Repeal Section 97 Children Act1989

This is the section that penalises any person revealing anything that happens in the family courts but at the same time permits the local authorities (with the court's permission) to advertise widely in magazines children for adoption with colour photos,and giving first names,birth dates,and character descriptions !

I know of several mothers in Tower Hamlets who were very distressed to see their children advertised for adoption in the Daily Mirror like puppies" seeking a good home" ! Their neighbours recognised many of the children featured in the large advert ,and gossip was rife ! Nevertheless,in each case mothers desperate to keep their children were warned by the judge that if they dared to discuss their case with anybody ( even the neighbours who had seen the adverts)they would go to prison ,and one did !

Can anyone defend such cruelty and injustice? Surely once a child has been widely advertised for adoption by the local authority the parents should be free to tell their side of the story to whoever they wish?

 

Why is this idea important?

This is the section that penalises any person revealing anything that happens in the family courts but at the same time permits the local authorities (with the court's permission) to advertise widely in magazines children for adoption with colour photos,and giving first names,birth dates,and character descriptions !

I know of several mothers in Tower Hamlets who were very distressed to see their children advertised for adoption in the Daily Mirror like puppies" seeking a good home" ! Their neighbours recognised many of the children featured in the large advert ,and gossip was rife ! Nevertheless,in each case mothers desperate to keep their children were warned by the judge that if they dared to discuss their case with anybody ( even the neighbours who had seen the adverts)they would go to prison ,and one did !

Can anyone defend such cruelty and injustice? Surely once a child has been widely advertised for adoption by the local authority the parents should be free to tell their side of the story to whoever they wish?

 

Reform family courts and the conduct of social workers

Social workers in "child protection" are now reviled throughout the land as "childsnatchers" TAKING CHILDREN FROM PARENTS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN ACCUSED OR CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME WHATSOEVER ! Instead of "helpers" they are known as bullies who intimidate single mothers and whose main intent is meeting "adoption targets" not keeping families together . For ths image to change vital reforms are needed…….;
 
1:-Abolish the family court secrecy that gags parents who wish to complain.
2:-Abolish "emotional harm" and "risk" as justifications for putting children into care 
3:-Abolish "forced adoption"if a parent opposes an adoption in court
4:-Abolish decisions by family court judges to take babies and young children into care.(let juries decide) 
5:-Abolish the power of social services to regulate and control contact between parents and children , to censor their conversation or to restrict phone calls.The court must control the frequency of contacts.  
6:-Abolish the restriction preventing a lay advisor from presenting a case for parents refused legal aid
7:-Abolish hearsay evidence in family courts and require witnesses to stick to facts without "speculation."
8:-Abolish the removal of children for non life threatening forms of neglect such as absences from school or insanitary dwellings unless a written warning  has been served and the situation has not been remedied.
 
These reforms would stop most of the present injustices.

Why is this idea important?

Social workers in "child protection" are now reviled throughout the land as "childsnatchers" TAKING CHILDREN FROM PARENTS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN ACCUSED OR CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME WHATSOEVER ! Instead of "helpers" they are known as bullies who intimidate single mothers and whose main intent is meeting "adoption targets" not keeping families together . For ths image to change vital reforms are needed…….;
 
1:-Abolish the family court secrecy that gags parents who wish to complain.
2:-Abolish "emotional harm" and "risk" as justifications for putting children into care 
3:-Abolish "forced adoption"if a parent opposes an adoption in court
4:-Abolish decisions by family court judges to take babies and young children into care.(let juries decide) 
5:-Abolish the power of social services to regulate and control contact between parents and children , to censor their conversation or to restrict phone calls.The court must control the frequency of contacts.  
6:-Abolish the restriction preventing a lay advisor from presenting a case for parents refused legal aid
7:-Abolish hearsay evidence in family courts and require witnesses to stick to facts without "speculation."
8:-Abolish the removal of children for non life threatening forms of neglect such as absences from school or insanitary dwellings unless a written warning  has been served and the situation has not been remedied.
 
These reforms would stop most of the present injustices.

Ban forced adoption and save £millions

Local authorities receive financial incentives for getting children
adopted – FACT.
If forced adoption was outlawed, the money for these incentives
would no longer need to be provided.
This however would result in more children being in care – which
costs money…  But hundreds, if not thousands of children in care
have been taken from innocent families and should never have been
taken into care in the first place.
If children were taken into care based on evidence-based harm only
(in the same way as in a criminal trial,) the number of children
being taken into care would drop dramatically.   Such children who
have not been proved to have been hurt should then be returned to
their parents.  The care system is currently bulging at the seams
and the government is paying out massive amounts of money for
foster carers needlessly.
Time and money is wasted on taking children into care
unnecessarily. This DESTROYS families and CREATES child abuse
(emotional harm from being taken away from loving family) where
there was none to begin with.
At the same time, these injustices are being allowed to carry on
due to the Family Courts being held in secret.  Family Courts
should be open and have a jury, as in a Criminal Court.

