Thursday, 24 September 2009

Is it right to take children away from parents at birth?

The head of Barnardo's, Martin Narey, has called for more babies to be taken away at birth from parents who have "failed" with their previous children.
It follows fresh concern over a generation of "feral" children in the wake of the case of the two boys aged 10 and 12 who battered, tortured and sexually abused two other children in Edlington near Doncaster.
The pair had come from a chaotic home where they were exposed to drink, drugs and violence from an early age and had a long history of involvement with police and social services.
In the words of the father of one of their victims: "My kid plays with Lego... they play with knives."
Mr Narey, who as a former director general of the Prison Service knows the criminal justice system inside out, believes that some families simply cant be fixed and wants the authorities to move in earlier to give children a chance of a better life.
He said that social services should not be afraid of taking children into care and ultimately sending them to new families.
It sounds terrible, but I think we try too hard with birth parents," he said.
"If we really cared about the interests of the child, we would take children away as babies and put them into permanent adoptive families, where we know they will have the best possible outcome.
Ann Widdecombe, the former prisons minister, has praised Mr Narey as courageous.
"We all know what we are talking about here, we are talking about families where there is a persistent pattern of failure," she said.
But others warned against "nanny state interference".

Britain’s child protection laws create ‘spoilt generation’ with no respect for adults or authority, psychologist claims

Britains child protection laws have created a spoilt generation with no respect for adults or authority, according to a prominent psychologist.
Dr Aric Sigman claims young people are growing up unprepared for the realities of adult life as parents, teachers and police have lost the power to discipline them.
His new book cites as proof a leaflet left in courts asking visitors politely not to carry knives.
Dr Sigman who believes under-threes should be banned from watching television and fears that social networking websites such as Facebook may damage the health says the sense of entitlement now enjoyed by children is contributing to increased crime, obesity, underage pregnancy and binge-drinking on the countrys streets.
Ahead of the party conference season, he wants politicians to draw up laws that would curtail young peoples rights and reassert the authority of adults, as well as encouraging mothers to care for their babies at home and introducing compulsory civic service.
Dr Sigman, an Associate Fellow of the British Psychological Society, said: Authority is a basic health requirement in children's lives. But, while children have become increasingly 'empowered' in terms of legislation and rights, far from being protected, they are actually suffering in ways that could never have been foreseen.
Children of the spoilt generation are used to having their demands met by their parents and others in authority, and that in turn makes them unprepared for the realities of adult life - this has consequences in every area of society, from the classroom to the workplace, the streets to the criminal courts and rehabilitation clinics.
There is now an urgent moral and legal imperative incumbent upon legislators to help restore authority to children's lives. Adults must be legally empowered to deal with both their own and other people's children without the fear that they may be confronted or prosecuted for doing so.

Haringey Council under pressure over social services

CALLS are growing for a public inquiry into Haringey Council's social services department, in the wake of revelations a child was placed in foster care with relatives of a Muslim terrorist.
Lynne Featherstone, MP for Hornsey and Wood Green, reacted with horror to the disclosure, and demanded answers from council chiefs.
She said: We need answers now to ensure that no other child has, or will, be in danger when they are placed in care.
After the awful tragedy of Baby Peter and the clear failures made by Haringey Council, these new revelations show further evidence of the need for a root and branch review of Haringey Councils childrens services that only a Public Inquiry can provide.
The council is under pressure after it was revealed a child was place into foster care with relatives of Abdullah Ahmed Ali, one of three men convicted of conspiracy to murder for planning to kill thousands by blowing up planes using liquid bombs disguised as soft drinks cans.
Shadow Children's Secretary Michael Gove MP, shadow children's secretary, has called for immediate disclosure of the vetting procedures in place for foster parents in Haringey.
He said: Its truly frightening to think that the social services department of this council placed a child with a terrorist, and even more so to think that the child could
Haringey Council has been criticised for placing a child in the care of relatives of a terrorist have been used as part of the foil for the bomb plot.

