Walsall Family Court

In legal cases what is said between advocates in a conference room is often as important as what happens in court.

And so it proved on Wednesday last week (14th September 2016) at Walsall Family Court, where a local authority was forced to go back to the drawing board in a child care case.

ACQUITTAL IN CROWN COURT

The family were torn apart by allegations of sexual assault made last year by a small girl who had been staying with them. The family’s youngest children were taken into care, where they remain to this day. Meanwhile, a criminal prosecution was launched against the family’s two eldest sons.

Wolverhampton Crown Court

Early last month, the two were acquitted of sexual abuse in Wolverhampton Crown Court. It emerged during the trial that the girl, seven at the time, had admitted in a police interview to watching pornography with an older girl next door to her father’s house. Her account of sexual abuse was confused and contradictory, the forensic evidence not only did not assist but introduced the DNA of a ‘mystery male’, and the medical report showed no evidence of the various forms of sexual penetration she alleged.

The young men’s parents gave strong testimony for the defence about the layout of their home and the ground rules in place. Not only did the alleged abuse not happen, it could not have happened, they told the court.

COUNCIL MISREPRESENTED EVIDENCE

Her Honour Judge Rosalind Bush

The parallel proceedings in the family court had been subject to a string of delays, one of which was occasioned by my turning up at court as an accredited journalist earlier this year. That delayed matters by eight weeks. Another delay happened because the judge, Judge Rosalind Bush, was indisposed when the case was due to recommence at the end of July.

The local authority, Walsall Council, applied last year to have the younger children adopted without waiting for the outcome of the parallel criminal case. They told the court wrongly the allegations of abuse were backed up by medical evidence. They never did the maths on the likelihood of so many members of one family being paedophiles. (Paedophilia – sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children – isn’t genetic and the incidence in the population at large is less than one in a hundred. The probability of two individuals both being paedophiles is one in ten thousand. And so on.)

Dr Helen Rodwell runs Jigsaw Psychology with her husband Lee from an address in Derby and is doing very nicely out of it. The parents say she bullied them into admitting the alleged sexual abuse had happened.

Walsall never sat down calmly with the parents and never discussed whether what was alleged was even plausible. They never carried out properly their statutory duty to investigate. Instead, they tried retrospectively to justify their knee-jerk decision to whisk the younger children into care.

PARENTS DENOUNCED TO EMPLOYERS

Crucially, no-one in the social work department appeared to have any knowledge of how children re-enact what they have seen on screen in subsequent play. Or as in this case, how a child can fantasise such images into a play scenario. But then again, they were unaware of what the girl had been viewing next-door. They had never seen the police evidence in its entirety, despite giving the family court the impression they had.

So the local authority presented the abuse as proven and the children at risk. They denounced the parents to their respective employers and colleges. They, the parents’ own solicitors, and psychologist Dr Helen Rodwell of Jigsaw Psychology, bullied the parents into accepting that abuse might have happened. ‘If you accept it happened, we can help you,’ they told them.

SOMETHING HAD TO GIVE

I was present through the criminal trial. I heard and saw all the evidence, from both the prosecution, gamely presented by Mr Paul Spratt, and the defence. When the family court reconvened on Friday 9th September, I, a humble journalist, knew more about the evidence than anyone else in the court room. (The parents, as witnesses for the defence, did not hear the earlier witnesses for the prosecution – the girl herself and her parents – who did not actually help the prosecution’s case).

Michael Phillips now represents the father.

The boy’s parents clearly could no longer sustain a position of admitting to the family court that abuse had happened while showing the criminal court how it could not have happened. Something had to give.

Emboldened by their sons’ acquittal, and despite Judge Bush saying the verdict changed nothing, both parents reversed their positions and maintained no abuse had occurred. Dramatically, their advocates immediately resigned, and Her Honour ordered a new fact-finding exercise in which she would look at all the police evidence and transcripts from the criminal trial.

A NEW SOLICITOR

That brought us to Wednesday 16th September when Judge Bush set a date for a directions hearing in November.

But the father in the case had managed to find a new solicitor to represent him. By the grace of God, this was the very man who had prepared his sons’ case in the criminal court, Michael Phillips. Mr Phillips was in a position to bring his extensive knowledge of the case to the attention of the other advocates, in particular to barrister Richard Hadley, representing Walsall. As a result, Mr Hadley told me after the hearing the local authority is now going to re-examine the whole case.

Richard Hadley, Counsel for Walsall, will look at the whole case again.

Mr Hadley’s profile at Birmingham’s No5 Chambers says he is ‘particularly skilled at unravelling complicated medical evidence’. He is also ‘regularly instructed in high profile cases involving the most serious of injuries, sexual abuse and fabricated or induced illness’. Mr Hadley sounds like the ideal man to assess all the evidence and bring this terrible miscarriage of justice to an early close.

KEEP PRAYING

There might be no need for Her Honour’s ‘fact-find’ at all and the children could be home for Christmas. Keep praying for the case, for the parents, for Mr Hadley and Mr Phillips, for Judge Bush and everyone involved. Thank God for the supernatural delays in the family court case which have facilitated this development. And please pray for the little girl and her estranged parents. There is so much healing needed all round, but particularly for her.

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 Council look anew at child care case appeared first on Christian Voice UK.

Richard Hadley, Counsel for Walsall, has to find time to look at the evidence.

P.S. (26th October 2016): Walsall’s barrister,  Mr Hadley, today undertook to complete his examination of all the evidence by next week.  He gave Mr Justice Keehan, sitting in the High Court in Nottingham, the clearest possible indication that he expects there to be no case of abuse to answer.  

In that event, he said Walsall would withdraw its application for adoption and long-term fostering orders for the children and return them to their parents, even before the further, and it may the final, hearing listed for 18th November.

So we apologise for suggesting below that Mr Hadley was dithering.  It does remain however that every day a child remains without justification in the ‘care’ of a local authority is a day or state-inflicted emotional harm too long.

Original article continues below:

A local authority is dithering over whether three children in its care can return home.  Walsall Council’s barrister, one Mr Richard Hadley, has not found time to re-examine the case a full five weeks after undertaking to do so.

Meanwhile, the children continue to suffer the emotional harm of remaining in foster care.

The family were torn apart last year by allegations of sexual assault made by a small girl who had been staying with them. The family’s younger children were taken into care, where they remain to this day.

Meanwhile, their two eldest sons were charged with a number of sexual offences. But in their trial, held in August, it emerged the girl concerned had been watching pornography with a twelve-year-old girl next door to her father’s house. Her story was self-contradictory, medical evidence did not support her allegations of rape and forensic evidence did not assist.

Some charges were dropped and the two were acquitted of the rest.

At the next family court hearing on 14th September, Walsall’s barrister, Mr Richard Hadley of Birmingham’s No5 Chambers, admitted the council did not know that the girl had been corrupted in that way. The Council’s social worker had also misrepresented whatever evidence the council did have to the family court and denounced the children as abusers.

Michael Phillips represents the father and was defence solicitor for his sons.

After a meeting with the defence solicitor from the criminal case, Mr Michael Phillips, now representing the father in the family court, the local authority’s barrister, Richard Hadley, undertook to re-examine the whole case.

But at a hearing yesterday in front of a high court judge, The Hon Mr Justice Michael Keehan QC sitting in Nottingham, Mr Hadley had to admit he had not looked at the evidence. He said he was still waiting for some to come from the police that very day.

We had expected better from someone whose profile at Birmingham’s No5 Chambers says he is ‘particularly skilled at unravelling complicated medical evidence’ and that he is also ‘regularly instructed in high profile cases involving the most serious of injuries, sexual abuse and fabricated or induced illness’.

The Judge told all parties to come back in a week’s time, when he will also hear this writer’s application to name the social worker in the case.

Please pray for some alacrity to enter into this case. Pray for Mr Hadley to look at the case this weekend and pray for justice to be done.

Note 1: In not a single case I have covered in the family court has a local authority ever admitted that keeping children in its care itself causes serious emotional harm.

Note 2: The judge, Mr Justice Keehan, is highly experienced in family court cases and was highly paid as a barrister, earning £458,981 from legal aid alone in 2012.

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 Walsall dither over child care case appeared first on Christian Voice UK.

Walsall Council offices

Three children taken into care by Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council on the strength of a false allegation of sexual abuse were returned home yesterday.

Walsall’s decision to return the children came after their barrister Richard Hadley reviewed the evidence in the case following a failed prosecution of the family’s eldest boys in Wolverhampton Crown Court.

A High Court hearing later this month will rubber-stamp the decision.

This wonderful result is a massive answer to the prayers of our members.

We have been following and reporting on the case all through this year, and the Lord has used our intervention finally to bring justice.

When this author turned up to cover the case in the family court in February of this year, the judge and the advocates ran around like scalded cats.  The judge granted the local authority an astonishing six-week adjournment to consider their position in the light of a journalist turning up.  It was that initial six-week delay for Walsall to consider its position that led inexorably to the criminal case finally catching up with the civil case and justice being done.  Delay followed delay as the hand of the Lord was heavily on the whole matter.

It is humbling to realise that if I had not turned up that day an adoption order for the children would have been made earlier this year.  But my intervention was merely one of the things the Lord used.

So all praise and glory goes to him.  Join us in thanksgiving to our mighty God!

Isaiah 56:1 Thus saith the LORD, Keep ye judgment, and do justice: for my salvation is near to come, and my righteousness to be revealed.

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 Walsall Children Go Home! appeared first on Christian Voice UK.

Protestors support ‘EL’ outside Canterbury Family Court.  He is fighting Medway Council for the return of his son ‘J’.

Medway Council is asking a court to jail a father for contempt of court after he posted a picture of his in-care son online.

Medway Council took son into care

Canterbury Family Court heard the father, a concert pianist, had breached an order made by Mrs Justice Theis in 2015 banning him, or anyone, from doing anything which might identify his son.

The son, who also plays the piano, is being fostered after being taken into care – for the second time – by Medway Council.

Circuit Judge Richard Scarratt instructed this author that we may only refer to the father as ‘EL’ and the son as ‘J’.

That is because of secrecy rules the family court employs to protect the reputation of the courts and local authorities.

Barrister Mark Chaloner, a Southampton local Councillor who is representing Medway, refused to tell me why the boy was in care. That may be because he was busy. But a woman who appeared to be briefing him refused to give her name, perhaps because the grounds for keeping ‘J’ in care appear very thin.

