Thank you for visiting Unity-Injustice
If you are a parent, grandparent, family member or carer ect looking for advice, because the social services have taken your precious children from you then the Unity-injustice information website may be able to help.
glitter-graphics.com
This website includes extensive information/advice/links on Local Authorities (SSD's - Social Services Departments) public law child care proceedings, child protection procedures/policies/complaints, latest news and events. Initially a campaign organisation Unity-Injustice is looking to change views over the legitimacy and ethics of ‘forced adoption’ The organisation has grown to encompass support for individuals at any point in the investigative processes in child protection operated by social services.
The Family Courts - 'A Blot on the face of British justice'
To the public and the media, the secrecy surrounding the proceedings of the family courts has long been a blot on the face of English justice.
These courts decide some of the most painful issues affecting individuals and their families. They are where households are divided between warring husbands and wives, or where decisions are taken which may involve removing a child from one or both of its parents.
The sensitivity of such proceedings has always been used to justify the secrecy in which they are held. Neither Press nor public are allowed into court.
The reason invariably given is the need to protect the interests of vulnerable people — particularly children — from the prying gaze of a prurient public.
Such an excuse, however, has never held water. It is perfectly possible to report such cases anonymously, thus protecting the privacy of everyone involved.
It has long been suspected that the real reason was the instinctive desire to keep from the public gaze proceedings where power largely resided with professionals such as social workers, who did not want to expose their often all-too flimsy evidence.
Family courts are responsible for taking peoples children away from their homes and their families - Family courts are responsible imprisoning 200 individuals each year without trial - Family courts have never carried out any research - Family courts never keep any records on the outcomes of children so we don't know if the decisions judges are making are the right ones. All this in secrecy. Surely, it is time for these courts to be opened to the public and the press.
A teenage mother reunited with her newborn baby by a judge yesterday will today face a social services application to take the boy away again.
The newborn baby was illegally snatched from its mother by social workers in the early hours of yesterday morning.
Officials claimed the 18-year-old mother was unfit to care for the child because of mental health problems.
But hours later a High Court judge ordered the infant to be returned immediately, saying the social workers had acted beyond their powers.
Mr Justice Munby told the officials that they "should have known better".
The troubling case follows complaints from parents that social workers have taken their children for adoption without good reason, and suggestions that families are being broken up to meet bureaucratic targets.
Last night campaigners welcomed the ruling and praised the mother's lawyers for their prompt action to reunite the baby with its mother.
The child, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, was born healthy at 2am yesterday.
Later Ian Wise, appearing for the mother, referred to as "G", told the High Court in London that the child was taken from her at about 4am without her consent.
The child was removed after staff at the hospital were shown a "birth plan" prepared by local authority social services.
The plan said the mother, who had a troubled childhood and suffers from mental health problems, was to be separated from the child, and no contact allowed without supervision by social workers.
In his ruling, the judge ordered that the local social services authority and NHS trust "take the necessary steps to reunite mother and baby forthwith".
The mother now faces a legal battle to remain with her child. Mr Wise said she intends to fight to keep her baby. The judge described the situation as "most unfortunate". He said no baby can be removed simply "as the result of a decision taken by officials in some room".
Removal can be lawful only if a police officer is taking action to protect the child, or there is a court order in place.
The judge said doctors and midwives at the hospital could not have been expected to understand this and acted as they did when faced with "a bit of paper" with the birth plan.
He said: "On the face of it, what was done was without lawful authority. The professionals involved in this case should know better.
"You cannot remove children, short of immediate murderous intent (situations where a child is in immediate danger), except by lawful means, which means either by a police officer or court.
The judge added: "There is no suggestion in the documents shown to me so far that the mother is posing a risk of exposing the child to immediate physical attack and physical harm."
The ruling was made shortly after midday, and mother and baby were reunited 46 minutes later.
Last night the mother's solicitor Stuart Luke, from the firm Bhatia Best, said she faces the prospect of an application by social services for an interim care order, which he said would be vigorously contested. It is likely to be heard this morning before local magistrates.
Adoption targets were brought in seven years ago, when Tony Blair was trying to persuade social workers to find adoptive homes for more children.
The then Prime Minister set targets to raise the number of children being adopted by 50 per cent to 5,400 every year.
He promised millions of pounds to councils that managed to achieve the targets. Some have already received more than £2million for successful adoptions.
Campaigners say the number of babies under a month old being taken into care and then adopted has risen from 500 in 1997 to 1,300 a year. Last year a BBC investigation discovered more than 100 claims of miscarriages of justice by parents whose children were taken by social workers for adoption.
The Radio Four Face the Facts programme quoted social workers who admitted they are under pressure to take children because of Whitehall targets to increase adoption.
Last night Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming, who has been campaigning against inappropriate adoption of babies, said: "Councils are in a big rush to take babies at a very early stage because it is makes it easier to break the attachment that naturally forms between baby and mother over time.
"This case illustrates again how the system is not working in the interests of the children or the families, it's working in the interests of the bureaucracy.
"What's unique about this case is not the unlawful removal of a child, but that some lawyers have sufficient backbone to make the right application to the court to have the child returned to its mother."
Mr Hemming added: "There are financial rewards - a fund of about £35million - for getting children adopted. Admittedly, it has been proposed that adoption targets are scrapped on April 1, but clearly there are still problems."
Layton Bevan, co-founder of Families and Social Services Information Team, a support group for families frustrated by social services' actions, said: "It's obscene the way some social services can take children away from parents without the proper paperwork.
"We are aware of this happening in hundreds of cases a year through the sheer incompetence and organisational failure of social services departments.
"If they need to meet adoption targets they will do it by taking children from vulnerable families.
