Sunday, 19 May 2013
Importance In Context: Freehand Informations - Particulars
PARTICULARS OF CRIMES
1. That Jaswinder Purewal, social worker acting on behalf of NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL did commit the act of affray as he threatened to disunite offspring from their natural family and abduct them into State custody, within earshot of our offspring and with sufficient volume that they heard every word he said causing them great distress;
2. That the aforementioned Jaswinder Purewal, did commit the act of perverting the course of justice by submitting false testimony to his superiors;
3. That the aforementioned Jaswinder Purewal did commit acts of destruction of evidence vital to the case for rebuttal of the LOCAL AUTHORITY’s case; namely case notes encompassing records of telephone conversations between himself and other agencies;
4. That the aforementioned Jaswinder Purewal did commit the act of conspiracy to kidnap as he colluded with other agencies to construct false allegations of abuse and/or neglect against ourselves with the intention of abduction of minors[1].
5. That Maxine Agatha Rose, social worker GSCC: E/1052458 acting on behalf of NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL did commit the act of affray when she stated using sufficient volume for our offspring to hear, causing them great distress, that she would have them removed to State custody on the grounds of neglect and emotional harm;
6. That the aforementioned Maxine Agatha Rose did commit the act of perverting the course of justice when she submitted false allegations and knowingly misled the COURT as to the nature and origins of certain photographs she herself claimed to have captured;
7. That the aforementioned Maxine Agatha Rose did commit the act of perjury when she changed her account on several occasions – while on Oath – as to the nature and origin of the aforementioned pieces of evidence;
8. That the aforementioned Maxine Agatha Rose did commit acts of destruction of evidence vital to the case for rebuttal of the LOCAL AUTHORITY’s case; namely case notes encompassing records of telephone conversations between herself and other agencies;
9. That the aforementioned Maxine Agatha Rose did commit the act of torture over the period of time she was assigned to our case in that she repeatedly reiterated her and the LOCAL AUTHORITY’s intention to remove our offspring in an act of kidnap, in a voice of sufficient volume for our offspring to hear, causing great mental distress;
10. That the aforementioned Maxine Agatha Rose did commit the act of conspiracy to kidnap when she attended the Advocates Meetings during the week-long hearing in 2009, to which we were neither invited nor party to, before she took Oath to give evidence.
11. That Stephen Richard Parker, agency social worker GSCC: E/1054286 acting on behalf of NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL, did commit the act of perjury when he made false testimony in statements submitted by and on behalf of the LOCAL AUTHORITY;
12. That the aforementioned Stephen Richard Parker did commit the act of affray when he continually iterated to us his intention to abduct our offspring to State custody, within earshot of our offspring on many occasions, and of sufficient volume that they heard every word he said which caused them great distress;
13. That the aforementioned Stephen Richard Parker did commit acts of destruction of evidence vital to the case for rebuttal of the LOCAL AUTHORITY’s case; namely case notes encompassing records of telephone conversations between himself and other agencies ;
14. That the aforementioned Stephen Richard Parker did commit the act of perverting the course of justice when he submitted false written testimony to his superiors;
15. That the aforementioned Stephen Richard Parker did commit the act of conspiracy to kidnap when he colluded with outside agencies before and during the hearings in 2009 to ensure the unlawful removal of our offspring to State custody.
16. That Carol Norman, principal at Welbeck Primary and Nursery Unit in Nottingham, did commit the act of perverting the course of justice when she submitted false written testimony to her superiors;
17. That the aforementioned Carol Norman did commit the act of racial discrimination on several occasions, when she was witnessed to have said, on school premises, that the ethnic minorities caused or got into more trouble than the “white kids”;
18. That the aforementioned Carol Norman did commit acts of destruction of evidence vital to the case for rebuttal of the LOCAL AUTHORITY’s case; namely case notes encompassing records of telephone conversations between herself and other agencies;
19. That the aforementioned Carol Norman did on many occasions commit the act of child physical abuse and torture: on at least one such occasion a child reported, with no prompting or otherlike coercion, that one of her classmates had been sent by Mrs. Norman to stand facing a blank wall, on his own, for more than forty five minutes. Our own offspring have suffered unexplained injuries while in the ultimate care of this woman, every report of unexplained injury has gone unexamined. In fact, one injury sustained by our youngest son, was sustained at school after he struck his head on the corner of a table; this required hospital treatment and stitches to a laceration above his eye, yet was not entered into the accident book as is the school’s statutory duty; this incident was later put forward by Mrs. Norman as a claim that it was a cigarette burn inflicted by Mrs. Moore!
20. That the aforementioned Carol Norman did commit further acts of defamation with claims that she had witnessed Mrs. Moore hitting and kicking _________________ “all the way to school”. This would be a: impossible unless such an act actually occurred, which it did not, b: impossible to corroborate since the act which did not take place therefore could not and did not have witnesses to the nonevent, c: impossible to prove since it did not happen therefore did not leave bruises or marks which therefore could not be photographed, and d: impossible to corroborate with police reports, call records to the police or emergency services switchboard as said event did not happen as she claimed as it would then have been her statutory duty to report immediately such actions to the police for the sake of protecting offspring from harm.
21. That the aforementioned Carol Norman did commit the act of affray as she kept our offspring in a constant state of paranoia after telling them that she was going to have them taken from us their parents because she considered a mixed-ethnicity marriage to be unnatural and not allowable;
22. That the aforementioned Carol Norman did commit the act of perjury as she submitted false testimony to the COURT regarding the events laid out in para. 15-16 of this document, while claiming not to be racist – her comments, witnessed by several, indicate to the contrary;
23. That the aforementioned Carol Norman did commit acts amounting to conspiracy to kidnap as she colluded with the LOCAL AUTHORITY and the Legal Teams in closed Advocacy meetings during the hearings, and closed interagency meetings before the hearings, to unlawfully remove offspring to State custody. It is our demonstrable belief that the schools’ Gifted & Talented Register is a tool that is used to cherry-pick the best and brightest and most aesthetically pleasing of offspring to unlawfully remove from their families to feed the cottage industry that is commonly known as the care industry;
24. That the aforementioned Carol Norman did commit the act of professional malpractice as she failed in her Statutory duty of care to ensure the safety and well being of not only our offspring while they attended that school, but also to every other child who continues to attend that school.
25. That the aforementioned Carol Norman did commit acts of child sexual assault when she looked down the trouser of our offspring supposedly to check that they were wearing clean underwear – is a child’s word that they are, not sufficient?
