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.