Have i missed anything out before i send it.
Responses in bold italics.
Edinburgh Adoption Case.
Thank you for your e-mail following the media coverage of the City of Edinburgh Council adoption case. Your comments are acknowledged and noted.
You will appreciate that the Council cannot comment or provide any information relating to individual people to whom it provides a service, however, a public statement regarding this case has been released by Councillor Marilyne Maclaren, the convenor of the Council’s Education, Children and Families Committee and Gillian Tee, the Director of Education, Children and Families. A copy of this statement is enclosed for your information.
Media coverage of adoption case
Statement from Cllr Marilyne Maclaren, Convenor of Education, Children and Families and Gillian Tee, Director of Education, Children and Families
It is a tragedy for all children in need of care, and prospective adopters or foster carers, that there has been so much reporting and comment without the full facts being known. As with all cases involving vulnerable children, their interests are best protected by their circumstances remaining confidential. This is the very reason why their identity is protected and that generally, there is a principle of confidentiality covering the proceedings of - for example - family courts.
Confidentiality for protection is understandable but secrecy for control is dangerous. Manipulation of the children and family members must stop now. The families know the child/ren already but social services just blank them out or do you feel the social services should really be a law unto themselves forgetting all other family members.
We only ever intervene in the lives of children where this is necessary to safeguard and promote their welfare.
Our grandparents are afraid to contact social services? Because they are afraid the children will be taken away and they are the first to lose contact with the children in your secrecy policy. The Charter for Grandchildren supports the view that contact with Grandparents is generally in a child's best interest, promoting their welfare should take this into consideration
Our first commitment to children is to promote their upbringing in their own family. Where this isn't possible, we first explore the child's extended family and social contacts to secure a permanent placement for them. Whenever appropriate, we support extended family or friends to legally acquire and fulfill the same responsibilities as those of birth families.
Not in our member’s experience there is no evidence that makes this obvious. “We don’t need to talk to you” is the favourite saying. If ‘The Charter for Grandchildren ’ was mandatory for professionals like yourself it would ensure children have the best that grandparents can provide.
Placement decisions are based on their ability and willingness to care for the child or children, not arbitrary factors such as age, disability, religion, gender or sexuality.
Was the Edinburgh grandparent not suitable with a little support from social services? Council say: Placement decisions are based on their ability and willingness to care for the child or children, not arbitrary factors such as age, disability. The couple said concerns about their age and health had led social workers to consider them unsuitable to look after the children. The grandfather suffers from angina, while the grandmother has diabetes and high blood pressure.
We hear of too many cases where willingness has not been considered. Social Services supporting Grandparents regards their grandchildren are unusual in our experience.
Where we need to look out with extended family and friends, we aim to identify a number of suitable families from which to secure the best possible match. However, there is always a shortage of people able and willing to provide care, whether through adoption or fostering.
There is an army of grandparents out there and most of them would move heaven and earth to make sure their kids are in a stable environment. Our experience is they are not given the opportunity with or without support.
In all cases, approving people as adopters and matching them with children is a very rigorous process. At both stages a panel of experts is involved and typically includes social workers, health care professionals, a child care solicitor and representatives of children's charities. A thorough assessment and extensive checks are also carried out on all prospective adoptive parents.
Are such stringent checks really necessary in the birth family? Social services are famous for already having full dossiers on a child’s family gathered by social workers who are also famous for making errors of judgment. Extended families are usually defensive with social workers because of the erroneous data built up that is never erased even if the claim was false. Don’t you realies extended families fear social workers and have for quite a while nicknamed them SS likened to Nazi Germany. They are afraid to approach your organization.. Perhaps a very fair, honest and open process would be more in the child's best interest.
This is what is expected of us, and rightly so.
Equally, the care of children has never been more regulated or under such close scrutiny. Not only is there national legislation which covers our duties and responsibilities, but we have well-established policies which we stand by.
With so many people complaining about your policies, which you stand by does it not tell you something must be wrong. Social services with their power and arrogance could only come away with a statement like that. “We are untouchable” If they were fair we would be no need to demonstrate. Policies which despite government guidance, ignoreing 'The Charter for Grandchildren’ are not working in the best interests of our children. Chris Bain of the government http://gapukinfo.blogspot.com/ on thios blog under Information has sent me a letter the other day allocating the responsiblity for implementing 'The Charter for Grandchildren' to local authorities.
The courts, which have been involved in this particular case, provide robust support for the actions taken, Inspection of councils by independent bodies, coupled with due legal processes, provide the checks and balances necessary to ensure authorities like ours provide effective care for children. Where there are lessons to be learned, we apply those to our approach to child care. However, we would not introduce prejudice based on sexual orientation any more than we would on age. .
It is well known the courts would not dare go against the recommendation of social services no matter what it was for fear of making an incorrect judgment. That is not judging
It would be of great public interest to know how many children have been placed for adoption by their grandparents when Social Services have been involved. Perhaps you would be good enough to provide that information.
The policies, procedures and people involved in making the decisions about the care of children are carefully monitored and regulated. There is very robust accountability built into the process. We have confidence in our staff and are proud of the work they do in often very difficult circumstances. The problems with recruiting social workers in particular should make it very clear what a challenging role it is.
Is it not the case that people do not want the job because of the general fear and distrust people have of social workers? Once a much revered service that people could turn to, to help them over hard times.. Are you sure all these roles and regulations are not being carried out by social workers that have too big a case load and cut corners to reach their targets? We had a meeting in Kilmarnock with chief social workers and they were astonished and said this does not happen in our area.
You are so much out of touch with your own shop floor workers. It would be much better for families if their education included a common sense approach and some ongoing accountability.