26. That Maria Lacey, offspring’s worker formerly of the now-defunct Trent Family Centre, did commit the act of perverting the course of justice by submitting false testimony to her superiors;
27. That the aforementioned Maria Lacey did commit the act of affray when she threatened to report that I was being deliberately obstructive (I may have been but that was my lawful choice to do so) when she attempted to interrogate me about my family history, to her superiors hence claim grounds for an emergency protection order;
28. That the aforementioned Maria Lacey did commit acts of destruction of evidence vital to the case for rebuttal of the LOCAL AUTHORITY’s case; namely case notes encompassing records of telephone conversations between herself and other agencies;
29. That the aforementioned Maria Lacey did commit acts of perjury when she relayed fabricated testimony about those interviews, encompassing her notes regarding our responses to and during the Webster-Stratton Better Parenting Course which she told us said notes were confidential, in a sworn affidavit to COURT via the CAFCASS Guardian ad Litem’s notes and in its entirety via the LOCAL AUTHORITY;
30. That the aforementioned Maria Lacey did commit acts amounting to conspiracy to kidnap when her aforementioned actions are taken as read and the fact that she also reported in closed interagency meetings about our “progress” during the Webster-Stratton course.
31. That Dr. Degala. Shankar, general practitioner, Meadows Health Centre, did commit acts of perverting the course of justice when he failed to disclose the results of a blood test performed on myself at the Queen’s Medical Centre on 2 August 2008, which showed a positive hit for Type II Diabetes/hypoglycaemia and a recommendation for further testing on an urgent basis;
32. That the aforementioned Dr. Degala Shankar did commit acts of criminal neglect by destroying said documents, physical copy as well as digital scan copy, in relation to those blood tests, thus placing the lives not only of myself, but those of my biological offspring, in danger. As the principal general practitioner for our family, we do hold him ultimately responsible for the accuracy, safety and disposition of our records, particularly those which might save our lives.
33. That Dr. Rudrashetty Sree C Rao, general practitioner, Meadows Health Centre, did commit acts of perverting the course of justice as partner practitioner to Dr. Shankar in neglecting to ensure that medical records regarding a potentially life-threatening situation are kept accurately;
34. That the aforementioned Dr. Rudrashetty Sree C Rao did thus commit acts of criminal neglect in not reporting his partner practitioner to the General Medical Council when it was pointed out to him by myself that where my bloodwork results should have been in my digital medical record, there was a gap. It was not missing, there was a gap where that record should have been – it had been deliberately erased.
35. That Andrew Kawalek, consultant educational psychologist acting for the LOCAL AUTHORITY under instruction from the COURT and contracted by same through Carter Brown Associates, did commit acts of perverting the course of justice when he submitted falsified records of meetings with service users, being ourselves, to the COURT via the CAFCASS Guardian ad Litem and her representative;
36. That the aforementioned Andrew Kawalek committed fraud by claiming that he was a consultant psychologist when in fact he is an educational psychologist, hence entirely unqualified to make the nature of the report that he claimed as an accurate representation of the meetings he had with us and his interpretation of events that he also claimed to be qualified to make opinion-based testimony upon – for which again, he was entirely unqualified; further that the qualifications claimed upon his CV as supplied in the case bundle did not correspond with the information given by the University he claims to have studied at;
37. That the aforementioned Andrew Kawalek did commit acts of affray by threatening to have myself committed under the Mental Health Act if I did not cooperate with his unqualified line of interrogation;
38. That the aforementioned Andrew Kawalek did commit acts of perjury by submitting a supplementary report to his initial report to the COURT on promise of extra money, which retracted the positive statements he had made in his initial report and replaced them under detailed instruction from the CAFCASS legal representative with comments intended to prejudice the case in favour of the LOCAL AUTHORITY;
39. That the aforementioned Andrew Kawalek did commit acts of criminal neglect by claiming that he was qualified to make diagnoses of mental distress in ourselves (offspring and adults) and offer us a reference with pre-diagnosis to the community mental health team.
40. That Melvin Harris, District Judge, North Midland Circuit, did pervert the course of justice when he failed on numerous occasions to pull the LOCAL AUTHORITY up on their repeated use, and presentation, of hearsay evidence, as factual and that he accepted tampered evidence from the “defendant”’s legal representative as first-hand (I refer here to dark-copied, facsimile-quality black and white photographs with no annotations from high-quality colour originals that I myself captured that day and supplied on high-quality stock with date and time stamps intact and visible below each image);
41. That the aforementioned Melvin Harris did commit acts of criminal malpractice in the service of the crown when he pretended rule of Napoleonic Code over Common Law, thus usurping power, authority and status of the crown while claiming to serve same;
42. That the aforementioned Melvin Harris did ultimately commit the crime of kidnap, being as it was by his instruction that the LOCAL AUTHORITY did act to unlawfully take three offspring form their Place of Corporate Daycare into their custody;
43. That the aforementioned Melvin Harris did act in conspiracy to kidnap as not once did he pull up any of the LOCAL AUTHORITY witnesses who blatantly were caught in perjury to his Office, instead allowing them to continue their lies unchallenged; further that he did not ask of we the natural parents that we had anything further to say to the COURT, nor at any time did he ever invite we the parents to directly address the COURT or cross-examine the witnesses as is our right under Magna Carta to directly face our accuser;
44. That the aforementioned Melvin Harris, in the pretended service of the crown and with the charges laid out in preceding paragraphs, did commit an overt act of treason to the Crown.
45. That Louise Smith, offspring’s worker at Surestart Meadows, did commits acts of affray when she threated, in front of our offspring and ensuring they heard her, to have them removed for emotional abuse and neglect;
46. That the aforementioned Louise Smith did commit acts of perjury by submitting false and fabricated statements to the LOCAL AUTHORITY and to the COURT;
47. That the aforementioned Louise Smith did commit acts of perverting the course of justice when she lied on Oath to the COURT about the contents of her statements; further that she attempted to introduce fabricated evidence that was not previously made known to any other party;
48. That the aforementioned Louise Smith did commit acts of destruction of evidence vital to the case for rebuttal of the LOCAL AUTHORITY’s case; namely case notes encompassing records of telephone conversations between herself and other agencies;
49. That the aforementioned Louise Smith did commit acts of torture in continuing her threats to have our offspring removed – within earshot of our offspring so causing them great mental distress;
50. That the aforementioned Louise Smith did commit acts tantamount to conspiracy to kidnap when she colluded with the closed meeting of advocates before entering the COURT and testifying on Oath.
