THE MUSA FAMILY – 6 STOLEN CHILDREN BY A LONDON COUNCIL

The Musa Family, 6 STOLEN CHILDREN BY HARINGEY COUNCIL, LONDON – UPDATES

CHRISTOPHER BOOKER “SUNDAY TELEGRAPH” 25 9 11
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8787134/Police-show-themselves-once-again-at-the-beck-and-call-of-social-workers.html

Police show themselves once again at the beck and call of social workers

The latest disturbing developments in the case of a family who are battling to retrieve their six children.

Families are often torn apart by our system of 'child protection' - Police show themselves once again at the beck and call of social workers

Families are often torn apart by our system of ‘child protection’ Photo: ALAMY
 

9:25PM BST 24 Sep 2011

 

There have been further astonishing developments in the case I reported last week, of foreign-born parents repeatedly denied legal help in their battle to win back their six children, who were seized last year by the social workers of a London council. On Monday, the parents were yet again arrested, on a charge of conspiring to abduct their own children, to fly them in a private aircraft to France. This is utterly ludicrous since they have no idea where their children are. Four of them they have not seen for six months, and one for over a year; they have had no contact with their year-old baby for three months, since it was seized by the social workers for a second time.

The wife was forcibly stripped naked in front of a male policeman; the couple were held overnight in an unheated cell without blankets and the next morning taken to a mental hospital to be sectioned under the Mental Health Act. Five bemused doctors examined them, finding nothing wrong, and they were released. In the days following, after the street where they live had been cordoned off so that 28 police officers could search their flat, the couple were twice more arrested and released.

The treatment of this family has been so horrendous that I hope I can one day report it properly. But again, as so often in this and other family cases, why do the police seem so astonishingly compliant to the instructions of social workers? That is a mystery which I have never yet had satisfactorily explained.

Comments have been disabled for legal reasons

  ——————————————————-

C BOOKER “SUNDAY TELEGRAPH” 17 SEPT. 2011
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8771232/Couple-denied-legal-help-while-lawyers-make-1m-removing-their-children.html

Couple denied legal help while lawyers make £1m removing their children

Their English is poor, they are reduced to tears by their inability to understand what is going on in court, yet they are denied help in presenting their case.

Mother and child are often torn apart by our system of child protection - Child protection system tears two more happy families apart

Mother and child are often torn apart by our system of child protection Photo: ALAMY
 

8:23PM BST 17 Sep 2011

 

Ever more disturbing becomes that particular case of children snatched from distraught parents that I have written about here more than any other. Dozens of times in the past 18 months this couple have been in court, trying to challenge the extraordinary allegations made against them by social workers. Yet, although their English is poor and they have regularly been reduced to tears by their inability to understand what is going on in court, they have again and again been denied help in presenting their case.

Last Christmas, I paid £2,000 to one law firm to represent them until legal aid was arranged. But the Legal Services Commission turned down their application and the lawyer walked off the case. Ian Josephs, a successful businessman who runs the Forced Adoption website, paid £3,500 to another solicitor, who also walked off the case having done nothing. In February, when the couple wished to be assisted by Paul Randall-Joliffe as a McKenzie friend, he was thrown out of the court after apparently asking too many provocative questions.

On July 21, Mr Josephs, who has a law degree and has aided many families in family courts as a McKenzie friend, flew over from France to assist the mother, but was brusquely evicted from the court by Mr Justice Mostyn without any of the explanation required under court guidelines. (Mr Josephs’ complaint about this is being considered by the Office of Judicial Complaints.) Sabine McNeill, an expert IT consultant who had applied to assist the father, was treated likewise.

Oddest of all, on September 8, when Maurice Kirk appeared in court to assist, in front of yet another judge new to the case, the solicitor for the children’s guardian alleged that Mr Kirk was secretly recording the proceedings and furthermore that he was not Mr Kirk but Mr Randall-Joliffe, who had already been excluded from the court when she was present. I am told that the judge therefore ordered Mr Kirk’s arrest and he was marched off to a police cell. Here he had no difficulty in proving to the bemused policemen both his true identity and that he had no recording equipment with him, and was released. But yet again this meant the hapless couple were allowed no one to help them in their battle to win back their children, one of whom they have not been allowed to see for over a year.

Meanwhile, at taxpayers’ expense, the bill for three teams of barristers and solicitors, representing the council, the guardian and the children, may well have run to over £1 million. Truly our family courts all too often stand all the fondly-imagined principles of British justice on their head

THE ARTICLE FROM AN AFRICAN SUNDAY NEWSPAPER PUBLISHED 21 AUG. 2011, ON THE SHOCKING M CASE

http://leadership.ng/nga/articles/4068/2011/08/21/british_govt_detains_nigerian_couple%E2%80%99s_six_children.html

“Sunday Telegraph” reporter Christopher Bookers articles about the M family ordeal at the hands of Haringey council:

STILL NOTHING HAS BEEN HEARD ABOUT THIS MISSING GIRL AS OF 21.00 HRS GMT 25 September  2011:

SUNDAY 12 6 11:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8570173/The-mystery-of-Haringeys-missing-Girl-X-makes-a-mockery-of-the-Children-Act.html

The mystery of Haringey’s missing ‘Girl X’ makes a mockery of the Children Act
The family of a girl taken into care have not seen or heard from her for 10 months, writes Christopher Booker.

