Edith Ellen Foundation: Putting your affairs in order

Edith Ellen Foundation: Putting your affairs in order: After working for many years in the Local Authority Adult Safeguarding Team, and working with those who are facing probate and related issue...

Further Evidence of Oxford Social Services Unbiaised Failings

Subject: Review Meeting 5 August 2016

OFFICIAL - SENSITIVE

Dear Mr Father of the Children

You enquired at the review meeting on 5th August 2016 whether it would be possible for your sister, named Aunty, to have contact with named Children. It was agreed that I would explore the possibility of this and respond to you by 26 August 2016. named Aunty has also contacted me separately to request contact with named Children as well as updated photographs of the children.

I have explored the possibility of named Children having contact with named Aunty and providing named Aunty with updated photographs of themselves, however owing to the ongoing police investigation these are not possible at the present time. That said, contact with members of the extended family will continue to be reviewed at named Children Looked after Child reviews.

Please let me know whether you would like me to inform named Aunty of this, or if you wish to pass the information on.

Yours sincerely

Jo Morton

Jo Morton

Senior Practitioner

Looked after Children and Leaving Care Team

Knights Court

21 Between Towns Road

Oxford OX4 3LX

Now, importantly neither my sister or the children's grandfather have ever been investigated or arrested for any crime ever.  This is just another example of slanderous accusations by Oxford Social Services and a breach in the Human Rights of my children and their extended family.  It is also criminal by Oxford Social Services as it breaches the Discrimination Act under Discrimination by Association.

Guest Article - for and on behalf of, Leon Edwards and Iolanda Menino: Our Baby was Snatched by the Social Services

This is the first article we have seen in the UK mainstream media about us. 

The UK Government is attempting damage control with this article published today 23.08.2106, as we are getting massive exposure worldwide. Santiago's Grandparents came forward for him and the Court ignored it. Santiago was breastfeeding and taken from his Mother with zero evidence of any crime. MMS is not illegal in the UK and this is an attempt at distracting people away from the fact that CHILD TRAFFICKING and FORCED ADOPTION is happening in Southampton and across the World. This newspaper publication is the evidence that the UK is frightened of being exposed.

Article
 

Our Baby was Snatched by the Social Services

Leon Edwards
Iolanda Menino

The Daily Echo a Southampton based newspaper, so already highly prejudicial reports

Baby whose dad sold Master Mineral Solution as treatment for cancer and autism should be taken into care

A baby boy whose Southampton father advocates the use of ''harmful alternative medication'' should be taken into council care, a family court judge has decided. 

The man had sold Master Mineral Solution (MMS) as a treatment for cancer and autism, social services staff told Judge Helen Black. 

Staff said MMS was a sodium chlorite solution equivalent to industrial-strength bleach - and they said the Food Standards Agency had warned that it should not be taken. 

They said the man advocated the use of MMS and his website included ''paraphernalia for the administration of such products to babies''. 

But Southamampton City Council social workers said there were concerns that the boy, now aged about eight months, might ingest ''harmful alternative medication'' either directly or via his mother's breast milk. 

Detail of the case has emerged in a ruling published by the judge following a family court hearing in Portsmouth. 

Judge Black said the family involved could not be identified - but she said Southampton City Council had responsibility for the boy and had asked her to make decisions about the boy's long-term future.
She said the boy's father was English and his mother Portuguese. 

Judge Black said the little boy had been temporarily taken from his parents when he was a few days old after social workers and police became concerned about his safety. 

She said social workers had a number of worries - including concerns that the boy had not been given appropriate medical attention. 

Judge Black said the boy's parents had not attended family court hearings for a number of months - and had gone to Portugal. 

They had complained that their baby had been ''kidnapped'' by the council ''in order to be adopted''. 

She said the couple had ''abandoned'' their son and no family members had put themselves forward as carers. 

''This child has been waiting in the care system almost from his birth ... for decisions to be made about his future,'' said Judge Black. 

''The parents have abandoned him in that they have not taken any steps which would enable the local authority or the court to consider recommencing contact let alone rehabilitation.'' 

She added: ''The court is satisfied that there is no-one who is in a position to meet the needs of the child and there is no relative who has the ability or willingness to meet the child's needs.''
Judge Black said taking children from parents and placing them in the care of councils was a ''serious matter''. 

