On the 18th December 2013 The British press reported that all prisoners including killers and rapists have the right to vote because they have human rights. Children and their parents have their human rights been denied and violated.
Although Class action is a group action usually associated with commercial disputes such as big corporations, The claimants aim is not JUST compensation but an “8 steps” action.
The Local authorities are commercial organisations independent (supposedly) and detached from the government.Their functions are to serve as a public authority the residents within their borders. (county councils, Metropolitan, and Parish councils.).
The claimants have multiple choice of taking action against the private corporations that control foster care industry (CORE ASSETS LIMITED) having first established that they have acted unlawfully, to care for the children in the local authorities care.
Second choice is the Local authorities who have contracts with such private companies, and the local authorities are directly responsible with the welfare of the children in their care, through a court order (final care order, ICO ).
The complicated fact is that although Social services are part of a local authority they are also have a duty to report to directly to the minister of education.
The claimants are are now establishing who is responsible for the laws that aimed to protect the children residing within United Kingdom.It is the state that is responsible to arrange via special laws, and acts that health, education and safe protection will be provided by the state.
A class action can only be against the British government for failing to safeguard vulnerable children, failing to safeguard the justice system, so every child and its family can be protected from unlawful commercial predators who are in evidence are thriving as a result of unlawful and deliberate acts between social services and family court justice, using wordings such as “risk of future emotional harm” which are NOT evidence of child abuse but a hearsay prediction, based on an unqualified opinion of a private employee (social worker) rather than an expert opinion that proves beyond reasonable doubt that the unlawfully removed children have been harmed in the past and showing visible signs of abuse by their parents, in which case the common law states that such abuses are criminal offence for which the alleged abusive parents should be prosecuted and receive a fair trial in accordance to the criminal acts on United Kingdom.
The British government is guilty of failing to protect the children, the vulnerable parents, and the family values that form the society that this government governs.The British government (through its judicial system) is guilty of ignoring human rights laws which are ensuring the democratic rights of any citizen whether is a child or an adult.There are documented cases that the British judicial has applied Human rights laws in cases such as prisoners’ rights, the Abdu Hamza case, and other human rights that have outraged public opinion.
There is a deliberate and unlawful act of failing to apply the Human rights laws ONLY in cases that will protect children, their parents, and family values.
The British government is guilty for allowing these human abuses and injustice to continue at the cost of £25 billion per year, which are an unlawful waste of the British taxpayer’s money.
Social care for the elderly, and the disable is failing, because the local authorities and the government are stating that there is no money to support such services.Libraries are closing down because the lack of funds.Education suffers at all level because the government states to its citizens that there is no money to support education, the vulnerable elderly and the disable.
And yet, the same government, the same local authorities who are placing thousand of elderly at risk, they have a “bottomless pit” when it comes on child removal from their parents wasting £25 BILLION a year so to finance a state sponsored child imprisonment (foster care) and a child abuse by the social services
It is impossible for an independent observer to discover how many cases resulting to children been taken from their loving parents, are genuine and deserving cases, and all avenues have been exhausted before the social services (the local authority) have decided to remove the children from their families.
The social services case:
The fact that to often we see interim care orders and final care orders, are using an unlawful and unjust threshold ”risk of future emotional risk” it is alarming, especially when government figures shows that up to the year 2013 over 80000 children are in foster care.
There are only few cases (out of the 80000 children that have been removed), that parents have been convicted for the crime of child neglect or child abuse.
On the other hand there are publicised cases involving serious criminal offences that involves parents who have abused their children, and despite that Social services were been made aware about the dangers of these children, the social services have failed to protect these children which children are now dead been murdered by their own parents and because they been ignored and neglected by the social services.
There are over a thousand cases where the children that been taken in care for not valid reasons, these children have been abused in care.
Only a handful of such abuses have come to light and there are thousands more that remain secret, and today somewhere in a foster home some children are been emotionally abused, physically abused, and even sexually abused.
The totalitarian “Secret” social services regime have been Taylor made so to silence these children, preventing them from speaking to anyone, and even the police often do nothing to investigate children’s complaints.Social services have “designed” a psychological profile to intimidate the children in their care and their parents.There is another false assumption been fabricated by the social services, in support of the foster carers, that children often lie against their foster carers because they want to go home.
such assumption it is not a legal argument denying fair justice and fair treatment to the child in accordance to the Children,s act 1989 (section 47) in accordance to the legislation in regards to children under the age of 16, (every complaint by the child should be treated as priority), and in accordance to United Nations convention for children rights.Once again social services are making “unfounded” allegations without been able to prove their allegations.
