One thing have I desired of the LORD, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life (Psalm 27:4)                 Bayith Ministries

Bayith Home  |  Foundations  |  Better Than Rubies  |  Political Cultural and Social Issues  |  The State as Parent

The State as Parent
State Intrusion into the Sanctity and Privacy of the Family

"We must remove the children from the crude influence of their families.
We must take them over and, to speak frankly, nationalize them
"

"[T]he most vulnerable children in our society ... are in our care; we, the state, are their parents"

"The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get at the children,
to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families,
and indoctrinate them in their rulers' view of the world"

"Above all things, the child needs protecting from the state"

Specific Cases of Child Abuse
and/or Stealing by the State
(also included on this page are examples of State abuse of the elderly)
 

Quotations and Comments

Cardiff (2017)   |   Kingston Upon Hull (2014)   |   Hertfordshire (2014)   |   Guildford, Surrey (2012/13)

Nijmegen, Holland (2012)   |   England to Ireland (2010)   |   British Colombia, Canada (2007)   |   Cleveland (1987)

Jephthah's Children: Quotes and Comments   |   Institutionalised Child Abuse: Quotes and Comments   |   Social Care: A Poem

Withdraw Thy Foot...   |   The State as Parent: Articles  |  The State as Parent: Quotes and Comments  |  State as Parent: Some Scriptures

See Also:

Political Correctness   |   Education   |   Common Purpose
 

"The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get at the children,
to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers' view of the world"

[
UK Supreme Court, Judgement, The Christian Institute and Others v The Lord Advocate (Scotland), 28:07:16, para. 73]

"Put starkly, the state by its actions has denied these parents the right to decide for themselves, within the privacy of the family,
what in their view, as devoted parents, is in the best interests of their children - a matter which, to speak plainly, is no business of the state"
[
Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division of the High Court of Justice, 19:01:2017, para.21]

"Perhaps those words will now be quoted to every Government busy-body, every ardent searcher for parental non-conformity,
every state employee who believes interfering in family life is 'only doing their job'.
Perhaps this edict will echo from doorsteps and family homes where love resides with all of its human blemishes and quirks.  I'd like to think so"

[
No Business of the State]

 

Cardiff  (2017)


"Homosexual parenting is not a matter of right. Nor is being a parent a right. It is a gift and a duty. But as in the days of the Book of Judges, there are no moral absolutes in our society. Everyone does what is right in his or her own eyes. Elsie is dead. Jephthah lives on. And that is wrong"
[source].


"[T]he tragic little girl murdered by the modern-day Jephthah ... was precisely taken from her family, against the wishes of her grandmother, who had custody of two of her elder siblings, and given to two perverts, at least one of whom monstrously murdered her within a month of adoption, an adoption that was approved despite a sequence of external injuries requiring hospital visits in the previous months of temporary custody. It's a damning indictment, and not just of the monsters who 'cared' for her"
[comment at source].


"Why have none of the social workers involved been arrested and charged as accomplices? Their job, after all, was to remove a child in danger of of abuse, and they did not do that"
[comment at source].


"Some years ago, a young friend of mine ended up as a single father to a three year old girl when his wife died of cancer. The local social services did everything they could to try to persuade him to give up the child for adoption on the grounds that a man can't bring up a female child. Instead of offering help and support, they appeared to do their level best to prove he was doing something wrong so they could take the girl into care. Fortunately he had good neighbours and both sets of grandparents to help him, and the girl is now about eight and doing really well. Now other social services are content to give a girl to two men to raise (and kill), even though grandparents were available. Total madness!!!!"
[comment at source].


"This is staggering evil as to be beyond comprehension. Although it is no more than I expect in a nation that has become largely morally bankrupt"
[comment at source].

 

Kingston Upon Hull  (2014)


Judge Jack: "The reality is that in this country there must be tens of thousands of children who are cared for in homes where there is a degree of domestic violence (now very widely defined) and where parents on occasion drink more than they should. I am not condoning that for a moment, but the Courts are not in the business of social engineering. The Courts are not in the business of providing children with perfect homes. If we took into care and placed for adoption every child whose parents had had a domestic spat and every child whose parents on occasion had drunk too much then the care system would be overwhelmed and there would not be enough adoptive parents. So we have to have a degree of realism about prospective careers who come before the Courts"
[source].