Making these 3 changes alone would save the government millions of
pounds every year:

1. Ban Forced Adoption
2. Children to only be taken into care if it is proved by way of
evidence (as in a criminal trial) that the child has been abused.
3. Family Courts to be open and have a jury, (as in a criminal
court.)

These changes would make the child protection system far more
effective, children would be safer and more children and families
would benefit than they do now

 

Why is this idea important?

Local authorities receive financial incentives for getting children
adopted – FACT.
If forced adoption was outlawed, the money for these incentives
would no longer need to be provided.
This however would result in more children being in care – which
costs money…  But hundreds, if not thousands of children in care
have been taken from innocent families and should never have been
taken into care in the first place.
If children were taken into care based on evidence-based harm only
(in the same way as in a criminal trial,) the number of children
being taken into care would drop dramatically.   Such children who
have not been proved to have been hurt should then be returned to
their parents.  The care system is currently bulging at the seams
and the government is paying out massive amounts of money for
foster carers needlessly.
Time and money is wasted on taking children into care
unnecessarily. This DESTROYS families and CREATES child abuse
(emotional harm from being taken away from loving family) where
there was none to begin with.
At the same time, these injustices are being allowed to carry on
due to the Family Courts being held in secret.  Family Courts
should be open and have a jury, as in a Criminal Court.

Making these 3 changes alone would save the government millions of
pounds every year:

1. Ban Forced Adoption
2. Children to only be taken into care if it is proved by way of
evidence (as in a criminal trial) that the child has been abused.
3. Family Courts to be open and have a jury, (as in a criminal
court.)

These changes would make the child protection system far more
effective, children would be safer and more children and families
would benefit than they do now

 

Gagged.

Britain's secret family courts are able to gag our citizens and force adoptions and other injustices. The secret courts can issue injunctions to prevent people speaking and even talking to each other. We routinely gag our own people and proclaim our wonderful system to the world at large. Repeal and clean up the secret courts and the evil mindsets that devised and put in place the enabling legislation.

Why is this idea important?

Britain's secret family courts are able to gag our citizens and force adoptions and other injustices. The secret courts can issue injunctions to prevent people speaking and even talking to each other. We routinely gag our own people and proclaim our wonderful system to the world at large. Repeal and clean up the secret courts and the evil mindsets that devised and put in place the enabling legislation.

cut adoption red tape – make adoption work

 Current assessment for adoption is extremely lengthy and intrusive and can take social workers away from children at risk; whilst children to be adopted have very little assessment and usually no psychological report – they are therefore badly prepared and sometimes misrepresented to adopters. Cut social work hours spent with prospective adopters in order to better assess looked after children who need adoptive placements. Stop being unnecessarily intrusive with adopters – it puts people off adoption. Let people foster with a view to adoption – at present these are 2 separate assessments, and prospective adopters have to promise 'forever' to a child they have never met.   Combine the foster and adoption assessment and allow people to be joint approved, so they can have a trial period of meeting a child – this way fewer adoptions would break down; more people would be confident to adopt, especially if the process was less intrusive.  More social work hours would be spent with children instead of  spending a year working out whether CRB checked prospective adopters (who are often parents or who work in responsible jobs with children) are secret paedophiles!  Cut the red tape and let social workers make sensible decisions without the need for hundreds of forms.  Allow adopters to meet the prospective child before promising them 'forever' then they can promise forever with integrity.  The present system is so full of red tape that it has forgotten about integrity and common sense, and has lost the plot!  Stop treating prospective adopters as prospective criminals, or idiots who can't make decisions.  Stop lying to and about prospective adoptees – let them have a say!!! Let children and adopters meet each other!  Stop trying to control it all to a ridiculous degree! Why did David Milliband adopt from America?  Our system is rubbish.

Why is this idea important?

