On November 15th 2016 a documentary aired on French television called ‘England’s Stolen Children’. ‘Researching Reform’ provided comment and a useful translation of the explanation of the programme’s contents. If your French is good enough, you can watch the documentary here.
[EDIT 29th December 2016. I have now watched an English language version of the documentary and I have commented here.]
My French is no longer good enough, but what I read in translation was concerning enough, particularly as I am told that by a mumsnet poster that the French documentary aired on public TV on channel 5 “which is a serious channel and has part funding from “France televisions” which is as close as the french get to the BBC”
It appears that the documentary makers have been told and have accepted uncritically a large number of quite alarming and fear inducing falsehoods. The tone is set in the opening paragraph:
This documentary tells the story of the thousands of children unjustly removed from their families. It chronicles families’ terrifying experiences of children taken at birth, the promise of future removal whilst mothers are pregnant and the threat of removal directed at women who have not yet had children, solely on a suspicion of future harm to the child.
Almost everything in the written information is wrong, misleading or just plain bonkers.
- Every year, Great Britain sets quotas for the number of children it must remove from parents in order to facilitate adoptions. If these quotas are not met, the local authorities have to pay financial penalties and their budget is revised and ultimately decreased. NOT TRUE – as we have explained – its a lot more complicated than that.
- Private sector companies, sometimes listed on the stock exchange, are often tasked with placing children with adoptive parents NOT TRUE.
- Children are “advertised” by these agencies, their details completely exposed and publicly available, with descriptions which include ‘sellable’ qualities such as positive personality traits. NOT TRUE and misleading.
- Last year, 7,740 children were waiting to be adopted by couples who trawled the internet searching for their ideal child. Sometimes, these children are placed in well-to-to households. Most of the time, these children are sent to live in unstable family settings. This is just bonkers and seems to be mixing up a lot of different issues; from concerns about ‘social engineering’ and working class babies being handed over to nice middle class families and yet ‘most of the time’ going to ‘unstable family settings’ . I can only assume that last reference is to concerns over SGOs that may be made hastily or inappropriately. But this entire assertion is so muddled I wonder if there is in fact a problem with the translation here.
- Maltreatment in the context of Great Britain’s Forced Adoption practices does not need to be evidenced. NOT TRUE. Of course, there have sadly been examples of cases where decisions have been made on unsatisfactory evidence, and this is challenged on appeal. But to say that evidence is simply not required is false.
- In Great Britain, child protection has become skewed by a broadbrush perspective which presumes that struggling families and single mothers can never provide stable homes or make good parents. There are certainly concerns about the ‘child rescue’ narrative which often seems to be operating at the expense of offering support to families but this bald assertion is hardly going to do justice to the nuance of that debate.
- More than two million children are trapped inside social services across England and Wales, their parents locked inside an administrative machine gone mad. Created in 1989 during a liberal government overseen by then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, which aimed to liberate the ‘working classes’, NOT TRUE and frankly bonkers. I can hear Margaret Thatcher spinning in her grave at being described as a ‘liberal’.
- The Children Act gives child protection services the power to remove children from parents on a mere suspicion of maltreatment, present or future. NOT TRUE. For further discussion about the risk of future harm, see this post from the Child Protection Resource from a retired social worker.
This is almost comically bad. I am not sure that I have ever heard Thatcher’s administration described as a ‘liberal government’ which aimed to ‘liberate the working classes’ and I have no idea how the Children Act 1989 is supposed to be part of this nefarious plan. Nor am I sure why liberating the working classes can then be equated with forced adoption and baby snatching.
So – what has gone so horribly wrong?
Unfortunately it seems clear what’s gone so horribly wrong here. Researching Reform reports:
A debate will also take place after the documentary is aired, and features Ian Josephs who runs the site Forced Adoption …. Florence Bellone, an award winning journalist and Marie Claire Sparrow, a barrister based in London.
Ian Josephs and his ‘Golden Rules’ are well known to those who are concerned about the dangerously poor quality of debate about the child protection system. If you don’t know who he is and what he does, this post will provide you with some useful background information.
Florence Bellone expresses her views on the UK child protection system in this way in 2011:
Step by step I was admitted inside family groups and could collect parents witnessing, see their evidence and court paperwork. Their psychiatric expertises picking up every little neurosis, life traumatism and element of personality to call them “mental health troubles” ; their social workers reports with incoherent series of allegations, fake evidence and lies ; the repressive and arbitrary style of every piece of paper deemed “confidential”; the denunciations, the anonymity of denunciators and experts as well, all this looked as a repetition of Vichy France, Nazi Germany, Stalin Russia or any totalitarian regime catalogue of repression tools. The amount of suffering and humiliation inflicted on innocent families “In the Best Interest of the Child” made me think of women tortured in Middle East “in the name of Allah”.
A brief google of Marie Claire Sparrow shows that she is a real barrister but even if she has Hedley-esque degrees of knowledge and sensitivity, she won’t stand a chance against the combination of Josephs and Bellone. I will permit myself a slight sceptical raised eyebrow at her likely impartial approach when I note she is in fact a ‘recommended professional’ on Ian Joseph’s Forced Adoption website.
To assume this trio would provide any kind of balanced and well informed commentary on the UK child protection system would seem about as likely as Donald Trump taking an interest in feminist legal theory.
All joking aside, the problem with this terrible, mindless nonsense is that when people are presented with it from an ostensibly respectable source – they may well believe it and it frightens them. I was then alerted to a mumsnet thread on the topic. The originating poster commented in horrified terms:
just watched a French documentary called “England’s stolen children” and can’t believe this is happening in England. Horrifying, scary, unbelievable, it is like a horror movie…Basically, social services are taking babies from their parents based on suspicion that abuse might happen in the future, except that the decision is made based on ridiculous things.
A lady had her three children taken from her, including a breastfed baby because she went to the ER for a child’s broken ankle and they judged that he must have been beaten by his parents (only based on the ankle). X years later the parents manage to prove the fracture was due to scorbut. And they found out the initial report from the ER says “no sign of fracture”.
The judge admitted they shouldn’t have taken the children and the parents were innocents. But the children were given to adoption so the parents will never see them again.
That is just one of the stories.
Some women are told while pregnant that their newborn will be taken as soon as he arrives (and they do it).
The documentary says it is due to the facts that counties have to reach a number of children given to adoption so they target poor/uneducated parents and find any reason to take their children.
And as fostering costs money to the state they prefer adoption.AIBU to ask if you heard about it here in the UK? And if yes, what do you think? Could it be true or are they exagerating?
All credit to the robust common sense of the average mumsnetter, a variety of responses were provided to reassure the op that this was dangerous nonsense. However, a number of women posted about their fears that their child would be taken, particularly those women who suffered mental health issues and were very worried about the quality of the support they were getting.
There are real and serious problems in the child protection system in the UK. The Transparency Project has been an important part of supporting debate about what we can do to make it better – in particular CPConf2015 and CPConf2016. But what these people are doing is diverting attention from real problems that we might be able to do something about to fabricated, scaremongering gibberish that serves only to terrify people. That an apparently respectable French broadcaster has given this even five minutes of airtime, let alone an entire hour is beyond my comprehension.
UPDATE 1 Jan 2017 : Read Sarah Phillimore’s second post on this topic here. Read Maggie Mellon’s Response to this post here.
Just to add – I haven’t seen the documentary but was told by a commentator on mumsnet that John Hemming and Gena are interviewed.
Gena is the woman who left the UK to avoid care proceedings. She appears to have about three caravans on her property, at least one of which was purchased by John Hemming. She says she takes in at least 8 families a year from the UK.
I have asked John Hemming a number of questions about this, particularly in light of what was found in the English courts about Gena’s partner and the risk he poses to women and children.
Mr Hemming has not yet responded to any of my questions but hopefully, given that he is willing to participate in responsible debate about targets on this site, he will now be able to find some time to reassure us what he is doing to minimise risk to vulnerable women and children in this situation.
