A new charity, Children of the Voiceless, has just been set up to return children wrongly taken through involuntary adoption, (often referred to as forced adoption because removal takes place without parental consent). The charity vows to take legal action against child protection agencies who have acted negligently in the process.
As you might imagine, the charity has a story of its own. Established by Martin Fricek, a father who found himself at risk of losing his baby to child protection services, and who subsequently fled the UK with his partner, the charity’s Home Page explains that it has been set up to to fight to “return children who have been forcibly adopted for child protection reasons back to their parents, and to provide advice on taking legal actions against child protection agencies whose actions involve negligence.”
Quite apart from his own experience inside the family courts, Fricek has an interesting background, which he shares on the site. He worked as an interpreter and advocate in the UK for the Ministry of Justice and after 5 years of viewing what he felt were ruthless and unsparing actions of child protection services he decided to write a report called “The Corrupt Business Of Child Protection Services.” That report cost him his job at The Ministry.
On the page in which he shares his story, Fricek highlights what he believes are gross miscarriages of justice, a for-profit industry which does not really have the best interests of children at heart and abuses of power which take place at every level.
The charity is still trying to find its feet – the web pages are clearly outlined and look to offer some interesting resources, however to date many of the pages are still empty. As such, Children of the Voiceless are appealing to anyone who would like to get involved from pro bono lawyers, to parents who have unjustly lost their children, to get in contact with them.
It will only be a matter of time before legal and social work professionals decide to probe this charity and its remit, so the charity should expect a forceful response from these sectors. Concerns over the legality of the charity’s mission and, of course, the likelihood of it aiding and abetting families who are placing children at risk, will also be raised, so we very much hope they have a robust response in place for queries of this kind.
That we even need charities like this to address concerns inside the system is telling. Critics will counter that organisations like these are nothing more than manifestations of anger by parents who have lost a child through forced adoption, but that would be a mistake. There is a real and present problem inside our Family Court today, with resources, funding, training and policy playing a very large part in this turn of events.