‘Mums on the Run’ – Where do they go? How safe are they?

For some time now I have been talking about and worried about the network of people who help parents leave the country if they are facing care proceedings. I am not convinced they are motivated by wanting to help people. I think they are more interested in showing they can get one over the ‘system’.

I have written about this before, particularly about how worried I am about John Hemming and Ian Josephs – who has given money to Marie Black, a convicted paedophile. I discussed their activities in more detail here:  ‘Helping Parents Leave the Jurisdiction’.

John Hemming set up ‘Justice For Families’ [JFF]  an organisation that;

campaigns to improve the operation of the family courts (including the court of protection) in order to treat families with respect.

John Hemming has often advised people to leave the country as they won’t get a fair hearing here – see Panorama ‘I Want My Baby Back’ in January 2014. There was a post on his blog in July 2015 about ‘mums on the run’ but that blog post no longer exists. The URL reads ‘Gena-and-kerry-mums-on-run-in-france’ [URL is an acronym for Uniform Resource Locator and is a reference (an address) to a resource on the Internet.] There is a reference to it on the ‘Brummie.net’ site which confirms the name ‘Gena’. 

So I am going to assume that John Hemming knew about someone called Gena in 2015. I am also going to assume that John Hemming has been promoting Gena as a safe ‘host family’ in France for the ‘mums on the run’ as  I have seen Facebook messages from John Hemming to a parent saying:

‘Why not go to Gena’s?’ …’The advantage with Gena is she knows the system where she lives.’

EDIT – the link between John Hemming and Gena is beyond doubt. Also, he knew that she had reported her partner as aggressive. See this article from the Sunday Times in December 2015. 

Out of the frying pan and into the fire

I have recently been given some very disturbing information in copies of texts, emails and Facebook messages from three different parents who have had first hand experience of being ‘mums on the run’. All went to a house in France occupied by ‘Gena’ and her partner.  All were given the details by John Hemming and/or Ian Josephs.

The mothers speak of horrible conditions in the house. Of being physically and verbally abused and having money either taken from them or not given to them so they could not buy even nappies for their children. One mother had to call the French police; the French authorities are now apparently investigating Gena.

I am told that one of the mothers told John Hemming and Ian Josephs about what was going on.   I have seen a message to one parent from Tim Haines [one of the JFF Advisors] saying that JFF held a meeting and said they would no longer refer parents to Gena. I don’t know when the date of that meeting was or what actual discussions were had. It would be interesting to know.

Even more disturbing information came to light in September 2016. That Gena’s partner, who lives in the house with her, was found in court proceedings in the UK to pose a sexual risk to children. 3 children between the ages of 7-14 have made allegations that he sexually abused them.

Questions that need to be answered.

I am seriously worried about this.  I have challenged Ian Josephs many times about what information he got about the parents he helped to leave the country and whether or not he followed up their cases once they had left. He carries out no risk assessment and no follow up. He has already given money to one mother who went on to be convicted of really serious crimes of sexual abuse against children.

But now it seems the problem is even bigger and even more dangerous – not only do John Hemming and Ian Josephs have little interest in the backgrounds of the parents they help leave the country, these vulnerable mothers are being encouraged to go somewhere which is not safe. Not for them or their children.

I have for a long time now accused John Hemming of not caring much for the parents or children he claims to ‘help’. I have said that he is more interested in promoting his own agenda. If I am wrong about that, no doubt John Hemming could assist me understand his actions/motivations better, by answering the questions I set out below.

I hope that someone does not have to get seriously hurt or abused before people start taking this seriously.

  • When did JFF/John Hemming/Ian Josephs start sending parents to Gena’s house?
  • How much money has JFF/John Hemming/Ian Josephs paid to Gena?
  • If they have paid her money, what was that money for?
  • Is the source of that money donations from the public or is it privately funded by either/or John Hemming/Ian Josephs?
  • What checks/risk assessment did JFF/John Hemming/Ian Josephs/ carry out on Gena and those living in her house before advising other parents to go there?
  • When did they know that conditions at Gena’s home were not acceptable?
  • When did they know that mothers were complaining about physical and verbal abuse and having their money taken/not given?
  • When did they know that Gena was living with a man who poses a clear sexual risk to children?
  • Do JFF/John Hemming/Ian Josephs refer ‘mums on the run’ to any other people abroad? If so, what checks/risk assessment have they done regarding these other people?

If you are a parent who is thinking about leaving the country rather than face care proceedings PLEASE be careful. PLEASE be wary of people offering to ‘help’ you – they may not actually have your best interests at heart at all. PLEASE get some good advice from someone you trust.

There are some links here to organisations/people who may be able to help you.

 

EDIT – some screenshots to support information given above.

Further, link to video from BBC programme in Feb 2015 where Gena states she was hospitalised by her violent partner.

 

Mums on Run Screen shot 1

 

Mums on the Run screen shot 2

EDIT BBC programme 26th September 2016 – further interview with Gena. She takes 8 families a year. And she isn’t going to stop.

 

150 thoughts on “‘Mums on the Run’ – Where do they go? How safe are they?

  1. El Coyote

    Thank you for this, Sarah. I share your concerns about Mr Hemming, Mr Josephs, and the “Association of McKenzie Friends” with whom they’re associated. It’s very clear that all of these people have an agenda born of their belief that the ‘powers that be’ are engaged in a dire conspiracy to arbitrarily remove children from their parents.

    My own observation of Sabine McNeill and Belinda McKenzie (head of the Association of McKenzie Friends) is that they have some very odd beliefs indeed, involving the authorities engaging in “child-snatching” in order to sell children to the highest bidder for the purposes of sexual exploitation and satanic ritual abuse. I wish I were joking.

    The fact that these people are directing families toward very real abusive situations is hugely concerning. Thanks for writing about it.

    Reply
    1. Tim Haines

      There is much I could choose to respond to in the above, but for the sake of brevity, I will stick to one small point. The PRIVATE message which I wrote to a parent (ISLA REID) did not say that JFF “would no longer refer parents to Gena”, but actually said that JFF would CONTINUE NOT TO SEND ANYONE to Gena… because JFF has never “sent anyone to Gena” in the first place.

      Interesting that Phillimore states that she has seen the message herself, yet misquotes it. Disappointing for someone in a profession where verbal precision is of such crucial importance.

      The only other comment I intend to make is that the rest of this article is stuffed with inaccuracies and half-truths, and a barrister ought to be ashamed of themselves for concocting such a stack of bollocks – unless, of course, they are so used to doing that for a living that they didn’t even notice!”

      Reply
      1. Sarah Phillimore

        That’s good news Tim. Always happy to be corrected if I have got things wrong.
        Are you able, on behalf of JFF to answer the other questions?

        Reply
        1. Sarah Phillimore

          Ps Tim – I haven’t seen your message so I am repeating what I was told. I have seen John Hemming’s message and I repeat that word for word. I will post the screenshots later tonight – travelling at the moment sadly.

          Reply
          1. Tim Haines

            You clearly state, “I have seen a message to one parent from Tim Haines” (and, yes, I have taken a screenshot, just in case you should decide to edit it). So you told us that you had seen the message when you had, in fact, not, and agree that you have reported it inaccurately?

          2. Sarah Phillimore Post author

            I apologise if I have reported inaccurately. I was told via email that you had had a meeting. I have now seen the screenshot. I had not at the time of writing. So if I said I did, that was inaccurate. From the screen shot, it is clear that you did have a meeting. Will you now disclose the minutes of that meeting?

            I had, at the time of writing, seen the messages from JH and I quoted that word for word.

          3. BL

            So an experience Barrister don’t check the facts before hand? “As i Been told”
            so if I said to you that a social worker mosteted me will you believe me?

          4. Sarah Phillimore Post author

            No. I am not an investigative journalist or private investigator. I have been shown certain documents. I have been given certain information. I am publishing about it because I think this is potentially really serious and children are at risk.

    2. Satin

      The “association of McKenzie Friends” has nothing to do with John Hemmings although at the beginning he offered his help. After the case of SRA John distance himself from Sabine, Belinda, Yolande and the rest

      Reply
      1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

        rubbish I am afraid. He was patron of that Association until Jan 2015; he has full knowledge of their activities.

        Reply
  2. Anothervictimofsocialcarefailures

    Hi, I do not know Ian Joseph or have had dealings with Mr J Hemming ~ but I have with Social Workers and the care system, being in care as a child and my own daughter being removed for 3 months but I fought back against the lies and got her returned home to my full time care. And I am still fighting my corner, her corner and watching the backs of many more lied about like me in the UK.

    The lies Social services employ to remove children, the abuse these children then endure in care (like I did and my child) also the false promises of help, that hide the social workers true agenda and the passive aggressive system of the key agencies with the fail statements to tell vulnerable parents to ‘trust the system’ ~ though I agree maybe ‘Gena’ is not the best choice of ‘help ‘ and I agree, this needs addressing ~ but when you know before you even get the chance to change, engage or work with the Social Care/Workers, that their agenda is the bonus and the figures in house and the brownie points on their award chart, or kicking back like me at parents that dare complain and say take your lies elsewhere ~ the families are going to run in order to do what the system accuses us of not doing, alot of the time falsely ~ protecting our child/ren.

    So this article addresses the ones helping as not being the best ~ but it does not address the issues why the families are running and that maybe, just maybe ~ if you deal with the source of the families concern and fear – ie and tricks that are being used against them, the victim blaming of those involved in domestic violence and the many, many other scenarios of why we ‘trust’ or try as we do to work with the public servants employed to look and help with our children, then these families might not need to consider running.

    We would, all love and I am speaking from experience ~ to be able to trust social care, but when a price is on our childs head as soon as they enter our lives, or get allocated our file ~ its not going to happen is it?? Deal with the core problem, not the families reactions, to the failed social care system and key agencies involved. The cost of removing my child and others, is alot higher financially on the Authorities, damages the children’s emotional health and stability to the core,and ruins societies trust element in those that are ’employed to care’ then the system at the front ‘the frontline support workers or Child Protection Officers’ needs dealing with and training to assist families and to tell the truth and assist where possible to achieve the best for the child, then themselves or their employing authority ~ I was told within 5 days, that as a parent I no longer had any rights as my child was on Child Protection by a Child Protection Manager in Manchester last October ~ now, would not that make you run!!