Judge Jack: "I took the view that it was incumbent upon the local authority, rather than seeking to place J for adoption, to seek to support a placement within the family so as to give J all the benefits which flow from remaining within his birth family and growing up knowing who he is"
[source].


Judge Jack: "Mr. Nelson also raises issues which it seems to me are not serious issues. For example he raises an issue about the sleeping arrangements. Now, I accept, of course, that in an ideal world each child would have his or her own bedroom and certainly you would not have children of different sexes sharing at least beyond a certain age. But we live in fact in a world where probably the majority of families all sleep in the same bedroom and so it cannot be said that the fact that a child may have to share a room is a significant problem"
[source].


"What is the reasoning here, I wonder? Do they get some kind of merit badge for putting kids with unrelated families? Extra funding fro meeting adoption targets? Bonus points if they place them with a gay [sic] couple? It all seems very strange and contrary to common sense"
[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].

 

Hertfordshire  (2014)


"My name is Bhupeshkumar Patel. I am the Daddy of [the] Baby with no name. ... these people steal children for a living. My child was not named as they abused our religious beliefs. My child is Hindu born ... we do not eat beef for religious reasons. ... they allowed beef to be fed to my Hindu children. ... I have 999 calls reported to Hertfordshire constabulary they refuse to investigate as social services have more power"
[Comment at source].

 

Guildford, Surrey  (2012/13)


"We took our child to the hospital and they stole our baby from us. ... We had no say, no choice. The judge just granted the adoption"
[Karrissa Cox, quoted at source].


"Lawyers have criticised the decision to finalise the adoption before the criminal court had made its ruling"
[source].


"These innocent parents have been spared a criminal conviction and a prison sentence for a crime they never committed. Their life sentence is that they are likely never to see their baby again"
[Michael Turner QC, Garden Court Chambers in London, quoted at source].


"This tragic case highlights the real dangers of the Government's drive to increase adoption and speed up family proceedings at all costs. It also shows the perils of the continued inaction relating to a nationwide epidemic of Vitamin D deficiency and rickets and the grave injustice that can result when relying on the opinions of medical professionals alone to conclude child abuse"
[Emma Fenn, Garden Court Chambers, quoted at source].


"The plight of Ms Cox and Mr Carter is far from uncommon. Every year around 10,000 children are removed from their families against their will. Last year [2014] 5,206 were adopted, most of them forcibly at the behest of the Family Court. The hearings that condemn their parents are shrouded in secrecy"
[source].


"What a horrific, maddening story; read it and weep; ... two innocent, loving parents have likely lost their child forever thanks to the blunders and ignorance of the doctors and the undue haste of the child welfare authorities"
[source].


"This problem really began when, back in the Eighties, Britain's courts and social workers fell for a theory put forward in America that 'metaphyseal fractures', which can naturally arise in small children when their bones are forming, must always be a 'non-accidental injury', caused by the parents. In case after case this was argued by 'expert witnesses' who accepted the theory, and successfully used [it] as an excuse to remove many children from innocent parents into care. So strong was the evidence against this theory that in the criminal courts its central flaw was eventually recognised. but in the family courts it has continued to be accepted, as in one of the first cases I followed here in detail, where a mother wished in vain to argue that her baby son's 'metaphyseal fractures' were caused by her own serious Vitamin D deficiency"
[source].


"Is there a worse thing than having your child wrongfully snatched away from you by the State, which cannot be bothered to wait to see if the charges against you are proven? Are we truly free if such a thing can be done, irrevocably? The case of Karrissa Cox and Richard Carter is a grotesque injustice. No court should have been able to hand over their child for adoption until the charges of abuse against them had been heard and proved beyond reasonable doubt. In fact, the charges collapsed. The presumption of innocence is all that stands between us and tyranny, and I hope that some wise judge acts swiftly to restore the lost child to its parents. This isn't a free country if this doesn't happen"
[Peter Hitchens, Mail on Sunday, 11 October 2015].


