Monday, December 26, 2011

Three-year-old becomes youngest trial witness - Crime - UK - The Independent

Three-year-old becomes youngest trial witness - Crime - UK - The Independent

A three-year-old boy was given a packet of crisps by a judge after making legal history by becoming what is believed to be the youngest child to give evidence in a British court case.

The toddler, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was led gently through a series of questions about an alleged attack during the informal hearing. Answering via video link from an adjoining room at Bradford Crown Court, the boy told Judge Jonathan Rose that he liked Transformers and that his favourite flavour of crisps was salt and vinegar.

The court heard that the boy from Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, then aged two, suffered life-threatening injuries and had to undergo surgery on his bowel after Daniel Joyce, 29, allegedly stamped on his stomach.

The judge and both barristers removed their wigs and gowns in accordance with Ministry of Justice guidelines on questioning young witnesses.

Michelle Colborne, for the defence, handed the boy cardboard cut-outs representing people and locations involved in the case as she reconstructed events.

The child was accompanied by a court usher and a female intermediary and was allowed to draw during the short cross-examination. He had been warned that he had to tell the truth before giving his evidence.

At one point the judge asked him: "If Michelle asks you just three questions should we stop for a bag of salt and vinegar crisps?" He replied: "Yeah." The boy was also questioned by Caroline Wigin, for the prosecution. She asked: "How did Danny hurt your tummy?"

"He stamped on me," the boy replied. "Did he touch you anywhere else apart from your tummy?" asked Ms Wigin. "Yeah," said the boy.

"Where was that?" she asked. "He put his hand on my mouth," said the child who is also alleged to have suffered injuries to the face and ear. "Do you know which room you were in?" asked Ms Wigin. "Yeah ... in my bedroom," said the boy. The prosecutor said the boy had appeared "his normal chatty self" according to a witness the night before the alleged attack. Mr Joyce raised the alarm the following day when the boy appeared pale and floppy.

A few weeks later the boy was asked what had happened and he said "Danny" had stamped on his stomach, it was claimed. Mr Joyce denies GBH with intent and an alternative allegation of causing grievous bodily harm. The trial continues.


Monday, October 10, 2011

Is it unethical to publish adoption photos on the web? - 9/30/2011 - Community Care

Is it unethical to publish adoption photos on the web? - 9/30/2011 - Community Care
Claudia Megele
Friday 30 September 2011 13:03

Is it unethical to publish the photos of children waiting for adoption on the internet? Claudia Megele argues it is

Publishing the photos of children waiting for adoption is often used to help adoptive parents imagine a child as "their child". There is evidence they rejoice in seeing the picture of their adoptive child in the same manner that birth parents celebrate the ultrasound image of their child.

But I would argue that a visual parade of such photos on the internet, particularly for those children under the age of consent, is in fact inappropriate and unethical.

There is no ethically valid reason why prospective adoptive parents should have an immediate visual image of the child, except to guide their selection based on children's appearances, similar to "catalogue shopping" for a "picture perfect family".

When parents see children's photos for the first time they establish an emotional link with the image, which can condition subsequent judgements and often perpetuate the differential treatment of groups in our society such as the trend in favour of adopting white children.

An aggravating factor is that once these photos are posted on the internet, they are automatically disseminated through various search engines, accumulator websites, mirroring or replication systems, and so on. This makes it virtually impossible to fully remove them from the public domain, hence affecting their privacy.

Some children may not wish to reveal that they are/were adopted. It should be their choice whether or not to reveal that information, but how can they when their photographs and stories are openly and identifiably posted online?

There is an argument that if we post photos of missing children on the internet to help find them then why not do the same to help adoptive children find a family. The issue here is context. Birthdays, graduations, and even searches for missing children reflect and emphasise a sense of belonging and being cared for and "wanted". But research indicates that adoptive children's photos are associated with a sense of, "rupture", "not-belonging", "rejection and relinquishment".

