seek them out. If people want to say that if they wish to know more they can go to WhistleblowersRUs or what have you to find out about it, then I can live with that.

  60. Remember she’s trying to save her ass, there are three videos in the series, keep an open mind

    • Well, she claims that she didn’t publish the link in question, that someone she copied the email took it upon themselves to publish it. But like I said before, why should the law punish someone acting in good faith to protect innocent children anyway.

  61. Why aren’t the media all over it like a rash? It’s a huge story and no worries about identifying the children, too late for that … IF this is true you’re dealing with ppl who are extremely powerful

  62. This is a possibility, however that person is freely doing whatever she likes, it’s Sabine the police want.

  63. Ashamed to be British

    It depends if they have evidence that says she helped this family to coach the children, which as you’ll find out in due course, should be a hanging offence

  64. Ashamed to be British

    Well … without getting myself in to trouble, maybe you should do a Google search on Sabine McNeil and Belinda McKenzie (who I have met and spent time with), very nice ladies who are very active in anti paedophile campaigning, you’d need a few hours, but my advice with anything like this, is … dig deep and decide for yourself, big egos? True campaigners? Attention seekers?

    • All I can say is, she seemed genuinely upset about the abused children. I think it’s easy to label whistleblowers to deflect, so you need to also question the motives of anyone disparaging them out there on the internet. Whistleblowers often end up targeted for what they have uncovered.

  65. Ashamed to be British

    I think Suess is right to be fair, it may be detrimental to the investigation, although I understand it’s already ‘out there’ they are trying to pull these videos as fast as they go up (which leads me to feel there is something to hide – you know my views on this case) unfortunately when these things go viral at such a speed, it’s difficult to keep them under control.
    Maybe if the prosecution service were to be a little more transparent, the public wouldn’t be constantly keeping these things ‘alive’ with share share share!

    I know what you’re saying about whistleblowers, we have seen them wind up dead in a field, poisoned, apparent impossible suicide and so on, Sabine looks afraid to me, she doesn’t normally present as a nervous person, far from it, no matter what, someone HAS abused these children and no one seems to be overly interested as to who.

    Again, WHY is this not all over the press, TV, news etc?

    • Yes, the silence of mainstream media is absolutely deafening. But it wouldn’t be the first time the media have been involved in unsavoury things if there are ulterior motives afoot. The course of events from the state have only added fuel to the fire. Ten policemen in one go after the mother “for a talk”, the lack of understanding of whistleblower motives in trying to get help for the children (“malicious prosecution”), the secrecy, the police closing the file as “no crime” when the children have clearly suffered abuse by someone, the removal of mother’s contact and increase of the father’s, the mother’s apparent previous established history as a good parent and sudden questioning of this coinciding with the reporting of the abuse, the lack of police interviews of the accused, lack of verification of identifying features being sought. One of the videos by a Canadian media station of Sabine, the interviewer said other parents have contacted them independently confirming an abuse ring was going on centred at the school in question. It’s extremely odd that the mainstream media has not picked this story up. People power will hopefully prevail despite this. And Sabine strikes me as someone seeking justice for the families and in fear of the unfair consequences, not someone seeking fame and fortune.

  66. Ashamed to be British

    Yes she does seek justice without doubt, no matter how naive her approach is … mum has no contact because she was part of the videoing, you just don’t do that to children, plus she fled the country to avoid arrest along with Sabine and Abraham, so she won’t get contact anyway

    • I’m not sure why you think her approach is naive? If the authorities are implicated and a cover-up is afoot, it stands to reason that she would see doing things “by the book” as ill-advised. I don’t see what other option she had – outside of ignoring the children being abused on an ongoing basis, or the mother fleeing with them abroad. I assume you refer to the naming of the children when you say “you don’t do that to children”, I would say that this option would be far preferable than allowing the abuse to continue, it’s only by shining a light on evil that it gets discovered. The embarrassment and loss of privacy is a far lesser harm than the abuse going on unrecognised and unfettered. They will need psychological therapy for years to get over this, I’m sure having their names in public won’t be the top of the issues needing therapy. We all know, that the law doesn’t always get things right, so people do flee when they are innocent and should not be judged or condemned for this. If you suspect the law (police are said to be involved in the paedophilia) is corrupt, you have every reason to fear it. The mother now probably regrets not taking the children and fleeing abroad, rather than trusting that the truth and justice would prevail, as it stands. Have you seen the grandparent’s video? It’s really sad. The authorities should allow the grandparents to take guardianship of the children – you have to question why this is not happening.

  67. The children have to stay in care while investigations are ongoing, that’s the course of things, the grandparents would be accused of manipulating them by the abuser, that would be the abusers defense and there’d be no case to answer.
    Plus the grandparent would have to return to Russia with them … Leaving them unavailable if other evidence came up.
    As for the filming, to video them saying all this then sending it viral is abuse, children should not be identified in any proceedings let alone become public property, it’s s disgrace and whoever shared this with the world is a c word

    • State care can be very bad for many children, and that’s without the potential criminal acts the state is being accused of here. There is a lot of information out there about the risks and mistreatment many children in care suffer, including abuse. Having to stay in state care is not necessarily the most safe place for them, especially if they are being coached out of telling the truth, that at the very least, constitutes bullying and emotional harm. The grandparents could therefore be by far the safest option (potentially the mother, but until boxes were ticked and until and unless a fair and just outcome was ensured, that option is unlikely). Returning to Russia could therefore be the best option for the children. What they are going through right now won’t be making them happy. At a time when they really need their mother, they were denied her. How is that acting in their best interests? In the grandparents video, they said that on the few visits they have been allowed with the children, they were given a list of questions beforehand to sign to agree they will not ask questions such as “are you being treated well” and other normal questions. What the heck is going on here! The children were said to have become really nervous since being in state care, during visits to be scared to speak, subdued and looking at the ground. I really think identification is the least of their issues, especially if it has prevented further abuse. Under “normal” circumstances, you would hope that children’s identities would be protected, but these are extreme circumstances and there are also other children at risk.

  68. Ashamed to be British

    Oh I know, I as in state care.

    The children are bound to be scared to speak, because no matter what way you look at it, someone somewhere (we have yet to figure out who) has told them to say something that has caused a lot of trouble, be it the allegtions or the retractions, they have been put in a lose lose situation, I feel so sorry for them, no matter what way you look at it – they have been abuse in some form, emotional, physical, sexual, whichever – they are suffering, someone has a lot to answer to

    • Another thing that has occurred to me. If the children were coached by someone in the family with a fictitious story (e.g. to cover-up abuse from within the family), Occam’s Razor (and common logic) says that the lie that would have been told would have been as simple as possible. Liars find it hard to keep a lie going once holes are picked in their story, which inevitably they would have been, stories don’t match, details change etc. So to help their lie succeed, they would pick as simple as possible a cover story for it to work, such as that one member of staff at the school was responsible for sexual abuse of the children. Why would they invent all the satanic worship elements and tales of a ring of professionals being involved?

      As Suess says, people will say “extraordinary claims warrant extraordinary evidence”. So the more far-fetched a story sounds, the more difficult it would be for the liar to apportion blame on the accused because how do they prove it and also, another *huge* point, is that if the abuse came from within the family (i.e. wasn’t the persons currently accused), why would the family suddenly highlight abuse having taken place, by *anyone* because it would put themselves at great risk of being discovered as the abusers(s)? So unless something compelling comes forward showing the mother/stepfather or someone else within the family as unreliable witnesses or perpetrators of a crime, I do believe what the videos state.

      I don’t think anyone in their right mind believes slipping in the bath causes anal scarring, especially on two children in the same family. Buttocks have the propensity of padding your fall and making that area of the body inaccessible, unless you fall on a protruding/sharp object – and for both children to have had this exact same accident?! This supposed cause of the scarring was suggested only after the children were in state ‘care’.

  69. Severe constipation can cause scarring in children…

    • That would be a rather massive coincidence wouldn’t it. Especially as neither child has spoken of having suffered this. Especially in view of the fact that there are accusations of abuse in conjunction with the scarring.

  70. You make very good points and as you know I have said the same myself

  71. Vegans tend not to suffer with that problem 😉

    • That’s true. I didn’t know that they were vegans… I haven’t really been following this case very closely, the comments just show up in my inbox… I find it so extraordinary overall, I have no useful opinion – just bewilderment.

  72. I think that applies to all of us

  73. A good blog here, which draws parallels to this Hampstead satanic paedophilia case with associated cover-up, with other similar cases: Tallahassee “Finders” in 1980s; Belgium 1990’s involving Marc Dutroux; The Franklin Scandal, the USA in the 1980s. Covered up into the 1990s all regarding elite child abuse: So it really isn’t as extraordinary as people think. Most sadly.

  74. So if a random person wants to send a truly historic family court document to Mr Suess.
    How is that accomplished anonmously?

    [I’d rather you didn’t send it to me – you’d be in breach of the legal obligations about the document]

    • I would ask why you would want to do that?

      • Because I highly regard Mr Seuss opinion. He is sharp 🙂 It will all be in the public domain anyhow shortly

      • If it is coming into the public domain, then I’ll try to write about it once a judgment is published – I do try to cover the cases as they come out (some weeks there are too many cases at once and I can’t get all of them done)

      • Well…as he says, it’s a confidential document. Although I guess if you did it anonymously there wouldn’t be repercussions for you personally, unless Allram Eest is not your real name, it won’t be anonymous however. If you have a document which tells the truth and you want to whistleblow, there are easier ways to disseminate it to a larger audience to get the facts out in the open.

      • “disseminate it to a larger audience” please enlighten/inform me. Family Law isn’t exactly on top of people’s agenda. It is all swept under the carpet imho.

      • I just mean in the same way others are doing, blogs, Facebook, Twitter, websites etc. I agree, it is swept under the carpet. A light needs shining on it all.

      • “blogs, Facebook, Twitter, websites etc” and not trying to be dis-respectful here. The wider Public doesn’t care. That is just the brutal fact. This blog is the only one I have found that gives the legal issues relevance/meaning. Doubt, if I was personally wronged by SS anybody would care to read it. Just the way it is.

      • You’d be surprised. Until it happens to them, or someone they know, people don’t want to know. But there is a growing army of wronged parents out there, publicising what social services and the courts have done and campaigning for change. Contact this FB page:

  75. Ashamed to be British

    I think we are all aware it goes on, in light of the Savile case … to what scale, I’m not sure, it’s very frightening

  76. Surprised nobody brought this up, kinda exciting if you ask me, Latvians are not happy campers

  77. I am this woman who the two hair strand company s got wrong . Kt is a very small part of the case a lot of other things happens really bad on the consequence of this company getting there test wrong they have messed my whole. Life up u wouldn’t believe . I really need some advise and help as no one has taken responsibility for any thing . My children were even abused sexually in care its all a shambles . Now I’ve got a life of depression. And a whole lot of other problems do you no anyone who can help me please .

    • Dear Amanda

      I’m really sorry to hear that. I’m afraid that I can’t give advice on this site, but your best course of action would be to talk to either a solicitor – google “solicitors + children + your town” or a McKenzie Friend if you can’t get legal aid or are disillusioned with solicitors – the same sort of google search.

    • Apply to join Facebook Group: Social Services and the Family courts UK. For practical advice and help.

  78. Ashamed to be British

    Take the case to Latvia by all means, but this poor child should never be returned to the mother.
    Second chance? Well supporters, she’s had several but did not want them, how the child is still alive is a mystery, this time the police and social services got it right, it’s not their fault the mother refuses to see her many failures (which involves plenty more than just being accused of being drunk on an occasion) they tried and tried to resolve the issues … as the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink

    • So really, how do you know anything? Enlighten me…or just have an opinion? Talking smack? True. If you do, shut the f*ck up.

      • Mr Seuss, going b4 the Court shortly. Certain, the judgement will not be made public. Surely, Family Courts would never admit to violating Human Rights and acting unlawfully. Who knows, I might be surprised.

    • Never is a long time and should only be used in extreme circumstances where there is no hope of reform. Even people who are bad parents through drug taking or alcoholism can be rehabilitated and would not make the same choices once they were clean. No-one wants a child to be in danger or neglected, but social services are exactly that *services* and not (in the words of LJM) “lords and masters of those they serve”. Support must be given to people to address the problems and yes, whilst they are rehabilitating the child should be removed to safety, and yes even when they are clean they should have their parenting monitored with check-ups and perhaps have to take parenting courses etc. But just removing children without supporting parents having crises is like a GP prescribing medication without having checked what illness he is prescribing it for. It’s only once all attempts have failed to support the parent to reform that such drastic measures should be taken and only when extended family members have been investigated as guardians, that the state should look at adopting. Perhaps the Latvian mother was refusing help because she was under the influence of a substance that once addressed, she would welcome that support. Or perhaps she needed counselling and therapy. No child should be left with parents putting them in danger but there are ways to resolve things that don’t necessarily need to mean permanent removal.

      • I second this. Especially since Social Services do not have a terrific reputation for keeping children taken into their care safe from harm…

      • See this is the problem, you don’t have any insight into the case. You just speculate. Not very meaningful. In fact, it is just annoying. Let’s just say when the Mum moved to a different Burough, the LA initiated proceedings. She co-operated fully with the LA, and no, she doesn’t have a substance abuse problem. How about, the LA recommending adoption without a court order of a young child. That is pretty much the ultimate HR violation.

      • Who are you addressing @UnderArmour? I trust it’s not myself as my comments have been regarding potential circumstances which would in fact defend the mother as opposed to condemning her, so if it is myself, you have completely missed the point. As to being annoying, if this is directed at me I refuse to engage in puerile to-ing and fro-ing and I think you’ll find yourself with no-one to talk to on here if you keep insulting people in this way.

      • When people comment about cases they absolutely know zilch about, it is not constructive. Just because there is a judgement, does it 100% of the time make it an absolute truth? Is there Another perspective to the story, which is not taken into account? That is worth some reflection. There are serious miscarriages of justice, in a few cases, these people need to be allowed legal redress.

      • And they have it. They can appeal the judgment if they think it is wrong. I don’t expect to see that happen.

  79. Ashamed to be British

    What you say?

    • [Offensive comment removed]

      Please read the comment rules. I know that we deal here with very emotional things and tempers can run high, but the rule is that you cannot be rude to other posters. You can disagree with them, you can say that you think they are wrong, but you can’t use personal abuse.


  80. Gotta love it, ill-informed morons having an opinion about something you are clueluss about. Play hard

    • I refer you to the comment rules. People aren’t morons because they have a different view about something to you. Just as you are not a moron for having a different view to them. Play nice, or go somewhere else to play rough. Disagreement is fine, but let’s have a bit of respect for other people.

  81. Paul Summerfield

    I have read the comments on this page and a lot of them are written in sadness and pain.

    If you can and you have proof that the authorities has treated you and your family unlawfully then its your duty Sirs and Madams as a parent to use every laughable trick in law to kick it back into court and to publicise it in any way that harms nobody.

    I lost my children in 2001 at Portsmouth Magistrates court. When I say I lost my children the court could find no wrong I had done and the only order made out at that mornings hearing was an agreement sum to pay child maintenance per month.

    I lost my children because the court welfare officer (now Cafcass) said she was untrained to talk to my children about what my statement contained (it was a history of attempted failed alienation) the welfare off maintenance.

    A year later things got worse which gave me documents that prove just how the authorities act unlawfully to parents and children, the authorities in my case actually committed serious child abuse to step daughter and daughter and were also in contempt of court for using the court welfare report against me without my knowledge or permission of the court.

    If you have been dealt unlawfully in a case such as mine you will find that the court and government will keep its door shut tight to you, but you got to just keep going because one day that door is going to cave in with the pressure that builds up year in year out with us all that keep on going complaining about what has been done to us by them that do as thou wilt.
    It maybe raining but there is something we should understand about the rain.

    • So sorry for the difficulties you have been through. Agree people must make a stand. However, this is becoming harder and harder with withdrawal of legal aid. But I believe children can get legal aid so that might be another option for some families. The trouble is, that power and money so easily lead to abuses of the system, when there is no accountability and no checks and balances, there is free rein. It’s a cosy gravy train that is very hard to stop. That doesn’t mean people should stop trying though. I was surprised to find that Healthwatch can monitor adult social care but not children’s social care. Why should children’s social care be so unaccountable, so untouchable? With the secret family courts and action rarely taken for abuses of the system, they will continue.

  82. Hi Andrew,

    I’m using this as a method to get in touch with you with something which I feel the need to say but which requires more than 140 characters. I’m directing it to you, partly because I don’t know who else to direct it to and partly because Anthony Douglas’ CAFCASS blog does not seem to allow comments to be left (no comment has ever been left on his blog since it was set up in December 2012). And I am posting it here because it seems just rude to guess your Brighton and Hove email address and contact you direct when we have no professional link.

    Here is a link to the most recent CAFCASS blogpost:,-not-thresholds.aspx

    In it AD says this:”‘Significant harm’ in care proceedings covers just about every serious incident happening to a child – it is too wide as a threshold.