While it may be convenient to reveal the particular circumstances of this case, it would breach an important principle and our statutory obligations, both of which are crucial to the well-being and security of vulnerable children. All we can say is that the professional view is that the adoptive couple will provide a safe, secure and loving environment for these children. They have obviously already satisfied the rigorous standards expected of potential adopters.
The adoptive procedure only looks after the physical side of children. The emotional and spiritual sides are not taken into consideration.
The family circumstances are complex, as is often the case, but we have involved them throughout the process. These are always difficult decisions but we are confident that we have made the right decision and have no reason to doubt that the staff involved have acted with anything other than professionalism and sensitivity.
The whole system is obviously set up like a business. Taken as the usual saying is “Snatch the child into care’. ‘Groom them for adoption’ by telling the child its family does not want to see them again. Then adopt them ‘without consent’ from anyone. If this is not the case why are their so many grandparents contacting us to say the have been by-passed or told by social workers you are irrelevant persons we don’t need to acknowledge you. And if something is not right and say so the are regarded as nonco-operative and ignored.
The Council Leader is entirely supportive of the views expressed here.
Statement from Cllr Marilyne Maclaren, Convenor of Education, Children and Families and Gillian Tee, Director of Education, Children and Families
If you can excuse my forthrightness “what do you know about how the front line troops work? This statement looks well prepared “but it is not what is happening in practice”
We are demonstrating because of the business like policies on adoption are treating children as commodities and not considering the extended family, just to speed up the process. Children need their family, Two parents, grandparents and further extended family to maintain their identity, stability and wellbeing.
It is well know children who lack these basic needs are low achievers, and turn to gangs in their teens for family comforts. They could be the thugs or good citizens of the future depending on how they are treated when young. Good well established roots grow into stout trees.
We are amazed that you obviously cannot comprehend this. Ignore this today and you reap the troubles in the future.
Jimmy Deuchars & June Loudoun
Grandparents Apart UK
22 Alness crescent
Glasgow G52 1PJ
0141 882 5658
http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk
Friday, February 13, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Children need there grandparents.
Our granchlidren need us not only to love them but to care and look out for them,i have contact now with my grandkids but i remember when i had no contact at all,i saw what it done to them, scared to come to close in case i was gone again, i know this feeling, i know how i coped,feeling like my world had ended they felt the same way to.parents have no right to do this to there kids its a form of cruelty,i know my grandkids hold back the tears in case the get punished and for what,loving me.i coun my blessings as i know they can be taken away at any time,what right does a parent have to hurt the kids to spite me,even to this day i do not understand this social services to me dont care if they did they woul ask the child where they wanted to stay i hope one day this is made law,ho else have these kids to look out for them if not us.when im with them i can face the world when im apart i just crumble like a living death.time we all took a stand make the law realise we are not the threat.
And they wonder why we are demonstrating
and demanding action?
If the links do not work. Copy and paste them into your address bar.
Couple who had three children put up for adoption in 'miscarriage of justice' cannot have them returned, judges rule
Full stories:- Warning! Graphic description..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1141811/Couple-children-adoption-miscarriage-justice-returned-judges-rule.htm l
Rhys battered to death like Baby P (The Sun) http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/news/archive/2009/febuary/11/01.htm
Full stories:- Warning! Graphic description and photographs.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Sanam-Navsarka-Child-Abuse-Case-Mother-Zahbeena-Navsarka-And-Her-Partner-Subhan-Anwar-Guilty/Media-Gallery/200902215221335
A peaceful Demonstration against Social Services adoption & children’s policies
Wednesday 4th March 11.am
At
George Square
Glasgow City Centre.
Grandparents, Mothers, Fathers, Step-parents, Uncles, Aunts.
In fact everyone who cares about children is welcome.
Grandparents Apart UK, www.grandparentsapart.co.uk
0141 882 5658
Further information. http://gapukinfo.blogspot.com/
If the links do not work. Copy and paste them into your address bar.
Couple who had three children put up for adoption in 'miscarriage of justice' cannot have them returned, judges rule
Full stories:- Warning! Graphic description..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1141811/Couple-children-adoption-miscarriage-justice-returned-judges-rule.htm l
Rhys battered to death like Baby P (The Sun) http://www.stopinjusticenow.com/news/archive/2009/febuary/11/01.htm
Full stories:- Warning! Graphic description and photographs.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Sanam-Navsarka-Child-Abuse-Case-Mother-Zahbeena-Navsarka-And-Her-Partner-Subhan-Anwar-Guilty/Media-Gallery/200902215221335
A peaceful Demonstration against Social Services adoption & children’s policies
Wednesday 4th March 11.am
At
George Square
Glasgow City Centre.
Grandparents, Mothers, Fathers, Step-parents, Uncles, Aunts.
In fact everyone who cares about children is welcome.
Grandparents Apart UK, www.grandparentsapart.co.uk
0141 882 5658
Further information. http://gapukinfo.blogspot.com/
gm.tv
did you see gm TV this morning , Denise Roberts . Tim HEMMING . and the solicitor for couple who wrongfully had their children taken away was on . the couple themselves will be on gm tv on monday17.2.2009. they will be discussing their possible next step which may include going to European court of human rights . i shall be watching this story with interest to see what unfolds. i was shocked to realise that in family law courts where a doctor has found what he thinks is abuse and deems the parents responsible ,you cannot ask for a second opinion or you could be sent to prison . so no way of proving innocence ,how ridiculous is that . the judge said they [the parents in this case ] although now proven innocent cannot have their children back as 3 years had passed and would cause too much upset all round . i am sure it will be more damaging for these children to be told later in their lives their parents were innocent but we decided you could not go back to your family. surely they could slowly be reintroduced back into these children's lives. and what about the rights of the child that they have with them, surely this child has the right to know it,s brothers and sisters .
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Edinburgh Council Re-The Demonstration.
