The government is offering families who may have had their children unjustly removed through the family courts free reviews of their cases, after forensic tests used to detect traces of drugs and alcohol inside people’s systems were called into question. Over 34,000 child custody cases may have been affected.
The Ministry of Justice has offered a court form, which allows families the right to have their cases reviewed free of charge where a toxicology test was carried out. Form C650 , which is called an “Application notice to vary or set aside an order in relation to children (drug and/or alcohol toxicology test after 2010)”, can be used to ask the court to set aside an order made in relation to children, after 2010.
The official statement on the MOJ website sets out families’ rights and explains that there are no fees attached to filing the form.
An investigation is also underway to try to assess the number of cases involved. It will encompass all child protection proceedings, dating back to 2010, in which drug and alcohol testing was carried out by Trimega Laboratories. Around 10,000 criminal cases, which received forensic results from another company called Randox, may also be affected.
Following on from the discovery, Labour MP Diane Abbott called on the government to respond to the allegations surrounding the suggested manipulation of forensic evidence at the Randox and Trimega laboratories in Manchester. Her Urgent Question during a session at the House of Commons, drew in concerned MPs who made several important points about the implications of false test results on child protection cases, which could lead to children being removed from their parents.
Labour MP Chris Elmore, who attended the meeting asked the government to address the issue of unjust removal:
“Children’s social services and judges make decisions on adoption and fostering on the basis of forensic science services. What assurance can the Minister give, especially in relation to adoptions since 2010, that children have not been removed from families on the basis of false forensic information? What conversations has he had with Ministers in the Welsh Government about the failings of the Forensic Science Service with respect to Welsh adoptions?”
Nick Hurd, Minister for Policing and the Fire Service, replied on behalf of the government. Nick confirmed that local authorities had been asked to review all cases that could potentially have been affected, but no details were given as to how this process would be carried out. Taking into account the already burdened and cash strapped environment councils find themselves in, it seems unlikely that this review will take place in any proper way.
Hurd went on to confirm that Robert Goodwill, the current Minister for Children and Families had written to all local authorities asking them to review these cases and that he expected to receive the evidence by the end of this week. We’re not sure that’s a feasible deadline, given the sheer number of cases that may need to be reviewed.
Carol Monaghan MP also offered her thoughts on the impact of poor evidence and the privatisation of core elements of the justice system:
“It is imperative that the public trust forensic science testing and, by extension, criminal and civil justice as a whole. There were warning signs about the firm’s predecessor, Trimega, which had seen children almost taken into care on the basis of erroneous evidence. That major mistake should have been a red flag to the Government, so why were they not alert to the risk presented by the Randox lab, given that its predecessor had such a poor record?
Does the Minister agree that the privatisation of vital elements of the justice system without proper oversight can lead to errors or deliberate tampering, and that the cost both to the individuals affected and to confidence in the justice system outweigh any money saved? Finally, what steps will he take to restore the public’s faith in forensic expert evidence and the justice system as a whole?”
Hurd mentions that the government has already been busy retesting since January of this year in order to try to address the problem.
Other MPs present ask for further reassurances that family cases have not been decided just on a potentially erroneous toxicology test, but of course the government is not in a position to confirm or deny this practice. Those of us who work inside the system know only too well that a positive test is all that’s needed to remove a child, with the future harm threshold used all too often as a vehicle to secure removal.
Researching Reform 
“the implications of false test results on child protection cases, which could lead to children being removed from their parents.”
A very interesting development indeed.
But no mention of what happens if children have been wrongly removed and placed for Adoption. will those Adoptions be overturned and the children sent back to their birth parents.
and no mention of the many cases where Social workers have falsified case files to win court cases and children were permanently removed or Adopted.will those cases also be reviewed. Justice Pauffley stated the corruption between LAs and family court Judges is widespread all across the country.
its time for this to be opened up on a full scale basis. the proof is out there it just needs to be seen and listened to.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
My children were adopted as a result of hair strand testing. When social became involved initial tests showed me and my partner as negative. Later tests were also conducted whilst proceedings were active that showed a positive for cannabis. I asked for a retest to be conducted as my hair still had not been cut from when the sample was taken. I was refused. The time scales also overlapped. So basically the previous test had shown negative but the same time period on another test showed a positive. I’m very upset to now find that this test could have been a false positive. This was 2009/2010 trimega labs
LikeLike
Thank you for your comment. Try the form if you’d like to and see if they accept your case. It sounds like you may be eligible. Apologies for editing your details, this has to be done due to reporting restrictions.
LikeLike
You said
” I’m very upset to now find that this test could have been a false positive”.
when you say “Could have” shurely you would know if it should our should not be positive. if you were using Cannabis around that time then its a possibility you may have been.
LikeLike
Problems with Trimega emerged in 2011; it has taken a very long time for the Government to react.
