Intoduction to FAMILIEFORJUSTICE
Child Snatchers
The Goverment Abduction Squad
END OF THE WITCH HUNT
M.S.B.P.- MUNCHAUSEN SYNDROME by PROXY
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
HOW SOME ARE TREATED AFTER BEING ABDUCTED BY THE STATE
Social Services in the Vale
GUIDANCE ON COMBATTING FALSE ACCUSATIONS OF CHILD ABUSE – U.K.
Contact After Adoption-IMPORTANT
How Family Law Should Be- Advice Service
HOW TO GET YOUR CHILDREN BACK
When the Adoption and safe families Act was passed in 1997
HUNDREDS OF SOCIAL WORKERS SHOULD GO TO PRISON FOR LIFE
LEGAL DOCUMENTS FOR PARENTS FIGHTING FOR THEIR CHILDREN
MEDIA ATTENTION
FAMILY LAW
Contact Information for FAMILIESFORJUSTICE
Links for FAMILIESFORJUSTICE
Message Board
Guestbook
Event Calendar
Mail Form
Do you as a parent or as a concerned citizen support this campaign
|
Barry & District News Thursday 13th May 2004
 | CUSTODY BATTLE IS DETAILED On THE WEB
A Barry father has set up a webpage to raise awareness of the problems he has faced trying to gain custody of his son.
The father of six has been fighting for the return of his son, who was taken away as soon as he was born.
David Jenkins, of Laura Street, said: '' I don't think it is fair that my son was taken from me and my ex-girlfriend. I will not give up fighting for him.''
His webpage is called familiesforjustice and can be found via Google search engine.
The 36-year-old said: ''I have had quite a few replies to the site. They are all sympathetic to my cause.''
At the moment, Mr Jenkins is unemployed because of medical problems and has been spending every-minute preparing his custody case. The hearing is at Cardiff County Court and Mr Jenkins will be representing himself.
He says it is affecting his life, but claimed: I have cleaned up my lifestyle. Now i am just trying to get on with my life.
'' I have said that i am prepared to have a supervision order to have him back.'' |
|
PARENTS' BATTLE
South Wales Echo
May 19, 2004, Wednesday
News Extra Edition; NEWS; Pg. 12
PARENTS' BATTLE
A couple who claim they have not seen their daughter for two years hope to
win an important battle today in their fight to get her back.
The parents hope a Court of Appeal judge will grant them leave to appeal
against a decision by social services to take her into care.
The youngster, known only as Child D, was taken from her parents' Bridgend
home as a toddler in October 2000 when experts diagnosed them with
Munchausen's syndrome by proxy, an illness where parents harm their children
in order to get attention.
The couple disputes the diagnoses and appealed against the decision at a
civil hearing in Cardiff in December.
Child D's parents, who are both in their 40s and have been together for 25
years,
claim they have not seen their daughter since January 2002.
'If the judge agrees to grant us leave to appeal I will be the happiest man
in Britain,' said Child D's father.
Child D's mother added: 'My husband is worst affected because they were
inseparable.
'I haven't thought about not seeing her so much - I'm just concentrating on
getting her back home.'
Tony Garthwaite, director of Bridgend Social Services, said it was
inappropriate to comment on the case. |
FIGHT FOR DAUGHTER
FIGHT FOR DAUGHTER
Saturday 22nd May 2004 South Wales Echo
A couple have been denied leave to appeal against a decision which saw their daughter taken into care.
They had travelled to London to put their appeal case to a judge at the Court of Appeal on Wednesday.
The pair, who live in Bridgend and are both in their 40s, said today they are determined to continue their fight to get their daughter back
|
Lose your children for being so poor
Daily Mail Monday 22nd August 2005
After Social workers say parents are ‘not clever enough’ to have a family, a new scandal
Lose your children for being so poor
Social workers faced new accusations of ‘child snatching’ last night over youngsters taken into care because of poverty.
Campaigners and MPs were appalled by official figures giving low family income as the main reason in 110 cases.
The revelations deepened the row over the ‘unjust’ removal of youngsters by social services departments. They have already been accused of unfairly targeting parents deemed ‘not clever enough’.
