THE MUSA CASE – CASE NO FD 10C00195 JAN 19 2012

In the High court of Justice CASE NO FD 10C00195

Family Secret Court

FAVOUR MUSA    3-09-00

LERATD THABITHA MUSA 19-06-02

BLESSING EMMANUEL MUSA 26-12-03

SARAH MUSA 27-09-06

QUEEN ELIZABETH MUSA 11-06-10

ABRAHAM MOSES MUSA 4-08-2005

BETWEEN

                   LONDON BOROUGH OF HARINGEY APLLICANT

AND 

                  Rev. CHIWAR MUSA

                  Bishop GLORIA MUSA

CONSPIRACY CHILDREN GUARDIAN (HIRED BY HARINGEY)

SET ASIDE OF ANY ORDER ON OUR CHILDREN AND ANY JUDGEMENT MADE ON OUR FAMILY.

Set aside of any order on our children previously made on our children including Judgement on February 2011 By Judge Brasse, Judgements BY SIR Nicolas Wall on the 7th November 2011, orders By Guardian (Catherine Deveauraux Evans) Janet Mitcham, Jonqui Houghton on 28th November 2011, 16th December 2011, Joyce Agyejekum Statements, Malcolm Chisolm and any orders by Haringey and their police to be set aside. As they are misleading informations, fabricated to pervert the course of Justice.

All document has being dotted, changed to pervert the course of Justice. We Seek the Return of our children to us and Nigerian Government as we are not British subjects.