"Worryingly, the social services involved seem to have no accountability and ride roughshod over the law and the parents and children involved."
THE GOLDEN RULES!!
Do PLEASE remember the golden rules :- (By all means print this off and keep the copy near at hand if SS approach!Show these rules to your lawyer or social worker to prove that you KNOW your rights!)
glitter-graphics.com
REMEMBER THESE EVEN IF YOU FORGET EVERYTHING ELSE I HAVE ADVISED!
1:- Never contact social services for help or advice .Usually you should not report a partner who batters you or even a stranger who sexually assaults your young child, as if you do the SS will as often as not take your children into care(and later for adoption) to "protect them" from risk !If they have your children and you are fighting to get them back,NEVER NEVER tell social workers how you think you are going to defeat them, or what you are going to do next !Remember ,without mentioning it to "them",that even if your children are "in care" social workers do not have the legal power to stop your children going to a call box to phone you or even meeting you for a meal as long as they return "home" to the fosterers afterwards!
glitter-graphics.com
2:- Never believe a word they say and always insist they put their promises down in writing.Always be pleasant and polite to social workers,and remember that they may deliberately try to provoke you into shouting or violence that they will exaggerate in court leaving you with a criminal record and no children!When they shout at you forget your "pride" and look very hurt saying "why are you being like this to me?" or"I thought you were so nice until now, please don't bully me!" Be very respectful "tongue in cheek", but never follow their "helpful advice" especially if they say your only chance of getting your children back is to split from a partner, or parent you love and respect! They will try and turn you against each other as the "divide and rule" principle makes sure you are confused and demoralised when you lose your case and your children too ! Quite often they arrange deliberately awkward contact times with your children. This can result first in the loss of your job and then as a consequence of that ,your accommodation also.Object loudly and forcefully in court to their plans and fight hard to keep your job and your house or appartment
glitter-graphics.com
3:- NEVER,NEVER,NEVER, sign any documents they present to you,even if they say "you have to!" Social Workers rely on BLUFF.In reality they have NO POWER and no right to threaten you or give you orders of any kind!Only a COURT via an order from a judge can give you orders,and you always have the opportunity to contest those orders in court either before or after they are given to you.No matter what threats,or promises they make ,you can be 100% sure that if you get intimidated into signing they will break their word and expect you to keep your's! so, DO NOT SIGN !!
glitter-graphics.com
4:-Never, never agree to let your children go into foster care (especially if they say it is temporary) Never "agree" the thresholds even if you are advised that this will ensure the return of your children,because if you do you will have admitted neglecting or abusing your child and the only question left will be to decide if you have really repented and are capable of "change"! Usually the answer is no !Sometimes your own lawyer may tell you to agree the thresholds and/or agree to an interim care order otherwise "you will never see your children again !"That is a wicked lie designed to save the lawyers work and to help you LOSE your children ! BEWARE !
glitter-graphics.com
5:-Never answer questions at case meetings , in court, or when you are being assessed by so called "experts,"(psychiatrists,therapists,psychologists, counsellors,professionals, and the like) with more than 5 or 6 words (they write down anything unhelpful you may let slip). Try indeed to answer "yes" or "no" whenever possible . Never explain or elaborate as this only gives extra material to those who wish to discredit you.
glitter-graphics.com
6:-Protect yourself against social workers barging uninvited into your home by fitting a small chain inside your front door.This means that if you do not unlatch the chain when you see who is calling that person would have to push the door hard enough to break the chain which would be a "forced entry "and a criminal offence if committed without a document from the court such as a "recovery order" specifically allowing entry using reasonable force .Unless they have good reason to believe someone in the house is in danger of severe physical harm police also would have to have a warrant before breaking the chain . Usually they will not have one and would have to convince a judge that a serious crime had been or was about to be committed before one was granted.
glitter-graphics.com
7:-If social services request a look at your medical records (probably to try and find something to discredit you) ALWAYS write to any doctor or psychiatrist that has seen you as follows:-
"I respectfully request you to keep all my medical notes strictly confidential as I intend to take legal proceedings against social services and any other persons who might obtain my medical details without my express authorisation".
glitter-graphics.com
8:-Never write a letter to anyone connected to Social Services as you might include something that could damage your case in the family court.Only accept a solicitor if he/she promises to allow you a free hand to speak in court! You should be asked this simple question in the winess box "Have you anything you would like to say to the court?"Without this promise you may be "gagged" and you can lose your case without being allowed to say a word!
And YES! They really,really do make up false evidence as "The Times" points out.............
Pauline Goodwin’s baby was taken from her but she was denied a copy of the judgment. The court service has now apologised
Family courts are refusing to tell mothers why their babies are being taken away and put up for forced adoption.
Two mothers have told The Sunday Telegraph that their pain at losing their children was made worse by not knowing the grounds on which judges took the decisions.
Both women had their requests for copies of the judgments turned down repeatedly. As a result, they were prevented from launching legal battles to win their babies back, because appeals cannot be lodged without -written judgments.
Critics claimed that the cases are an extreme example of the secrecy that runs throughout the family court system. Earlier this summer, the Government abandoned plans to open up hearings to the media.
John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP and chairman of Justice for Families, said: "It seems quite strange that somebody can have their child removed and adopted, and the system will not give reasons.
"This arises from the secrecy of proceedings and the fact that people are allowed to misbehave professionally in the family courts without any fear of sanctions against them."
The cases are the latest in a series highlighted by this newspaper which have raised concerns about the workings of the family courts and social services.
It included a professional couple who had their daughter taken away because the mother has a history of mental illness and the father was "confrontational" towards social workers, while another couple were told they cannot have their two daughters back despite being cleared of allegations of abuse.
