"Bringing Families Together"

"Bringing Families Together"
http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

This poem was written by a Peacekeeping soldier stationed overseas.

THE NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS,
HE LIVED ALL ALONE,
IN A ONE BEDROOM HOUSE,
MADE OF PLASTER AND STONE.

I HAD COME DOWN THE CHIMNEY,
WITH PRESENTS TO GIVE,
AND TO SEE JUST WHO,
IN THIS HOME, DID LIVE.

I LOOKED ALL ABOUT,
A STRANGE SIGHT I DID SEE,
NO TINSEL, NO PRESENTS,
NOT EVEN A TREE.

NO STOCKING BY MANTLE,
JUST BOOTS FILLED WITH SAND,
ON THE WALL HUNG PICTURES,
OF FAR DISTANT LANDS.

WITH MEDALS AND BADGES,
AWARDS OF ALL KINDS,
A SOBER THOUGHT,
CAME THROUGH MY MIND.

FOR THIS HOUSE WAS DIFFERENT,
IT WAS DARK AND DREARY,
I FOUND THE HOME OF A SOLDIER,
ONCE I COULD SEE CLEARLY.

THE SOLDIER LAY SLEEPING,
SILENT, ALONE,
CURLED UP ON THE FLOOR,
IN THIS ONE BEDROOM HOME.

THE FACE WAS SO GENTLE,
THE ROOM IN DISORDER,
NOT HOW I PICTURED,
A TRUE BRITISH SOLDIER.

WAS THIS THE HERO, OF WHOM I'D JUST READ?
CURLED UP ON A PONCHO,
THE FLOOR FOR A BED?

I REALISED THE FAMILIES,
THAT I SAW THIS NIGHT,
OWED THEIR LIVES TO THESE SOLDIERS,
WHO WERE WILLING TO FIGHT.

SOON ROUND THE WORLD,
THE CHILDREN WOULD PLAY,
AND GROWNUPS WOULD CELEBRATE,
A BRIGHT CHRISTMAS DAY.

THEY ALL ENJOYED FREEDOM,
EACH MONTH OF THE YEAR,
BECAUSE OF THE SOLDIERS,
LIKE THE ONE LYING HERE.

I COULDN'T HELP WONDER,
HOW MANY LAY ALONE,
ON A COLD CHRISTMAS EVE,
IN A LAND FAR FROM HOME.

THE VERY THOUGHT BROUGHT,
A TEAR TO MY EYE,
I DROPPED TO MY KNEES,
AND STARTED TO CRY.

THE SOLDIER AWAKENED,
AND I HEARD A ROUGH VOICE,
"SANTA DON'T CRY,
THIS LIFE IS MY CHOICE;

I FIGHT FOR FREEDOM,
I DON'T ASK FOR MORE,
MY LIFE IS MY GOD,
MY COUNTRY, MY CORPS.."

THE SOLDIER ROLLED OVER,
AND DRIFTED TO SLEEP,
I COULDN'T CONTROL IT,
I CONTINUED TO WEEP.

I KEPT WATCH FOR HOURS,
SO SILENT AND STILL,
AND WE BOTH SHIVERED,
FROM THE COLD NIGHT'S CHILL.

I DID NOT WANT TO LEAVE,
ON THAT COLD, DARK, NIGHT,
THIS GUARDIAN OF HONOUR,
SO WILLING TO FIGHT.

THEN THE SOLDIER ROLLED OVER,
WITH A VOICE SOFT AND PURE,
WHISPERED, "CARRY ON SANTA,
IT'S CHRISTMAS DAY, ALL IS SECURE."

ONE LOOK AT MY WATCH,
AND I KNEW HE WAS RIGHT.
"MERRY CHRISTMAS MY FRIEND,
AND TO ALL A GOOD NIGHT."

This poem was written by a Peacekeeping soldier stationed overseas. The following is his request. I think it is reasonable

PLEASE. Would you do me the kind favour of sending this to as many people as you can? Christmas will be coming soon and some credit is due to all of the service men and women for our being able to celebrate these festivities. Let's try in this small way to pay a tiny bit of what we owe. Make people stop and think of our heroes, living and dead, who sacrificed themselves for us. Please, do your small part to plant this small seed

Governments Ignore Family's

Hi Jimmy,

I’m afraid to say that both governments serve the same masters and I no longer look to any of them to save the family. The secret agenda to destroy the traditional family, drawn up by the international banking elite is going well for them. Of course they don’t get their own hands dirty, but simply fund the feminists, socialists, Marxists, etc to do it for them. The Rockefeller Foundation has been bankrolling the feminist movement for decades, but don’t take my word for it. Here’s an example:

http://www.rockefellerfoundation.org/grants/search?keywords=women&startDate=mm+%2F+dd+%2F+yyyy&endDate=mm+%2F+dd+%2F+yyyy

Where is the funding for men? Where are the men’s refuges? How about a government minister for men? What about domestic violence against men or more commonly, physiological abuse?