Medway Council allowed boy to play Breivik’s violent video game

Medway Council allowed ‘J’ to play a video game which inspired Norwegian neo-Nazi killer Anders Breivik

‘J’ was taken into care for the first time in 2010. His father, who is a single parent, left his son, 8 or 9 at the time, home alone. ‘J’ got into some trouble with a neighbour’s son. Rather than warn ‘EL’ not to leave his son alone again, Medway Council took the boy away.

While in Medway’s care, the council failed to safeguard ‘J’. He was encouraged by his foster parents to play particularly violent video games in their possession.  These included one used by Norwegian mass killer Anders Breivik as ‘training’, and about which an MP has called for a ban.  They also refused to let him practice his music.

The father told this ministry that when his son came out of care, the effects of the emotional harm inflicted on him by the council became apparent in increasingly violent behaviour.

Mistakes made in asking for help and complaining

Canterbury Combined Courts

In 2014 there was a bout of extreme behaviour from ‘J’. ‘EL’ made the mistake of dialing 999 to ask for for help from paramedics. Ambulance staff attended with police and naturally, social services again became involved. There were lurid stories in the press of the boy ‘cowering under a piano’.

These stories, put about by the local authority, made it appear as if the son was hiding from his father. In reality, says the father, he was trying to hide from the police and social services.

‘EL’ then made a second mistake. He complained about Medway Council. Many parents report the system ‘biting back’ when they complain. The Council promptly commissioned one Melanie Gill to provide a psychologist’s report on the father. In this ministry’s experience, a case in the family court is never complete without a psychiatric report on the parents.

New Jewish mental condition

Melanie Gill, inventor of ‘Inherited Holocaust Trauma’

Miss Gill’s website claims she specialises ‘in developmental trauma, attachment science, schema theory, family dynamics, mental health and child and adult forensic assessment’.

She is also well-connected in Parliament.

EL’s 84-year-old father happens to have survived the Jewish ghetto in Vinnytsa in Ukraine during WW2.

Although conditions were appalling in the ghetto, the Nazis did not separate families as in the concentration camps and EL’s father remained with his father and mother.

Out of this, Melanie Gill dreamed up a previously unheard-of condition. She decided EL was suffering from ‘inherited holocaust trauma’.

Because of this imaginary genetic condition, which must affect a huge number of Jewish people, EL was found unfit to care for his son until he had therapy, which no reputable psychiatrist would provide.

The anti-Semitic stance of Medway Council was further in evidence when their social workers refused to allow ‘J’ to attend a Passover (Pesach) celebration with his father.

Care Plan ‘not honoured’ by Medway Council

Some of the Christmas Cards which Medway Council refused to deliver to ‘J’

A care plan allows ‘EL’ to see ‘J’ in a ‘contact centre’ four times a year, although he says Medway do not honour this committment. Father and son are forbidden to speak in their native language and when ‘EL’ tried to pass a copy of the Human Rights Act to ‘J’ the social workers objected, saying it was not in ‘J’s’ ‘best interests’ to know his human rights.

‘EL’ also says:
* Medway refused to deliver Christmas presents to his son,
* They refused to pass on Christmas cards from family and friends,
* They even refused to allow ‘J’ to take a phone call from his grandfather,
* Medway refuse to accept that keeping ‘J’ in care is doing him any harm.

The court heard from Ann Domeney, Deputy Director of Social Care at Medway. She told the court she had seen a Facebook page and some Twitter feed of photographs and other details of ‘J’ and ‘EL’ together and the name of a contact centre and its manager.

Social Care Deputy Ann Domeney runs a sideline offering management consultancy to her previous local authority employers.

Is it likely?

Judge Scarratt can only find ‘EL’ in contempt of court if what he has published ‘is likely directly or indirectly to lead to the identification of the child’. Under cross examination from ‘EL’, who represented himself, neither Ann Domeney not Mr Chaloner’s second witness, contact centre boss Sarah Cahill, could think of anyone in the general public who had identified ‘J’ from the information he posted. The likelihood appears slim.

Judge Scarratt will pass judgment today.  If he finds ‘EL’ guilty of contempt of court he will then pass sentence on him. That could range from a conditional discharge to imprisonment. The maximum sentence is two years.

Post-Script

As a post-script, it appears Ann Domeney previously worked for the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead. She has now set up a very lucrative little business, ‘A D Children’s Services Ltd‘ supplying that council with ‘management consultancy’.

His Honour Judge Scarratt has been criticised and his judgments set aside on at least two occasions in the Court of Appeal for siding with local authorities rather than giving due weight to the evidence of parents. His Honour, ‘Dickie’ to his friends, has also been up an African mountain fundraising for a charity, of which his wife is a trustee, which provides children’s home places to local authorities. But more about all that after the verdict, expected today.

Have you been affected by Family Court injustice?

If you have been affected by injustice in the family courts, we should like to hear from you.  In particular, if you are a young adult who was wrongfully taken into care and your right to a family life was thereby disrupted, you may have a cause for legal action against the local authority.  Contact us at info@christianvoice.org.uk

Psalm 72:4  He shall judge the poor of the people, he shall save the children of the needy, and shall break in pieces the oppressor.

Malachi 4:6  And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

Luke 17:1 Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come! 2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.  

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 Father fighting Medway Council faces jail for contempt appeared first on Christian Voice UK.

‘EL’ outside the court. Face obscured because Family Court rules forbid the identification of children or parents.

A father fighting a local authority in the family court narrowly escaped jail for contempt of court yesterday.

We may only identify him as ‘EL’ and his fourteen-year-old son as ‘J’ on instruction from Judge Richard Scarratt, pursuant to rules designed to protect the secrecy of the family courts.

Father posted notes and pictures

The judge said EL posted notes, an image and the name of his son, identifying him as a child in care.

He also had a picture of himself and his son on Twitter and has posted tweets identifying ‘ J’ and his school. Another post identified a contact centre and its manager.

These activities contravened a reporting restrictions order in the case made by Mrs Justice Theis in September 2015.

MarkChaloner  – represented Medway Council but acted decently throughout.

It was never stated in evidence or in the submissions of Mark Chaloner, barrister for Medway Council, precisely how any member of the public could actually identify the son from this information. Nevertheless, Judge Scarratt decided the case was proven.

Local authorities fear the light

But His Honour criticised Medway Council for seeking (in vain) to have the case heard in private. ‘Only in rare cases should committal proceedings be heard behind closed doors and this is not one of them’, said Judge Scarratt.

EL’s supporters were consequently in court. Many of them were also parents of children unjustly, they told this reporter, in the care of local authorities.

Attempts such as that by Medway Council to hold the case in private only strengthen the public’s view that local authorities are ashamed of what they do in the family court.

Suspended sentence in family court

His Honour Judge Richard Scarratt

When it came to sentencing, His Honour was clearly conscious that if he sent EL to prison it would hand the father a publicity coup. Anyone committed to prison must be named in public. A fine would also run of the risk of non-payment and consequent committal. So he handed down a suspended sentence of 56 days and told EL to behave himself for a year.

EL and J are only allowed to meet for a couple of hours four times a year, in the ‘contact centre’. The father says Medway Council have not always kept to that ‘care plan’. Mr Chaloner, who acted decently throughout, undertook to make sure Medway would arrange a meeting this month. Judge Scarratt demanded a report next month on that matter.

Father’s campaign will continue

EL is clearly not going to let things rest. He set up a new protest on the steps of Canterbury Combined Court immediately after the hearing. His campaign will continue, he told this reporter, until his son is returned.

Read why ‘J’ is in care, how Medway Council encouraged him to play a violent video game which Anders Breivik used for training, and how a psychologist invented a new anti-Semitic medical condition: ‘inherited holocaust trauma’ which allows local authorities to remove the children of Jewish parents.

Jer 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.

1John 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

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 Family Court: father ‘in contempt’ appeared first on Christian Voice UK.

The Coat of Arms of Hampshire County Council emphasises its historic links to the military. But it now stands accused of taking a boy into care to profit from his football skills.

A local authority is being accused of taking a child into care for financial advantage.

In the latest scandal to hit a social services children’s department, Hampshire County Council could profit from a young boy’s promising football career.

Criticism has also been levelled at Family Court circuit judge, Her Honour Helen Black.  Documents we have seen suggest Judge Black placed the boy in long-term foster care on evidence that can best be described as flimsy.

Boy ‘used to telling lies’

The judge heard that the couple’s eldest boy, whom we shall call ‘J’, had accused his father of beating him with a belt.  A doctor apparently found some marks on him.  Nevertheless, they were not consistent with his assertion.  The police saw nothing and their investigation went nowhere.

But the standard of proof in the family court, ‘balance of probability,’ is much lower even than the ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ of the criminal court.  Yet the penalties against parents and children (separation for life) are draconian.  ‘Cruel and unreasonable’ in human rights language.

There is more than a whiff of a done deal about the proceedings.  Judge Black’s judgment spoke of J ‘disclosing’ this information, rather than ‘alleging’ it.  A social work report from one Cerian Paton was categorical about what she described as ‘the on going (sic) physical abuse he has suffered’.  But a succession of school reports spoke of J’s violent behaviour.  He was getting into fights and telling lies.  There was disruptive behaviour in class.  Even in foster care (since the middle of last year) this pattern continued.

Most people would have expected the judge to pay attention to the evidence of the boy’s headteacher.  She described a boy ‘who was used to telling lies, normally as a result (sic) of self-preservation.’  ‘She knew you couldn’t take his word at face value and his denials were more sustained than other children’.  ‘He would sustain lying even when confronted with evidence from adults.’

Judge says boy is ‘truthful’

Despite all that, Her Honour said, ‘I am satisfied that (‘J’) has been truthful in the accounts he has been presenting.’  She went on: ‘There is a degree of consistency in the allegations he has now made on a number of occasions.’  But a dispassionate observer might conclude: ‘Of course there was!  That is exactly what his headteacher said he could do, keep on lying.’

So Judge Black made an order to take ‘J’ away from his parents.  She said: ‘It is agreed that he should be made the subject of a Care Order in long term foster care’.  This was presented as an order ‘by consent’.  However, we have been told that neither parent actually agreed such a draconian order at all.  Our information is that their solicitors told the judge their clients agreed without giving full advice or taking proper instructions.   Sadly, this appears to be common practice in the family courts.

Hampshire County Council could profit from football

Raheem Sterling negotiated a £30,000 a week contract at age 17.

Long-term foster care would probably suit Hampshire County Council.  ‘J’ is a talented footballer.  He is currently signed up at the academy of a leading English football club.  Another local authority explains: ‘If there is a Care Order, the local authority shares PR (parental responsibility) with the parent’.