Last year, 2,120 babies were taken for adoption before their first birthday, almost three times as many as a decade ago. Adoptions leapt after councils were offered cash incentives to increase the number.
One of the latest cases involved Pauline Goodwin, 39, from Merseyside, who suffered a breakdown after her marriage ended. As she struggled to cope, her baby girl, born in 2005, was taken away by social services at birth.
At a court hearing in June last year, held at a time when she was temporarily homeless, Judge Wallwork ruled at Liverpool Family Court that the baby should remain in foster care.
The mother says she was told that despite the outcome of the case, the judgment would not be critical of her. However, in the 14 months since the hearing, her repeated requests to obtain a copy of the judgment have proved fruitless. She has been told by social workers that her daughter has now been adopted.
She said: "They had my baby adopted, then they said they make no findings against me, but they won't give me the court order. I need the judgment because I want to lodge an appeal. It's supposed to be within 28 days but it has been more than 12 months.
"If they give me the transcripts I can prove the whole thing was wrong, and my baby wouldn't be where she is now, she would be with me."
Sharon Harkness, 37, also from Merseyside, won the first round of her courtroom battle when social workers tried to take her baby son away. In August 2005, at the High Court in London, Mr Justice Holman turned down a bid by a local authority to take the boy, then only three months old, into foster care.
However, at Liverpool Family Court in November, Judge Roddy reversed the earlier decision and granted the council a care order. The baby was removed from his family and is now living with prospective adoptive parents.
In the intervening 21 months, repeated requests by Mrs Harkness for a written judgment have been refused or ignored. She said: "It's within my rights to at least see the kind of care order they've put my son on. It's like they've taken my baby and forgotten to give me the receipt."
At one point she tried to go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, only to be told that the court could not consider her case because she had no written judgment on which to base it.
At the end of last week, after The Sunday Telegraph took up the cases with the Judicial Communications Office in London, officials issued an apology within hours and finally pledged that both women would receive the vital documents within days.
In Miss Goodwin's case, a spokesman said: "Her Majesty's Court Service would like to apologise that in this case, the transcripts were not provided as requested. There appears to have been a breakdown in communications. The transcription company will prepare the transcripts next week and once they are approved by the judge, the court will send them out."
Regarding Mrs Harkness, the spokesman said: "There was an ambiguity in the original order which had not been corrected and caused a delay in the process. The transcript has now been produced and is with the judge, prior to being sent to the family next week."
The MPs fear a rise in the number of young children being taken into care in England and Wales is linked to pressure on councils to increase adoption rates.
Lib Dem MP John Hemming, who has tabled a Commons motion on the issue, said it was a "national scandal".
The government said the courts decided on care cases but there had to be evidence a child was being harmed.
A spokesman for the Department for Education said there were "no targets relating to the numbers of children coming into care".
But Mr Hemming argued that social services departments are under pressure to meet targets set by government on children in care being adopted.
The decision to bring a child into care must be made on the basis of their best interests
Department for Education
In an Early Day Motion, with cross-party support from 12 MPs, he warns of "increasing numbers of babies being taken into care, not for the safety of the infant, but because they are easy to get adopted".
In 2000, ministers set a target of a 50% increase in the number of children in local authority being adopted by March 2006.
According to the latest available figures, the number of "looked after" children being adopted had gone up from 2,700 in 2000 to 3,700 in 2004, an increase of 37.7%.
The biggest rise was in the one to four-year-old age range.
'Scandal'
These figures would be "laudable" if it meant children were being rescued from a life in care, said Mr Hemming.
But he said he had evidence from people who had contacted him, prevented from publication by contempt of court laws, that children were being separated from parents without proper grounds.
And he called on the government to reveal "how many of the children that are adopted would otherwise have remained with their birth parents".
Mr Hemming pointed to figures showing an increase in the number of children aged under one being taken into care.
"A thousand kids a year are being taken off their birth parents just to satisfy targets. It is a national scandal," said the Lib Dem MP.
Transparency
He said children were increasingly placed under "care orders" - where they remain with their birth parents but are kept under supervision by social workers - rather than with foster parents.
And this supervision meant some social workers were "gradually taking them away from the parents, step by step, and giving them to someone else," the Birmingham Yardley MP said.
He called for more transparency in the proceedings of Family Courts and an independent watchdog to scrutinise the work of social services departments.
In a statement, the Department for Education said: "The law is clear - children should live with their parents wherever possible and, when necessary, families should be given extra support to help keep them together.
"The decision to take a child into care is never an easy one, and it is a decision that is taken by the courts."
'Best interests'
The statement went on: "In every case where a child is taken into care on a care order, the courts will have considered the evidence and taken the view that the child has been significantly harmed, or would be if they were not taken into care.
"The final decision on adoption rests with the courts and before a court makes such an important decision it must be convinced on the basis of the evidence that this is the best way to meet the child's needs on a long-term basis.
"There are no government targets relating to the numbers of children coming into care. The decision to bring a child into care must be made on the basis of their best interests."
The British Association for Adoption and Fostering (BAAF) said it was "dangerous" to suggest children were being taken into care unnecessarily.
Chief executive David Holmes said: "Children come into care for many reasons including parental abuse and neglect. The rise in the numbers of young children coming into care may be explained by a variety of factors including a rise in parental substance misuse."
He pointed out that the decision to take a child into care was scrutinised by an independent children's guardian and the courts. Adoption is scrutinised by the guardian, the courts and an adoption panel.
Mr Holmes added: "If birth parents believe they have had their child taken into care unfairly, they should lodge a formal complaint with their local authority. I believe that this is rare. I certainly do not believe children are systematically being taken into care to meet adoption targets."
