“Suppression” is the Australian media-law word for 2018 … Everyone wants to know more about what has been suppressed by the courts … Invariably the cat gets out of the bag … Latest suppression statistics Australia-wide … Are suppression orders sensible in the age of the internet?
View original post 1,375 more words
Dear Adoption, You’ve Left me Without the One Thing I Seem to Want and Need the Most
You are the wedge between family and me. I can get close, but not close enough. I hold everyone at arm’s length.
You are the fence atop which I sit perched, unable to access either side. I’m destined to long for what’s just out of reach.
You are the hurdle I must jump each time I want to connect with someone. The fear of rejection is ever looming.
You are the obstacle in my way every time I want to travel. The anxiety that precedes is like a whispered threat that I’ll never return to the place I left.
You are the crux of my pain. My mind was too young to remember but my body was not. The constant struggle to make sense of it all torments me.
You’ve left me…
View original post 95 more words
They like doing alot of things ‘just before’ their 18th birthday dont they. Including realising there was a mistake made on the alleged adoption order and having things like 2 adoption years held on written record, two timescales for the years the Case ran with SS/Council and then Cafcass. Restricting the parent who uncovered it all just short of the child’s 18th birthday (2017) when one of the wrong adoption years was stated to being (2002) 4 years prior to the adoption year the parent had been led to believe it was. 2002-2017 makes 15 years them having wrong information held on written record with a brief written apology and no offer of compensation when also on top, said child’s name couldnt be traced on the entire England and Wales register. So after the parent being refunded the money for one of the certificates therefore then they got sent one after anyway. The parent asked for an explanation should an entry be found with a certificate from the GRO but wasnt given one and was simply told in the end ‘I don’t know, a research department deals with it seperately.’ The parent got told there had been a mistake with the Adoption Order from Court with said child’s surname, so it got changed once said child was 17 years old without their (child’s prior consent) and said child had been going (unknowingly) under a false name to what’s wrote on their Adoption Certificate all these years. The ICO say at the age of 12, should anyone request information about them and their data then the child is meant to have their permission sought first. This is bearing in mind, the relevant paperwork would have been sent out to the alleged Adopter ‘re the newer full birth certificate and the Adoption Certificate and they’d have surely had the Adoption Certificate to see in full too as opposed to the one with serial number 05/05 on it (redacted, the parent’s copy) Council’s are meant to do regular periodic checks of data on the Care and Adoption records each Council holds for the children affected too. My opinion is too many people would have known! It’s for this reason, years later I’m of the very strong belief that where parents or any one parent contested the adoption and didn’t sign their consent to section 20 then really the children have been in long term foster care all along and I would advise parents to SARS under GDPR their life story work, what’s held on Consumer Relation files particularly in relation to Complaints but I must warn you, take it back to Family Court to challenge a null/void adoption order you’ll get told no jurisdiction with no thorough investigation done and you’ll likely be offered no support neither coming to terms with it. I’ve since gone through reunification. My young adult son is now home, even he wants answers and is not getting none! There needs to be somewhere for alleged adoptees and natural (I believe real parent in this case) to go for genuine, honest resolution to have miscarriage of justice addressed and now they say (Court) I’m not allowed to name the Council. Now the President McFarlane wants these Family Courts shrouded in more secrecy. How much worse can it get….
It is part of the Christmas tradition of Suesspicious Minds that some Local Authority takes an almighty judicial kicking in a published judgment, and this year I’m afraid it is Herefordshire behind the door on the advent calendar. This is a damning judgment by Keehan J
2.The care of and care planning for both these young people by Herefordshire Council has, over the last ten years or so, been woeful.
A & B (care orders and placement orders – failures)  EWFC 72 (30 November 2018)
Herefordshire County Council obtained Care and Placement Orders on two children, A and B in May 2008. At that time, A was 11 and B was 10 (that sounds immediately to me like a highly optimistic order…)
Neither were placed for adoption, and the plan of adoption was abandoned by the Local Authority in September 2009. No applications were made to revoke the…
View original post 3,005 more words
After this site revealed that law firms and councils coerced parents into signing illegal documents forcing them to give up their right to record child welfare meetings, a new poll asking parents why they choose to record offers a shock revelation.
The poll, created on Facebook yesterday, asked parents who were going through the family courts whether they had recorded a communication during their case, and if they had, what the reason was for making that recording. The poll initially offered the following five responses:
- The professional seemed to have an agenda
- I wanted to be able to read/listen/ see it again at my own pace
- The professional had made errors in past reports/ communications
- The professional was breaking the law
- Other – please add your comment below
Facebook allows posters to add more options to its polls. A parent added the following sixth option to our poll, which went…
View original post 291 more words
This site has learned that law firms and councils are unlawfully coercing parents into signing informal agreements which forbid families from recording child protection meetings.
Clauses in an agreement asking a parent not to record conversations or exchanges with child welfare professionals are illegal, and are sometimes referred to in family proceedings as unlawful undertakings. Domestic undertakings set out in agreements are very rarely enforceable, and parents are not under any obligation to sign them. If you have signed an agreement prepared by a local authority or lawyer asking you to set aside your legal right to record communications in child welfare proceedings, you can withdraw your consent at any time.
This site has seen a copy of an agreement drawn up by a council which clearly states that the parent named in the document may not record any phone calls or meetings within their home or the local authority’s…
View original post 155 more words