How social services are paid bonuses to snatch babies for adoption

National disgrace: The number of babies taken from their mothers and put up for adoption is rising sharply


For a mother, there can be no greater horror than having a baby snatched away by the State at birth.

The women to whom it has happened say their lives are ruined for ever - and goodness knows what longterm effect it has on the child.

Most never recover from this trauma.

Imagine a baby growing in your body for nine months, imagine going through the emotion of bringing it into the world, only to have social workers seize the newborn, sometimes within minutes of its first cry and often on the flimsiest of excuses.

Yet this disturbing scenario is played out every day.
The number of babies under one month old being taken into care for adoption is now running at almost four a day (a 300 per cent increase over a decade).

In total, 75 children of all ages are being removed from their parents every week before being handed over to new families.

Some of these may have been willingly given up for adoption, but critics of the Government's policy are convinced that the vast majority are taken by force.

Time and again, the mothers say they are innocent of any wrongdoing.
Of course, there are people who are not fit to be parents and it is the duty of any responsible State to protect their children.


The baby snatchers: Now teenage mother faces battle with social services to keep newborn child

I had to flee Britain to stop my baby being snatched by the State

MAIL COMMENT: The shameful secrecy of the adoption system

But over the five years since I began investigating the scandal of forced adoptions, I have found a deeply secretive system which is too often biased against basically decent families.

I have been told of routine dishonesty by social workers and questionable evidence given by doctors which has wrongly condemned mothers.

Meanwhile, millions of pounds of taxpayers' money has been given to councils to encourage them to meet high Government targets on child adoptions.

Under New Labour policy, Tony Blair changed targets in 2000 to raise the number of children being adopted by 50 per cent to 5,400 a year. The annual tally has now reached almost 4,000 in England and Wales - four times higher than in France, which has a similar-sized population.

Blair promised millions of pounds to councils that achieved the targets and some have already received more than £2million each in rewards for successful adoptions.

Figures recently released by the Department for Local Government and Community Cohesion show that two councils - Essex and Kent - were offered more than £2million "bonuses" over three years to encourage additional adoptions. Four others - Norfolk, Gloucestershire, Cheshire and Hampshire - were promised an extra £1million.

This sweeping shake-up was designed for all the right reasons: to get difficult-to-place older children in care homes allocated to new parents. But the reforms didn't work. Encouraged by the promise of extra cash, social workers began to earmark babies and cute toddlers who were most easy to place in adoptive homes, leaving the more difficultto-place older children in care. As a result, the number of over-sevens adopted has plummeted by half.

Critics - including family solicitors, MPs and midwives as well as the wronged families - report cases where young children are selected, even before birth, by social workers in order to win the bonuses.

More chillingly, parents have been told by social workers they must lose their children because, at some time in the future, they might abuse them. One mother's son was adopted on the grounds that there was a chance she might shout at him when he was older.

In Scotland, where there are no official targets, adoptions are a fraction of the number south of the border, even allowing for the smaller population.

What's more, the obsessive secrecy of the system means that the public only occasionally gets an inkling of the human tragedy now unfolding across the country.

For at the heart of this adoption system are the family courts, whose hearings are conducted behind closed doors in order to protect the identity of the children involved.

Yet this secrecy threatens the centuries-old tradition of Britain's legal system - the principle that people are innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.

From the moment a mother is first accused of being incapable as a parent - a decision nearly always made by a social worker or doctor - the system is pitted against her. There are no juries in family courts, only a lone judge or trio of magistrates who make decisions based on the balance of probability.

Crucially, the courts' culture of secrecy means that if a social worker lies or fabricates notes or a medical expert giving evidence makes a mistake, no one finds out and there is no retribution. Only the workings of the homeland security service, MI5, are guarded more closely than those of the family courts.

From the time a child is named on a social services care order until the day they are adopted, the parents are breaking the law - a crime punishable by imprisonment - if they tell anyone what is happening to their family. Anything from a chat with a neighbour to a letter sent to a friend can land them in jail. And many have found themselves sent to prison for breaching court orders by talking about their case.

