" Many adopted children have
face to face contact with birth families, its is actively
encouraged. Some families have 'open adoption', this is rather like
sharing responsibilities and being one big family." This is
the picture social workers wish to convey to Parliament , the press
and the public. The reality though, is very different!
In the real world; Contact is not only discouraged, there is a fear
by social workers that contact might result in disclosure of
information, confirming the corrupt practises and criminal activity
of the social workers in obtaining the earlier Care Order. Hence
contact it is not only discouraged and undermined, it is also
religiously policed by the filthy gulag of the Family Court and its
apologists in the DCA, to prolong the scandal.
In one case in Essex, involving a notorious social worker ( a senior
official ) in a number of cases of false statements made to the
Family Court to instigate care proceedings and then effect a Care
Order and adoption, the father ( S ) was sure the he would be able
to appeal and provide the court with the evidence to overturn the
care Order. He was sure all the information was in the records held
by social services.
He requested copies of the social workers notes, repeatedly. These
were document he was entitled to under the law. But as you now know,
the law does not apply to social workers and local government
officials. They just ignore current legislation. ( If you are in any
doubt about this, refer to Eric Pickles MP's speech to the House of
Commons 2 March 2006. Adoption Bill Debate) The father's requests
for the document were ignored. He then officially complained to
Essex County Council. This then triggered an 'official
investigation'. Anyone who knows these 'investigations' will confirm
that they are an exercise in attrition. They are utterly
meaningless. Purely a cosmetic exercise that involves huge payments
and costs from the public purse, to officials. But no
possibility of retrospective action or even future remedial action.
In this case, almost every complaint the father ( S ) had made, was
UPHELD.
He then continued to pester Essex County Council for the documents
they had unlawfully retained and he then also set about seeking an
appeal; not to overturn the Adoption Order. But just to clear his
name and have some future and limited CONTACT so that the children
would know the truth. That he did truly care for his children and
loved them dearly.
Finally after another year, he managed to obtain an Appeal hearing
in the High Court, in which he represented himself. A certain High
Court judge with an association with one Prof Sir Roy Meadow, who
incidentally was also the judge who had made the Final Judgement
that released his children for adoption, 3 years previously, was
struck by his persistence and the document he had finally managed to
present to the court. But in some exasperation the judge said
" But Mr. S, if you had this information at the earlier hearings,
the outcome could have been very different. Why did you not present
this to the court earlier?"
To which the father almost in tears replied" Your Honour! The
pile of papers reflects the efforts I have made trying to get these
document from Essex County Council. I only received the
relevant papers, 2 months ago". There was stunned silence in
court.
If this was the odd case in which relevant document had been
deliberately withheld and retained by local authorities...it would
be newsworthy....Alas ! This is quite common place.
Contact is seen by social workers as very likely to up- end their
devious games. Hence huge efforts are made to ensure that CONTACTS
are not even seen as a likely possibility. The parents are
'rubbished' at every turn, to create the impression in the mind of
the judge that 'CONTACT' would have deleterious effects.
As a postscript, I would mention that Elizabeth Railton, Director of
Children's Social was awarded the CBE (Commander of the British
Empire) in the recent Queens Birthday Honours List. An official
complaint has been registered with the Ceremonial Secretariat at the
Cabinet Office. It now transpires that no one will admit nominating
Elizabeth Railton for the CBE. Essex County Council has confirmed
via the Head of Law & Administration and the Leader of the Council,
that it did not nominate her for the CBE. So who did?
The Cabinet Office has
confirmed that ' Honours had been withdrawn in the past'. An
investigation has now commenced. Watch this space!