In practice, Hampshire County Council will take the decisions with no regard to the parents.  They changed the boy’s school within minutes of getting their first care order with no reference to the parents at all.

Crucially, Hampshire will look after the cash.  As ‘J’ progresses through adolescence, he could start earning serious money, of which Hampshire would have control.

‘Substantial six-figure sum’

One youth football website, PlayerScout, says that from the age of 17, ‘Players can earn £300 -£1.5k per week (even more for hot prospects)’.  ‘J’ would still be in care when he is 17.  PlayerScout went on: ‘After 2 Premier League starts Raheem Sterling at age 17 negotiated a new £30k a week contract.’

Rob Johnson. Bridgend Council refuse to give him his £3,310.

Suppose ‘J’ had just one year of money like that before being released from care at age 18.  It would amount to over £1.5m.  Even after tax Hampshire County Council could have a substantial six-figure sum in the bank.

Earlier this year, another local authority flatly refused to shell out a few thousands of pounds in savings to a care leaver.  The Public Services Ombudsman for Wales, Nick Bennett, asked Bridgend council to pay £3,310 to Rob Johnson, 18.

Mr Johnson’s saved money was under the control of the council.  They used it to pay for trips they should have funded themselves. But the council said it ‘raised national issues’ and reluctantly gave Mr Johnson a mere £270.

Parents told to split up

Having decided the eldest son was as honest as the day is long, Judge Black turned on the parents.  They were ‘unemotional’, she said.  If they had been in tears they would no doubt have been ‘hysterical’.  Perhaps the Lord Chancellor needs to bring in some training.  It might help white middle-class judges to gain understanding of cultures in which displays of emotion are not routinely expressed.

Judge Black made clear that as she had found the eldest son to be ‘at risk’ from his father, father and mother would have to split up.  That was if the mother stood any hope of retaining custody of the couple’s younger son.  At the last hearing, in December 2016, when she ordered the elder son to be placed in long-term care, Her Honour made veiled threats to take the younger son as well if the mother did not cooperate.

She had ‘one final opportunity’ to be ‘open and honest with professionals’, Judge Black said.  If that happened, ‘perhaps the risks of ‘N’ being removed is lessened.’  But ‘That is not a promise’, she went on.  Turning to a gambling metaphor, the judge said she wanted to make the mother ‘clearly aware of what the stakes are and how the stakes are in this case’.

Behave, and you might keep your youngest son.  Get up the nose of the social workers and you won’t.

Threshold criteria

Let us be very clear about this.  According to a well-known legal blogger:

‘In order for the Court to make an Emergency Protection Order, or a Care Order or Supervision Order, or Interim Care Orders or Interim Supervision Orders, they need to be satisfied that the threshold criteria is met. If there’s no threshold criteria, the Court CANNOT make the order.

‘The burden of proof (who has to prove it) is on the Local Authority. It is for the Local Authority to PROVE that the child has suffered significant harm, or is at risk of such harm, NOT for the parent to prove that the child isn’t.’

Do we really now have a system in which a child is at risk of significant harm solely because a parent does not trust or like specific social workers?

Illiterate social worker

Papua New Guinea lies in Africa, according to Hants social worker Cerian Paton Greig-Smith

Another disturbing feature of the case is the almost illiterate social work report prepared by Cerian Paton, or Cerian Paton Greig-Smith to give her full married name, Assistant Team Manager in Hampshire County Council’s Children’s Services Department.  She holds a BA with Honours in Social Work and a Diploma of Higher Education in Social Care.

Despite all that learning, Mrs Greig-Smith thinks ‘dual’, as in ‘dual nationality,’ is spelled ‘duel’.  She renders ‘verify’ as ‘varify’.  She confuses ‘consisting’ with ‘consistent’.  When the parents were muddled over something she thought was really important, she wrote ‘The inconsistancey raises suspician’ (sic).  Rivalling the famed stupidity of the cast of TOWIE, she believes Papua New Guinea lies somewhere in Africa.

This ministry has also seen a report prepared by one Peter Hartwell of Hampshire County Council.  This shows him trying unsuccessfully to coerce the couple’s younger child to say something derogatory against his mother.  The report reveals worrying attempts to find something, anything, the Council could use against the mother.

This is sadly not the first time an adolescent child has made allegations against a parent for what he mistakenly sees as short-term advantage.  And not for the first time we see a local authority trying to build a post-facto case against parents.  Moreover, there is the usual power imbalance. A local authority uses all its resources to seek every small thing which will cast the parents in a bad light.  Parents are in defence mode from day one.

There should be intense public debate if this is how the system was intended to work.

Sir Paul Coleridge, seen here speaking on Premier Christian Radio, is chairman of the Marriage Foundation.

Marriage Foundation

Judge Helen Mary Black used to practice at Addison Madden solicitors in Southsea.  She was appointed a circuit judge in 2007.  (If you are interested, here is a full list of circuit judges where you can check out your favourite.)

Oddly enough, HH Judge Helen Black is a ‘founding supporter’ of the Marriage Foundation.  This body was set up by retired family division judge Sir Paul Coleridge to promote marriage and discourage divorce.

Arguing for parents to stay together, Sir Paul has said: ‘So many children experiencing the break-up of their parents’ relationships is not necessary. Indeed it is perfectly avoidable.’

But in Her Honour Judge Helen Black’s court parental breakup is encouraged.

Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division

Transparency

The President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, has spoken on reporting in the family courts.  He has even expressed concern at the public perception that something distasteful is being done.  The public, Sir James has said, need to know what is being done in their name.

Giving judgement in Re J (a child) [2013] EWHC 2694 (Fam) on 5 September 2013, Sir James Munby said ’there is a pressing need for more transparency, indeed for much more transparency, in the family justice system’.

Have you suffered injustice in the family courts?

Have you suffered injustice at the hands of Hampshire County Council, Cerian Paton or Judge Helen Black?  Or indeed in the family courts or with interaction with social services elsewhere?  If so, get in touch.

Psalm 127:3 Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. 

Proverbs 21:3 To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than sacrifice. 

Isaiah 59:4 None calleth for justice, nor any pleadeth for truth: they trust in vanity, and speak lies; they conceive mischief, and bring forth iniquity.

Ezekiel 45:9 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Let it suffice you, O princes of Israel: remove violence and spoil, and execute judgment and justice, take away your exactions from my people, saith the Lord GOD. 

Click the button below to share this story:

Share/Bookmark

The post Hampshire County Council takes Football Kid appeared first on Christian Voice UK.

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

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 care 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.

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

This protest at Edward Timpson’s home in May led to a manifesto commitment on reform of the family courts

The Conservative Party promised reform of the family courts in their manifesto following a rooftop protest.

It is of course open to argument whether the manifesto commitment was a response to the protest at the home of Edward Timpson.  Mr Timpson was Minister of State for Vulnerable Children and Families in the previous government.  It follows he had responsibility for social services, child protection and to some extent the operation of the family courts.

Protest

The protest, on 8th May, was carried out by an aggrieved father who has fought a long campaign to be reunited with his son.

We reported on the father’s case in January when the local authority tried to have him imprisoned for contempt of court.

Medway Council asked a court to jail ‘EL’ for contempt after he posted a picture of his in-care son online.  Instead circuit Judge Richard Scarratt imposed a suspended sentence.

HIs Honour instructed this author that we may only refer to the father as ‘EL’ and the son as ‘J’.

That is because of secrecy rules the family court employs to protect the reputation of the courts and local authorities.

The local paper reported on the 8th May protest here.  And additionally here.  Other parents have left comments which are worth reading.

Manifesto Commitment on Family Courts

Theresa May published her manifesto ten days after the protest, on 18th May.  In it, she said:

‘Protecting vulnerable children and families’.
‘Placing a child under the oversight of social services and taking a child into care are amongst the most serious duties the state may discharge.’
‘We will demand all local authorities be commissioners of the highest-quality family support and child protection services, removing these responsibilities from the weakest councils and placing them in trust.
‘Finally, we shall explore ways to improve the family justice system. The family courts need to do more to support families, valuing the roles of mothers and fathers, while ensuring parents face up to their responsibilities.’

Moreover, the Tories were the only party to commit to any such reform.  That in itself lends support to the view that the commitment was a direct result of EL’s rooftop protest.

Laura Smith is the new Labour MP for Crewe and Nantwich, winning by just 48 votes

However, the manifesto commitment did not save Mr Timpson’s seat.  He lost Crewe and Nantwich to Labour’s Laura Smith.

Mrs Smith overturned a 3,620 majority.  She won the seat by 48 votes.

Court appearances

The police placed the father involved on police bail pending a court charge in September.  However, Medway Council are taking him to court again this Thursday 15th.

A judge will hear the case at Canterbury County Court.  The Council seek to commit the father to prison for contempt of court this time after he named a social worker online.  As it happens, he is perfectly entitled to do so under the law.

Meanwhile, this author is seeking a ruling on transparency next week, Thursday 22nd.  The case will be heard in front of the highest family court judge in the land, Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division.  I shall be arguing for freedom to report on these cases in which draconian penalties can be imposed on parents and children sometimes on scant evidence.  The system needs to be exposed and by God’s grace reformed.  I need your prayers for this hearing and the Lord’s provision for my legal team.  If you care about families, justice and openness, Click here to support me.

Click on any of the links below to share this article:

The post Tories promise family courts reform appeared first on Christian Voice UK.

Canterbury Civil Court heard the case of contempt of court against Uegene Lukjanenko

A father in dispute with Medway Council narrowly escaped jail for contempt of court in Canterbury County Court last week for the second time in six months.

Eugene Lukjanenko was charged with five breaches of an order made on 30th September 2015. The Order prohibited him from naming employees or ex-employees of the Council online.

To his credit, said Judge Richard Scarratt, he freely admitted the breaches. But His Honour rejected Mr Lukjanenko’s argument that his conduct was reasonable. Judge Scarratt sentenced him to 56 days in prison, suspended for a year.

The judge said: ‘The local authority may feel that is soft’. Nevertheless, His Honour had taken into account that if he imposed an immediate custodial term, Mr Lukjanenko ‘will be a martyr to his cause, a cause which in my judgment has no substance whatever’.

Previous contempt of court sentence ‘stemmed the flow’

In January, the same judge imposed the same sentence on the same defendant for naming his son online in breach of a High Court Reporting Restrictions Order. But yesterday, he said that had ‘stemmed the flow’ of the prohibited information. He said he hoped the same would happen this time.

