We had occasion this week to write to our MP, Sir Michael Lord, who has announced his retirement. We've written to him on a number of different issues over the last few years, and he has always replied promptly, thoughtfully and fully. We know that he has brought our concerns to the ears of the relevant ministers - with success on at least one occasion when the government were persuaded to drop their plans to require churches to have public entertainment licences. So we wrote to thank him for serving the people of Mid-Suffolk well and diligently, and express our appreciation for his responsive attitude. He was even nice enough to phone and thank us.
Now another Suffolk MP has done something of which we whole-heartedly approve. Tim Yeo, MP for South Suffolk, has accused Suffolk County Council of 'kidnapping' a child after a couple were forced to give up their nine-week-old baby girl for adoption. He used parliamentary privilege to reveal how social services 'snatched the baby from the arms of her mother' in a joint raid with police.
In an adjournment debate in the House of Commons on Wednesday, the South Suffolk MP said he suspected that 'an explicit, if unpublished, aim of the staff of the council is to remove very young children from the care of their parents wherever possible'. The veteran MP said the council had:
• destroyed a fragile family
• denied parents basic human rights
• refused to discuss the case with him, citing "confidentiality"
• given false evidence to an adoption panel
• accused the father of being a pathological liar
• not questioned the ability of parents to care for the child
Suffolk social services monitored baby Poppy's progress during the first few weeks of her life. 'Happily she prospered at home under the loving care of Carissa and Jim,' said Mr Yeo (those aren't the real names, of course). 'However, the fact that no fault could be found in the actual physical and emotional care provided by her natural parents did not deter the county council from destroying this fragile family. On October 27 last year, council staff, having ensured that Jim would be away from home, accompanied by police, arrived unannounced and without warning at Carissa's home and snatched Poppy, then only a few weeks old, from the arms of her distraught mother.
'I immediately protested to the county council about this unjust and cruel act. I received a letter in reply containing the far from reassuring and completely ungrammatical reply that, "I can confirm that the infant was removed without notice with the assistance of the police however no force was used".'
He continued: 'In the eyes of the council, that apparently made everything all right. The appalling truth is that in Suffolk, social workers and police can burst unannounced into your home to snatch a nine-week-old baby from the arms of her mother, a mother who is not only totally innocent of any offence but is not even accused or suspected of having harmed her child.'
Mr Yeo said that following Poppy's removal a bitter legal battle started which was still continuing. Throughout the process the council had repeatedly changed the grounds for removing Poppy, alternating between blaming one parent and then the other.
He told MPs: 'The council's search for a justification for their cruelty became increasingly frantic as one initial diagnosis was overturned and replaced with another. Numerous contradictions arose which cast serious doubt on the soundness of the current case against this couple. The first doctor's psychological assessment of Carissa declared she qualified for a diagnosis of factitious disorder. Then a consultant forensic psychiatrist, after the briefest of assessments, decided that she fulfilled the criteria for the much more catch-all narcissistic personality disorder. The first doctor assessed that Jim was "a pathological liar" but later a consultant clinical psychologist "would not endorse the expression".
Astonishingly, at no point has the ability of Carissa and Jim to care for Poppy ever been questioned. It is acknowledged that in the few weeks in which they were allowed to look after Poppy they did so in an exemplary manner. The final favoured rationale given by Social Services for Poppy's Adoption Order was based on nothing more than the possibility of future emotional abuse of her by either Carissa or Jim. The consistent thread running through this horrifying story has been the evident determination of social services to prevent an infant being brought up in the care of her natural parents. There have been many other inconsistencies and contradictions in this case, far too many to list here.'
Mr Yeo attended the adoption panel in August. He said: 'A kangaroo court would be a better title. The panel consisted of people who were emotionally in favour of adoption regardless of the merits of any individual case. Neither Carissa nor Jim stand accused of any offence whatever. The punishment they face however is one of the most terrible any parent can face - the forced removal of their own baby. The awful truth is that they would have more legal rights, and would be treated in a more humane and just way, if they were on trial for murdering their own child.'
A county council spokesman said: 'The outcome of any case is for the court and not any individual council. For legal reasons, we cannot comment on individual cases, but decisions of this kind are not taken lightly and follow a rigorous process of assessment. Our highly trained, professional staff are very mindful of the particular circumstances of each case but ultimately it is the welfare of the child or children which must be safeguarded - we reject any accusation otherwise.'
He added: 'Any judgment which results in placing a child will only ever be taken after the fullest consideration of how the child's safety and happiness can be best preserved,' which is a mealy-mouthed way of saying "We know best so no one can argue with us".
We can only applaud Tim Yeo's forthright action in publicising yet another travesty of justice perpetrated by the secretive and unaccountable Family Courts. You'll have to forgive us if we point out yet again that the Family Courts recognise no requirement to establish a burden of proof, but are allowed to make decisions based on what various advisers think is "likely" or "possible", hiding behind the weak old adage about "in the child's best interest" which of course only they are entitled to judge.
The sentences they hand out are life sentences against which there is no appeal. Once a child has been ripped from its family and sent for adoption, even the most trenchant proof of innocence can never bring the child back - and the aggrieved families face having any future children, yet unborn, taken from them.
Tim Yeo MP wrote this article on the ePolitix website ahead of Wednesday's adjournment debate on the adoption and custody of children in Suffolk ...
I have deep concerns about the actions of Suffolk county council in cases where the birth parents do not wish to give up newly born babies for adoption. Based on a growing postbag from parents seeking my help, I have formed the impression that some social workers now actively seek opportunities to remove babies from their parents in a manner which in my view is sometimes tantamount to child kidnapping.
In the cases that have been brought to me, no fault is found in the actual physical care provided by parents, nor are there any allegations of violent or sexual abuse. The reasons given by social services to justify adoption continually change, with the initial diagnosis overturned and replaced with others. Invariably these cases involve newborns. Ultimately mothers are often decreed to have a personality disorder which implies they could potentially emotionally abuse their child in the future, by sometimes putting their own needs above a child's.
The many months of counselling required to address these concerns is declared to be too long for the baby to wait, so they are permanently adopted instead.
This pattern can be repeated, even with subsequent pregnancies, with no help or counselling being offered at any point. Parents are unable to see the extensive and detailed notes which are regularly taken after various meetings with a handful of social workers and staff from the Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service (Cafcass). These notes are used to make up a case against them, but parents are prevented from challenging their veracity or the judgments they contain.
This would not be permitted if they were facing even minor criminal charges.
It is clear that greater accountability and scrutiny is required of social workers, Cafcass officials and their expert witnesses. The appalling lack of scrutiny in the social care and family court system is made worse by the fact that Members of Parliament are prevented from having proper information from councils in relation to child protection cases. Like all MPs, every day I support constituents who have been failed by some branch of the state. Uniquely in the area of child protection I am expected to trust that public officials are doing everything correctly. I am not allowed to make an informed judgement of this myself.
Lastly, tens of thousands of pounds are spent on court action by social services and in legal aid for loving parents fighting against the odds to keep their children. These huge sums could have been used to provide all manner of supportive parenting help much earlier on.
You can see a video of the adjournment debate here. We imagine you will, like us, be alarmed and disgusted to see how few MPs bothered to be there. We think we counted three.
We fervently hope that Tim Yeo will not be discouraged by this, but will persevere with what he has started. He's a senior and influential member of parliament, and if anyone can get some action on this cruel and deplorable state of affairs, it's him.
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.
Copyright © 2009 The GOS