March 2, 2014
Child 'care', Child 'Protection', Child abduction, Family Courts, Judges, McKenzie Friends, Rule of Law
Bulgaria, CCTV, Family Court, Kiev, London, MGF, Ukraine, United States
BREAKING NEWS ~ UKRAINIAN STORY
The identities of all in this piece are for the moment concealed, pending the judge’s decision on Monday
Would you send a 1 year-old American baby girl from peaceful UK to war-zone Ukraine?
This is the decision with which an Appeal Court Judge will be wrestling in her chambers on Monday 3rd March, having before her the application brought by a UK-based American father (F) for Permission to Appeal against the Leave granted last month by a High Court Judge to his UK-based Ukrainian partner (mother/M) to Permanently Remove their 1 year-old baby daughter (B) to the Ukraine.
F works for a UK-registered company and M has been a student since coming to live in UK nearly 10 years ago. They met in London in April 2010 and separated in August 2013 as an admitted result of M’s parents (maternal grandparents/MGPs) forcing M and F apart for the third time, when B was 9 months old. In September M applied to the court for an ex-parte non-molestation order using a witness statement in which M admitted in court she had made major false allegations. Since receiving this order, B has been in exclusive care of the MGPs & M with F being permitted contact a maximum of 1.5 hours, once per week until November, when the Judge ordered contact be increased to twice per week. Despite the orders of the High Court, M has manipulated the situation to curtail contact so dramatically, that B has only been able to see her Father about 50% of the time prescribed by the court.
M now wishes to return with B to live with her parents permanently in Kiev, at which point F will have no further contact with his daughter. More
January 13, 2014
BBC, Breakfast, CAFCASS, Child 'care', Child 'Protection', Family Courts, Government, Panorama, Radio 4
Anthony Douglas, BBC Breakfast, Expert witness, Family Court, GENESIS, John Hemming, John Hemming MP, Liberal Democrats, Mumsnet, Panorama, Teenage tragedy song
At long last: BBC Breakfast is reporting! John Hemming MP says:
The process is soo unfair, parents should flee the country!
The Government says:
The reform of family justice is of critical priority. They want new standards for expert witnesses and better outcomes.
But who looks at the ORIGIN of the problem? At the CAUSE and GENESIS?
What is worse:
- that Social Services are malicious,
- that ‘experts’ make mistakes
- or that the judiciary doesn’t give you fair trials?
Too little too late, as ever…
But: more tonight on the Panorama special I Want My Baby Back! John Sweeney investigates the secretive world of the family courts - a tiny reflection of the real truth and the true realities we know…
September 9, 2013
Child 'Protection', Court of Protection, Family Courts, Internet Media, Parliament, Rule of Law, YouTube
Christopher Booker, Daily Mail, Facebook, Family Court, Foster care, James Munby, President of the Family Division, The Daily Telegraph
This video tells the story of one of the many mothers, parents and grandparents with pictures that tell 1,000 words and lyrics that ought to be taken to heart!
AND: there’s hope:
- Please write and talk to your MP about our petition before the House of Commons Children Placed in Foster Care and whether s/he supports you; this is a first step towards ‘ethical elections’ for an ‘ethical Parliament’!
- Sir James Munby, the President of the Family Division, made this remarkable judgement re Baby J on 27 June 2013, thanks to the Father who dared to video how the baby was taken and used Facebook to blame Staffordshire Council,
- This judgement made news recently:
Paragraph 32 says:
It is vital that public confidence in the family justice system is maintained or, if eroded, restored. There is a clear and obvious public interest in maintaining the confidence of the public at large in the courts. It is vitally important, if the administration of justice is to be promoted and public confidence in the courts maintained, that justice be administered in public – or at least in a manner which enables its workings to be properly scrutinised – so that the judges and other participants in the process remain visible and amenable to comment and criticism. This principle, as the Strasbourg court has repeatedly reiterated, is protected by both Article 6 and Article 10 of the Convention. It is a principle of particular importance in the context of care and other public law cases.
Use this judgement! Refer to it – together with the letter of the Minister who keeps repeating: the Law is clear. We just must make sure that the law is ADHERED to and COMPLIED with!!!
August 6, 2013
Court of Protection, Family Courts, Mental Capacity, Rule of Money
British Airways, Court of Protection, Family Court, Family Division, High Court judge, High Court of Justice, Len, Len Lawrence
Len Lawrence is a retired British Aerospace pilot who suffers from the poisoning of inhaling the fumes of aeroplanes. Their organophosphates were also responsible for killing thousands of farmers who were forced to dip their sheep – such as George Wescott who has miraculously survived so far.
Unfortunately, victimisation does NOT encourage official institutions to HELP and SUPPORT, let alone COMPENSATE, as suggested by our Government as Compensator of Last Resort.
No. The ‘culture’ of the ‘people processing industry‘ is one of
In the Judiciary, this means:-
- ‘professionals’ such as judges and Court staff get paid by the public purse;
- they commit ‘white collar crimes’ [British understatement for stories you can't make up];
- Royal Charters are the ticket to immunity from prosecution;
- ‘amateurs’ become victims of such crimes and seek ‘justice’ with ‘legal professionals’;
- these tend to be ‘solicitors from hell‘ or ‘bent judges‘ in a hierarchy of courts that is difficult to understand;
- however, after years of observation, Family Courts and the Court of Protection seem to be the epitome of institutionalised hypocrisy aka perfidious Albion. More
July 29, 2013
Child 'Protection', Daily Mail, Early Day Motion, Internet Media, John Hemming MP, McKenzie Friends, The Times
Barnardo, Christopher Booker, Daily Mail, Early Day Motion, Family Court, John Hemming, Martin Narey, Telegraph
Christopher Booker keeps covering in The Telegraph what’s happening in Family Courts to ruin families’ lives.
