The Scales of Justice

Chapter 12

The Scales of Justice

I have been a friend of this woman for the best part of 20 years. Over these 20 years we have remained firm friends and she worked for my company in the USA (San Jose) on many occasions and subsequently as a representative in Hong Kong and Singapore.

I have read this doctor’s report (or should that be doctored) and although I am no psychiatrist I find many of the comments regarding this woman’s supposed personality disorder very difficult to take in. The assessment is based mainly on medical records which on reading them I can see that they are highly inaccurate. I note one incident was supposed to have happened in the UK when in fact she was in America as her passport confirms. If she was in the UK at that time I was never aware she had the ability to travel independently at the speed of light. 

I am well aware that she had had childhood problems she had never denied them, more importantly I  know this woman as a caring intelligent adult. We all do things in your teens and early twenties that in hindsight were not the best decisions we ever made. Those who have sailed through life and never did anything wrong or made a bad decision are to me people who frankly have never experienced much of a life.

I know her as a strong and determined woman with a mind of her own. This doctor appears to use history to determine how she is now. I feel that his conclusions are entirely wrong and without firm base. This woman had faced her previous problems face on; she did not hide the pain this caused her. It was a struggle for her and her determination to put her past behind her was obvious to all who know her. It was a fight she won.

In recent years she has been a great help to me. I have suffered many medical and personal problems. She looked after me when I had a heart attack. She gave me support when my sister suffered and eventually died with cancer.

When I read this assessment I feel he is taking small parts of her life and blowing them out of all proportion. There is constant reference to negative little incidents. It is as if he could find nothing substantial and concentrated on the small insignificant stuff with a view to making them appear important.

He cherry picked items from medical records that really never show how a person lives. When one visits a GP it is because there is something wrong. What of the intervening periods when one does not visit the doctor? Are we to assume that the problems exist ad infinitum between visits?

What I see in the assessment is nothing more that a list of items without substance. Even the conclusion lacks substance. If this assessment is indicative of a ‘personality disorder’ then I would say there is an extremely high probability that the general public could be diagnosed with the same complaint. We do not all live in a sterile bubble as this doctor appears to imagine, as if in a world devoid of problems and emotion. We do not all consider our fellow man/woman to live perfect lives. We do not consider that a person’s past will automatically predict their future. Change happens for many reasons.

Am I the same person I was when I was twenty or thirty years old, no I am not and I am very glad about that. If I followed the criteria laid out in this report that my past controlled my present and future then I would have learned nothing over the intervening years. What I did then changed me in many ways. Ways in which I suspect this doctor will never be able to imagine.

I actually find his methods not only suspect as to why he holds them but also to be dangerous. His view of this woman’s condition appears to be based on nothing more than book learning. He has taken incidents that occur naturally in the life of anyone and attaches to these some kind of Psycho Babble condition. I ask what exactly a Personality Disorder is?. Who decides the criteria, is there a recognised scientific series of tests, does one have a blood test that shows one has this disorder. No, it is merely an opinion preached by someone who subscribes to a particular set of values that they decide is the way we should all live. There is great suspicion in the questions he was asked by the local authority. They were asked in a way that directly pointed to the conclusion the local authority required. It was very much of “this is the diagnosis we want if you want to be paid and get more work of the same from us”  It appears very much of a mercenary transaction. Remember “I go where the money is”. Does one have to look further than this to reach a conclusion.

The next question has to be, who gave this doctors profession the right to be the keeper and director of ones moral values? The answer is simple, they did. They took it upon themselves to club together as a profession and set out on a mission to prove their view of life is all there is. I am not one given much to expletives but here I must succumb, Bullshit.

One criticism laid at this woman’s feet, is that she complains to and about authority, he looks at this as part of a disorder. Now since when did that attribute become a disorder? It may have been considered to be such if one complained in Nazi Germany or under Stalin’s reign of terror. They had their own way of eliminating the dissenter much similar to how this local authority acts. If one is not allowed to question and complain about authority when they make mistakes we venture into the realms of Mr Orwell’s 1984. I was aware that in many ways it was a warning but never thought that it would become to be used as an instruction manual.

The report itself has a very worrying aspect to it. Not only does it pigeon hole this individual but because of its eventual use by social services it condemns this perfectly good mother to virtually a lifetime of damnation and eternal purgatory. They use it against her in a way to deny her the opportunity to be a mother to her own child. Remember this child was born with an incurable genetic condition and is being denied a mothers love.