  1. We are Missionary’s  from Nigeria our children are Nigerians NOT BRITISH subjects we seek the courts not to force us against our wish to be British due to Haringey pressure. We and our children are Nigerians and should not be forced as is against our human right to be forced to be British.
  2. BRITISH Courts has NO Jurisdiction over Nigerian subjects and a such we should be handed over to Nigerian Government as a family to be Judged by our country as several perversion of the course of Justice has being committed against us for the past 20 Months so everyone involved is doing their best to cover up Haringey thereby destroy us as a family.
  3. We seek the return of our children as is our responsibility to look after our children as we have done in the past years of their life before the interruption of Haringey by manipulations, falsehood and fabrications.
  4. We are family unit and the court should not permit Haringey to destroy our family as is a pattern in Haringey our family at Nigeria have happy family Background and  we remained happy family until Haringey interrupt our family using their money, power, professionals to destroy, damage our family for the past 20 Months now.
  5. We have No member of our family who drink, smoke or take illegal drugs neither do any of us as we are Ministers of the gospel who came from a very high well moral, respected background we are deformed, slandered Haringey by attempting to pervert the course of Justice e.g. their professionals, police, staffs and barristers all to destroy our family.
  6. Crimes has being committed against us as foreign  Nationals who were meant to be protected but several death threats has being posed on us to get rid of us in their many attempts to cover up their crimes against our family in the past 20 Months.
  7. We seek the court to stop Haringey form torturing, humiliating and abusing us as we dare not attend any hospital in the United Kingdom as foreign nationals who feel so unsafe after the attempted murder of Bishop Gloria experience few hours after birth 12th June 2010 by 9 police officers sent by Haringey 3am at Norwick Park Hospital of which Bishop Gloria still limps as the pain is getting worst with subsequent abuse in Hornsey and Tottenham police station. As part of their attempts to kill us and keep our children for life
  8. We ‘’refute Haringey allegations with the strongest term’’. We have never harmed our children and will not do so as our children are well looked after we have evidence and witnesses to prove it. Even though most of our witnesses have suffered intimidations in attempts for Haringey to cover up which have made most of them too scared.
  9. We seek the court to intervene regarding our seeing our children urgently as we have travelled over 40 times to Kent to see our children without  seeing our children including the day our last baby was born  due to stress of travelling to Kent severally and on the 10th June 2010 without seeing  the children led to having baby earlier before time all this as a pattern in Haringey to enable them with their Careers, Social workers to brain wash, coach, coerce our children alienate them from their continent, culture, race to claim  that children are settled without their parents to  achieve their agenda against our family which is blood line Genocides which is their aim since their interruption into our family life that our children are gone for life.
  10. All professionals, parties have assumed the position of the local authority to destroy, damage our family as they have no unification plans.
  11. The several threats, abuse by the council led us to seek our consular assistances as foreign nationals who are not British but Haringey continuously fought against it which is denying us our human rights (Vietnam convention).
  12. We have being highly disadvantaged in the past 20 Months, English is not our first language, and we are put under different kinds of duress with our children. We are not lawyers as the courts has being unfair article 3,8,6 &7 has being seriously breached and we seek the courts or someone that have conscience to address this as no one has listened to us in the past 20 Months or even our  High commission intervention as foreign nationals.
  13. Haringey and their police disclosure after children being constantly brainwashed, coached by Careers, Joyce Agyejekum, Social workers for the past 20 Months is another attempt to get rid of us as a conspiracy by false disclosure to keep our children from us which has being Haringey plan A, B, C&D since January 2010 to enable them destroy our happy home which they know we are family unit.
  14. We seek the court to order Haringey to produce our children which has raised lots of concern to us and our families all over Africa as this actions should not happen to any family in anywhere in the world we are human being and have souls and should not be denied our family rights as a result of Haringey plot to cover up.
  15. We believe given the misconduct, abuse of court process by Haringey ‘’ No Judge will give any order to Haringey as they have continually abused, humiliated tortured, terrorise our family in a barbaric way in the past 20 Months to pervert the course of Justice.
  16. We pray the courts will look into our case and not ignore our Applications and save our family from this hell that we and our family have being subjected to in the hands of Haringey as they use their police, prisons, psychiatrics and all available means to destroy us.
  17. We have never consented to any professional seeing our children as all instructions has being one sided to achieve the aim of Haringey and perversion of the course of justice by the local authority and their appointed professionals.
  18. Haringey all parties involved Jonqui Houghton, Joyce Agyejekum, Malcolm Chisolm and their  police has continuously slandered, deformed Rev. Chiwar Musa and Bishop Gloria for the past months in their statements to pervert the course of Justice.
  19. It is our duty and responsibilities to look after our children and give them the best as we have always done and protected them before the interruption of Haringey and we did not give birth to children for money to be made out of them but to give the best according to our culture as our parents gave us the best too.
  20. No concern anywhere in the world about our parenting doctors, schools, health visitors e.t.c until Haringey came in with fabrications, misleading informations to destroy our family. As our children are doing well and high achievers due to the attention and the best we gave them which simply made them a target. We are happy family and will remain happy family as we have evidence and witnesses.
  21. We have never consented to our children being with strangers is our responsibilities to look after our children and we seek the return of our children and our Nigerian Government as we are not British subjects, we will not leave our children in a foreign land and go anywhere.
  22. Haringey are out to cover up not minding the damage on our children and family being African and foreigners made their torture worst and prejudices us.
  23. Haringey go for the best children from loving family less work.
  24. We seek the courts not to ignore our Nigeria Government to be party to the proceeding as we and our children are Nigerians.
 

