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

Not to the bloody month it would take to go through every bit and bring in all the proof and witnesses. It was a witch hunt. It was as logical and as fair as throw them in water, if they float they're a witch, burn them, if they drown and die they weren't a witch, oops.

But why. Why do you think that all these professionals who are not connected to each other would conspire against one family. I could maybe begin to buy your argument if it was just one agency making up lies, if it was just education or just the social work team etc. But not every single person up to the judge.

Judges and social workers are not on friendly terms I can assure you.

AllPart. You're on an anonymous forum. I wasn't asking for specifics or dates or locations or full details.

I don't think it makes me a sheep to doubt your rantings, and that's what they've been on this thread.

It's just that I was abused as a child and my parent's friends and associates would never have believed it either.

But I'll leave it there.

When people allege that professionals are lying so their kids are taken into care, others will rightly ask, why would they lie? I can believe that some might lie to cover up their own incompetence. So if they are supposed to have given some information to a parent in a meeting and didn't, some professionals would be honest about this, and some would lie. But why would they make up things about a parent?

Leanback, are you not reading my replies? I said this. It was the head of the school who made everything up. The school told the social worker and she just run with it. She told the guardian and the psychologist and a psychiatrist. She wrote a 69 page 2 sided statement detailing all the lies. What is hard to understand there? A very qualified and well respected powerful person told another respected and qualified powerful person who told another who told another who told another. Why would any of them not believe what these very well respected and qualified professionals are telling them? You are doing right now! Why would the head lie? Why WOULDN'T the head lie if they had a vendetta? You think a job title makes them pure? That head has since retired and the school has been taken over by someone else. The new head has said they don't agree with this. Since everyone involved has left everyone else has come out of the woodwork saying this was wrong. But it's too late, and they were too cowardly to say it when it mattered. All too scared of losing their jobs and having an uncomfortable work environment, and would rather an innocent family be ripped apart and children growing up without their parents, parents losing their kids, the ripple effect around literally hundreds of people and for generations to come. That is why I might be "ranting". I have heard all the bullshit from Coward's in the past claiming something must've happened. You have no idea what these people can be like.

Brasty because the head didn't like them! Is that so hard to fathom, that they really are people in the world that petty and evil? They didn't fit the mould. They were a stain on the heads perfect school and perfect parent community. They rocked the boat and complained when the head was unprofessional, they ruined the head's perfect reputation. The head actually said they would do anything to protect the reputation of the school and would not tolerate complaints to Ofsted! It was nothing but pure and simple revenge. The head got involved in private, personal matters, not to do with the kids, and the parents told them to stay out of it and complained when they didn't. After that they were out for blood. It really is that simple. If you don't believe that some people are capable of that then honestly, I am be the world you live in, because the one my friends are in is not that rose tinted.

I envy*

I am understanding your replies completely. I just also have insight into social work culture. I know how tribal it is. I know how much social workers complain about health visitors and how much health visitors complain about schools. I know how defensive everyone acts in those environments.

Working together is not a concept which works very succinctly in practice. We have a social services that at times puts defensive working over doing the right thing. I in no way think a professional title makes someone pure. But I believe everyone has motivation for their actions. I also don't see how a social worker could have enough material from a head teachers word to write a 69 page document.

Because there were THAT many lies! Ok, one example of how utter ludicrous it was, my friend was accused of attacking a pregnant teacher and making her fear for the safety of her unborn child, chasing her down the street, the school wanted an order to prevent the parents from entering the school grounds and communicating with any staff, parents or the governors or any agencies which deal with complaints (Ofsted, DofE, school inspectorate, etc). At the time due to an injury my friend was in a WHEELCHAIR being pushed by her husband. They did indeed see the teacher in the street in passing and said hello, how are you, how are the kids doing at school, lovely bump, when are you due, how lovely, have a good weekend, bye. That's it. no altercation, no chasing, no nastiness, all perfectly pleasant. No other witnesses either. How the fuck was my friend, in the wheelchair and strapped up with her injury, going to chase the pregnant teacher down the street and make her fear for the safety of her unborn child, by saying hello and having vacuous general chitchat? It was an outright lie. But who is a judge going to believe? A scared, young pregnant teacher as reported by a very well respected professional and educated head of an excellent school, or the person sitting there saying I never did it? Why would someone make up something so horrific? And who would ever admit to doing that? of course they are going to deny it! And then they weren't allowed to get the teacher in on the stand! Apparently calling her in as a witness and questioning her would have been inappropriate and the head's word was enough! There were similar claims of my friend attacking parents on the school grounds, at school events, and at the homes! Please parents emailed my friend when they found out to say they never saw her do anything like that and they only witnessed her being perfectly pleasant that these events but those letters were not allowed in! Again the head's word was apparently enough! How can anyone fight that??? They were accused of attacking parents' cars! These were all just the silly little minor accusations, not the main ones, but put it all together and it paints a really nasty picture! I was actually with my friend when she apparently attacked the cars, we weren't even anywhere near them, we with the other end of town! But I wasn't allowed To put a statement in! even the head wasn't allowed in at the final hearing, it was all just based on what the social worker reported that the head had said to her!

I have experanced many a time other professionals reporting incidents to me as factual occurances that I have then seen repeated by several others in court bundles as if they are things they know to be facts rather than x reported some times as many repeats as 30 in the same bundle.

One that springs to mind is fairly recent (will change anything I feel is even possibly identifying).

