Quantcast
Channel: Social Services | Christian Voice UK
Viewing all 52 articles
Browse latest View live

German SS Snatch Homeschool Children in Morning Raid

$
0
0
Wunderlich_10-2-2012_1

The Wunderlich children have been taken from their parents because of the decision to homeschool.

German social services officials have raided the home of a family and abducted their children on the sole grounds that the parents were exercising their right to home-school.

The armed raid occurred on the morning of 29 August, just as the Wunderlich family was beginning lessons.

The team of 20 SS personnel, police officers and special agents approached the home with a battering ram after Judge Koenig, a Darmstadt family court judge, authorized force “against the children” since the children had “adopted the parents’ opinions.”

The four children, ages 7-14, were all forcibly removed and taken to unknown locations, leaving the parents devastated.

Home School Legal Defense Association obtained the court documents authorizing the seizure. The documents reveal that the only legal grounds for action against the family was their decision to home-school. There were no allegations of abuse or neglect, nor any concern that the children were receiving inadequate education.

Dirk Wunderlich, the father, reported, “I looked through a window and saw many people, police, and special agents, all armed. They told me they wanted to come in to speak with me. I tried to ask questions, but within seconds, three police officers brought a battering ram and were about to break the door in, so I opened it.

“The police shoved me into a chair and wouldn’t let me even make a phone call at first. It was chaotic as they told me they had an order to take the children. At my slightest movement the agents would grab me as if I were a terrorist. You would never expect anything like this to happen in our calm, peaceful village. It was like a scene out of a science fiction movie. Our neighbors and children have been traumatized by this invasion.”

The Wunderlich family with members of HSLDA

The Wunderlich family with members of HSLDA, taken prior to the raid.

“When I went outside, our neighbor was crying as she watched. I turned around to see my daughter being escorted as if she were a criminal by two big policemen. They weren’t being nice at all. When my wife tried to give my daughter a kiss and a hug goodbye, one of the special agents roughly elbowed her out of the way and said, ‘It’s too late for that.’ What kind of government acts like this?”

Having been pestered by the state for their decision to home-school, the Wunderlich family has traveled throughout the EU in the last four years looking for a place to live in freedom. Sadly, the family was forced back to Germany by lack of work. Upon returning to the country, the children’s passports were immediately seized to ensure they could never leave again.

The right of German parents to home-school is recognized by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Ignoring these and other declarations, the German government seems to be following the directives of Adolf Hitler, who wrote in 1937: “The youth of today is ever the people of tomorrow. For this reason we have set before ourselves the task of inoculating our youth with the spirit of this community of the people at a very early age, at an age when human beings are still unperverted and therefore unspoiled. This Reich stands, and it is building itself up for the future, upon its youth. And this new Reich will give its youth to no one, but will itself take youth and give to youth its own education and its own upbringing.”

Dirk Wunderlich spoke with Mike Donnelly, HSLDA Director for International Affairs.  “These are broken people,” Donnelly said. “They said they felt like they were being ground into dust. They were shaken to their core and shocked by the event. But they also told me that they had followed their conscience and the dictates of their faith. Although they don’t have much faith in the German state, they have a lot of faith in God. They are an inspiring and courageous family.

“I’ve been fighting for German home-school freedom for years,” he continued, “and I had hoped that things were changing in Germany since it has been some time since brutality of this magnitude has occurred. But I was wrong.”

Petra Wunderlich said her heart was shattered. “We are empty,” she said. “We need help. We are fighting but we need help.”

Obama Interferes to Deport German Homeschool Family

The Obama administration has ordered the Romeike family to be deported to Germany, where the parents will almost certainly lose custody of their children for their decision to home-school.

Many other families have been persecuted at the hands of the totalitarian German state for wanting to home-school. One particular family, the Romeikes, fled Germany in 2008 after being ordered not to home-school. They hoped to find safety in the United States. In 2010 the Romeike family were granted asylum to remain in the U.S. on the grounds that returning to Germany would be dangerous for them (Michael Farris has pointed out that the German High Court is on record for saying that religious home-schoolers should be targeted and severely punished). Since then they have been living in Tennessee, where they purchased a farm and have been educating their children according to their evangelical Christian beliefs.

In an unexpected act of executive interference, President Obama appealed the ruling which allowed the Romeike family to remain in America. In April, the Obama administration obtained an order from a higher court to deport the family., arguing that parents essentially have no right to determine how and what their children are taught. At the same time, Obama is granting amnesty to millions of people who have gone to the US illegally. He has also released thousands of illegals who have committed crimes.

In the German state schools, children are exposed to graphic sex education, violence, witchcraft and atheism. Moreover, the German government has openly declared that its policy is based on suppressing minorities. One German court decision explained their opposition to home education explicitly in terms of ideological thought control:

“The general public has a justified interest in counteracting the development of religiously or philosophically motivated ‘parallel societies’ and in integrating minorities in this area. Integration does not only require that the majority of the population does not exclude religious or ideological minorities, but, in fact, that these minorities do not segregate themselves and that they do not close themselves off to a dialogue with dissenters and people of other beliefs. Dialogue with such minorities is an enrichment for an open pluralistic society. The learning and practicing of this in the sense of experienced tolerance is an important lesson right from the elementary school stage. The presence of a broad spectrum of convictions in a classroom can sustainably develop the ability of all pupils in being tolerant and exercising the dialogue that is a basic requirement of democratic decision-making process.”

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Share/Bookmark

The post German SS Snatch Homeschool Children in Morning Raid appeared first on Christian Voice UK.


Baby Forcibly Extracted from Womb During Nightmare Visit to the UK

$
0
0

By Robin Phillips

Alessandra Pacchieri is being represented by Stefano Oliva, who has described the actions of the British government as "sheer brutality."

Alessandra Pacchieri is being represented by Stefano Oliva, who has described the actions of the British authorities as “sheer brutality.”

An Italian mother is working to get her baby back following a forced Caesarean section during a visit to Britain last year.

The mother of two was sedated and forcibly operated upon after Essex Social Services deemed she was unfit to be a mother.

The nightmarish series of events began last June when Alessandra Pacchieri travelled from her native Italy to Essex for a two-week training course with Ryanair at Stansted Airport in Essex.

Having had a history of ‘manic episodes’, Alessandra was on medication. Concerned that her drugs might harm her unborn baby, Alessandra stopped taking them and had a panic attack as a result. During her panic attack Alessandra phoned the police.

TRICKED BY THE POLICE

Upon arrival at her hotel room, the police made telephone contact with Alessandra’s mother, who informed them about her daughter’s condition and explained that Alessandra needed to take her medication.

“They said they wanted to take me to hospital to check my baby was OK” Alessandra explained. “I agreed to go with them.”

It wasn’t until they arrived at the ‘hospital’ that Alessandra realized that she’d been tricked. To her horror, she found herself locked in a psychiatric unit where she was held against her will. Alessandra was prevented from returning either to the hotel or to her native Italy.

Months went by, during which time Alessandra was still banned from returning to her family in Italy.

“I begged the doctors to let me go back to my country” Alessandra recalls. “I said I wanted to go to court to get it sorted out.”

FORCED CAESAREAN

By now Alessandra was nearing the end of her pregnancy. On Friday, 24th August 2012, four days before her due date, Alessandra went to prepare her breakfast as she had done every other morning. But this time she found the hospital kitchen locked. Officials informed her that she couldn’t have breakfast because she would be having a C-section.

“I was crying. I could feel my baby kicking inside me. I begged them not to do the caesarean. The due date was four days later and there was no reason for me to have such an invasive operation with anaesthetic. I wanted a natural birth.”

Alessandra’s protests were ignored. To her horror, she found herself strapped down by a team of five nurses and forcibly sedated.

A few hours later Alessandra woke up to find that she was no longer pregnant. While asleep her child—a baby girl—had been forcibly extracted from the womb and handed over to Essex social services. Alessandra was allowed to hold her baby intermittently for the first few days although she was commanded not to breast feed. On the third day, she was informed that the baby was being completely removed.

Little did Alessandra realize that this forced Caesarean had been carefully planned and authorized by the secret courts. A transcript from the hearing in which Mr Justice Mostyn approved the procedure, reveals the judge telling the court: “She should not know about this order before she is taken and goes to hospital.” The judge authorised the use of “reasonable and proportionate force” if needed.