More information here:
http://childprotectionresource.online/mums-on-the-run-where-do-they-go-how-safe-are-they/
Dear Sarah, I have no idea who are you, what is your occupation, but publication has not any logic explanation. Simple logic is missing here. I am not British or English, my family came to UK to work by one of greatest private UK companies in social sector because English population does not wish to work and also UK social sector HAS NOT ANY KIND OF PROFFESIONALS in this way. So, seems to be the basis of Social system in UK has been created exactly on pure personal establishment. When a family is artificialy destroying by soc. workers statements just mostly for reasons, each containes personal hostilities. When a sentence ” in the best interests of a child” system is manipulating to impact ”inconvenient” families. That’s means that UK Establishment under the cover of this ”in the best interest of a child” controling and ruling all society. The stone Age Method. I have to note that last time children from East and Central Europe methodicly began to be remove by British social services…And what interesting tendention, that immigrants from ex soviet system are educated more highly than UK working or ”intelectual” class. Our immigrants are faced with a terrible and dangerous trend in UK as completelly illiteracy of Social services, especially in Child’s care system and elderelly care. And lots of falce statements by local council began to swim into Secret family courts. So, dear Sarah, if you do not understand what is going on in UK, simply shut up and make deep reserches. Children in Western Europian culture were always the object of money and fraud. So historical ”values” of Western ”humanity” is just a tools to manipulate on the loyalty of society and keep the Stone Age System safe…
Dear Asta
I have some modicum of understanding about what is going on in the UK. I suspect that you and I will disagree with quite a lot. However, it is usually considered more constructive when one disagrees with another, to engage in genuine dialogue rather than order someone to shut up.
So, dear Sarah, you have to shut up… As I understood? I holding BAAF statistic of addoptions by this agency…Statistic shows, taht immigrants from Asia( muslims) and Africa( as usual mixed muslims, christians and other religious konfetions) are likely to be taken into care mostly less than immigrants from East and Central Europe. So, immigrants from Asia and Africa understands European values beter than Europeans itselfes. I have to note, taht police mostly can’t enter into muslims rezidencional area. So, how many kids are suffering violent and sexual explotation you, Sarah, have no any idea. I holding lots of files of white imigrants cases. So, the view is clear – first: Social workers, councils as well are not qualificated enough to understand what ”future harm ” of a child, as you have no any idea about families customs, traditions and culture of values from East and Central Europe…Second…Social care and also condition of NHS in UK are in most lowest level than in other parts in EU. So, you, Sarah, have not any idea about even hygienic skills of social workers in UK. So, little bit statistic from BAAF: 100% rewmoved kids by LA. 73% white christian population including immigrants from East and Central Europe. No, attention – just 2% Asian muslims, 2% Afro and 3% mixed – afroeuropean… So, before you publishing something, please studu a statistics. Anyway, I have to note that kids taken into care mostly are putet into more dangerous places than own families. Maybe you heard about Kandlle House horors? At the present I am holding a case of very serious crimes by UK justice system in cooperation with UK LA. On this questions about money, earned by Justice and LA I was also talking at TV of one of Baltic States. We will publish all material when procedure will be over. So, I not suprising when illiterate baristers are resuming their ”experiences”. Sorry, Sarah, but when you will began to demonstrate real ability to think and act proffesionally, we can to discus, but at present I can see just very dangerous presentations of UK justice, full of personal illiterate ambitions, who is able to destroy any family in UK. Justice, for your information, first, suppose to be based on humanity, objectivity, but NOT SUBJECTIVITY, and avoid any personal ambitios. And at last, family is : Grandfather, Grandmother, Father, Mother, Children. A child is just a part of family, but not separate member of family. And to manipulate on ”the best interest of a child” is a mentality based crime. A child is educating, training and developing on bases of family values, values each crossing the British values. A child is not a social subject, a child is an object of familly community. So, dear Sarah, go back to shool to study what kind of British justice history UK got and compare with the Central and East Europe juridical – social system to talk about your ”experience”. Good luck!
Sorry to disappoint you but I haven’t ‘shut up’. But I am afraid I can’t understand much of what you are saying.
First – if you are going to quote statistics, please will you provide a link to where you get these figures, so I can visit the link and check what you are saying.
I don’t know if English is not your first language but I am really struggling with what you mean by such phrases as ‘hygienic skills’ of social workers or ‘a mentality based crime’ in the context of this debate.
Also, if you wish me to engage with your argument, it will help if you dial down the personal insults. I am demonstrably NOT ‘illiterate’ – and I don’t understand what you mean by ‘personal illiterate ambitions’.
Since you mention literacy, I shall mention yours, because your comment is almost unintelligible as the result of it. I would assume English is not your first language and I am sorry that means I am finding it hard to understand what you are trying to say.
The reference to BAAF stats seems fairly random and out of context.
I can only respond to what I do understand which concerns cultural issues, I have no idea why you think the police can’t enter muslim areas, particularly since whilst there may be demographic clusters there aren’t actually any muslim ghettos in this country.
And safeguarding issues are not cultural. If FGM is your cultural practice for example, it remains a safeguarding issue.
Luckily there is no danger of anyone shutting up, because they are told to or otherwise.
Usual whinnings from social servants, what the Big Gov does would be a crime if commited by anyone else, stealing kids can be very lucrative so expect social servants to hide the problems. So lucrative that the french social workers now do exactly the same thing thanks to new regulations on “Children Welfare”.
At least UK showed the way : https://comitecedif.wordpress.com/2015/04/11/hundred-thousands-of-families-destroyed-by-the-french-child-protection-service/
Private sector companies, sometimes listed on the stock exchange, are often tasked with placing children with adoptive parents NOT TRUE.
However according to the Financial Times, “some of the world’s biggest private equity houses are also active in the [foster care] industry, including Graphite Capital, which bought the National Fostering Agency for £130m last year.”
The privatisation of any part of the child protect system is something which I think is disgraceful and appalling. However so far as I know no private companies are ‘tasked with placing children with adoptive parents’ – this job is done by local authority adoption agencies or charities, such as Action for Children. If I am wrong about that, I would be grateful to be put right.
There are two kinds of adoption agencies, LAs or Voluntaries (VAAs). The main difference is of course that the LA have children in their care. If their adopters are matched with those children, VAAs are paid by the LA but no profit is allowed. They usually have charitable status but I can’t find anywhere that states this is a pre-requisite.
This Documentary was filmed in English. the producer sent me the film in an email. you could request it to be sent to you as his email is below.
this is what they said.
“Hello,
We don’t know yet if our film will be or not broadcasting en UK. But we have made an english version that I send you by We transfer on your email address.
Bests regards.
Eric Colomer / Producer
Eric COLOMER – Producteur
01 44 37 57 16 – 06 70 27 73 61
28, rue du docteur Finlay – 75 015 PARIS
eric.colomer@dreamwayproductions.com
Thanks Keith, I would like to see an English version. And thank you for that email. I will send Mr Colomer a link to this post.
“It appears that the documentary makers have been told and have accepted uncritically a large number of quite alarming and fear inducing falsehoods.”
oh dear, this response does not sit well with me at all.
Unless ive picked this up the wrong way, the response to this Docu seems quite negatively harsh in light of the fact that the respondent has almost certainly never had any involvement with the dirty tricks dept of the SS.
the pold saying so very true. dont try to state you know what the real story is unless you have been involved in first hand. the victims if the SS know the real truth and i think its disrespectful to all those who have had their families destroyed by the SS when they could have very easily have been helped instead.
as always its easy to judge boos by their covers isnt it. just like family court judges do to parents. they look down at parents like they are common scum.
All we need is a full scale investigation into the child stealing going on in the UK. it is real and it is going on. just think yourself lucky its not You.
what i would like to know is who are the people behind the Transparency project and what their motives. are they x social workers, or x local authority staff. who are they ?