LikeLike
Reblogged this on | truthaholics and commented:
#FamilyLaw Scandal: Too little too late as UK nanny state tries to row back from total impunity?
LikeLike
Adoptions are irreversible due to public policy see Webster, unlike in Scotland or Australia, so how will these parents get their children back ?
And can the public reclaim the £28,000 fee paid per child and all the lawyers, social workers, experts, CAFCASS costs involved including the forensics fee.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Reblogged this on Site Title and commented:
SCANDEL UK GOVERNMENT DRUG TESTING
LikeLike
Pingback: Scandelous of drug testing, cases are now being given a right to review – Site Title
Still amazed at how quiet the government kept this form. How as anyone supposed to know it existed? They should have put a process in place to notify everyone potentially affected. But then again, it’s like Pandora’s Box for them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, keeping it low key was always going to be the strategy.
its such a Nasty can of worms to open up as with all the corruption in the child stealing industry of Fostering & Adoption. but they cant keep a lid on this for much longer. its like Chernobyl just sitting there waiting to Blow and when it does its going to be very nasty indeed.
LikeLike
Another big mystery is why do the Police take no action against Social workers when its proven that they have falsified information in paperwork claiming they got it from the police when they clearly didnt. Why are the Police turning a blind eye. same with Perjury in the Family courts, no Social workers have been prosecuted. as pointed out by John Hemming its a Criminal offence to Lie on Oath in court. Local Authorities and Social workers can only be described as the Teflon Mob.
LikeLike
The written statements/reports of SWs are not on oath, and rarely is a SW put in the witness box on oath.
If any oral evidence is given it is likely to be their manager, who will rely on what the SW said, which itself will be tempered by ‘so far as they are aware’, so would be difficult to prosecute even when as rarely they are forced to give evidence.
In any event, the sacrifice of a SW or even Manger serves little purpose, as they are merely disposable tools of a system that has told them to do this , this is their job.
The system must be changed and that involves changing the governments policy to support and allow as much private profit to be made from the so called ‘child protection industry’.
LikeLike
you state
“The written statements/reports of SWs are not on oath”.
but those written statements/reports are still Lies being presented to a Family court Judge when only the Truth is supposed to be presented so they should still be prosecuted. The police should also still take action against false information being presented with the Lie that it came from them when it didnt. this is Criminal intent and should be punished as such.
LikeLike
Some are under oath, and even if they are not any reports submitted to the courts that are knowing false can lead to a prosecution under the perjury act as it includes clauses that state ‘perjury other than under oath’. But yes, I’ve yet to hear of a judge or cafcass officer making a referral to the police or to the social work regulatory body. I only know of one case of a social worker facing a tribunal for falsifying documents in the family court and from what I recall she got away with it and was still allowed to practice.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for this information, that shows that the officers of the State are beyond prosecution for lying in court.
Why ? to allow State purpose ie max adoption. care orders. MCA removal to for profit companies and quasi charities, that recycle profit and are made rife for company take over.
We are used as commodities and our money for profit via stitched up court procedure……
LikeLike
For all those Parents out there who have lost children to the SS. this kind of Sums up what they are feeling.
LikeLike
I notice the family courts limited applications to Trimega and up until 2014. Randox were under suspicion and the police ordered retesting of results up until 2017. I was involved in a family law case in 2016 were a Randox hair strand test came back as high cannabis use for the previous six months; which was queried in open court as the young lady in question had been in a secure psychiatric ward for three of those months. The question was swept under the carpet, the children were placed for adoption in early 2017. The family courts and all that work within them absolute collude. It is disgraceful.
LikeLike
In 2020/ 2021, I experienced the same, seven tests over a period of 8 months were incorrect. However, my experience was with [edited] toxicology, formerly [edited]. I was lucky in that the LA only went to pre court proceedings, however, had they gone to court bit would have been my opportunity to request a court order for Abbott to hand over the tests for independent testing. As happened in another case around 2012.
There is no recourse for people like myself who find themselves in this position. My case was during unique times, the company had a recent take over, COVID was still quite knew. All managers were working from home and labs were being set up everywhere with govt money so experienced staff were in demand. Plus, I know that my drug service was not providing the lab with details of any of the medications I was taking other than the opiate substitute. Which I understand that labs need to be aware
Although, my case was not followed through eventually, the imitations if these false positive tests and complete failure of professional involved to support me in challenging this injustice was mental torture when added to the fact that all reports made me out to be a liar. My daughter and I are still recovering from this. At the time I paid for a hair test with a reputable company which backed up my claims of no opiate use but I was told that the LA could only go with the result the health board get from their lab.
Things need to change. I’m happy if anyone needs to contact me via email.
.kind regards
[edited]
LikeLiked by 1 person