Forced Adoption

Here we look at the concept of ‘forced adoption’

I am a passionate believer in the value of adoption in appropriate circumstances… But I fear that, in making all those orders, I never gave much attention to the emotional repercussions of them. In particular I fear that I failed fully to appreciate that an adoption order is not just a necessary arrangement for the upbringing of some children… the order is an act of surgery which cuts deep into the hearts and minds of at least four people and will effect them, to a greater or lesser extent, every day of their lives…

Lord Wilson Denning Society Lecture 13th November 2014

‘Forced adoption’  is a phrase we often hear used by people like Ian Josephs  and the former MP John Hemming  We have provided links to their sites under their names – but we hope that if you visit their sites, you will also stay here and read what we have to say.

See this post for discussion of the case law which judges have to consider before agreeing to any care plan for adoption. See this post for general discussion of the law around adoption and placement orders. 

 

The debate begins

The historical development of adoption in England and Wales

Adoption is the means by which a child’s legal relationship with his birth parents is eliminated and the child becomes a legal member of a new family. Adoption did not become law in England and Wales until the Adoption Act 1926; some time after the USA, Australia and Canada. Many babies born out of marriage in the Victorian era were ‘farmed out’ or placed with married couples who would pretend the baby was their own.  There were increasing concerns about the lack of regulation of this private adoption industry which led to statutory intervention. Under the Local Government Act 1929, local authorities (LA) were given powers to remove children from parents, if the LA decided they could not care for them.

See this post from the Guardian giving a time line of the history of child protection. 

In 1968, 25,000 adoption orders were made, reflecting a society where illegitimacy was still stigmatised, birth control less reliable and welfare benefits less accessible.  In 2014 only about 5000 adoption orders were made. Adoptions now rarely involve babies.

As the President of the Family Division commented at para 15 in the case of N (Children) (Adoption: Jurisdiction) [2015]:

It is important to acknowledge, however, that, whatever the legal theory, practice has changed dramatically over the 89 years we have had adoption in England. Non- consensual adoption used to be rare, but the position has changed radically. Initially, the courts took a very narrow view indeed of the final limb of section 2(3) of the 1926 Act: see Re JM Caroll [1931] 1 KB 317 and contrast H v H [1947] KB 463. Much more important, the entire focus of adoption has changed dramatically in recent decades. Until the late 1960s, the typical adoption was of an illegitimate child born to a single mother who, however reluctantly, consented to the adoption of her child. Non-consensual adoption was comparatively rare. A combination of dramatic changes in the 1960s – the ready availability of the contraceptive pill, the legalisation of abortion, the relaxation of the divorce laws and a sea-change in society’s attitudes to illegitimacy – led to a drastic reduction in the number of adoptions of the traditional type. The result of various changes in the system of public childcare, culminating in the implementation in October 1991 of the 1989 Act, has led in recent decades to a correspondingly dramatic increase in the number of non-consensual adoptions. The typical adoption today is of a child who has been made the subject of a care order under the 1989 Act and where parental consent has been dispensed with in accordance with section 52(1)(b) of the 2002 Act.

The often highly polarised debate about ‘forced adoption’ and what this means for child protection work, gained increased traction around 2007 and became the focus of renewed attention towards the end of 2013. This followed discussion of Alessandra Pacchieri  (the ‘forced caesarean case’ ) and media interest in reports of parents wrongly suspected of abusing their children who were actually suffering from various medical conditions.

You can read comment on Ms Pacchieri’s case and the judgment here. The court made an adoption order in relation to her child in April 2014. The case is here. For an explanation of what sparked John Hemming’s interest in the child protection system, see ‘Hemming’s Way’ the article by Jonathan Gornall in 2007.

 

The Conspiracy Theory and allegations of systemic corruption

However, despite the enormous reduction in adoption orders over 40 years, the debate about the entire concept of adoption continues to grow. There have been serious concerns about the child protection system for many years. Those unhappy with the UK’s approach to ‘forced adoption’  raised their concerns in November 2014 with the European Parliament’s Petition Committee.

In fact, it was this 2013 ‘forced adoption’ debate that encouraged us to set up this resource as we were concerned that a lot of justifiable criticism about the system was getting lost or taken over by those who wanted to believe the more extreme ‘conspiracy theories’  – i.e. that the entire system was corrupt and that social workers are paid bonuses to snatch babies from loving homes.

For a sad example of the damage that can be done to a parent’s chances of keeping their family together, by  a ‘siege mentality’ and belief that concerns about their parenting are fuelled by a conspiracy, see Hertfordshire County Council v F & Others [2014] EWHC 2159.

We have attempted to debunk some of the more specific myths here and in particular the frequently made assertion that adoption targets exist to take babies away, rather than to promote finding adoptive families for children who have already been through care proceedings and don’t have a permanent home.

People who are unhappy with the current child protection system often refer to it as a system of ‘forced adoption’ which is almost unique in Europe.

However, this assertion is not supported by the 2015 Report by the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development from the Council of Europe which notes that adoptions without parental consent are possible in Andorra, Croatia, Estonia, Georgia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Montenegro, Norway, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden and Turkey.  A further 7 countries permit adoption without parental consent in ‘rare’ circumstances. See further, this post from the Transparency Project. See also this post from Claire Fenton-Glynn confirming that EVERY European country has a mechanism to provide for adoption without parental consent. 

They say that children are taken from parents for no good reason in order to meet LA’s ‘adoption targets’ set by various Governments and this is shown by the increased numbers of children being taken into care.

It is further alleged that family courts are secret and people who try to speak out will be sent to prison. Parents aren’t allowed to see the evidence against them and lawyers, experts and Judges are all in each other’s pockets and just rubber stamp the decisions made by the LA and social workers.

There are many on line groups for parents who are convinced that their children were removed on the basis of deliberate lies. The view expressed here is typical:

UK Social Services/CAFCASS are the most prolific and serious perpetrators of Domestic Violence in the country. UK Family Law Courts a close second. One day, history lessons will describe the horrific details of what is happening to families all across the country. The descendants of those who have perpetrated this abuse, will be ashamed of their ancestors and try to distance themselves from them….

Worries about social work practice come from a variety of sources. Colin Brewer wrote in the Spectator in the aftermath of the Rotherham child sex abuse scandal:

The Rotherham report suggests, as June and I suggested 34 years ago, that social workers excel at empathy but lack the ability to carry out ‘coherently planned action’. Social work with troubled teenagers is doubtless even more challenging today than it was in the 1980s, yet the report’s conclusions reveal many of the unhelpful institutional and ideological features that we identified are still with us…

It seems these were not just individual failures, occasional and regrettable exceptions in a generally efficient professional culture, but a persistent feature of a profession that emphasises doing good rather than doing it efficiently. This happens despite the fact that social workers have relatively modest case loads, especially compared with doctors.

These are not fanciful concerns. We should all be interested in the state of our child protection services. However, while we accept that sadly there have been serious examples of injustice we don’t accept that this is a result of deliberate corruption within the system itself, or chasing after ‘adoption targets’.

What is clear is that a growing number of people DO believe exactly that. We need to understand why and what we can do about it. 

 

Adoption Targets: How did this belief take hold? do they exist, and what impact do they have?

In 2000, the government introduced a national target to increase the number of children adopted from care by at least 40% between 1999-2000 and 2004-5. Tony Blair had been horrified by the numbers of children who remained in care for long periods of time without a permanent home.

Therefore, these were not targets to take children from their homes in order to get them adopted but a well intentioned attempt to help children who were already in the care system and hadn’t been found a permanent home.

Claire Fenton-Glynn describes the situation in her study on the UK system, presented to the European Parliament in June 2015:

The Prime Minister’s Review of Adoption in 2000 put forward the belief that the system was not delivering the best for children, as decisions about how to provide a secure, stable and permanent family were not addressed early enough. As such, it advocated an increase in the use of adoption to provide children with permanency at an earlier stage. The Review gave the opinion that there was too great a focus on rehabilitation with the birth family, at the expense of the child’s welfare. It emphasised that the first choice should always be a return to the birth family, but where this was clearly not an option, adoption should be seen as a key means of providing permanence. Foster care, on the other hand, was viewed as a transitional measure, which should be used only as a temporary option.

Following on from this, the government produced a White Paper entitled Adoption: A New Approach, which outlined the government’s plan to promote the wider use of adoption for looked after children, establishing the target of increasing adoption by 40-50 per cent by 2004-2005.39 The White Paper also announced that the government would require local authorities to make a plan for permanence – returning home, placement for adoption, or special guardianship40 – for a child within 6 months of being continuously looked after.

It was in this context that the Adoption and Children Act 2002 was introduced, with the explicit aim of promoting the greater use of adoption. The Act changed the process of adoption itself, by making the welfare of the child the paramount consideration for courts and adoption agencies in all decisions relating to adoption, including in deciding whether to dispense with the birth parents’ consent to adoption.

The Government’s official position about targets to get children taken into care is clear: they don’t exist. Matthew Dalby of  the Ministerial and Public Communications Division of the Department of Education said in October 2014, in response to an email from a parent:

I must explain that there are no targets on the numbers of children in care. In fact the law is clear in that children should live with their parents wherever possible and that families should be given extra support to help keep them together. In most cases, support from the local authority (LA) enables concerns to be addressed and children to remain with their families.

The Transparency Project responded in September 2015 to John Hemming’s assertion that the London Borough of Merton has ‘targets’ to take children from their birth families. There are certainly concerns that ‘key performance indicators’ promoting adoption could risk impacting on the integrity of decision making for individual children. This was analysed in more detail after receiving responses to FOI requests to councils in England and Wales – see the report of the Transparency Project in November 2016. Some of the responses raised concern that reliance on ‘adoption targets’ by some councils in England, could lead decisions being made about children to meet targets, rather than promote their welfare.

Judicial response to allegations of systemic corruption

John Hemming raised very specific allegations about the corruption in the family courts in the case of RP v Nottingham [2008] which were rejected by Wall LJ as being without evidence:

97. It is plain to me from these documents, that in addition to the allegations set out above, Mr. Hemming believes that HJ was in the pay of the local authority and thus was “the local authority’s expert”. For good measure, he asserts that the system is “evil” and that “there does seem to be little concern in the legal profession about the reliability of opinion offered in court.”. The clear implication behind the “witch findings” items on the website set out at paragraph 95 above is that “experts” like HJ are in it for the money; that they are happy to “manufacture ‘evidence'”; and that they are in receipt of “phoney” letters of instruction. The result, Mr Hemming asserts is a “disaster”.

98. In my judgment, these comments are not only wrong and ill-informed; the simple fact remains that they have no foundation in the evidence presented either to the Nottingham County Court or to this court. That they are made publicly by Mr Hemming once again strikes me as an abuse of his position.

Wall LJ went on to say at para 127:

In my judgment, the arguments advanced by Mr Hemming in this case are ill-informed and tendentious. They are contradicted by the evidence, and must be rejected. I think this most unfortunate. Nobody who works in the Family Justice System regards it as perfect: most of us see it as under-resourced and struggling to deal with the work loads thrust upon it. Constructive criticism, particularly from those in a position to bring about change, is to be welcomed. I am myself in no doubt that the system must change and adapt, and I have spoken many times in public in support of my belief that there needs to be greater transparency in order to combat the partial, tendentious and inaccurate criticisms made against the system. I therefore welcome the opportunity provided by this case to demonstrate that the system has operated properly, and that the criticisms made are unfounded.

The Law of Unintended Consequences – Campaigners reject the ‘official’ position

However, following the introduction of targets to speed up finding a home for children in care, some then argue that the ‘law of unintended consequences’  came into play and these targets acted to promote undesirable behaviour from those in the child protection system.

John Hemming has argued that these targets did little to help the older children already in care but rather had the effect of encouraging local authorities to issue care proceedings with regard to more ‘adoptable’ children so they would filter through the system, end up adopted quickly and improve the adoption rates.

This was denied at the time; see this report from BBC News On Line in 2008:

The Children’s Minister Kevin Brennan has denied claims that young children are being taken into care by local authorities to meet adoption targets. Mr Brennan has written to two national newspapers to say there has never been any financial incentive for councils to meet national adoption targets. The claims surfaced over the case of a baby in Nottingham placed into care just hours after being born. Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming has accused the council of baby-stealing.

In a letter to The Times and The Daily Mail, Mr Brennan says there were national adoption targets designed to place more children in care into loving, family homes. But, he writes, “they ended in 2006; and there was never a financial incentive for local authorities to meet these national targets.”

The belief that children are removed from loving homes in order for LA’s to meet their ‘adoption targets’ persists to date.  There is no doubt that this version of events feels very ‘right’ to a significant number of people.

As Claire Fenton-Glynn comments:

While national adoption targets were set for some years, these ceased in 2006. The government emphasised that targets were intended to make sure more children who had been adjudged to need an adoptive placement were found permanent homes. They were not intended to affect the judgment of whether the child was in need of an adoption. However, despite the government’s statements, there is a danger that such targets do impact on such an evaluation, or at the very least, create the perception that they do so. Moreover, the government’s focus on adoption risks disadvantaging those children in care for whom adoption is not suitable. In the year ending 31 March 2014, only 16% of children who left the English care system were adopted, with others returning home, being placed with relatives, or with a special guardian, among other options. As such, an excessive focus on adoptive placements can mean that these others do not receive sufficient attention.

So what is really going on?

There are a number of elements we need to look at to try and work out whether assertions about a deliberately corrupt system contain any truth. Without doubt, the child protection system is not working well. We need to think more deeply why that is.

  • The continuing and repeating pressures on the child protection system which lead to growing distrust between parents and professionals;
  • The cost of care proceedings – why would a LA bear these costs without very good reason?
  • What do the statistics tell us about adoption rates for babies or very young children?
  • Adoption rates are now set to fall in the aftermath of the judgment in Re B-S.

 

A system under pressure

Helping children is a human process. When the bureaucratic aspects of work become too dominant, the heart of the work is lost.

The Munro Review of Child Protection Final Report

We consider the  history of concerns about the child protection system in more detail in this post. In brief, it seems that for very many years the system has become overwhelmed by the demands placed upon it. Excessive bureaucracy, dangerously high caseloads and low morale amongst social workers combine to work against good decision making and protecting children.

Some argue that it is the Children Act 1989 itself that has contributed to the problems, as it has pushed the law into ever less measurable levels of ‘abuse’ rather than setting out realistically measurable standards to govern the protection of children.

The fact that the system is under considerable strain and pressure is a serious problem for us all – but it is not evidence of deliberate malignity on the part of those decision makers.  

 

The cost of care proceedings

It seems odd to suggest that LA deliberately set out to target children to adopt to ‘make money’ when you consider just how much care proceedings will cost them.  Research from the University of Bristol in 2011 said this:

Bringing care proceedings is a costly and time consuming business for local authorities. It has been estimated that each care case takes up 20 per cent of a full-time social worker’s working hours for a year (Plowden 2009). In addition, the local authority will have to contribute towards independent assessments ordered by the court and may need to instruct barristers (counsel) to represent it at court. In order to ensure that proceedings are used only where the local authority can prove its case and court orders are required, as well as to control expenditure, local authorities have established internal procedures for approving court applications. Legal advice and senior management approval are generally required even where an application if made for an order to remove or detain a child in an emergency (Masson et al 2007; DCSF 2008, para 3.3).

However, some will assert that the cost of care proceedings is actually an illustration of the problem – it’s a ‘gravy train’, keeping lawyers, social workers and experts in employment.  So if the financial burden on the LA does not reassure people that care proceedings are not taken lightly, what can we see from the statistics about children taken into care?

If Hemming and others are right, we should see a clear rise from 2000 in the number of babies or very young children taken into care and then adopted.

 

Lies, damned lies and statistics

We argue that the statistics do NOT support an argument that more babies and young ‘adoptable’ children have been targeted since 2000, although it is clear that the number of children being adopted has been rising. However, we agree that there are reasons for concern over a general ‘push’ for adoption as a ‘good thing’ that may lead to compromising the integrity of decisions made about children.

There is now considerable interest in the statistics around adoption and placement orders, so we consider this in detail in another post.

 

Why we reject the allegation of systemic corruption

Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

The court judgments, culminating in Re B-S that have so concerned Martin Narey were right to point out the dangers of sloppy analysis. But why had some cases got into such a mess?  Because the system was ‘evil’, the social workers were telling lies to get their bonuses and that all the lawyers and judges closed their eyes to this because its actually a government policy?

Or is it more likely , that what we have is a child protection system that is often inefficient and/or overwhelmed by case loads? where mistakes are made, but rarely due to deliberate malice?

The conspiracy theories take hold because they feel ‘right’ to a lot of people who may have good cause to feel that they have not been listened to or treated fairly. This can lead people to  be unable or unwilling to consider a reality which does not accord with their strongly held perceptions:

People say: “Let the facts speak for themselves”; they forget that the speech of facts is real only if it is heard and understood. It is thought to be an easy matter to distinguish between fact and theory, between perception and interpretation. In truth, it is extremely difficult.

For further fascinating discussion about the impact of cognitive bias and how hard it is to get people to abandon their narratives, even if they are based on a false premise, see this article ‘Your Brain is Primed to Reach False Conclusions’.

 

What is our reality?

We have not been able to find evidence to support the assertion that the child protection system is designed and maintained deliberately to be corrupt or ‘evil’. Recent research from Cafcass says that LAs were right to make applications for care orders in 80% of cases they reviewed.

But that of course does not mean the system is perfect. Far from it. If 80% of cases are ‘right’ we still have 20% which are not and that is worrying. There are also serious concerns that an ideological ‘push’ for adoption is masking proper consideration of statistical trends.

We agree with that justice needs to be seen to be done and there should be as much openness as possible about such serious matters.

  • We accept that there can be serious consequences when a system is overwhelmed by cases; individual practitioners may lack support, and there is a risk of bad or even no decisions getting made. There is a particularly sad example of that in the case of A and S in 2012 where the boys’ Independent Reviewing Officer had a case load three times in excess of that recommended by good practice.
  • Sometimes mistakes are made because lawyers and doctors got it wrong about the medical evidence. Here is an example of a case where the court decided there wasn’t enough evidence to conclude that a child suffered non accidental injuries as this child also had rickets due to Vitamin D deficiency.
  • There is no doubt that the Government wishes to speed up the adoption process and there are legitimate concerns about how the new Children and Families Act 2014 will operate. See further this article by Cathy Ashley of the Family Rights Group and here for the views of Barnados on the need to speed up adoptions.
  • We note the conclusions of the the Report of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development of the Council of Europe which was concerned by the high numbers of children in England and Wales who were adopted without parental consent, and commented (see para 74) that the UK’s refusal to reverse adoption orders where there had been a miscarriage of justice was a ‘misunderstanding’ of the best interests of the child, who had a right to return to his birth family.
  • Possibly the most serious problem is that social workers in child protection work are asked to wear ‘two hats’ at the same time – they are tasked with supporting families at the same time as they are gathering evidence against them. The tension and difficulties inherent in this dual role are obvious. See Wrennall, L. 2004 Miscarriages of Justice in Child Protection: a brief history and proposals for change.

But what we don’t accept is that these problems – as serious as they undoubtedly are – can legitimately lead to a conclusion that the whole system is corrupt and operating to ‘steal children’ to meet government endorsed targets.

We think it would be a great shame for children and parents if legitimate debate about problems in the system is overwhelmed by allegations that have no basis in fact and which serve only to make parents even more worried and frightened about what the system might ‘do’ to them and their children.

 

The Way Forward.

However, we accept that it is odd, if adoption really is the ‘gold standard’ for children that other jurisdictions do not seem to share the UK’s enthusiasm for adoption without the parents’  consent. 

We should always be open to more discussion and debate about what we should be doing to secure the welfare of children.

You may be interested in this post describing the different approach in Finland, where children who are taken into care will Iive with foster families or in institutional care.  
You may also be interested in this article by an adoptive parent in the Guardian from 2012, discussing the difficulties caused by lack of post adoption support.
There are also concerns expressed by adoptive parents that they haven’t been given the full picture about their children’s backgrounds and this has caused enormous problems for the family. 

  • We agree that everyone who works in the system should be aware of the dangers of an insular or paternalistic approach to child protection issues.
  • We agree that adoption may not be the best plan for every child and there should not be an automatic assumption that adoption is best. There is an interesting article criticising ‘adoption driven systems’ here.
  • However, we think for many children subject to a final care order, it will represent their best chance of achieving a stable and loving home throughout their childhood.
  • We agree that placements with family members should continue to be investigated thoroughly.
  • We also agree that we need more consideration to how we support adoptive placements after an order is made as studies show the breakdown rates for adoptions can be as high as 25%. There is interesting research from the US here which looks at rates of adoption disruption and why they break down. Research published on April 9th 2014 by the University of Bristol offers another perspective on adoption disruption rates, concluding that they are low but emphasising the importance of post adoption support, particularly for older and more challenging children.
  • Social workers need more help to deal with the bureaucracy of their job, so they can focus on working with and supporting families – the ‘reclaiming social work’ model needs wider implementation.
  • What we don’t agree with is a debate that polarises around the term ‘forced adoption’ and politicians who advise parents to leave the country rather than engage with social workers.
  • Where we all hopefully agree is that every child has the right to grow up in a safe home and that any child protection investigation must be carried out quickly and fairly.

We hope this site can be part of sharing resources and information to promote open and honest debate about the child protection system.

 

Further Reading

Key Messages from the Department of Education Research

The Department of Education published ‘Adoption Cases Reviewed: an indicative study of process and practice’ in 2013 which provides a comprehensive review of contested adoption proceedings. Its key messages are set out below. While the review certainly did not find that everything was perfect, it did not conclude there was any evidence of systemic corruption or orders made for trivial reasons:

  • The study confirmed routine local authority and judicial compliance with the required procedural and legal framework for adoption. Parents’ rights to due process in contesting and opposing care, placement and adoption applications were ensured. Decisions were taken by the court in an appropriate way, following the full testing of evidence.
  • Local authority practice in the study cases pre-dated current statutory guidance, in which permanence is required to provide the framework for all social work with children and families. Where it lacked this perspective, social work intervention could not be relied upon to pursue effectively the protection and care planning that might have secured child safety on a permanent basis at home.
  • In addition, quality assurance of child protection and care planning was insufficiently robust.
  • Where risk assessment and protection and care planning lacked confidence and decisiveness, the right of the child to have a safe and permanent family life secured in a timely way could be compromised. Similarly, the right of parents to effective intervention to help them make necessary changes could be neglected where permanence principles were not applied equally to the process of rehabilitation.
  • While no clear pattern of contestation emerged in these cases parents often argued that the local authority had sought merely to gather evidence to make the case against them, rather than intervene purposefully to support the changes required to keep the child safely at home.
  • Extensive use of independent expert evidence and advice provided a guarantee that harm and risk had been assessed fully and decisions appropriately informed, once the case was in proceedings. However, the use of experts also caused duplication and delay. Current proposals for reform will need to ensure such evidence is deployed effectively within the sharper case management regime.
  • This study suggests that the enhancement and quality assurance of the expertise and effectiveness of social work within the inter-agency system should attract policy attention. Timely and proportionate decision making is undermined as much by lack of case management continuity and of grip in making a judgement about parents’ capacity to change in the local authority as it is in the court.
  • The reform process should be underpinned by a review of the philosophy, organisation and support of local authority case management in protection and care planning, to ensure reliability of compliance with current statutory guidance that a permanence perspective is employed as a matter of routine.
  • The reform process should also include a review of the availability and effectiveness of post-placement support for birth parents in all forms of permanent placement, including placement at home.

 

258 thoughts on “Forced Adoption”

  1. MerlinC

    Can I link this fabulous article to another one I’m writing for an Italian online publication? Because it is fantastic and I think it deserves a lot of attention! 🙂

    Reply ↓
  3. MerlinC

    Sorry it took me ages to collect all the evidence against the forced adoption theory and to write a decent article about its flaws. Of course, I will link to your article for the legal part 😉

    It won’t convince the silly conspiracy theorists but at least we have evidence online they are saying and preaching b@%#$#€ ….

    Reply ↓
  4. Philip Measures

    BUT – and I stand to be corrected but no-one has yet produced it – we have a total absence of any long-term systematic research into the positives and negatives of adoption. It may be either more or less effective than we think but why, within what is the ONLY permanent live-changing legal Order that can be made which completely severs all blood ties (except in the cases of ‘mother’s-own’ adoptions) do we lack such methodical evidence-based research?

    Reply ↓
  5. phillimoresarah Post author

    Good question. I think the answer is that to have a child adopted means you can close the book and say ‘problem solved’ – or rather, not the state’s problem any more but the family’s problem.

    I am often taken aback by the uncritical devotion of some to adoption as a cure for all ills, when it manifestly is not, particularly when you have children who are traumatised by their experiences with their birth family and there is not enough post adoption support.

    But I think the tide may be turning. More research is definitely needed in my view – or at least better ways of getting the research ‘out there’ to the practitioners; I know there is lots of good stuff that I often ‘stumble over’. We need clear and robust ways to disseminate the existing research.

    Reply ↓
  6. Julie

    Thanks to all the contributors here for clear and constructive explanations and comments. I am not sure where the term ‘forced adoption’ originated. It is inaccurate in many ways. It does seem that an adoption order made without the consent of a parent is relatively unusual in other jurisdictions. However that does not necessarily mean that children’s and parents’ rights are always better addressed in other countries than the UK. nor does it necessarily mean that a parent who does not ‘fight’ an adoption here does not suffer as much of a loss as a parent who is contesting. I have read that ‘forced’ is a term picked up from the apologies in Australia, where adoption is now rare. But I don’t know if that is in fact the origin.
    I wasn’t sure what the question above about research meant though. There is recent and ongoing research about adoption in England and Wales, so i will try to help if you can specify exactly what you are looking for.

    Reply ↓
    1. MerlinC

      Forced Adoption was also used to address the phenomenon of the children given into adoption through the Catholic Church, sometimes breaking all ties between the birth mother and the child. Due to the rise of sexual abuses all over the european continent, more and more judges tend to put children into adoption without parents’ consent. So, I have no idea where the myth “it doesn’t happen anywhere else” comes from.

      Reply ↓
      1. phillimoresarah Post author

        I need to find out! I am often told that it is only us and Portugal who use ‘forced adoption’ i.e. without birth parents consent, but I don’t know where that comes from.

        Reply ↓
        1. MerlinC

          No, Italy’s courts for minors have the power to strip the birth parents of custody and decide to have them adopted without their consent. Of course, there is not a care system like the British one and social services intervention is limited until the “damage” to the children is evident. Furthermore, children under six can only be given to foster families, not orphanages/care houses anymore.
          Link (it is in Italian, mind you…)
          http://www.intrage.it/rubriche/famiglia/adozione/nazionale/index.shtml
          Unfortunately it also transpires that married couples have less chances to be deprived of custody then single parents or unmarried couples. Which shows the “religious orientation” of Family Law in countries with a majority of Catholic people.

          Reply ↓
    2. Eeyore Incognito

      Can I also add to this the notion that an adoption without consent means a birth parent does not support an adoption is not always true?

      In our case we were informed by the GaL that birth parents often understand and accept the need for adoption yet, at the time of considerable duress during finality of proceedings, simply cannot bring themselves to sign a piece of paper which hands over their child to someone else, because they don’t ever want the child to believe they were unloved or abandoned and “given away”. However in not doing so, the adoption becomes one that is contested.

      It is my understanding (from the GaL) that this is not something that is thought badly of within court proceedings, since it is understood just how difficult this last step is. I’m not sure really where I am going with this but would be interested to hear other views or understanding around this, and how this type of issue might affect research outcomes of “contested” adoptions.

      Reply ↓
      1. phillimoresarah Post author

        It is very common, in my experience at least, for parents to say that they don’t actively want to ‘fight’ but they can’t bring themselves to agree. And everyone understands this completely.

        I do wish there was more independent support for parents – I think Hilary Searing makes the point very well that we need a distinction between the ‘investigation’ and the ‘support’ element of social work. At the moment, one social worker has to wear two very different hats; trying to gather evidence to prove your ability (or not) as a parent and trying to work to support the family to stay together. These are often competing aims and there is no surprise there is tension/lack of trust.

        I see a lot of parents who think they HAVE to fight or their children or friends will think less of them. And maybe what is really needed is to give these parents space and time to accept that sometimes the ‘fight’ is not what they need and choosing not to fight does NOT mean they didn’t love their children or didn’t care for them – as the blog from our birth parent on this site shows, sometimes accepting that you can’t parent at this time is the ultimate act of love for a child in that you sacrifice your own emotions to secure them a better future.

        Reply ↓
      2. Matilda

        No such thing as a “birth parent”. That’s adoptive language. Magical thinking, (a highly narcissistic trait). And a lie.

        Mine was a closed adoption (now known as forced adoption). And I viewed camera footage of a good no of children being forcibly removed from their homes personally ((with UK police in assistance) in 2014. (Couldn’t watch it again. Do your own research.)

        Lying is wrong – so why does lying to children get a pass when the child is adopted? Does lying all of a sudden become ok if the child has lost their mother? And you’ll see how not ok it is if you tell lies to a non-adopted child when their parents are listening. Try it, and see what happens…

        What type of person would ever teach a child that lying is healthy and normal? Not a role model, that’s for sure. And yet a role model is exactly what a parent should be.

        When ppl are pro-adoption, there is always a reason for it. They get something out it, or somebody they care about does. End of.

        I’m personally anti-adoption. And I’m anti-adoption because adoption promotes lies and deceit to a vulnerable child who is forced into a lie of “Let’s pretend forever”. (Erm, no thanks(!).

        And I would have said the same as a child had I understood what was happening. But I didn’t, and I didn’t come to terms or even understand the fact that I was adopted until around age 34.

        I was told around age 8 or 9. And because my adoptive parents taught me that losing my mother was like losing a pair of shoes (perhaps less important) I acted in accordance with their belief. Because that’s all I could do.

