The link is to an article I have written about problems with the legal system. It concentrates on, but is not exclusively about, Public Family Law.
Why are babies born young? This sounds like an odd question. People would say "of course babies are born young". However, this goes to the core of the question of human (or animal) development. Why is it that as time passes people develop initially through puberty and then for women through menopause and more generally getting diseases such as sarcopenia, osteoporosis, diabetes and cancer, but most of the time babies start showing no signs of this. Lots of research into this has happened over the years and now I think it is clear why this is. It raises some interesting questions. Biological youth is about how well a cell functions. Cells that are old in a biological sense don't work that well. One of the ways in which cells stop working is they fail to produce the full range of proteins. Generally the proteins that are produced from longer genes stop being produced. The reason for this relates to how the Genes work (the Genome). Because the genome is not gettin
Comments
http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2011/05/25/the-hemming-agenda/#disqus_thread
Its quite disheartening to think that what this mother has achieved on her own is torn apart by someone's narrow-mindedness, its okay for free speech and all the bells and whistles, sadly though reporting or slating a mothers a case on the briefest of details is not really justified, they were not there in the court when the issues were raised nor did they see half of the paper work, they should only comment on known facts, I would really love to know the owner of the site, mind you its won't take much of a rocket scientist to work out who is the author of the article.
lets make one thing clear right now, the mother, Kirsty is not expecting miracles, nor does she think that after the ECHR ruling come mid oct will everything be back to normal, what is not reported, not mentioned, not even a hairs breath of a word is the fact that not only is Kirsty's case going to make waves through out the system but her case alone is going to allow the first challenge of its type against the Adoption system in the UK as a whole.
So why should she not have a little bit of hope, why should the mother not be able to hope that after all she has done for her daughter, the system may be better for her daughters children which if people would just take a minute and research is the formidable point the mother, Kirsty is trying to make, the revolving door system of kids in care loosing their kids to the care system needs to stop, again something else not reported, sorry its reported only no one tends to read that.
Since the article was written on the "ministry of truth" website there has been many, many developments in Kirsty's case, notwithstanding the fact that the legal team now consists of Two High Court Judges from the UK, the emphasis is now on the UK adoption system being outside the remit of the human rights act, not only for parents but fundamentally more so for children.
If People stopped being so bleeding negative towards someone who may just make a difference then at least we will all live that little bit longer.
Oh yeah on a last note, Kirsty had undertaken a mental health check by a private psychiatrist and guess what, clean bill of health, no mental health issues at all, go figure, who'd of thought that a mother who in the words of the "ministry of truth" site "psychologically damaged" would have though its actually possible for the experts appointed in these cases are as corrupt as sin, sadly, I know all too well and have the evidence to prove my comment.
As for the fact of myself having unrealistic hopes why not ask me what I think the outcome is going to be. Without hope you have nothing.
The fact is I am doing this for many many reasons. The first and foremost reasons is for my daughter, my Daughter is the one person who has suffered throughout these proceedings and I want to show my daughter that I am not a bad mother whether that is by having contact with her after the case or whether it is providing her with the documentation to prove this when she is old enough to make the decision to come and find me.
Secondly of all I have already been denied the right to have a family as quoted by someone involved in the proceedings any other children I have will be taken at birth. Sorry but due to this fact at 23 years old I am petrified of settling down and having a normal family life at this point in time it is impossible for me to do so.
Thirdly the main point used in my case was the failure of Social Services had made me "incapable of being a parent".My Grandmother went through the system and she was unable to look after my mother. My mother went through the system and was failed this made her incapable of parenting me hence I ended up going through the system. The system failed me and now they have claimed I am incapable of being a parent. My daughter has entered the system are they going to deem her incapable of being a parent. Sorry but this is one viscous circle and I am not willing to sit back and chance this happening I cannot let my daughter go through the sheer hell I have been through. I would not be able to live with myself if this happened and there had been an opportunity to stop this viscous cycle.
Fourthly children going in to care are supposed to be providing a better outcome however I have seen many a times when this is not the case and children going through the system are failed on a massive scale. The figure for children in care ending up alcoholics, drug abusers and in prison say it all. Not only that Social Services are using their own failures with people that have been through the system to make up crystal ball predictions to remove their children. Surely you understand that this is so wrong and should never happen.