We need to protect Whistle Blowing social workers

Too many social workers' careers have crumbled after they raised concerns
In social work at present it never rains but it pours. At a time of continuing public scrutiny, the last thing the sector needs is to be told that nearly half of those frontline social workers who plucked up courage to blow the whistle about poor practice or workplace problems subsequently reported that their employer failed to tackle the issues raised.
The findings, in a survey of more than 500 social workers by the General Social Care Council, confirms what many staff already know. Too often raising concerns at work, never mind blowing the whistle, is a bad career move.
However, 45% worried that their employer would not take action if they raised concerns about a colleague, and nearly half of those who had reported problems about colleagues or "operational difficulties" said their employer had taken no action.
The GSCC has had bad press recently, but the publication of this survey ought to earn it a few bonus marks, not least the GSCC's acceptance that victimisation and career damage were the most common fears of those who said they would not speak up.
Unfortunately this is nothing new. There is a long roll call of those social workers whose careers nosedived after raising concerns, most recently Nevres Kemal whose whistleblowing in Haringey was ignored and led to her unfair dismissal when it ought to have set alarm bells ringing.
The survey results were published on the day that the Unison convenor in Doncaster who has been repeatedly critical of the culture within the council was suspended immediately after speaking out about what he alleged were budgetary pressures distorting professional decisions in child protection.
The failure of staff to whistleblow in the NHS cost dozens of lives at Mid Staffs and Maidstone hospitals in recent years. In social care, the costs are less obvious but no less disastrous. Although social workers and their managers are required as a condition of continued registration to highlight concerns and speak up for those they work with, the inexorable pressure on resources, excessive caseloads and inappropriate delegation of work are a potentially lethal cocktail.
The pressures go to the top. I have spoken to a number of very senior managers who have expressed their concerns at the consequences of questioning budgets and unsafe or unethical resource led decisions. One told me "you can spell out the consequences of inadequate budgets but if you keep waving shrouds, you'll eventually have a P45 waved back at you". Their reluctance to speak out is despite the fact that they would automatically have statutory protection as whistleblowers should they suffer detriment as a result.

Bonnie Lewis Kidnapped By The State They Gagged UK Column And No2Abuse On This Story Copy And Paste It All Over The internet