    It would be better to think of three thresholds for families on the edge of care: a threshold for intervention, a threshold for removal of a child and a threshold for permanent placement outside the immediate family.”

    I found this profoundly depressing; just because threshold in care proceedings is met, the court does not have to go on to make a care order or to endorse any particular kind of plan. ‘Threshold’ is just that; a threshold, a gateway to other possibilities. And threshold in care proceedings is not merely that the child has experienced ‘significant harm’ – I know I don’t need to rehearse s31(2) CA 1989 to you – but it obviously goes way beyond significant harm in terms of the findings which the court must make.

    AD’s further comment about three thresholds – for intervention, for removal and for permanent placement outside immediate family – is so depressing too. These thresholds exist; the first is by individual local authorities and then implemented on a daily basis by social work teams; the second and third are actually part of the welfare test carried out in care proceedings only once the s31(2) test is satisfied; those tests are set out in Re L-A, Re B and Re B-S, all of which you know. Although these are threshold tests, they are decisions on the basis of welfare analysis. But they shouldn’t in any way be confused with or set up as an alternative to s31(2)!

    There seems to be much confusion between the threshold test and welfare analysis.

    I’ll stop now; that’s enough ranting.

    • Thank you, that’s really interesting. I don’t mind if people want to guess my Brighton email address. I can’t really dish it out, because this is me in my personal capacity rather than my official one (you can also DM me if you want a contact email)

      I sort of agree with both of you – I agree with you that threshold is much more complex than Anthony Douglas posits and that not every serious incident would consitute significant harm, that significant harm involves more than the incident itself (it involves culpability for one thing) and that threshold is a gateway rather than a ‘if this, then that’ equation.

      But I also agree with Anthony Douglas (and that’s not a sentence I ever envisaged typing) that in reality, we are ending up with three distinct layers when you look at the nature of the harm and the outcomes that would be likely to flow from them (it would be wrong to call them thresholds). They are, as you say, bound up with both the issues of harm and welfare analysis (and of course, the ability of parents to ameliorate that harm through their own actions and family/professional support).

      Might there be some value, if Parliament intended (which is where we have been heading and continue to head) that only the very worst cases should end up with adoption as the plan, to actually have a statutory test which reflects that?

      At the moment, as Anthony hints, we have a ‘threshold’ test which is so broad that you could have threshold crossed and yet have an argument about whether an Interim Supervision Order is required to manage that degree of harm, AND in a different case whether Adoption was the only way to manage that degree of harm. I’ve thought for a long time that we need a form of order between a Supervision Order and a Care Order, which places obligations on the LA to support the child at home during their childhood, with some teeth, but does not give them the power to remove the child without taking the case back to Court. That’s a whole other debate, but there’s a gulf at the moment between ‘these parents can basically do it with very little support, and they only need that support for a year’ (supervision order) and ‘these parents can’t do it at all, so adoption’ (care order/ placement order)

      [I have to say, that I’ve changed my views about this about five times even whilst writing my response, so I wouldn’t claim that my response here reflects a settled position, just how I feel at this particular moment)

      • Aside from all of that, there need to be safeguards for parents wrongly accused of harm, serious or otherwise. There is a big problem with children (and parents) with often undiagnosed invisible disabilities such as autism, Ehlers Danlos Syndrome, CFS/ME etc. the traits of which are being erroneously labelled as signs of abuse or neglect or poor parenting. Until such safeguards are cast-iron you will always have children wrongfully removed and wrongful interventions into families that cause distress to everyone – including the children. Another issue is “emotional harm” which is being abused by the state, especially the ludicrous “potential future emotional harm” (Minority Report really springs to mind here!).

        Over-zealous professionals making secretive referrals to social services, in breach of ethical guidelines if nothing else, about transparency unless there is a risk of serious harm to the child/ren or referrer is a massive problem in the UK. The time wasted on persecuting and spying on innocent families takes time away from the genuine abuse and neglect cases. The wide remit of social workers and the lack of accountability for false record-keeping means the scales of justice are severely unbalanced, courts will give credence to professionals’ reports above parents’ accounts. There needs to be some independence involved or corruption will not be stamped out.

  83. I second everything Planet Autism says. And my partner thirds it.

  84. Dear mr suess would you please have a look at hhj Bellamy July 2015 newsletter the first paragraph about advocates meetings and give your comments on it. It is available online what he is saying is what happens in most cases and what he says the parents feel is exactly right

    • I will have a look Lynn. In case anyone else wants to check it out whilst they wait for me to read it, here

    • I’ve never come across a situation in which a Guardian or a social worker would attend an advocates meeting, and if anyone ever suggested it to me, I’d say exactly what the Judge says here – it creates a perception of unfairness (and a parent would be fully entitled to feel that this was not right and proper). I wonder how that ever sprang up, it isn’t something I’ve ever heard of anyone doing before.

      • I can confirm it always happens in Derby Nottingham and Leicester family courts and I’ve heard of it happening in other places when I challenged everyone about it including the solicitors for the parents I was told this was normal and it was so they could hold meetings in confidence without other people in the waiting area hearing. The sad thing is I believed it till I read this. I feel like I’ve let the people I was supporting down so much

      • Ah, now those are two different things. It is not unlawful for any of the parties to have discussions at Court and to have whomever they want in the room for those discussions. What the Judge is talking about is the formal Advocates Meeting that has to be held before the Court hearing, where everyone sets out their position and the lawyers try to put together a schedule of what matters are agreed and what is not, and ideally to prepare a draft order.

        I think it does look bad when the Guardian is squirreled away in a room with the Local Authority and doesn’t do the same thing with the parents, and the better Guardians strive to avoid that, and try to spend a good amount of time with all of the key people in the case.

        When I first started representing Local Authorities it was always a bit of a litigation tactic to get the Guardian into a room as soon as possible. Then I started representing parents, and I’d be sitting with the parents watching the Guardian cosy up with the social worker and saw just how awful that looks and how unfair it is. So I try to avoid it now, if at all possible.

      • I think social services/CAFCAS probably operate on the basis that many parents don’t know their rights and therefore won’t notice when they are breached…

  85. Ashamed to be British

    Oh yes they doooo

    • Hence it says “I have become aware that the Children’s Guardians routinely attend advocates’ meetings and that it is not unusual for a social worker to attend also.” and it is extremely unlikely that it is only Leicester doing this.

      “…and occasionally an actual unfairness (when information is shared directly with the Children’s Guardian and/or social worker but which is communicated to the parents second-hand via their advocate).”

      I would strongly dispute that it is only an occasional unfairness too. The judge seems to be wanting to not create an impression of unfairness, whilst stopping short of saying it is always an unfairness as well as an unjustness and breach of ethics if nothing else – which clearly it is.

  86. In my experience as an advocate for social care ‘users’ as they are sometimes termed, (perhaps because it is a bad habit that is very hard to kick) I have found that the Local authority do all they can to prevent the ‘user’ have any other advocate than the ones that they provide, and routinely refuse to copy in or contact me, despite the fact that the client asks them to, over and again. Is this normal or aberrant behaviour?

  87. Ashamed to be British

    Specifically it breaches the natural rules of justice. I seem to be banging on about them a lot recently … Which suggests the recent paper was long overdue

  88. Ashamed to be British

    Like lots of things that happen in the LA offices and secret courts, bubble buster ain’t it?

    • I agree about the meetings although as you say it does look awful to the parents but I am talking about the meetings resulting in a court order. In one case I attended to support one of the parents the advocates the guardian the social worker all sat in a room for an hour and then the parents solicitor came out and said there’s now an order for no contact except one e mail a week to be sent via the social worker they never even went into the court room. The order was signed later by the judge and the parent received it two weeks later through the post! I really don’t understand how this can be seen as just and fair

      • Hi Lynn, I’ve talked about this before. A good barrister will explain to a parent that their role is to GIVE advice, but to TAKE instructions. They will set out the options for a parent, and give them sensible advice about which of those options is the best thing for them. They may even have to give very robust advice about the likely consequences of the parents preferred option going wrong for them. But ultimately, it is up to the client what they want the barrister to say on their behalf and it is absolutely up to the parents what they agree to.

        I appreciate that there are some people who come out of those conversations feeling like they were given no choice and agreed to something that they weren’t happy with (and that sometimes the ‘robust advice’ crosses the line). It is really important that parents understand that a barrister cannot agree to anything on their behalf unless they have actually agreed to it. If you really want to fight, even if the barrister strongly advises you against it, that barrister must go into Court and fight.

        There is a duty to fearlessly and without favour advance the instructions of the client.

        Think of it like Chris Tarrant on Millionaire – he might be pulling all sorts of expressions and dropping hints that your answer is wrong and you should change it, but when you say “Final Answer” that’s the final answer.

        [The one exception being that you can’t make a barrister go into Court and tell lies on your behalf. ]

  89. Ashamed to be British

    It’s not, it’s a breach of the parents’ art 6, they’re entitled to know the case against them and to defend themselves, the judge should never have made a decision without their presence, even if he’d been told that the parents didn’t wish to be heard, (that happens too) he should not take the solicitors word for it, it’s hearsay therefore they should always seek to hear it from the horses mouth

  90. Wendy Wolfendale

    The Guardian in our case was SO cosy with the SS it was untrue. He saw my Grandson once – who was frightened of him, and played up that day in contact. He NEVER read the contact notes (this was apparent in Court) – so knew nothing at all of the beautiful relationship we had with Oscar. Most of the Court time he was arranging his weekend’s golf with the SS Barrister – and literally laughing and joking while we were in other rooms wanting to die.

    I believed there was meant to be an Independent Reviewing Officer, who I wrote to, (I had a name) but this person turned out to be fictitious. I have since been told that SS are so short of funds that this position is not filled and files are simply transferred to that desk, where no one sits.

    I speak as a Grandma who hasn’t seen her darling little boy for 2 years and have to wait another 13 years before we stand a chance. So I speak with ‘some’ solid personal experience.

  91. “Then I started representing parents, and I’d be sitting with the parents watching the Guardian cosy up with the social worker and saw just how awful that looks and how unfair it is. So I try to avoid it now, if at all possible.”

    But you are falling into the same trap as the judge, it’s a shame if it *looks* awful, but that isn’t what this is about – it’s about the fact that it *is* awful, plain wrong and counter to justice.

    It’s total inbalance of power.

    • Then I phrased it badly – seeing how awful it LOOKED, made me realise how awful it WAS.

      • Sorry I do feel it’s a depate worth having if a parent or a child /young person feels disadvantage and without any means of expressing their views haven’t we all just failed them and justice and democracy

  92. Daniel williams

    Hi there I am the father to 1 of your posts on this page would be great to actually talk to u in person I find your article very interesting to read although there is a few correctional errors haha Anychance of a chat

    • Hello Daniel, if you are on Twitter, you can DM me @suesspiciousmin, or if you post the corrections you’d like to add to the piece, I can add those on. I always try to remember that all of these cases involve real people with real feelings, as well as the wider legal implications, so if there’s stuff that you would want to correct, quite happy to add those in.

  93. Paul Summerfield

    Social Service Portsmouth are so corrupt.

    I am trying to get access to my mothers adult social service report because there is evidence that it contains totally incorrect information about me in it, so I am using the data protection act to get access just to what is being said about me in my mothers report.

    I have just got a refusal from them saying I am not a legal relative of my mother. What the hell are the case workers on in Portsmouth, Acid?

    I just have had to raise a complaint about this to the Information Commissioner’s Office.

    I really really sympathize with parents having problems with the SS as they are absolutely completely up their own backsides.

    • Wendy Wolfendale

      You are so right. We have lost our darling little boy, 2 years ago and suffered basically bare faced lies. He was what you might call a “blue eyed blonde”, and was an easy/soft target. So they lied their way through a court case within which we had no idea what was going to happen.
      We see him again when he’s 18 – he is now 5.

      • Paul Summerfield

        I am sorry Wendy, I do know how you feel I lost my daughter when she was 13 years old not due to SS, but Alienation.

        I can only describe SS Portsmouth as a witches cavern for what they have dared written to me claiming I am not a legal relative of my mother they are completely and absolutely potty doing this with the information and evidence I have given them.

        They are supposed to be protecting the vulnerable, but instead with the evidence I have got concerning my mother they are protecting my mothers surgery and her solicitor.

      • Wendy Wolfendale

        I just don’t know what the answer is. We are innocent of all ‘charges’ and yet you always get the No-smoke-without-fire look. And what the hell is he going through? He was 3 for God sake and had to say good-bye to his mummy, grandma and grampy.
        SS Portsmouth clearly have no more morals than SS Shropshire, I do so hope you have a happy outcome – but you have got a fight on your hands, but you know that.
        Best Wishes.

      • @Wendy, I know it’s probably too late but here is some information just in case:

        Other examples of where adoption orders have been set aside are where there is a procedural irregularity where, for example, notice of the proceedings were not properly served on the mother (Re F (R) (An Infant) [1970] 1 QB 385) or fraud had been used in obtaining the order (Re RA (Minors) (1974) 4 Fam Law 182 or a fundamental breach of natural justice in an adoption made overseas (Re K (Adoption and Wardship) [1997] 2 FLR 221).

        Case of appeal against adoption order:

        Click to access Adoption.pdf

        Certain individuals can apply for an order for contact with that child, including staying contact, and the application can be made after the adoption order is made. They will need Leave of the Court to make that application. If an individual is able to persuade the Court to give permission to make an application for contact, the Court will only then decide whether contact should actually be granted.

        Relationship the child has with relatives
        ACA 2002, s 1 (4) (f) requires a court or adoption agency to consider the child’s existing family relationships. The court or adoption agency is required to consider ‘the relationship which the child has with relatives and with any person in relation
        to whom the court or agency considers to be relevant.’ S 51A states that the Local Authority can apply for an order for refusing contacts between a child and parents, guardians or other person the child has contact with.

  94. Paul Summerfield

    I tell you what the problem is Wendy is that the complaints system does not work. In my case we have Social Service Portsmouth thinking that they can write false history about me in my mothers report to take the blame away from my mothers surgery and that it would be impossible for me to even know about it. Well I did find out about it by using the freedom on information act to get their phone log of me phoning them.

    The evidence was in the phone log.

    But first they refused to let me see what has been written about me by saying to me that they need to write to the people that have said these things about me in their report to ask them permission to let me view what they have said about me in the report….

    The Cheek of it.

    So I gave SS the names and address of the people that must logically be in the report.

    That was when they refused my request for access because I am not legally a relative of my mother they must know or have made something else up because it does not say that on my birth certificate. But it does not matter under law as to if I am a relative or not because under the data protection act because there is false information about me contained in a report of what I thought was my mother (she is really my mother) because I have the evidence I have the right to see it and put it right.

    They should not be doing this to people they should not be breaking the law to cover things up, but they are.

    Now I have to go Information Commissioner’s Office.

    Why do I have to do all of this, why cant these people play a straight game with families instead or worrying about what the correct percentage is for the removal of children from their families or in my case in my mothers case protecting Doctors Surgeries

    • Please be aware Paul, that you may not get any joy from the ICO. All the regulatory bodies are smoke and mirrors. Little actual enforcement powers, lip service to the rights of the people only. A lot of covering backs goes on all the way to the top.

      • Paul Summerfield

        Well I think your quite right which is why the complaints service does not work which in itself makes the system corrupt But no matter because when they act the way they do it proves to me or I find the truth about what happened to my mother and the reasons why. I know more about what happened now then I did two weeks ago.

        This is all your fault Mr Suess because when you showed that Judgment by Senior Judge Lush at the court of protection when the attorneys were found to be ripping off their mother and we all complained about the judgment because there were no comments in the judgment about the solicitor involved in this case.

        It all sort of set me off again…………

        Because Judge Lush heard my case………….

        I found out after the hearing that my two brothers (the attorneys) paid my mothers solicitor £2000 for the case to go ahead at the court of protection!

        I will be writing to Judge Lush about all of this, I am waiting because I may be able to get a little more evidence with the help of ICO but as Planet Autuism says that may be doubtful.

        But the other worry for me is did Judge Lush receive any of my brothers money paid to the solicitor because Judge Lush did let the proceedings go out of order he admits that in the judgment.

        I don’t think he would lower himself to that sort of thing.

        But the problem is when solicitors act in this way as they did towards my mother it covers disrepute all over the court of protection and in this case Judge Lush.

      • Dear Paul

        I obviously don’t and can’t endorse anything that you allege about individuals, as I don’t know the case and what is involved. I know that you need to vent about this, and I completely get that. If I’m asked by anyone involved to take your posts down, I would have to do that, and I’d ask that you don’t make allegations about particular individuals again. I wouldn’t dream of asking you not to have opinions, but the comment rules are clear that I can’t publish things that people could sue me for.


      • Agree absolutely with what Planet Autism says: even the ICO agree that they are effectively toothless. The best an individual can get from them is that whoever is withholding your data is “compliance unlikely” and you still have to take them to court to get the data. The ICO won’t assist in any way with that.