"The child should have remained under protective custody with open supervised visitation until the court made a final ruling and appeals"  /  "It is a grave injustice. How can the child be adopted before the criminal case was completed"  /  "Since when has it been legal to dispose of the evidence before a verdict?"  /  "The child had previously unknown medical conditions. These tests should have been done as a matter of course when the case if first being considered"  /  "There are SO MANY things wrong with this disgraceful situation - why was the finalisation of the adoption not delayed until the result of the court case? Why did they not have the child fostered, instead of adopted, until the result of the court case? Why did the case take so long to conclude?"
[comments at source].


"Name and shame [the judge] and the doctors and the social workers"  /  "The people responsible for this decision should be named. They should have to answer directly to the parents and explain what they are going to do to make the situation right and not be allowed to hide behind glib statements about the welfare of the child. What they have done is the equivalent of murder. They have deprived the parents of their child the same way as a person who has killed a child has to its parents"  /  "Everyone involved in this case should be sacked. It seems parents get no leeway, but social workers are allowed to make mistake after mistake with correct punishment"  /  "So the family courts who have effectively wrecked three lives; the parents and the baby, will have no consequences for their reckless and abusive actions, yet the innocent parents and the baby have to carry the can for the rest of their lives? There should be criminal proceedings against the body that set all this in motion"  /  "Heads need to roll - but they won't. All you will get from the local authority is 'Lessons have been learned', when in fact they have learned nothing because they will not admit they got it wrong. What are the elected members of Surrey County Council going to do about it?"  /  "Only the legal profession and SS cannot see this. Everyone else can"  /  "This council needs investigating and all previous adoptions checked"
[comments at source].


"The child was STOLEN - not adopted"  /  "They did nothing wrong and they have had their child kidnapped by the state"  /  "Scary how the State can just take (and keep) children"  /  "Tremendous shortage of good looking babies for adoption in the UK. Stinks of corruption. All SS officials in this case should be thoroughly investigated. Especially their bank accounts"  /  "We hear so much about the benefits of human rights for terrorists. Why are these parents not protected by this allegedly fantastic system?"  /  "In the UK today, only criminals and terrorists are afforded human rights"  /  "The innocent suffer, and the guilty carry on"
[comments at source].


"The high-handed arrogance of these so-called professionals ... is absolutely staggering. It raises serious questions for parents, who need to seek medical help for a sick child with worrying symptoms,. could the outcome be that they find they are treated like criminals and even have their own child taken away from them? Seems like one needs 'safeguarding' from the safeguarders"  /  "How can any society agree with a law that supports a child being taken away for life from innocent parents"  /  "There is no justification for this adoption not to be overturned. The state cannot be allowed to steal children from loving parents and then criticise countries where the rights of citizens are not respected"
[comments at: source].


"Well let's hope the couple that adopted the child do the right thing, because if they do the painful, but thoroughly right thing and give the child up there would be no barrier to the child going back to its real and proper parents. The kid is going to be very bitter about this in the future and will not thank anyone involved even its adoptive parents. Better to put this wrong right now rather than years down the line when the child wants to find its own flesh and blood"  /  "If the adoptive parents had an ounce of decency they would hand [the child] back"  /  "Give them their child back now - no ifs, no buts. A provision could be made for the child to see the adoptive parents, but it's nonsense to say the child could not be moved; many fostered children go through the same thing each year"  /  "They don't see it as difficult for the child when they're moving older children from one foster home to the next. At that age that can make all new memories with their child. If the adoptive parents had the best interests of the child they'd at least allow the birth parents to visit etc until they could do the move properly"  /  "The child should go back to its blood parents"  /  "How can the adoptive parents live with knowing they have a child who should never have been snatched?"  /  "The child must be returned to its natural parents. This is a situation where ethics and common sense overrule the 'law'"
[comments at source].


"Could there not be understanding and an empathic extension of the adoptive parents arm to consider what heart ache this situation is bringing to the biological parents, ... they have to live with the idea of 'raising a stolen child'. To rectify this situation quickly [they need to] return the child. As a reward these adoptive parents could be placed on a priority list to adopt future children should they wish to do so"
[comment at source].


