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.
No comments:
Post a Comment