Enfield Arts Activities Concert (24th November 2011)
Performing live in Edmonton, Enfield
Please Watch To The End & Please Leave A Comment,
Thanks!
Enfield Youth Choir
Songs sang in this Performance:-
1. I say a Little Prayer
2. Blame it on the Boogie
3. Valerie (Solo by Zoe Lisa Walton)
Name of performers in the choir!
Whitney Boateng
Shannon Edwards
Tia Harris
Fay Hollingsworth
Helen Nicolaou
Hannah Taylor
Zoe Lisa Walton…
Conductor: Sara King, Accompanist: Paula Warren
Original Songs Sang By
Aretha Franklin - I Say a Little Prayer
Jackson 5 - Blame
it on the Boogie
Amy Winehouse – Valerie
Please Watch To The End & Please Leave A Comment,
Thanks!
Tuesday, 10 January 2012
Sunday, 17 July 2011
10,000 CHILDREN RIPPED FROM THEIR FAMILIES 'Stop Injustice Now'
AT LEAST 10,000 young children have been dragged from their families and needlessly adopted due to a flawed target at the heart of Government, it was claimed last night.
Vulnerable children were handed over in their thousands under a New Labour crusade driven by artificial adoption targets.
A top Oxford academic yesterday branded the policy as Tony Blair’s worst mistake.
The expert in social work who did not want to be named said: “Forget the Iraq War. “Blair’s adoption target was the reason I left the Labour party.” Last night backing came from MP John Hemming, who said the policy led to the unnecessary adoption of 1,000 children every year.
He claims the target set 11 years ago was flawed from the outset because it contained a fundamental error of maths and he has called for a full Parliamentary inquiry to prevent further damage.
FULL STORY:-
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/259355/10-000-children-ripped-from-their-families
Sunday, 6 March 2011
Unreliable Evidence, Social Services Evidence is becoming Unreliable in the Family Courts.
Listen to the Full Broadcast:
http://www.crystalwalton.com/Me_and_the_Media.html#Unreliable_Evidence,_Social_Services_in_the_Family_Courts
Unreliable Evidence, Social Services Evidence is becoming Unreliable in the Family Courts.
BBC Radio 4 Reports, An increase in children going in to care, against the wishes of parents and based false Social Services evidence.
Social services have to make up false evidence so they can meet new government targets.
This means children like baby P (Peter Connelly) are left with abusive parents and more children are taken in to care away from inocent parents like Sarah and Ian Walton (These are there real names).
Listen to the Full Broadcast:
http://www.crystalwalton.com/Me_and_the_Media.html#Unreliable_Evidence,_Social_Services_in_the_Family_Courts
http://www.crystalwalton.com/Me_and_the_Media.html#Unreliable_Evidence,_Social_Services_in_the_Family_Courts
Unreliable Evidence, Social Services Evidence is becoming Unreliable in the Family Courts.
BBC Radio 4 Reports, An increase in children going in to care, against the wishes of parents and based false Social Services evidence.
Social services have to make up false evidence so they can meet new government targets.
This means children like baby P (Peter Connelly) are left with abusive parents and more children are taken in to care away from inocent parents like Sarah and Ian Walton (These are there real names).
Listen to the Full Broadcast:
http://www.crystalwalton.com/Me_and_the_Media.html#Unreliable_Evidence,_Social_Services_in_the_Family_Courts
Tuesday, 22 February 2011
Met accused of 'campaign' against shaken baby witnesses
Listen to the full Broadcast
http://crystalwalton.com/Me_and_the_Media.html#Met_accused_of_
Three leading pathologists have accused the Metropolitan Police of attempting to discredit them as expert witnesses in so-called Shaken Baby court cases. About 250 Non-Accidental Head Injury (NAHI) cases go to court every year, with the outcome often relying on a expert testimony from pathologists. The Royal College of Pathologists has called for an inquiry into the claims. Responding to the allegations, the Met said the force was "completely committed to the judicial process". The scientific debate over NAHI has grown increasingly acrimonious over the past 10 years.At first it was played out in select gatherings of pathologists before ending up in courtrooms and inquests up and down the country. That debate turned toxic, with one side accusing the other of proselytising suspect scientific theories. Now, senior consultant pathologists have accused the Metropolitan Police and others of an orchestrated strategy to discredit them as expert witnesses for parents and carers accused of murdering their children.Dr Waney Squier, Dr Irene Scheimberg and Dr Marta Cohen say their evidence is based on a speech made by Detective Inspector Colin Welsh, a lead investigator with the Met's Child Abuse Investigation Command.
FULL STORY:
http://crystalwalton.com/Me_and_the_Media.html#Met_accused_of_
http://crystalwalton.com/Me_and_the_Media.html#Met_accused_of_
Three leading pathologists have accused the Metropolitan Police of attempting to discredit them as expert witnesses in so-called Shaken Baby court cases. About 250 Non-Accidental Head Injury (NAHI) cases go to court every year, with the outcome often relying on a expert testimony from pathologists. The Royal College of Pathologists has called for an inquiry into the claims. Responding to the allegations, the Met said the force was "completely committed to the judicial process". The scientific debate over NAHI has grown increasingly acrimonious over the past 10 years.At first it was played out in select gatherings of pathologists before ending up in courtrooms and inquests up and down the country. That debate turned toxic, with one side accusing the other of proselytising suspect scientific theories. Now, senior consultant pathologists have accused the Metropolitan Police and others of an orchestrated strategy to discredit them as expert witnesses for parents and carers accused of murdering their children.Dr Waney Squier, Dr Irene Scheimberg and Dr Marta Cohen say their evidence is based on a speech made by Detective Inspector Colin Welsh, a lead investigator with the Met's Child Abuse Investigation Command.