There is no doubt we must do everything possible to find adoptive children a caring and deserving home. However, instead of using children's photos as a lure, would it not be better to provide a textual description of the children and their backgrounds? Only after an expression of interest by adoptive parents, and the possibility of matching the child with them, would photos be confidentially shared.

There are adoption agencies such as After Adoption who use adoptive children's photos with sensitivity and in an unidentifiable manner. I would like to see all adoption websites and operators adopt such standards.

Claudia Megele is a psychotherapist, trainer and associate lecturer in applied social work practice at the Open University

'Ends justify means'

By Nick Dunster, regional director of BAAF, Central England

Who can fail to be troubled by images of children needing a family? Even reading a paper copy of Be My Parent can be a harrowing experience as we wonder how, in a modern democracy, so many children need somewhere to belong? Yet that is the reality we are faced with.

We know that most children need families in order to flourish. And we also know that, at heart, many of us are visual beings: photographs and images speak to us in a way that words often don't. We can fight against this aspect of human nature on ethical grounds, but only at the expense of reducing the chances of children finding families.

Children do not have to be passive in this process. Approached sensitively, the process of developing a visual profile can bolster a child's sense of competence and effectiveness in their adoption journey.

Use of the internet for family finding is not to be undertaken lightly. But this is a classic case of the end - the child's sense of belonging in a loving family - justifying the means.



Monday, October 03, 2011

Return of 1960s Adoption Levels on Horizon for Single Parents |

Inquiry told a lack of support for single parents could see a return to 1960s adoption levels | The Australian

Inquiry told a lack of support for single parents could see a return to 1960s adoption levels



SINGLE mothers have warned of a return to 1960s adoption levels due to a lack of taxpayer-funded support for single parents.

In a submission to a Senate inquiry into former forced adoption policies, the Council of Single Mothers and their Children said it feared a return to the historic adoption level peak due to an “ongoing erosion of the level of payments to single mothers”.

The council said insufficient federal government support for single mothers was a “direct contributor” to past forced adoption practices of health, church and charity organisations.

The Victorian-based group said new rules denying welfare payments to teenage mums who failed to return to the workforce within six months of giving birth would ultimately result in women being pressured to give up their babies.

It said the commonwealth had a responsibility to ensure mothers had sufficient financial support to raise their children.

“CSMC is extremely concerned that the ongoing erosion of the level of payments to single mothers may lead women to a point where they are unable to financially support their children,” the organisation's executive officer Jane Stanley said.

“Our founding members who remember all too well the times of forced adoption and lack of choice in particular are seriously concerned about provisions announced in the 2011-12 federal budget.”

The CSMC said the government should immediately review income support payments for sole parents, including a full indexation of all Newstart, Austudy and other financial assistance.

The Greens-led inquiry into forced adoption practices has been inundated with submissions detailing the trauma experienced by those who were compelled to relinquish their children for adoption.

Chair of the inquiry, Greens Senator Rachel Siewert, said she had never been part of an investigation so “emotionally charged”.

“For some witnesses this is the first time they have given evidence of what they experienced in public,” Senator Siewert said.

“A lot of it is absolutely harrowing evidence.”

The inquiry is probing the commonwealth's role, if any, in the forced adoption practices of the 1960s and 1970s, in which tens of thousands of women who fell pregnant outside marriage had their babies taken from them by church and charity organisations.

The committee is due to release its report on November 21.


Sunday, October 02, 2011

MP Hemming Comments on Kitten Theft Case

BBC News - Kitten theft case: 'I am no role model' says MP Hemming

Kitten theft case: 'I am no role model' says MP Hemming

John Hemming and Emily Cox Mr Hemming and Ms Cox have known each other for 13 years and have a four-year-old daughter together

Related Stories

A Birmingham MP whose wife burgled the home of his mistress and took her kitten claims his private life has no impact on his role as an MP.

John Hemming's wife Christine was convicted of burgling Emily Cox's home days after he had moved out.

