Was supporting this family tried. The report reads there could have been other ways other than removing her children.
Twins Vixen Rae and Billy Blu Francis.
An alcoholic mother snatched her four-year-old twins from social workers and might have fled the country, a judge said today.
Tamara Dyson, 37, snatched the twins, Vixen Rae and Billy Blu Francis, for the second time in a week, the judge sitting at Lincoln County Court said.
The children were taken from Roseberry Avenue Contact Centre in Skegness on Thursday afternoon and have not been seen since. It is believed they may have been taken to the Republic of Ireland, Judge Heather Swindells said.
Judge Swindells said: "Both Vixen and Billy were in foster care because of concerns about Tamara Dyson's ability to look after them, particularly as she has a chronic and dangerous alcohol problem. "This is the second time in a week Tamara Dyson has removed the children from contact. "It’s the view of the court that the children are at serious risk of harm. "Despite the best efforts of the police since Thursday the children have still not been found and there are concerns that Tamara and the children are no longer in the country."
Because of concerns about the children, Judge Swindells took the unusual step of issuing an order under the Children Act 1989 allowing the care proceedings in the case to be reported. Such proceedings cannot normally be reported.
The children's natural father, 31-year-old Billy Francis, an electrician from Greenwich, London, pleaded for the public's help to find the youngsters.
He said: “I have been having contact with the children on a regular basis every week which has been going well. “I last saw them on the morning of May 20 and I was shocked to be told later that afternoon that they had been taken by their mother. This was the second time that she had done this. On Monday she had taken them without consent. “I am livid that this has happened with social services while under their care and responsibility.”
Earlier Mr Francis said he met Ms Dyson 10 years ago and in 2006 they had the twins. They split two years later and Mr Francis blames her addiction to alcohol for the break-up.
Mr Francis said that when the children went missing for the first time last week, he phoned round every number in his phone book before tracking Ms Dyson down to the home of a 90-year-old retired schoolteacher in Skegness.
He said social services told him Ms Dyson managed to take the children while they were distracted making a cup of coffee. He said: "Tamara is just not stable at the moment. She is drinking heavily and I am worried to death. "She’s a very distinctive woman and she has two kids with blue eyes and blonde hair with her. The kids are my life. I love them to death, I can’t describe it any other way. I just haven’t got a clue where they have gone."
Detectives at Lincolnshire Police said they were anxious to track down Ms Dyson and the children. They were in foster care while she lived at Firbeck Avenue in Skegness.
Police said they believe she and her two children left the contact centre on Roseberry Avenue on foot but might have got into a car nearby.
In a statement, police said: "This may not have appeared out of the ordinary but we are anxious for anyone who was in that area of Skegness at the time to come forward and contact us."
Detective Inspector Andy Wardell, from Lincolnshire Police, said: "This information does not alter the police investigation as our paramount objective has always been the safe return of the children. "Consideration needs to be given to Tamara Dyson’s character and the direction this may take the inquiry. However, we can confirm that no information has been received to suggest the children have suffered any current harm. "The risk to the children and to Tamara remain high and inquiries involving liaison with other police forces and partner agencies continue."
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
Great news for Grandparents
20 May 2010: McKenzie Friends to be allowed in Scotland
Category: News
Posted by: Toon
Lord President agrees non-lawyers can help people representing themselves in court
Scotsman
Published Date: 17 May 2010
By Christopher Mackie
MCKENZIE Friends are set to be allowed in Scotland's courts, after the Lord President agreed to act on a public petition laid down in the Scottish Parliament, The Scotsman can reveal.
Lord Hamilton will now lay down rules to govern the use of McKenzie Friends, and their official introduction could come as soon as next month, ending months of uncertainty about the system, under which people representing themselves in court are allowed the help of a non-lawyer in conducting their case.
The decision has ended months of wrangling about the system, with Scotland's top judge accused of performing a U-turn after he latterly agreed to setting rules in place despite earlier insisting McKenzie Friends were already available in Scottish courts.
The Scottish courts rules council met last Monday and the Lord President will now lay down an Act of Sederunt to enable the system to become operational.
The rules will be drawn up in the next few days and later published by the Office of Public Sector Information.