FULL STORY:
http://crystalwalton.com/Me_and_the_Media.html#Met_accused_of_
Thursday, 13 January 2011
Provisional Skeleton Argument Of Julian Paul Assange (Mr Assange, Wikileaks)
Read The Full Provisional Skeleton Argument
Of
Julian Paul Assange (Mr Assange, Wikileaks)
Extradition Hearing of the 7th & 8th Febuary 2011, In The Royal Courts of Justice.
Extradition Hearing of the 7th & 8th Febuary 2011, In The Royal Courts of Justice.
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B7-vo-lUScJDYjg5MDA2YmQtODYwYS00ZTdjLTg2OWQtNGM1MmUzZGVkZmFm&hl=en
Friday, 19 November 2010
Wrongly Acused of Child Abuse
How one family coped with a traumatic accusation of harming their child
When Cassie Gould and Wayne Halligan took their sick son, Cavern, to hospital they were falsely accused of harming him - then began 11 months of hell as they tried to get their baby back. Being accused of abuse not only meant they lost significant s...tages of Cavern's development, but also caused a great strain on their relationship, so much so that they split up for a while.Now back with their son and back together, they are enjoying parenthood once more, but say nothing can ever bring back that lost time with their baby.Cassie and Wayne join us today to talk about their ordeal, and resident agony aunt Denise Robertson gives her opinion on the situation, and advice on how they can move on.
http://thismorning.itv.com/thismorning/life/wrongly-accused-abuse
This case is almost the same as what happened to myself.
My first wife and I were accused of hurting my son, Enfield Social Services told me to leave the family home and I was only allowed contact with someone being present. They caused us to divorce. I still have contact with both of my children from that marriage. I moved on and married Sarah, we had a child 'Crystal Walton' she was removed and has now been adopted. I was never charge or convicted of any wrong doing. I also sort to clear my name and suceeded, but 'Crystal Walton' has never been returned!
http://thismorning.itv.com/thismorning/life/wrongly-accused-abuse
This case is almost the same as what happened to myself.
My first wife and I were accused of hurting my son, Enfield Social Services told me to leave the family home and I was only allowed contact with someone being present. They caused us to divorce. I still have contact with both of my children from that marriage. I moved on and married Sarah, we had a child 'Crystal Walton' she was removed and has now been adopted. I was never charge or convicted of any wrong doing. I also sort to clear my name and suceeded, but 'Crystal Walton' has never been returned!
To read Crystal Walton's full story please visit http://www.crystalwalton.com/
Please remember to sign her Guestbook, THANKS! XXXXX
Friday, 22 October 2010
The Scandal Of The Baby Snatchers
The Original News Story Of Crystal Walton
(Before any gagging orders!)
Crystal Walton; A pawn in a shameful adoption system!
Two-year-old Crystal Walton smiles at the camera, her blonde hair blowing in the wind. The photograph of the enchanting little girl looks as though it should have pride of place in a treasured family album. Yet nothing could be further from the truth.
This picture was used to advertise Crystal's availability for adoption - appearing in a tabloid national newspaper with an accompanying blurb describing her as a "clever, lively, cheerful toddler" who likes puzzles and swimming.
A phone number was printed alongside for anyone interested in becoming her new parents.
Perhaps a million people saw the heart-breaking advert which had been placed by a London council, and streams of callers offered to take care of her.
Yet that is not the whole story. The truth is that Crystal had become a pawn in an adoption system that should shame
In 2000, Tony Blair set new targets to raise the number of children being adopted by 50 per cent - to a total of 5,400 every year.
He promised millions of pounds to councils that managed to achieve the targets. Some have already received more than £20million for successfully pushing up the number of adoptions.
This sweeping shake-up in social policy was designed for all the right reasons: to get older children languishing in care homes into happy new families with parents.
But the reforms didn't work. Encouraged by the promise of extra cash, councils began to earmark those children who were most easy to place in adoptive homes - babies and cute toddlers such as Crystal.
This picture was used to advertise Crystal's availability for adoption - appearing in a tabloid national newspaper with an accompanying blurb describing her as a "clever, lively, cheerful toddler" who likes puzzles and swimming.
A phone number was printed alongside for anyone interested in becoming her new parents.
Perhaps a million people saw the heart-breaking advert which had been placed by a London council, and streams of callers offered to take care of her.
Yet that is not the whole story. The truth is that Crystal had become a pawn in an adoption system that should shame
In 2000, Tony Blair set new targets to raise the number of children being adopted by 50 per cent - to a total of 5,400 every year.
He promised millions of pounds to councils that managed to achieve the targets. Some have already received more than £20million for successfully pushing up the number of adoptions.
This sweeping shake-up in social policy was designed for all the right reasons: to get older children languishing in care homes into happy new families with parents.
But the reforms didn't work. Encouraged by the promise of extra cash, councils began to earmark those children who were most easy to place in adoptive homes - babies and cute toddlers such as Crystal.