        I didn’t understand that I loved her. And I didn’t understand that she mattered. Adoption erased her. Adoption killed her. I didn’t even have 1 photo. I wasn’t permitted to feel anything about her. I grew up with serious mental health issues as a result. And I dropped out of school before even taking my exams.

        I was adopted by mentally unwell tyrants (malignant narcissistic mother and a cerebral narcissistic father). I became an alcoholic by age 17. Adoption went on to destroy the first 45 years of my life. It has also destroyed my only child’s upbringing – as I went through a nervous breakdown that spanned almost 10 years. And I would have killed myself (gladly) if I hadn’t found my Mum in 2009.

        (My Mum has since passed due to a suicide attempt in 2005 which left her with a tracheotomy in her neck. She lost all 4 of her children to adoption. Each to different families – so adoption swallowed up my younger brothers and sister 1 by 1. Adoption took away my family. And I (the eldest) was placed in an abusive adoptive home.)

        I am, therefore, slightly biased due to my experience of adoption. But the suicide rate for adoptees isn’t biased. It’s a fact. And it’s 4 times higher than that of non-adoptees.

        Way too many adoptees (the ppl adoption was created for) would prefer to die than to live an adopted life. And what does that tell you about adoption?

        I’m now grateful to have been abused (after years of recovering and healing) because I no longer have to lie and my brain now works properly. I no longer have to put up with being lied to by sick people. And I no longer have to pretend to be happy, which is what you “must” pretend to be in your adoptive childhood if you don’t know who you are

        The drinking was simply a symptom of the adoption. And now the adoption has been terminated, I no longer drink alcohol – as I have no need to – not ever!!

        Adoptees are people pleasers. Was one myself. I told everybody that I was happy to be adopted. as it was my job to serve the lie of adoption so that others could feel better. I didn’t matter. I was a plaster. And my job as a child was to carry the feelings of my owners.

        Question: is an adoptee lucky if her mother died in child birth? And as for my Mum? She never laid a finger on me (unlike my adoptive parents). She’d been abused herself as a child. She ran away from home at the age of 15. She couldn’t even read or write. And the only person I know who had a harder life than myself was my very own mother.

        She was punished for being an unwed mother at age 17. Blackmailed into giving her 1st child to a loving and stable home that she couldn’t provide due to her social status of being a poverty stricken pregnant teenager who was struggling in every way. Nice isn’t it to take children away from struggling teenage mothers in order to hand them over to rich folk who after having 3 boys of their own only chose to adopt because they wanted to choose the sex.

        Adoption means taking somebody else’s child home and keeping them as though they are yours. That’s very disturbing behaviour. Nature defines a child’s flesh & blood and without that nature (nature being the natural mother) there would be no child. And there certainly wouldn’t be an adoption.

        Mine. Yours. Mine. Yours. Mine. Yours. My Mum is mine. She is mine. Fake doesn’t wash with me. I couldn’t even write my fake name (as a child) without knowing that something was wrong with it. I hated it. It wasn’t mine. And nobody had the right to to brainwash me into believing any different simply because I was a child.

        My truth belongs to me, not some adoptive fraudsters who need a child to make their family look pretty.

        My truth is mine. That begins with my Mum. And to deny adopted children the right to know and grow into their truth (like non-adopted children) is to Impeed their growth. And arrest their mental development.

        Healthy children grieve when they lose their mothers, it’s called being “NATURAL”. Adopted children, however are denied that right – because the grief becomes disenfranchised due to the adoption – in which case – the child grows-up blind and disconnected from their own inner world.

        Adoption means taking somebody else’s child home and keeping it as though it’s theirs. That’s a disturbing occurrence. And it’s sick on so many levels for so many different reasons.

        Adoption destroys low status poor families in order to give their children to wealthier more powerful families. It’s truly disgusting. It’s called divide and conquer. And it’s the entitled among us (those who benefit from it the most) who promote it.

        Being taken home as a child to be kept by strangers? Are you serious? I used to think I had issues until I realised that the people with the issues are the adults who think that children (other people’s children) are their possessions to keep.

        Why has the suicide rate for adoptees not been mentioned in this article? I would suggest it’s because the writer is pro-adoption. And if the writer truly cared about the well-being of adopted children? the suicide rate for adoptees (the dead ones(!) wouldn’t have been omitted. Period.

        Google the words “I hate my adopted child”. Take a look at what adoptive parents are saying. and you will soon feel very sorry for the so-called LUCKY adopted children who are being hated on by their so-called loving adoptive mother & families….Read it. And learn.

        Reply ↓
        1. Mark C

          I’m sorry to hear about your experiences. i’m an adoptive parent, so you will probably discount everything I say, but anyway, here goes:

          Judging from various comments you make you were adopted some time ago (the 60s or 70s?) and things are completely different now. Adoptive parents are not encouraged to lie to their children, but rather to talk to them about adoption from an early age so it feels like it is never not known, or never comes as a surprise to the child.

          All adopted children are given a “Life story” book with pictures and information about their birth parents and why the child was removed from them (and nowadays this would not be solely because the mother is unmarried). Contact of some kind (maybe letters exchanged) continues between the adopting family and the birth parents and it is common for adopted children to meet up with siblings if they can’t be placed in the same family.

          If any lies are told it is likely to sugar coat the child’s early experiences (ie “your birth mummy was too ill to look after you” rather than “your birth mummy was off her head all the time and there was never any food in the house”).

          You say

          Adoption means taking somebody else’s child home and keeping them as though they are yours

          but what really happens is that the local authority take the child. They and the court decide the child can’t live at home. If I hadn’t adopted my son he wouldn’t have gone home (definitely not given the recent updates we have had about his birth parents) . He would have stayed in foster care, with constant social worker visits and monitoring and the possibility of being moved to a new house and family every time a foster carer retires or quits and then turfed out to fend for himself when he is 18.

          Instead he is at the heart of our family and will remain there for life. He is “ours” in every sense of the word, but we know he has a history before he came to us and we honour and respect that.

          We certainly don’t see him as a “possession” and I only ever hear that as an accusation from people who are anti-adoption who seem to have to convince themselves that no one can really love a child who isn’t genetically related to them.

          Do adopted people commit suicide and struggle generallty compared to others because they were adopted or because they suffered neglect or abuse in early life? I read somewhere that trauma and neglect suffered in the first few years of life causes permanent and irreversible changes to brain structures.

          Yes, plenty of adoptive parents struggle to bond with their children – again this is the result of early neglect and trauma leading to attachment disorders in the children (try googling “reactiuve attachment disorder”) and subsequently being moved to various foster placements and not being to trust that any placement really is permanent. It’s a shame that you feel the need to blame the adoptive parents who have to deal with the problems that are no fault of their own, rather than the birth parents/LA actions that caused them in the first place.

          Reply ↓
        2. Sarah Phillimore Post author

          I am really sorry to read about what you have suffered in your life. There is little I suspect that I can say to offer any comfort. What is done is done.

          I agree entirely that the ‘dark side’ of adoption is rarely part of the happy narrative that many push. But I am not ‘pro adoption’. I am ‘pro’ making the choice that is right for the child. And sometimes that IS adoption. Children abused by their ‘birth parents’ also have very high rates of suicide and mental health difficulties. I am sorry you dislike the term ‘birth parents’ but is simply used for clarity. Many adopted children don’t like to distinguish their parents as ‘adoptive’. They are simply their parents.

          Again, I am truly sorry that you have had such a miserable experience and felt such loss. But no personal experience can be universal. We need much more open discussion about the problems inherent in adoption. But i won’t agree that there is never a place for it.

          Reply ↓
          1. Dash

            The Uk needs a system in place like France where a social worker is allocated to a family or an area and work with the families until the kids turn 18, so they’re almost never caught off guard. Over there, The social worker even helps families with housing application, money problems and the relationship is never formal. This is how you build trust and I call it a constructive relationship, whereas in the uk social services only get involved with families only when there’s a safeguarding issue and from there it’s already too late but I can predict several lawsuits against Uk social services as soon as all these children turn 18 and get the true version from their parents.

        3. Lindsay Fraser

          Hi, I’m Lindsay Fraser, who posted two comments last year about police corruption in my own cases of being used as ‘human compensation’ by ‘adoption’ so-called to a psychotic mental patient who had been forcibly sterilised in Nottingham, to see if this ‘balanced’ psychosis, and her violent Army Captain husband, a “disgusting” (U.N. description) Nazi-copied surgical psychiatric experiment that saw me tortured with knives and brutally beaten into silence and sex abused over a span of 25 years. Police corruption can be defined by proven extensive lying, text-alterations, deletions and destruction of evidence, including medical. As you know, HMIC “remains concerned” of institutional child abuse corruption in 41 out of 43 constabularies. The corruption in my cases has continued even to this month. Nothing has really changed, despite defence claims to the contrary by government agencies. Birth certificates are still defrauded to hide atrocious crimes against children, the evidence of which is for the Courts.

          As I had mentioned last year, I, in fact, Submitted in January this year, 2019, my 6,000 documents of evidence that has taken an international team of Prosecutors and Inspectors eighteen years to procure, plus other victims’ cases evidence, totalling 14,000 documents (now 19,000 documents) to the ICC. This is the current situation.

          The International Criminal Court, The Hague, (OTP-30) describe these, both institutional abuses, and the subsequent cover ups (Denial of the Truth Crimes, criminal violations of Art. 54 (1) Rome Treaty, and breaches of CRC) as “serious crimes” but as the Jurisdiction of the Court is June 2002 (which covers police and authority corruption) the Court is transferring responsibility for the cases back to the U.N. to Prosecute as there is no Statute of Limitations in atrocity crimes at the U.N. and no ‘start date’ of Jurisdiction. What the OTP ICC told me was the original crimes should be prosecuted, not just the cover ups which cover 2002 to 2019. This actually makes legal sense, as in my own cases, I have already succeeded at a U.N. investigative Panel Tribunal in New York, Finding True I was tortured and have suffered extensive multiple cover ups since (extended psychological torture), so now the cases are going back to the U.N. to “execute the Findings”.

          Anyone who doubts the reality truth of babies in the U.K. being used in atrocity experiments, with baby-farming councils providing us by adoption (new evidence shows some experiments are still continuing, which is also about to be before the U.N. Court), will be in for a surprise. We all know about the ‘Nicks’ of the world, but these events damage the public image of genuine victims WITH EVIDENCE, NOT HEARSAY or opinions. Police corruption is rife to deny criminal justice, in order to prevent victims getting compensation, as without convictions, reparation is also denied in the U.K.

          The British Government falsely claims there are new protections in place, and things are safer now. Utter rubbish. Pure political branding and plaster over the cracks. Following the instructions of the ICC (in their capacity as a court of “complimentary” law) we have tested the remaining 2 of 30 such child-protection institutions. All have “no remits” or very small teams, and cannot do individual cases, and one of the two has proved itself a public deception that serves to secretly warn councils of what evidence a victim has. We caught them out even secretly revealing my name and home address in defiance of my seven instructions not to tip off the Council, after refusing to safe-guard partially council withheld evidence. That is child protection ?? It’s a rubbish. They claim “confidential” all over their communications, which is utter lying. They have exposed my name and address as a sex abuse victim of the council, and even secretly revealed the U.N. and U.K. Charity involvement. We have the documents. The problem is I have already been threatened three times by police and another authority (veiled threat against my “health”) for proceeding in international law. To HELL with their threats. They are going to prison. Of course, U.K. police have refused to investigate, also crimes, with one force telling me two weeks ago in writing they cannot prosecute institutional criminals. So they are on the Indictment Lists too. The U.N. considers already that the U.K. is the “worst of industrialised nations” for institutional child abuse and cover ups. The U.N. Tribunal in New York, my evidence is “the best seen so far”.

          So all naysayers and “conspiracy” doubters, well, anyone who disagrees there is corruption and experiments on children, in some months, I don’t know yet how long it will take, you can see the truth on your TV screens, because U.N. Trials of 300 named Defendants, exposing the mechanisms of colluded Denial of the Truth, may change your minds.

          Victims, keep fighting and send your cases to the U.N. High Commissioner, but you do need document evidence to do this.

          For Tribunal access rights write to:-

          Rule of Law Unit
Executive Office of the Secretary-General
          United Nations Headquarters
          First Avenue at 46th Street
          New York, NY 10017
          USA

          AND for case Submissions go to the U.N. High Commissioner’s site Geneva Switzerland and follow the instructions for Submissions

          Reply ↓
          1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

            I do doubt very, very much that there is any such thing as ‘baby farming’ councils – but no doubt you will soon be able to provide evidence to support this if your matter is indeed being investigated at such a high level. I will look forward to reading it.

        4. gunslinger

          You are a miracle. You amaze me . You said alot there . I myself had my children taken …literally for no reason at all …let alone no lawful reason . 4 children . 3 are dead ( before the age of 21). They didn’t like their adopted parents . We reunited before they perished . After that …they hated their adoptive parents even more . The reasons they hated them are exactly what you just stated. . Abuse by their adoptive parents and just knowing they wanted them just to look good and they providing a monetary gain by adopting. But discovering all the lies it took to complete the adoption scheme seriously affected myself and my children. I wouldn’t believe the things that happened if they were told to me, I saw with my own eyes the corrupt plan being carried out . How little they thought of them and myself was disgusting to say the least . To destroy a family and rip people away from each other then turn around and pretend everything is wonderful is satanic. Bone chilling. Makes me shutter what they did to my boys . The suffering they went through every single night missing me was incredibly chilling. 2 boys perished in a car crash. The third boy took some pills 2 yrs later and never woke up. I can’t talk about it so long. This is the first time I’ve ever replied or told even partial history of this . I read your response and I think how you put things so honestly , so brutally specific is exactly what people need to hear . I think your recovery is just ….I don’t want to give it a cheap description but I can say that your like as hero in this . You’ve overcome huge . I think it’s amazing that you did. Against all odds. You are on point on everything.. Thank You for writing that because you’ve made me be able to speak out about my experience . You made me brave . For that I thank you

          Reply ↓
          1. Lindsay Fraser

            Thanks for your reply and I am so sorry to hear how much you have suffered. You know that in 2020, the U.N. defined Britain as the “Worst of industrialised nations for child abuse” and that includes having your babies removed. Between 1,200 and 1,600 babies are still being removed from their parents each year in the U.K. with no real reasons. U.N. process is notoriously slow, and somewhat complex in Justice routes, which have increased in number since I last posted, (do ask for addresses if wanted, but you can get these from the U.N. web sites) but gets justice for victims in the end, when domestic remedies are exhausted. Thank goodness Raab has now gone. But if Human Rights justice is denied in the U.K., although they have run from the E.U. Courts, they cannot run from the U.N. My own cases are ongoing in an incredible way. The I.C.C. start date July 2002 meant they could not prosecute the original crimes but also Directed I first exhaust all domestic remedies and then go to the U.N., although they held the door open to prosecute the corruption crimes. Well, this has resulted in more corruption evidence, and the Courts to go to are 1) U.N. Committee against Torture, and 2) the U.N. Council for Human Rights as preferred options. I got lucky because a specialist researcher in the U.K. obtained a tremendous amount of new evidence of what happened to me, and sadly my real mum died of cancer, but I am in contact with her extended family. The original ‘court’ documents were fabricated. I was not born Jonathan Twigg, but Jonathan Edmiston, nor was I born Lindsay Fraser as in the fabricated birth certificate. Notts Police are currently doing a new investigation, but the forces that corrupted the evidence before are not complying. One of the forces are evidentially still lying in every sentence, and Notts are experiencing significant delays from other “agencies”. ICO has proved itself profoundly corrupt, colluding with police and authority data controllers to hide ‘personal data’ which doubles as crime evidence, that we now have procured in the main, and consider this. ICO is paid fees by authorities, and makes 64 million pounds in annual profits, which includes profits from child abusing authorities, so of course they hide evidence to protect their fee-paying clients, and their ICO Upper Tribunal’s ‘judge’ is not recognised as an appeal judge by the MoJ Registered Complaint. The ICO tribunals are a public deception. The so-called Judge, refused to read the evidence of two years of ICO perjury to refuse to work, refused to read the baby abduction and torture evidence, refused to read the I.C.C. Admissions Letter, claiming he was not able to read any evidence because he was saturated with thousands of complaint appeals against ICO (testimony to the corruption at the Information Commissioners Office, who incidentally immediately instructed the ICO First Tier to strike my cases out before the two years of evidence of ICO perjury could be heard) and the Upper Tribunal Judge called me and the I.C.C. a “Fantastical (sic) conspiracy theorist of no merit, not to be given a platform to disseminate such nonsense, without a jot of evidence from the I.C.C., Appeal refused” 4th December 2022 and ‘set aside’ his insults refused January 2023. All inventions from this ‘judge’ total evidential lies. That evidence is now before the I.C.C. Office of the Prosecutor, but in addition I have now received all the medical evidence of torture of me, that was withheld from me in 2002. I do recommend the PALS NHS service, they do dig up “long-term storage microfiche records”, after the NHS itself had claimed the records had been destroyed. These records do exist, although not in date order, so I am still recompiling them (around a thousand torture records) to be in chronological date order. What victims can do, is as multiple records can exceed email 25 megabyte limits for court email sendings, is instead, compile evidence on a pen drive (I use 128GB) and post that with covering letter to the U.N. Courts. In total, I now have over ten thousand documents much of it on corruption and perjury. There are other U.N. Justice Instruments too, but the U.N. Council for Human Rights can also effect criminal prosecutions against State child abusing, thieving corrupt agencies, councils etc.. Universal Justice international Prosecutors have been working on my cases over a 21 YEAR span, I’ll be 70 years old this year in August, and the documents prove I was abducted at birth to be used as a lab rat in the 1950’s sterilisation experiments on mental patients, given to a dangerous psychotic who had murdered a baby, to see if I were tortured, and if so, the experiment had failed. Honestly it’s incredible. I was tortured and sex abused for many years. The cover ups are “extended psychological torture” in international law. I am fighting for criminal justice as much for myself as all the other victims who have sent us evidence. No time-limits nor immunities exist in Crimes against Humanity, Denial of the Truth Crimes. U.K. police have threatened me, for proceeding against them, but it is never a crime to submit evidence to a court of law. I don’t care about their threats, it is just more evidence against them.

        5. Kev

          Sorry you had a bad time. My adoptive parents were wonderful and, although limited in their aims by their own experience of life, tried their very best to give me a good start. I am as pro adoption as you seem to be anti and, having spoken to many adopted children over the years, I have come to the conclusion adoption is neither good nor bad but depends on the experience undergone by both child and parents.

          Reply ↓
    3. ian josephs

      I originated the term “forced-adoption” around 2002 and so named my site. Nobody except the judges talk of grand conspiracies and they only do this so they can debunk the idea ! In fact of course it is more a case of “birds of a feather flock together” or those who live off a rotten system naturally defend the system. Our wonderful MPs when they fiddled their expenses did not conspire together ;they individually fiddled of course but I doubt if they had a grand meeting to decide the best ways to fiddle ! It was each man for himself “;snouts in the trough” and so it is with the judges,the social workers,the “experts”,the guardians ,and the cafcass gang ! They don’t care if the LA makes a loss as long as they do alright individually
      The fact is that babies are taken at birth for mere “risk” of emtional abuse.Parents who have not committed crimes against children should not be punished and neither should their children.That is what is wrong AND TO STOP TAKING CHILDREN FROM PARENTS WHO HAVE NOT BROKEN THE LAW IS THE WAY TO PUT THINGS RIGHT.After all what is the point of laws if you punish people who don’t break them?

      Reply ↓
        1. Michael Shaw

          So thats the best you can come up with…. I read everything on this page in slight disgust. I understand that certain children may need to be adopted. But in some circumstances of dv even if the couple seperate the LA uses the argument that this couple are lying and still together and if the child would return to either parent they would get back together in their hostile relationship and place the child at risk of emotional abuse or secondary abuse. Even if the child has thirved and not come under any physical abuse or emotional abuse but the risk being too high to remain in the family even under a supervision over with support. For a parent who passes a drug test, has no mental illness or diagnoses and no criminal record and has shown in contact love and affection and capability to take care of so called basic care needs. And even if the parent also has support of family and a roof over their head and everything the child needs. The child would still be adopted for risk of emotional abuse with the narrative that the parents would get back together just because they keep in touch via phone despite the fact they both say they are not together. The court just goes along with the la and the system is a joke, anyone on legal aid gets a shit barristor who just does favours to get ahead in their profession. No support for parents who have suffered trauma. Especially not the men who are sidelined and not allowed contact until a dna test even when it was the mothers who was forced to leave and seperate from the father social workers had never even met or seen with the baby. And the mother who then got drunk and neglected the baby whilst in the refuge social workers convinved her to go to and signed a section 20. The father gets a phone call and gets told his baby is now with a foster carer and to get a solicitor. Father, who was actually the one who did most of the actual nursing of the baby as the mother wansn’t bonding with the baby, this father who sang to his baby everyday and fed him winded him cleaned him never once shouted or commited any form of abuse or violence or did any drugs in the presense of his baby. This father gets told to get a solicitor and in being overwhelmed he tries to commit suicide by taking thousands of mg worth of anti-depressants (thinking this would do the job) and unsucessfully commits suicide…. And while in hospital of which he has no reccolection apparently he wouldnt let nurses take his blood and had to be restrained by police, and was abusive to staff but not said if he was violent in any way. But upon wanting to leave he speaks to some so called professional who asks if he will try it again and the father says no just to leave and is obviously still very distressed and upset. But gets labeled dangerous and angry young man at 21 because of actions he has no reccolection in which nobody was harmed and children where present… This father… Traumatised by the forced seperation and being sidelined despite being on the birth certificate… This father is then judged by how he talks to these social workers when he is in incomparrable pain and trauma due to the IMMENSE TRAUMA from forced seperation…. I was my sons strongest bond and that is what happend to me and my son and the biggest pain is that he will grow up not knowing who he is and why this happened to him. But judging a parent after you have taken the child to assess if they are a concern is ridiculous. Its like kidnapping their baby and then judging them how they cope and look after themself during the 6 months court. Which btw any dv course takes 6 months so its ridiculous when parents of alleged dv can’t even complete a course in time for the final hearing. And the notion of not believing a couple will stay seperated if they say they will is a joke…. Forced adoption for parents who do not have a criminal record or commited any crimes against children and show love and affection and show they can look after the child and pass a drug test still have their babies taken from them…. That is what is wrong… I have the final verdict where it states in black and white by the judges verdict that the LA did not follow correct procedure and it must never happen again… In other words they broke the law which they did by sidelining me despite the fact i was on the birth certificate and not letting me see him before a dna test despite the fact we both knew i was the the father as said so. But because the mother once said i wasnt but then changed her story and admitted she lied and said i was the father they still broke my bond with my son and broke the law but those involved do not get prossecuted… Sadly i live with this guilt and trauma and i know that my son is going to have it the worst because all is he going to know or think os that his parents did not want him and i do not even know if he is alive… I have had no support with mail box despite asking for it and i did ask if i would be noticed if he was eve harmed or moved to a different family or if they moved abroad or if god forbid he went to heaven they told me i would not even be told…. And when live in a world where jimmy saville was best friends with our future king its no wonder i can’t sleep at night…. The hope of one day seeing my son again is the only thing that keeps me breathing…. And it takes my breathe away every night… 7.43am…. Not slept… Again… 4 years on….. 12 more to go….. This is wrong and in my case the system failed not only me but more importantly, they failed my baby who thirved in my care and met all his weight gain targets in the 6 weeks i looked after him from birth everyday with his mother but honestly she would pass him to me if he was crying and i would be calm and he would settle with me. She booked 5 abortion appointments and said the only kept him because i wanted him. She never wanted to breast feed and simply didnt want to bond with him, i think now she had pnd looking back but irregardless she told her uncle in his statement it said she was thinking of leaving me with the baby….. Instead she picked her bags and left me alone with he baby late at night and my mum who house we lived in at the time was in ireland on holiday and i was 21 and my heart broke and he was fast asleep and i just remember sitting there frozen… For a good 30 seconds after she left with her bags…. I gave him a kiss and made sure his blanket was tucked under so he really couldnt pull it up(obviously always did this anyway) and i ran after her looking the door, she was about 50 yards down the path and long story short she pushed me away and i reacted and felt myself hit her, i tried to stop as i realised which i did just before, she didnt bleed or fall to the floor and i immediatly apologised as i really didnt mean to do it i was just so upset she could leave not me but her baby our baby how can she leave him.. I had never ever hit a woman or ever since hit a woman nor ever intended to it was a horrible thing i did i realised what i had done the second it happend. I apologised a thousand times in the days that followed. Because she came back home after that incident we were hugging and i said how sorry i was and how much i loved her and i ran back to the baby who i must of left for no more than 3 or minutes, ( i regret this ofcouse but he was sound asleep and was still asleep when i got back, but again i obviously regret it) and i was and still am deeply sorry for what i did. But the fact is days later because she had a black eye and for the 2nd time ever i was apart from my son with my grandad going for lunch and i came home to a note from johns mum which just said she had to leave amd she was sorry…. It was about a week later after having no knowledge of how my son was i got a phone call saying she had got drunk(she was an alcoholic before she met me. I rarely drink) and she signed a section 20 and my heart broke into a million pieces and nobody can tell me i harmed my baby because i never and he came under no harm in my care and to say it was likely he would have is a joke. I was learning and using sign language with certain words when he was a month old. I read him shakespeare and sang john lennon songs to him every day. He was never harmed and thirved… Until they make his mother leave by threat of taking the baby anyway despite not even meeting me first and the social broke the law and this… This is what is meant to be justice?… Thomas paine would be turning in his grave if he only knew of the social injustice that goes on today…. My son and myself have been punished for a crime we did not commit. One day this will be looked back upon as the atrociety it really is. Ive paid my price a million times over for my mistakes and god know that atleast.

          Reply ↓
          1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

            I am sorry but your reply is too long and has no paragraphs and I can’t follow it. some things I did read and don’t agree with. You don’t necessarily get a ‘shit barrister’ on legal aid. Turning parents away from taking advice and help from their legal reps is one of the most harmful things a lot of so called McKenzie Friends have done. I am sorry that you are clearly experiencing so much emotional pain. But from what I can glean from your reply there were things happening here that would worry a lot of people.

          2. Angelo Granda

            Michael Shaw ,As a fellow parent reading between the lines of Sarah’s reply to you, I assume she means that many people will be worried about the fact that the child was removed from your care unlawfully and I have to agree with her i.e. correct procedure was not followed. Generally all honest child-protection professionals and,of course ,your fellow citizens are bound to be extremely worried about such a state of affairs, this will be for the simple reason that it has been stated that, in law, removal should never be ordered unless correct due procedural guidelines and safeguards have been followed scrupulously. If I am wrong ,someone will come on and correct me ,i feel sure. One wonders where your lawyers were coming from not to argue this principle with the Court more strongly.The pathetic thing is that some lawyers,Judges included ,appear to be wired differently ,they seem to be programmed to think and prefer ‘removal’ and they have the discretionary power to ignore human rights standards and conventions. They twist and bend and play about with language in order to satisfy the law in their minds but ,of course,they can get away with it in closed courts.The General Public don’t know what goes on. When I say they are programmed inhumanely i mean they do not have the brains in their heads to realise that when Local Authorities flout guidelines and due procedures unlawfully, on the balance of probabilities it cannot really be denied that so is the evidence they have presented unlawful. It will have lacked impartiality and it will not have given the court a true picture of the circumstances.It will have exaggerated all the many issues and will have caused the court to arrive at misinformed ,wrong appraisals. It will have demonised you. Here on the CPR , we all know why the Local Authorities act reprehensively in the way they do. Because they do not wish to incur the cost of offering parents and their children support services.In your case,it will be much cheaper to get the child adopted. That is why they acted unlawfully ( as pointed out by the Judge).
            So,yes,I think Sarah is right to be worried about what is happening here.Anyone whose mind is inclined or programmed towards justice as we are will be. Your lawyers probably let you down and the only remedy you have is to appeal to a higher court. I am afraid you will need to ask a barrister for advice re- the possibility of appeal.Unfortunately,however, many lawyers are programmed inhumanely as I said before and will prefer to leave the outrageous inhumanity your baby has suffered unchallenged regardless of incorrect procedure. In closed courts, the system can get away with much.
            Hope my opinion helps in a small way but i am sorry i don’t hold out much hope for you or your child under the system we have.I think you have already worked that one out for yourself.

          3. Sarah Phillimore Post author

            Angelo, I think you need to read his post again.
            Its difficult to follow as it is so long and has no paragraphs.
            But this is the bit I noted.
            and long story short she pushed me away and i reacted and felt myself hit her, i tried to stop as i realised which i did just before, she didnt bleed or fall to the floor and i immediatly apologised as i really didnt mean to do it
            He didn’t mean to do it.
            But he did. And where was the baby?

            It is not ‘inhumanity’ to worry about a baby in the care of a parent who would do this. I suspect there is a lot more going on here that we are not getting the full details about. Just this small snippet is enough to make me very uneasy.

          4. Angelo Granda

            Of course,we should be uneasy about violence but realistic,well-informed appraisals rely on correctly conducted ,fair evaluations made following all procedural guidelines and rules.Even where men are guilty of violence, their children are entitled to have their cases conducted correctly.
            We don’t want procedural lapses to result in children being sent home to their deaths. Neither would we want a child procured into care needlessly.
            Surely,even you agree with that?

          5. Sarah Phillimore Post author

            Of course. But you are ‘advising’ a man who admits to an act of violence against a woman to think that the whole system is inhuman and against him. I strongly suspect there is a lot more going on here. It is not normal or acceptable behaviour to assault another person, no matter how wound up or frustrated you are. And when there is a baby involved in this situation it gets very serious indeed.