51. That Gillian Pegg, social worker (team leader) GSCC: E/1023014 acting for NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL did commit acts of perverting the course of justice by instructing those in her charge to commit actions as laid out, both without and within the FPC setting with the intended endgame of the removal of our offspring to State custody;
52. That the aforementioned Gillian Pegg aided and abetted in the act of torture by instructing those in her charge in methods intended to cause maximum psychiatric injury;
53. That the aforementioned Gillian Pegg aided and abetted in acts of affray when she instructed those in her charge to use methods intended to cause affray;
54. That the aforementioned Gillian Pegg committed acts of criminal neglect by virtue of her instructions to those in her charge to use unlawful methods to cause psychiatric injury, affray and the continued withholding of essential services to the family, encompassing but not limited to community mental health services, structural repairs to the home, with the intended endgame being an attempt to demonstrate negligence on our part as grounds for removal of our offspring;
55. That the aforementioned Gillian Pegg did commit acts tantamount to conspiracy to kidnap by virtue of the charges laid against her in preceding paragraphs combined with the fact that after the Permanent Care Order was granted to the LOCAL AUTHORITY she then attempted to further defame our names and characters via Valerie Cresswell to a close family friend whom we have accepted as Godmother to our youngest son, by the false claim that we were unfit parents.
56. That Jane Harding, health visitor attached to Nottingham NHS Trust and NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL, did commit acts tantamount to criminal malpractice in neglecting to offer information vital to the proper consideration of the case, also in offering opinion as fact as to the the mental disposition of mother and offspring, which she is unqualified to do;
57. That the aforementioned Jane Harding did commit acts of perjury in the aforementioned act when she offered, yet again, opinion as fact while under Oath;
58. That the aforementioned Jane Harding did commit acts tantamount to perverting the course of justice in withholding information vital to the fair consideration of the case from the attention of the COURT.
59. That David Stansfield, social worker (team leader) GSCC: E/1059593 acting on behalf of NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL, did commit acts tantamount to perverting the course of justice by compartmentalising and burying information vital to initiating a review of the Permanent Care Order gleaned while chairing a Looked After Child Review conference;
60. That the aforementioned David Stansfield did commit acts tantamount to civil perjury when he made a statement in an LAC meeting to the effect that he would investigate allegations made by ourselves against the LOCAL AUTHORITY, on the trust that he was acting in that meeting independently from the LOCAL AUTHORITY as we had been up to that point led to believe;
61. That the aforementioned David Stansfield has therefore implicated himself in the conspiracy to kidnap minors.
62. That Helen Fountain, CAFCASS officer/social worker (agency unknown), did commit perjury when she offered demonstrably secondhand opinion as her own version of fact while under Oath;
63. That the aforementioned Helen Fountain did commit affray when she threatened to have our offspring removed under an emergency protection order when I demanded that we remain as witnesses or have another adult present in the room when she interviewed our offspring;
64. That the same Helen Fountain committed acts of criminal malpractice when she did not reveal the fact that she is a registered agency social worker until she stood to take Oath at the hearing; up to that point she had never alluded to the fact – in fact it was outright denied by the solicitors Mr. Mannering, Ms. Evans and Mr. Neil upon direct interrogation as to Ms. Fountain’s interests;
65. That the aforementioned Helen fountain did commit acts of perverting the course of justice by presenting fabricated answers to questions she never asked we parents yet claimed she did, while under Oath;
66. That the aforementioned Helen Fountain did commit acts of conspiracy to kidnap when she attended the closed-door interagency meetings before the hearings and the closed-door Advocates’ meetings before she took the stand.
67. That Stephen Mannering, solicitor acting on behalf of CAFCASS as agent representing Shelton’s Solicitors, did commmit acts of perjury when he knowingly presented opinion as fact and further that he presented fabrication as fact;
68. That the aforementioned Stephen Mannering did commit acts amounting to perverting the course of justice, when he attended interagency Advocates meetings before and during the hearing, to which we the parents were not invited, also that he failed in his duty of care to discharge his duty as instructed to represent the wishes and feelings of our offspring to the COURT;
69. That the aforementioned Stephen Mannering did commit acts of affray when he, in collusion with the aforementioned Helen Fountain, did threaten to have our offspring removed on an EPO if we did not cooperate by allowing him and Ms. Fountain to interview our offspring without an Appropriate Adult present;
70. That the aforementioned Stephen Mannering did commit acts tantamount to conspiracy to kidnap when he attended closed interagency meetings to discuss the progress of the case with the LOCAL AUTHORITY’s agents.
71. That Rosamund Evans, solicitor working for Jackson Quinn, “representing” myself, did commit perjury when she informed the COURT that we had neither witness nor oral statement to present before the COURT;
72. That the aforementioned Rosamund Evans did pervert the course of justice when she informed myself that introducing our own witnesses to events and sworn affidavits of character would harm “our case”;
73. That the aforementioned Rosamund Evans did commit criminal malpractice when she flat refused to accept my first draft statement which read thus: “I have no statement to make as there is no case to answer.”;
74. That the aforementioned Rosamund Evans did commit acts of criminal neglect when she informed us that we had no grounds for appeal against an unlawful permanent care order.
75. That Rebecca Wimble, stand-in solicitor acting through Jackson Quinn and “representing” myself, did commit acts of perjury when she failed to inform the barrister of missing or incomplete or incorrect portions of the bundle, various witness statements, inconsistencies, uncorroborated evidence in the form of single statements;
76. That the aforementioned Rebecca Wimble did commit acts amounting to perverting the course of justice through details as [75];
77. That the aforementioned Rebecca Wimble did commit acts amounting to criminal malpractice through details as [75];
78. That the aforementioned Rebecca Wimble did commit acts amounting to criminal neglect when she did corroborate Ms. Evans’ claim that we did not have grounds for appeal against an unlawful permanent care order;
79. That Graham Neil, solicitor acting on behalf of V. H. S. Fletcher’s of Nottingham and “representing” _____________________ in the FPC proceeding of 2009, did commit perjury when he compartmentalised and buried, further that he denied and continues to deny the existence of, essential documentation to aid the family’s case for rebuttal against the LOCAL AUTHORITY;
80. That the aforementioned Graham Neil did pervert the course of justice when he misled the family into the belief that we did not have the option to appeal against the permanent care order, further that he failed to make the COURT aware that he was made aware of issues in the LOCAL AUTHORITY’s bundle that they had supplied, to whit: documents pertaining to events and dispositions made on Melizza-Jayne’s behalf as a child in the care system were not supplied as requested which would have shown the current case in a historical context hence showing that the LOCAL AUTHORITY’s actions were nothing short of criminal;
81. That the aforementioned Graham Neil did commit acts of criminal malpractice in that he failed, and continues to fail, to file documents on an urgent basis to prevent the LOCAL AUTHORITY from taking actions not conducive to the wellbeing of our offspring, to whit: the children’s recent school change to which not only our offspring objected, but we did as well, in the strongest possible terms. Those objections have gone unanswered and ignored, as a result, Benjamin and Jamie have been further alienated from their family, from the friends they grew up with, and from everything else they find familiar and take comfort in;
82. That the aforementioned Graham Neil has and continues to commit acts of criminal neglect by failing to take instruction from his clients (us) instead taking instruction from the LOCAL AUTHORITY which seems to consist of “Keep them hanging in hope, don’t file anything, we’ll do the rest.”