Tory spokesman Theresa May, who is calling for an inquiry into adoption policies, said the state should help lift a family out of poverty rather than breaking it up.
Despite the large number of cases, there was no official explanation last night. The Education Department could not say in what circumstances a child would be removed because of family poverty and the secrecy surrounding family courts means individuals cases cannot be reported.
Campaigners say that setting performance targets for the number of adoptions councils should achieve has created a ‘market’ in vulnerable children.
Only some 3,000 children are adopted each year and the Government has tried to streamline the process. Tony Blair wanted a 40 per cent increase over a five-year period, ending this year.
Official statistics show that there were 61,000 children in care in the year to March 2004 – an increase of 20 per cent since labour came to power.
Of those, 38,200 were in care because of abuse or neglect, 6,100 because of ‘family dysfunction’, 4,900 because of absent parents and 4,200 because their family was in ‘acute stress’.
Another 3,500 were removed due to parents’ illness or disability, 2,400 because the suffered disability themselves and 1,700 because of ‘socially unacceptable behaviour’. But the main reason in the cases of 110 children was given as ‘low income’. Mrs May said she was concerned that children should be taken into care – even temporarily – because of low income. She said: ‘In the 21st century, no child should be taken from their parents simply because of income.
‘ In a civilised society, with the fourth largest economy, we have a right to expect better than this.
‘At the General Election, the Prime Minister boasted about the numbers of children the Government have taken out of poverty, so why is this still happening?’
The pressure group Families Anti Social Services Inquiry Team, set up to help parents fight removals of children, called the situation a ‘national scandal’.
Its spokesman said; ‘To take people’s children away because they are poor is absolutely shocking.
‘Social workers shouldn’t be equating poverty with abuse and neglect.
‘These are people on very low incomes who may be struggling to clothe or feed their children. That doesn’t mean the children are not loved.
‘Surely the state should be stepping in to help, rather than taking the children away. That should always be the last resort.’
The group insists that, despite Government denials, there are incentives for local authorities to take children into care and have then adopted quickly.
It says several councils have been awarded ‘beacon status’ for increasing the number of adoptions, often attracting extra Government funding in the process
The spokesman said: ‘The Government has created an industry where the commodities are children.
‘Local authorities get financial rewards for meeting targets because it affects their star ratings.
‘They are being praised for cutting the time it takes between children being brought into care and being adopted.
‘Tony Blair has said he wants a 40 per cent increase in adoption numbers. But the terrible effect is that children are being procured for adoption and then rushed through the system.’
FASSIT says vulnerable families have been left with less and less time to fight to get their children back before the process is completed.
Felicity Collier, chief executive of the British Association for Adoption and Fostering , said ‘I don’t know why social workers may have ticked a box giving low income as a reason.
‘There’s absolutely no way that a court will make a decision to take a child compulsory from their family on that basis.
‘It only happens when a child is suffering and will continue suffering significant harm.
‘It may be that a parent has asked for a child to be looked after because they don’t have money.
‘It may be that you have a family that doesn’t have money because they continually gamble it or spend it, and no matter how much extra money you give them to help, it’s not spent on the children.’
She said claims that social workers had incentives to take children into care were ‘rubbish’.
The Education Department said: ‘The decision to remove a child from parents is not made lightly.
It’s nothing to do with targets. It’s about getting children out of a situation that’s not stable and into loving families wherever possible.
Responsibility for taking these difficult decisions rests with the courts.
All involved work on the basis that the welfare of the child is paramount.
Wherever possible, local authorities support parents to care for their children in the family context.’
In her call for an enquiry, Mrs May warned that the prospects for children taken into care were ‘appalling’.
She said: ‘children in care are vastly more likely to take drugs, become pregnant or commit crime.’
‘Over a quarter of people in our prisons and as many as a third of people sleeping rough on our streets, were in care as a child. No-one would accept this for their own children.
‘Surely it is better for us to help the parents of vulnerable children, through support and advice, so that their children are not taken into care in the first place.’
By James Chapman
Political Correspondent
|
Pressure grows to curb state’s child-snatchers
Daily Mail Tuesday 23rd August 2005
Pressure grows to curb state’s child-snatchers
Ministers were under growing pressure last night to scrap the regime of secrecy in family courts blamed for the ‘child snatching’ scandal.