Bonnie Lewis Kidnapped by the State
Investigation into the scandalous abuse of a young girl by the Neath Port Talbot State Child
Protection Machinery.
As Social Services get power to section parents as mentally ill - why every parent in Britain should
be fighting for the safety of their children and Child Courts that are open to the full Public scrutiny.
Sick, in constant pain, and frightened after months of medical incompetence, 12 year old Bonnie
Lewis was deliberately and deceitfully taken from her mother by Port Talbot Social Services.
Their aim? Probably to meet government fostering and adoption targets, which reward Councils.
And to help the NHS cover up medical blunders.
This true story is a wake-up call to every parent in UK. Every child is now at risk of kidnapping
by the State, as Social Services can manipulate the law with impunity. Recent new
draconian laws also give social workers powers to section parents who fight back as being
mentally ill. They can then be incarcerated indefinitely. Welcome to the Blair - Brown created
UK soviet. Secret and corrupt courts, mental institutions and collusion between public authorities,
NHS and police.
In our June edition we printed the harrowing story of a very sick young girl called Bonnie.
Kidnapped at gunpoint by police in Florida, the US authorities had in fact been duped' by a
conspiracy of lies concocted by Neath Port Talbot Social Services, Bonnie's loving mother and
grandfather looked on totally helpless as their daughter was taken into care in UK. She never
lived with them again. SS officials used falsified evidence, unlawful passports, and operated in a
deceitful collusion with Hospitals, Courts, Foreign & Commonwealth Office and MPs. Local
police assisted the process.
Devious Social Services staff duped US Social Services into believing that Bonnie had been
diagnosed as suffering from Maunchausen by Proxy, and they submitted a pick up order to
the US authorities, before flying to Florida to kidnap Bonnie.
Even Judge Evans, stated in his had made saying that the child should not be removed from the
jurisdiction was in fact made the day after the child had in fact left the jurisdiction. He added..
and I wanted to make it abundantly clear [to the US Authorities] that I said as far as I was concerned
firstly the child had already left when I made that order so it didnt seem to me that there
was any breach of that order. The judge also indicated that he only had information supplied
by Ms Rzezniczek.
The Judges words clearly indicate that Mrs Lewis and her father had not breached any order
in taking Bonnie to the USA. In that case the question has to be asked - on what authority
did Neath Port Talbot SS and Ms Rzezniczek obtain a passport for Bonnie, and under what
authority did they then take Bonnie from her mother in the USA.
Mrs Rzezniczek Head of Neath Port Talbot Children and Young People Services. Her
responsibilities include leading on child protection, looked after children, fostering and adoption.
Working towards closer relationships with schools and health agencies to deliver a more integrated
service for children and families.
This action, taken without proper legal authority, mirrors the recent admission that Birmingham
Social Services sent five children to the Jersey childrens care home without the necessary
court orders.
After personal investigation, Neath Port Talbot Cllr Davies was prepared to write in a personal
statement dated 2002....
I believe that we [Neath Port Talbot Borough Council] were not entitled to go there
(USA), we relied on Orders that were invalid and there is a possibility that we may have
misled the Courts when those original orders were made.
These are very serious allegations by Cllr Davies, but what action he took inside the Council
is unclear. Allegedly he was threatened.
The kidnap followed major medical mistakes and incompetence in South Wales hospitals.
Passed from one hospital to the next, with no diagnosis or treatment, the desperate mother
eventually sought help from Social Services. This was a huge mistake, which was ultimately
to result in Bonnies kidnap by the SS.
Yet from the time that she was taken by Social Services, Bonnie remained in pain. The same
pain for which her mother and grandfather had worked tirelessly to obtain a proper diagnosis
and treatment. What parent wouldnt?
The mothers reward for her justifiable parental concern was to be branded mentally unwell
and to have her child taken by the State. In doing so, SS officials callously brushed off the
daughters terror at the kidnap in Florida. Then an ordinary social worker, Julie Rzezniczek
described Bonnies trauma at being forcibly taken from her family as being....Tearful..
In the subsequent Contract for Contact, Social Services deliberately and specifically prevented
any discussion between Mrs Lewis and her daughter concerning Bonnies health, illness
or pain. Letters from Bonnie all had to be given to Ms Rzezniczek before they were passed on.
Denied free speech, Bonnie did manage to smuggle out harrowing letters detailing her pain
and longing to come home. None of these were taken into account by Social Services or the
Courts. Blocked behind a Barnados guardian, this little girl was no longer permitted to show
love for her family, or express her feelings.
Bonnie has still not been re-united with her mother. Now adult, she remains held and apparently
controlled in a strange world of Social Services contacts, who have aggressively blocked
attempts by the family to see their daughter.
At the age of 16 Bonnie met her Grandfather in the street. This was the man she had loved
and thought the world of. As he greeted her, she shrank back, and warned him....Granddad, dont
come near me. Theyll know. Theyll know. You mustn't. Sensing his granddaughter's distress,
and fearful for her, he walked on. Programmed and controlled by Neath Port Talbot SS, Bonnie
was now lost in a psychological prison called British child protection. Her strange
was, and still is, totally contrary to the loving letters which she smuggled to her family.
Just what did the SS do to this childs mind?
The June UK Column story produced instant response from the general public. Telephone
calls from parents reporting yet more SS child snatch cases, further information on the Bonnie
case (including allegations of threats by police officers), calls and letters of support for
the work of the paper, demands by Port Talbot Council that they did not want more copies of
the Column.
A few members of the public couldnt believe that the story was true. And this is a critical
point. Not only is Bonnies story true, but the facts of the case are mirrored in thousands of
other cases of child stealing by the state that have occurred in UK over the last 30 years.
Something evil is at work in Great Britain, and it is targeting our children. Just consider
the revelation that Birmingham Social services sent children to Jersey, and now has no record
of them. Most worryingly this is an evil backed and supported by top level government ministers
using secret family courts.
The UK Column promised to continue to help the Lewis family expose the truth. We are
therefore publishing excerpts and quoting from the official documents and letters concerning
the case. Painstakingly obtained by the family, these have all been duplicated for safekeeping.
It is this evidence which must be brought into the light, if our children are to be safely brought
up by their loving families, and not by an increasingly domineering and prescriptive state
The original charges made by the UK Column against Neath Port Talbot Social Services
and local hospitals included:
Failure to diagnose a serious illness. Removal of a healthy appendix by Neath Hospital
with no license to operate.
Cover-up of the severe post operative abscess. Excessive prescription of drugs, some not approved
for use on children. Negligent prescription of oral morphine. Incorrect discharge and prescription
forms. Confused and incompetent hospital referrals, examination and treatment. False denial of
Bonnies pain by Doctors and Social Workers, in
Instead of supporting Mrs Lewis to obtain proper treatment for Bonnie, evidence shows
a number of doctors conspired with Neath Port Talbot Social Services to silence the mother by
branding her mentally ill / unstable and taking Bonnie into care.
Not happy with destroying the family, Social Services then failed to treat Bonnie and left her
in pain and isolated from her family .
Bonnies smuggled letters (actual handwritten letters opposite page), show her trauma and
ongoing pain at the hand of cold callous Social Services minders. The following letters are in
her own words. March 19th 1998 ...they are the only things two things that I want is to be out of
pain and back home with you all.
June 1998 she says (in her own words): I love my Nan and Granddad and my pain if
I say it to my Mum they will stop contact never see you again. Julie Rzezniczek and the Guardian
have told me I am never coming home.
September 1999....Please please help me I miss you all so mum. I hate living with Julie.
I just want to be home and I am still in the same pain.