          7. Angelo Granda

            Sarah and Helen,Your reactions to my comments are curious to say the least. I am expressing another parents view to the fellow and I would expect both of you to be just as concerned as the Judge and I about the fact that the L.A. failed to follow correct procedure.I am wondering what the LA’s motives were for taking the baby into care when there is extended family willing to help out etc. The Judge found it very serious and warned that it must never happen again.
            Naturally,i agree absolutely with you both that there are many points Michael has made which give cause for concern. In his favour, he has apparently been very honest in his own appraisals and not denied concerns and i am sure you will agree he acknowledges concerns and that he wishes to make changes and reform. Indeed he has commenced the process.
            Sarah, as a lawyer, do you agree with me and the Judge that LA’s should not flout procedures and when they do , doubt is thrown onto the correctness of its evidence?
            Helen ,i suppose you are quite used to reading about LA’s who conduct cases incorrectly .You should take malpractices more seriously! They lead to injustice.

          8. Sarah Phillimore Post author

            Of course procedure should be followed.
            Equally, one needs to be cautious about accepting an individual’s analysis of the case against them.
            Only when the whole case is seen in the round, can proper conclusions be drawn about who has failed the child and in what way.

          9. Angelo Granda

            Might I add that Michael has admitted dv so the correct approach will be to put the matter into the hands of the Police and criminal justice system.He should be charged and punished in proportion to his offence and helped by a probation officer and other support services.

      2. lyn

        Well said In, these people are deluded & claiming hardly any babies are adopted anymore is a down right lie.. I know of about 5 people who lost to force adoption just this month. & its certainly wrong how when these people a caught out lying in court they not charged for this

        Reply ↓
        1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

          Its not a downright lie. look at the statistics. The majority of children adopted are between ages of 1 and 4. They are not babies.

          Reply ↓
          1. Titus Yang

            To comment on Ian Josephs’ quote and Sarah Phillimore’s reply:
            “Stop taking children from parents who have not broken the the law is the way to put things right”.
            The response of : “Your energy is admirable, your tedious repetition of the same old, same old is not.” is clearly not addressing the comment directly, only an attempt at childish insult.
            Perhaps the reason Ian Josephs repeats the above is because this issue has not been addressed in any meaningful way, either by Social Services or individuals like yourself, Sarah.
            So the question remains, why are people/children being punished in spite of not breaking any laws?

          2. Sarah Phillimore Post author

            I have addressed Mr Joseph’s comments time and time again. He simply repeats his tired old mantras. Sorry that you find this ‘childish’ – I find it very irritating and completely counterproductive. There is a distinction between the criminal law which exists to express society’s disapproval of criminal acts and to protect the public from criminals, and from laws about child protection which exist to protect children. Therefore, parents who have not committed a criminal offence may find themselves not allowed to look after their children, because the risk that they will harm their children is considered too great.

          3. Angelo Granda

            In my eyes ,babies remain babies until they become infants able to walk unaided and travel distances without a pram or buggy and to be fully continent. This will normally be at an age they begin nursery ,say about three years of age. Many ‘normal’ citizens also tend to refer to their youngest children as the ‘babies’ of the family at least until they commence infant school at five years.
            Of course,statistics can deceive and I feel we should not be misled by the one cited above.

          4. Sarah Phillimore Post author

            That is all very well, but that isn’t the accepted definition of ‘baby’. This means child from 0-12 months.
            Then you have toddler 12 – 24 months
            Then pre-schooler

          5. Lindsay Fraser

            Well, I was passed AS A BABY , the 2016 released documents prove, to a dangerous psychotic mental patient, by so-called ‘adoption’ ( being a British military couple, they were moved around the country, Surrey Police “not in the national interest to prosecute” 14/4/2004), and covered up with text destruction, alterations, medical evidence withheld etc. usual lying, now all proven at the U.N. a psychotic , chucked out of the RAF on grounds of insanity, but her violent Army husband beat me into silence nearly every day, and she, every three months in her psychotic episodes, tried to kill me with knives for being Satan that “deserved to die”. Medical evidence records I had to run for my life from the age of seven years, and medical records record something happened to me when I was four and half years old, but I remember the knife attacks from the age of 7 years.. I was NEVER RESCUED, even though Guildford SS knew when she was found running around the Sheepley’s Woods looking for me with a knife in her hands to kill me. Surrey Police, it is PROVEN, deleted my sex abuse allegation, against the psychotic, who had already murdered her first natural child before she was enforcedly sterilised in an eugenics atrocity “”Army Job” experiment farmed for the purpose by N.C. Council as “human compensation”. “Baby -farming” exists whether Sarah “very much doubts it” or not, whistle-blowing social workers have told me I was one of the “Army Jobs” but fortunately international Prosecutors, including from the U.N. itself, who have guided me for now 18 years, managed to procure most of the evidence. 19,000 documents of multi-case evidence is now in front of the I.C.C. including a 2005 Act of Parliament that makes atrocity crimes like this “legal” when the U.N. recognises these eugenics experiments on psychotic mental patients as Crimes against Humanity.

            Sarah, rather than very much doubting evidenced cases, please do some research into HMIC recognised police corruption in institutional child abuse, affecting 41 out of 43 forces. This is rife. Thank you. Some of the evidence for international criminal prosecutions has been provided by one of the important Charities, you know the one I mean, granted Executive Powers.

            The I.C.C.’s Jurisdiction Date is June 2002, so the OTP has referred some of these cases, including mine to the U.N. to prosecute, and provide “significant compensation” always denied in the U.K. as cover ups (Denial of the Truth Crimes) mean without convictions, the victim gets nothing. The Prosecutors are asking the U.N. now, to set up a Special Prosecutorial Tribunal to execute the Findings True of the U.N. investigative Tribunal, New York. These crimes, exist. What we want is criminal and civil justice. There are NO Statute of Limitations (time-limits) There are NO immunities in Crimes against Humanity. It will take time, but we will win in the end on the strength of documentary evidence. At the I.C.C. we victims have “Maintained Cases Status” pending the further generic evidence I sent in a Second Tranche three weeks ago. But, my cases and pre-2002 originating cases, are being sent now to the U.N., not just to Prosecute the evidence-smashers under Article 258 (individual criminal responsibility), but the authorities that have tortured and sexually abused the official (Radford) statistic of eleven million children. The “no-justice-despair suicide” rate is shocking. Around 1,000 per year, when only 2% of child rapes ever see a crown court in the U.K. Sarah, you just do not realise how bad the situation STILL is.

            All the Submitted cases include police harassment and false arrests of child abuse victims complaining about evidential corruption, but we are not silenced. We have one case of police murder of a multiple child rape victim, at the behest of persecution by the profoundly corrupt CPS. There has been no Inquest, two years after she was falsely arrested and tortured in a police cell to death. I wonder why not. The U.N. considers the evidence I have Submitted as Cases Compiler, “Best seen so far”. Wait for the international Trials to come against 30 institutions, and five police forces. These will be globally extract.televised. I guess about a year as these processes are not quick, and there is now 19,000 documents of hard evidence to plough through. Sadly, and shamefully, they just scratch the surface of the true hell inflicted by the State. When they destroy a child, they destroy the future generation. My anger is my determination which has driven me for so many years of Prosecutor-assisted international Procurement.

      3. Carmie b

        I was a victim of domestic violence and suffered threw bad justice system I was abused by my ex partner I was in a relationship with at the time I later on in the relationship found I was pregnant to the perpetrator I left him when I was around 20 weeks pregnant after he put me threw a 6 hour ordeal of abuse in the danger of him harming my unborn baby (his daughter) or being seriously hurt or even killed social services called round to see me and my partner that morning then on the night it happened I ended my relationship with him and social worker said him or my daughter I chose my daughter they knew what he did coz when I escaped the next morning from my ex while he was asleep I phoned the police who made social workers aware of what happened I also rang my self and told them about this they told me to stay away from him and I did press charges on him and I did for to court against him and I did and I asked my self for a restraining order on him and it was granted I had my baby and was told is have her in the home fill the Monday she was born at 9:46pm on the Friday 22nd September 20I7 i was over the moon but on the Saturday a woman came in and said my daughter was being removed from me at 7:00pm that evening and made me sign a section 20 then I text my social worker saying about this she told me I didn’t have to sign anything I had her till Monday but the other lady said if I didn’t sign the police would come and forcibly remove my daughter this was very distressing and confusing and made me very emotional stressed I didn’t no what was going on or if I was even rite but then she was taken at 7pm and I found out I wasn’t aloud her till Monday as maternity didn’t have the room this is why this happened the social worker who gave me the information that I had her till Monday was told off and they apologized to me I went to all my meetings and appointments and worked with them determined to get my daughter back how ever leading up to my final hearing things changed all the time I was being told I was doing brilliantly while my daughter was in care and I was aiming in getting her back I was having regular contact and I thought it was all going well until slowly more and more things in my report was going wrong they was telling me to find a new accommodation I applied for a discretionary housing payment for a new property and was was excepted how ever at my last meeting they told me they was going to ask the court for my daughter to be adopted and only at my last meeting knowing I had raised with them for months that I was struggling to find somewhere they never said anything till my last meeting she said you should of asked me for help I could of helped you but yet nothing was said when I said I was struggling she said you should of asked me I can’t help you if you don’t ask so I felt like id failed my daughter this was so upsetting I went to court every time I worked with them tried my best to work with them in the best interested of my daughter agreeing with most things they said and asked for my final hearing was today 14/03/18 and my daughter has been granted for adoption at the beginning I was told that the reason for her being taken was cause of her sad assaulting me yet I tried and they decided not to let me have her back anyway today they was granted adoption by the magistrates Court regarding my case I will never see my daughter again and feel as though I have failed her and it has made me feel that there is no justice to domestic violence sufferers cause if you are beaten by someone if you phone the police and have social services involved you lose everything for speaking out and if you don’t you are at risk of losing your life or quite possibly your child’s so now I don’t see no justice in the justice system or social services it makes me feel that suffer in silence and risk yours and your child’s life or being seriously hurt and don’t say anything or speek out and lose everything I don’t feel safe to report it nor stay quiet what are women supposed to think and do there is no justice for victims of domestic violence be a victim and be punished speek up and get punished where is the justice in this and what do we gain from it it’s a Lose lose situation wile the perpetrator roams free I have no faith in the system anymore and no hope for violence sufferers this is the impression I have of the justice system and no matter how you deal with it there is no way to win please surely there is someone somewhere who can help women like me with this IV lost everything so it is to late for me but I just want justice for other women out there or to help silent sufferers in similar situations find there voice to come forward and speek out And I am seeking out to our nation for all the victims of domestic violence to come forward or to aware everyone that can relate to this emotional and confusing unjusticeness and seek out justice and rite in our justice system
        Thank you

        Reply ↓
        1. Angelo Granda

          Carmie b,
          I am not a professional just another parent trying to help you. Reading your story,I believe your case was conducted wrongly from the start and that you have been discriminated against whilst at your most vulnerable and without being advised of your right to advocacy at the crucial time when compelled under threat to sign the s20. I suggest you should not give up;instruct your solicitor tomorrow to apply for permission to appeal.You have only 21 days to discuss it and get in an application.
          Thank you very much for you post.Your child’s human rights (and your own) have been contravened in my view.Where your lawyers were,I don’t know.
          It is of great credit to you that you can write such an account to help others at such an awful time and I hope you get the time to tell us what response you get from your lawyers in the next three crucial weeks.
          A question: Have you or any member of your family had any past involvement with social services (perhaps you have been in care yourself)?
          Another: On the day your child was taken,did the social worker tell you about your right to an independent advocate and give you the contact details of one?

          Reply ↓
        2. Sam

          Thank you so much for taking the time to write this at such a difficult time in your life. I agree victims are in a no win situation and perpertrators just get away with their crimes and probably go onto to do the same again with another woman. If you can find some support please try and do so. Thank you again. I think what you have written needs to be given to every trainee social worker and every family court judge

          Reply ↓
        5. HelenSparkles

          It is incredibly difficult to leave an abusive relationship and it is true that men move on to other relationships. Without going in to the detail of perpetrator programmes, because there are different perspectives, they do require someone to acknowledge their behaviour. I haven’t met many abusive men who have that insight. Like therapy, they aren’t effective unless someone wants to engage, and sees some value in it. That means if a child is to remain with a parent, and not be at risk, they need to be with their mum. Even if we ignore the emotional ask that is and the risk they are putting themselves at (leaving is the most dangerous time) the practical support is just not available enough.

          Reply ↓
          1. Sam

            Thanks Helen
            I agree practical support is not enough. Insight is needed into what abuse is , why they got into the abusive relationship in the first place and last but not least being able to spot an abusive man and having the assertiveness to tell them to get lost.
            All of which can be taught but is better actually caught from spending time with others who are further along their journey away from abuse. The Freedom Programme is a great place to start, with a note of caution , not about the course itself , but they way in which it is delivered. It must not be used as a fishing expedition to acquire knowledge to remove children , rather to build woman up so they make good choices about relationships in the future. Incidentally and this is a personal viewpoint, but one I have seen work, if you have been in an abusive relationship , give yourself at least six months to a year, if not longer before getting into another relationship, no matter how nice or normal the man seems. Learn to love yourself first and you will attract the right type of person next time, if indeed you need to be in a relationship at all, not a user.

          2. Angelo Granda

            Thank you , Helen.
            As you will know,when violent men are convicted in a criminal court, the Judge can compel him to undergo a programme of reformation by order of the court part of which includes getting him to recognise and acknowledge shortcomings . Also,of course,when condemned following a fair hearing ,folk do tend to admit their guilt and realise they must change or spend their lives in prison.
            This is why it is so essential that the Police do their Job properly,investigate thoroughly and find the evidence they need to convict rather than take the easy way out and pass the buck to the CS.
            However,we have a situation where they do not bother and they refer cases to Child protection as instructed when a family have children.It may be difficult but it is the social workers job to act in the children’s paramount interests and engineer /create a support plan which enables them to remain with family.It is over the top to permanently liquidate families.
            As I have said,I know it isn’t easy but at all times ,SW’s should follow procedures and guidelines and be open and quite candid,explaining to the alleged offenders what they need to do and what changes they need to make ,how shouting and violence affects children etc and set out a pathway leading to reform. If they are fair,honest and frank and supportive rather than officious ,dictatorial ,judgmental ,snobbish and oppressive,I think they will find men will trust the system and cooperate and the whole family will benefit from the intervention rather than be destroyed.
            As an experienced SW, do you think it would be helpful were Family Courts able to order more proportionate orders such as probation,residential drug addiction rehabilitation ,community work, ASBO’s. and the rest?

          3. Angelo Granda

            It will also help the violent men understand their folly and acknowledge the need to reform if they were PROVIDED with an independent advocate in the spirit of the Children Act and the Working Together frameworks,in my view.
            Do you think that the system should male a legal aid advocate available right at the outset as a norm just as happens in the criminal system ?
            Forget about finance,I am talking about the paramount interest of children and their human rights to a home life with natural family.

          4. HelenSparkles

            Indeed the probation service and courts can order a programme for perpetrators to be undertaken, what I am saying is that this is ineffectual, and certainly doesn’t always result in someone gaining insight into their behaviours. Those who are convicted can continue to minimise their offence, rather than admit guilt, so I am wondering where your evidence base is for your assertions?

            Because domestic abuse is often hidden, taking place in the home not outside, we are often in a situation where offences are alleged but cannot be proven or unproven. This is not the police not bothering, it is recognising that a burden of proof may not be met, but on balance of probabilities children may not be safe and children’s services may need to intervene to ensure they are. The impact upon children of domestic abuse is profound and destructive.

            Families do have the opportunity to effect change during the CP process, pre proceedings, and indeed during proceedings. Unfortunately your view of someone trusting the system and therefore engaging doesn’t acknowledge the emotional landscape of the abuser who is very far from recognising any need for change.

            People don’t always comply with orders, even if the outcome is a loss of liberty, to suggest they do is naïve.

            Children should remain at home with their families where possible, your version of events assumes risks can be mitigated, it is very sad that they sometimes can’t be.

          5. Angelo Granda

            Helen, you wonder what is my ‘evidence base’? I am not giving evidence to a Court but merely commenting as an ordinary parent in the context of what I see as constructive discussion. However my non-professional assertions are to the best of my knowledge and belief and well-based.
            The base is simple .It is possible to explain several classes of behaviour and cognition in terms of hierarchies of control systems.Many of my previous assertions on the CPR are pertinent to these fields of behaviour. t a macroscopic level, these ideas are applied to interpersonal interactions such as conversations, the communicative behaviour of small groups with which I engage and the homeostatic processes which tend to maintain the status quo in social systems. Indeed many of my assertions in these directions are made in the context of social anthropology which is of great importance to all our lives. Somewhat similar assertions in the same direction are made by others in other domains , for example, ethnologists who use the same base as I freely; especially in dealing with authoritarianism, population density control systems,housing, deprivation and the regulation of reproduction. Although you may differ, I like to think my comments have an axiomatic and a philosophical aspect. The axiomatic paradigms I use assume certain postulates about the system and deduce the system properties ( such as differentiation) that are consequences of assumptions. The philosophical elements are sometimes concerned with theories and ideologies put forward by SW’s and other CP professionals like Lord Munby and Sarah; for example, the practice of simplification and how the complex properties of real cases can be reduced to proportions manageable by pressured functionaries by the use of system models, predication on antecedents whilst at the same time losing essential information and also the theory of commands and policy directives which are applied to decision-making. But I am also concerned with the issue of relevance as well as with the proper identification between different types of c.p. system models and real people.
            Conversely ,I also read a wide range of opinions that have been separately developed most notably communication study, information study either in the sense of selective statistical information or in the broader sense involving semantic and pragmatic information. Finally, studies of control, set ideas and linguistics make their contribution to my assertions.
            In a nutshell, I comment to the best of my knowledge and belief but I do think before making them even though I am not a professional.

            On the subject of reform can you have another go at answering these questions?

            a) As an experienced SW, do you think it would be helpful were Family Courts able to order more proportionate orders such as probation, residential drug addiction rehabilitation ,community work, ASBO’s. and the rest?
            b)Do you think that the system should make a legal aid advocate available in the same way as a duty solicitor can be provided right at the outset as a norm just as happens in the criminal system ?

          6. Angelo Granda

            On the subject of reform and rehabilitation of perpetrators of violent abuse ,may I say that we appear to differ in that you are relentlessly negative about parents where I am cautiously positive and optimistic. The negativity shown by LA’s and excessive safety-first attitudes lead, I believe, to much injustice. In criminal cases, were probation officers and prison governors as pessimistic as you are ,all offenders would be imprisoned for life without any possibility of parole!

          8. HelenSparkles

            Not being an anthropologist or whatever other kind of academic would be able to easily unpack your language, I have no idea what you are talking about, could you translate please?

            You may think my view of the reform and rehabilitation of perpetrators of abuse (I don’t think I used the word violence but if I did please scratch) is negative, I think it is realistic and you are totally unrealistic. This does have a research base and, whilst that does inform SW practice, it doesn’t necessitate it is risk adverse. Just evidence based. Very few perpetrators of domestic abuse are dealt with by the CJS, and rates of recidivism are high, that doesn’t mean that anyone’s life should be spent in prison with no possibility of parole!

            The time social workers spend on computers is mainly in their own time, that includes managers, because in our 40 week we do our job. We are also tasked with writing numerous reports, often the same info in a different form, and recording all of the things we do. It isn’t possible to both do your job and write about doing your job in those hours unless you have a teeny tiny case responsibility. We don’t and we really don’t have time to be on FB.

            “a) As an experienced SW, do you think it would be helpful were Family Courts able to order more proportionate orders such as probation, residential drug addiction rehabilitation ,community work, ASBO’s. and the rest?”

            I think you are under the impression that such orders mitigate against risk, this is not always true, and we return here to the balance of probability vs burden of proof argument which I don’t have any interest in rehashing having had it several times with you.

            “b)Do you think that the system should make a legal aid advocate available in the same way as a duty solicitor can be provided right at the outset as a norm just as happens in the criminal system ?”

            My understanding of legal aid in criminal proceedings is that you are only entitled to it if you are facing a charge which may lead to loss of liberty.

            That legal aid is available to all parties involved in pre – proceedings and proceedings, or meetings before issue etc. is to be valued in public law proceedings.

            So not sure what you mean. There is legal aid advocacy at all of those junctures. I don’t see what the point of legal aid advocacy would be if not in the legal arena.

          9. Angelo Granda

            Sorry,Helen,I forgot myself for a moment. To translate for you and other readers; I keep my eyes and ears open,read and try to take in everything on this fine CHILD PROTECTION RESOURCE ( including the Portugese judgment) ,read and listen to all the various comments from SW’s,other experts,parents and children and I regard the CPR as an excellent base for my assertions.In addition ,I read and talk to many other resources and people and use my own experiences of the system.I use my common sense.

            Your view about the reform of perpetrators of abuse including violent abuse is negative and unrealistic ; i think that is undeniable, just ask yourself for one moment ,what would readers think about a fire brigade which turned up to a call-out and rather than set about its task by attempting to put out the fire at a home, it proceeded to demolish it and destroy the occupants?

            I would say it was incompetent and out of control. Likewise any SW who was unable to focus on his or her legitimate duty which according to the Children Act is to protect children by offering support to, engaging with ,advising and following working together frameworks diligently with the aim of keeping them together and to effect changes designed to eliminate as far as possible future risk of significant harm to children involved.
            Yes,I would say they had failed in their duty and so do many of your fellow SW’s and other thoughtful professionals and researchers. Realistically,every family liquidated permanently represents a failure on the part of the CP system,doesn’t it?

            Many child-protection professionals are out of control.They are unable to focus on their raison d’etre being indoctrinated by bad training into quite a few false ideologies including a generalised dogma re- reform,rehabilitation,reasons for problems and a misunderstanding of human beings and the reasons for neglect,abuse and general misbehaviour.

            If there is a high rate of recidivism then whose fault is that? It is the fault of the SW’s and reform system. The offender is a human being with problems and it is the sacred duty of the Social Worker to implement all the resources and professionalism he or she possesses in order to effect changes and work towards making the family happy and safe. If a man is unable to understand and accept concerns and change then support services exist to work with him and persuade him to change. One way it can be done is to follow the procedures laid down strictly from the outset and encourage him to get an advocate. If he doesn’t or can’t get one,i would expect an SW to get one for him and do the best they can to avoid going for removal. Lots of SW’s ,as you have told us,don’t even know where to find advocacy services locally.
            I would also expect SW’s to have a full understanding of domestic violence,for example, and the reasons for it as well as to be experts in advising and negotiating with perpetrators and victims.Most SW’s have no idea of the cause neither do the men and women themselves even less so the unfortunate,disadvantaged children. The perpetrators are human beings and the cause of violence is moral badness otherwise known as DEPRAVATION. Not poverty and deprivation of which child-protection professionals constantly talk. Poverty and deprivation has existed since the year dot and will always exist. We will never eliminate it ,in fact one section of society is dedicated to maintaining its own riches by depriving the poor and humble of their fair share. If money were the cause of a family’s plight then a SW could help easily by arranging for financial relief and grants. However moral badness calls for a completely different approach. I would expect all SW’s to be trained and experienced in solving problems associated with moral depravity of fathers ( and mothers) but ,in my experience , they do not even recognise it.Some don’t even agree with the use of the term ‘moral badness’!

            The only way to rid a family of the problem is to give them corrective moral training. Teach them how to behave and relay moral stories to them.Teach them how to be good fathers and mothers and teach them how to avoid falling back into the depravity trap as all folk are prone to do by human nature.
            I would expect SW’s to be expertly trained to solve all these problems. Most of them can be solved quite easily if approached in the right way, if all frameworks were followed and if time and resources were spent on family support rather 60 per cent of it frittered away on computers working out residential homes and foster-care plans.
            Some SW’s and forgive me if i include you ,personally, to an extent, seem to be unfocused on putting fires out being more interested in finding reasons to justify demolishing the home and its occupants.

            For ‘legal aid’ advocacy read ‘free’ advocacy.

            All comments welcome.

        6. Lindsay Fraser

          Carmie, I fully believe you. Write to the U.N. High Commissioner in Geneva and denounce this. The U.K. takes babies and children for all sorts of purposes. I was stolen as well. Put a pdf together of all the evidence you have, try to complete any evidential gaps, using FOIs (Freedom of Information Requests, if necessary) and create a Summary in divided paragraphs, register this at the U.N. and if you have a lot of documents, send them on a pen-drive with the Registration Number and call for Justice, and resolution. What happens is the High Commissioner then approaches the British Government, requesting answers, and if not forthcoming, or the response is unsatisfactory, then this will form the basis of Pre Trial as it looks as if criminal violations have occurred against you.

          If the High Commissioner agrees ask about Criminal Prosecution, because the British police will do absolutely nothing, but report your case to them anyway, as baby-theft, as a strategy to show they are inept and useless for purpose. They never prosecute institutional criminals. Normally you need to prove a U.K. court has failed function before the U.N. will act, but as Judicial Reviews are exorbitantly expensive, and if Legal Aid fails you, you have a good way of showing you tried. Most solicitors do not have “capacity” (they are saturated) nor “expertise” for multi-agency but try a few anyway, again to show you tried. Also contact the NSPCC who have lists of Rights Groups , some of whom are legally represented, with their own Human Rights Lawyers.

          Best Regards, Lindsay Fraser, Cases Compiler for Submissions to the international courts,

          Reply ↓
      4. Joanne Mason

        My friend been told if she speaks put about injustice she can be put in prison . Her oldest accused her of a mark on her neck , another child did it and her daughter was being horrible to the other sibling so she put her in the bedroom. She broke her tv putting sauce in the back of tv . So she told her she wasn’t having party . Then the child started saying horrible stuff and lying . Then thet took baby off her from birth . Now think thet forcing her to have children adopted . She don’t know where to turn her own solicitor and barrister seem they in the system cause thet keep saying judge such a body and we all know what he like . So a year later after going police station too about this snatch on her daughter neck now they charging mum with child negligence. I told her you don’t admit to anything you not done . So they said we charging you so it went to normal court . And cause she pleaded not guilty now thet taking it to crown court . I’ve never seen so much disturbing stuff in my life . Does anyone know what she can do

        Reply ↓
      5. Liane Swainland

        Wow.
        Ive read the first few paragraphs.
        As a recipient of forced adoption. A young 22 year old mother who’d experienced a dispruptive home life after parental divorce and then entered a relationship which ended up being described as “volatile, punctured by violence with a level of dependency and exhibiting high levels of criticism and low levels of emotional warmth,”
        To hear the nobleness of words such as
        “I never gave much attention to the emotional repercussions. In particular I fear that I failed fully to appreciate that an adoption order is not just an arrangement for the upbringing of some children… the order is an act of surgery which cuts deep into the hearts and minds of people,”
        Is indeed as stated, noble.
        Every year since my first child when i was 22, i have been in court. The family/county court, the court of appeal and the European court of human rights. I have attended conferences, and seminars and followed the progression of the children and families bill to it being made a act of law in 2014 which i then used in court in 2015 to be awarded a variation of a contact order which was only granted on a contested hearing. Im now 35. My children all born from the same father who will be 39 this year. Our children now aged 13, 9 and 8 are in permanent placements with letterbox and sibling contact arrangements. My prayers are for them daily as is everything i do with my life.
        To reliterate I’m now 35.
        I will be back in court this year potentially soeaking for and having to represent myself as people dont deal with post adoption. Any solicitor requires £3000 to view my case notes dating back to 2005. And they still cant guarantee a court hearing.
        It costs me £170 to make an individual application.
        I struggle to speak in court and have to arrange my own court bundles.
        The judges only requirement for a direct contact application to be approved is that the request comes from the children.
        Dispite various appointment and mediation requests they persist the children need to be able to vocalise there want to have contact.
        Ill read the full report whilst im not at work and have time to process.

        Reply ↓
        1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

          The cost of legal action in this country and the ever diminishing access to legal aid is a real problem and scandal. Good luck with your court hearing; I know its really challenging as a litigant in person. Particularly around such emotional issues.

          Reply ↓
      6. Lindsay Fraser

        Ian, I totally agree with you. And who is behind the same-force, self-investigation into same-force evidential corruption crimes being committed to protect paedophiles and allow abusers to escape justice ? M.P.s of course who ‘invented’ the Police Reform Acts 1998, 2002. AND why does the IICSA (and its predecessor the CSAI) still refuse to investigate police child abuse corruption ? Because, as I have argued many times, they are not allowed to have an Independent Prosecutor and team to follow up evidence, and IICSA rely on the police intel hub, police post-box Hydrant, where our evidence shows co-ordination deletes evidence against police forces and sends the cut files to the offending force !!! Their Norfolk Police Simon Bailey Police Lead were so kind as to delete 78 pages out of the NSPCC File , lie to IPCC, and later claimed I HAD SENT THE CUT FILE WHEN I PROVED TO THE U.N. TRIBUNAL I HAD NOT DONE ANY SUCH THING !!! The NSPCC wrote to Norfolk that I had “Clear and adequate grounds for investigation”. YUP !! WHAT’S THE POLICE SOLUTION ?? CHOP IT AND HIDE IT !!! IOPC later refused to investigate, lost the evidence, and closed the case without a single reason. Those evidenced Files are before the I.C.C. which in March on the First Tranche, described the whole cases Submitted as “Serious Crimes”. That’s the British Police for you. Corrupt to hell. Those officers are going to face Justice. 18 years of international criminal investigations now coming to fruition. Persistence and determination win in the end. I’ve already won the investigative Tribunal, New York, now to “execute the Findings True.” PROSECUTIONS OF THE CORRUPT.