FORCED ADOPTION

The forced Caesarean was just the beginning of Alessandra’s British nightmare.

Throughout the following autumn Alessandra was allowed access to her daughter for half an hour once a week. In two family court hearings in Chelmsford, Alessandra pleaded to have her child returned to her and to be allowed to go home with her baby to Italy, but to no avail. The child had already been earmarked for adoption.

In October 2012, social services obtained formal permission to put Alessandra’s daughter up for adoption. Only then was Alessandra able to return to Italy.

Back in Italy Alessandra received treatment for her condition. Having completely recovered, she now maintains a home and holds down a job. Yet the authorities in England will not allow her to see her child.

Alessandra returned to Britain earlier this year for a hearing at Chelmsford County Court. While Judge Roderick Newton criticized the local authority for going against the advice of the doctors who had urged the baby to be left with her mother at the hospital, he did not reverse the decision.

In a desperate attempt to keep her daughter within the family, Alessandra has requested that her baby be allowed to go and live with her husband’s sister, who has been recognized as a very capable mother. However, Essex Social Services have refused to even consider this option on the grounds that the baby’s aunt has no “blood” tie to the baby even though she is technically kin. In the minds of Essex social services, placing a baby with a complete stranger is preferable to letting her live with kin.

INTERNATIONAL CONTROVERSY

These events have created international controversy this week, and threaten to strain relations between Italy and the UK. An eminent judge in Milan has declared that a forced caesarean under sedation is an act of extreme violence.
“Your family courts and your social workers invaded my body and stole my baby”, Alessandra told the UK press. “I believe that the British authorities planned to adopt my daughter from the very beginning.”

“Something very unfair has been done to me. I am fighting to get my daughter back and I never want another innocent mother in your country to suffer as I have.”

‘PURE BRUTALITY’

Melita’s lawyer, Stefano Oliva, commented that these events were “unprecedented” and added that he was amazed to see this happening in a European country. “I’ve been a lawyer for 20 years,” he said. “I’ve never seen something like this.”

“Judges can have a different opinion than you, or not look at the papers correctly, but in the particular case I’ve seen pure brutality.”

“Such an invasive treatment of my client, forcing birth from her – I can’t think that any Italian judge would have done it under any circumstance.”

“She has proved to the Italian social services that she is trustworthy”

Mr Oliva went on to compare the case to events that occurred under Hitler or in North Korea. “To snatch children from their own family has happened in history, under other regimes in which there was no democracy – think of the Hitler Youth or the gathering of children in North Korea.

“You can’t think of this happening in a Western European country, a European Union country.”

“She’s a mother. And like all mothers, she wants to be with her daughter. She realises that she has problems.”

“She’s now getting treatment, she’s doing better, she has a job. She has proved to the Italian social services that she is trustworthy.”

 

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Share/Bookmark

The post Baby Forcibly Extracted from Womb During Nightmare Visit to the UK appeared first on Christian Voice UK.

BBC investigates SS child-snatching

$
0
0

Jayden Wray's vitamin deficiency was to blame for the broken bones which led to him being taken 'into care'.

Jayden Wray’s vitamin deficiency was to blame for the broken bones which led to him being taken ‘into care’.

The BBC’s flagship current affairs programme has investigated child-snatching by social services.

In a landmark edition of Panorama screened last night (13/01/2014) entitled ‘I want my baby back’, a number of cases of horrific injustice were revealed.

The programme is available to watch on BBC iPlayer for a year and is required – and sobering – viewing for anyone interested in families and justice in the United Kingdom.

According to the write-up: ‘Panorama reporter John Sweeney investigates the secretive world of the family courts and asks whether some parents may have unfairly lost their children forever’.

Presenter Sweeney traveled to Spain to interview one mother who fled the country after her elder daughter was taken and ‘freed’ for adoption in the secret family courts.

Like other parents in the film, and many others whose stories were not told, her child was taken after X-rays showed multiple bone fractures, leading to accusations that she or her partner had physically abused the infant.

But new evidence is linking fragile bones with vitamin D deficiency.  In the landmark case of baby Jayden Wray, his death from multiple fractures led to his parents being charged with murder and having their surviving child taken ‘into care’.

Paediatric Pathologist Irene Scheimberg's brilliance should lead to a major rethink on juvenile fractures.

Paediatric Pathologist Irene Scheimberg’s brilliance should lead to a major rethink on juvenile fractures.

But a post-mortem carried out by paediatric pathologist Dr Irene Scheimberg, interviewed for Panorama by John Sweeney, revealed that Jayden’s bones were so brittle they snapped in her fingers.

All charges were dropped by the police, and a judge ruled that Jayden’s bereaved parents should have their other child returned.

Some very uncomfortable details emerged during the Panorama programme.

Firstly, parents like those of Jayden Wray who protest their innocence are looked upon as uncooperative and ‘in denial’ by social workers, value-judgments which lessen their chances of being re-united with their child.  However, if they admit any kind of guilt, they won’t have their baby returned anyway.

Secondly, the programme revealed something of the merry-go-round of medical experts who are paid to present evidence on behalf of social services departments in the family courts.  Thousands of pounds are paid out for preparing evidence and presenting it at a hearing.  The experts find themselves depending on social services for a considerable income which they know will only continue if they present evidence which supports the position of social services, which appears always to hang on to a child until the bitter end.

Investigative journalist John Sweeney of Panorama

Investigative journalist John Sweeney of Panorama

One qualified expert radiographer even told a court that cases of vitamin D deficiency were unknown in white children of Caucasian parents, something which is blatantly untrue.

What the programme did not investigate was the huge sums paid to social services and adoption agencies in the event of a successful adoption.  This successor to targets, which also had financial rewards for being met, mean that a single baby is worth £27,000 in adoption grants to somebody.

That might explain why children’s charities always seem so keen on the present system and, put with panic over cases like that of ‘Baby Peter’ why SS departments are so eager to take children ‘into care’.

There are so many children in care now that a scheme to speed up the adoption process has recently been trialled.  This, according to the Guardian, has left parents reporting being ‘bulldozed’.

The only bit of possible good news is that Sir James Munby, president of the Family Division of the High Court, said in November last year that parents of children taken into care should no longer be gagged by the courts and journalists should be allowed to report on proceedings.  Only the death penalty is more drastic than removing a child, he has said.

But opening up the family courts is not going to happen any time soon, and until it does, what John Hemming MP described last night to Mr Sweeney as ‘a tsunami of injustice’ will continue in the secret family courts with their retinue of tame experts and their backdrop of adoption payments.

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

 

Please note that we welcome comments on this story but that all persons wishing to comment must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed, however meritorious they appear.

Share/Bookmark

The post BBC investigates SS child-snatching appeared first on Christian Voice UK.

Court Denies Christian Parents Custody of their Own Children

$
0
0

By Robin Phillips

The Wunderlich family with members of Home School Legal Defense

The Wunderlich family with members of Home School Legal Defense

A German family court judge has refused to give the Wunderlich parents custody of their own children following the family’s decision to homeschool.

The Wunderlich are Christians and chose to homeschool for religious and educational reasons.

In the verdict last month, judge Marcus Malkmus defended his decision on the grounds that homeschooling is allegedly a “concrete endangerment to the well-being of the child.” He pointed out that if custody were returned to the parents then they would be able to obtain visas and travel to another European country where homeschooling is legal.

In September we reported on the armed raid in which German social services abducted the Wunderlich children on the sole grounds that the parents were exercising their right to home-school. In October we reported on how the German government promised to return the children on the condition that the Wunderlich family send their children to the state schools.

In order to keep their children, parents Dirk and Petra had no choice but to comply with German social services and put their children in the state schools where they face potential indoctrination in paganism, homosexuality and witchcraft.

Despite the fact that the parents have complied with these demands, and despite the fact that the children are once again living at home, and despite the fact that the eldest child (Machsejah Wunderlich, age 14) has made her own application to the court, the German social services have been obdurate in their refusal to return custody to the parents.