Adoption targets were brought in to prevent children in care from waiting months or even years before finding an adoptive family.
glitter-graphics.com
The link is to the BBC's Look North TV programme. I saw the package before I did an additional interview for this programme. What was key in the interview of the ex-Social Worker was that she confirmed that assessments are fixed to achieve the outcome that the Local Authority wants.
This is a key piece of the jigsaw as it demonstrates bias and why the decisions of the Family Courts are unreliable. This argument was made to the Court of Appeal, but they didn't want to know. The law is actually quite clear ... It is the perception of bias that is key for undermining an opinion. In the interview for Look North it was confirmed that actual bias exists (from time to time).
It is important to remember that in making decisions the Family Courts rely on the opinion of the Local Authority and particularly the assessments.
Sam Wichelow has produced a very strong piece of programming here for which he should be congratulated.
glitter-graphics.com
There can be no debate that some vaccines cause very serious injury and even death, to some children. This has been recognised by both the British government(1980) and the U.S.A. government (VAERS Act 1986) for over 20 years and both governments have provided compensation schemes to families with children who have suffered such adverse reactions. Under both Schemes doctors are required to report every adverse reaction of a child to a vaccine to a central government body but it is reasonably estimated that less than one in ten are so reported.
Many parents in many places around the world have given personal testimony that following the administration of vaccines to their child, the child has become seriously ill within hours or days. Such illnesses have taken many forms but commonly they are febrile, listless, and some are reported to have experienced epileptic seizures.
glitter-graphics.com
Within days or a few short weeks, parents report that their child then takes on a totally different personality – they are distant, unable to make eye contact, they are constantly restless and hyperactive – “they have gone into their own little world” is an often stated assessment by the parents. The parent, quite naturally, becomes extremely anxious and fraught as they lose contact with their child. They want their child to be healthy and normal, as the child was in the first few weeks after birth. So what has happened they wonder?.
In the Britain, the parent will usually seek help and advice from the Health Visitor and perhaps their General Practitioner but this is when they are hit with the first of the ..Double Whammies’.
glitter-graphics.com
The Health Visitor reports them to the Child Protection agencies as their child is “failing to thrive” and is not reaching its expected developmental milestones. They are seen as over-anxious and if they seek a second medical opinion, they are accused of ..Doctor-shopping’. In the UK they are then called to a Child Protection Conference with all the assembled professionals usually after being subjected to an extremely invasive child protection investigation. They are not allowed representation although they are being accused of a criminal offence of neglecting their child and they are summarily found guilty merely on the opinions and suppositions of the professionals present, many of whom they have never met before. Their child’s name is placed on the Children ..At Risk Register’ and they are now branded and stigmatized as ..Child Abusers’ in their local community. They can expect no sympathy nor understanding from their neighbours, friends, or even some of their relatives, many of them with the horrifying thought, “there but for the Grace of God, go I” .
If they are fortunate, the parents will only experience this state of stigmatization and the accompanying isolation and societal condemnation, if they are unfortunate the matter will be taken to Court and the child will be removed from their care, often permanently. Child Protection agencies are reluctant to take this latter step, not because they think the parents are innocent or can manage the care of the child, but because such children with mental and/or physical disabilities are not usually suitable for adoption or long-term fostering which would be immensely expensive to the agency.
glitter-graphics.com
Health Visitors, Doctors, and social workers lack the knowledge, or find it incomprehensible, or simply collude in the Dept of Health propaganda that “vaccines are safe” and deny even the possibility that the vaccines are to blame for the child’s mental or physical disabilities and developmental delays. To challenge the received wisdom of the Department of Health would be a heinous sin in professional circles with appropriate chastisements and sanctions likely to follow.
But worse is to follow for the parents of the mentally and/or physically disabled child. Firstly they are left to cope alone with the demands and needs of their child who requires almost 24 hours a day supervision, sometimes has to be fed, and their personal care needs met. The parent becomes gradually and totally exhausted and emotionally and mentally drained. But worse awaits them – the Triple Whammy!. If they have been persistent with seeking help for their child or just lucky, they may have obtained a diagnosis by a psychologist that their child is autistic within the Spectrum of Autistic Disorders and requires special education provision suitable to his/her needs. The child is probably now aged 7. 8. 9, or 10 years. They then face years of battling with the Education Authority to obtain a Statement of Special Needs and even when this is finally achieved, and usually only after appealing to a Special Tribunal, the Education Authority can’t or won’t make the appropriate provision. Either because the Special Schools in the area have all been closed under the central government policies of ..integrating’ all disabled children into mainstream schools or because the Education Authority do not wish to bear the very high costs of such special education.
glitter-graphics.com
Although it can occur earlier, it is usually at this point that the parent is accused of ..Fabricating or Inducing the Child’s Illness/Disability’ a catch-all theory of child abuse based on the scientifically fraudulent and infamous ..Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy’. The parents are stunned – it is unbelievable!. They are now accused of causing their child’s autism or other disability, perhaps Asperger’s Syndrome, or ME/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, or Cystic Fibrosis, or ADHD, or any combination of these disabilities or diseases. !.
And there is no possibility whatsoever that their child will receive the special education to meet his or her needs nor the support which Social Services Departments are required to give to children in need under the Children Acts. If they ask for such services, they are simply told, “There are no resources”. And if they ask why there are no resources, they are told, “Well because no one asks for them!.” Or “all resources are invested in child protection services”. – Catch 22.
glitter-graphics.com
If they are lucky, the parents will be subjected to the rigours and shame of the Child Protection Procedures again, or perhaps for the first occasion, but again can expect no help. They will be placed under the supervision of a ..Keyworker’ which amounts only to being under constant and intense surveillance of the health and social worker and medical professionals and even the most innocent event of a child falling from a bicycle and getting bruises, will be investigated in minute detail and with barely veiled accusations that they have harmed the child. If they need to visit a hospital they will be grilled by nursing and medical staff regarding the child’s illness or injury and no rational reason will satisfy their accusers.
