|
Social Workers: MO and Unaccountability
"There is no situation
so dire that it cannot be made worse by the intervention of a social
worker" [Comment at:
source].
"We have never yet seen
a case where the mother found social worker intervention helpful or
supportive" [Adverse
Effects of Child Protection on Public Health, Letter to DoH, 20
August 2007, in AIMS Journal, 2008, Vol 20, No 1, at:
source].
"[Social workers and
Family Court personnel] would get a better press if they gave their
side of the story, being honest about the uncertainties involved in
decisions, rather than trotting out the mantra of 'never apologise,
never explain'" [Camilla Cavendish, The Times, 17 July 2008].
"Social workers ... are
now the most hated and feared profession in the UK. A knock on the
door from social workers puts fear and dread into the hearts of
almost any parent answering it: 'Have they come to take our
children?' is the first thought of any parent when social workers
first come round... No such parent would think that a social worker
had come to reunite a family in danger in breaking up because they
just do not do that anymore. They force couples to separate by
threatening to take their children if they refuse to do so; then
when the mothers are all on their own, they take the children
anyway" [source].
"[S]ince the 1989
Children Act, our child protection system has stood most of its
noble intentions on their head, to become one of the most disturbing
scandals in modern Britain. Despite all the talk then of how the new
Act would reduce the number of children taken into care, this has
soared to a record level of more than 90,000. Too many of them, as
acknowledged by our top family judge Lord Justice Munby and even the
deputy chair of the British Association of Social Workers, Maggie
Mellon, are removed from their families for quite inadequate
reasons, such as that, some time in the future, they might face the
'risk of emotional abuse'. Although the Children Act
specifically intended that, wherever possible, children should be
placed with responsible relatives, such as grandparents, rather than
adopted, the vast majority remain in highly expensive state care,
where they too often suffer much more grievous emotional or other
abuse than anything alleged against their parents. ... Mr Cameron's
promise of 'zero tolerance of state failure' may win him kudos for
virtue-signalling. But, alas, we know where too many of his promises
end up" [source].
"As for [David
Cameron's] suggestion that children leaving care should be
'mentored' by a social worker until they are 25, instead of being
thrown on the streets at 16 with nothing but a scrap of paper,
someone who has helped huge numbers of families caught up in the
care system observed to me last week 'of all the children I have
spoken to over the years, I can't remember one who didn't leave the
care system, hating the social workers who had ruined their lives'."
[source].
"Social workers often
grumble that I only listen to one side of the story and that from
parents who are not truthful. That is why a very important point is
that after I have seen the position statement of the local authority
I start off by assuming every fact the Social Services relies on is
true and then ask myself if even then it justifies breaking up a
family or worse still forbidding parents from having any contact
(face to face or indirect) whatever with their children under pain
of punishment! The answer ... that I receive when parents contact me
is nearly always NO! Why are the parents who ring me to complain
that social services have taken their children nearly always right?
Because they have very rarely been charged or convicted of an
offence against children and PUNISHMENT without CRIME is always
WRONG! If, on the other hand, I or a journalist like
Christopher Booker ask the local authority for 'their side' of the
story in any forced adoption or fostering case their usual response
is to rush off and apply to the court for an injunction forbidding
any person from discussing or seeking information about the case
from any any source! Not very encouraging for anyone trying to get
both sides of the story!" [source].
"Now what could possibly
bother me about social services and the family court system?...
Here is a list of the main defects: (1) Forced adoption;
(2) Taking children into care for future risk; (3) Gagging
parents and jailing them if they protest in public; (4)
Gagging children by restricting conversation with parents at contact
to nothing controversial, confiscating mobile phones, computers, and
preventing access to any post office; (5) Refusing parents
leave to call witnesses; (6) Choosing experts and refusing
parents any say in who is chosen or what questions are asked, with
no second opinion allowed; (7) Branding parents as child
abusers on the balance of probabilities that are often founded on
mere unproved allegations, pure gossip, or other hearsay; (8)
Lawyers who advise clients to 'go along' with social services even
when adoptions are planned; (9) Punishing parents and children
by separating them even when no crimes have been committed;
(10) Refusing entry to the court to grandparents, step-parents, and
close relatives of the parents; (11) Children taken from
parents for alleged 'emotional abuse' or risk of it; (12)
Telling wives to split from their husbands (and vice versa)
otherwise they will lose their children (when they intend to take
the kids anyway); (13) One bruise, burn, or fracture, the
parents are blamed, and the child is taken away: 'one strike and
you're out'. If however children complain about sexual abuse and/or
severe bruising in fostercare they are disbelieved (despite photos)
and ignored as are their parents. A very fair 'baker's dozen'
I reckon" [source].
"It has always concerned
me that the power differential between those who control the Child
Protection System and those who are subjugated to it is extreme. The
emphasis on removing children rather than working with the families
and solving the problem creates a power struggle which the children
and parents are not going to win. ... I find it sad ... that many
clients have turned to CPS to help them when they have been
struggling only to find they have been punished for doing so by
having their children removed. How different would it be if a parent
realised that drugs, domestic violence and mental health issues were
inhibiting the way they were parenting and they knew that contacting
CPS would help them. They know [sic] they would be connected with
social workers who will work with them and keep them and their
children safe without removing them, or offer them respite while
they worked through their problems. How different would it be if
[social workers] could work peacefully with families so they knew
that they wouldn't have to go through court or be threatened with
orders which would take their children permanently from them. What a
difference that would make. In a caring, humane society that is what
[social workers] should be offering" [source].
"When [social workers]
intervene in a person's life we need to be mindful of the person's
'rights'. In child protection every parent has the right to
'change'. Every parent has the 'right' to be a parent and to have
access to their children. Every child has the right to have a
substantial connection with parents and other kinship relationships"
[source].
"In England parents who
complain find that the ball always seems to bounce back to the
social services department they are complaining about. Each seems to
have a different internal procedure. Some minor complaints are
sometimes upheld and filed away in personnel files; others can
inspire quite aggressive reactions. William Bache, a solicitor who
acts for many parents accused of child abuse, believes that too many
child abuse allegations are made after parents have complained about
a service. "And with hospitals, one is left with the uneasy feeling
that some accusations are made to pre-empt an allegation of
negligence." This is another dimension: doctors can put social
workers under pressure to make snap decisions on cases they do not
fully understand if a child comes in with head injuries or breathing
difficulties. The great conundrum about the world of child
protection is that so many people seem desperate to cover their
backs, when so few ever face any sanction for making mistakes"
[Camilla Cavendish, The Times, 02 March 2006].
"Take extreme care if
you need to contact Social Services for help and advice. Social
Services are removing children because the parents have a low IQ,
the house is untidy, the parents are arguing, or that there is no
'routine' set for the children. ... It is a public disgrace. No
child should ever be removed from the family home unless there is
evidence of severe neglect" [source].
"We are a pressure group
with 40 years' experience in supporting parents with complaints
about maternity care. But since the unprecedented growth in calls
about child protection proceedings in the last 9 years or so, we
have accompanied clients to meetings and observed social workers'
home visits. We have been horrified at what we have seen, and
equally appalled by the lack of accuracy and bias in many of their
reports, and the selectivity of evidence they give to the courts" [source].
