Jail social workers who take children without telling parents why, says Britain’s top family judge (Copied from Daily Mail)

Jail social workers who take children without telling parents why, says Britain’s top family judge

  • Sir James Munby attacked workers in Bristol who didn’t explain themselves
  • They did not tell a couple why their two children were being taken from them
  • They breach a court order in doing so – which could carry a jail term in future

PUBLISHED: 01:36, 25 October 2013 | UPDATED: 01:37, 25 October 2013

Sir James MunbySir James Munby said family courts must be exposed to the ‘glare of publicity’

The country’s most senior family judge yesterday launched a furious attack on social workers who failed to tell parents why their children were being adopted – and suggested that in future the same offence could carry a jail term.

Local authority workers in Bristol ignored a court order requiring them to explain why the couple’s two children were being taken for adoption.

They only released the information to the parents 45 minutes before the decision was due to be finalised, giving the family no real hope of mounting a challenge in court.

Sir James Munby, who is President of the Family Division, said their behaviour was ‘deplorable’ and ‘symptomatic of a deeply rooted culture in family courts’.

In his judgment, he accused the social workers of having a ‘slapdash’ and ‘lackadaisical’ attitude to court orders.

He said the couple, who were facing the ‘permanent loss of two children’ had been denied ‘vitally important’ information.

He also warned that in future, there would be ‘consequences’ for social workers, suggesting that they could be jailed for contempt if they fail to comply with court orders – an offence that carries a sentence of up to two years.

Until now, local authority workers have largely been protected by family courts, which also routinely tolerate delays and inefficiencies in their work.

By contrast, members of the public who have failed to comply with court orders have been dealt with severely.

The most notorious case of this was the prison sentence for contempt handed down to Wanda Maddocks, who wanted to get her father out of a care home where she thought he was being ill-treated.

Miss Maddocks was jailed without representation and in secret until her case was revealed by the Daily Mail.

But Sir James’s warning suggests council staff will now face the same punishment as ordinary members of the public if they fail – either through incompetence or unwillingness – to hand over the required information on time.

He told the court: ‘That the parents should have been put in this position is quite deplorable.

‘It is, unhappily, symptomatic of a deeply rooted culture in the family courts which, however long established, will no longer be tolerated.

‘The court is entitled to expect – and from now on family courts will demand – strict compliance with all such orders.

Controversial case: Wanda Maddocks was jailed in secret after trying to remove her father from a care homeNotorious case: Wanda Maddocks, pictured, was jailed in secret for failing to comply with a court order

‘Non-compliance with orders should be expected to have and will usually have a consequence.’

He added: ‘There is simply no excuse for this. Orders must be obeyed and complied with to the letter and on time. Non-compliance with an order, any order, by anyone is bad enough.

‘It is a particularly serious matter if the defaulter is a public body such as a local authority.

‘It is also a particularly serious matter if the order goes to something as vitally important as the right of a parent who is facing the permanent loss of their child to know what case is being mounted against them by a public authority.’

Lib Dem MP John Hemming, who has campaigned for openness in the family courts, said: ‘At least anybody who is sent down for contempt by Sir James will not be locked up in secret.

‘He has put the boot on to the other foot. The next time courts are let down by the incompetence or bloody-mindedness of social workers, it will be a director of children’s services facing jail rather than a parent.’

Posted in Media stuff of interest | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Boy ‘killed himself after being raped’ (Copied from “This is Leicestershire”)

By Adrian Troughton

A 15-year-old boy took his own life after being raped and sexually abused by a care worker at a children’s home, a court heard.

Aaron Leafe tied a cord around his neck following an alleged three years of abuse by Anwar Ismail.

  1. LeicesterCrownCourt

    The trial started yesterday at Leicester Crown Court

During the first day of a trial at Leicester Crown Court yesterday, prosecutor Mary Prior told the jury the troubled teenager left a note saying he could not get over what had happened to him.

Ms Prior said: “Aaron took his own life on June 12, 2010.

“He had written a couple of notes and a letter to his dad. It said he was upset at getting blamed for something he had not done.

“It said: ‘Can’t get over what’s happened with me and Anwar. I hate him so much’.”

Ms Prior told the court Ismail (31) first abused Aaron when he was 12.

She said the defendant, a former security guard, befriended the boy while he was employed as a care worker at the Woodland Retreat children’s home, in Chantry Lane, off Groby Road, Leicester, in 2007. Ms Prior said: “The defendant was his carer in this children’s home.

