Lib Dem John Hemming On The Child Sex Abuse Inquiry & Britain's Forced Adoption Scandal

Help support me to bring about 'Kieron's Law.'

I want to call on Government for information leaflets to be sent to every household in the UK to show natural parents their rights as described here- https://www.gov.uk/child-adoption/birth-parents-your-rights. I do-not have a live Case which pertains to child custody decisions being made in Court

Click here to sign this petition

Through lack of information rights, i almost died as a consequence. I'm recovering alcoholic of 8 years. I call on Government to add information to include parental rights, data protection rights, children's rights, compliments and complaints links to Children's Services, Cafcass, medical court expert witnesses, Judges, Solicitors, Barnardo's, Surestart and links to human rights. I would request that this information be added where Local Councils provide the printed information already.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/132401

• Created by Michele Simmons
• Deadline 10 December 2016 All petitions run for 6 months

 

Limitations - an update

"Please note that in order to bring a clinical negligence claim, you have only 3 years from the date the incident occurred or the date that you became aware or should have become aware that you had suffered.

It is sometimes possible to bring a case outside the 3 year limitation period but Judges normally take a dim view and it would be very much an uphill struggle.

Therefore, to ensure that you can bring a claim, you must issue proceedings at court within the 3 year limitation period."

So why then do you think Oxford Social Services denied any knowledge in to the circumstances which led to the death of my daughter?  Despite our continued and constant requests for information!

Why did they insist we NOT contact the coroner, and solely rely on them?  Stating that the coroner would only deal with Social Services in this case!

Why did Oxford Social Services not provide all the facts they were given, due to the continued contact the had with both the Coroner and the Police investigating the death?

Possibly because they are the Corporate Parent, The Councillor of Oxfordshire County Council Mr Ian Hudspeth (a locally elected Leader of the Council) is the Corporate Parent and all of them are in the firing line!

Well in an up date to this post we have since found out the following information:

Special rules apply for children or patients being treated under the Mental Health Act 1983. The time limit (limitation period) does not begin for these people until the legal incapacity is removed. In the case of a child, the three year time limit would begin from the date of their 18th birthday and in the case of a patient treated under the Mental Health Act 1983, the three year deadline would begin from the date they were discharged as a patient. 

So Oxford Social Services looks like you didn't do your homework well enough in this case D- 

HCPC - UK Social Workers

The HCPC makes me laugh and guffaw, they will suspend a Social Worker for "pulling a sickie",

Social worker suspended for pulling sickie so she could start new job

yet those at Oxford Social Service who lied and intentionally misled the Family Court a fact we can evidence using their own written notes and documents.  Are still able to work their jobs stealing children from their families.

Like our IRO who for 6 years didn't even do her actual job, a simple fact which I evidenced in my post
https://oxfordshiresocialservices.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/letter-of-complaint-regarding-justine.html

I look forward to the day that the HCPC investigate our case and complaint, I look forward to seeing those involved being held to account.  But it saddens me that the Children and families of Oxford are not safe until then.

Offences Against the Person Act 1861 - Child Stealing

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/56

1861 c. 100 (Regnal. 24_and_25_Vict) Child-stealingSection 56

In an interesting update to legislation

Child-stealing.

Whosoever shall unlawfully, either by force or fraud, lead or take away, or decoy or entice away or detain, any child under the age of fourteen years, with intent to deprive any parent, guardian, or other person having the lawful care or charge of such child of the possession of such child, or with intent to steal any article upon or about the person of such child, to whomsoever such article may belong, and whosoever shall, with any such intent, receive or harbour any such child, knowing the same to have been, by force or fraud, led, taken, decoyed, enticed away, or detained, as in this section before mentioned, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be kept in penal servitude for any term not exceeding seven years . . . F2 or to be imprisoned . . . F3. Provided, that no person who shall have claimed any right to the possession of such child, or shall be the mother or shall have claimed to be the father of an illegitimate child, shall be liable to be prosecuted by virtue hereof on account of the getting possession of such child, or taking such child out of the possession of any person having the lawful charge thereof.]


