IRISH 2nd – 8th November 2007 ISSUE 702
FAMILY
PRESS
FEATURE
The
by Jack Frost
The last person to be convicted of witchcraft in
It is worth savouring this little cameo from the past, as a comparison with the present. How things have changed; or have they? Today in the UK, the superstition has been given political legitimacy, by the Blair/Brown Labour Government and executed by its cosy, yet solid labyrinthine links with social workers, local government officials and a myriad of ‘public officials’ , who have used their incestuous relationships, to create an industry in secret and milk an absolute fortune from the public purse; whilst ensuring that they all remain unaccountable and their conduct and actions, completely unscrutinized.
Whereas Jane Wenham in 1711, had jurymen and a wise judge; today in the UK, huge numbers of parents are falsely accused of abusing their children or neglecting them, in secret Family Courts that operate without a jury, little opportunity to challenge the opinions that pass for ‘evidence’, nor to challenge the identity, the CVs or the integrity of those making the accusations. A number of the accusers are known flawed characters, fraudsters or worse. Thus resulting in children being forcibly taken into care and then given away for adoption to other ‘connections’ within this secret gulag. Much of this is to meet ‘adoption targets’. Should the parents complain and inform their friends, the press or the media; imprisonment after a further ‘secret sham trial’, beckons. All this is documented and has been the result of a warped ideology, posing as genuine concern; emboldened to use summary powers; but reassured that the public have no recourse to due process, the rule of law, or a transparent system of justice and access to the press. Yet all are prerequisites of a modern democracy.
I first came by this huge scandal, after my wife and I were falsely accused of abusing our daughter Heidi, then 12 years old. Though Heidi was very ill and this was reflected in her blood test results, her physical appearance and other symptoms, such as diarrhoea, intermittent fevers, lack of sleep, aching joints, allergies and a diagnosis of the Glandular Fever virus having also been intermittently detected. However, we were not aware that my wife had inadvertently slighted a paediatrician who was apparently treating Heidi. My wife had made the cardinal mistake of seeking a referral to a specialist, because she was so worried about Heidi’s deteriorating condition. This was the catalyst for the false allegations and the involvement of social workers. I have since learned, that our experience is not at all uncommon.
Social workers informed the Family Courts, that two consultant paediatricians, Dr. Aloke Agrawal and Dr. RN Mahesh Babu, had alleged that my wife was ‘inducing the illness’ in Heidi and Heidi was imagining the illness. This is the Holy Grail of accusations; Munchausen’s Syndrome By Proxy. To deny it or defend oneself against accusations of MSBP, is apparently a confirmation of this Walter Mitty condition. This, despite the fact that other specialists had confirmed that Heidi was genuinely seriously ill. However, the secret Family Courts, never allow a little matter of the truth, to get in the way of its ambitions and supporting its family of Guligans. There is, if you hadn’t realised, a veritable thriving yet dependant food chain of social workers, charities, local government officials and ‘public officials’, whose livelihoods and careers depend on instigating care proceedings and taking ever more children to feed the conveyor belt of linked foster care and adoption agencies. Which agencies are themselves, often owned or managed by ex-social workers and ex- local government officials! Indeed, Liz Railton, the Director of Essex Children’s Services and Anthony Michael Sharp, the counties adoption manager, both senior local government officials, were also simultaneously, directors and trustees of the huge charity, the British Association for Adoption & Fostering( BAAF)! And this crazy anomaly, this blatant ‘conflict of interests’, is still allowed to continue. Unlike members of Parliament and elected councillors; local government officials are not required to complete a register of outside interests; thus encouraging questionable practises that they can use to their advantage. On every occasion, it is the parents and children who are disadvantaged or victimised by state officials and processes. But always in ‘secret’, and always, the press are banned from reporting the details.
The key to the success of this incestuous industry, that I have named, ‘The Gulag of The Family Courts’, is the secrecy under which this disreputable court functions. It might astound you to learn that a court in a supposed modern European democracy, functions under absolute secrecy; but that unfortunately is the unpalatable truth. The reason given for this abomination of a system of injustice, is, ‘to protect the identity of the child victims’. And this is reeled off ad nauseum.. Mind you, the criminal courts hear the most violent and sadistic child murder and sexual cases; yet admit the press and media; who report all the details, with the exception of the identity of the child in the case. There is little doubt that that the Family Courts have been protecting the villainy of public officials who have been engaged in presenting flawed and fraudulent cases, together with, irregularities in process and procedures. The presence of the press & media, would result in unbridled exposure. Hence the ‘secrecy’ is enforced by draconian threats and punishment; immediate imprisonment.
Harriet Harman MP QC, the Justice Minister, in a Parliamentary reply to Sally Keeble MP ( Northampton North) on 13 June 2006, admitted her surprise to learn that “ something like 200 persons had been imprisoned after secret Family Court trials”. Note the telling phrase, “ something like”. Because even the Justice Minister has no real idea of what is going on in the disreputable UK Family Courts.
Writing in the Guardian on 10 April 2007, Harriet Harman , The Justice Minister stated “ From opposing sides there’s been a critique and there’s been no way to save public confidence in Family Courts, when there’s no rebuttal you can give, there’s no evidence of what they’re actually doing, because it’s in private.” Then in the Mail on Sunday, on 4 June 2007, Harriet Harman wrote; “ public confidence depends on public scrutiny. Something has to be seen, to be believed and justice not only has to be done, it has to be seen to be done. I have concluded that it is impossible to defend a system from accusations of bias and discrimination, if it operates behind closed doors. Even as the Minister of Justice, I find the rules makes it hard for me to establish what is going on.”. Is this not an astounding admission! In which Third World dictatorship, has such an admission been made? How then has the UK Government had the temerity to criticise the Burmese junta, or President Robert Mugabe?
Justice Munby ( High Court Judge. Family Division),
at a meeting of MPs, senior judges and invited journalists, on 2 May 2006, in
the presence of Sir Mark Potter, ( President of the Family Division of High
Court Judges), stated that holding hearings to take away persons children and
place them in care and adoption, in the absence of the press & media, was 'INDEFENSIBLE'!
My quest for ‘insider information’ has led me to speak with hundreds of parents and I have been a lay advocate in Family Court cases. What I have witnessed in the Family Courts, read from court documents and been informed by parents themselves, has been truly shocking. I have learned that it is very common for judges not to release their Final Judgments to the parents whose children have been taken into care or given away for adoption. Without a copy of the Final Judgment, a challenge in the form of an appeal, cannot be mounted. Since there is a time limit of 21 days in which to launch an appeal; without the Final Judgment, the parents are forced to abandon all hope of seeking a remedy in a higher court. In some cases, parents are still trying to obtain a copy of the Final Judgment, years after the conclusion of the case.
It should be appreciated, that some parents who were too overcome, or physically or mentally affected at the time their children were forcibly taken from them, are even in doubt as to whether the case ever did progress through the Family Court. In some cases there is absolutely no record of the case. Just how was it that the children were taken? Has there been an element of abduction by persons or officials; who would know that parents who were not well versed in the intricacies of the law, would be so confused, that their children could be taken and handed to friends or relatives of social workers. This too is now being considered, because all the records have conveniently disappeared, in a number of cases.
Such suspicions might at first, be considered an exaggeration. Until one considers the findings of many who have been looking closely at the secretive Family Courts. In a number of cases, requests for the Final Judgments have been refused. Then delayed. Then when there has been an agreement to release the Final Judgment, months or years later, the parents have been informed through the Court Service, that ‘the judge wishes to make some alterations , before the parents receive the document’. But how can one alter the Final Judgment? It is either Final or there is something not quite right! Some parents report that the Final Judgment received, had been altered from the judgment delivered in court. Some report that there have been details removed and/or some added, when they finally received their copy.
In one case I am aware of, a mother was pressured by her barrister, to agree to her children being adopted. She refused in court. The judge then decided ‘to release the children for adoption’. After the case, the mother was cleverly directed to a room in the court, where her lawyer and the local authority legal team, insisted she sign particular papers. She refused. They locked the doors and continued to pressure her. She wouldn’t even read the papers. She then fled to the opposite end of the room and clawed at the door, hoping to draw the attention of some court officials on the other side. Despite her pleas for help, no assistance came. She was left as a heap on the floor. But she had not signed the papers. Though what can it be that requires a mother to sign papers, after the Final Judgment? I am aware of other similar examples of conduct by lawyers and the local authority, that would be exposed, were the press allowed to report the details.
Many parents report that their requests for transcripts of their case, are ignored, obstructed or refused. It is a requirement, that court proceedings are recorded. In many Family Courts, the recording machines are not switched on, or do not work. Some parents have received transcripts that have been altered; details removed and others added. No prizes for guessing why the press & media are considered a threat, by the Guligans.
The near 300 years since Jane Wenham’s trial, to the present, have seen many changes. The UK has no reason to bring back the Witches’ Courts of the dark and superstitious days. The Family Courts are doing the job, very nicely; thank you!
…………………………………………………END…………………………………
( Jack Frost is the author of “ The Gulag Of The Family Courts”. Book 1
ISBN 9 781430 316350. The book was ‘launched’ in the House of Commons on 16 May 2007.
PO BOX 9900 Dublin 1