INVASION OF THE BABY SNATCHERS

The first time my older daughter jumped out of a tree and hurt herself (nice and bloody, she bit right through her lower lip) I drove her to emergency; I did not mind that they checked over her whole body looking for marks, figuring, “That is fine. If this procedure saves even one child ~ great!” That is still my belief but it seems, in Great Britain, things have gone way way overboard and the entire “child protection” racket has become a scandalous not-so-covert money making scam for various governmental agencies.

This article explains just how horrendous the situation is and just how easy it is to lose your children before they have even been born. The solutions suggested are, to be honest, radical but legal and necessary for so many young parents.

Chris Spivey,

Sovereign Independent

September 17, 2011

Not so many years ago in cases where children were taken from their parents by the social services the general consensus amongst the public was that there had to be a good reason. Not so any more. Many parents in the UK are now so afraid of the social services that they think twice about taking their children to casualty should the need arise. It’s certainly not unfair to say that the fear, mistrust and suspicion afforded to the social services by some, is akin to that afforded to Adolf Hitler’s S.S.

Quite appropriate then that both share the same initials. Then again, the Nazi SS was extremely well organized and efficient. The same cannot be said for Britain’s SS.

We are led to believe that the SS are here to protect our children from cruelty and neglect. Any decision made by the SS is supposed to be in the best interest of the child. That would be commendable were it true! 

What we are seeing now is an organized program of child stealing in order to meet the adoption targets set up under the Blair Government. There are huge financial incentives offered by the Government to ensure their targets are met. Under-performing leads to job losses and reduced budgets. It is therefore not an option. This is why Social Workers seek out easy targets. Invariably these tend to be Young single mothers lacking in family support, poorly educated mothers on benefit and children with injuries, which are often no more than minor bruises etc.

Rarely are these children snatched from middle class families leading to the more affluent members of society having the view that there’s no smoke without fire. This inevitably leads to the SS being defended, even justified in being over cautious when cases such as Baby P explode in the media.

However in cases such as Baby P and Victoria Climbie, the lack of intervention from social workers is to blame.

This lack of intervention stems from the social workers often being intimidated and subject to abuse by the parents of the children they are investigating.

Quite often the social worker is even denied entry into the home to check on the child’s well being. Social workers, despite what people are led to believe, have very little authority. Because of this, cases such as Baby P are neglected in favour of easier targets. 

It is this lack of knowledge on what social workers can and cannot do that leads to a lot of parents losing their children. Aware of the public’s ignorance, a social worker will resort to bullying, duping and scaring parents into signing over their children.

The 1989 Children’s Act meant a veil of secrecy was thrown around court proceedings involving children. These are another reason so few people from the middle classes and upwards know what is really going on. This secrecy and wall of silence imposed around child welfare was supposed to have been put in place to protect the child. However, far from doing so it has allowed the SS to act in a corrupt and totally unprofessional manner.

The child’s welfare and wishes are secondary to performance targets. 

Reporting restrictions on court proceedings mean children are removed from loving and perfectly capable parents on the flimsiest of evidence. 

The SS can get away with this safe in the knowledge there will be no public outcry. 

Neither do parents have any recourse because just discussing their case with anyone other than their legal advisers can result in a prison sentence.

More often than not, it will be a parent’s legal team’s incompetence that will lead to them losing their child/children. Invariably the vast majority of child order cases see the parents being represented by legal aid solicitors. Far be it for me to suggest that the outcome of a case is decided before hand or that the SS and Law Society are acting in complicity. However Parliamentary figures show that child care orders average around 8000 a year. Of these only between 0.1 and 0.2 percent are refused.

Ian Joseph, a Monaco based businessman was so alarmed about what goes on in our law courts that he set up a website specifically to help parents who have had their children snatched by the state.

The first thing he tells parents who are receiving legal aid is that if they want their children back they have to get rid of their solicitor and represent themselves.

Another outspoken critic and long time opponent of the way family court proceedings are conducted is John Hemming MP. However unless you live in his Birmingham Yardley constituency he can only offer advice to those who don’t. Both Ian Joseph and John Hemming are genuine, good men. 

Unfortunately, such is the scale of the problem both are limited on what they can do.

John Hemming, knowing the likely outcome of court proceedings will often tell parents to be who are in danger of having their unborn child snatched, to flee the UK for either Southern Ireland or Sweden.

The fact many couples follow his advice only add credence to their innocence. But does this major, life changing step mean you get to keep your unborn child?

I know of one such couple who John Hemming helped relocate to County Wexford in Southern Ireland. They cannot be identified by their real names so I will call them Steve and Emma. This is their story:

Emma, now aged 30 was living alone with her daughter (Child A) in Kent when she Met Steve now aged 37. The couple were both delighted when Emma found out she was pregnant with Steve’s baby (Child B).However Emma was ill throughout the pregnancy with Pre-Eclampsia and with Steve out at work, the couple had no choice except to get a babysitter to look after Child A. 

It was at this time that Child A was found to have a vaginal injury. To their horror, Steve was accused by the SS of being responsible, despite there being no evidence to support this claim. Child A, a month short of being 2 years old was then forcibly taken into care. 

Worse was to follow when Emma gave birth to Child B on Christmas Eve. Barely 5 hours after giving birth, Child B was taken from Emma and handed over to foster parents. Despite no charges being brought against Steve for the injury to Child A, the couple was unable to stop the children being adopted out. 

