John Hemming's Web Log John's Reference Website
Friday, July 01, 2011
  problems with the legal system
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.
 
Comments:
We also have the case of Kirsty Seddon where we are "persuading" in a sense the use of article 3 in the applications for our ECHR cases, the governments response to that is due on 9th August, this case its self was expedited by the ECHR and took a little over 3 months to reach the stage we are at now, its the UK Government dragging its feet and asking for more time on this one, the ECHR dealt with Kirsty's case quicker than some appeal applications in the C.O.A I have dealt with.
 
Am I right in assuming Ms. Seddon's case is the one discussed here?

http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2011/05/25/the-hemming-agenda/#disqus_thread
 
Jimmy yes it is however some of the facts reported on the "ministry of truth are exceptionally out dated, a further statement of facts were sent to the ECHR.

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.
 
Well there is a facility for comments if you will that anything in the article was inaccurate. I must say I was particularly disturbed at the mother's apparent belief that this process gave her a realistic hope of the adoption order being torn up. That does seem very cruel. You can't seriously believe that and I wonder why she would.
 
Jimmy unfortunately the comments have now been disabled for the readers to comment on.

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.
 
Jerry, you haven't actually pointed to anything in Unity's article which you say is incorrect. I understand you say the expert's assessment was incorrect, but that's hardly something which the ECHR is going to second guess. I'm glad to hear this unfortunate woman is being realistic but the newspaper quote indicated that she thought she might get her child back when that is clearly not going to happen. Bandying around allegations of corruption because you disagree with a decision makes it less likely than anyone will take you seriously. Of course if you have such evidence you can take it to the police.
 
Jimmy, all I can really say is I have found it disgusting how people can comment without knowing full facts of the case the paperwork that the person who has created the post on the link you have posted is only a very little bit of the case and has been taken in the completely wrong context. No one can tell the case better than the person who has been there through the whole case. I do not appreciate many of the comments that have been made as they could not be further off the mark. If someone wants to know about me and my case then I would appreciate they talk to me directly before making such a decision to make such comments without knowing the full facts first.

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.
 
Kirsty, Your Wrong, Well you did say to tell you that. Kirsty do not for one moment feel like you have to justify yourself, you know how much that boils my blood when people do that, what you have written is why I know you have faith, you have hope, who cares if the case is going to fail, who cares if the case will succeed, ask yourself this question.

"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.
 
My apologies Kirsty, I intended no offence. Obviously the only information I have is what has been published and I have no wish to intrude on your privacy. In fairness to Unity it seems from what you say that it is the Oldham Evening Chronicle that misrepresented your position, not him.
 
I don't consider it worth the effort of trying to debate with Unity. Too many misunderstandings to correct.
 
I'd be interested to hear you response to his criticism of your assertion that 1000 children are wrongly adopted a year. As he points out, unless you believe that adoptions even with parental consent are wrong, you are in effect arguing that the overwhelming majority of such decisions are wrong. Do you stand by that and if so on what basis?
 
>you are in effect arguing that the overwhelming majority of such
>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.
 
Even with the figures from John above, 3000 adoptions per year, 1000 of these are wrong, whether the wrong decision to adopt the child or plainly wrong in every sense. now look at the figures from former barnardo's boss, 1 in 3 adoptions break down, the 1 being the 1000 children figures John quotes,simples.

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
 
I thought Unity was a "he" for some reason. My bad.

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.
 
In 2010 of children under 5 that left care 970 were adopted against their parents wishes. My figure of 1000 is a rough estimate of the order of magnitude not a precise figure.
 
Let me see if I have this right, you're saying every single decision is wrong? You cannot be serious.
 
Try to put some effort into understanding what I am saying.
 
I have, but you're rather difficult to pin down. It's as clear as mud, but I'm prepared to be patient.

Let's take your 970 to start. How many of these decisions were "wrong"?
 
I cannot know the number without seeing all of the cases.

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.
 
Jimmy, its not the point of causing offence its about getting your facts right before making them public. I see you are constantly questioning John and Jerry but I can assure you these figures and facts are all correct. I seriously suggest that you look further in to what you are questioning before commenting as you have done. The fact is John is the only MP who has stood his moral ground upon this matter all the way through and has not backed down because he was challenged. How many other MP's do you see sticking up for the Children in the system as John does, this does not just include children wrongfully removed but also the children whom are failed by the system and end up either seriously hurt, damaged or even worse killed and also the children in the system for the right reasons, trying to make sure the system works for them. As for Jerry well if only you knew just a little bit of what he does then you would see just how bad things are. What both John and Jerry put themselves through to stand up for what they believe in is absolutely tremendous and they both deserve a lot more than being shot down for it.
 
Thanks Kirsty for your kind comments, its rare for someone to actually give a hoot to what me and John along with a few others are trying to do.