Hello Keith. I wrote this post. My name is Sarah Phillimore. I have been a family law barrister since 1999 so I have about 17 years experience of the courts in this country. I also run another site which will tell you more about my views http://www.childprotectionresource.online.
I haven’t seen the documentary because my French isn’t good enough. But I have read a translation of the blurb. It sounds like utter, appalling, dangerous rubbish. You are of course entitled to disagree. But I hope you will agree that I have a lot of experience and that is what I base my views on.
http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/group/ This handy link on the website tells you who everyone behind TP is.
thanks for that, very interesting list indeed.
i heard earlier this year that Louise Tickle was in the process of making a similar documentary about wrongly taken children and had been doing some research up on the northeast.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/feb/20/children-taken-into-care-mother-fighting-to-get-baby-back-louise-tickle you will probably find this is the research Louise Tickle was doing in the North East, not a child wrongly taken, but a story of a woman who made some very difficult changes to get her child back.
Stephen Green of the christian Voice uk states here Re Louise Tickle at 8.50 mins into the vid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0wNIPXXH8g&t=2s
Dear Mrs Phillimore,
Would you reveal WHAT TRANSLATION of this documentary and maybe debate did you read ??? The Google one ? The translation for dummies ?
Let me give you an exemple as you appeared to be disgusted when Thatcher is quoted as “liberating the working classes” : Thatcher being “a liberal” in French means to be liberal regarding economy, supporting capitalism. If you ever learnt a language, you might know what are “fake friends”, those expressions meaning white in one language and black in the other. Unfortunately automatic translators are tricked at every one, not reliable at all.
I would think a barrister rely on serious evidence, starting by a correct translation…
I have a little advantage on you : I did spent 5 years in the UK following parents in ss assessments, case conferences and hearings from County to appeal courts, this only after securing understanding and practice of the English language. I actually doubt that you witnessed much ss work on the field as very, very few lawyers have time to attend this part of their client journey, and barristers are often involved only when it”s time for the hearing. I did witness for the purpose of that first report who got me the tittle you quote of award winning journalist”. Can you get this that when it happened in 2011, the European authorities – you like them or not- had no idea that the UK practised forced adoption ? Have you missed the european enquiries about it which followed and fights from several countries trying to retrieve their children citizens from the UK ss/courts claws ??? Do you think that a bundle of evidence I was recently asked to provide by the UN is based on fantaisies ?
I do not understand how people involved in the justice business can support such practices, pocket the legal aid money and defend Mother System for their own comfort. You say “bonkers” ? Yeah… Bonkers are all those professional loosers on the LAs lawyers lists that I have seen, taking no risk and no pride, acting like rats when they should stand for justice.
If you think I’m wrong, provide the translation (or take a language course, it’s normally less complicated than law and I invite you to practice on Frenchie land when you want).
Dear Ms Bellone
The translation I read was provided by Natasha Philips of Researching Reform. Ms Philips has blocked me on Twitter after I questioned her support for the forced adoption lobby – so I would assume that she is sympathetic to your cause and that you would be happy to rely on her translation. If I am wrong in those assumptions, I apologise. I have contacted the producer of the documentary and asked for an English language version if possible. I am anxious not to make false assumptions or rely on dodgy translations as unlike the makers of this documentary, I do still have some regard for truth.
If the translation Ms Philips has provided is unhelpfully poor, perhaps you could assist by providing something better?
I have not ‘missed’ the European inquiries. I have been a student and admirer of the work of Dr Claire Fenton Glynn. I am also aware of who was pushing the European authorities to make inquiries – Sabine MacNeil. Any comment on her work in this field? Or are you an admirer also of what she has done to promote all this child snatching nonsense?
I suspect I have a little advantage over you. I don’t promote propaganda over truth. And I don’t attempt to terrify already frightened and vulnerable people with this kind of rubbish. Frankly, you and your colleagues should be ashamed. You divert attention from proper exploration of what needs to be done to improve the UK system of child protection.
Dear Sarah,I face imprisonment now because I dared to implement what Sir Munby said: critisize social workers who to my view did not do their job.
You see, children services cannot tolerate exposure and critisism.
This disgraceful “system” which cost so many lives of adult and children doe not fit purpose and to my view should be dismantled – colossal money should be given to parents, best of SW should be joined to police , perhaps in a form of special units, all concerns in regards of children should be decided only in criminal courts – in case if parents do something very wrong they will have to be charged and , and if convicted by jury,then children given to relatives.
Criterium of “future emotional harm” per se already brings disgrace to all UK judicial system and should be abolished immediately.
Most of the care cases are based on some elusive “emotional harm”, confirmed by some speciallyu selected “experts”
In my case, based on my dad was in ghetto , I was assessed with “vicarious Holocaust trauma 2 and my child was destined to stay in care.
I have ckean medical card and no doctor wants to treat me.
M y son was deeply traumatised in care, being a took for all “professionals” around to steal money from taxpayers.
Forced adoption and forced long term foster care should be abolished immediately, so you , Sarah, wlll find some more dignified job rather than defend totally discredited, shameful system which even not allow my son to read his own judgement and UNCRC .
If the description was libertarian, not liberal, that still contradicts the claim that Thatcher set up a system of the state removing children from parents.
Private sector companies, sometimes listed on the stock exchange, are often tasked with placing children with adoptive parents NOT TRUE.
I do not remember exactly when they said this or if they were specifically discussing adoption agencies but I do remember the scene when they show the couple who’s children were featured in a promotional video. The father likened it to a supermarket for children, I think in English he compared it Tesco’s. If you go onto the National Fostering Agency’s website they have a Rewards Card!
“Reward Club is our exclusive programme for saying thanks to carers who go the extra mile. You’ll be awarded points to spend on shopping and experiences of your choice, from a wide range of brands. Maybe you’d like to take your foster family to Alton Towers or Gulliver’s Kingdom. Or perhaps a trip to Toys R Us, HMV or Argos is in store. It’s all up to you.”
http://www.reward-club.co.uk
Makes me think of Tesco Clubcard Rewards.
Fostering is not adoption. I agree with you that any involvement of for profit private companies in any aspect of child protection is to be deplored.
But if you and the documentary makers are mixing up fostering with adoption, then this is a pretty fundamental error. Foster parents are of course given money to foster children. It’s their job. I think it’s rather nice that foster parents are encouraged to take foster children to Alton Towers. What would you prefer? That the children are left at home all day? Foster children being taken out on trips has absolutely nothing to do with the issue of stealing children for adoption. Adoptive parents are something entirely different.
I am not mixing up foster Children with adoption. I chose the word “However” when differentiating between adoption and fostering.
No I would prefer that private foster companies not exist and not issue loyalty cards like a supermarket.
I stumbled upon your website because I thought you might offer assistance to families like me who have received assessments stating inaccurate information but no it looks like you are concerned with bad publicity in the media.
I think the most important issue this documentary addresses are human rights violations and the UK is going to have to answer for this in the future. This will not be the last time that you hear that the UK family courts are violating human rights and children’s rights so you have you have a lot of work ahead of you.
The very remit of the Transparency Project is to provide accurate information about family law, so yes, we are going to be very interested in media reports that are as shockingly bad as this documentary. The Transparency Project is not about providing advice or assistance to individuals but we hope that individuals will find our work interesting and useful.
But there is little point berating the TP for not doing something that is outside its charitable objectives.
I am saying that you are going to have a lot of work ahead of you dealing with documentaries like this one that state that the UK family courts are violating children’s rights.
I recommend that you read the latest report from UN Convention on Rights of the Child for England and their concerns about Children’s Services.
I understand what the Transparency Project does, and I believe that this will not be the last documentary from a state-owned TV media outlet that mentions the UK family courts have violated human rights. Even Amnesty International UK’s website mention’s a case where British social services violated the a mother’s human rights. The media will certainly report stories like this and will continue to do so as long as human rights abuses continue.
I cried when I watched this documentary. Did you also notice the article about it in Le Monde, the national French newspaper? It said the scene where the couple learned they lost their daughter was almost unbearable to watch.