In his ruling, Judge Marcus Malkmus compared homeschooling to a “straitjacket” which allegedly condemns children to “years of isolation.” He continued: “The request of the parents to reinstate their right to determine the location of the children, the right to make educational decisions for the children, as well as the right to file legal applications for their children is being refused.”

Key documents in international law, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, grants parents the right of movement. However, in Germany this right does not extend to those wishing to homeschool. Last month’s ruling further declares,

It should be considered that emigration plans of the parents indicate that the parents will continue to prevent schooling of their children in a public school. Even though there are no suspicions of any parental care right abuses, besides the prevention of public school attendance, the further withdrawal of the part of parental care rights is considered necessary to help and support the education of the children, to ensure the children’s attendance of a regular school.

Dirk Wunderlich compared the ruling to policies of the Nazis

Dirk Wunderlich compared the ruling to policies of the Nazis

This totalitarian ruling starkly reveals the totalitarian drift of German secularism, which finds it increasingly

impossible to envision a society where differences can be tolerated. It is more than a little ironic that Judge Marcus defended these totalitarian measures on the grounds that homeschooling

allegedly prevents children from “having learned to be integrated or to have a dialogue with those who think differently and facing them in the sense of practicing tolerance.”

Dirk Wunderlich said the ruling is comparable to what happened under the Nazi regime.

“Judge Malkmus has erected another Berlin Wall apparently designed to prevent all parents who might leave to homeschool from leaving Germany. This is no different than what happened in the former East Germany under communism and before that under the Third Reich. We need help from others around the world to help our country see this terrible violation of human rights.”

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Share/Bookmark

The post Court Denies Christian Parents Custody of their Own Children appeared first on Christian Voice UK.

Protests over lesbian adoption of Somali girl

$
0
0
Somalis demonstrating last year outside the South African Embassy in London

Somalis demonstrating last year outside the South African Embassy in London

The adoption by white lesbians of a girl from the Muslim Somali community has been halted after protests.

The three-year-old was due to be handed over by Harrow Borough Council but a week of protests have left the Council with no alternative but to put the adoption on hold.

More than 50 women from the Somali community demonstrated outside the headquarters of Harrow Council to protest against the decision and urge the local authority to reconsider the adoption.

Tory-controlled Harrow say the girl and two older siblings were ‘taken into care’ after they decided the children’s mother had ‘mental health problems’.  In a cultural context, children of a mother who could not cope would always be taken in by relatives, but despite offers from the family, Harrow told the child’s mother by letter that there were no Muslim Somali adopters available.

According to the Daily Mirror, a family member named Ibrahim told the Sunday Times they want the little girl to be brought up by a family who share their religious and ethnic background.

He claims four blood relatives on the mother’s side were willing to adopt the toddler but were turned down.

A spokesman for Harrow Council said: “Adoption decisions are taken after lengthy and extremely thorough consideration of what is in the child’s best interests.”

Ministers have said they want adoptions to be carried out more quickly and preferences that children should be placed in similar racial or cultural environments to be swept aside.  Ofsted has introduced (in 2012) a new target for speed in adoptions.  But as more and more adoptions are done against the wishes of parents, and at a time when cases where children have been taken into care wrongly are increasing, speed will inevitably lead to injustice.

(When adoptions are carried out against parents’ wishes the children are euphemistically ordered  by the court to be ‘freed for adoption’.)

The 2002 Adoption Act allowed same-sex couples to adopt and that in turn has led to complaints from biological relatives of adopted children.

In 2009, one mother in Scotland went public when her children were placed with homosexuals after an offer to adopt from their grandparents was turned down.  Councils have been receiving as many as 50% of their applications to be considered as adoptive parents from pairs of homosexuals.

 

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

 

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Share/Bookmark

The post Protests over lesbian adoption of Somali girl appeared first on Christian Voice UK.

Scotland’s Children Bill is Massive Intrusion into Family Life

$
0
0

Scottish Parliament

Scottish Parliament

The Scottish Parliament has passed a bill that assigns one social worker to every child in Scotland.

The controversial measure, Known as ‘Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill’, was passed in Edinburgh last week with a vote of 103-0 with 15 abstentions.  It allocates a ‘named person’ with unspecified powers to each child.

Christian groups in Scotland have spoken out against the controversial proposal.

A Free Church of Scotland spokesman said there has not been “sufficient evidence” to apply the plans universally or to ensure “parents are protected from undue interference by the state”.

Among the other organisations that have spoken out against the move are the the Law Society of Scotland, the Faculty of Advocates, the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church.

Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, said, ‘This is a massive and expensive intrusion into family life.  It comes from the totalitarian philosophy that the State owns the nation’s children.’

Christipher Booker, writing in the Telegraph, said: ‘In fact, the Bill is remarkably vague about the powers to be given to these “named persons”. Will they be free to arrive unannounced at the family home to check on how a child is being treated by its parents, when it goes to bed, what food it is given, what political or religious opinions it is being brought up with? In other words, the Bill gives no idea of how this hugely ambitious scheme, estimated to cost Scotland’s local authorities up to £138  million a year, will work in practice. And most worrying of all, to anyone familiar with the failings of our existing “child protection” system, is how often the most damaging errors can arise when professionals are charged with reporting to social workers their suspicion that something in a child’s life might be amiss.’

The bill was framed in an attempt to bring under Scotland under obligations stipulated in the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). The UN Convention includes a provision to assign a specific government worker to every child at birth.

Normally a social worker is only assigned to a child in cases of child abuse or neglect. Once this bill is implemented, there will be a named guardian for every child in Scotland from when the child is born to when they reach eighteen.

Tories have warned that the bill will almost certainly be challenged. Liz Smith, the Tory spokeswoman for young people, said “If this goes through, it will almost certainly be subject to legal challenge.

“That is because it is a measure that will intrude on family life, and divert resources away from those who really need help.”

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Share/Bookmark

The post Scotland’s Children Bill is Massive Intrusion into Family Life appeared first on Christian Voice UK.

German Home-schooling Family Allowed to Stay in United States

$
0
0


Romeike-familyThe Romeike family will be able to stay in the United States following a remarkable turnaround by the federal government.

Uwe and Hannelore Romeike have been fighting to keep their family in the United States, where they immigrated legally from Germany in 2008.

Had the family stayed in Germany they would have faced heavy penalties because of their decision to home-school.

All went well until the Obama administration began threatening to deport the family to Germany, where the state would be able to take custody of their children as they did in the case of the Wunderlich family.

On Monday the Supreme Court declined to hear their appeal for asylum and the Romeikes assumed all their options were exhausted. On Monday Fox news announced  ‘Team Obama wins fight to have Christian home-school family deported.’

It came as a surprise to everybody when a Supervisor with the Department of Homeland Security called HSLD to say the Romeikes had been granted “indefinite deferred status”. The federal government’s 24-hour turnaround was announced today on the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) Facebook page.

Uwe Romeike commented in a statement on the HSLDA website: “We are happy to have indefinite status even though we won’t be able to get American citizenship any time soon. As long as we can live at peace here, we are happy. We have always been ready to go wherever the Lord would lead us—and I know my citizenship isn’t really on earth.”

HSLDA Chairman Michael Farris gave the glory to God.

“This is an incredible victory that I can only credit to Almighty God. I also want to thank those who spoke up on this issue—including that long ago White House petition. We believe that the public outcry made a huge impact. What an amazing turnaround—in just 24 hours,” he said.

What the video below for the full story:

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Share/Bookmark

The post German Home-schooling Family Allowed to Stay in United States appeared first on Christian Voice UK.

Multiculturalism Caused Government to Hide Truth of Muslim Grooming Gangs

$
0
0
Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism has prevented the Government from reporting instances of Muslim child-grooming gangs.

(Since writing the report below, new information has surfaced. See UK: Prosecutor ‘branded a racist’ for prosecuting Muslim rape gang” and “Rotherham child sex scandal: these children were victims of ‘anti-racism’).

British Government knew about Muslim child grooming gangs and chose to hide this knowledge.

A new comprehensive report, titled “Easy Meat: Multiculturalism, Islam and Child Sex Slavery,” examines how authorities knew about the rampant child abuse by Muslim gangs yet refused to prosecute offenders.

