Environmental Law
Centre
The Chief executive of
Sheffield City Council received his recorded delivery copy
June 12th 2007.
We have copied to many other responsible persons.
We ask for responses to the letter in writing to the Environmental Law Centre
contact details below. This is about the breakdown of families in the UK.
Shaun O'Connell on behalf of ELC.
The letter copied below is an open letter.
Environmental Law Centre
Hollibury House
P O Box 267
Southport
Merseyside PR8 1WD UK
tel 0870 1657 468
fax +44 (0)1704 549091
email info@elc.org.uk
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript
enabled to view it
web www.elc.org.uk
Mr Jonathan Crossley-Holland
Director of Children's Services Sheffield City Council,
Town Hall,
Pinstone Street,
Sheffield S1 2HH
PRESS RELEASE
OPEN LETTER June 11th 2007
Dear Mr. Jonathan Crossley Holland,
At a time of ever increasing invasion of private lives and family life by
successive Government's willingness to break with our time honoured traditions
we realise now that the Family as the bedrock and the children whom they protect
have become sterile.
Responsibility for child welfare was transferred in 2003 from Dept of Health to
Dept of Education and skills in a move that was kept very quiet. Likewise the
rebadging of the Family Court Welfare Service to CAFCASS - a step reminiscent of
Windscale being renamed Sellafield. In 1999 two Family Court Welfare workers
admitted they were giving reports the Judiciary wanted to hear.
We are seriously concerned for the welfare of this Nation's children whose
welfare by any objective view is badly suffering not to forget the cost to the
nation. In particular we refer to the UNICEF report 2007 and BMA 2004. Examples
of the poor welfare of our children are given below;
Children in the UK have the worst mental health ever, highest teenage
pregnancies, increasing self harming, drug and alcohol abuse, delinquency, and
increasing violent tendencies. BMA 2004 and Unicef 2007 reports have slammed the
condition of our children.
The UK has the highest teenage birth rate in Europe, and 90% of births to
teenage girls take place outside marriage. In 2006 1316 girls under 18 had a
second abortion and 90 their third.
Report by the Audit Commission in 2004: 1 in 4 teenagers had broken the law in
the past 12 months. 70% of this crime was carried out by fatherless children and
young adults under the age of 18.
Children living in stepfamilies are three times more likely to run away from
home than children living with both their natural parents; children of lone
parents are twice as likely to do so. 25% of all youngsters living in
stepfamilies run away before they are 16, and many are younger than 11.
Children of lone parents whether single or widowed, are about twice as likely to
have a mental health problem than those living with married or co-habiting
couples, that is 16% as opposed to 8%. Children in re-constituted families fared
better without other step-children: 15% as compared with 9%. Children from two
children households had lower rates of mental health problems than those in four
or five children households: 13% compared with 18%.
A Home Office study of young people about to leave care found that levels of
drug use were much higher than in the general population. Three quarters had
used drugs at some time, over half within the previous month and one third
smoked marijuana daily. The sharpest difference was in use of hard drugs: 13% of
care leavers had used crack cocaine compared with 2% of the general population
of 16-18 year olds; 9% had taken heroin compared with 0.6%.
The cost of teenage crime to the taxpayer is estimated to be over £10 billion
per annum. Sales of psychiatric drugs worldwide are more than 76 Billion dollars
per year. Over 500 million people worldwide have been prescribed drugs for
conditions that are not a disease. Despite this over 70 warnings against
psychiatric drugs causing birth defects, hallucinations, psychosis, hostility,
aggression, withdrawal effects, liver damage, heart attacks/ strokes, homicidal
tendencies, suicide and death have been issued. Prozac is prescribed to children
as young as eight in the UK.
Over 20,000 children every year use 300 contact centres affiliated to the
National Association of Child Contact Centres (NACC). This equates to 100,000
contact sessions. Around 30-40% referrals are from the courts. 70% of young
offenders come from lone-parent families and levels of all anti-social behaviour
and delinquency are higher in children from separated families than in those
from intact families. One third of prisoners and more than half of all young
offenders have been through the care system (and have therefore experienced some
form of family breakdown).