        Reply ↓
    4. Marion

      FORCED/COERCED adoption with your legal rights denied you, is exactly that,.. FORCED ADOPTION. We Mothers of the 60’s who’s babies were taken from us, all because WE WERE UNMARRIED. We dared to have intercourse out of wedlock, classed as sexually deviant, feebleminded, bringing down the moral fabric of society, our babies were taken, as punishment . Social Policy, coupled with church approval, along with government sanction. OUR BABIES TAKEN from us, because we had, NO WEDDING RING. Absolutely NO SUPPORT AFFORDED US, how DISGRACEFUL, no support after your baby is taken from your arms for a CLOSED ADOPTION. TWO PARENTS ,married pillars of society, go and do your chores with a glad heart, your baby will have a mummy AND a daddy. Can you imagine that in today’s society? all because we were UNMARRIED MOTHERS. Thrown to the wolves, post adoption. Overwhelmed with a tsunami of grief that hit us, seared to the marrow, told by M&B Detention centres and social workers, GET ON WITH YOUR LIFE…The wolves destroyed us, this was 60’s UK. Our Pathological grief, PTSD, recurring breakdowns, depressions,our mental health and physical health never validated by HEALTH BODIES ACROSS THE BOARD. Our mental state swept under the carpet for generations. This article above, is an ABSOLUTE DISGRACE, it brings to the fore the plight and support needed for adopters, it has a measure of support for the child taken for adoption. W hat a travesty, THE MOTHER that has had her baby/child taken , IS NOT MENTIONED, WHERE I ASK YOU, WHERE IS HER SUPPORT? oh I forgot we the 60’s ZOMBIES OF THIS COUNTRY sailed into the sunset, AND GOT ON WITH OUR LIVES. This article denies outright , the TSUNAMI MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES that ensues post- adoption, the separated years, pre-reunion, post reunion. Australia you mention, the most HONOURABLE NATION, light years ahead of nations where adoption is prevalent, took a GOOD LOOK at themselves, due to the fact MOTHERS of LOSS to adoption, and our TAKEN SONS and DAUGHTERS Galvanised, mostly through self help support groups on the internet, they took their history of adoption experiences , with legitimate grievances, to government, government took an in-depth look and study. Government called upon the cream of the land engaged for generations within adopt practice, the collective research collated, committees formed,professionals papers presented and accepted, …OUTCOME….A National Apology for …PAST FORCED ADOPTION PRACTICE…. culminating in Prime Minister Julia Gillard, making her HISTORIC SPEECH on behalf of the nation …SAID SORRY… A national exhibition was commissioned, two years on from the apology,this March Julia Gillard opened the exhibition titled….WITHOUT CONSENT…. This is the definition of FORCED ADOPTION… We, the so pro-adoption nation, with the preverbal ostrich syndrome, need to RAISE THE BAR ,from the physical well being of the child, to the psychological well being of the child, and look seriously at the EXPENSE accrued for mental health support. Finally introduce parenting skills at primary level, into secondary education parenting skills made compulsory .
      MY LEGAL RIGHTS DENIED ME
      MY CIVIL RIGHTS DENIED ME
      MY HUMAN RIGHTS DENIED ME
      MY WELFARE RIGHTS DENIED ME THIS IS FORCED ADOPTION

      Try incarcerating a teenage mum today in a penal servitude , harsh, regime, run by bodies under the guise of christianity, where they were never once, shown the SAMARITAN care, and compassion, you read within true christianity. I wonder how that care, and treatment , would be received today?

      The teenage mothers within these regimes were the LEPROUS ONES

      Becoming the SECRET NATION within OUR NATION.
      WE ARE TODAY’S PENSIONERS………A NATION OF FORGOTTEN MOTHERS.
      49 years ago this week, my nine month old baby was taken from my arms, all because I was not married, I asked for help to keep my baby, that was refuse. Fugitive for my sins, I , like many teen mums, shunned by society and family, SHAMED into secrecy, never allowed back home…, lived our lives moving across the UK. The teenager that crossed the threshold of the mother and baby home..NEVER CAME BACK, the women we are today, seared by our experience, is who we became, YOUR NATION OF FORGOTTEN MOTHERS.

      Reply ↓
      1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

        I am sorry to hear that you have felt such pain over many years. This is not a post about denying that pain. It is post looking at what are the problems and challenges for the child protection system in 2015, which has little to do with how unmarried mothers were treated in the 1960s – I am sure we are all very glad that we have moved on from the attitudes of society at that time.

        there are contributors to this site who are very aware of the pain felt by parents who have not wanted to give up their children and who describe the pain this caused and still causes.

        https://childprotectionresource.online/the-impact-on-parents-when-their-children-are-removed/

        Reply ↓
        1. Marion

          My reply, and elaboration of my reply, was to furnish Julie, with the answer to her question, WHAT IS FORCED ADOPTION.

          Thank you.

          Reply ↓
          1. lily

            Hi Marion. I was about to write something similar because I am an adoptee from the ‘Baby Scoop Era’ and the description in the paragraph about past adoption practices has been completely whitewashed and is untrue.

            “Until the late 1960s, the typical adoption was of an illegitimate child born to a single mother who, however reluctantly, consented to the adoption of her child. Non-consensual adoption was comparatively rare”

            To say that mothers from this era in any way ‘consented’ is a complete lie. They were most definitely ‘forced’- due to coercion, withholding of support, lies, direct force, having no other choice. I am so glad that mothers from this era are speaking out about what happened. The UK, unlike Australia has completely glossed over this barbaric time for women and babies.

            Often, in the ‘Mother and Baby Homes’, adoptive parents would give ‘donations’ to the homes, essentially they were baby farms and children were commodities. The way the mothers were treated in the homes, seen as less than human.

            It was a system based on huge imbalances of power- unwed mothers facing huge stigma and pressure vs adoptive parents with more ‘standing’ in society, more support. It was a totally exploitative system.

            As you say, it was a punitive measure to punish single mothers who had ‘sinned’ and to solve the problem of infertile, married couples who were seen as ‘more deserving’. The whole system was social engineering.
            http://babyscoopera.com/the-collective-consciousness-of-society-crimes-against-the-unmarried-mother-in-canada-post-wwii/

            Well done on speaking up.

          2. Liane Swainland

            Modern day forced adoption is the end of a reverse psychological process of child protection whereby a vunerable or needy person seeks help or support from a supportive care or law based organisation only then to be coerced into court proceedings where a fair trial is not guaranteed but given dependent on individual input and legal representation within proceedings.

      2. Kate Wells

        Dear Marian – your post has touched me deeply. I too was an “unmarried mother” in 1967 but I had the good fortune to have parents who supported me and welcomed me back home with my son. I had a cousin who was a Catholic priest and he arranged for me to go to a M&B home in Bristol (100 miles from my home area) but my mom said it wasn’t a good idea as it was run by nuns who wouldn’t understand. And my parents were staunch Catholics.
        In the same year my best friend also had a baby “out of wedlock” but she was forced to give up her baby for adoption and I know the torment she has suffered over the years. Even the birth of 2 subsequent children did very little to dilute the pain of the loss of her first born.
        Young mothers were most definitely forced/coerced into giving up their baby for adoption in the 60’s and in the decades before that I’m sure. It carried on into the early 70s I think, and maybe longer for some women.
        I don’t know if you’ve read anything about those awful times for mothers and maybe it’s too painful for you to do so, I don’t know. You might have heard of the book “The Lost Child of Philomena Lee” or even read it and it tells of how those nuns in Ireland lied to the adopted son of Philomena, claiming they did not know of her whereabouts when in fact she lived nearby. By the time the adopted son returned to Ireland from America (he was adopted by an American couple) the convent was of course no longer a M & B home and the nuns claimed all the records have been burned in a fire. They were wicked women who lied.
        I’m so very very sorry Marian that 49 years on you are still grieving and I know that this will grief will never leave you.
        Times have changed – and as you say being a single parent in this day and age is nothing unusual, but back then, it was all so different.
        I had a 30 year career in social work and worked with many adoptees who were trying to trace their birthmothers, and birthmothers trying to trace the children they had been forced to give up for adoption. Some reunions were happy, others less so, but it was harrowing to hear of the birthmothers who, like you, were still suffering from the loss of their child, so many years on……. and the look on the face of the adoptee when they saw for the first time their real name on their birth certificate – they weren’t in fact “Angela Mary Jones” they were “Eileen Mary Downey” (made up names) Of course everything was shrouded in secrecy in those days and again things have changed so much in this day and age. There does still have to be matters that need to be kept confidential when children are adopted but all adopters are given the clear message that the children must be told that they are adopted (if they are babies or young children) as early as possible, with picture books at first for the very young, and later their own “life story book” with picture of their birthparents, foster carers, and anything else related to their early life.
        We are against the term FORCED adoption in this day and age because this is something that is used by people who claim there is a conspiracy theory to “snatch babies” from decent families and this just isn’t true. It means that an Adoption Order is made against the wishes of the parents. This is very different from the FORCED adoption that you, and thousands of other women suffered simply on the basis that you were not married. It was shocking and brutal – I don’t know if you have had any support from an Post Adoption Service who are set up to help those in the “Adoption Triangle” the birthparent, the adoptee and the adoptors.
        Marian I hope that somehow you have found the emotional strength and resilience to help you through the years, and that you have good friends and family. But please believe me there is NO similarity between what you experienced and the way in which Adoption Orders are made today on children who have been abused/neglected by their birthparents.

        Reply ↓
        1. lily

          Hi Kate,
          I actually agree that the term ‘forced adoption’ not being appropriate for modern day adoptions. I was a victim of ‘forced/ coerced adoption’ of the past, and I can see that the system is very different these days.

          I agree that the past adoptions were indeed FORCED. And they were brutal and punitive. But adoptions these days are due to Child Protection.

          I often feel very uncomfortable when parents who’ve ‘lost their children’ and then have been adopted come into adoptee/ mother support groups and claim that their situation is the same as ours. I feel it minimises the utter lack of power and resources that mothers of the past had. Modern day parents have way more chances and support than our mothers ever did.

          I am often wary of accidentally supporting someone who has abused their child- because while the ‘forced adoptions’ of the past were merely due to being unmarried, modern day adoptions are usually as a result of of some kind of abuse or neglect.

          I find it offensive when certain journalists compare the past ‘forced adoptions’ in Australia and the UK, with the modern day system. As you say, they are not the same at all. Different motives, different system. Babies WERE literally stolen from mothers.

          What do you think about this report?
          http://legalactionforwomen.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/LAW-Dossier-18Jan17-final.pdf

          Reply ↓
        2. lily

          You are also correct that these forced adoptions went on past the 60s and 70s. I was adopted in 1982. My mother was unmarried, as simple as that. She was forced into relinquishing me, social services said I needed ‘proper parents’ as I was illegitimate. I know of many adoptees who were adopted in the 1980s for the same reason.

          I am hoping that the UK will have the same type of apology as Australia. I know that has been somewhat healing for the mothers and adoptees, and it would allow society to see that these mothers din’t ‘give up their babies’ for adoption. They were forced. They deserve a voice.

          Reply ↓
        3. Louise

          Children are stolen by ss lies to Court. Once the case has finished in Court there is no-one to govern the ss. The ss decrease contact even when the Court Order says the contact should not drop off a cliff. The ss change the reason for having the child when MP and councillors become involved. Luckily my daughter aged 8 was not adopted, not for want of ss trying unbeknown to me and outside the Government guidelines. Well my daughter is 15 now and I have fought for 7 years and she will see the lies as I made sure there was a paper trail.

          Reply ↓
      3. Victoria

        I too am a mother of a force adopted child. My son was illegally kidnapped in 2009 and sold to strangers in 2012 by the BC govt in Canada who is third in the world for trafficking children under the guise of child protection. The govt is a cult that prides itself on murder, theft and destruction like all cults do. {I have removed the rest of this comment because its simply a rehash of many hundreds of other conspiracy comments I get and I am certainly not encouraging anyone to visit the websites this poster advertises at the end. If the poster wants to come back with some actual argument/discussion then great. If not, this comment and any others like it will be deleted}

        Reply ↓
      4. Lindsay Fraser

        In 1953, / 4 I was removed from my real mother and given by Nottingham social services, to a diagnosed psychotic mental patient under-going “treatment”. That “treatment” was the surgical removal of her reproductive organs, to see IF, NOTE “IF” preventing natural conception would cure her psychosis. She had been discharged from the RAF for insanity, and her husband, an Army Captain was a brutal man, beating me daily into silence until I was 25, to hide the psychotic’s three monthly attempts to kill me with knives, as the medical records record, from when I was 7 years old, and her enforced “Submitting” to this Nazi-copied experiment, led to her sexually abusing me from when I was 10 years old. The medical records also record that she admitted to a doctor, the mysterious death of her first natural child. She had wanted a girl as “more use” and her sister told me about her murder, and they threw away the body. The Welsh Police have opened an investigation at the Army cottage now, to find his body. But Nottingham Police have refused to carry out an investigation as of today’s date, telling me that “No crime in Nottingham” as the court / social services / doctors had done “the best they were able to safeguard me”. I have asked this officer how he would feel if he had his testicles chopped off to cure his headache and then be forced by the State to live with a psychotic for 25 years, to be predictably tortured and sex abused . What this oaf has done is 1) atrocity denial 2) criminally violated Article 54 (1) of the Rome Treaty, by refusing to investigate, and the LRV Prosecutor is including him on the Indictment List to stand Trial. He also called “lawful” the falsifying of my Birth Certificate, in my adoption, not birth name, which is also a crime. He said it was a short form. But no State is allowed to deceive victims by this practice to hide adoption, and there will be many victims who do not even know they were adopted and used in the “Army Jobs” as such brutal experiments are known. and It has taken 17 years of an international criminal investigation to get 6,000 documents of evidence, mostly of police corruption (Southern England) and I was told by a DCI that I could prove I had been tortured but “not in the national interest to prosecute”, which is deeply offensive and to use the UN word, “disgusting” but Found True at a UN investigative Panel of Judges , in New York, and the cases this week are finally going to the International Criminal Court to Prosecute 300 Defendants. A life time fighting for final justice. NHS wrote me off as “epileptic” which another TWO hospitals proved was false, and I was on anti-convulsants for a decade until a London hospital rescued me from suicide, stopped the phenobarbitone, which makes you drowsy, and gave me seven years group trauma psychotherapy. But I still have nightmares sometimes of her knife attacks and me running for my life, where at the age of seven I could run faster than her. I was never rescued even when she was found running through the woods with a knife in hand looking for me, and screaming. Social Services (Southern England) GAVE THESE EVIL PEOPLE TWO BLOODY WEEKS NOTICE during which I was forced to do role-plays that I loved my mummy and nothing had happened etc. I was threastened with worse if I didn’t do what they told me to say. The UK stinks with abuse corruption and failures. A National newspaper has offered to interview me and follow the Trials at the Hague, hopefully next year. Other cases are also being Submitted. It’s a block sending. Wish me luck and hope I finally get Justice under the Principle of Universal Justice, because in the UK there is nothing but cover ups and lying.
        LF.

        Reply ↓
        1. Lindsay Fraser

          And these block cases are not any “conspiracy theory” . ALL the cases of child abuse evidential-corruption and failures, for the ICC Hague, “executing the Findings of the UN” are heavily evidenced. You will be able the follow the first Tranche of cases next year, as International Criminal Court Trials are extract-globally televised. T.E.D.H. (UN-former yugoslavia) Prosecutors have concurred with the LRV Prosecutor, a European Government Prosecutor, that in my cases, these can constitute extended WW2 Nazi-copied atrocity crimes. The ICC can only Prosecute from 2002, which covers the 17 years of corruption crimes, but, the Date of Knowledge of the surgical psychiatric experiment was just 2016. A London Consultant Psychiatrist had tried to find out why I had been adopted to a “Psychotic Potentially Dangerous” who had already murdered her first natural son, according to her sister, and I was given as a compensation for her “Submitting” to the experiment, and a laboratory rat to see IF she would torture me (she did) in fact (the Psychiatrist) was lied to by social services. The reply to the hospital Psychiatrist from social services was that at that time I was given as at that time (1953 to 4) “Army Officers were considered respectable” The 2016 documents show that in fact the sterilization was copied from Josef Mengele, the Nazi camp doctor in the UK in 1953. so it was impossible to get justice before. You just do not give babies to mental patients, and chopping out reproductive organs for NO GYNECOLOGICAL REASON, BUT TO SEE IF PREVENTING NATURAL ABILITY TO CONCEIVE WOULD CURE PSYCHOSIS was an atrocity crime to the mental patient. One bigot who falsely diagnosed me as “epileptic” when all scans, EEGs etc. were negative for epilepsy, told me “to grow up” HAVING RECORDED TORTURE, BUT IGNORED IT !!!. The Prosecutor’s retort is I never had a childhood to grow up. I’ve never had a peaceful life either. The anger never leaves you.

          Lindsay (she gave me a girl’s name, murdered her son, because “girls are more use”) My birth name is Jonathan. I’m saying this to avoid confusion.

          Reply ↓
      5. Lindsay Fraser

        Dear Marion, I’m so sorry for you, what a hideous theft, and I hear your rightful anger. I was one of the “stolen”, when just months old, and I’m bloody angry, but taking my cases (and others) to international criminal prosecutions. There are no time-limits, nor immunities in Crimes against Humanity. I would suggest contacting the U.N. High Commissioner, Geneva, and denouncing what happened. If you have any old records, or seek these from the Government’s Records Office, and try to get belated justice. It is time these crimes stopped, and victims, both mothers and their babies got recognition and final justice. My birth Certificate was defrauded as well, a crime by itself, but adoption records may assist in you making contact. Usually through a social worker sympathetic to the cause. Many are very kind, and will help. The thing is to find one that is kind. Again, NSPCC has a long list of groups with legal support who can help you make contact, but it has to be done sensitively, because your child may never have been told he was adopted. My own Birth Certificate was in the adoption, not birth name to hide it. Bloody fraudsters. The anger does not dissipate over passing years. Best is express your anger where it counts. If you look up the U.N. High Commissioner, Geneva, you will see the instructions of how to denounce. Describe the baby-theft as a “Crime against Humanity” the category the U.N. recognises, and has to act, under criminal violations of the Rome Treaty. Any U.K. refusals to investigate, or lying and hiding, are criminal violations of Articles 7, and 54 (1), and can be Prosecuted under Article 258, individual criminal responsibility. We victims have (I.C.C. International Criminal Court, The Hague, from June 2002) and are doing so for pre-2002 cases, at the U.N. where there are no time-limits / no Statute of Limitations, unlike the “disgusting” (U.N. adjective in our cases) U.K., which imposes absurd time limits of one year or less under an old 1974 law, all over-powered by the Rome Treaty, to which the U.K. Permanent Member State of the U.N. Security Council is bound. There are no time-limits in I.C.C. and U.N. cases whatsoever, because these are Crimes against Humanity, Denial of the Truth Crimes.

        Regards, Lindsay Fraser, Cases Compiler for the international courts.

        Reply ↓
  7. phillimoresarah Post author

    Thanks Julie – I have raised the issue about clearer pathways and access to research for practitioners at one of the recent PLO research meetings in Bristol. I am told there was/is something called the ‘Knowledge Hub’ on line that tried to serve that purpose but no one seemed clear if it was still running.

    I think it is a serious and important ‘gap’ in how the system operates, that those of us in practice do not often share knowledge/info with those in research – or at least that is how I feel!

    If you could point us in the right direction to recent research into child protection issues, that would be great. I did some minor research last year for an article on contact post adoption but what I found seemed to be no later than 2004?

    Reply ↓
  8. Eeyore Incognito

    I think there may be issues around how far LAs have the resources (and possibly willingness) to keep up to date and for improved service delivery to implement research findings.

    I’m a wider birth family member (no actual harm from our side) and remember very clearly our family being approached to take part in post adoption contact research and feeling entirely relieved and hopeful that someone was finally listening to and sharing concerns we had (LA had been criticised in court by both Judge and GaL around not properly supporting contact).

    However I have no idea whether the research findings were fully taken on board by the LA we were in, whose opinions and commitment to contact were fairly archaic. All I can say is that in the last ten years we have not seen much improvement in their attitude and direct contact has sadly ceased completely. We (possibly foolishly, but not sure what else we could have done) followed their advise to “not to rock the boat and we might find contact increases”.

    Reply ↓
  9. Sarah Phillimore

    Sorry to hear that Eeyore.

    Would you be interested in writing us a short piece to explain your experiences? It would be good to tie that in with any research that Julie can send our way…

    Reply ↓
  10. Eeyore Incognito

    I would like to and will have a think about that Sarah. I’ve previously contacted you privately about our situation and I appreciate yours (and others) willingness to listen and aid debate, and I share your hope that solutions might be found as a result.

    However it is very hard and at times feels very raw. As you may remember, our family experienced rather a catalogue of system failings, together with unfortunate circumstances which led to adoption out of family. There is a lot of unresolved hurt, grief and pain associated with not having been able to speak out about our experiences, not only due to fear of identifying the child and being in contempt of court, but also having a negative impact on contact.

    We have been through the complaints system with respect to poor hospital care, and as a result others staying in that ward have received better care. We have given our experiences to research in the hope that others too will benefit. It is an exhausting thing to think about baring it all again. There is always a risk of giving too much emotionally and possibly having false hopes that in doing so we might be able to make positive changes for the child in our case in the future, rather than just retrospectively for others, if that makes sense, and help with some of the healing that is needed for us personally.

    So I have to enter this knowing that others may benefit from our past, and that is a good reason to take part; but that the latter may not, and to do so I have to be fully ok with that and prepared. It might just take a bit longer to get there, that’s all.

    It is also ultimately part of the child’s life story, and although I am somewhat marvelled by the opportunity to share our experiences with experts who are motivated to listen, I am somewhat uncomfortable in doing so on a public forum, even anonymously, and I realise that must sound very negative. (Possibly hence my name!)

    Reply ↓
  11. Sarah Phillimore

    Of course. It is no part of what we want to do with this site to make others feel uncomfortable or nag them into going over their pain again.

    We are immensely grateful to those who are willing and able to share but respect absolutely those who feel that it is not something they can do at this moment, or indeed ever.

    Reply ↓
  12. Eeyore Incognito

    Thank you Sarah.

    Just to add, having just read a comment on another thread querying what we know about suicide rates in birth parents, I wonder if this is an area Julia might be able to help provide some info? Not only with respect to possible stats but also with respect to how birth parents might be supported around this. There have already been comments (again on another thread) around the extent of adult mental health knowledge among children’s social workers, and I am inclined also to wonder if this might also relate to suicide risk management.

    Reply ↓
  13. phillimoresarah Post author

    It is certainly an area worthy of more study and interest. I am only vaguely aware of what support is available for parents post care proceedings – I think sometimes they can talk to the adoption social worker but I am certainly not aware of any consistent or national schemes.

    One of the Bristol Judges advises courts telling parents to contact the Samaritans – I have seen this done very sensitively but sadly I have also seen it done clumsily and it has only served to augment the parents’ distress.

    Reply ↓
  14. suesspiciousminds

    Hi Sarah

    I did notice the often quoted statistic that 25% of adoptions break down. For once, someone mentioning it linked to the actual research, but it is fairly important to note that this statistic is actually talking about children adopted at an older age – they are, as common sense would tell us, the most difficult children to place. It is pretty bad that there isn’t a good and up to date answer to the question “For a child of 2 or 3 who is adopted, what are the average breakdown rates?”

    On the other side of the coin, there’s some quite interesting research comparing teenage children who were adopted versus teenage children who were long-term fostered, and the outcomes (in terms of stability, achievement, academic performance, children’s reported happiness) are not very different.

    And of course, although you are comparing apples and oranges there, there’s at least a suggestion that further research might be justified into whether a stable long-term foster placement for a child might have more to offer than has historically been thought. (That raises other questions in turn about the fact that our current system doesn’t really have people who are looking to commit to foster one particular child for 12-15 years)

    I think the forced adoption people have a point that if adoption (the most drastic type of placement) is going to be the preferred type for children under 5, that ought to be because there’s very clear evidence that it is the best type and the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, rather than it being dogma. After all, we are only a few decades away from the notion that it was best not to tell a child that they were adopted, or that the best time to tell them was when they were adolescents, and that completely closed adoptions were better than ones that had any parental contact. Society, and our ideas and understanding about what is best for children does change, and we need to be open-minded if the evidence points away from our status quo.

    [I think evidentially, at present, it is not clear enough whether long-term fostering would be better, but I think that it is a question that is well worth asking, because the stakes for children are so high]

    Reply ↓
    1. phillimoresarah Post author

      I agree! I kept being told the breakdown rate was 25% but it is hard to find out where that comes from. I agree we need much more debate about what really works for children – at the moment I suspect it is ‘easier’ to promote adoption as the panacea because then the child becomes part of a family who hopefully will advocate for the child and support him/her more effectively than the State ever could. But of course, outcomes for toddlers need to be looked at separately from outcomes for older children – again, I am always ‘told’ that once a child is 7 adoption is virtually impossible because it is unlikely to ‘take’. I would dearly love to know the research basis for that conclusion, but I am not at all sure what it is.

      If you have any links to research you could send us, that would be great, or even better if you have a spare moment or several and want to write us something…?

      Reply ↓
  15. Julie

    Hi I’m sorry I didn’t get back to follow up the research point. Now you remind me, I’m not sure what has happened to the Knowledge Hub, have not had anything for a while.

    There is a super looking research conference on 20 march – details here –
    http://www.baaf.org.uk/training/allevents/2014-03-20t000000-2

    Julie Selwyn is doing research into breakdown rates across England & Wales. Barry Luckock & Karen Broadhurst did a small study on contested adoption. Will try to find it. Yes (whoever said this above) many birth parents feel they cannot consent but do not actively oppose.

    Reply ↓
  17. Matt Harding

    I was wondering about what happens if the child or children ask to know and/or meet their birth parents before they are 18? Is the decision up to the children, adoptive parents, or the court? I just haven’t heard too much about this scenario.

    Reply ↓
    1. phillimoresarah Post author

      What has been happening is that older children – say 12 onwards – often just take the decision into their own hands and it can cause a lot of harm to all involved if not handled sensitively. This is one of the consequences of the spread of social networks like Facebook. The book Bubblewrapped Children is a good examination of this issue and the difficulties around it.

      Reply ↓
    2. Lilka

      It’s the childs decision really, if they can find their birth parents, they can do what they like. My (adopted) 17 year old started meeting up with her birth mum/other mum very regularly last year when she was 16, and I certainly didn’t have any say in it, which is difficult because their reunion has done more harm than good to my/our daughter. My role is “person who stands helplessly by, trying to be supportive whilst dealing with the fallout, and picking up the pieces whenever anything goes wrong”.

      The thing is, if she had been younger, I STILL wouldn’t have had a say. She could have been 13 or 14 and still, it’s her decision. I mean, as a parent you can attempt to ground a child and not allow them out, or take away their internet access, but how likely is that to actually solve anything, or even succeed in the first place? It might with some children, but some children will literally climb out of the windows.

      Unfortunately, this is actually pretty common now. As Sarah says, Facebook and all the other social networking platforms are largely responsible for this, providing a way to track people. I also highly recommend the book “Bubble Wrapped Children” (Helen Oakwater).

      I know a few families in this position, and “know” quite a few more online as well. Sometimes it can be handled okay, and sometimes it’s a disaster which breaks up the family and winds up in the child leaving their adoptive parents and ending up living in care (or moving back in with their birth parents). I’m talking children as young as 12 here. I know a family whose daughter (under 16) kept visiting her birth family and staying overnight, and one of the reasons for original removal was sexual abuse. Guess what ended up happening again? And yet, she kept going back. So her adoptive parents sat helplessly and powerlessly by while their teenage daughter was abused again. That daughter is an adult now, barely ever contacts her birth family and everyone is still picking up the pieces. It’s just horrible.

      I remember this case (Daily Mail) – http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1308117/I-stolen-mother-The-deeply-disturbing-truth-forced-adoption.html note that it says both girls left and moved back to live with their birth family, and the younger girl was only 12 years old at the time.

      Reply ↓
  18. Matt Harding

    Another grey area I was wondering about. Whenever I go to the doctor’s office I have to fill out forms which include questions on family medical issues. I was wondering what the option is for nc adopted children when it comes to knowing their family medical history? With the data protection act wouldn’t the birth parents have to approve releasing their medical records? On one hand the child should know what might run in their family, yet on the other with the birth parents released from any parental responsibilities they would not be required to divulge such info.

    Reply ↓
  19. Sarah Phillimore

    I would hope that any significant medical information is made known to the child as part of their life story work or to the adoptive parents as part of the adoption process. A risk of a serious inherited condition is obviously something that needs to be known about. But apart from that, I as understand it, the adoption order makes the child legally the child of the adoptive parents and removes the status of the birth parents so the adopted child would have no right of access to their records.

    Reply ↓
    1. helensparkles

      it is rare that birth parents refuse consent to access to medical records which gives family background. The medical info would only go in life story work if it is an ongoing issue that needs to be managed, life story work is child centred, so you wouldn’t miss out an important bit of their story but it wouldn’t give full medicalised info. Adopters have to have a medical consult before matching panel which is an NHS consultant going through all medical info re child and family + potential impact/future outcomes. I’ve also known a geneticist offer to talk to adopters so they could assess if they could manage that genetic condition. Medical info will be in the CPR (Child Permanency Report) and panel should be checking (a medical advisor is on panel) that they are aware of all they need to be. I realised someone will probably say this isn’t what happened for them or they weren’t given the information they needed, that obviously shouldn’t happen. What the LA can’t do is predict the future, some medical issues like FAS bypass some children completely, and nobody knows why.

      Reply ↓
  20. Eeyore Incognito

    “I would hope that any significant medical information is made known to the child as part of their life story work or to the adoptive parents as part of the adoption process.”

    Yes it would seem to be the right area for this information to be passed on, but from experience I’m not sure how reliable or variable from area to area, life story work is. This is an area which is just a bit too woolly for me. What about conditions which might not be diagnosed until some years after an adoption such as cancer, glaucoma or diabetes etc? As far as I ‘m aware, life story work is hugely simplified and something done at the beginning of the adoption to map the child’s life to that point, and can’t be altered or revisited. I’d be happy to be corrected.

    What if life story work is not very good or even correct? Are there not issues around what information is passed on to adoptive families? I think there was a Radio 4 program on this not long ago, but didn’t catch it.