                                  True statements by

                                    Rev. Chiwar and Bishop Gloria Musa

                                         January 2012

      ————————————————————————-

Where is Favour Musa?
On the 8 April 2010 8 policemen let themselves in by key to the Musa family home in Haringey North London and removed the Musa’s 5 children without any notice or prearrangement. The children were removed on what leter were found to be untrue allegations made by certain people at Haringey council. All allegations have been disproven, the allegations ranging from the children not being the Musas offspring and were being trafficked, to the children being beaten, etc.
Regarding the child trafficking allegation that the children were not the Musas offspring and they were in fact part of a child trafficking network DNA tests proved  that the children were indeed the Musas, and the children were in no way being trafficked in any shape or form. After this allegation was disproved other equally false allegations were made to keep the children from returning to their once happy home. One such allegation that was made was that Gloria Musa was an active sex worker – a prostitute – who plied her trade in front of her church congregation and also in front of her children. She is, in fact. an ordained bishop in the Evangelical Church of Africa and is not and has never been what this allegation alleges. This ridiculous allegation was made with no evidence of any kind to substantiate it yet the court believed this nonsense, along with other unsubstantiated allegations such as the children were beaten by the parents, even though medical examinations made when the council took the children showed no sign of anything to back their allegation.Even though the allegations were proven groundless never was it mentioned that the children were to be returned to their parents as they should have been, of course. Q uite the opposite in fact took place in that a 6th child was removed from the Musa parents, the hitherto unborn baby at the time of the April 8 2010 child removals Queen Elizabeth, who was removed on highly questionable evidence.
During the time the children were removed the eldest, now 11 year old Favour Musa, complained of being “inappropriatly touched” – sexually molested in other words – by the teenage habitee of the foster home she was placed in. Also she had contracted scabies whilst at this home. Ever since this child complained of her harrassment,over 18 months ago, she has not been seen by any family member or the Nigerian High Commission – it is not known whether she is alive or dead, is even in this country and the council refuse to relate anything about the child when the parents enquire after her. She has simply vanished.There is a £1000 reward been offered by an anonymous donor for her giving her testimony on video. They have also changed her name to “Lizzie”. This article on “Parent Alienation Syndrome” shows how changing a childs name,location and lifestyle can turn her away from her loving parents and all she knew before: http://www.coeffic.demon.co.uk/pas.htm – .
Although commonly used in divorce cases it can of course be used to alienate parents after the child is moved into a foster home. 
Recently on the 28th June 2011 the Musas took their baby to St. Thomas’s hospital, London as they thought she seemed to have a fever – a temperature. This was enough for Haringey council to arrange for the police to remove the baby, claiming it had been administered hard drugs, even though tests taken by medical staff at the hospital at the time proved negative for all drugs in not only the baby but also in both parents. Nevertheless an Emergency Protection Order {EPO} was placed on the baby immediatly and she has been removed from the Musa family, even though the reasons for the baby’s removal are totally fictional. At a court hearng on the 7th July the judge, who happened to be the original judge who ordered the removal of the other 5 children, believing the Haringey councils allegations, confirmed he would be issuing an Interim Care Order {ICO} on the newly taken baby, thus effectively removing her from the parents care, when a 2 week period was up. This he duly did, and the baby Elizabeth has not now been seen since 28th June, the date of her removal. For no contact visits to be allowed is totally illegal, against British law, and against the “Childrens Act” and the parents and baby’s Human Rights. The court case for this removal is still current. {update 13 Dec. 2011: After a 6 day factfinding hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice with Sir Nicholas Wall presiding it was deemed, by the “balance of probabilities” that the baby was given drugs which very nearly led to its death. This was assumed after much evidence was given by hospital staff and others. There should be an honest investigation into this evidence and I say this as a Mckenzie friend {for the defendants} who was there at the time for 4 days of this hearing}.
 The allegation by the council, in the early stages of this case, that Gloria Musa was given opium by her stepfather whilst in the UK as a teenager is completely untrue. Gloria Musa has no stepfather, has never taken opium at any time, and was not in the UK as a teenager. This is just one totally false allegation fabricated by the council and used in the removal of the Musa children.
Many other irregularities and anomalies exist in this outrageous case, from outright witness intimidation at least 5 people I am familiar with to police conducting raids with no warrant or legal documentation and without neccassary witnesses required by British law. The court orders concerning contact visits with the children have not been adhered to by the agency responsible for them on scores of occasions, and nothing is ever done about this, causing much unneccassary grief, worry and even financial hardship to this family who seemed to have been targetted by Haringey council and those connected to it. All contact visits with the children have now stopped which is against the court orders for the family, against basic Human Rights and British law, and against the so-called “Childrens Act” touted by the government. Supporters have written hundreds of emails and many letters sent by postal recorded delivery to MPs and other so-called “authority figures” {such as police and a Chief Constable} all of which have been totally ignored, even when trying to inform them of a 9 year old girl {at the time} being sexually molested.
The Musa parents were remanded in prison on the 31 November and remain there awaiting trial, which begins on 1 Febuary. The cover-up is extreme in this case, with the usual unacceptable court injunctions on the reporting of this shocking case in place. What has gone on is disgraceful
These are the basic facts of this outrageous case but many more crimes and irregularities exist.