Evidence 1) Children living with their foster carers often appear to have suspicious bruising. The school fails to write a report about these bruises, because the teachers been told to ignore any bruising because the child lives with a foster care family.If a child who lives with its own biological parents went to school having few bruises there is no doubt that the school would have written reports, alarming the social services and the police.The conclusion is (in accordance to the social services current practices, that it is unlawful for a child to have bruises whilst living with its parents but it is lawful for a child to have bruises whilst this child lives with foster parents.
Evidence 2): Children have been sexually abused in foster care.The abusers in some cases are the foster carers themselves, and in other cases, children in care have been exploited and forced to have sex (rape) , with paedophile gangs as we have learnt in cases such s Rochdale, and Oxfordshire.Lets remind ourselves that when these children was removed from their loving families, they have been removed under the unlawful presumption of “risk of future emotional harm” and these children have not been sexually abused by their parents.
Children are been removed from their loving families having not been abused by their parents, and these children have been placed in a care system that have resulted to sexual abuses against these vulnerable children.
So these children have been forced to separate from their parents, only to be raped at the young age of 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14.After such abuses have been revealed what action the social services have taken?One can assume that they would prefer these children to return back to their parents.On the contrary the social services are wasting taxpayers money to “coach” these children and stop these children from speaking about their ordeal, and going to extraordinary lengths to suspend contact between the child and its family, because the local authority will do everything to silence these victims in local authorities care, and notably local authorities been afraid to public exposure, are wasting taxpayers money to cover child abuse and punish their victims.
Evidence 3): Although there is a clear law (children’s act 1989) dealing with children, their parents, and the local authority, there are overwhelming evidence that social workers have disregard the law and in many occasions (75% of all cases), the local authorities are acting unlawfully contrary to the common law , committing deliberately serious criminal offences.
There are documented evidence of 14 years old children that are been removed from their loving families by the local authority, been placed in foster care.
At the age of 14 (which is an age that the child has sufficient understanding), these children in care of the local authority have their freedoms and human rights been taken away.
Case study 1 : A 14 years old girl, been removed without a threshold from her loving family a family that has been assessed by the social services and this family found to provide excellent care to the child.
The judge unlawfully ignored the social services reports and demanded for the child to be removed from her loving family home.
This child has been moved from one foster home to another, (7 times in total), often been seen (reports have been written), to appear “dirty” whilst residing in a foster care home, having lice in her head, and every time this child was moving (without notice) from foster home to foster home, she had to put her belongings in a plastic shopping bags, appearing more like a traveller than a child whose welfare was been looked after in foster care.
A child been in care of the local authority, at the age of 12 until the age of 14 has been moved around 7 times, to 7 different foster care families. Is this how social services look after children? is this the best care the social services can provide to a child in their care? This is emotional child abuse and children in the same situation should be returned to their loving parents whose duty is to look after their own children.
This child has been forbidden (without a written order by a judge) by the social workers to own or use a mobile phone.
This child has been forbidden to own or use a computer.This child attends a school which has over a 1000 children (all girls school).
The other children,( because are living with their parents,) are free to enjoy their freedoms and the benefits that goes with this. These children own a mobile phone.
They are free to phone and text their friends and their families.
These children own a computer and are able to access the internet (with parental supervision),
This particular child in foster care sits amongst her school friends at school wondering why isn’t she free to have the same freedoms as the other children at her age?Why she has been punished for?
She has been discouraged to see her family at Christmas she has been discouraged to send birthday cards, she have to face punishment if she writes letters to her family, but somehow she has managed to “smuggle” hand written letters, to her family writing that she loves and she missed her family, and in some letters she asks for help, due to the fact that she been abused by the foster carers.
Remember that in this particular case, the social services have written several reports stating that the child was thriving within her family, and her removal from her family would have had detrimental effects on this child.
So on the face of the evidence is this what the social services achieving? Causing deliberate harm to this child? Denying her feelings, her wishes her human rights her right to her family making this child feel sorry for having been born!!.
The story of this child is one that will shame the government and the local authority.
The same child has been seen with bruises, and instead of the local authority complying with section 47 children,s act 1989, to investigate the bruising, and the hand written complaints of this unfortunate 14 years old child, the social services suspend contact between the child and her family, and refuses to reveal the cause of these bruises.According to the child her self, she has been threatened by her foster carers that if she speaks out she will have a criminal record.
