It is worth taking up a point that is 'assumed to be the true'....But which is
now under challenge.. I refer to the acceptance that legally or lawfully it is
not possible for an adopted child to be returned to its parents from whom it was
taken under fraudulent conditions . ( perjury )
Now this clearly identifies a legal contradiction....If the child was taken away
as a result of perjured statements provided to the court...Then the act of
'taking into Care' and away from the parents,..... was illegal.
I refer back to the
Uddin case ( Birmingham ) and the judgement by
Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, the President of the Family Division, in her last case before she
retired.....
The sole grounds to challenge an adoption is to be able to show that it was as a
result of a fraud ...And perjured testimony by social workers and paediatricians
is.... FRAUD.
Which brings us to the final hurdle... " But the children have settled in with
their new adopted family".
If one considers a 5 year old child who was taken into care in 2002 and adopted
in 2004:
The child would be much more of a stranger to the new adoptive parents, than it
would be to the birth parents. Today it would have spent 2 years with the
adoptive parents and 5 years with the birth parents.
Older children who were adopted, make the case for a return to the parents even
more compelling.
For very young children and babies who have spent many years with adoptive
parents, there could still be quite sensible contact conditions and situations
worked out to reintroduce the innocent birth parents to their children.
Organised meetings could be held whilst still allowing the children to stay with
their adoptive parents. Remember too that many adoptions break down....So the
picture of an idyllic arrangement that never breaks down is ridiculous...In that
event, the birth parents should be contacted as a matter of urgency.
Those who blanche at the above should be contacting their MPs and insisting that
those who give false evidence in a Family Court should be JAILED.....And their
homes/assets should be taken to pay the cost of the malicious prosecutions they
have encouraged.
What those who inhabit the gulag of the Family Courts wish us to accept is that
an adoption is inviolate..... because the law has so decreed it....But the law
has not only been an ass...It is complicit in a system that has encouraged such
miscarriages of justice...So we are then expected to ' be quiet'. But it we us
who wish the Family Courts to regain the respect they have lost as a result of
the perjured evidence by social workers, paediatricians and others.
Rather like the Deputy Prime Minister , John Prescott, who is reported putting
his hand up the skirt of a fellow MP's wife's skirt, besides having sex with a
secretary, at his office. .....And you notice that......... Tony Blair is very
quiet about this.
The whole ethos espoused by Tony Blair, his cronies and this Labour government,
is empathic with the secrecy of the Family Court.......And we are having nothing
to do with keeping the lid on false evidence given by social workers and
paediatricians in a court of law.......Jail 'em ! Jail 'em! Jail 'em !
Just you wait until Tony Blair leaves No.10........You will then be entertained
to some very interesting stories..............Won't we Tony! Wont we just !!!!!
…END…
Fassit UK Correspondent
Jack Frost
author of 'The Gulag of the Family Courts...Book1'
ISBN 9 781430 316350
http://www.gulagofthefamilycourts.com/
Please read...
Public awards for dishonourable conduct
Why social workers remove babies from their mothers
Grandmother faces year in prison
Confidentiality and Openness in Family Court
Fassit response to BASW
Adoptions cannot ever be undone?
DCA Phoney Conciliations
New DCA announcement - Social Workers
Harriet Harman the Response
The Labyrinthine links of the 'Little Hitlers'
Open or shut case - NO
The Political Social Workers
Time limits for Compensation in Child Abuse Cases
Adoption Fraud is under challenge