Despite the fact that two other reports gave a contradictory view of the mother and frankly both contained an element of human understanding and compassion, these were totally ignored by the social services and the local authority. If one goes back to a previous chapter one finds the comment to the maternal grandmother “we have plenty of people who will adopt her” (the child). Now we see this case travelling full circle.

If this damning report is pushed forward as the truth and the other two are buried one has to start asking why? To me the answer is very simple. The social workers and the local authority made mistakes at the beginning by blaming the mother for the child’s problems. They did not wait or take time to investigate to find the real reason for the baby’s problems. The crux lies firmly there, had they tried to find cause rather than attribute blame without evidence the outcome could have been entirely different. However, rather than admit they made a mistake they would much rather destroy a mother and her child.

During this whole tragedy not one person from the social services or the local authority has had the courage to stand forward and admit mistakes had been made. In this I include elected officials who were informed of the lies and insidious deceit perpetrated by employees of the local authority. What does this tell us about those with responsibility of overseeing the local authority’s conduct. That they basically don’t care what happens as long as they can keep their position in the hierarchy of power. Let no one rock the political boat. They have denied any liability by not taking the evidence they were given, investigating it and laying it before those accused. They have been party to the abuse of power given to them by the people and to the ultimate and unforgivable abuse of a small defenceless baby with an incurable condition. They have denied this child the opportunity of experiencing a life bathed in the light of her mothers love. For that they must stand accused before the Figure of Justice, be it in this world, which I doubt or in the next. Only their conscience will decide if the scales of Justice will keep their balance.

Looking at this from another angle one cannot escape the dominance of the effect money has on this type of case. In a recent viewing of a local authority’s web presence there was a comment made that the expected number of children to be taken into care over the coming year was 8750 and they would require foster care. There is no point in anyone looking for this, as soon as they realised people could read the comment it was removed. So let’s look at this figure as an estimate. On average a foster carer receives approximately £400 per week per child, therefore £400 x 8750 = £3,500,000 per week or £182,000,000 per year all paid for from public taxes. Now one begins to see why this system exists. It is a gravy train for all involved. This figure above does not include solicitor, barrister, expert witness and court fees, nor does it include the wages paid to the social workers. When one takes all this into consideration it becomes not as many try to tell us, a social service, but a thriving commercial enterprise based on the destruction of families and their children in the United Kingdom.

Quis Custodiet Ipos Custodes

Chapter 11

Quis Custodiet Ipos Custodes

The case illustrated in this book has in many ways been decided on the opinion of one man, a psychiatrist. I use the word opinion, as there is basically no factual medical evidence based on clinical tests that can be associated with his opinion. Therefore it is nothing more than an opinion devoid of clinical fact, it is not a diagnosis.

The result is based on the propaganda of self interest, in this case money, hence the comment “I go where the money is” in Chapter 9. The opinion offers only garbled and incomplete evidence in the very loosest of form. The opinion avoids logical argument and seeks to influence its victim by the mere repetition of catchwords and phrases.

This opinion was based on history, much of which is inaccurate and open to more than one avenue of interpretation. Needless to say the avenue chosen was the one that suited the local authority’s paymasters.

The use of history, especially history where its veracity is in doubt, provides answers that are neither logical nor moral. By taking that course one becomes encumbered by history when the path taken should be to look to the future based on the present. Too many seek to find fault in the past and apply their findings to the present. They do this in their desire to influence others to accept that this is the way life will be in the future, any one who looks at life in this way brings a sense of stagnation to the present. They themselves have their minds locked in the past; they have closed their mind to progress, to change and show a sense of bitterness towards others with the ability to change and progress.

They decree that the past predicts the future. The future is as yet unwritten and as such must be approached with a totally open mind. To do otherwise is to deny that there is such a thing as life changing events. Events that direct one away from the past and from becoming a slave to the restriction of historical thought.

Throughout the local authority expected this mother to behave as predictably as a pre-programmed machine. She was expected to cease to have any thoughts, judgment or will of here own. In this scenario Big Brother is no longer a TV programme but has become a reality worthy of its Orwellian origins. 1984 had ceased to be a novel and began to be used by the local authority as an instruction manual.

The way the local authority act when confronted with logical argument is the change their method of attack. This happens constantly when their thoughts are challenged and proven to be wrong.