The judge said such moves should be made only if ''nothing else will do''. 

But she added: ''There is no other option in this case.'' 

Judge Black commended social services staff for the ''tremendous efforts'' they had made to ''engage'' the boy's parents. 

Now, personally I do not agree with MMS. So I don't advocate for it but I also believe in the right to people living their lives in privacy.  There was no evidence of Leon or Iolanda administering this to their child, no medical evidence.  The reason that baby Santiago was taken was because THEY (the parents) DID take him to a hospital and sought medical help when Santiago become jaundice.  From everything I have read and learnt through this case is that Social Workers fabricated and procrastinated their way to taking Santiago from his loving family.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6MsdkSnE-TQgiY6uy7SM6w 

https://www.gofundme.com/tztxzkhw 

https://www.facebook.com/ourbabywassnatchedbythesocialservices/about/?entry_point=page_nav_about_item&tab=page_info 

In side the dangerous mindset of Social Workers

Found this hilarious post on http://socialworktutor.com/

or https://www.facebook.com/socialworktutor/

A very dangerous mindset but so very true

and slightly concerning, the number of comments attached included:


Rebecca Maser You missed attorney, I've taught a lot of them too!

Katie Jayne Jack of all trades and master of none and in some judges' opinion we're not the expert.

Sally Chittick This is why they have that clause in our job descriptions "...and any other duties which may be reasonably required..."  


And that was just the top 3...

Loophole Allows Unqualified Psychologists To Practice

An article in the July-August edition of Private Eye magazine highlights a controversial loophole which could allow incompetent and unscrupulous Family Court experts to practice whilst enjoying immunity from malpractice claims.

It describes how unqualified psychologists are able to act as experts, and dodge malpractice claims by simply avoiding the use of various “protected” titles like ‘educational’, ‘clinical’ or ‘forensic’. This means that they can offer their services without the need to be  registered and regulated by the UK’s watchdog, the Health and Care Professions Council  (HCPC).

The article goes on to express concerns about unregistered court experts who are often invited to give evidence on cases involving rape, child exploitation and child contact and care cases. The piece focuses on one particular psychologist who is not registered but uses several of the protected titles on his website and has worked on high profile and often complex child protection cases. However, as he calls himself a consultant and not a psychologist the HCPC maintains he is not misusing a protected title  and therefore cannot act.

This development is particularly serious because the consultant works in the Family Court advising on child welfare matters. The new Family Justice Council Guidelines also require that psychologists working in the family courts as experts must be HCPC registered – which this psychologist is not.

Professor Jane Ireland’s 2012 report detailing serious concerns about the quality of expert evidence from Family Court psychiatrists and psychologists – it found that over 20% of psychologists  in  family cases  were  unqualified  and  65%  of  expert  reports  were  either  of  ‘poor’  or  ‘very  poor’  quality – is also mentioned in the Private Eye piece. Jane’s report was responsible for the new Family Justice guidelines on expert witnesses which were designed to protect the public.

It’s clear that the law and policy in this area needs urgent attention. Researching Reform is a strong advocate of regulating this area further in order to ensure that the quality of expert evidence in the Family Court, and in other courts too, conforms to best practice guidelines.

We are adding a redacted version of the  Private Eye piece below:

“A  gaping  hole  in  the  regulation  of  psychologists  could  put  the  public  at  risk  from  unscrupulous,  inept  or  unaccountable ‘experts’.  

Providing  psychologists  don’t  use  one  of  nine  so-called  ‘protected  titles’  –  for  example,  educational,  clinical,  or  forensic  – any  can  offer  their  services  without  the  need  to  be  registered  and  regulated  by  the  U.K.’s  watchdog,  the  Health  and  Care Professions  Council  (HCPC).  Even  if  serious  concerns  or  complaints  are  raised  about  them,  they  remain  immune  from investigation  because  they’re  not  registered.