“He groomed him and he abused him there.”

The court heard Ismail, of Matlock Street, Spinney Hills, Leicester, was suspended and then dismissed from the home in 2008, after forcibly restraining Aaron for poor behaviour.

The teenager was moved to a children’s home in Worksop, Nottinghamshire, and tried to break all contact with Ismail.

But the abuse continued, it is alleged. Ms Prior said the defendant rented a flat in Nottingham so he could continue to meet Aaron and abuse him.

Ms Prior told the court: “After the defendant was dismissed from there, he continued to meet Aaron and sexually assault him.”

Ms Prior said on one occasion Ismail called Aaron 111 times in one day.

She said the defendant told Aaron he loved him and got his sister to tell the boy he was suffering from cancer.

Aaron had lived a tragic life, going into care at the age of 11.

Ms Prior said his parents had split up after his father was jailed for assaulting his mother.

Within two weeks of being taken into care, Aaron was raped by another boy.

He was moved to two other temporary homes before being taken to Woodland Retreat as a more permanent option.

Ms Prior said: “The defendant began a process of grooming Aaron. He had read his file and therefore knew about all of his difficulties.

“He began to form a close bond between Aaron and himself. He broke the rules of the home and his training in order to do so.”

Ms Prior said Ismail gave Aaron cigarettes and taught him how to drive.

She said the defendant had sex with Aaron in a staff room at the home after attempting to do so on other occasions.

Staff at Woodlands were concerned about the relationship between the pair but Ismail was a domineering character and often got his own way, the court was told.

She said Aaron finally reported the abuse on April 11, 2010, to a carer he had begun to trust.

After he was arrested, Ismail denied all the charges and said he had had no contact with Aaron after he left Woodland Retreat.

Ismail denies 10 offences, which allegedly took place between January 17, 2007 and June 30, 2010.

He pleaded not guilty to one charge of rape on December 9, 2009, one of attempted rape between January 2007 and June 2010 and one of sexual assault between March and April 2010.

He also pleaded not guilty to four charges of sexual activity with a child, and three charges of abducting a child between December 2009 and May 2010.

The trial continues.

Read more: http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Boy-killed-raped/story-19326791-detail/story.html#ixzz2X4dNsrcL
Follow us: @thisisleics on Twitter | thisisleicestershire on Facebook

Posted in Media stuff of interest | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Teenage mother found hanged days after discovering her baby had been adopted – (copied from Daily Mail)

Teenage mother found hanged days after discovering her baby had been adopted

By Daily Mail Reporter
UPDATED: 15:24, 1 June 2011

Tragic: Annabelle Lee Morris hanged herself when she found out that her son (face blanked) had been adopteTragic: Annabelle Lee Morris hanged herself when she found out that her son (face blanked) had been adopted

A tragic teenage mother’s body was found hanged days after she discovered her baby had been adopted by another family.

Annabelle Lee Morris, 19, could not cope with her son being taken into care and then put up for adoption.

Her father, Thomas James Morris, found her in her bedroom on March 18 last year – nine days after she found out that her son had new adoptive parents, York Coroner’s Court was told.

The authorities had intervened as she was struggling to look after him herself.

Speaking after the inquest, her cousin, Lorna Dawber, said: ‘She adored her son and had she accepted the help when it was there her future would have been completely different. In time she would have got there.

‘That was the one thing in life that was hers, she absolutely worshipped him.’

She said Annabelle would not have put her family through that deliberately.

‘She was a good soul and she had a good heart,’ she said.

The inquest heard that the child was taken into foster care when he was less than a year old.

Annabelle, from York, was still allowed to see him a few times a week, but when a psychologist raised further serious concerns, steps were taken to have the baby adopted.

Although it was arranged for Annabelle to meet mental health workers in 2009, she did not attend an appointment.

She saw her son, then 15 months old, for the final time in January 2010. At the time of her death she was on a doctor’s waiting list to see a counsellor.

Prior to the adoption, her social worker, John Corden, said Annabelle was ‘ambivalent’ about accepting the support offered to her as this would involve ‘putting boundaries around her lifestyle’.

But he said that he and other colleagues had been impressed by the ‘high quality of interaction’ between mother and child and that she had been ‘dignified and honest’ in her work with social services.

Mr Corden said ‘I had frequent discussions with Annabelle about the way the case was going. She never suggested to me that if adoption were the outcome she would harm herself.