Here we have a mother who has demonstrated a cohesiveness and common purpose in being constant in her approach. Mentally and physically she has always put her daughter’s interest before her own. There has been no deviation from her actions and desires as there has been in the approach taken by the local authority.

One must ask why the local authority act in the manner they do. Are they afraid to admit that they are capable of making mistakes? Is this constant changing of direction a reaction to the fact that they have committed too heavy a reliance on their own inward looking criteria? Are they guided by the sole purpose of their existence to the fact that they operate within a system that they themselves know to be corrupt?

Is there a much more simple explanation? That to them it is all just a game where they hold the rule book and that they cannot see beyond that. That they have become so entrenched with winning that they don’t care who they destroy in the process.

In this approach they are protected by the system. The fact that all court hearings are held behind closed doors gives an indication to the machinations that occur. Were openness and honestly to prevail then the constant changing of the goal posts would be seen for what it is. There is too much reliance on this secrecy that tends to show that the local authority have really nothing factual to work with. They know that with the court process being secret they cannot be challenged in the same way as they would be in open court. This gives them the opportunity to direct the judge to allow perjury knowing they will never be prosecuted.

Is there any government service, local or national that can come before the Bar of Justice and claim that it exemplifies moral right? My answer is no. They gave up the moral ground when they decided to follow the path they now take. They became puppets to the system, to the corruption and to their scheming and evil trade in the destruction of the family.

So the real question remains

Quis Custodiet Ipos Custodes

J'accuse

Chapter 10

J’accuse

Having now experienced several court appearances I can now say that the Justice system in the Family Court is well and truly broken.

I have witnessed a complete and unbelievable turn of events I never thought existed except in a country where the rule of law was controlled by an elite for their own personal satisfaction.

Evidence was presented that proved conclusively that the previous judgment was seriously flawed. Evidence showing witnesses had committed perjury under oath. Evidence showing a child had been abused by members of the local authority. Evidence showed a doctor gave an opinion that was medically indefensible.

Now one would think that with this type of evidence there would be an outcome in favour of the child being returned to the mother.

No, the very opposite happened. The judge decided to ignore the evidence. In fact in the summing up it became very obvious that the judge had in fact never even read the evidence presented.

The mother was blamed for not challenging some of the evidence at a previous court hearing. In blaming the mother for this oversight it showed the evidence presented had never been read. Had it been it would have been seen that at the previous hearing the evidence in question could never have been challenged. The documentation containing the evidence had been withheld by the local authority until after that particular hearing. The express purpose for doing so was that they knew it would have been challenged and their case would have fallen apart. By withholding the documantation the local authority knew it was an unlawful act, an unlawful act ignored by the judge.  Part of the accusation by the local authority was the the child had been considered to be "at risk of neglect" by the mother on a particular date, however, at the time when this "neglect" was supposed to have taken place in the family home the child was in hospital and had been for several days before and after this alleged "neglect" had taken place. There was also evidence presented that the local authority had committed a criminal offence in relation to a potential witness, again this was ignored.

So basically the court and the local authority decided “in the interest of the child” that it was better to leave the child in care where it had been previously abused by the local authority and that this child abuse had been covered up for the best part of a year.

This is the state of British Justice today. Children being condemned to a life of abuse and misery in care rather than the courts and the local authority admitting they have made mistakes.

This system of so call Justice is rotten at all levels, from the Prime Minister down. The politicians with the exception of a very few know this abuse is happening but they refuse to do anything about it. This makes them compliant with the abuse and as such, in the opinion of the author, guilty of child abuse.

The Lost Souls

In the list that follows most will know of two maybe three of these children from news reports, how many of us know of the rest. I know I didn’t. Before I became involved I had no idea of most of these young souls lost. I suspect my list is not even complete as many of the inquest findings into the deaths are suppressed either by the local authorities involved or by the courts, “in the interests of the child”.

Child deaths caused by failure of social services in the UK

Carla Bone aged 13 months
Aberdeenshire Social Services
Social workers repeatedly warned of the dangers

Deraye Lewis aged 3
Bedfordshire Social Services
Social services admit errors on tragic tot death

Balthous Galtricia aged 2
Barking and Dagenham Social Services
Mother cleared to care for Balthous six days before she was killed.

Ajit Singh aged 12
Barking and Dagenham Social Services
Over 160 failings but no-one to blame?

Sean Denton aged 18 mths
Barnet Social Services
Left by Social Services to die at the hands of his drug-abusing mother.