    As regards finally ‘out of the frying pan into the fire’ put out the fire ~ not put petrol on it Social Care and then look after the injuries of all involved ~ of course the children, but families will keep coming back to the system ~ if the wounds that were caused by life or the initial fire were not healed correctly ~ or their own children, will enter the system as adults one way or another ~ break the cycle of abuse by Authority too to set the system back on track and remove the bonus scheme for social workers and I bet not as many children will be falsely removed into care. And as regards those adopting our kids because they can not have their own with money ~ sorry but tough ~ we do not go nicking legs and arms from others that have lost theirs do we and hand them over for £££ !!

    Far fetched you may think ~ but get your head into the real world and see what is happening behind the scenes behind the closed doors of private meetings and not just accept the lying reports written by some that just want more money this month or another brownie point ~ Ian and John might not be the best around, I do not know, but at least they care, where Social care do not.

    Reply
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      I agree with you that serious questions need to be asked about why people feel compelled to run. I am sorry to hear you had such a bad experience. I know very well that you are not alone in that.

      I am angry with Hemming/Josephs et al because they have for many years distracted people from such important and necessary questions with their foolish and dangerous actions, which put mothers and children at serious risk of harm.

      In my view, they do not care about the welfare of children. They just wish to put two fingers up at the system.

      Reply
    2. Steven

      I agree well said. We have had to flee the uk too.
      We have spoken to iann josephs and have stayed at genas and everything mentioned is truth.

      We have finall come to our safe journeys end now. Bit we will help anyone to change thier minds if considering going to loire atlantique. Stay away from that sick family. They are bad news.

      Reply
    3. HelenSparkles

      i am sorry your experience was so difficult. It doesn’t sound like things were explained in a way you needed to be (child protection plans do not take away your rights as a parent) and not understanding things would alarm any of us in such circumstances.

      Just one not though, social workers don’t get bonuses, or even brownie points. Rather we just get criticised by everyone, including our senior managers.

      Reply
  3. Sarah

    Thanks. It looks as if at least one of the parents is prepared to go on record and talk about this. And hopefully there will be action from French authorities.

    The real worry now is the children left in his household. This woman has been vey sympathetically portrayed by a number of media outlets, despite sticking by a partner who put her in hospital.

    I can only hope we don’t have another Ben Butler case in the making.

    I would be very grateful for anything you can do to spread the word – I suspect there is huge cross over between the people who worry me and the Hampstead Hoaxers.

    Reply
    1. Gena

      Funny how you can write an article about some one you have never met or spoken to ! Funny how you can accept 1 video as evidence when you can clearly see the mother Beth was already filming before Samantha the other mother come into my home to provoke me for the 3rd time that week! French authorities will sit and listen to your stories ! As they do with uk social services but won’t take it any further as I’ve been working with French authorities for over 8 years now they can let them selves into my home along with the police any time they want! Your all a bunch of hypocrites! You all say uk social services have exaggerated the truth completely fabricated situations but when your all reading my personal court documents that I didn’t give anyone permission to share or see you take uk social services word as gospel ! I suggest you all get a grip ! And all I ever asked of parents is contribute the bare minimum towards bills and food I never asked them for rent or monies for my self and even when they didn’t contribute towards bills I never once made anyone homeless they chose to leave of their own free will knowing they were taking the piss and that my family couldn’t take the financial burden of them! Many of the parents who came to mind could not cope with the culture shock the isolation as there’s no shop or towns for miles and many have issues i.e. Drug drink and mental health ! I’m far from perfect but what me and my partner are is correct and certainly don’t need to lie or hide any thing! Now I wouldn’t be surprised as uk social services are short of atleast 10 forced adoptions at the moment if they havnt paid some of these parents to destroy the networks that support families. Don’t spread rumors about my self or my family unless you have factual evidence rather than he said she said by parents who expect every thing handed to them on a plate because they are so use to moddy cuddle Britain !

      Reply
    2. Against-Forced-Adoption

      You are aware Isla Reid herself has been sectioned under the mental health act in the uk and is in France as she would loose her other child? She also couldn’t tell the truth if she fell over it which I myself can prove! You’re hardly writing facts if you’re relying on her!

      Reply
      1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

        It is not simply Ms Reid who has given me the information upon which I rely. Having mental health difficulties does not automatically make someone a liar, and it is offensive to suggest that.

        Reply
        1. Against-Forced-Adoption

          I can show hundreds of lies from Isla Reid so you misread what I stated or changed it? Like her dad being a biker and a hard man when he’s a humble electrician from Lobdon! You also rely on Stella Macloud, do you not do your research into the people you rely on?

          Reply
          1. Against-Forced-Adoption

            My names is irrelevant, what is relevant is you listening to someone who abandoned one child and blamed the world for loosing them, neglected three others by leaving them with an underage babysitter and no provisions while going to racist demos and now fled yet again to avoid the child being appropriately cared for, (something you claim to be against) you’re also listening to someone who was sectioned under the mental health act several times and deemed to not be able to tell the truth or capable to have a child in their care by the uk authorities, that’s why they’re in France, they class Gena’s as ‘that bad’ they begged two weeks ago to be allowed back and run to you when told no!
            knowing Gena personally I know that her partner may have been deemed as a risk but then in reality is a loving father getting on with appropriate parenting.
            I think you also need to make I your mind which side of the fence you sit Sarah? You say that you’re all for keeping kids safe and against fleeing but then listening to those who are deemed unfit, perhaps you could explain how that works?

          2. Sarah Phillimore Post author

            Your name is not irrelevant. These women have given me information AND their names. You offer serious criticism of them but not your name. What have you got to hide?

            Perhaps you can explain this to me. If these women are as dangerous and as unfit mothers as you assert, why is it that JFF helped them leave the country and gave them Gena’s details? Why would JFF help dangerous, unfit mother escape the attentions of the UK authorities? Why would JFF leave vulnerable children at the mercy of dangerous, unfit mothers?

            In what dimension is a man who poses a sexual risk to children and who put his partner in hospital a ‘loving father getting on with appropriate parenting’?

            I know exactly where I sit. With truth. With keeping children safe. If I am wrong about any of this, no doubt I will find out. If Gena is not investigated by the authorities in France. If JFF provide proof of what they discussed about her.

            I doubt very, very much that a lot of people involved in this give any kind of a damn about the children.

          3. Against-Forced-Adoption

            Firstly JFF didn’t send these women there, they’ve known of Gena for years through the ‘anti’ social services groups so to say this is a highly liable comment, there’s your first fact. The second fact is Isla turned up there in a wheelchair claiming to have cancer and unable to walk while pregnant putting a great deal of weight on the family to look after her until her lies were discovered. The third fact is Antonia Macloud’s story is well out there, she herself saw to that. The fourth fact is they were all friends until Gena made it clear she wasn’t about to be used and not allow to sit round and not pull their weight, they spit their dummies out and come to you! It seems in your desperation to attack JFF and Gena you stand with the very people you say you’re against, people who have been proven to neglect children, be mentally ill and incapable of caring for them!
            Are the courts always right? I know from my own case it goes on opinions of parents not what is right and sod the dangers they may put children in! How can I say that? Quite easily I have proof that happened. As for my name would you like me to email you? I’m more than happy to do so?

          4. Sarah Phillimore Post author

            No, its fine. I can see your name on the email. Just curious as to why you hide behind anonymity and yet make very serious allegations about other people. Doesn’t seem exactly fair.

            So you are quite clear that these parents ‘spitting their dummies’ are very bad neglectful parents. Why then was John Hemming helping them at all?

          5. Against-Forced-Adoption

            Simply put, in my opinion Hemmings doesn’t use his brain and picks up the wrong cases to highlight.

  4. TC

    I have a ‘dog in this fight’. I was one of the original creators of Ectopia in 2013. We had a plan, a methodology and a purpose. I had to go out of the country for 3 weeks. When I returned, I was summarily dismissed by one Darren Chesters.

    I have had at least 3 families come to me and report Mr Chesters and his partner Alison Johnson as ‘extortionists’ of the highest grade. Indeed; while they were kept in a ‘barn’ in Ireland; if they did not hand over money as demanded, they had a constant threat of being reported to the ‘authorities.’

    Mr Rothery and I started the Ectopia project with all the best will and beliefs in the world; to help and save young mothers from losing their children, help them rebuild their lives and show they were capable of protecting their children and putting them first. We were not only a non profit group but completely self financing. (I have had my home searched on multiple occasions when the police have looked for ‘mums and kids on the run.’)

    In the space of 3 weeks, I was thrown out of Ectopia and replaced by Darren Chesters (who thinks the ‘Free Man of the Land’ is a great argument to use; erm, NO!) and Tim Haines and John Hemming. As my personal opinion and experience of Mr Hemming is exceedingly negative, needless to say, I returned from a business trip to find slander and malicious allegations about me all over the internet.

    Meanwhile, Mr Rothery had asked me to make ‘connections’ with the Association of McKenzie Friends’. I basically found them to be liars, fanatics and those are the nice things I can say about them. I don’t just think Sabine and Belinda are not all there but believe them to be truly dangerous people.

    My Husband and I attended a meeting (organised by Mr Hemming) where Ian Josephs gave a ‘speech’. My husband wanted to know who the ‘rambling out of touch nut job’ was.

    I am in this ‘game’ for the right reasons. In 9 years I have only ‘turned away’ 5 cases; I think that is a pretty good record. For example, I met a lovely woman yesterday. On the surface you would think badly of her; if she could pierce it or tattoo it, she did it. Yet after 10 minutes I got to know this highly intelligent, deep thinking, deep feeling, articulate person. (She is the long term partner of my client) This is why I say never judge a book by it’s cover,,….but I digress.

    I have had arguments with Tim Haines many times. One of my clients stopped using me as he ‘poached’ the case and then charged her over £5K. (He convinced her that someone who charges must be better that someone who won’t even allow someone to buy them a cup of coffee; I finance my work myself.)

    I am not in competition with anyone but myself.

    __________________

    Has the ‘Gena’ video disappeared? I think I have a copy of it if required.

    I am not ashamed that if you go on YouTube and search for the ‘Appauling Vista’ Brian Rothery; I am the woman in the last 10 minutes being talked about. YES it is me.

    Regards
    TC

    Reply
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      Thank you for your comment TC. I think some very serious questions need to be answered by Hemming and his organisation.

      Reply
    2. Tim Haines

      This is entirely untrue. I am aware of Darren Chesters, but have never met him and in total have exchanged no more than half a dozen sentences with him in total on Facebook.

      I do not know what “Ectopia” is, and, whatever it is, I have never had any involvement with it.

      I, nor my associates, have never charged £5000 (asked/received/had… any similar word will do) from any client, nor anything like it!

      I am not surprised that any client would prefer the service we offer to that of an anonymous liar. Some people are poor value even when they come free!

      They state that they are in competition with themselves… make that ‘conflict’ I think.