500 parents in legal action to win back 'stolen' children taken into care (Sunday Mirror)
This Story Has Been Re-Instated, Legal Action Be Damned
Part of the 'Crystal Walton Story' along with other families!
Full Story:http://www.crystalwalton.com/Me_and_the_Media.html#500_parents_in_legal_action_to_win_back_
Hundreds of heartbroken parents who claim social services "stole" their children have launched a legal bid to win them back.
The 500 mums and dads say it is impossible to get justice in the UK and have turned to an international court.
Families argue they are the victims of social workers who are over-zealous after cases such as Victoria Climbié and Baby Peter and a process in family courts which is excessively secretive.
They also say that the courts rely too heavily on the opinions of experts or social workers and that it is wrong that there is no right of appeal. The UK now has 64,000 children in care...a 6pc rise since 2006.
If the Court of Human Rights in The Hague backs the new case, it could let parents bring proceedings against councils - and get their children back.
The 500 mums and dads say it is impossible to get justice in the UK and have turned to an international court.
Families argue they are the victims of social workers who are over-zealous after cases such as Victoria Climbié and Baby Peter and a process in family courts which is excessively secretive.
They also say that the courts rely too heavily on the opinions of experts or social workers and that it is wrong that there is no right of appeal. The UK now has 64,000 children in care...a 6pc rise since 2006.
If the Court of Human Rights in The Hague backs the new case, it could let parents bring proceedings against councils - and get their children back.
Full Story:http://www.crystalwalton.com/Me_and_the_Media.html#500_parents_in_legal_action_to_win_back_
Sunday, 10 October 2010
500 parents in legal action to win back 'stolen' children taken into care
Part of the 'Crystal Walton Story' along with other families!
This Article Has Been Remove Under Protest and Threat of Legal Action!
Monday, 27 September 2010
The rank hypocrisy of family court judges
The Crystal Walton Story!
I was gratified this week to find that an article I wrote in December has been quoted in full by the Court of Appeal. (I only hope there were no typos.) It is flattering that Mr Justice Munby takes The Times seriously. It is of more import that he decided to publish his judgment on the case that I wrote about six months ago. For it is only when judges make their reasoning public that we can start to debate the grounds on which children should be taken into care.
A few long-suffering readers may remember that this peculiar case concerns a woman whose baby was removed by social workers, not because the child came to any harm but because there was a suspicion that her father might have injured a child from his previous marriage. That suspicion was never proven, no charges were ever brought and the child of the earlier marriage was never removed. But a woman who everyone agrees is blameless has lost her only child – for ever – because she is deemed to be besotted with a man who may pose a danger.
As so often in these situations, there are complex allegations and flawed characters. In my view it is questionable whether the father’s inability to conceal his loathing of social workers makes him unsuitable for parenthood. Mr Justice Munby has decided on several grounds not to grant an appeal. The case may still go to Strasbourg, but it will be too late: the child will have been adopted.
A few long-suffering readers may remember that this peculiar case concerns a woman whose baby was removed by social workers, not because the child came to any harm but because there was a suspicion that her father might have injured a child from his previous marriage. That suspicion was never proven, no charges were ever brought and the child of the earlier marriage was never removed. But a woman who everyone agrees is blameless has lost her only child – for ever – because she is deemed to be besotted with a man who may pose a danger.
As so often in these situations, there are complex allegations and flawed characters. In my view it is questionable whether the father’s inability to conceal his loathing of social workers makes him unsuitable for parenthood. Mr Justice Munby has decided on several grounds not to grant an appeal. The case may still go to Strasbourg, but it will be too late: the child will have been adopted.
Family courts are the B-side of the law
The Crystal Walton Story!
What a strange, fumbling kind of justice system it is that condemns a woman as an unfit mother for the heinous crime of trusting her husband. Yet this is what seems to have happened in a recent case that I feel compelled to write about, even though legal restrictions force me to leave out much of the detail.
The nub of the case is this. A woman, let us call her Janie, gave birth to her first and only child a year ago. That baby was taken away from her and subsequently put up for adoption. Not because of her own failure to care for the baby — her own love and care never seem to have been in question. No. She has lost her baby because of a suspicion that her husband John may have injured another child in his previous marriage almost ten years ago.
The suspicion was no more than that. John was never charged with anything, let alone convicted. Social workers were never sufficiently worried to take that first child into care. Since his divorce John has shared custody of that child perfectly amicably with his ex-wife. Yet the same local authority which left the first child with him has forbidden him to see this new baby. And his new wife, despite having nothing to do with the first case, may never see her baby again.
The nub of the case is this. A woman, let us call her Janie, gave birth to her first and only child a year ago. That baby was taken away from her and subsequently put up for adoption. Not because of her own failure to care for the baby — her own love and care never seem to have been in question. No. She has lost her baby because of a suspicion that her husband John may have injured another child in his previous marriage almost ten years ago.
The suspicion was no more than that. John was never charged with anything, let alone convicted. Social workers were never sufficiently worried to take that first child into care. Since his divorce John has shared custody of that child perfectly amicably with his ex-wife. Yet the same local authority which left the first child with him has forbidden him to see this new baby. And his new wife, despite having nothing to do with the first case, may never see her baby again.
