TYPICAL CASE SCENARIOS
These can be separated into the following 9 most frequently occurring categories …
Mothers with “learning difficulties” (meaning a lowish IQ) and/or some physical disability such as being lame or blind, but every capability of looking after a baby especially when aided by a very able and supportive partner. http://www.parents4protest.co.uk/p4p/stolen_children_ss.htm
Usually, all the children are removed on the grounds that their future development might be prejudiced by their mother’s “problem” and worse still any babies born in future by such mothers are taken away at birth and put out for adoption no matter how hard desperate mothers plead in court to keep their babies.In fact research has shown that over 50% of parents with learning difficulties have their children snatched by social services! Report backs ‘less able’ parents.
In one case involving a blind mother and her sighted partner the social worker concerned was convicted of perjury and conspiring to pervert the course of justice when caught out lying in her report;however she still won the adoption case and the mother lost her two little girls for ever. The social worker had to resign and was let off with a suspended prison sentence……. http://www.fathercare.org/cafcass05.htm
Mothers who have some sort of record or conviction for violence towards other adults (but not young children) or a partner with a similar record or conviction, even if these events happened many years ago.A parent who was abused whilst in the “care” of social services and now considered too “emotionally damaged “to keep a baby. A complaint about a noisy argument between parents, or a social worker remembering a disagreement with a parent a long time ago leads to renewed SS involvement……
Children are removed and put in care and worse still any newborn baby that arrives is swiftly taken away for adoption by strangers.
Mothers with a difficult child with behaviour problems, or with stepfathers who resent the children , or simply mothers who cannot afford to properly feed and clothe their children due to some sudden glitch or delay in the benefits system or non payment of maintenence take the rashest step of all .They ask for help and advice from the social services.!!! Alas “problems” or “poverty” are swiftly equated with “neglect”. Hundreds of mothers up and down the country have made that same fatal error and suffered the same dire consequences…. 440 children were removed over a 4 year period simply because the parents had “a low income” and no other reason !!
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/adoption/adoptionreforms/CLAbulletin2003-04final1.pdf (see p 12)
More often than not children are removed and the oldest are put in care and the youngest are taken for adoption. Any newborn babies are usually seized for adoption by strangers and lost for ever to mothers whose only crime was to ask for help and advice from Social Services.
Mothers who are extra careful and who take their children to hospital for minor ailments or injuries “once too often” attract the attention of social services who call in their “old allies” Professors Meadows and Southall who can be relied upon to diagnose “munchausen syndrome” claiming that the mothers have injured the children themselves to gain attention.
Thousands of children have been taken to be put into care and thousands of babies have been given for adoption as a result of this now discredited theory invented by now discredited men. The Minister for children admits that tens of thousands may have been wrongly adopted but claims it is too late to do anything about it now….
Once again careful mothers who take children to hospital for minor injuries that turn out to be serious on closer inspection or even fatal after admission.
Social services are alerted and they in turn call in their old friends the Professor/detective Meadows and of course Professor Southall who decided that Sally Clark’s husband had murdered her children on the basis of having watched a television programme without ever having examined husband or children!!
Meadows had accused the PREGNANT wife Sally who was imprisoned for murder and her newborn baby taken for adoption. This took place not in a secret family court but in a criminal court so there was widespread publicity. She was later released when it was found that Meadow’s theories and statistics had no scientific basis whatever. She and her husband were both exonerated too late to recover the baby that had been adopted.
The family courts usually attribute even a single unexplained injury to negligence or worse by the parents when it could just as easily have been caused at school or by a family friend or neighbours or simply by accident, with the sad consequence that many children are wrongly deprived of their parents and given out for adoption and the parents themselves are often wrongly imprisoned by criminal courts and only released when it is too late to recover their children from “forced adoption”
Social services acting on information from the police or sometimes just from anonymous tip-offs decide that certain children with parents who violently abuse or batter each other or even shouting,and arguing parents who are not actually violent at all are suffering from “emotional abuse”. This is loosely defined as a situation where parents do not bond with their children, and who show them no love, but who are either physically violent or who at least shout and criticise each other and their offspring.
