n November 2013 my sister and I were removed from our mother by North Tyneside Social Services despite being happy and healthy under her care and the following year
placed in foster care by Judge Hudson despite the fact that the threshold had not been met. My sister and I were allowed no contact. I haven't see her since December 2013!
Threshold was not met
1. It needs to be acknowledged that deliberate abuse of due process of court, through the submission of falsified information either knowingly or accidentally submitted in order to separate a child from its parent, amounts to child abuse, as under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, it contravenes the lawful right to family life.
It is imperative therefore that honest and accurate evidence and evaluations be submitted, in such a situation where children are removed from their parents care.
My youngest daughter Kalindi was only 15 months when they took her from me and she was still breastfeeding, up to 6 times per day. Every time I would see her, she would cry and scream to be back with me, however the Local Authority twisted this and said is was me who was making her cry, anyone with any sense would see the complete absurdity of that scenario, except for the English Social Services that is.
However, that my daughter was often crying because Social Workers would bring her to see me when she was tired and needed to sleep. Sometimes she was so extremely tired she would just cry out loud; this would make me upset and I would terminate the contact. I did however request several times, for my daughter not to be brought into contact if she was tired, I was completely and totally ignored. In fact it was not until Pat from Family in Care, which is an English charity, became involved, that this changed. Only through her intervention was the time changed for me to see my daughter. (From 1.00pm to 10.00am). From that point forward, contact became infinitely more tolerable as my baby was no longer tired.
This duck is the toy that she likes the most, I bought many for her already and usually
she carries it with her when she has to go. .
Always when I visit her, I bring her feta cheese with olives, two types of bread, smothie and pure fuit juice, all without sugar. Today
, 17/09/14, I bought her a ball and other toys, but again she didn't play much with her toys.
As always, she sat on my lap and drunk all the grape juice and ate the cheese and some bread.
Today as I usually do, I brought a picture of one of our 3 cats. She like it so much that she takes it home holding the picture.
Today she went away with the 2 little chiks inside each of her jackets' porckets.
Today, when she was about to go inside the car, she said: "Bye Bye Mama"."
That was the first time she called me like that. Usually she says "mommy". This word, mother, is the most beautiful word in the world.
This is a cot that is empty for almost a year. Waiting for my little baby to come to sleep by my side.
Judge Rachel Hudson
Judge Rachel Hudson refused to return me to the care of my mother despite overwhelming evidence that the Care Order had been granted following fraudulent claims and defamatory remarks on the part of North Tyneside Social Services's social workers.
Her Honour was criticized by two Appeal judges. One of which was by McFarlane LJ at the Court of Appeal.
Held, per McFarlane LJ (with whom Aikens LJ agreed):
1. Whilst the judge deserved respect for the manner in which she had approached the very difficult decision, she had not taken into consideration a number of significant matters, the omission of which rendered the judicial analysis unsafe.
2. The judge had failed to look into the future and to consider whether, in two or three years time (rather than now), the importance to E of maintaining contact with A and C justified having no direct contact with her relatives in this country.
3. She had also insufficiently assessed the potential for unstructured contact between E and her parents via social media, given its potential to cut across the embargo on contact.
4. The judge had proceeded on the basis that, if face to face contact with A and C failed, it would be likely that contact with the father and L would be re-established, whereas, in reality, that situation would be complicated by the knowledge that E may have gained through contact with A and C and there would be a need for a root and branch reappraisal of the options at that stage [paragraph 34].
5. The "conventional starting point" for children in long term foster care was to have "fairly regular direct contact unless there are specific child forces reasons for taking an alternative course". The Court was: "struck by the apparent absence of consideration of the impact on E, once she reaches the end of her time in care, if she has not maintained any relationship with members of her family in this country during the intervening 7 or 8 years" [paragraph 35].
The Court of Appeal therefore allowed the appeal and directed that the matter be remitted to a different judge for fresh consideration (with up to date evidence of E's wishes and feelings) whilst expressing no view as to what the eventual outcome should be.
The evidence in a criminal court is far superior to that in the family courts, but when it comes to adoption, there should be no difference at all. This is a fundamental failure and in fact that is where the root of where this problem lies.
Adoptions should be decided by a Jury, as is done in any criminal court whilst the evidence of Social Workers should be stringently monitored for inaccuracies and if any deliberate inaccuracies are found, then it should result in immediate dismissal of both the case and the Social Worker concerned. Where is the safeguard to prevent any Social Worker from being biased?
It is wholly unacceptable that children are removed into care based on corrupt evidence and even more unacceptable that Social Workers can use the cover of secrecy to lie in court.
The system is biased towards the professionals and as a result the adoptive process has become nothing more than a sham.