Melissa Strickson aged 13
Blackburn Social Services
Father claims serious failures

Chloe Thomas aged 14 weeks
Bridgend Social Services
Officials told of cruelty just weeks before her death

Brandon Davis aged 2
Birmingham Social Services
Parents were well known to Social Services

Khyra Ishaq aged 7
Birmingham Social Services
Why did social workers ignore warnings, asks MP

Toni-Ann Byfield aged 7
Birmingham Social Services
Agencies slammed over murder

John Smith aged 4
Brighton and Hove Social Services
'Horrendous' mistakes by social workers

Baby Z aged 14mths
Bristol Social Services
The life, and the Social Services failings over the death of Baby Z.

Child A aged 10
Bristol Social Services
Social workers criticised over child death.

Lois Lazenby aged 2
Caerphilly Social Services
On the Child Protection for social abuse

Salma ElSharkawy aged 12
Camden Social Services
Begged SS to go home to her parents

Ukleigha Batten-Froggatt aged 6
Camden Social Services
A child protection team was responsible for her safety.

Chelsea Brown aged 2
Derbyshire social services
System failed a child at risk

Baby A aged 10 mths
Doncaster Social Services
Social services branded 'chaotic and dangerous

Amy Howson Aged 16 mths
Doncaster Social Services
Social services failures resulted in 16-month-old girl's murder.

Kennedy McFarlane aged 3
Dumfries and Galloway Social Services
Child death 'could have been avoided'

Dylan Lockerbie aged 5 months
Dumfries & Galloway Social services
Council admitted to failings in their care of Dylan

Brandon Muir aged 2yrs
Dundee Social Services
Social workers knew of Heather Boyd's chaotic life

Elisha Allen aged 5mths
Durham Social Services
Social services errors led to death of baby.

Caleb Ness aged 11 weeks
Edinburgh Social Services
High-profile failures by social work departments

Kimberley Carlile aged 4
Greenwich Social Services
Numerous visits by Care officials failed to stop the abuse

Antoine Ogunkoya aged 10
Hackney Social Services
Social workers accused on of "frogmarching" children to their deaths'

Kenniece Ogunkoya aged 3
Hackney Social Services
Mother killed her children when social services allowed her an unsupervised visit.

Tyrell Rowe aged 19 months
Hackney Social Services
Social workers criticised over baby's death

Tahla Ikram aged 17 months
Hammersmith, Fulham/Ealing
Social Services said there was no concerns

Peter Connelly - Baby p -aged 18 mths
Haringey Social Services
Baby P was seen 60 times by social workers health visitors and doctors.

Rhys Biggs aged 2mths
Haringey Social Services
Cruel death means nothing if lessons are not learned

Victoria Climbie aged 8
Haringey Social Services
A SOCIAL worker who failed to halt the abuse and murder.

Billie-Jo Jenkins aged 13
Hastings Social Services

Neo Craig aged 10 Months
Havering Social Services (Essex)
Social Workers missed numerous injuries.

Aliyah Ismail aged 13
Harrow Social Services
Child prostitute 'failed' by social workers

Jasmine Bellfield aged 2
Kirklees Social Services
Stab tot’s mum feared social workers

Leticia Aalayah Wright aged 4
Kirklees Social Services
Social services admitted failings

Jasmine Galyer aged 3
Lincolnshire Social Services
Social services had been involved for four years.

Tia Rigg aged 12
Salford Social Services (Manchester)
Social services missed SEVEN opportunities to
help her.

Alex Sutherland aged 13 Months
Manchester Social Services
Social Services missed 17 chances to save him.

Delayno Mullings-Sewell aged 3mths
Manchester Social Services
More failings by police and Child Protection Services

Romario Mullings-Sewell aged 2
Manchester Social Services
More failings by police and social Service

Courtney Crockett aged 3
Manchester Social Services
Social workers said she wasn't at any risk?

Chloe Fahey aged 5
Manchester Social Services
Investigation has been launched into the social services

Alexander Gallon aged 4 months
Newcastle Social Services
Care review follows baby's death

Aaron O'Neil aged 3 months
Newcastle Social Services
Social Worker sacked after baby murder

Ainlee Labonte aged 2
Newham Social Services
Social workers paralysed by fear

Ruby Spink aged 11mths
Norfolk Social Services
Social Services monitoring Ruby when she died.