It is understood the regulations will include that the non-lawyer helper signs a declaration of interest and outlines their previous legal experience. This condition met with concern from the petitions committee but will be monitored as part of a general review of the system in the coming months.
Stewart Mackenzie, the reformer who laid down the initial petition, said he was "delighted" by the decision, which ended a campaign he had been fighting for some time. "It has been in my mind for a long time," he said. "I am delighted that, after 40 years, Scots now have the same facilities that people in England and Wales already have."
Mr Mackenzie said, despite his long campaign, he did not intend to go along to a court to watch a McKenzie Friend in action. "But I will keep a close eye on the changes and check to see whether the Lord President's plans are put into action," he said.
His cautious welcome was echoed by Consumer Focus Scotland, which had campaigned for McKenzie Friends' introduction at the petitions committee.
It said it was hoped the move would "bring about much needed clarity for litigants, the court service and the judiciary alike", but added the rules would need to be monitored.
Julia Clarke, from Which?, another group that has been calling for the system, said: "We have campaigned for McKenzie Friends for some time. This measure is long overdue and hopefully signals the beginning of Scottish courts becoming more user-friendly."
Meanwhile, Frank McAveety, convener of the petitions committee, also the decision. "This is an issue the petitions committee looked at and we felt it was a welcome addition to the Scottish legal landscape," he said.
"Hopefully, it demonstrates that the work of the committee can make a difference."
Category: News
Posted by: Toon
Lord President agrees non-lawyers can help people representing themselves in court
Scotsman
Published Date: 17 May 2010
By Christopher Mackie
MCKENZIE Friends are set to be allowed in Scotland's courts, after the Lord President agreed to act on a public petition laid down in the Scottish Parliament, The Scotsman can reveal.
Lord Hamilton will now lay down rules to govern the use of McKenzie Friends, and their official introduction could come as soon as next month, ending months of uncertainty about the system, under which people representing themselves in court are allowed the help of a non-lawyer in conducting their case.
The decision has ended months of wrangling about the system, with Scotland's top judge accused of performing a U-turn after he latterly agreed to setting rules in place despite earlier insisting McKenzie Friends were already available in Scottish courts.
The Scottish courts rules council met last Monday and the Lord President will now lay down an Act of Sederunt to enable the system to become operational.
The rules will be drawn up in the next few days and later published by the Office of Public Sector Information.
It is understood the regulations will include that the non-lawyer helper signs a declaration of interest and outlines their previous legal experience. This condition met with concern from the petitions committee but will be monitored as part of a general review of the system in the coming months.
Stewart Mackenzie, the reformer who laid down the initial petition, said he was "delighted" by the decision, which ended a campaign he had been fighting for some time. "It has been in my mind for a long time," he said. "I am delighted that, after 40 years, Scots now have the same facilities that people in England and Wales already have."
Mr Mackenzie said, despite his long campaign, he did not intend to go along to a court to watch a McKenzie Friend in action. "But I will keep a close eye on the changes and check to see whether the Lord President's plans are put into action," he said.
His cautious welcome was echoed by Consumer Focus Scotland, which had campaigned for McKenzie Friends' introduction at the petitions committee.
It said it was hoped the move would "bring about much needed clarity for litigants, the court service and the judiciary alike", but added the rules would need to be monitored.
Julia Clarke, from Which?, another group that has been calling for the system, said: "We have campaigned for McKenzie Friends for some time. This measure is long overdue and hopefully signals the beginning of Scottish courts becoming more user-friendly."
Meanwhile, Frank McAveety, convener of the petitions committee, also the decision. "This is an issue the petitions committee looked at and we felt it was a welcome addition to the Scottish legal landscape," he said.
"Hopefully, it demonstrates that the work of the committee can make a difference."
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Pilot to ensure children see divorced parents is dropped
FIGHTING FOR FAMILY: Father-of-two Brian McNair of Stirling has been trying to get his court order for visitation rights enforced for a decade. Picture: Julie Howden
The Scottish Government has ditched a promised pilot scheme aimed at easing the trauma of the hundreds of children who lose contact with one or both parents during divorce proceedings.
In December 2005 ministers pledged to run a pilot aimed at ensuring, where appropriate, that both parents have access to their children after separation and that court orders allowing contact are enforced.