Thank you for your e-mail following the media coverage of the City of Edinburgh Council adoption case. Your comments are acknowledged and noted.
You will appreciate that the Council cannot comment or provide any information relating to individual people to whom it provides a service, however, a public statement regarding this case has been released by Councillor Marilyne Maclaren, the convenor of the Council’s Education, Children and Families Committee and Gillian Tee, the Director of Education, Children and Families. A copy of this statement is enclosed for your information.
Media coverage of adoption case
Statement from Cllr Marilyne Maclaren, Convenor of Education, Children and Families and Gillian Tee, Director of Education, Children and Families
It is a tragedy for all children in need of care, and prospective adopters or foster carers, that there has been so much reporting and comment without the full facts being known. As with all cases involving vulnerable children, their interests are best protected by their circumstances remaining confidential. This is the very reason why their identity is protected and that generally, there is a principle of confidentiality covering the proceedings of - for example - family courts.
We only ever intervene in the lives of children where this is necessary to safeguard and promote their welfare. Our first commitment to children is to promote their upbringing in their own family. Where this isn't possible, we first explore the child's extended family and social contacts to secure a permanent placement for them. Whenever appropriate, we support extended family or friends to legally acquire and fulfil the same responsibilities as those of birth families.
Placement decisions are based on their ability and willingness to care for the child or children, not arbitrary factors such as age, disability, religion, gender or sexuality. Where we need to look out with extended family and friends, we aim to identify a number of suitable families from which to secure the best possible match. However, there is always a shortage of people able and willing to provide care, whether through adoption or fostering.
In all cases, approving people as adopters and matching them with children is a very rigorous process. At both stages a panel of experts is involved and typically includes social workers, health care professionals, a child care solicitor and representatives of children's charities. A thorough assessment and extensive checks are also carried out on all prospective adoptive parents. This is what is expected of us, and rightly so.
Equally, the care of children has never been more regulated or under such close scrutiny. Not only is there national legislation which covers our duties and responsibilities, but we have well-established policies which we stand by. The courts, which have been involved in this particular case, provide robust support for the actions taken. The inspection of councils by independent bodies, coupled with due legal processes, provide the checks and balances necessary to ensure authorities like ours provide effective care for children. Where there are lessons to be learned, we apply those to our approach to child care. However, we would not introduce prejudice based on sexual orientation any more than we would on age.
The policies, procedures and people involved in making the decisions about the care of children are carefully monitored and regulated. There is very robust accountability built into the process. We have confidence in our staff and are proud of the work they do in often very difficult circumstances. The problems with recruiting social workers in particular should make it very clear what a challenging role it is.
While it may be convenient to reveal the particular circumstances of this case, it would breach an important principle and our statutory obligations, both of which are crucial to the well-being and security of vulnerable children. All we can say is that the professional view is that the adoptive couple will provide a safe, secure and loving environment for these children. They have obviously already satisfied the rigorous standards expected of potential adopters.
The family circumstances are complex, as is often the case, but we have involved them throughout the process. These are always difficult decisions but we are confident that we have made the right decision and have no reason to doubt that the staff involved have acted with anything other than professionalism and sensitivity.
The Council Leader is entirely supportive of the views expressed here.
You will appreciate that the Council cannot comment or provide any information relating to individual people to whom it provides a service, however, a public statement regarding this case has been released by Councillor Marilyne Maclaren, the convenor of the Council’s Education, Children and Families Committee and Gillian Tee, the Director of Education, Children and Families. A copy of this statement is enclosed for your information.
Media coverage of adoption case
Statement from Cllr Marilyne Maclaren, Convenor of Education, Children and Families and Gillian Tee, Director of Education, Children and Families
It is a tragedy for all children in need of care, and prospective adopters or foster carers, that there has been so much reporting and comment without the full facts being known. As with all cases involving vulnerable children, their interests are best protected by their circumstances remaining confidential. This is the very reason why their identity is protected and that generally, there is a principle of confidentiality covering the proceedings of - for example - family courts.
We only ever intervene in the lives of children where this is necessary to safeguard and promote their welfare. Our first commitment to children is to promote their upbringing in their own family. Where this isn't possible, we first explore the child's extended family and social contacts to secure a permanent placement for them. Whenever appropriate, we support extended family or friends to legally acquire and fulfil the same responsibilities as those of birth families.
Placement decisions are based on their ability and willingness to care for the child or children, not arbitrary factors such as age, disability, religion, gender or sexuality. Where we need to look out with extended family and friends, we aim to identify a number of suitable families from which to secure the best possible match. However, there is always a shortage of people able and willing to provide care, whether through adoption or fostering.
In all cases, approving people as adopters and matching them with children is a very rigorous process. At both stages a panel of experts is involved and typically includes social workers, health care professionals, a child care solicitor and representatives of children's charities. A thorough assessment and extensive checks are also carried out on all prospective adoptive parents. This is what is expected of us, and rightly so.
Equally, the care of children has never been more regulated or under such close scrutiny. Not only is there national legislation which covers our duties and responsibilities, but we have well-established policies which we stand by. The courts, which have been involved in this particular case, provide robust support for the actions taken. The inspection of councils by independent bodies, coupled with due legal processes, provide the checks and balances necessary to ensure authorities like ours provide effective care for children. Where there are lessons to be learned, we apply those to our approach to child care. However, we would not introduce prejudice based on sexual orientation any more than we would on age.
The policies, procedures and people involved in making the decisions about the care of children are carefully monitored and regulated. There is very robust accountability built into the process. We have confidence in our staff and are proud of the work they do in often very difficult circumstances. The problems with recruiting social workers in particular should make it very clear what a challenging role it is.