As High Court judge Mr Justice Munby told MPs last year: "It seems quite indefensible that there should be no access by the media, and no access by the public, to what is going on in courts where judges are, day by day, taking people's children away."

However, it is not only secretive and publicly unscrutinised family courts that are creating an injustice in our adoption system. There is a more worrying factor involved. Look at the official figures. Why are they so high? Is it really true that more mothers are becoming potential killers or abusers? Or are the financial bonuses offered to councils fuelling the astonishing rise in forced adoptions?

John Hemming, a Liberal Democrat MP campaigning to change the adoption system, said yesterday: "I have evidence that 1,000 children are wrongly being seized from their birth parents each year even though they have not been harmed in any way.
"The targets are dangerous and lead to social workers being over-eager. "The system's secrecy hides any wrongdoing. One has to ask if a mother is expected to have problems looking after her baby, why doesn't the State help her instead of taking her child away?"

The MP's concerns are echoed by the Association for Improvements in the Maternity Services (AIMS), a body which advises new mothers. Spokeswoman Beverley Beech insists: "Babies are being removed from their mothers by social workers using any excuse. "We strongly suspect this is because newborns and toddlers are more easily found homes than older children. They are a marketable commodity. "I know of social workers making up stories about innocent mothers simply to ensure their babies are put up for adoption. "Suitable babies are even being earmarked when they are still in the womb. "One baby was forcibly removed in the maternity ward by social workers before the mother had even finished the birth process and produced the placenta."

Her words may be emotive. But are they true? Six months ago, I wrote an article about a young couple - who must remain anonymous because of family court law -fighting for the return of their three-year-old daughter. She was taken within weeks of birth and is about to be adopted.

Astonishingly, a judge has issued a Draconian order gagging them from revealing anything, to anyone at all, which could identify their daughter until her 18th birthday in 2022.

Immediately after the article was published, I heard from 35 families whose children were forcibly removed. The letters and e-mails continue to arrive - coming from a wide range of families across the social classes (including from a castle in the heart of England).

An e-mail from one father said: "Please, please help, NOW. We are about to lose our son . . . in court tomorrow for final disposals hearing before he is taken for adoption ... we have done nothing wrong."

Another father calling himself "James" rang to say his wife's baby was one of eight seized by social workers from hospital maternity units in one small part of North-East England during one fortnight last summer.

A Welsh man complained that his grandson of three weeks was earmarked for forcible adoption by social workers.

The mother, a 21-year-old with a mild learning disorder, was told she might, just might, get post-natal depression and neglect her son. To her great distress, her baby was put in the care of Monmouthshire social services within minutes of birth.
The grandfather said: "Our entire extended family - which includes two nurses, a qualified nanny and a police officer - have offered to help care for the baby.
"I believe my grandson has been targeted for adoption since he was in the womb."

A Worcestershire woman told how her daughter's baby was snatched away by three police officers and two social workers who came to the door of her house.
The girl has now been adopted. The mother's failure? She was said to be too young to cope. Yet - a little over a year later - she had another baby, a boy, whom she was allowed to keep, in the same home and with the same partner. Why on earth did she have to lose her little girl? The grandmother emotionally explained: "All the family came forward to offer to help look after my granddaughter, and all of them were told they were not good enough. "The social worker told us to forget her. He said: 'She is water under the bridge.' "We think they wanted her for adoption from the beginning."

No wonder she, and thousands of other parents, want a shake-up of the heart-breakingly cruel adoption system which has ripped apart so many families - and which continues to do so.


By SUE REID
Last updated at 23:10 31 January 2008

North Yorkshire County Council :: Openly Local

This is the amount of money it cost North Yorkshire County Council to kiddy snatch! Can North Yorkshire County Council truely justify these costs to at the expenxe of the council tax payer? Do you really want them squandering your hard earned money in this way for them to simply fulfill Best Value Performance Indicators?

