Examples of how children are abused to further the career aims of despots in social services - and how the police aid them. One of several examples where pressure to meet 'targets' for adoption may have influenced the actions of social workers. This page is in draft format, 2010.
Very rare cases such as that of 'Baby P' have been used in an attempt to argue that social workers need more power. In fact, they should have fewer powers (because they abuse them so readily).
The whole system of child protection needs to be reformed not only to ensure that social workers must possess a basic level of intelligence and common sense (which many of them seem to lack) but that their recommendations for intervention in any family situation are subjected to scrutiny from outside of their own local authority. The Family Courts should have provided 'checks and balances' but failed to do so over many years.
From the Sunday Telegraph July 19, 2009, written by Christopher Booker.
|These newspaper cuttings detail
one of several cases reported in 2008/2009.
Prior to that date, before the Telegraph's 'Stop the Secrecy' campaign there was little press coverage of any similar cases, owing to the extreme secrecy that surrounded the Family Courts in the UK - and with all reporting forbidden 'to protect the interests of the children involved'. The government was later forced to act to open up these Courts to a modicum of outside scrutiny.
The key factor here was that the Courts seemed automatically always to have taken the side of social workers, rather than even listen to the parent(s) involved.
Many years previously, social workers had been involved in some similar cases in the UK, but these were reported only some time later, and long after parents had had to give up any hope of ever seeing their children again.
In essence, local authority social workers had been entrusted with absolute power in the mistaken belief that they would always act in the best interests of children. Abuse of that power inevitably followed, and with social workers acting in their own career interests and often much prejudiced by their own personal (and extreme) beliefs of what constituted a normal family environment.
Sunday Telegraph leader comment, 5 July 2009
top of section
home page of SeeRed