Child taken from womb? Truth into darkness....

[LakeDistrictBabe]

Ok, the old thread is nearly full. If you read the other three, I don't need to re-write everything again ;)

But you know I am referring to the case involving an Italian mother and the British social services.
Opinions welcome.

oh. its come back.

O another thread. HuZah! See you all tomorrow no doubt

something odd is going on.

things I write in brackets are disappearing. leaving two external brackets, like this

and then coming back...

starts to feel paranoid....

spero! come back!

Lake If it is a motivazione of a sentence then they have to be made public, usually happens a month or three after the case. At that point they are free to be distributed.

starts to feel paranoid

Happening to me too. I Blame Tech in his Shed and ... possibly html.

I blame the lizards.

Did you use your access to priviliged information to then disseminate it over the web?

I think it is probably an extract from a "motivation for sentence" that has been made public (they have to be here, it's one of the principles of the consitution.... or something like that, hard to tell with a "history of the modern Italian legal system" in full flood at top speed). But identifying information is excluded, so it makes it hard to find the original in its entirity.

John, we need to context info, front page etc.

Ohhh.

The italian court text has gone "poof".

Probably for breaking "write in English" rule.

I got into trouble for writing posts in Italian a few times once.

Now I'll never be able to track down the original doc.

Mr Hemming, the post at 21.44 today is meaningless and certainly does not prove your point on adoptions.

It also doesn't answer my question, which was about the payments allegedly made in respect of each adoption compared with the costs to LAs of contested adoptions. I'm perfectly sure that it's information that an MP could obtain very easily, and I would have thought that you would have taken the trouble to find out at some point over the years you've been going on about this. So I have to wonder whether there's a reason that you are evading this.

Hang on, it's late and I'm tired, but did JH just use the example of a completely seperate unrelated woman with mental health issues having a VBAC as "proof"?? Since when are all mentally ill women who've had Caesareans interchangeable?!

Hang on, it's late and I'm tired, but did JH just use the example of a completely seperate unrelated woman with mental health issues having a VBAC as "proof"?? Since when are all mentally ill women who've had Caesareans interchangeable?

It's late. You are tired. But all the same... yes he did. Oh yes he absolutly did.

I am back from my jolly. I was going to sit down with the chihuahua and catch up with Misfits, but thanks to Lake I am back here again.

I will hunt you down Lake. I will take all your toasters.

JH - the information you published at 21.44 shows that LA were encouraged to place for adoption children already in the system

See where it says they are 'looked after children'?

So please provide the statistics that prove LA were paid a bounty for every baby taken into care

As I have said before, the only reason I keep plugging away is in case there is someone reading who is frightened by what this man says and who needs reassurance.

I now find his behaviour creepy in the extreme. That he wants to join in some jolly badinage and post pictures of kittens is making this whole situation even more uncomfortable and inappropriate.

I think he has a real problem with women. I have steered away from his 'colourful' personal life as I didn't want to be accused of attacking him on personal issues and god knows I don't need to - there is a mountain of stuff to cause alarm on the 'professional' front.

But his treatment of his wife over very many years and his horrible, bizarre, self congratulation at being called a 'Love Rat' does make me think that there is some awful misogyny being enacted out here.

I don't want to engage with him any more. He won't ever post these mystical 'stats' - he can't because they don't exist.

I would be really grateful if someone could PM me if he ever pops up anyway spouting really egregious nonsense but I think I have to step away now as this is possibly the most creepy and bizarre situation I have ever encountered on the internet.

That he can remain a politician is a continued source of amazement and utter sadness to me.

creepy is the exact word.

I had a VBASS2C whilst suffering from BT. Am I proof that this woman was given ELCS wrongly?

Before everyone disappears off could we do a quick summary of what the main concerns are as I have a bit of a thing/ plan happening. I have a list myself but just want to make sure I don't miss anything out... particularly on the legal side of things.

Sort of a round up of all the main points over four threads if that makes sense.

What has worried me most
a) repetition over three threads of sensationalist and untrue assertions about corruption in the family law system. This is seriously disturbing given that people are more likely to give weight to his opinion given his position as MP
b) sending me via email a page of a statement in on going court proceedings when he did not redact the Manager's name
c) threatening to report me to the Bar Council when I challenged him

I would say d) posting kitten pictures, but that is probably my issue.