While it may be convenient to reveal the particular circumstances of this case, it would breach an important principle and our statutory obligations, both of which are crucial to the well-being and security of vulnerable children. All we can say is that the professional view is that the adoptive couple will provide a safe, secure and loving environment for these children. They have obviously already satisfied the rigorous standards expected of potential adopters.
The family circumstances are complex, as is often the case, but we have involved them throughout the process. These are always difficult decisions but we are confident that we have made the right decision and have no reason to doubt that the staff involved have acted with anything other than professionalism and sensitivity.
The Council Leader is entirely supportive of the views expressed here.
And Social services wonder why we are demonstrating.
Couple wrongly accused of abusing their baby cannot have their children back because it is 'too late', court rules
By Daily Mail Reportrs
Full story:- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1141811/Couple-children-adoption-miscarriage-justice-returned-judges-rule.html
Last updated at 3:18 PM on 11th February 2009
Comments (67) Add to My Stories
A couple who lost three of their children after they were accused of abuse may have been the victims of a miscarriage of justice, the Appeal Court has ruled.
But Nicky and Mark Webster were told they could not get their children back because it was 'too late', the court added.
The couple, from Cromer in Norfolk, were accused of inflicting multiple fractures on their baby boy in 2004.
Care proceedings were taken by the local authority and three of their children were removed.
Evidence came to light in 2007 showing that the child may not have suffered deliberate injury - his fractures may have been attributable to scurvy or iron deficiency caused by a feeding disorder.
Nicky and Mark Webster with son Brandon. Their other three children have been adopted
The couple applied to the courts to try to get their children back.
Today, Lord Justice Wall accepted it was 'possible, Mr and Mrs Webster would say probable' that the basis on which their children, referred to as A, B and C, were taken from them was 'wrong'.
However, the judge added that, even if the couple were entirely innocent, the children had been settled with their adoptive families for over three years and it was now “too late” to turn the clock back.
The judge, sitting with Lord Justice Moore-Bick and Lord Justice Wilson, said: 'The case emphasises the finality of adoption orders.
'The circumstances in which adoption orders can be revoked or set aside are extremely limited. None applied in the present case.
'The court concluded that after three years it was in any event too late to set the orders aside, and that it would not be in the interests of the children to do so.
'It is therefore possible (Mr and Mrs Webster would say probable) that the basis upon which A, B and C were taken into care and subsequently adopted (Mr and Mrs Webster's alleged non-accidental injury of child B) was wrong.'
Court win: The Websters had wanted a re-hearing of the care proceedings to challenge the adoption order
The statement continued: 'Mr and Mrs Webster believe that they have suffered a miscarriage of justice. They may be right.
'It would, however, be wrong in the court's view to criticise any of the doctors or social workers in the case. Each has acted properly throughout.
'If there is a lesson to be learned from the case it is the need to obtain second opinions on injuries to children at the earliest opportunity, particularly in cases where, as here, the facts are unusual.'
The Websters had wanted a re-hearing of the care proceedings to challenge the adoption order - a move which could have enabled the children to be returned to them or at least allow them to have contact.
At the hearing in December last year, their counsel, Ian Peddie QC, told Lord Justice Wall, Lord Justice Moore-Bick and Lord Justice Wilson that it was an 'exceptional' case.
'We say there has been a terrible miscarriage of justice and the natural parents' primary concern is to correct it.'
He added: 'It is our assertion that the children need to know the truth as to why they were adopted.'
Mr Webster, 35, and his 27-year-old wife fled to Ireland to stop their fourth child, Brandon, six, being taken into care at birth but last year the local authority dropped proceedings after accepting that he was in 'robust good health'.
The parents have not seen their other three children since January 2005, when they were five, three and two. They have always denied they had caused the fractures.
Brandon has never had contact with his siblings.
The tragedy began in 2003 when Mrs Webster took child B to hospital because he was having trouble walking.
Doctors at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital discovered six fractures which were said to have occurred over a 14-day period. Medics concluded the injuries were non-accidental.
In May 2004, a judge at Norfolk County Court found, after hearing expert medical evidence, that either Mr or Mrs Webster had caused the injuries and all three children were taken into care.
After Brandon's birth in May 2006, an eminent American professor of forensic paediatrics investigated the case and concluded that the injuries could have been caused by vitamin deficiency and scurvy.
One of the doctors who originally said the injuries were non-accidental later accepted that they could have been caused by scurvy.
Lord Justice Wall said in an introduction to his judgment that it was 'deeply worrying' that the four children involved - Brandon, his sister and two brothers - had been denied the chance to argue that they should grow up together with the parents as a family.
'For Mr and Mrs Webster, the parents of the children concerned, the case has been a disaster, quite apart from any breach of their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
'From their perspective they have been wrongly accused of physically abusing one of their children, and three of their children have been removed wrongly and permanently from their care. The only mitigation, from their point of view, is the local authority's belated recognition that they are fit and able to care for Brandon.'
He said the case had also been a 'deeply regrettable experience for the local authority' and a 'painful learning experience' for the medical profession.
'Finally, both for the family justice system in general, and for this court in particular, any miscarriage of justice - or potential miscarriage of justice - is both regrettable and embarrassing, not least when so much multi-disciplinary effort has been put into the promotion of good practice and the creation of procedures designed to ensure that the events which occurred in this case are not repeated.'
He said it would be wrong to criticise any of the social workers or doctors who advised the County Court judge.
'It would, moreover, be quite wrong to seek to scapegoat any individual for what may or may not have been a systemic failure, or what, in particular instances, may not have been a failure at all.
By Daily Mail Reportrs
Full story:- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1141811/Couple-children-adoption-miscarriage-justice-returned-judges-rule.html
Last updated at 3:18 PM on 11th February 2009
Comments (67) Add to My Stories
A couple who lost three of their children after they were accused of abuse may have been the victims of a miscarriage of justice, the Appeal Court has ruled.