In Scotland each year an estimated 700 children fall victim to court order breaches which mean they lose contact with at least one parent.
As part of the Family Law Act 2006, Hugh Henry, the then deputy justice minister, pledged to pilot family court facilitators and commissioned research into the problem.
The Scottish Government has now dropped the plans claiming there was no suitable candidate found during the procurement process to run the project.
Brian McNair was granted a court order to see his two children 10 years ago.
He was meant to get overnight access and be able to take them on holidays. But he says he has been unable to get the court order enforced and that his ex-wife allows only him to see them three times a year for about 10 minutes.
"I am so angry and disappointed," he said. "Dropping this will have serious ramifications for fathers, mothers and grandparents.
"Children are becoming alienated from their parents and no-one is doing anything about it. The government is just turning its back. I have been contacted by so many fathers and some mothers unable to get access to their children because there is no-one to ensure compliance with the court orders."
Pauline McNeil MSP, Labour's justice spokeswoman, has written to Kenny MacAskill, the justice secretary, demanding to meet him and discuss why the pledge has been dropped.
"Having fought so hard to get this commitment I am very disappointed that there is no action being taken," she said.
"It is primarily about how this affects the children of those parents who cannot get their contact orders enforced.
"I would look to this government to re-establish a way of making the system better. I would expect them to start by reinstating this commitment."
Families Need Fathers said: "We believe at least 700 children a year are affected by breached contact orders but this may just be the tip of the iceberg.
"In England they gave extra sanctions to the court to use against those who breach such orders including community orders. I would like to see the same thing happening here. In Scotland a parent can only be fined or imprisoned for breaching such an order and the courts are understandably reluctant to use such measures because of the additional harm to the children."
A Scottish Government spokesman said: "We ran a procurement exercise to secure a host organisation who would recruit and manage a postholder in each of the courts. We have reached the end of the procurement process without identifying a suitable candidate.
"We have started to look at options as to how the aims of the pilot could be met by other methods.
"A broad programme of research on contact issues is under way and is suitably flexible to ensure it can be adjusted to take account of any conclusions or data that emerges from other projects.
The Scottish Government has ditched a promised pilot scheme aimed at easing the trauma of the hundreds of children who lose contact with one or both parents during divorce proceedings.
In December 2005 ministers pledged to run a pilot aimed at ensuring, where appropriate, that both parents have access to their children after separation and that court orders allowing contact are enforced.
In Scotland each year an estimated 700 children fall victim to court order breaches which mean they lose contact with at least one parent.
As part of the Family Law Act 2006, Hugh Henry, the then deputy justice minister, pledged to pilot family court facilitators and commissioned research into the problem.
The Scottish Government has now dropped the plans claiming there was no suitable candidate found during the procurement process to run the project.
Brian McNair was granted a court order to see his two children 10 years ago.
He was meant to get overnight access and be able to take them on holidays. But he says he has been unable to get the court order enforced and that his ex-wife allows only him to see them three times a year for about 10 minutes.
"I am so angry and disappointed," he said. "Dropping this will have serious ramifications for fathers, mothers and grandparents.
"Children are becoming alienated from their parents and no-one is doing anything about it. The government is just turning its back. I have been contacted by so many fathers and some mothers unable to get access to their children because there is no-one to ensure compliance with the court orders."
Pauline McNeil MSP, Labour's justice spokeswoman, has written to Kenny MacAskill, the justice secretary, demanding to meet him and discuss why the pledge has been dropped.
"Having fought so hard to get this commitment I am very disappointed that there is no action being taken," she said.
"It is primarily about how this affects the children of those parents who cannot get their contact orders enforced.
"I would look to this government to re-establish a way of making the system better. I would expect them to start by reinstating this commitment."
Families Need Fathers said: "We believe at least 700 children a year are affected by breached contact orders but this may just be the tip of the iceberg.
"In England they gave extra sanctions to the court to use against those who breach such orders including community orders. I would like to see the same thing happening here. In Scotland a parent can only be fined or imprisoned for breaching such an order and the courts are understandably reluctant to use such measures because of the additional harm to the children."
A Scottish Government spokesman said: "We ran a procurement exercise to secure a host organisation who would recruit and manage a postholder in each of the courts. We have reached the end of the procurement process without identifying a suitable candidate.
