Christopher Booker in the Telegraph has another forced adoption story. Or rather he did on Monday, but now he doesn’t.
…Social workers were about to seize a newly born baby for no more reason than their claim that it might be “at risk of emotional abuse”. Just for once, because no court papers had yet been issued, I would be able to report this case in detail, naming names and explaining why it appeared to be yet another appalling miscarriage of justice.
I spoke at length to the horrified mother, who told me how the local social workers wanted to remove her child which, since it was born prematurely three weeks ago, is still in a hospital intensive care unit. She has already happily brought up three other children, the oldest of whom, a bright 21-year-old who has just got a First at university, is doing all she can to help her mother win the right to keep the new addition to the family.
The next day, however, the court papers arrived, imposing a complete blanket of secrecy.
Do you think in your heart of hearts that there must be something more to it than that? Surely these social workers, while twits, cannot be as malicious as this story seems to imply? Have you ever thought, when reading about such a case, “well it sounds shocking, but one can never tell”?
That is the point. One can never tell. One can never make an assessment of these stories because the ancient protections of open justice have been thrown away.
Since the secret system of the Family Courts has denied the press and public the opportunity to assess the evidence in any other manner, one must make a guess as to the likelihood of social workers really behaving in this appalling way based on other cases where details have leaked out.
Here are two accounts of similar cases, in which professionals – an independent social worker and a GP in one case, a judge in another, who were in a position to tell described the behaviour of social workers as “appalling injustice” and “disgraceful […] about the worst I have ever encountered in a career now spanning nearly 40 years.”
Oh, and a sample of the sort of evidence that is held to be damning, as if the Cleveland scandal and the others like it had never happened:
One particularly bizarre psychiatric report was compiled after only an hour-long interview with the little girl. When she said she had once choked on a lollipop, this was interpreted as signifying that she could possibly have “been forced to have oral sex with her father”.
One can never tell.
Having dealt with social workers (a friend’s child had a genetic medical issue which was grounds for taking the child away), I am pretty sure I can tell.
Having never encountered social workers to my recollection I never know what to make of this sort of thing. Justice ought to be done in public, however.
Given what the enemy class will do in full view, I have every confidence that grave injustice happens regularly in the family courts in secret.
So why, if “no court papers had yet been issued”, and the mother clearly wanted her story out in the public, did Mr. Booker not file his report before those “papers” were served? Isn’t it convenient that they arrived just in time to prevent publication?
Anyway, if it’s all true as he said, and the mother consented to having her name in the public, why wouldn’t an honest and consciencious reporter file the story anyway, and if necessary fight the legal battle about it? After all, the purpose of these secrecy orders is to protect the privacy of the individuals involved, but if they consent to the disclosure what would be the basis for a court imposing any sanctions?
I’m certainly no apologist for government, and am fully aware that social service agencies can be as tyrannical as any other, but something about this supposed story simply doesn’t ring true.
I strongly recommend reading This Entire Website.
I am personally certain that there is a scandal and miscarriage of justice underway of immense proportions; it doesn’t just cover child-snatching, but the whole of child-related policy, which has been taken over by a cabal of Child Savers fuelled by the most extremist gender feminist theory and crank psychology.
There is a genuine witch hunt underway; this is the same level of social panic as we think of as a symptom of the Middle Ages; it is simply now couched in pseudo-science, and a strange proxy priesthood of academics and experts has replaced the Church’s role; while the Malleus Maleficarum is now not conveniently collected into one volume but dispersed in various books, journal articles, reports and studies. When you bear in mind that the initial primary driver was the Satanic Panic, when you have insane feminists such as Beatrix Campbell goading vulnerable mothers onto telly to state that they are witches, this is not a hyperbolic analogy. It is an homology.
The entire fabric of child/adult relations have been entirely transformed in barely a generation. It’s astonishing proof of the power of the Reform Movements in our society. They make the Mediaeval Church look like rank amateurs by comparison.
Just to add in response to Laird-
All family court proceedings are secret, you don’t need a special injunction. It’s a deliberately secret court system distinct from the regular courts. It is illegal to reveal their proceedings, or their judgments.