A summary of this article, published by the Gatestone Institute, discusses the key points of the report, highlighting how “police, social workers, teachers, neighbors, politicians and the media” turned a blind eye to the crimes of these Muslim gangs for fear of being accused of racism or “Islamophobia.”

The “conspiracy of silence” regarding child grooming by Muslim gangs was exposed in 2010 when the underground investigation Operation Retriever found and convicted 13 Muslim men for grooming approximately 100 underage girls for sex. This generated more investigations and led to the discovery of several Muslim grooming gangs. Although many offenders were identified, few were prosecuted.

According to the “Easy Meat” report, these offenders are 154 times more likely to be Muslims, while the victims are almost always non-Muslim girls. But authorities have “never deemed it important to declare this, or even denied the pattern existed.”

These incidents were deemed unimportant because of multiculturalism. The report tells us:

“There is far more to this story than has come out so far. The population are already outraged by what they have learned in the last year or two, but know only a fraction of the scandal… This massive over-representation of Muslim men in this crime spree has been borne out by the prosecutions of the last three to four years, but it is clear that it must have been known long ago and should have been made public. Because the predators were Muslims, the agencies responsible for child-protection have almost entirely failed in their job to protect vulnerable children. From a fear of being called ‘racist,’ police forces across the country have buried the evidence.”

“On the rare occasion when the phenomenon [of child grooming] would be discussed in more than the briefest details, political activists and the authorities would come together to stop the public from knowing more. Political correctness would be used to make sure that people did not speak about this phenomenon, enabling the perpetrators free rein to sexually abuse schoolgirls for decades. Yes, decades. We know that in an age where parents are not allowed to smack their children, this sounds unbelievable.”

The problem is much more prevalent than previously reported. In fact, as many as 10,000 schoolgirls have been victimized over the years by these Muslim gangs. According to a House of Commons report, as of November 2012 “at least 16,500 children were identified as being at risk of child sexual exploitation during one year.”

Their method is to drive around towns at night and zero in on young, non-Muslim schoolgirls between the ages of 11 and 16. They often give the girls drinks and drugs to entice them into the car. Many of the victims are from care or foster homes, where they might not be immediately missed. The younger the better is usually the policy with the girls they target. The younger the girls are more likely to be virgins who are free from any sexual diseases. (Most of these men have Muslim wives whom they do not want to contaminate.)

The report criticizes British Government for using multiculturalism as an excuse to turn a blind eye to this issue. The Government continues to excuse Muslims because many of the crimes they commit under British law are not crimes according to Sharia law. As the report says, “Multiculturalism is a fundamentally incoherent doctrine, invented to conceal the serious conflicts which have arisen when peoples from vastly different cultures, with different values, are forced to live together.”

In its reluctance to be even-handed and non-discriminatory, the Government has outright refused to take into account religious or ethnic connections to these and other crimes perpetrated by Muslims. The possibility that Islamic law might have something to do with this behaviour is not worthy of consideration.

The British Government expects all its citizens, including Muslims, to embrace multiculturalism. However, the religion of Islam is by its very nature opposed to the principles of multiculturalism through its intolerance of all dissenting voices. Moreover, the symbiotic relationship between Islam and the political left cannot last since once Muslims achieve power, they kick behind them the ladder of multiculturalism that they used for climbing to power.

Further Reading

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Share/Bookmark

The post Multiculturalism Caused Government to Hide Truth of Muslim Grooming Gangs appeared first on Christian Voice UK.


New Family Court won’t end injustice

$
0
0
Jayden Wray's vitamin deficiency was to blame for the broken bones which led to him being taken 'into care'.

Jayden Wray’s vitamin deficiency was to blame for the broken bones which led to him being taken ‘into care’.

The much-trumpeted legal reforms announced today will not end the secrecy and injustice which surrounds the Family Court.

The plan includes new time limits for cases where children are taken into care, which could work against parents struggling to meet demands placed upon them by social services departments.

Ministers said the changes would put the welfare of children at the centre of the system.  But that is what they have always said.  The suspicion is that the welfare of the system itself is paramount.

Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division, said the changes were the biggest in a lifetime.  But they will not end the cosy relationship of social workers, Cafcass officials, paid ‘experts’ and child panel solicitors.

Crucially, they will not end the cloak of secrecy imposed on all dealings in the Family Courts.  No-one may speak outside of what occurs inside on pain of imprisonment.  This mafia-like omerta allows injustice to flourish.  Justice can only happen when it is seen to be done.  We are told the secrecy is imposed to protect the child. In reality, it is there to protect the system.

Care cases will be completed in six months in a single Family Court, which replaces the current three-tier court system in family cases.  Although it could be good that cases are followed through by a single judge – assuming he or she is not corrupt – this time-scale will increase the sense parents have of their children being rushed into the adoption process against their wishes – the so-called ‘freed for adoption’ mechanism.

There are also supposed to be limits placed on the amount of expert evidence that can be used in cases involving children, only being permitted when it is ‘necessary to resolve the case justly’. Whether that will end the careers some experts have made out of backing up social workers with spurious observations and biased conclusions, or whether coaches and horses will be driven through it, remains to be seen.

Just yesterday, a distraught mother put up this comment on an older story on our website:

‘Please can you help me get my daughter back from social services? My daughter was kidnapped in 2011 when she was age 11.a teacher and s.s said I hit my daughter. I did not and never have. Police came and took her away. The next day she was taken to a children’s hospital where a doctor lied and made a false report saying she had unexplained bruises. She did not have any bruises.’

The Jayden Wray case exposed how dangerous it is these for parents to take a child to hospital. Jayden had brittle bones from rickets but doctors and social workers demanded the parents confess that they had caused Jayden’s injuries.

Clive Coleman, legal correspondent, BBC News, said: ‘Babies, toddlers and teenagers going through care proceedings have been removed from their parents for their own well being’. Sometimes they are. But in too many cases, when parents cannot explain a bruise a child acquired in the garden, or the child suffers from a mystery illness, they are removed, and even when the mistake is found, social workers will not return the child and fabricate evidence.

Short of death, there is no penalty more draconian than for the state to take people’s children from them.

Our readers or their churches are certain to come into contact with parents whose children have been taken from them by social services.

We are constantly told that homosexuals are the sort of people the Lord Jesus would have ‘been alongside’ as they are on the ‘margins of society’? Are they really? No, they are in the media, in diversity departments and government, with their feet under the table at No10, feted to the skies.

Would you like to know who really are on the margins of society? It is parents who feel totally inadequate and overwhelmed in the face of a machine which grinds them to powder in its quest to assume their function and to strip their children from them.

We should be standing with them, praying with them, showing how God hates injustice, fighting with them to have their children returned.

Share/Bookmark

The post New Family Court won’t end injustice appeared first on Christian Voice UK.

Shocking Documentary about UK Forced Adoption Practices

$
0
0

This June, ITV ran a shocking documentary on the UK’s forced adoption practices. Titled ‘Exposure – ‘Please Don’t Take My Child’, the film chronicled the ongoing scandal of social workers abducting children from loving parents. Read more about the documentary on the ITV news website or watch the full video below.

The video should impress upon all of us who have ‘child protection’ policies in place that great damage can be done to a child and indeed a whole family by involving Social Services – which can be seen as a betrayal.

It may be far better for a church to help a struggling family to get on its feet financially and socially.

After all, the families we are talking about are often those on the margins of society – the very people our gracious Lord would have us help and stand up for.

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Share/Bookmark

The post Shocking Documentary about UK Forced Adoption Practices appeared first on Christian Voice UK.

What does ‘taken into care’ mean?

$
0
0
Danielle was moved 26 times in five years and raped three time while 'in care'.

Danielle was moved 26 times in five years and raped three times while ‘in care’.

Birmingham Social Services oversaw some of the worst cases of child abuse, including that of seven-year-old Khyra Ishaq, who starved to death at her home in Handsworth in 2008, and Keanu Williams, who was found collapsed in his mother’s partner’s flat in 2011.

These high-profile cases, following after that of baby Peter Connelly, who was murdered by his mother, her boyfriend and his brother in 2007 in London’s Haringey, which was already under pressure following the death of Victoria Climbié ten years earlier, caused social workers to put caution before common sense.