Clea Barry, an adoption social worker for Hackney Council stated; "when you ask
service users what sets apart the best social workers they have ever had, they
tend to talk about people who offer practical help, do what they say they will
and are honest. Not rocket science, but still much rarer than you would think."
Children's Guardian for CAFCASS Alison Evans under oath on 29th March 2006 in
the High Court that her procedure was not scientific.
Alison Taylor former social worker was sacked for blowing the whistle on child
abuse in North Wales children's' homes such is the concern at not dealing with
these issues but covering them up. MPs seem reluctant at the extreme to raise
these issues or to take any pro-active action. The welfare of our children are
decided by unelected, unaccountable insurance companies as this case shows.
Adoptions are to be speeded up to take place within 20 weeks. Your children can
be given to single parents and homosexual couples without your agreement. The
average case costs some 200 thousand pounds. Theoretical future risk is enough
to remove your children. Parenting assessments carried out do not need to meet
child and parent. This is even more worrying given the latest plan to give
happiness tests to all children over four years of age.
Mr Crossley-Holland the Executive Director for children and young people for
Sheffield City Council recently stated that Sheffield does not have any adoption
targets and yet his own report of May 2006 stated in para 3.3 "Sheffield has
historically been a very strong performer in relation to adoption, with targets
consistently achieved. The target for 2006/7 has been increased to 11%. We are
in discussion with the NHS on securing medical advisor (Specialist
Paediatrician) resource to facilitate a third Adoption Panel, which would enable
adoptions to be progressed with greater speed."
Even more worrying is the Gestapo like appointment of a health visitor within
six weeks of conception to visit weekly and monitor for anti-social behaviour
and when parents of babies and toddlers will be expected to record their
children's progress in new 'learning diaries.' Most close their eyes when they
see that their own draconian policies and failure to protect the nuclear family
is causing the problems the UK currently has.
Reports where the State is embarrassed are swept under the table, in particular
recent reports on rape of ten year old girl by convicted murderer freed to
abuse, and abused children in care of the State whilst awaiting and going
through criminal convictions. This is no different to recent case where the
mother only discovered at final hearing that the foster carer had abused her
children. The Local Authority had tried to hush the matter up.
Partial material is being used to determine policies and procedures. Many of the
welfare organisations are empire building. Barnardos for example is 88% state
funded and was given the contract to provide training on domestic violence to
CAFCASS. NYAS has no complaint procedure for parents.
Play therapy and other dubious and unfounded therapies are being used to
essentially experiment on children. Misdiagnoses of ADHD with symptoms similar
to those caused by food additives result in parents being accused of abuse and
their children removed and adopted. The drugging of the nations children is
alarming. Global use of ADHD drugs has nearly tripled since 1993. In England and
Wales alone, prescriptions for Ritalin, rocketed from just 4,000 in 1994 to
359,000 in 2004.
Whilst the State funded bodies may believe they are protected Even Tim Loughton
noted on 2 Mar 2006 : Column 438 of Hansard that; ''It pains me to have to
single out one organisation that has behaved reprehensibly on this issue…during
the proceedings on the Bill in the Lords, the NSPCC put out a briefing note that
attacked our amendments as a threat to the safety of children, yet produced no
evidence to support its claim….In its latest briefing note, for our scrutiny of
the Bill, the NSPCC has made the following claim:
"NSPCC believes that any proposals to introduce into the Bill a legislative
presumption of contact will be interpreted and put into practice by the courts
in a way which is detrimental to the welfare of the child and could ultimately
threaten the safety of the child."