Fifthly There are some cases where children should never have been removed and somewhere if just a little bit more help was offered the children would be able to stay at home.
Sixthly there are two ends of the scale there are children been wrongfully removed from loving parents and on the other side there are children who Social Services are failing to protect and end up either seriously damaged or even worse killed. If there was some balance between both sides then the system would be best all round for the children its purpose is to serve.
These are just some of the reasons I am doing what I am.
If people think it is wrong then they need to do some research in to the system its self.
All the facts that are being raised at the ECHR in my case are all backed up with evidence and also I am being backed by 2 UK High Court Judges 3 Barristers and also 4 solicitors. Now tell me I am wrong in fighting my case.
"Who else is getting off their backside and giving it a go", that's all that matters, that's all your daughter needs to know, yep the time will come in the future for your daughter, who will will one day come up and read all of the quests and battles you have fought, just think what your daughter would think if you were like most parents who just simply chose the avenue of lambasting the SS. and giving up at the first opportunity, it gets folks no where.
Jimmy we know all too well the laws and such of this horrid system, yes we also know that on paper Kirsty in theory has no chance, but hey laws are made by those that be to be challenged.
Simple scenario here, An adoptive parents takes on a child, who "on paper is perfect" now a few months down the line the child is "far from Perfect" the Adoptive parent then decides, hey not on my watch, returns the child to the care system, now in theory the adoptive parent had themselves "quashed" the adoption order. in a nut shell over turning the adoption order by returning the child to care, John Hemming knows of many, many situations where this has happened, sadly what is not reported is what happens to the child once the adoption breaks down, the damage already done to the child is beyond belief, the attachment disorder will not be fixed, the child will feel neglected and traumatised, first, the child looses birth parents, then the child gets attached to the adoptive parents, then the child is traumatised again when the adoptive placement breaks down, and Jimmy my friend its about 1 in 3 that break down, Not John Hemming's figures but those of the former CEO of Banardo's Martin Naery.
Now Tell me I'm wrong like I have told Kirsty, we will find the avenue, yeah may be the wrong one sometimes, but hey, we have Sat Nav these days and it wont be long till we find the right one, which by looking at the tom tom we are on the right avenue.
>decisions are wrong. Do you stand by that and if so on what basis?
Just over 3,000 children a year are adopted from care. Hence 1,000 is not an "overwhelming majority". It isn't even a "majority".
My estimate arises from consideration of the historic scottish trend, the numbers of cases where parental consent is dispensed with and looking at individual cases.
England is way out on a limb in accordance with ECtHR jurisprudence. It only really continues in this way because most of the people affected are poor and the courts are secret.
There were 843 care applications during June 2011. Between April and June 2011, Cafcass received 2,345 new applications. This figure is 9.1% higher when compared to the same period last year. The May and June application numbers were the highest ever recorded by Cafcass for these individual months, these are the problems associated with forced adoptions, too many kiddies in the care system, not enough foster carers, Guardians, et al, its simpler and easier for all local authorities to simply place the children into adoption instead of working and supporting the troubled(possibly) families, it costs about £10,000 for the initial application for just the first initial hearing to remove children from birth parents, that's including the £4,500 it costs for the application alone, now with that initial outlay of £10,000 I am pretty sure it would be amply to help several families with that sort of squandered resources, oh and also I thought Unity was a female, just a thought
We seem to be talking at cross purposes. His (her?) point was that you ignored the fact that most of the adoptions were with parental consent, and presumably you must have been referring to the contested (or "forced" to use your parlance) adoptions, the numbers of which I understand are about 1500.
"My estimate arises from consideration of the historic scottish trend, the numbers of cases where parental consent is dispensed with and looking at individual cases."
Pretty thin I'd say.
Let's take your 970 to start. How many of these decisions were "wrong"?
I can say, however, that the objective was to ensure that children otherwise "languishing in care" were adopted. The outcome has been, however, a combination of additional children being taken into care and those in care being less likely to return to their parents and more likely to be adopted.
Look at your case in the EctHR the Gov.com have now asked for more time yet again before they respond to the case, third time in as many months, could this be because they have no answers to the case, no excuses good enough to come up with, or may be they know we are right and the system is so corrupt the penny has finally dropped.