During a three-day-trial, a court heard how Mr Hemming, his former personal assistant Ms Cox and his wife had been involved in a "love triangle".

The Liberal Democrat said his love life was irrelevant to his public role.

Christine Hemming was filmed on CCTV on 29 September, 2010 entering Ms Cox's home uninvited and leaving a few minutes later with a kitten.

'Serve their constituents'

Hemming told Birmingham Crown Court she had gone round to the house, which her husband had bought for his lover, in order to deliver his post.

Christine Hemming can be seen crawling on her hands and knees by the house

She said she had "no recollection of taking" the kitten and had even tried to return it. The cat, named Beauty, is still missing.

Speaking after the trial which ended on Friday, Birmingham Yardley MP Mr Hemming said: "I really don't think [people] should be voting for members of Parliament on their abilities to be role models of rectitude.

"You elect people to serve their constituents."

Mr Hemming, of Moseley, Birmingham, denied reports he had 26 mistresses while he was married.

He said: "I've always told people that's not actually true and yet that keeps on being reported."

Under oath, his wife told the court their relationship had deteriorated after Mr Hemming had made her aware of his 26 other liaisons, including the relationship with Ms Cox.

'Unbreakable contract'

Mr Hemming met Christine at a conference in Bridlington and they married in 1981.

He now has a four-year-old daughter with Ms Cox.

Beauty on John Hemming's blog Christine Hemming said she tried to return the cat which is still missing

The MP told the BBC that marriage was like a covenant or "unbreakable contract" but if something went wrong with that "agreement" the couple involved had the right to deal with it privately.

He also said that he had deliberately chosen not to disclose information about his private life in recent years, despite entering himself into a News of The World Competition for Love Rat of the Year in 2005.

He said: "Freedom of speech is the right to tell the truth, not the same as the right to know - it doesn't give them the right to know minute details about people's lives," he said.

He also said discussing his home life was not a requirement of public office.

"You have to live with a certain amount of attention on what you do but that doesn't mean you have to tell everyone everything," he added.

Ms Cox said she had no feelings of guilt about her affair with Mr Hemming.

She said: "I'll never ever regret my daughter but I do understand it must have been stressful for Christine."

She said the MP's wife had not seemed to object to the affair at the time and had been "perfectly aware of the situation".

Related Stories


More on This Story

Related Stories


The BBC is not responsible for the content of external Internet sites

BBC Birmingham & Black Country


Tuesday, September 20, 2011

18 more children's centres to trial early intervention payment by results - The Children's Services Blog

18 more children's centres to trial early intervention payment by results - The Children's Services Blog

Effect of early trauma on parenting skills - 9/19/2011 - Community Care

Effect of early trauma on parenting skills - 9/19/2011 - Community Care

Early-life traumatic experiences can affect a parent's ability to cope if proper closure is not reached. Gordon Carson explores this often overlooked issue

A deep-seated loss or trauma suffered by a parent or child that is unresolved can have specific implications - and present particular challenges - for social workers and the families they support.

David Shemmings, a specialist in attachment theories and professor of social work at the University of Kent, says parenting problems, such as neglect and child abuse, can occur when losses or trauma experienced by parents have not been resolved.

"'Unresolved' here has a very precise meaning," says Shemmings, who is also director of the Assessment of Disorganised Attachment and Maltreatment (Adam) project in London. "For example, it doesn't mean that the person cries at the thought of their loss. The term indicates post-traumatic stress disorder and/or dissociation."

Jim Walker, an independent social worker and psychotherapist, says in a Community Care Inform guide to unresolved loss and trauma that a traumatic childhood in itself "is not predictive of maltreatment of children. What is predictive is if the adult has not been able to come to terms with their traumatic experiences".

The guide says a common reaction to unresolved trauma is parental dissociation, with parents "likely to neglect the emotional needs of their children and/or have difficulty in assessing risk in their partners".

