Golden Rule 2

2: Never believe a word “they” say and always insist they put their promises down in writing. Always be pleasant and polite to social workers, but never forget they are your ENEMIES!

Remember that they may deliberately try to provoke you into shouting or violence that they will exaggerate in court leaving you with a criminal record and no children! When they shout at you, forget your “pride” and look very hurt saying “why are you being like this to me?” or “I thought you were so nice until now, please don’t bully me!”

Be very respectful “tongue in cheek”, but remember THEY ARE NOT POLICE; so never follow their “helpful advice”, especially if they say your only chance of getting your children back is to split from a partner, or parent you love and respect! They will try and turn you against each other, as the “divide and rule” principle makes sure you are confused and demoralised when you lose your case and your children too!

If you are told to get a different solicitor to your partner, I advise you to represent yourself and let your partner keep a solicitor (or vice versa) so that at least one of you will be free in court to tell your own story and to question social workers! Quite often they arrange deliberately awkward contact times with your children. This can result first in the loss of your job and then as a consequence of that, your accommodation also.

Object firmly and forcefully in court to their plans and fight hard to keep your job and your house or appartment. Remember that when they make the threat “do as we say or we shall take your children”, they intend to take them anyway no matter how much you do to please them and they just want you to make it easier for them to win their case in court by seeing psychologists and parenting assessors they have chosen themselves and who they know will give you bad reports!

IGNORE THE SS! THEY HAVE NO AUTHORITY AND NO POWER . Every time you do what they say you make it easier for them to take your children so don’t be taken in!

IF THEY ASK YOU WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE SYSTEM AND HOW YOU WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE IT, SURPRISE THEM WITH HOW MUCH YOU KNOW BY ANSWERING AS FOLLOWS:-

Children should only be taken, if a parent has been charged with a crime against a child or has committed one. The process of dealing with such cases in a criminal court rather than a civil one would also determine that faults by a parent would be judged not “on probabilities” but “beyond reasonable doubt”.

Parents would then automatically have the right to ask for a hearing in front of a jury, if they risked losing their children long term or permanently.

These reforms would stop most of the present injustices, so it is worth repeating how unjust the family courts have become.

EXAMPLES OF HOW RULES OF EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN DISCARDED IN THE FAMILY COURTs WHEN GRANTING “INTERIM CARE ORDERS”.

1:- Statements from the local authority are shown to the judge but rarely to parents. Family and friends of parents are routinely excluded from the court, but groups of social workers are allowed to stay in the court to listen to their colleague’s testimony whether they are witnesses or not.

2:- Parents representing themselves are denied the opportunity to cross examine witnesses appearing against them. Judgements, reports from experts and position statements are either withheld or given to parents at the last minute (too late to read and analyse them properly).

3:- Parents are routinely refused permission to call for a second opinion when “experts” and Doctors have testified against them. If parents record contacts with their children, or interviews with experts or social workers judges routinely refuse permission for these recordings to be heard yet they always allow recordings and video evidence to be heard, if produced by police or social workers.

4:- Parents whose children have been taken, are routinely and wrongly told that they may not talk to ANYONE about their case.

5:- Parents are threatened with jail, if they protest publicly when their children are taken. They are also jailed for “breach of the peace” or “harassment”, if they dare to trace and then contact their own children after adoption. Parents are therefore” twice gagged”, contrary to the Human Rights Act, Article 10 entitling all persons “freedom of expression”, ie freedom of speech.

6:- Local authority barristers in court often read out statements from absent persons as though they are themselves witnesses but they cannot be questioned.

7:- Most solicitors refuse to let their clients speak and then agree to all care orders demanded by social services. They tell the hapless parents “it is better not to oppose the interim care order, but to wait for the final hearing”, ignoring the position set out below (in red) where L.J.Thorpe makes it very clear that the parents are so prejudiced by the proceedings thereafter that it is “very difficult to get a child back” after a removal hearing.

8:- Judges routinely castigate parents who wish to speak or who represent themselves even though they have the right to do so. Their evidence and their arguments are usually ignored in the judgements.

