Grandparents Apart Uk Revised proposal for the ‘best interests of children’
Our revised proposal is considering the child in as much as not to have the protection of their grandparents in child neglect and abuse cases is devastating to them and not at all in their best interests. In this revised proposal we have listened to the government and strive to work towards their wishes as much as possible.
The governments of the UK have refused point blank to give grandparents legal rights of contact with their grandchildren. Their wishes are that grandparents should not have individual legal rights because the say it would cause more problems than it resolves solves and it is not the answer for every child. (Neither are their proposals) Further wishes of the government are that families get together without legislation and The Charter for Grandchildren was produced for that purpose but there has been no encouragement from the government and the situation is not improving and grandparents are being by-passed for strangers or like the wee girl given to two men when the she was afraid of men... This is not in the best interests of children.
We therefore propose that ‘The Charter for Grandchildren’ in Scotland should be adopted UK wide and ‘and be mandatory for professionals dealing with children thereby ensuring in the absence of one or both parents that the love and protective role grandparents can play is not wasted as is the case at present because grandparents are regarded as irrelevant (not important) persons and therefore rarely considered in practice.…Being mandatory for professionals would not be an imposition on the parents or family in general…If the governments were to adopt this as an example it would send a message of encouragement to families that grandparents can be a huge asset in the family and inspire mediation focusing on the best interests of the children when there is a huge rise in drug and alcohol abuse and amid the fear of the ever increasing cases of child abuse. What more does the government want? Is this the best interests of children or is it polotics?
It is generally agreed by governments and most organisations dealing with children that grandparents are very important in the family.. It is also agreed that they can be vital in the early detection of child abuse and in the care and stability of children when they are in a crisis situation especially in the middle of the night. That is if they are informed about it at all, being irrelevant persons, this is not always the case. If the crisis has been violent and very upsetting it would be in the best interests of the children to be settled as quickly as possible with someone who they know cares for them.
In any event, the following statements are proof enough that there is common ground to build on for the benefit of our children and the governments should act without delay.
Responses from concerned parties.
Children 1st. Response to PE 1156
Grandparents should be given the right of information about their grandchildren’s welfare.
Grandchildren’s Charter which is not about grandparents’ right to contact with their grandchildren, but about their grandchildren’s interests – these documents are available at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Justice/Civil/17867/10388
CHILDREN 1ST is a strong supporter of this approach. The Committee may want to ask the Government about how widely these documents are used, and whether any further non-legislative measures are needed to help embed their use. Children 1st. Response to PE 1120
I totally agree that grandparents are often best placed to detect any kind of abuse or addiction that harms children and are often left picking up the pieces with no support when things fall apart. I think resolving that bit should be a priority (i.e. offering financial and emotional support) and then perhaps there’s scope to move on to greater recognition of the role grandparents play and how this could be established in law.
H. C. Woman’s Aids recent communication. Not necessarily the final word of W. A.
You are totally right: grandparents are among the most skilled professionals when it comes to looking after children. Grandparents can play an essential role in not only boosting their grandchildren's well- being. But also - as you rightly say - in detecting child abuse. MS Miller has kindly agreed to this quote in firm belief that grandparents have a crucial role to play in a child’s life in the over whelming majority of circumstances.
Maria Miller MP
Thank you for your email. I have much sympathy with your case and have
noted that my fellow Hampshire MP and frontbench colleague, Maria
Miller, has made a point which I fully endorse.
Gerald Howarth MP
Member of Parliament for Aldershot & Shadow Defence Minister
Making the Grandparents' Charter mandatory for professionals effectively means that you create legal duties - in other words individuals cannot enforce rights directly but can expect state institutions to follow the principles of the Charter. It might be worth you exploring the implications of this with the government.
Robert Brown Euro MSP
Former Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson MSP, also a former social worker, said
“Grandparents play a hugely significant role in children's lives. They are often the people who step in to care for children when parents can't cope due to drug or alcohol misuse and many find themselves struggling financially as a result. I would expect every social work department to look at what they can do to help in these situations, to ensure that the best interests of the child are promoted at all times. Supporting grandparents is often the best way to support the children."
Cathy Jamieson MSP Shadow Justice Minister
During my four year term as an MSP (2003-2007) I encountered many problems relative to grandparents and their grandchildren. I regularly raised the issue of 'Kinship Carers' in Parliament and complained about the lack of funding for grandparents who had their grandchildren given into their care by social workers.
The new proposals by the 'Grandparents Apart UK organisation' would act as yet another safeguard in the welfare and wellbeing of vulnerable youngsters. It is imperative that the Government acts now to help to reduce the chance of any more children becoming the focus of media attention due to abuse which has gone unnoticed by social workers and allow the Charter for Grandchildren to be mandatory by professionals.
This is a cost free simple way to help to bring to an end this new trend in society whereby vulnerable children become helpless victims. All too often there is drugs at the root of the problem. Social workers need all the help they can get therefore should welcome this new proposal NOW!
John Swinburne. Leader of the Scottish Senior Citizens Unity Party.
Jimmy Deuchars, June Loudoun.
Grandparents Apart UK
22 Alness crescent
Glasgow G52 1PJ
0141 882 5658
http://www.grandparentsapart.co.uk
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
Update of my situation
My oldest son has phoned me. ( the mother stopped me seeing them since mid dec )
He has asked why I have not phoned him on a Sunday as his mother instructed me to.
I told him that I was not being told by her when I could phone.
He asked for his Xmas presents and his warhammer models.
His x-box is broken and he is bored.
I wonder if the mother has allowed him to contact me so as he can get stuff?
Anyway, I asked if he wanted to come through for a weekend and he went and asked his mother.
She said yes ( how nice of her )
I am supposed to see them in a fortnights time and have mixed feelings about it.
I do not want to go back to being abused by their mother and am in 2 minds about the whole thing.
She will not change and it is so much hassle because she is a monster.
He told me that he did not like me falling out with him ( I lost the plot after my works xmas lunch ) in mid december and that he did not like me calling his mother an A*hole and a bi*ch ( the drink was in and the wit was out ). I am a very bad boy!
The reason I went off the deep end was the culmination of the sh*te that was happening, things such as me going all the way up to Inverness to collect them ....only to find out that they wouldn't turn up and I had to go all the way back without them, this is after me booking time off work, buying train tickets etc. ( not the first time ) Stopping my girlfriend cutting their hair, totally ruining all the plans for Xmas ( it was my turn ),.
The list of sh*te goes on and on and it has steadily got worse over the last 6 years.
I know that it was so wrong to do that, he just pushed the buttons once too much!
How do I get it through to him that his mother is being so bad to me and is making life so difficult.
It won't be too long before I can stop the 6 hour round trip to inverness as they can be put on the train by their mother and I ( I would have to pay of course )
The alienation is definately setting in ( I can see it in my oldest boy ) he seems to think his mother is great!
It has been okay for the last 8 weeks and my life has had some calm in it.
I can see why some dads have given up fighting with the mother.
The fight with the system by me will never end and no matter what I will chase the politicians to the ends of the earth.
It is them that can affect the changes needed.
Any words of advice from you would be appreciated.
Regards
Richard
He has asked why I have not phoned him on a Sunday as his mother instructed me to.
I told him that I was not being told by her when I could phone.
He asked for his Xmas presents and his warhammer models.
His x-box is broken and he is bored.
I wonder if the mother has allowed him to contact me so as he can get stuff?
Anyway, I asked if he wanted to come through for a weekend and he went and asked his mother.
She said yes ( how nice of her )
I am supposed to see them in a fortnights time and have mixed feelings about it.
I do not want to go back to being abused by their mother and am in 2 minds about the whole thing.
She will not change and it is so much hassle because she is a monster.
He told me that he did not like me falling out with him ( I lost the plot after my works xmas lunch ) in mid december and that he did not like me calling his mother an A*hole and a bi*ch ( the drink was in and the wit was out ). I am a very bad boy!
The reason I went off the deep end was the culmination of the sh*te that was happening, things such as me going all the way up to Inverness to collect them ....only to find out that they wouldn't turn up and I had to go all the way back without them, this is after me booking time off work, buying train tickets etc. ( not the first time ) Stopping my girlfriend cutting their hair, totally ruining all the plans for Xmas ( it was my turn ),.
The list of sh*te goes on and on and it has steadily got worse over the last 6 years.
I know that it was so wrong to do that, he just pushed the buttons once too much!
How do I get it through to him that his mother is being so bad to me and is making life so difficult.
It won't be too long before I can stop the 6 hour round trip to inverness as they can be put on the train by their mother and I ( I would have to pay of course )
The alienation is definately setting in ( I can see it in my oldest boy ) he seems to think his mother is great!
It has been okay for the last 8 weeks and my life has had some calm in it.
I can see why some dads have given up fighting with the mother.
The fight with the system by me will never end and no matter what I will chase the politicians to the ends of the earth.
It is them that can affect the changes needed.
Any words of advice from you would be appreciated.
Regards
Richard
Hi all - I fully support what Grandparents Apart are doing and hope to see a day when the Law will change and they will have a legal right to have contact with their grandchildren.
It is ludicrous that Social Services have such power when the children in question haven't been abused - and ludicrous that they can then have the children adopted and virtually stop all contact - what sort of people do that? That is denying the children stability and the right to their extended family and their own flesh and blood. I am sure their mother and grandparents would feel happier about the adoption if they could still have some involvement.
If they were my grandchildren I would move Heaven and Earth to stop this!
Why should they not be allowed to see them - they are their flesh and blood and would not be here if it was not for them?! And how can it NOT be in the best interests of the children - what rubbish and who are they to decide what is in the best interests of the children - perhaps they should listen to those said children for once!
Also it is disgusting that a child can be taken and adopted wrongfully and that this decision cannot be reversed!
I wonder what kind of outcry there would be if this happened to a Social Worker or Politician - or anyone else in a position of power?
This is another Law that needs to be altered - so in the case like the one on this blog where it has come to light that there has been no abuse the children can be returned to their rightful parents.
These are my thoughts.
Victoria
It is ludicrous that Social Services have such power when the children in question haven't been abused - and ludicrous that they can then have the children adopted and virtually stop all contact - what sort of people do that? That is denying the children stability and the right to their extended family and their own flesh and blood. I am sure their mother and grandparents would feel happier about the adoption if they could still have some involvement.
If they were my grandchildren I would move Heaven and Earth to stop this!
Why should they not be allowed to see them - they are their flesh and blood and would not be here if it was not for them?! And how can it NOT be in the best interests of the children - what rubbish and who are they to decide what is in the best interests of the children - perhaps they should listen to those said children for once!
Also it is disgusting that a child can be taken and adopted wrongfully and that this decision cannot be reversed!
I wonder what kind of outcry there would be if this happened to a Social Worker or Politician - or anyone else in a position of power?
This is another Law that needs to be altered - so in the case like the one on this blog where it has come to light that there has been no abuse the children can be returned to their rightful parents.
These are my thoughts.
Victoria
Monday, February 16, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
Edinburgh Adoption Case. Responses in bold italics.
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
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)