Walker adds: "There is also a strong correlation between unresolved loss and trauma and disorganised attachment in children. 'Unresolved' parents tend to have children whose behaviour is disorganised."

Social workers need to be in a position to judge if they suspect unresolved loss or trauma is a factor in parenting problems?

One way of identifying whether a person is harbouring an unresolved loss or trauma is the adult attachment interview, in which open-ended questions are asked about childhood relationships and experiences.

Meanwhile, Shemmings' Adam project has developed a Maltreatment Pathway Model which identifies three key predicators of maltreatment from parental behaviour, one of which is unresolved loss and trauma.

Unresolved loss

This model formed part of a training course he delivered to Croydon Council social workers in south London this year.

The course also highlighted the relevance of unresolved loss to the wider children's services sector, particularly those working with young people who may have experienced severely traumatic events in their home countries before travelling to the UK.

Katherine MacLeod, a social worker in Croydon's unaccompanied minors team, attended the course. MacLeod, who has just completed her first 18 months of practice after joining Croydon when she qualified, says the Adam training has "given me the tools to identify unresolved loss".

She says the issue of unresolved loss and trauma might be explored as part of core assessments of unaccompanied young people.

Shemmings says that talking with an "empathetic, non-judgemental listener goes an awful long way to helping" people showing signs of unresolved loss or trauma if they aren't also mentally ill.

"Certainly the evidence from event-based tragedies, such as Hillsborough, the Zeebrugge ferry disaster and the Bradford football stadium fire, is that survivors needed to talk and that helps enormously," he says. "But they need to be given the time to do it, and often they need to go over the same ground again and again. The worker can't rush this process."

Shemmings says it can be more difficult to help people if the loss or trauma occurred when they were very young, and if the trauma is "relationally based", such as child abuse or rape, rather than based on an event such as a car accident.

"The most important thing to emphasise is that practitioners need training in this field of work," he adds, "as people experiencing unresolved loss can start to 'relive' aspects of the trauma in the room with the worker.

"It is sights, sounds and smells that (unconsciously) remind a person of the trauma, but they are usually unaware of the connection.

"This is why, if there has been early loss and trauma which is unresolved, the presence of a baby or toddler can 'activate' the original loss, because the infant's vulnerability reminds the adult of their own."

Walker, in an interview for this article, says social workers "must be prepared to explore in depth any unresolved loss or trauma".

"It takes some courage to do it. You have to ask questions in detail and try to find ways to help people to talk. People can be frightened and anxious about talking about it.

"They might not volunteer information and it may only emerge over time if they feel social workers are trustworthy and resilient enough to take it on board."

Sample questions, says Walker, could be to ask parents to recall three happy and three sad memories from their childhood, or the most frightening thing that happened to them as a child.

"If you keep coming back to questions like that, people may give up more and more information," he adds. "But if you just ask them blandly once, you are not going to get the whole picture. You have to be prepared to keep plugging away. You also have to be sensitive and not just go barging in."

To illustrate his point, Walker cites a child protection assessment he was carrying out, and it was only at the end of the final session with a parent that she revealed she had been abused by her grandfather.

There will be cases, however, that require more in-depth expertise in dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder, and psychotherapy could be appropriate.

Behavioural therapy

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) also recommends trauma-focused cognitive behavioural therapy or eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing as possible treatments.

Walker believes that, though understanding trauma and loss has been given greater priority in the past 20-30 years, particularly in relation to neuroscience and the functioning of the brain, there is still more that could be done to map its impact on child protection.

"I would think that in the majority of child protection cases where I'm assessing parents, there's a significant element of unresolved loss and trauma," he says. "The area of addictions and trauma is important too; for a lot of people who abuse substances it's about self-medication against emotional distress. My guess is that unresolved loss and trauma would be a major factor in the addictions field too."

How loss and trauma can be resolved

In a new book on understanding disorganised attachment, David and Yvonne Shemmings, a continuing professional development specialist, say resolving trauma, without help from a trained counsellor or therapist, depends on four factors:

The severity of the event and circumstances surrounding it.