It’s all one sided Jimmy and the end result is that children, fathers and grandparents take the brunt of all this when families breakdown. My own mum was tortured every single day for 5 years following my divorce because she could not see the grandchildren she loved so dearly. The last years of her life were pure hell, but of course Jimmy you know all about that.

Monday, December 6, 2010

Lock your car

Better safe than sorry…

How to Lock Your Car and Why

I locked my car. As I walked away I heard my car door unlock. I went back and locked my car again three times. Each time, as soon as I started to walk away, I would hear it unlock again!! Naturally alarmed, I looked around and there were two guys sitting in a car in the fire lane next to the store. They were obviously watching me intently, and there was no doubt they were somehow involved in this very weird situation.

I quickly chucked the errand I was on, jumped in my car and sped away. I went straight to the police station, told them what had happened, and found out I was part of a new, and very successful, scheme being used to gain entry into cars. Two weeks later, my friend's son had a similar happening....
While traveling, my friend's son stopped at a roadside rest to use the bathroom. When he came out to his car less than 4-5 minutes later, someone had gotten into his car and stolen his cell phone, laptop computer, GPS navigator, briefcase.....you name it. He called the police and since there were no signs of his car being broken into, the police told him he had been a victim of the latest robbery tactic -- there is a device that robbers are using now to clone your security code when you lock your doors on your car using your key-chain locking device..

They sit a distance away and watch for their next victim. They know you are going inside of the store, restaurant, or bathroom and that they now have a few minutes to steal and run. The police officer said to manually lock your car door-by hitting the lock button inside the car -- that way if there is someone sitting in a parking lot watching for their next victim, it will not be you.


When you hit the lock button on your car upon exiting, it does not send the security code, but if you walk away and use the door lock on your key chain, it sends the code through the airwaves where it can be instantly stolen.

This is very real.

Be wisely aware of what you just read and please pass this note on. Look how many times we all lock our doors with our remote just to be sure we remembered to lock them -- and bingo, someone has our code...and whatever was in our car.


Snopes Approved --.Please share with everyone you know

THE LAW SOCIETY of SCOTLAND on Grandparents Rights

THE LAW SOCIETY of SCOTLAND

www.lawscot.org.uk

26 Drumsheugh Gardens Edinburgh EH3 7YR

Legal Post LPI Edinburgh -1

T: 0131 2267411 F: 0131 225 2934

Textphone: 01314768359


Mr Jimmy Deuchars

Grandparents Apart UK

22 Alness Crescent Glasgow

G521PJ

Our reference: LJ/JJ 2 December2010

Dear Mr Deuchars

Many thanks for your latter dated 6 October. As advised in my letter of 22 October I referred your enquiry to our Family Law sub-committee and have since received the following advice.

Contact to a child is one of the orders that can be sought from the court which is one of the parental rights that are embodied in the Children (Scotland) Act of 1995. The issue of contact between parents is sometimes disputed and in these situations it is necessary for the parent seeking contact to apply to the court for a contact order. This right to apply for a contact order however is not restricted to parents. Anyone who has an interest in a child, whether it be a grandparent, step-parent, aunt, uncle etc. can apply to the court for a contact order if they can establish that they have an interest in the child. Clearly a grandparent, on the face of it, has such an interest. Grandparents therefore have the same rights as a parent to apply to the court for a contact order.

Where confusion is perhaps being caused is in the reference to "automatic legal right of contact". A parent does not have an automatic legal right of contact. What a married parent has is automatic parental responsibilities and rights, one of which is to maintain contact with a child who is not living in their household. To enforce that right of contact the parent has to apply to the court for a contact order. There is therefore a distinction between a right and the enforceability of that right which is where confusion might arise.

