From our own correspondent.                                                                 Thursday 13 July 2006



The absolute necessity for all public officials whose testimony instigated a prosecution in the Family Courts, to be named.


I would like to identify a difference in the cases before the Family Court , that is being overlooked deliberately or otherwise, to with hold disclosure of the identity of the social workers/pediatricians and other 'public officials', whose evidence has resulted in instigating the cases of abuse against parents.

I notice that there is absolutely no mention in Harriet Harman's DCA Consultative document or her statements, concerning identifying the social workers/pediatricians involved.

This might be the result of seeking a ' one policy fits all' scenario.  Yet the cases before the Family Courts are very different. They actually fall into 2 distinct categories, with reference to the point I wish to identify.

1.  The cases involving disputes between partners about the residence of the child/children are disputes that focus around the evidence of one partner or the other. In this case, there is no need to identify them, for obvious reasons.....There is no 'external' evidence given by a 'public official'...social worker etc.

If evidence is given during the instigating of the case by a public official, the identity of the 'public official' should be disclosed.  All the other parties should be anonymised.

The moment a public official comes into the case, he/she should be identified. He/she might after all be related or connected to one or other of the parties in dispute. It is by the media publicity, that any connections not disclosed, might come to light.

2.  The cases involving allegations of abuse of a child, that results in prosecution of the parents in the Family Court, to take the child/children into Care depends on the evidence of social workers/pediatricians and/or other public officials.  There is absolutely no reason why the social workers/pediatricians and/or other public officials are not identified.

Indeed, unless the social workers/pediatricians are identified , and their reports published, there is no possibility of ensuring that a serial false perjurer has not been involved and caused havoc. This I believe has already occurred.

I believe that a review of cases that would be relatively easily identified, would demonstrate that criminal social workers and pediatricians and others have been at work, earning a lucrative living in the gulag of the Family Court, assured that they cannot be exposed.

This therefore requires a different approach to disclosure in cases such as 1 above, which are almost completely inter family disputes and one partner making allegations against the other.

However, in cases such as 2 above, ALL the public officials who gave testimony on which the cases were brought to court , must be named.  Not to do so, has resulted in the de-facto immunity we now have and the scandal that is the lucrative living achieved at public expense, by social workers, pediatricians, psychiatrists, psychologists and other 'public officials.

It is important therefore, to ensure that 1 and 2 are not 'lumped together'.   This I fear is the intention.

Quoting the need to keep all the identities of those involved in the cases such as 1 ( inter family disputes) will be the justification used to anonymise the identity of the social workers, pediatricians and other public officials whose testimony instigated the case against the parents and the child/children.  Never forget, these abuse cases in the Family Courts are PROSECUTIONS.

It should also be remembered that the child/children are also being prosecuted.  When a child suffers from ME and the parents are PROSECUTED for MSBP, the child is accused of 'IMAGINING HIS/HER ILLNESS, of FEIGNING SICKNESS, of MALINGERING', of PLAYING ALONG WITH MOTHER'!

We need to know just which social worker, which pediatrician, which psychologist, which psychiatrist, has accused them of what.  In following through it is also likely to find a nice little group of 'professionals' who have been working as a stalking team, rather like a pack of wild dogs, on the Serengeti.  One wild dog singles out a lone vulnerable wildebeest and gives chase...a little later, a fresh pair of legs from the wild dog pack takes over, and the next and the next.  Until the wildebeest is exhausted and brought down.  We need to know if the ' wild dogs' (social workers/pediatricians, 'public officials' ) are working in a pack, who they are, how often they have done this etc.  The only way is to identify them.

These are after all 'public officials' getting well paid by the state, 'achieving targets' by each accusation that leads to adoption.

The public have a right to know such details.  Not to disclose the details will encourage the wild dogs to continue on the prowl, with immunity.

All of you reading this would be aghast if the police officer who 'booked' you for speeding was anonymous, his report not allowed to be disclosed to the public, the equipment he used, to remain unidentified and nameless.  This would be completely unacceptable. There would be no way of knowing if the same police officer was a maverick, targeting individuals, if his measuring equipment was faulty, or non existent,  or if he had done this on tens/hundreds of other occasions to achieve targets and earn bonuses and promotion.

In the case of the Family Court, there are grave suspicions that the wild dogs ( social workers/pediatricians/public officials ) have been at work. If the DCA is genuinely interested in establishing confidence in the filthy gulag of the Family Courts.  Here's the opportunity.

Not to name the social workers, pediatricians and other public officials whose testimony instigated the cases against the parents and children, leaves the villains ( wild dogs ) in place, laughing all the way to the bank.  Taking with them loads of state money, and sending innocent and vulnerable children to their 'linked' friends in the adoption agencies.