It is noticeable that
the new DCA proposals announced today, 11 July 2006, have made no mention of
identifying the social workers, paediatricians and other 'public officials' who
provide testimony in the Family Court, that instigates a case against parents
and children.
I am not referring to 'expert witnesses'. The 'expert witness' is brought into
the case after the trial has begun, to provide particular professional
information.
My concern relates to the false evidence submitted by social workers,
paediatricians and other 'public officials', that results in the case being
instigated in the Family Courts....And there is no mention of this...Indeed, it
is another dirty little Family Court secret.
What is the reason for not disclosing the identity of the public officials who
have given statements or evidence that have instigated the cases against the
parents and the child/ren in a Family Court ?
In the ordinary courts, police officers and other officials who have provided
information on which prosecutions are based are identified. The ability to
provide significant information without the possibility of disclosure to the
public, would not be countenanced in any other court. Indeed, it is one reason
why the serial nature of the false accusers has gone unnoticed and unpunished.
In Essex, one senior social worker J, has been named to the police in 3 cases
that I am aware of. In 2 of the cases I have seen significant information that
confirms he provided false evidence. In one of the cases, 2 children were
adopted. ( The 3rd case, the details of any perjury,are not known to me )
In one ( of the 2 cases referred to above ) case, a senior CID officer confirmed
to me that there was sufficient information to bring charges against the named
social worker J.
I have since discovered that J has been ' very active'.......J might well be a
very prolific serial false accuser........The only way we will will know is if
those public officials giving evidence that instigates a case, are named by the
press.
Another reason for the 'public officials' to be named, stems from the
possibility of a 'conflict of interests'.....Elizabeth Railton, the Dir.
Children's Services. Essex County Council and Tony Sharp ( Essex Council
Adoptions Manager ) are also simultaneously directors and trustees of the
charity, The British Association for Adoption & Fostering ( BAAF )....It just so
happens that there are grave suspicions that BAAF and its members have been
allowed to 'cherry pick' the children they prefer to adopt, from out of the
Council's pool of children in care.
Essex County Council's own records show that black/ethnic children and disabled
children are almost completely absent from those children who have been adopted,
from the Council's pool of children in care...And not only is there the grave
suspicion that BAAF has been allowed to 'cherry pick' the children it
prefers....It is also paid £12,000+ for each child adopted.......But hang on a
minute....There are queues of potential parents who would adopt young/very young
/babies, who are white and fit..........And that is the specific group that
Essex CC has allowed to be adopted.....Leaving the black/ethnic children and the
disabled children....It does not need me to remind you that this is also a
breach of the Equality and Disability legislation !
There is the additional matter, that alone amongst public officials, local
government officials do not complete 'a register of outside interests'. MPs and
elected Councillors are forced by law to complete a register of interests, for
obvious reasons.
There is a suspicion that some local government officials ( social workers )
might have 'other connections' with the very agencies they are working with,
professionally.......So why are social workers, paediatricians and 'public
officials' who provide testimony/information to the Family Courts, not named ?
…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