Note: There are thousands of similar cases , and the parents of children in foster care, experiencing similar problems as the above child are willing to give their evidence to a future court hearing, inquiry, or tribunal.
There are conclusive evidence that children been abused in foster care, and the social services will cover up by discrediting the victim. The police will rather listen to the social worker than remove the child from the alleged abusive foster carer, and contact an ABE (video recorded) interview so the child can feel free and comfortable to make her complaints.
Evidence 4):These are deliberate acts of child abuses by local authorities employees (the social services) who deliberately are ignoring the laws such as Children’s act 1989 (section 22) and all articles of the human rights act, and such negligence can only be seen as an arrogant contempt of court, because a judge has not made an order to state that the social services should ignore the law, and should continue to abuse children in their care.The above story of this 14 years old child it is a true story and the abuses are continuing.
There are many thousands of children in foster care being scared, beaten up, threaten and generally instead of feeling safe at a family home, they feel like prisoners and these children often are obeying their “masters” in case they get smacked or get punished for wanting to go home.
The foster carers are getting paid £400 per child per week, hardly this amount can justify expenses for 1 child.
The estimation is that £100 per child per week are enough to cover the expenses of looking after one child. (parents receive £20 per child per week).
So these “overpaid” foster carers are receiving an extra £300 per child per week perhaps because their duties will include child punishment, similar duties to a prison officer.
Prisoners have certain rights under Human rights laws.
Children in care have been stripped by their human rights, forcibly continuing to live a life of brutality, abuses, and emotional black mail. And such ongoing practice it is unlawful based on the special law Children,s act 1989.
Evidence 5): Section 22 Children’s act 1989 states:
(1) In this Act, any reference to a child who is looked after by a local authority is a reference to a child who is:
(a) in their care; or
(b) Provided with accommodation by the authority in the exercise of any functions (in particular those under this Act) which are social services functions within the meaning of] the local Authority Social Services Act 1970 apart from functions under sections .
(2) In subsection (1) “accommodation” means accommodation which is provided for a continuous period of more than 24 hours.
(3) It shall be the duty of a local authority looking after any child:(a) to safeguard and promote his welfare; and
(b) To make such use of services available for children cared for by their own parents as appears to the authority reasonable in his case.
(3A)The duty of a local authority under subsection (3)(a) to safeguard and promote the welfare of a child looked after by them includes in particular a duty to promote the child’s educational achievement.
4) Before making any decision with respect to a child whom they are looking after, or proposing to look after, a local authority shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, ascertain the wishes and feelings of:(a) the child;(b) his parents;(c) any person who is not a parent of his but who has parental responsibility for him; and(d) Any other person whose wishes and feelings the authority consider to be relevant,regarding the matter to be decided.
(5) In making any such decision a local authority shall give due consideration:
(a) Having regard to his age and understanding, to such wishes and feelings of the child as they have been able to ascertain;
(b) To such wishes and feelings of any person mentioned in subsection (4)(b) to (d) as they have been able to ascertain; and
(c) To the child’s religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background.
It is clear that section 22 children’s act 1989 states that it is a duty of the local authority to respect the wishes of the children in their care, to respect the wishes.
Section 22 (children’s act 1989), also states that the local authority has a duty to respect the child’s religion persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background.
The evidence shows that local authorities vary rarely applies this law (as per section 22 CA 1989).
Although it has been established that “foster care families” are the “alternative accommodation provided by the local authority to the child in their care, it is strange as to why the words “foster care” are missing from the children’s act 1989.
The local authority in accordance to the section 22 Children’s act 1989, has a duty to accommodate the child in their care in a suitable accommodation that should be agreed by the parents, and the children (children with sufficient understanding) .
Such accommodation is more likely to be a foster carer, who has an “extra” bedroom and responsibility to accommodate the child.
According to the children’s act 1989 section 22 the local authority should respect the child’s religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background.
This means that the local authority before deciding where and with whom, the can place the child in their care, the Local authority, should consult with the parents or the parent, and decide with the parents approval which foster family will meet the needs of the child, taking in to the account the religious believes of the child.
For example: A Christian child from a Christian family background should have been placed with with a Christian foster carer, a Muslim child from a Muslim faith background should have been places with a Muslim faith foster carer, a Hebrew Child from a Hebrew family background should have been placed with a Hebrew foster carer, a Hindu child from a Hindu background should have been placed with a Hindu background foster carer and so on.
