Part of the 'Crystal Walton Story' along with other families!
This Article Has Been Remove Under Protest and Threat of Legal Action!
Sunday, 10 October 2010
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)