Court Services spending £597,000
Expenditure on Social Services spending £201,406,000

North Yorkshire County Council :: Openly Local

Posted using ShareThis

Proof Selby District Council Forced Victims Of Domestic Abuse To Endure Continued Violence

Below is an extract taken from the minutes of a meeting of North Yorkshire County Council Safe and Sustainable Communities Overview and Scrutiny Committee, June 2006

'A key area raised by the NYCLSP was an issue in the Selby area as there seemed to be a problem for victims of Domestic Abuse accessing legal advice quickly. Another issue raised was Selby District Council's response to women presenting as homeless fleeing domestic violence, victims had been returned to their homes and told they would not be accommodated.'

How are families ever to escape the confines and atrocities of domestic abuse when local government refuse to re-house fleeing victims. This is in clear breach of the governments policies regarding the safeguarding victims and children from Domestic Violence. Selby District Councils policy of refusal to re-house and returning the victim to the family home, an unsuitable and dangerous environment in which the victim is at great risk of enduring increased violence is highly questionable. Is it any wonder then I ask that this gives Social Services even greater premise to remove any children in such an unsafe home????

SOLICITORS TO AVOID IN NORTH YORKSHIRE

This is a brief list of solicitors that I would NEVER recommend to anyone involved in legal proceedings regarding the care of children, in particular those involving social services:

CROMBIE WILKINSON (YORK, SELBY & MALTON)
SYKES, LEE, BRYDSON (YORK)
BAILEY & HAIG (SELBY)
MAX GOLD PARTNERSHIP (HULL)
HARROWELLS (YORK)
LANGLEYS (YORK)

Avoid these firms at all costs, they will misrepresent you in court, not inform you correctly, not accpet instruction from you as the client, and worst of all they WILL accept and agree the THRESHOLD CRITERIA against your instruction (effectively causing you to agree with the court that you have abused your precious children).

One of the solicitors currently practicing at Harrowells York is Mr Philip Andrew Goodall. He has a judgement and conditions against him imposed by the Solicitors Regulatory Authority (SRA) for misuse of three quaters of a milliion pounds of clients funds. He shoudl never be trusted with money again, let alone be given a case involving children. He has proved himself to be untrustworthy. DO NOT TRUST HIM HE BATS FOR THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AND COLLUDES WITH CAFCASS GUARDIAN AD LITEMS TO COMMIT PERJURY.

NHS North Yorkshire and York predicts £8 million deficit

By Nicola Fifield »


FINANCE chiefs at North Yorkshire’s cash-strapped health trust say they are expecting to be £8 million in the red by the end of the financial year in April.

The latest performance figures released by NHS North Yorkshire and York – the body that commissions and funds health services in the county – show the trust has already sunk £4 million into debt this year.

An action plan has been drawn up to reduce expenditure – but health bosses are adamant that the quality of patient care will not be affected by any savings.

Jayne Brown, chief executive of NHS North Yorkshire and York, said an £8 million deficit was “not an acceptable position”, but stressed that it represented less than one per cent of the trust’s total budget. She said the main reason for the overspend was that the trust’s hospitals had been “extraordinarily busy” – particularly during the recent Arctic conditions, when the number of slips, trips and falls rocketed.

She said: “The hospitals have dealt with many more patients than we could have predicted when we were drawing up spending plans.

“We have also seen escalating costs of secure forensic mental health services, continuing care and prescribing.”

She said NHS North Yorkshire and York was looking at ways to make savings while still offering excellent health care services.

One such initiative is a new scheme called Telehealthcare, which aims to save money by cutting the number of hospital admissions required by patients with long-term conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure.

Under the scheme, 100 electronic units will be installed in people’s homes over the next 12 months, each with devices to take readings such as blood pressure, oxygen levels, weight and temperature.

This information will then be automatically sent to a monitoring centre, where any problems or abnormalities in a patient’s condition can be identified and treated at an early stage – before a hospital admission is required.

Coun James Alexander, chair of York’s health overview and scrutiny committee, said he was keen to make sure the overspend did not have an adverse impact on patient care.

