Because it is so important, I NOW REPEAT in slightly different format some of the information already outlined in the introduction section.
As a result of care orders made by secret family courts, every year literally hundreds of new-born babies are torn from their loving mother’s arms by harsh unfeeling British social workers who then put them out for adoption. It is no excuse to say they were “following orders”. Any self respecting social worker should resign rather than obey any order that involves removing a baby from it’s mother’s loving care and sending it away to be adopted by strangers when no harm has ever been done to that baby by the mother. Alas not one single social worker ordered to snatch a newborn baby at birth has resigned and made any kind of public protest about this barbarism so all those involved in this revolting activity are at least guilty of criminal indifference to the cruelty in snatching these new-born babies. This draconian practise has already been condemned by the court of human rights.
(see paragraphs 133, 137 and 138)
133. The Court concludes that the draconian step of removing S. from her mother shortly after birth was not supported by relevant and sufficient reasons and that it cannot be regarded as having been necessary in a democratic society for the purpose of safeguarding S. There has therefore been, in that respect, a breach of the applicant parents’ rights under Article 8 of the Convention.
Why does this happen?
In December 2000 the Guardian published an urgent demand by Tony Blair made in a white paper that adoption figures be increased 40% by the middle of 2005, Blair vows to increase number of adoptions.
Yet in the same article Moira Gibb who is President of the Asociation of Directors of Social Services stated that the UK ALREADY has the second highest percentage of children adopted from care in the industrialised world. Many Councils make public service agreements with the government to meet certain targets including increasing adoptions so as to save money spent keeping children in care. Kent for example more than doubled it’s adoption figures over a 3 year period 2001-2004 and received around £20 million from the government for hitting 10 out of 12 targets set of which increasing adoption figures was target No1
Most adopters seek BABIES not children so that far from taking children out of care the result was a frantic search by Kent Social Services for babies that could be adopted. More than 3000 babies under 1 year old every year for the last ten years have been snatched by SS and put into care prior to adoption by strangers. (The figure of 3000 per year rising to 3900 per year over a ten year period comes from the answer to a parliamentary question put by Tim Loughton MP in 2004 to the Minister for children.) Most of these were taken from mothers who desperately wanted to keep them but they stood no chance of prevailing against the onslaught of the mighty forces of social services…
The demand for new-born babies for adoption used to be satisfied by young girls who had babies out of wedlock. This is no longer a disgrace so that need now has to be satisfied as far as possible by making claims of abuse or neglect against mothers (in their past) that more often than not are false and unsubstantiated, and using these as an excuse to take new born babies away to secret places for adoption by persons who are too ashamed to show their faces to the real parents. These selfish adopters prevent the baby from ever meeting its brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles and grandparents, or even knowing that these relations exist.
Kindness is practically never shown to these mothers and the only abuse to the baby comes from the social workers who deprive it of the bond formed with the mother at birth and prevent it from breast feeding which is the natural way to nourish any baby. The unfortunate mothers however are mostly condemned for life to produce babies not for themselves but to swell the adoption figures for the social services.
ONLY IN THE FAMILY COURTS DO VICTIMS (and consequently their children) GET PUNISHED NOT FOR CRIMES THEY HAVE COMMITTED BUT FOR CRIMES THAT SOCIAL SERVICES THINK THEY MIGHT COMMIT IN THE FUTURE!
Is all this wild talk or can it be proved?
Recent articles by Nick Cohen in the Observer: Families denied justice, by Melissa Kite in The Telegraph and by Stuart Wavell in the Sunday Times Secret courts that steal our Children confirm that thousands of children (including hundreds of babies) have been taken via secret courts which imprison parents who dare to complain publicly and which condemn parents on the basis of rumour, gossip and hearsay from witnesses who cannot be cross examined because they do not go to court.
To make matters even worse Margaret Hodge, the former Minister for children admitted in the Telegraph that tens of thousands of children have been wrongfully taken from their parents and given for adoption. She stated however that in the childrens interests, it is better in most cases to leave them where they are. Surely the least she could do in these circumstances would be to end the secrecy and let the birth parents know where their children have gone and by whom they have been adopted? In the name of common humanity please Minister allow parents who have suffered by unjustly losing their children to the State, and then to adoption TO KNOW WHERE THEY ARE!
Legal aid solicitors never challenge anything, the social workers say and hardly ever call the right witnesses to help the parents because they wish to maintain good relations with the social services. Ask any legal aid solicitor who specialises in the family court, how many cases they have won against opposition from social services so that parents have recovered their children, and the answer is usually a big fat ZERO!
Parents cannot complain either by revealing what happened in the secret family courts, or by naming themselves or their children publicly without risking prison for contempt of the secret court. (Unlike more civilized countries such as Australia, New Zealand Canada, and Ireland where such secrecy in family courts does not exist). Social Services however disregard this secrecy that they tell parents is meant to protect the children, when they openly break this secrecy themselves by placing advertisements in adoption magazines such as adoption uk with large colour photographs and first names plus financial incentives for those willing to adopt the children so advertised! Imagine the feelings of distraught mothers seeing their beloved children advertised in this fashion and being powerless to recover them, or even to protest publicly themselves!
The secrecy is also broken when a self important government minister like David Blunkett is involved, so that when he goes to the family court, the details of the court proceedings and the names of the children he claims are his are all made very public!! This despite the opposition of the unfortunate husband whose wife he seduced, and who only wants to keep his family together.
Mothers are sent to jail and even condemned for murder in the High Court on the basis of unproven crackpot theories put forward by charlatan doctors with no forensic evidence. In the family courts parents are often judged to have neglected or even abused their children purely on the balance of probabilities instead of beyond reasonable doubt. Judges nearly always believe social workers to “probably” be more truthful than parents who therefore have no chance of clearing their names let alone winning their case.
Common sense would indicate that mothers who go to court and who are desperate to rescue their children from care orders and from the social services are not usually the type of mothers who abuse or neglect their offspring. That type of mother would hardly ever bother to go to court as she would be glad to be rid of children she did not care for. On this basis, surely most mothers going to court to ask for the return of their loved ones should win with the help of social workers who say that their main job is to keep families together. In fact the opposite is the case, the mothers nearly always lose thanks to the determination of social workers to split up families and make every effort to keep parents and children apart.The sad fact is that children are more than 100 times more likely to be abused in care or worse still in a childrens home than if they were left alone to stay with their own sometimes feckless but almost always loving parents.
The terrible truth is that only too often the state equates poverty or illiteracy with inadequate parenting. This results in taking babies and young children from the poor and giving them for adoption to “the better educated and the better off”. This is WICKED and WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!
What about fathers when mothers refuse contact?
This is also wrong and quite simply I believe the partner who does not have custody should normally have the right to receive the children at least during half the school holiday period. There is less room for argument with this system and less disruption for the children. Any parent flouting a Court Order giving access to the other parent should either risk losing custody to the other parent or be liable to prison for contempt until both parents enjoy the access granted by the court. Family allowances should be split and drawn seperately in proportion to the access specified.
Older children who are put in foster homes are forbidden to telephone or contact their parents and vice versa by cruel unfeeling social workers even though no judge ever gives such an instruction. Meetings arranged on average 4 times per year are carefully supervised by social workers who harshly forbid parents from discussing their case or even from letting their children know that they have not abandoned them and that they want them back. This censorship takes place even though no judge orders it, but the social workers achieve it purely by intimidation and threats.
Very often children are ill treated by the foster parents. Even worse there are frequent examples of sexual abuse by careworkers in children’s homes. The parents are powerless to complain in public because of gagging orders from the court which are supposed to protect the children by concealing their names and which in fact often leave them open to horrible and vile abuse in the places where they are sent. Children’s homes are frequently staffed by paedophiles, and horrific cases of abuse are time and again reported in the national press.
BEWARE —– BEWARE —– BEWARE —– BEWARE —– BEWARE —– BEWARE
Above all remember the “number one” golden rule!!! NEVER, NEVER, NEVER contact Social Services for help or advice concerning your children because if you do, more often than not they will take your children and have them put into care or worse still get them adopted. Hundreds of angry mothers all over the country have lost their children in this way and can now do nothing about it.