Whether a close, intimate person to the victim is involved in the trauma as a "persecutor".

The person's circumstances, especially their close relationships at the time.

The level of security within the person's attachment history.

"The second two factors act as buffers against the first two," they write. "If we have a relatively secure childhood and the 'state' of our current relationships and circumstances feel solid and supportive, then we are likely to survive emotionally almost any loss or trauma."

Understanding Disorganized Attachment: Theory and Practice for Working with Children and Adults, David Shemmings and Yvonne Shemmings, 2011, Jessica Kingsley Publishers,

More information

Jim Walker

Professor David Shemmings

Assessment of Disorganised Attachment and Maltreatment (ADAM) project

Guidelines on post traumatic stress disorder

What do you think? Join the debate on CareSpace

Keep up to date with the latest developments in social care Sign up to our daily and weekly emails

Related articles

Indicators of disorganised attachment in children

Interviewing children: good practice in Sweden

Inform subscribers

Guide to unresolved trauma in parents and its implications in terms of child protection

Author: Jim Walker, psychotherapist and independent social worker BIOG

Publication Date: 08 January 2008

Published in Community Care magazine 22 September 2011 under heading 'Traumatic consequences'


Saturday, September 17, 2011

INVASION OF THE BABY SNATCHERS | Sovereign Independent

INVASION OF THE BABY SNATCHERS | Sovereign Independent

Chris Spivey, Sovereign Independent contributor -

Not so many years ago in cases where children were taken from their parents by the social services the general consensus amongst the public was that there had to be a good reason. Not so any more. Many parents in the UK are now so afraid of the social services that they think twice about taking their children to casualty should the need arise. It’s certainly not unfair to say that the fear, mistrust and suspicion afforded to the social services by some, is akin to that afforded to Adolf Hitler’s S.S.

Quite appropriate then that both share the same initials. Then again, the Nazi SS was extremely well organised and efficient. The same cannot be said for Britain’s SS.

We are led to believe that the SS are here to protect our children from cruelty and neglect. Any decision made by the SS is supposed to be in the best interest of the child. That would be commendable were it true? For what we are seeing now is an organised program of child stealing in order to meet the adoption targets set up under the Blair Government. There are huge financial incentives offered by the Government to ensure their targets are met. Under performing leads to job losses and reduced budgets. It is therefore not an option. This is why Social Workers seek out easy targets. Invariably these tend to be Young single mothers lacking in family support, poorly educated mothers on benefit and children with injuries, which are often no more than minor bruises etc.

Rarely are these children snatched from middle class families leading to the more affluent members of society having the view that there’s no smoke without fire. This inevitably leads to the SS being defended, even justified in being over cautious when cases such as Baby P explode in the media. However in cases such as Baby P and Victoria Climbie, the lack of intervention from social workers is to blame. This lack of intervention stems from the social workers often being intimidated and subject to abuse by the parents of the children they are investigating. Quite often the social worker is even denied entry into the home to check on the child’s well being. Social workers, despite what people are led to believe, have very little authority. Because of this, cases such as Baby P are neglected in favour of easier targets. It is this lack of knowledge on what social workers can and cannot do that leads to a lot of parents losing their children. Aware of the public’s ignorance, a social worker will resort to bullying, duping and scaring parents into signing over their children.

The 1989 Children’s Act meant a veil of secrecy was thrown around court proceedings involving children. These are another reason so few people from the middle classes and upwards know what is really going on. This secrecy and wall of silence imposed around child welfare was supposed to have been put in place to protect the child. However, far from doing so it has allowed the SS to act in a corrupt and totally unprofessional manner. The child’s welfare and wishes are secondary to performance targets. Reporting restrictions on court proceedings mean children are removed from loving and perfectly capable parents on the flimsiest of evidence. The SS can get away with this safe in the knowledge there will be no public outcry. Neither do parents have any recourse because just discussing their case with anyone other than their legal advisers can result in a prison sentence.

