Message to every MP sent earlier:
…Sir, or Madam,..these atrocities against vulnerable parents and children just go on and on!!…this removal of children from good homes by dubious tactics is now so rampant it begs investigation…why are you determined to lose the support of every citizen in this country, because you will if things carry on the way they are?…taking children by forceful means is not the way to go!!…please look into this latest case of this mother Holly Barker being robbed of her child in very questionable circumstances and act accordingly!!…this is not and never will be right!!..please see to it that the child stealing through dubious personnel’s actions paid for by this government, and the Secret Family Courts who administer bad justice are investigated properly and be made to stop their abhorrent actions against good citizens – particularly defenceless mothers and fathers and their children!!
..thank you!…J. Graham
Holly Barker sectioned in Oxfordshire for trying to protect her daughter –
For Immediate Release
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2012 19:44:08 +0100
From: Brian Gerrish mailto: firstname.lastname@example.org
To: Editor, UK Column mailto:email@example.com
For immediate and widespread distribution –
Mother at risk of forcible drugging with anti-psychotic medication. Holly Barker, a caring mother, has been sectioned on Friday 26 October 2012 by Oxfordshire and Welsh Child Services and Mental Health Teams for trying to defend her daughter against abuse. Holly was not properly admitted to hospital on arrival at 1830 Friday evening; she was not examined by a doctor on, or shortly after admission, and was not assessed by a doctor until 0200 on Saturday morning when she could not sleep.
The doctor attending her at that time had no idea why she had been admitted, did not appear to have read her medical notes, and seemed unsure of her status in the hospital. Despite this a nurse is now attempting to forcibly prescribe anti psychotic drugs. This action by Oxfordshire County Council, where members of the Child Protection Team and the Psychiatric team are working in collaboration, appears to be to silence Holly, whilst her daughter, who has been placed in ‘care’, continues to be abused. It is understood that at least one of the abusers is connected to Oxfordshire County Council.
Holly is now in immediate danger of being forcibly prescribed anti-psychotic drugs, and is being told that the need for these drugs was prescribed during her admission examination – an examination which never took place. Prior to her sectioning Holly was rational and measured in her actions, applying reason and common sense and working hard to protect her daughter from further abuse; abuse facilitated and condoned by Oxfordshire Child Services in collusion with others.
Holly is now in: Winterborne Ward Warneford Hospital Warneford Lane Headington Oxford OX3 7JX Contacts 01865 741717 (switchboard) Can we ask that all concerned people call in a polite, reasonable and measured way, to ask what is happening and why and to establish her safety and well being. Holly has been sectioned to prevent her defending her daughter.
She was tricked by Oxfordshire Social Services into allowing the sectioning team into her Oxford flat, whilst she was alone and waiting for removal men. Oxfordshire SS have colluded with Welsh SS in sectioning her for telling the truth. Concerned individuals may also wish to call the Emergency Child Protection Team on 0800 833 408. Duty Officer for Saturday 27 October 2012 is Elaine Wade on 01235 521967
What is happening to Holly could happen to any caring Mother or Father in UK unless the wider general public act to stop it. One phone call from many can be the first step into stopping this fascist detention and sectioning of caring innocent people. Please help – politely and calmly.
please see the Musa case,the Baylis family, Norman Scarth, Maurice Kirk, Hollie Greig: http://www.butlincat.wordpress.com
Sunday, 28 October 2012
Law Society’s Response to Family Justice Review’s Draft Legislation
The Family Justice Review has now published its draft on proposed laws they would like to see come to life and which are designed to tweak existing laws to help improve the legal processes in the family courts. This month, The Law Society has responded to that draft legislation, with the eight page document expressing the Society’s agreement over certain areas and its concerns over others. The response itself was created, as the document tells us, by the Law Society’s Family Law Committee and Children’s Law Sub Committee.Here is a quick summary of The Law Society’s views on the draft legislation (and for what it’s worth, our own thoughts in italic next to each section):
- Family mediation information and assessment meetings (Also known as MIAMS): The Law Society agrees that such meetings, which are designed to inform parties of their options regarding forms of mediation, should be compulsory rather than something more akin to a choice, but would like to see the law clarified in relation to exemptions, relating to costs and some requirements regarding MIAMs to be left to professional judgement rather than legislation, such as the way in which MIAMs are set up. (We remain concerned about mediation as an effective tool to make everyone’s lives easier – if we don’t solve the emotional conflicts first, or at least find intelligent ways of stabilising them, mediation will be of no use whatsoever).