This is a true sworn statement and any further details can be given on request.

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

STILL NOTHING HAS BEEN HEARD ABOUT THIS MISSING GIRL AS OF 21.00 HRS GMT 14 6 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
Industry begins to count the true cost of ‘climate change’
11 Jun 2011
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.
========================================
1} CHRISTOPHER BOOKERS SUNDAY TELEGRAPH ARTICLES CONDENSED relating to the M 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
My last case is so shocking that I will return to it in more detail at a later date. It centres on a London couple who, earlier this year, had their six children seized by social workers on what appears to be flimsy hearsay evidence (I have seen the court papers). The mother was pregnant again. Last month, after the boy was born, three social workers and five policemen entered the hospital ward where she was breastfeeding at 3am, wresting the baby from her by force. They then discovered that they had nowhere to keep him. The boy was put into intensive care, where his mother was taken to breastfeed him for four days, until she was fit to leave the hospital. She saw her baby for the last time two weeks ago. I will return to this story when I have had some explanation from the council responsible.

2} http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7896592/Its-time-to-bring-family-law-to-book.html 17 7 2010

3} http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7946155/Forced-adoption-social-workers-surreal-investigation-recalls-satanic-abuse-scandals.html 14 Aug 2010 This entire article is about the musa family.
“By Christopher Booker 6:39PM BST 17 Jul 2010 107 Comments
I have never, in all my years as a journalist, felt so frustrated as I do over two deeply disturbing stories of apparent injustice that cry out to be reported but which, for legal reasons, I can refer to only in the vaguest terms. To cover them as they deserve, and as the victims so desperately wish, would challenge a part of our legal system shrouded in an almost impenetrable veil of secrecy.
Two weeks ago I recounted four examples of what I described as one of the greatest scandals in Britain today – the seizing of children by social workers from loving families, on what appears to be the flimsiest and most questionable grounds. The children may then be handed on to foster carers, who can receive up to £400 a week for each child, or are put out for adoption, in a way which too often leads to intense distress for both the parents and the children involved.
One case I referred to concerns a north London couple whose five children were seized in April by social workers from Haringey council and sent into foster care. The mother was then pregnant, and her baby was born last month. Shortly afterwards, according to her account, nine police officers and social workers burst into her hospital room at 3am and, as she lay breastfeeding, wrested her baby from her arms with considerable force. Discovering they had nowhere to put the baby, the authorities took it to another part of the hospital, where the mother was escorted four times a day to feed her child, until she was discharged four days later.
Having talked at length to the mother, I found this story so shocking that I put a series of questions to the council, to get their side of the story. The response of Haringey (which, since the national furore over its failure to prevent the battering to death of Baby P, has been somewhat sensitive on these issues) was to ask the High Court to rule that I should not be allowed to write about the case at all. In the end, the court did not go that far, but The Sunday Telegraph was reminded of the comprehensive restrictions on reporting such stories.
After spending several hours with the parents, looking at their neat home, the little beds where their children used to sleep and the cot prepared for the baby, I came away more convinced than ever that something was seriously amiss. I found the wife impressive in her detailed account of the events, clearly a devoted mother who feels herself and her children to have been the victims of an extraordinary error – the nature of which, alas, I cannot reveal.
This week, two days have been set aside for the mother to put her case to a judge. Despite the tragedy that has torn their family apart, the parents have never previously had an opportunity to challenge Haringey council’s version of the story. I only hope the court takes particular care to check out the evidence put before it, and that in due course I can fully report a case that sheds a revealing light on a system supposedly devised to protect the interests of the children but which too often seems to result in the very opposite.
deprived of any right to put their case, not just to the courts but to anyone who might be able to help them.
It is a system hermetically sealed off, in which the fate of parents and children can be decided by an incestuously closed community of social workers, police, lawyers, doctors and other professional “experts”, who all too often seem to work together in an alliance which is ruthlessly oblivious to the interests of the families who fall into its clutches. Again and again I have heard of the misery of children torn from their distraught parents, forced to live unhappily in the hands of inadequate foster carers, and whose only wish is to be returned to those they know and love.
The more I learn about this scandal, the more I understand why, in April, an Appeal Court judge, Lord Aikens, savaged the actions of Devon county council social workers in a forced adoption case as having been “more like Stalin’s Russia or Mao’s China than the west of England”.. The council’s lawyers were told to read a judgment by Lord Justice Wall, now head of the High Court’s Family Division, which condemned Greenwich social workers as “enthusiastic removers of children”.
It is high time the veils of secrecy were ripped from this national outrage; that politicians intervened to call the system to order; and that the press was free to bring properly to light family tragedies such as those I have only been allowed to hint at above.