His Honour Judge Richard Scarratt

The Order, made in the family court, forbad Eugene Lukjanenko from displaying the Names, Contact Details or photographs of any Medway Council employee any where.

How such an obvious infringement of his Article 10 right to Freedom of Expression came to be made was never explained at the hearing. The judge was solely concerned with Medway’s heavy-handed application to commit Mr Lukjanenko to prison.

Moreover, we are going to commend Judge Scarratt for his patience. He was dealing with an understandably upset father. The father’s first language is Russian. He continually wanted to raise what he sees as previous unjust treatment in the family courts and by Medway.  He may have a point.  There is little evidence the Council tried to keep this family together. And that is what we all think social workers should be doing, except in the most extreme cases of abuse or neglect.

Did he breach the Order?

The Crown Prosecution Service looked at the case under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and decided there was no case. That should raise a question about double jeopardy. In a convoluted bit of reasoning, barrister Edward Elliott, appearing for the Council, submitted that the CPS only considered one aspect of the case. Moreover, since they took no action, there was no double jeopardy in any case. This court could try the case, a point which Judge Scarratt was happy to accept.

Mr Elliott said: ‘This is not the criminal court’. So it was not about whether the conduct actually amounted to harassment. All the mattered was ‘did he breach the order?’

And of that there was little doubt. Mr Lukjanenko put the names of three social workers with their contact details (where those were in the pubic domain) on his Facebook timeline quite a while ago.

No compromise

The defendant before a similar case in January. Face obscured

The court heard that over the lunch break Mr Lukjanenko discussed the possibility of a compromise with Medway. This fell down when the Council refused to increase contact with his son. Nor would they bring forward a meeting scheduled for September to reconsider the frequency of contact.  That seems mean-minded.

But the judge said the two issues, contact and the breaches of the order, could not be linked. Judge Scarratt actually heard the case in the family court. But this was not now the family court, he said. This was a civil court hearing for contempt of court in public.

However, in an extraordinary development, the court heard that Mr Lukjanenko produced a letter in the interval.

In the letter, signed by his son, the son said he wanted to come home. Mr Lukjanenko drafted it and gave it to his son to read and sign in his last meeting at the local authority contact centre. Although these were not family court proceedings, the judge was aghast. ‘Was not the contact supervised? How did that happen?’ he demanded.

Contact centres are intended to be heavily policed by social workers. Parents are not even supposed to tell their children they love them or that they are fighting to get them home. They may certainly not pass pieces of paper to them.

Reporting Restrictions

At the end of the hearing, this author drew Judge Scarratt’s attention to a Reporting Restrictions Order in the family court which forbids the media from naming the father or the son in any report on the case. However, ours is not a jurisdiction that quietly locks people up. If someone faces prison, the hearing must be advertised and the person named. Court Practice Direction, CCR (County Court Rules) 29 on Committal Applications applies. Rule 29.9 says:

9. A committal application should normally be heard in public (see CPR rule 39.2), but if it is heard in private and the court finds the respondent guilty of contempt of court, the judge shall, when next sitting in public, state –
(1) the name of the respondent;
(2) in general terms the nature of the contempt or contempts found proved; and
(3) the penalty (if any) imposed.

Edward Elliott is involved in another contempt of court case brought bt Medway Council

Judge Scarratt had to comply with the end of rule 29.9 as he was already sitting in open court. His Honour accordingly ruled we could identify the father by his full name. We are actually reluctant to do so, but the interests of justice require it. The onus is on a local authority pursuing a parent to prison to be aware they are enabling the identification of parents. They normally strive very hard to avoid that. We can only hope this does not lead to identification of the child in the case.

Medway Council pursuing another parent

Eugene Lukjanenko is not the only parent Medway Council are pursuing. We understand they are after a mother, who at the moment we shall refer to as SR. SR has published details about her case on social media. She sees a miscarriage of justice towards her and her children who are now, as we understand it, of majority age anyway.

Curiously, Edward Elliott, Medway’s barrister, boasts on his chambers page about his involvement in committal proceedings against SR for contempt of court. The mother’s case will be heard in July and we shall be there, God willing, to report on the case – and name her.

Previous posts:

Family Court Restrictions: father ‘in contempt’

Father fighting Medway Council faces jail for contempt

Click on the links below to share this story:

The post Judge finds father in contempt of court again appeared first on Christian Voice UK.

Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division, will rule on transparency tomorrow

Our top family court judge is due to make a major ruling on transparency in the family courts tomorrow.

Lord Justice Munby, President of the Family Division, will decide what the media can report and whether courts need to give individual permission before anything is published. Moreover, he will use a case in which this author has figured to do so.

An Apparent Injustice

In March a party contacted the Christian Voice office. A couple’s older son had been taken into care. He had accused his father of physical abuse. There was no supporting medical evidence. The social worker in the case was verging on illiterate. His headteacher testified the boy was used to lying. A police investigation went nowhere. Nevertheless, the local authority applied for a care order and astonishingly, a family court circuit judge granted it.

The Crown Prosecution Service had decided there was no case which would stand up beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal court before a jury of 12 good and true men and women. But in the family court a judge found the abuse case proven on the lower standard of ‘balance of probabilities’. She stripped the child from his parents.. That in any terms is a draconian order.  The parents may see it as a penalty.  Then the judge told the parents to separate.  Furthermore, she told the mother in the case that she would order her younger son to be taken off her if she did not co-operate with social services. The judge would decide the fate of the younger son at a future hearing.

Questions about operation and justice

The case raised important questions about the way our child protection system operates and about the presence, or absence, of justice in the family courts.

I posted an article on the case on the Christian Voice website in late April. In it, I identified the local authority, the judge and the social worker. I deliberately obscured the identity of the children. Moreover, I was highly critical of the judge who had told the parents to separate. Technically, under the existing family court rules and Section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960, and even though it is the identity of the child which is what everyone is supposed to be worried about, that, it could be argued, was a contempt of court.

Reporting Restrictions Order

A journalist with an interest in a case is supposed to go back to the court and seek their permission to publish. The device for that is known as a ‘Reporting Restrictions Order’ or ‘RRO’.  An RRO is free, and can be decided on the day.  Nevertheless, a journalist needs to know the system and be prepared to argue for this RRO.  Each RRO is unique to the case.

But what if the case has already been decided? In that case, a journalist would have to make an application to the court. He or she would have to pay a £155 court fee and wait for the next available hearing date. He or she would be questioned by the judge. Who told the journalist about the case? What it the journalist’s interest in it? What angle is going to be taken? These questions should be beneath the court’s dignity to ask. Most judges will ask them nevertheless.

Such a convoluted process does not assist the family courts to be transparent. Yet ruling after ruling from the High Court has stressed the value of transparency in making the family courts accountable to the public.

Judge was furious

So in this case I jumped the gun. I published the article. Moreover, as I do things in the open, I circulated it to every councillor of the local authority. Then, on 2nd May, I turned up at court. The local authority was furious and the judge incandescent.  Her Honour flatly refused to grant an RRO. Instead she made an order for me to take the article down.  I ignored that.  But crucially, she also referred the matter of press publication to a high court judge to hear the next week, on 8th May.

By the time I appeared before Mr Justice Baker, the local authority, whom I am not going to name right now, had applied for an injunction against me to take the article down from the web. They also wanted the judge to rule that I should disclose my source. Furthermore, they applied for a committal hearing, at which they wanted to argue I should be sent to prison for contempt of court.  This was becoming serious.

Mr Justice Baker was having none of it. An order forcing me to disclose my source he found especially disagreeable. Journalistic sources have a high degree of protection in law.  So Justice Baker put the Council’s application on ice and instead allowed me to apply to one of his High Court colleagues for an order to say what I could publish. In the meantime, he asked me to take the article down and I agreed to that.

Sir James Munby takes over

The case will be heard at the Royal Courts of Justice

Freedom of Expression is at the heart of this case.  But a surprise was in store.  After two days, Mr Baker’s clerk said that Lord Justice Munby, President of the Family Division, was going to hear my application for press freedom.

The President has been trying to advance transparency in the family courts for some years now. He ruled in favour of a degree of transparency in 2004, in a case known as ‘Re B’.

Lord Justice Munby heard another case in 2013, called ‘Re J’, and went further. A father had published all sorts of material about his case all over social media. There were photographs of his newly-born son, taken soon after, and virulent attacks on named social workers. The local authority wanted to remove it all.

But Lord Justice Munby made an order preventing only the name of the child and parents from disclosure. He spoke about the need for more transparency in the family courts. Sir James said: ‘There is a pressing need for more transparency, indeed for much more transparency, in the family justice system.’ The vigilance of an informed media was essential, he said. Parents should have the right to publish material about their case. The family court was making draconian orders, he went on. Injustice could occur. The forensic effect of sunlight was required. Judges needed humility, he said.  Judges, local authorities and their social workers could be named.

Transparency

No-one wants to identify a child in an action. Well, some parents do, when their children have been taken away forcibly and they want to stop them being adopted. But I don’t. I am simply fulfilling the duty of the ‘Fourth Estate’, holding those in power to account, and standing up as Christ would for the oppressed. In my experience, local authorities verge on paranoia trying to shield themselves from identification and their operations from criticism. They wheel out ‘the best interests of the child’ when what is really in their mind is ‘the best interests of the system.’  Or their ’empire’.

It is a Biblical injunction and a principle of our law that justice must be seen and heard. This is so that wrong-doers are put off and injustice reduced or eliminated. The local authorities, experts and judges believe all they are doing is child protection. But so many parents caught up in the system see themselves being punished without a crime. The public at large believe justice should be done. Applying wholesale the ‘child’s interests are paramount’ might actually prejudice a parent’s right to a fair trial of a matter in which he is in effect ‘the accused’.

It follows that the media must be able to receive and publish information within family proceedings. And we must have freedom do this without the need to apply for permission, perhaps even to the very court complained of, on a case by case basis, incurring fees and delays every time. The current system is simply unreasonable. It deters reporters. It introduces a chilling effect. Crucially, it entrenches injustice. It has to go, and it will.

Louise Tickle’s RRO

In 2015, journalist Louise Tickle secured a RRO in a High Court judgment of Mr Justice Bodey. His Lordship allowed her to receive all kinds of information on the case and to publish virtually whatever she wanted, subject once again to not identifying the children. Lord Justice Munby will be very aware of that case as well.