What a cruel response to call a documentary that is so heartbreaking and that raises the very serious issue about human rights, “bad”.
I stand by use of ‘bad’. I would go further. To use the genuine and undoubted heartbreak of these parents to peddle lies and propaganda is not merely ‘bad’. It is utterly disgraceful and shameful.
On the subject of Mrs Thatcher a quick look on Wikipedia would have prevented a faux pas!
It’s a pity that lawyers training doesn’t include a little political philosophy in order to help them to place their clients lives in context.
Economic liberalism – Wikipedia
Economic liberalism is most often associated with support for free markets and private ownership of capital assets, and is usually contrasted with similar ideologies such as social liberalism and social democracy, which generally favor alternative forms of capitalism such as welfare capitalism, state capitalism[citation needed], or mixed economies. Economic liberalism also contrasts with protectionism because of its support for free trade and open markets. Historically, economic liberalism arose in response to mercantilism and feudalism. Today, economic liberalism is also generally considered to be opposed to non-capitalist economic orders, such as socialism and planned economies.[3]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism
Thankyou for that education in the meaning of the word ‘liberal’ – which of course I took to be used in the way I have seen it hurled about recently in the delightful phrase ‘libtard’ and assume it was being used as shorthand for ‘left wing idiot’.
I am quite prepared to accept that my schooling in economic theory is deficient – because I still believe in a world where ‘expertise’ means something. And I apologise for so foolishly stepping outside my comfort zone.
But now answer me this. How on earth is the Children Act an expression of Thatcher’s economic liberalism? What on earth has it to do with ‘liberating the working class’. What on earth is the justification for saying that the Children Act is the foundation for a system of child stealing?
The Children Act has been tested in the European Court of Human Rights and found compatible with Articles 8 and 6. Don’t you think they might have noticed if it was being used as a vehicle to promote such inhuman practices as claimed by this ‘documentary’ ?
As I’ve said I’m not going to comment on the programme until I’ve seen it – I’m hoping to watch it with a bilingual friend over the Christmas period.
I enrolled on a political philosophy evening class a couple of years ago and I too was surprised by the different use of the term liberal – but it is useful to have insight into the theories from which politicians and law makers take their inspiration. Everything which Mrs T sanctioned was intended to mould the social order to her view of a more perfect world. This included her involvement in the children act which has good parts and not so good parts.
I’m not going to get into an argument about phrases in a Wikipedia entry – I used the link to demonstrate your misunderstanding of the term liberal economics as applied to Thatcher. There are better articles and books than the Wikipedia entry.
I am not asking you to comment on the programme. I am asking you to answer my questions about the Children Act. I am curious as to how anyone could form such a view about the Children Act. You don’t need to watch the documentary to engage in this discussion with me.
Nor have I suggested any appetite for an ‘argument’ with you over terms of economic theory. I have already accepted I was wrong about that.
Not asking you to comment on the programme. Asking you to comment on the Children Act. Which parts of the Children Act were drafted/approved by Thatcher? I haven’t heard that one before. Doesn’t mean its not true, but I studied the Act at its very inception as an undergrad in 1991, and didn’t hear anything about Thatcher approving it.
Wikipedia is not a credible source of information.
If you are interested in learning more about Margaret Thatcher’s neo-liberal economic policies I recommend the Shock Doctorine by former Naomi Klein.
Sorry, “Former Miliband Fellow at the London School of Economics.”
Thanks, I will add it to the now very long list of books that I must read to further my education…
Thank you. I hope you read it. The theme is that crisis opens the doors for privatisation, that people in the midst of crisis are less able to protect their own interests.
She ‘freed the working classes’ by selling off Council housing – is probably the source of that claim.
[I have added some comments in bold. Sarah Phillimore] Very serious concerns first arose regarding British Adoption Laws and practices in 1976 with the passing of an Adoption Act pressed by David Owen, on the singular basis of one case where the parents of a child who had been placed for adoption sought the child’s return and the potential adopters protested very loudly and it became a `Tug-of-Love’ case as the media reported it. What David Owen’s Act achieved was to begin a process of diminishing the rights of natural parents in favour of the rights of foster carers and adopters, with Custodianship Orders and increased grounds for Courts to override the wishes of natural parents and remove their parental rights in adoption hearings.
This process of removing parental rights in favour of adopters was reinforced and further developed in the 1989 Children and Young Persons Act, which also increased the grounds for the removal of children. At the same time social work practice with children underwent a significant change in that social workers virtually abandoned any form of Family Preservation work and restoring children to their natural families where removal had become necessary. Such work is immensely demanding on workers and resources and naturally local authorities very greatly favoured the speed and efficiency of adoption. At this time, voluntary adoption agencies were the major placement agencies of children for adoption and local authorities were solely engaged in the latter part of the process in steering matters through the Courts. But the 1989 Act changed that and allowed the local authorities to become adoption agencies as well as the child removal agencies. In effect, children came in one door of Social Services Departments and out through another – the heads of the child protection services very often had offices adjoining the offices of the adoptions managers. It became therefore a morally and ethically corrupt system of child trafficking. Many such senior managers had beliefs in their rights to act as social engineers and to decide which natural parents were `deserving’ of not having their children removed and in favour of socially respectable adopters. [Please provide evidence of this, I am not aware that ‘social engineering’ has ever been sanctioned in this arena]
In 1997 the Blair government were falsely informed that there were thousands of children in the State care system who were awaiting adoption. This was untrue because the vast majority of children in local authority care were aged over 10 years, had serious emotional and behavioural disorders from their years in care and had experienced the damaging effects of numerous foster homes. They were therefore entirely unsuitable for adoption as adopters mainly wanted small babies and infants (preferably with blue eyes and fair hair) and would not consider such older emotionally damaged children and young people. Nor did those children want to be adopted after their negative experiences of family life in foster care.[Really? What is the basis for this assertion? Were the children asked? By whom? Where will we find evidence of this?]
So armed with this misinformation the Blair government placed a bounty on the heads of children in care with targets for the numbers of children successfully placed for adoption by local authorities and social workers were instructed to achieve those targets, in order to attract the financial rewards for the local authorities. I recall that Kent C.C. were top of the league table for the largest sums allocated for such achievement.
But the small number of children in care under 5 years were very quickly placed for adoption and this represented an immense problem for local authorities, as to how they could continue to gain such financial awards and thus the focus turned onto how to remove babies and small children for the most specious and dubious reasons and force the matters through the adoption processes and the Courts.[This is the rhetoric often utilised by the ‘forced adoption lobby’. Please provide some evidence for this claim. I don’t accept it.]
Ms Philimore claims that the financial incentives for placing children for adoption, ”its more complicated than that”. Yes, but it is now hidden within the financial support given by Central Government to local authorities, but it is basically the same. Financial rewards for child trafficking.
The removal of children at birth and even in labour wards by social workers in Britain was roundly condemned by the European Court of Human Rights in P,C, & S. – 2001. Yet such practices by social workers continues unabated.[This is not true. Please provide evidence of this]
Ms Phillimore seems more intent on attacking the personalities and experiences of those who have brought this scandalous situation to public attention [No. I make reference to the things that they have said and done, which are matters of established fact. If their own words and actions give rise to concern about their personalities, that is unfortunate, but is not my responsibility], so I will add that I was engaged in child protection social work in England for over 30 years most of which at a very senior level. The last two decades I have spent as an advocate for children and families, an Expert Witness in criminal and civil Courts in England, Scotland, New Zealand and Australia, and for the last six years as the Executive Chair of the National Child Protection Alliance of Australia. Several articles I have written n child protection work and social work are available on line.