      Reply
  5. john smith

    I personally wouldn’t take seriously anything from Isla Reid….this is a person who told hundreds of people that she had terminal cancer….she even created a Facebook group (now removed) called “cancer supporting one another”. Isla has NEVER suffered from cancer.

    she also claims to have a medical degree…quite an astonishing achievement someone of her age.

    one would have to ask that if she lies about things as serious as this then how can you believe anything she has told you.

    Reply
    1. TC

      Good question Amber; I have asked the same and been told it is not my business. I can evidence all I say about Tim and Julie Haines. (apparently some people charge to cover their mortgage; I don’t have this issue.)

      As I charge nothing with quite a good record, they have called me all sorts of names.

      I can not prove anything but someone started some rumours about me on the internet in 2013. (That three weeks I was away) I can confirm that I am not a falling down drunk who hides vodka bottles in the dishwasher, my morning coffee doesn’t have Bailey’s in it, my husband of 16 years is not a paedophile, none of my children have ever suffered sexual/physical or emotional abuse. Indeed my older two children both have Masters Degrees and youngest in a gifted and talented programme. I know we sound like the worst people ever! Oh, and I don’t have a mental health or drug issue. I was diagnosed in 2006 with PTSD but sought EMDR and CBT off my own back; I didn’t ask for anyone to assist me but myself.

      To Another victim of …. My heart goes out to you and your story will haunt me.
      Kindest Regards
      TC

      Reply
    2. Satin

      AMBER, I have screenshots from your Facebook account [EDIT REDACTED I am not going to publish this. This post is not about Amber Hartman. My blog is not the place for you to have your battles with Amber Hartman.
      But I will say this. You make really serious allegations against her. Yet you say she was a member of JFF. What on earth is John Hemming doing, allowing people to be members of JFF if they have behaved in the way you allege Amber Hartman behaves? I know you say he removed her BUT he clearly didn’t do much due diligence before allowing her to join – IF what you say is true.
      Either way you cut it, the behaviour of John Hemming is indefensible. He preys upon vulnerable women. What is his motivation?]

      Reply
      1. Satin

        Then you have to ask AMBER her self who proudly displays photos with John Hemmings and her child in London. I cannot answer any questions about motives intentions or actions.
        I agree that John Hemmings should not have to employ, (or welcome in his JFF team) any Tom Dick and Harry, So this is for JH to answer.,

        Reply
  6. Gena

    It’s not that they have or havnt agreed to send families to my home. John hemmings have put families in my direction for advice. I only take families into my home if it’s the last resort and if they are desperate but majority lie and say they have the deposit money ready to get their own place and say they only plan to stay at mine a week or so as a stop gap but in fact majority lie they don’t have the deposit for a place of their own and they don’t have a regular income or money they can rely on and they hope I will just let them stay but if I was to do that my children would starve and go with out I only work 30 hours a week max my children come first. The parents behave like I owe them some thing ?! And even though I tell them they can’t get benefits here they still come and still expect the benefits as I said they are state reliant all the other parents I have helped that are not state relivent and work are not the ones complaining and I hate to say this but it’s a poverty issue and by the way the other lady that contacted you had her children removed because they were in squalid conditions left with very young baby sitters for weeks on end she is also an alcoholic and she’s been in a dv relationship for 4 years including dv infront of her children which is not what happened in my case the domestic incident was a one off and because it was provoked to happen by the sw manager because of lies and falsifying documents which can all be proven

    Reply
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      How many families has John Hemming ‘put in your direction’ for ‘advice’.
      What ‘advice’ are you giving?
      What information does John Hemming give you about the parents before they come to your home?
      How much money has John Hemming given you and what have you spent it on?
      Is it true that John Hemming gave you money to buy a caravan to house parents at your property?
      Is it true that your current partner is a sexual risk to children and a risk of violence to you?
      What did John Hemming know about your partner’s background?
      What have you told the French authorities about your partner’s background?

      Reply
      1. BL

        Why all these questions? Why can you deal with the evidence that deriving from the brutal legal system forcing parents to flee Britain due to the unlawful behaviour of Judges Social workers, and Barristers all of whom have one thng in common . MONEY GREED AND DEFRAUDING THE TAXPAYER , using children as a commodity,

        Reply
        1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

          Because vulnerable children are being put at risk. Because I am hearing very disturbing rumours about the full extent to which vulnerable women are being exploited. Because sending children and families off to dangerous houses is hardly a very useful response to a court system that you say isn’t working.

          Reply
          1. BL

            Please Be careful defame people you do not know . You comment about “Dangerous houses” but yet you need evidence to back up your claim that the houses (such as Genas) are dangerous. France has a very strict system about child abuse . If the houses you mention as dangerous reported to the french authorities they will take immediate action. But I am aware that Gena under a french Law (much better UK law) has frequent visits by the department of family and child unit.
            SO you either Prove that Genas House (or anyone who host running away mothers) is dangerous, or please have the dignity to withdraw your comment in regards to “dangerous”.
            You said in your comment above “I am learning”
            So what you hear are rumors, not facts that you can substantiate.

            And the reason of all this disturbing stories is that because the court system doesn’t work people do desperate things.

            How about the social services offering assistance to the alcoholic or drug abusing mother by letting her keep her baby, on a supervision order rather than lying through their teeth so the can remove the child and sell them to adoption?
            The Italian Mother Alessandra was brutally cut open whilst she was chained to her bed so the SS can steal her baby.
            WHAT WAS HER CRIME?
            She has illness which was not that serious because she was working as a fly attendant with RYANAIR.

          2. Sarah Phillimore Post author

            Your inaccurate distortions about Alessandra Pacchieri I am afraid cause me considerable doubt about the cogency of any other contribution you make.

          3. helensparkles

            The group of people advocating fleeing have a very loud voice, not least because an ex MP is in their corner, along with the Daily Telegraph. When you have a public profile like this you have a professional responsibility, that is reform of the family justice system, not helping people who haven’t been risk assessed flee to stay with other people who haven’t been risk assessed.

  7. Gena

    John hemming helped pay towards a caravan that is in my garden that some parents stay but often they moan that they want to stay in my home and get to sleep in a real bed. He’s put about 4 or families I think for advice and it’s advice about the laws in France i.e. Social services rights how to look for a place to rent every day living stuff. As I said before me nor my partner have been convicted of any thing ! Relating to hurting any child what so ever ! So I’m sorry yet again Sarah I have to repeat my self in that you are really sounding very much like a social worker. Try reading all my court documents that have been given to you and yet again I will repeat my self me and my partner have worked with the French for 8 years now them along with the police have access to me my house any time they like that’s more due to the families that came through here we have always been extremely open and honest with them and worked with them all the way our children are not at risk they are thriving in our care and if you had actually had even one conversation with my self or met me you would know this.

    Reply
  8. Gena

    You said above Sarah ” you have been hearing very disturbing rumors ” but they are just that rumors ! Not fact you know nothing of me my family or my home except from some pissed off people that realized that they couldn’t keep using me me a profiting of my kindness. I have happily complied with your little hate campaign but in fact you are no one of importance and I have not been obliged to answer your questions you are nothing to me or my family or to those that chose to come to mine you are just a busy body. So rather than snooping into other people’s live go concentrate on your job and your family where your skills are best at use

    Reply
      1. BL

        Noticed how Ms Sarah avoids the full subject? closing my post for a “non reply” commenting ONLY about Alessandra case although above this i wrote more factual evidence.
        I doubt if you are good cross examiner.

        Reply
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      I am well aware of the background of Stella as I have been instructed by her to advise on her proceedings.
      I am unsure however why her background makes her more or less likely to be lying about what she says she has seen and heard.

      Reply
      1. BL

        Pseydologia nervosa Malingering, Munchhausen syndrome, fantasist, split personality disorder all these cause the sufferer to lie.

        Reply
        1. helensparkles

          They may be range of conditions that cause someone to lie, but are they conditions you are able to diagnose in this person, or have any evidence to support they have experienced them?

          Reply
          1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

            Having a mental illness does not automatically mean you are a liar. In any event, you are caught on your own hook here. If the parents complaining to me are mentally ill fantasists – then this must have been known to John Hemming so WHY DID HE HELP THEM. Why did he help them leave the country and put their children at risk?

  9. BL

    Dear Ms Sarah,
    This is not the first negative blog I read from you.
    There is another blog you have written in 2015 (Helping parents leave the jurisdiction).
    In this blog on the comments section You are confronted by Ian Joseph.
    when Ian Joseph present you with FACTS (contrary to your fictional evidence) your reply in 3 of your comments was “The judge was wrong!!!)

    So if a family law Judge siting in a case of adoption, states that the state has no right to “abduct” (or remove) a child without strong evidence Your opinion differs, Your opinion is that Social workers have the right to act in the abusive way as they do and stealing (YES STEALING) the new born just because in their opinion IN THE FUTURE this mother may (Or may not) abuse emotionally her Child!!!!!!!!!

    Lets move on and lets deal with this article of yours (the one that I reply right now).

    Let me mention few names that has been mentioned already.
    STELLA. a young Lady of around 29 years of age that she gave birth to 6 children.
    In the case of her 5th child which was born in Ireland she wrote in Her Facebook wall (and she told to her fiends) that she was not emotionally attached to her child.
    At the same time STELLA was acting as a Mackenzie friend and been a member of an extremist organization EDL
    In one of her hearings in London the Judge told her that she breed children to antagonize the system!!
    Obviously Stella luck of maternal instincts and she was pursuing a career of MF “just for fun”

    Stella met AMBER in 2014 because Stella was acting as MF for Amber.

    Stella was a close friend with Gena, and only last year Stella through her Facebook pages she was asking for donations (baby stuff) so she can travel to France and give it to Gena for a distribution to the run away mothers.

    [REDACTED AT REQUEST OF AMBER HARTMAN WHO DOES NOT ACCEPT ALLEGATIONS. I will publish about things I have some kind of proof are true. I have got no proof to support what is said about Ms Hartman]

    Ms Isla Reed was pretending to be a qualified child advocate. She was charging £300 . This action lead to one mother loosing her son because the SS discovered that Ms Read was a conartist and NOT a child advocate.

    Isla Reed has lied so many times.
    You ms Sarah state that having mental issues does not necessarily mean that he person is lying. You are wrong.
    “Pseydologia nervosa” a term of incurable liar.
    Munchhausen syndrome by proxy where illnes are faked (and the mother will say that the child has serious illnes)
    malingering (faking illness)
    All the above are been displayed in public by isla reed her self.
    so my question to you is;
    Are these people named above your trusted sources?