In effect, it is saying that if a non-resident parent—predominantly a
father—benefits from a presumption of contact, he is more likely to do harm to
his own child… In support of its claim, the NSPCC cites the fact that 29
children were killed over the past 10 years during contact visits to
non-resident parents. That is an appalling figure. However, it ignores its own
research, which shows that over the same period some 800 children have died at
the hands of resident parents or carers, and the 2000 publication "Child
Maltreatment in the UK", which showed that violent treatment was more likely to
be meted out by female carers than male ones.
Marriage is a contract between two parties and gives great benefits to the
medium and long-term well-being of children. Marriage has been destroyed along
with the family unit. The only honest opinion that can be given of the cases
that we have investigated to date is that the issue is not of bias against
mothers or fathers but the destruction of the resilience of the children and the
seeking of the worst outcomes possible for the children. There can be nothing
more debilitating in the absence of capital punishment than the restriction or
abandonment of parental role with your own children. Fathers who were not
married have to apply for parental responsibility if they were not married yet
whilst mothers do not both parties find it irrelevant when facing the might of
the State.
Court appointed experts spent more time pleasing the Social services and the
Judges than the welfare of the child. Examples:
Professor of child and adolescent psychiatry Professor Zeitlin used an untested
and unresearched theory that he called 'opposition to contact'. He admitted
under oath that it was untested, asked for £50,000 funding to test his theory
and admitted that he had been asked by a High Court Judge to come up with the
theory. He also referred to research yet did not detail what the research was
regarding children being with mothers and girls always doing better with their
mothers.
At a hearing the mother became aware for the first time that her children were
physically and emotionally abused whilst in care but her shock was seen as her
'rebellious' nature requiring Prozac by Judge Roddy and yet not her GP. The
psychologist appointed heard a tape without being made aware that the mother's
reaction was due to finding out her children had been abused in care. For the
record the only times that children were abused were in the care of SS.
Methodology of investigation and assessment
There appears to be little control over the use of experts in family law
proceedings whose methodology not only defies logic and belief but also
belittles their status as so called 'independent experts. They make a great deal
of money from acting in proceedings and can only be effectively challenged with
another expert which is often difficult to achieve.
Theoretical future risk is enough to remove your children for reasons such as
overweight child or parents with learning difficulty or poverty. State agencies
and courts require parents to undergo treatment without grounds from Court
approved psychiatrist or psychologist yet fishing trips are not permitted in
law.
Psychiatrists and psychologists refuse to recognise Parental Alienation Syndrome
yet have come up with bizarre theories and methodology which are not borne out.
It would seem that they are providing reports with a dubious basis on parenting,
attachment theory, and other assessment methods where the methodology is not
able to be tested in closed courts fairly.
Social workers whilst often given virtual expert witness status have made so
many bizarre statements in the few cases we have been involved with that it
defies belief;
Social worker made report in five days, without meeting the father, without
investigating truth to any allegations made and with a 37 minute meeting with
his daughter.
The local authority Counsel deemed in oral evidence that 'if the mother had not
complained about the accuracy and content of a single unsubstantiated referral –
the local authority would have let matters go – and we would not have these Care
Proceedings and be here today!'
Swansea Social services practice is typified by their letter dated 28th July
2004 in which the senior work practitioner wrote to Swansea Bay Racial Equality
Council that they have offered support to the mother. It states: 'the support we
have offered is to undertake a section 7 welfare report for the courts and also
to give mother support through the court process and contact issues regarding
her children.'
Social worker stated under oath ''I have worked with thousands of families and I
can tell you
I can sense without even knowing when a mother's emotionally unstable I don't
even have to look at them I can sense it a mile off.''
In another case - Social services stated that there was no risk at all to the
children from a registered paedophile. The Judge agreed with Social services.
Two weeks after the hearing it came to light through the Police that he had been
having oral, anal and vaginal sex with step sister for six months.
In another case the Local Authority were considering putting a girl into care
due to concerns for the mother's mental health. When she refused to have a
psychiatric report, the Local Authority removed the child from the at risk
register!
From the cases we have examined to date it appears experts can;
