AIBU to be horrified by the Stolen Children of England

[LivingOnTheDancefloor]

I just watched a French documentary called "England's stolen children" and can't believe this is happening in England. Horrifying, scary, unbelievable, it is like a horror movie...

Basically, social services are taking babies from their parents based on suspicion that abuse might happen in the future, except that the decision is made based on ridiculous things.
A lady had her three children taken from her, including a breastfed baby because she went to the ER for a child's broken ankle and they judged that he must have been beaten by his parents (only based on the ankle). X years later the parents manage to prove the fracture was due to scorbut. And they found out the initial report from the ER says "no sign of fracture".
The judge admitted they shouldn't have taken the children and the parents were innocents. But the children were given to adoption so the parents will never see them again.
That is just one of the stories.
Some women are told while pregnant that their newborn will be taken as soon as he arrives (and thzney do it).
The documentary says it is due to the facts that counties have to reach a number of children given to adoption so they target poor/uneducated parents and find any reason to take their children.
And as fostering costs money to the state they prefer adoption.

AIBU to ask if you heard about it here in the UK? And if yes, what do you think? Could it be true or are they exagerating?

I am really shaken.

www.google.fr/amp/s/researchingreform.net/2016/11/14/englands-stolen-children-controversial-new-documentary-on-forced-adoption/amp/?client=safari

Sorry, no idea how to post links, and I am on my phone

And yes, if there was a 64 page document listing things I had not done, that would mean my kids would be taken away, I would go through it point by point refuting it all.

People who are physically and sexually abusive to their kids do not always come across badly. Some can seem very lovely, helpful and kind people.

it usually results in the none problem parent being ignored in favour of the problem parent using the system to further abuse the ex and children.

Could you explain what this means please needs?

I have no idea, that's why I wrote "for some reason".

It doesn't have to be a group! Don't you understand? I feel I've said it enough. In this case the head of the school completely fabricated absolute blatant lies. The school told the SW, the SW told the guardian, the psychologist and the psychiatrist. They all went to court with their barristers and all said the same things, the parents (and the kids) were all saying it didn't happen, it was all lies, but who is going to believe them against that many people??? Of course they're going to deny it whether they are guilty or innocent! They weren't allowed to bring in witnesses or even statements, loads of us wrote letters but they weren't allowed in court, none of us were allowed in or to take the stand, how can anyone fight that??

I was in the waiting room for the whole time, obviously I couldn't go into the court room

And there you have it, in a nutshell. If you are not in the court room, if you are just getting the side of the case your friend tells you - you really don't know.

a lot of people genuinely believe they are victims of a terrible miscarriage of justice. I have been doing a lot of free advice work since it all blew up on mumsnet in 2014 because I wanted to make sure my eyes were opened and that these stories of miscarriages of justice did not have truth.

Sadly, every single case I have helped with since then was presented to me as a travesty, a miscarriage of justice, a social worker who lied. I have been sent recordings of conversations that I was promised would 'blow the whole system out of the water'.

No such thing I am afraid. What I have seen is clear and well documented evidence of real concern and parents in absolute and utter denial. One keeps emailing me even now saying the only complaint that has ever been made about her is that her house is too clean and she reads too many books.

This is absolute horseshit, as the other documents she sent me show.

But I am sure she genuinely believes that she is a victim of SW lies. The truth, I guess, is just too painful to acknowledge.

So I feel that I can speak with confidence now about what I think is going on. I just don't see evidence of wholesale corruption and cases built on lies and no evidence. I have asked for proof, I am told I will be sent it - and I never, ever am.

I saw another documentary a while back that was very compelling. That there's a certain rare condition that mimics the symptoms of a shaken baby. It made full sense that the children were removed but heartbreaking that the parents never harmed them.

Without knowing the charges...

Your friends could be lying.

The kids might say it was all a lie even if it wasn't. (Wouldn't you to keep the peace?)

Umpteen people could write letters but unless the charge was something clear and distinctly impossible (like "likes to throw children into their outdoor pool" when there are no pools in a six mile radius), then how could that be "evidence"?

How are these documentaries made if there isn't a word of truth in them?

I keep thinking back to one lady I saw on a documentary. She had actually served on a panel that made decisions about whether children should be placed for adoption. She had moderate-mild PND and found, to her horror, that her baby was taken away and she was reading much worse things written about her than she had read about other people's parenting in the past. She said that the panel she served on had recommended that children be adopted on considerably less.

She said that an SS had asked leading questions like 'you're feeling the most depressed you've ever felt in your life, aren't you?' which had no basis in information that she had previously given. Her PND had not been very severe.

She came across as articulate and credible.

Was she lying or deluded?

Babies aren't removed because a woman has moderate pnd. Sounds like she was missing out some key details.

Brasty, what if you weren't allowed to go through the 64 page document, point by point refuting it all?

Ugh. I said all this earlier. I have heard all these nasty responses and bullshit about no smoke without fire before. Really doesn't feel anyone with much hope when a fucking barrister is saying it without reading the documents! Is it any wonder that I'm terrified of this happening to me as well and don't trust the system?? If someone accuses your best and closest friend that you have known for 40 years of, for example, being a druggy, and you spend most weekends and three or four nights a week with them, play days, coffee mornings, you have known them for ever, partied through the 90s together, went through marriages and kids together, first kisses and losing virginities, grew up as kids living 4 doors away from each other, speak on the phone every day, and you know for a fact that they are not a druggy, in fact they very rarely even drink and the only time you ever saw them take drugs was at one rave in the 90s when they tried half an E with you, then you know it is a lie. But if you are not allowed to stand up in court and say that, and no one else is allowed to, and you have got half a dozen very well respected professionals all standing there saying oh well the head said they turned up off their faces and she saw them popping pills in the playground and snorting off the slide, then they attacked my staff and screamed at parents and threatened the kids, and all the other "professionals" believe it and say they won't admit it so can't fix it so they're a risk, what fucking hope do they have??? That's not what the accusations were, I'm not going to go into the actual details, but it wasn't dramatically different from that. Also add in lies about health, the house, finances, the extended family, friends, lies about things they apparently said when they didn't, or manipulated things that they did say and turned it from an innocent throwaway comment to this great big huge danger, even twisted things that their friends and family said to make it seem like a concern, then how the fuck is anyone supposed to fight that??? And actually, as I said, I read every single one of the reports and statements or through all the proceedings and that was submitted into court. Not supposed to, obviously, private family matter, but then my friends, they trusted me and I trust them, they needed my help and I was going to do everything I could to try and help them. Fuck being not allowed to read a fucking document.

haystack why wouldn't you be able to go through the whole document to refute it?

You haven't read the thread have you. You're my friends case there was 69 pages front and back of house right now are use. There was no way anyone could go through every single tiny paragraph and disapprove every single thing in it in the space of a two day hearing! The parents got about an hour on the stand where they were questioned by four different barristers. That's 15 minutes per barrister go through every single point on 69 pages both sides in 15 minutes?

Stupid AutoCorrect. Out right lies.

All Part, I did mean started by one professional then passed along to other professionals until they all said the same thing. I worded it wrong as group of professionals. In my friends case it was started by one SW and ended in over 100 lies

allpart but your example wouldn't happen because if professionals were saying drugs were involved and the parents were denying the judge would probably just order a drug test.

What were your friends accused of because you've not responded to that question even though you've been asked multiple times.

AllPart, some people find out their spouses who they've lived with day in day out for decades have done terrible things.

I don't think we can ever know for sure what someone's up to, even a friend we love and trust deeply.

Can you give us a vague area? Was it drug abuse?

I agree that a drugs test would quickly and easily show if what the HT said was true.

Of course there are SW who are not as good at their job, as in every field. We know that from some serious case reviews where children have died. So no, I don't think no smoke without fire. I also don't believe a HT would lie about a parent.

Yes, actually you can go through the minutiae and dispute the issues set out. Just because the hearing has been scheduled for two days doesn't mean that it can only take two days if more time is needed to hear the case adequately. I have been involved in (non-family court) legal cases where the opposition's barrister did exactly that. If you don't dispute the allegations it is seen that you have accepted them. I would hope that the friend's legal team explained that to them

Spero, how can people send you proof when they're not allowed to reveal court documents!

Haystack spero is a family lawyer, she can see their proof when she is representing them

Olennas, exactly! In a non family court! It is different in the family court, heresay is used.

I already said I'm not going to give actual personal details, it's not my place to air their specific dirty laundry, and they did push to have all the relevant tests that could've disproved the accusations and were denied. And again, no, I know for an absolute certain fact, that they did not do anything that they were accused of. If it was actually any measure of proof I would say may I get struck by a bolt of lightning right now if they did any of it.

Haystack sorry no that wasn't meant at you, I know you get this, it's to all the sheep who say you can't know for sure, there's no smoke, SS don't take kids for nothing blah blah. Then why has the social worker involved being publicly sacked, it was in the press, serious failings, her manager has been sacked, serious managerial failings, and the two last social workers involved said off the record that this was wrong and should never have happened but it was too late. As I have said many times before, they are not going to change their minds, there is too much cognitive dissonants, they can't possibly believe that families can seriously be in this much jeopardy, they don't want to believe it, and they won't until it happens to them. I didn't believe it, I believed all the way through this that justice will prevail, that they don't just take kids for nothing, and then I saw how it actually happened. They even quoted me in it and said that I said the kids should be taken from them and given to me! I never said anything of the sort! I said I would always be here to support them and would always help them out with the kids and take them if they ever needed me to, I said that I knew for a fact that all of this was wrong and they were not guilty of anything they had been accused of, but I absolutely 100% support them and have no concerns about the children under their care, but that didn't get into the statement, and I wasn't allowed to put in a statement myself to deny it. I wrote letters that were not allowed in. Saying I'd take the kids any time they needed me to was twisted into "the kids should be removed and given to me"! If they could lie about what I said, they could lie about everybody else they quoted. And the fact is everybody they quoted also said they never said anything of the sort, but it wasn't allowed in court before the judge.

Family court sessions can be extended also.