Sunday, May 31, 2009

Mind boggling tale from the Family court

Sometimes the mind quite literally boggles when you read a news story like this. It's a tale from the family courts which, thankfully, are no longer allowed to progress in secret and can be reported.

A mother called Rachel is, quite rightly, taking her case to the European Court of Human Rights, after Nottingham City Court took her prematurely born baby into care and are now trying to get it adopted on the grounds that she was not clever enough to look after the child.

What is more mind boggling is that this all came about when the "official solicitor" (government funded) took over her case because she was judged to be intellectually incapable of instructing her own solicitor. Then, when the council applied to have the child adopted, he didn't bother contesting it even though she instructed him to do so.

Now you might be thinking that perhaps, just maybe, this Rachel really isn't suitable for motherhood because of some sort of learning difficulty. However, according to the report, she had a psychiatric assessment done and she has no learning difficulties and is within the normal range of intelligence for someone who is 24.

Yet, the while the court has now accepted that she's more than capable of instructing a solicitor the adoption process goes on and she has three more months before she will be ordered to never see her child again.

As I say, this sort of thing is just mind boggling. If its not a complete competence failure leading to a child's death by a Council, it's the other extreme of a destroying a family unit on pure conjecture about what might, possibly, maybe happen.



Cinnamon said...

Behold NewLabourborn @ work again...

People who adopt nowadays in the UK without making sure the kids are not stolen from their real parents are far more guilty than the SS workers who steal the children in their name.

And when those kids find out the truth as they get older, even more lives will get destroyed as the kids will turn on their adoptive parents in disgust at what they did.

Houdini said...

No, the mind doesn't boggle Dizzy.

Nottingham is a typical Labour, and always has been, supporting and run area who socially engineer as a matter of course. Who are the adoptive parents? It wouldn't surprise me if they were homosexual or lesbian.

This is another case like the one recently where the grand parents were disallowed from adopting their grand children and the two children given to a homosexual couple.

This is typical lefty Labour social engineering, and it is no doubt true to say that if this woman was black, asian or muslim this would not have happened.

Alistair Watson said...

I agree – I heard the storey last night just before going to bed & thought long and hard what I might do if my grandson was at risk of being abducted by these lazy, incompetent people too stupid to do the jobs they are being paid to do. No doubt we will be told that most people in Social Services are hard working conscientious professionals who would not tolerate events like this. The problem is these paragons of virtue do tolerate these events, there are no whistle blowers, and there is a professional “omerta” Social workers only have themselves to blame for the stigma they all bear.

SaltedSlug said...

Hmmm, something wrong here.
We hear -vaguely- about one psychiatric assessment, but nothing of the plethora of other assessments that would've been done. She's gone to the ECHR(which is 2 years behind, so the kid will be 5 before the case gets heard), but if she'd gone to the court of appeals she would've been heard by now.
The Official solicitor may be paid by the government, but she has no horse in this race and has exactly no reason to go along with the 'official' line unless that is what her assessment of the situation had led her to.

Also, the child is three. What the blue fuck has happened in the last three years that brought the child to the notice of Children's services? We don't know, because we haven't been told.

So the kid doesn't really need 'day to day' care anymore. OK, but does he need to go for regular appointments at some clinic or other? Real example from Mrs Slug (Solicitor for a local authority): Child has condition needing fortnightly blood transfusions, else he'd have strokes. Mum is too stupid to take child to the appointments. Result: Mrs Slug at court sorting out an EPO so the kid can be snatched and sorted out.

There is no little in terms of real information in this article that you can extrapolate almost nothing.

As an aside: journalists were always able to go to the Mag's court, they were also able to go to the other family courts if they asked the judge. They just never bothered until it got fashionable to bash social services, and when they did turn up they'd hang around for five minutes (which is about as long as it took to write this article, apparently) and then bugger off and make base the story on that.

Needless to say, I'm sceptical of the details of this case being as clear cut as the Times put them.

SaltedSlug said...

Apologies for sentence structure.
'Tis the weekend

Cinnamon said...

Slug, even if the mom is a bit dim, no big deal, of all the things the SS has to support, fortnightly check-up services are really not a reason to kidnap the child. SS is supposed to support families, not break them up... (at least that used to be the mission).

What next? IQ tests all round and resulting forced sterilisations/abortions? Look up 'Lebensborn'... what we have is is slightly different in form, but not really in result -- those adoptive parents usually go through a lengthy course of brainwashing and are tested for their believes and morals very thoroughly. Diverge from the expected norm, protest or question the right to invade your privacy that extremely at any point in the process and you'll stay childless. This is way more than just vetting people for suitability as parents...

This is the new Lebensborn indeed, but instead of choosing Aryan genetics, NewLabourborn selects for PC thinking.

No difference at all to the breeding programs of the Nazis when you strip down the ethics of it to their essence.

Houdini, the gay couple knew that their new kid had been kidnapped and didn't care. Never mind their sexual orientation, anyone who knowingly takes a stolen child is a kidnapper and morally unfit to parent.

Seriously, would you want to take this child in at all when you know all this? What kind of person would do this and sleep at night? Would you want such a person as a friend or even as adoptive father?