If they are unlucky, the parents will be brought before a Court in Care Proceedings but again this is unlikely, for the reasons given previously.
glitter-graphics.com
So this is a brief glimpse into the world of the vaccine-damaged child, their parents, and their siblings and other family members who may be involved. But the experience is far more heart-rending and devastating for those involved. Every day brings its miseries and heartache, and infrequently some joy as small achievements are made. The care, compassion, concern of parents with disabled children is absolute and immensely admirable. But their rewards are few and their setbacks and sufferings are many. Many marriages break under the strain and many individuals need psychiatric help for severe depression. The bitter irony is that such a need for professional help is used to condemn the parent in child protection proceedings and is often used against them in Courts. Heads you lose, tails you don’t win.
And this situation prevails because the central government Department of Health and the Department of Education and Skills cannot accept the testamentary evidence of many thousands of parents that their child’s autism or other illness is related to the administration of a vaccine
glitter-graphics.com
Yet to simply assert, as such Departments frequently do, that "there is good evidence that immunisation is beneficial" and the usually accompanying statement beloved by vaccine supporters that "Vaccines are completely safe" are untrue and irresponsible when unaccompanied by a caveat that for some children they can be deadly or can cause them serious harm. The positions of the respective U.K. and U.S.A. governments is that vaccination is for the benefit of the many (the belief in herd protection) whilst only tacitly acknowledging the sacrifice of the few. Unfortunately, the few are becoming the many in the case of autism where it is now claimed with reasonable evidence of numbers, that there is an international pandemic of autism.
Such beliefs by vaccine adherents obstruct, prevent, and denigrate any reasonable attempts to investigate why vaccines cause death and serious injury to some children, which children are most likely to be adversely affected, and what can be done to help such children
glitter-graphics.com
Studies linking vaccines to SBS, SIDS, and autism, such as those respectively by Kalokerinos, Clemetson, Scheibner. Sprott, Wakefield, Blakemore-Brown, etc should be welcomed and seriously examined and openly debated in a scientific medical, educational, and social work community concerned about ALL children and particularly those who suffer deaths and serious injuries from vaccines in whatever form that may take, rather than having the dead hand of controls and propaganda placed on them by governments and their blindly defensive acolytes.
In a world of increasing communications via the Internet, concerns regarding the damage caused by certain vaccines will inevitably and increasingly reach the ears of the general population, as is happening, and the days of fearing to ..let the cat out of the bag' are long since gone. If the percentages of the child population receiving vaccines continue to decline because of fears by parents of vaccine damage to their child and therefore the ..herd immunity' is ineffective, then the blame for such will lie with those who are complicit and collusive in attempting to stifle scientific research and debate and to seek answers to help those children who suffer death and serious damage from vaccines.
glitter-graphics.com
This is no longer an issue where heads can be buried in the sand, nor scientifically-based research and reasoned propositions regarding vaccine damage, can be denied. To continue to do so will continue to condemn many thousands of children and their families to the tragedies of death and disability (with minimal or no support by State agencies), the horrors of child protection suspicions and investigations and the extremely high costs of such investigations, and the removal of children from their families by misguided and ill-informed State officials.
ByCharles Pragnell
March 28, 2007
Diploma in Social Work and Letter of Recognition in Child Care
Expert Witness – Child Protection and Social Care Consultant and Child/Family Advocate
Recently a new paper was published by Hey and Bacon on the sensitive subject of how many mothers might have murdered their babies who died of 'cot death'. Yet a known and well researched link (under a heavy cloak of commercial secrecy) is that of an adverse reaction to some vaccinations but this is never mentioned. Over the years there have been many forms of spin and shifting sands of blame and counter blame but none so deeply distressing as the accusation that a mother has killed her child.
What stands out when mothers are accused is that adverse reactions to vaccine are routinely NEVER included in the differential diagnosis. This is deeply worrying, as it is a well known form of iatrogenic abuse. However rare, it happens, but if we do not acknowledge that it happens, and could have happened to the child in question, then as all other possibilities fall away, the mother stands accused.
Over the last decade we have seen dramatic developments within legal circles when it was established that Professor Sir Roy Meadow gave a wrong statistic in the case of Sally Clark, the mother whose children died after vaccines were given. His 73 million to 1 statistic was applied to the possibility that the children could have died from natural causes. It shouted out the message that these were impossible odds, so the mother must have killed them. A possible link to vaccines was never even brought into the Court. Professor Meadow was struck off and then re-instated as Expert opinions are just opinions, after all.
Sally Clark has now died as well as two of her children and we now have another published paper by Hey and Bacon which has raised the issue again and appears to want to take us back to the old position that more mothers do kill their children, supporting Meadow's thinking, even though the statistic he used to back it up and the way in which he used it has been thoroughly discredited.
The recent Hey and Bacon BMJ (British Medical Journal) article was written about by various people and Nigel Hawkes at Times took up the story.
Times Online allows for comments and my own comment was published along with a medic who writes in support of Professor Sir Roy Meadow and the idea that murder is more common than recent legal cases and the media interpretations would have us believe.
A cynic might suggest that this was a clean up operation. A non cynic might say this was new research backing up Meadow's thinking about mothers and murder.
However, this was not new research and I was to discover that Hey and Bacon did not even have access to the records of the cases in the research by Carpenter et al.
I discovered this through information provided to me by a mother who also lost two sons to cot death following vaccines and whose children were in the research on which these various studies have been based. She was disturbed by this 'new' research and wrote to all of the authors of the original Carpenter paper and the more recent Bacon and Hey paper. Only Dr Bacon had the decency to reply. She also wrote to the Times Online.