9:- Parents representing themselves are often given an hour or two’s notice to appear in court but solicitors are given weeks!

10:- Parents are punished for “risk”, ie not what they have done, but for what they might do in the future! “Risk of emotional abuse” is favourite because there is no legal definition of this and it is usually impossible for parents to defend themselves against “predictions” by so called “experts” who are often unqualified (20% according to the latest report!)

11:- Judges give social workers the power to withhold parent’s contact with their children “in care” as a punishment for saying they love them and miss them or that they are fighting to get them back. Foreign children are forbidden to speak their own language with their parents or relatives, mobile phones are confiscated and children in care are denied the basic rights accorded to murderers and rapists in prison! They use this power to gag parents and force them into complete submission!

12:- Parents are in effect condemned for offences against their children on “probabilities” 51% instead of “beyond reasonable doubt”. They can be acquitted in the high court and the appeal court, and even when all charges have been dropped by the police, social services can overrule all those bodies and condemn parents on 51% probability (nearly half the time they could be wrong!) and take their children into care with a view to forced adoption.

13:- Parents who were themselves in care or who were abused in childhood are often judged unfit to be parents as a result. Their past misdemeanours such as shoplifting or destruction of property (often 10 years ago or more) are inevitably used against them during proceedings in court to prove them unfit parents. This would be illegal in a criminal court.

14:- Parents often forfeit their children for “failing to engage with professionals”, the very persons who tell them and their neighbours that the children will never be returned!

15:- Parents faced with forced adoption lose their children for life, without being allowed a hearing by jury.

16:- Under the UN Convention on children’s rights and a recent Supreme Court case (W a child), children have a RIGHT to be heard in court but are usually denied that right.

17:- Solicitors routinely tell client parents to agree to interim care orders or they risk never seeing their children again. A lie!

18:- Social workers are legally obliged to place children with relatives if possible, but either ignore this or find pretexts to fail them on assessments.

19:- Human rights to free speech and freedom of movement are breached by gagging orders, confiscating passports and even “prohibited steps” that limit parents’ movements and can force them to remain in the same flat or house indefinitely!

20:- The Children Act specifically instructs social workers to reunite families wherever possible and to place children removed from their parents with relatives. In practice, couples are urged to separate, to quit their jobs and go on benefits so as to keep awkward contact times with their children and to be free to meet social workers etc for meetings whenever summoned to do so. Relatives such as grandparents, aunts and uncles are set aside to be “assessed” and more often than not fail on the grounds that they are too friendly with the parents or maybe had a difficult past 10 years ago or more, or simply that they are too old in their forties or fifties even though this does not apply to fosterers. Theory and practice are a long way apart in our family courts.

Family torn apart in 15-minute court case: judge condemned for decision to remove children …

Lord Justice Thorpe said on Appeal “I am completely aghast at this case. There is nothing more serious than a removal hearing, because the parents are so prejudiced in proceedings thereafter. Once you have lost a child, it is very difficult to get a child back.” The hearing above lasted only 15 minutes after a doctor “expressed the opinion” that bruising in the ear of one of the three children looked as though it was caused by pinching . The parents were not allowed to give any evidence! Their three children had all been forcibly removed until they were ordered to be returned by Lord Justice Thorpe on appeal.

Advertisements

2 Responses to Golden Rule 2

  1. Anonymous says:

    So how can you stop the SS Gestapo from entering your property to carry out what they call an assessment when no crime has been committed?

  2. Ian Josephs recomminds:

    Protect yourself against social workers with NO COURT ORDER barging uninvited into your home by fitting a small chain inside your front door.

    This means that if you do not unlatch the chain when you see who is calling that person would have to push the door hard enough to break the chain which would be a “forced entry “and a criminal offence if committed without a document from the court such as a “recovery order” specifically allowing entry using reasonable force.

    Unless they intend to actually arrest someone or have good reason to believe someone in the house is in danger of severe physical harm, police also would have to have a warrant before breaking the chain.

    Usually they will not have one and would have to convince a judge that a serious crime had been or was about to be committed before one was granted.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s