He said: “Most patients tell me their personal experience of the NHS is excellent medical care, but I am already planning to meet some patients on Thursday who say that savings are reducing the medical care they receive.”


http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/4873784.NHS_North_Yorkshire_and_York_predicts___8_million_deficit/

SIX solicitors involved in a scandal at a former Hull law firm fined for accounting breaches

Lawyers fined after crooked cashier flees to USA

Date: 19 April 2005
By Jane Charnley


SIX solicitors involved in a scandal at a former Hull law firm were yesterday fined for accounting breaches and another was reprimanded – but a colleague accused of fraud who fled to the United States escaped justice.

The Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal cleared the seven solicitors of deliberate dishonesty.

Kevin Rooney, who worked as a cashier for the law firm, Carrick Carr Wright, which is now closed, paid himself an unauthorised bonus to buy a luxury holiday villa.
But while he jetted off to the US, his former bosses were left to face the tribunal, where they had to admit breaches of solicitors' accounts rules, because as partners, they were liable, even if they were unaware what was happening.

The seven strenuously denied dishonesty, saying they had no idea of Rooney's actions.

The firm, one of Hull's biggest, with offices in Saville Street and branches in Beverley and York, was taken over by the Law Society in August 2002 amid suspicions of dishonesty, leaving some of the partners in serious financial difficulties.
Rooney, of Hedon, near Hull, could not cope with running the finances of a big legal practice and broke a series of rules.

The partners were cleared of any deliberate deception, but Rooney was "effectively described as a thief" and barred from working as a clerk if he ever returns to Britain.

Geoffrey Williams, for the Law Society, claimed the seven knew the firm was heading for disaster. By the time it was taken over it had liabilities of more than £1m. He also claimed the partners knew Rooney was crooked but he was allowed to keep his job.

But the partners insisted they were not directly to blame, and the tribunal accepted their accounts.


John Wright, 58, of Sutton, near Hull, was fined £7,500.
Philip Goodall, 47, of Selby, £3,500.
Michael East, 56, of Hornsea, £3,500.
David Prescott, 38, also of Hornsea, £3,000.
Paul Scott, 45, of York, £2,500.
Malcolm Grassam, 54, of Beverley, Grassam £1,000.
Jonathan Carr, 56, of Hull, was reprimanded.


Senior partner Wright, was a former chairman of the local law society.
Since the firm's collapse he went into voluntary insolvency, had to sell his home, and lives in rented accommodation.

Later, Stott said he was delighted to have been vindicated of any dishonety or impropriety.

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/Lawyers-fined-after-crooked-cashier.1002221.jp

Carrick Carr partners lose human rights court battle

SOLICITORS MISUSE OF CLIENTS FUNDS, LOSE HUMAN RIGHTS BATTLE

Naomi Rovnick

Four-partner Yorkshire firm Carrick Carr & Wright has been shut down after improperly paying nearly three quarters of a million pounds - half of it client money - into the office account


The firm’s partners have lost a High Court battle where they claimed the Law Society should not shut their practice down as this would infringe their human rights.
The Law Society intervened in the practice, shutting it down, taking the partners’ practising certificates away, freezing their bank accounts and closing the client account.

Carrick Carr, based in Bradford and Hull, has now been shut down. The four partners in the firm are senior partner John Wright, Philip Goodall, Michael East and David Prescott.

The partners applied to the High Court to have their practising certificates restored, contending “the decision to intervene infringed their human rights, in particular, the right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions”, the judgment states.

According to the judg ment, the Law Society investigation into the practice discovered that there had been around £725,000 wrongly paid into the Carrick Carr office account. It also found that nearly half of this money had been wrongly transferred back into the client account at some point.

The judgment mentions: “Improper transfers from client to office account of £397,364.40, other improper payments into the office account so that the total is £725,116.83 which is to be offset against £339,756 of office account money wrongly paid into the client account.”

In the High Court, the four partners blamed a Mr Rooney, a cashier at Carrick Carr for 20 years, for significant breaches of the firm’s account rules over seven years. But the judge found there was “no evidence that Mr Rooney gained personally from his activities at the expense of the firm. This means the partners have gained.”
A Law Society intervention agent said the partners could not be contacted as the firm had been shut down.