"In over-reacting to the
Baby P fiasco, social workers have become astonishingly
trigger-happy, removing far too many children from their parents for
wholly inadequate reasons. ... If Sir James Munby really wants to
avert the catastrophe he warned of on Tuesday, and to restore this
horrifically corrupted system to some semblance of justice, humanity
and common sense - as he has shown many signs of wishing to do - he
has no alternative but to identify [the] major cause of the problem.
The only way this immense social disaster could be halted would be
to ensure that social workers and the courts return to their proper
role under the law, whereby they stop tearing families apart for no
good reason and concentrate just on those families where their
intervention is genuinely justified. When a bath is dangerously
overflowing, the first thing one needs to so is turn off the tap" [source].
The Ideological Agenda
"British social worker
evil ... is neither negligent nor random. It follows exactly the
pattern you would expect to see from the Marxist-orientated
indoctrination they get in social worker school - where the middle
class [EMcD: also now
the working class in the UK, due to their 'failure' to fulfil Marxist
expectations of an uprising against the supposed capitalist
establishment] is seen as the enemy and the underclass is seen as virtuous.
So social workers are lightening fast to take children away from
normal decent parents on the basis of minor or imaginary infractions
while turning a blind eye to gross child abuse by the underclass
[EMcD: also by immigrants,
in accordance with the Politically Correct policies of
'Multiculturalism' and 'Diversity']" [source].
"It should be understood
that the CPS caseworker does not represent the child's interests,
but the state's interests" [A.J. Dager, If They Come For Your
Child: Guarding Against State Intrusion Into Your Home, (1994),
p2].
"The rationale of the
state - judge, social workers, psychologists, et al - make perfect
sense if one becomes acquainted with the phenomenon of
'collectivism' - a euphemism for socialism, communism, fascism, et
al. Essentially, it is an ideology of totalitarian control, where
the state knows best, and the individual is expected to submit
willingly and happily to the interests of the group for the
betterment of society. Collectivism is the ideology that has taken
hold of our democracies, both [in the UK] and in America. It has
been brought in by stealth, without consulting the electorate, and
it functions by coercion. Things such as taking away the children
against the wishes of the their parents because the authorities
think it best is an example of collectivism in action. Collectivism
is the new tyranny, and the direction our government is taking in
Britain, secretly, whilst pretending to advocate democracy and
government via elections" / "Hand in hand
with Common Purpose. The sooner this organization is exposed for
what it is and dealt with severely, the better" [Comments at:
source].
"This has been going on
for decades and it's part of the Marxist/socialist agenda to break
the family unit, straight from the Frankfurt School of Socialist
Policy. It operates in this country [UK] as the Common Purpose
Charity, a 5th column in the UK and rife in our local authorities
and the establishment" [Comment at:
source].
"In Britain the Common
Purpose-riddled social services use the 'Star Chamber' [Courts of
'Protection' and 'Family' Courts] of secret
courts to further their own agendas, children removed from loving
homes because of 'unsuitable political affiliations', and the mass
abuse and rape of children in 'care' homes ignored to serve
political ends" [Comment at:
source].
"Point 40: Discredit the
family as an institution; Point 41: Emphasise the need to raise
children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute
prejudices, mental blocks, and retarding of children to [the]
suppressive influence of parents" [Communist 45-Point Play-Book,
(1963)].
"[R]eal families and
real children are being rent asunder to satisfy a statist policy to
intimidate the middle class, to preserve 'professional' emoluments
and to ensure that social workers are regarded as undeniably
'infallible'. It is a vile wickedness that originated in Fabian
experiments and Fascist policies in the first half of the last
century. With it however, comes the very deepest and most obscene
irony that has ever existed in Britain... the risk of 'emotional'
and physical damage becomes a regular and disgusting reality
whenever these kids are taken into council 'care'" [Comment at:
source].
"Does any other country
have such an appalling system of secretly grabbing children on often
spurious grounds and offering them up for adoption? It is the sort
of thing one might have expected in Stalin's Russia or Mao's China
but how did such a deeply shameful system come about in Britain?"
[Comment at:
source].
"The Bill to increase
the powers of the Child Snatchers reminds me of Ronald Reagan's
remark about the most terrifying sentence in the English language:
'I'm from the government and I'm here to help you.' I believe
in Scotland there are plans to give every child at birth a state
guardian to supposedly watch over its interests. Even Hitler and
Stalin did not go so far. The question should be asked: are people
who are just prepared to hand over their freedoms so easily worthy
of it in the first place? History is replete with examples of
peoples who could not hang on to the freedoms their ancestors
bequeathed them" [Reader's comment at: Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday,
06 April 2014].
"It is becoming clear
that we are moving towards the State ownership of children albeit at
one remove, with the child's parents being under the watchful eye of
a State Guardian or a politically correct 'social worker'. This is
another step towards the clamping-down of adult citizens' dissent
... parents can be leant on and coerced by the state through the
threat of having their offspring taken from them on grounds that the
parents do not think the 'right thoughts' or express the 'right
views' and so are causing some kind of abuse - maybe 'emotionally'
or 'psychologically' or really politically - to the child. The state
is thus increasing its power over our children, and thereby over us,
under the guise of protecting the child. But who will protect the
child from the state? As we slide into the 'social worker' state
which cannot make up for or replace the nuclear family, we need to
take care. The politicians have done their worst to abolish Mum and
end the family. They have the same approach to the Nation and the
Church. In the end all this is a severe threat to our civil and
religious liberties and to our national welfare and well being"
[Letter to the British Church Newspaper, 11 July 2014].
"There is something
very, very rotten in this world when the children of decent families
are removed on the word of agenda-driven social workers... whilst
the very same social workers leave innocent little ones to be abused
and murdered by monsters. What is going on? Really? What is going
on? The illicit removal of one's children is surely a punishment
that is even more painful than death... and yet, the government does
nothing. Worse, it acquiesces. One day there will be a reckoning...
the Joyce Thackers and Sharon Shoesmiths of this world - and their
underlings [driving] the wicked vicissitudes of social engineering
and personal malevolence will be held to account" [Comment at:
source].
"State intervention
carries with it a philosophical world view that is at 180 degree
odds with biblical faith. Because of their training in secular
psychology and an unbiblical world view, most caseworkers hold a
world view which differs radically from that of God's people -
especially when it comes to how parents should discipline, educate
and train their children. Children are not perceived as belonging to
the parents, or to God, but to themselves (i.e., to the state, which
claims a 'vested interest' in children"
[A.J. Dager, If They Come
For Your Child: Guarding Against State Intrusion Into Your Home,
(1994), p1].
"Secular psychology
plays a major role in the state's evaluation of children being 'at
risk'. Acceptable methods of discipline, education, and
parent-child interaction are perceived to be the rightful domain of
government agents working with psychiatrists and psychologists. Thus
the state has become the final arbiter of what constitutes proper
parenting abilities" [A.J. Dager, If They Come For Your Child:
Guarding Against State Intrusion Into Your Home, (1994), p1].
"Virtually every
government social worker must be educated to some degree in the
pseudoscience of psychology. The system is becoming closed to input
from people who perceive reality differently from those trained in
the psychological way"
[A.J. Dager, If They Come For Your Child:
Guarding Against State Intrusion Into Your Home, (1994), p1].