83. That Patrick Gallagher, barrister employed by KCH Chambers in Nottingham, did commit acts of perjury when he failed to ask questions put by and on behalf of his client to the LOCAL AUTHORITY during Fact Finding; further that he was complicit in the actions which resulted in our enforced silence during the proceedings and the failure of the COURT being made aware of inconsistencies in the LOCAL AUTHORITY’s bundle documentation alongside their spoken testimony;
84. That the aforementioned Patrick Gallagher did pervert the course of justice by way of the events alluded to in [83] and the fact that he did conspire to silence us by supporting the argument that we had no appeal against the PCO;
85. That the aforementioned Patrick Gallagher did commit criminal malpractice by taking instruction from the LOCAL AUTHORITY in closed advocates meetings before and during the Final Hearing rather from me his client;
86. That the aforementioned Patrick Gallagher did commit criminal neglect when he failed to disclose to the COURT, his interest in perpetuating the industry in which he is a cornerstone player not only because of his associations with others who also just happen to still enjoy celebrity status, they are also serving elected members of local and central Government and paid contract carers themselves.
87. That Beryl Gilead, solicitor acting on behalf of NCC (the LOCAL AUTHORITY), did commit acts of perjury and perverting the course of justice when she barratted we parents accusing us during our testimonies-under-oath of actual harm and neglect when in fact no such harm or neglect had been raised to the attention of the COURT previously, in an attempt to destroy our credibility in an adversarial setting which flies against the ideal; setting under which the Children’s Act might work to the advantage of the LOCAL AUTHORITY; further that she deliberately introduced that air of adversity in an attempt to entice strong emotional outburst from we parents hence prove in the eyes of the FPC the LOCAL AUTHORITY’s blatantly false claim that we are mentally unstable;
88. That the aforementioned Beryl Gilead did commit criminal malpractice in that she failed to provide, upon request, her copy of the LOCAL AUTHORITY’s bundle to the solicitors acting on behalf of we the parents that we could check and make sure that the LOCAL AUTHORITY’s bundle matched ours in content – which, as it later turned out, it did not;
89. That the aforementioned Beryl Gilead did commit criminal neglect by the above actions given in [87] and [88];
90. That the aforementioned Beryl Gilead did commit affray by her actions in [87];
91. That the aforementioned Beryl Gilead did commit acts amounting to conspiracy to kidnap when she attended closed advocates’ meetings before and during the Final Hearing, where she took instruction and gave instruction to and from the advocates acting for other agencies and from those claiming to represent we the parents.
92. That Carol O’Connor, head of special needs at the Nottingham Emmanuel School did commit perjury and did pervert the course of justice when she claimed that photographs showing a pair of shoes that were clearly too large for someone the size of a seven year old did in fact belong to him; further that she claimed that the condition of our son’s pack for a school trip was flea ridden and soaked in urine; this was a blatantly false claim, as half his pack was delivered by myself in clean and parasite-free condition and there were no other witnesses to her claims;
93. That the aforementioned Carol O’Connor did commit acts of criminal neglect when she failed to voice any concerns she may have had with ___________________ presentation at the time of the event instead of sitting on it and only raising phantom issues when coerced into it by the LOCAL AUTHORITY and submitting perjurious statements to the COURT;
94. That the aforementioned Carol O’Connor did commit acts of professional malpractice by her actions in [93];
95. That the aforementioned Carol O’Connor did commit conspiracy to kidnap when she attended closed Advocates’ meetings before and during the Hearings, and before she took the Stand and perjured herself.
96. That Kathryn Emma McGovern, social worker GSCC: E/1138375 acting on behalf of NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL, did commit acts in contempt of Court when she changed our youngest two boys’ school without permission or leave of the Court, violating stipulation of the PCO.
97. That the aforementioned Kathryn Emma McGovern did also commit acts of affray when she sent an email containing threats to terminate contact between ourselves and _________________________, _________________________, and _________________________, if we alluded to the truth of why the younger two were being moved school; notwithstanding the fact that that same week we received the email ____________________ arrived at contact clearly upset because he had been told earlier in the week that he was being moved and he had no say in the matter.
98. That the aforementioned Kathryn Emma McGovern did and continues to commit acts of vicarious child emotional abuse by allowing such abuse to continue against our offspring while under her direct supervision, after being informed by ourselves that emotional abuse had been revealed to us by our boys.
99. That the aforementioned Kathryn Emma McGovern did and continues to commit acts of vicarious child physical abuse by allowing such abuse to continue against our offspring while under her direct supervision, after being informed by ourselves that physical injuries that continue to pass unexplained are revealed to us by our boys on a regular basis.
100. That the aforementioned Kathryn Emma McGovern did commit the crime of misprision when she failed to report to the proper authorities or even her superiors, our voiced concerns about the safety of our offspring.
101. That the aforementioned Kathryn Emma McGovern did fail to inform her superiors of a previous professional relationship with ______________ going back fifteen years, which would clearly prejudice her professional position in the present.
102. That Pelham Dennis Williams, social worker acting on behalf of NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL, GSCC: E/1122337, commit acts of affray when during a contact session at TRENT FAMILY CENTRE in May of 2009, he did cause affray to our offspring when he threatened me with violence within the centre – during said incident he did stand half a metre from my body and try to stare me down.
103. That Uzma Moody, Independent Reviewing Officer GSCC: E/1114214 acting on behalf of NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL, did commits acts of professional negligence when told at a LACR conference by we parents that we had concerns over our offsprings’ mental and physical condition, she failed then to inform either her immediate superiors of our concerns or the proper authorities, which is a failure of Duty of Care stipulated in the Care Standards Act 2000.
–
1. Additionally, that NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL are held collectively liable;
2. that NOTTINGHAM MAGISTRATE’S COURT encompassing NOTTINGHAM FAMILY PROCEEDINGS COURT are held collectively liable;
3. that CARTER BROWN ASSOCIATES are held collectively liable;
4. that VHS FLETCHER’S SOLICITORS are held collectively liable;
5. that JACKSON QUINN SOLICITORS are held collectively liable;
6. that SHELTON’S SOLICITORS are held collectively liable;
7. that KCH BARRISTERS (CHAMBERS OF JAMES HOWLETT) are held collectively liable;
8. that NOTTINGHAM CITY NHS TRUST are held collectively liable;
9. that the CHURCH OF ENGLAND are held collectively liable;
10. that the now defunct GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT FOR CHILDREN, SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES, as it stood from formation to its eventual demise in May of 2010, are held collectively liable;
11. that the UK GOVERNMENT under the leadership of ANTHONY CHARLES LYNTON BLAIR, later JAMES GORDON BROWN, later DAVID WILLIAM DONALD CAMERON are held collectively liable;
- for any and all actions or inactions carried out or not by any of their agents or employees or other persons or entities authorised to act on their behalf whether or not by their explicit instruction or general or specific policy.