    Reply ↓
  21. Sarah Phillimore Post author

    The quality of information in life story work also often depends on how co-operative the birth family is willing or able to be – I have known families for example who refused to give any photographs, which is sad. Any serious medical conditions will hopefully be flagged up at an early stage but I am sure there is much which will be unknown. But the need for a child to have a stable home as soon as possible presumably outweighs in nearly every case the need to have very up to date and firm information about medical conditions which may or may not cause problems in the future.

    Reply ↓
    1. Matt Harding

      I’m not making an argument against adoption, just wondering how some of the more nebulous concepts of problems that may arise in such a situation.

      Reply ↓
  22. Stephen

    The reality is that the children need to know the accurate version of their life story by the time they are 11, if not earlier. How this should be explained to a 4 year old is going to be different from a a 6 year old, from a 10 year old, from a 15 year old, and so on. Do not rose it up, or cover up all the abuse or difficult circumstances that lead to the adoption in the first place. They need to know which relatives are safe to contact and visit and which are not, and why. Contact with low risk relatives and siblings should remain throughout the entire childhood. This way, one will not be cut off from the relatives the child still wants a relationship with, if their previous relationship has been good and positive. For higher risk relatives, it may be possible to cut of their contact partially till about age 11 or so. However, that anonymity level may wane as the child’s levels of the following increase:

    * Vocabulary
    * Computer and Technical Knowledge
    * Ability to remember information from their past (including the names of their previous relatives)
    * Creating media presence (Internet, film, radio, TV, etc)
    * Rebelliousness

    Even changing the child’s names doesn’t prevent the birth parent from finding them. All they may have to do is to search for the name of a known childhood friend of the son or daughter they gave up for adoption who is not adopted, look in their friends list and they recognize their picture. This alone may be enough to find their new name.

    Today, the reality is that adoptive parents are going to have to accept the reality that adoptions (even those from foster care) are going to be the open type today, and will have to accept that contact arrangements could change over time during childhood, there is no way to guarantee a 0% of birth family contact or visitation during childhood anymore. As the Evan B Donaldson Adoption Institute study, “Untangling the Web” says, agreements that cut off all contact till 18 should not be made anymore.

    That being said, social workers still have a role and can help children understand their life story and tell children that “if contact with a former relative is important to you during childhood, we can discuss ways to make that happen in a safe way that will be beneficial to you”. Such contact could include letterbox, telephone, online, or face to face. Social workers also may need to assist when self initiated unmediated contact happens to, such as a child taking it into their own hands and finding the contact of a birth relative.

    Adoptive parents need to understand that once one’s contact info (such as phone number, address, e-mail, social media, etc) enters the child’s long term memory, trying to cut it off could be futitle and the child will likely win the battle due to the fact he/she knows their contact info and can take it into their own hands to have a relationship anyway. The more information that is exchanged the harder this is to unpick, and chances are the child you will not get his/her secret surname anonymity back real easy, if ever. Again, you will also have to deal with the fact that the computer knowledge level of an average teenager is far closer to that of a young adult that of an infant and that will only increase as they age.

    Adopted children and adoptive parents need to realize the controls they have when post-adoption contact is made and it isn’t turning out well for the child. Such options can include blocking the abusive relative, changing the child’s phone number or e-mail, closing their social networking profile, getting a restraining order, moving, and more.

    There are some tactics that can be used to mitigate the risk of higher risk relatives but still allow some contact. For example, asking to meet in a public place where the adoptive parent or a social worker is there to supervise the child. For example, it is hard to get away with sexual assault, kidnapping, or child abuse if they meet their birth relative who is a sex offender in a restaurant when it is busy and everyone would witness it, during broad daylight, and the adoptive mother is right there next to them.

    For low risk relatives and siblings, it might be better to agree to occasional visits, invite them to a movie or dinner periodically, and the like and treat them as distant relatives.

    Overall, the post-adoption contact reality is now a different model than the previous cut-off till 18 model but we have to realize that open adoption can work out if done right, and overall one needs a contact arrangement that the CHILD is comfortable with and gets to see the relatives he/she still wants a relationship with in a safe manner.

    Reply ↓
  23. IAN JOSEPHS

    Newborn babies are taken for risk of emotional abuse and then adopted,,family courts are prejudiced against parents (L.J Thorpe said so !) Parents cannot call witnesses,are forbiden to call their children to contradict guardians to say they do in fact want to see their parents and were never ill treated,”Sanctuary “offer social workers £250 per referral,the national fostering agency founded some years ago by two social workers was recently sold for £130 million+,any unexplained injury is blamed on parents “one strike and you are out” and children are adopted when no pattern of previous injuries has been established,.Nobody alleges conspiracy,but “birds of a feather (social workers,guardians,court experts,judges,lawyers etc) flock together ! Or,put another way ,”those who live off the system protect the system !!Just afew thoughts to bring readers back to REALITY…………….

    Reply ↓
  24. Sarah Phillimore Post author

    Dear Mr Josephs

    For a number of years now, I and the others who contribute to this site have been asking you and your associate Mr Hemming for some – any – evidence to support your very serious assertions.

    Perhaps you would now be willing to provide that evidence?

    If you cannot or will not provide any substance for the allegations you make, then you will understand why any future contributions you make which we deem to be simple scaremongering, will be deleted.

    Reply ↓
  25. Sarah Phillimore Post author

    I would be particularly interested in evidence to support the assertions that
    A) parents can’t call witnesses – what do you mean?
    B) children are forbidden to contradict Guardians – nonsense.
    C) what does a fostering agency have to do with ‘forced adoption’?
    D)children are adopted with no pattern of previous injuries – what do you mean? Are you saying that ONLY previous physical attacks justify care proceedings? What are your views on the proposed criminalisation of emotional abuse?
    E) if you are not alleging conspiracy – what do you allege? It’s not clear to me from your last sentence.

    Reply ↓
    1. IAN JOSEPHS

      I came across five questions from Sarah Philimore that I would be more than happy to answer:- woul
      A) parents can’t call witnesses – what do you mean?
      B) children are forbidden to contradict Guardians – nonsense.
      C) what does a fostering agency have to do with ‘forced adoption’?
      D)children are adopted with no pattern of previous injuries – what do you mean? Are you saying that ONLY previous physical attacks justify care proceedings? What are your views on the proposed criminalisation of emotional abuse?
      E) if you are not alleging conspiracy – what do you allege? It’s not clear to me from your last sentence.

      A) Time and again parents who wish to call witnesses as to their character,their parenting skills,the love their children have for them (and vice versa),the cleanliness of their home,or witnesses to disprove allegations by social workers are refused by the judge and sometimes by their own legal team urging them not to resist fostering or adoption of their children.
      B)Sarah read what I ACTUALLY WROTE ! I said judges refuse children to give evidence (even when they beg to do so) in case they contradict a guardian who claims they do not want to see their parent(s) even when they do.The pretext is “emotional harm” when in fact the real harm occurs when denying the children their voice in accordance with the UN Convention on children’s rights .
      C)Fostering and adoption agencies make fortunes from payments to them by LAs for recruiting adoptive parents and foster parents.Two social workers who foundedthe national foster agency sold out to the commercial firm “Graphite” for £130+ last year thanks to the system we have of removing children from non criminal parents .The “system” makes them and the other hangers on either a good living or sometimes extortionate profits.
      D)Yes , I DO say “one strike and you are out” must be wrong when it comes to removing children for one unexplained injury (often very superficial).Children like baby p and Daniel Pelka had a pattern of repeated injuries which social workers ignored ,so they were left to die (poor adoption material) whilst happy healthy children are frequently removed for one bruise (excellent adoption material);
      E) Nobody alleged conspiracy when our worthy MPs fiddled their expenses :it was “snouts in the trough” just like the social workers,judges,guardians,experts,fosterers,adoption agencies,special schools,ALL benefit in their own way SNOUTS IN THE TROUGH again ;All these “birds of a feather” are being paid by government funded bodies,and all to varied extents each “bird” feathers its own nest, independently earning a living or enriching themselves from the public purse.Scrapping social workers and family courts thus leaving child cruelty and returning neglect to be dealt with by police and criminal courts would be the best solution;

      Reply ↓
      1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

        Sorry, you don’t appear to have answered my questions, just repeated what you said initially
        a) parents aren’t allowed to call witnesses – this is just not true, at least not in my experience of 15 years as a lawyer in family courts. Yes, judges may attach less weight to the evidence of family or friends, because these people are less likely to be independent or objective in their views, but I have never known a judge refuse point blank to hear it.
        b) judges refuse to allow children to give evidence. No. this is simply wrong. More and more judges are in fact taking the time to speak directly to children about the proceedings. Children who are competent to instruct their own solicitors can and do.
        c)Fostering and adoption agencies make ‘fortunes’ – they may do. I haven’t studied their accounts. But the problem with this is that you and JH and all the other conspiracy theorists allege that it is the ‘corrupt social workers/local authorities’ who make the money. How are they doing this? By getting paid kick backs from the adoption and fostering agencies? The fact is, that we point out time and time again is that care proceedings and paying for foster care are very, very expensive for a local authority. They have limited budgets. They really do not have an enormous appetite for taking out care proceedings on spurious grounds due to the costs involved.
        d) ‘healthy happy children are frequently removed for one bruise’. No doubt you have some evidence to back up this astonishing assertion, which I utterly reject as contrary to my direct experience over many years.
        e)’all benefit from snouts in the trough’. Again, do tell me how social workers ‘feather their nest’ by having children taken into care. Surely they would rather children were NOT adopted? Because, once adopted the children are the responsibility of their adoptive family and the corrupt evil social workers can’t make any money off that child anymore. And are the police going to do any better job? If you say that social workers have been utterly corrupted by all the money floating around the system, what is going to prevent the police from also removing children on spurious grounds? And if you say the criminal courts and the higher standard of proof will provide the safeguard, how are we going to pay for all the many more courts, judges and juries that will be needed? And given your low opinion of publicly funded lawyers, who is going to defend all these families in the criminal courts? Just how deep are your pockets Ian?

        I am sorry if I seem rude or testy. But 90% of what you talk about and write is unverifiable nonsense which only serves to make frightened and vulnerable people even more frightened. You keep no records of what happens to the children of the families that you fund to leave the jurisdiction. What happens to these children? Do you know or care? Can you tell me who was advising Liane Smith?

        Reply ↓
        1. gillian

          every word ian speks is accurate to the t. i sought his advice but being and believing the courts i followed the procedure. they did everything mr joeseps said they would do to the word. sorry no one will convice me that is lgal child traffickin, and big business at that disgusting and barbaric.

          Reply ↓
          1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

            Different judges hearing both threshold and welfare hearings has always been frowned upon. I don’t think this has anything whatsoever to do with Ian Josephs or any other deluded, dangerous person who follows his teachings.

    2. Lindsay Fraser

      Well, Sarah, I HAVE offered you recent substantive evidence of abuse corruption, from my own cases, not the others which are the Victims’ property, so I await you request with an email address I can send it to you. I notice in accord with internet democracy that you have started marking my posts as “Awaiting moderation” but I’m afraid you cannot “moderate” the International Criminal Court, nor its United Nations tribunals, nor the Articles (violated) under the Rome Treaty !!! If you are a lawyer, you will understand the Rome Treaty on which we depend. What I want people to realise that the correct place to send their evidence of child abuse cover ups (Denial of the Truth Crimes, Transparency Failure Crimes) is the UN New York, or the UN’s Committees of Child abuse and Torture UN London Missions to start with. But as you give me the impression, perhaps my error, you have difficulty believing (incorrectly) that these matters of generic abuse-corruption, are dubious (?), and if so, you are not likely to publish my posts. No problem, ICC Trials are globally extract- televised, but people should be given the information of where to send their evidence if they wish. That is honest democracy is it not ?
      If you want to see some extracts of my evidence, (extracts because there are 6,000 documents in total, and possibly you might want to take on my civil cases) do please drop me a line, and I’ll send you summaried evidence. Lindsay Fraser

      Reply ↓
      1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

        your posts are marked ‘Awaiting moderation’ by my automated spam filter otherwise I would be overwhelmed with spam from witch doctors etc. Please do not jump to conclusions about what an automated service means.

        I have asked why there has been zero reporting or mention of this extremely serious issue in the British media – or at least none that I have seen. Do you know?

        Reply ↓
        1. Lindsay Fraser

          Hi Sarah, yes I have answered your question at the bottom of the posts page. Thanks for explaining the auto-response. Well, if you are involved with Inspectorate evidence gathering from Rome Treaty perspectives, you don’t find it helpful if journalists enter the picture too soon. Journalists have a strong role to play increasing (political) pressure for change, and to inform ( general public / Victims) but too early news can get in the way of criminal investigations, unintentially. Some of the cases now proceeding ICC in fact have been reported in the BBC and important newspapers, highlighting injustice, but although representing an important record, have not led to change by themselves. Victim blog posts in dedicated websites are in a similar situation, where in fact corrupt police have used the indiscrete information to, for example, jump in and lie to the Childrens Commissioner, in one case. Quality Press tends to report Appeal results after the event, which can be embarrassing to corrupt officers, but these officers seem to have short memories and carry on doing the same with other victims. As you know, the IPCC.IOPC is “unfit for purpose” so there is no working criminal accountability system to worry corrupt officers, with same-force, self-investigation protecting them. Chief Constables do not refer evidence against their forces to other independent forces for impartial investigation, PCC’s are more focused on the economics of forces, and have no remit to order anything, PSDs, well, not sufficient space to comment on the Scrabble word games of “Non-recorded,” “Not uphelds” etc., routinely ignoring evidence as their police pay their salaries, so when a news story appears of police failures and rife corruption it is forgotten two weeks later. Our team’s work has always been focused on quietly working with individual victims, through groups, explaining why they need to ask for another (e.g. medical) document, guiding case build, and not blasting off sound offs, that can prematurely attract journalists, and others, that can even unintentionally tip-off prospective Defendants, into silence, which has happened, in some of our cases. Now this week the evidence goes to the ICC. So logically now is the moment to get previously-interested journalists prepared. This news-spread will not start until next year when the Indictments start attracting attention. Theresa May was sent the UN Report, but that has not been splashed over any front page. It included my cases and two others of equal evidential strength. Many victims like expressing, which from a psychological base is healthy and natural, but the same does not always assist a major international evidence-gathering exercise. You can see from my earlier answer that there has been some limited news exposure with a good result, but carefully directed. Next year you will I hope find the results of our work reported all over the place, anonymising the victims names, but not the Defendants !! Inject criminal accountability deterrent, and the corruption stops dead, not the victims.
          Regards, Lindsay Fraser

          Reply ↓
          1. Lindsay Fraser

            Incidently on the subject of the sole UK police accountability authority, the IOPC, a senior manager is still signing rejection letters in the name of the now-defunct IPCC. I was representing another victim when I sent the pertinent Articles of the Rome Treaty violated, and the IIU accidently sent me an internal email chain, accusing me of “ranting”. They apologised profusely, and agreed to my proposal to have their staff attend victim awareness courses, but what the IOPC does is send stock refusal letters to all victims with a few changes and insist if the victims do not like their police-paid refusals to investigate police corruption, the victims should refer to very expensive Judicial Reviews that are hotly contested, and can result in victims paying costs to the IOPC. This is a form of Judicial Review financial extortion if the victim wants the IOPC to do any investigation. However, by refusing automatically to investigate anything, and lying about evidence, these legally unqualified “analysts” (there are no formal qualifications required to be an IOPC “analyst”) are criminally violating Article 54 (1) and a large number of them are now about to be Prosecuted . It is a public deception to say there is police accountability at the IOPC. They insult victims on a routine basis, we have literally hundreds of IOPC.IPCC letters in evidence, normally calling complainants “vexatious” and “offensive” for alleging police corruption. And they are funded by the police they are supposed to investigate, and paid to lie, and do, routinely, together with their friends in evidence-manipulating Professional Standards (PSDs) also paid by their own forces to lie. The system of police accountability is a well-refined, designed-in corruption machine, that writes to many victims “the police are allowed to lie” “It is an abuse of process to criticise the police” and in my cases “The truth is not our remit” which I have in black and white written text. All the embedded corruption will now come to light, there is much more than I am writing here, I assure you.

            Regards, Lindsay Fraser

    1. Sarah Phillimore

      I agree. I wrote an article about this on Pink Tape last year I think. We have to think of a sensible way forward, not just pretend it isn’t happening. Social networking sites have completely changed how we can manage ‘closed’ adoptions.

      Reply ↓
      2. Stephen

        Sarah,

        As Adam Pertman of the Evan B Donaldson Adoption Institute said in their study “Untangling the Web”, the era of “Closed Adoption” is over. The internet has made this practice obsolete and hard to enforce. In fact, his study concluded that agreements that cut-off all post-adoption contact should not be made anymore. See this URL: http://adoptioninstitute.org/publications/untangling-the-web-the-internets-transformative-impact-on-adoption/

        There is no way to force 100% cut-off of contact till age 18 in the information age, period. Some children remember their birth parents name or their old surnames. All it takes to find them is a search on Facebook, Google, Bebo, or Linkedin. With friends lists on social networking sites, even a name change doesn’t stop a birth parent from initiating contact. Facebook and other sites don’t have the ability to monitor this. With facial recognition, this problem makes the practice of changing names less likely to hide the child.

        As the result, I think we are going the direction of the child having a big say in terms of the contact level he/she wants with his/her birth relatives and siblings, and the way to control unwanted contact will be using the blocking tools on e-mail and social networking sites. The days of adoption agencies rubber-stamping “letterbox contact till age 18” are essentially over. If the problem is severe, restraining orders can be issued and other more drastic actions can be taken.

        Reply ↓
        1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

          Thanks, I agree – the internet has changed so many things and some people have yet to catch up with this. Thanks for the link, will check it out.

          Reply ↓
          1. Stephen

            I also wanted to give a couple of tips for parents if an adopted child under 18 has made contact with birth parents or siblings over social media or e-mail, regardless of which side initiated the contact.

            1) Admit that each others contact info (such as e-mail, phone number, name, surname, etc) is no longer a “court sealed secret” and WILL NEVER BE from this point forward. There is no way of getting totally anonymity back from this point without very drastic action (such as moving, changing your name, and abandoning all friends and acquaintance contacts).

            2) The child will have much more control of his/her contact with his/her birth relatives and siblings from this point forward. This means ability to have online chats, conversations, exchange phone numbers, and even meet face to face. There is no way for social services to censor or directly monitor this. It is best for adoptive parents and his/her social worker to help the adopted children develop these relationships rather than the adopted child doing it in the dark secretly. My first recommendation would be to start by examining Facebook photos and Google searches to see what kind of persons they are. Next, fill in the child’s “life story” and make sure they understand the circumstances of why the adopted child was put up for adoption in the first place. Some adoptive parents might also want to run criminal background checks on the birth family members to know who is safe for the adopted child to visit and who isn’t.

            Then, maybe have some chats indirectly, such as Facebook chat, or phone calls, or Skype. Yo As for re-establishing face to face contact, you might start by allowing visits where the adoptive parents supervise them in public places away from the adopted child’s home. If they are low-risk relatives or siblings, you might allow each other over to visit at their homes occasionally.

            3) Children need to know how to deal with unwanted contact from one or more birth relatives. For one, they should understand the blocking tools of the social media sites they use. Next, they should know how to copy and paste offending or threatening messages to a file (or capture a screen shot), and the like. They should also know that once information has been shared online or posted online, it cannot be taken back. If contact online is become abusive or tragic, other resources besides blocking the person online including getting their parents to issue a restraining order, and having their social workers provide support or counseling to handle difficult situations.

  27. Andrew Tilley

    Post adoption contact should be the norm except in very rare circumstances – else you’re indeed right – it will create massive problems. I wonder if the Websters’ eldest child(ren) will sue. I would not be at all surprised if litigation doesn’t begin in 5-10 years’ time.

    Reply ↓
  28. andy peacher

    Hi we still have tickets for the forced adoption conference july 25th in london see the website events page or google eventbrite childrenscreaming to be heard

    Reply ↓
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      I would just like to comment that I am utterly amazed that Vicky Haigh is considered a fit person to be included in this line up on July 25th (and Ian Josephs!) So I am very sceptical about the real purpose behind this event, and I urge caution.

      Reply ↓
      1. Julie

        It would be helpful for anyone thinking about attending such an event to read the original post on this Child Protection Resource website which very carefully explains law and practice.

        Reply ↓

  29. Pingback: Gregory Smith

  30. dax

    I don’t think adoption is the problem.
    I think final care orders are where the problem is, this then leads to the natural conclusion of adoption.

    Reply ↓
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      I don’t understand this comment. A final care order can lead to a variety of different outcomes, from return home to adoption by strangers. A final care order is just the court signing off on its intervention and allowing the LA to put into action its care plan. But there is no ‘natural conclusion’ to adoption – adoption must be the ‘last resort’ ‘when nothing else will do’ so you have to rule out all prospects of return to parents’ care or kinship placements.

      Reply ↓
  31. Lynn Wheatley

    Our family are distraught we have 2 little boys one 6 the other is 14 months old the older brother adores him, social services are about to split them up the little one going for adoption the end do November and the other little boy going to long term foster. We are a large family who want to look after them ourself, my sister ( grandparent) is trying to be heard but no one is listening social services state the children are under no threat of abuse, the reason is emotional harm, but social services are causing the emotional harm not the family. No one in the family are allowed to see them no one to help us either. Social services will not speak to us either, I am a RGN so are most of a may family how can we cause any harm only to have these children with us not strangers. Social worker told the 6 yrs old you must not cry or you will have a black mark against you are these social workers right, I dont think so! If anyone can help to stop them being taken or Television program that could help please contact me to stop this unfair act going ahead Thankyou for any help.

    Reply ↓
  32. C

    As Sarah says above, adoption is supposed to be the option of ‘last resort’…. so if you have proof that other options are not being properly considered, (e.g.: your sister) you need to be sure you have good representation to make this clear in court. If that can happen, the adoption shouldn’t go ahead.
    I would suggest – as I do to almost everybody – making a DSAR ( Data Subject Access Request) to the LA for all documentation, including any internal emails relating to your case. Frequently you find mistakes, omissions – and worse – within them, which can be useful in court.

    For info. on DSAR: See http://frg.org.uk/need-help-or-advice/advice-sheets
    Have a look at No. 26.

    Reply ↓
  33. paul brown

    dont realy no were to start but my daugter as been taken from us for no reason atall im much older than my partner but we have never had how lttle girl taken from the hosptal all lies iv brouhth my own kids up no problems in the past how can they be aload to do this just dont no were to turn the judge is as bad as social services we are in england and they r aload to steal your kids

    Reply ↓
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      Do you have a lawyer? If not, can you get one? The Family Rights Group may be able to help or give some advice – have a look at our links and resources page for parents and families.

      Reply ↓
  34. C

    Paul: you say your daughter has been taken ‘for no reason at all’ – but they must believe they have a reason, no matter how spurious you consider it. so: the first step has to be to find out what that reason is. Get it in writing. You have the right to DSAR -Data Subject Access Request – all material relating to your case. This link may help http: http://www.frg.org.uk/images/Advice_Sheets/26-access-to-records.pdf. When you request material, also ask for any recorded conversations, and all internal emails relating to your case. Also you can commence a complaint against Social Services ( see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/childrens-social-care-getting-the-best-from-complaints). They have to sort it out ‘expeditiously’ – normally within ten working days. Have a meeting with them, and take either a lawyer or a McKenzie friend with you. Keep cool, and get as much paperwork, or statements confirmed and witnessed as you can. Pin them down so you know exactly where you stand. Then you have a better chance of challenging them. If they give as their reason something like ‘future risk of emotional harm’ – force them to be specific, what harm exactly.

    Reply ↓
  35. C

    Did you say she was taken from the hospital? Have the hospital provided a reason for handing her over? E.g. ‘non accidental injury…’ They cannot simply hand your child over to Social Care without providing a reason. When, and how, were you informed? Was a Section No. quoted?

    Reply ↓
  36. Maggie Wilkinson

    DISSOCIATIVE DISORDERS

    What I was meeting in the seventies and eighties, was a variety of very severe dissociative disorders. There were mothers who were amnesic for the total experience of having a baby whilst living as a withdrawn inhibited machine complying with their relationships without initiative or good feelings. Sometimes over a decade later they would break though to their personality that existed before the trauma with sudden shock and dismay. Derealisation, numbness, negative schemata about themselves, pervasive experience of hopelessness, poor relationships chosen by others, and lack of positive affects was to be their lot. While such symptoms of these are very common among many of the mothers, when dissociation was a factor, these phenomena were “locked in”.

    Coercive adoption: Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, in the light of 21st Century Research as seen in DSM V
    From Dr Geoff Rickarby Consultant Psychiatrist (Newcastle NSW Australia Nov 2014)

    Reply ↓
  37. ian josephs

    Babies are taken from parents at birth for “risk” of emotional abuse.How can anyone with an ounce of compassion defend such a crime against humanity? Most parents who contact me say quite truthfully “we are not criminals;we have not broken the law so why have they stolen our children?”
    Parents who have not broken the law should not be punished.Itis as simple as that ! We have laws in UK and those who break the law are quite rightly punished.Since capital punishment was abolished ,even the President of the family court staed that the wost punishment that any court can now inflict is to take children permanently from their parents.
    What is the point of laws if we punish those who do NOT break them?

    Reply ↓
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      The reasons why are discussed and set out in myriad examples on this site. Wanting to protect children is not ‘a crime against humanity’. If you disagree with the way the system operates, make your case. Don’t waste your time and mine with futile hyperbole.

      Reply ↓
  38. Clake

    When mistakes are made and no one will hold their hands up and say sorry what of the families destroyed by Social Services. While you may say these conspiracy theories are not true. I can see why people will think they are.
    The medical evidence used was Cherry picked to suit the SS case. The medical experts picked to get the answers they wanted. The SS report so inaccurate one of my student nurses could spot them.that report directed the medical experts thinking. The court appointed guardian DIDNT have enough time with any of our family to make more than a snap judgement. The SS were rude abrupt and obstructive to any requests. No enquiry was undertaken as to why the SS worker responsible for my neice did not ensure a smooth progression through be medical needs, allowing her to develop further brain bleeding undiagnosed as a result of delayed second scans, the result of which was a drainage procedure which nearly killed my neice becuase she was sent home and over night deteriorated so badly needed to be rushed back to hospital and within 24 hours of the procedure was back on a ventilator. The family court went onto a criminal one where the same pathetic rubbish was used against them. The fact not one of those involved in any of the legal teams including the judges understood what the ramifications of the missing evidence could have been is frightening. Again basic physio pathology states they could not make findings With what they had. Anyone who says the system is not broken is deluded. My brother and his girlfriend sent to prison. I really do think there should be redress for families where SS get it so wrong. Yet they are covered in Teflon, mud never sticks to these people. Even if proven innocent, the family’s will be stigmatised and continue to be abused by the SS sytem forevermore by the ‘No smoke without Fire’ brigade. The state of social services is a shambles
    as is the NHs who caused and misdiagnosed all the injuries my neice suffered.
    I find the comments above in the main disappointing and missing the point of those who thing that any of the conspiracy theories are true. I will never trust a SS worker again EVER. Luckily I can choose not to work ‘with’ them

    Reply ↓
  39. Pearl

    I think anybody defending the current child protection needs to have themselves and children put through it from start to finish, from the first unexpected knock at the door! I assure you it will change your opinion forever….the only people who defend it haven’t been through it…. Strange that!

    Reply ↓
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      I know a lot of people who have been through it are critical. But I also know people who have been through it who are not. Talking in such absolutes isn’t real and it is rarely helpful.

      Reply ↓
  40. linda lambourne

    We have had our grandchildren taken due to lies and false accusations in all local authorities statements and reports and as we dared to complained and subnitted conflicts of interest we have 2 grandcildren in care and 1 adopted these people local authority are nothing more than criminals and taking innocent children from innocent families due to all above this is a national scandal

    Reply ↓
    1. Anon

      Being a Grandmother caught up in the same situation as yours, not only caught up, but blamed for injuries my Grandson did not have, to cover-up birth injury my Grandson suffered at birth, at the same hospital the accussations came from, then losing him by illegal adoption case, I well understand how you feel, but I have spent years awaiting our day of justice, which we were asked to do by a judge involved in my Grandsons case, that time has finally arrived, now we are being passed from Judge to Judge and court to court with all the written evidence to prove our case, as a family we feel like THE POISON CHALICE, No body wants to drink from, or touch, with an added statement, I had nothing to do with this case brought against your family, what can we now do?

      Reply ↓
  41. Lisa Muggeridge

    Thanks for this. Am writing a piece on adoptions, as a parental advocate and ex social worker I am alarmed by some of what I am seeing at the moment. One of the difficulties is that there is no conspiracy and there are few villains to this piece, just crumbling services, legal frameworks which unintentionally create a problem, problems with interpretation of intergenerational abuse and a whole myriad of things coming together. Its very difficult to find level headed commentary, because those really affected do believe it is a conspiracy and its fair for them to do so. Thanks for the post, it was really interesting.

    Reply ↓
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      Thanks for your comment – a pretty fair precis of what is going on. My biggest gripe is that the constant focus on deliberate ‘evil’ and conspiracy makes it impossible to sensibly debate what I think is really going wrong.