The High Court ruling, handed down by Mr Justice John Behrens, represents a major victory for the Law Society, which is fighting various battles on this issue.
The society is currently appealing another High Court decision made against it in July which said its “draconian” method of shutting corrupt solicitors may contravene their right to personal property enshrined in the 1998 Human Rights Act.

The case, brought by sole practitioner David Holder, who had £200,000 missing from his client account, is being appealed by the Law Society.

Sex Pest Was Given A Council Reference

David Kay sentenced to four years in jail after conviction for sexual activity with a child

By Joe Willis


A 63-YEAR-OLD youth worker who had a history of inappropriate behaviour with young girls was able to get a job working alongside vulnerable teenagers because social services bosses failed to disclose his past.

Sex pest David Kay was sentenced to four years in jail last month after being convicted of three charges of sexual activity with a child while in a position of trust.

Kay was able to get a job working with young people because North Yorkshire Social Services failed to pass on the fact he had a history of improper behaviour towards teenage girls.

Last night, officials said a social services manager had resigned after details of the blunder came to light.

The mistake allowed Kay to begin a relationship with a vulnerable 17-year-old while working for Cumbria’s Connexions youth advice service.

Last month, the youth worker was jailed for four years.

Kay worked for the North Yorkshire council as a youth justice worker for eight years in the Nineties.

He was sacked for behaving inappropriately with young girls while based in Northallerton.

He was later reinstated, but given a role that meant he did not come into direct contact with children. After being made redundant, he applied to the Cumbrian youth advice service in Workington.

It was there that he began the relationship with the teenager that led to his prosecution.

During the trial, at Carlisle Crown Court, it emerged that Kay got the job in Cumbria after a North Yorkshire official failed to disclose details of his disciplinary record in a written reference.

Bosses at the Cumbrian youth service said they would not have appointed him if they had known about his past.

They have written to North Yorkshire County Council (NYCC) demanding to know why details of his disciplinary record were not shared.

Following the court case, NYCC launched an investigation and suspended the unnamed official responsible.

Last night, the authority confirmed that the manager had resigned.

A spokesman said: “As a result of our investigation into the issue, North Yorkshire County Council has strengthened its processes with regard to giving references for staff where there have been conduct or capability issues, particularly relating to safeguarding children or vulnerable adults.

“While there are learning points for us from this case, we are confident that such a reference would not be given now.”

Kay, of High Seaton, Seaton, near Workington, had denied sexual activity with the Cumbrian girl, but was convicted after a trial.

The court heard how the teenager’s mother brought her to Connexions to get her life back on track after she had dropped out of school.

Kay and the girl began exchanging text messages and phone calls, and the relationship became sexual.

In her victim impact statement, the teenager revealed how Kay told her she would not be able to manage at college, that people of her own age were using her, and that she could not trust the adults trying to help her.

He often called her late at night and became angry if she missed his calls.

Kay was suspended after his colleagues became suspicious.

He persuaded the girl to withdraw the allegations against him and it was another three years before she went back to the police.

Greg Hoare, in mitigation, told the court his client was a broken man who had lost his good name and his chance to work.

After sentencing him, Judge Peter Hughes expressed concern that Kay was able to get his job.

He called for a thorough review of the case to establish what mistakes were made and how to ensure that they did not happen again.

Peter Bradley, deputy director of national children’s charity Kidscape, said yesterday that the case was a “huge concern”.

However, he added that the new vetting and barring scheme, due to be phased in next year, would prevent similar cases happening in the future.

Under the scheme, anyone working or volunteering in a supervisory role with children will have to be checked to ensure they do not pose a risk.

Mr Bradley said: “This case is a huge concern, but hopefully in the next year the scheme will bring to light those who pose a risk to children, meaning this does not happen again in the future.”

Kay was placed on the Sex Offender’s Register and banned for life from working with children.

It is an offence for any person in a position of trust to engage in sexual activity with a person under 18 who is in their charge.


http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/4670333.Sex_pest_was_given_a_council_reference/

North Yorkshire County Council Chief Executive is leaving to return to his old stomping ground

Marsden returns to North Tyneside

By Jim Dunton



North Tyneside Council is hiring former chief executive John Marsden to return to the authority’s helm as interim replacement for Andrew Kerr.