"I have emailed Surrey CC directly to instruct them to return the child to mother and father forthwith. The people who now believe they are the mother and father of this child should now at once return the child to its biological parents. If I was the adoptive mother or father of a child acquired in these circumstances, no matter how desperate to have my own child ... I would voluntarily return the child myself. I could not live with the guilt of holding a child of someone' else's after knowing that [the] parents did not give the child up for their own reasons. ... The child was snatched ... illegally"
[comment at source].  


The alleged problem of 'uprooting' a small child:


"The media sources constantly [state] it is virtually impossible for the biological child to be returned to its biological parents due to [the] 'uprooting' situation. ... toddlers and small infants adapt well to change of environment and care takers. It is far easier to uproot a small child than a school aged child or teenager. Think of the ramifications in this electronic world should this child continue to be raised by the adoptive parents and eventually coming across on their own recourse that they are 'that child' that was wrongfully removed away from its biological parents and forced into adoption when at an early age they could have been placed back into its biological parents' hands. This child ... could end up becoming so resentful of the ... adoptive parents (for why did they not give him back to his true parents) and may result in delinquent and other devastating behaviours. A couple of years is such a small amount of time to base the 'uprooting welfare issue' on. The parents can still establish a relationship [with their] small child. ... How many times are children spontaneously removed from their biological parents ... at any age and fostered or adopted? Isn't that a form of uprooting? So why could they not remove the child from the adoptive parents and place it back where it belongs with little ramification compared to future possible resentment and ramifications of what could have been [corrected] immediately?"
[comment at source].


"Children do adapt and mold really quickly (I work with children and many new psychological studies are proving this against the old belief that the Family Court adheres to). Please correct this situation. Bureaucracy should not rule impossibility. The welfare of the child will be dire if they are not returned to its biological parents immediately. You may not see it now but in years to come we can guarantee this child will suffer and make others suffer around it due to this.  And the biological parents will suffer for the rest of their lives and affect everything from work, to marriage, to social to mental health etc. Everything has consequences. Move this child back to its biological parents now before it's too late. It can be done"
[comment at source].

 

Nijmegen, Holland  (2012)


"Here in Holland all those 'so called' social workers, are only caring about money. Each out house placed child will bring up to 40,000 to 80,000 euros for the Social workers on a year basis. So if they find a prey, they will hunt until they get it. ... Here in Holland your child is not safe. Here in Holland thousands of people are fearing the social workers. And the state, does NOTHING. ... So one advice, never move to Holland. And not at all if you love your kids and never want to lose them"
[comment at source].


"Yes, Holland is bad, but the UK is worse with secret courts, gagging orders, and forced adoptions of babies taken at birth for 'risk of emotional abuse'."  /  "failure to 'co-operate with professionals', [is] an excuse only too familiar here in Britain. Social workers are only professional in the sense that they get paid for what they do. They have no body of work, a set of standards or case law etc, that can be referred to. Most of their decisions are based on opinion and some social workers are so brainwashed that they would see the fact that speaking a different language at home is certainly good enough evidence of 'possible future emotional harm' and therefore justifies the removal of children"  /  "That a degree is now required signifies little, as the teaching of the subject is itself based on opinion and ideology, not hard fact. ... Statute Law covers matters such as 'significant harm' and 'future emotional damage' both of which are of course open to interpretation. The statutes also allows social workers to base their opinions on 'the balance of probabilities' which of course means they can weight it as they wish. That is when they do comply with the law, which is very often not the case"  /  "Rotherham, Manchester, Birmingham, Rochdale, etc., all happened under the oversight of this system, and the social workers all had their bits of paper saying how qualified they were. This did absolutely no good for any of the children they were meant to be protecting"
[comments at source].


"Two of the glaring differences between this case and so many of those in Britain is, firstly, that the Antonovs family had the assistance of two excellent Dutch lawyers, who fought the 'system' all the way, and, secondly, that they were assessed by a truly independent psychologist, who showed that the absurdly critical picture of the family painted by the social workers was wrong in every way. In other words, she was the very opposite of the kind of 'hired gun' psychologists so familiar in Britain, who earn their living working for local authorities and producing reports which simply support everything the social workers want them to say"
[Comment by Christopher Booker, the author of the article, at source].