Cornwall child abuse charges, two charged

A 45-year old man arrested following a child abuse investigation by Cornwall police has been charged with 24 offences of sexual assault on a child.
He has been named as Alan Wills.
a 50-year-old man has also been charged with four offences of sexual assault on a child. He is David Beckett.
Both men will appear at Truro Crown Court on October 16 and are currently on bail.
A 29-year-old man understood to be from the Camborne area has been released without charge.

Secret agenda to score adoptions

A judge has condemned the "disgraceful" conduct of social workers over an adoption case, says Christopher Booker.
The revealing of the names of those responsible for the killing of Baby P reminded us yet again of the failure of Haringey social workers to avert the child's death. What a shocking contrast this provides to the behaviour of East Sussex social workers in the case I reported a month ago, which led to their seizure and putting out for adoption of a girl, now seven years old, from a respectable middle-class home, to the anguish of both her parents and the little girl herself.
The chief reason offered by the social workers for abducting the girl two years ago was that her home had been left in an appalling mess after a raid by RSPCA officials and 18 policemen. They ransacked the premises looking for non-existent guns, and released into the house a pack of dogs kept in kennels outside by her father, a professional dog-breeder. The parents were arrested for protesting at what was happening (the mother suffering a miscarriage while in police custody) and the social workers were summoned to remove their daughter.
Everything about this case is bizarre, not least the apparent complicity of social workers, lawyers and the courts in determining that the child should not be returned to her parents, as she wishes, but rather, after two years in foster care, sent for adoption.
I have now been able to read through many papers relating to the case, including the judgments resulting from the 74 hearings in which the parents attempted to get their daughter back. What stands out is the startling contrast between the two totally different versions of the case given by the social workers and the courts on one hand and, on the other, that presented by the parents themselves and by many who knew them. The latter include their GP, who recently wrote that he had never "encountered such a case of appalling injustice".
The most impressive document was a report by an independent social worker, based on many interviews with those involved, including the child herself and the chief social worker in charge of her. In measured terms, this made mincemeat of the council's case. Nothing about it is more suspicious than the contrast between descriptions of the "clean and tidy" home reported by those who knew the family well and the mess allegedly found by the policemen who burst into it mob-handed on the day in question.
The report found an equally glaring contrast between the social workers' insistence that the child was quite happy to have been removed from her parents, and the abundant evidence, observed at first-hand, that the little girl had an extremely good relationship with her parents and wants nothing more than to be reunited with them. The courts seem to have totally ignored this report, whose author last month expressed astonishment that the child had not been returned home.
What has also come to light is a remarkable judgment by Lord Justice Thorpe and Lord Justice Wall in the Appeal Court last year, in another case which also involved the apparently ruthless determination of East Sussex social workers to send a child for adoption. The judges were fiercely critical. The social workers' conduct, said Lord Justice Thorpe, could only reinforce the suspicions of those who believe "councils have a secret agenda to establish a high score of children they have placed for adoption".