"The Social Services are
without doubt the gravest threat to our freedom, and strike at the
very heart of family life. As long as one family is threatened, we
all are. ... Why are the British people so supine in the face of
this monstrous infringement of the most basic of our liberties?"
[Comment at:
source].
"I wonder to what extent
the tendency to advertise many public service jobs in the Guardian
and other left of centre publications is responsible for the high
proportion of PC-blinkered idiots in such jobs? Perhaps jobs in the
public sector should be advertised on a national website, even if
the jobs themselves are categorised by region. That way a wider
section of applicants might be attracted and we might end up with
more social workers with common-sense" / "[Y]ou
have put your finger on a vital point. The so-called progressive
liberal left has more or less taken over the education system and
social services. Consider how many tragedies there have been over
the years where vulnerable children have been abused and even
murdered, and still the message is... we will learn the lessons but
we know best!" [comments at
source].
"[A]re [social workers] a class apart who know only to tick the
boxes and are paid for that? I have known a grandmother who
continues to be heart-broken for her granddaughter who was forced
into adoption to a gay [sic] couple at the age of three by social
workers and she was not even allowed to see her granddaughter. Do
these social workers have a human heart in them or are they made
only of the leftist ideology? How miserable and sad it is to be
nothing but a destructive ideology and not a human being"
[comment at
source].
"UKIP's opposition to
multi-culturalism was cited as the reason why the two foster carers
in Rotherham were banned: why should not the opinion of conservative
evangelicals about male headship in the family also fall foul of
social workers? ... there is a variety of factors that make for good
parenting, ranging from the moral to the relational to the
psycho-emotional. But ... the conservative evangelical conviction
that children need to grow up with the love of a married father and
mother and that the man and the woman each bring their own
distinctive God-given contribution to the nurture of children makes
for excellent parenting. The idea that fathers are the servant
leaders of their wives and children also leads to a responsible,
hands-on approach to family life by conservative evangelical men. In
a society devastated by fatherlessness, who would complain about
loving, leading fatherhood, unless they were motivated by socially
Marxist dogma?" [source].
"How long will it be before one must be a card carrying member of
the Labour Party before one may foster or adopt?"
[Comment at:
source].
"[T]he affair of the
UKIP foster parents ... give[s] us an insight into the intolerant
fury of the modern left-wing mind. ... I am surprised that so many
people are surprised, and see it as an individual case or scandal
that can be corrected. No, this is simply what Britain is now like.
Get used to it. It isn't going to change. Most such cases never get
into the papers and never will. Look at the Prime Minister's own
long-ago dismissal of UKIP members as (amongst other things)
'fruitcakes and loonies and closet racists'. Rotherham Council's
social services department and Mr Slippery both share more or less
the same view. Despite what they now say, I should think the front
benches of all three 'centre' parties, and the senior editorial
staffs of the BBC and several newspapers do so too. They are closet
bigots. ... the left have increasingly embraced the racial
determinism that (to their credit) they rejected back in the 1960s.
Those who once saw the racial categories of national Socialist
Germany, or later of Apartheid South Africa, as sinister and
offensive, have now adopted the most elaborate schemes of racial
categorisation ever seen. You cannot apply for any sort of state
service, let alone employment, without being confronted with
questions about your ethnicity (I always refuse to answer these, but
how much longer will this be permissible?). ... There have been
dozens of attested stories about fair-skinned, middle-class,
conventionally-married heterosexual couples facing insuperable
problems over being allowed to adopt or foster, especially if they
gave any sign of having socially conservative opinions, or of
adhering to the Christian religion. Since the reasoning, informed
human being knows that ... what matters about someone is not the
colour of his or her skin, but the content of his or her character,
these questions, and this behaviour are grotesque insults to reason.
And surely bigotry is just that, the denial of reason, the refusal
to use it, the dismissal of people, institutions, ideas on the
grounds of a reasonless prejudice" [Peter Hitchens, Mail on
Sunday,
27 Nov 2012].
"My Lords, taking a
child away from her family is a momentous step, not only for her,
but for her whole family, and for the local authority which does so.
In a totalitarian society, uniformity and conformity are valued.
Hence the totalitarian state tries to separate the child from her
family and mould her to its own design. Families in all their
subversive variety are the breeding ground of diversity and
individuality. In a free and democratic society we value diversity
and individuality. Hence the family is given special protection in
all the modern human rights instruments including the European
Convention on Human Rights (art 8), the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (art 23) and throughout the United
Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. As Justice McReynolds
famously said in Pierce v Society of Sisters 268 US 510
(1925), at 535, 'The child is not the mere creature of the State'.
Children's wishes must be heard" [Baroness Hale of Richmond in Re
B (a child) House of Lords, quoted at:
source].
"I wrote a book a few
years ago about religion and science and I summarised the difference
between them in two sentences: 'Science takes things apart to see
how they work. Religion puts things together to see what they mean'.
And that's a way of thinking about culture also. Does it put things
together or does it take them apart? What made the traditional
family remarkable, ... is what it brought together: sexual drive,
physical desire, friendship, companionship, emotional kinship and
love, the begetting of children and their protection and care, their
early education and induction into an identity and a history. Seldom
has any institution woven together so many different drives and
desires, roles and responsibilities. It made sense of the world and
gave it a human face, the face of love. For a whole variety of
reasons, ... some to do with moral change like the idea that we are
free to do whatever we like so long as it does not harm others, some
to do with a transfer of responsibilities from the individual to the
state, and other and more profound changes in the culture of the
West, almost everything that marriage once brought together has now
been split apart. ... This is creating a divide within societies the
like of which has not been seen since Disraeli spoke of 'two
nations' a century and a half ago. Those who are privileged to grow
up in stable loving association with the two people who brought them
into being will, on average, be healthier physically and
emotionally. They will do better at school and at work. They will
have more successful relationships , be happier and live longer.
And yes, there are many exceptions. But the injustice of it all
cries out to heaven. It will go down in history as one of the tragic
instances of what Friedrich Hayek called 'the fatal conceit' that
somehow we know better than the wisdom of the ages, and can defy the
lessons of biology and history. ... [O]ur compassion for those who
live differently should not inhibit us from being advocates for the
single most humanising institution in history. The family, man,
woman, and child, is not one lifestyle choice among many. It is the
best means we have yet discovered for nurturing future generations
and enabling children to grow in a matrix of stability and love. It
is where we learn the delicate choreography of relationship and how
to handle the inevitable conflicts within any human group. It is
where we first take the risk of giving and receiving love. It is
where one generation passes on its values to the next, ensuring the
continuity of a civilization. For any society, the family is the
crucible of its future, and for the sake of our children's future,
we must be its defenders" [source].
"Early intervention is
driven by the power of wishful thinking. The notion that there is a
window of opportunity before the age of three within which adults
can decisively influence infantile development is an old dogma of
psychoanalysis now dubiously reinforced by speculative neuroscience.