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.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

Click Here for access to higher resolution versions of the photos The license for use allows use of the photos by media as long as they are attributed.

better brent chart

ARCHIVES
12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004 / 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004 / 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005 / 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005 / 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005 / 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005 / 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005 / 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005 / 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005 / 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005 / 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005 / 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005 / 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005 / 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005 / 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006 / 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006 / 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006 / 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006 / 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006 / 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006 / 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006 / 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006 / 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006 / 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006 / 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006 / 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006 / 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007 / 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007 / 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007 / 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007 / 04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007 / 05/01/2007 - 06/01/2007 / 06/01/2007 - 07/01/2007 / 07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007 / 08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007 / 09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007 / 10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007 / 11/01/2007 - 12/01/2007 / 12/01/2007 - 01/01/2008 / 01/01/2008 - 02/01/2008 / 02/01/2008 - 03/01/2008 / 03/01/2008 - 04/01/2008 / 04/01/2008 - 05/01/2008 / 05/01/2008 - 06/01/2008 / 06/01/2008 - 07/01/2008 / 07/01/2008 - 08/01/2008 / 08/01/2008 - 09/01/2008 / 09/01/2008 - 10/01/2008 / 10/01/2008 - 11/01/2008 / 11/01/2008 - 12/01/2008 / 12/01/2008 - 01/01/2009 / 01/01/2009 - 02/01/2009 / 02/01/2009 - 03/01/2009 / 03/01/2009 - 04/01/2009 / 04/01/2009 - 05/01/2009 / 05/01/2009 - 06/01/2009 / 06/01/2009 - 07/01/2009 / 07/01/2009 - 08/01/2009 / 08/01/2009 - 09/01/2009 / 09/01/2009 - 10/01/2009 / 10/01/2009 - 11/01/2009 / 11/01/2009 - 12/01/2009 / 12/01/2009 - 01/01/2010 / 01/01/2010 - 02/01/2010 / 02/01/2010 - 03/01/2010 / 03/01/2010 - 04/01/2010 / 04/01/2010 - 05/01/2010 / 05/01/2010 - 06/01/2010 / 06/01/2010 - 07/01/2010 / 07/01/2010 - 08/01/2010 / 08/01/2010 - 09/01/2010 / 09/01/2010 - 10/01/2010 / 10/01/2010 - 11/01/2010 / 11/01/2010 - 12/01/2010 / 12/01/2010 - 01/01/2011 / 01/01/2011 - 02/01/2011 / 02/01/2011 - 03/01/2011 / 03/01/2011 - 04/01/2011 / 04/01/2011 - 05/01/2011 / 05/01/2011 - 06/01/2011 / 06/01/2011 - 07/01/2011 / 07/01/2011 - 08/01/2011 / 08/01/2011 - 09/01/2011 / 09/01/2011 - 10/01/2011 / 10/01/2011 - 11/01/2011 / 11/01/2011 - 12/01/2011 / 12/01/2011 - 01/01/2012 / 01/01/2012 - 02/01/2012 / 02/01/2012 - 03/01/2012 / 03/01/2012 - 04/01/2012 / 04/01/2012 - 05/01/2012 / 05/01/2012 - 06/01/2012 / 06/01/2012 - 07/01/2012 / 07/01/2012 - 08/01/2012 / 08/01/2012 - 09/01/2012 / 09/01/2012 - 10/01/2012 / 10/01/2012 - 11/01/2012 / 11/01/2012 - 12/01/2012 / 12/01/2012 - 01/01/2013 / 01/01/2013 - 02/01/2013 / 02/01/2013 - 03/01/2013 / 03/01/2013 - 04/01/2013 / 04/01/2013 - 05/01/2013 / 05/01/2013 - 06/01/2013 / 06/01/2013 - 07/01/2013 / 07/01/2013 - 08/01/2013 / 08/01/2013 - 09/01/2013 / 09/01/2013 - 10/01/2013 / 10/01/2013 - 11/01/2013 / 11/01/2013 - 12/01/2013 / 12/01/2013 - 01/01/2014 / 01/01/2014 - 02/01/2014 / 02/01/2014 - 03/01/2014 / 03/01/2014 - 04/01/2014 / 04/01/2014 - 05/01/2014 / 05/01/2014 - 06/01/2014 / 06/01/2014 - 07/01/2014 / 07/01/2014 - 08/01/2014 / 08/01/2014 - 09/01/2014 / 09/01/2014 - 10/01/2014 / 10/01/2014 - 11/01/2014 /


Powered by Blogger

Published, promoted, and printed (well not really printed I suppose, more like typed) by John Hemming, 1772 Coventry Road, Birmingham B26 1PB. Hosted by blogspot.com part of Google.com 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043, United States of America. This blog is posted by John Hemming in his personal capacity as an individual.

Site Feed

If you want me to respond to any comment please either comment only on the past few entries or put something in your comment to make it clear what you are commenting on (the URL would help). Otherwise I will not be able to find the comment quickly and will not respond.

Links
Links (c) Peter Black (mainly Lib Dem)
Site
Meter eXTReMe Tracker