Stop Social Workers removing Innocent children for Forced Adoption

This is the title of a petition created by Rozel Reilly on 18 August 2011. Hosted by e-petition, it will be noted by Government possibly more easily than when I use GoPetition for collecting signatures.

However, I still think that the most effective use of a petition is the analysis of its comments. They make really good reading and, hopefully, impress the recipients more than just the number of signatures being collected.

Check Online Petitions and their Remarkable Comments.

And do note

  1. The Secrecy in Family Courts should be lifted NOW – started in the streets of Wales
  2. Abolish the Ban on Recording Court Proceedings – started by Heather Brooke, a former barrister and other journalists last year.

About Sabine Kurjo McNeill

I'm a mathematician and system analyst formerly at CERN in Geneva and became an event organiser, software designer, independent web publisher and online promoter of Open Justice. My most significant scientific contribution is
This entry was posted in Family Courts, Local Councils, Secrecy, Social Services and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Stop Social Workers removing Innocent children for Forced Adoption

  1. ian josephs says:

    Abolish forced adoption,abolish the gags on parents when their children are taken and again when they see them at contact,abolish removal of children for emotional abuse or worse still risk of it ,and only allow permanent or long term separation of children from parents when the hearing is contested if the decision is made by a jury.
    Sorted !!

  2. Pingback: New e-petition: Stop Social Workers Removing Innocent Children for Forced Adoption | Bishop Gloria Musa and Family want to go back Home – WITH their Children!

  3. annie says:

    Introduce an Ombudsman/Appeal process against the Family Law system such as is currently available within Criminal Law to investigate miscarriages of justice.

    • Jimmy says:

      I can see how that might seem attractive but it would be a nightmare to operate for a number of reasons: the criminal system works on the basis that one side, the accused has the benefit of the doubt and the system is not concerned with fairness to the other side, that is the prosecution. I don’t see how this could be made to work in civil cases, where of course the rights of the parties are equal. Secondly these processes are very lengthy, they best known criminal miscarriages took years to investigate and in many cases re-investigate and even re-re-investigate. The possibility of a review like that in the background would deprive family members of certainty and security and would prevent them from getting on with their lives. Thirdly, the workload would be phenomenal. Every unsuccessful party would challenge it, especially if it was free, which of course brings us on to the fact that it would be ruinously expensive and no government is going to pay for this at a time when legal aid continues to be slashed.

      • annie says:

        Good points Jimmy. But there are complaints processes, appeal processes everywhere apart from the family courts.

        However the issue of certainty needed by families in decisions reached at Court, whilst is a valid point, we know from VH’s case, it doesn’t matter what decision is reached by the Family Courts, she has dragged this out continuously with many Judges now, putting the family through indescribable hell no doubt.

        So this is why I think an identical process to redress miscarriage of justice, which we have within Criminal Law to be brought within the Family Courts . If ….big if…we did have such a system, it would put an end to repeat Court Hearings such as VH has brought about.

        Now, this would also bring relief to those who like VH believes there has been a miscarriage of justice. The case be investigated independently and once an outcome is reached, that is final. In other words, that person cannot keep going back to court over and over again with the same issue VH has done. Because that is torture for someone on the receiving end of a serial litigant.

        I believe we should have an independent process regardless because there are too many cases and not enough family Court Judges, and because these Judges are overstretched, there are many serious miscarriages of justice. Many,

        The Judiciary are already aware of the shortage and need for specialist family law Judges. Were we forced to wait in lengthy queues at the check out in our local Sainsbury/Tesco, we would be approaching the Customer Service till complaining about the lack of operators.

        Our family court system is an atrocious mess. End of.

      • Jimmy says:

        There are independent bodies. They’re called Courts. I don’t see the point in setting up a new body whose decisions the losing party will also refuse to accept. Of course the system is under resourced, as is the public sector as a whole. Coming up with something new to spend money on is hardly the solution.

  4. black night says:

    i thought the court found out that Vicky have been telling her daughter to lie by coaching her and that the court tried to find any kind of evidence or even a real hint of wrong doing by the father 3 times with not one scintilla of evidence, and actually found out that the little girl had been coached from the get go using child psychologist and medical doctor’s psychiatrist ,.. etc. and bending over backwards for the mother just in case she’s telling the truth to No avail . and only then . awarded the child’s custody to the father , after the court realized that Vicky was lying from the beginning and under oath .

  5. annie says:

    Just found this interesting assessment from Sir Nicholas Wall in 2010 on the state of family courts.

  6. annie says:

    Judges need harp on about dysfunctional families. The entire system itself is dysfunctional.

  7. annie says:

    Actually Jimmy, if you google judiciary rules etc they only have certain powers and cannot do the investigative part. That is left to “professionals” such as SS, guardians etc to provide evidence, which the Judge utterly relies on to reach decisions.

    So no Courts are not the best option because we know the Courts can and do get it wrong. If a Court makes a decision and that decision has been based on faulty evidence, well the Judge’s decision is only as good as the evidence before him.

    We do need an Ombudsmen for the family courts, and yes I simultaneously agree this would likely be inundated, but no different to the Courts and its lack of Judges. It’s a vicious circle because the entire system is dysfunctional.