An allegation of “emotional abuse” or worse still “a risk that children might suffer emotional harm in the future” is very difficult for parents to defend against the “expert psychiatrists” called by the social services. The result is usually that COMPLIANT ESTABLISHMENT JUDGES authorise that the children are put in care and any new babies born to the mother in question are removed and given for adoption by strangers. This even happens years after a mother has left her abusive partner and established a new relationship with a new non- abusive partner.
As a result, battered women are afraid to report their plight as if they do they run a very strong risk that they will lose their children! It is no defence to point out that the Royal Family and most of the Aristocratic families in Britain should lose their children on the basis of “emotional neglect” or failure to “bond”, but they of course do not rely on legal aid but can afford top barristers to represent them, and social services tend to avoid anyone with resources like that!
Shattered lives in shadow of abuse
Carol Midgley of THE TELEGRAPH tells the harrowing tale of a family that was torn apart by overzealous social workers who suspected the parents of abusing their children
Unsupported: A child separated from his or her parents may suffer irreparable psychological damage
Daniel has only hazy memories of the day that his childhood effectively ended. He vaguely recalls, at the age of six, being taken to the head teacher’s office at school, of strangers arriving and taking him away in a car. He remembers sitting in a small room as a social worker asked him endless questions, of pleading for his mother but instead being taken that night to a Catholic children’s home where they put him in a bath and scrubbed him. He didn’t know it then, but he would not return home for another 10 years.
Though the details of these early events are fragmented in his mind, the memory of his tearful bewilderment and desperate longing to go home remains vivid. Today Daniel, a tall, pleasant but anxious young man of 22, is still uncomprehending and very angry. Incredibly, he was forced to live in care between the ages of 6 and 16, torn from his distraught parents, despite a judge ruling that there was no evidence that he was being abused.
But that is not the worst of what happened to his family. Thanks to the zealousness of a handful of social workers in Rochdale, Lancashire, UK, Daniel’s parents, Andrew and Beverley, were wrongly accused of involvement in a Satanic abuse network, a cult that supposedly involved ritualistic sex with minors, the slaughter of animals and the sacrifice of newborn babies. All four of their children were taken from them.
Three months later, in June 1990, 12 more children, all friends of Daniel, his sister and the family, were taken from their beds in traumatic morning raids, forced to endure intimate medical examinations and placed in care for months while investigations were conducted. During this time, bizarre though it seems, parents and children were kept apart because social workers suspected that they were communicating secretly with their children via coded signals and gestures.
Andrew and Beverley’s other sons, James and Matthew, then 3 and 4, spent seven years in a children’s home. Their daughter Julie, then 11, spent five years in care. Andrew and Beverley were allowed to see their children for just an hour a month, monitored by social workers.
Contact with Daniel was reduced gradually from an hour a month to an hour a year. Yet there was never any proof — forensic, medical or otherwise — to support claims of ritual abuse against any of the families.
The “evidence”? It was this: Daniel told his teacher that he was dreaming about ghosts — apparently a mummy and daddy ghost and a baby ghost that died. He was at the time a withdrawn, disturbed child, often hiding under desks and being disruptive. His speech was poor for his age. This, says Beverley, led to him being bullied. The teacher was concerned enough to alert social services.
Grandparents are sometimes left to look after the children when the parents die or are incapacitated due to accident, illness, drug or alcohol addiction, or a prison sentence. Often there is rancour within the remaining family structure, and social services are called in either for this reason or because social workers in the case of addicted or criminal parents feel that the grandparents must be tarred with the same brush and that in their 60’s they are too elderly and old fashioned to look after young children.
As usual the legal aid lawyers agree with social services that the children are better off in care and if young enough should be adopted by younger and more respectable strangers. In one well known case a grandson was taken to male gay fosterparents on the orders and recommendation of two married lady social workers who were accorded maximum respect by a Court that followed their suggestions to the letter. Shortly after this these very same ladies who had said the grandparents were not suitable as carers for their grandson, deserted their own husbands and children and proudly set up home together as a lesbian couple. Despite this poor example of family responsibility their advice remained followed and the grandparents lost contact with their grandson for ever.
Please see the following article from The Mail on Sunday, Nov 18 2001
“You’ll never see your children again!”
THE WORST CRIME OF ALL !!
A MOTHER with no criminal record,and no problem with drugs or alcohol proudly gives birth to her new baby (very often her first baby!)