Campaigners stepped up their efforts to win justice for parents who have had their children taken from them after being judged ‘not clever enough’.
As the Daily Mail revealed yesterday, poverty is also often cited as an excuse for taking children into care and putting them up for adoption.
Low family income was given as the reason on 110 occasions according to official figures.
Those campaigning for justice singled out the draconian way rules restricting the way difficult adoption cases are reported as in need of urgent reform.
The scale of the problem was highlighted by the scores of anxious parents and relatives who have contacted the Mail to report often harrowing examples of injustice.
Many are to frightened to give their names but believe they have been unfairly treated by social workers and courts. As the row intensified, it emerged that social workers could be investigated by a Government watchdog for violating the rights of the disabled.
The Disability Rights Commission said there was clear evidence of discrimination against couples with learning difficulties.
The Conservatives demanded a fundamental review of the way adoption cases are handled by the courts.
Current rules impose swingeing restrictions on child custody cases that ban all reporting or public comment on the details of a case or the arguments deployed to decide it.
Critics say this allows abuses to take place unnoticed and effectively gags the victims.
Tory family spokesman Theresa May said the secrecy rule meant scrutiny of decisions was impossible and called for it to be scrapped.
She said n
That the ‘anonymity of the child must be protected at all times’. But she added : ‘It is essential that the secrecy surrounding the family courts is lifted to ensure that the system is operating fairly.’
Experts are warning that Government attempts to speed up the adoption process are distorting decisions about what happens to vulnerable families.
The number of children in care has increased by almost 20 per cent since Labour came to power.
Last week the Daily Mail revealed a distressing case involving a 32-year-old mother who claims her baby girl was taken into care – and eventually sent for adoption abroad – because she was deemed to have a ‘borderline learning difficulty’.
The row follows the case of an Essex couple, whose two children were taken away by social workers and put up for adoption.
The authorities insisted the children now four and 14 months, would be better off adopted after learning that their natural mother had an IQ of 60.
Earlier this month the High Court backed the social workers who said there was a risk of emotional harm being done to the children.
But Patrick Edwards of the Disability Rights Commission, the watchdog set up to stop discrimination against the disabled, pointed to research suggesting that as many as one in four children subject to care orders had one or more parent with a learning difficulty.
We would be very keen to look at whether there is a serious injustice taking place,’ he said.
An Educational Department spokesman said all involved in the decision to remove a child from his or her parents ‘work on the basis that the welfare of the child is paramount’.
On adoption he said reducing delays ‘is a good thing for all children who, once in temporary care. Are in need of a secure and permanent care’.
By Benedict Brogen and
James Chapman
|
Tories want inquiry into ‘child snatching’
Daily Mail Wednesday 25th August 2005
Tories want inquiry into ‘child snatching’
Tory MPs last night demanded a Commons inquiry into the adoption system.
The call came from the three Conservatives on the powerful education committee in the wake of the allegations that children are being unfairly removed from loving families.
Rob Wilson and his two party colleagues spoke out after the Daily Mail highlighted claims that social workers have taken away children of parents deemed ‘not clever enough’ to raise them.
There is also concern over figures suggesting low family income has been cited as a reason for dozens of children being in care.
Mr Wilson said: ‘This is definitely something the committee should look at. I think there should always be a presumption in favour of parents keeping their children. The state should always be trying to support them as much as possible, except in extreme circumstances.
‘Most children want to stay with their parents. Of course there are cases where that won’t be possible. But I am concerned to hear about children being taken away from parents with low income or low educational achievement.
‘I’m not convinced that the right standards are always being applied.’
Nadine Dorries added: ‘When you bring targets into the area of adoption, it has to become distorted.’
David Evennett said: ‘I am naturally concerned by the cases that have been highlighted. It’s something we should be monitoring.
Police are already investigating complaints from a number of couples whose children have been taken from them.
Experts are warning that Government attempts to speed up the adoption process – with social services departments urged to see it as a ‘positive, responsibility choice’- are distorting decisions about what happens to vulnerable families.