Finally, let it be known that copy of this document is also forwarded to:
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
ALL UK Local and National Mainstream and Alternative Media*
ALL European Local and National Mainstream and Alternative Media[2]
ALL US Local and National Mainstream and Alternative Media*
ALL Pacific Rim Local and National Mainstream and Alternative Media*
ALL Australasian Local and National Mainstream and Alternative Media*
ALL Asian Local and National Mainstream and Alternative Media*
EVERY serving member of the UK House of Commons
EVERY serving member of the Upper House (of Lords)
The Office of HM Queen Elizabeth [Windsor] II
The Office of the Attorney General of the United Kingdom, Dominic Grieve, QC, MP
I hereby certify, swear and affirm under pain of penalty and perjury that the first-hand knowledge contained within this indictment is Documented Truth.
Signed (Right Thumbprint)
[1] This act is officially recorded as a disciplinary tribunal by the General Social Care Council as a result of which, Jaswinder Purewal was stricken from the Register for Social Workers and banned from working as a Social Worker due to this and many other similar complaints.
Importance In Context: Freehand Informations - Intent
Please
note that this document is presented intact, with only the names of the
children omitted.
Notification
of Intention To Indict and Affidavit of Truth of the Family: Moore -v-
NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL Inter Alia
1. I, ______________________, currently
living in England as a Sovereign Free Man and Self-Governing as such, do hereby
make this Sworn And True Notification of Intent against NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL
inter alia, on behalf of myself and my Common-Law and Legal Spouse,
______________________, neé __________, and our offspring, _____________________________,
_____________________________, _____________________________, and
_____________________________. WE speak as ONE.
2. Firstly let it be recorded that we
are Flesh and Blood Human Beings with Souls, ergo Free under Common Law and thus
Entitled to Speak Freely with whomsoever we choose about our grievances, and
that we therefore exercise our Rights under Common Law to do so without fear of
Unlawful reprisal, and without restriction of Statute to which we neither agree
nor condone hence are not bound to obey, to whit:
3. We remain sui juris
4. WE DEMAND THAT IF NO CHARGES HAVE
EVER OR WILL EVER BE FILED IN CONNECTION WITH THE HEARING HELD IN NOTTINGHAM
FAMILY PROCEEDINGS COURT IN FEBRUARY 2009 BEFORE DISTRICT JUDGE HARRIS OF THE
NORTH MIDLAND CIRCUIT, THAT IT IS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THERE NEVER HAS BEEN A CASE
TO ANSWER AND THAT OUR OFFSPRING ARE RELEASED FROM THEIR BONDAGE IMMEDIATELY
AND RETURNED TO THE CUSTODY OF THEIR NATURAL PARENTS AS THEY WERE PRIOR TO 2
MARCH 2009.
5. That as a Lawfully recognised Family
Unit, with Offspring who are Sovereign flesh-and-blood Human Beings with Souls,
that we are afforded from this time, retrospectively and hereafter unto
perpetuity, all Common Law Rights and Liberties and Privileges due us as codified
in the Great Charter of 1215, the British constitution incorporating the Rights
of the Subject 1689, the British Bill of Rights 1688, and any and all such
Treaties and Conventions guaranteeing inalienable Rights as issued in such
forms by the European Convention and the United Nations and ratified by tacit
acceptance of same as a condition of becoming a Member State of said
institutions.
6. Also, that acknowledgement that our
family and ourselves have therefore been wronged by the LOCAL AUTHORITY be made
on a public forum with a written apology and written commitment of full
rehabilitation services by agents selected by the claimants and paid for by the
LOCAL AUTHORITY, additionally that punitive damages in the sum of ten million
Pounds Sterling each be offered to not only the immediate family of our
offspring, but also to their extended family who have been completely denied
contact since 2 March 2009.
7. Also, that those named in the
attached document entitled “PARTICULARS OF CRIMES” are arrested and prosecuted
for the crimes as listed next to their names, with summary penalties levied
under the full weight of the law upon their conviction.
8. We have never endangered our
offspring.
9. That by their actions, the Local
Authority have and continue to cause significant harm to our children.
10. That by their actions, the Local
authority have demonstrated their ability and willingness to use techniques
that can only be described as torture, coupled with cruel and degrading
treatment and deliberate withholding of essential services to carry out urgent
structural repairs on the family home, with the stated intention of removing
our offspring to corporate care.
11. On the face of the Law as it is
understood by a Lay Person, prediction of an event based upon flawed, false or
incomplete information is itself flawed and false. The COURT did deny a Fair
and Speedy Trial as guaranteed by Constitution with full consideration given to
facts and only facts as guaranteed by Magna Carta, with malice aforethought to
the outcome, hence is guilty of treason to the Crown, Laws and Spirit of the
Land, its Citizens and Subjects and its Monarch.
12. That on the face of Findings of
Fact given by District Judge Melvin Harris, North Midland Circuit, that they
are illegal and unlawful; given that the Witchcraft Act 1542 (A1562, A1563,
A1604, A1735) itself was finally abolished in 1951, hence prosecution isn’t
possible under this Act however is still prosecutable under the Fraudulent
Mediums Act 1951 since the justifications given in the judgement were based
upon events that had not happened, were not proved to have happened hence nor
were proved beyond reasonable doubt to be likely to happen.
13. Therefore, that the COURT should
therefore also be prosecuted under the Treason Felony Act of 1848 for
pretending authority from and above the Crown which it serves under Common Law
(the Law of the Land) by instead acting under the rules of Napoleon (the Law of
the Sea), hence usurping the power and authority of the Crown in a situation of
Law, to Foreign Influence.
14. And therefore, that those
individuals listed in the attached document entitled “PARTICULARS OF CRIME” be
additionally charged with complicity and conspiracy to commit and/or abet
and/or misprise Treason.
15. And therefore, that the LOCAL
AUTHORITY also be charged as a collective PERSON ENTITY with complicity and
conspiracy to commit and/or abet and/or misprise Treason.
16. That the LOCAL AUTHORITY sought,
through complicity with the local NHS Trust, to attempt to commit unlawful
killing through action of psychological assault and Torture, through
destruction of documents vital to the initiation of proper medical treatment
for an inherited metabolic condition, and to further endanger minors through
destruction of same.
17. That the LOCAL AUTHORITY further
seeks to alienate the minors from their natural family, placing them in mortal
danger should they require rare blood factors, internal organs such as kidneys
or portions of liver, bone marrow, etc., and that they are deliberately
withholding vital information from us as to their daily condition and
disposition.