    We all agreed that among innocent parents there are abusive parents to.
    But guess what?
    Family Law Barristers when they represent a dangerous parent in a family court often get them of the hook!!!
    This happens only in a private law NOT public law.

    When we come to public Law where the social services are a party (or the main party) to the proceedings all barristers (or QC) gather together in secret and agree that whatever the truth is the child must go for adoption.

    So you are wasting your valuable time to savage the reputation of Mr Hemmings, Mr Joseph, and few others on the basis that “someone told you” without talking direct to Gena, or other hosts in France, and without even visiting the place your self so to decide for your self.

    I am suspicious that the reason for discrediting these people who are trying to help the parents to keep their new born, is that you been paid by The system to unlawfully harass and defame volunteers that are trying to help desperate mothers to keep their child something that no law should be able to stop a mother having to care after her child.

    2 out of 30 accused parents maybe unfit to be parents.
    But where are the evidence? why secret courts?
    Why psychiatrists are paid £20000 by Local authorities to write false reports? (when a similar report costs £900!!!).
    Future emotional harm!!!
    So I may be right to say that Ms sarah She is a future murderer? (of course not)

    Reply
  10. Debbie

    My reply to all this, and I do not know what is true and what isn’t. But the fact that people are constantrating on the title of “mums on the run” is not the real issue here, its UK social services that’s the real issue here. If mums need to flee, than their is a real more urgent problem here, those mothers obviously want to keep their babies, why isn’t the system “up for keeping families together” think time and discussions,should be better served to deal with this issue, not saying this and that parent “apparently did this or that. Or this place is unsafe , surely parents should know where is safe, before they go, its called research. I do not agree with trying to destroy the children’ of other parent’s, trying to prove oh that an unsafe house, cause of tho and that. And the end of the day ,surely protecting your own child /unborn child is more of an urgent issue.

    Reply
  11. Sarah Phillimore

    I agree this is a a potential distraction from the real and serious issues about how to make the child protection system effective, and less cruel. That is why I get so angry with people such as Hemming and Josephs.

    Not only are they distracting from sensible debate it seems they are also sending vulnerable women to somewhere that just isn’t safe.

    This is an important and worrying issue and I think it should be discussed. Even though I agree there are other problems and issues elsewhere that also need discussing.

    Reply
  12. Debbie

    Exactly Sarah. At the end of the day these mothers are scared they will loose their much wanted babies.what choice do they have, but to leave the uk , its evil and heartbreaking that the system here DOES NOT support keeping families together, instead the way uk courts work currently is to BELIEVE everything social services say, even this is an outright lie, fabricated , twisted, or when the parent may just need a little support or help to get out of a situation. How very evil is it to force adopt a child , that is loved and wanted. Of course when a child has been physically or sexual abused or starved then yes this I when maybe the child should be adopted. But when you have parents going through every legal option to get their child back, which can take a very long time, surly that shows a parent willing to go through hell and earth to get their chip back, normally when a patent has seriously abused their child, they would either be convicted of chip abuse and simply wouldn’t want to fight for the Childs return. Its the most evil thing on earth to take a loved and wanted child away from birth family. A cruel act of evilness

    Reply
  13. Angelo Granda

    Thank you for your human,passionate comment,Debbie. However,I feel you may receive criticism for your use of the word ‘evil’ from some readers of this resource.
    Not from this one!

    In my view, throughout history,inhumanity (and,yes,evil) occurs because of false ideology and dogma on the part of the perpetrators.
    In other words, the perpetrators are not necessarily evil in themselves,they actually believe they are doing good.
    This happens in all walks of life and is apparent in the CP system as well as in situations of warfare and so on right now in the Middle East. Evil is inhumanity which inculcates(or is instilled) into certain sections of society.
    No human being is born evil, all are prone to it in one form or another.The worst kind os that which gets into some Public Authorities,of course,which inevitably pass it on to some Public servants.
    Actually,I was not going to comment on this post until you brought a little bit of sanity to the other comments,Debbie.
    Now i have, might i suggest that if any of the commentators or parents have complaints about JFF, they address them in a more orderly manner through the JFF complaints procedure.
    I am sure they will receive a full detailed response(in due course) after a full and impartial enquiry and wrongdoers will be made accountable.Likewise,the association of MK friends probably have a complaints procedure.
    Furthermore anyone seeking evidence or documentation should make a request in accordance with the Public rights to see information (whatever it is called).
    You won’t get anywhere going on U-tube,twittwitter of facebook.
    To Sarah,thanks for the post.Naturally you are concerned about the advice being given by JFF and Ian and the others . However, the overriding factor is that the Public have lost trust in the Judicial system, as readers have discussed many times.
    That is what i am sure most of us(apart from lawyers themselves) agree on. That is why folk become refugees and flee the country.They go into defence(run) mode. Whether they are innocent or guilty is immaterial.They want Justice.
    We aren’t getting justice. Throughout history LA’s all over the world have abused the. Social system for gain. This is a fact.Way back in mediaeval times, refugees fled from the abusers in Notts to the forest if legend can be believed. The judicial system was created to defend the PUBLIC from the authorities not to endorse abuses.
    Please can lawyers work on the reasons for the loss of Public trust and bring in measures to restore it.Reform the Family Court system or ban it complerely from hearing Public law cases.Improve standards and bring in an automatic right to permission to appeal.
    Public trust is paramount here.Whether you think the system is generally fair is irrelevant.The Public say it isn’t and when ordinary,common folk are fleeing their own country,something must be done.
    Hope this is constructive and i hope TC, Gena,Mr.Baines and all the other commenters on this thread do not stop commenting and return to twittwitter.Support the CPR.The rules are up on the home page.
    Once again,thank you,Debbie.I’m sure she will welcome all comments on her fine contribution.

    Reply
  14. ian josephs

    I got sent this rant by Sarah Philimore by a “well wisher” .
    “I am seriously worried about this. I have challenged Ian Josephs many times about what information he got about the parents he helped to leave the country and whether or not he followed up their cases once they had left. He carries out no risk assessment and no follow up. He has already given money to one mother who went on to be convicted of really serious crimes of sexual abuse against children.”

    I will give the same answers as usual to help Sarah’s memory lapses !
    I only finance pregnant women who want to give birth outside the UK ;I tell them “do not go unless you have a Partner,family,or friends who can support you for at least 6 months after you get there;No laws are broken and all mothers are entitled to give birth in Ireland or France if they wish, not only to save their babies from confiscation but also because they may think facilities are better.To get my help, they have to prove to me that social workers are threatening to take their babies at birth so what more info do I need ? Why distrust the social workers in Ireland and France who are always called in on such situations ?
    I also ask for the position statement of the L.A or failing that the allegations made against the mother to be. Even if all the allegations I have seen were true they rarely justify removing the baby at birth especially for “risk” of something that may never happen (the most popular reason given by social workers) After these mums have fled UK they still phone me for advice whenever they need it.
    How do I know those I advise are not wicked criminals ? Well Dr Shipman,and Myra Hindley were defended by barristers who were not criticised for doing so. I can only advise parents based on what they tell me and I cross examine them by phone to get the truth so as to best help them.If they do deceive me the advice I give will not suit their case and may even hurt it. After I explain that to them I reckon most are very truthful.
    And the criminal mothe?? The appeal judges in UK ordered social workers to return that mother’s baby to France as they had removed it illegally.True I helped her escape UK but do you also condemn the appeal judges who took her side so emphatically ??

    [ EDIT Redacted as contempt of court. You are already on your final warning about this. You are now permanently banned from this site]

    Reply
  15. Kate Wells

    Do I have this right IJ. You state that to get your help, pregnant women need to demonstrate that the LA are threatening to remove their babies at birth. You ask “what more information do I need” – and then talk of asking for details of the allegations made against them and DECIDE for yourself that even if the allegations are true it “rarely justifies removing babies at birth” – and on what basis may I ask are you in a position to make that decision? What qualifications do you possess to make such an important decision about a child’s life? And you claim to “cross examine” the mother on the telephone! This is beyond shocking and demonstrates that you are in no sense concerned about the welfare of the unborn child, but only in getting the better of the LA social workers. The “risk of significant harm” (CA 89) is not the “most popular” reason given for removing children, but where there is reason to believe that an application to the court for an EPO will be successful, then it is the duty of the LA to make such an application to protect the newborn baby. Clearly it cannot be proved that a child IS suffering significant harm at birth. Having said that there is evidence that the foetus in utero can be adversely affected by domestic violence or tension in the mother. It is most certainly the case that a foetus can be irreparably damaged if the mother abuses alcohol, as this can pass through into the placenta and damage the cells of the foetus as it grows. This causes Foetal Alcohol Syndrome for which there is no cure. However I’m sure you are not interested in any of this, as the newborn is NOT your concern. You claim that social workers in Ireland or France are “called in” – by whom? I very much doubt this, given that the mother ably assisted by you has evaded the LA Safeguarding social workers, she is hardly likely to call in social workers in other countries.

    What a ridiculous argument to state that Shipman and Myra Hindley were defended by barristers who were not criticised – no of course not, they were merely doing their job in a court of law presided over by a judge and possibly a jury. I’m not sure I follow you, but I suspect you are likening yourself to a barrister “acting” for these mothers who you cross examine on the phone and your conclusion is “I reckon most of them are very truthful……” what a compelling argument that you make. Would you be good enough to advise on what basis you reach these conclusions. No I thought not!

    There’s one thing I’d like to know about you – what IS your motivation. I know why Hemming holds a grudge against social workers and it goes back many years and has in my view developed into an obsession, and I suspect the same is true for you and this Booker bloke. It’s all very creepy that you 3 men are involving yourself with pregnant women, and financing them to flee the UK where there is concern for an unborn baby. Do you EVER wonder if that baby IS going to be significantly harmed………of course we know about Maria Black and your involvement in that case. It seems you respond to that by blaming the appeal court judges who ordered that the baby be returned to France. Had you not assisted her to flee in the first place she would have remained in the UK and other children would not have suffered abuse which she perpetrated upon them. Got your cross examination wrong there didn’t you!

    Reply
    1. BL

      Bang on the money Kate wells Your post was thorough and precise. The “Black” case has destroyed any excuses that Ian put forward,
      Lets no forget that by criticizing, attacking humiliating the 3 musketeers (Booker, Hemming, Joseph) the family court injustice and the obsession by the social workers to remove the children and send them for adoption , remains a huge problem one which will create many more incidents or perhaps in fatalities.
      May I remind you that many young mothers whose children taken away at birth have committed suicide?
      No one ,mention this but unfortunately this is the truth.
      No one can predict what may or may not happen in the future.
      You mention Children;s Act 1989 the threshold. One (the social services) has to prove that the child has suffered or may suffer significant harm. MAY.
      So If this young mother has not been accused, arrested or convicted for child abuse why can the state give this mother the chance to prove what kind of mother she is?