Friday, 17 September 2010
Parents of forcibly adopted baby condemn 100 per cent success record of Enfield’s social workers
I have no problem in naming ourselves; This is the story of Crystal Walton (My Daughter), Sarah Walton (My Wife) Ian Walton (My Self)
Questions have been raised after 100 per cent of applications by Enfield’s social workers to forcibly remove children from their families were approved by the courts in the past four years.Figures obtained by the Advertiser under the Freedom of Information Act show that in the past four years, every single one of the 43 placement orders Enfield Council has applied for has been granted by the courts.
A placement order authorises a local authority to place a child for adoption where there is no parental consent, or where consent should be dispensed with.
The controversial power of forced adoption is intended to safeguard children from parental abuse or neglect, but serious concerns have been raised over its widespread use and lack of transparency.
The 100 per cent success rate in Enfield cases has led to fears the courts are just
rubber-stamping forced adoptions rather than going against the recommendations made by social workers.
Full Story: http://www.northlondon-today.co.uk/news.cfm?id=32305&headline=Parents%20of%20forcibly%20adopted%20baby%20condemn%20100%20per%20cent%20success%20record%20of%20Enfield’s%20social%20workers
Don't Forget To Sign Our Daughter's Guestbook, and Show You Care!
http://www.crystalwalton.com/Guestbook.php Thank You To Everyone Who Has Supported Us and to Those Who Have Already Signed Her Guestbook!
Wednesday, 1 September 2010
Crystal Walton at Play with Mummy and Daddy (Sarah and Ian Walton, ourselves)
Crystal Walton at Play with Mummy and Daddy (Sarah and Ian Walton, ourselves)
19:48 Min
This is the only video of our Daughter 'Crystal Walton' with Sarah & Ian walton playing together as a family. One day the truth will come out and Enfield Social Services will have to pay for the pain they have caused my Sarah and My Self.
If you are the following Social worker or know of them 'BEWARE'!!!
Grace Fagan,
Sarah McClindon,
John Bottemley,
Faith Weekes,
Alison Reedman,
Angela Bennett,
Paul Wanness,
David Lawrence.
You are on my 'WANTED' list.....
P.S. If anybody knows of there where abouts please let me know.
You can email him at ian@stopinjusticenow.com
19:48 Min
This is the only video of our Daughter 'Crystal Walton' with Sarah & Ian walton playing together as a family. One day the truth will come out and Enfield Social Services will have to pay for the pain they have caused my Sarah and My Self.
If you are the following Social worker or know of them 'BEWARE'!!!
Grace Fagan,
Sarah McClindon,
John Bottemley,
Faith Weekes,
Alison Reedman,
Angela Bennett,
Paul Wanness,
David Lawrence.
You are on my 'WANTED' list.....
P.S. If anybody knows of there where abouts please let me know.
You can email him at ian@stopinjusticenow.com
Social workers who snatched four-day-old baby (ITV London Tonight)
ITV LONDON TONIGHT!
Social workers who snatched four-day-old baby (ITV London Tonight)
Social workers who snatched four-day-old baby put her up for adoption over unproven abuse claim
Mum’s heartbreaking fight to get her daughter back.
A mum and dad have been told they will never see their young daughter again… after she was snatched away at only four days old.
Tiny Baby A was taken from her mum by social workers who claimed the tot, who we will call Emily, was at risk in the family home.
Not because of the mum’s failure to care for her – but because of a six-year-old unproven claim that her husband had injured his son from a previous marriage.
Yet, although interviewed by police, he never faced a criminal court over that allegation. And he has even been allowed unsupervised access to watch his boy grow up.
Now the High Court, in a devastating civil court ruling, has decided that a decision to forcibly adopt Emily – now aged four – away from her parents (who we are calling Tania and Stephen) must stand.
Revealing her agony for the first time, mum Tania said: “I had my beautiful baby girl snatched from me at just four days old. Only a mother could understand the horror of that.
“My only crime is that I love and trust my husband. I don’t believe he could ever harm a child, and the courts have been unable to prove it. I have already missed years of Emily’s childhood.”
Stephen, in his 40s, married Tania, in her mid-20s, in 2003. Almost a year after their wedding Tania gave birth to Emily in hospital and they were overjoyed to take her home two days later. But they were to enjoy just two days alone with their little girl before she was taken from them. Social workers claimed there was a danger her dad would hurt her because of the case six years earlier.
Stephen had been married before and has a 10-year-old son, Jamie. When he was eight weeks old, Jamie was taken to hospital with a suspected brain injury and was found to have suffered bleeding behind his eyes. The episode left him permanently disabled, and he now has cerebral palsy. A medical expert said that he had been shaken viciously.
Stephen, who also has a 12-year-old daughter from the previous marriage, said: “Doctors couldn’t tell for certain what was wrong with Jamie. But one came up with a theory it could be ‘shaken baby syndrome’, even though there was no conclusive evidence.
"My wife and I were told that care proceedings were being started. It was heartbreaking to be accused of harming your own child. I vehemently denied doing anything wrong, but no one listened.”
A whole year later – during which time Jamie stayed with his parents and came to no further harm – the couple were taken to a family court in London, where a judge concluded on the basis of an expert’s opinion that the child’s injuries had been caused by one of his parents.
The possibility that the baby had an inherited condition, provoking the same symptoms, was never explored.
And the theory put forward by the family’s lawyers that he banged his head on a baby bouncer while playing with another child was not accepted.
However, social workers in Enfield, North London, finally allowed Jamie to remain with his birth parents under daily supervision. And seven months later the local authority was impressed enough with their parenting to drop the visits.