      Reply ↓
  42. Jean

    This article gives nothing but false hopes to those caught in the web of child care proceedings. Although there are honest social workers out there, the foster and adoption industries depend on their commodities to afford payments of £700 a week. My daughter fell pregnant at 15. She was, like many teenagers, very difficult at the time as well as incredibly naïve and was easily influenced by the totally wrong kind of peers. It got to the point, the most viable solution to cut these influences off was to voluntarily place her in foster care. She had a good social worker and by the time the her little girl was born, she was praised all round as a good and caring mum. The social worker eventually got approval from his managers to allow my daughter and her child to return home. I had effected all the preparations to have a new baby in the house and reduced my job as a full time primary school teacher to part time. The news did not go down well with the foster parent and HER social worker, who in the span of 24 hours went from highly praising my daughter for being a good mother to her putting the baby at risk by breastfeeding her in bed and demanded – against the Health Visitor et al advice – that she should stop breastfeeding at once. Her refusal to followed this order escalated into open hostility and bullying from these two women who openly stated to both my daughter and I that they had people in high places and would make sure the baby would be taken away from my daughter. My daughter’s social worker was promptly removed from the case and replaced with a scornful and vitriolic troll whose only objective for her visits appeared to be to insult me and drive the knife in deeper. While there was still time and no court proceedings, my daughter took off with the baby and went to stay with relatives in Ireland. As you can imagine, hell broke loose, orders of various types were issued and as soon as I got wind of her whereabouts I had two choices: tell where she was with the obvious consequences or follow her. I opted for the latter, took them both to a local GP and went straight to the local social services with them and told them the whole story, asking for a full assessment. When I came to read the affidavit made to the court, all I could see was a catalogue of lame excuses and plain fabrications out of thin air on our past and character. Failing to find anything on our criminal check, a social worker I never even met wrote that at the age of 12 I was allegedly raped by my now husband. It was obvious that this person didn’t have a clue about me, because if she had, she would have known that in the country I come from it is possible to obtain a family certificate for every year of residence, stating address and family members a minor lived with. I ordered for a copy immediately and reported the whole affair to my embassy in Ireland which as the Irish social workers demanded an immediate clarification of the grounds on which British social services sought to extradite us under the Hague convention and separate the baby from her mother. Meanwhile, we found a valid solicitor in the UK, who obtain the judge’s permission to have a full disclosure of all documentation from GP, Health Visitor and SS minutes of the entire time my daughter was in foster care. We stayed put in Ireland and the case went ahead to the High Court in our absence but not without masses of evidence for the judge. The judge adjourned and ordered social services to bring their evidence to the next hearing and guess what? They had not a scrap but their lurid false allegations. Moral of the story, we won the case.
    So, excuse me for telling you out straight I could have given John Hemming his own advice and may I add: you can’t afford to wait around. If you’re innocent and you know you’re being targeted because your newborn baby is some foster/adoption agency’s coveted commodity services, remember that the chance to keep your children is to put uncorrupted evidence in front of a judge. Thwarted social workers – some are a total disgrace – deliberately sex up their reports to induce shame and preventing you from speaking out without sounding like a conspiracy oddball. If you really want to show them what scumbags they really are, you need to let the independent professionals make their own enquiries and come to their own conclusions. You know that nobody with the slight sense of integrity and a genuine interest in what is best for a child would dream up such devious fabrications to snatch a child from his natural parents, no matter what pressure to meet targets. People who act sincerely, do not behave cruelly nor they need to lie. Greedy people,however, do. Fostering and adoption are a corporate business under public service contract, same as agencies that provide supply teachers for schools. Most of what I have read on this webpage could have been written by the wolf dressed as Red Riding Hood’s grandma. If after reading this, like me, you can still smell the wolf, you’re not being paranoid. What you suspect is exactly what it is.

    Reply ↓
    2. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      I am sorry you have had such a bad experience.

      But I did not write this to offer ‘false hope’. I wrote it to try and explain what I think is really going on when cases go wrong. I don’t think they go wrong because children are being stolen to order for paedophile gangs for e.g. I am pretty sure they are not ‘stolen’ for cash bonuses.

      I am very sure that things go wrong in many cases and inaccurate and unhelpful reports get submitted. The reasons for this have a lot more to do with defensive work practices, overloading social workers and poor management.

      either way, we need to improve the system. Luckily for you the courts did their job, reviewed the evidence and found it unacceptable. We need to focus on how we stop these kind of cases getting to court in the first place.

      Reply ↓
  43. Kate Wells

    It sounds like you and your daughter have been through a very harrowing time Jean, and am sure you must be relieved at the outcome. However I really don’t understand your comments in your final para: “you can’t afford to wait around: if you’re innocent and you know you’re being targeted because your newborn baby is some coveted foster/adoption agencies services……….” Later in that para you say “Foster and Adoption are a corporate business under public service contract, same as the agencies that provide teachers for schools….”

    In your opening para (4th line) you say “The foster and adoption agencies depend on their commodities to afford £700 per week……….” Again I don’t understand this.
    I suspect you may be referring to Independent Fostering Agencies who are set up to recruit, train, and approve foster carers. These agencies then do indeed “sell” their families to LAs – probably in excess of the £700 per week that you mention. LAs only “buy” these families/placements when they have to place a child and there are no LA foster carers available. Obviously there are enormous cost implications for LAs especially now that they are struggling with massively depleted budgets. Foster carers fostering for IFAs get paid more than LA foster carers, and additional services for the child are “costed in” and the LA have to pick up the bill of course. I think the important point here is that these IFAs are ONLY in business in relation to FOSTERING and NOT ADOPTION.
    I think IJosephs gets confused on this issue too.
    There are strict rules governing Adoption Agencies and ONLY Local Authority Adoption Services are legally entitled to be an Adoption Agency. Some of the voluntary organisations e.g. Barnardoes and NSPCC/Action for Children/Coram etc are able to recruit, train and approve adopters in the way that IFAs approve foster carers BUT the difference is that they are NOT businesses in the way that IFAs are, though there will be a charge to a LA if one of the approved adopters is used by a LA for a specific child. I honestly don’t know what the charge is these days, but it will be a nominal fee, to cover the cost of the work carried out in recruiting, training and approving the prospective adopters. Often the voluntary organisations will recruit adopters for a specific need e.g. children with disabilities, or Black, Asian and other minority ethnic groups (BAME)
    There is an important distinction between the private sector operating in terms of FOSTER-CARE and making handsome profits, depleting the budgets of LAs still further, and the way in which ADOPTERS are recruited, trained and approved by primarily LAs (NO PROFIT ELEMENT WHATSOEVER) and the voluntary organisations who are able to “supply” adopters to LAs in some cases, but certainly NOT for any PROFIT element.

    Reply ↓
  44. angelo granda

    Sarah, You continually say that there is a ‘conspiracy theory’ and that you don’t believe it.
    What evidence do you have ?

    In actual fact, there is no co-ordinated or irresponsible conspiracy theory at all.

    The conspiracy is not theory. It is a fact that social workers conspire to pervert the course of justice in many,many cases. Furthermore there is a plethora of ‘clear evidence’ which shows it. Thousands of parents will testify to it. Their statements are the evidence you ask for.We shouldn’t ignore it.

    One of the criteria on which we can judge the humanity of a nation (indeed its whole ethos) is the amount of respect it shows the common man. Our family courts lack it, alas. Parents evidence is usually discounted for two reasons.
    1.They are not ‘professional’ witnesses.
    2. Any disagreements they have constitute non-cooperation with the authorities and ‘defensiveness.

    Yet parents are the only ones with an overall knowledge of occurrences. Barristers certainly don’t know what has or is occurring behind the scenes and should not think they do or make pronouncements.They only see the official face of social workers.

    I would say that , given the secrecy attached to proceedings and the failure to keep minutes, only those who have been involved in child-protections from start to finish can make fair pronouncements. This is not a criticism of you or any barrister , simply a request that more respect be paid to parents evidence. We should also show both Ian Josephs and Mr.Hemming a tad more respect.

    In a nutshell were lawyers and courts to heed the voice of the common man, there would be less injustice. Allegations should not be dismissed as wild ‘ theories’. The facts should be investigated fully and all evidence respected.

    Reply ↓
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      I stongly disagree. The ‘conspiracy theory’ has been promulgated by John Hemming since at least 2007, he has been enthusiastically supported by Ian Josephs, Sue Reid, Christopher Booker, Sabine Mcneill and a number of others, some more influential and cogent than others. Just spend five minutes a day on various Facebook Groups – as I have now since July 2014 – and the contuning grip of the Conspiracy Theory is depressingly clear.

      I think these people have done enormous damage to a lot of vulnerable people, some of whom have contacted me directly. They were encouraged to leave the country or not to co-operate with social workers, as they were told their children would be stolen for cash bonus payments. Clients have said this directly to me in court proceedings. There is an inevitable and fatal impact on their cases following those kind of conversations.

      Reply ↓
    2. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      Sorry, missed your sentence ‘we should show both Ian Josephs and Mr Hemming a tad more respect’.

      Respect is earned, not accorded as of right. I give both these men precisely the degree of respect they have earned from me.

      Reply ↓
  45. angelo granda

    Thanks for replying and informing me about the recent changes. I certainly advise all parents to co-operate with the authorities to the best of their ability and I believe most do. Unfortunately. in many cases ,the CS fail to reciprocate and conduct cases properly.

    I respect everyone’s right to an opinion and and give them all respect even when I disagree.

    Are you citing the parents who have followed the advice of Ian Josephs and John Hemming then complained to you as evidence of a ‘conspiracy theory’?
    I don’t believe there is such a theory.

    That aside, have any complained to you that the CS have conspired to give false evidence and failed to follow legal guidelines.

    I fully respect your right to air your views on forums such as this one but I wish that all barristers and children’s legal panel solicitors were clear about their role when acting for parents. They are there to ensure justice and fair hearings not to cooperate with the CS.

    When cases are conducted wrongly and procedures ignored, the very essence of fairness and impartiality ( as laid down by the Children’s Act.

    Would you agree with me that all lawyers involved ( representing all the parties) should ‘ ‘ know there place’ ,as it were, and inform the court when the CS fail in their duties?

    Reply ↓
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      It is not only my duty but my pleasure to inform the court when the LA fails in its duty. When I act for parents, that is my job. To test the evidence and to cross examine witnesses.

      Yet I keep reading on line in many different places, that I am nothing but a ‘legal aid loser’ in the pockets of the LA and dependent on their good will to get paid! This is repeatedly claimed by all the adherents to the conspiracy theory which you claim does not exist. All I can suggest is that you go back and re-read the Forced Adoption post and John Hemming’s web site. I am baffled as to why you deny such Theorists exist – its a bit like standing naked in a rainstorm but claiming that you aren’t getting wet.

      Reply ↓
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      I don’t agree with that for a moment. And I would have thought the recent slew of furious judgments show that the courts are very alert to lazy or sloppy case presentation. Things can go very wrong indeed but the courts are quick to put them right (they can’t always I accept). So I don’t accept ‘the very essence of a fair hearing is denied’. That to me sound like you are sailing into the waters of the Conspiracy Theory – which you don’t accept exists…

      Reply ↓
  47. angelo granda

    Please note I am not trying to debate this with you.I have come on to this site to give and ask for help and information..

    I repeat ,I do not believe there is any conspiracy theory however I note that many folk allege that social workers conspire to give false evidence and pervert the course of justice.
    I have asked what evidence you have that there is a conspiracy theory. You appear to be saying that parents who allege any wrongdoing on the part of the authorities are inventing silly theories. I want to believe it thus I have asked you for clarification.

    Could you also say how you know that social work staff don’t get bonuses for taking children into the care system? Do you have inside information?

    Sincerely,I value your advice.Are you saying that when the rules laid out to ensure open-minded and impartial investigations are not followed that we still get a fair hearing? Please explain how that can be so when the Court protocol directs that social worker evidence cannot be disputed?

    Reply ↓

  48. Pingback: “How to get the best out of your family lawyer” – Guest Post by Sarah Phillimore | Surviving Safeguarding

  49. HelenSparkles

    It might be helpful to know, in respect of adopters who are recruited by the voluntary sector, the cost of completing an assessment is approximately £30k. This includes time to conduct the assessment, training, panel, court reports, supervision etc. It costs everyone this amount but the VAAs need to operate a business model in order to be able to recruit more adopters. This isn’t a nominal amount but it is a more of a subsistence rather than profit making model. LAs will generally be part of an adoption consortium and will use each others adopters, if they are a good match for children, at a lower charge. This is mainly because it is an effective reciprocal arrangement but also because the relationships between LAs can enhance adoption support. There is clearly an agenda to privatise adoption from this government.

    The Fostering agencies are far more of a mixed economy and the Ofsteds you could read in the early days reflect some IFAS were not of a high quality. Because of LA cuts, they are a last resort, and LAs generally train their own carers to provide placements for more complex children. Personally my strategy would be only to use them for very short term/time limited work because they are expensive and I would be ensuring my in house carers can provide long term placements so I’m not spending loads of money on that or moving children because my manager has told me their home costs too much (I hate the word placement) but I am not a service manager! There are a range of provisions from charities with an ideological base to venture capitalists. Foster carers will stay with whatever agency they join as long as support is there, they move because it isn’t, not because of the money.

    Although there is profit to be made in the independent sector, it isn’t as lucrative as some industries. I know some people think carers shouldn’t be paid as much but for those who look after some young people, it would be impossible for them to work outside the home as well, and their skills are usually invaluable. I think the state makes a poor parent, it could do much better, but for some children who are come into care after the age of 10 the antecedents are irreversible and care/carers can only ameliorate the impact. I have also seen lives changed and we mustn’t forget that, young people are great at effecting change in their own lives with the right scaffolding.

    The (adoption) targets the government set are very much based on timescales rather than money. They gave LAs money to move children from care more quickly because there is a sound evidence base to support a view that, if children need to move, they should move young and fast. The stats reflect that they don’t move young generally but those who are moved quickly to adoption done so not because the are more adoptable in so far as they are who adopters want to adopt, but because we know more about the damage of delay. Having said that I really don’t think 26 weeks is enough time and there should be more exemptions such as the FDAC but for other issues, such as parents with LD, DV or MH problems, we love our initials.

    Like many I am a fan of adoption when it is the best opportunity to secure permanency for children who are not safe to remain at home and family members cannot be considered. I think consideration of other systems is interesting, many countries use long term foster carer, so they are not replacing a child’s family of origin. The script would be that you can’t live with your parents because XYZ but this is the family you can grow up with who will keep you safe and secure. I also don’t believe that children ‘languish’ in foster care here, they live with loving families for the most part. There are though massive issues with achieving permanency in foster care in this country and it results in the system re-traumatising children through separation, grief and loss just as when they are removed from home.

    Fostering network have just highlighted the issues for teenagers in care, some of whom will have been in care as littler people, which tends to suggest that the same carers can’t look after traumatised teenagers as younger children. I do understand and work with those young people, and I wouldn’t be a foster carer so have no legs to stand on really, but you wouldn’t think your own children were ok at 6 but not at 13 would you? Well not often and you probably wouldn’t ask them to move out. SW who support FC are key in the ensuring stability for young people.

    The conspiracists irritate and alienate me. That doesn’t mean that I dismiss their underlying concerns but the are cloaked in such an anti SW bias that there is no space for me to engage. I am just shouted down really. Most SW want to change the system, we cheered when Munro was commissioned, and there are pockets of great practice around the country. Overall though, there are a perfect storm of cuts and a culture of managerialism which no enlightened business leader would employ because they know valuing people gets better results. I would never countenance that the system makes SW a victim but there is a reason everyone is leaving to join agencies. We know what the issues are.

    Lastly I would say that I strongly believe everyone deserves the best representation in court just as everyone in the criminal courts deserves the best defence, it serves justice and society well. Good social workers will be up all night writing a court report because they have 5 sets of proceedings in court, but the won’t worry about more than a typo being scrutinised, they welcome it. I don’t attend court but were I a SW giving evidence, I would want the scrutiny of a good lawyer and judge, I don’t want someone to grant me an order because the case warrants it. I sat on a duty desk for years placing children with carers and there wasn’t a case in proceedings that I would have left children at home on and I am with Sir Mark Hedley and similar judges on the vagaries (not sure if that is the right word) of family life.

    Reply ↓
  51. Mike Barker MBE

    You have used the wrong WordPress option to link this comment box, as it shows the code underneath.

    The Family Courts as I brought to your attention are illegal in that Parents are punished by their children being taken into care without the burden of proof they are deemed innocent until proven guilty that is also libellous and defamation of their characters.
    .
    In addition hearsay evidence is accepted without being backed by proof of fact in most cases.

    The opinion of a single child psychiatrist is sufficient to condemn these parents that in all other case is not in accordance with the rules of evidence.

    This cosy relationship with Family Court Judges with the SSs has some chance of being broken in the High Court with a Jury sworn to secrecy and any children witnesses video linked to the court room from a side room that does happen anyway. Twelve normal people can see both sides that Judges are not prepared to consider objectively.

    Reply ↓
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      I reject your assertion that ‘hearsay evidence is accepted without being backed by proof of fact in most cases’.

      that is simply untrue.

      Nor is ‘the opinion of a single child psychiatrist sufficient’.

      there is a lot we need to investigate about the child protection system I agree. So let’s not waste our time on nonsense please.

      Reply ↓
  52. Angelo Granda

    Unfortunately, the allegations made against the CS by so many are so serious and the prevailing culture of ‘cover-ups’ and ‘ misinformation’ within Local Authorities so insiduous that we CANNOT INVESTGATE!

    Furthermore the Police , who have the power to break down the doors, examine paperwork, inspect computer data, grill allegedly dishonest CS staff aggressively, confiscate incriminating evidence and perform all other functions necessary cannot or will not do so.
    They merely refer parents to the LA complaints procedures!

    That is not ‘conspiracy theory’ either- that is usually fact.
    Criminal activities went uninvestigated for years in Rochdale and Rotherham.

    Family courts are not set up to investigate criminal charges; that would be the task of the criminal investigation system and the CPS.

    Only Police Investigations in respect of each complaint or a full Public Enquiry into the general charges can ever get to the real truth.

    We should all call for a Public enquiry!

    Reply ↓
  53. Angelo Granda

    I have to agree absolutely with Sarah ( and we all should show our benefactor the utmost respect) that the whole ‘ conspiracy theory’ issue gets in the way of constructive debate. We can’t just answer protestors by suggesting they are believers in some crazy theory.

    It is understandable when ordinary citizens use heated language and hyperbole.We are not all trained lawyers! Some of us don’t know what ‘hyperbole’ means.We use common parlance to get over our message and we will sometimes feel it necessary to repeat ourselves.We are not in a Courtroom where the protocol demands summary statements, abridged information and which limits parents to answering questions only.

    Conspiracy ‘theory’ or not conspiracy ‘theory’.That is the question!

    Only a full Public enquiry can provide us with the answer to that one.Let us remove doubt once and for all then we can work on constructive debate.

    Reply ↓
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      Not so sure about that one! Who will chair the public inquiry? How long is it going to take? And what will change afterwards? We have already had the Munro review in 2011 which has simply been sidelined.

      I personally now feel I am very clear about what is going wrong and why. So we need to focus on what can change. There will be a longer article in the August edition of Jordans Family Law about the conclusions drawn from the recent conference organised by the Transparency Project.

      If we can agree to open and honest discussion, steering clear of exaggeration and hyperbole, hopefully when we meet again in 2016 we will have some real solid progress to evaluate and discuss. That’s my aim for the next 12 months in any event and anyone who wants to be part of that is welcome here. I agree that parents are going to find it difficult sometimes to join in the debate as emotions run high. It’s the obligation of the professionals to recognise that and find ways of removing the barriers between us all.

      I hope I usually try to do that – but anyone who just wants to peddle the same tired old hyperbole without genuine engagement will not get a very polite response from me, I am afraid.

      Hopefully I will have a blog post up tomorrow about what I learned at the #Nordic2015 conference in Finland – what seems to work very well there is co-working between parents and social workers and I would be keen to know if that happens in the UK, and if not, why not.

      Reply ↓
  54. angelo granda

    I have explained already on another thread that it does NOT happen in many cases ( especially s.47 ) and I think Sam will confirm that. Investigations are not open-minded and impartial and the CS take their own decision to remove children without any attempt to follow frameworks regarding Working Together.This has to be because they have illegitimate aims contrary to the spirit of the statute!
    What other reason could there be for flouting the legal guidelines?

    Reply ↓
  55. Sarah Phillimore Post author

    I have given several reasons, expanded upon at length in the post above.

    Behaviour doesn’t have to be for ‘illegitimate aims’ to be wrong or stupid or harmful. The tragedy is – it can often be for the most laudable of aims but have horrible consequences.

    But I appreciate it’s more exciting and sexy if you assert there is some grand cabal of SW in conspiracy.

    Reply ↓
  56. angelo granda

    It’s quite basic really, in my opinion.

    The legitimate aim would be for the CS to work together with families to keep families together ( see Children’s Act)

    In any case when the CS don’t make any attempt to work with families and only present evidence to support its own decision to remove children, its aims are in direct opposition to the Children’s Act thus illegitimate.

    It appears to me, with respect, that you are overly preoccupied with conspiracy theories to the point of distraction. I have not suggested any such thing and I would say I haven’t tried to sex any of my posts up.

    So why do you continually bring conspiracies and now grand cabals up? I had thought the chasm was narrowing but ………….

    Reply ↓
  57. Sarah Phillimore Post author

    I responded as I did because you said:

    “This has to be because they have illegitimate aims contrary to the spirit of the statute! What other reason could there be for flouting the legal guidelines? ”

    Which to me read clearly as a suggestion that there was some deliberate corruption afoot.

    Reply ↓
  58. angelo granda

    I hear what you say and regret it if anyone took the wrong inference.
    When the CS flout the guidelines , it may have illegitimate aims because it is deliberately corrupting cases, I suppose but it is more likely that its social workers have illegitimate aims because they misunderstand their duties through either incompetence , poor training, exaggerated fears for children, inability to discern between significant harm and insignificant etc ; they do not conduct case enquiries properly period when, for example, they don’t involve parents in the process.
    Whatever the reason and no matter how laudable their intentions they cause ACTUAL HARM to children when they remove children from their families unnecessarily. Also when they don’t remove children who are in real danger.

    Reply ↓
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      As I have said, I don’t think we are actually in disagreement over much. I am sorry if I am over sensitive to allegations of conspiracy/corruption but I am sure you can understand my position when you read some of the comments on this blog and elsewhere from posters far less measured than yourself.

      Reply ↓
  59. angelo granda

    I am sure everybody will join me and wish you ‘Good luck in your work’.

    So ,I leave you with these thoughts. Without a full and comprehensive criminal investigation,it cannot be said whether ‘conspiracy’ allegations are fact or theory.

    There is no point in arguing about it on a forum like this. The matter only gets in the way of constructive debate. We should never, however , underestimate the depth of feeling of those who come to the forum as victims of an oft dysfunctional system particularly when they have not been permitted to participate in assessments and have their voices heard.We should respect their views, advise them to address criminal allegations to the Police and then leave it at that. It is inevitable that, from time to time, more people will make allegations. If the moderators take a neutral stance and point them in the right direction,then the Police will have to investigate eventually, as in Rochdale and Rotherham.

    Meanwhile, we should bear in mind that whether or not they are deliberately perverting the course of justice, social workers ‘conspire’ to do so when they fail to follow legal guidelines and procedures. For example, when they fail to talk to parents in a genuine effort to establish facts, they have no choice but to speculate.Thus cases are ‘corrupted’ often from the outset. It is unlikely that a social worker would ignore basic procedures by mistake; it may , however, be genuine oversight. Whichever the case, we should accept that correct procedures should be followed scrupuously in ‘serious’ cases where removal is to be considered. If not, respondents should appeal to the District Judge ( High Court) immediately. Lawyers should examine procedures as a matter of course and challenge Local Authorities when appropriate.

    Finally, you should accept that whatever reforms are introduced, the potential for cases to be ‘corrupted’ will remain.Families will still be entitled to expect a fair hearing and as before, that will depend on correct procedure.

    Please will you discuss with your colleagues whether anything can be done to help existing victims. Their should be an automatic right to an independent review, followed , if appropriate, by a right of appeal ( with legal funding). We should reeunite wronged families!

    Reply ↓
  60. Sam

    I think Angelo has a point. He is however more optimistic than I am than the police actually taking any action. The police are often part of the problem as in Oxford and Rotherham.Rotherham. There is no doubt that some policemen actually do lie and cover up.

    Reply ↓
  61. Sarah Phillimore

    Yes, I agree he has a point.

    However we need to look at both righting historical wrongs AND trying to develop a fairer and more transparent system otherwise all we will ever do is try to put out fires that should not have been started in the first place.

    Reply ↓

  63. Pingback: When can the court agree adoption is necessary ? | L8in

  64. Pingback: A lie can get round the world before the truth has put its boots on | The Transparency Project

  65. Pingback: “A lie can get round the world before the truth has put its boots on”, the reporting of ‘forced adoptions’ – Sarah Phillimore | Inforrm's Blog

  66. Pingback: Forced Adoption: We need to talk about this | Child Protection Resource

  67. Lucy loo

    Ss judges caffcass are all the same spineless corrupt evil bas***ds [REDACTED. You are entitled to your views, but these views will not be published on this site if they are expressed in this way. I can see that you are clearly very upset and you may well have very good reason to be. I am sorry for that. But this site is not the place for the kind of views and language you are using. There are many other internet sites where you will be able to talk about this with like minded people. For reasons which I hope I have explained, the CPR is not one of them].

    Reply ↓

  68. Pingback: Lies, damn lies and statistics | The Transparency Project

  69. radmila

    It is amazing that more and more children are been taken away from their families and put up for adoption or put in fosterhomes , I can not believe that abusive families are on the rise, I cannot even believe that all these kids are been abused by their families, actually I know for a fact that most of them arn’t. If there was no money in this industry, we wouldn’t have this currupt industry.
    Lets face it, perants love their kids more then anything. An epedemic of abusive perants simply does’nt exist but greed and curruption certainly does and it is at our childrens expense and at the expense of their families.

    Reply ↓
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      How do you ‘know for a fact’ that ‘most’ children are not abused by their families? I am not having a go at you, I am genuinely interested as to how you have this knowledge.

      Reply ↓
  70. Liza Mullan

    I need urgent help regarding my situation that has been dealt wrongly and unfairly!! I’ll take any advice/help

    my number [redacted]

    Reply ↓

  71. Pingback: Adoption Statistics | Child Protection Resource

  72. Pingback: The woeful state of our debate about child protection, Part II | Child Protection Resource

  73. Jan Loxley Blount

    The most powerful anti adoption book I know is Martin Sixsmith’s PHILOMENA – the true story on which the film of the same name was made – the film is the story of a young working class Irish girl whose son was taken for adoption by wealthy Americans, she spends the rest of her life longing to find her lost son.
    The book is the story of a little boy brought up by wealthy Americans who were not his birth parents. He is given everything he could possibly want or need and is so successful in his education and career that he becomes a key official in Reagan’s White House.
    But Philomena never finds her son, because he dies at the peak of his career, of the effects of AIDS which he caught whilst seeking for thrills, acceptance, self destruction … Anything to cope with the desperate sense of aloneness because of the loss of his mother and his roots.
    We’ve now apologised to those who as children were forcibly transported to Australia. In a few more years we will be apologising to those socially engineered out of their birth families, in the name of over enthusiastic child protection, without considering the alternative of putting in a little bit of support to keep them with their parent or parents, siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles and cousins. Jan Loxley Blount

    Reply ↓
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      Bit of a leap that her son died because he was having sex to cope with the loss of his mother and his roots? What happened in Philomena was a tragedy but it is a completely different situation to the child protection system of today – Philomena lost her child due to religious and societal bigotry about single mothers.

      Nor do I accept that children are removed ‘without considering’ alternatives of family placements. But I agree that more needs to be done to consider what support can be offered to families.

      Reply ↓
      1. angelo granda

        I agree that more should be done to help and support families in accordance with the legitimate aims of the Children’s Act which is to protect them against harm from all sources..It recognises that children are not to be forcibly removed into care or for adoption but supported within natural family.It goes against human rights .
        At the same time,the Public does not ignore that sometimes forced adoption may be called for (as voluntary adoption is) in dire cases of child abuse and when ‘nothing else will do’.
        Clearly,in some cases, forced adoption is inescapable but there are several ways to prevent such an extreme.Temporary foster care and family placements are two of them.
        Lawyers, ( in their marble halls) appear to have difficulty accepting that Local Authorities place children for adoption needlessly.
        Others are more sceptical ,indeed many parents accuse them of arrant malpractice.
        I think it would be helpful if the Public could go into family courts and hear the oral evidence themselves.Also they should have access to the documentary evidence.
        Only then will the Public be able to make judgments about proportionality.
        Are their any parents out there willing to publish a redacted copy of their threshold criteria document and/or core-assessment.

        Reply ↓
  74. Joyce

    I do not understand what a ” redacted copy of their threshold criteria document and /or core-assesment ” means Angelo, my brother who i found in 2007 had his daughter taken under forced adoption,he went as far as the Hague,where he spoke about it and they ruled that every effort should be made to keep the child with the family,sadly this dose not happen, he fought for two years but sadly lost , they were supposed to keep him informed of her etc but of course never did,she is eighteen now ,he was older when she was born and prays that her will see her before its to late, i know he would do anything to help this injustice but is not on the internet.
    He and his wife had to go to a place where they were monitered as parents ( i did not have contact at that time ) he had four children from previouse marriages and continual contact with them, i know of two other cases where children taken needlessly,one was made to see a psychiatrist who then said he was at risk of emotionaly abusing his eleven year old son in the future, i sat in a solicitors office with him,while HIS solicitor hammered him for over a hour going through his file,to the extent my friend. Had to go out and be sick during this time,he was in shock at his son being taken and the solicitor did nothing to help,when he went to his hearing my brother went with him and said they were contravening his human rights to a fair trial as no statement had been produced on his behalf by his solicitor,so it was adjourned to allow for a statement,he was allowed to see his son twice a week then gradually cut down untill now five years on allowed once a month but could not break the bond,he is a loving father and his son loves him,,such a waste,,he was told not to cry in front of his son and had to be careful what he said,would not fight SS as risk loseing what little contact he had,i am not involved with SS in any way but what i have learnt over the years has made me realise why so many innocent people fear the SS and the power they have.

    Reply ↓
  75. angelo granda

    You mentioned in your post about no statement being produced by the solicitor and the case being adjourned.
    This,in my opinion,is another example of the easy-going,slip-shod attitude taken by Children’s Legal Panel towards correct legal procedure.They pay little respect to the court directions.Dates are set down when statements,assessments,care-plans etc.are to be lodged at court but often the CS file late which makes the whole process unfair contravening articles 6 and 8.
    When the CS file late then parents have to file their responses late.
    The disrespect shown towards time limits is another reason why i recommend that the Family Court should be banned from hearing serious cases.

