Comment & Blogs
-
Anonymous
-
SocialWorker
-
http://www.facebook.com/people/Leonard-Henderson/543636136 Leonard Henderson
-
http://www.facebook.com/people/Leonard-Henderson/543636136 Leonard Henderson
-
Creation332
-
http://www.facebook.com/people/Leonard-Henderson/543636136 Leonard Henderson
-
James Rinkevich
-
Anonymous
-
amfortas
-
http://www.facebook.com/people/Angela-Horne/1621823849 Angela Horne
-
Parentof3
-
C A Geldart
-
Anonymous
-
Familyrightswi
-
Anonymous
-
Brandy M Miller
-
Ijak62
-
http://www.facebook.com/people/Leonard-Henderson/543636136 Leonard Henderson
-
Jacob Suggs
-
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/ The Catholic Herald
-
http://www.facebook.com/people/Leonard-Henderson/543636136 Leonard Henderson
-
Anonymous
-
Familyrightswi
-
Anonymous
-
Mei
-
James Rinkevich
-
David Armitage
-
W Oddie
-
W Oddie
-
Anonymous
-
SocialWorker
-
http://thatthebonesyouhavecrushedmaythrill.blogspot.com Laurence England
-
David Armitage
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Anonymous
-
Speransgaudebo
-
John hannigan
-
Familyrightswi
-
http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrew-Peacher/1484526999 Andrew Peacher
-
http://www.facebook.com/people/Andrew-Peacher/1484526999 Andrew Peacher
-
Anonymous
-
Emmanuel Goldstein
-
Jessica Clifton
-
Katey-judge
-
Gypsytartlet
-
http://www.injurycompensationlaw.co.uk/ injury compensation law
-
Rachelchandler1982
-
Rachelchandler1982
-
Rachelchandler1982







Too many children are being seized by social workers without good reason: why do these families have no protection from the Human Rights Act?
And why do the police so unquestioningly follow the instructions of the social services?
By William Oddie on Friday, 14 October 2011
In This Article
Christian Voice, Christopher Booker, forced adoption, Human Rights ActShare
About the author
William Oddie
Dr William Oddie is a leading English Catholic writer and broadcaster. He edited The Catholic Herald from 1998 to 2004 and is the author of The Roman Option and Chesterton and the Romance of Orthodoxy.
Contact the author
Related Posts
The Evangelical group Christian Voice (described in a hostile Wikipedia entry as a “fundamentalist Christian pressure group”) has been dismissed by one churchman as “a disgrace”, and its claims to represent Christians as “absurd”. Well, maybe they are absurd, and maybe they aren’t (though I have to say that I find myself agreeing with Christian Voice more often than I disagree).
But this month they have published a lengthy special report on what they describe as the “scandal” of the forced adoption of children seized by social workers, which I would have thought ought to be taken very seriously by anyone who cares about justice. Largely because these adoptions are carried out after child seizures have been executed on the basis of what often seems like no more than the unsupported instinct of social workers, and are imposed by secret family courts, whose doings cannot be reported on pain of contempt of court (many parents are imprisoned because they defy this monstrous law by going public), this is a problem which is hugely underestimated by public opinion.
Sometimes, journalists like Christopher Booker can report what are often harrowing cases: but only when a member of Parliament has broken silence on a particular case in the House of Commons, under protection of Parliamentary privilege. Hundreds of children have been torn from their parents in this way, often in the middle of the night. They, and their parents, have no recourse to law: they cannot appeal; they are entirely in the hands of judges who behave in what sometimes seems like an entirely arbitrary way—an inevitable result, surely, of any secretly conducted judicial system.
Christian Voice quotes an article by Christopher Booker published in the Sunday Telegraph in June, which I remember seeing at the time:
Only a few days before she was seized, the family had agreed to a care plan whereby the social workers would continue to keep an eye on her while she remained at home. But everything suddenly changed: the father wrote to one of the social workers, criticising the judge in the case. The note, it seems, was shown to the judge: the following day the child was taken away.
We have heard a great deal lately from our judges about the right to family life. But in thousands of cases, over which our “family courts” have jurisdiction, the Human Rights Act apparently does not come into play.
What strikes one is the astonishing lack of effort the social services put into finding an adequate evidential basis for their child-snatching ways. Take the following case, reported by the Mail in August:
In the end, it was Miss Garland who found an expert who said Harrison probably had osteogenesis imperfecta, or brittle bone disease. But why should SHE have had to find an expert? She is a defenceless amateur: the professionals who tore the family apart (in the end, under the stress, she and her partner split up) should have had the expertise to find the appropriate specialist.
What is so dreadful about so many of these cases is the idleness and incompetence of those who, not knowing enough to know how little they know, seize so many children and in some cases have had them irreversibly adopted before the parents are able to prove their innocence.
There is one question that puzzles me. Why do the police so willingly allow themselves to be used as the instruments of these social workers, whose incompetence can lead to such horrific denial of basic human rights? I end with another astonishing case reported by Christopher Booker, which concerns two parents who had had their six children seized:
That is all Booker was allowed to report: no names, no holding of any particular judge or social worker to account. As he says himself, “The treatment of this family has been so horrendous that I hope I can one day report it properly. But again, as so often in this and other family cases, why do the police seem so astonishingly compliant to the instructions of social workers? That is a mystery which I have never yet had satisfactorily explained.”
And again, I would like to know why such parents, and their children, have had so little protection from the much vaunted Human Rights Act. If anyone knows the answer, please let us have it.