But Nicky and Mark Webster were told they could not get their children back because it was 'too late', the court added.
The couple, from Cromer in Norfolk, were accused of inflicting multiple fractures on their baby boy in 2004.
Care proceedings were taken by the local authority and three of their children were removed.
Evidence came to light in 2007 showing that the child may not have suffered deliberate injury - his fractures may have been attributable to scurvy or iron deficiency caused by a feeding disorder.
Nicky and Mark Webster with son Brandon. Their other three children have been adopted
The couple applied to the courts to try to get their children back.
Today, Lord Justice Wall accepted it was 'possible, Mr and Mrs Webster would say probable' that the basis on which their children, referred to as A, B and C, were taken from them was 'wrong'.
However, the judge added that, even if the couple were entirely innocent, the children had been settled with their adoptive families for over three years and it was now “too late” to turn the clock back.
The judge, sitting with Lord Justice Moore-Bick and Lord Justice Wilson, said: 'The case emphasises the finality of adoption orders.
'The circumstances in which adoption orders can be revoked or set aside are extremely limited. None applied in the present case.
'The court concluded that after three years it was in any event too late to set the orders aside, and that it would not be in the interests of the children to do so.
'It is therefore possible (Mr and Mrs Webster would say probable) that the basis upon which A, B and C were taken into care and subsequently adopted (Mr and Mrs Webster's alleged non-accidental injury of child B) was wrong.'
Court win: The Websters had wanted a re-hearing of the care proceedings to challenge the adoption order
The statement continued: 'Mr and Mrs Webster believe that they have suffered a miscarriage of justice. They may be right.
'It would, however, be wrong in the court's view to criticise any of the doctors or social workers in the case. Each has acted properly throughout.
'If there is a lesson to be learned from the case it is the need to obtain second opinions on injuries to children at the earliest opportunity, particularly in cases where, as here, the facts are unusual.'
The Websters had wanted a re-hearing of the care proceedings to challenge the adoption order - a move which could have enabled the children to be returned to them or at least allow them to have contact.
At the hearing in December last year, their counsel, Ian Peddie QC, told Lord Justice Wall, Lord Justice Moore-Bick and Lord Justice Wilson that it was an 'exceptional' case.
'We say there has been a terrible miscarriage of justice and the natural parents' primary concern is to correct it.'
He added: 'It is our assertion that the children need to know the truth as to why they were adopted.'
Mr Webster, 35, and his 27-year-old wife fled to Ireland to stop their fourth child, Brandon, six, being taken into care at birth but last year the local authority dropped proceedings after accepting that he was in 'robust good health'.
The parents have not seen their other three children since January 2005, when they were five, three and two. They have always denied they had caused the fractures.
Brandon has never had contact with his siblings.
The tragedy began in 2003 when Mrs Webster took child B to hospital because he was having trouble walking.
Doctors at Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital discovered six fractures which were said to have occurred over a 14-day period. Medics concluded the injuries were non-accidental.
In May 2004, a judge at Norfolk County Court found, after hearing expert medical evidence, that either Mr or Mrs Webster had caused the injuries and all three children were taken into care.
After Brandon's birth in May 2006, an eminent American professor of forensic paediatrics investigated the case and concluded that the injuries could have been caused by vitamin deficiency and scurvy.
One of the doctors who originally said the injuries were non-accidental later accepted that they could have been caused by scurvy.
Lord Justice Wall said in an introduction to his judgment that it was 'deeply worrying' that the four children involved - Brandon, his sister and two brothers - had been denied the chance to argue that they should grow up together with the parents as a family.
'For Mr and Mrs Webster, the parents of the children concerned, the case has been a disaster, quite apart from any breach of their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
'From their perspective they have been wrongly accused of physically abusing one of their children, and three of their children have been removed wrongly and permanently from their care. The only mitigation, from their point of view, is the local authority's belated recognition that they are fit and able to care for Brandon.'
He said the case had also been a 'deeply regrettable experience for the local authority' and a 'painful learning experience' for the medical profession.
'Finally, both for the family justice system in general, and for this court in particular, any miscarriage of justice - or potential miscarriage of justice - is both regrettable and embarrassing, not least when so much multi-disciplinary effort has been put into the promotion of good practice and the creation of procedures designed to ensure that the events which occurred in this case are not repeated.'
He said it would be wrong to criticise any of the social workers or doctors who advised the County Court judge.
'It would, moreover, be quite wrong to seek to scapegoat any individual for what may or may not have been a systemic failure, or what, in particular instances, may not have been a failure at all.
Thae CSA have tightened the noose!
Yes I knew it would happen!
I have paid maintenance for my children for over 6 years now and it has been a private arrangement ( standing order via the bank ).
The CSA have now got involved.
It is a mothers right to have the payments made via the CSA instead of a private arrangement.
I recently received 2 letters from them which had no explanation as to why things were changing!.
The most horrible bit about all of this is that they want me now to pay my ex more money because she has stopped me seeing the children!
For every 52 nights that the children stay with me I was given a 20% discount.
Because the mother has stopped me seeing them I am now required to pay 20% more money!
Less time with me equals more money for mum.
It has been bad enough losing the children that I have loved and cared for all the last twelve years.
Now the CSA want to punish me some more, I am devastated.
What gets to me also is that they assessed me last march and decided to not take things any further when they realised that I was giving the mother more money than was required.
I told them that I was going to be having the children more than 104 nights and this should qualify me for 40% discount, I sent them the spreadsheet with the days and told them that the mother had agreed to it.
They told me that they would wait and see!
So my question is: Why are they not going to "Wait and see" if I get to have my children again ( I told them that I was taking court action ).
They dismissed me by saying that things have changed now according to the mum.