      • ashamedtobebritish

        To be fair, I did find the ico very frustrating, for a long time, it was only that I kept on and on pointing out what part they weren’t getting, and evidencing it, that finally the lightbulb turned on and they MADE the LA give me the lot, and told them they were watching them to boot (I also have the evidence of that from the LA 😀 ta LA!)

  95. ashamedtobebritish

    I slogged it out with the ico for SEVEN years, email after email, but I had a trail and they couldn’t state I was out of time because I kept providing evidence and dispelling what the information officer was telling them, in the end they had no choice but to give in to me.
    It’s all down to how you ask, what for and which act you use, although if third parties refuse to be named then they can’t name them, this does not apply to decision makers and agency workers, they are accountable for any unlawful actions they take.
    Don’t give up, if they have lied (that you are not a relative) then they have breached the natural rules of justice, they must take into account relevant information and they must know the law that binds them, otherwise it becomes an illegal decision, it’s malfeasance and entitled you to take civil action

    • Paul Summerfield

      I think your right too ashamedtobebritish because as you say when they refuse they have got to give a reason and if they know something has gone wrong or they are hiding something that reason is going to be a lie and you are going to know its a lie or ridiculous by suggesting that I am no a legal relative of my mother.

      What I find quite sick or wrong is that if I was my mothers attorney or her solicitor they would be able to access the whole file. Yet I am my mothers son and I was her carer for 3 months and I know that their are absolute lies about me in the report but I am not allowed access to it.

      This document which has a false history about me can be shown to anyone even sent up to the court of protection by my mothers solicitors or her attorneys and I would not know a thing about it because I am not allowed to view it or know the information it contains

    • Paul Summerfield

      Thanks for all your help, I wrote a complaint out to the SS including your template and told them that I have appealed to the ICO and suggested to the SS that when writing letters refusing access that they inform the person that they can appeal to their decision by writing to the ICO. That did the trick. I got a letter and a phone call from the SS and they have now changed their minds. but they are still trying to tell me I am not allowed anything from the surgery even if its about me. I told them to just block out the names and send them everything that is contained in the records about me.

      As to if they will send me everything is another matter as you have to rely on the SS being honest johns!

  96. Paul Summerfield

    A Solicitors Scam or how to rob an inheritance from your family

    My mother had a stroke which left mum with short term memory due to lack of care from her surgery and my brothers because both parties did no insuring my mum took her diabetes or take her to the diabetes clinic.

    My brothers took my mother to a bent solicitor where in one afternoon she signed an EPA and made out a new will, all documents must have been prepared for her.

    You see they all thought they would get away with it because mum had short term memory.

    They thought as soon as she left the solicitors she would of forgot what had happened so she would not tell anyone.

    It all went wrong very wrong because my mother had only mild short term memory she could retain new memories and so my mum phoned me up a week later and told me what had happened,

    Thats when it all began.

  97. Paul Summerfield

    How it all ended…………..

    It all ended short time after the court of protection hearing.

    Witnesses had not shown up. Proceedings went out of order in the second half when it was the defense turn. Mum was made to pay all court costs for writing a letter complaining that her solicitor had refused entry and that she wanted me and my brother John also to be her attorneys.

    Proof was given that my mother had mental capacity.

    Mum was staying at my cousins home, my cousin had ripped her own brother out of his inheritance two years previously.

    Just as I was about to go to my cousins home to show my mother all the court documents which would show her what a dirty trick had been pulled on my mother and myself, she had what is known as an addersons crisis this happens when someone stopped giving my mother steroids.

    In other words mum died in very suspicious circumstances because my cousin had a double motive. Its this that has really screwed me up and it is only recently I am able to write about it.


    The Will I hear you asking, well because of what happened my mother’s solicitor was forced to use mums old will made with my father in around 1992 everything was supposed to be spit three ways. One of my brothers were the executor, he refused to give me any breakdown or my mother’s assets… My mother’s solicitor were the administrators of the will , they also refused to answer any of my questions.

    I was ripped off……….They took all of my mother’s processions for themselves, they charged me money claiming that I owed them money which is untrue. I reckon (because it’s hard to give an exact figure because they refused to give me any details) £10000 upwards.

    • Paul Summerfield

      Social Service have just phoned me……………They are refusing to give me any information about me contained in my mothers report…………They claimed I have to be an Attorney to get that information about me contained in my mothers report, so a carer is not only poorly paid but also has no status whatsoever with Social Service.

      I told this SS women on the phone that I so so sympathies now with parents that lose their children with Social Service, because all you seem to do is write false reports about people and all you really care about is keeping the percentage up for removal of children and auguring with yourself what percentage it should be.

      I was told ” I am ending this telephone conversation with you now ………..

      They are going to try and claim now that Social Service gave me the advice to ICO they did not I had to do it myself

  98. ashamedtobebritish

    But you are … feel free to contact me, you may not be stating one little thing that allows them to keep your information from you, the rules are tight in what you ask for and what laws you use to ask for them, I have this little mantra ‘there’s a loophole for everything’ – we will find it

    • Paul Summerfield

      All I am carefully asking them :N not the report but all the information in there which is held about me. From the way they are acting there is a lot of information about me and I know and they know and the surgery know and my brothers the Attorneys know that I can easily prove everything as untrue.

      • ashamedtobebritish

        Here you go:

        Dear Sir/Madam,

        I am requesting information under the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000 as follows:

        * Copies of all records, handwritten AND computerised.
        * Copies of all e-mails, faxes, letters etc. E-mails are very important.
        * Copies of all telephone messages.
        * Copies of all internal memo’s
        * Copies of all Running Sheets

        The only reason you cannot disclose third parties information is if it is detremental to that person, i.e. threat of personal harm or danger to that person, as I have never been a dangerous or violent person, this does not apply in my case.

        I am entitled to be given a description of the data, be told why it is held, who it has been given to, any information about the source of the data, and to be given an explanation as to how any automated decision taken about me has been made.

        Please contact me as to how you wish payment to be made, attached is a copy of my driving licence for ID purposes and a letter for proof of residence

  99. Paul Summerfield

    I think thats great what you have kindly showed me,

    This is the way you must do it.

    Mr Suess should put that somewhere on his site to help others that has an access problem.

    Over the phone just now THE SS WOMEN kept saying to me we cannot give you your mothers file. I kept saying back I don’t want the file I only want the contents that is written about me and as my mothers carer in your files. She returned back to me “We cannot give you your mothers file. I told her that SS were breaking the law trying to cover this up as under the data protection act I am allowed to see contents of any file that has references about me in it.

    I also said to her that I put a complaint to your complaints manager about this. I notice from her letter that she sent to me she did not log my complaint but she just passed everything onto your information officer.

    She then said we are not going to deal with your complaint because it has been six years since your mother died.

    What they are doing they are trying to run away from this like frightened children because they are not protecting here the vulnerable, but doctors surgery’s, solicitors and of course my mothers attorneys……….

    • You should be entitled to see, under the DPA any records that are about you – but they may edit out references to third persons (if they can’t obtain the consent of the third person for you to have the information), so you may end up getting documents that are heavily redacted and hard to follow. They wouldn’t actually HAVE to retain your mother’s file if six years have elapsed since she passed away, but they would be wrong to destroy the file to thwart your request.

      • Paul Summerfield

        Well for six years SS have been saying I am not allowed by law to see anything that is contained in my mothers report about me. But since I made the appeal to the ICO and wrote the template out that AshamedToBeBritish wrote out on here the SS have now changed their minds, but they told me over the phone that I am not still allowed to see anything that is contained in the report from my mothers surgery about me or if my brothers disagreed. I told the SS that I am under the data protection act entitled to see anything that is written about me and suggested to them to just block out the persons that are making the comments about me. The answer was “But you will still know who is making the comments…..

        Partly what is going on here the surgery are secretly blaming me on record for my mother having a stroke when it was nothing to do with me but the fault in fact lies with the surgery and my brothers.

        The worry is that reports can be written about persons in other peoples reports and you would not know anything about it…….I only found out about it by using the freedom of information act to get my SS phone log calls I made to them and I discovered that false phone logs of me phoning them making complaints about my mothers surgery and suggesting my mother was getting worse and was nearly senile.

      • ashamedtobebritish

        I’m glad I helped a little 🙂 as for you knowing who they’re talking about, that’s not their concern, as long as they redact it you can guess to your hearts content- their obligation is not to give you the actual name, so they’re talking tosh

      • Paul Summerfield

        It sort of worked with the ICO because as soon as they wrote to SS Portsmouth, SS Portsmouth jumped into action and this weekend I got the heavy censored SS Report on my mother. ON reading it they are still breaching the data protection act because they are censoring a call they alleged I made to them and even though I was my mothers carer they are refusing to give me any information concerning her surgery because that does not come under the data protection act. However Portsmouth SS have made an error because they put a document in the report that my mother signed naming me and giving her consent for her medical data to be shared with me which the SS have been refusing to give me for seven years

  100. They can also send you the entire report with anything about 3rd parties redacted, leaving only the information about yourself with names and other identifying features of 3rd parties blacked out. They have no excuse.

    • Paul Summerfield

      Yes thats right but ashamed to be british is saying quite rightly if you use the wrong word to them it gives them ground to refuse and that its what they are doing at the moment.

      They just keep saying to me we wont send the report and I am saying to them I don’t want the report I want only the references to me in it. Its a game that they are playing with me but this game reveals they are trying to hide something in that report from me and I also think I know that report was used against me without me knowing.

      Dr.Suess: I have put this problem about access on your site not because I want any legal advise from you but I want to show how us little people find it so hard dealing with the SS and to show the phoney reports they sometimes write.

      I have broken one of your rules by mentioning Senior Judge Lush in this and I want to make it very clear now I know the attorneys were paying money to my mothers solicitor and I have the proof on this, but I dont think Judge Lush was paid any money from this, but something else happened.

      What I am trying to do is to get the evidence to give to Judge Lush and I want everybody to see how hard it is when it should not be. This is what I am trying to do here and ashamedtobebritish has given me a great idea in the template letter to SS Portsmouth which explains what went wrong at the court of protection and it was not any fault of Judge Lush.

      I will publish here if thats ok with you

  101. Pingback: Unlawful removal of a child, compensation paid | National IRO Manager Partnership

  102. I have only just come across this blog and find it very interesting. I wanted to ask a question further questions about one of the comments made in the Foster to Adopt article

    “The implication of this is, that if the LA are considering adoption and aren’t placing with a relative, their DUTY is to consider a foster to adopt placement EVEN though this would mean separating the siblings – the foster to adopt takes priority over siblings”

    What would happen if LA had a child in a foster to adopt placement since birth and there was another family with an adopted half sibling who were also looking at adopting the same child. If both families were approved adopters what would LA do? They can only support one family through matching and the rest of the process. Would the foster to adopt then take priority over placing the child with the sibling in this situation?

    I would be keen to hear your views and the legal implications of this situation

    • That’s an incredibly good question – the LA would, if they had a foster to adopt placement be obliged to consider it. I think in practice, they’d approach the previous adopters and see if they were interested in a foster to adopt for this new baby. If they weren’t, but did want to permanently adopt the baby, then theres a real dilemma. I don’t think there’s a hard and fast legal solution. My gut feeling for what I’d advise is to assess the sibling’s adopters and not place in a foster to adopt placement, because of the possibility that at Adoption Panel to consider a match you don’t want two competing prospective adopters.

      • The child has been with F2A placement for a year and the family with half sibling have just been through stage 2 of the assessment process and both families are now approved adopters and after the same child what’s the legal situation??

        The comment you made in your article:

        The implication of this is, that if the LA are considering adoption and aren’t placing with a relative, their DUTY is to consider a foster to adopt placement EVEN though this would mean separating the siblings – the foster to adopt takes priority over siblings”

        This talks about splitting children up but would this foster to adopt take priority over placing siblings together????

      • ashamedtobebritish

        If the placement without the sibling is better for the long term welfare of the child, then yes

      • Yes, the Act says that the foster to adopt placement takes priority over placing siblings together – or rather it says that this is the case for the LOCAL AUTHORITY. It wouldn’t necessarily be the view that the Court takes of it.

  103. I think no matter how analytical a question is, the fact remains that at the heart of this is the fact that it’s about the needs and rights of the children. That has to include their rights as regards family ties, such as to siblings as it’s not a decision made for the here and now it’s about their whole future. So the common sense and obvious answer here, is actually that the children must have their needs paramount – over and above any “duty” the LA has or perceives it has.

    These are human beings’ lives, not tick boxes.

    • Quite so – the Court still retains the fundamental duty to ensure that any decision that it takes is in the child’s best interests, and the tinkering of the Children and Families Act 2014 does not affect that. The Court must still do what is best for the child. (though that will be for the child who is the subject of the application, not other children who might be affected – for example a previously adopted half-sibling)

  104. How can I get a copy of this information to submit as case evidence? I have had a look on line and can’t seem to find anything. All help and advice is very greatly received in the extremely difficult situation.

  105. ashamedtobebritish

    Keep going … You’re getting there, at last

  106. Paul Summerfield

    What does losing one financial capacity mean and is it a real medical condition and can it ever be cured?

    I fully understand what it means to lose ones mental capacity and that it can be measured and there will always be clear evidence in a court of law to support that condition (lots of home help) and also that person will in all probability sadly never will regain his or her mental capacity.

    However to lose ones financial capacity is this similar condition to losing one’s mental capacity.

    Answer: NO

    Can it really be measured?

    Answer: No, not really because of the next question.

    Could one ever regain ones so called financial capacity after losing it?

    Answer: Yes

    Let me explain this:

    Old lady has a stroke, after leaving hospital she still has mental capacity, but suffers from mild short term memory. When I say mild, I mean she sometimes repeats the same question again in conversations, but has never burnt pots and pans while cooking (forgotten she was cooking a stew).

    This person is now handicapped and can be said to have lost her financial capacity, not because she has lost her ability to count but because she will find it difficult to remember if she paid her bills or not.

    What this person needs in this condition to regain financial capacity is to be taught to write down when the bills come in and write down when they are paid or use a computer to do this, you could not do this of course if one has lost mental capacity, but it can regained if one has lost their financial capacity in this way just though teaching that person to write everything down or using a computer instead of relying on a now dodgy short term memory.

    So should losing one’s financial capacity be good reason enough to have that person registered with the court of protection?

  107. EU is investigating, forced adoption will come to a halt in the UK soon. Hopefully, some SW’s will be convicted and incarcerated.

  108. Hi suspiciousminds.

    I am incredibly impressed with your blog (although it makes me feel very uneducated and dim at times for not already knowing half of the stuff you post about). Your research skills are clearly fabulous and I was hoping for some help if you would be so kind.

    I am stuggling to find any authority on the very simple question: what information is the local authority under an obligation to give a parent whose child is in section 20 foster care? In this example- no named of course, hem hem- a 16 year old is in s.20 and has a poor relatonship with his rather interfering mother. He does not want her to know anything about ANYTHING. Not college (he just dropped out and started working) not any assessments he undergoes, NUFFIN. The red book is silent on this point (page 499 makes mention of “PR where a child is accomodated by the LA” but this doesnt help in terms of passing the parent information. It isnt like the mother can withdraw seciton 20 and get him moved (he adores his foster placement) because of course s.20 ss 11 states that if he is 16 agrees to be accomodated so be it.

    I know this is irrelant to what is being posted above but I couldnt see a contact email to you direct so have resorted to this. I am geneuinely lying awake at night wondering if there is an answer to this. I HATE unsolved legal quieres.

    Many thanks in advance!

    • This is really more of a data protection question really, together with Gillick competency and the decision of the law that young person with Gillick competency have a degree of autonomy to make their own choices without reference to their parents. If the young person is 16 and competent and tells the LA that he/she does not want information shared with parent, then the LA would only be able to share information against the young person’s will if there was a Pressing Need to do so – the Pressing Need will depend on circumstances and the LA have to weigh up the nature of the information, views of the person, the legitimate interest of the parent having that information and any risks if the information was shared or not shared. (And post 16, a parent no longer has the right to remove the young person from s20 if the young person wants to stay there, so it can’t just be circumvented by removing s20 consent, as you pointed out).

      Pressing need and sharing information without consent all emerges from A Local Authority and Police Authority in the Midlands Ex parte LM 2000

      They are usually amongst the hardest decisions about information sharing, and the LA should promote and encourage so far as they can that it would be best for the young person to have information shared, but it can be very tricky to do in practice.

  109. freedomtalkradio20132014

    Forced Adoption Conference May 5th 2016 Lanark Glasgow.

    Care Leavers Abused As a child Parent Of Forced adoption Child Contact Andy

    We are looking for Speakers around the world and for you where you live to connect via skype add me freedomtalkradio1 email

    Free Tickets

    Lets bring forced adoptions globally from the glasgow conference.