Nowhere  is  the  danger  of  the  regulatory  body’s  impotence  more  starkly  illustrated  than  in  the  courts,  where  it  seems  that unregistered,  unqualified  and  potentially  unfit  psychologists  can  operate  as  ‘experts’  in  even  the  most  serious  cases  of murder,  rape  or  child  sexual  exploitation.  No-one  illustrates  this  absurd  Catch-22  better  than  ‘consultant  psychologist’ [edited],  who  has  acted  as  an  expert  in  several  high-profile  cases,  including  the  [edited]  child  grooming  case,  where a  gang  raped  and  trafficked  underage  girls.

[Edited],  a  trained  educational  psychologist  who  used  to  work  in  local  government,  has  been  the  subject  of  at  least  four complaints,  including  manipulating  data  and  acting  beyond  his  qualifications  and  expertise.  Three  have  not  been  investigated because  he  has  never  been  registered  with  the  HCPC.  Because  of  the  fourth,  his  application  for  registration  in  2012  was refused,  when  he  was  judged  to  be  ‘not  of  good  character’.

According  to  his  website,  [edited]  also  acts  in  the  family  courts  in  sensitive  child  contact  and  care  cases,  in  what  looks  like a  clear  breach  of  new  guidelines  from  the  Family  Justice  Council  (a  public  body  which  advises  on  family  justice  matters) and  the  industry  body  the  British  Psychological  Society  (BPS).  The  guidelines  state  that  family  courts  expect  all psychologists  acting  as  experts  to  be  HCPC-registered  unless  they  are  academics.

In  fact  his  website  offers  services  in  several  of  the  areas  of  expertise  covered  by  protected  titles  (educational,  forensic, practitioner,  counselling),  again  contrary  to  what  the  BPS  says  in  its  online  directory  of  chartered  psychologists  (in  which [edited]  is  listed).  It  says  that  ‘anyone  offering  services  within  these  [protected  title]  areas  must  also  be  registered’  with  the HCPC.

[Edited]  website  logo  even  uses  the  word  ‘educational’  –  but  because  he  simply  chooses  to  call  himself  a  ‘consultant’,  the HCPC  maintains  he  is  not  misusing  a  protected  title  and  thus  it  can’t  act.  It  adds  that  statutory  regulation  and corresponding  regulatory  titles  are  decided  by  the  government,  and  it’s  for  ministers  to  change  them.  The  BPS,  meanwhile, says  it  now  only  ‘advises’  on  standards  and  best  practice,  ‘but  where  we  are  aware  of  gaps  in  regulation,  we  raise  these with  the  regulator’  –  i.e.  the  HCPC!

The  BPS  says  it  can’t  comment  on  individual  members,  but  adds  that  it  has  raised  concerns  that  the  general  title ‘psychologist’  is  not  protected.  It  still  seems  happy  to  promote  [edited],  though.

As  the  HCPC  admits,  [edited]  is  not  the  only  one  dancing  rings  around  registration. Prof.  Jane  Ireland  –  author  of  a damning  2012  study  which  triggered  the  recent  family  court  reform,  having  found  that  one  in  five  psychologists  in  family cases  was  working  beyond  their  expertise  and  65%  of  expert  reports  were  either  of  ‘poor’  or  ‘very  poor’  quality  –  tells  the Eye:  ‘All  practising  psychologists  who  act  as  expert  witnesses  should  be  regulated  so  that  the  public  are  protected’.

[Edited]  was  refused  registration  because  of  ‘concerns  about  his  character’  after  staff  at  [edited]  Young  offenders Institution  asked  in  2012  for  proof  of  identity  and,  er,  HCPC  registration.  It  triggered  lengthy  and  ‘inappropriate’ correspondence  between  [edited]  and  the  jail.  An  HCPC  regulatory  panel  threw  out  his  appeal  in  2013,  saying  he  was completely  unable  to  accept  that  his  written  outbursts  had  been  unacceptable,  that  he  had  demonstrated  no  insight  into  the potential  consequences  and  that  he  had  shown  no  remorse.  The  panel  said  that  he  had  displayed  a  similar  attitude  in communication  with  the  HCPC  itself,  that  it  could  not  rule  out  a  repetition  of  similar  behaviour  and  that  his  conduct  would ‘damage  public  confidence  in  the  regulatory  process’.

[Edited]  response  to  the  three  complaints  made  by  fellow  psychologists  has  been  to  fire  off  counter-allegations,  the  irony being  that  those  properly  registered  and  regulated  complainants  then  find  themselves  under  HCPC  investigation,  while  he escapes.