Details on foster children kept from carers, says report by Fostering Network

Thousands of foster carers are welcoming children into their homes without being given the full facts about the childrens past, including whether they were victims of abuse.
More than half of all foster carers in Britain (51 per cent) say that in the past three years they have been given inadequate information about a child in their care, which has put themselves, their own children and even the foster child at risk.
A third of carers said that they were not told about the childs full medical requirements, almost half were not informed about a history of abuse and two thirds said that they were not made aware of a childs general behaviour.
The research was conducted by the Fostering Network, which represents the 43,000 foster carers in Britain, and comes a decade after two court rulings made clear that local authorities could be sued for failing to meet a duty of care towards foster families. Despite this, social workers are routinely failing to pass on all the necessary information despite assurances that they regard foster carers as equal partners in their work.
Robert Tapsfield, the chief executive of the Fostering Network, said that the findings were extremely worrying. The system is clearly failing to provide foster carers with the information and support they need to care for children safely, putting them, their families and the children in their care at risk, he said. It is accepted and agreed that local authorities have a duty of care to foster carers and their families, as well as to children in care. The regulations and standards are not being implemented, despite high-profile court rulings, and this is cause for great concern. Foster carers should be treated as childcare experts and equal members of the childcare workforce. They are professionals and should be recognised, respected and supported as such.
Mr Tapsfield will meet Baroness Morgan of Drefelin, the Childrens Minister, and request that she write to all local authorities to remind them of their legal duty to ensure that all foster carers are fully informed about the children in their care.
Joanna Nicolas, an independent social worker, said that problems were caused by too many placements being made in a hurry once a previous placement had broken down.
Staff were forced to fill in numerous forms, repeating the same basic information, and so did not have enough time to sit down with the new foster carer and explain the potential risks and problems, she said.
Ms Nicolas also believes that too many social workers are confused about their legal duties with regard to sharing information on a child. For many social workers it may appear like a grey area. The law makes clear that in matters of child protection, any data protection and human rights issues are overridden. But if it is a lower-level concern, such as a child in need, social workers do not have the right to share information without parental consent, so a lot of fine judgments have to be made, she said.

War on Women and Children by Maggie Tuttle

In 1943 I was born in Winston Green Prison Birmingham to a woman who called herself a mother. She was to me the wickedest woman on the planet; she was sentenced because she had gone to London heavily pregnant with me and left a two year old and three year old to look after themselves in the streets at the time my father was serving in the war. On her release from prison a judge order that I be kept at home with her to help stabilize her, my two sisters went into foster care.
So for 13 years I had to endure being beaten, starved, no education, locked for days in a room whilst she was out or away. I had no voice, and at the age of seven I jumped from the bedroom window so that I could end a terrible life; sadly at the time I lived. Who gave a damn and where were the do-gooders, and the judges?
I was just one of millions of children worldwide forced by governments to live a life that there are no words to describe to anyone, nor would anyone understand the plights of abused children, unless they have lived through the same situation.
It is a fact that apart from my two sisters in foster care, I have three other sisters buried in the Leicester cemetery and one child who she burnt in the garden.
She (I can never utter that word M as I never had a true M) left when I was 13 and since then my father who was a good man but totally influenced by her, and had been since the day he married her, suddenly gave me all the things a child should have food, care and love. But most of all he allowed me freedom of speech. Wow can you imagine I am allowed to say what I want at the age of 13?
So here we are, she has gone, and I then made a vow to myself, there will never be anyone in this world to ever rule me or my brain again. For this reason I have never once in my life taken drugs or alcohol. No man, women, politician or government will ever tell me what to do, not without an argument or after they have finished what they started out to do, which is to kill me via their system.
But tell me; has life for a child from my days changed for the better? NO, it has got worse, and still grandparents and dads have no rights, unless they can afford the courts, and in most cases they still get no rights.
Moving On
At the age of 17, I left Leicester and went to London, from where I studied music for two years. After two years I started travelling the world in show biz as a singer, and it was from here I got educated.
On my travels no matter where I was in the world, I was made aware of the childrens sufferings, maybe I kept seeing myself as a child, but my tears were there for them. You cannot go to university or sit in an office or a court and know of the torture of how children are abused and threatened that if they speak out to anyone about what is happening to them they will fear for their little lives, perhaps more beatings, sexual assaults, oh my God the pain.
I remember speaking to a lady who said she was abused by the system, locked in a room for days alone, and for a drink had to drink her own urine. She was age 5. And so it went on until she was able to run away.