So why one rule for one and a different one for another?
I have paid maintenance for my children for over 6 years now and it has been a private arrangement ( standing order via the bank ).
The CSA have now got involved.
It is a mothers right to have the payments made via the CSA instead of a private arrangement.
I recently received 2 letters from them which had no explanation as to why things were changing!.
The most horrible bit about all of this is that they want me now to pay my ex more money because she has stopped me seeing the children!
For every 52 nights that the children stay with me I was given a 20% discount.
Because the mother has stopped me seeing them I am now required to pay 20% more money!
Less time with me equals more money for mum.
It has been bad enough losing the children that I have loved and cared for all the last twelve years.
Now the CSA want to punish me some more, I am devastated.
What gets to me also is that they assessed me last march and decided to not take things any further when they realised that I was giving the mother more money than was required.
I told them that I was going to be having the children more than 104 nights and this should qualify me for 40% discount, I sent them the spreadsheet with the days and told them that the mother had agreed to it.
They told me that they would wait and see!
So my question is: Why are they not going to "Wait and see" if I get to have my children again ( I told them that I was taking court action ).
They dismissed me by saying that things have changed now according to the mum.
So why one rule for one and a different one for another?
Please can you send the invite to all the members a.s.a.p.
Jimmy, please can you send an invite to all the members a.s.a.p.
Thank You
Kornelius
Thank You
Kornelius
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Nurseries 'best for child's social skills'
Published Date: 10 February 2009
By CLAIRE SMITH
CHILDREN looked after by their grandparents while their parents are at work might be better off in nurseries or creches, according to a study published today.
Babies left with their grandparents are more likely than others to have behavioural problems, although they often develop their vocabularies better, research carried out by the University of London showed.
Researcher Kirstine Hansen said the findings did not reflect badly on grandparents, who, according to the study, provide childcare for 35 per cent of parents who return to work when their children are aged between nine months and three.
"At this young age the majority of care is being done by grandparents," she said.
"In the past grandparents have had a bad press but this study shows that in terms of cognitive skills and vocabulary children cared for by grandparents do best.
"However children in formal care are more ready for school. They do better in readiness for school tests than children in any other type of care, including those with childminders or nannies.
"What was surprising was the finding that children who are cared for by grandparents are more likely to have behavioural problems."
Dr Hansen said she hoped the research would help provide parents and grandparents with the support they needed.
She said: "We need to learn from this and see what we can do to improve things across the board for everybody."
Dr Hansen said she hoped the study would help influence childcare strategies.
"It is a pat on the back for the government, which has tried to encourage people to use formal childcare, even if they come from disadvantaged social groups," she said.
The study involved 4,800 members of the Millennium Cohort, a large sample of children who are being studied to learn more about their emotional and educational development.
The findings are published today in the Journal of Social Policy.
Judith Gillespie, development manager of the Scottish Parent Teachers Association, said: "Grandparents are likely to be more cautious. As people get older they are not so likely to go down a water chute or go on an adventure playground.
"It is true that people in their sixties don't have the oomph to run around doing exciting things."
But she said there was a danger of paying too much attention to surveys that looked at only one part of a much bigger picture.
"Unless you know the nature of the care given by the grandparents in each case, it is very hard to make a generalisation and there is a danger in using this kind of study as a basis for policy," she said.
"I think the most important thing for young children is to learn to mix with other children. A child who is very isolated will find it difficult to learn to share, to stick up for themselves and to take turns."
Sue Robertson, director of One Parent Families Scotland, said using grandparents as a source of childcare was the most attractive option for many families for financial reasons.
"A lot of families will struggle to pay for nurseries and other forms of childcare," she said.
"Parents should have the maximum choice possible and should be supported in that."
No age limit to parental role-models
WHEN Jimmy Deuchars' daughter, Susan, died of breast cancer at the age of 25, he and his wife Margaret took over much of the care of her daughters, two-year-old Joanne and newborn Nicola.
For the next three years, Mr and Mrs Deuchars, of Mosspark, Glasgow, who were 49 when their daughter died, looked after the girls in their home, trying to give them all the care their daughter would have.
Mr Deuchars said: "They never missed out. Margaret took them to all the baby groups and everything."
When their son-in-law remarried they feared losing touch with the girls – and their battle led to the creation of Grandparents Apart, which helps grandparents stay in touch with their grandchildren.
Today, Joanne and Nicola are 15 and 17 and Mr Deuchars is in no doubt about the role he and his wife played in their upbringing: "I think grandparents are in a perfect position to offer stability and love in children's lives."
Jimmy's reply.
Just as parents need to learn to be parents grandparents embarking on a familiar but more modern role need a little education in being grandparents. Their should be a family mediation session to establish rules of what is expected of family members.
This gives everyone a chance to air their views and expectations.
Grandparents who look after children have the same opportunities to involve the kids in playgroups and mother and toddler groups so there is no need for children to go without some form of nursery. My granddaughters were raised by us until 5 years old and the oldest have just obtained 10 o-levels last year and they are proper little ladies..
Grandparents have the time and patience that a lot of working mothers do not have due to pressure of working. We have found that a lot of parents do half on half with a couple of days at nursery and 2-3 days with gran. It works out very well and the children get the best of the two worlds and the parents save a fortune on the astronomical fees asked by nurseries and the grandparents love the company without putting too much pressure on them.
By CLAIRE SMITH
CHILDREN looked after by their grandparents while their parents are at work might be better off in nurseries or creches, according to a study published today.
Babies left with their grandparents are more likely than others to have behavioural problems, although they often develop their vocabularies better, research carried out by the University of London showed.
Researcher Kirstine Hansen said the findings did not reflect badly on grandparents, who, according to the study, provide childcare for 35 per cent of parents who return to work when their children are aged between nine months and three.