Thus,  in  the  [edited]  grooming  case,  [edited],  a  registered  chartered  psychologist,  was  so  alarmed  to  find  an unregistered  educational  psychologist,  whom  she  considered  neither  qualified  to  reach  his  conclusions  about  an  adult  sex attacker  nor  completely  open  about  those  conclusions,  that  she  complained  to  both  the  HCPC  and  the  BPS.  She  was  told neither  could  do  anything.  Instead  she  herself  was  investigated  when  [edited]  fired  off  a  counterblast.  ‘It  was  very  irritating, but  of  course  there  was  no  merit  in  his  complaints  and  they  were  all  swiftly  dismissed,’  she  told  the  Eye.  [Edited]  boasts on  his  website  about  the  [edited]  case:  ‘Of  the  seven  men  convicted,  five  were  given  life  sentences.  The  man  I  assessed was  given  a  sentence  substantially  below  that  of  his  co-defendants,  and  without  a  tariff’.

Another  victim  of  [edited]’s  revenge  salvos  was  [edited],  an  academic  and  leading  clinical  and  forensic psychologist.  After  taking  advice,  he  complained  to  the  then  regulator,  the  BPS,  that  [edited] had  manipulated  IQ  test scores  in  the  trial  of  a  man  accused  in  2008  of  converting  replica  weapons  into  firearms  used  in  a  series  of  murders.  It made  the  man  appear  less  intelligent,  and  therefore  less  culpable.  [The academic]  told  the  Court  at  the  time  he  had  ‘never encountered  such  extraordinary  conduct  before’.  In  the  event  it  seems  [edited]  evidence  held  little  or  no  sway:  the defendant  was  convicted  and  sentenced  to  life.

When  [edited]  duly  counter-complained,  however,  the  BPS  decided  to  investigate  [edited] complaint  first.  It  swiftly  exonerated [the academic];  but  it  never  got  round  to  investigating  [edited] because,  in  the  meantime,  fitness  to  practise  and  regulatory issues  had  been  passed  to  the  HCPC.  [The academic] told  the  Eye: 

‘Guidelines  indicate  that  the  need  to  protect  clients from  unsafe  practice  from  psychological  experts  and  professional  witnesses  is  paramount.  But  there  is  absolutely  no protection  if  a  psychologist  is  not  registered’.

In  a  third  case  involving  [edited],  while  he  again  escaped  investigation  of  complaints  about  his  expertise  and  findings,  it took  almost  two  years  before  his  unfounded  counter-allegations  against  a  registered  psychologist  were  dismissed  –  this  time with  an  HCPC  apology.

No-one  can  say  whether  the  complaints  about  [edited]  would  have  been  upheld.  The  scandal  is  that  because  he  can  so easily  act  outside  the  regulatory  system,  no-one  even  bothers  to  consider  them.”

What changes would you like to see in the regulation of Family Court experts? We’d love to hear your thoughts.

A very big thank you to Roger Crawford, who alerted us to this article.

Denying a Child Their Father is Child Abuse

Nearly half of all marriages end in divorce. When they do dads are being made increasingly irrelevant in the life of their kids, often as a result of spite or malice, with tragic consequences on children, families and communities.

A new Toronto billboard campaign will spotlight a form of child abuse psychologists call parental alienation, which has been associated with anxiety, depression, criminality and even suicide in child victims. The billboard image shows a child being pulled out of the loving arms of her father while declaring: "I am not parental prey. Help me keep mommy AND daddy." 

It is the location of the recently launched first of its kind "Fathering After Separation or Divorce" program for fathers in the community, some of whom have been kept from their kids for years.

These billboard ads are the second in a three part campaign sponsored by the educational charity Canadian Association for Equality (CAFE) that is challenging social attitudes towards men's issues. Earlier this year a head-turning billboard called attention to male survivors of domestic violence and sparked a nationwide campaign to fund resources for male victims of violence.

"Our goal with this new ad is to highlight the negative impact of parental alienation on children and the family as a whole," said Justin Trottier, CAFE Spokesperson. "Maliciously impeding a healthy parent-child relationship is damaging to a child's emotional and psychological development." 