‘Annabelle was blessed with a warm and benign personality. She could present herself as a well functioning and capable young lady.

‘In the fullness of time, that may have been a considerable asset to her.’

Coroner Donald Coverdale recorded an open verdict and said the cause of her death was asphyxia due to hanging.

Noting that she had strong support from a loving family and from social services, he said: ‘Miss Morris was a 19-year-old with a number of problems relating back to childhood.

‘In recent times she had gone through the trauma of having her child adopted.

‘The final meeting with her child had been in January and that time must have been the most difficult of all.

‘It seems to me that she had time to reflect on the unhappy course of events culminating in the adoption. My best guess is that what has happened was an impulsive act, it could be described as a cry for help.’

Our opinion: Others can add their replies

  1. It astounds us that parents going for help have their children removed.  This case enhances our research that happens throughout the UK.  Children are also being removed reporting suspected abuse (this happened to me personally and I was trained to spot abuse to which I did, read my blog)
  2. Adoption is final. Our own research, and common sense, shows that not seeing your child ever again is mutual, inhumane and parents are treated worse than persons that have committed murder.  One person said in the media that adoption is 2nd to the death penalty (citation needed on the author of this comment) Mr John David Corden, social worker.  We are not talking about parents that have actually neglected, abused or harmed their children, we are talking about parents reporting abuse or going for help.  However contra to this social workers are placing children with parents that are a risk, whereas children were returned to parents that abused their children. Social Workers use future risk of, something no one can defend against, but have no concerns of parents that any reasonable person would be considered a risk to their child.  Many parents have attempted suicide or experienced trauma after having children removed, those that have never committed suicide previously.
  3. In my case, and parents across the UK have experienced inaccurate reports written against them.  These are given to psychologists, known in family courts as “expert witnesses”.  We are NOT allowed to prove that reports are inaccurate, should we prove to psychologists that social workers have lied we are deemed having a mental illness or paranoid.  Dr Hibbert was recently summons to the Old Bailey employed by social services at around £40000 a week falsely diagnosing parents to support social services.  Dr Hibbert also removed children from a parent that burnt the pasta.
  4. The government summons a report compiled by Pro Jane Ireland. Pro Ireland criticised expert witnesses employed by social services.  A high percentage of reports were poor and most were not even qualified.  My expert witness criticised me stating as fact it was wrong to report abuse, that he had concerns that I did NOT drink smoke or take drugs, and recommended I be supervised because I reported social services to police and secretly taped him and social workers blatantly covering up child sexual abuse. The question I ask what is worse the person that covers up child abuse or the person who exposes the cover up?                                                          http://www.channel4.com/news/how-competent-are-expert-witnesses
  5. “Noting that she had strong support from a loving family and from social services, he said:” Prior to adoption social services have to legally pass the child to extended family, our research suggests that this NEVER happens, we believe that this is due to foster care makes councils money, received directly from the government.  I believe, and someone please correct me if I am wrong, £2000 per week per child to which £400 goes to the foster carer (tax free).  Why was the extended family notified
  6. Research suggests that Social Services, after removal of the child, gag parents not to speak out, and leave parents with NO support.  Social Services should have supported this parent. “It could be described as a cry for help.”  Where were social services?  They criticised this parent for not accepting the help but did she not go to them for help.  This is the same every time social workers twist reports.
  7. “But he said that he and other colleagues had been impressed by the ‘high quality of interaction’ between mother and child and that she had been ‘dignified and honest’ in her work with social services.”  A per question 6 said she was “ambivalent” with support but impressed by the interaction.  This is a total contradiction of this parent’s ability to parent her child.  Nearly all parents that report abuse or seek help have their children removed.  Social Services said they were impressed by the support so why adopt the child?
Posted in Media stuff of interest | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

‘My mother begged Oxford social services to rescue me from sex abuse NINE YEARS AGO': Victim known as Girl C, 13, says claims were dismissed as ‘inappropriate’ – (Copied from Daily Mail)

‘My mother begged Oxford social services to rescue me from sex abuse NINE YEARS AGO': Victim known as Girl C, 13, says  claims were dismissed as ‘inappropriate’

  • ‘Girl C’ says Oxfordshire County Council gave her ‘no support or help at all’
  • Contradicts council claims they were ‘closely involved’ in supporting her
  • She was one of several victims of child sex gang who abused up to 22 girls
  • Seven men yesterday found guilty of catalogue of child sex offences
  • They have been remanded in custody to await sentencing next month

By Harriet Arkell

PUBLISHED: 11:55, 15 May 2013 | UPDATED: 10:20, 16 May 2013

One of the youngest victims of the Oxford paedophile ring has accused Oxfordshire County Council of lying about the support it has offered to her and her family.