I am the father of a son who has Down’s Syndrome. He is now 33 years old. At no time in his life has any such adverse circumstance happened to my son and me. Some social workers have been indifferent to his needs, others hamstrung by local policies, but for the majority of the time relationships with social workers have been in the interests of my son and have been good working relationships. I know some social workers get overenthusiastic, but when BabyP incidents happen, and the social services get pilloried for the actions of the parents, overreaction by individual care workers is understandable even if not acceptable. If some parents weren’t completely irresponsible and devoid of all love for their children, the interference of social services would not be necessary. As it is, percieved public opinion demands that a public official be made responsible for the actions of another adult without proof of wrong-doing or any restrictions on that persons’ behaviour. That is a most illiberal expectation and is a wonderful example of hard cases making bad laws.
The ‘Family Court” system (both in Britain and the United States) has indeed rejected the principles of Common Law and natural justice. Supposedly this helps protect children – but actually it harms children (and adults).
It brings the Weimar Republic to mind – supposedly getting rid of such things as trial by jury (indeed getting rid of the basic principles of the ‘rule of law’ and replacing them with the “social rule of law”) was done with noble motives – but the results were ignoble.
This is what American bloggers are for, so you blokes can evade gag orders by feeding the info to us Yanks. Better yet, put it on wikileaks, see if Mr Assange respects UK court gag orders more than US national security.
The veil of secrecy is ostensibly to protect the “vulnerable” children involved in these cases. Since it rather facilitates them being snatched from their parents, I would contend it does nothing of the sort. The children need the protection of public scrutiny.
As a side note, social workers are the very epitome of Fabians. Social Work degrees discuss more Marxist philosophy than Politics degrees. The truly scary thing is that they genuinely believe they are right….
Supposedly because of Labour introduce targets, Social Workers have become snatch happy, especially of the young and cute it will be easy to resell (uh… I mean rehome).
Jaded’s view is quite simple. If the parents aren’t put in jail afterwards for neglect, cruelty or abuse then they shouldn’t have had their kids taken off them. At worst they were well meaning, but incompetent, in which case a referral to various charities who provide support would suffice, and a family is not broken up.
The worrying thing about all this is the notion that you are only a parent inasmuch as the state is willing to allow.
“Surely these social workers, while twits, cannot be as malicious as this story seems to imply?”
Worse: There are witches who eat children who do not sleep early nor finish their vegetables.
The style more than malicious, is criminally sanctimonious. I have been involved in a few child protection cases: The ease with which the social services snatch children away from their parents is scary. They are not far away from state-sanctioned abductions.
The expert reports, interviews and statements are not meant to ascertain facts but to give coverage to their own aims. In my experience, often mothers are just good people in dire times who antagonized social workers.
By the way, what would spring to mind if you were told of the danger of obscure, malevolent women that pluck children who are never again heard of?
I’ve seen it happening – it’s terrifying. One Joseph-Heller-esque twist is that if the mother shows a strong psychological reaction to having her baby taken from her by force, that shows that she’s too unstable to be allowed to have it back…
Another frightening aspect is the people who make up the machine that does this. They are not obsessed, or evil; they are just not very intelligent or imaginative, and their “cases” become dehumanised. In our society, you do not have to be in the top 50% by intelligence to become a social worker – if you have compensating attributes such as discipline and charisma, you probably don’t have to be in the top 70%
One person who is at the forefront of trying to change things is Liberal Democrat MP John Hemmings: http://john.hemming.name/national/familylaw/index.shtml
All family court proceedings are secret, you don’t need a special injunction. It’s a deliberately secret court system distinct from the regular courts. It is illegal to reveal their proceedings, or their judgments.
Absolutely correct.
I should know, I worked as Clerk of the Court in both, Crown and County Courts for 12 years, and a major factor in my resignation was that I just couldn’t bear to be a participant in what I believed to be the flagrant , sanctimonious criminal injustice of the Family Courts anymore.
Never forget the Satanic abuse scandal. A crock of shit from beginning to end. But one that wrecked the lives of countless families.
Was one Social worker, fired? disciplined even? No.
Even when they are, like this self righteous sack of shit
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1310709/MPs-advice-Baby-P-boss-Sharon-Shoesmith-talk-child-safety.html
Somehow they bounce right back. A stake through the heart has absolutely no effect on Social Workers.
To elaborate on what AMcguinn said, a parent who becomes hysterical or angry when his child is removed is considered unstable or even potentially dangerous, and will be unlikely to get his child returned, EVER. On the other hand, a parent who holds his emotions in check as his child is removed won’t be able to get the child back either, because his failure to demonstrate strong emotion at such a time will be taken to demonstrate a lack of attachment to the child, and an inability to form an appropriate parent/child bond.