    Facebook Page

    Andy Peacher

    01444 390270

    Scotlands Child Stealing By The State Forced Adoption Conference 2016.

    Mums Dads Grandparents Relatives @ Carers

    I am arranging a nother successful conference in the fight to arrange awareness and publicize peoples stories where they
    live all welcome volunteers needed.

    Scotland to date havent had such a conference many days and weeks of hard work and volunteers will make the event a success.

    My thanks go out to people who attended previous conferences.

    Right what place or town will you attend ?

    Would you like to be a guest speaker ? do you know of a guest speaker ? can you help make this conference a success ?
    ideas needed.

    The aims of the conference is to which aims to prevent physical, emotional and sexual abuse and neglect of children
    by promoting the physical, emotional, and social well-being of children. We aim to promote the rights of children
    as citizens, through multi-disciplinary collaboration, education, campaigning and other appropriate activities’

    The Other aim is to stop stories like this one and asking those involved in child protection to think before they remove children

    1:-The fact is that parents who have committed no crime are losing their children to forced adoption!

    2:-Experts who depend on court appearances for a living, nearly always agree with the local authority.They make predictions that parents just might abuse their children (including newborn babies) in the future ,so these parents lose their children to permanent fostercare or adoption,not for something they have done but for something they might (or might not) do!

    3:-Over 1000 UK children /month are taken into care ,Fosterers are paid an average £400/week per child (birth mothers get around £20/week),and a foster agency founded by social workers getting around £1500/week per child was recently sold for £130million !A real money driven industry !!

    4:-Parents whose children have been taken are gagged and threatened with prison if they protest publicly;At contact parents are gagged again and forbidden to get emotional,to speak any foreign language,or to discuss the case with their children otherwise contact will be stopped.

    5:-More children are taken for emotional abuse than physical and sexual abuse added together.Despite “baby P” the number taken for physical abuse is steadily falling as a percentage of the total number of children taken.

    6:-What are the solutions?

    (a)Impose criminal rules of evidence in family courts so children cannot be taken unless parents are proved to have committed a crime affecting their children. Also parents would be free to obtain a second opinion from an expert of their own choosing.

    (b)Abolish all gagging of parents leaving them free to protest openly if their children are taken, and also to say what they like to them at contact without censorship ! Two very simple changes, two very obvious solutions.,but will anyone impose them and derail the moneytrain? Don’t hold your breath

  110. Thank you for the insightful articles. Very helpful.

  111. Share Our International Survivors Forced Adoptions Conference

    Hello it is great to start interacting with others in the promotion of our conference. I have a good feeling about this one guys.

    I have attached a copy of the conference poster and media press release.
    Please feel free to share on social media networks as well as on websites if possible spread the word as far and wide as we can.

    We invite you to check out this website join the child protection task force and watch the conference live.

    Join The CPTF Child Protection Task Force.

    Thank you all for your participation in our conference we really appreciate all you are doing.

    Keep up the good work folks.

    Speak soon


    +44 1444 390270
    Skype freedomtalkradio1

    Sent from Windows Mail

  112. Dear Sue

    I was intrigued to see your blog mentioned in a Guardian Weekend article about Annie, who almost lost her newborn son to care proceedings (20.2.16). The article was deeply moving, ballast to my own views of what’s become of social work, and led me to your site. I’ve been a social worker for 50 years, mainly in Children & Families work, including a 12-year stint as an academic at a good university, and still practise as an educator in practica within a voluntary sector setting. But I would not consider child protection work now.

    While the kind of social work practised in the 1960s was open to many criticisms, the prevailing ethos was humane, especially in the better local authorities and charities such as Family Service Units, where I was fortunate to cut my teeth before training. Over the next 2 decades, that ethos was gradually supplanted. The creation of SSDs saw the development of large bureaucratic structures that afforded management opportunities to people – frequently men – who might otherwise not have considered this line of work, and who often lacked sufficient empathy.

    By 1979 it was evident that attitudes to struggling parents were changing fast. To paraphrase something said at that time by John Rae-Price, then Director of Islington Social Services: Social work has exchanged its integrity and independence for the mandate of child protection. In the ensuing years, it was unsettling to see how rapidly many newly promoted managers changed their focus from helping disadvantaged people to an exclusive concern on organisational priorities and their own careers.

    The policy shift from prevention to protection and risk management is one that has had sad outcomes for many parents who could have been helped to keep their children. We now know much more than we did 50 years ago about how to do this, and I have seen it work well with many families, usually in constructive facilities such as family centres. But public attitudes towards parenting failures, fed by press and politicians, have hardened, along with images of disadvantaged people in general; and cash-strapped local authorities are newly bound to permanency within 6 months – scarcely any time at all for people undergoing care proceedings to change into good-enough parents, often with little support.

    This obviously isn’t meant to be an argument for ignoring abuse and serious neglect, and there are of course parents whose capacity for change is too limited for success. But I know from experience that the playing field is often far from level, and I take issue with your blog’s implication that official players always act in good faith, even if they’re sometimes misguided. Social workers aren’t free from prejudices – mine for example is drug- or alcohol-dependent parents who in my experience are rarely open to change – and these prejudices will inevitably make it difficult for a parent to demonstrate competence. And once the social worker makes a negative assessment, however partial, it’s unlikely to change, especially in an authority with a strong risk aversion and a bias towards removing children.

    A friend told me some years ago that she had countermanded a Contact Order giving an abusive father supervised contact, on the grounds that he would find surreptitious ways of controlling and abusing the child even under supervision. The argument that there was a principle at stake – the force of law – didn’t shake her certainty about her duty to protect the child. The same friend recently said in all seriousness that she didn’t believe parents with learning disabilities could ever learn to parent properly, however much help they had. This runs counter to the convictions of learning disabilities specialists in specialist agencies, who contend that their clients are neither encouraged nor supported to develop their capacity.

    But the worst case I’ve heard of – and was assured this was by no means an isolated incident – was cited by Professor Michael Preston-~Shoot in a seminar at Sussex University. A social worker he’d never met rang him during a court adjournment to get his advice about being pressured by her council’s solicitor to change her report – perjure herself – to eliminate positive conclusions in her assessment report. This is the logical outcome to a process in which professional ethics have been replaced by organisation values.

    Most discouraging of all, once children are removed, parents are usually “dumped” by Children’s Services, and receive no further social work support for the damage that removal inflicted. Only when they get pregnant again do they attract the services’ interest, and the cycle begins anew. And as to the outcomes for the children who are adopted or fostered, research suggests these are, in too many cases, poor. I feel so strongly about this that I recently advised a very young mother whom I’d known since birth on how to keep her baby, because I know her mother and grandmother well and was certain they would support her sufficiently.

    In my view, our child protection system is not fit for purpose. The model of investigation, detection and prosecution that we have adopted in the UK is not universal, destructive, and effectively criminalises parents. A Sussex charity, Safety Net, was founded 20 years ago with the aim of helping children, their parents, teachers and communities to keep children safe, using Protective Behaviours, group work, and close community networks. While it doesn’t have all the answers, and prevention is notoriously difficult to demonstrate, the experiences of the children speak loudly in favour of this kind of approach.

    I found much of your advice to parents in care proceedings helpful. But it is too optimistic to reassure them that professionals always act in the best interests of the child. As we know, the child protection process is beset by many pressures, some of which may act against a child’s best interests; and the lack of funding for decent housing, support with child care, and therapy is a major detriment.


    Dr J

    • Thank you Dr J for a very considered and thoughtful response.

      I wouldn’t take the view that all social workers are administering angels – my position has always been that I think that there are good and bad social workers just as there are good and bad doctors, policemen, journalists, dentists – because people are flawed. I do think that the general media perception of social workers is far too harsh on the profession as a whole, but certainly there are individual cases (and far too many) that warrant that sort of harsh criticism. And that it is vitally important that social workers (indeed anyone exercising power or decision-making about individuals) need to remember that the job they do comes with huge responsibilities to do it fairly, kindly and with respect.

      We are also in agreement about the systemic problems that have come about since the heavy emphasis on ‘child rescue’ often at the expense of family preservation.

      So I think we agree on quite a bit. I hadn’t heard Professor Preston’s story, all I can say in response to that is that if it happened, the solicitor ought to be dismissed and struck off. Any solicitor who encouraged their client to lie would be struck off if that was proven. It would be utterly and devastatingly wrong and in breach of their professional and ethical duty.

  113. …And yet the lies are frequent, and the reprimands exceeding rare. for example in Re; A,B, C,D, and E which you reported on not so very long ago, was any action then taken by the CPS for malfeasance in public office on the part of the Local authority social workers?

    • It wouldn’t be malfeasance, it would be perjury. Like you, I think that the CPS should charge in this case. Will be keeping an eye out on the social work disciplinary panel (which has regular decisions reported in Community Care where social workers are suspended or struck off for things that are bad, but less bad than that). I absolutely think that the Press should have made far more of this, it was outrageous.

      • Glad to know that you think it outrageous. I only wish it were not so common, and that behaviour almost as bad were not so frequently overlooked by judges, or even encouraged by the Ministry of ‘Justice’. c.f.: – in which the DJ states:

        “Although judges are not employees, they have terms and conditions which include obeying management. They started issuing instructions which were more detailed and directing how we should deal with cases.”

        Gilham demanded to see evidence on renewal of interim care orders because she was aware of past mistakes. She insisted on seeing evidence. “There was a danger of miscarriages of justice. I was told I had no discretion but to accept an email. So I defied them.

        “Care orders are not routine. Every time we had to renew a care order, we had to have a certificate that it had been agreed. I was being asked to renew orders where there had been no certificate and I wouldn’t. I was told I was unreasonable and difficult … but judicial independence was being undermined.”

        …which in my view should have merited a headline more like: Judge claims Ministry undermining Judiciary, rather than the headline which implies that hers is an isolated complaint. (I wonder if this editorial decision has anything to do with the fact that Cafcass sponsor the guardian so heavily.)

        I note that Paul posted the link to the onwight article-
        – in which Hampshire and the Isle of Wight each eschewed responsibility, and fudged the issue of whether they already knew about Kim Goode’s actions when she was transferred to the Isle of Wight, and whether she had now been sacked. The Local Authority once again covering itself in glory…

      • I did note with disappointment that whilst Hampshire did not appeal the decision in that case, leaving the findings of perjury intact, they published press releases implying that the findings were wrong. We have to be scrupulously fair in these things – a parent who did the same about a finding of fact about abuse (insisting that the Judge was wrong but not appealing) would probably go on to lose their children for being in denial and lacking insight. There is an appeal process if you think that a Judge has got something wrong and if you choose not to use it, you’re stuck with the findings.

  114. Wendy Wolfendale

    Your comment regarding social services having no more interaction with a family after they devastate it, could not be more true. A newly qualified social worker, on her first case, made a name for herself at our expense. During this whole time, and after my grandson was forcibly adopted, it has been me who has had to pick up the shattered pieces and try to keep my poor daughter with a purpose to live.
    Knowing all the time, that should she be fortunate enough to ever fall pregnant again, that there will be sudden and immediate interest once again.
    How close I came to loosing her, after the final court date and the goodbye contact just one week later, I will never know. But she is now employed, running her own home and car and working towards a promotion. Are SS interested? Would this not just simply prove they made a diabolical error? Seeing is believing
    Wendy – Oscar James sutton’s grandma

  115. ashamedtobebritish

    Wow … You’ve really got a handle on how bad it can be, it brings shame on the profession.

    Although I have to say, Suess is very balanced on the moral aspects of the cases he blogs on, stick around and give him more of a chance … Hope to debate soon

  116. ashamedtobebritish

    Driving this home is often an impossible task

  117. Let me start by saying that the blog written by a L.A. solicitor is virtual propaganda. They are used to lying their heads off in order to WIN a case. That is all they are concerned with, and the children involved in these terrible atrocities committed by the LA’s are treated as commodities. It has to stop. The heavy train which is Social services, which includes Solicitors, Barristers, psychologists, psychiatrists, teachers and doctor’s is in fact a cancer, predominent but not exclusive to the UK. Do not trust any L.A. barrister or what he or she says on here or any other site. Do not trust any social worker, and NEVER ask them for help. They will simply crucify you for doing it. You will be to blame for everything and anything and you will find yourself battling to keep your children from being adopted or fostered. The L.A. will then place gagging orders on you and your children, saying you are not allowed to speak about anything whatsoever which includes everything to do with your children’s welfare and rights. Your human rights will be trampled on and so will your children. These social worker’s are effectively above the law. Nobody goes against them, even judge’s side with them. If you speak out against them, get ready for WW111. This is my advice and factual evidence. There are so many parents in danger, and more importantly children in danger from these criminals, who lie before court and at court, they lie to Independent reviewing officers, who by the way are in no way independent since they share the same offices as the social services! Do not ever expect justice or truth from the social services. Do not ever let them in your home. Do not ever agree to a psychiatric evaluation of your mental health and do not EVER sign anything given to you by social services. I cannot stress how important those points are if you are a parent being investigated by these criminals. I really hope this helps all parents who have not abused their children in any way and who are not guilty of any crime.

    • We disagree, but that’s fine. I don’t force anyone to visit the site, or agree with what I say.

      • I find this site very useful and appreciate Suess putting up case law and his comments on it here. … But there is unfortunately far too much truth in much of what archangelmichael3 says, as I have seen first hand from reviewing papers of cases. I think that Suess. must know this too, from his own experience, since Brighton and Hove is certainly not immune.

      • I think the issue is, a blog run by someone ‘in the industry’ is seen as reliable and people may place a lot of emphasis on what you say – much of which seems to be that parents saying social services lie and the courts are biased towards the state is a paranoid conspiracy theory mindset and the state is the vast majority of the time always acting appropriately and in the best interests of the child. So people may place blind faith in that and go with the system, sign everything they are asked to etc. listen to their lawyer and find themselves stuffed and wrongly losing their children.

        When someone represents the law, people are inclined to believe that makes them trustworthy until they find out otherwise.

        Whether you hold the position you do because you genuinely believe the state is honest or whether you are hiding the truth of the matter to do a bit of PR, to help keep the machine going, the end result is the same.

        So whilst people are not forced to read what you right, they are likely to in at least some cases, be influenced by it and that could be disastrous for them, and that is no matter how many disclaimers you may put out.

        Parents are negotiating a minefield. I can tell you from personal experience that social workers very much do lie, shockingly so – no matter how detrimental to the child that is. I also know of cases where wonderful parents who did nothing wrong to their child and in fact quite the opposite, lost their children through discrimination, fabrications and lies. So the fact the court listened to those lies, is evidence that the system does not work in an unbiased manner and gross injustices occur.

        Even if you are an exemplary solicitor, solicitors have human failings too and only someone with an immense eye for detail and truth, complete neutrality and a genuine desire to do the utmost for their clients rather than trust that the system will work correctly by just plodding along with it using generic tactics, will be serving the interests of their client.

      • ashamedtobebritish

        But … It’s only right that the LA have legal representation too, some children really do need to be away from their parents

      • There really are some children who need rescuing ashamedtobebritish. But if social *services* did their job properly (some more more money from the Government wouldn’t go amiss I know) they would be supporting families to stay together and providing means for those parents who don’t cut the mustard, to improve and get on the right track. There will always be some who are irredeemable, but I would bank on those being a tiny minority. When you see the swathes of children being put in homes, fostered and adopted most of whom either have poor outcomes or have a sense of searching for a missing part of their lives leaving them potentially with problems down the line including mental ill-health, a sense of rejection etc. isn’t there something wrong with the system? There is a mass of discrimination going on in the courts and heavy bias. When you have corrupt social workers destroying lives with all the ripple effects that has, you know it’s become more social engineering and abuse of power and to allow this situation to continue is a black mark of indescribable proportions on this country.

      • ashamedtobebritish

        Don’t I know it!
        But whatever the outcome it has to be lawful so either way the LA need legal rep, it’s kind of like asking a defence lawyer ‘how could you represent a murderer!’
        Someone has to do it, there are innocents in prison right now, who have never and never would, murder anyone.
        There are those who have probably murdered more than they’re serving time for, but they must have legal rep.