The girl, who was first abused at 13 by the gang, who threatened to cut the head off the baby she had by one of them, says she was repeatedly let down by social services, despite their claiming they were ‘closely involved’ in supporting her.

The accusation comes as seven men were found guilty at the Old Bailey of a catalogue of offences including conspiracy to rape, child prostitution and trafficking over an eight-year period in the university city of Oxford.

Police and social workers have apologised to their victims for failing to rescue the vulnerable schoolgirls who were plucked from the streets and care homes to be drugged, raped and sold into prostitution.

Scroll down for video

The victim said she was let down by social services, despite their director Jim Leivers claiming to have supported herThe girl said she was ignored by social services, despite their director Jim Leivers claiming he’d supported her
Anjum Dogar
Akhtar Dogar

Brothers Anjum Dogar (left) and Akhtar Dogar (right) have been convicted of offences involving underage girls

Zeeshan Ahmed
Kamar Jamil

Zeeshan Ahmed (left) and Kamar Jamil (right) were among those convicted yesterday at the Old Bailey

Two sets of brothers, Akhtar Dogar, 32, and Anjum Dogar, 31, and Mohammed Karrar, 38, and Bassam Karrar, 33, were convicted along with Kamar Jamil, 27, Assad Hussain, 32, and Zeeshan Ahmed, 27.

The woman, known as Girl C to protect her anonymity, said that her adoptive mother begged social services for help in 2004 but agencies failed to help.

Two years later the council agreed to put her in a temporary care home, but by then she had fallen under the control of the gang, who plied her with crack cocaine.  She said that when she tried to talk to staff at the care home, she was told the conversation was ‘inappropriate’.

Abuse was carried out at the Nanford Guest House in Oxford. Pictured is a room at the guest houseAbuse was carried out at the Nanford Guest House in Oxford. Pictured is a room at the guest house

In an interview with The Guardian, Girl C said: ‘The council put out a press release claiming they had offered wraparound care to all the girls and their families, but the first we heard from them in five years was a letter on April 13 from Jim Leivers [director for children, education and families at the council], where he says he’s been ‘closely involved in providing support’ to me.

‘That’s a complete lie. My family have had no support or offers of help at all from Oxfordshire. Nothing. Not at any point. Not even a phone call.’

She said the last contact she had with Oxfordshire County Council was five years ago when her mother begged them to help stop (Girl C) getting into trouble, and said that they ignored her then and ever since.

Girl C told police she was attacked by Bassam Karrar in a guest house in Oxford in November 2006 while he was said to be high on cocaine.

Officers found the girl in the basement ‘extremely distressed, crying and shaking’.

Bassam Karrar
Mohammed Karrar

Brothers Bassam Karrar (left) and Mohammed Karrar (right) were found guilty at the Old Bailey

Assad Hussain was cleared of raping Child A but convicted of having sex with a childAssad Hussain was cleared of raping Child A but convicted of having sex with a child

She told police she had been held against her will, drugged, raped and repeatedly smacked in the face.

The 14-year-old girl was taken to a police station where photographs were taken of her injuries.

But she later dropped her complaint after pleas from another girl who was seeing Karrar at the time.

A spokesman for the council said: ‘We are sorry the abuse was not stopped sooner. One of the elements of the Serious Case Review will be an investigation of the support offered to the girls by agencies including social services.

‘Our offer of a meeting with Girl [C] and her family was very sincere and similar offers to the other girls have been accepted. We want to do everything we can to help all the girls rebuild their lives and our door is open to Girl [C] and her family.’

Yesterday, fighting broke out in the dock at the Old Bailey after two other defendants – Mohammed Hussain, 25, and a man who cannot be named for legal reasons – were cleared. Zeeshan Ahmed struck out at Mohammed Hussain before being bundled out of the dock by officers.

The admissions of failure from the authorities came as it became apparent that police missed several chances to catch gang members before they were finally arrested.

Some victims relived their ordeals during the four-month trial, describing how they were groomed, beaten, betrayed and sold into prostitution around the country.