Mr Kerr announced in November that he was leaving the authority to become chief executive at Wiltshire Council from February.

Mr Marsden, whose appointment has yet to be approved by a full council meeting, left North Tyneside in 2005 for North Yorkshire CC.

Elected Mayor Linda Arkley (Con) said her priority in appointing Mr Marsden was to ensure strong leadership at the council during the recession.

“Our residents expect us to deliver high quality services, but with value for money at their core,” she said.

“To achieve that we need a corporate management team with experience and expertise,” she said.

“John Marsden has both the excellent professional credentials that we need and knowledge about North Tyneside.

“When he worked for North Tyneside previously he supported it in improving from one of the poorest performing councils to one of the fastest improving councils in the country.”

Mr Marsden said he would leave North Yorkshire with mixed emotions because of the dedication of staff and councillors, but added that he was really looking forward to returning to North Tyneside.

“It is an area where I enjoyed working and I still have strong connections to the area,” he said.

North Tyneside’s strategic director for young people and learning, Gill Alexander, will serve as interim chief executive between Mr Kerr’s departure at the end of 2009 and Mr Marsden’s arrival in February

Abusive social worker Stanley Lansdell struck off

A SOCIAL worker who swore at a vulnerable child and sexually harassed a member of his family has been struck off.

Stanley Lansdell of Chester-le-Street, County Durham, used false references when applying for work through a specialist recruitment agency.

And after getting a position with a council in Yorkshire, he went on to verbally abuse a child in his care with cruel taunts and sent the youngster’s cousin perverted text messages.

The 52-year-old was yesterday removed from the Social Care Register after a hearing in London heard these and a catalogue of other allegations relating to his professional conduct.

The General Social Care Council’s conduct committee was told how, after getting a job with Bradford Metropolitan District Council, Mr Lansdell was charged with the care of a 13-year-old boy, known as Child F.

On one occasion he phoned the vulnerable youngster, who had a tendency to cross-dress, told him to “get lost”, swore at him and called him “gay”.

He told Child F that no one would believe him if he made a complaint and that he would be taken into care. The social worker also made highly inappropriate remarks to a member of Child F’s family.

He sexually harassed an 18-year-old woman, who he met through his work with the child, telephoning her in the middle of the night and sending her highly inappropriate text messages.

Mr Lansdell also preyed on another woman, who was in his care. He visited her home on several occasions, staying for more than two hours.

On one occasion he repeatedly told the woman she should not stay in the flat, and invited her to stay with him, telling her she could have a bath at his home.

After a two-day hearing, which Mr Lansdell did not attend, the committee determined he was guilty of misleading his employers and breaching professional boundaries while working for Bradford Social Services between February 2006 and April 2007. The committee agreed he had committed other blunders, such as failing to keep up-to-date files and giving misleading evidence in court.

Mr Lansdell was also accused of verbally abusing a colleague while working in a previous role at Darlington Borough Council, swearing at her and calling her fat.

The committee decided Mr Lansdell should be removed from the social work register immediately, saying he had serious attitude and personality problems and had grossly abused the trust of those he was supposed to be looking after

INSPECTION SLAMS NORTH YORKSHIRE CAFCASS AS INADEQUATE

Inspection slams North Yorkshire Cafcass as inadequate
By Ross Watson

Children & Young People Now

10 August 2009


The Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service (Cafcass) in North Yorkshire and Humberside is failing to drive up low standards, with problems across a number of areas of service delivery and management, according to a damning inspection report from Ofsted.

The report rated the Cafcass area as inadequate, listing a number of weaknesses, including case planning, assessment, intervention, direct work, complaints handling, equality and diversity and the overall promotion of improved outcomes for children and young people.


"Prior to the inspection the leadership of the service had not accurately assessed the amount of change required to achieve sustained improvement in service delivery to children and families," stated the report. "The service area has now assessed appropriately that its most significant weaknesses are in the effectiveness of its performance improvement and the accountability of staff and managers."