- The Law Society also welcomes the wider range of choices for alternative dispute resolution (This is a good step forward and away from the adversarial process, but once again, trying to get parties to broker deals when they are emotionally conflicted is not going to yield good results for anyone. How about some holistic alternatives, please).
- They are also in favour of changing the terms ‘Contact’ and ‘Residence’ in the respective Orders to Child Arrangement Orders (CAOs) but are concerned about the way in which these Orders are being defined, as they feel they may lead to more power struggles between parents (In principle we agree with changing the terms; it may help, but the whole system has to fall in line with a more collaborative ethos, otherwise everyone’s going to be very confused).
- Control of expert evidence, and of assessments, in children proceedings: The Law Society want clarification of proposed legislation in this area, as they feel it may cause confusion but they agree with the view that social workers who give evidence on behalf of the local authority or the NSPCC in proceedings to which that authority or the NSPCC is a party should not be deemed to be experts for the purposes of this part of the legislation (we find this section very interesting – if the court assumes such evidence is not to be classified as expert evidence will that also mean that the status of social work reports and oral evidence from social workers will be given less weight?)
- Time limits in proceedings for care or supervision orders: The Law Society’s response to this section was diplomatic. They state they have no comment, but go on to qualify that with…… a comment. Their view is basically that time limits may be suitable for some cases, but not others and that extensions should be made in the right circumstances. (For us, it’s very simple – time limits must be worked to, but where several choices need to be considered and time is running out, it makes no sense at all to remove a child and place them into care because everyone’s on the clock. Getting it right at the thirteenth hour is better than getting it wrong for the rest of a child’s life).
- Care Plans: The Law Society agrees that legislation should be first and foremost about the welfare of the child rather than ‘permanency’, or put another way, families must be kept together wherever possible and when placements occur, to ensure that contact with birth parents and siblings must be considered and that the judge must always be given the full care plan (we would go one step further and insist the judge reads the entire care plan, from cover to cover).
- Repeal of restrictions on divorce and dissolution etc where there are children: The Law Society supports repealing these restrictions, where a divorce is not contested by applying the model of no-fault divorce. (We are not quite sure what this would mean in practice, as although we are in favour of removing unnecessary admin and agree with no-fault divorce as a concept, we are aware that no-fault divorce varies in states across America and can have a dramatic impact on the fairness of hearings in relation to contact and finances. We will have to wait and see what develops).
- General principles on marriage and divorce: The Law Society is concerned by the conflicting messages the draft legislation puts forward: it aims to repeal certain sections which encourage supporting families going through marital breakdown so that less distress is felt by the parties and keeping an eye out for any vulnerable members of the family, whilst encouraging the institution of marriage and trying to help couples save marriages which appear to have broken down. The Law Society’s view is that families need to be supported regardless of which road they take when faced with marital breakdown and that the message relating to fault is further confused by the proposed on-line divorce portal and that further clarification is needed as to who will explain to divorcing spouses what the implications of fault may be. (We think Coleridge may have slipped the Family Justice Review a fiver for this nod to the institution of marriage. This is an unnecessary and inelegant way to approach family unions. Those who wish to stay married will certainly have tried, it really shouldn’t be the court’s remit to play adjudicator in relation to a couple’s decision to divorce. Live and let live, and whilst you’re at it, why not focus on providing an embracing and compassionate system, rather than one which seeks to impose its very narrow views on its citizens).