Joanna Simons, the council’s chief executive, apologised to the girls.

She said: ‘Oxfordshire County Council would like to pay tribute to the bravery of the witnesses that lin giving the evidence that led to the convictions that have been secured in court…

‘We would like to publicly apologise for not stopping this abuse sooner and to reassure everybody that we have learnt a huge number of lessons in terms of how to tackle this type of abuse and that we are now taking decisive action to stop it happening again in Oxfordshire.’

VIDEO: Oxfordshire County Council chief executive apologises (video can be found within the main article, link below

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324790/My-mother-begged-Oxford-social-services-rescue-sex-abuse-NINE-YEARS-AGO-Victim-known-Girl-C-13-says-claims-dismissed-inappropriate.html

Posted in Media stuff of interest | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Age of consent should be lowered to 13 to stop persecution of old men and sex assault victims SHOULDN’T get anonymity, says leading barrister – (Copied from Daily Mail)

Age of consent should be lowered to 13 to stop persecution of old men and sex assault victims SHOULDN’T get anonymity, says leading barrister

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2321473/Age-consent-lowered-13-stop-persecution-old-men-sex-assault-victims-SHOULDNT-anonymity-says-leading-barrister.html

Copied from Daily Mail 8th May 2013

  • Barbara Hewson is a barrister at Hardwicke chambers in London
  • She described Operation Yewtree arrests as a ‘grotesque spectacle’
  • Claimed disgraced Stuart Hall’s crimes were ‘low level misdemeanors’
  • NSPCC said her ‘outdated and simply ill-informed’ views ‘beggars belief’

By Daniel Miller

PUBLISHED: 19:03, 8 May 2013 | UPDATED: 19:29, 8 May 2013

Top barrister Barbara Hewson has claimed the age of consent should be lowered to 13 to protect older men in the wake of the Jimmy Savile sex scandalBarrister Barbara Hewson has claimed the age of consent should be lowered to 13 to protect older men in the wake of the Jimmy Savile sex scandal

The age of consent for sex should be lowered to 13-years-old in a bid to end the ‘persecution of old men’ in the wake of the Savile sex abuse scandal, a top female barrister has argued.

Lawyer Barbara Hewson described the arrests of celebrities such as Rolf Harris, Dave Lee Travis, Jim Davidson and PR guru Max Clifford under Operation Yewtree as a ‘grotesque spectacle’ adding it had ‘nothing to do with justice or the public interest’.

Ms Hewson, a barrister at Hardwicke chambers in London, described the crimes committed by disgraced broadcaster Stuart Hall as ‘low level misdemeanours’ which would not normally be prosecuted.

In an article for online magazine Spiked, Ms Hewson, who specialises in reproductive rights, also calls for the end of anonymity for complainants.

Children’s charity the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) said to hear such ‘outdated and simply ill-informed’ views from a highly-experienced barrister ‘beggars belief’.

Her comments come as Scotland Yard runs Operation Yewtree, an investigation split into three inquiries into allegations involving deceased presenter Jimmy Savile, involving Savile and others and those involving just others.

A number of high-profile figures have been arrested under Yewtree such as entertainer Rolf Harris, former pop star Gary Glitter, DJ Dave Lee Travis, comedian Jim Davidson and PR guru Max Clifford. All deny any wrongdoing.

Ms Hewson argues that ‘the post-Savile witch-hunting of ageing celebs echoes the Soviet Union’ and says that it is not difficult to see why some elderly defendants ‘conclude that resistance is useless’.

She adds: ‘But the low-level misdemeanours with which Stuart Hall was charged are nothing like serious crime.’

Ms Hewson continues: ‘Ordinarily, Hall’s misdemeanours would not be prosecuted, and certainly not decades after the event.

‘What we have here is the manipulation of the British criminal-justice system to produce scapegoats on demand. It is a grotesque spectacle.’

Rolf Harris is among the celebrities to be arrested under Operation Yewtree in the wake of the Jimmy Savile sex inquiry
PR guru Max Clifford is among the celebrities to be arrested under Operation Yewtree in the wake of the Jimmy Savile sex inquiry
Comedian Jim Davidson is among the celebrities to be arrested under Operation Yewtree in the wake of the Jimmy Savile sex inquiry
DJ Dave Lee Travis is among the celebrities to be arrested under Operation Yewtree

‘A grotesque spectacle': Lawyer Barbara Hewson criticised the arrests of celebrities including (clockwise from top left)  Rolf Harris, Max Clifford Dave Lee Travis and Jim Davidson, in the wake of the Jimmy Savile sex inquiry

She continues: ‘It’s time to end this prurient charade, which has nothing to do with justice or the public interest.’