4} http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8098952/Child-protection-MPs-must-act-on-the-scandal-of-seized-children.html 30 Oct 2010 This is a very general article – not specifically about the M family, but give an idea of what they are going through.

5} http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7946155/Forced-adoption-social-workers-surreal-investigation-recalls-satanic-abuse-scandals.html 14 8 2010
There could have been few more bizarre meetings anywhere in Britain last week than that between a married mother and the social workers who had taken her six young children to place them unhappily in foster care. The officials, of a council I cannot name, are fixated with the idea that this respectable Christian is a “sex worker”, whose children all have different fathers and who is engaged in “child trafficking”.
They appear to have no evidence for these charges other than the hearsay surmising of a single “witness”. I gather that the social workers had reluctantly agreed to commission DNA testing of parents and children, to establish whether they were all from the same father. But even now, I am told, the social workers are refusing to disclose the test results.
The mother, accompanied to this surreal interrogation by a nun who had known her for years, insisted that she had only slept with one man in her life, her husband, the father of her children. She went on to ask one of the social workers how many men she had slept with. The reply was that this was a private matter.
Perhaps we are not very far here from those extraordinary cases some 20 years ago when children were torn away from their families wholesale because social workers had concocted a fantasy that they were being abused in weird satanic rituals (a story I told in my book Scared To Death).
It is vitally important that when this case again comes before the courts, the judge should put the council’s supposed evidence to very careful test.
6} http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8165143/Forced-adoptions-get-no-sympathy-from-the-ministry.html 27 Nov 2010
{nb.:
Last week I listened for an hour to a sobbing mother describing how she recently lost the six-year-old daughter who is the centre of her life.. Her fatal mistake was to ask social workers for advice when she was being troubled by “harassment” from the child’s father, from whom she parted some years ago. Within days, although it was never suggested that she had harmed her daughter in any way, she found herself facing a “case conference” of 20 people at the local council offices, the conclusion of which was that her child must be placed in foster care.
The solicitor she was given by the social workers refused to oppose the care order. At a “contact” session, when she and her bewildered daughter emotionally expressed their love for each other, the interview was halted. She has not been allowed to see her child again.
Having followed dozens of such cases in recent months, which suggest that something has gone horribly wrong with our child protection system, I was recently invited for an off-the-record ministerial discussion about what I have been reporting. But far from recognising that anything might be astray, the official line, it seems, is that the horrifying cases I have covered represent only an untypical minority of the total – “less than 10 per cent”. In general, the system is working fine.
This line seems to be confirmed by the latest guidance issued to local authorities by the Children’s Minister, Tim Loughton, who says that too many councils are failing to ensure that enough children are being adopted, and that the backsliders must speed up their flow of adoptions. No question as to whether social workers might be snatching too many of the wrong children in the first place – or why the courts seem so eager to support them that, of around 8,000 applications made each year for care orders, only one in 400 is refused.
I shall give just one disturbing instance of the latest developments in a case I have been following for months. Like many others, this came to me through the Forced Adoption website, run by former councillor Ian Josephs.. It involves a married couple whose five older children were seized earlier this year, subsequent to which their latest baby was torn from its mother’s arms only hours after it was born.
The bizarre story originally stated by the social workers to justify their ruthless intervention in this family’s life seems to have collapsed. At a recent court hearing, I am told, the judge seemed disposed to reunite the family as soon as possible. The baby was returned to her parents later that day. But the council asked for 21 days’ stay of execution before returning the five older children, three of whom the parents had not been allowed to see for weeks. The judge apparently agreed but insisted that an independent social worker should interview the children.