      • I have been in private public then care proceedings all I done was ask for help be honest and want the best for my children social worker went against me and I been in the system very long and always engaged and wanted my sons to get all the right help that I didn’t get being an abbused child my first son dying being diagnosed with epbd getting lupus having been in 2 domestic violent relationship and my first son dying being raped with my second son and having my third child whom had challenging needs as his dad was very controlling and abbusive he left us then got payed 3 years later by social services to take me private proceedings in that year failed 2 drug test it went to public law and it got messy chaotic and highly stressful for me and my sons my son hit me he got diagnosed with odd and I always knew something was not right from early age my other son internalised I went everywhere for help and got ignored I put myself places and it was all the wrong ones but it went care proceedings and when I sent my young son to Ireland innocently for Xmas he never returned in public and care proceedings they was aware of fc abbuse by the dad and they let him have him while care proceedings took place I was shocked also they accused my other son of beating me black and blue a massive lie that report got lost like many of my and my sons bundle my other son case locked I was warned not to send my son to Ireland but I did and regret it everyday he has been with his dad and grandparents shared residence but never was with the gp and got persistently emotionally mentally. And physically abbused by his dad and as much as I and my other son told the authorities and the court all was ignored and we got accused of making it up to distabaluzed the placement and not allowed to see my son my sons dad was allowed to continually abbuse me and my young son and after 3 years of trying to deal with it and losing legal aid as he was out of juristiction I had a breakdown as I was persistently mentally physicologically financial abbused and threatened and my son so sadly being abbused in all ways and pysical to and recently caved in and on a visit to me told us and did tell his school over there he refused to go back and I went everywhere desparate for help and advice on how I can protect him I was so scared social services would bang my door down no one did quite the opposite I have been in high court proceedings and as I was trying to do a child arrangements order under the domestic violence act the dad got me for child abduction my son been here with me for 3 months is in school counselling football and free and not scared after 5 court hearings the judge today is sending him back to his grandparents not his dad whom live 5 doors away and my son has threatened he wants to self halm hurt them and will keep running away he fitted article 13 of an intolerable situation but somehow the judge has gone on an old judgement and used it all against me and accused me of putting my son up to everything my son is very frightened and I was not allowed to talk and my barrister did not stick up for me as it was child abduction but yet my sons dads barrister could use historic and exaggerated stuff from the care proceedings not bringing nothing up about the domestic violence or the 4 years abbuse my son and me had to suffer today final judgement is he’s sending him back to the abbusers and I have to go to ireland to fight for my son there I am on benefits and can get quite poorly with my lupus my son is devastated and scared I have no where to turn I prayed this country would protect him and we thought they would but he changed his mind and I have to meet the grandad at the station and say goodbye I have had to make promises to the court I am only allowed to speak to my son 3 times in the phone supervised and they going on the old court order 8 days in a year totally and utterly in dispair and if im such a risk social services have no concerns my sons here to finish off his school he has settled in my son is deteriating and I don’t know what to do this system is so corrupt and I then found out this is a retired 6 years racist judge whom deals with matrimonial matters and if only I knew this while I was in there I know so much about the corrupt system we are in and the children and families they put at risk and possibly kill I have a mass of stories that would shock the nation channel 4 didn’t want to know yesterday or the sun as when you are in high court everyone is scared including me and my son they have now put us at risk again and we are in fear

      • This is fundamentally a law blog – I report on developments in the law and tell people about important Court decisions. It is chiefly a blog for lawyers, that sometimes parents get something out of. This isn’t a reform blog – though I do often speak about things that should be reformed. By no means do I claim that everything is perfect and working well – I think that solicitors acting for parents have been starved of the resources it takes to do the job to the standard that it can take to fight the State, I think that the rigid 26 week timetable harms parents who are making changes but taking time to make them, and I think that where the State has treated parents badly that such cases deserve wide attention and condemnation. Where I see things that are not fair for parents, I say so.

        I have a different view to some like Forced Adoption, but I give those opposing views airtime, and as a result, people who come here can readily find alternative views if they want them. Which is absolutely fine.

        Are there bad social workers? Absolutely. Do some of them lie, or exaggerate, are some of them not fair? Very sadly, yes. I wish that it wasn’t the case, but sometimes it happens. Does the Court catch it every time? I hope so, but I’m realistic and sadly I think that sometimes despite huge efforts to scrutinise and challenge the evidence of the State, sometimes terrible unfairness goes unpunished. And that’s a flaw in the system that has tragic consequences for parents.

        Does it happen all the time, in every case? No. That doesn’t make it any less worrying or awful that it happens at all. Where it does happen, I think that those involved should no longer do that job any more, and that efforts be made to put things right for the families concerned.

        In my experience of twenty years of this work, have I ever seen the approach of “Don’t work with social workers” result in people getting their children back? No. I have to call that as I see it. I do see parents who take a look at themselves and make some changes keep their children and get them back. Over many hundreds of cases, I’ve seen which approach works, and which doesn’t. Any individual person is completely and fully entitled to respond to care proceedings however they like and listen to whatever voices they like. If a parent looks honestly at themselves and feels that there’s absolutely nothing to the complaints the social worker is making about their parenting, then yes, sometimes social workers and the State do get it wrong and parents have to fight. That’s up to individual parents in individual cases. All of them get access to free legal advice, and they should discuss those things with their own lawyer. Forced Adoption has a different perspective, and he will tell people that fighting is largely hopeless because the system is corrupt from the bottom up, so you are best to flee the country and never ask a social worker for help. That’s his experience. We disagree, but both of us approach the way that we write from the experiences that WE have had.

        So if you want a website that is going to call all social workers liars and cheats, every day of the week, this isn’t it. Forced Adoption does that job, and he does it well. For a lot of parents, his views of the system chime more with their experience. That’s fine. I’m not Forced Adoption, and I’m not Christopher Booker. And I never pretended to be. If I come across a case, like the Hampshire one, where social workers get caught lying to the Court, then I’ll let them have it both barrels, and shout loudly that this is the sort of case that Christopher Booker and his friends OUGHT to be writing about. Where I see the State acting badly or treating parents unfairly, I’ll shout about it.

      • freedomtalkradio20132014


        The Child Protection Task Force hosts its 1st Scottish Conference

        On the 5th May 2016 between 930 am and 630pm Glasgow has the privilidge of hosting Scotland’s 1st ever Child Protection Conference. With world class speakers from across the world in the line-up, Andy Peacher Ceo Of Freedom Talk Radio is holding an International Conference that will demonstrate and indeed begin to challenge the longstanding failings of government policy and practice, by challenging domestic accountability through a new multi-survivor approach. We will hear stories from many diverse walks of life to raise awareness on how best to protect our children and families from the devestating effects of Child abuse, rape and all other forms of abuse.

        For the 1st time ever Scotland’s victims, survivors and professionals have been given a platform to be heard, understood and respected, a platform for us all to unite and protect our future children from the harm so many of us have sadly faced at the hands of others.

        Freedom Talk Radio is delighted to be holding this International Conference that will discuss the structure which takes children on future risk of emotional harm, imprisons parents or labels them with mental illness and covers up serious crimes against babies, children, pregnant or nursing mothers, dads, parents and relatives, for corporate profit, to feed off vulnerable families going through difficult times we need to change these views and we all need to work together.

        Calling all groups orginizations individuals to register your interest in viewing our event live on the internet from any where in the world.

        Gather Freinds work mates and neighbours listen to some impressive speakers full details below.

        WATCH LIVE

        Free Tickets are available via an online Registration process, donations are welcome

        Inviting all the brave whistleblowers, survivors, witnesses, victims of crimes by the State, including employees, ex-employees, corporate policy makers, heads of Local & Central Government to discuss corporate co-operations with the remedies sought by parents, to be reunited with much loved children.

        On Scotland’s Polling Day May 5th we hold our conference in Glasgow and we will take the time to hear and give honor to Survivors of Satanic or Sexual Abuse, parents of fostered or adoptive children, whistleblowers, McKenzie Friends, victims of false prosecutions (Joanne Peacher Melanie Shaw, Peter Hoffshroer…)

        We will also here a story of Hope, Self-belief and personal Fufillment. A survivors mission to be loudest and proudest voice for the so many men, women and most importantly children who still live in fear and silence everyday. Her goal is to inspire a genertion to Stand Tall and Speak Loud all in the name of prevention and change.

        Today We Are Also Launching Craig’s Law.

        Mission Statement:- We believe that vulnerable adults have to be protected from abuse.

        Following many high profile cases the courts, the police and the social services

        are finally aware of the hurt that has been inflicted on vulnerable adults and can

        no longer deny it happens.

        We HAVE to make it mandatory law that Care Service Providers require a MINIMUM of two carers

        to be on duty particularly during night times to protect both the clients against abuse, and the carers

        against false accusations or harm from hard to handle clients. Too often carers are unqualified,

        very young and severely overworked and underpaid. This has to stop. You can help us to do this,

        simply press the red button above and sign the petition, it will take only 30 seconds and will really

        make a difference to thousands of people that really have no voice of their own.

        The aims of the conference is to raise awareness for the prevention of physical, emotional and sexual abuse as well as neglect of children by promoting the physical, emotional, and social well-being of children.

        We aim to promote the rights of children as citizens, through multi-disciplinary collaboration, education, campaigning and other appropriate activities to encourage professional support with the family during child protection enquiries.

        Speakers include

        If you cant make it or have friends that cant come share it on social media and everyone can listen live.

        Our Main Speakers Include.

        Dr. Lois Lee expert witness and CEO of Children of the Night charity in
        Marilyn Hawes CEO of Enough Abuse will address the subject of Grooming
        Sheila Taylor MBE speaking on empowering survivors of Child Sex
        Exploitation and Internal trafficking.
        Brian A Mynott of Real Dawn Uk.
        Brian Gerrish Uk Column Mappa mash
        Christina England discussing vaccine medical abuse.
        Brian W Lees will also launch the campaign for Craig’s Law
        Ann Moulds will speak on the current issue of Stalking and Sexual Violence.
        Kevin Edwards will speak on Justice 4 Linda Lewis Campaign
        Leonard Lawrence Ex Pilot Talking mental health abuse and court of protection.
        Jamie Morris SSOA Supporting Survivors of Abuse
        Sandy Smith Survivor of csa
        Jan Smith Usa Campaigner on cps abuse Child Protective Services.
        Paul Manning Dad Who lost his son to forced adoptions and is a fathers rights campaigner.
        Tom Dobbie Campaigner for truth and justice in forced adoptions.
        Lesley Moorcroft. Vitamin B12 Deficiency
        Gerard Wall Irish Campaigner on forced adoptions.


        An opportunity to bring effective and immediate remedies by giving clear requirements to corporate representatives, focusing on the wishes of children to be reunited with their loving parents and on immediate removal from physical, psychological and mental harm.


        Current Westminister cults other current cases such as Hampstead

        Historical cover-ups – Jimmy Saville, Elm Street Guest House, notorious Scottish Parliament’s Shame The Hollie Greigg Cover up and the satanic sisters of Nazzereth House

        Glasgow Care Home Abuse Wife of host is survivor – ongoing persecution of survivor in jail.

        Social Workers and Child Protection experts can help to change this

        1:-The fact is that parents who have committed no crime are losing their children to forced adoption!

        2:-Experts who depend on court appearances for a living, nearly always agree with the local authority. They make predictions that parents just might abuse their children (including new-born babies) in the future ,so these parents lose their children to permanent foster care or adoption, not for something they have done but for something they might (or might not) do!

        3:-Over 1000 UK children /month are taken into care ,Fosterers are paid an average £400/week per child (birth

        mothers get around £20/week),and a foster agency founded by social workers getting around £1500/week

        per child was recently sold for £130million !A real money driven industry !!

        4:-Parents whose children have been taken are gagged and threatened with prison if they protest publicly; At contact parents are gagged again and forbidden to get emotional, to speak any foreign language, or to discuss the case with their children otherwise contact will be stopped.

        5:-More children are taken for parental surroundings due to emotional abuse rather than physical and sexual abuse added together. Despite “baby P” the number taken for physical abuse is steadily falling as a percentage of the total number of children taken.

        What are the solutions?

        (a) Seek to Impose criminal rules of evidence in family courts so children cannot be taken unless parents

        are proved to have committed a crime affecting their children. Also parents would be free to obtain

        a second opinion from an expert of their own choosing.

        (b) Abolish all gagging of parents leaving them free to protest openly if their children are taken, and

        also to say what they like to them at contact without censorship ! Two very simple changes, two very

        obvious solutions.but will anyone impose them and derail the money train? Don’t hold your breath

        (c) The voices of the victims of child abuse are still being ignored by the Scottish and UK Governments.

        From the team and I we all look forward to seeing you at the 1st of many Child Protection Task Force conference to challenge the attitudes and stigmas surrounding child abuse and its devestating effects.

        Should you require any further details please contact Andy or myself if you would like any further details.

        Andy Peacher



        01444 390270

        The Venue

        New Lanark Mill Hotel

        Mill No.1

        New Lanark Mills

        South Lanarkshire


        ML11 9DB

        Other accomodation



        Flights To Glasgow or Edinburgh

        Travel with in scotland

        WhenThursday, May 5, 2016 from 9:30 AM to 6:30 PM (BST) – Add to Calendar WhereLanark – New Lanark mills Hotel , Lanark ML11 9DB, United Kingdom – View Map

  118. Well I’m very glad that at least you won’t gloss over the wrongdoing that does get uncovered. But I am sure as a human being you will know, no matter what your work experiences show, that it’s only the tip of the iceberg. That is the tragedy. And until the system is fixed (we have to live in hope) it’s really important that solicitors do their bit in supporting parents through aggressive and dishonest proceedings with everything they have got. Foreseeing every twist and turn the LA will use and being ready to combat it. Imagine it was your child. I don’t know if you are a parent, if not, until you are you will never be able to imagine what a child means to it’s parents (for the vast majority of parents). Unfortunately the tales I have read of solicitors not doing their best for their clients, of advising their clients against using vital pieces of evidence and putting their trust completely in their representative, tells me this frequently doesn’t happen. It’s too late once they’ve lost. Yes people can appeal, but how many win? Every day that their child is kept from them is trauma to child and parent. The lives shattered by wrongful decisions cannot be repaired. And when you read of judges unbelievably citing “public policy” as the overriding concern in not revoking wrongful adoptions (e.g. Websters) you know that parents caught up in this system are fighting a losing battle. Solicitors can help by giving their all to every case and joining campaigns for change.

  119. ashamedtobebritish of course, everyone has the right to legal representation. But all legal representatives should be beyond reproach, honest, uncorrupted and not placating the LA because they are paying them, not colluding with the LA.

    Mel. words cannot express how sorry I am for what you have been through. Life has been very cruel to you. Your son’s welfare is under threat and there must be someone you can speak to. Look around for charitable support, advocacy (non legal) and I don’t need to tell you that any documentation you had must be kept securely, orderly and spare copies for safety. I wish I had a solution for you and your son. I have heard too many stories of children being handed to abusive fathers and it’s terrifying that this is going on. Living a few doors down from him is atrocious and it’s clear the system has failed as if they deem him unfit to have your son but are putting him almost next door anyway they have not taken emotional trauma into account for your son in seeing him all the time. Please speak to someone to see if there is anything you can do. An appeal maybe. But you need to act fast. Good luck.

  120. Err… I have a case in Brighton that I would appreciate you shouting about.

  121. in terms of s20 of the CA 1989, how do you believe it could move forward? what changes could be made to ensure that voluntary accommodation is actually voluntary, and there isn’t a drift? Perhaps making the L. Authority answer to the courts more could work.. yes?

    • I think I’ve written my suggestion somewhere on the blog (but there’s a LOT of it to sift through)

      In essence, I’d absolutely adopt Hedley J’s guidance in Re CA, because I think it is spot on (onus on the SW to show that the consent is capacitious, genuine and not under duress and that the action is proportionate and necessary). I would make it law that agreeing to s20 triggers legal aid funding for parents to get free legal advice, so that they can have advice on their situation and be represented to work out a plan whereby either the child comes home after an assessment or proceedings are issued. I would make it law that s20 automatically dissolves after a fixed period (I think 6 months) after which time the LA need to have either returned the child or issued care proceedings. Where I disagree with Re N is that I think a parent who has legal advice should be allowed to agree that they will give 7 days notice before removing the child, that was a pragmatic solution and removing it actually harms parents because it can lead to mistrust and emergency court applications – which are never as thorough and fair as one done on notice.

      (I think I’d also say that if the reasons for the child coming into s20 are physical injury or sexual harm, the period of s20 should be limited to 4 weeks – those cases should be before the Court)

      As my friend Becca said to me the other day, the real significance of the s20 decisions are that the State has been caught practicing in an oppressive way towards parents, and the State really needs to properly look at itself and address the reasons why such a culture built up in order to put it right and avoid similar cultures springing up again. I’d agree, and I found that a really helpful way to look at it.

  122. WOW, still believing in the courts??! I have had my turn, and I can say unequivocally that they are bias towards the LA’s so heavily that that is the reason why the LA win against the parent’s 99.7 % of the time ( a figure I know to be real ), and whatever the Judge has read that the LA have submitted, then it is the truth! The gravy train as I said previously, goes all the way to the Judges, who take a terrible view of anyone who complains about the precious pariahs known as the LA. Having been warned time after time about NEVER going up against these so called professionals ( please note, there is nothing professional about them ), and before someone comes on here defending them, saying they are not all the same, etc etc, yes I am afraid they are. Why are they? because they all work to the same template. Some are definitely a lot worse than others, given the right prompts, such as refusing to bow down and kiss their feet at every given opportunity, or questioning their findings. The family court system in 2016 is a horrendous throwback to the 17th and 18th century court in this country, and we should stand up and rise against the machine. I fully intend to, and I urge everyone on the planet to do the same, until families are treated as people, and children are treated as children of their parents and not commodities of the state. End of.