Massive research into Sure Start has confirmed that the evidence for
its efficacy is very weak - yet it is stronger than that for any
other form of early intervention. The downside of early intervention
is that it pathologises whole communities, inevitably communities
that already suffer poverty and neglect. By replacing family and
social links with therapeutic relationships between targeted
individuals and professionals, early intervention further undermines
personal resilience. Rather than strengthening individuals and
communities, it renders them more atomised and more dependent on
state support" [source].
"I wonder why Cameron
does nothing about such appalling abuses of power, yet supports gay
[sic] marriage and the suppression of anyone who holds a different
view. I dare say it won't be long before opposing gay [sic] marriage
renders any adult unfit to look after their own children"
/ "Because he's an advocate of Collectivism - another
form of socialism/communism/fascism that gives power to the state
and opposes individual freedom" / "Not so
long ago Mr Cameron called for the system to be made easier so that
more children can be adopted faster. Coupled with the 'secret
Courts' once unknown in this Country, it seems he is leading the
charge..." / "There may come a time when gay
[sic] couples are deemed to be unfairly disadvantaged by not having
a proportionate share of children. Stand by for more children to be
removed from heterosexual couples and given to gay [sic] couples"
[Comments at:
source].
Identity Politics
"The central 'theory'
[of 'identity politics'] was a development of the anti-family
rhetoric of nineteenth century socialists taken up and further
radicalised by Marx and particularly Engels to conceptualise the
family as an aberration resulting, it was imagined, from
'capitalism' somehow 'repressing' 'the workers', to the extent that
supposedly they became psychologically dysfunctional. Marxism per se
was supplanted by a theory of culturally based personal relations,
popularised later most notably by Marcuse amongst many others. ...
The belief system was most apparent within the social work
profession [sic]. Political-Left-minded individuals seeking to
escape from work in commerce found not only a shelter in the
burgeoning state, but a niche where they were able to act according
to 'identity politics' principles. Social work became a locus of
problematising social issues" [source].
'Emotional Abuse' / Failure to
Co-Operate With 'Professionals' / 'Independent' Psychologists
"Among the many serious
puzzles raised by the peculiar workings of our 'child protection'
system, three continually recur. One is a huge increase in the
number of children now being removed from their parents on grounds
of 'emotional abuse'. This has been by far the biggest contributor
to the explosion in the numbers of children taken into care since
the 'Baby P' scandal in 2008, rising by 92%. And most have not been
for actual emotional abuse but simply for the possible 'risk' of
such abuse happening in the future. A second charge against parents
which comes up too often is their failure to 'co-operate with
professionals', such as the social workers who are tearing their
family apart. A third, used to justify 90% of child removals, is the
role of those 'independent' psychologists hired by social workers to
report that the parents suffer from such vague conditions as
'borderline personality disorder', or 'narcissism', leading them to
'put their own interests above those of the children'." [source].
"How many babies die
from 'possible risk of future emotional abuse' and who defines what
emotional abuse is?" / "I don't see how
a child could find his father hitting someone who is trying to take
them away from their family, emotionally abusive. One would expect
the child to be cheering the father on" /
"In the film 'Minority Report' (2002) following predictions from so
called 'experts' potential criminals are arrested long before they
can commit any crime. Much like taking children from parents and
babies at birth from their mothers for mere 'risk' of emotional
abuse. Only this time it is not a film, it is UK REALITY!" [Comments at:
source].
"Failure to
'co-operate with professionals'. Does the word 'professional' now
mean someone who's paid to have an opinion? Where's the evidence
that psychologists are ever correct? This pseudo-science seems to
progress by so-called experts coming up with a new name for human
behaviour. Sadly, they're taken seriously" /
"I lost count of how much [my] mother heard this term [failure to
co-operate with professionals] used against her. The so called
professionals turned out to be the biggest amateurs" /
"[This] is about the opinion and judgment of others who keep their
bank roll from our taxes in their 'unprofessions'. Social work is
full of uneducated and not intelligent sorts and these mostly thrive
on the power they wield over others. Why on earth should anyone wish
to co-operate with them?"
[Comments at
source].
"Social workers made
numerous visits to [the house of Baby P], yet nothing happened, ...
so this case - in which a real baby died a horrible lingering death
- illustrates why we simply can't trust the judgment of social
workers and 'professionals'. If they can be so wrong about this
case, where everything pointed to a criminal behavior and a
catastrophic parenting failure, then how can we rely on their
judgment in marginal cases where a 'risk' may or (probably) may not
exist?" / "The suspicions and opinions of
these people are without value. They are the ones who should be
taken into custody to protect the public. Children are a highly
lucrative asset and those with a vested interest should be removed
from the highly lucrative child abuse industry. You would not take
your car to a garage that had a known record of cheating and using
lies [and] subterfuge and perjury to steal cars from their
customers. Same goes for children" / "[S]ocial
workers are only professional in the sense that they are paid for
what they do. Unlike real professionals like doctors, lawyers,
architects, engineers, etc, they have no body of work and no set of
standards that they can refer to. All of their decisions are based
on opinion and guesswork and are influenced by the prevailing
theories. The discipline itself is theory based and subject to the
current whims of some who can only be described as zealots"
[Comments at
source].
"The police will do what the Social Services tell them, since they
aren't very clever and will take the word of a 'professional' only
too gladly ... As for the performance of social services, with all
the catastrophic blunders they have made, most people wouldn't trust
them to take care of their cat over a weekend"
[Comment at
source].
"I can't believe how in
my case MCFD [Ministry of Children and Family Development] expected
I needed 'therapy' to help me, when the only thing that I would have
needed therapy for was what they put me through"
[comment at
source].
"Social workers often
point to the large numbers of children in voluntary care but do not
mention that many of these were given up to care because parents
were promised that if they cooperated by agreeing to this the
children would be returned in 2 or 3 months,. Of course this promise
is too often broken and the parents losing their children for good,
are betrayed, both by social workers and their own lawyers who
inevitably advise parents to cooperate with social services when
they say 'temporary care' is the best option" [source].
"The essential
difference between British social workers and those in Latin
countries, for example, is that in France, Italy or Spain children
are only removed from their parents if they have suffered severe
physical harm. In the UK however children are taken not because they
have actually suffered physical harm but rather some very ill
defined sort of 'emotional harm' or more often because so called
'experts' (using a crystal ball?) decide that there is a risk that
children might suffer 'physical' or far more often 'emotional' harm
at some date in the future. It is impossible for parents to prove
that their children will not suffer emotional harm in the future
when these experts swear to the contrary so the unfortunate parents
nearly always lose" [source].
NSPCC: "Between 2006 and 2015 ... by far the largest increase [in cases
where children were taken into care], a staggering 278%, has been
cases where it was alleged that parents were exposing their children
to 'emotional abuse', a charge much more open to subjective
interpretation than the others. And even this is misleading, because
it makes no distinction between real emotional abuse, for which at
least some evidence can be produced, and the much more speculative
claim that children might be exposed to the mere 'risk' of emotional
abuse some time in the future" [source].
University of Central
Lancashire Study: "Based on FOI requests to 114 local
councils, [the University's study] showed that, [due to 'concerns'
by teachers, health visitors, doctors or members of the public ...
social workers investigated no fewer than one in five of all
children born in 2009/10" [source].
"Since 2009 I have
followed in detail literally hundreds of cases where children have
been taken into care for what appeared to be questionable reasons.