Human rights act’s 1998 article 9 should be applied in conjunction with section 22 children’s act 1989:
Article 9 : “Freedom of thought, conscience and religion”1 Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.2 Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
When the judge issues a court order whether is an Interim care order or a final care order, the judgement states “in accordance to the children’s act 1989″ which means that the local authority that has granted such order in their favour has a duty to comply with the same law that the order has been based on.
Evidence 6: There are conclusive evidence proving beyond reasonable doubt that the local authorities in United Kingdom, are in contempt of the interim care and final care orders, having ignored, the law that guides the local authority to act for the welfare of the child, and with respect of the parents and their children human rights.
Instead of the local authority comply within the law as per section 22 CA 1989, they are placing children with unsuitable families, keeping secret the names, their address , and location of the foster carer, placing children that are from a specific religion background, to a foster carer that their religious beliefs are not the same as the children’s background religious beliefs
Children with sufficient understanding (usually over the age of 9), are not been consulted about their wishes and feelings or asked about the suitability of the foster home that they have forcefully been placed in.
The conclusion is that local authorities (social services), are NOT only refusing to comply with the section 22 CA 1989 but on the contrary they are acting unlawfully, by :
a) Ignoring the parents wishes, in regards of the children’s placement within a suitable foster family.
b) The social services ignore the religious background of the children in their care, and the evidence shows that there is an ongoing concern that social workers are discouraging children to engage with their own religion, promoting “atheism” and often children are been prohibited to talk about their own religion.
c) Not only the social services are ignoring the wishes and feelings of the children, and their parents, but also there is an unlawful practice of parental alienation where social workers gives instructions to the foster carers, to punish the child in their care if this child dare to talk about its family, to describe happy times with its family, and express its wishes (the child) to be back with his loving parents.
For this reason we can see that the social services have adopt an inhumane practice that forbids the child to have any type of contact with his family whether is a telephone call to his mother or father, or an internet contact or a face to face contact.
This unlawful practice by the social services, creates an ironic situation. :
The social services (in most cases) have produced (before the judge), a threshold which states that the child should be removed from its parent care because the child may be risk of future harm from its parents.Although the child has not been harmed by its parents (or parent) the social services are predicting that the child may be, at risk of emotional harm.Having read the above true facts in relation of the social services continue misconduct and lack of abiding by the law as they should the only conclusion is that
the allegations by the social services (that the child is at risk of future emotional harm ) are true, the only difference is, that the child has been emotional harmed not by his parents but by the social services the same professionals that have made this prediction.
The case of the forced adoption new born infants been removed by social services.
Evidence 6: The removal of a new born child from its mothers care it should be judged as one of the worst and barbaric acts on the 21st century defying logic, belief, ignoring the human rights of the mother, the rights of the new born child, and trying to alter nature rules.
Case study 1: A mother at the age of 20 becomes pregnant. This mother has not previous criminal records. During her teens, she was a victim of abuse, She has learning difficulties.
None of the above suggests that such personality can be a danger to a child especially to her own child.
This mother when she was 5 months pregnant, she been visited by her local social worker.
She have been told “blandly” (by a social worker),that her child will be taken away as soon as it born.!!!!!
There is no law that exists and allows any public servant to harass and cause distress to a pregnant woman by saying she will be not allowed to keep her unborn child.
This is an offence of harassment and stalking under the common law.
When a social worker approach a pregnant woman expecting her first child to be born, telling her that she will not be allowed to keep her child, this social worker detach her self from the Children’s act 1989 , and commits a criminal offence.
This inhumane approach and criminal acts by the social services continuing without state intervention, without a judicial direction, or judicial orders to prohibit such barbaric threats.
United Kingdom government is guilty of a state sponsored torture and violation of pregnant women human rights.
Where and what law states that an unborn child should be removed as soon as the child leaves the mothers womb?
Where n the children’s act 1989 states that a judge can issue any order against an unborn child?
How can the court satisfy the criteria of the section 31 (children’s act 1989)?
Section 31 (children’s act 1989) states:
(2) A court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied:
(a) that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and
(b) that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to—
(i) the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him; or
(ii) the child’s being beyond parental control.
What kind of system is in place that can predict an unborn child is at risk of harm by his mother?
There is not scientific evidence to support such theory , and such ludicrous allegations especially against a mother who for the first time she is going to become a mother, are just a false prediction which may be born out of fraud and deception which one can only describe an organised crime to “steal” children from their mothers womb, so to enhance an illegal lucrative child trade.
Lets supposed that social workers have identified that a young mother has some psychological issues
(learning difficulty is not an issue proving that the mother more likely to harm her child).
