The UK is the ONLY place in the world where large numbers of parents flee the country every year to avoid having their babies and young children taken from them by the State for forced adoption. Social workers,behaving like police , take babies at birth from motherns ,not for anything they have done but for something someone with a “Crystal Ball” thinks they might do in the future !.
MY CHILD HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM ME ON UNFOUNDED GROUNDS AND LEGAL AID IS NOT AVAILABLE
SOCIAL SERVICES HAVE TAKEN HIM ILLEGALLY LAST OCTOBER ITS BEEN MONTHS WAITING FOR A COURT DATE!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2121886/The-experts-break-families-The-terrifying-story-prospective-MP-branded-unfit-mother-experts-whod-met--nightmare-shared-families.html2011, there were 32,739 children involved in disposals of public law cases, includn ing 31,515 orders made, 792 applications withdrawn, 350 orders of no order and 72 orders refused. YOUR stories of forced adoption: When we revealed the agony of mothers made to give up their babies, the response from readers was huge - and heartbreaking
THIS CAN HAPPEN TO YOU! It happens every single day. My case is nothing special in this instance - I am going to the court of appeal after a placement order was agreed.
Only 72 care orders refused out of 32,739 cases !What chance do these poor parents have in our hopelessly prejudiced “family courts”?
1: Lord Justice Thorpe said “There is nothing more serious than a removal hearing, because the parents are so prejudiced in proceedings thereafter.”
2: Lord Justice Wall (the former Senior family court judge) said that the determination of some social workers to place children in an “unsatisfactory care system” away from their families was “quite shocking”.
3: In a separate case on which Sir Nicholas Wall also sat, Lord Justice Aikens described the actions of social workers in Devon as “more like Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China than the West.
4: Lord Neuberger, president of the Supreme Court said that other than in exceptional circumstances judges should treat requests to hear cases in closed courts with ‘distaste and concern’. In a blow to ministers, Lord Neuberger said hearing evidence behind closed doors was ‘against the principle of justice’.
5: Baroness Hale (the only lady judge in the UK supreme court) said “Taking a child away from her family is a momentous step, not only for her, but for her whole family, and for the local authority which does so. In a totalitarian society, uniformity and conformity are valued. Hence the totalitarian state tries to separate the child from her family and mould her to its own design. Families in all their subversive variety are the breeding ground of diversity and individuality. In a free and democratic society we value diversity and individuality. Hence the family is given special protection in all the modern human rights instruments including the European Convention on Human Rights (art 8), the International Covenjant on Civil and Political Rights (art 23) and throughout the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. As Justice McReynolds famously said in Pierce v Society of Sisters 268 US 510 (1925), at 535, ‘The child is not the mere creature of the State’. ”
Lady Hale: Dissenting judgement in the Supreme Court “B” a child. 143. This case raises some profound questions about the scope of courts’ powers to take away children from their birth families when what is feared is, not physical abuse or neglect, but emotional or psychological harm. We are all frail human beings, with our fair share of unattractive character traits, which sometimes manifest themselves in bad behaviours which may be copied by our children. But the State does not and cannot take away the children of all the people who commit crimes, who abuse alcohol or drugs, who suffer from physical or mental illnesses or disabilities, or who espouse anti-social political or religious beliefs. (Baroness Hale of Richmond in B (Children), Re  UKHL 35 (11 June)
6:-Courts are routinely removing children from their mothers into care after “cutting and pasting” the arguments put by social services and rubber-stamping them, a senior judge has warned.
Mrs Justice Pauffley said that she was “profoundly alarmed” at the discovery that family courts were effectively in cahoots with social services through such “clandestine arrangements”, which undermined the independence of the justice system. She added: “It is patently wrong, must stop at once and never happen again.”
The judge made her comments as she granted an appeal to return a baby to his mother in a case she described as “shocking”.
7:-Pauffley J also expressed concern about a ‘triage’ assessment of the mother by a chartered clinical psychologist which was commissioned and completed during the course of the day before the first hearing. She said:
“It simply cannot be right, fair or reasonable to commission an expert to provide what may turn out to be the pivotal evidence justifying separation of a neonate from his mother in the way that happened here.
“It surprises and alarms me that Dr van Rooyen [the psychologist] was asked, and was prepared, to provide a report during the course of a single working day, a terrifyingly tight timeframe, and on the basis of papers supplemented by a telephone conversation with a local authority professional who had never met the mother. I struggle to understand how Dr van Rooyen’s apparently firm opinions, adverse to the mother, could have been formed given the complete absence of any kind of discussion with her or, indeed, any communication with [the resource].”
We should also remember the wise words of Hedley J in Re L (Threshold Conditions)  1 FLR 2050:
“Many parents are hypochondriacs, many parents are criminals or benefit cheats, many parents discriminate against ethnic or sexual minorities, many parents support vile political parties or belong to unusual or militant religions. All of these follies are visited upon their children, who may well adopt or ‘model’ them in their own lives but those children could not be removed for those reasons.”