18. That the LOCAL AUTHORITY sought,
through complicity with the local Family Law Panel members of the Bar
Association and the local Judiciary, to deprive four minors of their Lawful
Right to live with their natural parents for no Lawful Reason and using
Unlawful procedures tantamount to coercive kidnap to obtain sole permanent
access to said minors.
19. That the LOCAL AUTHORITY did in
fact, Unlawfully and without consent of the natural Parents, take custody of
three of said minors from their place of Corporate Daycare to a location which
remains unknown to the natural Parents and the extended family.
20. That the LOCAL AUTHORITY did from
the day of the aforementioned Abduction and continue to this day, to exclude
the aforementioned minors’ extended Family completely from their lives. This is
causing our offspring untold emotional harm and stress-related health problems
and mental imbalance.
21. That the LOCAL AUTHORITY did from
the day of the aforementioned Abduction, and continue to this day, to deny the
aforementioned minors their Constitutional Rights to communicate with their
immediate and extended natural family by whatever means available to them, for
example: Telephone, Internet Electronic Mail, Letter, Special Occasion Visits
for example birthdays, Christmas and other national holidays.
22. That the Family COURT System in the
UK is Unconstitutional and Unlawful according to Common Law edicts set out in
Magna Carta 1215, the 1688 British Constitution, and the Articles set forth
under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights 1948, the UN Convention on
the Rights of the Child 1990, the European Convention For The Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1953 and the European Convention on the
Rights of the Child 1989,
23. Therefore, that the HIGH COURT is
under Lawful obligation to investigate and prosecute and/or elevate the case
set above to the United Nations Officer of the High Commissioner for Human
Rights for full investigation and prosecution under International Law.
24. That the Attorney General of the
United Kingdom take an active role in investigating every facet of this case
and of all similar cases carried out in the Family Proceedings COURT with a
view to criminal prosecution of those responsible in the HIGH COURT on charges
of racketeering, among other charges, to whit:
25. That the blanket Injunction set out
in Section 97 of the CA1989 is unlawful and extraneous as far as protecting the
identities of minors involved; the minors are already known and identifiable,
26. Further, that S97 CA1989 serves
only to protect and perpetuate the closed nature of the FPC thus allowing those
responsible for violations of International Law and Laws concerning Treason,
Perverting the Course of Justice, Perjury, and those procedural rules governing
collection, assimilation and consideration of material evidence and witnesses,
are not held publicly accountable for said violations and to continue violating
said procedures, protocols and Laws.
27. That the Legal Representatives of
the “Defendants” in the aforementioned FPC hearing of 2009, ensured the
“Defendants” were deliberately misled into the belief that they had no grounds
for appeal against the Permanent Care Order.
28. That the Legal Representatives of
the “Defendants” did conspire with the Solicitors, barristers acting for the
LOCAL AUTHORITY and CAFCASS, and the Legal Representatives of the minors to
ensure that the Permanent Care Order was approved, thus performing an overt act
of professional misconduct.
29. Therefore, that the Legal
Representatives of the “Defendants” did with intent to defraud, claim and
collect monies from the public Legal Fund held and pursed by the Legal Services
Commission through the Community Legal Advice organisation.
30. Therefore, that the Legal
Representatives of the “Defendants” did conspire with the Solicitors,
barristers acting for the LOCAL AUTHORITY and CAFCASS, and the Legal
Representatives of the minors, and the representative Educational Psychologist
from Carter Brown Associates, to further defraud the LSC Fund by instructing
the CBA operative on the diction and phrasing of his report.
31. Therefore, that the presiding Judge
of the FPC in our case did further conspire with the aforementioned, to aid and
abet in the fraud by allowing the CBA operative to claim further monies from
the LSC Fund to write a supplementary report retracting portions of his first
report which looked favourably upon the family thus strengthening the case in
favour of the LOCAL AUTHORITY.
32. That none of the Parties mentioned
in the document entitled “PARTICULARS OF CRIMES” did offer forward details of
conflicts of interests, encompassing but not limited to: membership and
graduateship of the front charity called Common Purpose UK for the purpose of
training to act outside of their Lawful Authority, fiscal interest in the
Contract Care & Adoption Industry, cross-involvement in one another’s
fields of authority and the fact that every one of them operated outside his
legal sphere of influence in order to influence the outcome of the case.
33. That several demonstrable conflicts
of interest were evident throughout the case process, which negatively
influenced the outcome for the family.
34. That the CAFCASS Guardian ad Litem
did not, as is her duty to the COURT and to our offspring as her clients,
demand full disclosure of all relevant documents and materials to the COURT and
to the parents, to whit; the full Social Services records pertaining to Mrs.
_______ encompassing but not limited to internal communications, reports
concerning her time in the care system under the wardship of Nottinghamshire
County Council, reports of her being abused while in the care of the State
which were compartmentalised and buried, and records from the Psychiatric Unit
at Nottingham City Hospital.
35. That the CAFCASS Guardian ad Litem
did with malice aforethought, conspire to mislead the COURT with regard to the
wishes and feelings of our offspring; her report and statement did not reflect
the wishes of our offspring, therefore she failed in her charged duty to
represent our offspring.
36. That the COURT did maliciously and
with intent to remove our offspring, deny our Constitutional Right to a fair
and speedy hearing by Jury; further that the COURT denied our Constitutional
Right to call our witnesses to support our case; further that the COURT did
deny our Constitutional Right to appeal an unlawful judgement; further that the
findings of the COURT were flawed, incomplete and false as the “evidence” it
accepted as undisputable fact from the LOCAL AUTHORITY; further that the COURT
did deny our Legal Right to sufficient time to review the LOCAL AUTHORITY’s
bundle that we might have the opportunity to prepare rebuttal.
37. That the individuals and
organisations listed in the attached document entitled “PARTICULARS OF CRIMES”
did act in violation of the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 in that: they
did use (unqualified hence fraudulent) diagnoses of mental illness against we
the parents in attempting to predict events that may or may not happen
(tantamount to witchcraft) in order to secure the unlawful removal of our
offspring into State custody.
38. That the individuals and
organisations listed in the attached document entitled “PARTICULARS OF CRIMES”
, in particular Nottingham City NHS Trust, did commit acts of physical assault
and reckless endangerment when they did administer or allow to be administered,
(a)H1N1 vaccinations into our offspring against our express written withdrawal
of consent for such vaccinations, detailing our concerns about the safety or
lack thereof, of the “Swine flu” vaccination which to date still has not been
extensively (if at all) laboratory tested on humans yet has not only been
passed by the GMC but actively pushed on an unsuspecting public by the
Government – notwithstanding several dozen high-profile reports of
contraindications such as deaths immediately following such vaccinations.