And in the vast majority of them as where a mother has her baby
snatched from her arms in the delivery ward, or loses her children
simply because she herself had been in care (and is therefore deemed
unfit to bring up a child of her own), the only excuse given for
removing a child is that it might face the 'risk' of emotional
abuse. No need to show that such abuse has actually take place.
Simply a social worker's opinion, far too often accepted by the
courts, that this might happen in the hypothetical future" [source].
In the Best Interests of the
Child
"Adolf Hitler's 'In the
best interests of the child' is a favorite line perpetually quoted
by today's Social Workers, the Child Protection Services, and Family
Court Judges. It was originally a slogan designed by Hitler's social
engineers. The Lebensborn program was a Nazi organization set up by
SS leader Heinrich Himmler, which provided and ran orphanages and
relocation programs for children" [source].
"There is likely no
phrase in our language more dangerous to children than 'the best
interests of the child', because it's the banner enabling the
unconstitutional government officious and tyrannical intrusion into
families" [source].
"'Best interest of
Children' doesn't love and care for children. It's about the
industry collecting the money"
[Will Gaston, quoted at
source].
"It should be understood
that the CPS caseworker does not represent the child's interests,
but the state's interests" [A.J. Dager, If They Come For Your
Child: Guarding Against State Intrusion Into Your Home, (1994),
p2].
"The truth is,
children's interests are best served in the context of their own
family. That is, the safest and best place for a child, generally
speaking, is with both biological parents. The social science
research on this is quite clear.
No bureaucrat, no matter
how well-intentioned, will ever come close to showing the love,
attention and dedication to a child that a mother or a father does.
In most cases, the biological parents of children are the ones who
are willing to make the necessary self-sacrifices, and self-denial
to put the interests of children first" [source].
"Nowadays, we constantly hear the mantra 'Best Interests of the
Child'. This is particularly so when a husband and wife who have
children, decide to separate. In such cases, this mantra has been
the device by which a father is deprived of his assets, and denied
contact with his children. However, with homosexual couples, it
seems that the rights of the child barely rate a mention. This is
odd, but it is also an indication of the morality and character of
many of those who determine and enforce social policy"
[Comment at
source].
"Often, too often, I
will hear Social Workers say they are acting 'in the best interest
of the client'. ... It seems to me that when a [social] worker tells
me that, they are basically saying they don't care for the parents
and others because the child is more important. ... [T]his ...
exonerates the [social] worker from working with the parent and
other stakeholders. Often, particularly where the child is young the
time spent working on the child's needs are limited. The fact that
the parents need additional support and services suddenly makes
Child Protection a little more difficult. Most Social Workers don't
have the skills, knowledge and training to understand the
intricacies that are required to work with vulnerable adults"
[source].
"The concept of the
'best interests of the child' is a universal theme expressed in a
variety of international ... instruments of law and practice. But is
it anything more than a theme? Does it actually have content? I am
not certain that it does. It is cited with conviction in child
protection care proceedings and custody battles, but why? Such cases
are never decided on the basis of that theme but rather the specific
facts of the case. The concept of 'best interests' is a part of the
the rhetoric of child protection agencies" [source].
"The deficit is that the
modifier 'best' is not defined, in fact perhaps indefinable. Even
the touted UN Committee on the Rights of a Child has not taken a
position to define the term with precision. Without a definition,
'best interests' has no constraints, and then while the trumpeted
term sounds politically and morally correct, it can lead to wrong
impressions, inaccurate assessments and unjust decisions" [source].
"Unless there are
obvious and evidential reasons that children should be removed from
their living situation it is agreed among the general public that
any change to a child's living situation is detrimental to their
well-being" [source].
"Taking kids away from
their parents, family, home, lives and the comfort and security of
everything they've ever known is NEVER in their best interest. Why
does the Big Brothers gov't authority always think that THEY know
what's 'best' for us? They should just mind their own business and
leave innocent families alone"
[comment at
source].
"Myth: The welfare of
the children is paramount. Reality: This phrase of course does
not say who is to decide what the best interests of the children
are. Social workers trying to meet their targets soon translate this
principle into 'the children's welfare is best served if we win our
case' and they try to win at all costs. Judges ... freely admit that
they take the safe route of 'going along with social services' when
their evidence conflicts with that of the parents" [source].
"[W]hat happened to the
'best interests of the child' as defined in the Children Act? The
concept is used to discriminate against would-be adopters who smoke.
Who are fat. Who hold the 'wrong' political opinions. The Social
services argument is that to be a smoker may or may not be harmful
to a child but that there is a small risk that it could be harmful -
so smokers/fatties/UKIP supporters are likely to find their path to
adoption blocked. To be consistent, shouldn't the same argument
apply to gay [sic] would-be adopters? And doesn't the fact that it
doesn't reveal that 'same sex adoption' is really just a political
act?" [comment at
source].
Advocates
"No
bureaucrat, no matter how well-intentioned, will ever come close to
showing the love, attention and dedication to a child that a mother
or a father does. In most cases, the biological parents of children
are the ones who are willing to make the necessary self-sacrifices,
and self-denial to put the interests of children first. To argue
that children need an advocate is to overlook the fact that they
already have one: their own parents"
[source].
The Appeal to 'Authority' and
'Experience'
"I studied social work
for three years; I have experience..." [EMcD: A social worker's
appeal to her 'professional authority' during a brief conversation I
had with her in February 2018].
"I was doing voluntary
work as an Appropriate Adult when I was asked to support a
12-year-old girl of mixed race who had been referred to the police
by her social workers for unruly and violent behaviour. She was
bright, sassy, very charismatic and had been let down by every adult
and social care service she was in contact with. She was currently
living in a children's home. Two weeks later she was back in custody
and once again I was called out to support her. Her face was
bloated, she had burnt some of her hair off, she looked drugged.
Over the course of several hours I became aware that this child was
regularly absconding from her children's home and staying out
overnight. She had a boyfriend who supplied her with a mobile phone
and money for drugs. It was clear to me that she was sexually
active. I reported my concerns to social services. Their
reaction? It was not my role to interfere, what experience did I
have in these things? Who did I think that I was to comment?
It is not just white girls who are let down, it is working-class
girls. With no one to protect them" [source]
[EMcD: My emphasis].
"Leftists will usually
reply that a layman cannot understand psychology [EMcD: social work
etc] unless they have studied it at university. This is a typical
appeal to authority that leftists make, because knowledge must be
dictated by an ingroup that they control through ideological
orthodoxy. In truth, knowledge is as much about wisdom as it as
about study, and this is certainly true with psychology
[EMcD:
social work]"
[source].
Post-Natal Depression
"Concealment of
Postnatal Mental Illness: Mothers are ... concealing postnatal
mental illness, for fear of social service intervention. ... we know
that contact with child protection services only worsens their state
... We seem to be the only remaining group who see mother and baby
as a dyad, and think they need to be treated as such. ... We have
many cases where social services intervention is intensifying and
prolonging the very postnatal depression which they are seeing as
the reason to take their babies. We have never yet seen a case where
the mother found social worker intervention helpful or supportive" [Adverse
Effects of Child Protection on Public Health, Letter to DoH, 20
August 2007, in AIMS Journal, 2008, Vol 20, No 1, at:
source].