More often than not, it will be a parent’s legal team’s incompetence that will lead to them losing their child/children. Invariably the vast majority of child order cases see the parents being represented by legal aid solicitors. Far be it for me to suggest that the outcome of a case is decided before hand or that the SS and Law Society are acting in complicity. However Parliamentary figures show that child care orders average around 8000 a year. Of these only between 0.1 and 0.2 percent are refused.

Ian Joseph, a Monaco based businessman was so alarmed about what goes on in our law courts that he set up a website specifically to help parents who have had their children snatched by the state. The first thing he tells parents who are receiving legal aid is that if they want their children back they have to get rid of their solicitor and represent themselves.

Another outspoken critic and long time opponent of the way family court proceedings are conducted is John Hemming MP. However unless you live in his Birmingham Yardley constituency he can only offer advice to those who don’t. Both Ian Joseph and John Hemming are genuine, good men. Unfortunately, such is the scale of the problem both are limited on what they can do. John Hemming, knowing the likely outcome of court proceedings will often tell parents to be who are in danger of having their unborn child snatched, to flee the UK for either Southern Ireland or Sweden. The fact many couples follow his advice only add credence to their innocence. But does this major, life changing step mean you get to keep your unborn child?

I know of one such couple who John Hemming helped relocate to County Wexford in Southern Ireland. They cannot be identified by their real names so i will call them Steve and Emma. This is their story….

Emma, now aged 30 was living alone with her daughter (Child A) in Kent when she Met Steve now aged 37. The couple were both delighted when Emma found out she was pregnant with Steve’s baby (Child B).However Emma was ill throughout the pregnancy with Pre-Eclampsia and with Steve out at work, the couple had no choice except to get a babysitter to look after Child A. It was at this time that Child A was found to have a vaginal injury. To their horror, Steve was accused by the SS of being responsible, despite there being no evidence to support this claim. Child A, a month short of being 2 years old was then forcibly taken into care. Worse was to follow when Emma gave birth to Child B on Christmas eve. Barely 5 hours after giving birth, Child B was taken from Emma and handed over to foster parents. Despite no charges being brought against Steve for the injury to Child A, the couple were unable to stop the children being adopted out. When Emma fell pregnant with Child C, she was immediately told by the SS that the baby would be taken into care once Emma had given birth. In desperation the couple contacted John Hemming, who advised them to go to the Republic of Ireland. He told them that even if the Irish SS got involved, the couple would at least receive a much fairer hearing. Arriving in County Wexford on the 1st of June 2009, Emma gave birth just 3 days later. With no Medical records available, The Hospital had no choice but to contact England. In doing so the hospital was made aware of Emma’s previous history. With limited information to hand Irish social services had no choice except to take Child C into care pending reports. On contacting the English SS the Irish SS were told that under no circumstances should Child C be returned to the couple. This despite there being no evidence or criminal proceedings to suggest either Steve or Emma was a danger to the Baby. Thus began the long drawn out legal procedure of preparing reports for a court hearing. Despite this the couple were allowed to see Child C twice weekly at a contact house. During this period, everything seemed to be engineered towards gearing up for Child C being returned to Steve and Emma’s custody. Things were looking so good in fact that the couple were not worried when Emma fell pregnant again. However concerned at the speed things were moving, the couples Solicitor tried to speed proceedings up by asking for a review of the evidence regarding the injury to Child A. This review brought to light the facts that Child A had only been subject to one injury(inconsistent with parental abuse) and neither had she been ‘Groomed’ as had been previously suggested by English social workers. More importantly, the review revealed that the babysitter Emma had used, although a registered child minder who had been working with disabled children, was under investigation for abuse. Emma was also becoming increasingly concerned about the level of care offered to Child C by her Foster carer. Emma voiced these concerns to social workers, which included the complaints that Child C often had head lice, sore looking rashes and the fact that Child C called her Foster carer Mummy. As far as Emma is aware these concerns were never addressed.