Over 1,500 people signed that their secrecy should be lifted now.
In that spirit, he writes:
But The Times and the Daily Mail thought that this secrecy is being lifted by judges publishing some judgements – after secret hearings. A day later, Martin Narey claims that Family courts don’t take enough children into care, while parents and grandparents are protesting and petitioning all over the country! Look at this Dossier of Evidence!
Hence we are neither amused nor do we agree with the mainstream press. And we are far from alone. Ian Josephs, veteran watchdog of child snatching since the 1960s, writes:
“The justice dealt out by family courts will still be vastly inferior to that of the criminal courts, until the two are bound by the same rules. In my opinion,that is precisely what should happen. I make 12 points to illustrate this:-
- Judges will still find “compelling reasons” not to publish controversial judgements. Their judgements are 99% in favour of local authorities so parents views will NOT be published.
- The public(including grandparents and relatives of parents) will still be excluded from family courts.
- Mothers whose babies have been taken at birth will still be threatened with jail if they” go public”. Forced adoption will uniquely in the UK continue “big time” as a major government target.
- More children will still be taken for emotional abuse (or risk of it !) than those removed for both sex abuse and physical abuse added together.
- The media will still be forbidden to name parents who want to protest openly and publicly, waive anonymity like rape victims and use their own names.
- Children taken into care will still have their mobiles and laptops confiscated to isolate them from family and friends. Conversation with visiting parents will still be strictly censored.
- Children in care receiving visits will still be forbidden to report to parents abuse by fosterers, care workers or social workers, and nearly half will still end up in jail or as sex workers.
- Agencies like Barnardos and N.F.A (founded by 2 social workers and sold for £130million+) will still make fortunes from recruiting fosterers and adoptive parents.
- Many foreign visitors who are single parents here for a holiday or to meet with relatives will if accused by uk social services of neglect etc be prevented from returning home to face social services in their homelands and their children will still be taken for forced adoption in the UK.
- Pregnant women fleeing the UK before any court proceedings start will still be tracked down in foreign countries by the SS who will often start proceedings abroad to recover the children for forced adoption or long term fostering in the UK.
- Judges will continue to issue injunctions forbidding parents who have committed no crime from contacting directly or indirectly their own children for periods of many years.
- PUNISHMENT WITHOUT CRIME will continue to be inflicted on parents, as experts (described as hired guns in Prof Jane Ireland’s report for the government)predict risk of harm to children who are then adopted.
Nothing much will change…..
THE JUDGES KNOW THE SYSTEM IS ROTTEN BUT THEY DO NOT WANT TO REFORM.”
The titles of recent articles by Christopher Booker in The Telegraph make it also clear:
And then there is the Nigerian press debating the rights of girls to be a child rather than become bride:
Remember that the worst of all child snatching cases is the Nigerian family whose seven children were taken: five at home, one after the birth in hospital, one in prison – for the parents were sentenced to seven years imprisonment – in the most farcical of all staged court cases – with a rigged jury!
And here’s the latest video by Nigel Cooper whose daughter was kidnapped from Belgium.
July 6, 2013
Early Day Motion, Internet Media, John Hemming MP, YouTube
Court of Protection, European Parliament, Family Court, Israel, James Munby, Len Lawrence, Official Solicitor, United States
Len Lawrence is a retired air pilot who made this video to bring to the attention of the President of the Family Courts and the Court of Protection what is occurring ‘under his radar’:
- Many people are ‘certified’, i.e. declared not to have ‘mental capacity’, without medical assessments, under the jurisdiction of the Official Solicitor, Alastair Pitbardo and his Deputy, May Maughan;
- Certificates of Incapacity bear no serial number. They cannot be tracked.
- This is of great concern as Frances Gibb wrote on 4 April 2013 in The Times Life or death: man who helps courts decide, i.e. how the Official Solicitor acts as ‘litigation friend’ for the vulnerable in the Court of Protection.
- Len is particularly concerned for the number of parents who are declared not to have capacity so that the Official Solicitor can decide that their children can be adopted away from them:
- without informing the Court of Protection and making medical and financial decisions as in Len’s case.
A High Court Judge said these documents are not to be disclosed to the Family Division. But Len is a victim of white collar crimes who has become a ‘public interest advocate’ like many others. More
July 3, 2013
Corruption, House of Lords, Human Rights Convention, Mental Capacity, Select Committee
Crime, Family Court, House of Lords, Len Lawrence, Mental Capacity Act, Mental Capacity Act 2005, Mental health, Official Solicitor
Great minds think alike: yesterday we were complaining to John Hemming MP about the failures and abuse of the Mental Capacity Act in our meeting on Secrecy as the cloak for Criminality? John Hemming comments on his blog on 24 June 2013 and links to an article he wrote for The Independent.
At the same time the House of Lords Select Committee on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 has published a Call for Evidence and the UK Human Rights Blog writes about it here.
Please send your ‘well documented cases’ to email@example.com before 2 September 2013.
In my observation, this is what things boil down to in the broad spectrum of ‘white collar crimes’:
- the secrecy of family courts is meant to ‘protect’; but the reality is that it is used to steal children, even though there may be cases where parents are not fit to parent; but what the care system does AGAINST children and parents by far outweighs what it does FOR them
- to declare somebody not to have ‘mental capacity’ is meant to ‘protect’ the person by letting somebody else make decisions on their behalf; but in reality it is used by the Official Solicitor and his legal colleagues to steal assets. More