Parent accused of an incident of emotional abuse the incident specified as distroying with malice involved an item belonging to a school that had been loaned to the child,
Parent produced the intact item that happened to have a school staff members dated signiture in showing that this did not happen school confirmed this was the original item.
Parent accused of another incident of the same nature but with childs personal possession, another child in the room got a little eye brow raisey and located the undamaged item that was clearly the original item and not a new replacement. I was in attendance during both meetings yet court bundle repeated these incidences as factual occurrences with no mention at all of any challenge by the parent or that both items were undamaged.this was written almost on every third page copied and pasted so many times that without that happening the bundle would have been tiny instead of the huge set of documents it was

I've seen dodgy information be repeated as truth too, still not sure if it was the truth or not but the social worker originally said one thing, then said it was different from she said originally, and then later in court it was the first thing again. It wasn't an important detail though (just added to the tapestry of my ex's mental health issues) and even with it omitted it wouldn't have changed the outcome.

They didn't allow the parents to bring those people in to confirm it or deny it. They didn't allow any written statements from them and they didn't allow any other witnesses who were present at these alleged events

AllPar, either your friend isn't telling the whole truth, or her solicitors were staggeringly incompetent. Of course parents are allowed to put in written statements to defend themselves - it's absolutely the norm. They would also be expected to go into the witness box. Likewise relevant witnesses would be allowed. However, I note you refer to the friends sending letters: it is not surprising that those wouldn't have been allowed as evidence, because it is necessary that witness statements must be properly signed with what is known as a Statement of Truth. Further, evidence can be refused if the witness isn't prepared to come to court to be cross-examined. Did you tell the solicitors that you were prepared to come to court, and if so what did they say?

You refer to the incident when your friend was in a wheelchair and asked how she could prove it. I would have thought that one would be child's play to prove, by producing a medical certificate that at the relevant time she was in the chair and could not physically have run anywhere. Did you friend do that? Were you there at the time of this alleged incident?

If all of this is down to the solicitors' incompetence, what has your friend done about a formal complaint against them and/or appealing against the decision?

Would do you actually seriously think they didn't try??? The parents did put in a statement. But none of the witnesses were allowed to. I have said this so many times, I was not allowed to put in a statement to say that I was with my friend at the other end of town at the time that she was supposed to be attacking parents cars at the school! She had loads of documents from her doctors, they were not allowed in! What is it that you are not understanding here? They were not allowed to bring in anyone else to help prove their innocence or defend them. All they could do was deny it and counter it with their own hearsay that somebody agreed they didn't do this, without a statement or getting that somebody in, how the fuck is a judge supposed to believe that?

All courts look at what you would describe as "hearsay evidence". It's not much different from a witness to a murder trial saying "he told me he would kill him one day if he carried on parking his car over his drive" or a witness to a shoplifting trial saying "I saw her acting really weirdly in the shop and then she walked out really fast". The prosecuting side has to show why this evidence is believable and relevant, the defending side gets the chance to challenge and rebut it.

Who said they weren't allowed to submit additional evidence, All?

That is very odd that they weren't allowed to submit evidence, particularly medical evidence. Does sound like they had terrible lawyers.

That head has since retired and the school has been taken over by someone else. The new head has said they don't agree with this.

Err...forgive me if I'm being dim, but if your friends children were removed because of the old head, then he retired and a new head took over, how would the new head know about that particular family? Considering the children would no longer have been in their care? The new head would not be able to make comment.

And having seen someone who I knew for a fact was in the wrong, claim over and over again that the social workers were lying, the doctors were lying, they weren't allowed to tell the truth etc. etc. When given opportunities to present their side they refused to and afterwards claimed that they couldn't because the whole system was against them. To someone who hadn't directly experienced what this person had done, they would quite likely believe him.

Royal the new head was the old deputy head and was there throughout. The kids are at the same school and the parents are still in touch with some of the other parents there.

I also see that lots Natsku along with parents who have no clue that they are damaging.

Human beings make mistakes

Those are allegations of criminal acts! They should have been corroborated with police reports. The police would have taken witness statements. Their solicitor sounds utterly incompetent.

Olennas the judge! At the pre hearing thingy before the main hearing they were all discussing which documents they wanted submitted, what assessments they wanted doing et cetera and when the parents asked to be allowed to submit witness statements from the parents at the school, call the teachers in as witnesses, call family and friends in and get their statements, and submit documents not just from their GP but from private mental health professionals and other professional bodies they were denied. At one point the parents didn't have a barrister for one hearing and they were expected to cross-examine the guardian and the social worker them selves. They prepared all the questions I wanted to ask and when it came to it the judge asked to see the questions first and crossed out three quarters of them saying they weren't allowed to ask them. In the end the questions made absolutely no sense and didn't prove anything, everything relevant was not allowed. how is it right that a judge can see the questions before they are asked and cross the majority of them out and deny the parents the chance to ask them? How on earth can that be legal? During the lunch break and George had the social workers barrister ring up the head and asked for a verbal statement. It was submitted after lunch and the parents had no chance whatsoever to respond to it at all. How can that possibly be legal?

Sorry, my phone is playing silly buggers, I'm tired and my typing is getting all fucked up. The judge told the barrister for the social worker to get a verbal statement

A verbal statement submitted on the same day?
This all sounds completely outlandish

I agree poldarks it doesn't make sense.