Children have been taken from their parents on the slightest whiff of abuse, which for today’s social workers involves any sign of corporal punishment.  But what happens then?  The BBC website is carrying a video of an interview with a girl called Danielle.  She was taken into care in 1998 at the age of 11 after marks from a belt were seen on her back.  If that were punishment, it sounds excessive, but what subsequently happened to Danielle makes it seem like the ultimate in compassion.

Danielle, who is now twenty-seven, says she was moved six times in six weeks and had twenty-nine moves by the time she left the care system aged just sixteen.  She was raped three times whilst ‘in care’, in addition to an attempted rape when she was only eleven and in a children’s home.  She ran away when she was thirteen but was brought back.

The outcomes of children in care make shocking reading.  According to a Government study in 2013, ‘67.8% have special educational needs’.  ‘Around half of all looked after children aged 5 to 16 were considered to be ‘borderline’ or ‘cause for concern’ in relation to their emotional and behavioural health’, the study said.

Their educational gaps ‘are still large, especially for key stage 4, where 15.3% of looked after children achieved 5 or more A* to C GCSEs or equivalent including English and mathematics compared with 58.0% of non-looked-after children’.

Even according to the NSPCC, which has an interest in providing care facilities, the mental health difficulties of children in care are four times higher than their peers.

The Government report did not mention the staggeringly high incidences of sexual abuse faced by children in care, but the Independent newspaper reported:

‘One in every hundred children living in care is abused every year in Britain, according to the most comprehensive study conducted into the issue.

The research by York University and the NSPCC is the first of its kind to uncover and analyse local authority records on abuse in foster and residential care.

‘Academics tracked abuse allegations – and their outcomes – between 2009 and 2012. They found that on average there are between 450 and 550 cases of proven abuse every year in foster care and between 250 and 300 cases of confirmed abuse a year in residential care.

I’n residential care the rate of substantiated abuse claims is significantly higher than for foster families, with an average of between two and three proven cases per 100 children.’

Would the children have done better and been treated better left with their parents under some kind of supervision with assistance in parenting?  It is hard to imagine their outcomes would have been much worse.

There is little sign of social workers, whose jobs are under no risk if they take children from their parents, becoming more family-friendly.  But with being in care leading to such horrifying abuse as Danielle suffered and the poor outcomes reported by the Government, surely a rethink is overdue.

 

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Share/Bookmark

The post What does ‘taken into care’ mean? appeared first on Christian Voice UK.

Cornwall Council in discrimination case

$
0
0
Exeter County Court

Exeter County Court

A local council has won a secret trial after being sued for discrimination by a father under the Human Rights Act.

The father, whom we cannot name, is opposed to same-sex marriage and abortion and is suing Cornwall Council after its social services department intervened to prevent contact between him and his son, now five.

He alleges that they discriminated against him on the grounds of his beliefs after a social worker interrogated him about his opposition to abortion and gay-marriage.

COURT HEARING OUTCOME

A court hearing held on 23rd October decided that the case should be held at its substantive hearing in December in secret rather than in open court.  Cornwall Council wanted the hearing to be in secret.  The father, known to this ministry, wanted it to be heard in the open, so that the media, including Christian Voice, could report on it.

The father says the social worker voiced ‘concerns’ to do with his faith that were ‘insurmountable’ and told him that because of his unacceptable ‘beliefs’, openly posted on a blog, it was the social worker’s ‘duty’ to ensure that he never saw his son again.  He has not seen his son for two and a half years.

The father, who is separated from the child’s mother, initially referred his son to social services because of concerns that the mother was not keeping to a written agreement about contact.

PUBLIC SUPPORT

At previous hearings the father defeated two applications to strike out his claim, which began in March 2014, and two applications for summary judgment against him.

The father told Christian Voice: ‘Whether you agree with the social worker’s decision or not, it is surely wrong that such an important issue as this should be decided in a secret trial.  The issue to be decided is whether social workers should be allowed to deprive a child of one of his parents because that parent holds strong moral Christian beliefs which differ from those of the Government.’

There was a good degree of support from the public, particularly from the claimant’s church.

JUDGE CONSIDERED REPRESENTATIONS

The circuit judge hearing the application was His Honour Judge Cotter QC. HHJ Cotter heard, considered, then dismissed representations from the media.

READ: Exod 23:6; Lev 19:15; Deut 1:17; 1Kings 3:28; 1Chron 18:14; Job 37:23; Psalm 82:3, 89:14; Prov 31:4-5; Isa 59:4,14; Ezek 45:9; John 7:24; Acts 23:35; Romans 13:4; Rev 20:4.

PRAY: that justice may be done and may be seen to be done in this case.  Pray also for wisdom for the father and for Christian Voice in the matter of an appeal.

 

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Share/Bookmark

The post Cornwall Council in discrimination case appeared first on Christian Voice UK.

Christmas ruined by Social Services

$
0
0

Happy New Year.  At this festive season, please spare a prayer for one Christian family who are spending their second Christmas divided.  I traveled to Bexley on Monday 21st December 2015 to interview the parents.

Following a foolish and false allegation from their eldest son, who has since vehemently retracted it, all four children are now ‘in care’.  You will scarcely believe their story, but it needed to be told – and it needs to be heard.

Someone in your family or in your church could be on the receiving end of similar treatment, so please find a moment to view our video and pray for this family.

May God bless you and draw close to you this day and always.

If you have a story to tell us about Social Services Child Protection people, please get in touch.

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Isa 9:7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this. (KJV)

 

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Share/Bookmark

The post Christmas ruined by Social Services appeared first on Christian Voice UK.

Bexley Council threat over ‘injustice’ video

$
0
0

Bexley council threat over ‘injustice’ video

Press Release from Christian Voice – Immediate: 12.20 hrs 20th January 2016

The Head of Children’s Services at a local authority has threatened a journalist over a video claiming her department ‘visited injustice’ on a family in her borough.

Jacky Tiotto, Head of Children’s Services at the London Borough of Bexley, has written to Stephen Green of Christian Voice demanding he take down a YouTube video in which he interviewed the parents of four children taken by Bexley and kept in care.

The video is called ‘Christmas Ruined by Social Services’ and may be seen at youtu.be/CaBczpK7HOM.

Ms Tiotto says a section in which the parents talk about advice given to them by a family court judge to plead guilty to child abuse in the Crown Court is a contempt of court. So, she says, are three other occasions where the parents say judges and social workers would not listen to the children.

The parents were actually charged by police with abuse following a foolish and false allegation from the eldest son. They were acquitted in July 2015 in the Crown Court when their son vehemently retracted his allegation.

A section in which the parents claim the social worker in the case acted out of religious hatred escapes Ms Tiotto’s wrath.

Despite neither the case nor the children and not even the parents being identified, and despite contesting the accuracy of the information in the video, the highly-paid Children’s Services boss claims Green is contravening Section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960. This prohibits ‘publication of information relating to proceedings before any court sitting in private’ under the Children Act 1989.

Stephen Green, said today, ‘Rather then waste her precious time and council tax on frivolous legal action, Jacky Tiotto should be calling her staff to account over this case and reuniting this family.

‘A section in her letter where she says it is up to the parents to make a court application for return of their children, rather than for Bexley to do the decent and honourable thing and return them voluntarily, displays a callous disregard for justice, for ordinary families and for the emotional harm being done to these children on her watch.

‘In addition, the parents have been punished for doing nothing wrong. Other parents are now contacting me and it seems this case is by no means unique.

‘Jacky Tiotto is responsible for a massive, continuing injustice and it is obviously embarrassing to her and Bexley’s administration that it has come to light.

‘I’ll take legal advice, but my inclination is not to be deterred from giving the victims of injustice a voice by threats from uncaring bureaucrats’.

ENDS

For further information, phone Stephen Green on 07931 490050.

Share/Bookmark

The post Bexley Council threat over ‘injustice’ video appeared first on Christian Voice UK.

Social Services tell girls: ‘No Nightie? Wear my Tee-shirt!’

$
0
0
Milton Keynes Magistrates Court

Milton Keynes Magistrates Court

Two adolescent girls taken into care by a local authority’s social services had to sleep in their school uniforms, a court was told yesterday.

District Judge Patrick Perusko, sitting in Milton Keynes Family Court, heard that the sisters, one aged 14 and the other 12, were not provided by Buckinghamshire County Council with night clothes.