      As I stated in another post what if i (or a judge or a police officer) told you that based on your post you are likely to kill someone in the future so The police have no choice but arrest you.
      Would you accept this? Of course Not.

      Do you know that £8 billions a year goes to Africa for malnutrition children?
      Do you know their daily routine?
      The uneducated African Mother will wake up at around 5pm early in the morning, place her baby in her back, walk few miles so to p lough the fields carrying her baby on her back.
      If this happened in Britain I have no doubt that the social workers would have seized the opportunity to remove the child based on the fact that carrying your baby whilst working this is child abuse.
      So what are you saying?
      Are we donating £8 billion to Africa to support a child abuse?
      Or that what ever the personality of the mother is her maternal instincts will protect her child.
      SO please lets take your masks off
      AS much as I don’t approve mothers fleeing in fear, I also understand that this blog sponsored by the system that Uses the children as a commodity where solicitors, Barristers, judges, experts making lots pf money,
      Change the law. Fight the mothers corner in court until the child can stay with its mother.

      Reply
      1. Angelo Granda

        BL, I agree with mucb of what you say but not the last paragraph.
        The CPR isn’t sponsored by the system, it is dedicated to reform it and not supported or contributed to by it,in fact serving social workers are discouraged by the authorities from contributing or attending its annual cinference as far as i can tell.
        Anyone,even mums,care-leavers and other victims of the system can submit a post for consideration and most whIch are published are critical of the system.
        You are welcome to submit one anytime you wish,.In the past both John Hemming and Ian. Josephs have been invited to contribute.

        BL, i look forward to further comments from you.
        Sarah Phillimore is all for reforming the cp system but against the methods used by some campaigners and strongly objects and scathing about anyone who advises pregnant Mums to put space between themselves and the CS.She regards it as dangerous.Some agree with her, some don’t.
        Whatever your opinion is about Mum’s on the run,put it (or abstain) then move on.
        You can have posts e-mailed to you if you want.

        Reply
        1. BL

          As I said In my opinion this move running away especially without money to support themselves and their child is not just a desperate move but also the wrong move.
          These mother lack of ability to decide what is best for them and their newborn. They are in turmoil. They are an emotional wreck. They need guidance and advice by a legal expert /law practitioner.
          And here lays the problem. Whether is a family law solicitor, or a barrister, they will tell them “work with the social services”
          “But they told me they will take my child away”
          And here lays the problem. The legal experts will not reassure the young mother that if she co-operate her child will stay with her.

          Of course there are special cases of previous self harm, drug and alcohol abuse, or/and previous records for violence.

          I wonder, Lawyers don’t drink? A Barrister Mr Y was not drunk few times shouting to his kids “piss off go away”?

          I think we all have few times been aggressive towards our children, Does this mean that we are bad parents and unfit to look after our children?

          In fact there was a research done by an organization helping mothers in general. On this research they found that parents with full time job including prog=ffesional are failing to provide the parental care that the child needs hence these “rich” children turn to alcohol and drugs in some point of their lives.

          I cannot verify if this true or not. I haven’t conducted this research, But I read few years back about A Family law judges son who was caught be the police for drug class A possession but due to his father position as a judge he got away, The judge him self left His wife to set up home with a woman whose husband (a Barrister) was shot by the police.

          So Child abuse takes place in all walks of life but the poor people are the target. They are not been given a second chance.

          There is evidence that Private foster care industry is thriving. And If a particular industry thrives the Judges are investing on such industry. So they are not fools no to feed this industry by NOT making wrong decisions to deliberately find parents unfit and send the kids to foster care which is worth £8 billion per year (a foster parent receives over £600 per week per child but the private foster care company bills the taxpayer £1300 per child per week) I be happy to provide the stats, the name of these companies, and the names of Judges that they have invest in such companies.

          Are you aware that If you want to apply to become a foster carer through the private foster care companies You can be accepted even if you have a Criminal record?

          If the Natural father and mother have similar criminal records this become a threshold to remove their children!!

          Reply
          1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

            I agree with much of what you say. Middle class wealthy parents can cause harm to their children. But they are rarely investigated because they are articulate and keep their houses clean.

            I also think profit making companies should have nothing to do with child protection.

          2. helensparkles

            Just a note re criminal records – foster carers have enhanced disclosure CRBs, so all info regardless of a conviction or not is shared, re safeguarding. There are some offences that would rule them out and they would be the same kind of issues that would make parents risky to their children. An example of something that might not rule them out would also apply to a parent, i.e. a minor offence committed some time ago with no other offences since.

          3. BL

            I am not slagging off foster parents. fosters are needed and they provide much needed service.
            But we need a system that will attract foster parents because they love children and not for the money.
            I quote a true event.
            Child and foster parent relationship broken down
            so the foster dad said:
            “you silly cow if wasn’t for the money you wouldn’t be in my house”

          4. helensparkles

            BL, didn’t mean to imply you were ‘slagging off’ foster carers, just making a point about criminal records; foster carers have to be über parents.

            Any carer who tells a child they are only looking after them for the £ shouldn’t be doing it because they should never say anything like that to a child. Renumeration of carers is always a tricky area, I think they should be treated like professionals who offer therapeutic parenting, and the ones that do it best don’t do anything other than make that look like normal family life. Caring for some children precludes working outside the home for a lot of carers and unfortunately we don’t appear to highly value or fund any child care professionals well in this country.

            I’d agree with everyone that there should be no profit in caring for children. Foster carers generally can’t be motivated by the money, it isn’t enough, that isn’t to say that all carers aren’t. But the venture capitalists that invest in the independent sector are another matter, and I don’t think that mixed economy in placement services does anyone any good. The only resource I’d commission in privately (if I were in charge) would be residential therapeutic services but that is only because we are where we are no in terms of CAMHS & other specialist services for children and young people.

          5. Angelo Granda

            Who pays the 1300 (which i assume is a realistic figure)? HMG through tax revenues or LA’s through Council Tax? Anybody know?

          6. helensparkles

            I’m not qualifying the figure (because the cost of placements varies) but placement services are paid for out of CS budget, a specific amount will be allocated for fostering placements to the placements team. The source would be primarily central government.

            Council tax is a local tax that pays for specific local services as far as I am aware, but don’t know a lot about it.

            The difference in cost between the independent and LA placements is artificial, because whilst an in house placement does cost less, that doesn’t take into account the on costs which the IFAs include in their charges and which the LA also have to pay.

          7. Angelo Granda

            If a foster-carer gers 600 out of 1300 that means agency gets 700.
            . All from HMG.
            60per cent of foster placements are not private;foster carers are LA employees.Assuming they also get 600 a week,does the LA get the 700 training (agency) fee?All from HMG?

          8. helensparkles

            The LA is allocated money from central government and the council sets a budget for CS. This includes an amount to pay for placements. It isn’t a funding stream on tap, it is an allocated amount. The LA doesn’t profit, they usually overspend on placements.

            It is up to the LA how they spend that money, on in house or private provision, and that is about matching. Most LAs won’t necessarily have the right carers for all children at al times, so they do have to look outside their own carers.

            The amount that foster carers are paid varies. They are paid allowances, which cover the cost of ‘keeping’ a child, sot that carers aren’t out of pocket. Fees depend on the kind of placement. training and experience of the carer.

            I don’t know what a £700 training (agency) fee is? The difference between a private and in house resource is somewhat artificial. The in house carer could cost less on paper, but that doesn’t include the on costs. The difference in the cost of providing a placement won’t be very different in either sector. Some independent fostering agencies are not for profit/charities.

          9. Angelo Granda

            I assume that the allocation of money paid to each LA varies according to the need for foster-care services?

          10. Angelo Granda

            Does it vary according to the need for foster-care servicesI? ‘m asking.
            One assumes goes down as foster-placements and adoption goes up because there is less need for costly family support services.

          11. helensparkles

            There will be a variety of factors that control budget setting and allocation of funds from central government and I don’t know what they all are. I am sure you could ask your MP.

            From what I can see (& I have never been a senior manager) the income from central government to councils is cut year on year and LAs are continually directed to cut costs. The amount that councils have as an income will be the subject of a budget meeting at cabinet (I presume). I assume the way the budget is allocated between departments is informed by directors of services including CS but I don’t know that. I might be able to find out when I get back to work, but I am off having some medical treatment at the moment.

            It is more expensive to keep children in foster care, rather than adoptive placements, but the difference is not always as significant as you might think. LAs are responsible for support services for adopters, they have always been, and that has increased in recent years. The kind of therapy the APs are recieving on the other thread here will be costing IRO £75 per hour and is typical of the specialist service LAs commission for adopters. Their could be a need for additional help in school for example and operating that kind of support requires the same kind of staff and costs that would be involved in a fostering placement.

            I know you are looking for incentives for LA’s to behave one way or another, and as I say, this is not my area of expertise. What I do know is that they operate at a deficit, so whilst there will be a focus on managing the size of that deficit, more decisions are based on need than cost than you might think.

            The difficulty for me, as ever, is that there is support and funding for adopters and foster carers in a way that doesn’t exist for families in the community. This is largely because LAs provide statutory services at a time of austerity and cuts, they don’t provide other services/support because they can’t, and this is likely to get worse with the new children and social care bill.

          12. Angelo Granda

            I think we get the gist of what you are saying BL but i would not name any Judges on here.
            We have already seen most of the stats but they are irrelevant really .It is the principle that matters.I, personally have nothing against private companies making a profit out of child-care although others like Sarah object to it ,i think. I would certainly be dead against any Judge (in the Family Court) having shares in the companies,of course, for obvious reasons.

      2. Sarah Phillimore Post author

        Er ‘sponsored by the system’? I bloody wish. I pay for this myself. It costs about £300 a year to register domain names and pay other costs to host it. the research and writing I do is in my own time. I don’t get paid.
        If you want to have a pop at me, be my guest. But to say I am ‘sponsored by the system’ is wrong – and offensive. To me and to all the others who have given up their spare time to contribute to this site. To try and help explain things to people so they don’t end up in the hands of Hemming and his horrible mates.

        Reply
      1. BL

        she should advice her fellow barristers to accept their clients opinions. If a client says “this x,y,z is rubbish this is an opinion based on experience

        Reply
        1. helensparkles

          For all we know, Sarah may well do that. I don’t see her mentioned in the piece or any sign of her not having truck with criticism of the profession/system.