Transcript of speech made to the House of Commons, by Sue Reid

It will sound more like life in Stalin'sRussia or Englands Dark Ageswhen women were convicted of witchcrafton concocted allegations, thenburned at the stake.
Yet the destruction of British familiesin the name of state childprotection has frightening similarities.
And it is being encouraged by theGovernment, the legal system, themedical establishment and above all ourby the fatally flawed social services.
In the 22 years since the Cleveland childabuse scandal, when 121children were ripped from innocentfamilies on the say-so of a maverickgroup of doctors and social workers verylittle has changed for thebetter in child protection.
If anything, things have got worse. Andat the heart of the problem arethe deceptively named family courts,which operate behind shut doors inevery town and city up and down the land.

Monday, 14 September 2009

Vetting contact rule under review

The government is to look again at how a new vetting system for those working with children will operate.
England's Children's Secretary Ed Balls said it was "tremendously important" to define "frequent or intensive" contact correctly.
He has asked the chairman of the new Independent Safeguarding Authority to review this and report by December.
The Tories said the plan was still too "vague" amid fears it could affect the running of sport and other clubs.
Mr Balls stressed the rules would not apply where, for example, parents agreed to give friends' children "a lift to school or to Cubs".
"Nor will it cover instances where parents work with children at school or a youth club on 'an occasional or one-off basis'."
He announced the reappraisal in a letter to the chairman of the Commons children, schools and families committee, Barry Sheerman.
Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: "All of this is so vague that in reality clubs and other organisations up and down the country will act to be on the safe side.
"So they'll register all of the parents who are involved even loosely. So the result is we'll get this huge expensive and cumbersome bureaucracy as well as volunteers giving up."
Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne welcomed the review as the plans "were so disproportionate that they were going to put off masses of people from volunteering".
Children's charity the NSPCC said new procedures were needed but called on the government to provide more detailed information about how the scheme would work.
It said the new scheme "must be introduced carefully, in a way that does not inadvertently penalise children, weaken community relationships, or provide parents with a false sense of security".
Mr Balls said the scheme had been introduced via legislation in parliament, following the Bichard inquiry into the murders of two schoolgirls in Soham.
It requires those working with children or with vulnerable adults, either on a paid or voluntary basis, to be on a register of suitability which employers can check.
The system will be phased in from next month and will operate in England, Wales and Northern Ireland from next year. A different scheme is being introduced in Scotland.
Mr Balls said there had generally been very strong support for the scheme during extensive consultation.
"Recently, however, some concerns have been expressed about the precise interpretation of a particular aspect of the scheme; that is, the degree of contact with children which should trigger the requirement to register," he added.
There had been "some inaccurate and misleading reports".

Friday, 11 September 2009


A doctor who was commissioned by the family courts to do research on personality disorders has revealed there are many more than first thought.
Dr Pindick was paid Pfund1000567987 by a family judge to assess thousands of parents whos children had been removed by social services.
He discovered that the new personality disorders include
loath and despise syndrome ..... a parents hatred of social workers
your all corrupt lying bastards syndrome..... a parents hatred of family courts.
stick your order up your arse syndrome....... parents refusing to be gagged.
He also discovered a new strain of turrets after observing many parents using language such as " fuck ss, fuck CAFCASS, all lying bastards, twats, Wankers "
He proclaimed these to be wildly abnormal and sectioned all parents to a mental institution on remote island in the Hebrides.
Our reporter visited the hospital and witnessed thousands of parents wearing a straight gag which is a new device fitted around the mouth to prevent them saying obscenities.