They also complained there was no lock on the bedroom door in their foster placement. Eventually, said one of the girls, the foster mother gave her one of her husband’s old tee-shirts to sleep in.

The sisters also complained that they were given no tooth brushes and that when they asked for a hair brush, a used shared one was produced tangled with other people’s hair.  The foster parents made no attempt to keep their dog out of the girls’ room, which terrified them.

To pile on the indignity, the girls were also given no clean underwear by the County Council.

Girls want to go home

The girls are from a stable Christian family and not surprisingly, the District Judge said that both girls had told him they wanted to go home.

The case started when eldest girl’s school learnt that her mother had raised her hand to her. Any contact, says the mother, was accidental, but the school told social services and both sisters were taken into care just over a week ago.

The parents refused to sign a notice under Section 20 of the Children Act, which would effectively ask Bucks CC to provide accommodation. The Council then sought an care order in the County Court. An interim order was granted on Friday 12th February, for eight days. Yesterday’s hearing was to decide whether it should be extended.

Both parents complained to Christian Voice that social worker Rosalinde Woodroffe either misunderstood or misrepresented what they had told them in the report she made.  In other cases, parents have said that social workers have resorted to invention to embellish the case the Council was building against them.  One social worker whistle-blower even said his bosses objected when his write-up was too favourable to parents.

Bucks Council causing emotional harm

The court even heard that Bucks CC had only served papers on the parents the day before the hearing, giving them no time to prepare a statement in response.

The Judge said significant emotional harm had been done and was continuing to be done by the local authority to the girls. He was surprised that in a whole week the Local Authority had not troubled to arrange a medical examination for the girls to substantiate its contention that they had been subjected to unreasonable physical chastisement – or any at all.

But it seemed that because of what he had read in the report the judge was prepared to order that the girls, as he said, ‘Should stay where they are – just about – on balance.’

A case where parents deny that have done anything wrong is difficult for social workers to understand, but this ministry is surprised that District Judge Perusko did not hear oral evidence from the parents before making his ruling.

The case was set down for another hearing on Friday 26th February, at which, said the District Judge, he hoped to return the children to their parents. ‘They are going home’, he said, ‘subject to the parents being open and honest and co-operating with social services’.

See Bucks County Council fails to bar the press

 

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Share/Bookmark

The post Social Services tell girls: ‘No Nightie? Wear my Tee-shirt!’ appeared first on Christian Voice UK.


Bucks County Council fails to bar the press

$
0
0
Martin Tett, Leader of Conservative-controlled Buckinghamshire County Council

Councillor Martin Tett, Leader of Conservative-controlled Bucks County Council

Councillor Lin Hazell, Bucks County Council Cabinet Member for Children's Services

Councillor Lin Hazell, Bucks County Council Cabinet Member for Children’s Services

A local authority has failed in a bid to oust a journalist covering a child protection case in the family court.

Buckinghamshire County Council (leader Cllr Martin Tett, left) initially raised no objection to the presence of Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice and an accredited journalist, in a case where they were seeking an interim child protection order.

But during an interval in which District Judge Patrick Perusko met the two children involved, at their request, before reconvening in Milton Keynes Magistrates Court, the Tory-run council’s social workers and advocate together with the court-appointed ‘children’s guardian’ and her solicitor took the opportunity to do an internet search of Christian Voice.

When the court reassembled, Bucks County Council’s advocate, one Mr Dove, objected to Green’s presence, based on blog gossip about the alleged political stance of the prayer and action group. The solicitor for the children’s guardian backed up the plea.

But District Judge Perusko was having none of it. Mr Green, he told the advocates, was entitled to be there.  If they objected, it had to be on specific grounds listed in a court practice direction.  It was clear these did not include that the opinions of a journalist were not politically correct.

So long as the children were not identified directly or indirectly, the media were entitled to report on a child protection case.  The advocates were left looking foolish.

Stephen Green said afterwards, ‘Whilst I am flattered by the attention they have given to a humble reporter and commentator, I do feel Bucks County Council could have spent their time in the interval better, perhaps by going out to buy some toothbrushes for the children in their care.’

Click here for our report of the hearing: Social Services tell girls: ‘No Nightie? Wear my Tee-shirt!’

 

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Share/Bookmark

The post Bucks County Council fails to bar the press appeared first on Christian Voice UK.

Judge rules Bucks girls can go home

$
0
0
Milton Keynes Magistrates Court, where the case was heard.

Milton Keynes Magistrates Court, where the case was heard.

A Family Court judge has allowed two children to go home after criticising a local authority for failing to admit that they were suffering emotional harm in its care.

District Judge Perusko made the order on Friday 26th February 2016 in Milton Keynes Family Court.

A series of exchanges between the judge and Mr Shaw, representing Buckinghamshire County Council, served to illustrate the extent to which local authorities go to build a case against parents while denying all responsibility themselves.

Mr Shaw contended that the children, girls aged twelve and fourteen, were at significant risk of harm at home.  The Local Authority, he said, wanted to keep the girls in care.

But after repeated questioning by District Judge Perusko, it emerged that the report prepared by social worker Rosalinde Woodroffe had not adequately balanced this alleged harm with the known harm currently occurring to the sisters from being held in a foster home where they had been deprived of privacy, night-clothes, toothbrushes and even clean underwear.

Bucks County Council were not ‘considering the other side of the coin’, said the judge.

The eldest girl had emailed the judge pleading to go home, and her views and those of her sister must be taken into account, he said.

Mr Shaw said the parents needed to recognise that they had harmed their children, even though the girls had subsequently challenged what the social worker wrote down, which was the Council’s only basis for keeping them.  He was incensed that the children had refused to give social workers the pins to their mobile phones and annoyed that there appeared to be ‘collusion’ between the children and their parents. He contended there was fear in the home of the Christian family, physical chastisement, and a belief in satanic forces.

But the judge insisted that there was no analysis by the local authority of the harm being suffered now and therefore no possible assessment of a ‘balance of harm’.

He had no need to hear from the parents’ barrister, he said, and then explained ‘why the children are going home’.

The District Judge said: ‘Children should be at home if possible and should only be removed when there is a real risk of harm.’  He said the risks about which the local authority was concerned ‘have not gone but can be safely managed with the children returned home’.

Mr Shaw said the children would return home after school that same afternoon.

Afterwards, the court-appointed children’s guardian said she was ‘very pleased’ with the outcome.

The parents, devout Christians, were praising God outside the courtroom after the verdict.

Mr Shaw refused to comment.

On the train home, this writer received a call to report that the girls had indeed returned home.

This might not be the end of the matter.  Bucks County Council seem determined to try to get the children back, but the case has shown that prayer and hope can prevail.  Dear reader, give God the glory.  The presence of the Press in a courtroom probably does no harm either.  And after the debacle of the week before, this time there was no objection to the presence of a journalist in the courtroom from Buckinghamshire County Council.

 

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Share/Bookmark

The post Judge rules Bucks girls can go home appeared first on Christian Voice UK.

Worcestershire loses adoption bid

$
0
0
Queen Victoria stands in front of Worcester Shire Hall, where the Family Court sits.

Queen Victoria stands in front of Worcester Shire Hall, where the Family Court sits.

By Stephen Green

A local authority has lost its bid to put four children from a Christian home up for adoption.

Sitting in Worcester Family Court in Worcester’s impressive old Shire Hall building, His Honour Judge Richard Rundell ordered instead that the children should stay in long-term foster care and enjoy regular contact with their grandparents and indirect contact – cards, gifts and letters – from their parents. Far from ‘nothing else would do’ (the legal test for adoption), adoption in this case wouldn’t do at all.

THREE MONTHS TO FIND ADOPTERS

Worcestershire County Council protested they would do their best to keep the children together. They would look for adoptive parents willing to take the children as a sibling group for a full three months, said Social Work Team Leader Glenn McWilliams. But Judge Rundell was unimpressed. To allow adoption, which would happen against the wishes of parents and grandparents, would inevitably split the children up, he ruled.

Judge Richard Rundell in his chambers.

Judge Richard Rundell in his chambers.