"At this young age the majority of care is being done by grandparents," she said.
"In the past grandparents have had a bad press but this study shows that in terms of cognitive skills and vocabulary children cared for by grandparents do best.
"However children in formal care are more ready for school. They do better in readiness for school tests than children in any other type of care, including those with childminders or nannies.
"What was surprising was the finding that children who are cared for by grandparents are more likely to have behavioural problems."
Dr Hansen said she hoped the research would help provide parents and grandparents with the support they needed.
She said: "We need to learn from this and see what we can do to improve things across the board for everybody."
Dr Hansen said she hoped the study would help influence childcare strategies.
"It is a pat on the back for the government, which has tried to encourage people to use formal childcare, even if they come from disadvantaged social groups," she said.
The study involved 4,800 members of the Millennium Cohort, a large sample of children who are being studied to learn more about their emotional and educational development.
The findings are published today in the Journal of Social Policy.
Judith Gillespie, development manager of the Scottish Parent Teachers Association, said: "Grandparents are likely to be more cautious. As people get older they are not so likely to go down a water chute or go on an adventure playground.
"It is true that people in their sixties don't have the oomph to run around doing exciting things."
But she said there was a danger of paying too much attention to surveys that looked at only one part of a much bigger picture.
"Unless you know the nature of the care given by the grandparents in each case, it is very hard to make a generalisation and there is a danger in using this kind of study as a basis for policy," she said.
"I think the most important thing for young children is to learn to mix with other children. A child who is very isolated will find it difficult to learn to share, to stick up for themselves and to take turns."
Sue Robertson, director of One Parent Families Scotland, said using grandparents as a source of childcare was the most attractive option for many families for financial reasons.
"A lot of families will struggle to pay for nurseries and other forms of childcare," she said.
"Parents should have the maximum choice possible and should be supported in that."
No age limit to parental role-models
WHEN Jimmy Deuchars' daughter, Susan, died of breast cancer at the age of 25, he and his wife Margaret took over much of the care of her daughters, two-year-old Joanne and newborn Nicola.
For the next three years, Mr and Mrs Deuchars, of Mosspark, Glasgow, who were 49 when their daughter died, looked after the girls in their home, trying to give them all the care their daughter would have.
Mr Deuchars said: "They never missed out. Margaret took them to all the baby groups and everything."
When their son-in-law remarried they feared losing touch with the girls – and their battle led to the creation of Grandparents Apart, which helps grandparents stay in touch with their grandchildren.
Today, Joanne and Nicola are 15 and 17 and Mr Deuchars is in no doubt about the role he and his wife played in their upbringing: "I think grandparents are in a perfect position to offer stability and love in children's lives."
Jimmy's reply.
Just as parents need to learn to be parents grandparents embarking on a familiar but more modern role need a little education in being grandparents. Their should be a family mediation session to establish rules of what is expected of family members.
This gives everyone a chance to air their views and expectations.
Grandparents who look after children have the same opportunities to involve the kids in playgroups and mother and toddler groups so there is no need for children to go without some form of nursery. My granddaughters were raised by us until 5 years old and the oldest have just obtained 10 o-levels last year and they are proper little ladies..
Grandparents have the time and patience that a lot of working mothers do not have due to pressure of working. We have found that a lot of parents do half on half with a couple of days at nursery and 2-3 days with gran. It works out very well and the children get the best of the two worlds and the parents save a fortune on the astronomical fees asked by nurseries and the grandparents love the company without putting too much pressure on them.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Stock answer?
It is amazing that if you write to the various Departments they reply with exactly the same letter, word for word.
Jane.
Jane.
Stock answer?
It is amazing that if you write to the various Departments they reply with exactly the same letter, word for word.
Jane.
Jane.
Letter from Ruth Kelly Minister of State for Children.
Dear Mr Deuchars
Thank you for your email dated 17 January addressed to the Rt Hon Beverley Hughes MP and your email dated 3 February addressed to the Ruth Kelly about filling the gap in the protection of children. I am sure you will appreciate that both the Minister of State for Children, Young People and Families and Ruth Kelly receive a vast amount of correspondence and are unable to reply to each one personally. It is for this reason I have been asked to reply.
The Government recognises and values the important role which grandparents can play in children’s lives. Many grandparents are already involved with the care of their grandchildren and most children see their grandparents as important figures in their lives. However, the primary responsibility for bringing up children in most families lies with their parents and there may be cases where parents prefer to limit contact with grandparents. Under the Children Act 1989 (the Act) grandparents may, provided that the permission of the court is obtained, apply to the court for an order granting contact (or residence) with the child concerned. The requirement for the court’s permission is not designed to be an obstacle to grandparents or other close relatives but to act as an initial filter to sift out prejudiced applications that are unlikely to succeed. Experience suggests that gran dparents (or other interested relatives) would not usually experience difficulty in obtaining permission where their application is motivated by a genuine concern for the child. While grandparents may seek the leave of the court to apply for contact, it is usually a more fruitful route for parents and grandparents to work cooperatively to ensure that children have ongoing contact where it is in their best interests.
The court will make a residence or contact order if it decides, in the light of all the circumstances of the case, that it is in the child’s best interests to live with or to have contact with the applicant. The Act requires that the court’s paramount consideration must be the welfare of the child. Judges are guided by a list of factors set out in section 1(3) of the Act, known as the ‘welfare checklist’. The Act gives the court the discretion to take into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the individual case when deciding any question concerning the child including issues of contact and residence.
The Government is aware that there are concerns that grandparents who are denied contact with their grandchildren are unable to seek adequate redress through the courts. This issue was raised during debates on the Bill stages of the Children and Adoption Act 2006 and the Government announced then a review of the requirement in private law cases that leave of the court must first be sought before applying for contact, where it relates to grandparents. The Government want to assess if it is the case that the leave requirement acts as a barrier to grandparents denied contact and if they are unable to seek redress through the courts.