Morning kitties!

Carpe, did you copy the poof-d post? In Italian? I was just on my way to ebay to bid for a bloody playmobil house bed when that appeared........Did your husband manage to wade through it? It looked to me (I am a sometime court translator so fairly quick at getting through the legalese and to the nitty gritty) that only the 7 last lines actually said anything other than general premises of this, and premises of the statute of the protocol of that......

Did it poof because JH asked for it to be deleted because it's not yet in the public domain? I did ask, several times and about 2 threads back, if there was anything released in Italian in the PD as I couldn't find anything, but strangely he didn't reply.

West, what I think we have certainly established, particularly over the last couple of days when JH has been more communicative, has been:

1. The much vaunted statistics that allegedly prove that councils have been taking more children for adoption for financial reasons prove nothing of the sort. They demonstrate that councils have been incentivised to get more children already in care into adoption.
2. JH has never done even the most basic research into whether the alleged financial rewards for councils actually outweigh the cost of dealing with a contested adoption including the cost of foster care.
3. The social worker allegedly sacked for recommending that a family be reunified - wasn't.

The rome court judgment has appeared in the Italian press (In italian), but not in the UK media. The key part says:

In the opinion of this Court, the removal of the child from her parent as soon as she was born, as evidenced by the petitioner, and contrary to the opinion of the doctors, combined with the virtually simultaneous involuntary medical treatment involving a caesarean section on the parent by order of a court, poses an irreconcilable conflict with the fundamental rules that protect the rights of the child in matters of adoption. These assert that questions as to whether a child is available for adoption and the subsequent adoption of the child shall be a last resort and assumes, in any case, that the maternal parenting skills have first been tested and this is especially the case where the separation is carried out at a point where the parent is still in precarious condition and stressed by the recent birth.

The Court therefore believes that the [UK] court decision can not be recognized on the grounds that it is contrary to the principles set out , which are in regard to adoptions an integral part of public domestic and international order, taking account of the effects that recognition would have on domestic law , as [such recognition] would then justify the permanent discontinuation of the relationship between the child , the mother , the only parent recognized , and other relatives including the two sisters, as well as the the maternal grandmother.

A copy of this judgment is sent to the Italian Diplomatic Representation to the UK for feedback and in respect of issues of competence .

It raises an interesting question in that the baby is an Italian citizen. If, for example, nothing changes apart from baby being adopted and then the family visit Italy potentially the parents could be charged with abduction. What happens in a third country is uncertain.

The judgment for the other essex case I referred to is also out
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2012/31.html

This extract from the PSA monies:
Essex County CouncilGOEExtra adoption orders £2,469,200.00

Demonstrates that Essex County Council was paid over £2 Million for getting additional adoption orders.

Spero claims wrongly that I personally have said that there were fees paid for taking extra children into care. I have not said that. She did promise the bar council to be good in the future and not make things up about me. Perhaps I should ask for a new years resolution not to make things up.

John, John, John.......

The baby might be a bloody Martian, but on the day the adoption, by British Citizens, in Britain, becomes finalised, it becomes British.

Section 1(5) of the BNA is your friend. As it was mine all those years ago, when I worked at the Home Office.

Tell you what, to save you googling (though really, shouldn't people in your position know this stuff? Most of the MPs I dealt with when I was at the Nationality Office did seem to know a bit about Naty law....) here's a lovely c and p.

"Under section 1(5) of the British Nationality Act, 1981, a child who has been adopted through the courts in the UK automatically acquires British citizenship on the date the order was made if:
? the adoptive parent is a British citizen, or
? in the case of a couple, one or both parents are British citizens"

Sorry I know I said I would not engage with him again, but he is once more misrepresenting the truth, and this time attempting to smear my professional reputation.

The bar council rejected his complaint. There most certainly was not a finding I made things up and nor did I 'promise to be good'.

A strange and rather creepy turn o phrase.

I am happy to scan and email the Bar Council response to anyone who doubts my bona fides.

And now I really must try to stick firm to my resolution not to engage as this mans behaviour is disturbing.