The independent social worker eventually managed to interview four of the children, apparently reporting that they all wished to be allowed to go home to their parents. But the court refused to give the parents a copy of the judge’s ruling, and on Friday they were summoned back to hear from him that he had now seemingly changed his mind and that the children did not wish to come home after all. According to the parents, they were not allowed to question the evidence on which he based his new ruling, although they were told they could appeal.
What on earth is going on here? Even from the little I am permitted to report of this case, it seems evident that something seriously odd is afoot.
But this is merely one of far too many cases where families are being heartlessly torn apart, often without the parents even being allowed to question the evidence or to speak for themselves. To hear such horror stories being dismissed as representing “less than 10 per cent” of all the cases where children are seized is simply not good enough. Each is shocking enough in its own right. But when every week brings news of a dozen more, this only confirms that we indeed have a national scandal on our hands.
7} http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8181575/Child-protection-how-a-cruel-council-plays-its-cat-and-mouse-game..html 4 12 2010
Last Tuesday I dined in a smart Knightsbridge restaurant with Ian Josephs, who runs the Forced Adoption website, his wife, a mother whom I cannot name and her delightful five-month-old baby, who sat in a high chair perfectly behaved throughout. This was the baby who, shortly after she was born in June, was torn from her mother’s arms in hospital at 3am by six policemen and three social workers. Two months earlier, social workers had also snatched the mother’s five older children, to put them in foster care, costing taxpayers more than £2,000 a week.
On Tuesday afternoon, the mother had been unexpectedly told that she could have contact with two of her children, miles from north London where she lives. Yet again, when she arrived at the contact centre, she was told that the children were not coming, although apparently they long to see her. On returning to the station with her baby, given back to her by the court six weeks ago, she found that all trains had been cancelled because of the snow, forcing her to return to London by taxi at a cost of £50.
This was yet another instalment of a cat and mouse game the council has been playing with the parents for months, telling them they can see their children, only for them frequently to hear, after their long journey, that some or all of the children were not available after all. (It happened again last Friday.)
Months ago the court ordered that the children should be brought back into London, nearer their home. Meanwhile, the council should give the parents a travel voucher, worth more than £30 a time, for their journey. Only once did the council provide a voucher, which the parents discovered on the return journey was one-way only, costing them £100 in penalties.
Since then the court order has been ignored and the parents have had to pay up to £150 a week to see their children, only to be told on arrival that the agreed contact has been cancelled.Meanwhile, the case used to justify the seizing of the children has been collapsing in all directions, although the parents have not once been allowed to challenge the extraordinary statements made about them. Not until next year, 10 months after this family was ruthlessly broken up, will there be a final hearing to decide whether this utterly heartless farce can at last be brought to an end. If and when the facts about this barely credible story can be reported, it will be worthy of the front page.
8} http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8196452/Social-workers-cruel-game-with-children-in-care-continues.html 11 12 2010
Last week I reported on the cruel cat-and-mouse game a north London council is playing with the parents of five children who, against court orders, have been kept in foster care miles from their home. Several times a week, at a cost of more than £40, including taxis, the mother, carrying her five-month-old baby, travels to an agreed contact with her unhappy children, only to be told on arrival that they are not available. In the past fortnight this has happened six times.