If there is any desire in England to bring an end to this child trafficking then it must begin by detaching adoption placements from local authority child removal services, and secondly to re-direct local authority resources into supporting families “to keep children with their families’ and to diminish the need for them to be removed into State Care and to restore them to their families as soon as reasonably possible (Such provisions are still a key part of the law relating to children, but are ignored by local authorities.). Thirdly, the rights of natural parents in such matters must be fully restored and not simply “dispensed with” at the whim of Courts presented with biased and fabricated, embellished, and distorted evidence. [this is a very strong and bold criticism. Where is your evidence that decisions about adoption are made on a ‘whim’ and ‘biased, fabricated, embellished and distorted evidence’?]
Clearly Ms Phillimore, you know little about the unsavoury and unscrupulous history of the adoption industry. As I said earlier, and which you chose to ignore, is that I had over 39 years of experience working as a child protection social worker and a senior manager in English Social Services Departments and thereafter as an Expert Witness in Children’s Court proceedings. For many years I have been an advocate for the rights of children and protective parents. So A great deal of what I state is from my wide readings on such matters and personal experiences.
Adoption of small children by unscrupulous means has gone on for centuries, and was quite common in Roman times, when children were taken for adoption by rich Roman families or as slaves. In recent centuries, the Roman Catholic Church perfected the practice in Ireland where nuns removed babies from `Unwed Mothers’, and sold them for adoption in America and England. They were also paid by the Irish government for `accommodating’ the mothers during their confinement so there was a double financial benefit for the Vatican. Much of this is recorded in the histories of the infamous Magdalen Laundries in Ireland if you choose to widen your knowledge.
In more recent times the American removed over 2,500 small children from Vietnam for adoption in America when they made a hasty retreat from the Vietnam war in 1975. Many of those children had parents and siblings in Vietnam. Then there were the decades when thousands of allegedly orphaned British children were transported to the British colonies of Canada and Australia by Barnadoes and the Church of England ostensibly for foster care and adoption, but many were to suffer severe abuses and forced labour on farms. The children were told they were going to lands of `Oranges and Sunshine’ as they left in shiploads from Bristol and Liverpool. This practice continued into the late 1960s. You will no doubt have seen in recent years how some of that `Stolen English Generation’ have sought out surviving relatives in England. No one could have failed to see the newspaper reports and documentaries of such people searching for their lost families in England.
In still more recent times, the Haiti earthquake disaster brought forth unscrupulous American adoption agencies to remove children for adoption in America, who they claimed were orphaned by the earthquake. Again it was found that those children had parents, siblings, and extended relatives looking for them in Haiti. Similar events occurred during the conflicts in Yugoslavia in the early 1990s and in Romania when its institutions for children were opened.
When I was engaged in child protection social work in England, some colleagues frequently referred to working class families as `Scum’ and it angered them that some working class mothers could so readily and easily produce babies when those social workers well-heeled friends were childless. Such beliefs and attitudes still prevail and are the basis for the social engineering I spoke of earlier. Of course, it isn’t `sanctioned’, it is a belief system and attitudes which prevail within the system.
Older Children in State Care were asked frequently at their Statutory Six-monthly Reviews if they wished to be `adopted’, with similar promises that they would be offered a figurative `Oranges and Sunshine’ if they agreed, Some were forced into fostering placements with a view to adoption, but as happens with children, some voted with their feet or deliberately behaved so badly that they were rejected by the adopters.
Since the P,C. & S Case in the European Courts there have been many babies taken from mothers in Labour Wards. Only a few years back a young pregnant mother arrived at Stanstead hospital and had a mental health episode, but rather than support her through a mental health treatment programme, her baby was removed and taken for adoption. The representatives of 32 European countries have protested to the British Parliament regarding similar removal of babies for adoption from their nationals when young mothers came to Britain seeking work.
Yes there are some children where adoption is the right course of action, so I am not opposed to adoption per se’, but when it becomes industrialised as it has in Britain, with large financial rewards for the agencies involved, then the British people should have great cause for alarm and consternation.
Au contraire Charles, I have quite a lot of historical knowledge. But when it comes to responsible campaigning about the family justice system, I tend to like to stay in the here and now.
With all due respect, my latest Judgement it online on (FTT) tribunal decisions website and Bailli. There are highly likely potential inaccuracies in there which I had made known prior to, during and since the outcome with the decision where it came to light in writing on a particular issue that it was discovered I was right and they was wrong. The Judge states as well in her conclusion that I did or do not make accusations for the sake of it. There truly are false reports being done and I will vouch for other parents and natural parents on that. I do like reading the latest on transparency project. Some great information gets posted but without being rude, reading this latest regards false reports especially has suprised me. My appeal got rejected but when you read about the new evidence which came to light since and the Judge’s findings in the conclusion I mentioned, you will understand why I cannot be more specific as to what this is right now.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/12/us/children-of-argentinas-disappeared-reclaim-past-with-help.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share
While the children who have been removed from their parents under the UK’s Children Act may not be as extreme as the children of political prisoners who were executed in Argentina I absolutely believe you will have future generations of children who will seek out the reasons they were removed from their birth parents. Some of these children may feel fortunate to have been adopted and raised in what I imagine is a more affluent environment, but you will have others who have been shuffled around in foster care and who will seek answers. The documentary mentions that young white British children are adopted more frequently than black or minority children. I would be interested if the Transparency Project could confirm this.
I have seen assessments from Children’s Services stating reasons that a child was “at risk” that can absolutely be proven false with employment references, bank and investment account statements, emails, medical professionals and testimony of friends, family, and colleagues.
At present you have WikiLeaks, Anonymous, and other “hactivists” influencing global political discourse.
What is going to happen when future generations of children who have had a bad experience in foster care or adoption want to answers why they were removed from their families?
I’m not a wholesale advocate of adoption but 21st century adoption does involve children having access to all of the information about their life at home. Some they will talk to their parents about, some will be written for them. Whenever they know about the story of drugs, alcohol, violence & neglect at home, I hope they will be relieved that they were kept safe.
It would be interesting to know what “employment references, bank and investment account statements, emails, medical professionals and testimony of friends, family, and colleagues.” can tell a SW about risk? you’re right that class is an issue in adoption and fostering but wealthy, employed parents do harm their children too, some pull off looking good to their friends whilst they do.
“At present you have WikiLeaks, Anonymous, and other “hactivists” influencing global political discourse.” Really, not those involved in the child protection system as here then?
If assertions that a child is ‘at risk’ can be disproven by documents, then those documents should be bought to court and put before a Judge. But I struggle to see how ‘bank statements’ or ‘testimony of friends’ can prove a damn thing.
If a child wants answers about why they were removed, they can access all the documents that went before the Judge.
Children’s Services wrote that the parent unable to find employment while she was recieving maternity pay, and that her son was at risk of neglect because due to her social and financial difficulties she hadn’t made any preparations for the baby. There was an employed father at home but the neglect was due to the mother’s social and financial difficulties. The parent brought her CV and receipts for the baby clothes she purchased starting when she was eight weeks pregnant to the Initial Child Protection Conference but was told that they were irrelevant. She received a second assessment stating that she did not have any money of her own and that she did not appear to have bonded with her unborn baby. The parent sent employment reference, payslips, bank statements showing maternity pay, and a stocks and shares ISA, a receipt for an app she downloaded that allowed her to listen to her unborn babies heartbeat but Children’s Services still have not amended the reports and told her that here issues were subjective and a matter of interpretation. These subjective documents can possibly be used in private family court as well as public family court and have serrious consequences for a child’s future. Subjective and inaccurate documents should never appear before a judge.
When the parent sought assistance from her family lawyer about the inaccurate information her Lexel accredited family lawyer advised her not to bother with the complaint and to leave the UK.
Then that Lexel accredited family lawyer (what on earth is that?) is a disgrace and should not be practising. Was it a solicitor or a barrister? Are you willing to name them? I would like to pursue a formal complaint about any lawyer who would give such astonishingly awful advice.
‘social and financial difficulties’ – that covers a world of hurt which I do not think can be dispelled necessarily by provision of payslips and a CV etc. Unless you are privy to all the documents and all the discussions you will inevitably have only a partial picture and it is unsafe to draw firm conclusions from that.