MUNBY LJ states in
Re J (A Child)  EWHC 2694 (Fam)
The second matter is this. The workings of the family justice system and, very importantly, the views about the system of the mothers and fathers caught up in it, are, as Balcombe LJ put it in Re W (Wardship. Discharge. Publicity)  2 FLR 466, 474, “matters of public interest which can and should be discussed publicly”. Many of the issues litigated in the family justice system require open and public debate in the media. I repeat what I said in Harris v Harris, Attorney–General v Harris  2 FLR 895, paras -, about the importance in a free society of parents who feel aggrieved at their experiences of the family justice system being able to express their views publicly about what they conceive to be failings on the part of individual judges or failings in the judicial system. And the same goes, of course, for criticism of local authorities and others.10:-Sir James Munby:-
The country’s top family judge has warned that moves to speed up adoption could lead to children being removed from their birth parents on flimsy evidence.
President of the Family Division Sir James Munby described separating children from their families as a ‘last resort’ but said the current ‘sloppy practice’ meant that often ‘little more than lip service’ is given to other options.
In an unanimous judgment in Re B-S (Children)  EWCA Civ 1146, the President said:
“We have real concerns, shared by other judges, about the recurrent inadequacy of the analysis and reasoning put forward in support of the case for adoption, both in the materials put before the court by local authorities and guardians and also in too many judgments. This is nothing new. But it is time to call a halt.” 
It would be idle to ignore the fact that these concerns are only exacerbated by the fact that the United Kingdom is unusual in Europe in permitting the total severance of family ties without parental consent: see Re B-S (Children)  EWCA Civ 1146, para 19, referring to the speech of Baroness Hale in Down Lisburn Health and Social Services Trust and another v H and another  UKHL 36, para 34. Thus the outcome of care proceedings in England and Wales may be that a child who is a national of another European country is adopted by an English family notwithstanding the vigorous protests of the child’s non-English parents.
What did the Minister for Children say in 2012 ?
The Children’s Minister Edward Timpson said “the outcomes for children in care remain woeful.”“For instance, we know that children in care are seven times more likely to misuse drugs and alcohol than others, 50 times more likely to end up in prison, 60 times more likely to become homeless and 66 times more likely to have children of their own who will need public care.
Unfortunately judges who are thought to be highly intelligent folk never look at the “obvious”
When they consider the cases of children with vaguely dysfunctional parents ,who perhaps shout at each other,have non violent problems with alcohol,or who have mild learning difficulties, and consign them to so called “care “.They NEVER NEVER compare the terrible risks of “care” as shown above with the sometimes “negligible by comparison “risk of leaving them with their own parents.
Surely most children would have a better chance with their imperfect parents than with the far worse risk of “care”?
Here are the official guidelines to proceedings in the family court – but these are largely ignored by judges and social workers:
A BARRISTER REVEALS THE TRUTH
Michelle Freedman, a barrister with 10 years’ experience representing parents in the family courts writes: “Clients are like lambs to the slaughter. Every client I met filled me with sadness (except of course in cases where there was obvious abuse and not in the Local Authorities’ and court’s interpretation of the word). I would sit with desperate mothers and / or fathers with their eyes wide open in worry repeatedly asking me what I thought the outcome to the case would be. How to relay to the client that the reality is that the children will most likely be made subject to care orders and ultimately adopted. How to tell the client that we are merely going through a kangaroo court process whereby the majority of children are taken from loving parents once the machine (i.e the court process) has been switched on.”
“Throughout proceedings clients would genuinely believe that ‘justice would prevail’ and the courts would see that the children are better of at home with mum and dad. As any other barrister, and for good reason, I told parents that there is no certainty in proceedings…. I did not have the heart to crush their spirits from the outset. I truly believe that we are living in tragic times at the moment.”
Follow my blog at: http://wigandfudge.co.uk/
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=141989601&trk=nav_responsive_tab_profileTwitter: https://twitter.com/BarristerBlues?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=BarristerBlues&utm_content=324863777138954241
NON MOLESTATION ORDERS :- can forbid a mother from molesting her own daughter ! It is a total distortion of the English Language to pretend this includes sending a birthday card or waving at one’s children in the street as happened in previous cases.To Molest =To intentionally annoy (Oxford dictionary) but no proof has ever been produced in these cases or any other cases that children have been intentionally annoyed by parents from whom they have been forcibly separated.
Judges guidelines instruct them to interpret statutes in such a way as to give effect to the intentions of those who drafted them.
Non molestation orders were clearly drafted to protect one person from violence committed on them by another person.(more often than not by a man on his wife or partner);There was no way that it was intended to cut off mothers from their children and no way that “molestation” could in most such cases apply to contacts between non criminal parent and child .The judges in Vicky’s case and many other cases have acted “ultra vires”, outside their powers and should be restrained by police and by parliament if nothing else has any effect.
NO CONTACT ORDERS:- These can forbid all contact face to face ,by email,phone ,or via a third party even when the child initiates the contact.There is no statute or other legal authority permitting judges to make such orders and to make them penal.
These orders are often made for long or even indefinite periods as happened in the case of a father recently jailed for breaching a no contact order (made 15 years earlier) because he congratulated his son on facebook on his 21st birthday long after a care order had expired and was therefore discharged.
It is contended that no judge has the legal authority derived from any statute to make such draconian orders infringing Article 10 of the Human Rights Act and also the United Nations Convention.Such judges act “ultra vires” outside their powere and should as a last resort be restrained by police and by Act of Parliament.