    Reply ↓

  76. Pingback: Adoption | School of Law

  77. Andrew Peacher

    Hi slagging our conferences off isnt the way of helping children and families please call me Andy preacher 01444 390270 or Maggie Tuttle 01702 341999 our numbers are all over the net why is not yours.

    We do good honest work helping others we don’t slag off the trolls the truth is out their on our radio shows and our websites its up to people to decide what they do with it or not.

    We both work 12 hours a day every day with no donations no funding at all do you ?

    Andy

    Reply ↓
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      No, I am not going to telephone someone who accuses me of ‘slagging off’ your conferences. I have suggested that people find out about who you and Maggie Tuttle associate with. That is perfectly legitimate. Why does it worry you?

      I probably work 5 hours a day with no donations and no funding, so I guess you win that one.

      And no, I am not putting my telephone number on the internet. I have seen what your associates are capable of.

      Reply ↓
  78. Daniel Thomas

    After reading much of the articles and comments on this site, it is clear the passion individuals have in relation to the issue of forced adoption and of the assertions Ian and John make. Being a parent who has had the misfortune of being involved with LA care proceedings, Irish care proceedings, as well as high court inter jurisdictional proceedings, I can say with complete conviction, although I don’t necessarily agree with all of Ian’s conspiracy theories, that if Ian hadn’t assisted my wife and I, and if his site hadn’t existed alerting us to the real threat of forced adoption and the lunacy of children being taken for frankly unquantifiable potential risk, our daughter would not be looking forward to Christmas day with her Mummy and Daddy, but would have had her identity removed and be with a pair of randomers.

    In late 2009 my future wife and I began a relationship, she had an 9 year old son from a previous abusive relationship. The LA were involved from the getgo, but vanished for around 7 years after my partner ended that relationship. Our relationship began on very rocky and immature grounds, without going into the ins and outs of the situation, police calls were made, allegations were made and the household I must say wasn’t the most tranquil. I believe at this point the LA were notified of disharmony but did not seek to involve us at the time.

    Q-pregnancy – A letter arrived on our door advising us of potential concerns of unborn baby. We agreed we certainly weren’t in a position to care for a child with the state of our relationship, so the helpful NHS assisted. The involvement then ceased. Don’t forget that there is already a child in the household, but the concerns did not appear too great for him.

    2011 came and we’d calmed down, grown up, resolved a lot of our issues and felt in a better position. Q-pregnancy number 2 and… yes you guessed it the LA jumping right back in. Almost immediately they informed us that they felt there was a risk to the unborn baby and that my for me to move out of the family home or they would seek removing the baby at birth. This was due in their words to the risk of potential emotional harm due to our fractured relationship.

    We refused and then began the child protection process involving both children. This process was a complete farce and delayed for around 6 months, whilst now we learned they gathered evidence but the whole time a complete uncertainly to what was happening. This naturally caused my pregnant wife a lot of anxiety and issues with the pregnancy. This situation was taking its toll. Solicitors seemed powerless and told us to do what we were told or loose our baby. We even tried to reason with the LA, they laughed at us.

    On a stay in the hospital due to my wife’s complications, she stumbled across Ians site. At first I thought it was crazy, but then when applying what I felt was a very over the top reaction to now what was historic events I felt moving to Ireland pre birth was the only way.

    Over the sea we went and BLISS – A happy a joyful birth. Naturally the Irish authorities got involved, and were requested by the LA to return us to UK, but the HSE felt that there was no significant risk.

    This bliss however was short lived as the strain, isolation and complete lack of funds/ security in a foreign land proved too much for my wife, and on some ill advice of a friend got assisted by the LA to return to the UK.

    The LA were clear, she was to live in a refuge and have NO contact with me. I of course could have contact with my daughter (Unsupervised) but not her son (bizarrely) , but no family contact. They were then subject to a child protection plan.

    My wife adhered to this agreement for 3 months, until it became unbearable. We were then informed of the LA’s intention to remove the children from our care and seek care orders. Our solicitors advised us that it would be the likely case given our daughter’s age that the LA would be looking for a freeing order once a care order was secured. The LA later confirmed this.

    We was informed this on Friday, my wifes son was staying with a friend who was a social worker, so we left him there whilst we travelled back to Ireland. We informed the LA of this, and advised that they had NO jurisdiction to pursue a care order on our daughter and that were coming for our son.

    An ICO was granted for children, 1 in Ireland and 1 in UK. A subsequent Emergency care order was sought in Ireland for our daughter and our daughter was removed from our care. We then went to the high courts in London and sought to have the ICO in the UK discharged, as we were not present in the UK at the time the order was made and we argued we weren’t habitually resident. To our amazement, the high court judge discharged the UK ICO and suggested we apply for a transfer of our son’s case (in the UK) under article 12 Brussels II to Ireland. Not surprisingly in this instance, the Irish stepped in and this was blocked, but it was indicated that at some point one court or country may need to deal with both.

    By now we are in 2012 and both children are in care. The LA want to proceed asap with her sons care order who now was 13, despite his wishes and feelings to join us. The HSE decided to peruse in the Dublin high courts a transfer of our daughters case to the UK under Brussels II. They obviously had a statutory obligation to conduct assessments whilst our daughter was in care with them, and said that the care process and jurisdictional issue were running in parallel , but the reality was they wanted our daughter dealt with by the UK.

    This was listed, adjourned, adjourned and adjourned, and finally 18 month later after an uncontested care order was granted for my wife’s son, the high court case was dropped and the HSE decided to deal with the case. Our daughter now had to be moved to a potential permanent placement, and had developed attachment issues (or risk of harm) their actual harm!!! Anyway….

    The HSE sought a care order until she was 18, this was fully contested and it was ruled that the HSE hadn’t fully engaged with assessments as they were focused on the high court proceedings, so although it was ruled that due to the evidence provided there is no doubt that there has been no physical harm and any sort of neglect, and that there was no evidence of actual emotional harm, there was risk at this point so a care order was granted August 2014 for 18 months reviewable in 12.

    August 2015, the review date, the HSE made an application to discharge the care order on the grounds “It is the decision and recommendation as a result of the assessment of the professionals involved that the Child should no longer remain in Care and that the child is transitioned home. The Respondents are co-operating with the Applicant and as such there is no requirement for a Supervision Order.”

    Subsequently the LA are now exploring a legal route map to release my wife’s son from care and he’s spending Christmas with us.

    Why do I feel the need to tell you this story? Because it highlights the massive difference in 2 care systems and how this if not delayed happy ending which arguably should never have reached the point it did, could have ended in complete disaster and loss.

    1. The LA in evidence in our daughters care hearing said numerous times that due to our cooperation they were looking at adoption. There is no doubt in my mind this would have happened.

    2. There evidence was based on hearsay. Made yes from both myself and my wife, and on balance of probability at this time there may have been disharmony. The risk I would argue certainly was disproportionate the action the LA wanted to take.

    3. There was as evidenced in court and agreed by both authority NO harm of any sort taken place, and further to that agreed that with both children had suffered significant emotional harm as a result of being in care.

    4. The LA were sneaky, they were not transparent and never attempted to educate or assist us, but instead went behind our back. In my opinion, as we were both not vulnerable, and therefore fairly educated, they took exception by being challenged by us.

    5. In the UK the cases were rushed through, the solicitors from the get go never gave us a chance and told us to lay down and die.

    6. The threshold of potential risk on paper was met so goodbye daughter, we may never see you again.

    7. In Ireland, after being lapdogs and realizing that the LA’s demands to return our daughter was too costly and likely to set a precedent which they would not have liked (one of these article 12 applications to fail), the HSE did their job, and actually did what social work is about. Assessed, supported and reunified (which even in Ireland is very rare)

    This saga clearly states that the care process was completely premature, shouldn’t have happened should the LA have done their job properly and had a caring team, never have sought this action.

    On this basis I commend Ian, John and all the guys who alert parents to some of the horrors of the UK system. Although packaged in a scare mongering way, and some points may not be substantiated, the fact remains that a lot of care proceedings are brought unnecessarily and the prescription of adoption completely disproportionate to the potential risk.

    I say all this with warning; I believe we are one of the very small numbers of cases where actually full term care would not be appropriate. But even in care, I believe a parent has the right to a meaningful relationship with their child. (Sorry in advanced, I haven’t proof read this, but I hope you get the gist)

    Reply ↓
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      I am glad you had a happy ending. I am sorry you found the system so awful.

      But I don’t agree that the way forward is to rely on people like Hemming and Josephs. Their links with people like Sabine McNeill are very worrying. For every 1 person who comes forward and says they have helped, I can probably provide 10 whose cases were absolutely scuppered by their very bad advice.

      I simply don’t agree that ‘a lot’ of care proceedings are bought unnecessarily. You are certainly entitled and competent to discuss your own case and the reasonableness of that, but where do you get the information to support the assertion that ‘a lot’ of other proceedings are baseless? I rely on my experience over 15 years and 100s of cases. Most of them are not merely necessary at the time of issue but should have been issued many years before they actually were.

      But I agree that the push for adoption in England and Wales is a worry.

      Reply ↓
  79. Daniel Thomas

    On reflection, the term “a lot’, if referring to a proportionate number of the cases brought before the courts, then I agree my assertions are unfounded, however if and I think more accurately referring to too many, should that be a very small proportion of cases, be it 1% or 0.1%, it is still, in my opinion is a lot….

    I work for a very large well-known Computer Company, users may report a specific problem with a software update. Support lines will be inundated; forums full of complaints, resulting in very angry and upset users. This issue of course will be investigated and a resolution sought.

    The fact of the matter is, that even though these issues affected say 5000 people, 45 million other people were not affected; in the grand scheme of things this troubled only a minute amount. The users however have checked the forums, and lots of users are having this issue, the technical support staff are manning the lines and getting lots of the same report, arguably this is affecting a lot of people.

    In the same way Ian receives a lot of calls from parents who believe they are being chased unfairly and some, not all do back this up with documentation etc.
    Agreed, a lot of parents will be looking for an escape route, but in my experience it isn’t an escape route to evade services all together, it certainly wasn’t in my case, but an escape route to avoid your child being adopted. Ian was always clear, ‘they may be taken, but not adopted”

    I do agree that on balance the child protection system does do what it says on the tin, and I agree with you that yes a lot of warranted cases fall through the net or are addressed far too late, but I still think there is a certain amount of people and I can say that as I believe I’m one of them, that the system chased unnecessarily. I back that up with by the fact that after assessments were completed a court in a competent jurisdiction saw no reason for my daughter to be in care.

    I’m not an advocate of avoiding necessary intervention and certainly believe in the states obligation to protect a child, but I just do not accept that how England and Wales goes about it is right. I believe the state also has an obligation to protect the family and protect every persons right to have their own family unless their behavior purposely contradicts family values. Once the child has been protected, I believe the state should pursue every avenue wherever possible to reunify that family ensuring the child remains protected. Only in cases where there is criminal intent I believe in permanent removal from the family (Adoption). Parents that continue to fail to meet the standards required to be responsible of a child for what ever reason, providing the reason is not criminal against the child for example mental illness or addiction, have a right to a meaningful continued relationship with their child and their child a right also.

    Social Services and courts are so pressurized with timescales, they do not get to know the family unit, can misread situations and make rash decisions. On paper threshold can be met, they are great accountants, but these guys aren’t infallible, and with the best intentions in the world can get it wrong. By the time this is realized in England and Wales it can be too late, unlike my case, which was dealt with in Ireland, it is never too late! If the case with the family with the vitamin D deficiency were dealt with in Ireland, they would most defiantly be a family again.

    Ian’s advice to leave the country whilst pregnant is unfortunately outdated and likely to aggravate someone’s case. Words like uncooperative, evasive and unstable are likely to be added to the list of concerns bolstering the likelihood of thresholds being met. Every case where care proceedings are likely to be brought against a pregnant mother in 1 jurisdiction are likely to be transferred back to that jurisdiction. Apart from myself, I know of no successful cases of parents who managed to stay in Ireland once their children had been taking into care. It’s a burden to Ireland and Ireland want rid and that now is the reality. So I will agree this is now bad advice and will scupper chances.

    What is the answer – Reform? Will it happen? – Doubtful! So at the moment those of us who maybe justified in saying that they are being treated unfairly, have to rely on these crusaders who may not have everything right, but certainly have the best intentions to protect a family,

    If I had the facts and was confident that a family was being unfairly treated and was in imminent danger of the family being disbanded, I would not hesitate to look at ways to exploit whatever system was out there to ensure the family was protected. But then there is always a risk.

    Reply ↓
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      I agree with most of what you say. I think some people do get a very unfair deal and they get pursued by officialdom out of all proportion to their original ‘crime’.

      the problem however, and one of the reasons behind this site, is that these legitimate cases of wrong doing are hijacked and morph into ‘most’ or even ‘all’ and you get people like Ian Josephs paying money to people to leave the country without caring what they have done or are capable of doing. It also allows a significant proportion of the 90% who are rightly involved in care proceedings able to minimise the concerns raised against them on the basis that ‘most’ or ‘all’ social workers are evil, care proceedings are baseless etc, etc.

      I completely agree with you that even 1% of care cases going wrong is actually quite a lot of devastated parents and I am certainly not saying that this is acceptable; we need to do what we can to keep this number as low as possible.

      I think reform IS possible. We have to at least try. The next Child Protection Conference organised by the Transparency Project will hopefully be in June next year and we will explicitly be looking at where do we go from here?

      And final point – I don’t think Hemming/Josephs etc are looking out for families. I think their focus is on parents. And sometimes there is a tension between what a parent wants and what a child needs – and I just don’t think they are willing or able to see that.

      Reply ↓
  80. Christopher Cooke

    HI im 38 yearsI got adopted in 1980. I were born returded and mum and dad rejected as a baby.. I still have loving memories I now know why gave me up. the illness which had. on this day just like to know where if she is still on the earth world?. very gutted was given up .but my own human rights were taken from the humans. never had easy it because my handicapped in life. this day wonder if real mum well, but may i never know in death??? Christopher cooke

    Reply ↓
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      I am sorry to hear about how sad you are about what happened to you. Sometimes people do things because they are frightened and sometimes they do regret what they have done. Your mum might also be wondering about what happened to you and hoping you are ok. If you want to get more information about your birth family or talk to someone who understands what you are going through, you might find some useful information here https://childprotectionresource.online/children-and-care-leavers/

      Reply ↓
  81. Mrs hoyland

    So why can i have one baby and not the over? After tested and challenge change of circumstance which was up heald by independent physiciatrist cafcass and social services, yet challenged primary attachment after been with perspective adopters for 7months. But I breast fed for 4months from birth lived with me then taken into foster care and I saw him till was 1. Now only 2 and half after appealing through family court for over a year I have been clearer of concern and change in circumstance and I have his younger brother who is 7months surly the justice and family court is wrong. After researching primary attachment it is researched from 1950s that it is about who feeds and cares and plays with the child and how the child responses. My son called me mum he was breast fed he knew who I was and it was the family court who was unsure or experts without researching primary attachments to then make the decision to adopt. Why can i have one without the over!!

    Reply ↓
    1. helensparkles

      It sounds like you have had one child adopted and are able to keep the other because of changes you have made. The court was able to make a different decision because of you and I hope you are very proud of yourself, change is difficult for all of us.

      Courts take consideration of children’s timescales and I am sorry that the court was not able to make a different decision about your other child. Parents often wonder why changes they have made don’t necessary lead to previous children being returned to their care post adoption but courts make decisions about what is best for that child.

      Attachment is important because a child who has been placed with adopters for some period of time will have formed a new attachment the court would disrupt if they were moved. The court has to balance whether that is better or worse for the child.

      You are right that the primary attachment figure is usually the mother, but it isn’t always (children are brought up by other people for all sorts of reasons). If a mother was not able to meet all of her child’s needs from birth, that attachment may or may not have been formed, even if they were called mum or breast-fed.

      All of that means that the court needed experts to assess your child’s attachment from what I can tell.

      Reply ↓
  82. looked_after_child

    Hello Helen
    I’m interested to know who would be considered an expert able to assess a child’s attachment in this situation and what do they base their assessment on and how much value the courts place on this experts evidence? Is it called evidence, testimony or opinion or something else?
    Thanks

    Reply ↓
  83. Angelo Granda

    A parent’s view.
    I have seen expert opinion given to Court in an assessment re-attachment and the psychologist ( a professor) stated quite clearly that any evidence regarding the subject of attachment/ secure or insecure can only be mere speculation in all circumstances. Where autism is concerned, even if it is speculated that a child is not securely attached, that would be due to the autistic traits not to parental care or environmental concerns.
    Attachment theory was originally developed for studies of babies. The only tests available are designed to test attachment of new-borns and children under two-years of age to their mothers e.g. suckling , response to baby-talk etc. It is not really a concept valid when dealing with older children.
    I draw the attention of readers to the quite recent advice to SW’s that they should quit using the word attachment completely and start referring to other more concrete evidence. Let’s hope they take it in.

    Reply ↓
    1. helensparkles

      “I draw the attention of readers to the quite recent advice to SW’s that they should quit using the word attachment completely and start referring to other more concrete evidence. Let’s hope they take it in.”

      Please provide a link to this advice.

      Reply ↓
  85. ALAN BRUNWIN

    Social workers Sarah Phillimore your organization of self believe perfect people [EDIT MOSTLY DELETED – again, if you want to post in language that is less inflammatory and insulting, I’ll post it. If you can’t moderate your language, you won’t be published here]

    Reply ↓
  86. Claire

    I can see this discussion mostly took place two years ago but I’ll still add my 2 cents. I am French, and was living in the UK 5 years ago during my pregnancy and was arguing a lot with my then-boyfriend (now husband). This came to the knowledge of social services, and a social worker tried to maneuver to have my baby taken at birth for risk of emotional abuse. Thankfully, one week before giving birth, I finally understood what the social worker was up to, flee back to my home country and never looked back. I read the report on our family, which was horribly biased and with many lies and mistakes. The mental health assessment report (I had been forced to take) which was very positive had been removed. I was depicted as an isolated, poor abuse victim, the opposite of the successful funny person I’ve always been. They tried in turn to say I have mental health issues or my husband was abusive. Basically, the social worker had decided to remove my child at birth, and was then trying to justify it. And just like that, she had gotten approval. When I see what happens to so many people in Great Britain, I am outraged. How can such a crime against parents (and children) happen? Why do people have no compassion? Sarah, how can you get worked up on arguing whether or not there is a conspiracy theory out there, but only say politely “I’m sorry” to people who have lost their children unjustly because of the issues with family laws? You should be outraged. Something must be done! Like Ian says, people who haven’t commited any crime should not lose their child forever! Can you think of the parents for one minute? My heart is breaking for all the parents who have lost their children to this sometimes ruthless system.
    I know that if my labor had started one week earlier and had my child in the UK, she would have been removed from me straight away. I have no idea how I would have survived something like that

    Reply ↓
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      If care proceedings had started you would have had legal representation. You lawyer would have insisted that the positive assessment report went in the bundle. What you are describing is a lawless ‘wild west’ where SW just do whatever the hell they want. That simply isn’t true. There is bad practice and there is bad behaviour, but at the end of it you have a court which upholds the rule of law and it is a court that makes decisions, not a social worker.

      I hope i have compassion for all people who are hurting. The parent who loses a child will feel pain. But so too the child who is hurt by their parents. We have to try and strike a balance about who we protect from harm and how. We do not always get the balance right. But I do reject suggestions that the ‘system’ is fundamentally ‘evil’. That is not my experience over many years now.

      Reply ↓
      1. Angelo Granda

        Thanks for your comment, Claire and I am glad you managed to return home to France in time for the birth of your child. To any other foreign Mum out there who may fall foul of our British system disproportionate to your circumstances, my advice, to you, as an ordinary parent, would be to contact the embassy or consulate and ask for protection.
        Unfortunately, I have to agree with Sarah that there is bad practice and there is bad behaviour but to be honest to a French national ,I cannot agree that the Civil Family Court in Britain upholds the Law. I know of cases where positive assessments, reports and medical facts are excluded from evidence which the CS have a duty to give to Court. This is because any hostile to the LA litigation aims is withheld. There isn’t the correct level of impartiality which we expect from professionals whom we rely on. I have sometimes used the term ‘low- calibre’ when commenting about these professionals and by that I mean the same as they do in the forces. Low calibre means cowardly or timid. They do not have the moral strength to go against LA directives and put their feet down. It is the duty of ‘professionals to be independent and advise the LA not vice-versa . When LA’s act unlawfully , a professional should be absolutely honest with a court and inform it about malpractice and wrong-doing. For example, if there are less-invasive alternatives to removal but the authority will not finance them, the SW should be honest and inform the Guardian and the Judge. If the Judge still decided on removal, the decision would be instantly appealable. If the SW keeps quiet then it is disaster for the child.
        Sarah, much goes on which you know nothing about, evidently. To say that lawyers will insist that positive reports go into the bundle is so wide of the mark. Even if they complain and get the Judge to order the production of documents, it is left to the authorities to present them. Then they can cherry pick those they wish the Court to see without the lawyers knowledge. Plus the missing evidence will already have been omitted from the information given to the expert assessors. Even if it is pointed out to the Judge in final submissions that court orders have been flouted and procedures ignored , the judge can use his very wide judicial discretion to overrule the objection ‘in the best interests of the child’.
        I know that you keep insisting that children get a fair hearing in your experience but please don’t underestimate the bad practice and bad behaviour you talk about. When professionals behave badly and indulge in malpractices, a criminal court would not tolerate it and you should start thinking about radical reforms to the Family Court system.

        Reply ↓
      2. Winston Smith

        I’m sorry Sara, but it is true, when SW’s come under pressure and around babies to be taken at birth. Also the psychiatric assessments insisted on.

        The family Court judge will approve whatever the LA want.

        Reply ↓
        1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

          No. It’s not true. The family court judge does not simply approve whatever the LA want. But you are determined that you are right so this is utterly pointless isn’t it?

          Reply ↓
  87. alan brunwin, childrens author,

    Outline of Evidence and facts against The London Borough of Sutton Council Children’s services corruption; 2011 to 2015;
    2011/12 It was revealed in the national newspaper that social workers where ordered to dish out more dirt on parents to secure children into The London Borough of Sutton councils Local Authority care system, ie ( false statements were made by the London Borough of Sutton authority against parents and their children, these criminal actions by The London borough of Suttons children’s services, I believe were either never investigated by the Police, or even reported to the Metropolitan Police) Published December 11th 2011; Daily and Sunday Express; Social workers ‘sex up abuse claims to snatch children for adoption’
    There seems to have been no Police action against London borough of Sutton, children’s services Chief Executive or his social workers. etc; Early 2012 Children’s executive head of safeguarding and child protection, Mr [NAME REDACTED] had to leave his job because of the criminal actions by his social workers etcIt seems no other staff left Sutton Council children’s services over these criminal acts against parents and their children; Whether these crimes were reported to the Met POLICE at the time , I do not know, but I’m 100% sure, criminal charges should have been brought; After 4 years of extensive investigations into The London Borough of Sutton it has been found they were also using fake social workers to take children into their LA care system; If called for evidence will be provided; from Broken hearts children in care, Facebook;

    Reply ↓

  88. Pingback: WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF TARGTTING CHILDREN TO BE TAKEN INTO CARE – CITIZENS GUARD

  89. Pingback: The adoption itch: time to scratch below the surface – Social Sciences Birmingham Blog

  90. Pingback: Care Crisis Review | Child Protection Resource

  91. Pingback: A little less conversation – a little more action. | Child Protection Resource

  92. Tracey mclean

    My two twin girls were stolen from me by social services their names are [redacted] THEY WERE BORN
    [redacted] they were forced adopted when they were two years old we fought for over two years to try and get them home we did EVRYTHING we we asked to do I passed operating classes did EVRYTHING they asked us to do but still would not return my babies. We were first time perents and we love our girls I haven’t seen them for almost 10 years and I still miss them so very much evry day I want to see them go to don’t know where they are. I did a have letterbox contact with them but the adopted perents couldant be bothered sending me letters or pics and we were told they don’t have to keep to the agreement I’ve tried EVRYTHING to try and find them . Social services are nothing but evil child stealing they sell babies for profet. I want my kids back anyone please help us find them.

    Reply ↓
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      This organisation might be helpful https://www.adoptionsearchreunion.org.uk/default.htm

      Once the girls are adults they can look for you if you have given your details to the Adoption Contact Register.

      https://www.gov.uk/adoption-records/the-adoption-contact-register

      It would be much better to wait until the girls are old enough to contact you as otherwise people might be worried that you are going to try and take them away from their adoptive parents. If they haven’t seen you since they were 2 I am afraid it is really unlikely they will remember you so it could be a difficult and scarey thing to try and re-introduce yourself, particularly if this was done in an unplanned or sudden way.

      I am sorry to say that as I know you must be very upset about what happened. Have you got anyone to talk to about how you are feeling? this charity might be able to help http://www.matchmothers.org

      Reply ↓
  93. Angelo Granda

    Tracey, Thanks for telling us about what happened to your twins.Keep looking in regularly though because it may take a while before someone can help you,if they can because it is difficult.
    Have you got any proof that they sold the babies for profit or are you just inventing it?
    If you have,tell us more.

    Reply ↓
  94. Angelo Granda

    Sarah, I don’t think it will be easy to help Tracey at all .I am given to understand the care and placement order proceedings are held in private (secret) Family Courts ostensibly to protect children from potential risk of embarrassment . Now it seems the adoption proceedings are also private and the public are unable to find out to whom or to where they go not even their natural parents. So they are ‘ secretly’ adopted and no- one can access the adoption papers whilst they remain children. So they could be anywhere in the world with anyone ( perhaps in Australia) .
    I believe our children deserve more protection than that especially if one considers all the recent scandals, children being told their natural parents are dead etc.etc.
    What possible excuse can the authorities have to keep the destinations of these unfortunate children secret and their new names too? I dread to think.

    Reply ↓
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      The ‘excuse’ will be that the adoptive parents fear that the birth parents will try and abduct the children or cause them other kinds of emotional pain by sudden and unplanned meetings.

      Reply ↓
  95. Angelo Granda

    Risk of emotional harm ,potential, overestimated possibilities and speculation used as an excuse for inhumanity ( art.3.).
    This poor Mum faces a lifetime of severe mental torture,emotional harm ,degradation and worry.
    If the adoptors would only follow the Court contact agreement ,it would be highly unlikely she would risk imprisonment and kidnap the children.
    Anyway,let us trust them not to break the adoption agreement in any other way and mistreat the children or exploit them.
    Tracey seems to think they have been sold for profit.Probably her imagination but who knows.Two 12 year old girls are very vulnerable.

    Reply ↓
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      What? Sold for profit? No. Fees are paid to adoption agencies for the work they have to do in assessing and matching. This isn’t a slave trade. Children are not sold. Adoption agencies need to make money to pay their staff and maintain their buildings. They may also have an element of profit. I agree it is very regrettable that more and more private organisations seem to be getting involved in all aspects of child protection. I don’t like profit as a driver when people are working with children. But that does not equate to being ‘sold for profit’. If you really believe that, then you must think this is Somalia or some other failed state. We aren’t quite that bad, yet.

      Reply ↓
      1. Angelo Granda

        All I am doing is bearing in mind the past form of the Authorities in this country not dreaming up conspiracy theories.Slave camps and child-abuse in the colonies, inhumane sentencing and transportation etc historically and the modern day trend for the exploitation and trafficking of youngsters around the world.I am not even thinking of adoption agencies,I’m thinking of criminals who work secretly.They can easily abuse adoption agreements when all is said and done in secret.
        We have to understand that when it comes to human rights abuse,brothel-keeping,child-sex abuse and so on,the criminals have to act covertly and they have an insatiable need for fresh meat.
        But I don’t want to terrify parents and exaggerate possibilities.However,we should never deny this sort of thing is ongoing in the world today.
        British children deserve better protection is all I’m saying.

        Reply ↓
        1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

          So. What you are saying is that in the context of care proceedings – which is case clearly was as the mother comments about the indirect contact she was getting initially until sadly it stopped – criminals were in fact able to take the children to satisfy their desire for ‘fresh meat’. Criminals were apparently able to bribe the social workers and the court into accepting their bogus application to adopt these children so they could be sold to a brothel?

          you don’t want to terrify parents and exaggerate you say. But you are. This is an utterly ludicrous comment. I am going to delete any further comments from you about this as I think all this will achieve is to terrify already vulnerable and hurting people.

          I have no doubt, as it has been conclusively investigated, that teenage children in care are very vulnerable to sexual exploitation. This is partly because it is very difficult to contain them if they do not wish to be contained; secure accommodation is a serious and last resort.

          But to suggest that care and adoption proceedings are in fact a facade for the sexual trafficking of children is a step way too far along a road of tin foil hat madness and I won’t permit it on this site. There are sadly many other places onto internet where you can go if you wish to discuss this kind of insanity.

          Reply ↓
  96. Angelo Granda

    Please go back and read my comments again then think again.
    I wrote nothing about the context of care proceedings and made no mention of bogus applications to adopt.
    I wrote that a Court prescribed adoption letterbox contact agreement had been dishonoured by the adoptive parents which will raise a few alarm bells especially for Mum and called your attention to the reality of the world today and the past misconduct of the authorities .I wrote of my surprise that children are ‘secretly’ adopted and not even the birth mother is told who by or where her children live.
    I expressed my desire not to frighten parents or exaggerate matters nor to suggest any conspiracy.I think before I comment,

    Sarah.Nevertheless, you are the moderator and you are entitled to delete any remarks you want.I won’t complain.Don’t deny the undeniable though about institutional abuse .It is real,it is cultural and it is continuous.