So instead of basing a decision on hard evidence – a receipt from Apple showing that the mother paid £3.99 for an app that let her listen to her baby’s heartbeat, the judge is going to get a report stating that the mother had no money of her own and that she didn’t appear to bond with a child the social worker did not see.
I am happy the documentary pointed out the flaws relating to the Children Act, and that the system is based on future risk rather than evidence.
You could read this on what ‘future risk’ actually means, rather than jumping in the crystal ball gazing bandwagon.
http://childprotectionresource.online/is-likely-to-suffer-significant-harm-to-what-extent-are-social-workers-relying-on-their-crystal-balls/ Sorry, forgot link.
Thank you but I am trying to point out that the only information that is going to go in front of the judge is a social workers opinion that the mother did not appear to bond with a child she did not see. Not the pregnancy notes showing that she attended every antenatal appointment and stating that she wanted to be a mother, not the receipts for pregnancy vitamins containing folic acid she purchased from the first few weeks of pregnancy, not the receipt for clothes purchased from eight weeks of pregnancy, not the receipt for the purchase of a baby heartbeat app, not the testimony of the colleagues in her office that saw her delight when the baby kicked. The judge will not receive testimony from the doctor who witnessed her tears the first time she saw the baby during the ultrasound. The only information the judge will receive from Children’s Services is the opinion of the social worker saying that she did not appear to bond with her unborn child.
I think it is important that we do not forget how society previously dealt with societies’ undesirables – unmarried woman and woman with mental health problems. They were accused in a judge on charges that were impossible to prove and burned at the stake or thrown in water to see if they floated or drowned.
There is another book I recommend by Dr. Daniel J. Levitin that mentions British social services called a Field Guide to Lies. It is about critical thinking, statistics, and the importance of expertise and credible sources.
I wish the Child Protection conference relied on these.
I think it is also important to put mental health disorders into historical context. As recently as 1973 homosexuality was classified as a mental disorder.
“Thank you but I am trying to point out that the only information that is going to go in front of the judge is a social workers opinion that the mother did not appear to bond with a child she did not see.”
I can’t comment on a specific case because I would never know enough but neither of these things are true. It is very positive that a mother is anticipating the arrival of her baby positively and preparing for the birth appropriately. Those things are however entirely different to a mother forming a bond with her baby on once it is born. One of the features of care proceedings is that all parties have free legal representation so the other part of this statement that isn’t true is that the judge doesn’t hear from the mother, she has her own lawyer and makes her own statement/gives evidence which ensures her views are also heard.
I understand. But the social worker should have evaluated the evidence before writing the assessment and the mother’s time might be better spent focusing on her infant’s development rather than worrying about having to defend such nonsense in front of a judge, even if she does have a lawyer.
I am not sure what you meant re. hactivists I was simply trying to point out that information on human rights abuses and public policy is already being leaked by hackers and that this information is making headlines in the media. I was not aware that adopted children received information relating to the reasons they were adopted. I do however feel that if the removal of children from their families affects specific demographics in a way that is disproportionate to the general population – victims of domestic abuse which are predominately woman, those who suffer mental illness – again more likely to be women – and those on a low income you are going to hear about it in the media in one form or another.
it is indeed the role of the SW to assess the information they put before a judge, I would suggest they did this, and decided it was something the judge should read to make a decision. I know this isn’t always the case, SW’s have been criticised in court, but I can’t possibly comment on a specific case without knowing it. Just on practice generally.
I don’t think the system is perfect, and I agree there are issues about mental health problems and domestic abuse. Current legislation is based on children’s needs and timescales, even if the right remedies for those issues could be provided consistently, they are not always effective, and we don’t leave children in limbo, we give them a family to grow up with. It is very sad when parents can’t prioritise their children over their relationship, for any number of complex reasons, or if therapeutic intervention will take years, isn’t guaranteed to work, and that very often the damage has been done by a parent’s own family history.
Information in the mainstream media is something the TP project is working on very assiduously. Transparency is complicated and children often need to be protected by not being identifiable, as do their families who can be vulnerable, but the way the family justice system works should be transparent. Personally I think it can be done and it is important to be done without identifying people, anonymised judgements give as much information as I need.
Children who are adopted are given a life story book when they are first placed with adopters, their adopters have various reports in their possession about the child’s home life, and are given guidance about how to talk to children about adoption honestly from the start and in child appropriate language. The guidance is always to be respectful about birth families and this isn’t something adopters generally find hard to do, most cases are sad rather than bad. Children are also given a letter for later life, which tells them the whole story, most will describe a childhood that was very difficult for their parents. The cyclical nature of children being neglected or abused does need to be addressed.
I agree with you about the demographics, I don’t think we can ever ignore class, austerity or the people cuts to services and the economic climate have most impact upon and that does concern me. Poverty is stressful, families can reach crisis sooner. I just don’t ignore that children born to more materially comfortable households can still be harmed and those people are usually also those who are better at masking neglect/abuse.
Your friend needs to engage with a good lawyer. to say the ‘only’ evidence that will go before the Judge is a partial and prejudiced report by one single professional is misleading and will alarm people. She will be able to put her own statement in and she can support what she is saying by evidence from other professionals, such as the doctor.
I do not forget the lessons of history. But we do not do vulnerable people any kind of service by frightening them with scaremongering nonsense.
A Field Guide to Lies sounds interesting, if it is indeed a credible analysis of critical thinking and not some thinly veiled conspiracy theorising.
Going back to the interesting -if not accurately translated – claim in the tv show that the Children Act 1989 was brought in under a thatcher govt. This is true but it had cross party support and had followed a lengthy process of research, review and consultation.
Thanks Julie – the claim appears to be that the Children Act was the particular brain child of Thatcher with a view to ‘liberating the working classes’ which is just bizarre. I am not quite sure what the big beef is with the Children Act that a lot of conspiracy theorists seem to have. I know they object to the term ‘significant harm’ but I haven’t seen any other explanation for why they regard this Act as some sinister gateway to State sanctioned child stealing.
Dear Mrs Phillimore,
To clarify things about your 4th December post : I know Sabine McNeill but I knew her about 3 years after starting working on this matter and don’t get my sources from her. My interventions with the European Commission come from people there, nothing to do with her. One of them was actually on Claire Fenton Glynn’s initiative. Sabine’s campaigning is certainly very far from what a journalist nees, which is hard evidence. I even had some related discussion with her in the past because I refused to consider cases for which I couldn’t see or test evidence.
Also I looked up the translation on Natasha Phillips’ website who I respect very much but for sure, it’s better to not post anything that a wrong translation, I can only imagine it is the result of Google or other automatic Internet system. It’s also a translation from a TV paper’s presentation of my colleagues documentary and those are often giving a very approximative idea of the real work. So I hope you’ll get an English version from the production.
And no, I and my colleagues working on this subject (about 30 documentaries and many articles in all Europe) don’t have to be ashamed, well at the contrary. You said we do propaganda and make people afraid. Well it’s exactly the contrary which happens. Most of my foreign colleagues came accross families from their own country who had been, in the best case, frightened enough by ss to flee the UK, leaving everything material, to save their children from being glupped by the machine. It is very difficult for journalists to not want to know more in such cases. Today I cannot count the families who so ran away and I feel for those whom children have lost all contacts with their family, culture and language. You might know that foreign families are even prohibited contacts in their own language! You need to understand that this is something that no journalist from any country has read on the parents’paperwork without wanting to vomit. Just try to imagine yourself in a similar situation. You might also know that some SWs have blackmailed parents in letting them travelling in their own countries to assess their families, and this without knowing the local language and culture, which is a devious form of colonialism supported by a strange feeling of superiority not to say it is illegal as they don’t have a licence to work abroad.
And I cannot count British families settled in different countries starting by mine who would have their children adopted if they had stayed in the UK. The ss plans for their future baby, for exemple, are very clearly written down in the paperwork. You quote Gena in another post : Gena went through this and she would have been quite stupid if she had tried starting a family again in the UK. Today, she and her partner are still mourning their older children but at least, they raise the two last ones with no need to worry about further tragedy.