 Current assessment for adoption is extremely lengthy and intrusive and can take social workers away from children at risk; whilst children to be adopted have very little assessment and usually no psychological report – they are therefore badly prepared and sometimes misrepresented to adopters. Cut social work hours spent with prospective adopters in order to better assess looked after children who need adoptive placements. Stop being unnecessarily intrusive with adopters – it puts people off adoption. Let people foster with a view to adoption – at present these are 2 separate assessments, and prospective adopters have to promise 'forever' to a child they have never met.   Combine the foster and adoption assessment and allow people to be joint approved, so they can have a trial period of meeting a child – this way fewer adoptions would break down; more people would be confident to adopt, especially if the process was less intrusive.  More social work hours would be spent with children instead of  spending a year working out whether CRB checked prospective adopters (who are often parents or who work in responsible jobs with children) are secret paedophiles!  Cut the red tape and let social workers make sensible decisions without the need for hundreds of forms.  Allow adopters to meet the prospective child before promising them 'forever' then they can promise forever with integrity.  The present system is so full of red tape that it has forgotten about integrity and common sense, and has lost the plot!  Stop treating prospective adopters as prospective criminals, or idiots who can't make decisions.  Stop lying to and about prospective adoptees – let them have a say!!! Let children and adopters meet each other!  Stop trying to control it all to a ridiculous degree! Why did David Milliband adopt from America?  Our system is rubbish.

Scrap forced adoption and allow birth parents free speech !

Thousand of babies and young children are taken by social workers from their mothers for "risk of emotional abuse".These children are then ordered by compliant judges to be freed for adoption by complete strangers.If parents complain publicly they are jailed (around 200/year according to Harriet Harman) ,and more recently for sending birthday cards or waving as their children passed by in a taxi ! The UK is the only EU country with forced adoption(against the will of parents)  except "possibly Portugal" according to Baroness Hale in a House of Lords case and it is time for 3 reforms to remedy these flagrant injustices.

1:- In the interests of free speech the legal GAG on parents involved in family courts must be scrapped.Parents like rape victims should be FREE to make public the details of their personal histories and experiences in the family courts if they choose to do so.Parents visiting children in care should not have their conversations censored by social workers or their contact stopped if they dare to disciuss their case.

2:-Forced adoption  where parents oppose adoption in the courts) should be scrapped and all adoptions should be "open" so that birth parents know where their children are and cannot be jailed for communicating with them.Closed adoptions often mean that blameless loving parents lose track of their children for the rest of their lives because one parent may have mild learning difficulties,or be the victim of domestic violence,or quite simply being perceived likely in the future to emotionally abuse their children.FORCED ADOPTIONS AND CLOSED ADOPTIONS should be banned.

3:-A burglar facing  a possible 6 months jail can demand trial by jury ,but a mother can lose her children for life without that possibility.Judges hesitate to overule social services even when they criticise them in court probably because they themselves fear subsequent criticism whilst a jury becomes anonymous after the trial and would have no such inhibitions.In any case involving long term separation of parents and children the parents should have the right to demand hearing by a jury.Juries already act in the civil courts in libel cases and would be more than capable of deciding if children should or should not remain in the care of their parents. 

Why is this idea important?

Thousand of babies and young children are taken by social workers from their mothers for "risk of emotional abuse".These children are then ordered by compliant judges to be freed for adoption by complete strangers.If parents complain publicly they are jailed (around 200/year according to Harriet Harman) ,and more recently for sending birthday cards or waving as their children passed by in a taxi ! The UK is the only EU country with forced adoption(against the will of parents)  except "possibly Portugal" according to Baroness Hale in a House of Lords case and it is time for 3 reforms to remedy these flagrant injustices.

1:- In the interests of free speech the legal GAG on parents involved in family courts must be scrapped.Parents like rape victims should be FREE to make public the details of their personal histories and experiences in the family courts if they choose to do so.Parents visiting children in care should not have their conversations censored by social workers or their contact stopped if they dare to disciuss their case.

2:-Forced adoption  where parents oppose adoption in the courts) should be scrapped and all adoptions should be "open" so that birth parents know where their children are and cannot be jailed for communicating with them.Closed adoptions often mean that blameless loving parents lose track of their children for the rest of their lives because one parent may have mild learning difficulties,or be the victim of domestic violence,or quite simply being perceived likely in the future to emotionally abuse their children.FORCED ADOPTIONS AND CLOSED ADOPTIONS should be banned.

3:-A burglar facing  a possible 6 months jail can demand trial by jury ,but a mother can lose her children for life without that possibility.Judges hesitate to overule social services even when they criticise them in court probably because they themselves fear subsequent criticism whilst a jury becomes anonymous after the trial and would have no such inhibitions.In any case involving long term separation of parents and children the parents should have the right to demand hearing by a jury.Juries already act in the civil courts in libel cases and would be more than capable of deciding if children should or should not remain in the care of their parents.