Why cannot the mother be told this before she leaves home? Last week, the fostering agency Capstone Vision claimed that the fault for this outrageous behaviour lies with the council social workers, who seem determined to punish the mother for the fact that all their original excuses for seizing the children have been exposed as malicious fictions
9} http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8211955/Does-this-family-have-human-rights.html 18 12 2010
Two senior judges of the immigration court rule it illegal, under the Human Rights Act, to deport an asylum seeker who dragged along under his car a dying 12-year-old girl he had run over – because it would be in breach of his right to enjoy “family life” with his children (even though he no longer lives with them).
How strikingly this contrasts with the suffering inflicted on those parents whose five children, as reported here more than once, were snatched from them last April by London social workers, on suspicions which have since, it appears, turned out to be malicious fabrications.
A council whistleblower has said that, at a recent case conference, the social workers admitted that maybe they had made a mistake, and that the mother they had falsely accused was in fact devoted and blameless. But apparently, because of “press interest” in the case, the officials agreed that the council could not afford the very damaging publicity which might follow if the unhappy children were reunited with their parents. It was therefore vital that the council should continue to justify its actions.
The case comes up again in court very soon. In the name of this family’s human rights, it must be hoped that the judge examines the evidence very carefully indeed.
10} http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8363501/Parents-denied-a-voice-in-court-against-the-child-snatchers.html 5 3 2011
One of the most disturbing features of this system, which protects itself behind a wall of secrecy, is how far it goes to ensure that aggrieved parents are represented only by lawyers who are themselves accomplices of the system. Again and again parents are bemused to find that the lawyers they were advised to use seem unwilling to challenge the case being made against them, however spurious.
Of all the cases I have followed, none is more bizarre than that of a couple whose six children were snatched by social workers last year on evidence which seemed at best highly questionable and was at worst an absurd fiction. The mother was advised to use a solicitor, on legal aid, who she felt was so much on the other side that she discharged him. Just before Christmas, when the council’s case seemed to be falling apart, I tracked down one of the very rare solicitors who has a reputation for fighting the system.. His firm applied to the Legal Services Commission for transfer of the legal aid, and when the LSC seemed to be delaying its response, I paid £2,000 from my own pocket to enable the firm to start work.
The local authority learned, it seemed before anyone else, that the LSC would not allow the transfer from the solicitor who had been discharged – and the head of the council’s legal department then sent the mother a list of other solicitors who would be able to take her case on legal aid. By the time the solicitor to whom I had given £2,000 heard that he had been turned down, he was able to present me with a bill which, including VAT, came to exactly £2,000.
By now another solicitor had appeared, who seemed keen to take on the case for a reduced fee. Ian Josephs, who runs the Forced Adoption website, advanced £3,500 towards her fees, on an understanding that she could take the case through to its final hearing for a total of £5,000. Three days before they were due in court, this solicitor too – after a long conversation with one of the array of lawyers appearing, at huge public expense, for the other side – said she was unable to continue working on the case. She has not, so far, offered to return any of the money.
The mother now faces, without legal representation, a final hearing which could result in her losing her children forever. They live, unhappily, in separate foster homes, at a cost to the taxpayer of well over £100,000 a year. She and her husband came to this country a decade ago, full of hope: now she feels utterly betrayed by a system which seems ruthlessly bent on destroying her family. Her only wish is to escape this incomprehensible nightmare and return with her husband to their native country. But to do so, they would have to abandon any hope of seeing their beloved children again..
{It is understood Mr. Booker has now been restrained in certain ways from reporting again on certain aspects of this case.}

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.

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.