UK National Emergency: CHILDREN AT RISK

 Introduction:

The bulk of this report was compiled and sent to the House of Lords, in 2016, though I have included some further clarification, for purpose of this publication. Sadly, very little if anything at all, has improved between 2016 and now - instead, the risks to children have dramatically increased. The continued apathy & ignorance in face of the mountain of evidence as exposed here, is beyond depressing - it's horrific.

I have personal experience of a childhood in an extremely abusive family home and also, spent time in State Care, I know first-hand, the full extent of the damages and the frustrating limitations they inflict on personal development and relationships: It is deeply depressing to realise that decades later, the risks and harms against British children have gone from bad to worse. 

The following report provides conclusive evidence compiled within a variety of professional studies & reports (which were largely ignored), exposing the ongoing severity of State-enforced neglect and abuse that is the inevitable result of a society predominantly focused on economic-growth at expense of spiritual & emotional growth for the next generation. Also included, are numerous insights and suggestions toward achieving positive change.

Children are being denied opportunity to discover & develop their natural vocations, skills & conscience; a child's levels of compassion & care are being systematically stunted within a society based on competition and the pervasive notion that care & compassion signify intellectual & emotional weakness. 

The result is that nations like Britain are generally raising a selfish, apathetic, complacent, and narcissistic populous, prone to abuse and be abused; xenophobia and mass-formation-psychosis are normalised and only a few bother to ask questions or challenge the status quo.

Far too many children raised in British culture, are suffering emotionally and psychologically - the damages are akin to there being no NHS Accident & Emergency to promptly repair broken bones: Broken hearts & minds are left to heal in crooked ways which then, impose often severe psychological & emotional disabilities in adult life and most commonly lead to further abuse of oneself and others. 

The child's 'Hierarchy of Needs' as identified by Abraham Maslow in his 1943 paper "A Theory of Human Motivation", are not being satisfied: Regardless of the decades between 1943 to present-day, a child's fundamental requirements to successfully self-actualise in adulthood, have not changed - those needs are universal and are a cornerstone to Human Rights. 

A Theory of Human Motivation - Abraham H Maslow - Psychological Review Vol 50 No July 1943 https://www.academia.edu/9415670/A_Theory_of_Human_Motivation_Abraham_H_Maslow_Psychological_Review_Vol_50_No_4_July_19434 

Considering our economy and education system etc., are all operating on academic theories or proposals formulated via government 'think-tanks', why is Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs not yet fully implemented within every aspect of child-welfare in Britain? Has anyone proven his theory as wrong or harmful? 

Lived experience has proven Britain's current child-protection protocols - equally devised on theories - are not only wrong & harmful but also, fundamentally ignorant & abusive.

Until children's universal rights & needs are met, UK society can only get worse: Examining the decades of deprivation, ignorance, and callous political & economic policies dumped on the UK populous; is it really any wonder that a gang of psychopathic criminals imposing draconian levels of hardship (while throwing £billions at globalist fascist schemes, illegal wars & Nazi-ambitions), have granted themselves powers to rob, rape & kill with impunity, and are currently governing Britain in a Parliament where, the alleged 'opposition' has performed a coup against itself to the degree that there is no opposition to a Prime Minister, who, casually stated to UK media, that money spent on investigating historical child abuse is money "spaffed up the wall"?

'PM told to say sorry for remark about ‘spaffing’ money up wall as 4,024 claims lead to guilty verdicts'

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/feb/05/police-uncovering-epidemic-of-child-abuse-in-1970s-and-80s

The rot is embedded very deep and it is time to stop-that-rot.   

Blogger will not permit live links. Copy & paste into an online search bar to view. Some links may no longer be active.

A holistic Report on the Child-At-Risk. Submitted to the House of Lords and for the attention of The UK Children's Commission for presentation to Family Law Society & Children, in request for an urgent, Public Inquiry into current standards and practices of UK provision toward; education, family-support, child-care, child protection, and adoption.

Written and researched by Deborah Mahmoudieh, as a victim-survivor on behalf of all the victim-survivors and children of Britain and abroad.

Content:

Facts of Evidence: Key statistics: 1

Listening to The Children

Facts of Evidence: 2-8

The Corporate Parent

Education, Parenting & Motherhood

Forced Adoption

Owning Responsibility

Conclusions: ILGs & Family Support

Facts of Evidence: 1 'Key statistics: 

'Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer 2012: 'Our Children Deserve Better: Prevention Pays':

'In England, there were 67,050 looked-after children (0.6% of the childhood population) on 31 March 2012. Of these, 28,220 started to be looked after during the year 1 April 2011–31 March 2012.

Some 56% of the children who started to be looked after during the year became so because of abuse or neglect.

Following a significant fall in the number of children in care over the past 30 years, numbers rose in the UK between 2008 and 2012, from 81,315 to 91,667.

Around 13% of children remain in the care system for more than five years.

An analysis of serious case reviews in England shows that 10% (2003–2005) and 13% (2005–2007) related to a child in care.

There have been 33 [now 100+] child deaths in youth custody since 1990.

Looked-after children and care leavers are between four and five times more likely to self-harm in adulthood. They are also at five-fold increased risk of all childhood mental, emotional and behavioural problems, and six to seven times more likely to have conduct disorders.

Looked-after teenage girls are 2.5 times more likely to become pregnant than other teenagers.

 ChildLine counselled 3,196 children and young people in 2009–2010 about problems related to being looked after – this is 1 in 26 of all looked-after children in the UK [The numbers have risen substantially since 2010 and with a vast majority of sufferers never contacting ChildLine].

The cost of a foster care placement is £676, and the cost of living in a children’s home is £2,639 per week (2010) 

'Children and young people in care are also at increased risk of sexual exploitation, as recent high-profile media cases have identified.' 

[There is little to suggest that the above figures have in any way decreased since 2012, disturbingly, all evidence points to a rise in all areas of concern as identified above.]

'Listening To The Children: The experiences, views and preferences of looked-after children and young people'.

Love – Looked-after children and young people say that: 

love and affection are desired but are often lacking in their lives; 

love, or the lack of it, has a significant impact on their emotional wellbeing, in particular their self-esteem;

for some, the training and payment for foster carers undermines the sense that they are wanted or loved;

an unmet need for love and affection is perceived by some to have a profound and lasting impact on their future outcomes.

A sense of belonging – Looked-after children and young people feel that:

a sense of belonging is desirable, yet often lacking in their lives;

their sense of identity is compromised by a lack of sense of belonging.'

Being supported – Looked-after children and young people say that:

they need to feel that there is someone to support them;

emotional support is an important need;

encouragement to achieve in education and other aspects of their life is also needed;

practical support, such as help with homework and provision of materials, is key for achieving success in their lives.

Having someone to talk to – Looked-after children and young people report that:

opportunities to talk to someone about their concerns were often not available, but they appreciated them when they were;

they were often mistrustful of talking to professionals as they could not be sure that what they said would be kept confidential.

Contact with birth parents:

Many children and young people in public care have a strong desire to maintain contact with their birth families.

Maintaining contact with birth families is important for supporting their self-identity.

Children and young people in public care felt that social workers and care providers can obstruct their efforts to maintain contact with their families, and were resentful of this.