Louise Tickle wrote afterwards (Sleepless nights reporting the family courts) that having to make an application to a court of law to enable her to go about her job was daunting. Furthermore, if she was receiving a consideration of perhaps £450 from the Guardian, say, for her article, £155 in court application fees and travel to the court, even with a pro-bono barrister, and the time involved, made it scarcely worth doing.

Louise Tickle went through both trial and tribulation, as we read in her article above.  Even though Justice Bodey’s ruling gave her all she wanted, he left the RRO system as it was. Every journalist has to ask each trial judge to grant a RRO on a case by case basis. That is unreasonable and brings in a chilling effect. I hope and pray Sir James will understand that and bring in real transparency tomorrow.

Scriptural Points on the Administration of Justice

Lev 19:15; Deut 10:18, 16:20, 17:13, 27:19; Job 34:12; Psalm 82:1-8, 106:3; Prov 21:3,15; Eccl 5:8, 8:11, 12:14; Isa 1:17; Jer 20:10-11, Amos 5:24; Matt 5:6, 10:20,26; Mark 4:22 Luke 8:17, 12:2, 18:1-5; John 3:19-20, 18:20; Acts 26:26; 1Cor 3:13, 4:5.

Prayer and Action:

Please pray for this case and Lord Justice Munby to bring in transparency and justice to the family court system.

If you are a parent and have a story to tell us, contact us on 01994 484544 or this author on 07931 490050.

Our action is crowd-funded.  Click here to see how to contribute to this valuable cause.

For Editors:

The case will be heard at 10.30 am in Court 33 in West Green Building at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2A 2LL. Please note the hearing is in private. According to rule 27.11 (scroll down to see it), accredited journalists with a UK Press Card have a right to attend the hearing to observe and report (27.11.2(f)).  Others must rely on the indulgence of the court (27.11.2(g)).  Anyone may hang around outside.

The post Top judge to hear transparency case appeared first on Christian Voice UK.

Four children wrongly taken into care by the London Borough of Bexley have finally gone home.

Four children from a family rent apart by false allegations two years ago have finally gone home.

In early March 2017 Judge Diane Redgrave approved an agreement worked out between counsel for the parents, Hilary Pollock, and the London Borough of Bexley.  Bexley returned the children to their parents on 29th March.

The Lord’s hand at work

The Lord’s hand was all over the case. He arranged for Christian solicitor Michael Phillips to instruct Miss Pollock. That proved inspired (of course) as the experienced family court barrister gained the agreement of Bexley to everything beneficial to the parents.

But after the March hearing, Miss Pollock shared with this author that Bexley never expected the parents to get through the process. Nor did they expect overnight stays in the family home organised for the children at Christmas 2016 and New Year 2017 to go as well as they did.

Accordingly, from the threat of a contested hearing, where Bexley would have continued to oppose the children going home, the council changed their mind a week before the date.  Behind the scenes, the setting up of a new ‘Back Together Team’ in the Borough in late 2016 possibly had something to do with that.

Bexley took children into care after false allegation

The family’s nightmare started in June 2015.  Their eldest boy, in his mid-teens, ran off after being caught out in a lie about his whereabouts.

Her Honour Judge Diane Redgrave

Upon being picked up by the police, he reported his parents for child cruelty. All four children were instantly taken into care.  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.

He thought it could have been made by a metal implement. However, he never examined the boy himself, and none of the other children made any similar accusation. Moreover, the police found nothing resembling such an alleged item in the family’s home.

Bexley social worker Judy Simon even contacted the mother’s place of work, a care home.  The call resulted in her being laid off.  Secondly, Miss Simon accused the father to his employers, British Transport Police. He was dismissed last year in another miscarriage of justice. He is currently appealing that dismissal.

Judge Redgrave gave the astonishing advice to the parents to plead guilty in the Crown Court. She said this would help them have their children returned. That may have been correct.  If so, it raises yet more questions about the system.  Nevertheless, father and mother stuck to their guns and maintained their innocence.  On the eve of the Crown Court case their eldest son confirmed he had made it all up.

Video: Christmas Ruined by Social Services

Bromley County Court

Accordingly, the parents were acquitted.  Despite that, the children stayed in care.  Bexley Children’s Services callously told the parents they would need to apply to the court to have them returned.

The parents courageously told their story in a video on the Christian Voice YouTube channel. It is called Christmas Ruined by Social Services.  Bexley’s reaction to the video was to threaten us with contempt of court proceedings if we did not take it down.

Despite that, the video is still there and has had over 96,000 views to date.

It must be said, in March this year Judge Redgrave could not have been more constructive.  Discharging the Care Order, she congratulated the parents, saying they had ‘worked very hard’.  She also suggested activities to keep the eldest son occupied. He was ‘Not the only teenager in the world’ to get into trouble, she said.

Prayer answered

Christian Voice members prayed hard for this family and against the injustice they suffered. The father says: ‘Every day I see the smile and joy on my children’s faces I pray for those that helped me be a complete family man again. My children too pray for them when we all have our family prayers together. Help me to say a big thank you to them all.’

If you prayed into this case, consider yourself thanked!

The post Bexley children finally go home appeared first on Christian Voice UK.

Councillor Alan Jarrett, leader of Medway Council

A local authority took two children into care because a house was ‘untidy’, a mother has told Christian Voice.

And now, seven years later, Medway Council are trying to send the mother to prison for speaking out about her case.  This is despite both children now being over eighteen.  Care proceedings end at eighteen.

Medway Council harmed boy with violent video games

Medway Council have a history of such intimidatory tactics against parents who refuse to play by the rules.  Last month they brought contempt of court proceedings against a father for naming council employees on social media.  Judge Richard Scarratt gave him 56 days suspended.

In January this year Medway Council also applied to send Eugene Lukjanenko to prison for naming his son.  Judge Richard gave him his first 56 days, also suspended.  Mr Lukjanenko says he was speaking out against the injustice he says both he and his son have suffered at the hands of Medway Council.

According to friends of the family, Mr Lukjanenko’s son suffered horrific emotional abuse at the hands of Medway Council after being taken into care following a one-off altercation with a neighbour’s child.

Medway Council allowed ‘J’ to watch video games which inspired Norwegian neo-Nazi Anders Breivik

If there was ever a case for a local authority working with a parent to keep a family together, this was it.  But instead, Medway Council took J into care at huge cost to the taxpayer.

Whether that is down to resources or ideology we do not know.

Moreover, they encouraged him to watch violent video games, including one played by Norwegian neo-nazi Anders Breivik.

We cannot name Mr Lukjanenko’s son without being in contempt of court ourselves.  As he is a minor, we do not wish to anyway.

We are only able to name Mr Lukjanenko because Medway brought committal proceedings against him.

‘Hired gun’ psychologist says home-schooling causes ‘harm’

Edward Elliott has represented Medway Council in at least two contempt of court cases against aggrieved parents.

In the present case, that of the mother, we are at liberty to name all parties, but will wait until next week’s court case before doing so.  In the meantime, Medway’s barrister, Edward Elliott, boasts about his involvement in the Council’s committal proceedings against the mother.  He calls her ‘SR’ which is how we shall refer to her.

Nevertheless, some disturbing factors of SR’s case should concern all of us.  Medway’s case at the final hearing on 4th March 2010 was that SR had harmed her two youngest children by pulling them out of school.  Her daughter ‘C’ has special needs, while her son ‘D’ is above average intelligence.

Medway Council hired chartered psychologist Mr Graham Flatman to dig up dirt on the family.  His comments should alarm every home-schooling parent in the land.  He contended SR ‘had provided (‘D’) only with a limited and possibly distorted social experience’ and had ‘missed the opportunities offered by school for extended social contacts, extra curricular activities and the benefit of experiencing how a society of children and adults can function’.  He concluded, ‘He had therefore suffered harm.’ On this point, District Judge Graham Green found otherwise.

It is legal to home-school in the United Kingdom.

Uncooperative with professionals

Expert Witness Graham Flatman. His reports cost the taxpayer around £6,000 each and he can write six per month, so he has every reason to look cheerful.

Having failed on home schooling, Medway turned on SR herself.  Mr Flatman said she was ‘narcissistic’.  She had ‘no insight into the harm and neglect the children have suffered’.  He said she ‘should not have the responsibility of caring for her children unless she progresses through treatment and support’.  What ‘treatment’?  He did not say.  Could it involve keeping SR away from looking glasses and pools of water?  Whatever treatment it might be, Mr Flatman will not be providing it.  He is far too busy writing reports for the family court.

Mr Flatman also said SR, a single parent, was uncooperative with the professionals.  These are people who wanted to remove her children from the family home.  Many reasonable people might also be assessed as having ‘distorted and paranoid belief systems about authority figures’ in such circumstances.

Indeed, it seems Medway Council were intent on forcing SR’s children back into school.  The mother has a suspicion that Council employees were disgruntled she had chosen to home-school her two youngest children.  In her view, care proceedings were a retaliation.  Indeed, Medway applied to the family court for an Emergency Protection Order in February 2010.  Moreover, the Council did this in secret without SR’s knowledge.  Social worker Janet Western-Mullins then ambushed her with the order and a riot van full of police officers at her home.

Social worker ‘had no evidence’

Mark Noble was a detective police inspector before going private as a safeguarding manager. He said the case against SR was ‘laughable’.

Miss Western-Mullins told the court in her statement there was a ‘long history of reported squalid conditions’ at SR’s home.  But she then had to admit these were based on one referral from a workman and a report from Medway Housing association in Feb 2008.  She had actually ‘gone no further than the front room of SRt’s home’.  She apologised for the exaggeration and ‘agreed that she had no evidence to support that assumption’.

But a police officer, Detective Constable Alexandra Smith, gave unchallenged subjective evidence supporting Medway.  She said the garden ‘was a mess’, and there was ‘a litter tray smelling strongly of urine in the hallway.’

Astonishingly, and on this scant evidence, and despite SR having raised her three other children without incident, Judge Green found that the conditions of the home were ‘significant’ and ‘harmful to the children’.  He made a final care order.

SR tells us that one Mark Noble, then a detective inspector in Kent Police, expressed what we shall politely call ‘reservations’ about Alex Smith’s evidence.  He reportedly said the case was ‘laughable’.  Mr Noble now offers his services on LinkedIn as a ‘safeguarding manager’,

We shall look back at this with shame

Councillor David Wildey is Mayor of Medway Council.

This is just the latest example of a council’s social services department putting more effort into securing a care order than helping a family stay together.  Again a Council uses a ‘hired gun’ psychologist to damn the parent.  We see a care order based on the most nebulous crossing of the Children Act ‘threshold’.  And yet again we have Medway Council trying to send a parent to prison for exposing what she sees as the injustice she and her family have suffered.