The barrister adds: ‘Instead, we should focus on arming today’s youngsters with the savoir-faire and social skills to avoid drifting into compromising situations, and prosecute modern crime.

‘As for law reform, now regrettably necessary, my recommendations are remove complainant anonymity, introduce a strict statute of limitations for criminal prosecutions and civil actions and reduce the age of consent to 13.’

Ms Hewson argues that ‘touching a 17-year-old’s breast, kissing a 13-year-old, or putting one’s hand up a 16-year-old’s skirt’ are not comparable to cases such as the Ealing Vicarage rape or Fordingbridge gang rape and murders from 1986.

She adds: “Anyone suggesting otherwise has lost touch with reality.’

And Ms Hewson labels charities like the NSPCC and the National Association for People Abused in Childhood (Napac) as “moral crusaders’ who have infiltrated Yewtree.

Peter Watt, director of the NSPCC helpline, said: “These outdated and simply ill-informed views would be shocking to hear from anyone but to hear them from a highly experienced barrister simply beggars belief.

A leading female lawyer claims the age of consent should be lowered to 13 in the wake of the Jimmy Savile sex inquiryCrimes: Scotland Yard’s Operation Yewtree, is split into three inquiries into allegations involving deceased presenter Jimmy Savile, involving Savile and others and those involving just others

‘Stuart Hall has pleaded guilty to abusing children as young as nine years old, we think most people would agree that crimes of this nature are incredibly serious. Thankfully the law, and most people, are very clear on this matter.

‘To minimise and trivialise the impact of these offences for victims in this way is all but denying that they have in fact suffered abuse at all. Any suggestion of lowering the age of consent could put more young people at risk from those who prey on vulnerable young people.

‘And we must strongly defend the right for victims to remain anonymous and to ask for justice no matter when they choose to come forward.

‘Many who are abused are bullied, blackmailed and shamed into staying silent, often well into adulthood. We must always be prepared to act no matter how long ago the abuse occurred.

‘The actions of those who speak out also protect others from abuse and give confidence to other vitimcs to come forward.’

Ms Hewson is regularly ranked as a Leading Junior by The Legal 500 in the fields of public and administrative law, human rights and civil liberties, and professional discipline and regulatory law, according to her chambers’ website.

She has won cases in the European Court of Human Rights, the Supreme Court and High Court of the Republic of Ireland.

Posted in Media stuff of interest | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Children that have died from Social Services failures. (External Blog)

A blog that I found that may be of interest to you

http://ukpaedos-exposed.com/doctor-who-broke-up-families/children-that-have-died-from-social-services-failures/

 

 

Posted in Blogs of Interest | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

‘Uppity’ parents who challenge the authorities ‘risk having children taken away’ (Copied from Telegraph)

‘Uppity’ parents who challenge the authorities ‘risk having children taken away’

“Uppity” parents who challenge doctors or councils over their children’s upbringing are increasingly at risk of having them taken away, it has been claimed.

By John Bingham

4:32PM BST 06 Sep 2009

Local authorities are using proceedings in the family courts as “retaliation” against parents who question doctors’ diagnoses of their children or challenge other decisions, according to an MP.

John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP for Birmingham Yardley, who coordinates a campaign called Justice for Families, which calls for reform of the family court system, said that the practice was becoming common.

“Very often care proceedings are used as retaliation by local authorities against ‘uppity’ people who question the system,” he told a Sunday newspaper.

One family reportedly had all six of their children taken into care after they questioned the need for an invasive medical test on their daughter who was suspected of having a blood disease.

Although the girl later tested negative for the condition, an emergency protection order remained in place.

Note from author of this blog

I can confirm that making complaints against social services will be held against you.  I was deemed a risk to my child for making a complaint after they said that child abuse was ACCEPTABLE and what the child had said was normal and I challenged them knowing it was not normal. (using common sence and a former professional).

My social services “hyjacked” my court case against them and turned the case from private law to public law because they said “making complaints against social services is a high risk to a child”

I was also deemed a risk to my child for contacting my MP, NSPCC, Police, GP and HV

Posted in Media stuff of interest | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment