A social worker who has chosen to remain anonymous, has told online social work magazine Community Care that child protection professionals break the law in order to do what’s best for children inside the family justice system.
The piece comes after a family court ruling highlighted the widespread misuse of Section 20 arrangements , which were being used to keep children detained in state care, illegally and for lengthy periods. Social workers were also failing to obtain court orders to implement these arrangements.
Section 20 arrangements are voluntary agreements which give parents the option of placing their children in state care, where the parents need respite or are unable to look after their children for short periods. Children can leave the accommodation provided for them at any time, and without notice. Parents can also remove their children from the accommodation without requiring local authority consent to do so.
Outgoing President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, was so concerned by the misuse of Section 20 agreements, that in 2015 he published Guidance on the arrangement which explicitly forbid social workers from using S.20s to illegally detain children.
The piece comes at a delicate moment in Britain’s social work history. As local authorities continue to ignore Guidance and best practice, ongoing failings and high profile cases exposing malpractice and misconduct sit at odds with a growing number of social workers who want to develop best practice and ethical policies inside child protection. The author of the piece, who is allegedly a children’s social worker, tries to suggest that social workers breaking the law are doing so because they want to do what’s best for the children inside the system. Unfortunately, the system is so broken, and resources so scarce, that most of the time, finding out what that might be is virtually impossible. Social workers are only too aware of this.
The author is also careful not to call out malpractice and law breaking, instead choosing to refer to these abuses as “misuses of power”, or a desire to “act around the law”. And whilst the idea that social workers may try to break the law to protect children is plausible – and we think this may happen, but in very small percentage terms compared to routine law breaking which facilitates council adoption targets for example – the author never tells us how that plays out in practice. There is a small paragraph on cost cutting and speeding up processes, but in real terms, none of these things actually benefit children inside the sector.
Whether the author understands that the law is being broken and wants to improve things for children, or simply wants to defend the sector against a floodgate of lawsuits, the strange back and forth in the piece on malpractice and its origins inside the sector, remains unconvincing.
Researching Reform reached out to Community Care for comment on Twitter, and they kindly responded. You can follow the conversation, here.
It is NOT only social workers who break the law about children “detained illegally” Under a section 20.
Foster carers physically stop parents from collecting their children either and so do police who rather than enforce the law either break it themselves by simply preventing parents from collecting their own children or circumvent the law by immediately taking the children Under “police protection” !
LikeLiked by 4 people
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hasn’t this always been the problem? Arrogant, woolly-headed, Marxist social workers, who hate families, think that they know best and that the courts cannot be trusted to make the right decision, so they pervert the course of justice so as to make sure they get their own way, justifying it to themselves by using Hitler’s mantra of “It’s awwwll for the children”.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Very few of them have a decent set of qualifications or a just too inexperienced. Leads to mistakes.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Social workers who break the Law dont make Mistakes. their actions are carefully planned from the start. you could say Premeditated.
LikeLike
I don’t believe all these mistakes are mistakes at all (some maybe) It’s obviously being done purposely and it’s pure criminal! Now when will all these wronged parents and their families be getting their child/ren back? and their ‘alleged’ forced adopted child/ren? We need a full investigation, written apologies (including public) and lots more besides.The family’s affected need compensating at the very least, although the cruel damage is already done (yet they continue…. :O) Shame on them!!
SS (Stealing Services) and we always knew it!!
After all, this post suggests we have criminals amongst us stealing the children at best!! 😦 x
LikeLiked by 2 people
Reblogged this on tummum's Blog and commented:
I don’t believe all these mistakes are mistakes at all (some maybe) It’s obviously being done purposely and it’s pure criminal! Now when will all these wronged parents and their families be getting their child/ren back? and their ‘alleged’ forced adopted child/ren? We need a full investigation, written apologies (including public) and lots more besides.The family’s affected need compensating at the very least, although the cruel damage is already done (yet they continue…. :O) Shame on them!!
SS (Stealing Services) and we always knew it!!
After all, this post suggests we have criminals amongst us stealing the children at best!! 😦 x
LikeLike
Reblogged this on | truthaholics and commented:
‘The piece comes at a delicate moment in Britain’s social work history. As local authorities continue to ignore Guidance and best practice, ongoing failings and high profile cases exposing malpractice and misconduct sit at odds with a growing number of social workers who want to develop best practice and ethical policies inside child protection. The author of the piece, who is allegedly a children’s social worker, tries to suggest that social workers breaking the law are doing so because they want to do what’s best for the children inside the system. Unfortunately, the system is so broken, and resources so scarce, that most of the time, finding out what that might be is virtually impossible. Social workers are only too aware of this.
The author is also careful not to call out malpractice and law breaking, instead choosing to refer to these abuses as “misuses of power”, or a desire to “act around the law”.’
The morally bankrupt policy of commodifying children for corporate profit causes conscientious and open-minded social workers to quit while those who cut corners to get results to get promoted. It’s hidden cost is too high on so many levels.
LikeLiked by 2 people
it can never be justified to Break the Law in the so-called Best interests of the child. if LA staff Break the Law and Commit perjury in Court then they must face the Consequences.
We cant have a country which has two versions of the Law, one for them and another for the public.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Very well said xx
LikeLike
Dr M, where have you been it has always been a law for them and a law for the plebs as we are known to them
LikeLike
Space.
LikeLike
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rlx4Ywf_psI David Jose
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yB2oQ6PWfQ4 p. 2
Adoption is for Orphans no living relatives
Inherent Equity – Court of Equity/Court of Conscience
” Law is nothing without equity, and equity is everything, even without Law. Those who perceive what is just and what is unjust only through the eyes of the law, never see it as well as those who behold it with the eyes of equity. Law may be looked upon, in some manner, as an assistance for those who have a weak perception of right and wrong, in the same way that optical glasses, are useful for those who are shortsighted, or those whose visual organs are deficient. Equity, in its true and genuine meaning, is the soul and spirit of the law; positive law is construed, and rational law is made by it. ”
Institutes of American Law 1882, Vol. 2, s. 3724, para. 4. by John Bouvier
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/…/inherent_equity_court_of_e…
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/…/adoption_act_1926_orphans_5
Dear House of Lords,
Adoption Act 1926 – Orphans
The Adoption Act 1926 had the intention of rehoming Orphans who did
not have any parents or family members.
What greater consideration does the state or adoptive families give when the mothers and fathers and family chosen by nature have given love and blood (DNA) and do not consent to the state taking their children.Or are the parents treated as mere trustee’s of their children and
the State as the beneficiaries entitled to take and make gifts of their children to strangers?
Where is the fundamental right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the sons and daughters of these mothers and fathers created by nature and entitled to the protection of equity.
Provide all information held relating to this Act being passed into law including who objected and how many times it was rejected before being passed ?
Thank you kindly for the very interesting links, that shall be of great use, in the understanding of how a few good people tried to stop the desecration of the scared family, Heirs are a creation of nature. And those who forced the conversion of God given rights into mere legal titles to be traded like chattel.
Former Great Lord Chancellors would be turning in their graves if they knew what had become of the civil law and what it was being used for.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In other words stop “punishment without crime”.If there is no crime there must be no child removal
LikeLiked by 1 person
The federal law Title IV-D of the Social Security Act was established in the late 1980’s. Designed to encourage the collection of support payments for the public welfare, as well as reimburse the court for potential collection expenditures, it grants family court judges, the court system, and the state extra funds and wages for the federal government for each dollar the court extracts from a non-custodial parent in the form of child support.
Mostly impervious to the eyes of scholars and journalists, family courts are cloaked in secrecy: they are held without jury trials, little is recorded of the proceedings, and many issue orders against discussing the terms of the case in public – ostensibly to protect the privacy of the family. Recent journalism and research, however, as well as moral activism on the part of whistleblowers, has revealed that family courts have been increasingly, over the last two decades, operating outside the original intent of Title IV-D. The result is the corruption of the judiciary.
Same in the UK , and now I have first hand knowledge of how they are pulling these frauds off. No action can come out of fraud .
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Punished 4 Protecting” tells of Francesca Amato-Banfield’s harrowing experience within the broken family court system. After eight months, she finally received justice, and is now an advocate for families seeking to protect their rights and their children. If you are struggling with injustices wrought by our courts, please allow this book to be a resource to guide you through the process. https://www.amazon.com/Punished-Protecting-Injustice-System-Family-ebook/dp/B079G6JXWD
LikeLike
Looks to be a USA story. probably not that relevant to the UK.
LikeLike
SECTION 20
It is intended to be temporary and voluntary. It’s being grossly misused. If there was any real evidence they would have parents in criminal court and even then, it doesn’t mean the outcome would be a positive one for the local authorities. What happens next in these cases is they don’t put the full true evidence across in family court! Doing it the way they do, they start off with a molehill (could apply to absolutely anybody) and turn it into a mountain based on hearsay assumption and presumption almost all of it! If parents don’t sign the loophole section 20 it takes SS longer (if at all) to steal your child/ren. If they bribe or trick you to sign and it comes to it, have them in criminal court instead for anyone else affected by these corrupt criminals! Get out of the public and into the private 😉 Protect your sacred families from the secret criminals… thank you my friend of many years Tum Mum ❤ and Ian U R correct No punishment without crime. Do not be tricked deceived by threats and menace from agents of Private commercial corporations who kidnap and traffic your heirs for unjust enrichment. Government and charity grants are aimed at programs. Trusts , Social Welfare Grants to Prison Service, Probation for the secure estate of children, children taken into police protection, Placeholder. 2.04 million residents in England who are under 18. Comprehensive child. United Nations Rights of the child Ratified by UK 1991.
PRISON REFORM TRUST Registered Charity no 1035525
PILGRIM TRUST GRANTS – Trustee Sir Alan George Moses
As Trustees Judges must be held accountable for the CORPUS
Pilgrim Trust / John Paul Getty – Junior Charitable Trust – grants worth over £15 million
Philanthropy !! they should give generously to the poor, not steal the children of the poor. Child Welfare or Farewell Child ? The Commonwealth Fund, Private Foundation, a 100 years of advanced Health Care for all, under Welfare. Both Private and Public vested interests.
The state has a terrible secret it kidnaps our Sons Daughters and natural heirs!! it's very lucrative
LikeLiked by 2 people
Very well said Yvonne.
the Sec20 scandal is something that is long overdue to be investigated. one of the big problems i find is that when challenged about it in Stage 2 investigations they simply deny any such thing and and state the parents signed willingly. basically its your word against theirs and as they are So-called professionals the courts usually believe them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are welcome my good friend Yvonne Taylor ❤ Happy to help contribute in any small or big way i can.No justice, no peace xx
LikeLike
“Unfortunately I have witnessed the court judicial system at its finest. Fighting for my daughter was like being on the set of a play where the ‘actors’ already knew the outcome. It was horrific!! I actually said to a friend recently that I believe the mafia have more morals and would much prefer to do business with them in the future. My daughter is adhd and drove my car at 12 years old after you tubing how to. Lol. She was getting out of control not taking her Meds. Etc. They made me look like a mass murderer. Omg the lies they told still affect me today. (it’s been almost two years). I’m still horrified by this ordeal as they took my daughter but if there had been a jury I would have proved beyond reasonable doubt that I’d tried everything within my power. I’m in the process of clearing my name. So corrupt!!!” A Mothers Testimony of her experience in Family Caught. Liars and Perjurers making lives hell on earth?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“A Mothers Testimony of her experience in Family Caught. Liars and Perjurers making lives hell on earth?”
This is the harsh reality of child protection via the Family courts which has morphed into a nest of corruption and fraud. the Legal Aid dept should be investigating why many cases are dragged on well over the 26wks up to 18 months in some cases when So-called Expert witnesses are brought in to Gun down the parents even though they knew the outcome right from the start. 100% Fraud of Taxpayers money.
LikeLike
The most disgraceful feature about section 20 (so called voluntary care) is that in every single case out of thousands I have encountered in the last 16 years contact between parent and child has been very limited and very supervised !
One word describes this illegal practice DISGUSTING,DISGUSTING,DISGUSTING!
LikeLiked by 2 people
And contact being completely severed in many cases.
its got be a violation of Human rights but whats being done about it. Nothing!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Karin Huffer has discovered why many people leave a courtroom frustrated and sick. On Wednesday April 2, 2008 we presented a new program called FAMILY COURT – Part 2 – Dennis Grover and Michael Nance are joined on the phone by Stephen Baskerville author of TAKEN INTO CUSTODY and Karin Huffer author of LEGAL ABUSE SYNDROME. Stephen shares his research into the atrocities of Family Court, where it came from and questionable tactics and implementations of its own rules that affect mostly children. Karin Huffer explores the foundation of Legal Abuse Syndrome and has proven that a constant negative result from any courtroom experience produces Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome in litigants. Before you go to any court, understand that Justice is not a part of the equation and prepare yourself for the possibilities of being in a situation that is based in judge and attorney created rules rather than common sense. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeGdK2cvNY8
https://equalaccessadvocates.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/EAA-brochure-booklet-2017.pdf Very Interesting and useful in my opinion and from my own experience and first hand knowledge
LikeLike
Mentioning the Health and Care Professions Council (HCPC), the statutory regulator in England and Wales for social workers and a number of other health and care professions, seems to have a similar effect on corrupt social workers as holding up a crucifix has to Count Dracula. Asking them for their HCPC Registration Number usually provokes a reaction of, “I don’t have to give it to you!” which when countered with, “Oh yes you do” has them backing away towards the nearest exit. Use the online register to check out social workers here http://hpc-uk.org/ and your can download their Codes of Professional Conduct, Ethics and Performance here http://www.hpc-uk.org/aboutregistration/standards/standardsofconductperformanceandethics/
LikeLike
https://archive.org/stream/LordHewart-TheNewDespotism1929/HEWARTLordOfBury-The_New_Despotism_1929_djvu.txt “Every citizen of
this country, from the least to the greatest,
is directly and personally concerned with
the encroachments of bureaucracy on
public life.” THE NEW DESPOTISM
by THE RT. HON. LORD HEWART
OF BURY, Lord Chief Justice of
England
” I will be no party to the doctrine,”
Lord Hewart said in a recent speech,
” that a Lord Chief Justice, summoned to
the House of Lords, as he is, not merely
to vote, but also to advise, is condemned
to a lifelong and compulsory silence on
the affairs of State.” Root of our problems perhaps? “Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.”.
Gordon Hewart, 1st Viscount Hewart | lord chief justice of England
” Very few laymen are
aware of the wide difference which exists
between the rights of these parties (the
Crown and the subjects of the Crown) as
they survive to this day under the tradi-
tions of antiquated law and practice ; and
still less do they realise the gross injustice
not infrequently inflicted upon individuals
by the harsh and unconscionable exercise
of certain rights which Executive Depart-
ments enforce, and which the Courts of
law are powerless to disallow. . . . The
existence of the fundamentally false and
unconstitutional idea that the bureau-
cracy are a privileged class, not amenable
in their official acts to the jurisdiction of
the courts, is a danger to our traditional
liberties which is obvious,” said The
Times in a leading article, and it is ” these
wide differences ” and ” this danger to
our traditional liberties ” which the Lord
Chief Justice examines and condemns.
LikeLike