          Reply
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      What on earth are you talking about now?

      If I have ‘defamed’ anyone, they can sue me.
      If anyone ‘defames’ me, I can consider if I can be bothered to sue them.
      there is no double standard here.

      Reply
  16. Angelo Granda

    Sarah,why don’t you start the CPR’s own special twittwitter style thread on the resource so those used to twitter can indule themselves in short exchanges like that just above. You can set a limit of,let us say,50 words.
    Publicise it amongst all the usual suspects and ,to discuss child-protection,they won’t have to go on twitter.
    If twitter object to you using the name twittwitter, i’ll think of some other name, perhaps ‘Miaow!!!!’.

    Reply
  17. Angelo Granda

    BL-TY for your comments,BTW would it be possible to organise a network of safe-houses in this country,one in every area to which expecting .vulnerable mums can seek refuge .Each home to be staffed by a midwife,a trained advocate to assist girls when dealing with the CS and ensure correct procedure and also tape record interviews and bear witness to malpractice. Plus an on-call solicitor to protect girls if the law is brought in and enforce human rights.No need to go abroad.

    Reply
  18. Sam

    What a fabulous suggestion Angelo. That’s all most need is support and peer support facilitated by professionals if necessary is more valuable than anything. I wonder if funding would be available?

    Reply
    1. Angelo Granda

      I suppose ,the safe-houses would have to be run on the same basis as the ones in France and Ireland.
      A combination of voluntary workers and funds supplied by charitable folk aswell as the income of the client concerned which will go into the kitty.I don’t expect the LA will support organisations set up to thwart it.We its aims are not exclusively honourable.
      Midwives are paid by the NHS to care for Mum’s in the community and neo-natal care is provided by midwives (for a month or so) then by health visitors( up until three years) so i they would be payed for.
      Maybe a young,keen solicitor will be prepared to assist on a voluntary basis as an intern or on payment of a nominal pro-bono fee.It will be good experience.
      Maybe an independent SW would support and advise mums on the same basis.New mums could be given lessons in child care and home hygiene.
      The main thing is that were a vulnerable Mum to have access to one of these safe-houses,the LA could not remove on the grounds that nothing else will do.
      The Mum and baby will be in a suitable environment ,receiving support and being monitored.The baby would be safe from CS cruelty and
      abuse and so would Mum..

      Reply
      1. BL

        I wonder what is the point to set up safe houses for mos expecting their child when they are under SS radar ready for their new born to be taken away,
        Pointless exercise. The child will be taken whether or not there are safe houses in Britain or not.
        Unless of course these mothers change their name by deep poll, change their appearance (dye their hair different colour) , move at least 300 miles away from their threatening local authority to a new place, register with a GP under their new name, and hopefully stay undetected and give birth.

        I know it sounds a stupid idea, but there is not a safe solution to stop The local authority removing the new born and sell it to the highest bitter (adoption).

        The only way to escape this unlawful ad unjust child kidnapp by the state is for the mother to get out of the country.

        But the are challenges which will cause harm and hardship to the mother and child.
        Just the ticket for the ferry offered by Ian Joseph is not enough, what about clothing baby foods accessories etc?

        There is another solution.

        In France there are cheap land (north of France) where you don’t need permission under french laws to put caravans or mobile homes

        what if ian Joseph, John Hemmings, Christopher Booker, and anyone willing to help these mothers, put their hand in their pocket deep, buy a piece of Land in France, buy about 50 to 100 second hand caravans, then set up a register charity to continue financing the maintenance of the site.

        The run away mother will have somewhere to stay comfortable and she can use the French doctors to monitor the child’s health. i am sure if French SS discover something wrong with the mother they will intervene.

        The problem with Family Law Barristers is if these mother run away to France, they be out of work.
        50 mothers run away per month 50 cases lost .
        £20000 per case per barrister £oNE MILLION LOSS of earnings for a Barrister,

        This is Why Sarah concerns most

        Reply
        1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

          Well, I can tell you what will happen if John and Ian buy lots of caravans and send mothers to them.
          They will continue to carry out zero vetting or assessment of the mothers OR the people they send them to.
          They will put vulnerable parents at massive risk of lodging with or nearby paedophiles, many of whom will no doubt offer themselves as providers of such safe homes, secure in the knowledge that JFF/JH/IJ don’t check backgrounds and don’t care .

          And it will take a child to die before anyone takes this seriously.

          kind of you to be worried about my bank balance. Don’t be. There is more than enough work to do in England I am afraid.
          I certainly do NOT earn £20,000 per case. Where did you get such a ridiculous figure.
          If its a long running and complicated case over 5 days I may get between £3-5K. But that is for a LOT of work, before, during and after the five day hearing.

          Reply
          1. BL

            How you came to a conclusion that for certain pedophiles will surround these “caravan sites?”
            Is it your opinion that in France are pedophiles free to pray on new born children?
            Have you ever been to France? are you aware of their strict laws regarding child abuse?

            are you aware that here in Britain has the largest amount of pedophiles?
            And as I said above French authorities always get involved with new born children and they have a better health system than in Britain especially where infants involve.

            The local judge will decide upon true evidence whether the new born child is in danger or not after french social workers submit their recommendations.

            French Social services are working very closely with their British counter parts.

            Is not justt Gena who has been under scrutiny by French authorities but there are other whom their names I will not reveal.

            Like the case of “Black” (no one suspect her for such crimes” there other cases where the French social services removed the new born after having cooperated with their British Counter parts and they themselves made assessments that proven that the mother was not fit. These children returned to Britain under the British social services care and supervision.

            So Sarah you are scaremongering people, writing non sense about pedophilia assuming that John Hemming Ian Joseph and the rest will assist pedophilia (defamation).

            These people are not expert, They are people who can see how unfair and rotten the British Child protection is, and are helping young mothers to get one more chance to prove that they are or going to be good mothers.

            John Hemming or Ian Joseph are not qualified to make a parental assessment, as much as You as a barrister you are not qualify to make such assessments.

            So as the above named people, and You will rely on specialist to asses these mothers. And French authorities will do this.

            So Your allegations are non constructive, and defamatory.

            As for your income this is your private affair But if mothers run away surely will have an impact on your earnings.
            following baali family court case I haven’t see your name for some time.

            So you may live on from your reserves (savings) But of course this is not my business.
            One expect from a family Lawyer to be constructive writing blogs giving advice and make suggestions as to how can we amend the law which currently is unfair and brutal, rather than slagging off certain people who are trying to help rightly or wrongly

          2. Sarah Phillimore Post author

            I can’t say it any more simply.
            If you give money to parents to leave the country – but you don’t check their backgrounds.
            If you send vulnerable parents to live with people – but you don’t check their background.
            This is dangerous.

            We have seen this already with IJ giving money to a convicted padeophile.
            And the serious concerns about Gena’s partner.

            I think this is awful. I think it is putting women and children at risk of serious harm.

          3. BL

            Sarah You write:
            “And it will take a child to die before anyone takes this seriously. ”
            Lets read facts.
            In Britain (UK) in the last 10 years 65 children died in care of the Local authorities.
            Thousands was abused in foster care
            recently one near you in Bristol where the Male foster carer raped the foster child despite the fact he had previous criminal records for child abuse.

            In France the number of run away mothers infant death is ZERO.

  19. Kate Wells

    I don’t usually read your posts Angelo as they are tedious in the extreme and mostly illogical but I’d like to pick up your notion of these “safe houses” – are you on planet Earth – one in EVERY area in the country where there are “vulnerable” pregnant women (so hundreds if not thousands of safe houses!) I assume you mean expectant mothers who are on the radar of Children’s Services for possible safeguarding issues, as you want a trained advocate to assist these women to deal with malpractice by CSs. a midwife, a solicitor…… you’re notably vague about where these “safe houses” are going to be found and who is going to pay the rent and how many vulnerable mothers can be accommodated. Are you aware of the biggest crisis in housing shortage in the UK since the end of the 2nd world war and laws related to houses in multiple occupation. Who is going to pay the advocate, the midwife and the solicitor- ah hang one yes I see in your next post you address that matter………funding for all this would come from “charitable folk” – much as I dislike the impression, you couldn’t make it up! Oh and I see now your model could include an independent social worker (not one of those nasty LA ones) who are only out to steal babies. And WHO is going to pay the ISW – ah yes these “charitable folk.” And as usual you’re muddled about the law – you mention all of this would prevent the LA removing children when “nothing else will do” – that phrase was contained in a Judgement by a Judge (possibly Mumby but I could be wrong) and it was related to adoption, in that a Placement Order should only be made “when nothing else will do.”

    As it happens there are already “safe houses” though I accept the LAs vary considerably in the provision of this important resource. In the area I worked we recruited experienced carers to offer “mother and baby placements” or parent and baby placements if the father wanted to be involved. Arrangements were made for the expectant mother/father to meet with the foster carers prior to the birth of the baby and to get support at this crucial time. Immediately after the baby was born the family moved to the foster home and the foster carers assisted the parents (they were almost always young people, sometimes in their early teens) in the care of the baby, giving advice and support and exercising supervision where necessary. It was made clear that the parents were responsible for the child and the foster carers were in a supportive/supervisory role.

    Results of the scheme were varied. I don’t have exact figures (I’ve been retired since 2009) but some young parents benefitted and were able to keep their baby and in some cases continued to look to the foster care for advice and support when living independently. At the other end of the spectrum there was obvious concern about the care of the child (foster carers had to keep meticulous records that could be used in evidence if necessary) and proceedings were initiated. In other cases the young mother left the placement and the baby; hence there would again be a need for care proceedings. In no sense am I critical of these young mothers as it was all too obvious why they were unable to care for their babies. They were little more than children themselves, most had difficult backgrounds, often traumatic childhoods which left them totally ill equipped to deal with young adulthood, let alone the care of a helpless baby.

    Additionally there are residential establishments offering the same sort of package as that described above, although they only accepted mother and baby placements where there was a strong chance of the family remaining together. I only refer to the few that I knew in the area so of course others may operate differently. However like all institutions, they are costly because of the unit costs of running the place and of course a complete lack of any “charitable folk” to share the cost!! And given LAs are strapped for cash thanks to the Tory government I’m unsure whether such placements are now used.

