The Foreign Father who has allegedly Injured one Boy, is supposed to Lose both Sons
1. Nature of the Case / Background
This tragedy of two foreign boys was initiated by a hospital that was visited to cure an infection. The hospital asked to see his brother, talking only to the mother whose English is poor. A phone call to the father suggested that he was accused of having injured his boy and that he would never see his children again. Subsequently, the boys, born in 2008 and 2009, were fostered in Kent – 70 miles away from home – and are now to be adopted, even though both parents are alive. Social Services used the promise of seeing the children or the threat of not seeing them to manipulate both parents and to falsely accuse the father. Furthermore, they used the fact that the family have foreign passports against them: if they were to contact their Embassy, it would be a sign for them to flee the UK, contrary to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
2. Submissions of Fact
Partly due to the stress of Social Services seizing the children, the parents separated and have contact with their children only once a week, but often delayed or cancelled, which is why the father ended up losing his lucrative job. The explanation for Social Services is given by the article published by the Daily Mail in Jan 2008: How Social Services are paid Bonuses to Snatch Babies for Adoption:
- “Crucially, the courts’ culture of secrecy means that if a social worker lies or fabricates notes or a medical expert giving evidence makes a mistake, no one finds out and there is no retribution.”
- “From the time a child is named on a social services care order until the day they are adopted, the parents are breaking the law – a crime punishable by imprisonment – if they tell anyone what is happening to their family. Anything from a chat with a neighbour to a letter sent to a friend can land them in jail.”
3. Points of Law and Procedure
John Hemming MP has some 1,500 cases on file and claims that 1,000 children a year are adopted forcibly, as reported by the BBC in December 2011. The pretext of “in the interest of the child” cannot possibly maintained when the father is falsely being accused and talks about the lies of Social Services as well as the lawyer who is supposedly acting on his behalf, a very familiar pattern with other cases observed, especially with foreigners: legal and Social Services proceedings are confusing, leading to court hearings where judges sanction what Social Services have organised. However, in Norway, the Indian Government has succeeded in applying diplomatic pressure such that the Indian children’s ordeal ends as Norway relents and agrees for their move.
A most recent article highlights: The facts about child snatching can be reported in Norway – but not here.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child as well as the Children Act 1989 clearly state what would indeed be in the interest of the two boys: where a child is in the care of a local authority, the authority may only allow him to live with a person who is either a parent, or who has parental responsibility. Unfortunately, judges and lawyers ignore the above laws time and time again. Although ‘kinship placements’ are supposed to be the preferred option, the UK has a significantly lower proportion of children in kinship care than in other countries, with approximately 12 %, as compared to New Zealand’s 75% and Belgium’s 33%. The Education Select Committee is currently investigating ‘child protection’ and John Hemming MP has already given evidence. A world wide protest has been initiated by the One Voice for the kids for 6th March 2012.