Since the alienated parent is most often the father, the effects of parental alienation combine with a biased family court system to result in the forced absence of dads from the lives of their children. Research shows fatherless children are more likely to drop out of school, engage in substance abuse, become incarcerated or pregnant as teenagers.

"Shared parenting arrangements should be developed which allow for as much involvement as possible by both parents," said Trottier.

Social workers given new guidance for section 20 arrangements amid ‘misuse and abuse’

Family courts chief warns of greater scrutiny of councils' use of the voluntary arrangements as he sets out ruling on international transfer of care case

The chief of the family courts has attacked councils’ use of section 20 arrangements, saying the voluntary care agreement is subject to “misuse and abuse”.

In an appeal judgement published last week, Sir James Munby issued new guidance for section 20 arrangements, and warned councils that if they cannot defend their use of them, they can expect “stringent criticism and possible exposure to successful claims for damages”.

Munby was concerned about children being placed with section 20 care agreement as a long “prelude to care proceedings”.

“It is, in my judgment, and I use the phrase advisedly and deliberately, a misuse by the local authority of its statutory powers,” Munby said.

Problem areas

A section 20 arrangement allows a child to be accommodated by the local authority, but it must be agreed to by those with parental responsibility. Use of section 20 has increased steadily since 2013, and a recent case involving a section 20 arrangement ended with the judge criticising social workers for the “most shocking misunderstanding of the law”, and a mother and daughter awarded record damages.

Munby identified four problems with the current use of section 20 arrangements:

• Failure of councils to get informed consent from the parents from the outset.
• How consent is recorded by local authorities. There is no requirement, in law, for the agreement to be in or evidenced by writing, “but a prudent local authority will surely always wish to ensure that an alleged parental consent in such a case is properly recorded in writing and evidenced by the parents’ signature,” Munby said.
• That section 20 arrangements are allowed to continue for far too long.
• Local authorities are reluctant to return the child to the parent(s) immediately after parental consent is withdrawn.

New guidance

Munby called the misuse “not just a matter of bad practice” and insisted: “It is wrong; it is a denial of the fundamental rights of both the parent and the child; it will no longer be tolerated; and it must stop.”

As a result of the concerns, Munby set out new guidance for what “future good practice requires”:

• Where possible, the agreement of a parent to a section 20 arrangement should be properly recorded in writing and evidenced by the parent’s signature.
• The written document should be clear and precise and drafted in simple and straight-forward language that a parent can readily understand.
• The written document should spell out that the parent can “remove the child” from the local authority accommodation “at any time”.
• The written document should not seek to impose any fetters of the parent’s right to withdraw consent.
• Where the parent is not fluent in English, the written document should be translated into the parent’s own language and the parent should sign the foreign language text, adding, in the parent’s language, words to the effect that ‘I have read this document and I agree to its terms.’

Munby said: “From now on, local authorities which use section 20 as a prelude to care proceedings for lengthy periods or which fail to follow the good practice I have identified, can expect to be subjected to probing questioning by the court. If the answers are not satisfactory, the local authority can expect stringent criticism and possible exposure to successful claims for damages.”

Appeal

The guidance was set out in an appeal hearing against the decision to move the judgment of two children’s future care back to their home country.

The two children, who were Hungarian citizens but born in the UK, were placed in local authority care under a section 20 arrangement in mid-2013, but care proceedings were not brought until January 2014.

The local authority was appealing the decision by a judge that the care and placement order proceedings should be directed to Hungary, of which the children were citizens.

The appeal was rejected because, although it was acknowledged that the courts of England and Wales do have jurisdiction to make placement and adoption orders in the case of children who are not UK citizens, it was judged that the Brussels II (commonly referred to as Brussels II Revised) regulation in European law, which covers the jurisdiction in the matters of parental responsibility, was the right order to pursue.

The regulation applies in civil matters that relate to “the attribution, exercise, delegation, restriction or termination of parental responsibility”, and “the placement of the child in a foster family or in institutional care”.

The regulation does not apply to “decisions on adoption, measures preparatory to adoption, or the annulment or revocation of adoption”. However, as the initial application was for care proceedings and a placement order, and the care proceedings were not judged to be preparatory for adoption, the regulation applied.