In addition, adoption would mean the children would lose their family identity and all contact with their parents and grandparents. If they were split up, Judge Rundell said, keeping the children in contact with each other would rely on the good will of the adoptive parents, and these might moreover be at opposite ends of the country.

On top of that, the eldest two children, even though not yet in their teens, were adamant in their opposition to adoption. In those circumstances, said His Honour, any adoption would be very unlikely to endure.

SOCIAL WORKER CHANGES SIDES

The Court heard a couple currently fostering the children had been doing so from early last year (2015) on a short-term basis. By the grace of God they decided in December they could now foster the children long-term. The court-appointed ‘Children’s Guardian’, Mrs Maggie Stephens, represented by solicitor Aiden Codd, was robust under cross-examination from Worcestershire’s barrister Greg Rogers.

She maintained that having the children adopted would mean splitting them up and that would be ‘cruel’. You could not ‘reinvent these children’, she told Mr Rogers, a reference to the new surnames they would be given upon adoption.

There was dramatic evidence on 10th May, the first day of the two-day hearing, when social worker Alison Davies took the stand. Ms Davies had been involved with the case from February 2014, but she resigned from Worcestershire in protest at their decision to press ahead with an application for adoption. They should ‘remain where they are’ she told Mr Rogers. She had been all for adoption, but seeing how the children were now ‘thriving’ in the long-term foster care she had changed her mind.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS

Asked why the foster parents did not want to put themselves up as prospective adopters, or apply for a Special Guardianship Order, Ms Davies said it was purely down to economics. They were being paid as foster parents and so could afford nice clothes, treats and holidays for the children. As adopters, they would lose out financially and be able to provide none of that. The financial considerations could also have been in the mind of Worcestershire and their advocate in pressing for adoption, but no-one was crass enough to say that.

The children came to the attention of Worcestershire Social Services when the youngest child was unruly at nursery. Social workers said there was a chaotic atmosphere in the home on one occasion when they visited. The mother was trying to home-school despite having bi-polar challenges, and the father resented the social workers being involved.

But Ms Davies said that if the parents improved their position there was no reason why they should not resume contact with the children, who at the moment wanted to stay where they were, and crucially did not wish to return home. But the grandparents should see the children together once a month.

ONLY SIX COUPLES ‘IN THE MARKET’

Barrister Andrew Bainham, representing all four grandparents, told the judge there were only six couples in England and Wales who could take a four-sibling group. His Honour asked Mr McWilliams direct if he knew anything more about them? He didn’t. How many four-sibling groups were ‘in the market’, he asked. Mr McWilliams said he didn’t know.

Judge Rundell went on to tell Worcestershire they should be ‘grabbing (the foster parents) with open arms. … If after three months you can’t find these saints who will take four children you will have to split them up’, he said. ‘Then you have to get adopters to facilitate sibling contact? It’s a risk. And scouring the countryside, distance increases the risk.’

Ending the first day of the two-day hearing, the Judge told Mr Rogers: ‘The local authority may wish to consider its position overnight’. That is the nearest he could come to telling him that his case for adoption was falling apart and that he shouldn’t waste any more of the court’s time.

DON’T NAME THE COUNCIL!

But the next day, in came Mr Rogers still pursuing the adoption line which the court had heard would split up the children, and separate them forever from their grandparents and parents. His page on his Chambers website, the St Ives set in Birmingham, says ‘common sense is frequently in short supply’ in the family court. It ‘requires a sensitive and pragmatic approach’.

Such an approach was conspicuously absent from his presentation. Indeed, in talks with the judge involving this author to do with a ‘reporting restrictions order,’ Mr Rogers not only did not want me to identify the children, their parents or family structure, which is becoming normal procedure, but any of the parties. He did not want me to name Worcestershire County Council, any of the experts, social workers, the ‘children’s guardian’, or any of the advocates. Judge Rundell had earlier expressed himself in favour of transparency, and every one of Mr Roger’s suggestions was thrown out.

WORCESTERSHIRE IGNORED JUDGE

The only real issue was the frequency of contact with the grandparents. With Alison Davies saying it should be twelve times a year and Mrs Stephens opting for six times a year, the Judge ruled with the ‘children’s guardian’, and said bi-monthly contact should be written into the care plan.

But when the case came back to rule on press restrictions and to check the care plan the following week, the Local Authority’s care plan had the grandparents seeing the children just twice a year. His Honour was not happy and sent Mr Rogers away to redraft it.

Social worker Toni Badham, responsible for the drafting, apologised to the grandparents afterwards, claiming she had only just become involved. But this author understands she was involved right from the start. One if the grandparents told this author the machinations of the Council meant they had been ‘to hell and back’.

But in the end, the hand of the Almighty was strongly on this case. The grandparents applied to be ‘interveners’ which delayed matters sufficiently for the foster parents to decide they would offer a long-term placement. If the matter had been heard last November it could easily gone the other way.

The mother was represented by Miss Nevine Zaki and the father by Mr Michael Phillips.

LESSONS WE LEARN

The case illustrates several important points:

1 Any teaching environment these days is watching your children.

2 Any shortcomings whatever in your parenting skills will be used by a local authority against you.

3 If you lose your temper with social workers it will only count against you.

4 The position of the court-appointed Children’s Guardian is crucial. It is a brave judge who will go against her.

5 Local Authorities are over-keen to get children adopted. And when adoption is not on the table, they are too keen to keep children in their care and resentful about them going back to families.

6 The rules about getting children adopted in 26 weeks are draconian, especially if it is to be a forced adoption in opposition to parents’ wishes.

7 Local Authorities are both incompetent and tricky. They do not honour their promises and even try blatantly to circumvent the clear orders of judges.

8 Judges do not have enough power to insist that details like particular foster parents are written into care plans. Instead, both judges and parents have to rely on the good nature of local authorities, which may be in short supply.

PRAY: Thank God for such a positive outcome in all the circumstances.

 

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Share/Bookmark

The post Worcestershire loses adoption bid appeared first on Christian Voice UK.

Bexley opposes children’s return

$
0
0

By Stephen Green

In an astonishing development, a London Borough Council has told four children unjustly taken into care that they are opposing their parents’ court application to have them returned.

The news, delivered by a Bexley Council social worker last month, resulted in the couple’s eldest daughter trying to commit suicide.

The case is due to be heard on Friday 24th June 2016 at Bromley County Court.

CHRISTMAS RUINED BY SOCIAL SERVICES

The distressing case of how these children came to be in care was the subject of a video we published on YouTube on Christmas Day 2015, entitled Christmas Ruined by Social Services. To date the video (linked above) has had over 90,000 views. It is the second-most-viewed UK YouTube video about injustice by social services endorsed by the family courts.

The family’s nightmare started when their eldest boy, in his mid-teens, ran off after being caught out in a lie about his whereabouts.

Upon being picked up by the police, he reported his parents for child cruelty. All four children were instantly taken into care and the parents were charged and sent to the Crown Court. The only corroborating evidence was that of a doctor who saw a photo of a mark on the eldest boy’s body and concluded it could have been made by a metal implement. He never examined the boy himself, and none of the other children made any similar accusation. The police found nothing resembling such an alleged item in the family’s home.

PLEAD GUILTY, SAID JUDGE

Bexley social worker Judy Simon even contacted the mother’s place of work, a care home, resulting in her being laid off, and the father’s employers, a police force. He was laid off on full pay.

Judge Diane Redgrave sitting in Bromley Family Court gave the astonishing advice to the parents to plead guilty in the Crown Court. She said this would help them have their children returned. The system, it appears, cannot cope with parents who are innocent. If they admit guilt, ‘experts’ can ‘work’ with them to ensure their parenting lines up with white middle-class prejudices, which crucially, and in flat contradiction to the law of the land, insist on no forms of physical chastisement whatever.

But these parents had not done what was alleged, and on the eve of the Crown Court case, their eldest son admitted he had made it all up. Despite the social worker screaming at him to attend court, he refused to go. In July 2015 his parents were duly acquitted. Lest anyone be in any doubt of what this means, it means they were found not guilty and left the court without a stain on their character.

BEXLEY SHOULD HAVE APOLOGISED

A reasonable man would expect two things to happen. Firstly, he would expect Bexley’s Judy Simon to contact both parents’ place of work at once to tell them all suspicion was lifted.