39. That further crimes itemised in the
attached document entitled “PARTICULARS OF CRIMES” did occur with the full
knowledge and sanction of the COURT:
–
Importance In Context: International Criminal Group Action: Case Summary, Pre-Action Notice, Media
G. CASE SUMMARY:
APPLICATION BEFORE THE WORLD COURT OF JUSTICE
CLASS PLAINTIFFS
- V –
FAMILY COURTS AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
The UK Government have had nineteen years to sort out the mess that is the Family Law system, since the Children Act 1989 (c. 41) came into force on 14 October 1991.
Each and every Government has not only systematically failed to do this, they have continued in their conspiracy of silence in covering up the crimes against Humanity that have been sanctioned by the Family Proceedings Court.
What is their motive for this?
One can reduce it to two commonly and intimately intertwined possibilities: money, and the Marxist dream of the corporate State parent coupled with the destruction of the natural family unit.
IT IS ASSERTED THAT:
1. The Defendants (B. and C.) did with malice and determination for financial gain, and for the purpose of cultural genocide;
a. Conspire and act to remove offspring from their lawful right of family and residence;
b. Conspire and act to cause physical and mental harm to parents and offspring and extended family alike through their actions;
c. Conspire and act to cause physical and mental harm to parents and offspring and extended family alike through their actions through Third Parties as agents or employees, both individually and as corporate personalities;
d. Conspire and act to deny parents and offspring alike their inalienable rights as Human Beings to:
i. Fair trial;
ii. Due process of Law;
iii. Statutory duty of care as Public Servants to protect life, liberty and morals
e. Conspire and act through Statutory Instruments, to maintain a cloak of enforced silence regarding Family Proceedings in Public Civil Law, to enable the establishment of techniques designed to be entirely destructive to family relationships hence to facilitate removal of offspring. Such techniques encompass:
i. Unlawful procedures in Family Proceedings;
ii. Entrapment;
iii. “Hoop-jumping”;
iv. Threats of incarceration upon summary conviction of misdemeanours;
v. Parental Alienation;
vi. Malicious denial of Statutory services by other agencies;
vii. Intimidatory and malicious communications;
viii. Coercive methods;
ix. Propaganda;
x. Perjury and perverting the course of Justice;
– Without regard to the mental or physical wellbeing of either parent nor that of their offspring;
f. Conspire and act to deny parents and offspring the opportunity and knowledge required to facilitate reunification of the family unit;
g. Conspire and act to further deny natural Justice for plaintiffs (A.) by way if deliberate misrepresentation of their legal and Lawful rights;
h. Conspire and act to enforce and reinforce familial separations by way of coercive, intimidatory and extortionate methods established by Statutory interpretation and loop holing;
It is therefore the plaintiff(s) (A.) request to the Court, that this Class Action be heard in its entirety, allowing all mediums of information to be permissible as supporting evidence, encompassing Government statistics, written statements, oral evidence (witnesses to be requested by the plaintiff(s) (A.)), medical records, police records, CAFCASS case statements, “Expert Witnesses” reports and findings and other inter-agency documents, such as emails, telephone records and inter-agency case reviews. This Class Action is to encompass both Public and Private Law.
The plaintiff(s) (A.) are claiming punitive and actual damages from both the defendant(s) (B. and C.) in regard to the aforementioned claims against both defendant(s) (B. and C.);
The claim being made by plaintiff(s) is an individual figure of €10,000,000.00 per plaintiff, in respect of ongoing injury and distress, with a significant portion being held in trust for the plaintiff(s) offspring.
The plaintiff(s) (A.) are also requesting that extracted offspring resulting from fraudulent acts of either the defendant(s) (B. and C.) are reunited with their plaintiff(s) (A.) “birth parents”, with full assistance of rehabilitation. And that all offspring are included in official communication with the findings of this Court.
Pre Action Notice
_____________________________________, representative for the collective plaintiff(s), sovereign in individual right as recognised by the Crown’s prior obligations, present fact, truth and claim for acceptance or protest before the Entire World.
Our presentation of action requires international notice to be made available to the public, through all mediums of media, in acquiescence of Human Rights, ensuring the collective plaintiff(s) and other(s) receive remedies through judicial process for protection and remedies against the theft of offspring or what seems to be more appropriately titled as “State chattels”, through the apparent actions of the FAMILY DIVISION COURT(S) and the LOCAL AUTHORITY(S) of the UNITED KINGDOM.
The UNITED KINGDOM has abandoned the plaintiff(s) and all extended families of the aforementioned plaintiff(s), and obligations of justice to all sovereign beings within the realms of the UNITED KINGDOM. This abandonment of legal and moral obligation voids authority of the UNITED KINGDOM, to affect any sovereign being.
Therefore, we the representatives, having claimed the abandoned obligations to the sovereign beings of the UNITED KINGDOM, and have accepted the obligation to speak on behalf of the plaintiff(s) and all sovereign beings for the protection of our offspring, our rights and fundamental freedoms, and our physical and mental wellbeing.
This will be undertaken within international authorities regarding humanitarian and criminal law, known to be obligations requiring recognition by the UNITED KINGDOM, FAMILY PROCEEDING COURT(S) and LOCAL AUTHORITY(S) encompassed within.
Allegations
1. The UNITED KINGDOM, and the FAMILY PROCEEDINGS COURT(S) and LOCAL AUTHORITY(S) encompassed within, have failed to;
i. Prevent the systematic destruction of the individual family unit, by means of false allegation, perjury, perverting the course of justice, harassment and maladministration.
ii. Prevent serious infringements of human right and fundamental freedoms of offspring, birth parents and extended family unit members during state intervention, through manipulation and reckless abandonment of domestic and international Laws, Statutes, Treaties and Conventions.
iii. Preserve the rights of the extended family during both Private and Public Law, excluding options allowing continued access of extended family members with offspring, and denying obligation for keeping family unity paramount.
iv. Prevent abandonment of fiduciary duties to protect and assist families and extended families during Family proceedings in both Public and Private Law.
v. Consider the imposition on Public Funds regarding costings of Family Court proceedings to remove children to State care or adoption versus support services for families as required by Statute to ensure the continued integrity of the Family Unit.
vi. Disclose any and all conflicts of interest relating to those agents acting for said organisations and consider possible ramifications as to the outcome of Family Proceedings Court cases.
2. The UNITED KINGDOM, and the FAMILY PROCEEDINGS COURT(S) and LOCAL AUTHORITY(S) encompassed within, have wilfully and with aforethought to stated intentions:
i. Sought to withhold information pertaining to individual cases particularly regarding material, recordings and running logs, before during and after proceedings, from the Respondents in those proceedings, here named as collective and individual Plaintiffs.
ii. Committed acts of torture and distress, through action and inaction, against both adults and children in a demonstrable effort to alienate one from the other, dismantle marriage and force removal of minors in the wake of manufactured situations of natural parents’ incapability of maintaining themselves never mind a family.