The Government consulted on this issue in 2007. Responses were received from the President of the Family Division, the Family Law Bar Association (FLBA), National Youth Advocacy Service (NYAS), the British Association for Adoption and Fostering (BAAF), the Grandparents Action Group and the Coalition for Equal Parenting. Responses showed that there is no widespread support for a change to the law that would remove the requirement for leave of the court to be sought by grandparents before making an application for contact.
We know that in the past, when a child could not be cared for by their parents, local authorities didn’t always consider the possibility of the child being cared for by their extended family.
The Children Act 1989 addressed this by making it a legal duty for the local authority placing a child to arrange for the child to live with a member of his or her family unless that would be impractical or inconsistent with the child’s welfare.
Building on this, the Care Matters White Paper, supported by the Children and Young Persons Act, includes a range of measures intended to provide a more visible and strengthened framework for supporting relatives caring for children who cannot be looked after by their parents. The Act includes measures making it easier for relatives to apply for residence or special guardianship orders, so supporting more stable placement of children with their family. It also contains provisions to allow more families to be supported financially outside the care system. We intend to publish statutory guidance which will address current concerns about the transparency of local authority policies on the support available for relative carers. The guidance will set out expectations of an effective service to support relative carers and children.
The evidence points to care by family and friends being the best approach for many children who cannot be looked after by their birth parents and we want to recognise fully the contribution family and friends carers make to the life chances of vulnerable children.
Yours sincerely
Anita Dixon
Public Communications Unit
www.dcsf.gov.uk
Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0004883. To correspond by email with the Department for Children, Schools and Families please contact info@dcsf.gsi.gov.uk.
Thank you for your email dated 17 January addressed to the Rt Hon Beverley Hughes MP and your email dated 3 February addressed to the Ruth Kelly about filling the gap in the protection of children. I am sure you will appreciate that both the Minister of State for Children, Young People and Families and Ruth Kelly receive a vast amount of correspondence and are unable to reply to each one personally. It is for this reason I have been asked to reply.
The Government recognises and values the important role which grandparents can play in children’s lives. Many grandparents are already involved with the care of their grandchildren and most children see their grandparents as important figures in their lives. However, the primary responsibility for bringing up children in most families lies with their parents and there may be cases where parents prefer to limit contact with grandparents. Under the Children Act 1989 (the Act) grandparents may, provided that the permission of the court is obtained, apply to the court for an order granting contact (or residence) with the child concerned. The requirement for the court’s permission is not designed to be an obstacle to grandparents or other close relatives but to act as an initial filter to sift out prejudiced applications that are unlikely to succeed. Experience suggests that gran dparents (or other interested relatives) would not usually experience difficulty in obtaining permission where their application is motivated by a genuine concern for the child. While grandparents may seek the leave of the court to apply for contact, it is usually a more fruitful route for parents and grandparents to work cooperatively to ensure that children have ongoing contact where it is in their best interests.
The court will make a residence or contact order if it decides, in the light of all the circumstances of the case, that it is in the child’s best interests to live with or to have contact with the applicant. The Act requires that the court’s paramount consideration must be the welfare of the child. Judges are guided by a list of factors set out in section 1(3) of the Act, known as the ‘welfare checklist’. The Act gives the court the discretion to take into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the individual case when deciding any question concerning the child including issues of contact and residence.
The Government is aware that there are concerns that grandparents who are denied contact with their grandchildren are unable to seek adequate redress through the courts. This issue was raised during debates on the Bill stages of the Children and Adoption Act 2006 and the Government announced then a review of the requirement in private law cases that leave of the court must first be sought before applying for contact, where it relates to grandparents. The Government want to assess if it is the case that the leave requirement acts as a barrier to grandparents denied contact and if they are unable to seek redress through the courts.
The Government consulted on this issue in 2007. Responses were received from the President of the Family Division, the Family Law Bar Association (FLBA), National Youth Advocacy Service (NYAS), the British Association for Adoption and Fostering (BAAF), the Grandparents Action Group and the Coalition for Equal Parenting. Responses showed that there is no widespread support for a change to the law that would remove the requirement for leave of the court to be sought by grandparents before making an application for contact.
We know that in the past, when a child could not be cared for by their parents, local authorities didn’t always consider the possibility of the child being cared for by their extended family.
The Children Act 1989 addressed this by making it a legal duty for the local authority placing a child to arrange for the child to live with a member of his or her family unless that would be impractical or inconsistent with the child’s welfare.
Building on this, the Care Matters White Paper, supported by the Children and Young Persons Act, includes a range of measures intended to provide a more visible and strengthened framework for supporting relatives caring for children who cannot be looked after by their parents. The Act includes measures making it easier for relatives to apply for residence or special guardianship orders, so supporting more stable placement of children with their family. It also contains provisions to allow more families to be supported financially outside the care system. We intend to publish statutory guidance which will address current concerns about the transparency of local authority policies on the support available for relative carers. The guidance will set out expectations of an effective service to support relative carers and children.
The evidence points to care by family and friends being the best approach for many children who cannot be looked after by their birth parents and we want to recognise fully the contribution family and friends carers make to the life chances of vulnerable children.
Yours sincerely
Anita Dixon
Public Communications Unit
www.dcsf.gov.uk
Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2009/0004883. To correspond by email with the Department for Children, Schools and Families please contact info@dcsf.gsi.gov.uk.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Welcome
Hi Jane,
Glad to see you have found us.I just hope the others see the notice in the forum before it goes off altogether.
Jimmy
Glad to see you have found us.I just hope the others see the notice in the forum before it goes off altogether.
Jimmy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)