Abuse of Children by Social
Services, 'Family' Courts, in State 'Care Homes'
"It's all about
preventing abuse of the child and wrongly taking a child from its
parents is abuse - abuse that may continue for a lifetime"
/ "wrongly taking a child from its parents doesn't
protect the child at all. It damages the child and is itself abuse.
... Nobody can stop all abuse, whether it is parents abusing
children or the authorities abusing children. The appropriate thing
to do is to apply the same standards as we apply in criminology -
when a crime has happened, we cat. We presume innocence until there
is evidence of guilt" / "'action to prevent
abuse' can equally well be an 'action to cause abuse'. [B]ias
towards 'abuse by taking' is no more sensible than leaving a child
to be abused by unfit parents. In the situation where the abuse can
go either way, we have a legal precedent in presumed innocence. We
don't need to hand over control to an unscrutinised organisation
that can act as judge, jury, and executioner. We can simply use the
normal standards of the law. The law isn't perfect, nor is life, but
neither ... [is] the social worker" / "the system is
slanted in favour of taking children for this reason: if a child is
not taken and something happens, the social worker faces trouble,
but if the child is taken the social worker is safe and the costs
are borne by someone else (the children and parents). The incentive
is clear. It's the same reason software companies are not overly
concerned about bugs and malware - the costs of their doing little
are borne by someone else"
[Comments at
source].
"[R]eal families and real children are being rent asunder ...
With it however, comes the very deepest and most obscene irony that
has ever existed in Britain... the risk of 'emotional' and physical
damage becomes a regular and disgusting reality whenever these kids
are taken into council 'care'"
[Comment at
source].
"Again and again, in the
scores of cases I have followed where social workers, supported by
the police and the courts, have seized children from loving parents,
I have been struck by how often these unhappy children are then
subjected in 'care' to abuse far worse than anything alleged against
the parents from whom they were removed. Most disturbing of all is
the way this is covered up and ignored by politicians, the BBC and
all those who continue to pretend that the system is working as
intended [EMcD: We
would suggest that the system is working precisely as
intended]. Last year, when that
Rochdale MP disclosed shocking details of his local scandal in the
Commons, this was during a long debate calling for social workers to
be given even more support in their holy task of breaking up
families. Neither the two ministers present nor a single MP referred
again to what he said. We are dealing here with real evil"
[source].
"If Social Workers were
stopped from taking children 'into care', where would the
Establishment paedophiles get their fresh meat from?" / "Yes, this is the heart of the matter here. You will find
overwhelming testimony of this agenda on YouTube and no doubt
elsewhere in non-mainstream news. The appetite for young children to
sexually abuse by the powers-that-be fuels this agenda ... Hence
the secret courts. To conceal what's going on. This is how it's
done. Procurement form lower echelons for consumption by elites"
/ "a paedophile will naturally disguise his true nature
and get himself into a position where he has access to children, and
is trusted. We see examples in schools, the NHS, the church, Islam,
and of course children's homes. Why shouldn't the same happen in
social services and the judiciary? Also - it seems that the whole
country knows about Elm House, its surveillance systems, the
testimony of victims and the adults who saw what happened - yet
nobody wants to talk about it in the media?"
[comments at
source].
"So social workers play
god [sic] in secret courts to remove children from a loving family
and at the same time conspire to hide the mass abuse and rape of
children in our cities. Ye gods I despair" /
"Yes they are much better off in children's homes where muslim
paedos can use them as underage prostitutes"
[Comments at
source].
"Even Ofsted last week
seemed to be joining the ever-growing number of people alarmed by
the extent to which our 'child protection' system has gone
horrendously off the rails. After inspecting the performance of 152
local authority 'children's services' departments, it reported that
83% were performing barely adequately, or worse. Even so, Ofsted
made no mention of one of the most disturbing scandals of all: the
number of children being taken into care for no good reason. And
nowhere is this more obvious than in the remorseless way our social
workers and courts seek to track down families who have fled from
them to a new life abroad" [source].
"It was with a great
sense of sadness that during this week a worker for Families SA was
arrested for taking images of children and disseminating them. It is
sad at a number of levels - for the children who are in the care of
the state to have them violated in this way is abhorrent. Every
citizen should be horrified that these children were not protected
by the very department whose role and duty it is to protect them. It
is sad for their family who have had their children removed because
they were deemed ill equipped to care for them and then discover
that their children were abused by the very 'people', used loosely
here, who criticised them for being 'bad parents'" [source].
See
here and
here for specific cases of child stealing and/or abuse
by Social Services and the State.
Secrecy and Malfeasance
of the 'Family' Courts and Courts of 'Protection'
"The secrecy of the
family courts means that if an MP does his democratic duty to check
out a constituent's heart-rending tale of social service
child-snatching, he will be held in contempt of court, as would the
parents approaching their MP for help. Nick Cohen reported in the
Observer that in one case a judge's ruling 'meant that it
was a contempt of court to tell the solicitor general, who is
responsible for the honest functioning of the legal system, and the
Minister for Children, who is responsible for the welfare of
children, about an alleged miscarriage of justice involving a
child'." [source].
"The veil of secrecy - supposedly about protecting the children -
actually enables those who got it wrong to keep getting it wrong and
to hide the truth. It is time that when these appalling events are
overturned, the matter of prosecuting those working for the state
who lied and misled the courts over and over again was raised"
[Comment at
source].
"Secrecy should be lifted in many cases ... it is used to cover up
negligent medical professional and local authority workers"
[Comment at
source].
"Having investigated
dozens of such cases, what has struck me more than anything is how
consistently our family protection system, behind the wall of
secrecy it has built round itself to hide its workings, turns the
basic principle of justice and humanity on their head. Innocent
parents find themselves in a Kafkaesque world, treated as criminals,
while the whole system seems stacked against them. After the initial
shock of seeing their children seized, often with the aid of a mob
of policemen, the parents find themselves in courtrooms where
anything up to four or five teams of lawyers, at great public
expense, are ranged against them. If they themselves are given
solicitors on the advice of the council, these too often turn out to
be as much a part of the system as the rest. The same is true of the
'expert witnesses', paid extraordinarily lavish fees to add to the
pile of damning evidence. Again, too often, judges are prepared only
to listen to what amounts to 'the case for the prosecution', making
no effort to test that evidence, however dubious it may be. This
system is so rigged in support of the social workers that it is
hardly surprising that the number of children in care is breaking
all records" [source].
"The punishment dealt
out to parents by family courts is far more severe than anything the
criminal courts can do; yet the evidence needed is only the 'balance
of probabilities' (51+%) instead of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. This
must be very wrong!" [source].
"Sir James Munby
President of the family courts recently described the removal of
children from families as the most drastic matter handled by the
courts since the abolition of capital punishment (hanging). Child
cruelty should be the business of the police and the criminal
courts; in which case all parents would be presumed innocent of
child abuse or neglect unless charged with such an offence and
subsequently found guilty beyond reasonable doubt by a jury" [source].
"I have to confess I know very little about public law. But what I
do know is that this country is currently engaging in class warfare
at an unprecedented level, and I suspect that this is bound up with
the social engineering that results from what might euphemistically
be called state-sponsored kidnapping. Most parents are far from
perfect, and most make mistakes, just as their parents did in turn.