Lauren Wright aged 6
Norfolk social services
Social worker 'saw girl's bruises'

Lauren Creed aged 5
Norfolk social services
Social Services and police admitted fatal errors.

Amaraye Bryan aged 11 weeks
Nottingham Social Services
Disastrous failures by social workers, police and health staff

Charlotte Avenall aged 8yrs
Nottingham Social Services
Social services condemned over death of girl found hanged

Leanne White aged 3yrs
Nottingham Social Services
Social services who investigated earlier abuse decided there were no concerns.

Violet Mullen aged 15 months
Oldham Social Services
String of mistakes by 11 agencies

Rikki Lee Neave aged 6
Peterborough Social Services
Failed by social services

Jessica Randall aged 2 Mths
Plymouth Social Services
Social services blunders allowed baby death

Perrin Barlow aged 9 Months
Plymouth Social Services
Agencies 'failed' to protect baby

Trae-Bleu Layne aged 3
Reading Social Services
Social Services failed to protect toddler

Tiffany Hirst /Wright aged 3
Sheffield Social Services
Inquiry into whether social services were at fault.

Ashley Chadburn aged 2
Sheffield Social Services
Social workers criticised for the death of a two-year-old boy

Kirk Hammersley aged 7yrs
Stoke-on-Trent Social Services
Kirk was on a child protection register.

Luigi Askew aged 2 Months
Suffolk Social Services
Key questions being asked of Social Workers.

Carly Townsend aged 16
Swansea Social Services
Another catalogue of failings by Children's Services

Chloe Davies aged 16
Swansea Social Services
Failed by agencies to properly protect her.

Kyle Bates aged 16
Swansea Social Services
A number of referrals made to social services were ignored.

Gilbert aged 13 months
Swansea Social Services
Swansea Social Services ignored the warnings

Kimberley Baker aged 11 months
Swindon Social Services
Authorities admit failings over baby's death

Scott Slipper aged 17
Swindon Social Services
Scott's parents failed by Social Services

Baby Jack aged 6 mths
Tameside Social Services
Serious case review was launched.

Chloe Fletcher aged 4
Wirral Social Services
Report slams children's services

Diamond Dwomoh aged 10 mths
Waltham Forest Social Services
Significant shortcomings in methods used in child protection.

Ryan Lovell-Hancox aged 3
Wolverhampton Social Services
A social worker attended the home the day the toddler was rushed to hospital in a coma.

Family Court Corruption - Chapter 9

Is it now government policy to cleanse the population by snatching young babies from their mothers simply because that mother may have a learning difficulty, or the child has a disability of some sort? Or the parents are poor. Where will it end? Is it the start of an insidious move to form some manner of ethnic annihilation where eventually one will have to apply for permission to have and keep a family? Where one will have to fit into a certain predetermined cultural and political mould before that permission is granted. This is the face of Justice in the UK today? Anyone with children may be dragged before one of these secret courts. No criminal charges are made against you but you can be stripped of your identity and your family. All on the word of a social worker with an inflated opinion of their worth ‘thinks’ may happen in the future! No actual evidential proof has to be offered. The case is built on lies, supposition and assumption and suspect opinion from ‘expert’ witnesses who ‘go where the money is’ it is pure crystal ball justice.

Justice has been gagged as well as blindfolded; she has been turned around to present her back on the innocent. The oppressor has control and will continue in their pursuit of their aims to destroy the family structure in the UK.

You will note that throughout this article the author has never mentioned the name of either the mother or the baby or the local authority involved. That is to protect them from the vicious backlash of the courts if I had. The mother could have been sent to prison for contempt of court for something she has never done and had no control over. The procedure in the Family Court is to strip the mother of her identity, to remove her child’s name from the records. In the majority of cases the Judgment made is never published. This results in massive corruption on a scale that beggar’s belief.

The Director of Children’s Services was approached and given the information that the child had been abused in care by a member or members of their staff. The same information was passed to the elected Council members with responsibility for overseeing the working of the department. So what did they do about this?

Absolutely nothing, they buried their heads deeper in the sand and hoped that the problem would go away. I really hate to have to tell them, but the problem will not go away. So much for their concerns that this is all done “in the interests of the child”.

They are allowing the staff under their control to ignore the law and the child’s right to proper medical attention when she was in their care. There is no use saying they did not know, it is their responsibility to know and take action when wrongdoing is found or suspected and to take the appropriate action to investigate and report the incident to the police. By doing nothing they have become part of the problem, they have by their inaction become liable for any criminal action that may follow.