"We have started to look at options as to how the aims of the pilot could be met by other methods.
"A broad programme of research on contact issues is under way and is suitably flexible to ensure it can be adjusted to take account of any conclusions or data that emerges from other projects.
Grandparents were best.
D (Children) [2010] EWCA 496 Civ
Appeal by mother against residence order in favour of paternal grandparents following intractable contact dispute. Appeal dismissed.
The case concerned two boys: T, 12 years old, and N, almost 10. Their father had been found by a circuit judge to have sexually abused his stepdaughter, the boys' half-sister. The father throughout claimed his innocence. The mother, who the court said was in every other respect admirable, developed 'a complete obsession' that any contact between the boys and their paternal family was to be avoided. That included their paternal grandparents.
According to expert evidence, the children were were being forced by their mother's obsessional beliefs to accept her belief though they did not believe it themselves. The experts feared for the psychological development of the children and considered that abandoning T to the pressures of his mother's belief system ran the risk of emotionally crippling him so that he would be unable to form trusting relationships with others.
The judge at first instance left the boys with their mother, provided they had regular contact with their grandparents, and the question of contact with their father, which would be indirect initially, could be reconsidered at a later point.
The mother appealed unsuccessfully against the contact order. Subsequently the judge made a contact order in favour of the father but the mother refused to implement. In default of the mother fulfilling the terms of that order a residence order was granted in favour of the grandparents.
This judgment concerns the mother's application, out of time, for permission to appeal against that order. Wall LJ, considering the exercise of the judge's discretion, says that it was faultless. The judge had conducted a welfare balancing exercise and concluded that placing the children with the grandparents represented the best hope for the children growing up with any degree of normality.
The full judgment can reviewed at: http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed58393
Appeal by mother against residence order in favour of paternal grandparents following intractable contact dispute. Appeal dismissed.
The case concerned two boys: T, 12 years old, and N, almost 10. Their father had been found by a circuit judge to have sexually abused his stepdaughter, the boys' half-sister. The father throughout claimed his innocence. The mother, who the court said was in every other respect admirable, developed 'a complete obsession' that any contact between the boys and their paternal family was to be avoided. That included their paternal grandparents.
According to expert evidence, the children were were being forced by their mother's obsessional beliefs to accept her belief though they did not believe it themselves. The experts feared for the psychological development of the children and considered that abandoning T to the pressures of his mother's belief system ran the risk of emotionally crippling him so that he would be unable to form trusting relationships with others.
The judge at first instance left the boys with their mother, provided they had regular contact with their grandparents, and the question of contact with their father, which would be indirect initially, could be reconsidered at a later point.
The mother appealed unsuccessfully against the contact order. Subsequently the judge made a contact order in favour of the father but the mother refused to implement. In default of the mother fulfilling the terms of that order a residence order was granted in favour of the grandparents.
This judgment concerns the mother's application, out of time, for permission to appeal against that order. Wall LJ, considering the exercise of the judge's discretion, says that it was faultless. The judge had conducted a welfare balancing exercise and concluded that placing the children with the grandparents represented the best hope for the children growing up with any degree of normality.
The full judgment can reviewed at: http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed58393
Grandparents condemn social services
Get Real Social Services.
The only obstacle that prevents The Charter for Grandchildren created by a Scottish Government solely in the best interests of children to be up and working is being given the run around by social services.
Waken up Social Services you need all the help you can get with the reputation you have acquired via the media. A change of name that is proposed by this new UK government will not wash away your failings in the protection of children.
The simple straight- forward Charter for Grandchildren is purely to focus on the best interests of the child rather than laws that are hidden away in long winded articles too long for busy people to read or remember.
In Scotland The full Glasgow City Council with a standing ovation for our work has accepted The Charter for Grandchildren on 18th February 2010 and a request by two separate party Glasgow Councillors have asked for a meeting with the head of social work in Glasgow David Crawford but it appears to be the best interests of our grandchildren is not important enough for social services to accept.
Our Group in Wales, Grandparents Apart Wales has been making excellent headway with the Welsh Assembly but then again Gwenda Thomas social Services in Wales is so far removed from the suffering of children that she has not fully grasped the importance of using every means available for the protection of children.
