SOCIAL SERVICES have been blasted as “hypocrites” after telling a mother she
could keep her fifth child despite taking four away for adoption.
Just days before a four-year battle against Essex County Council ended with a
court ruling her fourth child should be taken away, the 33-year-old woman
received a letter from the “inept” department saying her parenting was “good”.
In an unusual move at the hearing on Friday, the judge also insisted the mother,
who cannot be named for legal reasons, have regular access to her fourth child
when he is re-homed.
The woman, from Brentwood, called the officials dealing with the case
“hypocrites” with “too much power to ruin lives". She told The Enquirer: “They
said I was a good parent and went on to take my child away anyway.” Ward
councillor Barry Aspinell demanded an investigation into the procedures and the
social worker involved in the case.
INEPT SOCIAL services have written to a mother of five telling her she is a good
parent – despite taking four of her children away
for adoption.
The 33-year-old was told she could keep her fifth child just days before a
four-year court battle with Essex County Council ended with her fourth child
released for
adoption.
On Friday, the judge also took the unusual step of insisting the Brentwood
woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, be given regular access to the
fourth child when he was re-homed.
But on 21 September social services wrote to the woman, who is in a “committed”
relationship, stating “no further action” would be taken against a fifth
youngster born since the initial proceedings started because their parenting is
“good enough”.
The letter concluded: “Integration with [the child] is good and he was
appropriately dressed and is regularly fed. Suggest no further action at this
time as parenting is good enough.” Three of the children were successfully
released for adoption in 2005 after the county council first took action to
remove all four in 2003.
The mother called the council officials dealing with the case “hypocrites” with
“too much power to ruin lives”.
She told The Enquirer:" I'm angry they can do this – it shows that children are
being taken away from parents who don’t deserve to lose them.
“And they shouldn’t the power to do that. They said I was a good parent and went
on to take my child away anyway.”
Her ward councillor Barry
Aspinell demanded an investigation into Essex County Council’s procedures and
particularly the social worker involved in the case.
“These people have gone through absolute hell for four years and I’m so angry
that things like this are being allowed to happen in my town,” he said.
“They’ve clearly said her parenting skills are OK and there’s no problem with
her youngest child.”
But he praised the court’s “major” decision to grant the mother access to one of
the children in his adoptive home. Eric Pickles, Tory MP for Brentwood, said:
“If this lady would like to get in touch with me then I will be happy to do my
best to try and help her.”
A spokesman for Essex County Council was unavailable for comment as The Enquirer
went to print.
Editorial Comment by The Enquirer
Adoption concerns must be answered FOR ESSEX County Council to tell a mother she
is a good parent just days before concluding a gruelling four-year battle to
take a child from her is worse than just hypocritical.
It shows an incompetence in social services which is ruining ordinary people’s
lives.
This parent, from Brentwood, has already seen four of her young ones taken for
adoption by the authority. Yet it seems there is no consistency in how social
workers apply their judgements.
The power to remove children from their families is a potentially devastating
one which cannot be used too carefully. Yet in this case social workers have
failed utterly to uphold to the right of this mother to bring up her own flesh
and blood.
Brentwood councillor Barry Aspinell has called for both the social worker
responsible to be thoroughly investigated and also for social services to
examine their whole operation.
The Enquirer is backing his demands. It is essential for the protection of our
county’s families, that mistakes like this are learnt from and, where necessary,
changes are made to ensure they never happen again.
by Chief Reporter....James Redgrave
Another exclusive from our Fassit correspondent Jack Frost
The Background:
The background
to this Essex case, reported in The Enquirer above by the Chief Reporter, James
Redgrave...4 October 2007.
The case concerned a mother who had been awarded regular 'post adoption contact'
on 28 September 2007.
A brief resume of the details of the above case:
The mother, Y and her partner of over 10 years, have 5 children.
4 children were taken into care on the same date, August 2003.
At the time, A was 11 , B was 4, C was 3 and D was 9 months old.
All but B were released for adoption in April 2004.
B was not released for adoption, because the local authority couldn't find a
suitable placement for B.
It should be noted that A, C and D have all been adopted by different couples.(
This alone raises important issues)
Now we come to the judgement of Friday 28 September 2007.......This concerned
releasing B for adoption, with the condition that the parents have regular
contact.
This is a landmark judgment, because social workers have been adamant that that
there must not be contact after a forced adoption, whilst simultaneously
informing the press, the public and Parliament, that such regular contact is a
basic principle of all social workers. CAFCASS ( Family Court official advising
body) plays the same duplicitous game.
( B was released { on 28 Sept 2007} to be adopted by the couple who have adopted
A.....Now this is a mixed blessing. At least 2 of the children are together { A
& B }....However, since Y { mother} now has regular contact with B, she will be
visiting B, maybe once a month or every 3 months or whatever........But she will
not be able to see A, who is adopted in the same house by the same couple! )
It should be noted that the authority on post adoption contact, is Dr. Elizabeth
Neil BSc ( psychology) , MA ( Social work) and her books are used to teach
social work students. She lectures at the University of East Anglia.
Contact...01603-593562..... e.neil@uea.ac.uk
Social workers have been playing this game, to make it easier to find
prospective adoptive couples. Adopters do not like the children to stay in
contact with their birth parents; believing that it weakens their own position.
However, this goes against the fundamentals of forced adoptions, the very
teachings and principles that social workers publicly announce ( Dr. Elspeth
Neil's research & teaching ) and also, because, contact is pragmatic; it
provides useful information, such as heredity illnesses and fosters the
childrens' self esteem and identify when they reach their late teens and early
twenties.
The case revealed that the Care Plan put forward by P ( social worker), to the
court, at the time the 4 children ( A,B,C,D) were taken into Care in August
2003, confirmed that monthly and then bi-monthly contact between the birth
parents and the children was to be maintained. This was done to assuage the
reservations of the judge.........Yet a month after they were taken into Care, P
( social worker) ensured that no further contact took place......P cancelled all
further contact!........And that has been the situation, up until the present.
So since August 2003, Y( mother) and her partner have had no contact with A,B,C&
D).......Is this not not despicable! Is such conduct 'in the best interests of
the children'?
This same social worker, P , forged a document, when Y was expecting a baby,
instructing the matron in the maternity ward, not to allow Y to leave the ward,
because P stated, that,
" there was a Care Order in effect".......This was untrue. The Care Order came
into effect about 8 days after P signed the instruction! Y has the document to
prove. She was therefore held prisoner without just cause......Abduction! Essex
County Council was made aware of this.......If you haven't already
guessed.....The protection of the social worker has taken precedence of all
else....And the secrecy of the this filthy gulag, protects such criminal
conduct.
And coming back to the judgment on 28 September 2007.......The new psychologist
put forward to the court, on the 28th September, stated that " Y ( mother) had
not changed, since 2003".........This was repeating the earlier report of
another psychologist, in 2003..........Yet this new psychologist had never met
or spoken with Y.......How therefore had she arrived at this conclusion? The
judge on the 28th discovered this and this resulted in the psychologist being
forced to backtrack and then agreeing that " Contact should be encouraged, after
adoption"
The mother, Y, has her 5th child , E ( born September 2003), with her and has
recently received a letter from Essex Social Services stating that " Integration
with E is good- No further action at this time as parenting is good enough" (
see article above, in The Enquirer)
More articles of
interest by Jack Frost