  123. Pingback: Relinquished babies | National IRO Managers Partnership

  124. archangelmichael3 Well said. Never fear, there is a sea of change. The public are now starting to lift the veil and shine a light on the corruptions that exist among authority and standing up for truth and justice, not only in the child protection industry (and I use the last word purposely) but in all matters pertaining to authority. Truth will find a way. I applaud you. You are not alone.

  125. Thank you. Much appreciated. I have a lot of work to do in that respect. Maybe the best that can come out of this is that laws are changed.

  126. Wendy Wolfendale

    Here here, well said sir. Totally agree

  127. A Parent Unheard – this is me, my case, our family.

    Irony is the same day social services got their incorrect hair strand report the released the final care plan for my son to return to my sole full time care – then go on to base a plan for adoption and his immediate removal – after 40+ negative drug tests and complete anbstinence for 14 months they rely on the one test which is wrong; then create an entire case to suit that one report – care and placement orders are made then its finished………now ive paid £1500 + to prove they got it wrong….this LA are more concerned with BEING right than DOING right.,

  128. is there any chance i could email you and get some advice pleasee?

    • I’m really sorry, but I can’t give people individual legal advice unless they are my client. I would suggest googling for family law solicitors in your area. If you don’t want (or can’t afford) a solicitor, then try googling for McKenzie Friends in your area. I’m really sorry that I can’t help you directly but I am not permitted to do so.

  129. Love the content but find your website dead difficult.

    Was wanting to reply on the relinquished thread… presuming you’ll add an update after

    Also, to thank you for providing really helpful summaries that have helped us, as prospective adopters, get the local authority in line and get the local authority to properly consider the family’s rights so that we can get to a permanent decision about the little girl we’re hoping will stay with us.

    Keep smiling in the face of adversity…

  130. Pingback: Managed WordPress Hosting New Summerfield – Buy wordpress hosting

  131. Paul Summerfield

    I am just about to sharpen crayons to write to the court of protection to your hero Judge Lush.

    I find myself confused over two issues concerning court procedures.

    In a Court of Protection case where the solicitor decides the donor needs a capacity test as there is a dispute between a number of parities does the consultant need to contact the other parties to understand what the problems that is causing the dispute and is it important the consultant is given the correct reason why the test is being carried out for the donor.

    The difference between lacking financial capacity and lacking mental capacity are in fact worlds apart from each other would you say without hesitation someone who lacks financial capacity can make decisions for themselves and these decisions should be respected for example someone with short term memory.

    Whereas someone who lacks mental capacity cannot make decision for themselves.

    • Senior Judge Lush has retired now, so someone else will pick it up. Capacity is very issue specific – so someone could lack financial capacity but have capacity to decide where they want to live or medical treatment, or vice versa, or lack both, or have both. All that is really clear is that someone lacking capacity to decide X doesn’t automatically mean that they lack capacity to do Y and their capacity to decide Y would need to be assessed or considered. I would say that the instructions to the expert should make it clear that capacity in a particular case is contentious and they should read the statements of the competing parties to see what they say about that issue. I’ve seen some cases where the expert has talked to family members as well as P in determining capacity – I don’t think it is mandatory, but it seems a good idea to me.

      • Paul Summerfield

        Well I did manage to get a hearing at the court of protection under Judge Lush and my mothers barrister clamed argued with me that lacking financial capacity means that they are senile that should not be happening at the court of protection where medically it is known that the two conditions are worlds apart.

        I also know now directly because of the advice given to me how to obtained or force my mothers SS report from Portsmouth Council (thank you all so much).

        The report reveals that the consultant was told a pack of lies about what the case was about and he stipulated to the SS that this report does not mean that my mother cannot make decisions for herself. I can prove also that the attorneys were paying the solicitor large amounts of money to do this and her solicitor blocked her from her office just when they were registering my mother at the court, Because Judge Lush could not have any evidence of myself stealing money from my mother he was forced to make my mother pay all court costs because she had written to the court asking me to be her attorney as well. My mother died very strangely just as I was about to tell her the court result and show her the statements she died of a Addison’s Crisis which can only be caused by not giving my mother her steroids.

        This is an example of why it should be mandatory for the consultant to know the details of the case before he writes his report to the court because that expert witness does not need to attend court hearing which breaks human right to a fair hearing also my mothers solicitor was forced to right a statement on why she blocked my mother she too was allowed not to attend the court hearing and her statement to the court was taken into account.

        Please don’t censor this one because it is all true I can assure you

  132. Paul Summerfield

    sorry about all the spelling mistakes this is a hard one for me to right I mean write

  133. Paul Summerfield

    is there such a thing as a committal hearing at the court of protection just on what was done to my mother in order to stop me from being her attorney

  134. Paul Summerfield

    the more I think about it what type of hearing does not matter that the difference about being allowed into the court of protection you cant do it with money you have got to prove it first and I have the proof

  135. Paul Summerfield

    Thank you for your help and reply because it was spot on with the problem I had in the court of protection. I was very confused about the issue of why it happened this has really helped me. I would also like thank you because at certain times on certain important cases you allowed me to break all your rules I thank you for that.

    Also that aleister Crowley act spoof you did Do as thou Wilt really did get to me and scared me because I don’t like any of that if you know what I mean

  136. Are social workers allowed to give the other parent (separated) a copy of my medical records which was prooved irrelevant and was not used against me in court over my son, i did not know a copy was shown to him.

  137. ashamedtobebritish

    If it’s used as evidence or part of the court bundle yes. Otherwise no.
    The fact that the judge ended up throwing it out is irrelevant

  138. I want some advice two children are in care because there dad had mental health problems.I wish to apply to get them home.there dad has left for two years there is no risk at daughter is 16 on the 13th may 2017.she wants to come home as her exams are coming up.all my three children get on .they were meant to be having fortnightly contact in the community.this was agreed in court.the social workers have stopped it.please could you help me.

    • ashamedtobebritish

      You need to get an enforcement order to have contact reestablished.
      My advice would be to leave your daughter until after her exams, it’s better for her, at 16, she can employ her own solicitor and instruct him/her to act on her behalf, she may also attend court to ensure he is doing as instructed!

  139. I’m a bit busy at the moment, being a fringe candidate in the general election, with a BBC interview tomorrow … I mean later today …(look at the time!) …
    I blog about a certain court case at:
    My landing page is http://JohnAllman.UK.
    I think the case I watched in court is the sort of case that the bloggers who blog on this blog might want to blog future blog posts about, which might just possibly help a certain child, about whom I have reason to care.

  140. I’m researching how parents can challenge decisions made at CP conferences. The approach seems to vary from authority to authority that I’ve spoken to.

    Some authorities have adopted a procedure via the LSCB, referencing the 2010 Working Together guidance which states that a multi-agency procedure is required to challenge the decision to place a child on a CP plan and/or the category of abuse/neglect.

    However some authorities have nothing at all and have attempted to justify this position by stating that the 2010 Working Together has been superseded and there is no longer a requirement to have a multi-agency process. To compound matters, one authority I spoke with advised me that I could not use their complaints procedures either.

    Surely the decision to place a child on CP Plan is subject to challenge/scrutiny.

    Is there a requirement, legal or otherwise, for authorities to adopt a multi-agency process for this type of challenge??

    • It would be an article 6 decision so there has to be an appeal process. I’d ask the individual LSCB what theirs is

    • ashamedtobebritish

      Ask for a copy of their complaints procedure ! You absolutely can challenge this decision and they must provide you with the means to do so, this is a very serious matter. Record everything that is said to you, always

      • It won’t be the LA complaint process though. The conference is run by LSCB not LA

      • ashamedtobebritish

        Believe me when I say the entire thing is orchestrated by the local authority, quite often with social workers chairing them or ‘independent’ chairs, who work for and are on the la payroll

      • Still not the LA complaint process

      • Thanks for your comments on this. They mirror my own thoughts on the matter. Could a parent take the LSCB and/or the LA to Court for the failure to establish a multi-agency process? Is the failure unlawful??

      • It would be a judicial review as to whether their decision and process is unreasonable. Beware though because unlike care proceedings, the rule in JR is loser pays the other side’s costs. And burden is on you to show they are unreasonable not on them to show they are not. JR has risks

      • Ok – thanks again for your advice.

    • The author of this blog has written a post about unlawful Section 47 child protection investigations:

      I would advise ALL parents to look into whether the S47 was conducted lawfully as if not, anything arising from it is essentially null and void. As he states:

      “A. That unless there is urgency, or an assessment based on evidence that a home visit would endanger the child, it is unlawful to commence a section 47 investigation without visiting the child and speaking with the parents (that process would instead be an initial assessment)
      B. Seeking background checks without parental consent would be unlawful UNLESS a legitimate s47 investigation had been formally convened and was taking place (and frankly, even then, one ought to try to get parental consent)
      C. A breach of (1) or (2) above, can result in financial compensation.”

      And also they should check into the period of time elapsed between referral and S47 commencement because if it was quite a lengthy period, there would be no way they could justify urgency or belief of significant harm.

      A Subject Access Request will give information on dates and much more. Parents can only respond to allegations if they know what they are and knowing that they frequently contain lies, misinformation, misrepresentations, deliberate omission of all positives etc. etc. they can respond in writing to the allegations with information and evidence to the contrary. In data protection law, all public bodies have a duty to record only factual information and if it is an opinion, to clearly state it is such. They should ask for all formats of data, handwritten, telephone call logs, all electronic including faxes, emails, paper records, daily running sheets, the lot. If you don’t specify they are likely to only conveniently provide the electronic system ones.

      If a social worker records lies in any of their reports, they are liable for a non-oath sworn perjury charge which is a criminal offence and carries a penalty of up to 2 years in jail. Report them to the police with your evidence of the lies! If the reports are for a court situation then it’s straight perjury and carries a penality of up to 7 years imprisonment.

      Tell them to audio record all meetings with all professionals whilst there is social services involvement. Type up transcripts of the audio recordings so there is a document that if necessary can be used in court and in any case can be put on social service files.

      The more evidence you have to challenge their decision the better.

  141. Happend to stumble upon your blog and are aware your a solicitor for local authorities would really love to pick your brains on a few topics regarding bias towards males but ur likely to never read this or give somebody like me a moment of your time, blogs a good read though after what I have gone through 🙂

    • Hi, feel free to share your views. I have represented both men and women in court proceedings, and I know that feelings run very high as to whether the system treats people (and genders) fairly

      • Woah, thanks for the reply. Wished you would have represented me would have had a field day, who places a newborn child into the care of a family whos had thier own children removed because of injury? When it comes to males the whole system is biased from personal experience thankfully said child now resides with myself and is thriving yet still it feels like im banging my head against a brick wall fighting an uphill battle. The system is, well it rhymes with ducked.

      • Paul Summerfield

        I think its better to look upon it as not a gender issue but you are if fact treated just like Apes in London Zoo because you have no rights or laws protecting you or the children in a secret court.

      • Your not far wrong there robert, men dont get a fair shake and theres many a child better looked after in the care of thier dad.

      • Paul Summerfield

        But at the same time I agree it is a gender issue. Just getting contact can become a nightmare, Since 2001 some of us have been fighting for set contact times recommended contact time for a dad to see his child depending on age but they refuse because we are Apes and every case needs to be looked at to make lots of money for everybody, you see if there were set contact times, there would be a lot fewer contact battles in the family court which would free the court to get on with more serious cases

      • SPOT ON paul nailed it as i said im one of the few males who has thier child with them and i want structured contact with mother preferably supervised even if by friends/family due to her behaviour etc but nah not the case as sad as u may think but i am PETRIFIED of her and her false allegations/lies. If shoe was on the other foot and I was seeking contact id be lucky to be in a contact center at best. System stinks when it comes to gender bias.

      • Paul Summerfield

        Not many people know this in 2006 a retired Solicitor named Oliver Cryiax had a project named the Early Intervention Project which the government agreed to use. To put it simply there were set recommended contact times in it dependent on age. Now if there was a contact dispute and the mother had no evidence to back up her allegations or the allegations were not serious. The mother would be told look the father is going to get this amount of contact, you can take it to court if you want but the father is going to get this amount of contact. End of Story… What happened was when the project went into the government Minister Hodge changed the project into something useless and unusable. In other words the Minister Hodge Hijacked the project. The answer to contact problems is very simple it is set recommended contact times.

    • Mr Mister – have a look at

      • Thank you rough rabbit for your reply, not going to beat around the bush here I kind of beat the odds in the fact I have my daughter residing with me. As embarrasing as it sounds im a male victim of horrific domestic/emotional abuse my ex partner has supervised contact which I support but has now pushed for and has been allowed unsupervised which petrifies me even though Im the victim its as though the attitide is “get over it” but I cant and am and likely always will be petrified of my ex partners words/actions.

    • I appreciate there are individual cases for both genders where wrongs are done in the family courts and the wrong parent gets custody. There are great mums and dads and rubbish mums and dads. However, overall, it is not as you say, with a gender bias against men – it’s actually against women. Have a look on the horrific injustices committed against mothers in family courts across the world, in favour of abusive fathers, meaning children are put with abusive fathers and left at risk.

      • I totally agree there is bad mothers as well as fathers not what im saying im saying there is a gender bias from what i have read and personal expierience that when it comes to dads with contact as apposed to women theres a stark difference, if a woman was petrified of a man hes very unlikely to have little to no contact yet other way round not the same way. Women just as much as men can be vile horrible people.

      • Also am well aware that some women have sufferd horrific misjudgements in family courts etc and i do feel sorry for those effected by them. Do you not think Men get ridiculed by thier peers and most of the time not taken seriously when they are the victims of abuse, of course its equally bad if a man abuses a woman but when a childs involved surely its best to shield that child from the abusive one, be it the male or female.

      • I agree whoever is the perpetrator is irrelevant when it comes to protecting the child. All behaviour like that is unacceptable by whomever it comes. But more often than not, men are physically much stronger than women and the physical harm from the abuse has a higher chance therefore to be worse. This might differ if weapons are used as that somewhat levels the playing field, although the force behind the weapon will usually be higher from a male. It’s all wrong. My point is that there are many, many cases in the family courts where women suffer injustice (and by default the children therefore too).

      • If you check out that link to the Womens Coalition Facebook page you will see how the bias is against women very often in the courts. Many tragedies posted on that page, many injustices against mothers.

      • I will and again I agree that there are many women who suffer injustice but so do men and it mostly goes unheard of or nobodies bothered because thier male, question. if the female is the purpetrator of domestic abuse shouldnt thier contact arrangement be viewed the same as if it was the male?

      • So what it boils down to, is widespread injustice in the family courts, to each gender.

      • Apologies did not see your comment above, yes i agree about a man being stronger but thats ridiculous. Again am aware of injustices sufferd by women in family courts and personally think its sick. The best interests though are that of the child and then the question should be raised if theres evidence of domestic abuse which parent its from be it the male or female and the victim gets the support but if its the male its either dont speak up from embarresment or have little to no support when they do

      • I think family courts are not good at making people feel like they were listened to, got a fair hearing and had their case decided on individual facts rather than preconceived opinions. And it doesn’t matter that much if the courts actually did those things when so many people leave feeling that they didn’t. Justice not only has to be done, it must be seen to be done

      • Agreed. But not only does that indicate that if so many people feel that way it’s likely to be true, it actually goes deeper than that. The fabrication and lies in social worker’s reports, the deliberate avoidance of presenting parental positives, the deliberate omission of evidence that helps the parent, the lack of differential explanation/cause/diagnosis etc. (especially in cases of invisible disability such as connective tissue disorder [Ellie case] and neurodevelopmental conditions) all present a very large opportunity for injustice against both parent and child. How many times do you read the phrase by a judge “I prefer the local authority’s version”. Joe Public is disadvantaged from the outset as the myth that a professional doesn’t lie is so ingrained the judicial mind, that when there are cases where social workers are caught out, they unbelievably make comments that it is a rare instance! The media articles are the tip of the iceberg. There is a massive problem in the whole of UK’s social care of perjury (even before it gets as far as court there is widespread non-oath sworn perjury), failure to put the needs of the child first and in fact using children as weapons against their parents, or for the adoption industry.

        “A FOUR year old girl has been removed from her family for the rest of her life after “unprofessional” social workers used “pyschobabble” to have her taken into care.”

        “Social workers have been heavily criticised by a High Court judge for “unprofessional” and “reprehensible” case building against a father whose child was up for adoption.

        In a judgement, published last week, Justice Russell launched a scathing attack on the actions and practice of children’s social workers at Brighton and Hove Council, accusing them of making claims they “weren’t qualified to make”.

        “In the light of their unprofessional behaviour and their negative view of him both as a father and as an individual, as expressed in their evidence, there can be little wonder if the father finds it hard to trust the local authority and work with them from time to time,” the judge said.”

