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

Except when people cover up sexual abuse and rape scandals, they have a reason to do so. Which is why I could believe a SW or HT would cover up their own incompetence. It makes sense.

AllPart, you keep saying you know what happened because you were there, but you weren't: you weren't in court. You've avoided very pertinent issues such as the fact that your friend could have disproved the drug allegation very easily by getting medical tests, and could have submitted medical evidence to disprove the allegation about the attack on the teacher. You were told that she tried and wasn't allowed, but frankly it just wouldn't have happened. You say her barrister was competent: a competent barrister would have gone straight to the Court of Appeal if one tenths of the abuses you claim had actually happened.

I'm really sorry, but you need to contemplate the possibility that your friend played on your understandable loyalty.

WouldHave FOR THE LAST TIME IT WASNT DRUGS, THAT WAS A SIMILAR EXAMPLE BECAUSE I DIDNT WANT TO USE SPECIFICS. READ IT.

Wow, Allpart. Losing your temper on an internet forum certainly makes you appear the sensible party there.

So a similar example would be something like what? Alcohol abuse? Prescription medicine abuse?

I understand you are upset, and I definitely don't believe the whole 'no smoke without fire' because I've been there too, but to believe that the entire process went illegally and the barrister didn't appeal the decision is quite hard to believe. I know kangaroo courts happen, I've seen it happen (not family court but magistrates court in the UK) but that's why they have appeal courts.

Because it shouldn't work that way. It was presented as 'women gets pnd and her baby gets taken away'. I'm not denying that injustices have been made when women have had their children removed unfairly. However there are details missing in this instance.

You know what, I hope it does happen to you.

Charming.

Appeal docs are usually available on Bailii aren't they? So you could PM Spero the case ref completely anonymously.

But you weren't in the court room, so no, you wasn't there.

If the appeal decision has been published, it's not secret and AllPart could give details on here.

But you weren't in the court room, so no, you wasn't there.

^ this.

YANBU - more documentaries like this need to be made to expose the medieval SS practices in this country that think they are doing children a favour by taking them away from their family. I should know because I have direct experience of these monsters. They can honestly take kids away with only the flimsiest of evidence and make everyones lives hell. They only need to prove a case is 51% guilty before taking children away, unlike, say the police, who need to establish proof beyond reasonable doubt. 51% isn't 'beyond reasonable doubt'. People think that the opposite is true and that the SS are there for the good, and I agree, in an extremely tiny percentage of cases, some children need to be placed elsewhere. but the vast majority of children do not fall in that category and have their lives ruined by the SS. You honestly have to be involved to appreciate how shocking their practices are. And when I say 'SS', I mean the child protection services. Plenty of nice normal social workers who work in other departments, I am sure....

Except when people cover up sexual abuse and rape scandals, they have a reason to do so.

Strong reasons:

Thinking you're acting in a child's best interests.

Pegging a situation as a type you have seen before and know how it progresses and wanting to change the ending this time.

Covering your back.

Feeling under time pressure for the child's sake due to having a certain length of time before they become 'too old' to be attractive to adopters.

Developing a narrative that you become invested in and which quickly becomes very difficult to switch without admitting you were wrong.

Being seen to act in response to the words of another professional.

Placing disproportionate weight on colleagues' subjective opinions over competing narratives.

Wanting to keep things tidy and perceiving the parents and their woes as messy.

Having a slightly out of control Messiah persona.

Obviously I have no idea what the truth if any of these cases are. But I DO (twice in fact) have the experience of going through huge evidence bundles for -civil - family cases with friends, to help them make notes for their lawyers. You do get a pretty comprehensive idea of both sides' cases that way. I knew, for example, that one allegation that one exh was making about a contact issue couldn't be true because said friend was with me that day.

So it's a bit of an overstatement to say that a close friend having read and digested a complete legal bundle couldn't be completely sure it contained major inaccuracies.

But it's not necessary to insist that miscarriages and mistakes NEVER happen to defend the system from accusations of corruption anyway is it?

Wow allapart You really are starting to say some nasty things yourself now.

Hoping certain things happen to other posters is disgraceful.

they didn't have legal aid, it was an appeal and they weren't entitled

Your words, not anyone elses.

I've reported your posts for you AllPart. Good luck and hope you find some peace one day

allpart come on now, you're just being ridiculous. Of course you want to believe your friend but you must see why we are sceptical.

I don't understand all the ins and outs, but they were not entitled to a barrister or legal aid

ALL PARENTS IN CARE PROCEEDINGS HAVE NON MEANS NON MERITS TESTED LEGAL AID

I am afraid your friend is lying to you.

No leanback, I think the fact that it shouldn't work that way was the point.

As she presented it (and given that she was a professional who had served on a panel deciding if children should be adopted, I think we need to see her as credible), she visited the GP because she was feeling a bit down. Not dreadful, just bad enough to know she should take medication, as she had done in the past.

The GP referred to SS.

SS interviewed her in a very leading manner and decided the baby should be removed.

This is a professional couple in responsible positions who were prepared to talk about this incident because they felt so strongly that they had nearly lost their daughter. They would have lost her if they hadn't had the private resources and connections that allowed them to put their own professionals up against SS's professionals.

Personally, I find it really difficult to believe they were deliberately missing out important chunks of their story.

Personally, I find it really difficult to believe they were deliberately missing out important chunks of their story.

Why though? In a case that I know intimately (that ive written about on this thread), the parents to this day would deliberately miss out leaving their children entirely alone with a dog for a week. Of course they would, because noone in their right mind would be OK with that.

Together with a specialist barrister, I have also witnessed social services in another department lying in the most appalling manner in order to get out of funding support for a parent with disabilities. There is no doubt that social workers can lie.

But why would she lie, you? Why would a couple of successful, professional people in positions of responsibility and trust make up such strange and attention-seeking lies about their experiences with social services?