As the letter you received from the Scottish Government indicated, the policy decided recently was that it would not be appropriate to extend automatic parental rights and responsibilities beyond parents to others such as grandparents. However, as indicated earlier, anyone who has a right to a child can apply to the court for a contact order which is what a parent would have to do in any event to enforce it. There is no prohibition on grandparents seeking contact orders from the court. Grandparents have not however been granted automatic parental responsibilities and rights.

Another way to look at it is if a grandparent did have an automatic

Legal right of contact to their grandchild, and this was being refused by the parents for whatever reason, then the grandparent would have to apply to the court for a contact order to enforce it. This is exactly what a parent has to do under the law as it stands. There is therefore no great prejudice being a grandparent not having automatic parental responsibilities and rights from the point of view that having an automatic right does not mean that you can enforce it without having to apply to the courts.

I hope this letter explains this distinction more clearly to you and that perhaps by looking at the position from a slightly different angle it illustrates that the assertion by solicitors that grandparents have rights in that they can apply to the court for a right of contact just like parents do, is correct.


Yours sincerely

Lorna Jack

0131 476 8157

lornajack@lawscot.org.uk

Chief Executive






















Children are Safer in war torn Kabul than in Glasgow

Says,; Mak Sedwill Former British Ambassador for Afghanistan.

It is obvious to everyone else that the backbone and future of our nation depends upon how children are raised. If they are treated fairly with love and stability from their family including their extended family we will have caring citizens to carry on looking after the welfare of everyone else. This present Scottish Government talks a good game but does not back up its promises with action. They are ignoring the issue of the welfare of children.

Drugs and alcohol families are on the increase and our governments’ policy is to snatch the children groom them for adoption by alienating them from the rest of their family, telling them they are no longer wanted by their grandparents, cousins, uncles, aunts etc. All this does is make children isolated, bitter and resentful to their family and society in general. Too often this ends up with them being in care and perfect candidates for gangs that make us old people afraid to open our door or go out at night. The master plan of all this is to adopt them to strangers without the consent of any member of that child’s family. Dealing with the problem like this is only a short term solution. When the children that go through this trauma come back as the criminals and thugs of the future the problem has magnified. Can you see the cycle of events? We are going round in circles and each turn of the cycle is worse than the before.

Our Government is looking for quick fixes and has no real policies for families for the future. Three of their MSPs started to work for us when first elected, but abandoned the search for better conditions for children. Then this government ignored The Charter for Grandchildren, created by the previous Scottish Government, designed to ensure professionals that work in the children’s welfare system put children’s interests first. Unbelievably this does not happen in a lot of cases.

The Charter for Grandchildren is parent friendly and does not give grandparents any legal rights at all. It simply reminds professionals and families of the value of the relationship between children and extended family, grandparents in particular. If it is in the child’s best interest for their extended family to stop Social Services putting them needlessly into care or to strangers then that is what should happen instead of extracting them from their family which often ruins their lives forever.

We need our Government to care about our children NOW. Ignoring what actually happens to children from problem families is a ticking time-bomb waiting to blow many lives apart. The Charter for Grandchildren is a valuable document that MUST be supported for the sake of our future.

Sunday, December 5, 2010

Child protection: how a cruel council plays its cat-and-mouse game

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8181575/Child-protection-how-a-cruel-council-plays-its-cat-and-mouse-game.html

Christopher Booker

Child protection: how a cruel council plays its cat-and-mouse game

One distraught family's experience is typical of our warped system of child protection, says Christopher Booker.

Mother and child are often torn apart by our system of child protection Photo: Alamy

7:40PM GMT 04 Dec 2010

108 Comments

Last Tuesday I dined in a smart Knightsbridge restaurant with Ian Josephs, who runs the Forced Adoption website, his wife, a mother whom I cannot name and her delightful five-month-old baby, who sat in a high chair perfectly behaved throughout. This was the baby who, shortly after she was born in June, was torn from her mother’s arms in hospital at 3am by six policemen and three social workers. Two months earlier, social workers had also snatched the mother’s five older children, to put them in foster care, costing taxpayers more than £2,000 a week.

On Tuesday afternoon, the mother had been unexpectedly told that she could have contact with two of her children, miles from north London where she lives. Yet again, when she arrived at the contact centre, she was told that the children were not coming, although apparently they long to see her. On returning to the station with her baby, given back to her by the court six weeks ago, she found that all trains had been cancelled because of the snow, forcing her to return to London by taxi at a cost of £50.

This was yet another instalment of a cat and mouse game the council has been playing with the parents for months, telling them they can see their children, only for them frequently to hear, after their long journey, that some or all of the children were not available after all. (It happened again last Friday.)

Months ago the court ordered that the children should be brought back into London, nearer their home. Meanwhile, the council should give the parents a travel voucher, worth more than £30 a time, for their journey. Only once did the council provide a voucher, which the parents discovered on the return journey was one-way only, costing them £100 in penalties.

Since then the court order has been ignored and the parents have had to pay up to £150 a week to see their children, only to be told on arrival that the agreed contact has been cancelled.Meanwhile, the case used to justify the seizing of the children has been collapsing in all directions, although the parents have not once been allowed to challenge the extraordinary statements made about them. Not until next year, 10 months after this family was ruthlessly broken up, will there be a final hearing to decide whether this utterly heartless farce can at last be brought to an end. If and when the facts about this barely credible story can be reported, it will be worthy of the front page

'Huge implications' of Family Court changes

Page last updated at 08:26 GMT, Friday, 3 December 2010

Inside the family courts

Last month the government announced it was planning to remove most Legal Aid from private law cases in the Family Courts. These include matters of divorce, separation, custody and residence for children.

The aim of the change is to push more separating parents to solve their problems through mediation, which is a cheaper, more permanent and less fraught route.

But judges and lawyers within the Family Courts say that many cases will not be resolved that way. They believe difficult complex and entrenched cases will still come to court, but without lawyers.

Article continues at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9247000/9247335.stm

Today Programme BBC Radio 4 Friday 03Dec10

Page last updated at 09:21 GMT, Friday, 3 December 2010

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9253000/9253887.stm

'Huge implications' of Family Court changes

There are considerable concerns within the family courts about the government's plans to remove legal aid from private law cases.

Sanchia Berg reports on the possible impact of the changes.

Saturday, December 4, 2010

Parents' child abuse 'nightmare'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_8928000/8928337.stm

Parents' child abuse 'nightmare'

'Someone just tell us it's over'

By Darragh MacIntyre
BBC Panorama

A couple suspected of hurting their three-month-old son and who spent nearly two years fighting to clear their names, have won the right to tell the full story of what happened to them after a landmark legal ruling.

It is every parent's nightmare. Your child is badly hurt and you are accused of doing it. But that nightmare became a reality for first-time parents Jake and Victoria Ward, from Cambridgeshire.

Victoria Ward said she would never forget hearing that tests had showed that their son William's lower right leg was broken - an extremely rare injury in a child not yet walking.

"This nightmare seemed like it was completely spiralling out of control. I think having a child with a fracture is bad enough, being accused of something is bad enough and then I think your next worst nightmare is that the accusations are going to grow and grow and grow."

The local authority Cambridgeshire County Council put William on the Child Protection Register when neither parent could explain how the injury occurred.

How can you celebrate knowing that someone has decided you didn't hurt your child when all along you've known that you didn't hurt your child?

Victoria Ward, William's mother

In fact, initial tests suggested the infant's arms had been injured too.

The Wards were suspected of abusing their son and when Cambridgeshire County Council applied for a care order, this signalled that their case would be heard in the closed world of the family courts.

Thousands of children have their futures decided in the family courts every year and because of strict rules on what can be reported, often little is revealed about what happens once the court doors are closed.

The Wards were also investigated by the police and were arrested on suspicion of causing grievous bodily harm and child cruelty. Jake and Victoria, who both worked for Cambridgeshire County Council, the same local authority that was also investigating them, were suspended from their jobs.

Because neither Jake or Victoria appeared to fit the profile of child abusers, William was allowed to stay with his parents, but on one condition - he must never be left alone with them. His grandparents moved into the family home and supervised the Wards 24 hours a day.

They were also visited regularly by social workers.

'Clear-cut case'

As far as officials were concerned it was a straightforward case that required intervention.

Gordon Jeyes, the director of children's services in Cambridgeshire at the time, said: "It was a clear-cut case in that there was no immediate explanation and the parents were not clear how the baby had come by the injury.

"Unfortunately it's a social worker's job to think the unthinkable because sometimes terrible things happen."

F

That was July 2005. More than a year later, the Crown Prosecution Service decided not to prosecute. Detectives still believed someone harmed William but they could not prove who.

William was nearly two by the time the case was heard by the family courts. The judge found that there was "no cogent evidence" that Jake and Victoria had injured their son.

Medical experts are often asked to give evidence in family court cases, but they are rarely identified, whether they get it right or wrong.

The Wards' solicitor Nick Barnes pointed out that expert opinion was sometimes complementary but was also often conflicting.

Jake Ward passed out from an anxiety attack as the case dragged on

He said: "This case exposes the frailties of expert evidence, despite the many eminent specialists instructed."

Ultimately the Wards' future hinged on the evidence of one medical expert, who said it was wrong to assume child abuse just because there was no other explanation for the injury.

It was a crucial point for their case and for the cases of other families. But while their names had been cleared, they wanted the expert witnesses in their case to be identified.

They began a High Court battle to get all the reporting restrictions lifted, which they won earlier this year.

Victoria said: "Secrecy means that families can't find out about experts.

"They can't find out exactly what to expect, about what will go on in court.

"They can't share experiences. They can't adequately prepare themselves for what's going to happen either emotionally or practically in terms of making sure that they have the necessary experts and evidence that they need to be making their case."

But while they took comfort from their various court victories they have not been celebrating.

"Something as massive as this in your life, I don't think you can ever forget it," Jake said.

This case, in my view, shows the need to remain objective and forensically minded, despite the horrendous pressures on professionals and parents, and the potentially devastating human cost to families if we get it wrong

Nick Barnes, the Ward's solicitor

Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health's response to programme

"How can you celebrate knowing that someone has decided you didn't hurt your child when all along you've known that you didn't hurt your child?" Victoria added.

It is still not known how William was injured.

Jake and Victoria believe he may have broken his leg by trapping it in his cot. They filmed him sleeping to show his movements. Experts in the case said it was possible, but unlikely.

They investigated whether hypermobility or double jointedness could have contributed, but that was ruled out.

However research is now under way into unexplained injuries in small children.

Solicitor Nick Barnes said the Wards' experience highlighted the difficulties families faced if there was not an obvious explanation for their child's injury.

He said without one it led to "a presumption of guilt and responsibility".

He said: "This case, in my view, shows the need to remain objective and forensically minded, despite the horrendous pressures on professionals and parents, and the potentially devastating human cost to families if we get it wrong."

Three years after the Ward case, reporters are now allowed into family courts.

And in the final week of the last Parliament, a bill was passed which rubber stamps the Ward ruling that paid expert witnesses can be identified.

The parents failed to protect the girls from paedophiles

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1306108/Couple-loaned-girls-paedophiles-duping-social-workers-convicted.html

Adopted, then handed to abusers: Convicted of neglect, cruel couple who loaned girls to paedophiles after duping social workers

By JAMES TOZER and SUE REID
Last updated at
8:04 AM on 26th August 2010

Abuser: The parents failed to protect the girls from paedophiles Colin Molloy, pictured, and Sam Nelson

A couple who adopted two young girls and let two paedophiles subject them to horrific sexual abuse were yesterday convicted of child neglect.

The adoptive father, 55 – who had himself been sexually abusing one of the girls from the age of seven – was found guilty on 13 counts of indecent assault and indecency with a child as well as four counts of child neglect.

He was found not guilty of two child-sex charges and one count of neglect by a judge at Minshull Street Crown Court, Manchester, but was remanded in custody for reports.

His wife, 54, was released on bail after being found guilty of five counts of child neglect, but was warned there was a ‘strong possibility’ she would be jailed.

The couple – who cannot be named, to preserve the children’s anonymity – allowed convicted child rapist Colin Molloy and his friend Samuel Nelson to abuse the girls in the family home. Last year Molloy, 46, was jailed indefinitely after admitting nine counts of rape against the younger girl, while Nelson, 43, was jailed for nine years after admitting 11 offences including indecent assault.

Last night an MP called for an independent inquiry into how the system designed to protect the girls failed, while it emerged that the older girl may sue the authority which approved the placement.

Coming from broken, dysfunctional families, adoption was supposed to provide these two young girls with the secure and loving home their birth parents were unable to offer.

Instead it plunged them into a dark and terrifying world of exploitation, violence and rape.

Their adoptive parents – a bus driver and his shop assistant wife – managed to fool Manchester social services into believing they were a decent working-class couple who wanted nothing more than to nurture the children placed in their care.

In fact they were cruel, cynical degenerates.

One of the girls was sexually assaulted by her adoptive father from the age of seven – sometimes in the presence of his wife – and both were later handed on to two other predatory paedophiles who subjected them to years of rape and assault.

The girls became helpless captives. There was no effective monitoring by social services and when they complained to their adoptive mother, she told them to ‘keep quiet’, even asking the elder girl not to make a fuss as one of the abusers ‘helped us with money and a car’. The couple, who are not being named in order to protect the girls’ identities, married in 1990. Apparently unable to conceive, they applied to adopt.

Exploitation, violence and rape: The adoptive parents, who cannot be identified to preserve the children's anonymity

Checks at their scruffy ex-council house in Sale, Greater Manchester, and personal vetting failed to uncover the husband’s long association with known parpaedophile
Colin Molloy and his associate Samuel Nelson.

They were allowed to adopt the first girl, daughter of a chronic alcoholic mother, in 1999, when she was five. Within two years, the husband was subjecting her to regular sexual abuse, hitting her and leaving her ‘bruised and sore’ if she resisted.

She was too terrified to tell anyone outside the house, and visiting social workers failed to detect anything amiss. Incredibly, they were allowed to adopt a second girl – also then five – in 2005.

After the second adoption, Molloy and Nelson were regularly entrusted to ‘look after’ the girls when they had finished school and their adoptive parents
were still at work. Molloy, who persuaded the girls to call him ‘Uncle Colin’, had a history of travelling around the country and befriending parents who wanted help looking after their children.

More...

· Couple took cash for 'loaning their adopted daughters to paedophiles'

In reality the gardener-cum-handyman was a paedophile who was jailed for seven years for child rape in 1989. On one occasion, when the older girl was 13, she told her adoptive mother that Nelson was sexually abusing her, but was told: ‘Just leave it, we’ll have to see what happens.’

Molloy, meanwhile, molested the younger girl, then aged just eight, in her sister’s bedroom with their adoptive mother still in the house.

On occasion the adoptive parents would make lame protests at the level of abuse, but their efforts to tackle it were pitiful and never involved calling the police or other authorities.

When they did challenge Nelson about abusing the girls, he left for a while, only to return and give both children presents of pairs of knickers.

The adoptive father told him to apologise, and the baby-sitting arrangement resumed, along with the routine of almost daily abuse.

The trial was also told that the mother also turned a blind eye to the abuse her husband perpetrated against the older girl over a six-year period, even when he molested her in the same room.

The alleged abuse finally came to light last year when one of the girls told a schoolteacher that an 'uncle' had been touching her. Police were already hunting for Molloy over two other victims, and the girls were placed in foster care.

The older girl, now aged 16, is said to feel 'emotionally frozen' while the girl she still regards as her sister, now ten, frequently bursts into tears.

A relative of the birth mother of the older sister - who received her GCSE results this week - told the Daily Mail yesterday: 'It seems clear to us that adequate checks cannot have been done.'

'They are monsters who were trusted by both the girls and they broke that trust. The girls were very brave'

She said the girl's birth mother, who had a drink problem, had 'fought like a tigress to keep her' but 'lost the will to live' after her daughter was taken into care and died on Mother's Day, 2005, aged just 43.

'Social services should have helped keep this mother and daughter together as a family unit,' the relative said. 'Instead, they wrenched the child from her mother. They then handed her through a forced adoption, endorsed by the secret family courts, to a paedophile ring.

'There is a dangerous culture among social workers. They will take a child from birth parents after making unproven accusations against them and hand that child to adoptive parents who are always deemed to be perfect.'

Another relative of the oldest girl said of the adoptive parents: 'They are monsters who were trusted by both the girls and they broke that trust. The girls were very brave.

'If they had not spoken out about what was happening to them, no one would be any the wiser.'

Manchester City Council - which authorised the original adoptions - said it had commissioned an independent internal assessment which found it had followed proper procedures, but refused to publish it.

Now Lib Dem MP John Hemming, who is campaigning for changes in Britain's adoption system, has written to Children's Minister Tim Loughton calling for an independent serious case review.

What planet are they on if they think a secret report will put an end to this?' he asked.

'Something has gone dreadfully wrong and we need to know whether complaints about what was happening were ignored.'

Last night Manchester city council's director of children's services, Pauline Newman, said: 'The vast majority of adoptive parents do a fantastic job. This case must not detract from that fact.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1306108/Couple-loaned-girls-paedophiles-duping-social-workers-convicted.html#ixzz17AddJSG8