When Emma gave birth to her 4th child (Child D) the couple were devastated to learn he was to be removed from their care. However the couple were able to secure a temporary court injunction forbidding social workers from snatching Child D. During the 6 days the injunction was in place Emma says she was made to feel like a criminal. She was kept apart from the other new mothers and supervised while she breast fed and changed the baby’s nappy. When the injunction was lifted, Child D was placed in foster care with his sister. Steve and Emma now get to see him twice weekly along with Child C. They had been categorically told that the SS plan was for reunification. However at a court hearing in April of this year, the couple were horrified to learn that despite what they were told about reunification, the SS intend to keep both children in permanent foster care. Not only does this course of action contradict what they were told by social workers, no one had bothered to discuss it with them and neither has it been discussed with them since. Steve and Emma are now left in limbo. Despite the agony of having their 4 children taken off of them they have stayed together as a couple, whereas most relationships would have collapsed under the strain years ago. Childs A and B were removed on the flimsiest of evidence and quickly adopted out effectively making it impossible to get them back. The fact that they gave up their home, family and friends in order to flee to Ireland, for the sole reason of keeping their unborn baby apparently counts for nothing. The couple were only too well aware that should their Irish children be returned to them, they would be forever under the scrutiny of the social services. That fact alone would be enough to ensure that Steve and Emma were nothing short of perfect parents. Unfortunately, without the financial backing, it’s hard now to see where the couple go from here.

So, is there anything that couples in a similar position to Steve and Emma can do? To answer that you have to understand that Steve and Emma put their faith in the British legal system. When that let them down they followed the well intention advice of John Hemming. They then put their faith in the Republic of Ireland’s legal system and that too has let them down. Therefore, in theory the answer is no. In reality however there is but you have to take command of the situation from the start. You cannot afford to show any weakness in your resolve. To do so will result in you being bullied into submission. Firstly, never trust a social worker. I’m not saying they are all bad, but by far the vast majority are. Do not be fooled by their friendly approach this is quite often a trick. Remember they have no authority to do anything without a court order. Film and/or record everything. They will tell you you’re not allowed to but you are allowed to film who and what the hell you like in your own home. Be polite but not friendly. Offer no other information than what they ask for. If they try to get you to sign consent forms to take your child tell them to do one until they have a court order. Check that you are dealing with a fully qualified Social worker who is registered with your social service department. You can tell them to leave at any time. If they do feel they have a strong case against you then the chances are they will return with a court order. This being the case there is nothing you can do to prevent your child being taken. However as the statistics have shown, you’re wasting your time employing a solicitor. You must represent yourself in court. No one will fight harder or argue more passionately for the return of your child than you will.

If your child is unborn and you’ve been told your baby will be removed from you at birth, there is little you can do at that time to prevent it. However you will soon be told that you have to register your baby for a birth certificate. Flatly refuse. No one except the parents can register a baby’s birth. If they could, the SS would do it rather than subject an already heartbroken parent to more mental torture. Refuse to Do this because there is emerging evidence to show that an unregistered child cannot be snatched by the state. No doubts you will be threatened with all kinds of things including prison but stand your ground. No charges will be brought against you if you do not consent. It does pay however to be clued up on the workings of Admiralty law before you adopt this course of action. Without a birth certificate the SS have no choice but to return your baby. The most conclusive evidence to support this followed a request submitted to Torbay Council under the freedom of information act. The request was in the form of a question asking that, if a child is not registered at birth, do they have the authority to remove the child. Torbay Councils answer? No they don’t. However, you should be aware that having no birth certificate could present problems for your child later on in life. Never the less, these problems which are mostly financial can be overcome and are secondary to keeping a loving family together.


De-Licious

Popular Posts

Bringing Home Baby... RSS Recent Posts

Shared Items via Google Reader

I am Multiplying