    Reply ↓
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      Birth parents are very rarely told where their children live after they have been adopted. This is mainly due to fears from the adoptive parents of abduction or other disruption. It doesn’t mean that the children have been taken into slavery. Indirect contact is dishonoured all the time I am afraid because it is a very poor quality way of trying to keep in contact with someone you don’t know and have no memory of. This is not a good state of affairs but it is not sinister.

      Reply ↓
    2. Lindsay Fraser

      Angelo, follow the ICC criminal prosecutions due next year, abuse corruption is endemic and continuous, and after 17 years of international Universal Justice criminal investigation, we have proven the documentary facts to the UN, and the ICC wil “execute the Findings”. Corruption is evidenced as still continuing, committed to protect the reputations of the institutions involved. There is very little “learning” going on for victims, the “learning” that is proven going on, are corrupt police officers are learning to lie more effectively, and we have proven the mechanisms used, and the evolution of these processes over time. Also check out HMIC ‘s “serious concerns” in some police forces….. We are talking about ‘Allowed abuse’ and not only about ‘historic’ cases, but recent cases too…. And consider the only three percent of rape cases are prosecuted in the UK, highlighted by the BBC recently. THREE PERCENT !!!! And corruption doesn’t exist ?? Oh yes it does. We have subtantial and corroborated evidence of this.

      Lindsay Fraser

      Reply ↓
  97. Angelo Granda

    Forgive me for not coming up with electronic links but I am not a professional.You don’t seem to be fully aware of all the precedents ,Sarah.OR I have been reading fake news in the press.
    Hundreds and hundreds of children were taken for adoption but it was all fake.Lots of them were never adopted at all . They were abused and neglected in residential homes run by so-called agencies who received government funds.This is why registration of births and deaths including adoption records and changes of names are so crucially important.Countless children were not adopted at all and ended up in a communal ,unmarked grave never leaving the homes.Is that sinister or not?The luckier ones were shipped to America.
    I apologise if this terrifies any readers.
    Can anyone confirm what I say or have I been reading FAKE NEWS?
    PS. Even more sinister is that some of the agencies were run by the Church or registered charitiesll.

    Reply ↓
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      No that wasn’t fake news but it is OLD news. That hasn’t happened, thank goodness for many decades now.

      Reply ↓
  98. Angelo Granda

    Least emotive words to avoid a backlash reaction.
    Those criminals acted in secret as they all do.Truth to tell you don ‘t know whether its not still happening, they hide stuff from OFSTED and we have a cover-up culture.
    Transparency project should check HomeOffice records in 21st century of modern day slavery,trafficking and prostitution convictions.
    Wealthy London couple convicted this last month or two for buying a young girl,adopting her then enslaving her as a char and babysitter.

    Reply ↓
  99. Angelo Granda

    Sarah,Thank you for your patience especially with me and my endless comments.
    Unfortunately I feel persistence is necessary.
    Where are our children? I understand that is an awkward question.People trafficking and exploitation of children for profit in care homes and by foster and adoptive parents.Awkward questions to answer,I agree, because of the secrecy.
    I have been able to visit so-called special needs residential care homes on a regular basis.In one a four year-old autistic boy was thrown in with four downs syndrome teenagers one of whom bullied him and split his head open.
    Next time I visited I asked after the teenage bully and was told that as punishment he had been shipped offshore to a ‘specialist’ institution.Where? The Isle of Wight,hundreds of miles away!
    We know that many parents abandon downs syndrome sufferers and that sometimes society treats them as lepers.
    We should all have grave concerns for their fate in this care system.I don’t expect many of them are adopted and they end up offshore where land is cheap and live a life of degradation.
    Are there any figures for downs syndrome youngsters in care? They are wide-open to exploitation.

    Reply ↓
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      It’s a valid point. I think in Holland every child in care has a named social worker who sticks with them. That is a big weakness in our current system – the constant churn of personnel and the lack of a single known adult who is looking out for the child. I assume there must be figures somewhere.

      Reply ↓
      1. Lindsay Fraser

        Sarah, in the 17 years international and UN criminal investigation, for the International Criminal Court, what has evidentially emerged is the entire system is fragmented to avoid individual responsibility. No authority has any remits to prosecute child attack cover up crimes, and as one officer wrote, “the officers (UN proven to have destroyed evidence to protect State institutional reputations) have probably all moved on now” . Actually, not totally true as one has been suspended, and the rest are still hopping around in their forces. As you may realise, same-force, self-investigation into their own crimes of destroying child ‘abuse’ (torture) evidence under the Police Reform Acts 1998, 2002, simply yield more evidence of lying and text alterations. ALL the evidenced cases include this ‘feature’. As Theresa may has said as Home Secretary, and again as Prime Minister, the IPCC is “Profoundly corrupt” and her “Burning injustices comment may come from our British Holocaust of Tortured Children Survivors ” under our Universal Justice initiatives, of which Theresa is aware from the UN Report. Please do not confuse what I am saying with any ‘loose-talk conspiracy theories’. This is hard documentary evidence, obtained by International Inspectors, UK Tribunal, T.E.D.H. Prosecutors, the LRV Prosecutor, UK police whistle-blowers who have sent us case evidence, (e.g. “Lindsay, you only rise in the ranks if you accept corruption”) over a seventeen year period. Also do not imagine anything has ‘improved’. It has got worse, due to IICSA “learning” which police use through the Hydrant police intelligence Hub, to learn how to lie more effectively. Only three percent of rape cases are prosecuted in the United Kingdom. I am both a direct victim of child abuse torture and sex abuse , given by ‘adoption’ to a psychotic mental patient, and her Army Officer husband who was brutal to me, and used in a hideous surgical psychiatric ‘experiment’ in 1953, still being covered up, that was to remove the vulnerable psychotic’s reproductive organs to “SEE IF” quote / unquote, this would cure or “balance” her psychosis. “You can prove torture from the medical records, but not in the national interest to prosecute” . Victorian ‘baby farming’ cover up from then to now. A London hospital stated my cases were “one of the worst on record” but now as a qualified psychologist, also qualified in Case Law Tort, and Case Compiler for the ICC, I have seen worse. And these worse cases are very recent. Follow the Trials next year, and a serious premium UK newspaper which wants to interview me on the 17 year meticulous investigations, and the Trial process itself. It will bring to account not only three hundred Defendants, but highlight the methodology of corruption.
        Lindsay Fraser

        Reply ↓
        1. Lindsay Fraser

          Ah, when I wrote this, “This is hard documentary evidence, obtained by International Inspectors, UK Tribunal,” I meant UN tribunal, not UK. Having said this, the Royal Courts of Justice told me last year not to waste time and money on expensive Justice Reviews, which do not prosecute police, as civil in nature, BUT TO PROCEED WITH THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT !!! That really says something. They recognise the need to use the international criminal courts.

          Regards, Lindsay Fraser

          Reply ↓
        2. Lindsay Fraser

          And Sarah, if you have difficulty in believing me, I can send you sample evidence (contact my email address) of my own cases (not from the other similar cases from the Submissions block which are confidential to the Victims / ICC) but from mine, yes, I am not seeking ‘anonymity’ . We are out to force legal changes in the UK to stop abuse corruption, by ICC Order, and that is our mission. With an official estimate of eleven million abuse / Survivor victims in the UK, something is very wrong, and we have demonstrated exactly what that “something” is. Cover ups kill victims through a mix of no justice despair suicides, and police abandonment to murder to the tune of roughly 1,000 per year. Over 4 to 5 decades, the number amounts to Holocaust, and is entirely preventable. Working criminal accountability. So I invite you. If you think I am talking nonsense, ask to see some sample evidence Files. The ICC does not use juries to execute the Findings of the UN, it uses Panels of Judges. The best people to fight these crimes are the direct victims who have gained legal knowledge, because we understand the issues in a very direct way.

          Lindsay Fraser
          Lindsay Fraser

          Reply ↓
          1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

            I don’t want you to send me evidence in on going court cases as I can see how that might cause a few problems. I am not saying I believe or disbelieve you – I have as yet seen no evidence either way. But it does seem odd that a case of such magnitude is proceeding in an international court with not even a hint of comment from the British media? What have I missed about this?

        3. Lindsay Fraser

          And Sarah, if you have difficulty in believing me, I can send you sample evidence (contact my email address) of my own cases (not from the other similar cases from the Submissions block which are confidential to the Victims / ICC) but from mine, yes, I am not seeking ‘anonymity’ . We are out to force legal changes in the UK to stop abuse corruption, by ICC Order, and that is our mission. With an official estimate of eleven million abuse / Survivor victims in the UK, something is very wrong, and we have demonstrated exactly what that “something” is. Cover ups kill victims through a mix of no justice despair suicides, and police abandonment to murder to the tune of roughly 1,000 per year. Over 4 to 5 decades, the number amounts to Holocaust, and is entirely preventable. Working criminal accountability. So I invite you. If you think I am talking nonsense, ask to see some sample evidence Files. The ICC does not use juries to execute the Findings of the UN, it uses Panels of Judges. The best people to fight these crimes are the direct victims who have gained legal knowledge, because we understand the issues in a very direct way.

          Lindsay Fraser
          Lindsay Fraser

          Sarah the Sunday Times wants to interview me, due to one of our Victim Groups’ members contacting them, but I have held off until now when this week the 11,000 documents of all cases, is being sent by the LRV Prosecutor to the Court. The LRV is a Spanish Government Ministry Prosecutor acting under the Legal Principle of Universal Justice. The ICC actually uses Panels of three Judges, not juries, so I reiterate 1) I can send you the Civil Files at least (about one sixth of the whole evidence in my cases), perhaps you might take on my Civil cases ? and 2) the most recent Criminal evidence of police violations of Art. 54 (1) refusals to investigate / conserve evidence / prosecute, which is a disgrace. This force claims that giving (me) as a baby to a known psychotic mental patient is “lawful” because the court / social service / doctors had “done the best they were able” when the psychotic’s “treatment” (ripping out her reproductive organs) has NO MEDICAL VALIDITY ANYWHERE to cure psychosis !!! Those doctors were more insane than she was. There was no gynecological reason at all, just an experiment copied from Josef Mengele. Amputation for interest. What she should have been given is medication or rest home psychological help, not have to “submit” to this barbaric atrocity crime which led predictably to me being tortured and sexually abused
          Regards, Lindsay Fraser

          Reply ↓
          1. Lindsay Fraser

            And also some of the cases WE are proceding under Rome Treaty violations have indeed been reported in the BBC, real horrors, but I have to respect confidentiality in a public site. I can tell you in a private email if you contact me. My cases were first summarised to the ICC by the LRV Prosecutor in July 2017, to test Admissibility, and we were invited to Submit them, to execute the Findings of the UN, but at that time we were also being flooded with case evidence from Victims groups and police whistle-blowers, which has taken us a year to put together, and we agreed with the ICC to hold off to build the Block Submissions. A letter from the LRV Prosecutor stimulated a Spanish investigative programme to do a journalist investigation in the UK and reported “shocking” cases (4 Millenium) but I have always felt for me the time to agree to the Sunday Times offer is when the investigative evidence gathering for the first Tranche of cases to the ICC are ready to Submit. Which is now, and I have this morning let them know I am ready, via the Victims’ Group member who first contacted them on my behalf. But you will see this in the news, don’t worry about that !!!
            Regards, Lindsay Fraser.

          2. Sarah Phillimore Post author

            If you can send me information which does not risk you being in contempt of court or in anyway impacting on the integrity of the court process then of course I would be very interested to receive it. You can send it to [email protected]

  100. Lindsay Fraser

    Sarah, I would agree with your comment on “Sabine”, if it’s the same one I was approached with. I was approached with that one via a victims group, and could do nothing with it. I did not understand the case, there were endless , somewhat colourful, video testimonies by the same person, but despite me asking for documents of hard evidence, I received nothing. And no interest in receiving guidance in getting evidence either. Nothing that a Court would recognise as documentary evidence. I was sent endless email and video accusations, but not one single document to even suggest corroboration. The cases we proceed have hundreds of official documents corroborating allegations, where the events are crystal clear from medical and other evidence. I work on the basis you cannot waste the Court’s time, as this will compromise the well-evidenced genuine cases. international Inspectors can advise a victim if they need help in getting specific evidence. Every request has an Article of Rome Treaty in the background, so knowing what to ask for, wherefrom, and how to layer requests is half the battle. The ICC has no cost to victims, and this is vital to understand. You do not need to be rich to Submit cases under the special (Institutional) Child Abuse category. The Court does not prosecute civilian abusers, but Prosecutes officials who cause, or allow the crimes to happen, or who commit Denial of the Truth Crimes.

    Reply ↓
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      Sabine McNeill is a dangerous criminal and I am glad you didn’t get sucked into any interaction with her.

      Reply ↓
  101. Lindsay Fraser

    Sarah, thanks for telling me this about this person. After about three weeks of getting nowhere, I had to block these emails and video sendings, as I formed the impression that she had a serious personality disorder. I was being bombarded with what appeared to be some sort of psuedo-religious nonsense, that had no definition in legal terms, and had nothing to do with ICC submittable evidence. It was just apparent fantasy. Or you have seen something worse that I have not seen. After the “Nick” scandal, I became very wary of risks associated with this work. 99.9 percent of our contacts are genuine adoption / institutional child abuse / official failures victims, where they have some documentary evidence, but need guidance to get more to fill in the gaps, guidance we provide from the Inspectorate. I send victims the Articles Rome Treaty on child abuse refusals to investigate violations (two pages of dense legal text) so they can see for themselves what we need to secure ICC interventions.

    Thanks for the email address. Tomorrow I will start sending you some Files (from my own cases) . Let me know if I am sending you too much. The best Summary (88 pages) is the Indictment List for my cases. Each case has its own Indictment request List, but from my own, you’ll get a pretty good idea of what’s been happening and why, as one or two elements of evidence are added to each name, with the referencing File title added. In total 6,000 documents which is too much to send you, although the separate Civil Law Files contain around 1,000 documents. The Articles violated also appear within the Indictment List rationale. Don’t forget I have already succeeded at the UN’s Investigative Tribunal Panel of Judges, Found True I was tortured by the State of the United Kingdom, and sex abused and have suffered extensive cover ups, so I do not need to use the “alleged” word. I will also send you the latest ICC crime File of this month, with the documents recording the atrocity ‘experiment’ and a few medical records recording the violent abuse, but the ICC Files contain much more. There are two atrocity crimes 1) the experiment on a vulnerable mental patient 2) giving me as an adopted baby by way of a compensation, and experimental rat, to the Psychotic Potentially Dangerous (Consultant Psychiatrist….) for “submitting” to the Army Job experiment. No country in 130 Signatory Members of the UN, can give babies to psychotic mental patients and hide the adoption by defrauding the birth certificate. I have been fighting for Justice all my life. I am no longer the suicide risk I once was, and I am glad now I survived, and in a way, by getting final justice for me and others is a form of therapy continuing. The last word from the London Hospital psychotherapist to me was “Lindsay, give ’em hell !!” That was a lovely conclusion to seven years group trauma therapy, and I have followed this in the fight for Justice !!!. 15 group members and we loved him for his humanity kindness, and deep understanding of anger, projection, and his toughness when it was needed, releasing us to be what we really are outside abuse damage, releasing and allowing us to be ourselves as individuals. Psychotherapy is real freedom, hard and painful as it can be at times, but (hospital-run) Groups work.

    Regards, Lindsay Fraser

    Reply ↓
  102. Lindsay Fraser

    And a message for any victim in despair. Who dares wins. There is a good life to be had after horror if you keep at it. I am happily married to one of the Inspectorate’s Inspectors, have been for many years. The teaching hospital in London said mine were one of the worst cases on record, but I survived and took up lawfare. Do consider group psychotherapy which is your right to access, to learn to listen to your agony, through your Group, 15 other ‘mirrors’ and learn also you can create a new life free of mental pain and release yourself, also consider getting the qualifications you could not get before when trapped in abuse. I remember the despair, but I broke free in a real way, you can do it too.

    Lindsay

    Reply ↓
  103. Lindsay Fraser

    A point the LRV Prosecutor makes is the corruption was worse because
    the Army was involved. Hence DCI “X” ‘s “not in the national
    interest to prosecute” and DC “Y” (currently suspended) stated to me “you can
    prove torture, but this is not a crime in the UK”. Yup, child
    torture is not a crime in the UK, and the PCC spokesperson “Z” of Police
    wrote “an abuser is entitled to do what he wants” (revenge theft and
    legacy punishment against me in revenge for me reporting the crimes) and his
    “motives entirely for him”. The international legal community does
    not agree with these perceptions. And this is what we are fighting.
    Our Belgian International Lawyer is arguing to the ICC that “In UK
    child abuse, only Facist Principles Apply” . When you consider that
    if police did not turn a blind eye to institutional child abuse, such
    would stop. The central reason for so many crimes against the child,
    is police failure to act. Correspondingly, there is no functioning
    deterent against sex attacks of children when institutional reputation-
    conservations have been involved. With so few prosecutions, child
    abusers think they can get away with it. Child abuse itself is a
    psychiatric disease in abusers, as it excludes altruism, causing
    damage in the victim that kills adult Survivors or wrecks their
    lives. We see, firstly inject (ICC) criminal accountability in corrupt forces as a deterrent against evidential destruction and tampering, as an essential first step. The next step is to try and force legal changes to come up to international standards. Same-force, self-investigation into same-force evidential crimes, has to go. Independent impartial investigation by another force must substitute same force investigation, or the re-institution of the Met’s disbanded “Ghost Squad anti-corruption Command”
    but available for the whole country. It was disbanded because it was uncomfortably successful. An ‘island’ force, with no friends in police stations. The IOPC is a legally unqualified bag, that obeys their pay-masters, the police they are supposed to investigate, but never do. What are legally UNqualified staff of the IPCC.IOPC sole police accountability authority doing making (illegal) ‘legal’ decisions to not investigate !!? !! There are NO qualifications required to apply to be an IOPC “analyst” so any sadistic liar is welcome to apply !! What they do is routinely insult the complainant. You are “vexatious” “trying to annoy” “ranting” “offensive” (if you dare to complain) . There is therefore no sign of accountability either !! With this set-up, of course police abuse corruption is rife. Inject Transparency and deterrence, and corrupt practices stop over-night. Article 258 Individual Criminal Accountability.

    Regards, Lindsay Fraser

    Reply ↓
  104. Lindsay Fraser

    Even when social services KNEW I was being tortured, I was never rescued. Ever since I have been fighting Denial of the Truth Crimes. A southern England police force, after telling me I could prove torture, it “was not in the national interest to prosecute”. So denied criminal justice. my adopter- torturers were police-allowed to sell up and abscond in secret, police refused to tell me where, so I could not sue them, they stole my possessions, and committed Legacy Punishment as revenge for me reporting their crimes, and when we did track them down another police force refused to investigate revenge theft. Lovely system in the UK isn’t it. Torture, sexually abuse, run and hide, aided and abetted by Britain’s wonderful police forces !! No civil justice, no criminal justice, with NHS recording attempted murders of me at the time, failed to report the crimes, and wrote that symptoms of epilepsy they had falsely diagnosed, (all the tests were negative for epilepsy, and what I had were well-known symptoms of violent child abuse) forcing me to stay on phenytoin (Epanutin), Ospolot, Phenobarbitone (makes you drowsy and affects your work), Epilim and Mogadon, ALL TOTALLY UNNECESSARILY. For a decade until a teaching hospital in London saved me from suicide, kicked out the prescription drugs, and treated me properly with group trauma psychotherapy for seven years. BUT even now, no civil reparation, and criminal justice in the UK denied to me, as in all the other cases going to the ICC. Mine is not unique by a sad long chalk. The ONLY way to ‘educate’ the UK authorities is UN / ICC Prosecutions and global exposure. Police destruction of evidence, lying, removing documents from files, at first to protect the reputations of institutions, then to hide their own crimes. Fight back, get these criminals in uniform prosecuted at the ICC. In the UK only “mis-conduct proceedings” which they avoid by resigning or retiring. That is far too weak a solution to stop generic abuse corruption. It needs real deterrent, and the State must pay victims compensation for its crimes against the child, that wrecks a major part of our adult lives. Nothing will change untll real criminal accountability is injected, and that includes Orders to the government to pay realistic compensation to all victims of State child-abuse allowed and / or caused crimes, which (significant compensation) is also within jurisdiction and jurisprudence of the ICC in convicted cases.

    Lindsay Fraser

    Reply ↓
  105. david

    FORCED ADOPTION OF [REDACTED] CHILDREN
    The [REDACTED] children have been forced into being adopted by total strangers. THEY WERE PLACED INTO A FORCED ADOPTION, STOLEN WITHOUT HAVING BEEN ASKED EVEN THOUGH THE ELDEST WAS DAYS SHY OF TURNING 12 AND THE LAW SAYS HE MUST BE IN AGREEMENT AT AGE 12. THIS PLACEMENT IS AGAINST THE WISHES OF THE CHILDREN AND THOSE WHO RAISED THEM FROM BIRTH.
    Their adoptive parents have assigned them new names, and they are busily layering on a tertiary layer of ‘brainwashing’, atop a PRIMARY original layer of traumatic abuse, which 3 layers of government ‘civil servants’ — child protection, law enforcement and jurisprudence, have ALL wittingly systemically, refused to hear BUT RATHER CHOSE TO WITTINGLY re-traumatize the children with further layers of a cruel SECONDARY ‘raping and sodomizing of the minds’ with a brainwashing program disguised as ‘healing therapy, wherein they were trained to parrot a government civil servant’s ‘faux’ set of ‘facts’ as the narrative about who did what to them. NOW the coup de’etat of a TERTIARY layering of wiping out their religio-social ‘identities’ and ‘brainwashing in new names, a new mom and dad, new grandparents, new aunts and uncles, wiping out who they from inception, truly are.
    They are being reprogrammed in every aspect as they are assimilated into a family of ‘total’ strangers with a ‘strange goyashtemfunkelness’ heritage — that of pagan gentiles.
    So, Names removed. Heritage gone. Their biological rights to all that they ever knew from their birth until the day they were arrested and incarcerated into government custody wiped out. It’s called callous, cold calculated cruelty.
    What kind of a persons indoctrinate children, by assiduous ‘brainwashing’ programs to cover up a primary traumatic event, by layering secondary and tertiary re-traumatization onto children? Should they be named and shamed? Ahhh, they have no ‘shame’ — they only have ‘seared consciences’ whereby they no longer can tell ‘right from wrong’, a truth from a lie, and good from evil. It is evil disguised as good. May they all live long enough to experience the grief they have caused the family’s of origin whom they’ve ‘screwed’ out of their children to protect their ego, status and POWER! There will be consequences.

    Reply ↓
  106. Shantell roberts

    I believe it’s forced adoption as I went through it I was bullied by both local authorities and civil courts I had my son premature due to ill health had proof but was accused that it was domestic violence that caused me to go into early labour the local authorities was even going to let me have my son home on a child in need plan but then things changed as soon as I went into early labour I found myself in court fighting for my son 2 years I was fighting. My son’s guardian at caffcass was even racist to my son’s father. We had done everything we was asked to do and jumped through every loop for what for them to still take my son. When I went final hearing I was told the adoptive parents call my son by another name because of the community where they live well sorry that is concerning to my as my son is Pakistani german/ British I brought my concerns up bit they was just dismissed the system is corrupt and wrong the solicitors are all on on it as well.

    Reply ↓
    1. Angelo Granda

      Shantell ,Was there any evidence given to the Court by the consultant paediatrician who supervised the birth of your child or was the evidence which alleged domestic violence probably caused the immature birth merely based on hearsay and opinion of the L.A. and guardian and perhaps a court expert paediatrician who assessed the probability based on the hearsay allegations alone ( without even seeing you)?
      If not, did your lawyer ask for your consultant to give real evidence in Court?
      Many hospital staff and GP’s are seriously concerned that problems at birth are actually caused by stress due to the strain imposed upon Mums by the child-protection investigations.

      Reply ↓

  107. Pingback: Want to Adopt? Review of new book by Helen Oakwater | Child Protection Resource

  108. Pingback: McKenzie Friends Consultation – the Response of the CPR site | Child Protection Resource

  109. Philippa Hope-Hornsey

    What about the Cleveland Scandal?

    https://www.spiked-online.com/2012/11/26/dont-let-them-rewrite-the-cleveland-debacle/

    “This resulted in the setting up of a public inquiry, led by Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, which examined instances where sexual abuse was said to have taken place. In these cases, the courts subsequently dismissed the charges against the vast majority of the parents. During the inquiry, it was revealed that social workers were driven by malignant prejudices rather by any sense of duty or professionalism. In video-recorded interviews with the allegedly abused children, social workers were seen threatening and attempting to bribe the children in order to make them confirm social workers’ belief that they had been abused. Leading questions were asked of the children, which would not have been permitted in court.”

    I got to know one of those ‘victims’ online who was put into care with her sister and young brother who was later adopted. They weren’t abused and the real truth is her mother suffered postnatal depression after the birth of her son. The girls spent two years in a care home and their parents fought for two years to get all three children home. Whilst the judge was sympathetic and the girls went home the son had already been adopted and he felt that the son’s life would be disrupted again.

    On a personal level, I was a victim of forced adoption but didn’t know that until over 23 years later. I can thank an adoptive father and his wife for finding this out.

    At the time when I had my son I was 19 years old and had a job which was within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office so there was absolutely no reason why I shouldn’t raise my son – this was in 1981.

    My mum was the driving force for making the adoption went through and as numbers of babies being adopted were falling the adoption agency was quite happy to go along with it. The following reasons are the basics of what happened to make sure the adoption went through:

    The father wasn’t contacted which makes my son’s adoption illegal without anything else;
    I wasn’t told my rights;
    I didn’t know I couldn’t consent to surrender until my son was 6 weeks old;
    When he was 6 weeks old I was told I couldn’t stop the adoption – an outright lie;
    I never verbally agreed to the adoption;
    I was bullied;
    I didn’t knowingly sign the Consent to Relinquish form so if I did it was under false pretences and I didn’t know what I was signing;
    I had to fight to get the adoption paperwork relevant to me post-reunion as I wasn’t given it at the time of adoption;
    Initially, I got a bit of the paperwork via After Adoption which no longer exists and the adoption agency used shut down many years ago so I still don’t know what happened to all of it;
    When I found out there was more I requested the rest and got shunted around different social services and one social worker not only said she didn’t understand why I wanted the paperwork when I already knew everything then told me I couldn’t get the paperwork so I quoted the Freedom of Information Act and Adoption Act of 2004 or 2005 – I can’t remember which year, I got a phone call ten minutes later from her saying I was right;
    When I did finally get everything I was entitled to the Consent to Relinquish form was missing and I was told it was sent to After Adoption which, in turn, they denied.

    I still don’t know the truth about the form as all the information I received was on file on there so therefore I do believe the Consent to Relinquish is still with the original paperwork. This means I can’t prove whether I was tricked into signing it or somebody else did.

    There are other inconsistencies such as little truth on the adoption paperwork including I refused to tell the social worker the name of my son’s father but they found out anyway. Post reunion I found out the adopters received three letters which they believed were from me yet I never wrote any and I received one from them but not the other two.

    It’s sad that you refuse to believe in forced adoptions but they really do happen and have done so for many years. The reason you can’t find evidence is that social workers lie – there are many decent, hardworking social workers who do their best to keep families together but there are others who just want to meet targets.

    Reply ↓
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      I am very sorry to hear about what happened to you when you were 19 and that you feel you were made to give up your child. But the problem in this scenario seems to be largely your mother? I hope she was acting out of love and concern for you. But at 19 you ought to have been able to make you own choices and I am sorry you didn’t get to do that.

      Reply ↓
      1. Philippa Hope-Hornsey

        Sarah, I completely forgot to come back to this to see if there were any responses to my comments. My mum didn’t act out of love or concern for me, she just didn’t want the shame of having a daughter who was a single mother. She was a narcissist of the worst kind and when my son found my family she wasn’t happy. I had fallen out with my family before my son made contact so for two years afterward my family honestly said they didn’t know where I was. When my parents and I were back in contact they never let me know my son wanted contact with, didn’t tell him or my sister they knew where I was and my mum had even written a letter to him telling him to accept I didn’t want to be found and she didn’t really want contact with him. He still had contact with my dad, sister, and her family. My son has never forgiven her for that as she was wrong to do what she did.

        I don’t feel I was made to give up my son I know I was forced to surrender him, my choice was to be a mother, the social worker also knew I did, she told lies with the proof being in the paperwork and very conveniently nobody knows where the Consent to Relinquish form is so I can’t even find out if I signed it without knowing what I was signing or somebody else signed it. His adopters wrote three letters to me but I was only given one and they were given three letters which were supposedly written by me but I never wrote any letters.

        My mum made my life a living hell and no I wasn’t given a choice the adoption went ahead without my
        consent.

        Reply ↓
  110. Roy Fox

    PeoplesOmbudsman and HumanRights (facebook) now have the international academics ability to end not only adoptions but also forced adoption and hearing shall be in the international arena.
    The ruling shall only allow fostering under strict independent scrutiny.
    After the ruling anyone whom is found to brake this shall be arrested by international PeoplesPolice force.
    This is a Sworn Statement by: Roy Fox [email protected]

    In support materials are Case: 2468/2013 European Parliament Petitions Commission with witness claims of: child snatching-missing children-forced adoptions and birth parental suicides.

    Reply ↓
  111. Varsana Baum

    Exactly what the British child services did to me! I’m a us citizen and was living in the UK. I was arguing with my partner who had a criminal history (dealing weed) and I lost my 3 month old baby to adoption when I did nothing! I have no criminal record no school record to indicate I was violent or abusive no drug problems! They are LIERS! They try to push the agenda that they only adopt and foster kids of lee ta who are “druggies” LIERS!

    Reply ↓
    1. Sarah Phillimore Post author

      I am very sorry that this happened to you, but no child is adopted because their parents had an argument. If the father had a dangerous criminal history you should have been given support to separate from him. I am sorry if you were not. But I am afraid I suspect there is a lot more going on here than you have been willing to disclose.

      Reply ↓

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.