A lack of contact causes significant emotional upset for children and young people in public care.

Contact with birth families is a complex issue: although an overwhelming majority of children and young people in public care saw it as positive, not all felt the same.'

Stigma and prejudice – Looked-after children and young people reported that:

negative attitudes towards them are common;

curiosity and pity are also attitudes commonly experienced and disliked;

a common and unwelcome experience was being singled out and made to feel different because of their looked-after status when what they particularly wanted was to feel ‘normal’.

Education – Important issues for looked-after children and young people were that:

encouragement to attend and do well at school is lacking for many, yet those who have achieved success in education feel it is a key factor in their success;

the provision of practical support and resources is felt to be another key facilitator of success, yet is frequently lacking, particularly in residential care;

another source of support often felt to be pivotal in educational success was education-specific support, in the form of educational advice;

emotional support during education, particularly higher education, was noted as a need;

stereotyping and stigma on the part of others, including teachers, were seen as a common barrier to educational success;

a lack of continuity in placements and schooling is a further barrier to the educational success of looked-after children and young people;

being placed in residential care was seen as particularly disadvantaging educationally.

Looked-after children and young people who had achieved success in education cited their self-reliance as the key factor which helped them overcome the barriers mentioned above.

'Conclusion

'Looked-after children are a vulnerable group highlighted by the UNCRC. Compared with their peers they have significantly more educational and mental health problems and care leavers have worse adult outcomes. There are socioeconomic, parental and child-based risk factors associated with children entering public care. 

Looked-after young people have clearly stated what they feel is lacking in their lives and what could help them overcome their difficult earlier experiences, and a primary, secondary and tertiary prevention approach is needed. Warm, nurturing care in a stable placement is a key component of this strategy.'

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/252661/33571_2901304_CMO_Chapter_11.pdf

Facts of Evidence 2: 

Children leaving care face an increased risk of ending up in prison; an alarming number of care-leaver adults between ages of 18-24, are reported to have died while in prison:

The deaths of children and young people in custody: the need for an independent review:

'...we know from our casework that a significant number of those who have died were care-leavers or had experience of care yet this context may not be fully analysed by an inquest.'

 http://inquest.org.uk/pdf/briefings/INQUEST_Briefing_on_deaths_of_children_and_young_people_in_prison_JAN_2014.pdf

INQUEST's evidence-based report Stolen Lives and Missed Opportunities: The deaths of young adults and children in prison documents the deaths of 65 young people and children in prison between 2011 and 2014.

http://inquest.org.uk/publications/books/stolen-lives-and-missed-opportunities

A cared-for child is many times more likely to commit crimes and come into contact with police:

Report of the inquiry held by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children 2013-2014:

'Children in care are more likely to enter the youth justice system than any other group of children and young people. In 2013, 6.2 per cent of children in care aged 10 to 17 were convicted of a criminal offence or subject to a final warning, compared to the national average of 1.5 per cent for all children, while around one-third of children in custody have been in care, despite children in care making up around just one per cent of the total child population.

'Children and young people can also experience difficulties during the various procedures in the police station. For example, young people from the UR Boss project thought that strip-searching, which they found particularly degrading, was over-used. Furthermore, the process of interviewing and questioning can be confusing and intimidating for children and young people, and whilst there is a statutory duty on police to ensure that an Appropriate Adult is present during this process, there is no requirement for children and young people to be provided with legal representation. Research presented to the inquiry indicated that children aged 10 to 13 are the age group least likely to request a solicitor.

'What is more, Aika Stephenson of Just for Kids Law, a charity which provides legal representation, advocacy and support for children and young people in trouble with the law, spoke of being involved in several cases where police officers had actively encouraged children to cede their rights when in custody, telling the child that they would be released far more quickly if they did not ask for legal representation.'

 http://www.ncb.org.uk/media/1164355/appgc_children_and_police_report_-_final.pdf

'In 2013 Tasers had been used on 230 children age 13-15: Many more children are subject to strip-searching by police, an overwhelming majority of such children are arrested by police after abscontion from care or a secure-child-unit.

'Children’s human rights are currently threatened when they come into contact with the police. Strip-searching can be a terrifying and traumatic experience for children, especially for those coming into contact with the criminal justice system, many of whom will be feeling frightened and very vulnerable. It should only happen when absolutely necessary, and where proper safeguards are in place to keep children safe from harm and limit the trauma they are likely to experience. This is not happening in practice.

*'STRIP SEARCHING OF CHILDREN HAS DOUBLED BETWEEN 2008 & 2013. 

THE YOUNGEST CHILD STRIP SEARCHED IN 2013 WAS AGE 12.

IN 45% OF CASES NO “APPROPRIATE ADULT” WAS PRESENT.

49.6% OF CHILDREN SEARCHED WERE RELEASED WITHOUT CHARGE.'

http://www.crae.org.uk/media/75135/SOCR_2014_REPORT_WEB.pdf

*For some inexplicable reason Crae has disabled all links to the PDF they published in 2014, citing a catalogue of State-endorsed abuses against British children. Below is another link confirming the figure stated above, as published in 2015:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jan/21/strip-search-children-police-stations-last-resort

3: Cared for children are more likely to abscond or go 'missing':

 2012 REPORT FROM THE JOINT INQUIRY INTO CHILDREN WHO GO MISSING FROM CARE:

'In fact, even though police data shows that there are an estimated 10,000 individual children going missing in a year from care, the government’s official data only recorded 930 children going missing from care last year. This is a huge and worrying discrepancy.

Children are taken into care from their parents because we do not think they are safe or cared for well enough at home. But the evidence clearly shows that we fail to keep the most vulnerable children safe whilst they are in our care. In fact, children who go missing from care are being systematically failed – and placed in great danger – by the very systems and professionals who are there to protect them. This is unforgivable.' 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/175563/Report_-_children_who_go_missing_from_care.pdf

 'UK CARE SYSTEM BRANDED 'DISGRACEFUL' OVER MISSING CHILDREN:

'Campaigners and MPs have condemned the failure of the care system in the UK to keep track of children under its protection as a disgrace after Newsweek revealed that around 2,000 children per year 'go missing' from official records, and warned that many of these children could become victims of sexual exploitation.

'Analysis of data shared with Newsweek shows that, according to the Department of Education's statistics for the year ending March 31, 2013, around 1,910 children (legally defined as under the age of 18) left the care system in England for unknown reasons, including 180 babies under the age of one. In the same period in 2012, about 2,260 children left the system for unknown reasons...

"It's disgraceful," says Phil Frampton, the former national chair of the Care Leavers Association. "It is clear that the government and local authorities don't take seriously their responsibilities for the young people in their care. It's quite likely that these children have fallen into the hands of sexual exploiters, they may well have been trafficked; who knows what's happened to these children.

"Some of these young people who go missing end up murdered. Some of the children murdered by Fred West were young people who had gone missing from care homes."

http://europe.newsweek.com/thousands-missing-children-care-system-could-be-sexually-exploited-311607

4: Cared-for children are at equal risk of suffering abuse and neglect in care as they were in the family home:

Although the NSPCC has published a report claiming that the number of children abused or neglected while in care is "low". This 'evidence' cannot be accepted at its face-value when we take into consideration that cared-for children are heavily controlled and often restricted, by a united front of LA professionals including police. 

How many children permanently 'missing' from care have in fact been killed?  

It is understood that on average, only a minority of children suffering abuse in care will issue an official crime-report about their abuse. Of the few that do, a high portion will be ignored and/or persuaded to 'retract' their allegation and/or their complaint will be dismissed as 'unproven' or else, 'false'. Considering too, that most children reporting crimes against themselves to police, are provided with no independent legal counsel, present NSPCC figures based on official statistics are very likely, compromised.

'Thousands of child sex abuse cases go unreported, says report

'Up to 400,000 cases of child sex abuse behind closed doors, says children's commissioner, as police chief calls for crackdown on internet pornography

'Anne Longfield, the children’s commissioner for England, found there had been 50,000 reported cases of sex abuse over the last two years - but estimated the true number was 400,000 to 450,000.'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/child-protection/12012639/One-in-eight-cases-of-child-sex-abuse-go-unreported-says-report.html

'Only 1 in 8 children who are sexually abused are identified by professionals.

'Children’s Commissioner calls for urgent action to improve the prevention and early identification of child sexual abuse and the support provided to victims.'

http://www.childrenscommissioner.gov.uk/news/only-1-8-children-who-are-sexually-abused-are-identified-professionals

While the above report states: 'The children’s commissioner said the country must “wake up” to the fact that most abuse takes place in the home.' This statement is somewhat ambiguous when we consider the increased control cared-for children are under and the increased risks cared-for children face in the form of child-care professionals acting in gangs and groups to abuse children. Many children's 'family home' is a foster-care or adoptive-parent home: A UK MP Report into organised paedophilia states:

'Organised child sex abuse is widespread in England':

'MPs said all councils across England now needed to review child protection policies.

Their report said: "On the evidence we took, the alarming conclusion is that Rotherham was not an outlier and that there is a widespread problem of organised child sexual exploitation in England."

The MPs inquiry was prompted by a report by Prof Alexis Jay, which revealed up to 1,400 children were estimated to have been victims of abuse in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-30083835

Nuns 'abused hundreds of children'

'Former residents of the Catholic Nazareth order's homes say they suffered appalling, systematic cruelty. Special investigation by Barry Wood

'Many of those alleging physical, and to some extent sexual, abuse are now elderly people who say their entire lives have been affected by what they endured as children. '

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/nuns-abused-hundreds-of-children-1171988.html

5: Dubious financial incentives to remove children from their family home unnecessarily: Professor Ray Jones Report on the risks posed by privatisation of child care services: 

'‘Considerable risk:

'No other country anywhere allows decisions about the protection of children to be contracted outside of public services and the state’s immediate responsibility.

Nowhere else takes the considerable risk of these services only being accountable back to the government or local authorities through a contract. Why not? Well just look at how G4S, SERCO, A4e, and ATOS have let down the public so badly on their expensive profit-generating contracts for the tagging of offenders, provision of out-of-hours GP services, helping long-term unemployed people into work, and the welfare benefits assessments of disabled people.

Is it sensible to place child protection and other children’s social services in the same jeopardy?

When the regulation which opens up children’s social services to the market place was considered in September by a Parliamentary committee Labour did not oppose it. Instead there was a statement from a Labour MP that “if people’s worse fears are realised and these measures prove to be the route to fragmentation, unaccountable, unregulated provision, riddled with conflicts of interest and dubious financial incentives, a future Government will have to repeal them. By that time, however, thousands of children might have suffered needlessly”.'

http://www.communitycare.co.uk/2015/01/07/stealth-privatisation-childrens-services/

'Over 2,000 UK children per month are taken into care. Fosterers from private agencies are paid an average £400/week per child (birth mothers get around £20/week), and a foster agency founded by social workers getting around £1500/week per child was recently sold for £130 million! A real money-driven industry!! Parents whose children have been taken are gagged and *threatened with prison if they protest publicly. '

http://forced-adoption.com/reforms/

6: The majority of care and adoption proceedings in Britain, are initiated via the directives of Section 47 of the Children's Act:

'Section 47 Enquiry

Under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989, if a child is taken into Police Protection, is the subject of an Emergency Protection Order or there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a child is suffering or is likely to suffer Significant Harm, a Section 47 Enquiry is initiated. This is to enable the local authority to decide whether they need to take any further action to safeguard and promote the child’s welfare.

This normally occurs after a Strategy Discussion.

Section 47 Enquiries are usually conducted by a social worker, jointly with the Police, and must be completed within 15 days of a Strategy Discussion.

Where concerns are substantiated and the child is judged to be at continued risk of *Significant Harm, a Child Protection Conference should be convened.'

*Physical Abuse, Sexual Abuse, Emotional Abuse and Neglect are all categories of Significant Harm.

http://trixresources.proceduresonline.com/nat_key/keywords/sec_47_enq.html

Section 47 of the Children's Act is clear and straightforward in its direction for both identifying and protecting children from 'significant harm'. Emotional abuse is clearly listed in the category of 'significant harm'.

Risks relating to 'future emotional abuse' are presently, a common cause of permanent removal of children from family homes, many of whom are then, forcibly adopted. 

Local authority assessments supporting identification of a future emotional risk regularly includes:

Domestic violence and/or harassment by an estranged partner.

Acrimonious divorce or separation.

Sexual assault or rape suffered by a mother.

Post Natal Depression.

Unregistered birth.

A parent is identified as being 'cared-for' as a child.

A parent suffered abuse as a child.

A parent has learning difficulties.

A parent has a mental illness.

A parent has a drug or alcohol addiction.

Disturbingly, the parents most likely to receive Family Support and enabled to keep their children in the list above, are those suffering alcoholism and/or drug addiction. This is disturbing because it is common sense to understand, that if an alcoholic or drug-addicted parent can be assisted to adequately care for children themselves, then so too, can other parents included on the list.

Inside the secret court that helps victims of drug abuse keep their families together: 

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/may/17/parents-drugs-judge-children

 

Unfortunately, there is a problem with Section 47. The problem is that it is only activated when a professional requests its implementation. Non-professionals and parents who request local authorities to act on the identified suspicions are regularly dismissed if their concerns are not equally supported by a trusted authority or expert. This approach by police in particular, who are consistently proven to be largely, dismissive of public requests for help concerning suspicions about the safety of 'cared-for' children, means that local authority care covertly presents a 'safe' arena for abuse, neglect and even, deaths of children, to occur unchallenged.

There is ample evidence to support lawful suspicion that serious abuse of children is regularly, left ignored by police and other authorities. There are numerous complaints from the public and whistleblowers in relation to children being left in care of or given increased contact with abusive families, carers and parents,

7: Impacts of Adoption: Assessing Risk and Trauma:

While some parents willingly offer their child up for adoption, the majority of adoptions in Britain are through LA Court Orders and against the wishes of parents and/or child. Faced with a choice between corporate-parent and adoptive-parent, the latter is clearly, the better option. However, as this report explains, there are many pitfalls within the very process of identifying children as 'in-need' of adoption. 

There is presently, little in place toward keeping-track of an adopted child's welfare and safety. This is very clearly reflected in the sample cases below. When examining these cases, it is important to remember the aforementioned Report that 180 babies under age 1 went missing from LA care in 2013 alone - how many therefore, have gone 'missing' from adoptive-parents?:

Adopted girl wins right to return to biological family after abuse:

In a written ruling on the case which has now been made public, Mrs Justice Pauffley said an adoption order was made when the girl was almost four years old. But, she said, no professional involved with the girl at that time could have envisaged that within two years she would be “cast out” of the home of the couple who adopted her and sent to live with extended family in Ghana. Nor could there have been any indication that, while there, she would be “abused by the adults with whom she had been sent to live”.

“Her experience of adoption, particularly the arrangements made for her after the age of six, would seem to have been extremely abusive,” the judge said. “She is desperate to draw a line under that part of her life.”

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/aug/11/adopted-girl-wins-right-to-return-to-biological-family-after-abuse

Court grants 14 year old’s application for revocation of adoption order:

http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed146343

JUSTICE DENIED

'In his book, In Pursuit Of The Truth, he [Detective Clive Driscoll] recalls interviewing a troubled woman called Vicky, who later starved herself to death. She detailed horrific ritual abuse.

The former detective chief inspector writes: “She talked about a place in Kent where she had been taken, along with other children, and made to run away from dogs.

“They were dumped in the woods and given a head start before the hunting pack was released. She survived. Other kids weren’t so fortunate.” 

Mr Driscoll took her back to the isolated spot near Gravesend and discovered landmarks she mentioned from her childhood after being adopted by an abusive couple.'

http://google-law.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/chief-inspector-clive-driscoll-and.html

Children abused for 10 years by adoptive parents:

Three children rescued from drug-addicted parents suffered a decade of abuse and neglect by the couple who adopted them, a case review has found.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-14230584

Adoptee View: What Can a Tiny Baby Know?

'Adoption is a trauma that happens to a child. The child is torn away from her biological mother, placed in the arms of strangers and is left with questions, doubts, fears and anxiety with no way to verbalize, express, mourn or contextualize those feelings. Though the common misconception is that a child won’t remember any of it many psychologists believe, with evidence to support, that children remember their birth and the following events, including relinquishment and adoption, up to the age of three.

Responses to the Adopted Child’s Trauma

'At this age the only tools a child has to deal with this separation trauma is through crying or reaction to physical touch and anger. These tools can manifest in overt expression or a marked lack of expression. A baby may cry in response or rarely cry and be perceived as a good and peaceful baby, when in reality she is hurting. She may respond by recoiling from human touch or may become too attached to the sensation and have difficulty learning boundaries. A child may express her anger through yelling, kicking, screaming, crying or withholding emotional expression.'

http://adoptionvoicesmagazine.com/adoptee-view/adoptee-view-what-can-a-tiny-baby-know/#.V4UHvfkrL9Q

PUNISHMENT WITHOUT CRIME: 

The UK is also the ONLY PLACE IN THE WORLD  where babies are taken at birth for “risk of emotional abuse”: 

https://forced-adoption.com/

‘Families flee UK to avoid forced adoption’: Inside Out was broadcast on BBC One South East on Monday, 6 October 2014. Rachel Royce reports: 

https://forced-adoption.com/#insideout 

ITV documentary “exposure” 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=va1N9r2Vieg  

Channel 4 News

http://www.channel4.com/news/revealed-the-networks-helping-families-flee-social-services

Mother, 24, who fled to Spain allowed to keep her daughter. May, 2012:

Vindicated: Mother, 24, who fled to Spain when social services ruled she was 'unfit' to bring up child is allowed to keep her daughter: Council have now allowed Miss Coote to keep her daughter whom they said was making 'excellent progress'

* Suffolk Country Council deemed Megan Coote, 24, who suffers learning difficulties unfit before baby was even born

* MP John Hemming backs family and brands experts used in family courts as 'unreliable'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2148069/Mother-24-fled-Spain-social-services-ruled-unfit-bring-child-allowed-daughter.html

8: Impacts of family separation on child psychology and emotional wellbeing: 

'The loss of a parent is arguably one of the most distressing experiences that a child can undergo. Losing a parent through state intervention can be especially harmful as it creates a “divorce” scenario in which children are removed from their family, friends, and environments with no sense of closure. This can lead to an irreparable sense of loss that can stunt development and lead to behavioral problems (Silver et al., 1999).'

http://tucollaborative.org/pdfs/Toolkits_Monographs_Guidebooks/parenting/Factsheet_4_Resulting_Trauma.pdf 

Clearly, a huge factor of emotional damage to children removed from the family home, is related to being controlled by others, being placed in care of strangers, uncertainty, having little or no choice and, lack of emotional bonding with carers; there is a distinct absence of the 'warm-response' now identified as vital for healthy child development into adulthood. There is an urgent need to address the loss and/or absence of, emotional-bonding in cared-for children, who are commonly known to be suffering from trauma on entering into care:

Trauma sensitive practice with children in care:

'Trauma can adversely affect all areas of life and not only prevent the early development of key emotional and cognitive skills but also undermine existing abilities in older children and adolescents. Complex trauma can lead to children displaying behaviour or attitudes that meet diagnostic criteria for several different psychiatric disorders. Minnis (2013) introduced the term MAPP (Maltreatment Associated Psychiatric Problems), to describe this complex overlap in psychiatric diagnoses. Unless these behaviours are recognised as adaptive responses to extreme adversity, children may be labelled with one or more inaccurate psychiatric diagnoses. Such diagnoses may lead to inappropriate drug or behavioural interventions rather than an effective relational response to help children recover.'

http://www.iriss.org.uk/resources/trauma-sensitive-practice-children-care

Dr Mai Stafford's indepth, Study which involved thousands of people and children from all walks of life, over the course of decades,  is of profound significance and her findings and recommendations need to be promptly incorporated in all decisions concerning child-assessments, or removal from the family home:

'Overly-controlling parents cause their children lifelong psychological damage, says study: The negative impact on wellbeing was comparable in scale to that observed in people who have suffered a bereavement, the experts said:

'Parents who exert too much control over their children could be causing them lifelong psychological damage, according to a study which tracked a group of people born in the 1940s until the present day.

'Researchers found that people who reported their parents had intruded on their privacy in childhood or encouraged dependence were more likely to have low scores in surveys of happiness and general wellbeing carried out in their teens, their 30s, their 40s and even their 60s.

'The negative impact on wellbeing was comparable in scale to that observed in people who have suffered a bereavement, experts from University College London (UCL) said.

'In contrast, people who said their parents were more caring, warm and responsive to their needs tended to be more content well into adulthood.'

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/overly-controlling-parents-cause-their-children-lifelong-psychological-damage-says-study-10485172.html

The Corporate Parent

British authorities are currently trending the phrase "corporate parent" in relation to cared-for children, in line with the stealth privatisation of children's services and child protection. Since legally, a corporation is identified as a 'person', it is hypocritical and also, a risk to children, if the corporate-parent is given positive discrimination in terms of accepting responsibility for the damages and risks, children have suffered in their care. For example, G4S child-care staff are lawfully recorded as abusing, harming and killing children in their care and yet, G4S as a corporate-parent/person remains at liberty to receive children deemed at risk in their family home.

Revealed: G4S youth jail faced abuse claims 12 years ago:

'No significant action taken after 2003 allegations by whistleblowers at Medway secure training centre currently under investigation over similar behaviour'

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/26/revealed-g4s-youth-jail-faced-abuse-claims-12-years-ago

The 'corporate-parent' is either a legal-person or they are a business; a business cannot be a trusted 'parent' unless, there is an independent body to provide expert support for any child in need while in care of the 'corporate' or foster parent. If the corporation is in legal fact, a 'person' then it is as a 'person' they need to be judged in relation to their track-record of providing care for children i.e. We do not expect to see their staff who have killed a child through sheer negligence, being promoted to 'Health & Safety Manager':

G4S guard fatally restrains 15 year old - gets promoted:

'15 year old Gareth Myatt, on his third day at Rainsbrook Secure Training Centre near Rugby, refused to clean the sandwich toaster. He was sent to his room. He complied.

'A note on Gareth's file said that if he became aggressive, which didn't happen often, the best thing was for staff to leave him alone to calm down. They didn't do that.

Instead, six foot, sixteen stone David Beadnall and a fellow guard followed Gareth (4 ft 10" and 6½ stone) to his room. They told him off. They later claimed that Gareth, who was of mixed race, responded defiantly, asking them to leave.

'The guards chose not to leave. Instead, they began the punishment procedure known as 'single separation' in a stripped-down room. All Gareth's personal possessions would be removed from his room.

'Gareth had few personal possessions. One was a scrap of paper. His mother's new mobile phone number was written on it.

'They took it. He objected.'

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/clare-sambrook/g4s-guard-fatally-restrains-15-year-old-gets-promoted

Why is Gareth Myatt not given the same importance & mass publicity as given to e.g. The death of Baby P? G4S continues to receive in excess of £140,000 per year per child in government/public funding.

Gareth Myatt was one of the extraordinarily high percentage of cared-for children who arrive into child-detention centres. As previously stated in aforementioned government report; one-third of children in custody have been in care, despite children in care making up around just one per cent of the total child population: 

 15 things I’ve learned about child prisons since the death of Gareth Myatt

Gareth Paul Myatt loved riding his bike, watching South Park and the Simpsons and playing chess. He was academically able. Racist bullying in his earlier years contributed to later struggles with his identity. Between the ages of 11 and 14, he lived in care on five separate occasions — three times in a children’s home and twice with foster carers. By the end of 2003, Gareth was receiving no education at all...

On 16 April 2004, at the age of 15, Gareth was sentenced to custody for breaching a community order, assaulting a member of staff in his children’s home and stealing a bottle of beer. He was admitted to Rainsbrook secure training centre, a child prison in Northamptonshire then run by the international security company G4S.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/shine-a-light/15-things-ive-learned-about-child-prisons-since-the-death-of-gareth-myatt/

When we consider that corporations such as G4S [no longer active in UK childcare business but still reaping rewards via locking up Palestinian children in Israel], are earning profits on the suffering of severely disadvantaged, damaged and extremely vulnerable children like Gareth, it's sickening to realise that children are migrating from a profitable care-home into an equally profitable detention centre and from there, the chances of staying out of prison in adulthood are slim. That a cared-for child ends up in a youth-jail/'detention-centre' because his traumatic childhood has left him so disturbed, he assaults a member of staff and resorts to stealing beer.

At no stage in the process of handing him from care-home to secure-home, did anyone stop to empathise with Gareth, or ask questions about why he had resorted to theft & violence and why instead of detention, he wasn't granted extensive therapy? Surely, the professionals employed in the facilities 'caring' for Gareth, knew full well that once in detention, his future prospects had gone from bad to bleak?

The overwhelming majority of children in care are from low-income, disadvantaged families. The general consensus has not altered from the Victorian era; the poor are blamed for their poverty and judged 'inferior'/substandard humans and their children, are allegedly, 'genetically' predisposed to a life of crime & poverty as adults. Despite the fact today we know such judgements are scientifically & ethically defunct, nonetheless, the adult world operating present child-care systems, continues to abide by them because otherwise, Gareth would have been shown the tolerance, love & compassion that are every child's human right.

A child's bad behaviour is a sign that child needs help and 'help' can never be a detention centre/child-prison, staffed by insensitive characters who are there to punish more than to care: There is no excuse for the dreadful chasm between solid academic advancements in understanding children's psychological & emotional needs, and what the children most in need of that understanding, are actually receiving i.e. Massive amounts of public funds pouring straight into corporate & shareholder pockets but what amounts to intellectual gruel for the unfortunate children being used to facilitate & justify the transfer of those funds - it amounts to blatant theft via a socially accepted economic-'norm' in which, poverty is maintained as a foundation of power & wealth - an economy that robs millions of children like Gareth, of a stable family life with parents who have the emotional & material foundation for a positive outlook, hope and opportunity.

Too often we witness dismissal of a child's dire circumstance as being "no excuse" but where then, is the 'excuse' for wealth & power being predominantly in the hands of e.g. Etonian-Oxford bully-boys who went around smashing up pubs for youthful 'fun', none of those landed in a child-prison, instead, at least 3 of them end up on Downing St running the country.

Gareth didn't need excuses, he had acceptable reasons for exhibiting aggression against his carers; his whole life from a very young age, had been aggressively commandeered by the professional class and government think-tanks that keep the Oxdbridge-Etonians in office to devise the protocols of dealing with Britain's 'difficult' children. Essentially, Gareth's life amounted to a punishment for being born and nonetheless, the UK establishment still valued his life worthy of £140,000 per year to be paid as a government hand-out to a global corporation for providing substandard care, that Gareth's natural family, with less than half that amount, could have provided 100% better and certainly, without killing him.

Sexism, vandalism and bullying: inside the Boris Johnson-era Bullingdon Club

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/07/oxford-bullingdon-club-boris-johnson-sexism-violence-bullying-culture

Cases of child-suffering, proved against the corporate-parent, need to overshadow all children in their care, in exactly, the same way it would the natural, parent. Failure to lawfully treat the corporate-parent as one would an average 'parent-person', is unlawful discrimination against individual persons as a natural parent, in favour of the corporate-person-parent. We cannot fail to note here, that it was anti-discrimination law, on which, corporations were originally granted the legal status as 'person'.

While most foster-carers do their best for children in their care, children can face similar or worse risks in foster-carer homes as they faced in their family home, where the same social dynamics, life stresses between couples, family and friends, and other children, lead to all manner of common upsets and disputes in those family homes. For example, many children report being bullied in care and foster-care, by other children in those homes. 

Since it is known that child-to-child bullying is a common feature of British society, cared-for children are most at risk, due to their being compelled to reside with other damaged children who otherwise, would only be part of their external world at school etc.

Local authority responses to child reports of abuse or neglect whilst in LA care are very casually negated or dismissed or else, the child is simply moved to another carer, while the original carer is permitted to receive other children. Meanwhile, parents who have inflicted no levels of neglect or abuse on their children, but are 'expertly' identified as a 'future emotional risk', are prevented from caring for any child and any further children born to them are commonly, instantly removed from their care.

Even the most empathic foster-carers, will suffer children absconding from their care. The levels of child-absconding from care-homes and foster-carers, is indicative of the extraordinarily high levels of emotional trauma, a majority of cared-for children are suffering; over a hundred thousand children in Britain every year, are so unhappy, they flee their home - those children are easy prey for abusers.

Some children who are rescued from severe abuse at home may fare better in State-care as they welcome the comparative safety & care now provided and, are more open to forming bonds with the many wonderful carers employed in care & foster-homes, who regularly, step beyond the calls of duty in their efforts to ensure that children in their care feel genuinely, loved. 

Unfortunately, children are rarely allowed to stay with just one carer, most are repeatedly shunted from one carer to another, sometimes 5 or more times in space of a year, which is severely emotionally debilitating and actually abusive in terms of impacts on child development.

Education, Parenting & Motherhood

Comparing the number of children leaving the family home to enter into university education, to those who leave the 'corporate-parent', we witness an overwhelming majority of corporate children never reaching any standard of higher education, and with most children in care, over 60%, barely achieving a grade C in school education. 

Poor academic performance at school is another indication that corporate/cared-for children are unhappy and suffering emotionally. Many feel 'homeless' outside of the familial home and develop a strong dislike of authority being as they are continually, under the watchful eye of authority both at home and at school. Those authorities are regularly, perceived by the child, as 'alien'/external due to the general absence of emotional-bonding between child and carers. The absence of emotional-bonding is a fundamental feature of neglect and on a psychological level, is akin to growing up with a hole-in-the-heart.

When it comes to raising children, Britain as a nation, is in crisis - the adult population is largely, a risk to children regardless of family background, education, class, ethnicity, or faith and this is due directly, to the traditional lack of education toward preparing the youth for their responsibilities as future parents; few teenagers leave school being fully educated about the needs of a baby, a toddler or a child. Few boys are taught the needs of a pregnant or new mother. Few girls are taught about the impacts of pregnancy and child-birth: The way to raise future generations of competent, happier, more fulfilled & appreciated Fathers, is to focus on raising better educated, self-aware, more confidently autonomous & competent Mothers.

Ill-prepared parents of one generation, unwittingly pass-on the covert damages embedded in a culture that has no real understanding of child needs; children commonly pick-up on opinions, prejudices and beliefs of their parents; conditioned to judge and be judged, compete, and measure-up against each other as a 'normality', as a result, childhood interactions with other children, regularly include some form of abuse with bullying being the most common:

'Delivering on The Children’s Plan:

'Young people in care say bullying is among their top concerns. Bullying can make the lives of victims a misery; it can undermine their confidence and self-esteem, and can destroy their sense of security.'

http://www.anti-bullyingalliance.org.uk/media/7489/safe_from_bullying-childrens_homes.pdf 

Certainly, a childcarer's job is made more difficult due to the fact that children taken into Local-Authority/LA care are often, damaged and/or traumatised which is known to cause behavioural problems and which is evidenced in the recorded, very high rate of behavioural problems exhibited in cared-for children: 

'72% of children in care have behavioural or emotional problems.'

http://www.youngminds.org.uk/training_services/policy/mental_health_statistics

It is ironic that due to the severe extent of children suffering behavioural problems both at home and in care, many professionals are trained specifically, to deal with such children, and yet, despite this army of professionals, there has been to date, no collective concern or advice, about to how successfully limit the numbers of children requiring professional help, other than, by way of economic restrictions designed to reduce birth-rates; the public is being told that in future, there will be no benefits paid to people who have more than two children: 

The problem is ignored by simply addressing the problem of the numbers needing help because, there's a general consensus that crimes against children will never end, that there are no solutions and so, we may as well just accept that situation and focus on minimising publicity and negate the reality that the resulting institutionalised apathy, has paved the way for prolific abuse. Truth is though, we could say same for all crime, so why bother having laws & rights - why bother having a police force? 

Surely, the whole point of education, law & rights is ultimately, to civilise, to limit crime and prevent it becoming endemic to extent that the whole of society risks collapse under the weight of outright tyranny?

It's not that there are no solutions, it's just that the solutions demand a radical upgrade to the way British society operates from the top-down with far too much abuse, ignorance & crime, raining down on the public, while the wealth, aspirations, labour & creativity of the workforce evaporate up into the grasp of a ruling consciousness that has a predilection for crime, abuse & children and a need, to maintain its freedoms & supplies while continuing to command social respect & credibility by at least, being seen to be doing something; Britain's education system is a key component of that process: Is this what Britain's present Child Protection system is really about?

The emphasis within British education and child-raising, focuses heavily on controlling and training children to fit-in with the adult world and all its conditions of society etc. An educational criterion is set according to a prerequisite of the social needs a child is expected to fulfill in adulthood and yet, parenting is not included in that criteria? 

Considering parenting is THE most important job most adults will undertake as a life-long commitment, and considering the immense importance of raising a physically healthy and emotionally & psychologically balanced future generation of adults, it is alarming to witness the continued failure of the UK education system, which appears to successfully deliver a competent and informed workforce ready to fulfill the needs of an employer but who nonetheless, will invariably, have limited competence in fulfilling the needs of their children.

Is it any wonder that British children are absconding, suffering behavioural problems, abuse, neglect, and trauma both in care and at home?

How long can a nation address such a serious issue as raising the next generation, by removing children from people assessed as 'inadequate parents' only to hand them over to equally, inadequate carers, whose job is made even more difficult, due to lack of bonding, limited knowledge or understanding of the individual child - a child traumatised by the very process of being forced to live with strangers?

This is not to suggest that inadequacy is the inherent fault of parents or carers, the true fault rests with the Department of Education and its ignorance of the true nature of the problem i.e. British adults were denied their right to learn how to be a competent parent or child-carer, due directly to the demands of economy & industry, and also, are denied the Family Support they need, to do better than the previous generation within the family home and with benefit of being able to build on, rather than have destroyed, existing emotional bonds.

Instead of perceiving children as a potentially, unruly force of consciousness that requires training and control, British authorities by now, ought to understand that what children need most, is acceptance, guidance, and understanding: Rather than focusing on which child can best read or write etc., focus of attention needs to be on identifying & developing, a child's natural skills and interests; reading & writing, math's etc., are then learned as a necessary tool alongside such development, as opposed to being the prime and sole educational objective i.e. Lessons introducing & exploring e.g. the Solar-System, would be a perfect medium toward identifying natural skills while being a fascinating subject for children of all age groups and, provide ample space for learning math's, reading, writing, history, geography science, art...  

Many subjects taught in UK schools are thoroughly disconnected from a child's lived experience and/or will have no bearing on their adult lives. In many ways, Britain's present system of education puts the cart-before-the-horse, with children learning briefly about subjects that are best learned through higher education according to the vocations and interests of each child as developed by time of their youth. Too often, the question is; "how satisfied our we with children's education?" When in reality, the question ought to be; "How satisfied are our children with the education we provide?"

Britain's present education system is antiquated in the extreme, it doggedly sticks to very misguided ideology which commonly assumes the following mantras: 

a) Children need to be taught in same-age groups.

b) Children can be correctly, educationally assessed according to their age group.

c) Children who achieve good results in school at age 5, will continue to do so at age 10.

d) Children who are slow-learners at age 5 will continue to be slow-learners at age 10.

e) Children who learn at a slower rate are intellectually inferior to children who learn at a faster rate. 

f) Children need to be taught from a very young age about ancient history and/or subjects that have no bearing on a child's daily life or emotional and intellectual development.

g) 21st-century children are suffering a variety of 'behavioural problems' and need constant medication because they are having 'abnormal' difficulties fitting-in with an antiquated education system that historically, depended on fear and assault, to keep children sitting quietly at a desk in class for hours on end.

h) Children's natural interests, skills, vocations, and levels of empathy, sensitivity & compassion, can be ignored in favour of focusing on their ability to remember, repeat, read, write and do math' according to a predetermined 'standard', assessed as 'normal' for their age.

That the majority of children fail to reach 'top' of the class, is an anomaly accepted as 'normal'; most children are commonly judged, intellectually, 'average'. This acceptance is reflected in the meagre, university placements available to British youth. Is it just 'odd' that our Education Department can continue to casually accept, that a majority of children are only 'average-intelligence' and subsequently, must exist on the lower-tiers of society & economy in adulthood, or is it a preset judgement within a system thus designed to validate & sustain that judgement?

Perhaps, Britain's 'average' educational outcomes are a reflection of too many 'average' adults who have traditionally adhered to an education system that is fundamentally designed to favor only, a certain type of intellect and which, in reality, is not a fair nor wholly accurate measure of actual, intelligence because it fails to recognise e.g. Empathy as equally indicative of intelligence (it takes intelligence to put oneself in another's shoes)? If the latter is correct, this would go a long way toward explaining why so many educated, professionals are found to be among the worst abusers of children and also, why so many serious discrepancies within Britain's education and child protection systems are left ignored and/or actively denied.

Close-knit community and proximity of extended family, as an educational resource that once, compensated for the failings in traditional schooling, are now largely, absent and this loss has undoubtedly, contributed toward nurturing a more individual and self-centered, social-consciousness, where every household contains a completely different, private 'world' to the next. There is a tendency for individuals to develop a socially acceptable 'split-personality' whereby, their private and public worlds can be completely opposite and also, where professional powers can be abused to satisfy private desires. 

The point here, is that community and extended family, bring the outside world directly into the family home; kinship between family, develops into kinship within the wider community; children grow up with a natural and healthy capacity to bond with others of all ages and form lasting relationships and friendships. Somehow, Britain needs to address the serious problems related to this loss and accept that it has fundamentally, contributed to a serious rise in abuse of children and subsequent LA actions, leading to tens of thousands of care and adoption proceedings each year.

Smaller families, over-worked parents, children growing up in isolation from extended family, strict age-divisions in schooling etc., all contribute to children growing up estranged from other children beyond or below, their age group at any given time. Traditionally, large families and close-knit communities served as teaching-grounds where children of all ages learn to interact and connect with each other's needs. 

Because British Education has so consistently failed, in both identifying and addressing, the lack of that natural and fundamental social education children once received in the family home and local community as part of their childhood experience, the reality is, that a corporate parent, foster carer, or adoptive parent are unlikely to be any more attuned to a child's needs than is a natural parent: Many of the risks children face in Britain today, are common risks faced by all children regardless of who is caring for them. 

 What parents are being robbed of most, is time. Children need quality time with their parents - why bother having technology, if the result is that people have less time to spend with their families, friends & community? The lowest-paid workers invariable have the least time, while the jobless have too much time but are too penniless & despondent to enjoy it. Britain needs a radical new approach i.e. A 3-4 day working & school week will deliver major improvements to children, relationships & communities. 

Less time = more stress and more stress = less quality time and more fractious time: Presently, most parents are forced to attend to their personal needs of running a home & family in space of a weekend or the odd day off, and our nation's children are suffering and have suffered for decades precisely because an unfair, mean-spirited political & economic system, has been stealing their parents time, attention, happiness & energy.

In general, public attention is distracted by the trappings of technology, and not as many people have been paying attention to what's really happening around us; where once, children of all ages, played freely together outside of the family home, the isolated child now sits alone in his-her bedroom staring at a screen and even there, a child is no longer safe as the online predators establish their webs to groom a new generation of victim-survivors - no amount of censorship can halt the ever-rising tide of insatiable appetites; a child's not safe in the home, outside, or at school but not because there are ferocious beasts prowling in every place, but because humans prey on each other? How could an allegedly "intelligent" species ever accept this as normal?

Britain has failed to recognise the reality that technological, social & educational dynamics since post-war Britain, have facilitated the rise of an insular, judgemental & ageist public, who are predominantly, emotionally and psychologically alienated from children and who, even with the very best intentions, have very limited competence in caring for children or fully understanding their needs as a developing psychology and not just, a growing body. This has facilitated greater propagation of a consciousness-subculture in which children are mere 'commodities' - sexual-toys to be played with and then discarded - after all, they're "only" children.

Pre and after-school-clubs are presently providing a tremendous resource which unwittingly, are filling in some of the social-gaps as  identified above; children of all age groups are able to interact and learn from one another, in an environment that strives to both care for and entertain, children's individual needs and interests. These need more support from the Department of Education and also, by way of Government funding, as many parents are unable to afford the fees and therefore, forced to rely on friends or a relative to provide after-school care. This means that the poorest children are left most lacking when it comes to their connecting with children of age groups outside of their own.

A good pre and after-school club serves to assist many children's development on a much deeper level than is provided in school; staff in those places get to know the children in their care as individuals with individual needs. Parents often feel more able to freely discuss, any problems their child is having due to there being more of a non-formal approach and attitude. 

Ofsted is presently, overly strict in assessing provisions of pre and after-school clubs i.e., one club manager was admonished by an Ofsted representative, for "not letting children cut up the fruit themselves". It is quite disturbing to note how many pre and after-school clubs are given very low ratings or even, closed on strength of very stringent expectations which fail to take into account, the general happiness and well-being of children who attend. The advantages provided by interactions among children of varying age-groups remain completely ignored as a vital, social, and educational resource.

Adults of today, have at our fingertips, a wealth of research and information relating to child needs and children's emotional, psychological, educational and physical development. Sadly, reality on the ground is very far removed from the knowledge sitting on University library shelves. This chasm between actual need and provision needs to be thoroughly addressed if we are to raise the standard of adult consciousness and parenting abilities in future generations; the Victorian standards for a child's education, are rendered defunct - they are severely limiting and negating children's development to the extent, that only those children who can best remember and repeat, will most often, move on into higher-education.

No one bothers to take into account that many, equally intelligent children, are left to slip away because they could not sit still in class or branded as suffering 'behavioural problems' because they had no interest in e.g. 'Vikings' and subsequently, were tardy in their learning and thus, branded 'slow' or else, are dyslexic. 

Is dyslexia really the 'fault' of a child or the fault of a written language that is full of anomalies in relation to its phonetic roots? Is this not compounded by the inherent stresses imposed on a child, by the very pressures of 'measuring-up' at school? Is dyslexia also, connected to trauma?

