|
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
|