Her lengthy, detailed and highly important contribution was not published.
She sent her letter to me and I am re-producing it below as it raises issues of enormous concern, not least the fact that ranks close in and parents are refused information about their children even though careers have been built on the data .
Dear Sir,
I write in response to Nigel Hawkes article in Times online
Cot Death Suspicions are revived
I am a mother who had 2 SIDS deaths many years ago and am shocked at this paper by Hey and Bacon as it leaves out far too much information to reach the position it reaches in its rather clumsy attempt to (yet again) blame mothers and exonerate medics. Perhaps I can help with some of the information that has been omitted. Perhaps the public might then start asking questions about this research.
I became aware many years after my children’s deaths that data in relation to them had been used in published research. I was taken aback by this as I had not been informed of their inclusion nor had the authors of these ‘papers’ sought permission from myself for their inclusion.
‘Data’ in relation to my children was apparently used in the original Emery paper.
This paper was revisited by Carpenter et al in 2005 – and discussed by Gornall.
Hey and Bacon’s recent paper is again a revisiting of Carpenter et al and the original paper.
I set about trying to discover exactly what apparent data in relation to my children had been used in these papers.
Initially I tried ‘locally’ to obtain records in relation to my children; I then discovered that records in relation to my children ‘could not be found’.
These included GP, Health Visitor, Clinic, Midwifery and Birth, Vaccination, Hospital admission, Outpatient and Ambulance records.
With regard to Post Mortem records, all that was available was a brief 2 page Official Coroners Record for each child, which gave scant details and a cause of death as SIDS for both children. I knew that there had to be a Post Mortem File in relation to each child which obviously contained specific details of my children’s Post Mortems i.e. tests carried out, date and time of PM, samples taken etc.
It later was confirmed that my children’s Post Mortem Files ‘could also not be found’.
There were 40+ SIDS deaths in my city area (including my own children) these 40+ deaths occurred within a total of 2 years. For a population of approx 250.000 this appeared to be a high incidence. In fact this is documented by a GP as being ‘a significant blip’.
I discovered that all 40+ SIDS victims Post Mortem Files apparently also ‘could not be found’. It was clear that Post Mortem samples and organs were retained from many of these SIDS victims (including my own). Though why this happened, what was being tested for and the results of these tests apparently ‘were not available’ or ‘could not be found’.
Given the ‘research’ being carried out in my area by SIDS researchers I find it impossible to believe records in relation to 40+ children apparently have simply ‘disappeared’.
My second child was enrolled pre birth in Care Of the Next Infant Programme.
I reasoned that as my children had apparently been included in Emery’s original paper and others, it was reasonable to assume that CONI and or the authors of these papers had access to the missing records in relation to my children.
To have apparently included my children in these papers without this data would be professional suicide and would mean the criticisms levied against these papers had great merit and warranted investigation.
This would also mean that Hey and Bacon’s recent paper could be open to the same criticism.
CONI researchers released to me the daily ‘tick’ charts (filled out by myself and my children’s father), they also released to me daily weight charts (again filled out by myself and my child’s father) and weekly Health Visitor Contact sheets along with a few other telephone and contact records.
I knew that to have apparently included my children in ‘research and these published papers’ the authors of these papers needed to have had more detailed information in relation to my children that that which was released.
However I was told in no uncertain terms that these were the only records held. I am astounded.
There was a clear protocol for a ‘death on CONI scheme’, (As outlined by Emery and others)
The original paper states:
We studied all deaths in 6373 infants who had completed the CONI programme by December, 1999. After a CONI death, we made detailed enquiries into the previous death and the CONI death, including a family interview, a review of autopsies, and case discussion.
My children died pre 1999 and so by default would have been included in this paper.
However those that released the few papers detailed above deny any involvement after my son’s death, they and the authors of these papers refuse to answer specific questions in relation to my children’s inclusion in these papers.
Those that released these scant records to me deny that any information in relation to my children’s deaths was obtained.
I find this hard to believe especially has I have already said that Emery had stated in ‘other papers’ that my children died from probable inborn metabolic disorder and or familial cause. How could he reach these conclusions WITHOUT these records?
Though the people that released these scant records deny obtaining any post mortem records or information in relation to my children, in the papers released to me by them there was one page of the Official Coroners record, this could only have been obtained either from the Pathologist or the Coroner, which tells me that CONI did indeed request/obtain records in relation to my children.
We were visited at home by one of the authors of these papers pre my son’s birth and post his death. (As per the protocol for birth and death on scheme.) Recruitment of my child’s GP, Health Visitor and Paediatricians was secured by this person in relation to co operation and participation in their research. (As per their own protocol).
If no records were obtained re my children’s deaths, then why the visit to us as per their own protocol, why the recruitment of the GP, Health Visitor and Paediatricians? Any data gathered would be useless as research, WITHOUT complete records in relation to my children’s lives and deaths. So far the person who visited has declined to answer.
John Emery, sadly now deceased, contacted the Pathologist on the day of my son’s Post Mortem. (Though researchers at CONI deny this contact took place, I have the evidence to show this contact did indeed take place)
If it is true that CONI/Emery did not contact the pathologist and that records were NOT collected in relation to my children, then my children’s apparent inclusion in these papers means that these papers are worthless as research, they are based on incomplete data, their own ‘protocols’ for a death on scheme were not followed and it also means that they could not possibly have reached the conclusions they did based on ‘evidence’.
I say it would also mean the revisiting of these papers by Carpenter et al and Bacon and Hey is based upon flawed data.
One has to ask how many other children’s data used in these papers is incomplete.
