A father from Royston launched a protest against forced adoption outside Barnsley Town Hall on Christmas day to raise awareness around the impact of forced adoption and the policies the UK uses to implement the practice. John Aveyard lost his four children to the care system. The siblings were then split up and forcibly adopted.
Forced adoption, or non-consensual adoption as it is sometimes called, allows the government to remove children from families where there is a risk of harm, without getting parental consent. The practice is used in a small minority of countries around the world, with consensual adoption being the preferred approach for the majority of countries.
As part of the demonstration, John put a table up outside the town hall and placed four candles on it, one for each of his children as a reminder that they would not be sitting with him at the table on Christmas day. John told the Barnsley Chronicle, “Christmas Day is the time of year you want to be with your children, watching them open their presents and see how happy they are and it’s my favourite time of year as a dad. For some parents, they miss out on this because their children are forcibly removed from them.”
The protest also focused on laws which allow the government to remove children for adoption without parental consent, including Section 31 of the Children’s Act 1989 which gives local authorities the power to remove children from parents where “the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm.” Aveyard would like to see a review of Section 31 by the government, as the Section enables the removal of children from parents where there is a likelihood of future harm without any robust processes to evidence the likelihood of harm itself.
Currently, removal of a child can be made on hearsay by social workers and reports produced by social work teams who often have no proper medical, psychological or child welfare credentials. Similar problems exist with so-called medical experts and family court approved psychiatrists, who also do not have the necessary training to assess families. A 2012 report by Professor Jane Ireland found that over 20% of psychologists in family cases were unqualified and 65% of expert reports were either of ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ quality.
John went on to tell the Barnsley Chronicle:
“I am not denying that we need social services and I understand in some circumstances children to need to be taken away from their parents. What I do not agree with is a decision being made based on an assumption. It’s absolute madness, and how they can split up a family acting like Mystic Meg is insane.”

Image: Barnsley Chronicle
Reblogged this on tummum's Blog.
LikeLike
Section 31 of the Children’s Act 1989 which gives local authorities the power to remove children from parents where “the child concerned is suffering, OR IS LIKELY TO SUFFER, significant harm.”
5 words that led to the destruction of thousands of happy families over the following 30 years ! YES,yes,to the father in the photograph ;social workers and judges acting like “mystic Meg” or “Gypsy Rose Lee” without any of the experience of fortune tellers who have spent a lifetime predicting and who often get it half right !The judges have no Crystal balls ,no tarot cards,and no ouija boards to help them ! Just an almost blind faith in social workers who depend on achieving adoption targets in much the same way that traffic wardens have to issue sufficient numbers of parking tickets .
SHAME ON THE UK ,THE FAMILY COURT SYSTEM AND ALL WHO WORK IN IT
LikeLiked by 5 people
Judges aren’t stupid Ian. A lot of them don’t trust SS either. But unless one gives them research evidence which is relevent from an accredited professional who has done a study under the aegis of an organisation like the Nuffield Foundation then all they have to go on, is a SWs report. Give them something which shows the SWs lack of relevent knowledge in any way and you’ve a much btter chance. We did just that as LIPs and still have our child.
LikeLike
No Meme I agree that judges are not stupid .Many of them have Financial interests in adoption agencies or sit on the board of such organisations; When the subject of conflict of interest comes up the decision is that there is no conflict ! I agree that this applies only to a minority but the majority make a comfortable living out of the system rubberstamping the applications of social workers for care orders and adoptionswith little thought or work required, so that only one in 400 applications for care orders is refused !!! (judicial statistics).
LikeLiked by 4 people
of course this would depend on the Judge not colluding with the SS.
if they are then no amount of information will change the outcome.
LikeLiked by 2 people
What benefit is there to a judge colluding with a social worker?
LikeLike
The benefit could be a number of things. the Judge might have shares/investments in Fostering and Adoption Agencies, they could be on the take via the Brown envelope, or they could simply be feeding their own ego with the power they have to dismantle a family. if you dont believe Collusion goes on in the Family courts then read this story.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2562249/It-never-happen-Appeal-judge-slams-cut-paste-decision-
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Forced Adoption Protest Held On Christmas Day | tummum's Blog
Just an idea. Could a button be added for Twitter, so we can share there too Xxxx
LikeLike
Hi Tumtum, I think WordPress removed it! I will check again xxxx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, it looks like WordPress re-added it (just placed it on the posts), along with Pocket and even more surprisingly Telegram. Very interesting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks hun. Brilliant. We learn something new every day Xxxx
LikeLike
xxxx
LikeLike
Happy New Year to all. Good for this man. We need plenty more high-profile protests outside Town Halls and Courts to get this message across, preferably all on one or two days together. My experience with protesting is that if you go on, people lose interest, so a nationwide protest all at once would be more effective. Most people don’t believe that the SS can take children away without parental consent and on hearsay ‘evidence’, and assume that the SS know best anyway. It’s our job to prove otherwise.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Yet another Victim among the Ocean of traumatized parents who have lost their children to Lies, deception and Collusion.
The tide has to turn on this Scandal eventually.
A true story of this nature can be seen in the Movie Philomena with Judi Dench. see it here.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Dr Manhattan, absolutely. If you can find a link to your latest reply ‘re 1 in 4 Cases I would be interested to share it xx
LikeLike
i read this sometime over the past 12 months. if i find it i will post it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you xx
LikeLike
This may be what i seen but not 100%.
http://www.complaintexpert.co.uk/can-we-trust-ombudsman-with-our-complaints.html
LikeLike
This sure is an eye opener. Interesting comments made too xc
LikeLike
You might also want to see this.
http://www.bushywood.com/local_government_ombudsman_dirty_tricks.htm
LikeLiked by 1 person
Natasha…ppl need to use this as part of their evidence in court… a lot of judges do not actually trust SWs and are glad to be given sight of research evidence which actually states the case more objectively when considering ‘future emotional harm’. Prof. Bilston’s work si very supportive of the actual facts. http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/press/wp-content/uploads/Future-Emotional-Harm-web.pdf
LikeLiked by 1 person
A judge actually commented stating social workers never lie, it’s only recently a few have stood up then be threatened to be reported to the bar council for what telling the TRUTH
LikeLiked by 1 person
Have you made FORMAL complaint in writing to the council concerned? if they did not give you a satisfactory response did you pursue it up to a level three complaint for investigation by external investigators? And if their findings were unsatisfactory, did you then make a formal complaint to the Local Government Organisation? ANd if you did, did they find the council culpable? because tyhat is what everyone who has an evidence against a social worker should be doing.
LikeLike
“external investigators?”
The 3 stage complaints process is usually rigged to protect staff.
thats stage 2 investigators are supposed to be independent but they are usually in with the council too.even working for that same council they are supposed to be investigating.Corruption is out of control.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Every organisation, every group, every family, will have members who are corrupt or ne’er-do-wells in it. EVERY without exception. That does not mean that ALL members are corrupt, Nor does it mean that all actions taken by the members are illegal immoral or corrupt. Nor does it mean that responsible action to stop wrongs in those groups should not be taken, or if they are taken, that they will fail. Nor does it mean that positive change cannot be effected within whichever organisation. You don’t try, you don’t get.
And as for complaints failing and investigators colluding…. same thing applies. We had two external independent investigators at Stage TWO, who upheld fully four of our complaints and partially upheld a further two, and unfortunately couldn’t find enough evidence (although it doesn’t mean there was none, only that we couldn’t find it) to uphold the seventh complaint. So to say that sometimes the system doesn’t work, that sometimes there is collusion, that sometimes ppl are corrupt does NOT mean that overall it will not work and that you cannot effect change. We did and we did it alone. Sixteen hearings hearings, thirteen different judges and two and half years. But we did it. And if we could do it, so can others. End of. The minute you say it can’t be done, or it’s too difficult, or there’s too much stacked against us, or they’re all in cahoots against us so we won’t win, YOU HAVE ALREADY LOST anyway regardless, as have the children. Furthermore all FORMAL complaints and their resolution are audited and show up in the statistics, and, in the long run those statistics matter. They help show what is working and what isn’t and where. That is important, more important than the average person realises or cares. I get so tired of ppl saying all the freaking negative shit like there is no point, and I often want to walk away from the whole damned scenario, but then I remember the minority naysayers, whingers and moaners aren’t who I am trying to help. I’m trying to help for the children, to get the changes for the children, and their children, so now I’m done with this post, as I’ve better things I can be doing with my time.
LikeLike
Abolish social workers and leave child cruelty and neglect to the police ! I repeat” There must beno punishment without crime” for any parent………..
LikeLiked by 1 person
MeMe,
you may have got the result you wanted and thats great and admirable but unfortunately for most others they have a much tougher time fighting a system that is obviously rigged against them. you may have been lucky in that your council is not as bad as others.
i would say overall most people are left angry and bitter after going through the usual lines of complaint and courts etc.generally SS complaints depts are there to protect their staff by using their legal dept to help them brush off complaints.Collusion is real but it probably differs from LA to LA. thats the reality of it.
you were one of the lucky ones to beat an almost unbeatable system that operates on lies, deception and obstruction.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Why not use this as a template, if you’ve made a Complaint recently and had it upheld or partly upheld as stage one. You may have taken it to stage two, then had your Council deny they upheld any of it. But where theyve admitted to any mistakes, as far as I’m concerned theyre admitting their culpable where this applies. This example applies where staff have since left and when Cases have gone to Court, because then that side cannot be investigated BUT look, the rest can be through the LGO and you could include this to help strengthen your Complaint (power in numbers and in Research all in one go) 🙂
Or, you may have had your Complaint upheld at stages one and two. Then you would need to try at stage 3 in line with correct policy and procedure before going to the LGO, so as not to miss a step through all the red tape incase you need to rely on this for Court and it’s outcome.
https://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/children-s-care-services/child-protection/13-021-178#point4
Good Luck! Xx
LikeLike
I think many people would say- been there, done that, got the T shirt.
and we have heard many times that you will get nowhere with the 3 stage complaints process. even the Ombudsman are dropping 3 in every 4 complaints. thats not good and leads people to feel that its hopeless.
the reality of all this is that it needs a full scale investigation.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Also, the LGO Local Govt Ombudsman have also been slated for dropping too many cases even when evidence is submitted to prove the allegations. i heard that only 1 in 4 cases get investigated.
LikeLiked by 2 people
https://researchingreform.net/2017/09/06/lord-justice-mcfarlane-a-barrister-wouldnt-tell-a-lie/ xx
LikeLiked by 1 person
If I had to nominate the very worst family court judge (out of a very bad bunch!) then that prize would go to …………….. Sir Andrew McFarlane the President !!!
He alone is acively pushing for more secrecy and more care orders …
1:- He would like the courts to have the power to make care orders on babies before they are born .
2:- He would like even more complete secrecy in ithe family courts so that Social Workers,Local Authorities, Guardians, Cafcass officers,and medical experts involved in family court proceedings should never be named or identified !
This contrary to the views of his eminent predecessor Sir James Munby !
3:- When a mother complained that her barrister had prevented her from entering the court and the barrister denied this he believed the barrister with no evidence at all.
Surely he should at least have seen the mother and heard her case on the basis that if the barrister did not present her evidence in her absence then the barrister was wrong whether or not the mother was forbidden to enter the court or stayed outside of her own free will.
I have come across several cases where solicitors and barristers not only prevented their clients from speaking in court (happens most of the time !)but also ordered them to wait outside the court ! (less frequent but not uncommon)
LikeLiked by 2 people
He is well on his way to becoming Darth McFarlane Vader.
More Dark times ahead i fear.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Ian, I share the same views as you do. I am restricted from mentioning certain names and places all these years later (since 2006) but I am pleased to say that this Judge or President is not one of them 🙂
I had this very same man, when he was a Recorder Judge spot the FRAUD that had gone on in my families Case, affecting my children’s and my Article 8 rights ECHR (his words) in writing by the way- if he went on to decide adoption now for my youngest child whose name I can refer to in every day life (as I can all my children) but I won’t as it’s not relevant to what I want to say. Which brings me to my next point.
You will not see any mention of the word FRAUD used in either the Reserved Judgement or the Approved Judgement. Even though this was this Judge’s findings in my Family Law Case orally and repeatedly referring to the FRAUD.
Neither the very experienced (red faced) Guardian Ad Litem (Who was due to retire) or the experienced Children’s Social Worker, were held to account for committing said crimes. Instead, they were actually kept on my Case and in the GAL’s Case until at least the Adoption Decision had been made. In fact, the GAL tried stepping down off my Case with an Oral Transcript done, where I too wasn’t allowed in, and the GAL was advised it’s there should ‘he’ ever need it. I have said Transcript and the conversation doesn’t even flow properly. A Solicitor as I recall, was present. Yet I still maintained Parental Responsibility.
I have very real concerns for the future families as you do, because if all this got so concealed in secret back then and he’s got promoted since; what hope in hell have future families affected got now.
Please, please- If any of you parents get this Judge for any reason, please try your best to ensure that if FRAUD has gone on in your Case too- that you include as much in your very next piece of written correspondence and in your very next Position Statement for Court-
Because, if things with serious procedural errors can get covered up as bad as this, it could have too happened to other families of a similar nature before. If it happens to you, don’t let your Solicitor twist your words neither as to what you want wrote in your Statement.
Said Judge may be worried about things like this coming out in the future, opening up a big can of dirty worms (dare I say snakes) due to his dishonesty and sheer incompetence wherever he’s played a part in responsibility for failing families.
This will be no doubt why said Judge wants so much more secrecy, because ones who stand by and do nothing to resolve it in the correct way are-
Just as guilty? Xx
LikeLiked by 2 people
To begin the New Year I would like to issue the same challenge I make every year.Namely I challenge anyone to justify the taking of a new born baby at birth from sane law abiding parents against their will for “risk of future emotional abuse”..
Please describe any scenario to justify such actions which occur every week at least in the UK ;main reasons being , because parents shout at each other ,or mum has a previous violent Partner now in jail ,,or the baby was the result of rape ,or one of the parents was previously in care,or previously had a baby removed when with a different Partner,or a mum finds out that her Partner was accused but cleared of a sexual offence when a teenager,or mum had a prevuius history as an “escort”……….
Such reasons are I submit no justification at all to remove a baby at birth and give it to strangers for adoption !
I challenge anyone at all to describe circumstances where sane law abiding parents should lose their baby at birth to forced adoption by strangers merely because someone with a Crystal ball predicts “future emotional abuse” !
LikeLiked by 3 people
Rather than challenge anyone to justify this, why not use your energy and resources to find and utilise all the academic research which shows that this is damaging to all concerned and immoral, and present this evidence to the people who are able to effect changes in the law? That’s what I would do wiith your resources behind me, rather than wasting energy on voluble but ineffective action.
LikeLike
MEME I use “my energy and resources” giving free legal advice to parents fighting in the family courts to recover or retain their children.I cannot agree that I am “ineffective” as I have a success rate of about 20% with parents who follow my advice in court which although miserable Is a lot better than the lawyers who capitulate and lose nearly every time ! (only 1 in 400 care orders are refused (judicial statistics).
Proving “damage ” would be a hopeless task for any individual and any conclusions would be entirely subjective and a matter of opinion.Many mothers hang themselves,jump of roofs,or throw themselves in front of trains when their babies are snatched at birth, but these facts are well known alre
LikeLiked by 2 people
A 20% success rate you say, so that’s 2 in every 100 you’ve helped. Great, that’s better than 0% although of course those parents may equally well have kept or got their child back without your assistance anyway. No way of knowing. And those that you helped with more than “just run to Ireland” advice, yes helping a few families even a few hundred is great but it’s still a drop in the ocean, what is really needed are changes to the law and procedures, otherwise our children, children’s children and their children will continue to be at risk. We even thought about running. We didn’t. We stayed, We fought through multiple hearings (as LIPs). We kept our child. We made complaints against the LA, We got them upheld. They had to change how they do things. As a result things were improved for parents in the area. THAT is why we decided to stay and fight even though we knew it was risky. Because we wanted to help make changes. It doesn’t mean we don’t live with the knowledge and fear that one day SS may be back in our lives, but in the meantime the child is growing and thriving and doing very well at school and in everything else. So, like a lot of other parents, we still live on hope and prayer, and, we still fight for change.
LikeLike
Unless my Maths is failing i thought 20% was 20 people in a 100 not 2.
far more than a drop in the Ocean i would say.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for your comments. As a side note, I wish you all a happy and healthy 2019, and it’s lovely to hear you all chatting again. I took a break over Christmas and missed you.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Missed you too Natasha. Glad you’re back Xxxx
LikeLiked by 1 person
Xxxxx
LikeLike
Utter disgraceful how they can copy and paste making out they have court orders in alot of cases for newborns at hospital keeping pare ts there under DURESS , when challenged to identical documents exept name change of child suddenly banned from the private NHS hospital?? Since when has it been private? There was never no court order 2 days later went to next county to obtain a order after they removed the child. This is highly illegal and abduction of children.
Section 20 are not allowed to be twin tracked for adoption or long term foster care it’s only for 28 days, a parent can go and get there child back if put in on a unlaw section 20. Why don’t social workers get the PPO after a mum leaves the hospital because the police are supposed to carry out only a welfare check NOT remove them if no order of PPO either.
Era where parents cannot protect there child and there property S.I childrens Act 1989, parents/grandparents having full custody rights and parental responsibility and parental responsibility and don’t even get to question these unqualified persons impersonating to be a social worker or expert. This is family LAW in the uk. You have a junior solicitor who is only in pupilage not fully qualified and can’t take the case higher as not a barrister or councel. When reports MUST be done on LEA/SEN because it takes 20 weeks they ignore this knowing a child don’t have the capacity and back handers taken via local authorities and legals or heads of firms. Directors are supposed to hold a “Title ” but don’t and only registered as a social worker….
LikeLike
My replyto me me got cut off at the word” already” ! Presenting injustices to MPs is useless as most of them are concerned only with keeping their seats at the next election and/or getting promotion to government posts.There are not many votes in helping deprived mothers !
It takes no energy at all to ask the same question every year .Hopefully the fact that nobody can answer it might have some effect one day so I will repeat my question.
How can, anyone justify snatching babies at birth from sane law abiding parent(s) for “risk of future emotional abuse” and giving them to strangers for adoption;
Have a look at my site http://www.forced-adoption.com meme for more information etc
LikeLiked by 2 people
thank yopu Ian, but I have perused your site before and am well acquainted with your efforts. I am not talking about presenting injustices to MPs. I am talking about presenting relevent hard research and hard evidence to people who can and are heard by government. You repeating the same old questions time after time from Monaco has zilch of the effect and impact that say the research by (for example) Professor Andy Bilson has, and research commissioned by the Nuffield Foundation and Women’s Aid. Our support needs to go to effective and credible strategies and agencies, not simply be hot emotional air which fans the flames of nothing useful. I appreciate you care, but maybe time for a rethink on how you deal with that and how you can maximise effective efforts?
LikeLike
From what he has told us Ian has helped a lot of mothers keep their babies and also helped many parents going through the family courts.
that in itself shows that his efforts are real and do work to some extent in the physical world.
its unfare to say he has had zilch effect and impact on this issue.
thanks to this man Many mothers are enjoying life with their child and watching them grow up. it may not be the perfect solution but it shure beats Adoption. i call that making an impact.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh MeMe !!! 20% is NOT 2 in every 100 it is 20 .That is 10 times your “estimate”.of my successes helping mums recover their children.
Yes it is necessary to change the law so that children are only removed if a serious crime has been committed against them;A simple enough demand “No punishment without crime”.Research gets nowhere because damage and child welfare are a matter of opinion not statistics.What is needed and what frightens the “establishment” is publicity .That is why the courts are secret.
That has been the contribution of two journalists I have worked with namely Christopher Booker of the Telegraph and Sue Reid of the Mail.
Slavery,got abolished through publicity,children were no longer sent down coal mines or up chimneys because Charles Dickens publicised their treatment not because of any research.,Women got the vote through publicity and public protest.ETC ETC
I like to think that the publicity that I and others like me give this situation is beginning to have an effect as social workers are now universally hated for what they do .I reckon that forced adoption and taking children for “risk” will cease to exist in 30 year’s time or even less but we shall see………
LikeLiked by 2 people
Reblogged this on Musings of a Penpusher and commented:
There is much that must be done if the rottenness at the core of our legal system is ever to become fit for purpose. Revelations through this regular post have been staggering – and still those in authority continue to flourish while flouting all rules of honour and honesty and victims continue suffering heartbreak and degradation.
Common Purpose is an ever present evil; it benefits those at the top of the pyramid by ensuring they remain at the top, no matter that they trample on those beneath them in their scramble to the top of whatever profession they wish to pursue.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The reality is, this is the ‘real world of democracy as McPherson said. Weber said. These typically non middle class parents do not have the social capital required to defeat the commercial transactions of their non middle class children. The commercial product in the English speaking countries and non used to be human slaves until Wilberforce used wit and humour into embarrassing the establishment into submission, resulting in the abolition of slavery. It is a commercial reality for the country to have local economies inasmuch as laws create professions and professions, therein professionals. As Bobby Cummines – a top criminal mind identified – without crime there would be no criminal lawyers. He was a proponent for helping prisoners to rehabilitate.. but without prisoners there would be no prisoner-rehabilitated person there would be no professionals. The same applies to the family court factory. So are there such things as rights or are people just machines in the economies’ factories (which product is the professions and therein the professionals). It just happens in the modern age that the middle class family court professionals in the family court have what I have identified as ‘tremendous bargaining power’ beyond the typically intelligent but regrettably typically not sufficiently educated parents to stop the children being forcefully removed into care and or care to adoption and or adoption.
LikeLike
The problem is not the courts – the courts are just the formalities for the public law orders. The main problem is what happens pre-court. It is the shocking use of Interim Care Orders whilst mothers are in hospital beds and unable to provide a defence. The courts is the place where the actors perform their well rehearsed and mutually agreed roles. It’s like this, for the 70,000 children in care and the millions of children adopted over the centuries and not least since 1926 when adoption law began, where would the professionals jobs come from? Solicitors who do take children case on post care do so on a 1 child return home basis. It is bit like a company rich in assets held ransom to super sized commercial outfit wanted to sell the company in parts as it is more valuable that way than releasing it as whole for a cheaper price. Another analogy is selling the parts of a new car would render a greater return than selling the car as a whole. The family court lawyers leave the other children for next time around as it keeps the law firms in work. The family court actors need their jobs.
LikeLike