Indeed, in case after case, parents tell this writer stories which speak of institutional, systemic injustice.  In years to come, British people will look back at what the family courts did with shame.  A senior judge will write a report about the parents who were deprived of their children without committing a crime.  Politicians will make speeches of apology to the children condemned to local authority care and its poor outcomes.

Venue and Scripture

Medway Council will try to send SR to prison at Maidstone County Court .  The address is Barker Road, ME16 8EQ.  Judge Richard Polden will hear the case on Monday 17th July 2017 at 10.00am in open court .  The rules say the hearing must be heard in public unless there are ‘exceptional circumstances’.

An embarrassed Medway Council will want to maintain secrecy.  Accordingly, we shall expect an application from them to hear the case in private.  And we shall expect Judge Polden to dismiss it.

Scripture says: Exodus 23:6 Thou shalt not wrest the judgment of thy poor in his cause.  And:

Ezekiel 45:9 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Let it suffice you, O princes of Israel: remove violence and spoil, and execute judgment and justice, take away your exactions from my people, saith the Lord GOD.

We were asking Medway Councillors for comments on this story as we went to press.

Click on the links below to share this shocking story:

The post Medway Council took children because home ‘untidy’ appeared first on Christian Voice UK.

Maidstone County Court heard Medway’s case against the mother

A mother in dispute with social services was found guilty yesterday of contempt of court.  The case has not yet concluded so we shall refer to her as ‘SR’.

Sitting at Maidstone County Court, in open court, Judge Richard Polden held ‘SR’ had  breached an injunction forbidding her from naming her children and reporting on her case online.

Furthermore, she gave an undertaking last December to take down the articles and then changed her mind, he said.  The articles remained up on her page on social media.

Sledgehammer to crack a nut

Sentence will be passed on 30th August, said His Honour.  In accordance with the rules, he must name the mother in public at the conclusion of the case.  Barrister Edward Elliott, representing Medway Council, objected to naming the mother even at that stage.  He said that would enable the public to join up her case and the details already legally presented about it on this website with her social media page.

But this author, speaking as a journalist and member of the media, invited His Honour to have no sympathy with that argument.  Ours is not a jurisdiction which ‘disappears’ dissidents.  The rules say clearly that a person committed to prison, even if sentence is suspended, must be named.  The Council should have thought of that before employing a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Medway ‘verging on vindictive’

The two ‘children’ Medway took are now nineteen and eighteen.  Any orders passed under the Children Act no longer apply.  Medway complained about breaches occurring while at least one of the children was still under eighteen.   But they do not wish the mother to post anything even now about her treatment by Medway Council.  Furthermore, that treatment, on the face of it, appears to have verged on vindictive, as our earlier story detailed.   Accordingly, to try to stem the flow of embarrassing negative information about Medway Social Services, they wanted the judge to make a ‘non-molestation order’ in favour of the children.

But Judge Polden was not confident Medway could present such an application on behalf of persons who are now legally adults.  The Council even expected him to take merely the evidence of social worker Kelly Hopper in support of it.  But when Kelly Hopper gave evidence against the mother for contempt of court, she had to admit she was not even in contact with the son or daughter.  She only had a chat with their ‘support worker’.  So when she laid it on about the children being distressed about their mother’s actions, that was mere hearsay.  Miss Hopper had her speech off pat.  She did not even read from notes she might have taken when purportedly speaking to the support worker.  Her evidence came across as frankly contrived.  So His Honour sent that application up to a High Court Judge to decide in September.

The American civil rights agitator, Saul Alinsky, championed the idea of ‘using the system against itself’.

Using the system against itself

The case exposes the problems faced by local authorities who want to shut parents up.  There is a growing number of parents aggrieved by the loss of their children and the injustice they say they have faced in the family courts.  They are beginning to gather together in social media groups.  And they feel they have very little to lose.  SR herself told the judge: ‘I’ve lost everything.  Medway have destroyed my life and my family.  Send me to prison if you want.’

The truth is, the establishment can only go down its given routes.  Suppose a parent (or even this ministry) shares information contrary to Section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960, which forbids publication of ‘information relating to proceedings … under the Children Act 1989’.  Or a parent (not this ministry) names their child on social media contrary to Section 97 of the Children Act 1989.

All the annoyed local authority can do is apply for the parent (or journalist) to be sent to prison.  They only have that blunt instrument of a weapon.  But employing it creates more publicity around the initial injustice.

Additionally, the parent must now be named in public.  When a respondent shows no fear of consequences and desires the publicity, such sanctions play into their hands.  They are, in the classic expression, ‘using the system against itself.’

A previous Mayor of Medway writes

After emailing our previous story on this case to Councillors in Medway, one Councillor Stuart Tranter responded.  Cllr Tranter was Mayor until Cllr Wildey took over this year.  What he wrote perfectly illustrates the complacency of those in charge of Medway Council:

‘I always welcome the truth, and if you believe something is wrong I suggest you use the courts and other proper means to have the evidence examined.’

Former Mayor of Medway, Councillor Stuart Tranter

No, Councillor Tranter, we are the media.  We are part of the Fourth Estate, holding those in power to account.  Those in power include local authorities, social workers, advocates, judges and indeed councillors.  We are not going to court, and what ‘other proper means’ are there?  Media is a ‘proper means’ and the only court we shall use is the court of public opinion.

He goes on:  ‘Cllr Alan Jarratt (current leader) and Cllr David Wildey are good people working hard for our community, yet you imply they are running a council which sets out to harm innocent people. But living in Wales, I doubt you know them or how this council really works. We may be imperfect, but we do our best to get things right with the resources we have.’

Indeed, us humble sheep-rearing folk know nothing of the high-minded ways of the Home Counties.  But we can spot an injustice when we see one.  Furthermore, a local authority and its councillors should display more humility than ‘we may be imperfect’ and acknowledge their mistakes.

He that troubleth Israel!

Cllr Tranter continues:  ‘I found all I read about you and your organisation and your beliefs negative and disturbing, so I must assume you thrive on causing disturbance which reinforces your beliefs and gives you energy. I hope that one day you get the help you need to find peace.’

Wow!  When you lose the argument, try the ad hominem attack.  Now who was it who said, ‘You are stirring up trouble!’  The idolatrous king Ahab said it to the Prophet Elijah.  Here is the full discourse:

1Kings 18:17 And it came to pass, when Ahab saw Elijah, that Ahab said unto him, Art thou he that troubleth Israel? 18 And he answered, I have not troubled Israel; but thou, and thy father’s house, in that ye have forsaken the commandments of the LORD, and thou hast followed Baalim.

‘Baalim’ were false gods.  Israel had departed from the laws of the Lord, just like Medway Council in stripping children from their parents because a house is untidy.  Thanks for that, Councillor.  And you will only find peace in the Lord Jesus, who told his followers:

John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

Just click on the buttons below to share this story in your social media network:

The post Medway dispute Mother guilty of ‘contempt’ appeared first on Christian Voice UK.

East London Family Court, situated in a tower block at Canary Wharf, hears cases brought by Tower Hamlets Social Services

A child in care from a Christian family was placed in care with a strict Muslim foster family who ridiculed her Christian beliefs, according to reports.

The child, who cannot be named because of family court rules, was placed in foster care by social workers in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.

Social Services sent her to live with two Muslim families in six months.  One family allegedly said she should remove her necklace bearing a cross and learn Arabic. The Bible says:

Mark 9:42 And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

The story first appeared in The Times, but was re-run in other media, including the Metro on Tuesday.

The carers, said the reports, covered their faces with a niqab.  They stopped the girl, who is five, from eating her favourite Italian food, carbonara, because it contained bacon.  Islam forbids the eating of pork which is seen as ‘haram’ or ‘forbidden.’

Lawyers tried to stop The Times attending court

Her Honour Judge Khatun Sapnara ordered the girl should be removed from the Muslim carers

The foster carers also referred to the Christian festivals of Christmas and Easter disparagingly.  According to the Metro newspaper, the little girl went home telling her mother the festivals were ‘stupid’.  Moreover, she said her carers had told her, ‘European women are stupid and alcoholic’.  Naturally, her mother was appalled, and said she had opposed the placement.

But Tower Hamlets social workers refused to place the girl with her grandmother.

The case was back in the East London family court yesterday.  This time, Circuit Judge Khatun Sapnara ruled the girl must leave the Muslim foster carers and go to live with her grandparents, as the child’s family wanted all along. (Coincidentally, Her Honour is Muslim of Bangladeshi descent.  Tower Hamlets has a large concentration of Bangladeshis.)

But even then, lawyers for Tower Hamlets Social Services tried to have journalists from The Times thrown out. Members of the press have a right to attend the family court.  Security staff, says Andrew Norfolk of The Times, were escorting a journalist from the building.  Judge Sapnara heard and ordered he be admitted to the court.  She praised the paper for exposing the case.  The judgment is here.

The lawyers went so far as to allege the paper had seen confidential court documents.  Yesterday, The Times said Tower Hamlets had tried to block the original story.  The newspaper deserves credit for pressing ahead and exposing it.  Nevertheless, at present, parents are barred from showing journalists papers, such as social workers’ reports, prepared for the court.  That is an interference with freedom of expression which this writer is campaigning to have removed.

Tower Hamlets complain of alleged inaccuracies

East London Mosque lies in the heart of Tower Hamlets

Tower Hamlets Social Services are incandescent that the story had come to the light.  They hoped it would stay private, hidden away in the secrecy of the family court.   According to the Guardian, they have complained about alleged ‘inaccuracies’ in The Times report.

The Guardian goes on:  ‘The Children Act 1989 requires a local authority to give consideration to “religious persuasion, racial origin and cultural and linguistic background” when making decisions about a child who is in care as a result of a court order.

‘MPs have expressed concern over the case, including Robert Halfon, the Conservative chairman of the Commons education committee, who said it would be equally concerning if a Muslim child who did not speak English were placed with a Christian foster carer in a home where the child’s language was not spoken.

‘The office of the children’s commissioner for England, Anne Longfield, confirmed it would be contacting Tower Hamlets council to find out why the decision was made. The child has reportedly been in the care of a Muslim family for the past six months.’

Christians barred from fostering

The Guardian reports Miqdaad Versi, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, taking The Times to task.  He criticised the Times in a number of tweets: One said, “Demonisation of the foreigner (especially the Muslim foreigner) is the clear undercurrent in this entire piece. It is appalling.”