The number of children in care has increased by almost 20 per cent since Labour came to power.
The campaign group Families Anti Social Services Inquiry Team, set up to help parents fight removals of children, claims a Government target of increasing the number of adoptions by 40 per cent has led to children being rushed through the system.
In one case revealed by the Mail, a 32-year-old mother claimed that because she was deemed to have a ‘borderline learning difficulty’ her baby girl was taken into care then sent for adoption abroad.
Last year, the two children of an Essex couple were taken away by social workers and put up for adoption. Authorities insisted they would be better off after learning their natural mother had an IQ of 60.
Earlier this month, the High Court backed the social workers who said there was a risk of emotional harm to the children.
Last night, Felicity Collier , chief executive of the British Association for Adoption and Fostering, insisted social workers faced an ‘incredibly difficult balancing act’.
‘Having your children taken away when you have done nothing wrong is every parent’s nightmare, ‘she added.
‘but accusing social workers of tearing children away from loving families to meet performance targets for adoption is both dangerous and wrong.
‘Vulnerable children are often only able to stay with their families because of the crucial care and support of social workers.
‘There is absolutely no financial incentive for local authorities to remove children from their families – it is nonsensical to suggest that there is.
‘These accusations will fuel mistrust in the system and could lead fewer parents in need of help to come forward. Tragically, it is children who will suffer the consequences.’
By James Chapman
Political Correspondent
j.chapman@dailymail.co.uk |
LESSONS MUST BE LEARNED
LESSONS MUST BE LEARNED
Tragic, doomed life of unknown Vale baby girl
Child protection services in the Vale have been criticised in a serious case review – prompted by the tragic death of a three-week-old baby girl.
The baby died, despite the involvement of a large number of agencies, after she was sent back to a hostel in the care of the parents-despite the fact that the mother had taken an overdose when eight months pregnant.
For two weeks, the family was heavily supervised, but visits were scaled back by the third week. At the end of the third week the child was dead.
Her parents admitted using both drugs and alcohol the night before the baby died. Some injuries were found that gave ‘’ cause for concern’’ but, although a number of post mortems were undertaken, no one has been charged. The couple had another child 16 months later. This baby, a healthy baby boy, is in the care of the Vale Council.
Everyone in the case is cloaked in anonymity. The mother, who was 17 at the time of the birth and death of the baby girl, cannot be named for legal reasons. The 27-year-old father enjoys the same legal protection, and is un-named.
If the baby girl ever had a name in her brief life, that is also hidden behind a legal cloak.
The serious case review make recommendations and says that there are a number of lessons to be learned. The report points out that the mother’s family was well-known to social services, saying that she herself was on the child protection register until 2001.
At the age of 15, she developed emotional and mental health problems. She became involved with an older man-the father of her children.
She was referred to a child psychiatrist because of problems with drug use, low self-esteem, eating disorders and depression. She also had to attend accident and emergency after her partner assaulted her, possibly in the early stages of pregnancy.
The most serious incident came just before the baby was born, when the mother took an overdose. In the year March 2003 to March 2004, 72 ‘’contacts’’ were made between staff and the family.
Her GP called, as did Mental Health Services, the Midwifery Services, the Police, District General Hospital staff, Vale Council children’s services, housing. Sure Start, a hospital social worker, the ambulance service and health visitors.
The report says that the concentration appears to have been on the mother’s personal problems. Authorities are urged to ‘’listen to the voice of the child’’-and the mother was, at under 18, a child.
However, the report points out that the ‘other child’ was the baby, and she ‘’could not verbally express her wishes and feelings.
It adds, tellingly ‘’ there was a lack of empathy about the impact of the risk factors on a vulnerable baby’’.
A woman who worked for years with young children who were in the care of Women’s Aid read the report and said ‘’I found it really quite chilling’’.
‘’All these agencies seemed to be ticking boxes and going through the motions, but no one stood up said the obvious-that this was not a safe family home for a baby’’.
She added; ‘’Reading the comments in the report, it is heart-breaking that nobody stood up and made a fuss on behalf of that baby girl.’’
The Barry Gem, Thursday, September 28th 2006. |
This page has been visited  times. |