And there the story might have ended if Stephen and his wife hadn’t split up at the end of 2000. They were granted, and still enjoy, joint custody of the boy and remain good friends. Stephen, whose first wife also backs his adoption fight, sees Jamie regularly and often spends time with him alone.
It was only when – almost four years later – Stephen remarried and his new wife Tania became pregnant that the social workers reappeared. Stephen, who himself has multiple sclerosis and walks with a stick, said: “Tania has no other children and we were both overjoyed to be having a baby.”
Then, when she was eight months pregnant, Stephen developed a heart problem and had to be rushed to hospital. He says social workers visited him at his bedside and handed him a letter saying they were starting emergency childcare proceedings for their unborn child.
I could barely breathe because of the shock,” he says. “It had been six years since Jamie’s case and I’d had no contact with social workers.”
Emily was born in December 2004. When she was just four days old, social workers burst into their home and took her away.
Tania said: “Stephen’s parents were visiting. We were missing an ingredient for dinner, and Stephen and his dad popped to the shops. While they were out social workers knocked on the door. They walked straight in, picked up Emily in her moses basket and walked out again.
“I was screaming and crying, begging them not to take her, grabbing at their arms.”
Social workers warned Tania she would only stand a chance of getting Emily back if she left her husband.
“We had no choice,” said Tania. “We decided I would go to live with my parents a few miles away and we would fight in court to be reunited as a family.”
Emily was returned to Tania the following day after a court injunction was obtained ordering Stephen to keep away from her.
But social workers were unhappy that Tania and her family remained close to Stephen.
“I often visited Stephen on my own, which was allowed under the injunction,” she said.
“He asked me to text him if Emily ever woke in the night because he wanted to be involved, and I did that.
But for some reason, social workers wanted me to hate him and cut him out of our lives.”
Four months later, in April 2005, Emily was taken from her mother for a second time. Tania had been branded unfit to look after Emily simply because she trusted her husband.
Tania said: “I had taken Emily to visit my grandparents. But while I was there, two police cars turned up with a social worker. They burst into the house and snatched Emily from me again. I was in shock – I couldn’t believe what was happening. They said I had been ‘conspiring’ with Stephen. They thought we were going to kidnap Emily.”
Social workers said Tania was too mild-mannered to be able to protect Emily from Stephen. At that point Emily was put into a foster home, and Stephen and Tania were allowed to visit her once a week for an hour.
“It was so emotional,” said Tania. “I tried my hardest to be happy around Emily. But I cried uncontrollably before and after we saw her.”
The couple have video footage taken on July 18, 2006, of them with Emily, and say they look happy and at ease together. At one point, they say the little girl puts her arms out to her mother, who picks her up and kisses her.
Touchingly, Tania says when she asks Emily where her daddy is, the toddler turns and points at Stephen. But already the clock was ticking towards their daughter’s adoption.
Within a few weeks, the couple were told new parents were being sought for their little girl. And they were horrified when they came across an advert in a glossy magazine offering her up for adoption.
The beautiful blonde-haired, blue-eyed girl was smiling at them from the page. The accompanying blurb described her as a bright, happy girl who likes swimming and games.
A phone number was printed alongside for anyone interested in becoming her parents. Tania said: “Our daughter was essentially being put up for sale in a magazine and under her own name. We hadn’t even been warned. It was despicable.”
At the time Enfield officials took Emily away, councils were under pressure to raise the number of children they had adopted by 50 per cent.
Tony Blair had promised millions of pounds to councils that managed to achieve targets. The aim was to get older children in care homes into new families.
But councils found it easier to place babies and cute toddlers such as Emily, and thousands of children under four were removed from their families across the country.
In October 2006 the couple saw Emily for the last time.
Stephen, his eyes filling with tears, said: “We didn’t know that then. We had arranged to see her, but the meeting was suddenly cancelled five minutes beforehand. Presumably a new family had been found. We didn’t even get to say a proper goodbye. It breaks my heart to think she doesn’t know why we aren’t there for her.”
In a desperate bid to beat the system, Stephen and Tania took Enfield Council to the Court of Appeal in March 2007. They asked for a stay of execution on the adoption while their case was heard by the European Court of Human Rights. But it was refused.
The couple did not give up there. Last month they were allowed to challenge the initial accusation against Stephen at the High Court. There they were backed by top europathologist Dr Waney Squier, who believes there is no evidence that the boy’s injuries were caused by her father.
In the three-day hearing, Dr Squier told the court the injuries were not consistent with Shaken Baby Syndrome. She said that, crucially, he had no other marks or injuries on his body to suggest he had been shaken violently.
She told the court that 85 per cent of autopsies in shaking cases have additional bruising or other injury. And she said the force required to produce bleeding behind the eyes would inevitably cause damage to the neck.
But the local authority’s expert Dr Neil Stoodley disagreed and said the injuries were consistent with SBS.
However the argument was based just on medical notes, because Jamie’s original brain scans had been lost.
The couple lost their final chance of halting the adoption when Mr Justice Mark Hedley, who described the decision as “agonising”, sided with the council and upheld the care order.
In what he described as a “dreadful conundrum”, he said: “Wrongly to find that there has been an NAHI (non-accidental head injury) is to risk tearing apart an innocent family – a shocking thing to happen.
“Likewise, wrongly failing to find NAHI where such in fact occurred is to risk returning a child to a situation of high or even fatal risk, as notorious cases have sadly demonstrated.
“The consequences of a judicial error in these cases are calamitous.”
The judge praised the parents’ persistence, saying: “The father’s belief in his innocence and the injustice done to his family is genuinely held.”
He also said there was not enough evidence for police to bring a trial on the initial child-abuse allegations. But he said there was still no new evidence to undermine the original findings.
The couple have vowed to appeal against the decision, but they are running out of time. Once Emily is officially adopted, it is British law that she can never be returned to her parents – even if they are found innocent.
Clinging on to each other in their living room, with walls covered in photos of Emily, the couple say they cannot bear to have another child.
Stephen said: “My health is getting worse and I do not want to go through the agony of having another baby taken away from us by the state.”
The couple are prepared to go to the European Court of Human Rights if their appeal fails.
But Stephen said: “The European court cannot reunite us with our daughter – all we would get is monetary compensation, which means nothing to us when all we want is our little girl back.”
-For legal reasons, the real names of the people involved have been changed to protect their identities.
'''Although I have identified our selves'''
Please sign my my Daughter's guestbook at http://www.crystalwalton.com/Guestbook.php Many Thanks!
If you know where my Daughter is please email me at ian@stopinjusticenow.com
Social workers who snatched four-day-old baby (ITV London Tonight)
Social workers who snatched four-day-old baby put her up for adoption over unproven abuse claim
Mum’s heartbreaking fight to get her daughter back.
A mum and dad have been told they will never see their young daughter again… after she was snatched away at only four days old.
Tiny Baby A was taken from her mum by social workers who claimed the tot, who we will call Emily, was at risk in the family home.
Not because of the mum’s failure to care for her – but because of a six-year-old unproven claim that her husband had injured his son from a previous marriage.
Yet, although interviewed by police, he never faced a criminal court over that allegation. And he has even been allowed unsupervised access to watch his boy grow up.
Now the High Court, in a devastating civil court ruling, has decided that a decision to forcibly adopt Emily – now aged four – away from her parents (who we are calling Tania and Stephen) must stand.
Revealing her agony for the first time, mum Tania said: “I had my beautiful baby girl snatched from me at just four days old. Only a mother could understand the horror of that.
“My only crime is that I love and trust my husband. I don’t believe he could ever harm a child, and the courts have been unable to prove it. I have already missed years of Emily’s childhood.”
Stephen, in his 40s, married Tania, in her mid-20s, in 2003. Almost a year after their wedding Tania gave birth to Emily in hospital and they were overjoyed to take her home two days later. But they were to enjoy just two days alone with their little girl before she was taken from them. Social workers claimed there was a danger her dad would hurt her because of the case six years earlier.
Stephen had been married before and has a 10-year-old son, Jamie. When he was eight weeks old, Jamie was taken to hospital with a suspected brain injury and was found to have suffered bleeding behind his eyes. The episode left him permanently disabled, and he now has cerebral palsy. A medical expert said that he had been shaken viciously.
Stephen, who also has a 12-year-old daughter from the previous marriage, said: “Doctors couldn’t tell for certain what was wrong with Jamie. But one came up with a theory it could be ‘shaken baby syndrome’, even though there was no conclusive evidence.
"My wife and I were told that care proceedings were being started. It was heartbreaking to be accused of harming your own child. I vehemently denied doing anything wrong, but no one listened.”
A whole year later – during which time Jamie stayed with his parents and came to no further harm – the couple were taken to a family court in London, where a judge concluded on the basis of an expert’s opinion that the child’s injuries had been caused by one of his parents.
The possibility that the baby had an inherited condition, provoking the same symptoms, was never explored.
And the theory put forward by the family’s lawyers that he banged his head on a baby bouncer while playing with another child was not accepted.
However, social workers in Enfield, North London, finally allowed Jamie to remain with his birth parents under daily supervision. And seven months later the local authority was impressed enough with their parenting to drop the visits.
And there the story might have ended if Stephen and his wife hadn’t split up at the end of 2000. They were granted, and still enjoy, joint custody of the boy and remain good friends. Stephen, whose first wife also backs his adoption fight, sees Jamie regularly and often spends time with him alone.
It was only when – almost four years later – Stephen remarried and his new wife Tania became pregnant that the social workers reappeared. Stephen, who himself has multiple sclerosis and walks with a stick, said: “Tania has no other children and we were both overjoyed to be having a baby.”
Then, when she was eight months pregnant, Stephen developed a heart problem and had to be rushed to hospital. He says social workers visited him at his bedside and handed him a letter saying they were starting emergency childcare proceedings for their unborn child.
I could barely breathe because of the shock,” he says. “It had been six years since Jamie’s case and I’d had no contact with social workers.”
Emily was born in December 2004. When she was just four days old, social workers burst into their home and took her away.
Tania said: “Stephen’s parents were visiting. We were missing an ingredient for dinner, and Stephen and his dad popped to the shops. While they were out social workers knocked on the door. They walked straight in, picked up Emily in her moses basket and walked out again.
“I was screaming and crying, begging them not to take her, grabbing at their arms.”
Social workers warned Tania she would only stand a chance of getting Emily back if she left her husband.
“We had no choice,” said Tania. “We decided I would go to live with my parents a few miles away and we would fight in court to be reunited as a family.”
Emily was returned to Tania the following day after a court injunction was obtained ordering Stephen to keep away from her.
But social workers were unhappy that Tania and her family remained close to Stephen.
“I often visited Stephen on my own, which was allowed under the injunction,” she said.
“He asked me to text him if Emily ever woke in the night because he wanted to be involved, and I did that.
But for some reason, social workers wanted me to hate him and cut him out of our lives.”
Four months later, in April 2005, Emily was taken from her mother for a second time. Tania had been branded unfit to look after Emily simply because she trusted her husband.
Tania said: “I had taken Emily to visit my grandparents. But while I was there, two police cars turned up with a social worker. They burst into the house and snatched Emily from me again. I was in shock – I couldn’t believe what was happening. They said I had been ‘conspiring’ with Stephen. They thought we were going to kidnap Emily.”
Social workers said Tania was too mild-mannered to be able to protect Emily from Stephen. At that point Emily was put into a foster home, and Stephen and Tania were allowed to visit her once a week for an hour.
“It was so emotional,” said Tania. “I tried my hardest to be happy around Emily. But I cried uncontrollably before and after we saw her.”
The couple have video footage taken on July 18, 2006, of them with Emily, and say they look happy and at ease together. At one point, they say the little girl puts her arms out to her mother, who picks her up and kisses her.
Touchingly, Tania says when she asks Emily where her daddy is, the toddler turns and points at Stephen. But already the clock was ticking towards their daughter’s adoption.
Within a few weeks, the couple were told new parents were being sought for their little girl. And they were horrified when they came across an advert in a glossy magazine offering her up for adoption.
The beautiful blonde-haired, blue-eyed girl was smiling at them from the page. The accompanying blurb described her as a bright, happy girl who likes swimming and games.
A phone number was printed alongside for anyone interested in becoming her parents. Tania said: “Our daughter was essentially being put up for sale in a magazine and under her own name. We hadn’t even been warned. It was despicable.”
At the time Enfield officials took Emily away, councils were under pressure to raise the number of children they had adopted by 50 per cent.
Tony Blair had promised millions of pounds to councils that managed to achieve targets. The aim was to get older children in care homes into new families.
But councils found it easier to place babies and cute toddlers such as Emily, and thousands of children under four were removed from their families across the country.
In October 2006 the couple saw Emily for the last time.
Stephen, his eyes filling with tears, said: “We didn’t know that then. We had arranged to see her, but the meeting was suddenly cancelled five minutes beforehand. Presumably a new family had been found. We didn’t even get to say a proper goodbye. It breaks my heart to think she doesn’t know why we aren’t there for her.”
In a desperate bid to beat the system, Stephen and Tania took Enfield Council to the Court of Appeal in March 2007. They asked for a stay of execution on the adoption while their case was heard by the European Court of Human Rights. But it was refused.
The couple did not give up there. Last month they were allowed to challenge the initial accusation against Stephen at the High Court. There they were backed by top europathologist Dr Waney Squier, who believes there is no evidence that the boy’s injuries were caused by her father.
In the three-day hearing, Dr Squier told the court the injuries were not consistent with Shaken Baby Syndrome. She said that, crucially, he had no other marks or injuries on his body to suggest he had been shaken violently.
She told the court that 85 per cent of autopsies in shaking cases have additional bruising or other injury. And she said the force required to produce bleeding behind the eyes would inevitably cause damage to the neck.
But the local authority’s expert Dr Neil Stoodley disagreed and said the injuries were consistent with SBS.
However the argument was based just on medical notes, because Jamie’s original brain scans had been lost.
The couple lost their final chance of halting the adoption when Mr Justice Mark Hedley, who described the decision as “agonising”, sided with the council and upheld the care order.
In what he described as a “dreadful conundrum”, he said: “Wrongly to find that there has been an NAHI (non-accidental head injury) is to risk tearing apart an innocent family – a shocking thing to happen.
“Likewise, wrongly failing to find NAHI where such in fact occurred is to risk returning a child to a situation of high or even fatal risk, as notorious cases have sadly demonstrated.
“The consequences of a judicial error in these cases are calamitous.”
The judge praised the parents’ persistence, saying: “The father’s belief in his innocence and the injustice done to his family is genuinely held.”
He also said there was not enough evidence for police to bring a trial on the initial child-abuse allegations. But he said there was still no new evidence to undermine the original findings.
The couple have vowed to appeal against the decision, but they are running out of time. Once Emily is officially adopted, it is British law that she can never be returned to her parents – even if they are found innocent.
Clinging on to each other in their living room, with walls covered in photos of Emily, the couple say they cannot bear to have another child.
Stephen said: “My health is getting worse and I do not want to go through the agony of having another baby taken away from us by the state.”
The couple are prepared to go to the European Court of Human Rights if their appeal fails.
But Stephen said: “The European court cannot reunite us with our daughter – all we would get is monetary compensation, which means nothing to us when all we want is our little girl back.”
-For legal reasons, the real names of the people involved have been changed to protect their identities.
'''Although I have identified our selves'''
Please sign my my Daughter's guestbook at http://www.crystalwalton.com/Guestbook.php Many Thanks!
If you know where my Daughter is please email me at ian@stopinjusticenow.com
Sunday, 15 August 2010
Stop Injustice Now; Back on-line
We are pleased to tell you that 'Stop Injustice Now' will be posting new news items very soon! Watch this space.
Friday, 30 October 2009
‘Stop Injustice Now’ Blog Site!
‘Stop Injustice Now’ Blog Site!: "Baby Ps stepfather Steven Barker has had a poster of himself removed after he complained it damaged his reputation.
At this was the man jailed in May for causing or allowing the death of Baby Peter, you wonder what one that couldnt get any worse?
This monster (how does that sit with your reputation MATE, A photo with the same words is attached to this story, try to stop me you Bastard)?
Grew up violently abusing small animals then moved on to defenceless children, including Baby P and the rape of a two year old girl.
It is why animal rights group Peta used a picture of him in a poster with the words People who are violent towards animals rarely stop there.
But Barkers lawyers demanded it was taken down because it was libellous, suggesting Barker murdered Baby P the courts couldnt agree which of Baby Ps three torturers finally killed him.
It is beyond belief this sicko, who destroyed the lives of two small children, has the arrogance to wave the human rights card. It just shows he is more worried about saving his own skin than demonstrating any remorse for his vile crimes. In Barkers case, a life sentence must absolutely mean LIFE."
At this was the man jailed in May for causing or allowing the death of Baby Peter, you wonder what one that couldnt get any worse?
This monster (how does that sit with your reputation MATE, A photo with the same words is attached to this story, try to stop me you Bastard)?
Grew up violently abusing small animals then moved on to defenceless children, including Baby P and the rape of a two year old girl.
It is why animal rights group Peta used a picture of him in a poster with the words People who are violent towards animals rarely stop there.
But Barkers lawyers demanded it was taken down because it was libellous, suggesting Barker murdered Baby P the courts couldnt agree which of Baby Ps three torturers finally killed him.
It is beyond belief this sicko, who destroyed the lives of two small children, has the arrogance to wave the human rights card. It just shows he is more worried about saving his own skin than demonstrating any remorse for his vile crimes. In Barkers case, a life sentence must absolutely mean LIFE."
Sunday, 18 October 2009
Woman dubbed 'not bright' enough to marry, now faces baby being removed when she gives birth
A pregnant young woman,whose wedding was halted by social workers in an extraordinary row over whether she is bright enough to marry, is to have her baby boy forcefully removed from her at birth.Kerry Robertson, 17, who has mild learning difficulties, was this week told during a meeting with social workers they believe she is also not ëintelligent enoughí to look after her baby, due in January.
She will be allowed just a few hours with her baby, whom she has already named Ben. But she and fiance Mark McDougall, 25, will not be allowed to leave the hospital with Ben and he will then be placed with foster parents.
She said yesterday: "I couldn't believe it when they told me I wouldnít be allowed to bring my baby home. I feel sick all the time.
"I am so upset I donít know what to do with myself. I know I am having a little boy and so I have already started buying baby clothes and am getting a nursery ready for him. But now I can't take it in. I don't want to think about January and I canít stop crying."
Last month Kerry, who is 26 weeks pregnant, was told her wedding was being halted just 48 hours before she was due to walk up the aisle because, according to social services, she 'did not understand the implications of getting married'.
Her fiance Mark, an artist, added: "Seeing Kerry so upset is absolutely heartbreaking and I am very worried that all this stress she is under will affect our unborn baby's health.
"We're just devastated by this and at the moment we just don't know how we are going to cope in January. We have both already bonded with Ben and I can't even begin to think what it will be like coming home without him.
Judge condemns Jack Straw's 'haste' on media access to family courts
http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/news/archive/2009/october/18/01.htm
The most senior family judge in England and Wales urged ministers not to rush ahead with controversial plans to allow greater media access to family court hearings.
Sir Mark Potter, President of the High Court Family Division, said that he was concerned about the haste involved with the latest plans from Jack Straw and warned that they may lead judges to exclude the press altogether.
Despite concerns already expressed by judges, lawyers and others over the plans, Mr Straw, the Justice Secretary, plans to include the changes in the Schools and Safeguarding Children Bill in the new session of Parliament.
The Justice Secretary has said that opening up family hearings in April to the media was being undermined by reporting restrictions.
He intends to allow the media acccess to confidential medical and social work reports, subject to anonymity provisions, in a move that would allow the media to name and shame social workers.
But Sir Mark told a conference of family lawyers this week that even interim rules, pending the legislation, should not be rushed.
The most senior family judge in England and Wales urged ministers not to rush ahead with controversial plans to allow greater media access to family court hearings.
Sir Mark Potter, President of the High Court Family Division, said that he was concerned about the haste involved with the latest plans from Jack Straw and warned that they may lead judges to exclude the press altogether.
Despite concerns already expressed by judges, lawyers and others over the plans, Mr Straw, the Justice Secretary, plans to include the changes in the Schools and Safeguarding Children Bill in the new session of Parliament.
The Justice Secretary has said that opening up family hearings in April to the media was being undermined by reporting restrictions.
He intends to allow the media acccess to confidential medical and social work reports, subject to anonymity provisions, in a move that would allow the media to name and shame social workers.
But Sir Mark told a conference of family lawyers this week that even interim rules, pending the legislation, should not be rushed.
Thursday, 24 September 2009
Is it right to take children away from parents at birth?
http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/news/archive/2009/september/22/09.htm
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".
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
http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/news/archive/2009/september/22/08.htm
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)