Yes, some parents are abusive, sadly. But if we had not developed
such an inhumane industry around the whole question, we might have
realized ... that it is by far the better solution to help those
struggling parents rather than to add to the child abuse by robbing
children of their biological parents, and setting them on a clear
path to the self-harm, teenage pregnancy, mental illness, etc. that
repeats the sorry process all over again. It surprises me that there
is not more questioning about the ethics of public law. Everyone
just goes about the business of it like automata"
[Comment at
source].
"Of all those issues
that our major parties never address, few are more disturbing than
the criminally dysfunctional state of our 'child protection' system,
which this year ripped more families apart than ever before, and far
too many for no good reason. Only on those rare occasions when it
breaks surface, as in Rotherham, do we glimpse something of how this
system has become one of the most terrifying scandals in Britain
today. At least we can see some hope in the continuing efforts of
our most senior family judge, Lord Justice Munby, to prod the system
over which he presides back towards some semblance of humanity and
common sense. Nothing has personally cheered me more this Christmas
than the joy of three families I have written about this year, who
were reunited after the courts that had torn them apart finally had
to concede that removing the children from their parents had been a
terrible mistake. Any candidates next May who promise to join the
fight for this horrifying scandal to be brought properly to light,
and ended, will deserve our votes"
[source].
"The 'professionals' are
given carte blanche to espouse their opinions in the juvenile
justice courts. Those opinions are often based on psychological
presuppositions rather than on the truth. Some caseworkers with CPS
will even perjure themselves or withhold information in order to win
in court" [A.J. Dager, If They Come For Your Child: Guarding
Against State Intrusion Into Your Home, (1994), p1].
"Myth: Family Court
secrecy protects the identity of the children. Reality: In
fact social services advertise these same children for adoption on
many websites such as
www.ukkids.info and in magazines
such as 'adoption UK' giving first names, photographs, birth dates,
and characteristics. ... Councils can break secrecy but parents risk
prison if they do the same. What the secrecy does do effectively is
to stop aggrieved parents going to the press or revealing [social
workers'] names"
[source].
Contact Sessions
"Again and again, I have
heard how social workers impose almost totalitarian control over how
contact sessions are conducted. Frequently, children look terrified
as they try to remember everything they have been told, by social
workers or foster careers, that they must not talk about. When
families are foreign, they are strictly forbidden to speak to each
other in the language normally used at home. As is not uncommon ...
[one boy and his grandmother] were both made to sign a long list of
conditions on which continuing contact could be allowed. Expressions
of affection must be limited to a 'brief hug' at the beginning and
end of a session, which had to be initiated by the boy. They were
forbidden to make any reference to his 'case' or why he was in care.
There must be 'no whispering'. No reference must be made to his
foster home or social workers. The boy could not be shown
photographs except by written permission obtained in advance. Any
breach of these or some 15 other rules would end all contact. His
grandmother was forbidden to have contact with him in any other way.
... On [another] occasion, where a distressed 10-year-old girl told
her parents that she had been sexually interfered with by a foster
carer's 19-year-old son, the contact was immediately terminated and
the parents never saw her again. When this was reported to a judge,
he waved it aside as of no concern. ... Politicians gave social
workers the opportunity to abuse their power like this, through the
Children Act" [source].
Once the parents lose
their case to keep their children: "Contact between mothers and
children is gradually reduced (and used as a weapon if mothers are
'difficult'), phone calls are forbidden and grandparents, aunts and
uncles are frequently stopped completely from any form of contact.
Criminals actually in prison are allowed phone calls and family
visits but this is very often denied to parents and grandparents
seeking contact with children in care or worse still 'on track for
adoption'." [source].
"Any one thinking of
applying to be a social worker should spend an hour at a contact
centre and listen to the children screaming, begging and crying to
go home, whilst being held by staff or social workers, whilst they
tell the parents to walk away. No normal, loving, caring human being
could do this" [source].
Forced Adoption
"Remember always that 'adoption' is a wonderful, wonderful thing if
it is truly voluntary but it is a wicked, wicked crime if forced on
parents desperate to keep their children. A punishment almost as bad
as execution" [source].
"(1) Forced adoption is
the removal of a child from its parents without their consent and
usually against their will. Systematic forced adoption pursued as a
government priority is unique to the UK. (2) The result is
that the parents lose all contact with the child usually for the
rest of its life and never know if it is alive or dead. (3)
This can happen to parents who have never been convicted of any
crime because they are thought to pose a risk to a child in the
future. (4) Mothers frequently have their babies removed at
birth for 'risk of emotional abuse'. A prediction difficult for
anyone to disprove. (5) This also happens to citizens of the
EU when visiting the UK so that their children are forcibly adopted
by persons speaking a different language and living a completely
different culture and a different religion even when these parents
have committed no criminal offence. (6) This also happens to
UK citizens visiting other EU countries where they give birth but
are subsequently pursued by the British authorities who make care
orders after the departure and persuade the foreign court to allow
them to take the baby to the UK for forced adoption. (7)
Forced adoption violates the human rights act article 8 to a private
family life undisturbed by public authority and also threatens the
basic EU principle of 'freedom of movement' if EU visitors to [the]
UK who have committed no crimes risk having their children forcibly
adopted. (8) The solution to this problem would be for the EU
authorities to ban on human rights grounds the adoption of children
in EU States without the consent of parents (especially foreign
visitors) who have not committed any crime that could compromise the
interests of their children" [source].
"Shame that all these
so-called 'experts' keep shipping kids off into adoption, which is
inherently harmful to 'protect' them from *potential* (i.e. not
actual) harm" / "The Parliamentary Select
committee have highlighted the fact that many of these children who
have been adopted are now seeking answers through social networking
sites. I believe there will be a 'Backlash' to forced adoption.
Children as young as twelve are now finding their parents. If the
revelation is that the children were loved and wanted and forcibly
adopted against the parents wishes this will b[e] where the real
problems will begin. Social engineering rarely works, you only have
to look at the statistics for adoption failures"
[Comments at
source].
"Myth: Social workers,
judges, foster carers and heads of special schools all do what they
can to reunite children with their parents. Reality: In 2000,
Tony Blair called for a 40% increase in adoptions. Margaret Hodge
fixed targets for local authorities giving beacon status and stars
and even large financial rewards ... to those councils who were
successful. Most social workers are therefore motivated to take
children into care with a view to adoption to meet their targets.
Government research papers have publicly confirmed this. Judges have
admitted in court that it is safer to 'go along with social
services' rather than take any risks and that is why parents almost
never win their children back"
[source].
"Expectant mothers who
were themselves brought up in care have an increased risk of social
workers taking their babies, without even giving them a chance to
show that they can be good parents, and providing them with support
and help. The State is, in effect, saying, 'as your corporate parent
we gave you such damaging care that you are unfit ever to be a
parent yourself'." [source].
"Questions should be
asked of the Commission for Social Care Inspection. In their annual
inspections up and down the country they criticise local authorities
whose adoption figures are not high enough. It is the rise in the
adoption total that wins brownie points, NOT a reduction in older
children lingering in long term 'care' with an unsettled future.