But others will be concerned how people with such a negative view of the society they are living in came to be approved as foster carers in the first place.  Social Services have barred Christian foster parents on grounds of perceived negative views of homosexuality.  The BBC reported in 2011 that Owen and Eunice Johns lost their case against Derby City Council.  How do they suppose radical Muslims view that vice?

Foster carers can secure hundreds of pounds a week looking after children in care.

Social workers stopped another Christian couple from adopting a child. The couple said a child needed a mother and a father.  That was enough to prevent them being accepted.

Islam ‘a threat to the West’

Just today RT reported that more than half of Britons believe Islam ‘poses a threat to the West’.  It says this is despite the UK becoming more tolerant and open overall.  Pro-Muslim group ‘Hope not Hate’ published the figures from a new study it commissioned.  Hope not Hate said it would require ‘significant effort’ to ‘address’ what it views as ‘homophobia’ rather than legitimate concern.

Click on the links below to share this story:

The post Muslim Tower Hamlets foster carers in storm over Christian child appeared first on Christian Voice UK.

Medway Council took Sara Root to Maidstone County Court for contempt.

A mother who says her two youngest children were wrongly taken into care by Medway Council was given a six-month suspended prison sentence at the end of last month by Judge Richard Polden

Sara Root told Christian Voice her children were taken seven years ago for ‘emotional abuse’.

District Judge Graham Green made a judgment which will concern home-schoolers up and down the land.. Medway satisfied the judge the son and daughter were suffering the said emotional abuse due to home schooling. This had given them, said Medway’s Ian Scrivens, a ‘skewed view of the world’. Despite attending a primary school, playing with other children and going out to the park and the cinema, they were not ‘socialising.’

Legal Statement

Sara Root was found guilty in July, as we reported at the time. But in July we did not feel able to identify the mother. Now that she has been sentenced, the court authorised this legal statement:

In relation to C00ME422. On 30th August 2017, at Maidstone County Court, His Honour Judge Polden sentenced Sara Root to a custodial sentence of six months, suspended for twelve months, for contempt of court. The basis of that sentence was that: (a) she had breached an injunction made under section 12 of the Administration of Justice 1960 on 13th December 2011 on ten occasions; (b) she was in breach of an undertaking she gave to the court on 12th December 2016; and (c) she failed to comply with reporting restrictions made at the same hearing. All of the breaches were occasioned by publishing material relating to care proceedings on Facebook and failing to remove it.

September hearing

Ms Root is now applying to the High Court to remove the injunctions. Her two children are now young adults aged respectively 18 and 19, she told Christian Voice. Therefore they are no longer subject to any care order. Not surprisingly, she would like to make contact with them again. But in a bizarre twist, Medway Council have applied for non-molestation orders on behalf of the two young adults. Their only evidence appears to be hearsay.

Social worker Kelly Hopper had to admit in court she was not even in touch with Ms Root’s children. Meanwhile, ‘support worker’ Lucy Conn has made a statement. We understand this discloses that the young man involved does not even want Medway Council to speak on his behalf. The case will be heard behind closed doors at the Royal Courts of Justice on 28th September.

Contempt removes some secrecy

The family courts are shrouded in secrecy. Those in social services and the child protection industry say this is to protect the children involved. But it also means parents cannot easily bring injustices to the light. The media are also loathe to report cases. Editors fear they may fall foul of contempt of court rules. So in practice, the secrecy rules protect the system.

The only reason Sara Root and Eugene Lukjanenko can be named is because Medway Council brought actions against them for contempt of court, which carries a maximum penalty of two years in prison. Family court judges still hear such cases. Nevertheless, the cases have to be held in open court in the civil court, rather than the family court. This is because the British legal jurisdictions do not ‘disappear’ people. Anyone facing jail must be named. This does not mean the media can then name any children involved, nor do we want to. But we can and shall name local authorities and social workers.

Medway Council rooftop protest

Eugene Lukjanenko was convicted of contempt at Canterbury County Court in January and July 2017

Meanwhile, concert pianist Eugene Lukjanenko occupied the porch roof of Medway Council offices in Chatham last week. He remains in dispute with Medway over access to his son in care. However, above all, he wants his son returned, and his son, who is 14, also wants to come home. With worrying similarities to the Sara Root case, Mr Lukjanenko also says his son his taken away for alleged ’emotional abuse’.

A group of people on the ground also protested against forced adoption & foster care. Two police cars were called to the protest, where four people were spotted handing out leaflets.  A spokesman from the police said: ‘Officers have been made aware of a protest on a roof in Dock Road, Chatham. Officers were called to the scene at 7.21am on Tuesday 5 September 2017.’

One protester told the local KentOnline newspaper they were calling on the government to investigate the way in which children are taken into care.

Mr Lukjanenko came down from the roof voluntarily at 7.30pm. He was arrested on suspicion of aggravated criminal trespass and causing a public nuisance.

Earlier this year he was twice found in contempt of court for publishing details of case in social media. Mr Lukjanenko was sentenced to 56 days suspended for a year in January 2017 and again, for a separate offence, in July.

Emotional abuse in Medway Council area

The Government’s most recent figures show wide variations in numbers of children taken into care and reasons given. The discrepancy shows up widely in the contrast between the two councils in Kent. These are Kent County Council and, funnily enough, Medway Council.

Kent County Council took 1,049 children into care in 2015-2016. The population of Kent CC area at the last census was 1,541,900. Under 20’s were 360,605. So a Kent child has a 0.29% chance of being ‘in care’.

Medway Council took 539 children into care in 2015-2016. The population of Medway’s council area at the last census was 263,925. Under 20’s were 74,000. So a Medway child has a 0.73% chance of being ‘in care’.
In Kent County Council, 656 children were taken for neglect, 63% of the total and higher than the national average for England. The Council took 203 children for ‘emotional abuse’. That is 19%, which is lower than England’s national average.

But in Medway, 237 children (44%) were taken for neglect and 257 (48%) for emotional abuse. Given Medway’s far lower population, are we really being asked to accept that children in Chatham and Rochester are suffering ‘emotional abuse’ (whatever that is) over six times more than children in Canterbury and Ramsgate?

Or is something rather odd going on in Medway Council Social Services? And if it is, are we justified, to use the old Watergate expression, to ‘follow the money’?

The post Medway Council’s Emotional Abuse appeared first on Christian Voice UK.

Southampton City Council heads the adoption lottery

Research into adoption and care rates has revealed a postcode lottery.  Children in some areas in England are 12 times more likely to be removed and adopted by child protection units.

The BBC and the Bureau of Investigative Journalism sent Freedom of Information Act enquiries to all English local authorities.  Half provided full responses.  The BBC reported the results in this article.  The data reveal significant variation in adoption rates.

Twelve times higher

For children born in 2011-12 the chances of being placed for adoption by the age of five were 12 times higher in Southampton than Greenwich.

Twenty authorities had significantly increased adoption rates compared with children born five years before.

Andy Bilson, emeritus professor of social work at the University of Central Lancashire, wanted to compare child protection practice across all local authorities in England.

He sent a series of detailed questions to all 152 bodies, asking how many children, born between 1 April 2011 and 31 March 2012, had by the age of five been investigated by social services, and how many had been permanently removed from their families, adopted or given placement orders by family courts.  He asked the same questions about children born five years before.

Huge variation

Professor Bilson received full responses from 70 local authorities and used ONS data to calculate adoption rates.

The Southampton Coat of Arms is surmounted by a figure of justice.

This revealed a huge variation: in Southampton, almost one in 50 children had been adopted or had placement orders imposed.  In Greenwich, which has a similar socio-economic profile, the rate was a twelfth of that – more like 1 in 600.

In Southampton there was a marked rise in adoption rates for the age group, compared with children born five years before. The FOI response also showed the authority had investigated many more families. The number of detailed investigations, carried out under section 47 of the children act, had risen from 215 to 454.  There was a similar pattern in 19 other authorities.

Adoption promoted

For nearly 20 years, both Labour and Conservative governments have promoted adoption as a way of getting children out of care.  Children, they said, often move from one foster family to another.  They fare poorly in education. Some are abuse in care.  Girls in care have figured highly in all the grooming scandals, from Rotherham, to Rochdale, to Bradford and Oxford. Outcomes for children in care are poor.  Adopted children do much better than children in care.

The Blair Government set targets to get children into adoption.  They gave local authorities financial incentives.  All local authorities did was take more potentially adoptable children into care to chase the money.  Children were too often taken by force from parents who wanted to keep their children.  But the system was more interested in taking their children for financial gain than helping them to stay together as a family.

The mindset persists today.  Professor Bilson found in the authorities where adoption had risen, the numbers in care had risen too.  In authorities where adoption was stable or had fallen, care numbers had fallen.

“This is the exact opposite of what you’d expect,” he told the BBC.  “It points instead to a difference in the way that children are being removed from parents.”

Southampton’s Blake Fowler

Blake Fowler’s sad case drove social workers to take more children into care ‘just in case’.

The BBC asked Southampton why it had changed its approach.  The authority responded: “All children who were adopted were subject to rigorous scrutiny by the legal system and the Family Court, both of which agreed with the Local Authority that not only had the threshold for a Care Order been met, but that the Local Authority had exhausted all opportunity and support for any potential family or other carers: adoption was therefore the only realistic option.”

However, the BBC suggests another influence may be at work in Southampton. In 2011, there were four child deaths, one especially high profile.  Blake Fowler died of a head injury aged seven.  Concerns had been raised about him since he was a toddler: the authority were later severely criticised for failing to act.

Sir Mark Hedley, who for many years was a High Court judge in the Family Division, told the BBC: “It would be wrong to suggest that one is the cause of the other. But there is no doubt that public criticism of social workers if children have suffered will lead to an increased priority being given to child protection at the expense of maintaining family groups.”

Action varies

Social workers have to intervene if they believe a child is at risk of significant harm. But ‘significant’ is not defined in statute. Sir Mark says action will vary from one authority to another.

“There will inevitably be a wide range of views in relation to what is significant harm,” he said.  “Just as there will be a range of views about the desirability of intervening in families in the first place.”

Professor Bilson found that far more children are being put on child protection plans because of “emotional abuse” and neglect – 82% of the children in the younger group. Again, these are terms which can be subject to interpretation.

Medway’s emotional abuse

Last year, Christian Voice uncovered wide discrepancies in practice for the ill-defined category of ’emotional abuse’.  The Government’s most recent figures showed wide variations in numbers of children taken into care and reasons given. The discrepancy showed up widely in the contrast between the two councils in Kent. They were Kent County Council and Medway Council.   We have been following some terrible cases of injustice in Medway.