Adoption parties aim to match parents with hard-to-place children

Youngsters repeatedly passed over by potential adoptive parents are to meet families over food, drink and games.
Adoption parties that bring hard-to-place children together with prospective parents over food, drinks and games are to be held by the British Association for Adoption and Fostering.
The agency hopes that the controversial events will increase the chances of finding homes for young people repeatedly passed over by potential adoptive parents, such as those aged over five, sibling groups, children of black and minority ethnic origin, and those with mental and physical disabilities.
"It's true that these parties show we are moving up the tariff of risk in the ways we are being forced to seek out families for these children," admitted Mo O'Reilly, director of child placement for the BAAF. "But the truth is that if we don't take this step, these children face the even greater risk of remaining unplaced, perhaps for ever. The project will help children for whom all other family-finding methods have failed and who face a life of multiple moves around foster homes.
"We need to go to the next level for these children," she said. "At the moment, they're not finding families because their disadvantages are building up in the adopters' imaginations, stopping them being able to see the ordinary children behind their difficult circumstances or behaviours.
"This is not just about putting some jelly and ice-cream in a parish hall and inviting everyone along," she added. "We are going to hold these parties professionally and in the best way that we know how, and we are pretty optimistic that these parties could be a success."

Cafcass; Post-baby Peter hike in care cases continues

Applications for first four months of 2009-10 almost 75% higher than first quarter of 2008-9
Cafcass has revealed that the increase in care order applications to the family courts in the wake of the baby Peter case shows no sign of slowing, with Julys total just below the record high of June.
The family courts body received 755 section 31 care and supervision order requests in July, 270 more than in the same month last year and only 19 fewer than June 2009s record of 774.
Julys figure brings the total for the first third of the 2009-10 financial year to 2,826, almost 75% higher than the same period last year, and averages out at 707 per month, compared with 408 over the same time last year.
As well as increasing cost pressures on Cafcass, the rise in applications is hitting local authorities, who have been responsible for paying court fees of up to Pfund4,825 per case since May 2008, up from Pfund150.
Cafcass family court advisers ensure the rights of children are represented in care cases.
Care summit planned
Cafcass, the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Childrens Services plan a joint summit later in the year to discuss the trends in care applications and the impact on children and families.

PM Brown declared 'too ill to run UK'

"The Prime Minister of Great Britain is a man too ill to be holding the Office." This was the conclusion last week of a senior civil servant liaising regularly with Gordon Brown. For reasons which will become clear, the person involved will not go public with the evidence for this conclusion. The same applies to a high-ranking Treasury official who told us "In both a physical and mental sense, the Prime Minister is a very sick man, seriously disabled." Three years ago, an Opposition MP told nby "He is on extremely heavy doses of cutting-edge anti-depressants, but so far they have made little difference". And during the last fortnight, another high-ranking government source claimed "He is now on pills which restrict the foods he can eat and what he can drink. He is losing the sight of his good eye quite rapidly. It's a mess, and nobody knows what to do".
Rumours have circulated about Gordon Brown's health for a number of years. As long ago as 2004, Simon Heffer wrote in the Spectator that he displayed many signs of Asperger's syndrome: humourlessness, lack of irony and obsessional behaviour patterns. Nby itself ran a long piece in February 2007, predicting fairly accurately how Brown's rigid responses to given situations would prove to be inappropriate, and his behaviour in the end dysfunctional. We noted at the time 'If the Labour Party can organise seventy-three signatories to a document of intent named 'Anyone but Gordon', then there must be something about the man which might make him unfit to be Prime Minister'. In fact, we had already been advised by then that the PM had been on large doses of SSRI anti-depressants - the class of drugs derived from Prozac.
The overall story is well known in lobbyist circles. A senior member of this group told us that "Brown is in a very dark place. Sarah [hiswife, Mrs Brown] has begged him on several occasions to seek help, but he resists most offers of advice." Yet another popular journalist said "I'm afraid all the stories about him throwing things around and screaming at secretaries are entirely true. He behaves impeccably in public and can really turn on the charm when he needs to in private - but inside the bunker he behaves appallingly. He's also binging on junk food late at night - you can see he's gaining weight".

We Live In A Nazi World Ruled By Nazi Leaders, We Have To Stop This Genocide.