        “A council social worker is facing allegations of misconduct and dishonesty after she was accused of falsifying child protection documents.”

        “That led to him [Martin Sands] “deliberately recording false information over Children In Need plans when meetings had not taken place.”

        “Social services staff asked to make decisions about the future of five children were involved in an attempted ”cover-up”, a family court judge has said.

        Judge Mark Horton said there had been a ”deliberate and calculated” alteration of a social worker’s report.”

        Think about it, for SWs to feel comfortable enough to do that, means the SS culture encourages or allows it. It means there is a strong likelihood for a pattern of behaviour. Think how many go unreported and are not caught.

      • Although the judgment in the first case was overturned on appeal, so that’s worth bearing in mind.

      • Thank you suesspiciousminds your absolutley right and do believe justice was done for me in a sense.. your a solicitor want to represent me when I take it back to court, will even provide biscuits of your choice hah.

  142. Paul Summerfield

    Mr Mister put these glasses on and see yourself as an ape is a zoo and you talking to the zoo warden to help you out with keeping your kid in your cage. Now dont forget in the zoo there are other zoo wardens that are willing to help your ex out to get your kids back into her cage. Or Mr Suesspiciousminds the zoo warden might be offered a pay rise if he takes your ex’s case on to get your kids removed from your cage.

    Now this is not the reality Mr suessoicousminds will not do that, but it is in fact the reality

  143. Paul Summerfield

    The wisest people that can offer you a solution are your own children.

    If mum and dad do what the children want = happiness

    That’s what you should be aiming for it may not work because your ex will try and screw it up but at least you can always say to yourself whatever happens, I gave this my best shot for the rest of your entire life .

  144. Pingback: About | suesspiciousminds | meggiemom342

  145. Pingback: Consent to adoption where the parent is themselves still a child | HOLLIE GREIG JUSTICE

  146. Read your article on Davis v Davis judicial review. Thank you for writing about this.

    I am one of the families involved in the current sussex healthcare story and its clear links with west sussex county council.

    Happy to keep you in the loop on things and discuss events / get your views?


  148. Hi,
    I hope you are well and business is booming!
    I’m contacting you today to inquire about the possibility of publishing an editorial article on your website.
    One of our partners is currently looking for good quality sites and matches our requirements. Essentially, I would like to provide you with a quality editorial article that will be engaging for readers and include a natural, contextual link to a partner website.
    Please get in contact with me if this opportunity is at all interesting for you and your business.
    I appreciate your time and await your response.

    • Dear Celia,

      thank you for your interest and your email, though I do not have a website currently.
      Please tell me what interested you in contacting me.

      Kind regards.

  149. Dear Suesspiciousminds… Am interested in finding anyone who has had success in taking legal action against the LA when they acted unprofessionally and without good evidence? I also wondered whether you would like to comment on my personal experiences. Had a fully breastfed baby, 11 weeks, removed from my care under police protection and fostered the next day, all because of one doctor who thought I was insane. I have no record of mental health at all. In fact I am an educated mum who stood up to some of the practices of the medical industry for the safety of my daughter. The police, SS and medical team were all at fault even though they have denied it via complaints. I’ve taken a break from dealing with it for over a year and now feeling more confident to perhaps take things further. We were one of the lucky ones – our daughter was returned, but I hear of stories where this isn’t the case. Is this the best we’ve got? How can a public ‘service’ like this exist which is so unbelievably damaging to family security when it should be protecting and unifying families. I was horrified, I am not alone. How can we collectively do more to stop this system and make it actually work for the public? Any advice welcome. Thank you for the blog.

    • That sounds very terrible and I am glad to hear that your family is back together. Until the Supreme Court deal with Poole, there are no negligence claims about care proceedings. Local government ombudsman might be your best approach, in the meantime

    • Hi Nicky,

      I read your blog. I have a similar story, though I am still fighting the SS. It has been two years since I lost my children to the unscrupulous, vindictive and unlawful SS.
      I was warned by my first solicitor, who said ” Never go against them” She said that for a reason. I have heard the same rhetoric from other professionals in the field and since they are self-governing, complaints are dealt with by dismissing them.
      I’m more than curious how you got your baby back? please give information how you won against the SS.
      It’s rare to hear of a success! Well done and congratulations.

    • The local authority has been found not to have a duty of care to the parents when conducting investigations, However they do have one to the child. The doctor who considered you insane may be perhaps considered negligent if they were not qualified to make such a diagnosis and stepped beyond their expertise.

      Presumably the police removed the child on a PPO and then within 72 hours there would have been a hearing to determine whether the threshold had been crossed. Was your baby returned at that point – or was an ICO made while investigations were carried out?

      • Unless Poole is overturned, there’s not a duty of care to the child either. Recent change

      • That’s not strictly true in all senses. Social workers have codes of ethics they must comply with including respecting the rights of service users and not discriminating against them. They also have to comply with the law in conducting investigations lawfully and fairly and not breaching DPA so there are duties towards both parents and towards children they have safeguarding duties which naturally would include not causing harm to them.

      • Hi EJ,

        You are entirely right about the SS duty of care to parents and children, and working within the law.Unfortunately none of them do work within the law! They litterally trample on parents and abuse them and the children in care. They promote inappropriate conduct by promoting contact with parents which have criminal records and domestic violence history, ignoring safety of the children and they alienate parents from their own children, if the parents do not
        “work” with ( translation : suck up to, and grovel to, and never say a word against them or to them, and just accept their abuse )
        These so called professionals are NOT professional in any capacity and NOBODY, litterally nobody will stand up to them. They are MONSTERS and nobody governs them. The only LA in the UK, as far as I know, whose LA’s SS are governed by another body, is Birmingham City. Birmingham City SS are governed and run by a charity after over a year ago, they were
        found to have neglected their care, where so many children under their care were either being abused or died in their care, and the SS in Birmingham had to be taken over.
        I am trying to make sure that they are ALL taken over and run by outside bodies, because
        these social workers and this includes LAC officers, managers of social workers, etc, are all self governing. They all cover their own backs.Complaints never go anywhere, because they govern themselves. MP’s do not get involved usually because they will not stand up to them, the same goes for the judiciary ( solicitors, judges, barristers )
        The LA’s have had far too much power for far too long, and they should all be centralised so that the people they are SUPPOSED to be working for, that means you and I, will recieve a
        service and be treated appropriately. They need scrutinization and it needs to happen now.
        Most of the general public have no idea how the SS run themselves, how they conduct enquiries, how they terrify children and parents, how they take parents to court for litterally no reason, and how they bully to such an extreme, that family members of those they are supposed to be helping have committed suicide because of the SS intervention. They are the most vicious, sinister money making scammers of our time, which Thatcher is to blame for.

        I will never give up fighting for justice for all children and parents, who know what I am talking about.

      • No arguments from me here archangelmichael3 about anything you have said. Feel free to message me. I am as appalled as you are.

      • Hi EJ,

        Thank you for your reply.
        I have tried very hard to fight the SS, and I must say what I have learned along the way, has shocked me to the core. Can I ask if you have fought them? Have you had any good results?
        Do you know of anyone who has fought them and won in court?

      • ashamedtobebritish

        Careful what you wish for … if you thought ss are hard to deal with, what chance would you have against a major corporate business like Coram or G4S?
        It’s not just Birmingham, a few have been relieved of their authority, Doncaster I believe we’re the first.
        I’ve stood up to ss successfully many a time, there’s a knack.

    • A sadly common situation Nicky. Yes there is a case where parents sued the LA successfully:

  150. To Ashamed to be British,

    What is the “knack” please??

    • ashamedtobebritish

      I always advise my clients to stay calm, laugh off ridiculous claims rather than become angry, show a clear understanding of the concerns and do everything in their power to address them.
      Everything should be recorded and communication via email only

      • Hello,

        Thank you for your reply. What about meetings with SS? Am I within my rights to record these if I choose to go to one? I have been communicating via email, and therefore recorded each communication, but what about meetings face to face? Can I record them? I note that
        SS always “take notes” at all meetings, which can then be used in court, but what does the parent have at their disposal for the same reasons? Taping conversation on iPhone? Bringing a witness along / solicitor to substantiate any claims made by SS at a further date or in court?
        The SS are terrifying when it comes to recording conversations because they do not take down verbatim what was said. They take “notes” which they quote from at later dates, and in court, and that is used as evidence, when in actual fact it is hearsay, though they always work in twos, so the parent can never be believed against them and their so-called notes as evidence. Very difficult to navigate, when fighting the SS.
        Do you offer free or discounted fees for the first time consulting?
        I need to accumulate information and understand how I can win in court when I apply to end a care order.
        I need to know how I can win and what information I need to get, in order to do that.
        My ex-purged himself both before and during the final hearing. When interviewed by a Guardian and SS, he told extreme fabricated stories in order to facilitate more abuse and get his children away from me and into care. He was abusive way before this and meant to perpetrate those abuses, for which he could have been in prison for, but I dropped charges due to intimidation and death threats. I really need to know how I can get children back and fight ex in court and take him to court for what he did in the final hearing.
        Please, can you offer me some advice?

      • ashamedtobebritish

        Yes. Not only is it allowed it is essential to record. You do not have to tell them (I advise not to as they don’t say out loud what they’ll spring on you on paper)
        Have a look at the transparency project (google it) for further discussion on the subject, I would link but don’t feel that’s fair without Suesspiciousminds’s prior consent.
        Just be the reasonable one, address the issues, lots of ‘I see’ ‘uh huh’ ‘ok moving forward for the child …’
        never attack them over their distasteful remarks towards you, they will push every button, just breathe and think, if something angers you it’s ok to say ‘although untrue, I’m interested in how you came to that conclusion, however, this is about the child’ … sounds a lot more reasonable than ‘listen here dickhead, you ever speak to me like that again I’ll kill your wife and burn down your house’
        Basically remember it’s not an episode of the Jeremy Kyle show

      • Hi,
        Thank you so much. that was funny but also brilliant information. I will google the link.
        Wize advise indeed. I need to remember those terms when I meet them.
        Like a game of chess.
        Thanks again.

      • ashamedtobebritish

        To them a game, yes. To you, the internal fight of your life. You have the power, just let them ‘think’ it’s all theirs and they’ll go away with stroked egos, patting each other on the back on how they ground you down, you walk away laughing your head off at how pathetic they are, win-win

      • @archangelmichael3 you are perfectly within your rights to audio record all meetings and if you wish to do so secretly. To be sure the evidence will be accepted in court type up a transcript of the meeting afterwards so you have a physical document and state that the original audio recording is available upon request. SS also do not record things that have been said and invent things that were not said, as well as distorting things that were said, so an accurate record is vital. If they are being honest they have nothing to be afraid of. You could also make a police report about your ex, I don’t know if there are time limits on doing so but bearing in mind historic sexual abuse claims made years later and still investigated I don’t see why there is. Feeling intimidated into not making a complaint before I would imagine are good grounds for not having done so sooner. Be aware though that in the case of child custody disputes it might be seen as a malicious report.

        @ashamedtobebritish “show a clear understanding of the concerns” there are many instances of trumped up ‘concerns’ against parents, there is no level playing field for parents in these cases.

      • Thank you for all of the information, it was helpful. As far as I am aware, criminal convictions stay on file for 100 years, so I should be able to get this information, on the dropped charges. The SS did make “trumped up” charges in relation to my case and brought in my ex to establish their case and threaten me. It was threatening and after the case I was stalked by this ex. The SS, because I have complained about them and to them, have gone to great lengths to prevent me from seeing my children and from going to court. They cannot stop me from going to court, but they have gone to great lengths to alienate my youngest son from me, by giving him false information, promoting his abusive father to him as an angel and me as a deranged mother! My youngest son has apparently not wished to see me for a year and a half, but wanted and did see me just before last Christmas, and at that contact, he voiced very adult opinions and told me “there is no more court” whilst laughing/ He was also told to ask me if I lived in the same house and dive the same car. Then he came out with the most vicious attack by the SS – telling me that I had not moved on and that everyone else had. It was a deliberate attack by the social worker who I got rid of, by complaining about her. She had told me false information about my son previously and lied to a LAC officer in front of me, as well as sending me intimidating bullying letters. She intimidated me so much in one contact that I thought I should call the police!
        After that contact, she did not allow me to see my son again, citing that it was he who did not want to see me. The battle continues, but thank god that Social Worker is gone.
        She has fed my son lies, and pretended that his violently abusive father is a sane loving father, which is complete nonsense. His father has no wish to see him, and yet has been pushed by the SS to do so, so he does periodically, and so that he can pursue more abuse in court, when I go to try and cancel the order. This is a nightmare, but I cannot let it consume my life, then the abuser has won. All I want is justice, my children back and for my children to know the truth! not what the SS and their own father have and are getting away with.

      • ashamedtobebritish

        I never said you have to agree to them, just understand why they’d have the concern (read as through gritted teeth)

      • Ah but if they “have the concerns” that implies they really do have them, when much of the time they don’t, they are making up false allegations. How can you understand that, it’s corrupt practice, it’s false case building. So if the concerns are not genuine, how can you show you understand and will rectify things, you need instead to be providing evidence they are false. In the face of evidence, they might back off and realise they are not going to victimise that family.

      • Children in my family were taken into care on spurious facts based on anonymous multiple hearsay. Case law has indicated that the removal of children ought to be based on first hand facts. Social workers abuse the hearsay rules by using not only anonymous hearsay but also multiple anonymous hearsay. If a social worker says Child A told unidentified Foster Parent FP1 who then told Social Worker 1 that she had been injured by a parent this is anonymous multiple hearsay and is not only admissible but can also provide grounds to remove a child. The Children Act 1989 Hearsay Order allows multiple anonymous hearsay. Further the Civil Evidence Act 1995 which provides safeguards for hearsay evidence does not pay to Family Proceedings. This means a Civil Court dispute over a dog has more evidence safeguards than a child. Once children are subject to Care Orders Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention which this country is not going to follow anymore requires the State to prove on a balance of probabilities that the child cannot return home at regular reviews. However English law places the burden of proof to show a child is safe to return home on the parents. Legal Aid is not available. Applications made which fail can be barred under s.94 of the children act 1989. Less than 50% of parental applications to discharge care orders are successful where not supported by the local authority but over 92% when the local authority agrees. There is no duty o local authorities to help parents improve their parenting skills to have their children returned. A family of 7 children were taken into care in 2009. They were returned by the honourable Mr justice Hedley in 2010. Within months of his retirement the same local authority removed them again on the same evidence dismissed by Hedley j and they remain in care. The second judge newly appointed refused to even read Hedley Js judgement. Justice for Children? Don’t make me laugh!! Two of the children reported being sexually abused on care, one tried to commit suicide, all of them need psychiatric care because they cant settle in care and have had over 25 placements in three years.

      • It’s been set up deliberately this way by the Government. That’s why it’s so impossibly difficult for parents.

        @ashamedtobebritish Social workers use terms such as disguised compliance. What you are saying, in the event the allegations are false, is that parents should pretend they think they are true and invent how they can address them for show. If parents are in court facing false allegations, they need evidence to show the allegations to be false. Hopefully if they can demonstrate this to social services before it ever goes to court, a court case will not need to happen. If the allegations are false but they can'[t evidence it, then they are in a very troubling situation indeed, despite that social services are supposed to be able to demonstrate that the parent is guilty of x, y, z – however as nchadvice24hour explains, 51% on hearsay and opinions is ridiculous and almost impossible to fight. Of course for genuine concerns you are correct, parents would need to acknowledge whatever the failing was and work to improve it.

      • Dear EJ,

        It is impossible to amend false accusations before the court. They are self-governing, and even councilors and MP’s won’t touch the SS for fear of reprisal!! I have tried my best in that regard, I can assure you. They also tell you with as little notice as possible, that you are being taken to court by them. As far as “dirty tricks” are concerned, expect all of them to be pulled by the SS, in every single effort to WIN at court, and remove children. Even Justice Munby, who is the President for the Law Society, has stated many times, about the SS heavy hand, and he has written about different cases and asked judges in cases to use common sense, where the SS have proved not to. I could go on and on about that, but how come nothing changes?!The SS keep getting away with it all because they are self-governing and
        because, as you rightly point out, the law is on their side, which is why the statistic of 97.2%
        in all cases in the family court are won by the SS, and that statistic is proof of how bias the legal system is against parents. A vast amount of those parents have done nothing wrong.
        SS use legal and template terminology, which the judges understand very well, but parents are left deliberately in the dark, trying to understand what takes years of learning to do. It would be laughable if it were not tragic. Tragic for children, put into care for spurious made up, false charges, and the brutal and sinister SS, determined to break up families, so they can achieve their targets, their bonuses and a firm footing in the next rung of the ladder.
        The gravy train of Foster agencies, Adoption agencies, psychologists, psychiatrists, Solicitors, Barristers, all earning a very nice living out of working for the SS! and in turn
        denying children and parents a normal and private life. It is disgusting abuse.