I did record quite a lot of the state’s propaganda for adoption. That, yes, it’s propaganda. The people involved should be ashamed and I am certain that some day, it will be apologies but as usual, they will be provided by a Prime Minister several decades after the end of the disaster as they did for the deportation of children to Australia. I might never see it from my eyes. I always compare this with slavery, something which was not so much because of racism but because of the huge economical ressource it was offering. Like you with forced adoption, it was many people thinking that it was a normal thing to do and even many who commented that it was in the interest of Black people to be slaves as otherwise they won’t be able to take care of themselves. I have no doubt that you are among the people who sincerely think that the state is rescuing children from filthy brutal parents. I have also met lawyers who knew exactly what’s going on and would just give up because they couldn’t afford to affect their living. The only thing I could say is : follow parents on the field to see the evidence, not only with ss but also courts experts (like pediatricians, psychologs and psychiatrists). Don’t rely on what is written in the paperwork. It is naive to think that the authorities are acting for helping people but I understand it, it took me 3 years from first suspicion to accept that forced adoption was existing in the UK. Go and see. Maybe you’ll need to rub your eyes and ears many times before believing it. Frankly, just in court room, I cannot believe you never noticed the partiality of judgements going against birth familes. If there is one thing which is covering up real rubbish, it is that mantra of the “BEST interest of the child” which is covering up all possible rubbish.
“that no journalist from any country has read on the parents’paperwork without wanting to vomit.”
You say things like this and you want me to treat you seriously? Give you credibility as a journalist?
Well I don’t. And I am getting fed up of trying to engage with this.
You have shared a platform with Ian Josephs. That is all I need to know.
If you can explain why this documentary has been founded on falsehoods and serious misrepresentations, then we can have a dialogue.
But I suspect you cannot.
Points 52 and 53 in this UN document :
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CRC%2fC%2fGBR%2fCO%2f5&Lang=en
Points 52 and 53 read as follows:
The Committee is concerned about:
(a) The increase in the number of children in care in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and the high rate of children in care in Scotland;
(b) Cases where early intervention measures have not been carried out in a timely manner, parents have not been provided with adequate family support and the best interests of the child have not been properly assessed in the decision of taking a child into care. Children have reportedly been removed from their biological families owing to the family’s economic situation or because a foster family may provide a more beneficial environment for the child;
(c) The frequent changes of social workers for children in care, and children often experiencing more than two family placements in a year, which negatively affects all aspects of their life;
(d) Children placed at a distance from their biological families, which prevents them from keeping in contact, and siblings being separated from each other without proper reason;
(e) The practice of children being placed in secure accommodation in Northern Ireland;
(f) Children leaving foster care or residential care not receiving proper support and counselling, including on their future plans, and often having to live far away from their former carers;
(g) The adoption procedure in Northern Ireland remaining outdated and not in line with the Convention.
53. Drawing the State party’s attention to the Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children (General Assembly resolution 64/142, annex), the Committee emphasizes that conditions directly and uniquely attributable to poverty should never be the sole justification for removing a child from parental care. The Committee recommends that the State party:
(a) Intensify its efforts to render appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians, including informal kinship carers, in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities;
These are all issues about which the Transparency Project, both collectively and by its individual members, including me, time and time again have expressed concern and supported further research and consideration.
This has nothing at all to do with the demonstrable scaremongering falsehoods perpetuated by this ‘documentary’. I watched the first ten minutes and was able to discern the grandmother saying her grandchild was removed and they were never told why. That would not happen. That could not happen. There was no challenge to this grandmother about this. It was simply allowed to be said as absolute fact.
But it does demonstrate very neatly why I am so angry and fed up with the conspiracy theorists – the time and energy you demand that is diverted from real and serious problems is considerable. With your energy and your resources you could actually do something useful and help to bring about real change that would help real people. Instead, what people like Josephs do, is give money to a paedophile in the guise of ‘sticking it’ to the system. Disgraceful.
How dishonnest you are, Mrs Phillimore, by quoting me uncorrectly. The sentence is : “You might know that foreign families are even prohibited contacts in their own language! You need to understand that this is something that no journalist from any country has read on the parents’paperwork without wanting to vomit.” It’s a bit different, isn’t it ? So you are a barrister and you transform the facts ? Maybe you did this too many times and you can’t anymore realise if you are doing it again? Is your insulting and panicking style ok in court ? Well it is true that all those bad parents are giving you a living…
But now maybe I understand your point. You hate Ian Josephs who did help loads of family and of course in these cases, no child, no fee.
Also, it’s not very professional “to discern” what is said and reject what is challenged or not in the ten first minutes of a foreign documentary when you are not able to understand it.
It is finally a nice contradiction that you approve what says the UN and deny evidence of it.
I only agree with you on one thing : “fed up” (with your curious mix of superficiality, hatred and desperate attempts to protect the shop window).
I live you the joy of one of those scathing words you like if you wish to end this as I will not spend more time discussing with you.
Merry Christmas.
Dear Ms Bellone
I am not dishonest. I disagree with you, your methods and your conclusions. However I do agree with you that there would appear to be absolutely no point in us engaging any further with one another so a Merry Christmas to you too.
Sarah Philimore (the barrister) has banned contributions from me but you could always send this on my behalf Florence !
The retired social worker gave 3 cases to illustrate that likelihood of significant harm can be”PROVED” in court.(To quote her exact words ……)and that this justifies taking babies at birth and giving them up for forced adoption to prevent significant future harm.
Case 1 involved a mother with Schizoid disorder who never contested the care order or the adoption . No force used to impose either care order or adoption and so completely irrelevant !The mother never visited her premature baby in hospital or showed any concern says” the retired social worker” so nothing was contested at any stage.
Case 2 is rather similar with a mother who told the social worker of her 2 year old “Well you can take her ,she’s a little shit” The 8 month baby was rarely visited at contact and the mother we are told was a child herself with learning difficulties !
Once again irrelevant since no baby was removed at birth and the harm was evidently past and present not a future risk from the neglect reported by our “retired social worker”
Case 3 is equally absurd since the baby was NOT taken at birth butaccording to our “retired social worker” was bruised and found with fractures in both legs .That amounts to harm inflicted in the past and discovered in the present but has nothing to do with taking the child for future risk of harm.The harm once again had already been inflicted ! Probably taking the child was justified.
If we must have social workers acting like police backed up by biased judges and prejudiced family courts (L.J.Thorpe) I CHALLENGE any judge to name just one situation that could justify the vile practice of authorising the taking of babies at birth from sane law abiding mothers for “RISK” of emotional abuse and giving their children up for adoption by complete strangers .I maintain that.in NO circumstances can such horrors be justified….None of the three cases quoted come anywhere near that description
I have banned Ian Josephs from MY site (www.childprotectionresource.online.) because he persistently breached the Reporting Restrictions Order relating to Marie Black. He remains – sadly – at liberty to post here unless and until he breaks the law.
Hello
I am late into the game.
Here is what I can tell you as someone who works on the frontline. (I just ‘won’ a case for a Family on the 19th of Dec….but in fairness, there is always a loser.)
I am really struggling to continue to support the TP but am trying my best.
I don’t deal with anecdote information. I deal with what I see everyday.
The majority of the charity’s staff are in this for the right reasons. There is one who is not and called me a liar and fantasist. I am neither.
I have no fear in sitting with a parent and telling them ‘Sorry, it just is not good enough. Your child is not coming home.’ But I am also outraged when really, there is nothing wrong; just a social worker forming an opinion, and will not stray from that.
I have heard and read horror cases. I have also looked at Thresholds that are in the ‘What the F’ arena.
I was asked by a Judge why I do what I do. (Because I am completely free.) My answer was ‘I do this for personal reasons. But if someone is good enough to look after my cat, then, this is ‘just about good enough parenting for me.’ (He did burst out laughing and said ‘I like you.’)