That same day (or in some cases a month or two later) two or more social workers ,usually accompanied by uniformed police arrive and snatch the baby. Explanations they tell the distraught mother will be given later in court!
When the SS apply to the Court for an interim care order it will be revealed that though the mother is blameless, nevertheless social services have grave suspicions that the father might have a violent past! No matter that he has no criminal record, has never been convicted of violence and usually never has even been charged with any crime! No problems with alcohol or drugs just a distrust of the social workers who kidnapped his child. Such hostility must, they say surely indicate a personality disorder and the need for anger management courses!On top of all this he was perhaps accused of violence in a previous custody or divorce case (like Sir Paul McCartney) or was even suspected of complicity in the death of a previous baby or child but never accused in open court.
In vain will the mother plead that she has done nothing wrong.In vain will she plead that she knew nothing of this aspect of her partner’s/ husband’s past but that he is so gentle and kind with her she cannot believe the unproved accusations against him.
This however is quite enough for the wretched judge’s decision! You may be innocent he says but the fact that you blindly support your partner/husband (as any married mother swore to do on her wedding day) is enough to show that you will never work properly with thr “professionals” and cannot be trusted with your baby.
SUCH JUDGES COMMIT CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AND SHOULD BE THROWN INTO PRISON like the Nazi judges who were judged in their turn at Nuremburg!
The baby is then given for adoption to strangers and it will probably wonder for the rest of its life why its mother abandoned her child……
These cases are more common than you might think and I am personally helping in one case that has now gone to Strasbourg. The European Court recently condemned the UK practice of taking newborn babies at birth as “draconian” and fined the UK a large sum!
I am myself appearing as a Mckenzie friend in a second similar case to advise the parents in court.
In my opinion, Social Workers who take babies or toddlers in circumstances similar to those are committing crimes against humanity and deserve punishment with a term in prison. One day not too far away I hope and believe that retribution will finally catch up with these heartless criminals!!
For the present, however, EVERY COMPLETELY INNOCENT MOTHER IN THE UK IS AT RISK OF HAVING THEIR NEWBORN BABY SNATCHED AT BIRTH BY SOCIAL SERVICES !!!!
It is enough for some dark secret accusation in the father’s past to be unearthed by overzealous social workers ! The mother’s sin? Choosing the wrong man to father her child even if she knew nothing of disputed incidents in his long distant past !
Cruel parents, step-parents, foster parents, or carers in children’s homes beat, burn, or sexually abuse the children in their charge. Usually these victims are never believed if they complain and are very often left with broken bones extensive bruises and burns,and other serious physical damage.If concerned neighbours or relatives persist in complaining a social worker is eventually instructed to visit and inspect.
An inexperienced social worker is usually given the unpleasant task of visiting what is usually a very sordid and smelly dwelling to report on the welfare of the children. When this person is met by aggressive and threatening parents or carers who say that the children are “out” or ill, or asleep, and not to be disturbed the social worker beats a hasty retreat and promises to call again. Due however to “pressure of work “this promise is rarely kept and it is only the tragic death of a child that can ever bring these situations out into the light of day. There is little question that if social services applied to the family Courts for care orders in such cases the parents would never bother to go to court let alone oppose the orders.
Social services plead shortage of staff and financial resources as excuses for overlooking torture of children (even after 60 visits to baby P). In other European countries they take children from parents only if they have been severely phsically abused but in Britain we waste most of out valuable resources fighting cruel cases in secret courts to remove children and even new born babies at “risk of emotional harm” and similar lesser reasons.
The parents of baby P WOULD NEVER HAVE GONE TO COURT to fight for his return if he had been taken earlier as parents that violently physically abuse their children avoid courts like the plague!
Physical torture KILLS KILLS KILLS!!!
Emotional abuse does NOT
Poor school attendance does NOT
A cluttered house does NOT
Witnessing domestic violence does NOT
Hostility to the “professionals” does NOT
A parent with learning problems does NOT
Where therefore should the “SS” priorities lie?
I’m only asking!!
I would have thought myself it was MORE IMPORTANT to concentrate on preventing babies being tortured rather than the more common rush to remove babies AT BIRTH from mothers whom some highly paid psychobabble merchants have decided may at some future date emotionally harm their babies! Crystal ball gazing?