Amendments (Textual)

F1S. 56 repealed (E.W.) by Child Abduction Act 1984 (c. 37, SIF 39:4), s. 11(5)(a) and (N.I.) by S.I. 1985/1638 (N.I.17), art. 7(4)

F2Words repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1892 (c. 19)

F3Words repealed by Statute Law Revision Act 1892 (c. 19) and Criminal Justice Act 1948 (c. 58), Sch. 10 Pt. I
 

Scandal of 'unqualified' experts who advise our family courts: Decisions about the care of thousands of children routinely flawed

In an article written for the Mail on Line in March 2012, Katherine Faulkner reported on the number of 'unqualified' experts who advise our Family Courts.  The full article can be read here. 

In 2011 & 2012 my brother and his family were subjected to this flawed evidence by so called 'experts', their 'expert' psychologists or psychiatrists report had been carried out by people who were writing reports in areas entirely beyond their knowledge and qualifications.

Their 'expert' even lied in their report into my brother, stating that they had spent 7 hours with him.  This meeting started at 10am on a Tuesday morning, my brother had travelled 2 and a half hours for this meeting which started late and was home by 5pm that evening.  Meaning that the meeting could not possible have finished any later than 2pm.  Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can work out that 10am - 2pm is no way near 7 hours.  Yet his so called 'experts' claimed in writing that this was a fact.

This so called 'expert' witness was supposed to be independent, yet large amounts of his report are exact extracts from other reports used against my brother and his family for the court.  The professor, an 'expert' witness for the Local Authority who under took my brothers case showed a complete lack of understanding regarding this case and his report was mainly opinion based on no formal assessment.

But, detrimentally his evidence was cited as fact.

Even in the report written regarding the children's step father was a crock.  The step father stated that he had joined the RAF Cadets at age 14, but left at 16 because his unit were being sent to the Iraq war and he didn't want to go to war!  The 'expert' witness commented that he felt this kind of pressure was a catalyst for the step father.  Now, my family comes from an armed forces background.  Our father served for 26 years and was then retained as a contractor trainer by the MOD for an additional 10years.  But even with our background knowledge EVERYONE knows that the armed forces DO NOT send Cadets at 16 years old to a war.  This might have been historically done in WW1 or WW2 but seriously is not done now.  These are children whose closest dealing is learning how to march, salute even orienteering.  The step father is clearly lying but the 'expert' didn't even question it.

Yet you read his report into my brother and he has my brother growing up in a violent, abusive household where the father was never present.  Our father, who was a single parent bringing up 4 kids was apparently never at home yet managed to be abusive and violent.  This 'expert' has never met our father, yet thought nothing of defaming his character.  He made his assumptions based on the comment by my brother who said "we had to be aware, aware of the dangers", when read in context that comment isn't as incriminating as the 'expert' made it.  They were discussing our experiences as a family with a serving parent and the effect the IRA had on our childhood in the 1980's.  

I truly hope that our 'expert' witness is amongst those about to be outed as unqualified but in my opinion inept would cover it better.

Safeguarding - The update

Under new legislation passed in 2015 Safeguarding now covers 10 Key components

This is the original 5 (pre 2015)

1.       Physical Abuse

2.       Sexual Abuse

3.       Financial or Material Abuse

4.       Psychological or Emotional Abuse

5.       Neglect or Acts of omission

The Additional components

6.       Self-neglect

7.       Domestic Violence or Abuse

8.       Modern Slavery

9.       Discriminatory Abuse

10.   ORGANISATIONAL**

** Organisational or institutional abuse is the mistreatment of people brought about by poor or inadequate care or support, or systematic poor practice that affects the whole care setting. It occurs when the individual's wishes and needs are sacrificed for the smooth running of a group, service or organisation.

 

Also in 2015, the government made clear the 6 Safeguarding Principles

1.       Empowerment

2.       Protection

3.       Prevention

4.       Proportionate Responses

5.       Partnership

6.       ACCOUNTABILITY***

*** accountability /əˌkaʊntəˈbɪlɪti/

noun

noun: accountability

the fact or condition of being accountable; responsibility.

"lack of accountability has corroded public respect for business and political leaders"

synonyms:	responsibility, liability, answerability "there must be clear accountability for the expenditure of public money" answerability, responsibility, reporting, obedience "ministers' accountability to parliament"
antonyms:	unaccountability