 

England to Ireland  (2010)


"The desperate young mother, after losing her first child, again became pregnant. Convinced that her new baby would also be seized, she applied for a pill to terminate the pregnancy. Two days later, on the very day her first child was taken into foster care, her second was stillborn. Since then, this formerly happy, loving mother has been plunged into an almost catatonic depression. The only reason she has ever been given as to why she should be robbed of her child was [some] youthful indiscretions several years back when she mixed with an unruly crown of other children and was twice punished for it. There is no evidence that she has ever harmed anyone, ... In Ireland, the social workers expressed every confidence that this baby would be well looked after. In a country where children are only seized where there is evidence that they have been done actual harm, they are astonished at the behaviour of their English colleagues"
[source].

 

British Columbia, Canada  (2007)


"
The best interests of the child are indeed subjective and it all depends on who is doing the interpretation. The director thinks that only he is qualified to judge and of course judges all think that they are expert. The term best interest is very vague, but section 4 of the act does try to define that best interest. ... [T]he guidelines under section 2 stress the importance of timeliness in concluding cases. This is supported in section 4 which urges consideration of the damage to a child caused by lengthy delays. Lest one thinks that 'timeliness' is also a vague term, the time lines are spelled out more exactly in the procedures. These procedural matters are not optional, but imperatives. A presentation hearing is summary and must be concluded quickly. A hearing of evidence must commence within 45 days, and ten days clear notice must be given to the parents, with a statement of the order sought. Temporary orders cannot exceed three months on young children and the total of temporary orders cannot exceed one year. A glance at the Bayne case shows that all these principles were ignored, or trampled underfoot. The director cared not one jot about following timelines. Never did they get a hearing within 45 days and never was due notice served. With the new Bayne child the presentation was protracted over two months (atrocious). No proper notice was served and no evidence pertaining to that child was produced. It was all inference and all before the judge had even written a ruling on the siblings. Nobody gave a thought to the damage of the prolonged limbo. The judge found a small degree of risk on rather feeble grounds, but totally ignored the risk of attachment deficit disorder caused by the long delays in the case. Attachment deficit disorder is not junk psychology, but has been well researched. My understanding is that the psychologist who was to do the parental capacity assessment had no intention of addressing, or assessing the children for attachment deficit. All this trampling of the best interests and ignoring the requirements of the act cannot take place without active collusion on the part of judges. All the judges on this case appeared to abandon the requirements of due process, protecting the rights of both parents and children and demanding accountability of the director. They seemed totally ignorant of the rules of evidence and allowed their courtrooms to become a free-for-all for completely fact-free evidence, scuttlebut and malicious unproven allegations. If judges abandon their duties, what protection is there for children against the aggressive children's ministry?" [comment at source].

 

Cleveland  (1987)


"During the inquiry, it was revealed that social workers were driven by malignant prejudices rather than by any sense of duty or professionalism. In video-recorded interviews with the allegedly abused children, social workers were seen threatening and attempting to bribe the children in order to make them confirm social workers' belief that they had been abused. leading questions were asked of the children, which would not have been permitted in court"
[source].


"The Cleveland child abuse scandal was a watershed moment in modern British society. Firstly, it revealed a disturbing, unhealthy obsession among state officials with seeing child abuse everywhere. And secondly, strikingly the panic was promoted, directed and sustained largely by those who describe themselves as left-wing or liberal, rather than by authoritarian conservatives. By this time in the twentieth century, many on the British left had started to view ordinary working people as a dangerous scourge that the state must control and reprimand. Despite the original child-abuse claims being thrown out of court, the Cleveland scandal still established a precedent for how the state and its left-leaning cheerleaders viewed working-class families. The new emerging idea was that parents could not be trusted to bring up their children responsibly, and that children everywhere were under threat from the adults they knew. Of course, after the Cleveland scandal, the hysterical language used by social workers and their supporters was toned down; but that powerful sense of institutionalised distrust of ordinary parents which exploded around Cleveland remains intact"
[source].



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