If they did indeed have this data in relation to my children, then this means that the authors of these papers are withholding this data from the parents of the children they have ‘researched’. Data that parents have a right to have, worse still, it maybe that this data may aid some parents in legal proceedings and that gross miscarriages of justice may have occurred. Data they are withholding.
As a parent this data is apparently not available locally in relation to my own children. Therefore it is reasonable to assume that there may be parents involved in legal proceedings whose records in relation to their children have also ‘gone missing’. These parents, like my self previously, may not be aware that this data is apparently held or at least accessible by the authors of these papers. I certainly would not have been aware of my children’s apparent inclusion in published papers if I had not set about this path in recent years. The authors of these papers certainly do not volunteer this information to parents.
As I have said if the authors of these papers did not have this data in relation to my children and included them in research papers without this data, then these papers are worthless as research and deserve the criticisms levied against them. If Bacon and Hey also used incomplete data then they too will deserve such criticisms.
They CANNOT have it both ways.
I have contacted the authors of these papers in recent months and put it to them that to have apparently included my children in these papers, the authors must have been in possession of the entire records in relation to my children. I put it to them that to have apparently included my children in these papers based on the scant records released by CONI would have been professional suicide.
I have asked the authors of these papers to confirm or deny that my children were included in any of these papers, to date they have not even acknowledged my request. I have been stone walled by these ‘authors’.
I also put it them that in relation to my own children ‘they made detailed enquiries into the previous death and the CONI death, including a family interview, a review of autopsies, and case discussions took place’. I put it too them that I could not believe that their own protocols were not followed in relation to my own child’s death. A family interview did indeed take place pre and post my child’s death. Was I really expected to believe that a review of autopsy, detailed enquiries and case discussions did not take place? I think not.
I asked the authors of these papers what form the detailed enquries into my children’s lives and deaths took, were records and samples obtained? I asked if a review of my own children’s autopsies had taken place and what this entailed, I asked if a case discussion had taken place in relation to my own children and what data was used in these ‘d
ANOTHER YEAR HAS PAST~AND THE POWERS TO BE ARE STILL UP TO NO GOOD!!!! ALTHOUGH THIS WAR HAS BEEN HELL,I AM AN OPTIMIST FOR THE COMING YEAR! I SMELL VICTORY ON THE HORIZON FOR THE TOTAL DISSOLVEMENT OF THE CORRUPT AND VERY DESTRUCTIVE NEW NAZI REGIME ALSO KNOWN AS CPS(CHILD PARENT SEPARATORS!!!) ALSO TO ACHIEVE, REFORM IN THE FAMILY COURTS AND CHILD SUPPORT SYSTEMS!!! THE SCALES OF JUSTICE NEED TO BE BALANCED AND WE ALL NEED TO PUT MORE PRESSURE ON EVERYONE AND ANYONE TO GET CHANGE IN THE MAKING!! MY DAUGHTER INGRID, WAS RAILROADED/FALSELY ACCUSED AND I HAD TO BURY HER AT 30 YEARS YOUNG THE DIRECT RESULT OF CPS AND THEIR 5 YEARS OF THE ROLLER COASTER RIDE OF TORMENT AND HELL THEY PUT INGRID THROUGH!! HOWEVER I AM WILLING AND ABLE TO HELP ONE AND ALL IN WHATEVER AVENUE I CAN TO BRING WORLDWIDE EXPOSE OF THESE DEVILS IN SHEEP'S CLOTHING!!!! WE ALL HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO START SAVING FOR THE WEEKEND IN AUGUST 2008 IN WASHINGTON,D.C. WHERE GREAT AND MIGHTY THINGS WILL TAKE PLACE! LAST YEAR WAS THE FIRST YEAR FOR ME AND I PLAN ON GOING AGAIN THIS YEAR. MY BIRTHDAY IS THE 17TH OF AUGUST I COULD NEVER FIND A BETTER WAY TO SPEND IT, THAN HELPING TO PROVOKE /PROMOTE/EXPOSE THOSE GUILTY OF BLOOD MONEY~ EVEN DEATH!!! SO I WISH ALL A JUSTICE FILLED NEW YEAR AND HOPE YOU ALL WILL MAKE THE GREATEST ATTEMPT TO GO TO DCRALLY2008.COM IN AUGUST!!! ALSO TO REACH OUT TO OTHERS EVEN IT IS ONLY A GENTLE COMMENT!! I KNOW ALL YOUR PAIN,SOME DAYS ARE BAD AND SOME EVEN WORSE!! ALTHOUGH I HAVE BECOME A GREAT WARRIOR FOR JUSTICE~THE PAIN IS EVER SO EVIDENT!! THEY HAVE DESTROYED ME BUT I DO HAVE BREATH LEFT IN ME SO I WILL FIGHT UNTIL I AM NO LONGER ABLE(IN MEMORY OF MY DAUGHTER INGRID MAE!!!!) HOW HAVE YOU BEEN? FROM A DESTROYED FAMILY~NO WHITE FLAGS~FOREVER MONA G.