England says they have no plans at present to implement changes in this area. Get Real Davey boy. You need to do better.
Jimmy Deuchars
Grandparents Apart UK
22 Alness crescent
Glasgow G52 1PJ
0141 882 5658
http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk
The only obstacle that prevents The Charter for Grandchildren created by a Scottish Government solely in the best interests of children to be up and working is being given the run around by social services.
Waken up Social Services you need all the help you can get with the reputation you have acquired via the media. A change of name that is proposed by this new UK government will not wash away your failings in the protection of children.
The simple straight- forward Charter for Grandchildren is purely to focus on the best interests of the child rather than laws that are hidden away in long winded articles too long for busy people to read or remember.
In Scotland The full Glasgow City Council with a standing ovation for our work has accepted The Charter for Grandchildren on 18th February 2010 and a request by two separate party Glasgow Councillors have asked for a meeting with the head of social work in Glasgow David Crawford but it appears to be the best interests of our grandchildren is not important enough for social services to accept.
Our Group in Wales, Grandparents Apart Wales has been making excellent headway with the Welsh Assembly but then again Gwenda Thomas social Services in Wales is so far removed from the suffering of children that she has not fully grasped the importance of using every means available for the protection of children.
England says they have no plans at present to implement changes in this area. Get Real Davey boy. You need to do better.
Jimmy Deuchars
Grandparents Apart UK
22 Alness crescent
Glasgow G52 1PJ
0141 882 5658
http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk
Social work is afraid
Social work fears being sidelined
By Neil Puffett
Children & Young People Now
18 May 2010
Social workers are calling on the new coalition government to show its commitment to the profession amid fears that looked-after children and child protection issues could be overlooked.
The decision to change the name of the Department for Children, Schools and Families to the Department for Education has sparked particular concerns that children's social care will be a low priority compared with schools.
Nushra Mansuri, professional officer at the British Association of Social Workers (BASW), said the fact that the new Education Secretary Michael Gove had written to civil servants without mentioning social care was "a worry".
"We need them to be very vocal about the work of social workers and the whole safeguarding agenda," she said. "We need them to put their money where their mouth is and come out with strong messages - to lead from the front from the very beginning.
"We don't need to see the children's safeguarding agenda on the back burner or become lower priority or status."
But Mansuri said there is cause to be optimistic, despite worries about the future. "It is a double-edged sword," she said.
"The Conservatives have written two papers on social work and its importance, saying that we need to have an adviser equivalent to the chief medical officer, which would be quite positive.
"There is such an opportunity for the social work taskforce to really go for it," added Mansuri.
The coalition government has yet to confirm whether it will proceed with Labour's proposal to set up the College of Social Work. But a spokesman for BASW said it is assuming the plans will still go ahead
By Neil Puffett
Children & Young People Now
18 May 2010
Social workers are calling on the new coalition government to show its commitment to the profession amid fears that looked-after children and child protection issues could be overlooked.
The decision to change the name of the Department for Children, Schools and Families to the Department for Education has sparked particular concerns that children's social care will be a low priority compared with schools.
Nushra Mansuri, professional officer at the British Association of Social Workers (BASW), said the fact that the new Education Secretary Michael Gove had written to civil servants without mentioning social care was "a worry".
"We need them to be very vocal about the work of social workers and the whole safeguarding agenda," she said. "We need them to put their money where their mouth is and come out with strong messages - to lead from the front from the very beginning.
"We don't need to see the children's safeguarding agenda on the back burner or become lower priority or status."
But Mansuri said there is cause to be optimistic, despite worries about the future. "It is a double-edged sword," she said.
"The Conservatives have written two papers on social work and its importance, saying that we need to have an adviser equivalent to the chief medical officer, which would be quite positive.
"There is such an opportunity for the social work taskforce to really go for it," added Mansuri.
The coalition government has yet to confirm whether it will proceed with Labour's proposal to set up the College of Social Work. But a spokesman for BASW said it is assuming the plans will still go ahead
Monday, May 17, 2010
Grandparents Rights
This new government is proposing giving grandparents more rights in England. They claim they will remove the need for grandparents to ask a courts permission to go to court for obtaining rights to their grandchildren.
These new rights as they call it has been operating like that in Scotland for years with no proven particular benefits for grandparents or grandchildren but has lots of benefits for lawyers costing Scottish grandparents dearly. Just because it is easier to get to court doesn’t mean you have a stronger case. You must fulfil the criteria of, it would be harmful to the child (not you) if contact with you was not available.. Animosity between adults is a sure stopper for contact as it reflects on the child. Although every case involving children is not the same and this is confuses a lot of people the criteria stated is a good guideline. Get other opinions from family charity groups before you decide to spend thousands on a court case you could have no chance of winning in the first place.
Our group conducted a questionnaire to 500 people that have contacted us and it was pretty damming on lawyers for legal advice. Some grandparents are so desperate to go to court that they insist that lawyers should try anyway but I repeat it does not mean your case is any stronger if they take it on, it only means you need to know the lawyer you engage is a recommended reputable solicitor and family trained.. A judge would not have let you carry on using your hard earned savings if you did not come up to certain standards.
So is there any benefit in removing this requirement?
Jimmy Deuchars
Grandparents Apart UK
22 Alness crescent
Glasgow G52 1PJ
0141 882 5658
http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk
These new rights as they call it has been operating like that in Scotland for years with no proven particular benefits for grandparents or grandchildren but has lots of benefits for lawyers costing Scottish grandparents dearly. Just because it is easier to get to court doesn’t mean you have a stronger case. You must fulfil the criteria of, it would be harmful to the child (not you) if contact with you was not available.. Animosity between adults is a sure stopper for contact as it reflects on the child. Although every case involving children is not the same and this is confuses a lot of people the criteria stated is a good guideline. Get other opinions from family charity groups before you decide to spend thousands on a court case you could have no chance of winning in the first place.
Our group conducted a questionnaire to 500 people that have contacted us and it was pretty damming on lawyers for legal advice. Some grandparents are so desperate to go to court that they insist that lawyers should try anyway but I repeat it does not mean your case is any stronger if they take it on, it only means you need to know the lawyer you engage is a recommended reputable solicitor and family trained.. A judge would not have let you carry on using your hard earned savings if you did not come up to certain standards.
So is there any benefit in removing this requirement?
Jimmy Deuchars
Grandparents Apart UK
22 Alness crescent
Glasgow G52 1PJ
0141 882 5658
http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Grandparents Apart UK Newsletter.
Grandparents Apart UK
(Bringing Families Together)
www.grandparentsapart.co.uk
Newsletter Summer 2010
Home of the
‘Charter for Grandchildren’
*0141 882 5658*
Scottish Charity No SC 031558
Reg, address 22 Alness Crescent,
Glasgow G52 1PJ
A self supporting not for profit charity staffed by volunteers
To join or donate to our cause contact by phone
website or write to the details above.
Our AGM will be held on Tuesday night 7-9pm on 1st June 2010 at The Pearce Institute Govan Cross Glasgow G51. Every body welcome except Rab C. Nesbet. Please check when your membership is due to help us to carry on fighting.
If you feel there has been no progress regarding contact with our grandchildren just think of what we have achieved in Scotland the Charter for Grandchildren and Glasgow City Council accepting it and we are negotiating to make this happen as soon as possible.
The Charter is explained in 'About the “Charter for Grandchildren”' an other leaflet enclosed.
Grandparents Apart Wales under the guidance of Frank Bradfield and Peter Howell doing their website they are doing very well in getting the Welsh Assembly interested in the Charter for Grandchildren.
The English Government find the welfare of grandchildren a low vote catcher and come away with rubbish like giving grandparents more rights by doing away with the need to ask a courts permission to raise an action for contact.. Scotland has never needed to ask a courts permission. What the English Government is proposing is election gimmicks, so don’t be fooled.
“What is wrong with you British grandparents that you allow your Government to do this to you” A Frenchman sent me this letter and he is right. England has a lot more grandparents than Scotland or Wales put together and should be leading this campaign but it would appear no-one is willing to take up the challenge to promote the Charter for Grandchildren the only campaign that has the best interests of children as its priority. Scottish Authorities accepted it and Welsh Governments are thinking about it. Hitler couldn’t demoralise you but you allow your own government to dictate to you about who in your own family you can have contact with or not.
This case of Little Emma is a stark reminder of the need for grandparents to be in children’s lives and it is happening all over Britain.
The 4 year nightmare of abuse endured by a little girl called Emma is now over. Four years of hell because social services would not listen to her grandparents. The Charter for Grandchildren should be accepted UK wide to avoid horrors like these. Charges have now been brought against her abusers at last putting an end to 4 years of horror the social services said was not happening. Emma has been disturbed by her experience and will need specialist help.
Emma:-
A couple split up in 2005 when Emma was 20 months. The mother did not want her unless the father stayed too. The grandparents stepped in and took Emma in and cared for her for 9 days before the police came and told them she had to be returned to the mother even although the social services had been told continually about the abuse which had been reported to them by the grandparents but they ignored them and did nothing.
During this time the grandparents had access and kept reporting to the father that Emma had bruises and once they had to take her to the local A&E for blood droplets coming out of her ear where she had been slapped hard. While they were there they were told there was signs of an old injury to her other ear that had never been attended to and still the social services did nothing saying it was because Emma didn’t speak clearly and that it was difficulty to determine just how she came to get these bruises. The mother always maintained that she got them whilst playing with her siblings.
Even with the hospital contacting the Child Protection Units of the police and Social Services and the subsequent videoed interview of Emma the social services still refused to accept these injuries were due to Emma being physically abused at her home.
This family has been the subject of social service scrutiny since 2002 and even although Emma was placed in the fathers care four times in one year and is now the subject of Child Protection Conferences the social services have never once acknowledged the possibility that the mother or stepfather could have inflicted these injuries.
Emma attended the school with a large bruise on her forehead and informed her teacher found out she had been hit by her step father. The Child Protection agencies were informed by the school and two days later Emma was placed again into the care of her father. Emma’s brother was also assaulted so hard by the stepfather he was placed in the care.
The couple have problems which are critical and in need of attention they cannot control their tempers and have been advised to attend anger management sessions. Both have dependency on alcohol. The social services knew of the domestic violence in this house but yet refused to acknowledge it.
There is a lot more to this story but it is cloaked under the veil of confidentiality. The question needs answering why when the Social Services knew of the physical and emotional abuse these children were suffering did they not take action sooner to protect them.
Social Services failed to believe the father was the birth father preferring to believe the step father who said he had a DNA test which proved he was Emma’s birth father, they did not engage with the real father until late 2007 The Social Services preferred to believe the step father who had changed Emma’s name claiming he was the father
This case is well documented by the amount of correspondence written to the Social Services workers and their superiors highlighting the concerns of the father and grandparents regarding the child but these were mostly ignored.
Emma was hit by the step father. The grandparents are not being told the full story as they are still being cast aside. The Social Services are not saying anything, but the story we are getting from Emma was she was in her bed in the middle of the night and the step father hit her without reason.
The next morning Emma told the school teacher of the assault, as she has been told to and the Social Services were then involved, however they did not contact the family and us until today and that was after interviewing Emma by video and subjecting her to another medical which they complained to us was stressing to Emma when we complained about her abuse six months ago.
The Social Services never listened to the child or the grandparents and suggested she only made the stories up. We are extremely lucky that she has only a bruised face and nothing more serious but the abuse she has suffered is beyond believe. Thank god Emma is safe now and doing remarkably better at school.
(Bringing Families Together)
www.grandparentsapart.co.uk
Newsletter Summer 2010
Home of the
‘Charter for Grandchildren’
*0141 882 5658*
Scottish Charity No SC 031558
Reg, address 22 Alness Crescent,
Glasgow G52 1PJ
A self supporting not for profit charity staffed by volunteers
To join or donate to our cause contact by phone
website or write to the details above.
Our AGM will be held on Tuesday night 7-9pm on 1st June 2010 at The Pearce Institute Govan Cross Glasgow G51. Every body welcome except Rab C. Nesbet. Please check when your membership is due to help us to carry on fighting.
If you feel there has been no progress regarding contact with our grandchildren just think of what we have achieved in Scotland the Charter for Grandchildren and Glasgow City Council accepting it and we are negotiating to make this happen as soon as possible.
The Charter is explained in 'About the “Charter for Grandchildren”' an other leaflet enclosed.
Grandparents Apart Wales under the guidance of Frank Bradfield and Peter Howell doing their website they are doing very well in getting the Welsh Assembly interested in the Charter for Grandchildren.
The English Government find the welfare of grandchildren a low vote catcher and come away with rubbish like giving grandparents more rights by doing away with the need to ask a courts permission to raise an action for contact.. Scotland has never needed to ask a courts permission. What the English Government is proposing is election gimmicks, so don’t be fooled.
“What is wrong with you British grandparents that you allow your Government to do this to you” A Frenchman sent me this letter and he is right. England has a lot more grandparents than Scotland or Wales put together and should be leading this campaign but it would appear no-one is willing to take up the challenge to promote the Charter for Grandchildren the only campaign that has the best interests of children as its priority. Scottish Authorities accepted it and Welsh Governments are thinking about it. Hitler couldn’t demoralise you but you allow your own government to dictate to you about who in your own family you can have contact with or not.
This case of Little Emma is a stark reminder of the need for grandparents to be in children’s lives and it is happening all over Britain.
The 4 year nightmare of abuse endured by a little girl called Emma is now over. Four years of hell because social services would not listen to her grandparents. The Charter for Grandchildren should be accepted UK wide to avoid horrors like these. Charges have now been brought against her abusers at last putting an end to 4 years of horror the social services said was not happening. Emma has been disturbed by her experience and will need specialist help.
Emma:-
A couple split up in 2005 when Emma was 20 months. The mother did not want her unless the father stayed too. The grandparents stepped in and took Emma in and cared for her for 9 days before the police came and told them she had to be returned to the mother even although the social services had been told continually about the abuse which had been reported to them by the grandparents but they ignored them and did nothing.
During this time the grandparents had access and kept reporting to the father that Emma had bruises and once they had to take her to the local A&E for blood droplets coming out of her ear where she had been slapped hard. While they were there they were told there was signs of an old injury to her other ear that had never been attended to and still the social services did nothing saying it was because Emma didn’t speak clearly and that it was difficulty to determine just how she came to get these bruises. The mother always maintained that she got them whilst playing with her siblings.
Even with the hospital contacting the Child Protection Units of the police and Social Services and the subsequent videoed interview of Emma the social services still refused to accept these injuries were due to Emma being physically abused at her home.
This family has been the subject of social service scrutiny since 2002 and even although Emma was placed in the fathers care four times in one year and is now the subject of Child Protection Conferences the social services have never once acknowledged the possibility that the mother or stepfather could have inflicted these injuries.
Emma attended the school with a large bruise on her forehead and informed her teacher found out she had been hit by her step father. The Child Protection agencies were informed by the school and two days later Emma was placed again into the care of her father. Emma’s brother was also assaulted so hard by the stepfather he was placed in the care.
The couple have problems which are critical and in need of attention they cannot control their tempers and have been advised to attend anger management sessions. Both have dependency on alcohol. The social services knew of the domestic violence in this house but yet refused to acknowledge it.
There is a lot more to this story but it is cloaked under the veil of confidentiality. The question needs answering why when the Social Services knew of the physical and emotional abuse these children were suffering did they not take action sooner to protect them.
Social Services failed to believe the father was the birth father preferring to believe the step father who said he had a DNA test which proved he was Emma’s birth father, they did not engage with the real father until late 2007 The Social Services preferred to believe the step father who had changed Emma’s name claiming he was the father
This case is well documented by the amount of correspondence written to the Social Services workers and their superiors highlighting the concerns of the father and grandparents regarding the child but these were mostly ignored.
Emma was hit by the step father. The grandparents are not being told the full story as they are still being cast aside. The Social Services are not saying anything, but the story we are getting from Emma was she was in her bed in the middle of the night and the step father hit her without reason.
The next morning Emma told the school teacher of the assault, as she has been told to and the Social Services were then involved, however they did not contact the family and us until today and that was after interviewing Emma by video and subjecting her to another medical which they complained to us was stressing to Emma when we complained about her abuse six months ago.
The Social Services never listened to the child or the grandparents and suggested she only made the stories up. We are extremely lucky that she has only a bruised face and nothing more serious but the abuse she has suffered is beyond believe. Thank god Emma is safe now and doing remarkably better at school.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)