When Emma fell pregnant with Child C, she was immediately told by the SS that the baby would be taken into care once Emma had given birth. In desperation the couple contacted John Hemming, who advised them to go to the Republic of Ireland. He told them that even if the Irish SS got involved, the couple would at least receive a much fairer hearing. Arriving in County Wexford on the 1st of June 2009, Emma gave birth just 3 days later. 

With no Medical records available, The Hospital had no choice but to contact England. In doing so the hospital was made aware of Emma’s previous history. With limited information to hand Irish social services had no choice except to take Child C into care pending reports. On contacting the English SS the Irish SS were told that under no circumstances should Child C be returned to the couple. This despite there being no evidence or criminal proceedings to suggest either Steve or Emma was a danger to the Baby. 

Thus began the long drawn out legal procedure of preparing reports for a court hearing. Despite this the couple was allowed to see Child C twice weekly at a contact house. During this period, everything seemed to be engineered towards gearing up for Child C being returned to Steve and Emma’s custody. Things were looking so good in fact that the couple was not worried when Emma fell pregnant again. 

.

However concerned at the speed things were moving, the couple’s Solicitor tried to speed proceedings up by asking for a review of the evidence regarding the injury to Child A. This review brought to light the facts that Child A had only been subject to one injury(inconsistent with parental abuse) and neither had she been ‘Groomed’ as had been previously suggested by English social workers. 

.

More importantly, the review revealed that the babysitter Emma had used, although a registered child minder who had been working with disabled children, was under investigation for abuse. Emma was also becoming increasingly concerned about the level of care offered to Child C by her Foster carer. Emma voiced these concerns to social workers, which included the complaints that Child C often had head lice, sore looking rashes and the fact that Child C called her Foster carer Mummy. As far as Emma is aware these concerns were never addressed.

When Emma gave birth to her 4th child (Child D) the couple were devastated to learn he was to be removed from their care. However the couple was able to secure a temporary court injunction forbidding social workers from snatching Child D. 

During the 6 days the injunction was in place Emma says she was made to feel like a criminal. She was kept apart from the other new mothers and supervised while she breast fed and changed the baby’s nappy. When the injunction was lifted, Child D was placed in foster care with his sister. 

Steve and Emma now get to see him twice weekly along with Child C. They had been categorically told that the SS plan was for reunification. However at a court hearing in April of this year, the couple was horrified to learn that despite what they were told about reunification, the SS intend to keep both children in permanent foster care. 

Not only does this course of action contradict what they were told by social workers, no one had bothered to discuss it with them and neither has it been discussed with them since. Steve and Emma are now left in limbo. Despite the agony of having their 4 children taken off of them they have stayed together as a couple, whereas most relationships would have collapsed under the strain years ago.

Children A and B were removed on the flimsiest of evidence and quickly adopted out effectively making it impossible to get them back. The fact that they gave up their home, family and friends in order to flee to Ireland, for the sole reason of keeping their unborn baby apparently counts for nothing. The couple was only too well aware that should their Irish children be returned to them, they would be forever under the scrutiny of the social services. That fact alone would be enough to ensure that Steve and Emma were nothing short of perfect parents. Unfortunately, without the financial backing, it’s hard now to see where the couple goes from here.

So, is there anything that couples in a similar position to Steve and Emma can do?

To answer that you have to understand that Steve and Emma put their faith in the British legal system. When that let them down they followed the well intention advice of John Hemming. They then put their faith in the Republic of Ireland’s legal system and that too has let them down. 

 .

Therefore, in theory the answer is no. 

In reality however there is but you have to take command of the situation from the start. You cannot afford to show any weakness in your resolve. To do so will result in you being bullied into submission. 

Firstly, never trust a social worker. I’m not saying they are all bad, but by far the vast majority are. Do not be fooled by their friendly approach this is quite often a trick. Remember they have no authority to do anything without a court order. 

Film and/or record everything. They will tell you you’re not allowed to but you are allowed to film who and what the hell you like in your own home. 

Be polite but not friendly. Offer no other information than what they ask for. If they try to get you to sign consent forms to take your child tell them to do one until they have a court order. 

Check that you are dealing with a fully qualified Social worker who is registered with your social service department. 

You can tell them to leave at any time. 

If they do feel they have a strong case against you then the chances are they will return with a court order. This being the case there is nothing you can do to prevent your child being taken. 

However as the statistics have shown, you’re wasting your time employing a solicitor. You must represent yourself in court. No one will fight harder or argue more passionately for the return of your child than you will.

If your child is unborn and you’ve been told your baby will be removed from you at birth, there is little you can do at that time to prevent it. 

However you will soon be told that you have to register your baby for a birth certificate. 

Flatly refuse. No one except the parents can register a baby’s birth. If they could, the SS would do it rather than subject an already heartbroken parent to more mental torture. Refuse to do this because there is emerging evidence to show that an unregistered child cannot be snatched by the state. 

No doubts you will be threatened with all kinds of things including prison but stand your ground. No charges will be brought against you if you do not consent. 

It does pay however to be clued up on the workings of Admiralty law before you adopt this course of action. 

Without a birth certificate the SS have no choice but to return your baby. The most conclusive evidence to support this followed a request submitted to Torbay Council under the freedom of information act. The request was in the form of a question asking that, if a child is not registered at birth, do they have the authority to remove the child. 

Torbay Councils answer? 

No they don’t. However, you should be aware that having no birth certificate could present problems for your child later on in life. Never the less, these problems which are mostly financial can be overcome and are secondary to keeping a loving family together.