Is the only action that social services can take by removing the unborn child causing criminal damages to the mother and her child?
It is the social workers duty to offer assistance to vulnerable people. Any identified illness or disability does not conclude that the mother may harm her first new born child.
There are scientific studies that has proven that often women have been cured from psychological symptoms after having given birth to their first child.
The social services professional duty is to assist and protect the mother offering her support, possible treatment , and after birth support.
Only after the child having been born, the mother will be able to prove beyond doubt if she is able to offer a good quality care to her child, born out of her natural maternal instinct.
And the law it is very clear about this (section 31 CA 1989) , that in order to remove the child from the mother it has to be proven that a significant harm has been caused to the child, before the judge issues a care order.
How can we determine significant harm when the child has not been born, and the mother is giving birth to her first child, in which case she has not a proven or given the chance to prove her parental skills and parental abilities.
Case study 2: It has become a common practice the fact that social services are removing new born babies as soon as they been born. This defies logic.
Section 31 CA 1989 clearly states that it has to be proven beyond doubt that the child has suffered a significant harm before the judge makes an interim care order.
How can be possible to prove “significant harm” when the child is few hours old and in many cases few days old when the social services removing these infants.
The mother have not chance to proof her parental abilities.
Case study 3: A mother has two young children, (ages 1, and 2 years old). She has no previous convictions neither there have been concerns in regards of her parental skills.
She becomes a victim of rape by her partner (her children’s biological father).
She flees to another place with her two children so to protect her children, and her self from harm by the father.
She reports this appalling crime to the police. The father gets arrested and charged on counts of rape.
The social services instead of offering counselling to this victim of crime, they (social services) instead remove her child.
In the crown court the “father” was found guilty of rape by the jury. The judge sentence him to 7 years in prison.
Another judge in the family courts under the public law proceedings, has punished the victim, (the mother) by granting permission to the local authority to keep her children, and place these children for adoption.!!
So the family court judge and the social services are punishing a mother, who has been a victim of rape, and despite her ordeal she has shown courage, maternal responsibility, by fleeing with her children, to another location.
Under the common law the “rapist” was found guilty and was sentenced to 7 years in prison.
Under the public law, the mother who is a victim of rape, she been punished, by loosing her children,
The family court judge and the social services, effectively have found the mother guilty of being a victim of rape.
Such injustice, and such human rights violations will have detrimental effect to all victims of rape in the future.
Mothers who may have been abused and raped by their spouses may try to conceal their ordeal, in fear of loosing their children, and this is an appalling situation been created by the state, through the family court judges and the social services.
The Social services have a duty to protect the mother and her children, by keeping them together, and in a safe environment.
Judges have their judicial duty to protect the mother and her children, by making orders that will allow the mother to retain her parental responsibilities, and such orders should be made for the local authorities to provide counselling, and continues help to the mother, who is a victim of domestic violence and rape.
In this case (and there are evidence of similar cases) the social services have shown interest of their well established methods, to remove the children, placing the children with a “strange” family, (foster carers at £400 to £800 per child per week), placing these young innocent children to te adoption list, abandoning the mother completely, giving her the impression that it is her own fault that she was a victim of rape.
The above case proves beyond doubt that social services are deliberately acting without care or respect of family values, without care or respect for the victims of crime, without care or respect for the children, because the only action they see fit is to remove the children, and placing them to the adoption market, because these children have a commercial value to the private foster care industry, and there is not a doubt that social services are the primary suppliers of a commodity that is called “children”, so at the present moment and until the government, chances the law and the guidelines, social services will continue to act in inhumane and “barbaric” manners that will continue to harm innocent children, innocent parents, and demolish family values.
Case study 5: This is another appalling case that in November 2013 all British national press and British media have reported.
This case involves an Italian female citizen, who was visiting UK so to be trained as a crew with a passenger airline company.
This “Italian” woman, was pregnant and a permanent resident of Italy and not a UK resident.
Whilst been pregnant, and having naturally been stressed due to her condition, and due to her professional responsibilities, she may have acted irrationally (something that can be expected from all pregnant women).
This woman was deceived by the local authority (Essex) and the police, telling her that they need to take her to a hospital so to check the health of her unborn baby.
Instead this woman was taken to a psychiatric unit and she was been sectioned.
The social services acted upon the most barbaric, and inhumane circumstances known to a man.
The social services using physical violence (restrain is their words) have forced this woman to have a caesarean (they cut her up without her consent), they took (stolen) her baby away then they let her go!!!