Kent County Council took 1,049 children into care in 2015-2016. The population of Kent CC area at the last census was 1,541,900. Under 20’s were 360,605. So a Kent child has a 0.29% chance of being ‘in care’.

Medway Council took 539 children into care in 2015-2016. The population of Medway’s council area at the last census was 263,925. Under 20’s were 74,000. So a Medway child has a 0.73% chance of being ‘in care’.
In Kent County Council, 656 children were taken for neglect, 63% of the total and higher than the national average for England. The Council took 203 children for ‘emotional abuse’. That is 19%, lower than England’s national average.

But in Medway, 237 children (44%) were taken for neglect and 257 (48%) for emotional abuse. Given Medway’s far lower population, are we really being asked to accept that children in Chatham and Rochester are suffering ‘emotional abuse’ (whatever that is) over six times more than children in Canterbury and Ramsgate?

Dramatic picture

Over the last decade, the number of children in care has risen by 134%.  That means for every four cases then there are seven now.  Many talk of the crisis in the care system, the family courts overwhelmed by cases.

Why this happens is less clear, though council support for families, so-called early intervention, has been dramatically reduced thanks to cuts, and rising poverty increases the pressure. For many months now local authorities have been warning that more families are in crisis, and that child protection is becoming an emergency service.

Professor Bilson’s research provides a dramatic picture of varying approaches in different authorities.

Best interests of the system

The Department for Education said: “Every decision regarding adoption is made with the best interests of the child at its heart. Many children and their adoptive families have had their lives transformed by adoption, and we are determined to support them every step of the way.

“On top of this, there are of course a number of alternative options available, including long-term fostering and special guardianship, which may be chosen when it is best for the child.”

But many parents tell Christian Voice care decisions are too often made in the best interests of the system.  We have seen outrageous injustice in what is now a child protection industry.  Social workers, solicitors, barristers, court psychologists, even judges all depend on this industry for their income.

We’ll really appreciate your support
Click below to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings

Click on the social media links below to share this post:

The post Southampton heads adoption lottery appeared first on Christian Voice UK.

Eugene Lukjanenko (second from right) celebrates winning his rooftop protest battle outside Chatham Magistrates Court. But his fight to have Medway return his son continues.

A father trying to have his son released from Medway Social Services has walked free from court after being charged following a rooftop protest last year.

Medway abuse

Eugene Lukjanenko wanted to make people aware of the way in which social services have treated his son. Social workers took ‘J’ for alleged and unspecified ‘emotional abuse’.

This catch-all clause is more prevalent in Medway than elsewhere. as we have previously reported. ‘J’ is now fifteen and should be released next year in any case. However, Medway have told Mr Lukjanenko they want to cling on to him until he is eighteen.

In actual fact, the son could walk out of foster care tomorrow and return to his father and Medway could do nothing about it. Children have done that. But we all have different gifts and temperaments. Furthermore, the time a child spends in the ‘care’ of a local authority gives social workers ample time to brainwash him. In J’s case this has not been totally successful. On his father’s birthday last year he sent his dad a concealed note. It read: ‘I know things are difficult for you and for me, but please don’t give up.’

Moreover, we now understand Medway social workers have told J not to give his father his mobile number or email address. On top of that, they have told him if he contacts his father without their permission he will never see him again. That may be an empty threat, but it is sadly typical of Medway’s behaviour and indeed of the whole child care system.

Porch Roof Protest

So it was that on Thursday last week (11th October 2018) Eugene Lukjanenko appeared before Medway Magistrates. On 5th September 2018 he climbed the porch roof of the council building in Chatham.
The council wanted to prosecute My Lukjanenko for the disruption he caused. They also sought a restraining order to prevent him visiting any Medway Council building without prior written authorisation.

Several of his supporters came to the court to show their solidarity. They remained at the court throughout the day to see how the case would proceed.

From the start of the day there was much legal wrangling. Medway Council were unsure how to proceed with the case. Initially they wanted to prosecute and send Mr Lukjanenko to prison. This would not be for the first time. He was previously imprisoned for refusing to observe a family court injunction.

Prison officers supportive

A Family Court Judge imposed this to prevent him talking about his case in public. After repeatedly breaching the injunction on social media, Judge Richard Scarratt decided not to tolerate this any longer. He gave Mr Lukjanenko two suspended sentences.

Mr Lukjanenko continued to use social media to bring Medway’s treatment of his son to public attention. Finally, Judge Scarratt sentenced Mr Lukjanenko to eight months in prison.
During his time in HMP Elmley, Mr Lukjanenko went on hunger strike in protest. The result of this was a deal with Medway. They agreed to increase his contact with ‘J’ from four times to twelve times a year. Prison officers were highly supportive of Mr Lukjanenko during this time. They found it unusual to have someone in their cells who had committed no crime.

At Medway Magistrates Court, Mr Lukjanenko said if they wanted to send him to prison again, he would happily go. He says he has faced at the hands of Medway Council. Furthermore, this was in stark contrast with the way he was compassionately treated in prison.

More legal wrangling

After almost three hours of discussion behind closed doors, Mr Lukjanenko’s barrister came back with an offer from Medway: The council would offer no evidence and not proceed with the prosecution. In return they wanted the defendant to agree to a restraining order. This would have prevented him from visiting any of four Medway Council buildings without prior written approval. If he did not agree, they would proceed with the prosecution. Mr Lukjanenko tore up the paper with the list of council addresses. He flatly refused to sign anything preventing him from visiting the council buildings.

The legal wrangling continued between Mr Lukjanenko, his barrister and the barrister working for Medway Council. The case dragged long into the afternoon. Still at this point no one had actually been in the court room. Th hearing was originally scheduled for 10am.

My Lukjanenko decided he was prepared to agree to sign the restraining order for just one of the buildings. This was the one he had done his rooftop protest on. However, he absolutely refused to agree to not being allowed near the other three council buildings. The council were not happy with this and refused to change their position. Mr Lukjanenko was to sign the restraining order agreeing not to approach any of the four buildings, or they would proceed with the prosecution.

Restraining Order

Then, in a sudden change of heart, the council agreed to offer no evidence. Instead they would press for a hearing on the restraining order alone. They wanted their barrister to show in court why Mr Lukjanenko should be barred from all four council buildings.

Mr Lukjanenko decided he wanted to defend himself against the council in the hearing on the restraining order. However, to give a proper defence he would need to name the social workers involved in his case. The trouble was, a previously issued family court injunction specifically prohibited this. If he mentioned the names of social workers Ann Domeney and Ian Sutherland in court, he would be in breach of this injunction.

His legal team contacted the family court judge who had issued this injunction to ask if he would temporarily lift it for this case. This would allow him to give a proper defence. The family court judge was resolute in saying no. Judge Scarratt said under no circumstances was his injunction to be lifted.

Free to go

With the injunction not being lifted and Mr Lukjanenko unable to give a proper defence, his barrister told his opposite number he would argue in court this would result in an unfair trial. Finally, after almost six hours, everyone was called into the court room. The council offered no evidence for the original prosecution. Dramatically, at the last minute they instructed their legal team not to proceed with the restraining order.

Mr Lukjanenko was free to go! Hours of wrangling, threats and blackmail were ultimately defeated by Mr Lukjanenko’s refusal to bow to the whims of the council. He is now able to continue his campaign to try and get his son back. There is no doubt he will end up in court again in the future, but in this case, justice was done.

Pray for Eugene Lukjanenko and his son ‘J’. The word of God says:

Malachi 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
Mal 4:6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

Read our previous articles:

Father in care case faces protest charge

Medway Council’s Emotional Abuse

Medway Council took children because home ‘untidy’

Judge finds father in contempt of court again

The post Father freed after rooftop protest appeared first on Christian Voice UK.

‘EL’ outside the court. Face obscured because Family Court rules forbid the identification of children or parents.

A father fighting a local authority in the family court narrowly escaped jail for contempt of court yesterday.

We may only identify him as ‘EL’ and his fourteen-year-old son as ‘J’ on instruction from Judge Richard Scarratt, pursuant to rules designed to protect the secrecy of the family courts.

[At the time of writiing, we were not aware we could name the father under rules covering ‘committal proceedings’ (sending people to prison) in the civil courts.  But we shall not correct it.  The article stands.]

Father posted notes and pictures

The judge said EL posted notes, an image and the name of his son, identifying him as a child in care.

He also had a picture of himself and his son on Twitter and has posted tweets identifying ‘ J’ and his school. Another post identified a contact centre and its manager.

These activities contravened a reporting restrictions order in the case made by Mrs Justice Theis in September 2015.

MarkChaloner  – represented Medway Council but acted decently throughout.

It was never stated in evidence or in the submissions of Mark Chaloner, barrister for Medway Council, precisely how any member of the public could actually identify the son from this information. Nevertheless, Judge Scarratt decided the case was proven.

Local authorities fear the light

But His Honour criticised Medway Council for seeking (in vain) to have the case heard in private. ‘Only in rare cases should committal proceedings be heard behind closed doors and this is not one of them’, said Judge Scarratt.

EL’s supporters were consequently in court. Many of them were also parents of children unjustly, they told this reporter, in the care of local authorities.

Attempts such as that by Medway Council to hold the case in private only strengthen the public’s view that local authorities are ashamed of what they do in the family court.

Suspended sentence in family court

His Honour Judge Richard Scarratt

When it came to sentencing, His Honour was clearly conscious that if he sent EL to prison it would hand the father a publicity coup. A fine would also run of the risk of non-payment and consequent committal. So he handed down a suspended sentence of 56 days and told EL to behave himself for a year.

EL and J are only allowed to meet for a couple of hours four times a year, in the ‘contact centre’. The father says Medway Council have not always kept to that ‘care plan’. Mr Chaloner, who acted decently throughout, undertook to make sure Medway would arrange a meeting this month. Judge Scarratt demanded a report next month on that matter.

Father’s campaign will continue

EL is clearly not going to let things rest. He set up a new protest on the steps of Canterbury Combined Court immediately after the hearing. His campaign will continue, he told this reporter, until his son is returned.

Read why ‘J’ is in care, how Medway Council encouraged him to play a violent video game which Anders Breivik used for training, and how a psychologist invented a new anti-Semitic medical condition: ‘inherited holocaust trauma’ which allows local authorities to remove the children of Jewish parents.

Jer 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.

1John 3:10 In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.

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.

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 …

Continue reading

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 …

Continue reading