Cafcass chief executive Anthony Douglas said poor performance had been underpinned by a "very particular set of local difficulties" which had been already been addressed, but the inspection had come while the new management was still bedding in.

But he confessed that Cafcass needs to do more as a national organisation.

"Perhaps we didn't drill down enough into the detail of what was happening on the ground," he said. "We're learning that you can't take anything for granted in a frontline service. Things can deteriorate on the ground very quickly and as a national organisation you must to stay on top of it. We need to improve on that and not intervene too late."

The inspection report acknowledged that the new management had not yet had time to make an impact in some areas. It also highlighted a good track record in meeting demand, and satisfactory performances in safeguarding and delivering the Every Child Matters outcome for staying safe.


http://www.cypnow.co.uk/news/ByDiscipline/Social-Care/926135/Inspection-slams-North-Yorkshire-Cafcass-inadequate/

General Social Care Council (social workers register)

Check the name of the social worker involved in your children's case to ensure they are fully registered with the General Social Care Council (GSCC). If they are not ask the sw manager why the sw is not fully registered. If it transpires the social worker is unregistered they should NOT be working with your family.

Happy researching xxxx

http://www.gscc.org.uk/The+Social+Care+Register/Check+the+register/

A Social Workers Poem (By Ian Josephs)

I am a social worker, I'm really very nice;
I help you loving mothers, and give you good advice.

Your partner has departed, your income is too low;
I'm really very sorry ALL your kids will have to go!

Your partner is abusive, he beats you black and blue;
We'll soon be there to help you, and take your children too.

You have a learning problem, you're really not too clever;
We'll have your kids adopted, when can you see them? NEVER!

Your son is hyperactive, you need a brief respite.
We'll soon take ALL your children, give up the hopeless fight!

Your child was taken into care so many years ago;
If now you have a baby that too will have to go!

Foster parents love your kids, to get some more they seek;
For each one brings a tidy sum, £400 per week.

Children's homes are run by us, where paedophiles abound;
Each time we cover up abuse, the 'gutter press' come round.

They said adoptions would work the best, we soon proved they would;
Fathers shout and Mothers cry, their kids are gone for good!

What happens in our special courts? Our Experts they will say;
You're a danger to your children, so we'll take them ALL away.

Your children may be healthy, happy and well fed;
But one day you might hurt them, that's what our experts said.

The judges know that we are right, with us they will agree;
They dare not risk another course, you have no chance you see.

Our special courts are secret, so don't you breathe a word;
Of what goes on inside those walls, no matter how absurd.

We'll get your kids adopted, and don't you dare complain;
Or you'll end up in prison, and I won't say that again!

We have adoption targets, they must be met you see;
Failure means a reprimand, so spare a thought for me!


By Ian Josephs (A Very Social Worker)

EXPOSING ALL CORRUPT SO-CALLED PROFESSIONALS

I will also be exposing the corruption involved in Care Proceedings held within the confines of the family court system. I will expose illegal practices of all so-called professionals involved in these cases, from social workers, social services managers, Cafcass (so affectionately known as Crapcass), GAL Sol's, other Solicitors, Judges and Independent Expert Witnesses. No stone will be left unturned.

Some of the information may sound exaggerated, but I can assure you each and every word of it is TRUE & yes these procedures and illegal practices are taking place in a court near you each and everyday throughout the UK, in a bid to needlessly remove children from loving families, with the sole aim of fulfilling adoption targets and fostering targets, which secures the local authority (social services) millions of pounds of extra government funding, whilst other poor children, such as Baby P are left to die excruiatingly painful deaths at the hands of their callous, brutal & savage parents. These are the children the system should be targeting and protecting, yet they are left to slip through the child protection net because social workers are far too busy chasing vulnerable and unsuspecting families to fulfill Best Value Performance Indicators (adoption and fostering targets).

Welcome to Corrupt North Yorkshire Kiddy Snatchers

Hi welcome to my blog.

The aim of this page is to expose the illegal proceedures and corruption employed by North Yorkshire County Council Social Services, to needlessly snatch children from their loving families in a bid to fulfill Best Value Performance Indicators (government performance targets).