There has been a systematic misuse of State power by the Police and the Local Authority that has caused a Deprivation of Freedom of this little girl and her mother.

While writing this we have all been aware of the phone hacking scandal of certain sections of the press. However, it now seems that the social services are eavesdropping on private Facebook messenger conversations, in other words hacking into them. Will an inquiry be set up to investigate this, I think not. It only involves the small people, the people with no celebrity clout, the people who do not matter to the political establishment except at elections. In days come past these people were considered ‘cannon fodder’ nothing has changed except the position of the battlefield.

I therefore place this in the public domain for those who read it to make their minds up on the situation within the family courts. The questions that have to be asked are –

1. Should Family Courts be kept secret or opened to public scrutiny?
2. Should all cases before a UK court be subject to the strict application of factual evidence?
3. Should any Justice system in the United Kingdom be allowed to operate behind closed doors without a Jury?
4. Should those social workers and local authorities operating within the system be exempt from prosecution before the law when it is found that they have lied under oath?
5. Should those social workers and their employers and the elected council representatives who ignore child abuse by their staff be subject to the full force of the law and be prosecuted?
6. Should those brought before the Family Courts be allowed the same rights under law to open and honest justice before a jury, to the same degree as awarded to murderers, rapists, terrorists and others accused of committing serious criminal acts? At present those brought before the Family Courts are denied these rights.
7. In general as those brought before the Family Court system have never been charged with a criminal offence and are there because someone ‘thinks they just might’ do wrong sometime in the future. Should this be allowed?

Family Court Corruption - Chapter 8

The family court system, operating as it does in secret, is open to the most insidious corruption of power the author has ever come across. We constantly hear politicians of all parties condemn other countries for their abuse of Human Rights. They are hypocrites, the abuse of Human Rights of mothers, children and parents in general is happening on a daily basis in the United Kingdom right under the politicians combined blue red and yellow noses.

The Government knows this is going on and does nothing to stop the abuse. The next time a politician whines on television, press or radio about a Human Rights Abuse elsewhere or the cost of public services remember what you have read here. This case, at a rough estimate, will have cost the taxpayer somewhere in the region of £750,000 when all that was required was a new mother to be offered some help and support with her ill baby.

This support may have cost the taxpayer a few thousand pounds at most but certainly nothing in realms of the above amount. The politicians both national and at local level are to blame for this mess; they gave unfettered power to people who do not have the training, intelligence or the basic humane skills to use it properly. We all know power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The power the local authorities have been given has produced an arrogance that knows no bounds. Arrogance that allows them to ignore the law and directions given by Judges in court

The yearly bill for this system overall throughout the UK is estimated to be in the region of £3.4 billion a year and rising. Most of this money finds its way into the pockets of solicitors, barristers and expert witnesses. It is not in their interests to expose the system for what it is. A vast out of control gravy train running at top speed over the lives of those unfortunate enough to be caught in its track. The foster carer gets £469.00 a week, yes a week, to look after this child. That's £24,388 .00 a year. If returned to the mother she would get an extra £20.00 a week, £1040.00 a year a difference of £23,348.00.  Here lies one of the problems, the pursuit of profit at the expense of the child. Too many pockets are being lined with easy money. 

This is a system so corrupt and lining the pockets of those involved that the Mafia must be envious. Although I suspect the Mafia operating standards would be too high to contemplate such a system that makes war on new babies, children and their parents. They I feel would have too much respect for “the family”.

The system has been referred to as a national disgrace and has now developed into an international disgrace. In Europe the Family Court system in the UK is referred to as a corrupt money making concern. I take it further than this. It is a system supported by corruption on a vast scale run with the full approval of the British Government. In the last few years this country has gone to war in Iraq and Afghanistan and more recently helped to get rid of Gaddafi in Libya. The excuse for these wars was to rid the world of repressive regimes and dictators.

The self same repressive regime operates freely in the United Kingdom with the full backing of the British Government. It is called the Family Court. On the surface it shows its public face as an organization that is there to protect children. The daily mantra is “the child comes first”. Local authorities constantly hide behind this statement when asked to explain many of their unlawful actions. It is interesting that there are many similarities between this system and the “The Lebensborn Programme”. If you are not familiar with this programme, there is a link on this blog, have a look you may be surprised and shocked by what you find there.