We R Friends I Got Ur Back U Got Mine I’ll Help U OutAnytime!!! 2 C U Hurt, 2 C U Cry, Makes Me Weep & That’s No Lie We Both Agree To Never Fight So It Won’t Matter Who’s Wrong Or Right If Ur Heart’s Broken And Needs A Mend I’ll B There 4 U Coz I’m Ur Friend So Don’t U Worry Let Go Of Ur Fears I’ll B There 4 U To Catch Ur Tears Ur A Friend I Can’t B Without Friends Forever There Is No Doubt So No Matter What Happens My Dear Friend I’ll Stand Right By U Till The Very End
Show Ur Friends How Much U Care,Send This To Everyone U Consider A Friend, Including Me. If It Comes Back To U, Then U’ll Know U Have A Circle Of Friends
Hello Lovely Lady Sarah Louise, Sending You God..s Love From Above Happy Holiday To You & Yours It..s always a Labor of Love... MySpace Comments Chromaluna.com Have a Blessed, Safe, And Happy Holiday... May these Wishing continue, With You, Each and Every Day... LAUs DEo ~ My VERY SPECIAL FRIEND Showing Some Love From The Heartland Your Friends at One World; Scott & Jordan One World ~ One Voice Mercury Awareness International "Developmental Abilities, Imagine the Possibilites" Fighting Affliction, With Healing... http://groups.myspace.com/OneWorldOneVoice Let..s Rock 4 Our Children... Applying Our Resources to Recovery (in Support Of) The Vaccine Autoimmune Project http:/www.vaproject.org Associate Member (Funding Science & Care For The Afflicted) And The ~Dr. Jeff Bradstreet ~ Andrew Wakefield~ (Visionary Excellence in Healing & Recovery)
www.a-champ.org/ (Advocates for Children's Health Affected by Mercury Poisoning) Mo. Member # 34 ~ "Please Join" To Make a Big Difference, For Us All to Be Heard as; "One World ~ One Voice" We Can Heal Our Children & Will Make A Difference...!!!
Be Safe, & " Educate Before You Vaccinate " Demand The Vears Database be made public It..s Transparency is the Answer & The Truth... What R THey Hiding...? Our Kids Know...!!! We Must Speak For Them...!!!
This EXTERMINATION of the Family is happening across The World. These Demons need to be STOPPED and sent to PRISON for the crimes they have committed on us!!! I am NOT scared and I will speak out until I take my last breath!!! From A Destroyed Family~No White Flags~Forever Mona G.
Stopping By To say Hi,& Checking In Wishing You & Yours Greatness 4 Your Weekend, And Also To Dreams That Never End... Thanx 4 Being The Best of Friends... We Are All Shooting Stars, With Our Place to Shine, Let it Shine; All The Time... Scott & Jordan Sending Our Best From the Heartland
Several Issues Concerning The Recovery of Our Afflicted Children Need Addressed Now... First ~ to Reclassify "Autism" as A Biomedical Condition, Not a Life Long Disability... Second ~ Provide Insurance and Medical Provisions Reforms to Aid in the Recovery of Our Children Thru These Vitally Urgent Treatments. Dan Protocol Clinics that Are Recovering 90% of the Afflicted
YOU'RE IT!! YOU HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED ONE OF MY SWEETEST FRIENDS ON MY LIST ONCE YOU HAVE BEEN TAGGED YOU HAVE TO TAG 10 OF YOUR SWEETEST FRIENDS AND LET THEM KNOW THEY ARE SWEET X.X.X""
FAKE FRIENDS: Will ignore this Send this heart 2 at least 15 ppl including me if u care 4 me!!!
and if u get at least 10 back you will get good newz within 15 Min!!!
Let's see how many hearts you get!!!!
........¶¶¶¶¶¶............¶¶¶¶¶¶ ....¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶....¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶ ..¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶........¶¶¶¶¶¶ ¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶........¶¶¶¶¶¶ ¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶....¶¶¶¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶ ..¶¶¶¶¶¶¶ . ¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶ ....¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶ ......¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶ ¶¶¶¶¶¶ .........¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶ ...........¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶ ............¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶ .............¶¶¶¶¶¶ Washington,DC this coming weekend,yeah! Have a great week!! From A Destroyed Family~No White Flags~Forever Mona G.
Hello, Happy Friday; Thanx 4 All You do, & The Great Friendship...!!! Sorry I Don..t Get around Like I Once did, I..m So Lost, Patience Please... Hope to Continue To work Closely with You to The Recovery of Our Children Just Passing this around and Asking Everyone do the Same... Thanx in Advance for Your Efforts ~ U Rock...!!! Have a Great Weekend My Friend, Scott & Jordan @ One World
Several Issues Concerning The Recovery of Our Afflicted Children Need Addressed Now... First ~ to Reclassify "Autism" as A Biomedical Condition, Not a Life Long Disability... Second ~ Provide Insurance and Medical Provisions Reforms to Aid in the Recovery of Our Children Thru These Vitally Urgent Treatments. A) Dan Protocol Clinics that Are Recovering 90% of the Afflicted, This includes Biomeds, Supplements, Hybot, Chelation, And Heavy Metal Detox...
(Please Do Your Best) to Promote This Petition, & Group Activities... LAus DEo My Friend...
Scott & Jordan One World ~ One Voice / Mercury Awareness International "Developmental Abilities,Imagine the Possibilites" Fighting Affliction, With Healing... Let..s Rock for Our Children...!!!
Good Morning my England Friend Sarah Louise!!I feel like I am in London,it hasn't stop raining here in Texas for days.Hope all is well with you!Have a wonderful weekend,and may we all soldier on!! Blessings to you! From A Destroyed Family~No White Flags~Forever Mona G.
Isn..t It Curious, How They Don..t Take Us Serious, I for One Am Getting furious... ( Mad as Hell) Don..t Call it Autism / Call It Toxicity Overburden (Mercury Poisoning) And totally Reversible...!!!
"Desperation on A Red Line"
"Call it Heavy Metal"
90% Of The Afflicted Who Recieve Heavy Metal Detox Are Recovered... Support DAN Protocol Clinics... It..s Our Children..s Only Hope, Besides Devine Prayers...
Message of Truth & Hope Brought To You By; Scott & Jordan One World ~ One Voice / Mercury Awareness International "Developmental Abilities,Imagine the Possibilites" Fighting Affliction, With Healing... http://groups.myspace.com/OneWorldOneVoice Let..s Rock 4 Our Children...