    BL – god knows who you are but I think you make up the quartet of the “holy trinity” or as someone called them the “3 musketeers” – so please take your place alongside Hemming, Joseph and Booker. Why don’t you give your name? And where in god’s name do you get your ridiculous assertions from (65 children died in LA care in the last 10 years…………please provide evidence) likewise “thousands was (sic) abused in foster care……….you can’t make statements like that without evidence. Yes it is true that some children are ill treated by foster carers and some years ago in Brighton and Hove a child was indeed murdered by the male carer. But to say that a child was raped by a foster carer who had previous convictions for child abuse is ludicrous. That is a Schedule 1 offence and would bar anyone from becoming a foster carer or working with children in any capacity.

    Reply
    1. Angelo Granda

      Kate,
      Readers will find your comment interesting .It was certainly constructive and I am pleased you understand the advantages of the kind of ‘safe houses’ which i suggested as a possibility.
      If you say the LA in your area used to run these houses circa 1980-2009 ,that is encouraging.You say the results were varied. Overall,with your experience, would you say results were mainly positive or mainly negative? Do you think the provision of these safe-houses in your area should be re-started and i wonder if every area should have one as i suggested ?
      Were they cost-effective?If the LA’s would fund them ,then charity would not be called for.So much in life which is good depends on charitable folk ,don’t you think?Your comments are always welcome, however,
      please do not use misnomers and emotive terms like ‘child-stealers’ here on the CPR.It is a term I never use. .Keep it for twitwitter or U-tube etc.( If you use them).
      Otherwise,you are a wise old bird and always interesting.

      Reply
    2. helensparkles

      LAs continue to use residential assessment centres and parent and baby placements. Provision will vary nationwide, and my understanding of residential settings is that there are fewer, but they are still a valid resource ‘out of county’ so to speak.

      There are advantages in some cases to using either provision, but with both, the difficulty is the return home. In placing a parent with support, you remove them from their existing support network, and replace it with another. Success in a placement is fine whilst a parent is in the placement, but the transition home is only ok if any lifestyle choices don’t revert to risky, and if known associates/family/friends are positive enough to create safety. The difficulty is the artificiality of the setting and the key is to assess capacity to change imho.

      Reply
      1. Angelo Granda

        Helen,Thenks for the information about residential mum and baby assessment centres etc.I think if there are serious concerns of girls then these centres cum child-care training centres should be used and huge investment put into them by LA’s.
        Mums, no matter how bad their previous form or previous MH problems should have a right to rehabilitation and the chance to reform/change.The right should be written into the Law.I feel Kate agrees the centrs are more constructive than removal.
        It would be much cheaper too!e

        Reply
        1. helensparkles

          LAs do use those resources, as I have said Angelo, but they are not appropriate for all cases and they are more expensive than other placements.

          Reply
    3. BL

      Baby P,(London) Boy Michael (scotland) Jonas (In Taunton) Olivia (london ) and there are more that I cannot waste my time writing names one by one.

      Abuses in Foster care have been reported on mainstream Media (Including the Press) .

      And so this Bristol Foster carer who abused the child are you saying is a false story?

      Reply
      1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

        Baby P did NOT die in foster care. He died at the hands of his mother and her boyfriend. The list of children murdered by their parents I am afraid is much longer than the list of children who died in foster care.

        Reply
        1. BL

          The social services were monitoring Baby P. A social Worker took the child to the hospital with a cracked scull and asked the Female Saudi Doctor to give her a False bill of Health

          Reply
          1. helensparkles

            You need to read more about the Baby P case and what did actually happen. There is no evidence to suggest a cover up anywhere and to mention the doctor’s ethnicity seems irrelevant.

          2. Sarah Phillimore Post author

            That is not what happened at all. Peter was taken to see the doctor by his mother. The doctor was not told that Peter was on a child protection plan – this was not in the notes .It should have been. The doctor did not undress Peter to examine him as he was ‘distressed’. Unsurprising – he had a broken back.

            Peter was killed by his mother and/or her boyfriend. He was not killed by a Social Worker. He had more contact with doctors then SW. He spent time with his natural father shortly before he died.

            You need to read more and understand a little better before you comment.

  20. Kate Wells

    I was not talking about “safe houses” – I’m talking about mothers and babies being placed with very experienced and specifically trained and vetted to take mothers (and fathers) and baby into their home and act in an advisory and supervisory capacity. The foster carers are paid by Children’s Services and the placement is overseen by a social worker (you know one of those evil individuals who you Angelo one described as “low calibre”) a totally different model from your nonsensical notion of a “safe house “paid for by “charitable folk” – your naivety is staggering.

    It is unlawful to discriminate against someone on the grounds of their age and I find your description of me as a “wise old bird” offensive.

    Reply
  21. Angelo Granda

    Kate, I apologise sincerely for my use of the metaphore ‘wise old bird’. I was meaning wise as an owl.
    It was not a reference to your age,i don’t know your age.
    Kate,Also i do not think SW’s are evil individuals.Some of them,not you personally,are low calibre and shouldn’t be in the job.That isn’t only my view. But OFSTED too.

    Reply
  22. BL

    Bristol City Council left girl with family despite suspicions the father had accessed child pornography

    Despite child’s identity being protected, council said all details of the case should be kept from newspapers

    Its expensive bid to hush the scandal up cost thousands and was overturned at the High Court

    A council spent £23,000 of taxpayers’ money trying to gag reporting of a case where it had placed a four-year-old in foster care with a suspected paedophile.

    Bristol City Council tried and failed to obtain a High Court injunction which would prevent embarrassing details of the case being made public.

    Social services took nearly three weeks to remove the girl from a foster family, despite the father being under suspicion of possessing indecent images of children.

    Reply
  23. BL

    n the case of BB & BJ v Leicestershire County Council [2014] the court considered a claim by two sisters who alleged that they had suffered serious sexual abuse by foster parents whilst in the care of the local authority in the 1960s. Following adoption by those same foster parents, they allege that the sexual abuse escalated to include repeated rape.
    The sisters claimed damages and the court was asked to consider three distinct causes of action:
    the systemic negligence by the local authority for the management of their placement with the foster carers;
    the vicarious liability for the abuse of the foster parents; and
    the breach of a non-delegable duty of care by the local authority.

    http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=20311%3Afoster-care-abuse-claims-and-the-woodland-duty&catid=56%3Alitigation-articles&Itemid=24

    Reply
  24. Sam

    I agree with BL , abuse under a care order goes under the radar where as children are taken from parents, for no or lesser abuse. The difference being LA’s are powerful and can and do cover up . Before anyone shouts me down Rochdale, Rotherham …..

    Reply
    1. helensparkles

      People far cleverer than I have written reams, but I would say that Rochdale and Rotherham were no cover ups. At their worst they were a lack of insight into the scale and nature of CSA, which is terrible, but there was no conspiracy or concealment.

      Most of the time, the ‘cover up’ is simply an attempt to protect the identity of the child. You can have a view about that but I know children who really don’t want their abuse history following them around for anyone to Google, it isn’t in the public interest to know who they are, and they have a right to rebuild their lives as survivors not victims.

      The sad fact is that people who want to exploit or abuse children will always try to find a way to be in a role where they can do that. There is a rigorous assessment and vetting process for carers, systems aren’t prefect, but they change all the time to make them more robust. The point I would make is that mums on the run don’t even have the luxury of those checks being made and they are very vulnerable.

      Reply
  25. Angelo Granda

    To all readers , the question i asked BL was would it be possible to set up a network of safe-houses in this country? Is it necessary that citizens should be forced to flee their own motherland?
    Kate Wells has suggested constructively that the LA’s already have (or did have in her day) mother and baby residential units and so on and Helen has written helpfully about these provisions nowadays.
    Purely and simply, the safe-houses abroad are not in operation mainly to protect the babies from their Mums. They, and any safe-houses in Britain, are to protect mums and babies from abuse by the LA’s.
    My idea was based on the need for some sort of compromise. For one, we have citizens who, sometimes on the advice of JFF or Ian Josephs ,feel they have no alternative but to flee the country.On the other we have lawyers and professionals who deplore the practice .They feel it extremely dangerous and in some cases they are right (arguably).
    Safe-houses in this country may be a way of narrowing the chasm between the two factions at conflict.
    Many lawyers (Sarah included) acknowledge that LA’s (perhaps of fear following the Baby P case) often exceed their powers and abuse the system.They recognise the need for more transparency and they are doing their very best to encourage the use of trained advocates and mediation.They recognise the severity and inhumanity of forcing physically babies from the bosoms of mothers ( especially when breastfeeding is ongoing). These are human beings not animals but LA’s often impose separation too casually. Without following due procedures.
    I don’t see how lawyers can object to safe-houses in this country.Their main objection ,i think, is that fleeing abroad takes the unborn child out of their legal domain and into the hands of ‘dangerous’ opportunists.They also talk about the ‘danger’ to children if they are left with mums too long.There would be no danger in a ‘safe-house’.The family would be well monitored too.
    Those who currently advocate fleeing abroad because the justice system is unfair might come around to thinking that ,if well-organised safe-houses in this country may become the better option whilst offering all the advantages of foreign safe-houses ( apart from taking Mum out of the domain).
    The justice they seek will be more likely because of the transparency.Mediators,advocates and midwives would bear witness to everything said and done.They would tape record all meetings and rule out a lot of system abuse.The attendance of a human rights lawyer would protect Families from abuse if the Police try to exercise S46 rights unfairly..-Indeed prior to the birth,staff could contact the Police CP team and keep them informed about the child’s safety in the house. If the SW’s tried to threaten Mums or coerce them into signing papers,the professionals will be there to prevent it.Etc Etc Etc.
    Compromises should be examined carefully and soght out not rejected outright.
    All comments welcome .I expect the usual outcry from professionals on financial grounds but human rights také top priority.

    Reply
    1. BL

      Dear Angelo,
      Although I appreciate your kind post having the safety of the child and mother in your heart and mind , I think you have been naive to believe that safe houses in Britain will stop the “system” removing children at birth.

      Safe houses means that mother and baby can be safe around a protective environment,
      But this will not stop the Local authority to remove children at birth because they asses the mother and not the house or the place they reside.

      women Aid for example have invested in a project similar to safe houses.
      Of course women;s aid is a charitable organization for victims of domestic abuse, been existed for a very long time.

      Even women’s Aid could not have stopped a local authority to remove children from their mothers who were fleeing from domestic abuse.

      As long as the targeted mothers reside in Britain, does not matter if these mothers live in a nice accommodation or Safe houses, once targeted by the SS you will loose your child full stop,

      Unless of course the Government change its policy and make it clear through an act of parliament that once the expecting mom enters the safe house, no proceeding to remove the child will take place, but the social services can if they wish monitor the mother so to ensure smooth and peaceful parental care.
      This is if the Legal experts, the Child protection agencies, and the politicians get together and ensure that safe housing is the best option.