You CANNOT win with these people, and YES they do tend to snatch the most desirable children from single mothers who can’t afford competent legal representation. There have been multiple cases here in the States in which social workers “picked out” a child for their sister/sister-in-law/cousin to eventually adopt. Social workers aren’t supposed to be able to adopt from their own jurisdiction, as that would give them a clear conflict of interest, but they can and do engage in dirty tricks to help out their own families and close friends, and dirty “professional courtesy” relationships with neighboring jurisdictions are a standard feature, with many social workers, judges and court psychologists being allowed to adopt handpicked children who are young, blond, cute & clever.
Special courts for special (selective) enforcement.
Secrecy protects the guilty as well as the innocent.
People say they want transparency in government.
It will not get more transparent than invisible.
Avoid being special. Become bland and generic. Fit-in.
Go along to get along. Play the game. Become an
invisible public. Then, when large numbers disappear,
nobody will notice.
Ian B wrote;
>I strongly recommend reading This Entire Website.
So I did.
Jeepers!
It’s been a few years since I visited a Web site that challenged your view of the world.
This one did. The page linked is just part 1 of 3 pages and it virtually rips the British Left to shreds, and then comes back and jumps up and down on the ashes.
There’s another page about a Dr. Sandra Buck that has links to BBC films and interviews about the Rochdale scandal from the 1990’s. Just amazing.
The stuff about David Icke is great reading. There’s a section about his US equivalent – Alex Constantine, and the bits about Neil Young and R.E.M are pretty good.
But the best thing, easily the best thing is the JK Rowling entry – that has a link to the spoof Landover Baptist Church and the film reviews – especially the one for The Return of the King is the funniest written piece on the Web I’ve found.
The Dramatis site is pretty disturbing and it can get a bit boring reading all the text, but it has a few absolute gems in there.
Rob E
I followed Ian B’s link as well. Coming some John Tailor Gatto reading about compulsory education, all I can say is I would honestly prefer the 12′ foot lizards.
As a general view, I’ve come to the conclusion that we’re all under a particularly pernicious delusion, which is the general idea that since The Enlightenment we, at least in the West, have been living in a society which is fundamentally different to previous ones in being, well, “enlightened” and rational and based on reason and so on. I’ve come to the conclusion that that’s not true.
I think that historians of the future, that is if we take the long view, will perceive us as still living in the Dark Ages. We could have made the break into some kind of enlightened rationalism, but we didn’t. The fact that Libertarianism- which is basically the articulation of “enlightenment values”- is a minority interest on the fringe is pretty much the proof of that. Situations like the one under discussion here are the most distinctive proof that we’re still mediaeval.
There is a school of thought that torture is wrong, if for no other reason than the effect it has upon the torturers.
I would make a similar argument against the forced redistribution of income, in that the re-distributors will first come to believe that the citizens’ money is theirs to distribute as they please, and ultimately that the citizens themselves are theirs to dispose of as they see fit.
People of middle ground values have concentrated too much on fighting against racial prejudice by the extreme right, neglecting the dangers of the far left.
I was ignorant and uninterested in politics until my ex-wife stopped me from seeing my child and disclosed her radical feminist ideals as learnt at university. Nazi ideology and radical feminsim are close relations.
My experience of court welfare officers was horrendous, i would not put anything past them. I would not speak to a social worker or let one enter my house. Good luck to anyone who does have to deal with them.
The Secret Courts must be stopped, such should only occur when the Nation’s security is endangered. No judge can possibly sit in such a court and consider that he is upholding any form of justice, it is against all that this country has taught.
Ian B. – courts and court practices such as are described in the article would not have been tolerated in England in the Middle Ages, there would have been a revolt.
For example, one reason for the revolt against King John was his habit of taking children away from their parents (partly so he could rape them – but also so that he could marry them off to his supporters and take their inheritance).
We are not living in the Middle Ages – there are no large bodies of armed men outside of direct state control now (no great landholders who can defend their own property and come to the defence of others). And no vast institutions (such as the Church) that can stand against the state – talk of modern corporations as if they were all mighty (the line of Hollywood films and BBC plays) is absurdly wide of the mark.
Whatever this society is – it is not an example of the Middle Ages.
However, I agree with you that what we are seeing is not the “failure of rationalism” still less the failure of reason – the statist fashions that dominate the modern world have naught to do with reason.
We have moved some (not all) of the way towards “Oriental Despotism” complete with rule by “experts” (the Mandarin class – highly educated and filled with…..).
Point taken, Paul. 🙂