3. It is on the basis of the above and the fact that no blanket settlement can be agreed upon within the jurisdiction of the UK Courts at any level; the fact that no police authority will even consider the possibility that unitary authorities are capable of Crimes Against Humanity; and the fact that the Attorney General herself (Baroness Scotland, as was at the time of enquiry) refused a submission for the DPP to consider in private prosecution against the Local Authorities of the United Kingdom, that we declare the Property in question, that being the children of the United Kingdom, are to be considered contested Property. It is therefore requested and demanded that this document be taken as read and understood as a Lis Alibi Pendens, that such is clarified and understood throughout the UK Court System until such time as the Class Action is resolved to the satisfaction of the Plaintiffs.
4. Therefore, alternative remedy is now being sought through higher judicial process at the Courts listed below. We would ask that this request for judicial action be accepted and investigated with all measures of justice, preventing further infringements of human rights, crimes against humanity and failings in judicial and local authority procedures and processes in the United Kingdom;
International Court of Justice
Peace Palace
Carnegieplein 2
2517 KJ
The Hague
The Netherlands.
-
International Criminal Court
Information & Evidence Unit
Office of the Prosecutor
Box 19519
2500 CM
The Hague
The Netherlands.
-
European Court of Justice
Palais de la Cour de Justice
Boulevard Konrad Adenauer Kirchberg
L – 2925
Luxemburg.
-
European Court of Human Rights
Council of Europe
67075 Strasbourg Cedex
France.
-
The Supreme Court
Middlesex Guildhall
Parliament Square
London
SW1P 3BD.
Telegraph Online Article: 19 June 2010
Mother whose children were taken for adoption joins class action[11]
More than 100 British families who say they have been treated unfairly by social services departments and the family courts are preparing to launch an unprecedented case at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, arguing that their human rights have been breached.
By Rebecca Lefort
Published: 8:33PM BST 19 Jun 2010
When ‘Alison’ developed post natal depression she pleaded for help from those she thought were there to assist her.
But instead of gaining support she ended up losing custody of her three beloved daughters.
Social workers said the children were at risk of suffering “emotional abuse”, even though they conceded that she cared deeply for them and had worked hard to be a better parent.
Now the 22-year-old, whose real name cannot be used for legal reasons, is pregnant for a fourth time and is terrified that social workers will refuse to give her the chance of caring for the new baby once it is born.
This week the mother, from the north of England, became one of hundreds of parents who have joined an unprecedented class action, suing the family courts and local authority social services departments.
The claimants hope the action will lead to greater transparency and accountability in the family court system, as well as the possibility of being reunited with the children they believe have been taken unfairly.
More than 100 families have now signed up to the claim, which will be lodged on July 1 at the International Criminal Court at The Hague, where political leaders are tried for genocide.
Alison, who is 15 weeks pregnant, said: “I’m pleased someone’s taken action, because they’ve taken my children.
“It’s about showing that they’re using claims like ‘emotional abuse’ when they’ve got nothing left to put against you.
“You have to prove it 150 per cent that you’re a perfect parent, and there’s no such thing as 150 per cent.
I don’t know what would be good enough for them.”
There were no problems with Alison’s first baby, but after the birth of her second child she suffered from post natal depression and was not able to care for the baby properly.
She said she asked social services for help and support, but instead officials decided she was unfit to be a mother. Both Alison’s baby and her 18-month-old toddler were taken into care.
The judge at the family court hearing which decided the fate of Alison’s first two daughters, in September 2008, recorded in her judgement that the mother had turned up for appointments, assessments and all her court hearings, adding: “She loves her children and has shown a commitment to them in contact.”
The judge also praised Alison for enrolling on a health and social care course, and staying on top of her finances. Nevertheless, her judgement concluded that the girls should be taken away from their mother because if they were left with her they would be “at risk of emotional harm and physical harm, as a result of her neglectful and poor parenting”.
The two girls were first put into foster care, then put up for adoption. After the decision Alison received counselling and took a series of courses which, she now says, made her a better parent. When she had a third daughter, and fought to keep the baby, she had the testimony of a psychologist who said she had improved greatly. But again social services said there was a “risk” that harm could come to the child, and again a family court ruled against her.
Now Alison is only allowed to receive a letter and picture of her three girls once a year. The first three girls shared the same father, with whom Alison had a volatile relationship. She has now split up with the man and is in a more settled relationship with a new partner, the 26-year-old father of unborn baby.
“I’m petrified about being pregnant just because I think they’ll take the baby away,” she said.
“I’m scared of them coming for it, I don’t know what to do and I’m constantly thinking of ways I can help myself. Sometimes I think about running away.
“No one’s perfect, but I’ve been trying so hard and I’ve done so much, but they don’t even seem to care.
“There are some awful mothers out there who hurt their babies, and I’ve never done anything like that.”
The court action Alison is now part of is being brought by Freedom, Advocacy and Law, which claims that parents have suffered “constant denial of freedoms” which ought to be protected under the Human Rights Act.
The action alleges that British courts and local authorities have breached the legislation, which gives the right to a fair trial and the right to respect for private and family life.
Sam Hallimond, of Freedom, Advocacy and Law, said: “Families have been destroyed by the actions of family courts, and no one has been held to account.
“Considering what’s at stake at these hearings we need to see some sort of definition of the criteria under which action should be taken by social services.
“The possibility of future emotional neglect and abuse is not good enough, unless courts have a crystal ball I don’t know how they can justify that.”
He said he hoped the class action could result in financial payouts to some claimants, but the main purpose was to expose the flaws families saw in the system.
[1] These documents are available by written request to the Author
[2] These documents are not available for viewing
[3] At Common Law, a writ issued by a superior Court to an inferior Court jurisdiction demanding the record of a particular case
[4] Thus far we know of no person who has successfully sued under the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, pt 1, § 2, over Maladministration/Vicarious Liability in the Family Proceeding Court.
[5] 1989 (c. 41) Section 97
[6] Document not available
[7] [2003] 2 FLR 42
[8] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8019667.stm
[9] http://sociologyindex.com/cultural_genocide.htm
[10]Refer Children Act 2004 (c.31), Adoption and Children Act 2002 (c.38) , Children Act 1989 (c.41), Civil Proceedure Rule 1998 , The Family Procedures Rule 1991, Crown Proceeding Act, Data Protection Act 1998 (c.29) § 7.
[11]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/7840835/Mother-whose-children-weretaken-for-adoption-joins-class-action.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)