      But please remember, That when the Local authority applies to remove the child their reports and the threshold based on the mothers character and not on the mothers living environment.

      Reply
      1. helensparkles

        That isn’t quite true, home conditions/environment are part of CS assessment and a significant factor. Nobody is looking for a show home but they are looking for safe, comfortable hygienic with safe people around a child.

        Reply
          1. helensparkles

            Of course not, there are other aspects to parenting. Just pointing out if a home is unsafe/unhygienic etc. that isn’t great for children so it is part of the assessment.

          2. BL

            helensparkles
            I met a variety of people from all walks of life. unemployed, professionals, , barristers, solicitors, and I have seen scruffy houses from all walks of life.

            does this mean these people are not fit parents?

            supposing that there is a case that a mother is so scruffy beyond logic.
            (I read reports about parents having dog poo in their bed DISGUSTING).
            Now why on earth the social worker who is allocated in this case will not arrange for this mother to receive counseling and parental lessons so she can improve her living standards instead of stealing her child?

          3. helensparkles

            Unsafe or unhygienic is not the same as scruffy is it? If it is we are using a different language. An example of unsafe or unhygienic would be yours – the dog poo in the bed.

          4. BL

            Ok I accept this,
            so why the social worker involved dont teach the mother to be hygienic and instead stealing her baby

          5. helensparkles

            Can’t answer that one. But maybe it was the nth time & they had tried before but mum showed no capacity to change. It happens unfortunately.

  26. Angelo Granda

    BL. I understand what you are saying about the environment and hygiene in a safe house.However, that is not the main reason mums seek refuge in safe-houses.They go because LA’s abuse the Children’s Act AND they abuse the Human Rights Act and they také babies away unlawfully.
    Having professional supporters and advocacy around them,taping everything,preventing theSocial Workers from exercising coersion,threatening vulnerable Mums ,,presenting false information to Police and Magistrates etc. as well as providing suitable accomodation pending a full court hearing will be possibly do the trick.
    I agree with you that force adoption d should be banned but until it is,it should only be ordered as the last extreme .A safe house would help to stop the LA’s abusing the law and giving false evidence We don’t mind justice.It is abuse and dishonesty these mothers need saving from.
    The ones who want to leave the country will still have the choice to do so,of course.

    Reply
  27. Angelo Granda

    On the contrary,BL, Sarah knows the system is sometimes abused and she wants more transparency and advocacy services for Mums.She recognises the Public,to a degree have lost trust in the system .
    However she does not think the system is generally corrupt and believes abuse is rare.She has more trust in the LA’s than we have and she is adamant that mothers are endangered when they leave the country ,criticising those who advise it.
    I THINK! Of course that is my impression only.She can talk for herself.Check out the various posts.

    Reply
      1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

        You are entitled to your opinion – however worthless and misinformed.
        Anyone who could be bothered to spend 5 minutes on this site will see that is untrue.

        Reply
      2. helensparkles

        “None of her posts are constructive or suggestive
        Plain vitriolic attacking people such as mothers and well wishers”

        Have you read anything on this site? Sarah doesn’t need me to speak for her either but she is someone who (I think) is passionate about justice for families within the child protection system and your accusations are baseless. People don’t agree with each other a lot of the time here but they also don’t attack anyone.

        Reply
  28. Kate Wells

    WHO on earth are you BL – why are you hiding behind these initials? My sense is that you are male but maybe not – quite how you can accuse Sarah Phillimore of “plain vitriolic attacking people such as mothers and well wishes” is beyond me. When a case goes to the family court the social workers have to provide EVIDENCE that the child is being significantly harmed or is likely to be significantly harmed and if they are unable to provide that evidence, the judge will NOT make an Order to remove the child. The thing is people like you aren’t concerned with evidence, you merely trot out anything that comes to mind. SO please can you direct me to one of SP’s posts that supports your allegation of her “plain vitriol, where she attacks mothers” you can’t because they don’t exist. You talk absolute nonsense and who are these “well wishers” of whom you speak??? People like you and Hemming/Josephs/Booker or someone else?
    I am well aware that SP can speak for herself and doesn’t need anyone else to defend her but I am incensed at your allegations that cannot be substantiated.

    For once I agree with Angelo’s post which I think represents Sarah’s stance but I’m sure she’ll be along to speak for herself.

    Reply
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      Anyone who is prepared to make such serious accusations, but who hides behind anonymity is suspicious. I am grateful to all of those – such as Kate and Angelo – who are prepared to comment without hiding behind a mask. I do not always agree with what they say but I respect the fact they make their views known without hiding.

      What are your connections with John Hemming BL? What part of his organisation are you involved with?
      Or are you going to pretend your rude and unhelpful comments are made without any agenda?

      Reply
  29. BL

    I haven;t used profanities neither I have defame or harass anyone.
    So how can i be accused of anything unlawful as such?
    If my criticism and my opinion has negative impact on a Family Law barrister and a senior (ex?) social worker this will scare people away from writing their opinion?

    If I said my name is Barbara would have chanced anything? My comments would always be the same.
    If I said I am a register Social worker then I can imagine your anger for sticking n the side of many innocent parents and NOT sticking by Ian Joseph. or John Hemmings, or Tim Haines, or Gena, or anyone that have been attacked in this blog.

    Of course They have the right to defend themselves I am not related in anyway with these people.

    But I noticed that Ian Joseph posted a Long post and he was banned. Which means that Sarah uses a Non democratic approach similar to some Local authorities when they remove the children on the basis of “future emotional harm” which is translated:
    “We want your child and we will take your child regardless your circumstances”

    I cannot see any constructive conversation in hear other than The law has to change giving all mothers the chance to be mothers, or (the expecting mothers) keep on running away out of desperation.

    On the legal point of view I must remind you that children;s act 1989 although section 31 deals with the threshold yhe whole useless act does not deal with adoption making the case of the adoption an abuse of the mothers human rights, as well as the newborn child.

    Reply
    1. Sarah Phillimore

      Ian Josephs was on his final warning for persistent breach of a reporting restrictions order relating to the Marie Black case. I have published many of his stupid comments before.

      If you are going to criticise me, make it accurate please. I haven’t the time or patience for this childish nonsense.

      I will delete any such further innacurate and personal attacks on my integrity, which are a tedious distraction from what we all agree is a necessary discussion.

      Reply
    2. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      Adoption is dealt with by the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The Children Act 1989 deals with care proceedings. So I don’t understand at all your comment that the Children Act is ‘useless’ because it does not deal with adoption. It doesn’t have to. There is a whole separate Act that does.

      Reply
  30. Angelo Granda

    BL,
    The point is this.Sarah is scathing of JFF and Ian Josephs for more than one reason and also criticises their colleagues who assist in the safe-houses project oversees. Apparently some families who have taken advice from them are alleged to have gone on to prove themselves unfit parents. Obviously it is not easy for those who set out to help Mum’s (indeed impossible) to accurately forecast Mums everytime. SW’s will bear witness to that. They don’t have a crystal ball either and i think even Kate Wells will grant them that!.
    JFF and the others differ to the LA’s in one very important respect.They act openly and honestly by comparison! Thus critics are able to discover details when cases go wrong.
    When it is alleged children have been hurt or when it is alleged JFF or Ian have helped questionable mums to leave the country,she does attack them and their modus operandi.
    The second reason she attacks them is because they are campaigners against forced adoption,Inhumanity and what they and many parents know is a deeply,flawed Family Court system. Even on that score, i don’t think she opposes them simply for opposing the system or the family courts in particular.She is against the apparent extreme methods and the ardent,passionate,language which some campaigners bring to the debate.Apparently,it is alleged John Hemming associates with many extreme groups.I don’t know about that and i am not really all that interested but on his behalf, i would say his own use of language is moderate.
    Sarah frowns on terms like’baby-stealing’ , adoption-for-profit’; top level conspiracy to snatch children’. In that last respect even her opponents like Ian Josephs agree with her there is no general conspiracy by the LA’s to defraud.Many people find this site and appear to echo (mimic) the extreme terms used by groups like FASSIT ,Fathers for Justice and similar campaigning sites.
    Although JFF has standards on its own site,it appears to get lumped in amongst these others and gets a share in the criticism.

    BL. Sarah is campaigning herself for wide-ranging changes to the Court system.She wants open courts and transparency.
    Knowing how honest she is i know that when the Courts are open and when EVERYBODY can see what we parents know is going on, Sarah will be equally scathing and critical of the CP system . The corruption will be out in the open.
    I guess John Hemming is party to much more information from parents and professionals than is Sarah. When he was an MP, the authorities were unable to stop the Public from disclosing secret court business to him.Likewise Ian Josephs,he is an ex-councillor and knows how LA’s are run.Parents can tell him about their experiences as he is a trained law graduate and he lives abroad.
    I suppose Sarah doesn’t know the half of it.
    Forget about attacking her.Forget about supporting them.They can defend themselves.
    Carry on giving us interesting contributions such as the information about abuse within the care-system.Now that was helpful and constructive .

    Reply
  31. BL

    Thank you Angelo, You are right we need to be constructive rather than slagg each other off. so on my side i will stop been personal

    Reply
  32. Pingback: Keep on Running | Child Protection Resource

  33. Pingback: Are you sitting comfortably? The Art of Story Telling | Child Protection Resource

  34. Paul Robinson

    Dear all i am the father of the mentioned child let me get this clear John hemming or Ian Josphes for that matter never helped me or the mum of F child in 2017 to come to Ireland we came of our own accord to get away from the lies and the false allegations children social services state in court to remove our child for force adoption for a crime we did not commit on our first child and let me get this clear the worst section 31 of the children act 1989 is the worst act any parents worst nightmare when social services apply to the courts to remove your child on what if’s what buts’s the family courts are do not take into account your rights under article 6 of the human rights act and neither of the courts and social services european convention rights of the child and it is disgusting that the uk is the only country where the parents consent is dispensed with and all ties from the child and parents vanquished until some what 20 years later is that life is that fair no because these biased so called courts judges and social services think they have a crystal ball and tarot cards to predict the future and they play god with people’s lives force adoption is abomination against children’s rights and yes I will challange any judge on this and yes the lies the social services come out with out of their mouth to get what they want the children section act 1989 needs to be abolished and adoption act needs to abolished and every child taken from their parents needs to be returned home.

    Reply
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      Every child? Really? Do you think Daniel Pelka should have stayed with his mum? Peter Connolley? Kyra Ishaq?
      I don’t agree with what you say.
      And I certainly don’t agree that leaving the country is the right thing to do.
      And I certainly think that the way Hemming encourages parents to do this is wicked and wrong.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *