Forced Adoptions

Forced adoption is a truly dreadful scandal

Social workers are removing children from loving families without proper justification, says Christopher Booker

That is the headline to this article, by Christopher Booker

In recent months, I have been reporting on what is one of the most alarming scandals in Britain today – the secretive system that allows social workers to remove children from loving families without any proper justification, and to send them for adoption or fostering with no apparent concern for their interests.

Four more examples have come to light in the past week. The first came to my attention via Lynn Boleyn, a former councillor from Dudley, who first became concerned about "forced adoption" when she sat on various committees concerned with child care. Last week, she was in court with a mother of five girls, whose family tragedy began when her partner was sentenced to 14 years for abusing the eldest girl, who was sent to live with a relative. Although there was no evidence of their mother harming them in any way, the other four girls were seized by Dudley social services and placed in foster care. Three were kept together, separated from their two-year-old sister whom the council now wants to put out for adoption.

The three girls, aged 11, 10 and 7, are desperately unhappy, constantly asking to be reunited with their mother. But on Friday, a judge said he had no power to stop social services summarily withdrawing them from their local school to be sent to a new home. The 11-year-old was looking forward to being in the school play and the end of term Leavers' Service. She has now been torn away from friends she has known since she was four, the nearest thing to stability left in her life. The children's wishes were not taken into account.

A second case concerns another woman, for 20 years an NHS nurse who served with the Royal Army Medical Corps in the first Gulf War. Until recently, she was a semi-professional dog breeder, living happily at home with her eight-year-old son (his father having walked out when she was pregnant).

In March, their home was raided by two RSPCA officials and five policemen, complaining she had too many dogs in the house. Her home was untidy because she was clearing an attic, but the seizing of the dogs (breaking the leg of one of them) left it a befouled mess.

Acting on a tip-off from the RSPCA, Leeds social workers then intervened, and expressed surprise that the house was tidier than they expected. Nevertheless, they told the mother to bring her son's clothes to school, from where he was taken into foster care.

After three months, during which he has only been allowed short supervised "contact" with his mother, the boy is miserable, constantly asking when he can return home. His mother has repeatedly had to draw the social workers' attention to various conditions, such as head lice and threadworm, which indicated that he was not being properly cared for. Last week they announced that they were moving him to another foster home.

Although there was no evidence that she was anything other than an admirable mother, apart from the temporary mess made of the house in March, the social workers say her son cannot be allowed home until they have both undergone "psychiatric assessments". These cannot be arranged until October. Nor has the boy yet been given a guardian to represent him, as the law lays down.

My other two cases come from Ian Josephs, the former county councillor and businessman who runs the Forced Adoption website and has helped hundreds of families in a similar plight. When, in January, a couple brought their newborn son to hospital with a fractured arm, Coventry social services were called in on suspicion that the child might have been injured by his parents. After the mother had been arrested, handcuffed and held by the police for nine hours, the couple were terrified that their baby would be taken from them. Although not charged with any offence, they are on police bail, which prevents them from leaving the country.

The child's Irish grandmother took the baby to Ireland, where he is now surrounded by a large, supportive family. Social services are attempting to get an order through the courts for the grandmother to return to England with the baby.

My last case is so shocking that I will return to it in more detail at a later date. It centres on a London couple who, earlier this year, had their six children seized by social workers on what appears to be flimsy hearsay evidence (I have seen the court papers).

The mother was pregnant again. Last month, after the boy was born, three social workers and five policemen entered the hospital ward where she was breastfeeding at 3am, wresting the baby from her by force. They then discovered that they had nowhere to keep him. The boy was put into intensive care, where his mother was taken to breastfeed him for four days, until she was fit to leave the hospital. She saw her baby for the last time two weeks ago.

I will return to this story when I have had some explanation from the council responsible.

I have blogged about this, in my opinion, inhumane act before.

Why didn't these social workers going after the poor children that really needed to be taken into care like Baby Peter, Khyra Ishaq and Victoria Climbie.

It does look like they are going after soft targets instead of the ones that need the real help.

What worries me is that they are ignoring the children and their concerns and emotional well being.

Are the social workers putting children up for adoption because of quotas? Read here, here and here.

There are very good social workers out there working to protect children, and I do wish that their work was in the headlines more than the others, but we don't hear about their stories.

STAFFORD EPILOGUE: THE MADNESS THAT IS THE SECRET FAMILY COURTS SYSTEM

This is taken from another blog called THE SLOG. I recommend you have a read of his blog, it is very informative and very interesting.

You can read this blog here, but i have copied it here as well.

Last week, the Slog revealed several aspects of secrecy surrounding medical, social work, psychiatric and judicial personnel. We end the series today with the maddest case of the lot.

I can't show you the baby in the above picture - even though the shot was taken three years ago, and the kid would be unrecognisable.

I can't tell you the name of either mother or child. I can't tell you the names of any of the controlling clowns who have made this mother's life a misery.

I can't tell you the name of the judge who consigned her into the hands of a bent psychiatrist.

I can't tell you the name of the social worker and judge who preferred, as a custodian of the child's welfare, a man with a history of violence (on remand for shoving a broken beer glass into the face of a fellow customer in the local) to this mother.

I can't tell you the name of this violent thug, nor give you the identity of the child he deserted when it was a three-month foetus.

I can't tell you the name of the social work director who deliberately stalled on showing the mother her case history notes; nor the name of the lawyer who helped the mother put in a freedom of information request until this arrogant senior manager was forced by law to comply.

I can't tell you anything identifying this case until 2022. Because a judge (and guess what, I can't give you the name of this pillock either) has deemed it right and proper that I shouldn't.

This scandalous silence has been fixed - I use the word advisedly - on the ludicrous basis of protecting the infant child's identity. And although Jack Straw at long last has come to realise just how pernicious, illiberal and downright creepy the whole disgusting apparatus of Secret Family Courts is, his hands are increasingly tied by lobbying from the judiciary and social services professionals.

They simply do not have a leg to stand on. Time and again inquiries into the system have recommended that media reporting be allowed - while not including the names of victims. But a rearguard action against Straw's abysmally late conversion is now engaging in venom of the sort you'd expect. The sort spat out by unpleasant people desperate to hide evidence of cynical target-setting, corrupt use of funds, police collusion, incompetent or delusional social workers and yes, even paedophile judges.

What I can do, however, is give you the names of the two Government Ministers concerned who - despite endless promises since 2006 to members on all sides of both Houses of Parliament - have done three-fifths of Fanny Adams about any of it.

Harriet Harman and Ed Balls.

They are both overt or covert candidates for leadership of New Labour. They should be ashamed of themselves, but of course they are not - and nor will they be in the future. For they are the living proof of what's wrong with the UK: government by a selfish and heartless deranged minority at the expensive of the good and honest majority.

To bloggers everywhere: I really don't care if you won't give me a credit or link to this article. But I would be very happy if you'd give the details of this case enough publicity to ensure those who perpetuate the system are brought to justice at last. If we as an online community can't do that, then what on God's Earth are we for?

Posted by John Ward at 15:58

Social Workers

Here are two stories dealing with social workers and how far they go.

Story 1.

Edlington: report into failures says council treated sadistic brothers as 'naughty boys'

What those two did to those poor boys is horrific, it is beyond anyone's imagination that two children could do that without any sort of remorse.

We see again social workers again failing to do what is right.

A quote from the article;

Education staff at the council failed to take appropriate action when the brothers were excluded from school, which meant that they did not receive any education.

The review concluded that the boys’ behaviour had become so extreme by late 2008 that professionals were “overwhelmed” and lacked the confidence to do anything at all.

How many more times will we see stories like this or like the story of baby Peter.

I don't know the answer to all this is, but it has to change before we lose more children to this evil path of hate and destruction similar to what these two boys did.

Story 2.

Mother 'not clever enough to raise child' has baby snatched by social workers after running away to Ireland to give birth.

This story is about a girl with mild learning difficulties, who was pregnant and went on the run to Ireland to avoid the social services taking her baby away.

Now, if this girl was on her own i could understand the council's position, but she was with the child's father and was in a loving relationship so there was some stability there.

Fife council was alerted and they went to Ireland and took the baby away.

My problem with this is, if they were worried about the baby why didn't they keep a check on the baby and the parents to see if she was being cared for properly. If the baby was being neglected in any way then yes take the baby into care.

You could say social workers are damned if they do and damned if they don't, but there has to be a middle ground where the welfare of the child, and in the case of the Edlington boys, the welfare of others in the area must be the priority.

The Social Workers have been at it again.

I have a question.

If a child is slightly under weight would you feed him junk food, chocolate, sweets and crisps to get his weight up?

I wouldn't, and I'm sure nearly everyone else wouldn't. This couple didn't and for some reason some social workers, from Derbyshire, took the decision to take the child into care.

See Article Here

Here is a quote from the article

But in a decision that surprised the couple, a social worker from Derbyshire County Council later said that Zak needed to go into foster care so they could “assess his needs” and determine how he ate.

The couple, who have four other children aged under 10, were told that if they challenged the decision, social services would “go straight to court” where “all your parental rights would be taken away”.

I am shocked that they take a child into care because he is slightly under weight, but i am even more shocked that they then tell the parents that if they challenge them they will take their rights as parents away.

That is blackmail in my book.

They must of known they were on dodgy ground by taking the child into care. So what do they do, they tell the couple that their parental rights would be taken away if they challenge them.

It took them four months to get their child back, and guess what they fed him, yes junk food.

Another quote from the article;

Eventually they went to court to try to get Zak back, and after four months, he was allowed to return home after gaining less than a pound in four months.

Social services eventually said they were good and caring parents.

If they were good and caring parents why the hell did they take the child away from the parents in the first place?

I know the majority of social workers are genuine hard working and work with parents to see what is best for the child, but the minority of them, who cause unwarranted situations like the one above, have to be taken out of the profession.

Here's an interesting twist on social workers

I have just read this article in the Telegraph and i am wondering if the social workers from Sussex worked in Haringey, would Baby Peter still be alive.

Why is it that they take the kids away from certain people who may of just come into difficulties recently (for whatever reason) and not from other people where kids, like Baby Peter, need to be taken to a place of safety.

Read the article and have a think about it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6073914/Secret-agenda-to-score-adoptions.html

This is the original article about the above story.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5858902/Evil-destruction-of-a-happy-family.html