This barbaric action has attracted world wide condemnation, forcing the president of the family division Lord Justice Mumby to contemn this inhumane and barbaric action asking for the case to be reviewed (appeal) by LJ Mumby personally.(Appeal).
Such action by the social services, concludes the fact beyond doubt that there is a proven conspiracy and illegal practices aiming to harm children and their parents, supplying children to a lucrative market under the name of private foster care.
There is no law In United Kingdom which states a local authority has the right to remove ny force a child by its mother womb.
In fact there are laws under UK common law, and international laws, that prohibits the violent intervention, without the mothers consent.
If the local authority had concerns in regards of the mothers mental capacity, they should have offered help, treatment, and in view of the fact that the mother she is a Non British citizen they should have made arrangements to repatriate mother and child to the mothers permanent Country of residence which is Italy.
Social services have forced this non British citizen to have a caesarean so they could take the baby away, they send the mother home, and they have placed the child for an adoption.
This can be seen as a “common theft” because the local authority has no authority and jurisdiction to remove this child. If the local authority meant well they should have acted honourably and liaison with the Italian authorities so the new born child to be handed to the Italian authorities.
The “Italian woman” case it is an example of the “barbaric” and anti social practices by the social services all over United kingdom.
There are many similar cases in UK that social services are forcing young mothers to have an early birth stealing the child and leaving the mother to suffer from mental and psychological injuries, without help from the local authority because the mission of today’s British social services is to ONLY remove children for commercial reasons such as profiting from these children.
The government has been aware of such facts, and the existence of private care companies such as Core Assets Limited, whose profits are reaching to £1 Billion per year, are strong enough evidence as to why this unlawful child abduction is taking place.
Case study 6¨ A young 20 years old English female becomes pregnant. She has no previous criminal record, no concerns was been raised in regards of her stability as a person and as a future mother.
She gave birth to a healthy baby girl.
The new born child was thriving in her mothers care. Her sister (the aunt of the child) was assisting the mother.
There was a family unity and bond.
Suddenly the social services without any valid reason, are visiting this young mother asking her no to stay at her mothers house (the child’s maternal grand mother).
The young mother asks for the reasons why, and the social services having unlawfully intruded the family life, they told to this young mother that, she been forbidden to take the child to her mothers house.
The reasons (or excuses) that the social services gave to this young mother were that because her mothers house was not up to the standards meaning that the house was not tidy enough, although the child and the mother were clean, as the reports are showing.
The young mother refuses to detach her self from her mother who have raised her.
When the child was 16 months old, the social services removed the child from her mother, although the child was thriving under her maternal care.
The courts having no respect for family life and no respect of the law that they should abide, they granted an interim care order in the Social services favour and the child has been put up for adoption.
What was the threshold?
Was that the child has suffered significant Harm?
Lets remind ourselves what section 31 (children’s act 1989) states:
2)A court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied:
(a) that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and
(b) that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to—
(i) the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him; or
(ii) the child’s being beyond parental control.
In this case the child (according to the social reports) was healthy well fed and well looked after by her mother.
The child was not in danger of a ”significant harm” neither this child was abused or neglected since birth.
Social services have used the established unlawful deception (the threshold) stating that the child was in danger of future emotional harm.
This means that:
in the eye of an intelligent person the local authority must have some secret scientific mechanism able to predict the future.
And if this is true then we can predict that the police forces in United Kingdom will adopt this “mechanism” and they will start arresting people on the basis that the person may in the future commits a crime of fraud, or theft or murder.
No criminal trials will required, no witness no evidence. The citizen will be sed by a special police officer, and will be taken to prison, avoiding these expensive lawyers, barristers, or trial by jury.
It may sounds like a “crazy” scenario but exactly this what is taken place right now in the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
Children are been “stolen” on the basis that they may be suffer emotionally in the future.
Although section 31 CA 1989 makes it clear that the child must have suffered a significant harm (or likely to suffer based on past evidence of abuses.).
Of course the social services (as always) are not interest to assist the mother, for the trauma that they have caused by removing her first child from her care, denying her the maternal love and maternal instincts that are natural.
The mother may suffer stress having lost her child, she may give up believing in humanity and justice. She has become a victim of barbaric state sponsored violations of her human rights because there are unscrupulous “child trading” private foster care companies that need more children in care, so to maximise their profits, and such profits are been unlawfully taken (fraud) by the British taxpayer
The mother has appealed the final order.
http://familyjustice-exposed.com