      • ashamedtobebritish

        My advise works, I don’t know what else to tell you. Other than instead of spending time proving them wrong, use it to better your child’s wellbeing. Your call

  151. You are right. However sometimes parents cannot prove allegations are false. As was said in a recent suesuspicious minds judgement report, social workers who give hearsay evidence are only vulnerable to challenge on their professional competence and integrity not the truthfulness of their evidence. Further if a social worker gives evidence that a child told another person of abuse or harm, without knowing the details of how and when the disclosure was allegedly made, it becomes difficult to prove it was false other than by simple denial. For example if a child allegedly reported that a parent on some unknown date at some unknown venue caused harm how can this be proven to be false? Foster parents are frequently the origin of allegations but are seldom called to court or even identified and very rarely even make witness statements so they can’t be cross examined. This is wrong. Foster parents must be the only source of evidence in English Law who have immunity from being identified and immunity from cross examination and from being compelled to put what they say about someone directly to them across a Court Room. Care case judgements published by suesuspicious minds reports have noted comments by judges that parents are entitled to know and challenge those who give adverse evidence against them. This so-called basic right of justice as it has been described cannot apply while Foster Parents are given such widespread immunity and social workers are allowed to use anonymous multiple hearsay. There is an element that social workers are too lazy, too understaffed, too incompetent and too lackadaisical to find first hand evidence of suspected Significant Harm. Come On!! Why struggle and use resources to find first hand evidence when multiple hearsay will do? The immunity of social workers from being sued by parents must be accompanied by a requirement to use the Best Evidence available. This is not to say that hearsay has no place but that it should not be used to cover up a lack of willingness to find the best evidence or to challenge hearsay using the rules under the civil evidence act 1995 and under article 6 of the ECHR. Black J once said hearsay has a place but no child should be removed on hearsay evidence alone. No person should have immunity that Foster Parents have from attending Court and giving evidence.

    • If a parent challenges the evidence of the foster carer they ought to be allowed to call them. Theres no legal immunity from foster carer giving evidence (though in practice you may need to persuade a Judge why it is needed). Some courts are not keen on foster carers being called, others are quite fine with it.

    • Hi Seamus,

      My children WERE removed on hearsay evidence alone. My ex, who was violent and abusive, had a golden ticket when SS invited him to give evidence against me and attend court. Rest is history. His own children are in care, brought about in the most part by him and SS who brought him in to win the case, having full knowledge of his crimes against me, charges which I dropped years ago, due to being threatened with death. police reports they hid, evidence they hid. Ever since my children have been in care, the SS has done nothing but promote the ex-abuser, and it goes on and on.
      TO the point where the ex-has been able to lie to my children about me, or the Social worker, has promoted him to my children and now my youngest child believes I was violent to my ex and that I threw him out! not that he left me pregnant with my youngest son!! This is the nightmare I am living through. Because of the propaganda fed to my youngest son, he doesn’t want to see me again apparently. or it may be the Social worker preventing him from seeing me, as she did for over a year because I have been complaining and battling against the SS. It is unbelievable how cruel and debased these so-called professionals are. Comply, and suck up, or we will punish you and your children to the extent of alienating the children from the parent and vice versa, anything to stop court action. I am going ahead with court action anyway!

  152. Pingback: Local Authority unlawfully caring for child for four years (section 20 abuse) | By @suesspiciousmin  – National IRO Managers Partnership

  153. John Bradshaw

    Wow . I saw your details in Louis Tickle article , in relation to Annie and huw ‘s story . I would like to share my story with you and see legal advice . my story not for publishing without court permission but linked to section 20 kidnaps by Staffordshire country council with judicial collusion ( and cafcass, police , nspcc and my constituency MP Karen Bradley secretary of state for northern Ireland ) . president munby and home office also aware of issues . So please could I have your email address and perhaps you can give me some legal advice . ( Currently in India )

  154. I just came across your interview on youtube from a few weeks ago:-

    It was really interesting to see the guy behind the blog but I was also amazed that it had only had 122 views.

    Seriously, why haven’t you mentioned here that you did this interview? Or perhaps you did and I totally missed it?

    It might help to cross promote what you do here with what you do on youtube.

    Have you ever thought of having your own youtube channel? Perhaps a children and care version of something like Radio 4’s Law in Action?

  155. Social workers rarely lie you say? There have been hundreds of thousands of child adoptions and many without that numbers are likely to be ‘forced adoption’ since 1927 (let’s call it as it is irrespective of legal terminology ‘dispense.. crap/ rhetoric), many before that where the state sponsored eugenics, and many before that, pre eugenic period.’ I note you refer to ‘experts’ but experts are limited, perhaps stuck in their institution. If a persons were part of an institution it would be virtually impossible to be any other way, except if he/ she were a ‘lateral’ thinker. Wasn’t it A V Dicey who said as the state becomes more modern the greater the risks that the state will delegate authority (paraphrasing). We all know the threshold is subjective, the local authority (“the bad guys, ” to quote you) have the resources to persuade the courts, where often poor parents (‘lower social class,’ usually) not only have the state ((‘social worker’, other public officials) in their lives for many years also have to deal with terribly crap lawyers (according to Hansard) who should be able to get the best lawyers (the rhetoric). In terms of psychology it is not an exact science; in terms of the other ‘experts’ well let’s just say if the state calls them ‘independent’ but also is linked with paying for their expertise (‘jobs for the boys’) there is likely a gravy train that will come to a shuddering stop if the child and parent commodities become perfect families. Social workers will misrepresent facts, omit facts, lose pages of facts, if it comes to it. According to recent research only a small percentage of social workers come from lower social class backgrounds. As for the local judges, they’re like just ex solicitors or barristers who have learnt that normality in their days as lawyer then join in the charade (‘child’s best interests’) to keep them in their jobs too. The sociologist would call this a McDonaldisation of justice, in other words, ‘Mc Justice. I suggest you cast your lens further afield that the limits of your anecdotal experience. It is this this bourgeois (out of touch perspective) which makes lawyers like robots, also cogs in the machine.

    • None of it is based on valid law, it is a fraud and a corruption of valid law, the combination of the gravy train parasites, social engineering freaks and the general cognitive dissonance amongst lawyers of what is really happening means we are in reality approaching barbarism, no actually we are already there. When men and woman have to justify their innate reactions and sacred rights to strangers that has to be about as clear a sign as you can see, that Tyranny now masquerades as law.

  156. Just commenting on your post:

    “Law for social workers and other humans (part 1)” from

    “Human Rights, the key principles are :-

    FAIRNESS – in all decisions, strive to be fair – take things into account, even when they don’t fit with your hypothesis or initial thoughts, listen to what parents have to say, be honest about what you are seeing, recognise change when it is happening, be willing to consider that you might be wrong.”

    It’s also law according to the Children Act 1989, which states:

    “44. A high quality assessment is one in which evidence is built and revised throughout the process. A social worker may arrive at a judgement early in the case but this may need to be revised as the case progresses and further information comes to light. It is a characteristic of skilled practice that social workers revisit their assumptions in the light of new evidence and take action to revise their decisions in the best interests of the individual child.”

    Therefore this is not simply advice, they MUST comply with this!

    • Section 44 of the Children Act is about EPOs and doesn’t say any of that, but I suspect that’s Stat Guidance on assessments and all makes sense. The Act itself doesn’t use language in that way, though

    • EJ

      I think you could be thinking of section 47, Children Act 1989, the provision which deals with ‘investigations by the local authority (ie the social worker indirectly). Or as (suspicious minds (public law) lawyer states, it could be reference to the specific Guidance and Regulations (statutory guidance) for the Children Act 1989. The main law for the Children Act 1989 is caselaw no matter what as case law tests any Parliament Act (under the UK’s constitution, ie ‘statutory interpretation; binding precedent). The only problem is that case law is to hard to keep up so they just often ignore it. When there is an LIP (Litigant in Person) and the parent has no lawyer it means the lawyer becomes on ‘officer of the court’ with a duty to help the LIP in terms of points of law. The public authority lawyers don’t tell LIP parents this, they just have the hearing for the formality – as they have likely decided what the outcome before the final hearing (see Hart for commentary on it all being a theatre).

      • See my reply above to suesspicious about the source of the quote. What do you mean by “The main law for the Children Act 1989 is caselaw no matter what”?

        In suesspicious’s post ( on S47’s based on this judgment he says:

        “1) That unless there is urgency, or an assessment based on evidence that a home visit would endanger the child, it is unlawful to commence a section 47 investigation without visiting the child and speaking with the parents (that process would instead be an initial assessment)
        2) Seeking background checks without parental consent would be unlawful UNLESS a legitimate s47 investigation had been formally convened and was taking place (and frankly, even then, one ought to try to get parental consent)
        3) A breach of (1) or (2) above, can result in financial compensation.”

        So are you saying that UNLESS that judgment happened, nobody could have said it was unlawful to commence a S47 without having seen the child/ren simply based on the wording of the Children Act 1989 Section 47 itself?

        Because in the law itself ( it says:

        “[F5(5A)For the purposes of making a determination under this section as to the action to be taken with respect to a child, a local authority shall, so far as is reasonably practicable and consistent with the child’s welfare—
        (a)ascertain the child’s wishes and feelings regarding the action to be taken with respect to him; and
        (b)give due consideration (having regard to his age and understanding) to such wishes and feelings of the child as they have been able to ascertain.]”

        This is by implication saying an LA has to see a child to be able to decide on the action, which to me is crystal clear and didn’t have to rely on case law to interpret. This is further confirmed by:

        “(6)Where, in the course of enquiries made under this section—
        (a)any officer of the local authority concerned; or
        (b)any person authorised by the authority to act on their behalf in connection with those enquiries—
        (i)is refused access to the child concerned; or
        (ii)is denied information as to his whereabouts,the authority shall apply for an emergency protection order, a child assessment order, a care order or a supervision order with respect to the child unless they are satisfied that his welfare can be satisfactorily safeguarded without their doing so.”

        Therefore clearly to say being prevented from seeing a child as part of their S47 enquiries would result in further actions, it also means that seeing the child would be an absolutely necessary part of their enquiries. So enquiries means in response to a referral before the S47 is decided to be necessary.

        The whole of the Children Act 1989 is about the child’s needs as a priority so it stands to reason that all actions taken on their behalf would necessitate them having been seen as well as seeing the rest of the family.

      • The stat guidance isnt the law though. It is guidance that ought to be followed.

      • archangelmichael3

        Thanks for your reply.

  157. Here’s my view on human rights based on a hypothetical family. It is based on many parents cases who attempted to either revoke or oppose adoptions (forced adoptions) without a lawyer. Hitherto only the judge mentions human rights. In shocks me that in this modern democracy the family court has the power it has using ‘secret family courts’ to hide the dirty deeds by the all the professionals involved. Instead I will give my overview of what human rights are – well real public law – that is. If the middle class, upper middle class and upper class children were ripped from their families the posh lot would show the animal side by rioting in this democratic country’s streets. Instead parents with low social capital; low education capital; low cultural capital (ergo lower social class); are having their children stolen by the state. I call a state or local authority which takes lower social class children as ‘stealing’ by anyone’s definition. Perhaps these public lawyers can’t remember their public law from their law degrees.

    NB: I will be careful with my words as if I say something non too appetising it’s likely this post won’t make it passed the censorship of the public authority lawyer.

    “Human Rights:

    Parents’ Human rights

    Miss X and her partner with whom she has Y children 3, Steven, John, and Michelle (not real names) benefit from ECHR Article 8 – Right to family life, and right to a private life; Right to a Fair Hearing; Right not to Receive Degrading Treatment save the state has a qualified interest (ie necessary in a democracy et al).

    X Council (public authority) Family Court cannot impede these Convention Article rights which ordinarily go beyond all frontiers, save 1) a ‘legitimate aim’ and 2) a ‘principle of proportionality.’ The term qualified right means said public authorities cannot interrupt the x family’s human rights except “by law,” only where “….necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of…public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime” (ie qualified right).

    In any event the measure said public authorities take against X family must be proportionate and sufficiently serious: R (Daly) [2001, HL]. On the same human rights’ theme, ‘necessary in a democracy’ has been defined by the UK Privy Counsel first [1998] UKPC 30, and afterwards by the Court of Appeal [1999] 1 AC, as requiring: i) justification for any limits on fundamental rights; ii) rationally connected; iii) no more than absolutely necessary : De Freitas.

    The family court efficiency: checkout till dispenser HRA style.. ie ‘article 8 – check; article 10 – check; article 14 – check. Best interests of the child check. There exists not a shred of evidence that X Councils remotely considered X (not real) family’s human rights except lip service, as the court of appeal said words to the effect, we all know what the human rights are and have no need to repeat them here. Out of touch bourgeois idiots.

    Access to Justice:

    Access to justice, perhaps the most greatest or serious interruption to family life, which includes criminal law and its obvious inference with family life and therein liberty (where applicable); must include or ought to be, the challenge of adoption without consent of Miss X children to a new family (legal transplantation), which are actually strangers save the children’s relatively short term with the current foster carers.

    Access to justice is a very real public law provision despite the ex barrister/ ex judge family court treating real rights such as children convention with a pinch of salt. The German judges only followed the law un which they signed probably hundreds of thousands of death warrants.

    “Lord Reed in the UK Supreme Court (published 26 July 2017) cites the ancient Magna Carta 1215 right to access justice promptly and fairly, which is just as applicable today, 15 May 2018, as in was in the ancient age. “In English law, the right of access to the courts has long been recognised. The central idea is expressed in chapter 40 of the Magna Carta of 1215 (“Nulli vendemus, nulli negabimus aut differemus rectum aut justiciam”), which remains on the statute book in the closing words of chapter 29 of the version issued by Edward I in 1297:“We will sell to no man, we Will Not Deny or Defer (means delay) to any man (symbolic language for ‘mankind’) either Justice or Right.” Those words are…a Guarantee of Access to Courts which Administer Justice Promptly and Fairly:” Lord Reed (at paragraph 74 (page 22)), in R v Lord Chancellor [2017] UKSC 51.

    Click to access uksc-2015-0233-judgment.pdf

  158. “The stat guidance isnt the law though. It is guidance that ought to be followed.”

    It is an explanation in real terms of how to use said law however, as we know the actual laws themselves are clunky in wording. The Working Together statutory guidance says “the legislative requirements and expectations on individual services to safeguard and promote the welfare of children” and “It focuses on core legal requirements”

    Statutory guidance in my understanding must be followed and the only time there is a ‘get out’ is where there is an exceptional reason to deviate and this must be recorded with the reason given. If you look at the wording, it uses words such as “requires” “must”

  159. Hello it’s 3.08 I’m frightened if I were to tell the truth about my state why should be believed all I can do it beg beg for a tiny be off hope please anyone I’m 38 a widow I now know my husband was preparing for his death that claimed natural causes it wasn’t dear I woke to notes morning after morning I ill my boy is at interim stage I’m begging anyone please represent me I want to revoke I can’t say the details here the only thing I can promise you is it will be challenging interesting and trying I can pay I own a chat line business would anyone believe that I know in my gut if I don’t stop this now I’ve lost him for good. I’m 5 foot and under 7 stone if anyone out there anywhere will represent you will be enabling to eat and sleep and be the best fucking mother ever Cos I spend all day every day because I believe but the light is going time is running out please dear god help me to help myself I can show you a brave woman who is worth it do I believe it? I don’t know but I’ll keep on and on for my boy sam nearly 11 I want to be RICH and that’s showing my boy I keep getting up anyway I’m just grateful if I get good luck better still keep going there’s just me and my cat blanket that’s it I hope my husband is with me somehow it’s gets a bit lonely my family came to court put on the show I haven’t heard from them since I haven’t got anyone it hurts but my husband once said you’ve got yourself 🙂 thank you for listening I’m so so grateful
    Ps do cats grieve like humans I’ve been thinking that ☹️

  160. As an NQ solicitor who’s wisely (or not) decided to go into public law work this blog is invaluble!

    Thank you for your ongoing dedication for keeping it up to date and you certainly secured my vote in the 2018 FLA!

  161. My little boy was born with C,T,E,V and I had him in my care for 22months the social workers had informed DWP he hadn’t been put in my care when he was, I ended up with no help and no money. My son could sing count to 10 and say about 30 words. Then the social workers took him and I still have full parental rights. My son was diagnosed with autism and CT scan showed he has 2 scars on his brain pre birth and hasn’t spoken since leaving my care in 2 and a half years. Can I get help I hate this situation I miss him and have been diagnosed with post traumatic stress due to us being seperated. So my son and I have both ended up worse.

  162. I would be interest in your thoughts on this case bought by Article 39 regarding recent changes to regulations being discriminatory towards 16 plus years old and minority groups .

  163. Please can you notify me of new posts by email.

  164. On the home page of this site, there is a prominent box headed “Follow Blog via Email”, in which you’ll find a small box into which to type your email address, and then a great big button to click on afterwards with the word “Follow” on written on it.


Leave a Reply to Emi Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: