Jimmy's Blog

Use of psychotropic drugs on children

2011-09-16T16:31:00.000+01:00

I am truly amazed at the government saying we could fund more adults to be available to work directly with children. We have an army of willing grandparents wanting to help children but the government is definitely turning a blind eye to that fact and rather than use grandparents they talk about drugging our children into submission and also changing the way mental illness is diagnosed. The “Best interests of the Child” saying came from Nazi Germany are we now in danger of adopting their methods as well?

Why ? What are they afraid of in making grandparents relevant in children’s lives? We have agreed with the government that we don’t need automatic legal rights as that would not work but on the governments suggestion we agreed on a Charter for Grandchildren and helped in its creation. The idea was the children should have the right to have grandparents in their lives if there was no reason otherwise. And government organisations should look more closely at the role grandparents can play in their grandchildren’s lives it has not been as effective as it should be because of lack of legislation.

Now after recognising the needs for a charter and going to all the bother of creating it social services now maintain what is contained in it is already enshrined in law.

If that particular legislation had been heeded there would be no need for change, it has been ignored so much and forgotten that there is a cry for it to be revised and focussed on the real best interests in protecting our children. Especially from the governments own organisations.

One person wielding all the power over who has contact with children is causing children to be used as weapons and blackmail. In some cases one mother had a child to three fathers and charged them £150.00p per week to have contact while still collecting benefits. One granny is paying all the rent and costs for her daughter-in law’s flat just to be able to see the child and the mother is still collecting benefits. It is very common that grandparents are paying in one way or another for contact with their grandchildren.

We at Grandparents Apart UK would like an explanation as to why grandparents are regarded as sub human species shunned by every government department regarding their grandchildren. Are our children now to be snatched, groomed, force adopted and drugged into submission. This will create even more gangs in the future with non achievers and unmanageable children. Quick fixes are no good we must treat our children with the respect that grandparents can give.

Psychologists warn of growing use of psychotropic drugs on children

2011-09-16T09:32:00.000+01:00

By Lauren Higgs Thursday, 15 September 2011

Be the first to comment

Shy children are at risk of being prescribed powerful psychotropic drugs because of a growing tendency to treat behavioural problems with medication, the Association of Educational Psychologists (AEP) has warned.

Fallon: 'In a society that wants quick results, using drugs to improve behaviour is very tempting'. Image: Brijesh Patel

Speaking at the TUC conference, AEP general secretary Kate Fallon called for an urgent national review into the use of drugs such as Ritalin on school-aged children.

"We are concerned that not enough is known about the long-term effects of such powerful drugs on the development of children’s brains," she said.

"We have received increased numbers of reports from our members that children with behavioural difficulties are being prescribed drugs without full discussion with other professionals to see if other strategies or approaches could be used instead of, or at least alongside, the medication."

Fallon added that plans to adopt a new set of criteria for defining mental illness in the UK in 2013 will lead to many more children being diagnosed as mentally ill on the basis of their behaviour.

"A shy child could be diagnosed with social anxiety; a sad or temporarily withdrawn child could be diagnosed with depression," she said.

"In a society that wants quick results, using drugs to improve behaviour is very tempting. But there can be other ways of improving children’s behaviour that typically involve time and energy from people."

"Simply relying on medication in isolation is no solution; we must foster a more collaborative approach to the treatment of school-aged children with conditions such as ADHD (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder)."

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Nice) guidance says psychotropic drugs should not be prescribed to children under the age of six.

But the Department of Health doesn’t collect data on prescriptions of this kind, so there is no national figure on the use of such drugs with children.

"We have evidence that the current guidance is not being followed. For example, children under six are being prescribed the drugs but there is no monitoring of such practice," Fallon said.

She criticised Nice for declining to review its guidance in light of AEP’s findings.

"If we fail to review our practices we run the risk of even more children being prescribed with drugs whose long-term effects are not categorically known to us," she said.

"We run the risk of committing children to long-term drug use and of committing the long-term spending of public money to increase the profits of pharmaceutical companies, public money which could go some way towards funding more adults being available to work directly with children.

Governments are failing to protect abused children.

2011-09-13T09:42:00.002+01:00

are turning a blind eye to their findings and are colluding in child abuse.

The government’s stance is grandparents are not relevant in the grandchildren’s lives. Is this stance justifiable when NSPCC is constantly advertising on television about how much children are abused in their own home? Contact can simply be by phone, letter, email etc. or visits. Contact to make sure they are safe.

Grandparents agree that a mother is usually the best person to care for her children when all is well. What happens when it is not?

Mothers have the protection of the law and the government at their beck and call. Could this be the problem? It is the children that should have that protection, with grandparents able to support them by seeing what’s happening and to help them in these circumstances.

The majority of children are well looked after, but too many are not. These children are left out, maltreated and unnoticed until they end up in hospital or the abuse is so far gone that neighbours report it to social services and they take the children, scarred for life, into care. This is a huge emotional and financial expense that could be avoided with early intervention.

Government figures say 60,000 children are living in drug related households in the

. They are not helping them or letting anyone else help them either.

Children need this right to have grandparents in their life unless their safety would be in danger by doing so.

But the governments are closed to this idea and allow more and more children to be abused in their own homes when it could be spotted earlier if grandparents were allowed that right of contact.

The government’s adamant stance is not in the best interests of children. We need them to wake up to the very strong advertising of the NSPCC that there is wide spread of abuse of children in their own homes.

Poetic sayings in a lovely Frame.

2011-09-12T14:09:00.012+01:00

In aid of our funds.

Remember Grandparents Day is the 1st October each year

The above poetic sayings in colour can be purchased from us at a cost of £2.50. +£1.00p P+P. overseas will be extra. from:-

Other sayings are "The Mission of Jesus" "The Popes prayer for grandparents" If you would like your own special saying enshrined in a lovely frame as a memento or present for someone dear to you as a Christmas present, send it to us and we will frame it as above at no extra charge. please state colour required and we will do our best to get it as close as possible.

This little promotion helps our funds and gives you an inexpensive idea for a present at Christmas at the same time.

Cheques made out to :-

G.A.U.K

22 Alness Crescent,

Glasgow G52 1PJ

Or Pay by Paypal using the donation button on our website or use any credit card :-

www.grandparentsapart.co.uk

The Abuse of Grandma B

2011-09-12T13:37:00.000+01:00

– How Corrupt Officials are plundering the Assets of the Elderly

The Abuse of Grandma B – a sad story told by Peter Hofschröer

Grandma B is now 82 years old. She is wheelchair-bound and very frail. The past three years of her life have been horrendous. She lost her husband of 60 years, but that was the easy part. She has also been the victim of sustained and systematic abuse in which she has been defrauded of her house, subjected to threats and harassment because she will not hand over her life savings to her abusers, then unlawfully evicted from her house and stranded abroad, with her abusers trying, fortunately unsuccessfully, to fraudulently sell her house.

You may well ask who would do such an awful thing to a little, old lady in a wheelchair. Sadly, most abuse takes place within the family and this is very much the case here. The main abusers are Grandma B’s older son, his wife and her two adult grandchildren.

Grandma B’s younger son was working abroad when he noticed something was very wrong. He immediately rushed back home, where his worst fears were confirmed. While he was travelling, his 87 year-old father was admitted to hospital with a serious heart complaint caused by neglect. His mother too was seriously ill due to neglect. His older brother and his family lived just around the corner, but had done little to help Grandma B and her very sick husband.

A year before this, Grandma B and her husband had signed over their house to the older son and his family on the understanding they would care for them. Their younger son agreed to this, because he was living and working abroad and could not provide the level of care needed. Hardly was the ink on the agreement dry when the older son and his family started running Grandma B and her husband down, hoping they would pass on as soon as possible.

When, in April 2008, the younger son arrived in the parental home, he was horrified by what he saw. He dropped what he was doing, gave up his job and home and became the full-time carer for his parents. His father led a full and happy life in his last months. His mother’s physical health has improved dramatically since the younger son took over her care.

As soon as the younger son took over the care of his parents, the older son and his family started a campaign of harassment designed to drive him out of the parental home and to seize control of their finances. Matters reached such a level in September 2008, that the younger son reported the criminal offences to the police and the abuse to social services.

What followed from there can only be described as a nightmare. The police made several attempts to arrest to carer on the basis of false allegations, while social services fabricated allegations against him in an attempt to have his powers of attorney revoked and the care of his parents placed in the hands of their abusers.

A few days after the younger son made his complaint, the police arrived at the parental home to investigate a complaint he has “stolen” his parents’ money. They had no evidence to support this allegation made by the abusers, but refused to record a complaint of harassment by the abusers.

Social services blocked all attempts at getting the abuse investigated. Grandma B’s social worker made a false allegation of assault against her carer, an unfit, middle-aged man. Social services withdrew this allegation when they were shown evidence that the social worker was a black-belt in martial arts. His claim to have been overpowered and physically ejected from the parental home without injury looked a little ridiculous, to say the least.

On the morning Grandma B’s husband of 60 years died, the police unlawfully raided her house. They allowed her abusers to charge in, assault her and bawl insults at her over her husband’s still warm corpse. When her carer stood between her and her abusers to protect her, the police officers pushed him out of the way and threatened to arrest him.

In the following months, the abusers stalked Grandma B, attempted to break into her house and send her abusive letters. The police refused to uphold the law and arrest the criminals in question.

An independent investigation into Social Service’s handling of the case criticised them and required them to reopen the safeguarding investigation. Months later, they did, but the police and Social Services withheld all evidence of abuse.

Instead, they fabricated abuse allegations against the carer and applied to the Office of the Public Guardian to have his powers of attorney annulled. The Office of the Public Guardian established the allegations made by Social Services were false and rejected the application.

Grandma B then went on her wheelchair to a local council meeting to hand out a leaflet protesting about the way the police and social services were treating her. Her local ward councillors set police officers in stab-vests on to her, threatening to arrest her for distributing a “defamatory” leaflet. When her carer pointed out that defamation is a civil matter and not a police matter, the officers looked a little flummoxed, but still tried to prevent her from exercising her democratic right of peaceful protest. Grandma B is a veteran of the Second World War and stood her ground. When her carer called out to the police sergeant attending the meeting in front of the 30 or so members of the public present that she should arrest these officers for harassing a vulnerable person, they beat a hasty retreat. The sergeant refused to uphold the law.

Instead, two days later, the local police fabricated the first Harassment Warning against her carer. A couple of weeks later, they fabricated a second warning and were clearly intending to fabricate a third, at which point the carer could have been arrested.

In the ensuing two years, the carer’s legal representatives both in Britain and abroad have made dozens of requests for sight of the evidence to support these unsigned, undated harassment warnings which are not legally valid. The police have produced nothing other than excuses and have refused every opportunity to sign these warnings for fear of perjuring themselves. The police inspector that issued the warnings took “early retirement” when challenged by the carer’s solicitor to produce the evidence.

Exhausted by this constant harassment, Grandma B went abroad on holiday for Christmas 2009. The police tipped off her abusers she was away from home, who then forced entry, changed the locks and unlawfully evicted her. After stealing her valuables in full view of the police, they tried to fraudulently sell her house. Fortunately, Grandma B’s solicitor prevented them from doing so.

However, her abusers and their friends in the police and local authority, then fabricated a kidnapping allegation against her carer. This request to arrest the carer went from the local CID to Special Branch, to SOCA, to New Scotland Yard, to Interpol London, Interpol in the country in question, then to the national police headquarters and provincial police headquarters before landing on the desk of a local police officer in a remote Alpine village.

The expectation here was obvious: the local country bumpkin plod would be so impressed by the provenance of this request that he would summon up reinforcements before daring to attempt to tackle this known, hardened, serious international criminal.

It did not quite work out like that. Two weeks before this request arrived, the police officer and his good wife had been among the many guests at the local pub at Grandma B’s 82nd birthday party. He had been sceptical about the stories he had heard about official corruption in Britain, but now he was supposed to arrest the carer for kidnapping his mother, holding her against her will and incommunicado. He obviously knew these allegations were false, but being a professional, he carried out a proper investigation. His report made it clear that the British police had knowingly lied to Interpol to help corrupt officers defraud a little, old lady on a wheelchair.

This attempt by corrupt British police to abuse honest local police officers to carry out criminal acts on their behalf is now under investigation by the local foreign ministry.

Had the carer not been so lucky, then the chances are he would have been remanded in custody pending extradition, while Grandma B would have been returned to Britain and to the tender mercies of social services. Her assets would then have been plundered and divided up between the gang of criminals running this racket.

There have now been five independent reviews of this case. All have called for it to be reopened. Both the police and local authority have ignored these requests.

So what is going on here and who is involved? The main abuser is employed by local social services. He, his wife and daughter have provided support services to the local police. They all know who the isolated old people in their area with assets are. It would seem they are systematically targeting defenceless old people and seizing control of their assets before bundling them off into a council home, then selling their assets. The cash then gets laundered through a dodgy private care company as “care fees” and the police officers, social workers, council officials and local politicians involved then pocket the money. The perfect crime, as who is going to listen to a confused, old lady in a home, whose contact with the outside world they are controlling?

This is rampant corruption and serious, organised crime. Nobody in authority in North Yorkshire – including a certain senior police officer in the news at present – will respond to correspondence and deal with this case.

How many more victims are there?

Dogs Cage

2011-09-10T15:38:00.000+01:00

Blame the government

2011-09-10T12:28:00.002+01:00

re-release Wi a wee bit extra.

Don’t blame parents!!! Blame the government for the inhuman treatment of children in the care system, The University of Crime. Children need their families.

The government are trying to pass the buck for the criminal riots onto parents. What a cheek and insult to the millions of parents.

It is well known that children removed from their family by social services and brought up in the care system are non achievers, disrespectful, unmanageable, and have no respect for anyone. They are the mainstream of the gangs that roam our streets looking for that family feeling they were robbed of when they were cruelly separated from their family.

The government do not even try to keep children with their families. Snatch, groom them and adopt to the first people who fancy adopting a child. Grandparents have been campaigning for years to be taken seriously in caring for their grandchildren rather than the care system but the government turn a blind eye to them and tell them you have no rights. We don’t need to talk to you. Grandparents have won the Charter for Grandchildren from the Scottish government and if made mandatory for professionals in the care system would ensure millions of children would be placed with their grandparents if that is in their best interest rather than social services.

We are already in the too late. The British family is being destroyed by government policies which are based only on cost at present but this passes the problem and even more cost onto future authorities when the children are adults and committing crimes on society. The government thinks they can treat children anyway they like and expect them to be upstanding citizens when they grow up.

There are other points to consider I was told by an MSP. The points that they consider is how to further their own career. The present SNP government is not interested in any way in bringing families together. They even pay Woman’s Aid to alienate grandparents from a child’s life.

!!!! They are still at it !!!!!

2011-09-10T12:17:00.000+01:00

The British Government without consent deported children from 1930 to 1970. The favourite saying of the government is “lessons have been learnt” But they have ignored the lessons to be learnt here.

!!!! They are still at it !!!!!

Social services are still snatching children and telling them falsely that their families do not want them and also telling grandparents and extended family that the children do not want to see them either. (Parental Alienation) This confuses and demoralises children into accepting forced adoption to complete strangers. An excellent cost cutting business plan! But children are not commodities.

Extract from the ‘Social Work Action Magazine’ Social work conference.

Quote “Social workers said they did not become SW so that they could be ‘case managers or have to make decisions based on money rather on what was needed” End Quote.

He will combine it with an apology to the 7,000 child migrants from Britain who still lives in Australia.

As they were compulsorily shipped out of Britain, many of the children were told - wrongly - their parents were dead, and that a more abundant life awaited them.

Many parents did not know their children, aged as young as three had been sent to Australia. Child care agencies (guess who they are) worked with the government to send disadvantaged children to a rosy future and supply what was deemed "good white stock" to a former colony.

Full story. http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/1/hi/uk/8361025.stm

Jimmy Deuchars

Grandparents Apart UK

22 Alness crescent

Glasgow G52 1PJ

0141 882 5658

http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk

Government can't rewrite nature and allow gays to wed - O'Brien

2011-09-08T15:36:00.000+01:00

http://www.scotsman.com/news/Government-can39t-rewrite-nature-and.6832538.jp?articlepage=2

Keith O'Brien said any attempt to redefine marriage would be ‘strenuously opposed'. Picture: Phil Wilkinson

Published Date: 08 September 2011

By Andrew Whitaker

The leader of Scotland's Catholic community has warned that moves by MSPs to legalise gay marriage will be "strenuously opposed" by the Church.

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, in a strongly worded homily delivered at a mass for politicians in Edinburgh last night, claimed that allowing gay people to wed through a civil or religious ceremonies would be a "direct attack" on the institution of marriage.

However, the intervention sparked criticism from MSPs, with the openly gay leader of the Scottish Greens, Patrick Harvie, attacking the Cardinal's remarks as "absurd" and as an attempt to "suppress" the freedom of gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

The row came after the SNP government launched a 14-week consultation on allowing gay marriage - a change to the law that currently allows same-sex couples to enter a civil partnership, but bans the ceremony from church or other religious premises.

However, Cardinal O'Brien suggested that supporters of gay marriage wanted to "rewrite human nature" as he appealed to MSPs to oppose the proposed reform.

He said: "The Church esteems the institution of marriage as the most stable building block upon which any family can rest.

"The view of the Church is clear, no government can rewrite human nature; the family and marriage existed before the State and are built on the union between a man and woman.

"Any attempt to redefine marriage is a direct attack on a foundational building block of society and will be strenuously opposed."

There was also a sharply worded statement issued by the Bishops' Conference of Scotland yesterday, which suggested that the Scottish Government's consultation was "an exercise for justifying the campaign demands" of the "vociferous" gay rights lobby.

But Green MSP Mr Harvie attacked the Catholic Church's stance on gay rights and highlighted a Scottish Social Attitudes survey which revealed 60 per cent believe same-sex couples should have the right to marry.

"It's absurd to suggest that one marriage can undermine other marriages," he said.

"Just as non-Catholics respect Catholic marriages, so it's time for the Cardinal to start respecting the right of every adult to love who they please.

"The Cardinal should also remember that he doesn't speak for all people of faith, or even all Christians.

"There are many faith groups who want to conduct same-sex marriages for their members, and the Catholic Church seems determined to try and suppress their freedom to do so."

SNP MSP John Mason, who faced criticism for lodging a parliamentary motion that said no-one should be "forced" to approve of same-sex marriage, said he wanted "to encourage churches" to get involved in the debate about the proposals.

A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "Our consultation, published last week, sets out that the Scottish Government tends towards the initial view that same-sex marriage should be introduced in Scotland but that faith groups and their celebrants should not be obliged to solemnise same sex marriages."

For the grandparents-to-be and those who already are: -

2011-09-07T16:41:00.000+01:00

GRANDPARENTS ANSWERING MACHINE...

Good morning. . . .. At present we are not at home but, please Leave your message after you hear the beep. beeeeeppp ...

If you are one of our children, dial 1 and then select the option from 1 to 9 in order of "arrival" so we know who it is.
If you need us to stay with the children, press 2
If you want to borrow the car, press 3
If you want us to wash your clothes and ironing, press 4
If you want the grandchildren to sleep here tonight, press 5
If you want us to pick up the kids at school, press 6
If you want us to prepare a meal for Sunday or to have it delivered to your home, press 7
If you want to come to eat here, press 8
If you need money, dial 9
If you are going to invite us to dinner, or, taking us to the theater start talking we are listening !!!!!!!!!!!"

********************************
If you are not a grandparent you will still love this. If you are it shows how precious the babies are and what we mean to them.

WHAT IS A GRANDPARENT?
(Taken from papers written by a class of 8-year-olds)
Grandparents are a lady and a man who have no little children of their own.
They like other people's.

A grandfather is a man, & a grandmother is a lady!

Grandparents don't have to do anything except be there when we come to see them.. They are so old they shouldn't play hard or run. It is good if they drive us to the shops and give us money.

When they take us for walks, they slow down past things like pretty leaves and caterpillars..

They show us and talk to us about the colors of the flowers and also why we shouldn't step on 'cracks.'

They don't say, 'Hurry up.'

They wear glasses and funny underwear.

They can take their teeth and gums out.

Grandparents don't have to be smart.

They have to answer questions like 'Why isn't God married?' and 'How come dogs chase cats?'

When they read to us, they don't skip. They don't mind if we ask for the same story over again.

Everybody should try to have a grandmother, especially if you don't have television because they are the only grownups who like to spend time with us.

They know we should have snack time before bed time, and they say prayers with us and kiss us even when we've acted bad.

A 6-YEAR-OLD WAS ASKED WHERE HIS GRANDMA LIVED. ''OH,'' HE SAID, ''SHE LIVES AT THE AIRPORT, AND WHEN WE WANT HER, WE JUST GO GET HER. THEN WHEN WE'RE DONE HAVING HER VISIT, WE TAKE HER BACK TO THE AIRPORT.''

GRANDPA IS THE SMARTEST MAN ON EARTH! HE TEACHES ME GOOD THINGS, BUT I DON'T GET TO SEE HIM ENOUGH TO GET AS SMART AS HIM!

It' funny when they bend over; you hear gas leaks, and they blame their dog.

Send this to other grandparents, almost grandparents, or heck, send it to everyone. It will make their day...

Convictions for sex offences against children soar, says MoJ

2011-09-07T09:40:00.001+01:00

http://www.cypnow.co.uk/Social_Care/article/1088779/convictions-sex-offences-against-children-soar-says-moj/?DCMP=EMC-CONInCare

By Neil Puffett Friday, 02 September 2011

Be the first to comment

Convictions for sex offences against children under 16 have increased by almost 60 per cent in six years, it has emerged.

Convictions for sex offences against children have increased by almost 60 per cent. Image: Phil Adams

Figures released to the BBC by the Ministry of Justice following a Freedom of Information request show there were 2,135 convictions in 2010, compared to 1,363 in 2005.

The MoJ publishes statistics on sexual offences against children every quarter, but these do not include children who are raped. Instead, rape against children is included in the total of convictions for rape on all ages. But the latest release to the BBC cover all sex offences against children.

Child protection groups have said despite better detection and raised awareness of sexual offences against children, it remains an under-reported crime.

Lisa Harker, NSPCC head of strategy, said last year police in England and Wales were notified of more than 23,000 offences and that recent research by the NSPCC suggested one in 20 secondary school children have been sexually assaulted.

"It's difficult to tell if these figures indicate an increase in the number of sex offences being committed against children," she said.

"It may be that more people – adults and children – are becoming aware of abuse and so are reporting cases to the police and other authorities.

"Nevertheless, it's still a relatively small number of convictions considering child sex abuse is a big problem."

Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (Ceop) chief executive Peter Davies said police forces had changed how they investigated child sex abuse and officers have had specific training.

Councils making millions in incentives after snatching record numbers of babies for adoption

2011-09-05T20:03:00.001+01:00

By SUE REID - 2nd July 2007

Councils are being offered bonuses of millions of pounds if they meet controversial State adoption

targets.

Confidential figures obtained by the Daily Mail show that £36million in 'reward grants' has been

promised to English councils in an attempt by Labour to increase adoptions of children by 50 per cent.

The money-earning targets were introduced by Tony Blair in 2000 and were intended to lift more older

children out of the care system.

But critics say it is the most 'adoptable' babies and children under four who are being removed in the

biggest numbers.

Court battle: Mark and Nicky Webster won the fight to keep little Brandon

More than 900 newborn babies are now being taken from their mothers each year, a 300 per cent

increase in little more than a decade.

The number of children aged between a week and a month removed from their parents has risen to

1,300 annually, a rise of 141 per cent in the same time.

In the past two weeks alone, eight newborn babies have been taken from their mothers at hospitals in

Newcastle and North Tyneside.

The number is so high there are not enough foster parents in the area. One baby - thought to be the

ninth taken from its parents - is being cared for in a special hospital unit because there is no foster

home available.

Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming has demanded an explanation.

He said: "We are seeing a massive increase in the forced removal of newborns. Babies are being taken

before they can even be breastfed. Social workers are seizing very young children on the flimsiest of

excuses and giving them to other families.

"This smacks of social engineering on a grand scale. The offer of monetary rewards for meeting the

targets has created a frenzy among social workers. There are council targets for recycling rubbish and

now targets for recycling children."

Figures prepared by the Department for Local Government and Community Cohesion show that two

councils - Essex and Kent - were offered more than £2million over three years to encourage additional

adoptions.

Four others - Norfolk, Gloucestershire, Cheshire and Hampshire - were promised £1million in extra

funds.

Critics say very young children are specifically selected - even before birth - by social workers to get

the bonuses. It is believed that 1,000 each year are wrongly taken from their parents.

Last week a court ruled that a couple whose first three children were taken for adoption should keep

their fourth, now a year old.

Abuse allegations against Mark and Nicky Webster turned out to be false. But they will never see their

three lost children again because adoptions are irreversible.

Despite the cash inducements, adoptions of older children - the very ones who were meant to be helped

- have dropped dramatically.

The number of over-sevens adopted in England has fallen from 100 in 1996 to 50 last year out of a total

of 5,400 adoptions.

Beverley Beech, of the Association for Improvements in the Maternity Services - a body which advises

new mothers - said: "The Government is denying that social workers are targeting babies for adoption.

"But the desperate calls on our helpline from pregnant women who have already been told by social

workers, for no good reason, that they will lose their babies immediately they are born, or from mothers

of new babies taken for adoption, prove these denials are not true."

Campaigners also want an opening up of family courts, where adoptions are overseen in utmost

secrecy. Parents are warned that if they tell anyone - even their closest family - what goes on they could

face prison for contempt of court.

Family law solicitor Sarah Harman, the sister of Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman, said: "It's not

the welfare of the child that is being protected - it's the welfare of social workers".

North Tyneside Council said last night: "In the past few weeks steps have been taken to protect six

babies at serious risk of significant harm. In all cases the mothers have frequent contact with their

babies and are encouraged to breastfeed."

Newcastle Council confirmed that two babies had been removed during the same period.

Websters' MP: Stop cash for adoptions

By LAURA COLLINS - Last updated at 22:15pm on 7th July 2007

The MP of a couple who lost three of their children because of a false abuse claim has called for an end

to Government adoption targets.

Liberal Democrat Norman Lamb said the targets, introduced by Tony Blair, 'provide a perverse

incentive', with councils winning cash rewards if a specified number of children are adopted.

Mr Lamb, who also wants family court proceedings to be opened up, has applied for a Commons

adjournment debate over the tragedy of Mark and Nicky Webster.

Saved: Nicky with baby Brandon

Their three eldest children were taken from them by Norfolk County Council because one had a

fracture that doctors said could only have been caused by physical abuse.

But later, four eminent specialists found that the boy was lactose-intolerant, would not take solids, and

was probably suffering from scurvy, which would have made his bones brittle and liable to break.

These experts gave this evidence for Mark, 34, and Nicky, 26, from Cromer, when they won a

landmark court fight to keep their fourth child, 13-month-old Brandon.

The Websters are fighting on for the right to have contact with their lost children, who are with

separate families, but have been advised that the adoption order is irreversible.

Their story could only be told after The Mail on Sunday and BBC won a ruling allowing the media to

report a family court case for the first time.

North Norfolk MP Mr Lamb said: "Theirs was an appalling miscarriage of justice and part of any

proper discussion must mean rethinking social services' adoption targets."

The financial incentives were introduced in 2000 in an attempt to see adoptions rise by 50 per cent. The

number of babies taken into council care in England before being adopted has risen from 970 in 1996

to 2,120 last year.

Mr Lamb said: "It ought not to be a factor that taking children into adoption means the social services

bringing in money from the Government.

"I'm sure that when these annual targets were set, they were done so with the best of intentions.

"But it brings a financial motivation into a process which just should not be influenced in that way."

The Mail on Sunday has learned that a county council, which cannot be named for legal reasons, has

won an injunction preventing ITV's Jeremy Kyle Show from featuring a mother whose five children,

all under six, are being adopted forcibly.

The state stole our children

By SUE REID - Last updated at 22:41pm on 31st January 2007

Marianne and Peter with their five children

Looking back, Marianne Key says it was the worst day of her life.

At North Tyneside Hospital on a summer afternoon, the state took away her four children and

threatened never to give them back.

The happily married former nurse watched helplessly as Nickolas, three, Alexander, almost two, and

her twin five-month-old babies, Alfred and George, were carried off by Northumberland social

workers.

Marianne was told that protest was useless. At every exit point of the hospital there was a police officer

waiting to make sure that she did not try to stop them being taken.

As her weeping children were driven to foster homes, Marianne was left alone at the hospital,

frantically ringing her husband, Simon, to tell him what had happened.

It would be six months before the family would be together again.

Today, the Keys are embroiled in a legal battle Marianne, 43, and Simon, 38, a self-employed cabinet

maker, now live 230 miles further south in the village of Lower Swell, Gloucestershire.

In the sitting room of their home, the four boys play as their new baby sister, Harriet, is rocked by their

mother.

The two older brothers attend the village primary school; the twins go to a local nursery. It appears an

idyllic life.

At Marianne and Simon's instigation — and armed with the family's files — Northumberland

detectives are now investigating the health visitors and social workers who accused Marianne Key of

being an unfit mother before taking the four children into care.

The Keys' treatment has been criticised by Peter Atkinson, the MP for Hexham in Northumberland.

"The police must inquire fully so that those responsible for this are brought to book, and I will be

telling the county's chief constable exactly that," he said this week.

The story the Keys tell is a deeply disturbing one.

They say they nearly lost their family on the say-so of a group of child-care professionals — some of

whom, Marianne says, lied about her being a neglectful mother.

The litany of accusations against Marianne was lengthy: that she had hurt Alfred; that she sedated the

children with an over-the-counter infant painkiller, Medised, so she could cope more easily; that they

were given too much milk; that they did not have enough toys, and there was a lack of emotional

warmth between Nickolas and his parents.

Marianne was said by one health worker to be suffering from Munchausen's Syndrome by Proxy

(MSBP), a condition — unproved in science — where a mother is said to make up an illness in her

child or even deliberately harm her own child to attract attention to herself.

The ailment is based on the discredited research of Professor Sir Roy Meadow, 73, the controversial

paediatrician who was struck off the medical register two years ago for giving "misleading and

incorrect" testimony as an expert witness in the case of Sally Clark, the mother wrongly jailed for

killing her two infant sons.

He was found guilty of serious professional misconduct, but in February last year he successfully

appealed against this ruling in the High Court and is now free to work again.

It was Professor Meadow who coined the term MSBP.

As a result of his theory, scores of women have been accused of harming their own offspring and

jailed.

Hundreds more have had their children put into care or even handed over for adoption.

But there is another matter of concern.

Some of Marianne's records, and those of the children, were falsified to make the case against her,

according to a report prepared on the family by their London medical negligence lawyers, Leigh Day &

Co.

These allegations are also being investigated by the police.

On dozens of pages, the dates were changed, with extra information written between lines or added

which completely altered the sense of what was being said.

Some of Nickolas's development checks even had the letters P for Pass altered to F for Fail.

Significantly, the entire sense of a report saying that Marianne had comforted her eldest son after a fall

was changed.

The word "not" was added in different writing at a later date so that it appeared she had ignored her son

when he hurt himself.

A few weeks after Alexander's birth, a health visitor filled in a routine questionnaire to diagnose any

signs of post-natal depression — which Marianne has never suffered from.

It is based on a points system and Marianne's score was low, showing that she was a happy mother.

Mysteriously, however, a second identical questionnaire — dated April 30, 2002, when Alexander was

eight months old — was also filled in and discovered in Marianne's file.

It had a points tally so high that it made her appear mentally ill and likely to harm Alexander and his

brother.

She should, according to the score, have been immediately referred to a doctor for help.

Did someone fake it and, if so, why?

It was just one of many falsifications to records made "with the aim of painting a negative picture of

the family and particularly of Mrs Key", says the Leigh Day report.

Marianne was also informed that the traditional Silver Cross pram she had for the children was

dangerous, and that the white cloths the babies used to suck as comforters were unhygienic.

She was even told that the traditional stone flag floors in their cottage in the Northumberland hamlet of

Coldtown made it an unsuitable place to raise a young family.

So why was this mother vilified?

Why were her children taken into care at all?

Is it possible that it was to help meet the huge hike in Government targets for adoption — designed to

stop children languishing in care or foster homes but described by MPs last week as a "national

scandal"?

The numbers of those adopted nationally has gone up from 2,700 in the year 2000 to 3,700 in 2004 —

an increase of almost 40 per cent.

The biggest rise is among the under fours, exactly the same age group as the Key children when they

were taken away.

As Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming said in a special debate in the House of Commons last Friday:

"I have evidence that 1,000 children a year are being taken from their birth parents — not because they

were being harmed, but to satisfy Government targets."

His views were endorsed this week by the Association for Improvements in the Maternity Services.

The highly respected organisation said: "John Hemming is right. Children, particularly newborns, are

being snatched away for adoption, and local councils criticised if they don't meet the adoption targets.

"We are appalled by the bias and lack of accuracy in many social workers' reports, and the selective

evidence they give to the courts, which then use the information to decide whether a child is removed

from a family."

Simon and Marianne believe this may be what happened to them.

"We now think that they wanted four young bonny boys for adoption and to help meet their adoption

targets," says Marianne.

"But Northumberland County Council refused to investigate what was happening, even when our

solicitors said that my records, and those of the children, had been deliberately falsified.

"The records were used in court against me. After the council finally withdrew the care proceedings, no

apology was forthcoming. We hope now that the people who did this to us will be made to answer for

it."

What happened to the Keys was terrifying. They had moved to Northumberland from Oxfordshire in

July 2001 because they wanted to live near Marianne's sister, Sally Moss, and her husband, Roger, a

professor at Newcastle University.

The couples were close friends.

"We loved the place immediately," says Marianne.

"I was eight months pregnant with Alexander when we moved, but I organised neighbourod parties and

it was a wonderful time.

The health visitor would come to our home and we would give her tea. I thought she was lonely

because she arrived so often."

Niickolas, their eldest boy, was a boisterous child and had just started to walk.

Over the next two years, he banged his head twice — once in front of both his parents when he fell

down the stairs, and another time when he was playing outside with his father.

He also hurt his eye by running into the corner of a table at his aunt Sally's home.

The accidents were, insist Marianne and Simon, the rough and tumble of a normal childhood. Their GP

agreed.

But the health visitor and a social worker were not convinced.

They officially alerted Northumberland County Council, and later the police, alleging that Marianne

"frequently" overdosed her children on the painkiller, Medised.

Marianne denied that she had done any such thing.

But the family had to start an assessment, involving social workers visiting their home and watching

how Marianne, a skilled paediatric nurse who used to work at Great Ormond Street children’s hospital

in London, was raising her sons.

Bewildered, the Key family co-operated fully.

But on July 25, 2003, two health visitors noticed a small bruise on baby twin Alfred's head.

Marianne and Simon said it might have been due to him rubbing his head on the back of the family's

pushchair the previous morning.

The bruising was so light that when he was weighed at the local doctor's surgery on the day it

happened, the GP did not even notice it.

Marianne and Simon were ordered by social workers to take the children to North Tyneside Hospital.

They were warned that if they did not go immediately the police would be called.

But as they waited at the hospital, Simon received a phone call from the family's solicitor warning him

that social services were planning to remove Alfred and put him into care.

Marianne says: "Simon left to meet the solicitor and attend a hearing at Hexham Magistrates’ Court,

where social workers were asking, successfully, for an emergency protection order to remove the

children.

"I stayed at the hospital. I had no idea that a social worker and a woman police officer were already

waiting in the wings.

"They arrived in the ward and said that they were taking all four of the children away, there and then.

And they did."

Marianne was arrested, taken to the local police station and released on bail.

She and Simon were told to go to a council family contact centre the next morning, a Saturday, where

they would be allowed to see their eldest two children.

"The first thing Nickolas said was: 'Mummy, you left me.' When it was time to go, they cried and cried

and fought to stay with us. The foster parents, who were also there, were crying too. It was awful."

The twins had been sent to another foster home, where they were looked after by an elderly woman

who put them together in a single cot until the Keys complained about the danger of cot-death.

Intriguingly, while in care, George — Alfred's twin — also got a graze on the back of his head from the

family's pushchair. It was in an identical place to the one that Alfred had suffered.

The council accepted the foster carer's explanation that the pushchair had caused the injury.

A week later, the Keys were told that the children could return home on one important condition: they

had to be looked after by Simon —and Marianne must leave the house altogether.

She was allowed to have two hours of contact with the four children three times a week.

This was later increased to five times a week, under supervision, for the twins.

Reluctantly, Marianne moved to a flat in Hexham.

They were never permitted to visit her at the flat and she never saw them alone.

Simon, meanwhile, had to cope on his own with four children under four years old.

"The elder two boys would sleep in my bed because they were so upset," he says.

"They would wake during the night and cry for Marianne. But I had to hide this from the social

workers and health visitors because they would have leapt on it as evidence that I was not coping."

Psychiatric reports on Marianne were ordered by the council.

They showed that she did not suffer from MSBP or any personality disorder.

Crucially, a report on the twins' pushchair, conducted by an independent engineer, concluded that the

light bruising could well have been caused, as his parents said, by shopping bags pushing through the

fabric.

The case against Marianne was unravelling. The police refused to take any action against her, saying

they were content with the parents' explanation about Alfred's bruise.

In January 2004 — almost six months to the day since her children were taken from her — Marianne

was finally allowed back home.

In June, at Sunderland High Court, Northumberland Council withdrew its application to keep the

children in care.

A few months later, the Key children were removed from the child protection register.

"We had been so scared of losing the children that we were prepared to run away with them, even

secretly leave the country," Marianne admits.

"Simon hid all our passports in a biscuit tin in the cupboard."

Soon after, the Keys sold their house and left for the Cotswolds.

Yesterday, Northumbria Police confirmed: "We have received a number of allegations and our

inquiries are ongoing."

Northumberland Council refused to comment because of the active police investigation into its own

staff.

The council has made no secret, however, of willingly helping to meet the Government's controversial

targets for adoption.

A report last September by the county's children's services department said it was sending "regular and

detailed" returns on adoptions to Whitehall.

Over the five years up to last April, a total of 95 children had been adopted after being removed from

their birth families.

Although the Keys' children escaped this fate, the damage was done.

Nickolas and Alexander still wake and cry at night.

"We have been told that all the boys may yet suffer psychological trauma from being separated from

Marianne at a young age," says Simon.

He adds: "We found the strength to fight back because we desperately wanted to remain together as a

family.

"We never want anything like this to happen to others."

Legislation promises tighter controls and support to reach

adoption targets

25 October 2001

The Adoption and Children Bill began its journey through parliament last week, heralding the biggest

overhaul of adoption law in over 25 years.

The latest version of the bill - which succeeds the bill that fell in the run up to the General Election -

includes extra measures on adoption support services, such as a registration system to ensure quality,

and a "clear duty" on councils in England and Wales to maintain such services.

The bill also promises stronger measures to stop people adopting from overseas without going through

proper assessment and approval procedures, as well as tougher penalties if they get around the

safeguards, according to the Department of Health.

Adoption organisations have welcomed the publication of the bill, which will receive its second

reading in parliament next week. "Anything that ensures support services are available and functioning

has got to be a good thing," said Adoption UK director Philippa Morrall.

But legislation alone would not result in the extra staff and resources needed to meet the government's

target of a 40 per cent increase in adoptions by 2005, Morrall added. "There needs to be a public

awareness drive. The public does not have an understanding of what modern adoption is," she said.

Other key provisions in the bill include: a new right to an assessment for adoption support for all

adoptive families; an independent review mechanism for prospective adopters who have been turned

down; allowing courts to set timetables to cut delays in adoption court cases; and the introduction of

special guardianship orders.

Health minister Jacqui Smith said: "The adoption register and the national standards introduced earlier

this year are key to transforming the adoption process and achieving this target, but an overhaul of

existing adoption law is vital to enable us to match many more children with a safe and loving family

who will support them throughout their childhood and beyond."

Babies 'removed to meet targets'

By Brian Wheeler

Political reporter, BBC News

Babies are being removed from their parents so that councils can meet adoption

targets, MPs have claimed.

The MPs fear a rise in the number of young children being taken into care in England

and Wales is linked to pressure on councils to increase adoption rates.

Lib Dem MP John Hemming, who has tabled a Commons motion on the issue, said it

was a "national scandal".

The government said the courts decided on care cases but there had to be evidence a

child was being harmed.

A spokesman for the Department for Education said there were "no targets relating to

the numbers of children coming into care".

But Mr Hemming argued that social services departments are under pressure to meet targets set by government on children

in care being adopted.

In an Early Day Motion, with cross-party support from 12 MPs, he warns of

"increasing numbers of babies being taken into care, not for the safety of the infant,

but because they are easy to get adopted".

In 2000, ministers set a target of a 50% increase in the number of children in local

authority being adopted by March 2006.

The government insists it is

protecting children

The decision to bring a

child into care must be made

on the basis of their best

interests

Department for Education

According to the latest available figures, the number of "looked after" children being adopted had gone up from 2,700 in

2000 to 3,700 in 2004, an increase of 37.7%.

The biggest rise was in the one to four-year-old age range.

'Scandal'

These figures would be "laudable" if it meant children were being rescued from a life in care, said Mr Hemming.

But he said he had evidence from people who had contacted him, prevented from publication by contempt of court laws,

that children were being separated from parents without proper grounds.

And he called on the government to reveal "how many of the children that are adopted would otherwise have remained with

their birth parents".

Mr Hemming pointed to figures showing an increase in the number of children aged under one being taken into care.

"A thousand kids a year are being taken off their birth parents just to satisfy targets. It is a national scandal," said the Lib

Dem MP.

Transparency

He said children were increasingly placed under "care orders" - where they remain with their birth parents but are kept

under supervision by social workers - rather than with foster parents.

And this supervision meant some social workers were "gradually taking them away from the parents, step by step, and

giving them to someone else," the Birmingham Yardley MP said.

He called for more transparency in the proceedings of Family Courts and an independent watchdog to scrutinise the work of

social services departments.

In a statement, the Department for Education said: "The law is clear - children should live with their parents wherever

possible and, when necessary, families should be given extra support to help keep them together.

"The decision to take a child into care is never an easy one, and it is a decision that is taken by the courts."

'Best interests'

The statement went on: "In every case where a child is taken into care on a care order, the courts will have considered the

evidence and taken the view that the child has been significantly harmed, or would be if they were not taken into care.

"The final decision on adoption rests with the courts and before a court makes such an important decision it must be

convinced on the basis of the evidence that this is the best way to meet the child's needs on a long-term basis.

"There are no government targets relating to the numbers of children coming into care. The decision to bring a child into

care must be made on the basis of their best interests."

The British Association for Adoption and Fostering (BAAF) said it was "dangerous" to suggest children were being taken

into care unnecessarily.

Chief executive David Holmes said: "Children come into care for many reasons including parental abuse and neglect. The

rise in the numbers of young children coming into care may be explained by a variety of factors including a rise in parental

substance misuse."

He pointed out that the decision to take a child into care was scrutinised by an independent children's guardian and the

courts. Adoption is scrutinised by the guardian, the courts and an adoption panel.

Mr Holmes added: "If birth parents believe they have had their child taken into care unfairly, they should lodge a formal

complaint with their local authority. I believe that this is rare. I certainly do not believe children are systematically being

taken into care to meet adoption targets."

Adoption targets were brought in to prevent children in care from waiting months or even years before finding an adoptive

family.

System taking hundreds of babies for adoption

By Andrew Alderson, Ben Leapman and Tom Harper, Sunday Telegraph

02/07/2007

Campaigners are to renew an attempt to open up the proceedings of family courts, after figures showed

that the number of babies aged less than one week being removed from their mothers has risen almost

three-fold in a decade. More than 900 are now being taken and put up for adoption every year.

Until last month, it looked as though

the system would undergo a

significant overhaul. Ten days ago,

however, Lord Falconer, who was

then the Lord Chancellor, seemed to

have crushed an attempt to make family court hearings less secret.

Now, with Gordon Brown as Prime Minister and Jack Straw as Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary,

legal campaigners are newly optimistic of forcing a change.

Sarah Harman, a solicitor who has specialised in family law for nearly 30 years, said she would step up

her fight to open up proceedings. Ms Harman is the elder sister of Harriet Harman, the new deputy

leader of the Labour Party and leader of the Commons. Harriet Harman was Justice Minister until last

week's Cabinet reshuffle and has supported her sister's campaign.

The total number of children aged under a year taken into council care in England before being adopted

has also risen, by a similar rate, from 970 in 1996 to 2,120 last year, figures obtained by The Sunday

Telegraph show.

The increases come after the Government set targets for adoption in order to cut the number of children

languishing in foster care.

Family courts in England and Wales hear 400,000 cases a year, mostly divorces and child custody

hearings following divorces. In 20,000 cases a year, councils apply to the courts to remove children

temporarily from parents who are abusive or neglectful, often because they are addicted to hard drugs.

The courts also rule on bids by councils to put removed children up for adoption, which is irreversible.

Yet, while criminal cases must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, family courts take decisions on the

balance of probabilities and unlike criminal courts, cases are heard in strict secrecy. A mother whose

child is taken from her commits an offence if she tells anyone outside a tiny, approved list of people.

John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP for Birmingham Yardley, who wants more openness in

family courts, said of the latest adoption figures: "We are seeing a massive growth in the forced

removal of newborns from their natural parents. Babies are being taken into care merely to satisfy

government adoption targets."

In 2000, Tony Blair set a target for councils to increase adoptions by 50 per cent. Town halls were

Adoptions of very young children spiralled after targets were set

in 2000

promised cash rewards for reaching their goals. Critics claim that the target has given social workers a

perverse incentive to break up more families. Mr Hemming said: "There are clearly masses of

miscarriages of justice, but ministers want to prevent parents from campaigning against them by

preventing these parents from talking about their children after a case.

"This is fundamentally wrong. The secrecy in the family courts acts generally to protect misbehaviour

by some professionals, rather than to protect children."

The new figures show that, while adoptions of the very young have spiralled, those for children aged

seven and over have halved in England, from 100 in 1996 to 50 last year. Figures for Scotland and

Wales are not available.

Campaigners were given new ammunition last week by the case of Mark and Nicky Webster, who fled

the country to have their fourth baby after they claimed they were wrongly accused of child abuse and

had their first three children taken into care four years ago.

Mr Webster, 34, and his wife, 26, from Cromer, Norfolk, were told they could keep their fourth child,

Brandon, aged 13 months, after Norfolk County Council withdrew proceedings to take him into care.

The couple had fled to Ireland for Brandon's birth before challenging their county council. Their other

children were taken into care after one of them suffered unexplained leg fractures. The council has now

conceded that the injuries might have been caused by vitamin deficiency. It said it was no longer

relying on the evidence which had suggested that the fractures were the result of abuse.

The Websters are angry that because of the secrecy surrounding their earlier proceedings, the case

would not have become public had it not been for their successful fight to keep Brandon. They accept,

however, that they will not get their other children back because they were adopted two years ago.

Under the current law, reporters and members of the public cannot attend family court hearings, see

documents, review evidence or obtain copies of judgments.

Sarah Harman said: "Social services are the only department other than MI5 who undertake their work

in complete secrecy. It's not the welfare of the child that is being protected, it is the welfare of social

workers. This cannot be justified.

"Family courts work for the community and should be more open. Family courts are very reliant on

expert witnesses and there have been some real concerns about some of this evidence being poorly

researched and unreliable." In 2004, she and others set up Families Action for Court Transparency and

Openness (Facto).

Facto was formed a year before Ms Harman was found guilty of "conduct unbefitting a solicitor" for

passing confidential court papers to her sister. She was suspended from practice for three months and

resigned as a part-time judge. The papers related to a client whose daughter was taken into care after

alleged abuse. Ms Harman had not revealed the identity of the parent or child to her sister but was

punished after it was decided she had misled the court.

Others seeking partial reform of the family courts include Sir Mark Potter, the president of the High

Court's Family Division, and Mr Justice Munby, a senior judge. Sir Mark said: "I share entirely the

concern about complaints of secret justice and lack of openness which I really believe the public would

be assisted in forming a view about if there were more publicity available. The press seems to me to be

the best safeguard of whether propriety is being observed."

Mr Justice Munby said: "The balance currently held between the confidentiality and privacy interests

of the parties and the public interest in open justice, is badly skewed."

Lord Falconer's refusal to lift the secrecy surrounding family courts surprised many when he revealed a

new discussion document, "Openness in the Family Courts", on June 20. This proposed tighter

restrictions on what can be said about cases. He admitted that there had been a change of mind after

consulting many groups, particularly young people. "The clear message was that the media should not

be given an automatic right to attend family courts as this could jeopardise children's rights to privacy

and anonymity," he said.

David Holmes, the chief executive of the British Association for Adoption and Fostering, said: "Social

services do not take children into care to be adopted unnecessarily. It is dangerous to suggest that this is

happening.''

Urgent action on recruitment is needed to meet adoption targets

Posted: 27 September 2001 |

Achieving government adoption targets will require more front-line staff and extra funding, a national

conference heard last week.

"There isn't long to get the staff," warned British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering chief executive

Felicity Collier. "We need action from the government and we need it now," she said at the conference

on adoption targets organised by BAAFand Children Law UK.

She welcomed the Department of Health's commitment to a national recruitment campaign for social

workers, but cast doubt on its chances of success, especially given the expected adverse publicity

during the Victoria Climbie inquiry.

According to BAAF's figures, the government aims to increase the number of adoptions by 40 to 50 per

cent by 2005. This translates into 4,050 adoptions for the financial year ending 31 March 2005.

To meet the target, 4,050 children would need to be matched with prospective adopters during 2003 to

allow for the 15 months on average that the courts take to grant an adoption order. Because 13 per cent

of children approved for adoption do not successfully find matches, a higher number of children would

need to be approved for adoption during the preceding year - about 4,650 during 2002, according to

BAAF.

"That's quite a task when you look at the current figures," added Collier. She admitted there were some

"potential unknowns" which affected BAAF's calculations, including the impact of the recently

launched adoption register on finding suitable families and possibly speeding up the process.

But she remained concerned that the targets could skew adoption work from pursuing appropriate

rehabilitative measures to return children to their birth families. Councils could also sideline older or

damaged children or those with special needs in order to meet targets.

Meanwhile, a leading children and families charity has warned that adoption targets will lead to an

"increased fear" of social services departments.

Family Rights Group chief executive Robert Tapsfield told the conference it was an "unintended

consequence" of having targets that birth families would be less likely to become involved with social

services departments because of fears of the removal of their children.

The targets would inevitably focus a "disproportionate energy on adoption as opposed to family

support", added Tapsfield. This would lead to more adoptions which would be "at the expense of some

children [who could] be rehabilitated to their birth families".

Friday, 13 July, 2001,

New adoption targets for councils

Adoption: some experts say it's not always the best option

The present law on adoption, passed 25 years ago, dates from a time when many of the children involved were

infants being given up by single mothers.

Nowadays local councils are the main agencies trying to find adoptive homes for children that they have had to

take into care.

These are often children "who have been neglected and abused", says the Chief Excecutive of BAAF Adoption

and Fostering.

Difficult decisions have to be made about their lives by over-stretched social workers - sometimes to take them

away from deprived families, who just cannot cope.

Best option?

Many experts in the field do not agree that adoption is always a better choice for these children, rather than

giving more support to their birth families.

But this government has chosen to build a new system to help children that the former Chair of the Commons

Health Committee, David Hinchliffe, describes as "locked up" in the care system.

The pattern of adoption services across the country is another lottery. In some authorities, only 1% of children in

care are offered for adoption, in others up to 20%.

It depends on councils' resources, and whether they have been able to find enough new parents.

If councils have to look to other areas, or to voluntary agencies, to find parents, it can cost them as much as

£15000 in what is called "Interagency Fees".

It is often cheaper therefore to keep them in care.

With its new bill, the government is setting up a new National Adoption Register of children and parents. It has

drafted new Adoption Standards.

But the Director of the campaigning Adoption Forum, Liv O'Hanlon, complains that the government has not

talked about money at all.

It has not promised funds to finance under-performing councils, who will still have to pay thousands for

introduction to new parents.

And the President of the Association of Directors of Social Service, Moira Gibb, says setting new targets is

hardly realistic, at a time when 85% of social service departments are already over-budget.

She also wonders how soon they could possible meet the government's target of a 50% increase in the number

of adoptions, when last year the courts sent over 20,000 more children into care.

Welfare Reform Bill

2011-08-31T10:25:00.001+01:00

Thousands of families with disabled parents and young carers are expected to lose out on vital benefits unless the Welfare Reform Bill is amended, a charity has warned.

Analysis by The Children’s Society has revealed that 25,000 people could lose up to £3,500 because of the scrapping of two disability premiums.

The severe disability premium is currently granted to disabled people who do not have anyone eligible for the carer’s allowance to look after them. People on the highest rate of disability living allowance can also claim the enhanced disability premium.

As the carer’s allowance is not available for people under the age of 16 or in full-time education, families rely considerably on the premiums to provide outside help.

But according to The Children’s Society, the introduction of the universal credit will mean these benefits will be abolished, leaving young carers and their families with a £70 gap in their weekly budget.

Enver Solomon, director of policy at the charity, said: "These benefits help disabled parents pay for aid to do housework or prepare meals, and losing them could mean that these chores will now be performed by children."

The Welfare Reform Bill is due for its second reading at the House of Lords on 13 September.

The Children’s Society chief executive Bob Reitemeier said: "It is wholly inappropriate to withdraw support to families with young carers. These changes will make life much harder than it already is for potentially thousands of vulnerable children whose caring responsibilities affect their education, wellbeing and future."

A spokesman for the Department of Work and Pensions said: "We continue to spend over £40bn a year on disabled people and their services and our commitment to help support disabled people live independent lives runs at the heart of our welfare reforms.

"We are reforming the current system of complex disability premiums and will increase the support for the most vulnerable. We will also provide transitional protection to ensure that no one is worse off under our welfare reforms."

What is a McKenzie friend?

2011-08-30T15:42:00.001+01:00

The court may allow a party in civil and family cases to have a friend or adviser to sit with them in court to give you advice and help take notes. This person is referred to as a Mackenzie friend, but they are not allowed to speak for the party in court without the permission of the Court.

In the Criminal Court and in most tribunals a party maybe represented by anyone of their own choosing. In the case of small claims hearings, the law is contained in Part 27 of the Civil Procedure Rules and a Practice Direction attached to it. This states that, at the hearing of a small claims trial, a party may be represented by:

• Him - or herself;

• A lawyer - which includes barristers, solicitors or legal executives; or,

• A lay representative. The Practice Direction defines "lay representative" as "any other person".
In most civil and Family Court hearings, the Court’s permission is required.

A party may be allowed to introduce a McKenzie friend into court to assist them. There is no right to have a McKenzie friend: the only right is that of the litigant to have reasonable assistance.
A McKenzie friend is not entitled to address the court without permission. If he does so, he becomes an advocate and requires the grant of a right of audience under s 27 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 2007.

However, generally, a litigant in person who wishes to have a McKenzie friend should be allowed to do so unless the judge is satisfied that fairness and the interests of justice do not so require and there is a strong presumption in favour of allowing the McKenzie friend (Re H (Minors) (Chambers Proceedings: McKenzie Friend) [1997] 3 FCR 618, CA & Re O (Children): Re W-R: Re W (Children) [2005] EWCA Civ 759, LTL AC0109048, Times 27.6.05

The court can prevent a McKenzie friend from continuing to act as such where the assistance given is inimical to the efficient administration of justice, for example, where the friend is indirectly running the case or using the litigant as a puppet.

The President of the Family Division has given update guidance on the issue;
http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/guidance/PresidentofFamilyDivisionsGuidanceonMcKenzieFriends/

On the discretion to grant rights of audience to individuals who do not meet the stringent requirements of the CLSA, the court has held that it should only be exercised in exceptional circumstances and should pause long before granting rights to individuals who made a practice of seeking to represent otherwise unrepresented litigants (principles extracted from R v Bow County Court ex p Pelling [1999] 1 WLR 1807, D v S (rights of audience) [1997] 1 FLR 724 and Noueri v Paragon Finance plc, CA, [2001] EWCA Civ 1402 (19.9.01).

SFA understanding and stance on McKenzie friends

Vagaries on McKenzie friends and self-representation.

Criminal Court. Human Rights Act article 6.3 allows legal representation of your own choosing so anyone can represent you in the trial and preliminary hearings. Open Courts. However, lay person cannot attend Police interview, you will need a solicitor or the duty Solicitor.

Employment tribunal. No need for a Mckenzie friend as anyone can represent a party in the Employment tribunal. Open Court hearings and litigant in person can charge £25 per hour for work on their own case.

Small claims Court – representation by McKenzie friend permitted.

Contrast the above with these:-

Civil and family proceedings. Right to Mckenzie friend a strong one but rights of audience in only special circumstances. Right of audience and litigation rights are separate issues. Family proceedings in closed Court but open Court of appeal and if same or similar issues aired on Judicial review; open court!

Tribunal hearings generally right to assistance and right to lay representation for example in Child benefit, DHSS and CSA tribunals. Yet this right would not exist on the same facts in Judicial Review proceedings.

Companies can appoint any employee to represent them in litigation.

Guardians have right of audience if not represented in Court.

Family proceedings and in effect any issue related to your own children is emotional, and when emotions are charged a litigant-in-person [LIP] probably does have an idiot for a client but as many have found they prefer representing themselves as at least that way they can blame no-one else for the outcome and will have tried.

A LIP can have the assistance of a McKenzie friend who can do the following;

• Provide moral support for the litigant
• Take notes
• Help with case papers
• Quietly give advice on:

- points of law or procedure;
- issues that the litigant may wish to raise in court;
- questions the litigant may wish to ask witnesses.

In Family and civil Courts the practice direction on McKenzie friends 2010 allows you to be represented by close family member e.g your husband or wife, to have lay advocate, where legal aid is denied through no fault of your own and cannot afford private representation and where the person’s health precludes them from addressing the Court AND they cannot afford private representation and where the litigant is relatively inarticulate and prompting may un-necessarily prolong proceedings. No such bars exist in the employment tribunal or other tribunals so what is so special about the Family Courts?

It maybe there is fear of McKenzie friends taking an increasing role and undermining the monopoly held by Solicitors and barristers, yet the cost of access to justice and the need for equality of arms is such that many are forced to seek other routes of representation.

Sections 27 and 28 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (the Act) respectively govern rights of audience and the right to conduct litigation. They provide the court with a discretionary power to grant unqualified persons, including MFs, such rights in relation to particular proceedings. While the court should be slow to grant any application under s.27 or s.28 of the Act from a MF, it should be prepared to do so for good reason bearing in mind the general objective set out in section 17(1) and the general principle set out in section 17(3) of the Act and all the circumstances of the case. Such circumstances are likely to vary greatly: see paragraphs 40-42 of the judgment of Munby J. in Re N (A child) (McKenzie Friend: Rights of Audience) [2008]EWHC 2042(Fam). If the litigant in person wishes the MF to be granted a right of audience or the right to conduct the litigation, an application must be made at the start of the hearing.

The Judiciary may worry about the monopoly on the bar being eroded and cost effective alternatives taking over, on legal aid a Barrister often has insufficient time to prepare for trial, is governed by the summary and outline from the acting Solicitor and which may contain inaccuracies and few litigants get to see these documents heavily influencing the portrayal of their case.

As far as McKenzie friends charging for their services go, the 2010 practice direction on McKenzie friends states;

27) Litigants can enter into lawful agreements to pay fees to MFs for the provision of reasonable assistance in court or out of court by, for instance, carrying out clerical or mechanical activities, such as photocopying documents, preparing bundles, delivering documents to opposing parties or the court, or the provision of legal advice in connection with court proceedings. BUT Note that Such fees cannot be lawfully recovered from the opposing party.
28) Fees said to be incurred by MFs for carrying out the conduct of litigation, where the court has not granted such a right, cannot lawfully be recovered from either the litigant for whom they carry out such work or the opposing party.
29) Fees said to be incurred by MFs for carrying out the conduct of litigation after the court has granted such a right are in principle recoverable from the litigant for whom the work is carried out. Such fees cannot be lawfully recovered from the opposing party.
30) Fees said to be incurred by MFs for exercising a right of audience following the grant of such a right by the court are in principle recoverable from the litigant on whose behalf the right is exercised. Such fees are also recoverable, in principle, from the opposing party as a recoverable disbursement: CPR 48.6(2) and 48(6)(3)(ii).

Related articles on McKenzie friends

http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed1568

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKenzie_friend

http://www.richardgregory.org.uk/history/mckenzie-friends.htm

http://www.fnf.org.uk/law-and-information/mckenzie-friends

http://www.factuk.org/2010/07/new-mckenzie-friends-guidance-issued/

The Annual Charities Christmas Fayre

2011-08-30T11:25:00.002+01:00

We will be there so come along and see us and make a day of it.

Childminders receive top marks. Why adoption and fostering goes wrong

2011-08-30T09:33:00.003+01:00

By Joe Lepper Thursday, 25 August 2011

The number of childminders receiving one of the top two marks from Ofsted has increased by 11 percentage points over the past two years.

According to the latest National Childminding Association (NCMA) membership survey the proportion who received a "good" or "outstanding" score this year was 74 per cent, compared with 63 per cent in 2009 and 72 per cent last year.

NCMA chief executive Catherine Farrell said the findings show the greater commitment to training and an increasing sense of professionalism in the sector.

She said: "Similar to last year, more than three quarters of our childminders have undertaken training in the past 12 months and more than half hold a childcare qualification at Level 3 or above. These large numbers demonstrate a strong commitment to ongoing professional development."

The survey also revealed that nine out of 10 childminders are prepared to offer out of hours care before and after school. On average they are providing care for six children a week and 16 per cent care for 10 or more children

Why adoption and fostering goes wrong

“One leading adoption charity estimates that a third of adoptions break down these days”.

Due to immense fear a child’s conscious mind blanks out a lot about being taken away from its birth parents but the child's sub consciousness never forgets and there is always that longing for that family love that can never be satisfied by adoption or fostering. A child should be kept in the family as close to the birth parents as much as possible.

A child subconsciously hankers for the love he/she was deprived of the birth family.

This subconscious yen not being fulfilled along with memories that come back as the child grows up causes frustration/ anger/ resentment and the child becomes bitter and unmanageable.

That is why kinship care should be the very first point of care when children are deprived of their parents.

The care system only caters for the physical child not the emotional or spiritual child because of social services cost policy. Cut backs now will cost the public purse a whole lot more in the future when the children that go through the care system turn out to be gang members.

There is a huge rise of gangs reported in the media lately it would be interesting too research into how many of the gang members were brought up outside their birth family.

Jailed for son’s balloon tribute

2011-08-27T12:00:00.000+01:00

By IRINA NELSON, Crime Reporter

Published: 01 Jul 2011

A DAD has been jailed for displaying 100 balloons outside his son's school on the lad's eighth birthday.

David Hawksworth was caged for three months by Dundee Sheriff Richard Davidson for harassment by making the tribute to the boy he'd been banned from seeing for seven years.

Now English-based Hawksworth's fellow activists at controversial dads' rights group Fathers 4 Justice have vowed to target the lawman's home after he slung him in Perth nick last week.

And they branded Sheriff Richardson racist after he told Hawksworth that he should "clear off back to England".

Last night a spokesman said: "Dave's crime was to place 100 balloons outside his son's school on his eighth birthday after being denied access for many years.

"Activists are targeting and heading to the home of Sheriff Davidson after his racist slur."

The spokesman also said they would shut down roads in Scotland and protest at Blairgowrie Golf Club, Perthshire — but their reasons were not made clear.

Real Fathers For Justice also hit out. Chairman Mike Kelly said: "This father has been lambasted, racially abused and then hung out to dry in prison alongside murderers and rapists. All he wants to be is a father to his kids."

Hawksworth and other activists protested at Dundee Sheriff Court last week at his hearing.

Sheriff Davidson caged him after saying the balloons present was "threatening" behaviour.

Last night a Tory spokesman said: "This seems a bizarre decision. Scottish Sun readers will be left wondering what it is that we don't know that ever led to such a judgment."

Sheriff Davidson refused to comment last night.

Birthday wishes ... dad's banner

The Daily Mail wants your story

2011-08-26T11:26:00.001+01:00

Hi Jim,

Thankyou very much for your help on the phone. As we discussed, it would be wonderful if you could keep in contact to let me know of any grandparents fighting for their grandchildren who have seen them fostered or adopted by other families.
If there are any who have a particular story to tell about their struggle, the Daily Mail is very supportive of grandparents and would really like to talk to them.
Nice speaking to you and I hope to be in touch with you again soon.

Kind regards,

Vicky.
--
Victoria Allen
Reporter
Scottish Daily Mail
0141 331 4736
07814 561219

United Nations Rights of the child

2011-08-23T07:52:00.002+01:00

IMPORTANT NEWS: Next year the Government will be letting the United Nations Committee know how they are doing on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Office of the Children’s Rights Director will be doing a lot of work in this area and will be seeking views from young people about this.

This Document was written by the Office of the Children’s Rights Director. It explains :-

1 What the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is and answers some common questions.

2 Tells you what YOUR rights are under the Convention.

3 Tells you what the Children’s Rights Director will do.

11 WWHHAATT iiss tthhee UUnniitteedd NNaattiioonnss CCoonnvveennttiioonn ooff tthhee Riights of the Child

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 (UNCRC) is an agreement by the governments of the world saying what rights children should have. It covers rights on just about everything and applies to everyone under 18 years of age.

Did the UK sign it?

Yes. Nearly every country in the world has signed up and agreed to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Do adults have to do what it says?

They should always try to, but the law does not say that they must.

What use is it then?

The Convention is important because it acts as a guide on how children should be treated. It also helps that each country that has signed it judges people from other countries on how well they treat children.

Like most people, staff, social workers and teachers would like to think that they do a good job in working with children. However, inspectors and others could say that they are not, if they don't respect the rights you have.

_____________

Mike Lindsay

OCRD

Can you tell me some of my rights?

Not all of the rights within the Convention will apply to you all of the time. But we've put together those that we think could affect some of you.

22 YYoouurr RRiigghhttss uunnddeerr tthhee CCoonnvveennttiioonn

• You have the right not to be picked on or treated unfairly just because you are different from other children. For example, if you are black, or you're a girl or disabled; if you follow a different religion, or simply because you happen to be in care. You should be treated the same as other children.

• When decisions are made, you have the right to say what you think and expect that adults will listen, and do what is best for you.

• You have the right to information that is about you, or that is about the home or school you are living in or any services that you might need to use.

• You have the right to your own family name. This is a basic part of your identity, and should not be changed unless you or your parents want to change it.

• You have the right to think and believe what you like, and choose your own religion, but your parents should guide you. Also, if you have a different nationality then you have the right to enjoy your own culture and use your own language.

• You have the right to privacy such as keeping your own personal diary that other people shouldn't read, or staff not entering your bedroom without knocking and waiting for your reply.

• If you are disabled, you have the right to special care and education to help you live a full and independent life.

• You have the right to special protection if you're a refugee and have been forced to leave your country because of danger.

• As you grow up, those looking after you should respect your ability to understand, and encourage you to do things for yourself.

• You have the right to keep in touch with your parents if, for any reason, you are separated from either of them.

• No one has the right to hurt you. Adults must protect you from violence, abuse or neglect, and if you do get hurt, they must do something about it.

_____________

Mike Lindsay

OCRD

• If, for any reason, your family are unable to bring you up, you have the right to special care - which could mean being adopted, fostered, or living in a children's home. If you're adopted or 'in care', your wishes and needs should be put first - not your parents' or any other adult's. If you're 'in care', others must check regularly to make sure that you're being treated properly.

• You have the right to enough to eat, adequate clothes, and a roof over your head. If whoever looks after you can't afford these, the government should help them.

• You have the right to education.

• You have the right not to be punished in any way that makes you look stupid or small.

• You have the right not be made to do harmful work. Work should not stop you from learning, being healthy, or growing up. There are minimum ages for when children can work, and laws to make sure that you're not working in bad conditions.

• You have the right not to be sexually exploited or abused. No one has the right to do things to your body. Those looking after you, whether parents, staff or teachers, must keep you safe from other adults who may try to sexually harm you in some way. If you're worried about this you should always try to tell an adult you can trust.

• You have the right to meet other people and join or set up your own groups, as long as this doesn't interfere with other people's rights.

• You have the right to grow up healthy, which means getting proper healthcare and information to help you stay healthy.

• You have the right to play, and to relax by doing things like sport, music, drama and art.

• You have the right to be protected from drugs - you shouldn't be forced to take them, make them, or deal them and those looking after you should protect you from other adults who may try to get you into drugs.

• If you are accused of doing something wrong, you have the right to be treated with respect and have a fair hearing.

33 TThhee CChhiillddrreenn’’ss RRiigghhttss DDiirreeccttoorr wwiillll rreessppeecctt::--

• YOUR RIGHT to privacy, by not asking you to tell us about anything you don't want to

_____________

Mike Lindsay

OCRD

• YOUR RIGHT to confidentiality, by not telling anyone else who it was that told us something, unless it is to help to keep you or other children safe

• YOUR RIGHT to information, by giving you booklets and putting details on the internet that explain what we do

• YOUR RIGHT to complain, by asking you to tell us if we do or say anything that upsets you, or you are not happy about, and passing it on to the right person to get it sorted out

• YOUR RIGHT to have your say, by inviting you to give your views, and asking inspectors who visit your home, school or service to try not to do anything that could affect you without first asking you what you think

Children's commissioner seeks to counter riot misconceptions

2011-08-18T17:12:00.001+01:00

http://www.cypnow.co.uk/Joint_working/article/1085063/Childrens-commissioner-seeks-counter-riot-misconceptions/

By Janaki Mahadevan Tuesday, 16 August 2011

The children's commissioner for England has sought to correct the "damaging misconceptions" that have led some people to believe that most of the rioters across England last week were children.

Atkinson: 'Now is the time to involve our children and young people in the debate'

Maggie Atkinson said now was the time to support the "overwhelming majority" of young people who condemn the violent behaviour witnessed.

"Sadly, some have gained the impression that most of the rioters were children but the reality is that reportedly [more than] 75 per cent of those being charged are over 18," she said. "We must do all we can to to counter these damaging misconceptions and to support the overwhelming majority of law-abiding children and young people. I am proud to say that young people have been some of the most constructive members of society in their condemnation of the rioting and in the clean-up efforts in their communities.

"We must take care not to blame and certainly not to write off a whole generation of young people. We would never claim, because a minority of adults rioted, that most adults in England are criminals."

However, Atkinson was also strong in her criticism of the actions displayed by those who looted and damaged property.

"Violence, rioting and destruction can never be justified or condoned," she said. "Those found guilty of crime should feel the full consequences of their actions, which may include a custodial sentence."

Looking to the future, Atkinson said it was imperative that the first step in understanding the root causes of the riots is to talk to those involved, including children.

"Now is the time to involve our children and young people in the debate and in finding the solutions, including those who have committed offences or whose lives are affected by whatever issues caused last week's troubling events," she said. "We need a national commitment to working as a society to ensure all children and young people have a real stake and a voice in their society."

CHILDREN IN THE CARE SYSTEM ARE PRISONERS WITH NO RIGHTS.

2011-08-18T15:32:00.001+01:00

Crimes committed against humanity, may or can result in a prison sentence, under the International Courts of human rights; all persons charged with a crime, all have rights to a fair hearing with a fair trial in an open court, with no gagging orders and that the media are allowed to publish the facts.

Once sentenced to prison, all prisoners are given under the human rights, food clothing telephone calls, listen to music, libraries, facilities to qualify for exams, gymnasiums for work outs, arts and crafts watch television, newspapers daily, allowed to smoke, buy Christmas and birthday cards to send to their loved ones and family, post letters and most of all every prisoner has visitation rights, in actual fact a person sentenced to a prison sentence has all of the rights as a normal person living in the community, the only human rights they have lost because they committed a crime is not being able to go out of the door and buy a pint.

Children who report an abuse against a parent parents foster carers or adopted parents.

I have been told by the system set in place to protect children, ALL children are all liars and do not know what they want. Children have rights under the human rights act to a fair trial, prisoners have a right to a hearing in an open court, but children’s cases are heard in a closed family court with the families denied the right to a fair hearing, with gagging orders by the courts on the press and families, also many children if able to speak for them self’s are all ignored, the only people with a voice in the family courts are the social workers NSPCC Cafcass physiologists and so many other organisations involved all known as the experts, who we are told are employed in the Childs best interest, and so one child has an army of experts?? Along with the courts to contend with, with most cases for one child in the system it can or may cost the tax payers in excess of £250.000 per case and lasting for up to a year and then ongoing with the sale of the child by the foster or adoption agencies along with bonuses to the local councils from governments for meeting the adoption and foster care targets?

Having questioned social workers, who I may add most from the EC Australia or Africa, (question) are you aware of the children’s rights under the Convention on the Rights of a Child and of their human rights, out of fifty social workers the reply was, I have heard of it, but don’t know what it entails, and very few said no never heard of it.

A child is taken away with no rights by a social worker on their assumptions or lies, or a child can report an abuse and is then sold into the system via the adoption or foster agencies, children from the first day of being in care have all rights stripped from them, no contact with the family, no telephone calls no letters and the family have no knowledge of where that child lives, as all contact is denied to a child the family and grandparents.

Prisoners can commit murder steal, sexually abuse babies and children, sell drugs, abuse society in what ever way and still have the right to a life and family, and with tax payers money can now as many have done so, had payments in the last year in excess of £1.600.000 million paid to prisoners for abuse and wrongful arrest, yet an innocent child is labelled with no rights what so ever loss of family and all branded as a liars, lose their right to their childhood days with happiness gone and still cannot sue to give them back all they have lost. Which is or was there life’s minds and families.

So perhaps we should look at building prisons for children, as then children would get the same rights that prisoners have and also to be heard in an open court for a fair trial and have their human rights given back to them, same as any person in prison.

The differences between prisoners and children, prisoners do wrong and have their rights.

What has a child got nothing? Cannot go to a park, be cuddled and loved by a family and lose what can never be given back childhood days of playing with grandparents and family.

Sorry I am wrong, from the age of five they can play sex games as that is what is now being taught in the school, as I wrote to the Prime Minister Mr Cameron, so we watch children playing sex and learning from sex as opposed to playing with toys and learning.

Maggie Tuttle

Great Car for Sale.

2011-08-11T16:22:00.010+01:00

*For Sale*

2005 Fiat Doblo Freedom. 1.9 dynamic deisol. High roof. Top of the range model Alloy wheels. Metallic red. One owner.

With parcel shelf to quickly replace the wheelchair ramp if desired as an estate.

Air con. Electric windows. 9 months

2 new tyres and exhaust for M.O.T. of 9 Mths 52k miles driven mainly by my wife as i am disabled. Service history. It has radio/cd player. 2 extra seats can be added. To make it a 7 seater. Tow bar.

This is a very thrifty car, the best i have ever had and Reason for sale is i have got a new very large wheelchair and we lose two seats when it is carried so need more space.

£4500 ono

0141 882 5658

Letter to president Zuma.

2011-08-10T09:32:00.000+01:00

Sent by Email: 9^th August 2011

Dear President Zuma,

It has come to my attention through Maggie Tuttle from the UK, regarding the situation concerning “Stolen Children” taken by Social Services. Apparently it is good business to live in the UK and become a foster parent or adopt a child through these services.

It appears that the old adage “money is the root of all evil” would certainly apply to these cases. I am in possession of information concerning a family from South Africa living in the UK, the Musa family, that has six children and those children have been taken from their family and put into the care of Social Services. I understand that the Musa family have lots of support from various organizations who are lobbying to assist them, in having their children returned to them. There are thousands of children that are being taken from loving families to be either fostered, or adopted , never to see their families again. What is really troublesome in these cases is, grandparents who are willing to take their grandchildren into their home, are being denied, due to lies and deceit from Social Services and their Agencies.

You are obviously aware of this terrible situation, as I have been informed of your intent to boycott the Olympic Games being held in 2012 in the UK. Maggie Tuttle and the Walker Brothers, celebrities from the sixties and others, are in the process of organizing a “Children’s Live Aid” day in 2012, which will have major celebrities from the music world drawing attention to the plight of these children, taken from their families. The ideal situation would be to tie in “Children’s Live Aid” concert with the boycott, if you are willing to proceed.

This is going to be an ongoing affair of drawing attention to the way Social Services deal with children and their families, and the way the courts put gagging orders on those who are the closest members of the children’s family, including the grandparents.

I admire you taking a stand and I am sure in your position as President of the South African country will not go unnoticed. I will be there myself on that day as I am going to participate in the “ Children’s Live Aid” day.

I am living in Canada now, but I will be making the trip a few times in the current year and in 2012.

With very best wishes and in concern,

Baroness Agnes von Mehren

Toronto, Ontario Canada Email: avm33@rogers.com

We need grandparents to tell their story and also for filming.

2011-08-09T14:01:00.000+01:00

Hi jimmy

I now have 2 families who have agreed to be filmed for our project, however, I still have had no luck with finding grandparents to talk about not having contact with their grandkids. I was really moved by Anne's story and thought that she may agree to be part of our filming project.

I am also interested to hear from any other grandparents who would like to tell their story on film - I know that this can be very difficult for people but it is important to get across the message about how not seeing their grandchildren has affected their lives.

Many thanks for your continued support.

--
Bernadette Lynass
Project Co-ordinator

Connecting Generations

Relationships Scotland - Family Mediation South Lanarkshire
Regent House

9 High Patrick Street
Hamilton
South Lanarkshire
ML3 7ES

t: 01698 421 333
m: 07966371698
e: bernadette@familysupport.org.uk
w: www.familysupport.org.uk

Don’t blame parents!!! Blame the government for the inhuman treatment of children in the care system,

2011-08-09T13:45:00.003+01:00

Press release. Immediate

Don’t blame parents!!! Blame the government for the inhuman treatment of children in the care system, The University of Crime. Children need their families.

The government are trying to pass the buck for the riots onto parents. What a cheek and insult to the millions of parents. It is well known that children removed from their family by social services and brought up in the care system are non achievers, disrespectful, unmanageable, and have no respect for anyone. They are the mainstream of the gangs that roam our streets looking for that family feeling they were robbed of when they were cruelly separated from their family.

The British family is being destroyed by government policies which are based only on cost at present but this passes the problem and even more cost onto future authorities when the children are adults and committing crimes on society.

Ends

Jimmy Deuchars

Grandparents Apart UK

22 Alness crescent

Glasgow G52 1PJ

0141 882 5658

http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk

The care system in this country for children is an absolute failure

2011-08-05T10:48:00.004+01:00

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/232856/3,000-in-care-call-ChildLine-to-tell-of-abuse-misery/

RECORD numbers of children are calling ChildLine to report abuse and neglect while in care, a new report reveals.

The care system in this country is an absolute failure for children. BBC Eastenders have got it just right with Billy Mitchell and his partner and granddaughter being brought up in care. Non achievers in life, unmanageable, unemployable, thinking only what they can screw out of life and don’t care who they hurt in the process. Social services and work only for their own best interest and not the child’s.

River City is also portraying how women can manipulate the system against a father by using the police and getting away with it. This education for women inclined on using the system for alienation, revenge or just plain badness is readily available by contacting Woman’s Aid. The founder of this organization is disgusted by the way they conduct their service it is a far cry from what she intended.

The government say grandparents are important in children’s lives but continue to fund Woman’s Aid to alienate the paternal grandparents in a child’s life. The SNP Scottish Government had it in their manifesto to continue funding Woman’s Aid.

Grandparents must be considered more via The Charter for Grandchildren for early intervention, protection and stability in caring for children. They are the only people who know their families shortcomings.

Continue

More than 3,000, some as young as five, contacted the helpline last year to report serious failings and weaknesses that included physical and sexual abuse, according to NSPCC research.

This represents one in 26 of all children in the care system and is a rise of more than 30 per cent over the past five years. Experts say the children who call ChildLine are the tip of the iceberg. Most never reach out for help.

The increase reflects the surge in children taken into care since the case of Baby Peter Connelly two years ago, together with an appalling lack of safeguards to protect them.

Official figures show the number taken into care grew eight per cent in 2009-2010 to more than 83,000 compared with the previous year. Peter Liver, director of ChildLine, said: “Every day looked-after children talk to us about lives filled with pain and hurt. We hear from children who have been beaten or sexually assaulted while in care. Others feel abandoned or unloved by their new carers. Many have reached crisis point.”

Ends

Jimmy Deuchars

Grandparents Apart UK

22 Alness crescent

Glasgow G52 1PJ

0141 882 5658

http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk

2011-08-04T13:54:00.003+01:00

Jimmy Deuchars: Resignation from the ASPP (SSCUP)

To whom it may concern.

I Jimmy Deuchars have resigned from the all Scotland Pensioners Party for the following reasons. I feel I cannot work with an organisation that it in my opinion only invites candidates to the meetings that are in agreement with the chosen few. The pursuit of the cause for Grandparents / Grandchildren although agreed orally was never included in the manifesto as promised.

Pre Election meetings concerning the progress of the party were conducted and decisions were made without my and other candidate’s being informed.

Hustings were arranged without the candidates for those areas being informed.

I had previously made my thoughts known about being unhappy at the way the party was being run and I was told to bring them up at the post election meeting but I was not informed when this meeting took place and decisions were made which I was not privy too.

Jimmy Deuchars

Governments are failing to protect abused children.

2011-08-04T13:32:00.001+01:00

The NSPCC are bombarding us with their adverts. The child has to get his own supper again, or he goes home to a fist. If the NSPCC claims of abuse in the home are correct then all the governments of the UK are turning a blind eye to their findings and are colluding in child abuse.

The government’s stance is grandparents having a right of contact are not in the best interests of the children. Is this stance justifiable when NSPCC is constantly advertising on television about how much children are abused in their own home? Contact can simply be by phone, letter, email etc. or visits. Contact to make sure they are safe.

Grandparents agree that a mother is usually the best person to care for her children when all is well. What happens when it is not?

Mothers have the protection of the law and the government at their beck and call. Could this be the problem? It is the children that should have that protection, with grandparents able to support them by seeing what’s happening and to help them in these circumstances.

The majority of children are well looked after, but too many are not. These children are left out, maltreated and unnoticed until they end up in hospital or the abuse is so far gone that neighbours report it to social services and they take the children, scarred for life, into care. This is a huge emotional and financial expense that could be avoided with early intervention.

Government figures say 60,000 children are living in drug related households in the UK. They are not helping them or letting anyone else help them either.

Grandparents are asking for a legal right of contact, not parental rights. They ask for the right to contact their grandchildren a couple of hours a month or by negotiation through mediation, letters and birthday cards, presents and phone calls. Children need this right unless their safety would be in danger by doing so.

But the governments are closed to this idea and allow more and more children to be abused in their own homes when it could be spotted earlier if grandparents were allowed that right of contact.

The government’s adamant stance is not in the best interests of children. We need them to wake up to the very strong advertising of the NSPCC that there is wide spread of abuse of children in their own homes.

Or is the Governments assuming the NSPCC are telling lies?

Ends

Grandparents Apart UK

Jimmy Deuchars. 0141 882 5658
www.grandparentsapart.co.uk

LAY REPRESENTATION IN THE COURT OF SESSION AND THE SHERIFF COURT

2011-08-02T14:04:00.001+01:00

Introduction

1. Sections 126 and 127 of the Legal Services (Scotland) Act 2010 amend the Court of Session’s rulemaking powers so as to enable rules to be made permitting a lay representative to make oral submissions to the court on behalf of a party to the cause in any proceedings in the civil courts. The provisions arise from a recommendation of the Civil Courts Review. They are here.

2. The provisions come into force on 1 September 2011.

3. It is necessary for the Court now to give consideration to whether to exercise these new powers. To this end, the Lord President has established a working group to devise an appropriate policy. This working group is chaired by Lord Pentland. Its members are drawn from the Court of Session and Sheriff Court Rules Councils and the Scottish Government. Its aim is to present policy proposals, accompanied by suitable amendments of the rules of court, to the councils by the end of October. This is with a view to amendments of the rules being made as early as possible in 2012.

4. The group has now met and reached some initial views on what the policy should be. In order that its final proposals are as well-informed as they can be, views are sought on the initial policy proposal. That is the purpose of this document.

Background

5. The existing position in the two Courts differs somewhat. The present arrangements (enabled by section 36(1) of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971) permit lay representatives to conduct litigation, including appearing, in summary causes and small claims in the Sheriff Court. In addition, section 7

of the Home Owner and Debtor Protection (Scotland) Act 2010 makes provision for approved lay representatives to represent debtors in repossession cases in the Sheriff Court.

6. The two Courts also take slightly different approaches to the concept of “lay assistance” (that is, the concept of a person who may assist a party litigant in court but not speak on his or her behalf). Chapter 12A of the Rules of the Court of Session requires the completion of a form containing certain statements and declarations before a person may be permitted to act as a lay assistant, whereas the amendments of the Sheriff Court rules (see rule 1.3A of the ordinary cause rules) do not. Furthermore, the Rules of the Court of Session require an application for the approval of a lay assistant to be made by motion; the Sheriff Court rules merely require a “request”.

7. The group’s aim is to make recommendations which take due account of the different circumstances of the two courts whilst maintaining, where possible, consistency of overall approach.

Analysis of the new provisions

8. The new provisions only permit the making of an oral submission by a lay person. They do not facilitate any wider ability for a non-lawyer to represent a party, such as is permitted by section 36(1) of the 1971 Act in relation to summary causes. It is noted, accordingly, that the submission of documents in support of an oral submission, such as supporting written submissions or a rule 22 note in ordinary actions in the Sheriff Court, will still require formally to be performed by the litigant. (This does not of course preclude the litigant from submitting a document prepared by the intended lay representative, although it would be the litigant who has responsibility for its terms).

9. The group also notes that the new provisions do not afford any scope for a lay person to engage in the examination of witnesses. This falls beyond the concept of an oral submission.

10. The group observes that the new provisions permit a lay person to make submissions only “when appearing at a hearing…along with a party to the cause”. Given that only natural persons can appear as parties, it is clear that the new provisions do not extend to permitting the making of an oral submission on behalf of a company or other non-natural person. The position in respect of such persons remains as recently analysed by the Second Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session in Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform v UK Bankruptcy Ltd [2010] CSIH 80.

11. The group considers that a lay representative must be regarded as distinct from a person affording lay assistance under the new rules recently made to that end (Chapter 12A of the Rules of the Court of Session and rule 1.3A of the Ordinary Cause Rules). In some cases a lay assistant might also be considered suitable to be a lay representative, but this would depend on the particular circumstances.

Discussion

12. Taking these points into consideration, the group discussed the policy aim of sections 126 and 127. The group took as its starting point the fact that the sections had evidently been devised to implement the recommendations in Chapter 11 of the Civil Courts Review. In particular, it was noted that the Review considered (para 51 of that chapter) that “there may be exceptional circumstances in which it would be appropriate to permit a McKenzie friend to assist a party litigant and, with the court’s permission, to address the court. The law at present is unclear and it would be desirable to clarify this for the small number of cases where such representation would help the court.” The limited nature of this reform was emphasised by the following paragraph, which said that “[t]his is not to say that parties would have a right to be represented by a McKenzie friend. Assistance and representation would be subject to the control and discretion of the court and permission would be given only if the court was satisfied that this would help. The court would

have to be satisfied as to the character and conduct of the proposed representative and would be at liberty to withdraw permission for that person to act for the party. In particular, the court would wish to be satisfied that the McKenzie friend was not offering his services for financial reward.”

13. The group was of the view that the Court should take its lead from the Review and introduce limited and controlled reform in line with the recommendations.

14. Accordingly, the group favoured adopting the test which the Review recommended, namely that the test for granting an application should be that it would “assist the court”. This differed from the test in relation to granting an application for lay assistance, which was that it should be refused “only if it would be contrary to the efficient administration of justice to grant it”. That test is appropriate given the particular role of the lay assistant. But in relation to lay representation, the test should be a somewhat tighter and more focussed one.

15. The group also favoured applying the same requirement of suitability that applies to lay assistance.

16. After discussion, the group favoured including in the rules a requirement that an application for lay representation should be made in advance of the hearing concerned. It was felt that the interests of the other party or parties needed to be protected. It was also felt that such an approach was warranted by the need for the efficient disposal of business as well as ensuring that the person was a suitable person to make an oral submission.

17. However, the possibility of an application being made on the day should not be precluded as there might be exceptional circumstances in which this was warranted. An obvious example might be where the litigant became unwell on the day of the hearing.

18. The group discussed the form which the application should take in the ordinary case where it was made in advance of the hearing. There was some resistance to the suggestion that a written motion should be required in the Sheriff Court on the basis that this would give rise to a fee, though it was difficult to see how the application could be made without a motion. It was noted that it would be open to the Scottish Government to amend the fees order if the view was taken that charging a fee was inappropriate. In the Court of Session, the model of Chapter 12A should be followed – that is, that there would require to be a motion accompanied by a suitable form.

19. The group discussed whether it would be possible in the rules to allow a standing authorisation for a lay representative in relation to all hearings in a case; or for representatives from a certain organisation in all cases. However, it was noted that it was not the intention of the power conferred by sections 126 and 127 to create a class of authorised lay representatives; and the question of whether the making of a submission by a particular person in a particular hearing would assist the court required to be judged according to the circumstances of the hearing itself.

20. The group agreed that it was appropriate for the rules to prohibit the lay representative from receiving remuneration, directly or indirectly, from the litigant. This was consistent with the position reached in relation to lay assistance. This was not intended to operate as a barrier to representation by remunerated members of advice agencies.

21. As with lay assistance, the group was of the view that:

(a) permission to make an oral submission should be automatically withdrawn in the event of the litigant obtaining legal representation;

(b) the court should be able to withdraw permission in the event that it considered that the test for permitting it was no longer met or that the person was no longer suitable (though this would not of course apply once the submission had commenced);

5 6

(i) the litigant would be permitted to show the representative any document (including a court document);

(ii) the litigant would be permitted to impart to the representative

information without contravening prohibitions on its disclosure but the representative would then be subject to the same prohibitions;

(d) any expenses incurred by the litigant as a result of the representation were not to be recoverable expenses in the proceedings.

Submission of views

22. Views are sought on the initial policy proposal and on any other matter which is considered relevant. Views should be directed, in writing, not later than 31 August 2011 to:

The Lord President’s Private Office

Parliament House

Edinburgh EH1 1RQ

or by email to: lppo@scotcourts.gov.uk.

23. Responses will be made available to the members of the working group and also to the members of the Rules Councils. They may also in due course be published. Please indicate in your response if you do not wish it to be published.

False Allegations by Social Services.

2011-07-27T18:11:00.000+01:00

I have heard so so often about social services making allegations about people without proof to stop them having contact with children. People’s lives are being ruined and children are robbed of a loving family just for social services to get their own way. Why are social services above the law? Why are they allowed to get away with holding records that cannot be proven? In the following case umpteen MPs high ranking policemen and lawyers have been ignored by social services. David Cameron has been written to several times as was Nick Clegg and Kenneth Clark but all have slung a deaf ear. What good are MPs when they cannot get justice for anyone?

David Wilkins was 19 a soldier in the British Army and posted to Germany. He got into a fight in a bar with others soldiers and was charged along with others with ABH.

When David left the army he applied to the police and was accepted no bother at all and achieved the role of sergeant.

David is now 65 and trying to see his wife’s grandchildren but Oldham social services has said they cannot see them as Dave has a sexual charge against him from that fight way back in Germany. The funny thing was Dave and his wife had already been given custody of one of their grandchildren so there is much confusion about social services motives in this case.

There was no sexual charge at all and Dave has scoured the army and police records and has never been connected with any charge of sexual assault. A crime like that would have stopped Dave becoming a policeman, but no sexual crime has been committed.

Eventually social services claim it was via a telephone conversation they are basing these accusations. Dave and Brenda’s life has been ruined by this false allegation and their grandchildren have lost out in the grandparents love.

There must be an end to social services dirty tactics.

Parental alienation and the voices of children in family proceedings

2011-07-27T13:17:00.000+01:00

Improving social well-being through education, research and innovation

22 July 2011

In a relatively small portion of all separation and divorce cases, children reject a parent. How and why does this happen? How do the courts respond to these cases, which are characterised by high levels of conflict between parents, and what should they do? What can we learn from the experience of other jurisdictions such as Canada and the US?

These were some of the questions addressed in a seminar hosted by the Foundation on 13 July and led by Professor Nicholas Bala from Queen’s University in Canada.

ow can courts respond better to high conflict cases and contact disputes?

The seminar started with a discussion of the controversial concept of ‘parental alienation.’ While rejecting the view that it is a ‘syndrome,’ Professor Bala recognizes the value of identifying cases where the hostile attitude of one parent results in a child having negative views of the other that are a reflection not of the child’s own experience, and resulting in unjustified rejection of that parent. This approach requires courts and professionals to distinguish cases where a child is justifiably rejecting a parent, for example due to abuse or neglect, from cases of alienation.

Professor Bala reviewed evidence about the prevalence of alienating behaviour, looking at both allegations and court findings on the extent to which one parent (usually the resident parent, usually the mother) may turn children against the other parent. He highlighted the short and long term ill effects of alienation on children, and examined the Canadian, American and English jurisprudence in this area, including consideration of contempt proceedings and variation in residency.

Professor Bala went on to consider how courts can better respond to high conflict cases and contact disputes. Some of his recommendations, such as the importance of judicial continuity and the need to drastically reduce delay, are relevant to current proposals in the Family Justice Review. He also advocated more judicial interviews with children, and better collaboration between courts and mental health professionals. He concluded that more serious consideration in appropriate cases of varying residence orders might benefit some children.

Hosting the seminar was part of our work in family law, which is a long- standing interest of the Foundation. We are particularly interested in how insights from other jurisdictions and disciplines can help inform policy or practice in the UK.

Professor Bala’s presentation is available to download from the link below:

Parental alienation and the voices of children in family proceedings, Professor Nicholas Bala, 13 July 2011 (PDF).

The ravings of a Tory MP on knife crime.

2011-07-19T19:08:00.000+01:00

As I was writing this Mr Bob Blackwood MP of Harrow was speaking in parliament this evening on knife crime. Mr Blackwood said we need to encourage parents to ensure their children do not join gangs or carry knives.

Get in the real world Mr Blackwood. It is our experience that gang members are mainly the product of his governments care system where children are not treated as human beings but as commodities to be dealt with according to how cheaply they can dispose of them.

A million children in Britain do not see their grandparents because of the government’s policy for children. A Labour government acknowledged this and created the Charter for Grandchildren for professionals who work in the welfare of children to look more closely at the role grandparents can play in a child’s life rather than be fostered or forced adopted. If elected this year Scottish Labour planned to revisit the Charter for Grandchildren with a view to making it legal. Sadly this did not happen.

The SNP government has refused to accept the charter and passed responsibility for it to local authorities knowing fine well they cannot handle it as it needs done at government level. The SNP government fund a group called Woman’s Aid which does a good job in rescuing women from domestic violence but their counselling procedure includes excluding grandparents that have done no wrong at all and is not in the best interests of the child. Woman’s Aid refuses to meet to discuss finding a solution to this.

The SNP attitude was when asked about this “we have nothing further to add”

The governments by their indifference towards grandparents have created a ‘them and us’ situation between grandparents and social services and are often seen as a bully boy service mostly feared by families rather than respected.

If parents are unable to look after their children it would benefit them more to be cared for in a known home environment with someone they know and trust rather than being given to strangers. It is well known that children that go through the care system very often become non achievers. The effects of fostering or forced adoption from their birth family can devastate a child and affect them all their lives. This leads to insecurity, behaviour problems becoming unmanageable and growing up resenting society and joining the ever growing gangs which roam our streets for that lost family feeling.

Although it is a soap opera BBC East ender’s have the perfect scenario. Billy Mitchell and his partner Julie who were brought up in the care system. They are portrayed as non achievers, no hopers, poorly educated and always in trouble, never holding down a job and totally irresponsible. Now their granddaughter has turned up and she is the perfect street aware example always running away and having all the problems of a typical care child.

Do we want children to grow up like that? The rate the governments are snatching children and force adopting, gangs are exploding all over the UK

Grandparents (Access Rights) Bill 2010-11

2011-07-18T14:37:00.001+01:00

Type of Bill:: Private Members' Bill (under the Ten Minute Rule, SO No 23)
Sponsor:: Andrew Percy

Progress of the Bill

Bill started in theHouse of Commons

House of Commons
House of Lords
Royal Assent

Last event

1st reading: House of Commons 23 November, 2010| 23.11.2010

Next event

2nd reading: House of Commons | 21.10.2011

All previous stages of the Bill

Latest news on the Bill

This Bill is expected to have its second reading debate on 21 October 2011.

This Bill was introduced to Parliament on 23 November 2010 under the Ten Minute Rule. This allows an MP to make his or her case for a new bill in a speech lasting up to ten minutes. An opposing speech may also be made before the House decides whether or not the bill should be introduced. If the MP is successful the bill is taken to have had its first reading.

This Bill is a Private Member’s Bill. These are often not printed until close to the second reading debate. If the text is not yet available here and you wish to know more about this bill please contact its sponsor, Andrew Percy.

Summary of the Bill

A Bill to give grandparents rights of access to their grandchildren in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes

Government attempts to back out of child poverty duties

2011-05-23T11:58:00.003+01:00

http://www.cypnow.co.uk/bulletin/cypnow_daily/article/1071201/government-attempts-back-child-poverty-duties/

By Neil Puffett Friday, 20 May 2011

Be the first to comment

The government is attempting to relinquish its duty to report annually on progress made to reduce child poverty.

Amendments to the Child Poverty Act have been tabled by government

The move is among a number of key amendments to the Child Poverty Act as part of the Welfare Bill’s progression through parliament that will have implications for the way child poverty is monitored.

The latest steps follow the publication of the government’s long-awaited child poverty strategy last month, which outlined plans for a social mobility and child poverty commission rather than a commission focused solely on child poverty.

In addition to making provision for a dual-role commission, the tabled amendments would result in a number of changes to the role of the commission as outlined in the original legislation.

These include:

Removing the requirement for the government to receive consent from the commission if it wants to change targets in relation to persistent poverty
Removing the requirement for the government to seek advice from the commission before publishing its annual child poverty strategy
Removing the requirement for the Secretary of State to pay regard to any advice given by the commission before publication
Likewise, the necessity for the devolved parliaments in Scotland and Northern Ireland to request, and take heed of, advice of the commission prior to publishing their strategies is also proposed to be removed
The government will no longer have to report annually on its progress in reducing child poverty, but make a statement instead

A briefing note on the amendments said: "We believe that the commission can have the greatest effect through being able to hold the government to account on progress towards eradicating child poverty.

"In order to do this, the current provisions relating to the commission and its powers need to be revised."

Tim Nicholls, spokesman for the Child Poverty Action Group, said he has concerns about the changes. "Although the government say they want accountability to be stronger, this may actually make it weaker," he said

a devastated grandmother.

2011-05-20T11:35:00.001+01:00

If anyone would like to communicate with this lady, i will pass on your details.

Margaret

Hi - I am a 61 year old grandparent who has been stopped from seeing my granddaughter by my son 18 months ago. Initially I went to a Solicitor and was going ahead with trying through the courts to gain some kind of visiting access. Unfortunately, as the weeks went by I started to get chest pains with all the stress and decided that I just couldn't face going into a court room. More importantly I came to the decision that taking my own son to court or having my granddaughter know in later years about this nightmare situation could do her more harm than good.

I came across your web site page today and I firmly believe that it should not take a court appearance to get to see your own grandchild. I brought up four children, I don't smoke, drink and never taken drugs. Never been convicted of any criminal offence, worked hard for my family and paid all my taxes. It's so unfair and so heartbreaking, just because of a row or disagreement with the father/mother of a grandchild they can have this power, for no other reason, and stop all contact.

Never mind my loss the child's loss is more important. My granddaughter loved to stay with me and was very close to me, we had so much fun. She has no say in the matter, she was 8 this month. I seen her last June (once in the past 18 months) and to hear her say 'I miss you nannies' absolutely torn me apart. I wonder every night how my own son could do something like this but he did.

I don't want to join a group to get back at him I want someone somewhere to sit up and listen to us decent grandparents. So if I can be of any help to Grandparents Apart could you please direct or advise me please.

Mature Times wants grandparents to contact them

2011-05-19T18:18:00.000+01:00

On 19 May 2011 10:59, Helen O'Brien <helen@medavia.co.uk> wrote:

Dear Jimmy,

Many thanks for your time on the phone this morning.

As discussed, I’m writing a piece for the June issue of Mature Times on the ‘Lost Generation’.

I’m looking to speak to two or three sets of grandparents who fear they’ll never see their grandchildren again.

Perhaps the parents have divorced and now the parent(s) is keeping the grandchildren apart from one set of grandparents?

The grandparent(s) would need to be willing to be named and pictured in the piece.

If you could put me in touch with some grandparents who are affected by this issue and are willing to take part I would be really grateful.

Many thanks in advance for your help.

Best wishes,

Helen

Helen O'Brien | Features Editor

MEDAVIA | Media Consultants

39 Alma Vale Road | Bristol | BS8 2HL

T: 0117 973 3730

helen@medavia.co.uk | www.medavia.co.uk

Loughton promises action on child exploitation

2011-05-19T10:50:00.000+01:00

Loughton promises action on child exploitation

Children's minister Tim Loughton has pledged to step up the government's efforts to tackle child exploitation.

Teenage Foster Kids out in the cold.

2011-05-16T18:53:00.005+01:00

On the National news tonight:- The authorities are looking for Foster Carers for teenagers.

They have snatched so many babies that there is a backlog, no-one wants teenagers that have been in the care system. You might think the money for caring is good but 3 out of 5 of these cases end in disaster with bad effect on the family who thought they were helping.

The kids from care are ausually resentful and unmanageable, have little incentive or qualifications to look for work, and little respect for society. If you take on these kids you are taking on big trouble, . How many will join the gangs that are now growing out of proportion in our cities because they find comfort in a gang that was they were robbed of when they were young..

It is now costing the authorities so much more to deal with the backlog of teenagers. Had they looked at grandparents more closely in the beginning for caring for these kids there would not be a queue of children who are often regarded as non achievers. Kids kept within the family (Kinship Care) do so much better than kids raised in care. Families are not perfect but the truth is kids are treated a whole lot better with family than in care.

Social services policies are destroying our children:- Snatching, Grooming them by telling them no one wants them and force adopting them to just about anybody they can get to take them which deprives them of their self esteem.

The last blog i put on here tells about the kids that are physically and sexually abused in care. Would you want an abuser in your family?

http://chatterboxblogforyou.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-than-third-of-young-people-say.html

More than a third of young people say they have been either sexually or physically attacked by another child

2011-05-16T13:46:00.003+01:00

Lots of our grandparents have reported assaults like this when their grandchildren are taken into care. It is one of the reasons why grandparents are banned by social services so the children cannot tell them about it.

http://www.cypnow.co.uk/bulletin/youth_work_news/article/1069827/third-young-people-attacked-child/

Third of young people have been attacked by another child

By Joe Lepper Thursday, 12 May 2011

f of all attacks victims were left injured and one in 10 were knocked unconscious. Image: Beatbullying

The Beatbullying survey of 1,000 16- to 25-year-olds found that 37 per cent had been attacked before they were 18 years old by someone of the same age group.

Of these attacks a quarter were sexual assaults carried out when the victim was under 16 years old.

A similar proportion of attacks involved a weapon. In half of all attacks victims were left injured and one in 10 were knocked unconscious.

The survey also looked at the effect of being attacked on victims’ lives. It was found victims were three times as likely to be in trouble with police than those who had never been assaulted by another child.

One respondent said: "I got sexually abused by a best friend’s brother, and I got very depressed. I came home to a destructive family and was continually threatened... my past still affects me to this day."

One in five victims went on to have an eating disorder, 17 per cent had been prescribed antidepressants and eight per cent had run away from home while they were children.

Emma-Jane Cross, chief executive of Beatbullying, said: "Our research reveals the severity of modern-day bullying. We’re a long way from playground name calling, with child-on-child violence and sexual violence frighteningly frequent for many young people.

"Society needs to take action and tackle this epidemic head on as a community and no longer perceive severe bullying to be an issue confined only within the school gates.

SNP. Is God having problems

2011-05-16T13:38:00.003+01:00

FIRST Minister Alex Salmond has launched a thinly-veiled attack on members of his own party who have criticised the SNP's "independence lite" strategy.More info...

Now that SNP have got everyone conned they are still trying to force through a minimum price on alcohol which will have devastating effects on the chi

2011-05-15T12:20:00.003+01:00

SNP know very well how to deal with the alcohol problem in Scotland the reasons they pussyfoot is they do not want to rub their supermarket millionaire voter friends the wrong way by reducing their profits. They prefer to subject children deeper into poverty by hiking the price of drink knowing full well that a problem drinker will get their drink first despite the cost and the families will get what is left, if any in a lot of cases.. The more it goes up the less there will be to feed the family.

Hiking the price of alcohol is unfair and deprives people who use it wisely. In general people will plan ahead for celebrations A fairer system is to set the normal price and not make alcohol so readily available.

The target should be the alcoholic it is their problem and must be tackled with full force with no let up. Families have no training in dealing with the problem drinker. Their usual coping mechanism is to try and hide the problem to save embarrassment. Lack of money means the children exist on handouts from friends or relatives and wear hand me down clothes that never fit right. They are usually neglected and unwashed as the drinker is sleeping their booze off. Like the NSPCC advert they usually go home to a punch and need to look in bin bags for something to eat.

An alcoholic is not necessarily a down and out. They can be drinkers in a well paid position who consume large amounts but if it is not tackled the inevitable end is the same. It is well known that 60% of NHS beds are occupied by alcohol patients. The crime rate is so high because of alcohol that the police can barely cope.

If alcohol was invented tomorrow it would be banned immediately as a dangerous drug. It is only tolerated because the government, producers and people involved in the selling of it make so much money from it. Now the harm caused by alcohol is exceeding the income the governments are frantic to find a way around it and still keep the money rolling in. but the nature of alcohol is addiction and they are fighting a losing battle. The only way to tackle it is to ban it all together but I cannot see that happening.

Alcohol producers and dealers in alcohol must take their place in tackling the alcohol problem by doing more to treat alcoholics.

Some steps to help reduce the effects of alcohol abuse on children

1, Proven problem drinkers should be made to attend counselling by law.

2, The age for purchasing alcohol should be raised to 21 making it easier for shop assistants to spot under age buyers.

3, Happy hours should be totally banned.

4, Cheap offers in supermarkets should be stopped.

5, Using alcohol for promotions should be an offence.

6, Outlets for selling alcohol should be reduced.

SNP facing backlash on 'indy lite'

2011-05-15T10:15:00.001+01:00

http://www.scotsman.com/news/SNP-facing-backlash-on-39indy.6768400.jp

By Tom Peterkin and Eddie Barnes

THE backlash against the SNP's plans for a watered-down form of Scottish independence has begun, with activists criticising Alex Salmond's party for failing to fight for a complete break from the rest of the UK.

SNP lowers sights to 'independence-lite'

2011-05-14T12:31:00.001+01:00

http://www.scotsman.com/news/SNP-lowers-sights-to-39independencelite39.6767994.jp?articlepage=3

Published Date: 14 May 2011

By Tom Peterkin

Senior figures within the SNP now believe a full breakaway from the rest of the United Kingdom is no longer the best short-term option for Scotland.

Hamish The Haggis Hunter.

2011-05-13T19:21:00.003+01:00

Oor Hamish is a fearless hunter braving the howling gales and blizzard like dangers of the Scottish highlands where a man can be frozen to death in seconds and blown off the mountain and fall thousands of feet to his death just to put haggis on the menu for thousands of English lovers of Scottish cuisine.

There are two types of Haggis, Mountain haggis that have a thick shaggy coat to keep out the cold and two legs longer on the one side for running round mountains. The lowland Haggis has a short coat and four legs all of the same size because of the more level terrain of the area. They have strong jaws for raiding the bins in the back courts and tearing the wrappers of the chicken suppers dropped by the bevy merchants of Glesca.

The next time you eat a haggis spare a thought for Hamish and his fellow hunters.

“David Cameron has asked Scotland Yard to review the disappearance of Madeleine McCann because of the "exceptional" nature of the case.”

2011-05-13T19:12:00.000+01:00

This was the Sky News Headline today at 5.00pm and I have to say I welcome any investigation in to the disappearance of children, but that is not what the Prime Minister is saying,

Mr Cameron is signalling out the tragedy that has fallen poor Madeleine McCann and we pray that something positive will come from this investigation and that Madeleine can be united with her long suffering parents.

That said there was a Protest March held on the 4^th May 2011 to Downing Street which unfortunately I was unable to attend, but a petition was handed in to draw the Prime Minister’s attention to the plight of children and to draw his attention to the large numbers of children that go missing in this country every year and I copy part of a letter sent to me that has been sent to the Prime Minister.

“According to the press as of today, you have stated that the case of Madeline McCann is Governments primary concern and has always been and remains for her safe return, and that the police via government will now have a full enquiry, that is wonderful, but what about the thousands of children stolen sold and missing never to be seen again by grandparents fathers and families because of the corruption and billions of pounds, it is amazing that you can relate to one families plea and ignore the plea of thousands Including Mr. Hemming MP Mr. Amess Mp and Mr. Booker.

I will gladly pay for your time, if you make an appointment to speak to Mr. Hemming or Mr. Amess, other than that, if you still refuse to accept that we have a huge corruption within social services, which needs a full investigation, then you leave me with no choice but to continue the campaign against Government and this I will do with the masses and the media, I still find it difficult to believe the news today, that Mr. and Mrs. McCann have priority of your support for one child missing, when I and many others have written personally regarding the thousands of children stolen, including you ignoring Mr. Hemming and Mr. Amess. WHY”

This I agree is pretty powerful stuff to write you about, and I do not wish to scare or frighten anybody but I am hearing too much about children being taken from families by the Children’s Agencies and by others who sell children into slavery, consequently because of these atrocities there really needs to be a thorough earnest investigation as to what is actually going regarding children in our beloved country in these times.

I can sympathise with anyone who has lost contact with a child as it is like a death in the family, but never to hear about, or see the child again is just unbearable and in a modern society is as callous, as it is wicked, and cruel and should not be tolerated, but we who are plain ordinary citizens are powerless to put a stop to this and only the politicians and the courts have the power to effect that change that will protect our children which is so vital and necessary.

Our children should be protected in the first instance by the United Nations “Convention on the Rights of the Child” and governments should recognise the essentiality of the need for a “Charter for Grandchildren” which would give families a say in what happens to their children.

If you allow me I will return to this subject again.

My continued thanks for your support.

Frank Bradfield,

Grandparent Apart Wales,

14 Amalfi Court,

Craig-y-Don Parade.

Llandudno.

LL30 1BH

Telephone No 01492 874 395

Why the Scottish Government want no resolution for family disputes.

2011-05-13T18:06:00.002+01:00

There were candidates in the All Scotland Pensioners Party sworn to work very hard to be elected to speak up in Parliament for Grandparents, Pensioners, Families, and Disabled but sadly it was not enough. Now SNP have just about got everything under their control and an unchallenged government is not a healthy government for people like us.

SNP have proven they are not interested in us by booting the Charter for Grandchildren out of Parliament and passing it to the local authorities who in turn claim it is not their problem but a Government responsibility. Now it is in limbo. Grandparents/grandchildren as well as families, pensioners and disabled are very low on their priority list. How they can justify that? We are all among the poorest in Europe.

Children are the backbone of any nation and it is how they are treated and reared that determines just about everything in society. When there are stable happy children they grow up to take there place in a decent society and pass on what they have been taught. But if they are not treated with respect and fairness as in forced adoption, snatched into care and fostered out to strangers it destroys them mentally emotionally spiritually and in the end physically when they turn to gangs, drugs, drink with little respect for the rest of us and costing three times as much keeping them in jail.

The governments know very well what is needed to resolve these problems but there is not much profit in happy families. It is in their best interests for families to war with each other as family law is a huge wage earner for lawyers courts, adoption agencies, foster carer’s, social services and just about every professional who work in the welfare of children. The little money the government does put into it is a drop in the ocean compared to what is earned from it and they are now cutting costs which mean less to improving services and more you will have to pay to get justice.

Woman’s Aid is an organisation funded by the government who work against bringing families together by alienating all male members and grandparents of a child’s family and keeping the family war going. They tutor mothers how to avoid all contact even if a child loves their grandparents. Their first priority is mothers and this often conflicts with the best interests of children when it robs children of grandparents and family that have done no wrong. The Scottish Government recently acknowledged my concerns about this and gave me Woman’s Aid contacts but they have refused me their constitution or even to meet us to seek to resolve the issue but so far there has been no further correspondence from them or the Scottish Government

Family Needs Fathers (FnF) is another organisation funded by the government. Believe it or not FnF in Scotland is run by a practising social worker who tells their members she can’t do this or that because she is a social worker. They get funding for their 30 + years of getting nowhere and have a plush new office in Edinburgh for holding meetings for fathers to blow off steam but never do anything worthwhile. Guys!! You need to waken up to how you are being manipulated!!!!!

By the government funding these organisations the they have proven to be actively against happy families and the only reason can be is what I have just described, no profit in happy families. Unless we fight and expose this two faced farce there will be no easier contact for grandparents, no better pensions for older people, and no fair family laws, the disabled will be no better off. Rich fat cat lawyers get richer on your misery. The Scottish Sun stated we were underdogs. Were they right?

This poem was written by a Peacekeeping soldier stationed overseas.

2010-12-07T11:24:00.001Z

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

2010-12-07T11:15:00.001Z

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.