In the authors experience the child caught in the system is of no concern to those administering the system. The main concern is money, local authority employees trying to hold on to their jobs with their inflated wages. They use every excuse they can to hide their real activities. Activities that are supported by the system, supported by corruption within the courts, supported by corrupt politicians and the various corrupt children’s charities who depend on the system to line their own bank accounts. A once respected children’s charity actually made a series of adverts that brought a large number of complaints from the public. They also were banned from broadcasting another series of adverts. Is this the proper way for a children’s charity to act? I think not!

Below I have listed some of the children failed by the system. Where was the protection for them when it was needed? Where was the “concern for the children” in these cases? It was elsewhere; looking for vulnerable families where the children would be ripe for adoption so that their government set adoption targets could be met and maintained.

We have at present an Adoption Czar who thinks that the whole adoption system should be speeded up. Is his concern about the children? I think not. It is simply a matter of speed to save money. His plan denies the children and their respective parents a voice and their human rights. One has to remember where he came from. The aforementioned charity organization where their advertising was the cause of the greatest number of complaints to the ASA. It is let’s hurry before anyone notices what we are really doing to families and children in the UK.

Family Court Corruption - Chapter 7

The local authority social workers attended an Adoption and Permanence Panel (APP) meeting and blatantly lied to the members of the panel. A doctor gave the panel information that was medically indefensible. The doctor obviously knew nothing of the actual cause of this incurable condition. She blamed the mother for her daughter’s condition. It was obvious from reading the minutes of this meeting that the local authority was out to get their own way. If they had to destroy a family and more importantly the child’s future then so be it. It is interesting that there has to this point been no condemnation of the father or his actions. He had found himself another relationship and had effectively given up on his daughter, although he still attended court hearings to make it look as if he cared. Everything seen by the local authority as negative was directed at the mother because she was doing, as mentioned previously, the unthinkable in their eyes, fighting back to protect her daughter.

The condition diagnosed can occur in one of three ways, one that the mother is the carrier of the condition. Two it is the father who is the carrier. Three it can occur spontaneously in the child for the first time. However, the mother had been cleared by forensic testing; she is not a carrier of the condition.  The father, to the best of my knowledge, has never been tested. So why the doctor picked on the mother to be the carrier points to only one possible conclusion. She had been primed by the local authority. I find it incredible that a qualified medical professional will give a statement when they did not know the diagnostic truth of the situation. If ever there was a case for a doctor to be investigated by the General Medical Council this is definitely one of them.

Again this points to the local authority’s determination to blame the mother for this tragedy no matter who they destroy in the process, including the child. Remember we are now dealing with a little girl who has an incurable condition. A little girl snatched from her loving and capable mother to fulfill the desires of a local authority to pander to governmental adoption targets.

These lies were then submitted to court and no one questioned them although they were obvious and pointed out in the mother’s statement to court, they were totally ignored. Throughout the court system there have been numerous lies in the statements made by the local authority and other agencies involved. Let me spell it out here, these cannot be termed in any way whatsoever to be mistakes, these are deliberate lies. The local authority does not expect anyone to pay close attention to what they have written.

After seeing the size of the court bundle I fully understand why they may think this. It is a daunting task to wade through over 3000 pages of reports running to nine large lever arch files and to cross reference all the information. However, the mother, undaunted in her pursuit of justice for her daughter did exactly this. She found the inconstancies in statements submitted to court by the local authority and the ‘experts’. Not one of the mother’s four solicitor firms or five barristers used this in her defense although they had been informed of the lies. One report submitted to court by the local authority was six pages longer than the one submitted to the mothers solicitors. They are all supposed to be the same. A document submitted to court running to 126 pages and used as part of an assessment against the mother was withheld by the local authority for over a year from the mother. It was only released after it could no longer be considered as evidence. This is a flagrant breach of the law. A report from an ‘expert’ witness was passed to others who should never have been allowed to see it. These others then used some of the material contained in this report against the mother. More insidious corruption!

The mother who had over a period of two years and three solicitors and five barristers later finally managed to get another solicitor who she hopefully expected to be on the her side. Again she was sold down the river. All the solicitors involved just rolled over and allowed their client to be crucified in court. Not one offered an effective defense. On investigation of other cases I have found that this is par for the course. The number of cases that solicitors in the family law arena of this type win can be counted on one hand.