    • Jimmy says:

      Obviously a Jude can be mistaken as can anyone. Your comment implies an Ombudsman would be infallible. He is not likely to have any evidence not available to the Court you are simply replacing the trial with a decision made by a civil servant. I can’t see that satisfying anyone.

      • annie says:

        Aha! Yes but, the Ombudsmen would investigate the faulty evidence presented to the Judge to make his decision. That’s the difference. A Judge doesnt have time to check what lies “behind” the evidence, he just relies on it.

        As such an Ombudsmen a} would have the time to conduct a proper investigation into the disputed evidence b) would have the manpower.

        I am not going to get into semantics on this one Jimmy.

        Have you been involved in a miscarriage of justice within a family court?

      • Jimmy says:

        Depends what you mean. Sometimes I’ve disagreed with a decision, but it’s not like a criminal case where, for example you were either correctly identified or not. It’s a judgement call. It’s why they’re called judges. In the end most childcare cases come down to an opinion. I remember one acrimonious case in particular where the Court eventually decided not to remove, but the decision was close. The child was harmed shortly afterwards. Hindsight’s 20/20 of course. The social workers who are routinely abused on sites like this will get it in the neck of course whatever they do. You couldn’t pay me enough to do that job.

        And the reason judges don’t ferret out evidence themselves is because it is felt that parties should see whatever evidence the judge sees so they can comment on it. Some procedures may seem very odd, but there are generally good reasons for them.

  8. annie says:

    Jimmy I did ask, if you have ever been personally involved with the family Courts?

    If you had you would understand that in practice, as an individual seeking justice, it simply doesnt work the way you describe.

    For example, my ex claimed my son was not autistic and that I made him act “that way”.
    Despite evidence from an NHS clinical psychologist my son had ASD, the Judge ignored this evidence and placed both children with my lying ex husband.

    In the end I had to pay for the worlds leading expert in Autism, to assess my son.

    And the report was damning against the previous Judge’s decision and that my son did have Autism. My children now live with me.

    In did it is the Legal Team’s jobs to present all evidence of their client’s case both to the Judge and to the other side and vice versa. Barristers then go through the opposing sides evidence to look for legal arguments.

    Sometimes, where the is doubt on reports, Judges ought to direct for an expert witness. This too frequently is not done, because it is both expensive and timely.

    It is why there has for a long time, been a call for family Judges, who would be far more experienced in dealing with complex family law cases, and to better facilitate the process in directions. eg getting expert witnesses.

    It is true to say many a Judge is wrong in their findings, and many a Judge is right. It is down to an expert legal team to challenge any decision made by a Judge, a barrister considers is wholly wrong and seek a Judicial Review. Exactly how many Judicial Reviews does anyone here of in the Family Courts? Probably none.

    There are some excellent articles on the internet that set out the problem (describing my experience) about of the few Legal Aid solicitors left now, many of these are not experienced family law solicitors. Build into the mix because these firms are married to the State, they often do not fight your case effectively or appropriately. I know that.

    It is why there is only any chance of successful remedy within the family courts and that is by hiring top private barrister/solicitor. These will challenge wrong decisions by Judges and legal aid solicitors/barristers I believe do not. Indeed if you read on the latest link Sabine has posted on Cranmer and scroll down, to where barristers have written in anonymously about the state of the family courts and how legal aid barrister work eg don’t challenge the system.

    The articles posted on Cranmer by barristers also speak of the problems those representing themselves are causing the system.

    You speak as if you are the Oracle on this subject, but you are not. What is your job if you don’t mind asking since you speak with some background in prisons and courts?

  9. annie says:

    Oh and PS Jimmy,….I might add, I niaively represented myself when the Judge “ignored” the evidence. I had no legal team to argue reports for me. Many self represented litigants are receiving rough justice.

    I wouldn’t advise anyone to represent themselves. And as we hear VH speak of champagne, limos and exotic holidays, clearly these are more important to preserve, than spending that money on a top barrister instead.

  10. Debra says:

    The Judges already have the checks and balances in place for Justice. It is “their Judicial Oath”.

    Some cases are ruled more justly than others, but the judicial System fails with the criminals out, and people in prison for the non-criminal offences. Failure to hold a Judge to his Oath IS a failure.

    It is the responsibility of the Judges to make diligent inquisition upon all testimony and evidence. The System needs a complete overhaul because in reality there would not be as many disputes as there are now in a community following God’s Laws. The lack of doing so is the primary issue.

    The Judicial Oath is not an oath to God’s Law or Common Law, but is an oath to Elizabeth 2, who has sworn in the “Coronation Oath” to maintain The Laws of God to the UTMOST of her power. Thus, the same for every Judge.

    Judicial Oath

    “I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second in the office of ________ , and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will. “

    It’s Up To The People.

    Stop relying on lawyers, and solicitors, or barristers and even judges who are unreliable. Take back the Courts by presenting on arrival to the Court hearing, the judges’oath to obey thee “signed” Coronation Oath to maintain The Laws of God, which some Common Laws apply. Proceed accordingly.

    If seeking Lawful advice / Defence in regards to a Court Case, please, email all requests to:-

    And “Paedophile” should be removed from the Heading of this website.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s