This time there was talk of ‘failure to thrive’. Eventually with a change in feeding pattern from feed on demand as previously recommended to a feed every four hours. The baby was once again returned to the family home. The father refused to help to collect his daughter from hospital it was left to the mother to arrange transport with a friend as she does not drive. It is also noteworthy to remember that the father had already moved out of the family home. However, he was ordered by a judge to move back in to help with the child care. A few days after the return home the mother phoned the police.
You may ask why the police and the local authority became involved yet again. The father of the baby assaulted the mother and for her and the baby’s protection she phoned the police. She did so in the belief that the police would at least protect her and her daughter. Instead they snatched the baby and handed her over to the local authority and this small baby was handed to a foster carer. The police did this on the instructions and with the collusion of the local authority. In addition they lied to the mother when they took the baby. There were two witnesses to these lies. During interview with a witness present the police tried to have the mother make a serious false accusation against the father. She refused. The police then issued false information to the Local Authority which they had to later apologize for on instructions from the IPCC after the mother had made an official complaint. In addition the police never made any attempt to carry out a proper investigation into the assault. When the mother approached the local authority the following day they refused to tell her anything. She had no idea where her baby was or how she was, she was told nothing. Again I was witness to this.
The mother was then accused by the local authority of being the cause of her baby girl’s ‘failure to thrive’. The baby had been placed in foster care with an “experienced nurse”. However, this ‘failure to thrive’ continued unabated. Eventually, four weeks later the baby was taken to hospital by the foster carer and had a nasal feeding tube inserted. The mother had said all along that the feeding problem was medically based. This theory was ridiculed by the local authority and another agency involved. The local authority in their desire to prove they were correct then jumped at the chance of using information from the father. This information was passed to them the day after the father had been arrested for assaulting the mother. Were they interested that the father’s information may have been tainted by his arrest and an eight hour incarceration in a police cell? No, they had no interest in that side of the affair. I also suspect they do not have the intelligence to look at claims such as this as being spurious. Their interest was simply to prove their original thoughts as being right. They never asked the mother for her side of the event. They were not interested in looking at this from both sides. The truth was the last thing they wanted to surface.
So here they had information in line with their own thoughts. They could use this against the mother. Whether it was the truth or not was of no interest to them. An assessment was ordered by the court through another family organization. Again what happened during this assessment was the staff involved where totally ignorant of what they were doing. Again there was no compassion or understanding that the mother was suffering from untreated PND. Assessors with no medical qualifications tried to pry into the mother’s past medical history. As with the hospital staff they acted in total ignorance to what damage they may have done. It was only the mother’s tenacity and self awareness that stopped them. To make matters worse at the end of the assessment they blatantly lied to the mother in front of a witness. The evidence of these lies surfaced sometime later as the case progressed.
Numerous tests done on the mother over the following year proved that the information being used against her had not only been suspect but was untrue. These tests were at the insistence of Cafcass, who admitted the tests were in violation of the mother’s Human Rights but pressed for them anyway. Then another blow to their insidious accusations against the mother arose. Cafcass and the local authority are now working hand in hand to damn the mother. It was obvious this was now a vendetta against the mother, this was no longer about protection of the child. They, the social services, eventually, ten months after the mother voiced her concern that her daughter’s problems were medical, sent the baby to a specialist who they hoped would confirm their view of the cause of the baby’s problems. This backfires on both agencies. The baby is diagnosed by specialists as having a rare incurable condition. One of the main misdiagnosis of this condition is ‘failure to thrive’. This was discovered ten months after the mother’s insistence that her daughter’s problems were medically based. It should also be noted that the mother was not alone in her thoughts. Shortly after voicing her thoughts a Consultant Paediatrician had issued a report in which it is stated it would of advantage to have these tests done on this baby. His recommendation was also ignored by both local authority and the Cafcass Guardian. Had the mother’s fears been acted on sooner by the local authority instead of their adherence to their own misguided agenda, the baby may have been saved from unnecessary pain and suffering she had experienced in her so far short life. Later a consultant pediatrician asked the local authority for information that was required to allow the hospital set up a programme of care for this small vulnerable baby. It took the hospital three requests over a period of three months to get this vital information released by the local authority. Proof that the health and welfare of this small vulnerable baby was of no concern to the local authority, this is in line with other incidents where the same lazy attitude of the local authority’s lack of concern for the health and general welfare of this child in their care surfaced.
This incurable condition was missed at first by three hospital pediatric consultants although there were some ten indicators pointing to it. Two chromosome tests were done and both were lost and a third was ordered, this third general test failed to find the condition. It is also interesting that the foster carer at one point wished to take the baby to A&E as she was concerned that the baby had apparently injured her left arm. It was a, as yet unnamed, non-medical, social worker from the local authority who made the decision not to have the baby examined. It was discovered some months later from x-rays that the baby had had a fractured arm and also discovered there had been various compression fractures to the spine. These had happened whilst the baby was in the care of the local authority. The local authority although required by law to inform the parents did not do so. The local authority then withheld the information on these fractures until it was finally revealed in a doctor’s report one year later. The fact remains they covered up the occurrence of fractures and told no one until the doctor’s report was issued. Had this happened when the baby had been in the mother’s care there is no doubt that she would have been arrested for child abuse and more than possibly jailed. Was anyone within the local authority held responsible for not having the baby medically examined, of course not, the system does not consider this. They are protected from prosecution by the secrecy that is in place to protect the child! This of course is wrong - it is plainly obvious that the child was the victim of their abuse.
Did this new information on the baby’s incurable condition change the authorities mind and return the baby to the mother. No it did not. The local authority racked up and increased the pressure on the mother and treated her in a way that can only be described as humiliating and degrading in its application. She was treated as low life and as if she was the scum of the earth. I suspect that they were in some way transferring their own values of life onto the mother. They saw her as a threat to their warm and comfortable positions within the system. She had had the audacity to do the unthinkable, fight back for the sake of her daughter.
They employed a psychiatrist who is known for his misogynist view of the world. For a massive fee, and I do mean massive, he gave the diagnosis they wished him to give. So he picks that which no one can challenge, the reason being is that it does not exist in pure medical terms. Ask for a scientific medically proven definition and you will find that none exists. That is why the authorities love it so much. It has become the tour de force behind the condemnation of many women who have been caught in this insidious trade of baby abduction by government for profit. If there was any doubt in my mind that the diagnosis was given for purely financial return it was soon dispensed with by remarks made outside court. When someone says ‘I go where the money is’ would you reader consider this to be anything other than what it implies. Remember the title of this series. Family Court Corruption.