We are all aware of the Nazi eugenics programs. What we arent aware of are the chilling comparisons between the Nazi Lebensborn program and contemporary American Child Protective Services (CPS) programs. Simplistically, it can be described as follows: In the U.S. parens patriae is the legal principle used to justify state sanctioned kidnapping of children from their families in order to protect them. In Nazi Germany, the Lebensborn program was legally used to justify the kidnapping of Aryan looking children from occupied territories to be Germanized; to be raised as good Germans (younger children) or designated as breeders for the German race to produce 2 3 racially pure children then be killed (older children). But, in reality, the comparison is more complicated and more horrifying than that. PARENS PATRIAE is a legal term in American law that is defined as The right of the government to take care of minors and others who cannot legally take care of themselves.
In a Nazi booklet published by SS Gruppenfuehrer Rediess, The SS for Greater Germany with Sword and Cradle, speaking about the recently Nazi occupied country of Denmark as it related to the Lebensborn program, the German position is stated as, This people is a Germanic people, and hence it is our duty to educate its children and young people and to make the Norwegians a Nordic people again as we understand the term.
The similarity between these two principles is that a government has assumed a certain authority, either by law or by fiat, over the population. This authority can be as extensive or limited as the government chooses and as the population will endure. In both stated instances, the governments assumed authority over children.
The majority of reasonably intelligent people today recognize that Nazi attempts to designate one race as superior to others based on physical racial characteristics was nothing more than superstitious bigotry unsupported by science.
The Nazis actually created a science of racial studies, endorsed by experts and supported with manufactured scientific evidence, in order to support their pet theory that the so-called Aryan race was superior to all others.
They had panels of experts, advisory councils, college courses, and specially trained bureaucrats to develop and implement their racial hygiene policies.
This cadre of experts would devise, implement, oversee, evaluate and propagandize the various racial hygiene programs, including Lebensborn. Nazi society abounded with popular literature, textbooks, and manuals touting this most important Nazi platform. Nazi Germany was inundated with racially based propaganda which extolled the virtues of the Aryan and justified the solutions imposed on inferior races.
Of Pure Blood by Marc Hillel and Clarissa Henry is a 1976 book detailing the Nazi Lebensborn program.

Torture case raises questions over social services

The two brothers involved in the Edlington torture case were well known to social services, the police and the education service, raising questions over whether the tragedy could have been prevented.
At the time of the attack, one was subject to a supervision order after he was convicted of battery and the other was on bail charged with actual bodily harm and burglary.
And in the days before the main attack, the brothers attacked two other youngsters in Edlington.
Children's services in the South Yorkshire town have been under tremendous public scrutiny following the deaths of a number of children known to social workers.
The fact the two boys were known to the department will only increase the pressure on the council. Questions will also be asked about whether more should have been done after they attacked two other young boys in the days leading up to the main incident.
Few details have been released about social services' involvement with the two young defendants and their family. Court hearings have been told both boys were on the child protection register and both had been expelled from school. At the time of the attack, both boys had been placed in foster care in the Edlington area. They had only been there since March 10 about three weeks before the attack.

'More babies should be taken into care to protect them from poor parents'

More new-born children need to be taken into care to stop them being damaged beyond repair by poor parents, according to Martin Narey, chief executive of the children's charity Barnardo's
Mr Narey called for less focus on ''fixing families that can't be fixed'' and for social workers to be more pro-active about removing children at risk.
His comments come in the wake of last week's court case involving two young brothers from Doncaster who viciously attacked an 11-year-old boy and his nine-year-old nephew. The siblings were under the care of social services at the time.
Mr Narey told The Observer: ''We can't keep trying to fix families that are completely broken. It sounds terrible, but I think we try too hard with birth parents.
''I have seen children sent back to homes that I certainly wouldn't have sent them back to. I have been extremely surprised at decisions taken.

'Uppity' parents who challenge the authorities 'risk having children taken away'

"Uppity" parents who challenge doctors or councils over their children's upbringing are increasingly at risk of having them taken away, it has been claimed.
Local authorities are using proceedings in the family courts as "retaliation" against parents who question doctors' diagnoses of their children or challenge other decisions, according to an MP.
John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP for Birmingham Yardley, who coordinates a campaign called Justice for Families, which calls for reform of the family court system, said that the practice was becoming common.