Hence the social work snatching of new born - prime adoption
material, which also met the needs of settled, wealthier, older
infertile couples" [source].
"What they are doing is
redistributive eugenics" [source].
Foster Care
"The rationale behind
government intrusion into the family appears to be based on the
assumption that parents are, de facto, incompetent to raise children
properly because they haven't been approved by the state. Foster
parents have been approved by the state, so they are often preferred
over the child's natural parents. This is evidenced by the fact
that, although children placed in foster care homes are sometimes
treated terribly, the state is slow to intervene. To take action
would be an admission of failure to protect the children"
[A.J.
Dager, If They Come For Your Child: Guarding Against State
Intrusion Into Your Home, (1994), p1].
Homosexual Fostering and
Adoption
"I wonder why Cameron does nothing about such appalling abuses of
power, yet supports gay [sic] marriage and the suppression of anyone
who holds a different view. I dare say it won't be long before
opposing gay [sic] marriage renders any adult unfit to look after
their own children" / "There may come a time when gay
[sic] couples are deemed to be unfairly disadvantaged by not having
a proportionate share of children. Stand by for more children to be
removed from heterosexual couples and given to gay [sic] couples"
[Comments at
source].
"Nowadays, we constantly hear the mantra 'Best Interests of the
Child'. This is particularly so when a husband and wife who have
children, decide to separate. In such cases, this mantra has been
the device by which a father is deprived of his assets, and denied
contact with his children. However, with homosexual couples, it
seems that the rights of the child barely rate a mention. This is
odd, but it is also an indication of the morality and character of
many of those who determine and enforce social policy"
[Comment at
source].
"[T]he history of
children being used as human shields, trophies, costume accessories
and sexual commodities by the gaystapo ... is all part of the
Marxist script to destroy the essential building block, the family,
of Western European civilisation, based as it is on Christian
principles, ... it is a truth of which we need to be constantly
reminded. However, forgetting the deceptive bogus arguments about
whether lesbians make better parents than either straight or gay
[sic] ones, we only have to mention the blatant inequality in power,
influence, rights and privilege that gays presently 'enjoy' over the
rest of society. Society has given everything to the lesbians. We
have nothing more to give except to hand over our children"
[Comment at
source].
Please see
here and
here for more on Homosexual Fostering and Adoption.
Damned If They Do and Damned
If They Don't?
"Social workers love to
defend themselves by saying, 'We're damned if we do and damned if we
don't.' What they cannot understand is that in reality, both
these things can be true. They are at fault both in failing to
intervene when it is justified, but equally in being much too
trigger-happy to intervene when no action is called for. The tragedy
of all this can be summed up in a phrase I coined years ago to
describe what is going on with our regulatory system in many
different areas - that it is 'taking a sledgehammer to miss the
nut'. Nowhere is this more obvious than in a system that tears
thousands of families apart for no good reason, while somehow
managing at the same time to turn a blind eye to all the evidence
that children such as Daniel Pelka are being slowly tortured to
death" [source].
"They're not damned if they do and damned if they don't. That is a
cliché invented to protect idiot social workers who work in a
culture of failure. ... Using [Baby P] to justify future removals is
criminal. ... Children are removed wrongly. Adoptions, when operated
in this way, should be reversible years later when shown to be
wrong" [Comment at
source].
"Social workers
pathetically repeat 'damned if we do and damned if we don't' as an
excuse for their actions. Reality: They get damned because they
avoid the violent type of parents and carers who torture their
children as they are afraid for their own safety and feel damaged
children might be harder to foster or adopt, and they therefore
prefer to take th4e easier option of targeting happy healthy
children whose mothers have low income or low IQs ... Rather like
some police who prefer to target motorists with a defective rear
light rather than go after armed robbers" [source].
Some Statistics
NSPCC: The Four
Legal Justifications for Removing Children From Their Families:
"Between 2006 and 2015, cases where children were taken into care
for 'neglect' rose by 88%, in line with the overall trend.
Despite the supposed increase in concern over 'physical abuse'
post-Baby P, these cases rose by only 20%. Cases involving sexual
abuse of children scarcely rose at all, from 2,300 to 2,340. But by
far the largest increase, a staggering 278%, has been cases where it
was alleged that parents were exposing their children to 'emotional
abuse', a charge much more open to subjective interpretation than
the others" [source].
'Safeguarding Officers', Collusion of State School Teachers with SSs
Please see
here for examples of such perfidy against parents by state
school teachers - who are supposed to be acting in loco parentis.
Social Care: A Poem
by
Anne Murray
"It has
become apparent that, in this modern day,
our health and social services are rife with compliancy.
"And if you
dare to tell them, this system isn't right,
Prepare yourself for battle; you're going to have a fight.
"They twist
and turn the subject; to them we're all the same,
They will take away your dignity, and blacken your good name.
"Then
you'll be abandoned, to suffer a bureaucratic fate,
Targeted by the social sharks; that use our babies as bait.
"The
destruction of the family will be their only goal,
It has become apparent: the social care system has no soul"
Withdraw
Thy Foot...
"God gave children to parents,
not to
the State, to love, nurture, teach, discipline, and train up into adulthood. It does
not take a 'village' or the
'Collective' or State-run 'Care' homes to raise a
child; it takes a loving and biological/adoptive/foster family.
Please see the article
Communism and the Family for the ideology underlying the
'Collective'.
"The issues are:... [continue
reading]
"And he that stealeth [a child], and selleth him..."
(Exodus 21:16)
"The words of a talebearer
are as wounds,
and they go down into the innermost parts of the belly"
(Proverbs 18:8)
"Every fool will be meddling ... Withdraw thy foot
from thy neighbour's house:
lest he be weary of thee, and so hate thee"
(Proverbs 20:3b; 25:17)
"Seest
thou a man wise in his own conceit? There is more hope
of a fool than of him"
(Proverbs 26:12)
"Woe unto them that decree unrighteous
decrees,
and that write grievousness which they have prescribed"
(Isaiah 10:1-3)
"Woe to them that devise iniquity, and work evil upon their beds!
when the morning is light, they practice it, because it is in the
power of their hand. ...
So they oppress a man and his house, even a man and his heritage"
(Micah 2:1-2)
"It
is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through
whom they come!
It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck,
and he cast into the sea,
than that he should offend one of these little ones"
(Luke 17:1-2)
"Let none of you suffer ... as a busybody in other
men's matters"
(1 Peter 4:15)
"Never,
anywhere in the Holy Bible will you find God giving civil government
any
authority to rear or direct the rearing of children ...
God told parents, not the government, to 'train up' their children."
(Laura Rogers, Societal Structures vs. Restructuring, as quoted in Berit
Kjos, Brave New Schools, p185)
|
Please
note that the inclusion of any quotation or item on this page does not
imply we would necessarily endorse the source from which the extract is
taken; neither can we necessarily vouch for any other materials by the
same authors,
or any groups or
ministries or websites with which they may be associated, or any
periodicals to which they may contribute, or the
beliefs of whatever kind they may hold, or any other aspect of their
work or ministry or position. |
©
Elizabeth McDonald
https://www.bayith.org
bayith@blueyonder.co.uk
|