Secondly, he would expect an apologetic Bexley immediately to reunite the children with their parents. All the children have told the Children’s Guardian they want to return home.

But none of that occurred. Instead, Bexley’s head of child protection, Jacqui Tiotto, threatened this author with contempt of court and told him it was up to the parents to make an application to the court.

That they have now done, but Bexley Social Workers are unaccountably sticking to their line and refusing to let the children go. Such callousness by a public authority resulting in continuing serious emotional harm to the children is nothing short of a national disgrace.

READ: Gen 1:28; Psalm 127:3-5, 128:6; Mal 4:6.
PRAY: That the children are returned, the father reinstated and that the mother gets her job back. Thank God that we have been able to help the parents by letting them tell their story.  Pray now for a positive outcome to the hearing on Friday 24th June.
WATCH: The video: https://youtu.be/CaBczpK7HOM
WRITE or Email The Mayor of the London Borough of Bexley, Councillor Sybil Camsey, Civic Offices, 2 Watling Street, Bexleyheath, Kent, DA6 7AT. Phone 020 3045 5280. Email: councillor.sybil.camsey@bexley.gov.uk Stress that Mr & Mrs M have done nothing wrong; they were acquitted last July in the Crown Court. Ask her why Bexley did not return their children last July? Why they did not immediately inform Mr & Mrs M’s places of work that there is not a stain on their character? Ask what possible reason there can be for Bexley still to be causing harm to the children by opposing their return.

Share/Bookmark

The post Bexley opposes children’s return appeared first on Christian Voice UK.

Judge: ‘Not Guilty’ doesn’t mean ‘Innocent’

$
0
0
Her Honour Judge Rosalind Bush

Her Honour Judge Rosalind Bush:’Not Guilty’ does not mean ‘Innocent.’

Update 22/09/2016:

Click here for Council look anew at care case.

A senior family court judge told a court last Friday (9th September 2016) that a ‘Not Guilty’ verdict in the criminal court did not mean the defendants were innocent.

Judge Rosalind Bush said a ‘Not Guilty’ verdict merely meant the jury had not been sure ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ the defendants actually did it.

The BBC were ‘at fault’ for perpetuating the misunderstanding that people found not guilty were innocent, she continued.

Her Honour cited the case of O J Simpson in support. He was, she said, found not guilty in the criminal court but culpable in the civil court.

THE O J SIMPSON CASE

O. J. Simpson

O. J. Simpson

In 1994 O.J. Simpson was apprehended after a famous ‘low-speed’ car chase and charged with the deaths of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown-Simpson, and her friend Ron Goldman. He was found not guilty in 1995 after his expensive high-profile defence team suggested DNA samples had been mishandled. But he was subsequently found ‘responsible’ for the deaths when the Brown and Goldman families sued in the civil court. They were awarded $35million in damages.

Simpson already had a criminal record. Prior to the murders, he had pleaded no contest to spousal abuse in 1989. Subsequently, in 2007, he was convicted of using a deadly weapon to commit kidnapping, burglary and armed robbery, and sentenced to 33 years in prison, where he remains.

This ministry has not been able to contact the defendants in the case to which Her Honour was referring, young men of good character who have never been in trouble with the police, to ask their reaction to being compared to O.J. Simpson.

CHILDREN TAKEN INTO CARE

Judge Bush has presided in the past over criminal cases. She made her comments however in the family court, in a case in which a family’s youngest children were taken into care last year on a social worker’s description of the evidence of a seven-year-old girl that no fewer than four of the family’s siblings had separately and systematically sexually abused her over a period of two years. The local authority, Walsall Council, have applied to have the children adopted.

The girl’s evidence also led to criminal charges against the family’s two oldest sons. Their trial ended in acquittals a month ago when a jury returned not guilty verdicts on no fewer than seven charges, one charge was struck out by the trial judge, His Honour Judge John Wait, and three other charges were abandoned by the prosecution.  The young men walked free from court.  But, said Judge Bush, that proved nothing in the family court.

Nobody from Walsall Council found time to attend the trial.  The Council’s legal department is only now trying to gain access to the police evidence.

EVIDENCE SELF-CONTRADICTORY

Even before the jury heard any evidence, charges of rape, which had been hanging over the defendants for months, were withdrawn from the charge sheet on the opening day. Judge Wait told Paul Spratt, prosecuting, that the evidence simply did not support those charges.

A reasonable man might have thought the Crown Prosecution Service would have spotted that already, but they had not and Mr Spratt was left with no option but to withdraw the charges.

Even then, evidence from prosecution witnesses revealed confusion in the case. Her mother told the court her daughter said she had been raped. Later she told the police she hadn’t. Her daughter, who admitted to watching pornography with an older girl, ‘L’, even changed her story during police interviews.

On one occasion, she described a depraved act which she said was carried out on her. Later, being asked to confirm it, she denied it and said she saw it on a video at L’s house.

CRIMINAL TRIAL ACQUITTAL WILL NOT AFFECT FAMILY PROCEEDINGS

The parents of the accused boys say they were bullied in the family court, even by their own advocates, into admitting that sexual abuse ‘could have happened’ in their home.  They say a psychologist, one Dr Helen Rodwell of Jigsaw Psychology, commissioned by Walsall to report on them, told them she could only help them if they admitted at the very least that the allegations could be true.

But called to the stand as defence witnesses in their sons’ criminal trial, both described to the court how the alleged abuse not only did not happen but could not have happened.

On Friday, the mother and father dramatically repeated this robust stance, this time in the family court, contradicting the earlier statements they say they were pressurised into.  No abuse happened, they said.  Although Judge Bush said she could have held them to their previous position, she allowed the retraction.  That meant the case now goes back to square one, with a new ‘fact-finding’ exercise set in motion.

But Judge Bush repeated that allegations made in relation to behaviour were not disposed of in the family court by an acquittal in the crown court. The outcome of the criminal trial would not affect the current family proceedings – even though both involve the same parties and the same evidence.

DOUBLE JEOPARDY

The comments of Judge Bush seem to indicate a system of ‘double jeopardy’ is in place in our law. A person acquitted in the Crown Court, walking free in the immortal words ‘without a stain on your character’, can be hauled before the family court and told on ‘the balance of probabilities’ that they only got away with it in the criminal court and they really did it after all.

Judge Rosalind Bush is highly experienced and respected.  Nevertheless, if another family court judge, sitting alone without colleagues, let alone a jury, decides that abuse has occurred on the lower ‘civil court’ standard of evidence, children could be unjustly torn from their family and could be adopted against theirs and their parents’ will. Parents, older brothers, even children, will be tarred with the label of ‘child sex abuser’ on evidence which would never stand up in a criminal trial.  Children could be unjustly subjected to the emotional harm of the care system, with all its negative outcomes.

Whether such a system, starkly revealed by Her Honour’s comments, accords with basic principles of justice is something the British public and those who legislate on their behalf might address.

They may take the view that the ‘balance of probabilities’ is a very good standard for deciding whether a fence has been built this side or that side of a property boundary. The standard has indeed been upheld in the family court after a number of cases in the Supreme Court (and previously the House of Lords).  But the debate will no doubt continue over whether it Is still appropriate where criminal conduct is alleged and the most draconian penalties of family separation may be imposed on parents and children.

BIBLICAL POSTSCRIPT

Christian theology strongly reminds us we are all guilty before the throne of grace:

Romans 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 

Equally, in a court of law, and in respect of a particular matter, a person can actually be innocent!

Exodus 23:7 Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.

Society at large and judges in particular have an immense responsibility to dispense justice according to the precepts of God so that the guilty are punished and the innocent acquitted.  In addition, people in power must not oppress those below them:

Jeremiah 22:3 Thus saith the LORD; Execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor: and do no wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent blood in this place.

So please pray for all judges and remember in particular to lift up Judge Rosalind Bush.  Pray also for the advocates in the case to remember they are to serve the cause of justice.  Pray for the social workers to be people of truth.  Pray for the family to stay strong in their Christian faith, believing that justice will be done.

Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)

Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.

Share/Bookmark

The post Judge: ‘Not Guilty’ doesn’t mean ‘Innocent’ appeared first on Christian Voice UK.

Viewing all 52 articles
Browse latest View live