Torn apart: the system of child protection is a national scandal
7:00PM BST 11 Jun 2011
The social workers of Haringey are notorious for having failed to prevent the deaths of Baby P and Victoria Climbié. But in their zeal to avoid any repetition of these tragedies, they are now at the forefront of those councils which have pushed the number of children taken into care to an all-time high. In all the cases I have been following where children have been taken from their families for what seem like dubious reasons, no single instance has been more disturbing than the plight of a 10-year-old girl seized by Haringey last year, who seems in the past 10 months to have vanished off the radar.

“Girl X”, as I shall call her, was taken into care on the basis of three allegations. One turned out to be so laughably erroneous that it was soon dropped; a second was likewise dropped when medical tests completely disproved the council’ s claims. The third, highly questionable, has still not been put to any evidential test.

The last time Girl X was seen by her mother was at a supervised contact session last August. Having complained of sexual abuse by her foster carer’s 19-year-old son, she asked to be given, as a birthday present, a journal with a lock in which she could record her “secret thoughts”. Since that day she has not been seen by her parents or, since the autumn, by her siblings, who are also in care. It seems she has since been interviewed by three people – an independent social worker, an independent psychiatrist and her guardian, all of whom reported that she wished to see and be reunited with her mother.

No one representing the family has been allowed to see her, including the girl’s grandparents, who came from abroad specifically to visit her. Her parents have been forbidden to telephone her or even send a Christmas card. Her whereabouts are a mystery. When I put questions about her to Haringey last year, the council’s only response was to ask for a court order forbidding me to refer to the case at all. (It was not granted.)

What makes all this particularly disturbing is that, in several respects, it seems to defy the Children Act, which insists that councils must do all they can to encourage contact between children taken into care and their parents, who continue to share parental responsibility until a child is adopted. “The responsible authority,” says the Act, “has a duty to endeavour to promote contact” with the parents and “any relative, friend or other person connected to the child”. In particular, parents must be allowed to see medical or school reports relating to their child. The law also insists that, if children are old enough, they should be allowed to appear in court to express their wishes. None of these things has happened.

Related Articles
Parents denied a voice in court against the child-snatchers
05 Mar 2011
The real scandal hidden by gags is what goes on in family courts
28 May 2011
How our judges deny human rights to children taken into care
04 Jun 2011

Why – when even Baby P’s mother was last year allowed out of prison to enjoy supervised contact with her surviving children – has Girl X been shut away as a silent prisoner, seemingly denied her rights? What has happened to Girl X?

For legal reasons, comments on this story have been disabled.

========================================
0} CHRISTOPHER BOOKERS SUNDAY TELEGRAPH ARTICLES CONDENSED relating to the MUSA case {excerpts shown where applicable}
1} http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7870342/Forced-adoption-is-a-truly-dreadful-scandal.html 3 July 2010

…namaste…butlincat

About butlincat

my blog: http://www.butlincat.blogspot.com http://www.youtube.com/butlincat http://www.twitter.com/butlincat
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to THE MUSA FAMILY – 6 STOLEN CHILDREN BY A LONDON COUNCIL

  1. I really enjoy studying on this web site , it contains superb blog posts.

    Like

  2. butlincat says:

    thank u very much

    ASSANGE AT THE ROYAL COURTS OF JUSTICE 2 NOV 2011
    Fair trial as a ground for challenging the EAW – February Hearing

    In the February Hearing, Julian Assange’s lawyers argued that the UK should not extradite him because he would not face a fair trial in Sweden. If extradited, Assange will be:

    – Held in prison in solitary confinement when he is returned, despite not having been charged (likely to spend up to a year in custody). There is no time limit to detention in Sweden.

    – There is no bail system, so he would remain in detention indefinitely.

    – If there is a charge and a trial, it will be held in secret.

    – He will not be judged by an ’independent and impartial tribunal’, a fundamental requirement under the European Convention of Human Rights (article 6.1). Three out of the four judges are lay judges, who have been appointed by political parties and have no formal legal training (see Lay Judges).

    – The Swedish prosecutor, Marianne Ny, has not given Julian Assange or his lawyers information on the allegations against him in writing, which violates the Swedish Code of Procedure (RB 23:18) and the European Convention of Human Rights (article 5), and the EU Fundamental Charter on Human Rights.”
    GO TO:
    http://www.swedenversusassange.com/Fair-Trial-for-Julian-Assange.html

    Like

  3. click here says:

    Thank you a bunch for sharing this with all of us you actually recognize what
    you are speaking about! Bookmarked. Kindly also consult with my site =).
    We could have a hyperlink change agreement between us

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.