I had a Barrister who supposedly worked for the LA; but she hated them. I had a solicitor for the Guardian who collected his fees for saying ‘My client agrees.’ (Guardian didn’t turn up.)
After 18 months, with a front seat (Me, Barrister for LA and Guardian solicitor), Judge went ‘Oh, lets just get this over with.’ My clients got their order that they fought for 18 months. Instead of the normal 4 to 5 hours of ‘wrangling’, me and my client were drinking champers by 2:30.
It is unheard of that I agree with Hemming or Josephs….but this time I do. For me to actually say anything positive about either, is HUGE.
Some people need to get their blinders off.
The author has critiqued me to death and said ‘Based on what I have read, I think you are a bad parent and don’t realise the seriously grave concerns about your parenting.’ Yet, my parenting has never been an issue. It was always my attitude. I would say bluntly, ‘You are completely incompetent and lack basic literacy and numeracy skills.’ That is not intended as an insult, just a statement of fact. The author of this post does not seem to recognise this as an issue.
(and no Helen Sparkles, I don’t need you to tell me to ‘change the record’….the record is clear and in black and white.)
TC
*PS, You know when the Judge emails you and asks you personally to check an final order…’Think the LA have got the spelling of the child’s name wrong and dob’….And they did…that you calling them incompetent has a basis.
Love to know why I get a name check TC? You’ll be pleased to know I had no intention of engaging, even if could understand what you are trying to say.
Hello TC.
I assume I am the ‘author’ with whom you take issue.
I say what I mean and I mean what I say. If I am criticising you will know it – because I will use your name and I will tell you exactly what the problem is.
I am a tiny part of the Transparency Project.
If you do not care for the work I do or the comments I make, you are free to ignore them.
I am not THE Transparency Project. I am simply one of the people who contributes.
The Transparency Project doesn’t have ‘staff’. We are all volunteers, and until the receipt of the LEF funding we were all working entirely unpaid.
Alice Twaite spent a year of her life making, collating and analysing LA FOI requests. For no money at all.
And what did John Hemming do, with all his resources and his contacts?
If you think that there are other things that need saying or investigating, why don’t you write a guest post? Or contribute in some other way than simply making barbed comments?
But of course, how you spend your time is entirely up to you.
Sarah
You clearly realised I was speaking of yourself.
You clearly did not like at the TP conference 2016 that I would directly challenge you.
By ‘staff’; this was my reference point:http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/group/
or is this incorrect?
I would love to submit a post about what it is like to be a ‘Non Fee Charging Family Court Lay Advisor’. (But when it was put to you at the Conference, you did tell us ‘no way; not her’.) You just don’t want to accept what I ‘people like her’ do.’ I work almost 24/7.
You also ‘sneered’ because I was not visibly ‘disabled enough’ to suit you!
I don’t believe I have said I support Hemming or Josephs; just that their answers to you raise major issues that I can evidence.
Your accusations of ‘barbed comments’ is exactly what I would expect from an LA solicitor or Barrister!!!!
TC
I am not going to have this kind of conversation with you on this forum. It is not what the Transparency Project is about.
But your allegation that I ‘sneered’ because you were not ‘visibly disabled enough’ is utterly rejected. I find that astonishing and offensive. Please withdraw it. It is not true, and as a ‘visibly disabled’ person myself that is beyond offensive.
I note you have not withdrawn your remark that I ‘sneered’ at you for not being sufficiently ‘visibly disabled’.
That tells me all I need to know about your character and your credibility.
And I will treat any further contributions from you to this debate exactly as they deserve. I shall simply ignore them.
I am not withdrawing my comment about the author of this post.
I will maintain my stance.
I would back down if someone told me I had an incorrect ‘perception’. I usually use my husband as an emotional gage. (I am an INTJ and he is an ESTP) But even he said ‘That woman has serious issues’; he also on meeting Ian Josephs said ‘What an arrogant up his own bum self serving individual’ (I cleaned it up)
Next, Helen Sparkles, you got ‘name checked’ because you clearly don’t believe what I say is the truth. You have posted in the past for me to ‘change the record’
The system is broken. End of. Instead of supporting people who are temporarily struggling, the ‘system’ says take their children…….I have seen this.
I have also seen the ‘politics of envy’;
I was accused of ‘sends the children to private school, owns her own home, owns two cars, this house is warm and well decorated and maintained, attends the local church, has had the children baptised…3 year old has never been to McDonalds but knows what a steak and prawns are, owns too many books (and then the ‘zigger’) and admits that while doing the ironing on a Sunday, treats herself to a glass of wine as a reward as she hates ironing.’ *
*Somehow this turned into me being a violent raging alchie! Apparently my sarcastic ‘Well, I don’t hide vodka bottles in the dishwasher’ was not a good answer.
As I said, I did a case in Herts earlier this week; I had faith in them to do the right thing. (Barrister was excellent but clearly had no time for her client) I have never heard in 9 years of doing this, a Judge rip an LA a new one, so swiftly and on point. (20 minutes)
Now to get back to the topic: I do believe the ‘silent’ targets exist. I do believe, based on my work of 9 years that the LA want the ‘good ones’ and ignore the truly upsided system that it was designed for. That is to help and support the most in need and assistance.
People in true need, get nothing. If your face doesn’t ‘fit’, and you are either too intelligent or deemed ‘too stupid’; basically you are screwed.
Social Workers have a very narrow window of what they think ‘is the correct way’.
As Mr Pragnell, pointed out (rejected by the author), there is an element of ‘social engineering’ going on..just the author doesn’t see it.
Here endth the 9th lesson from TC.
Sorry will reply in a bit..duty calls
TC
I have no idea whether what you say is true or not, if I don’t know a case, I can’t possibly know enough. I presume you are referring to a comment I made elsewhere, I stopped commenting there because it became a waste of time when some people would say things like I had refused to attend the TP Conference after I’d said that I was unable to. When dialogue becomes tangental it is deflection from the main issues, I hope that won’t happen here.
Helen; I certainly never accused you of ‘refusing to attend the TP conference’; that would be a ridiculous allegation to make. However, when I have posted in the past about my personal experiences you have replied that I am a liar and a fantasist.
Now let us return to the original article…
I have seen parts of the documentary and they are not pleasant. Yet, they don’t shock me. That is sad…
I am ‘immune’ now to the ‘system’. The British Family Court (apparently if you say it in an Irish accent, it is less painful) basically treat our children like cattle; who is the highest bidder?
There is no such thing as ‘parental rights’; the UK government don’t actually recognise these; after Tony B-Liar. He actually promoted the moronic ideas of ‘Billary’-‘It takes a village to raise a child’.
Apparently my ‘F you; it takes just one good parent and a little bit of a safety net’ was not what they wanted to hear.
As Mr Pragnell pointed out (which the author refuses to accept) this is social engineering. We have the ‘desired and the undesirable.’ Because I am ‘in your face’ doesn’t make me a bad parent. My ‘I refuse to work with incompetent slobs who can barely tie their shoes’ is seen as non compliance…
What was I meant to comply with? I certainly was not going to ‘cowtow’ to some idiot sitting on my sofa saying ‘I have been told to have concerns and tick a box….you don’t fit them….can you fill it in for me?’
If you are interested, as an American, no I did not vote for either of the main idiots; I did what my passport tells me to do; ‘Vote your consciousness’. This is why I am a member of the Libertarian Party. (For the record the last time I lived in the USA was when Reagan was President and I was a card carrying Republican.)
To return to the article, the author appears to have a poor grasp of the term ‘liberal’ but I believe others have corrected her. TC
I didn’t say you accused me of anything, I said some people on that other site (which was just to explain how pointless it was for me to comment there).
I would like you to show me where I called you a liar and a fantasist, it isn’t language I commonly use, given (as I say) I reserve judgment because I can’t know enough about a case to know anything from a blog comment.