A dyslexic child is not a 'stupid' child and yet, the present education system continually measures a child's intelligence according to correct spelling and punctuation. While there needs always to be an acceptable standard, children with dyslexia need extra help and academic leniency in the same way, concessions are granted to people with a physical disability. 

Academic judgements that are passed onto children from a very early age, are regularly found to haunt a child's progress through school with each future teacher reacting either, negatively or positively to a child, according to previous teacher assessments. Exactly the same problem applies to children going through the care-system.

Perhaps, when a child's attention is genuinely captivated because what they are learning about is so interesting, children have no problems sitting quietly?

Perhaps, when children are learning not in age groups but according to interest and ability, they feel more at ease and competent and less inhibited by peer pressure?

Perhaps, children do not need to take exams to prove their intellectual abilities because exams do not at all, truly reflect children's intellectual ability or competence but instead, serve only to identify the required few as 'bright'?

Perhaps, when children are not expected to sit silently at a desk for over 30 minutes, they will not exhibit so many 'behavioural problems'? 

It is most disturbing to realise how many British children are on medication from ages as young as 3, due to 'behavioural problems' which are most often, first identified by teachers or nursery staff: Can we really continue to assume the problem is with the children and not the education system itself?

Over 1 million British children are presently on Ritalin:

"There is evidence that it is being prescribed to children as young as three and that it’s being administered to children with mild to moderate ADHD, as opposed to severe as the NICE guidelines state.

"Indeed, a Colorado University study in 2010 showed that when 150 adolescents diagnosed with the disorder were given sessions of CBT plus a sugar pill they were told was Ritalin, their ADHD symptoms disappeared just as well as 150 adolescents who were given both the therapy and actual Ritalin-type drug.

"So, are we medicalising what is essentially typical children’s behaviour - naughtiness, tantrums, inability to sit still?"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/11859044/Does-your-child-really-need-Ritalin.html

Can a child of age 3, placed on medication for behavioural problems identified in nursery or LA care, be in any way, correctly assessed without taking into account, that the very process of being taken in care or forced to attend long hours at a nursery at such a tender age, has very likely, created and/or contributed to that child's behavioural problems? 

We know beyond a shadow of doubt, that trauma results in a child exhibiting behavioural problems and yet, many parents are being forced to submit their toddlers to such trauma from ages under 2, as more and more mothers are compelled to find work outside the home. Babies of just six months old are regularly left with nursery staff so Mum can earn a minimum wage.

It does not take an 'expert' to understand how deeply traumatic it is for very young children to spend long periods away from a parent and it often takes months for a child to 'settle-in' at a nursery. Babies especially, are known to suffer emotionally when they are removed from Mum for prolonged periods, there is a physical and emotional bond between mother and baby that goes far beyond the bonds of all other human relationships. Mother and baby bonding is THE fundamental building block of emotional, life.

Motherhood is itself, a job of service to every nation and it's incredible really, how little social appreciation and financial reward women are prepared to tolerate for such an immensely risky, difficult, emotionally draining, and labourious task. 

The idea that 'maternity-leave' from work is a 'benefit', is ludicrous when we examine the cold hard facts of life in an economic system whereby, every child born will invariably be earning profits for both state and corporations: Mothers, as 'child-manufacturer', are expected to not only gestate and birth the workforce, they are expected to work while doing it in order to pay to raise a child so s/he may enter into adulthood with the capacity to earn hundreds of thousands if not millions in profits to whoever, but she receives nothing, not even 5 years paid maternity (from first week of pregnancy) & child-raising leave? 

Operating within a system based on new and trusted knowledge, parenthood would be understood as naturally inclusive of quality time with parent/s; 3-4 day working weeks need to become the norm'.

When we fully appreciate a child's needs, the first 4-5 years with Mum especially, are crucial and since father's (due to inherent educational & social failings), are currently, generally unreliable and/or problematic, any ethical society, will endeavour to provide full financial stability of a standard, tax-free maternity-wage to Mothers during those formative years - any added children birthed in that period could be included with extra years added until later children reached age 5. This income would provide independence to help mothers more promptly flee from abusive relationships that are known to negatively impact child development. Fathers too, should be entitled to at least 1-year child-leave; 6 months prior to and 6 months after the birth, with fathers given full maternity in the event mother is too debilitated or else, is deceased.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    

Such ideas are dismissed on grounds that more women would be staying home to have more babies, except this is simply not based on a fair assessment of reality; most women, after 5-7 years raising one or two children, welcome the opportunity to return into work, and, maternity leave would permit women to engage in a course of higher education via Open University, or develop other skills, assist the local community etc. Lengthy maternity-leave would not mean children no longer require nurseries or child-carers because it is essential that young children of age 3+, spend at least 2-4 hours away from Mum a couple of days each week, to socialise with other adults and children.

Corporations and employers in general, could pay a 'maternity-premium' as a social-duty-tax to invest in provision for all mothers & children because women are heavily investing every ounce of their being in the future of humanity as a species on this planet and yet, receive the very least social respect and economic rewards: 

Is it any wonder that millions of women fall victim to Post Natal Depression every year? But the best the British social & economic system can do, is take away their babies and hand them over to earn profits for privatised child care, so they can be placed into forced-adoption? Such circumstances are truly disgusting and in no way, reflect a 'civilised' society: Mothers & children it appears, are simply another 'commodity' that needs managing in much the same way a farmer manages his cattle.

Forced Adoption

On average, up to 2,000 children a month are being taken into care by UK local authorities, many of whom, will end up in forced-adoption proceedings. 

Despite the fact that most adoptive parents will do their utmost to be good and loving parents, the fact remains that British people are fundamentally hindered due to the very poor and antiquated education system they have endured as children as well as, the commonly poor-quality parenting they received. Adults regularly, parent in a similar manner to their own parents; "a good hiding never did me any harm as a kid" was once, a common phrase when physical punishments against children were prohibited. The point being; most adults have no idea that they are damaging their children by upholding what are now accepted as negative, family or social traditions.

The problems with forced-adoption are most pertinently related to the reasons for a child's removal from the family home. Children who are removed on grounds of a future emotional risk, have not usually, suffered any actual abuse, they feel love for their parents, siblings and extended family. Such children are often dragged in tears from their parents, they suffer severe grief and loneliness, they do not understand why they are not allowed to live at home anymore - they often believe it is because they have been 'naughty'.

Present requirements for cared-for children to be adopted within 26 weeks, have failed to include any treatment by way of therapy, for children's common suffering of grief, there seems to be a general misconception, that children will simply, 'forget' or 'get over' the grief of forced separation from parents, siblings, family, friends and community. This means that children are further damaged on being handed over to yet more strangers, after tearful goodbyes to parents.

Many children removed from home on grounds of future emotional risk, will not remember their State-induced trauma until adulthood, and usually during a period of present, trauma: Memories will appear as 'flashbacks' in time. Buried grief and trauma resurfaces because the reality is, there is no escape from those emotional damages. The adult-child has to face the trauma associated with abduction because regardless of the 'future-risk' criteria, the child nonetheless, felt happy and secure in the family home and was left feeling unhappy and insecure in care of strangers; all such traumatic memories contribute to post-traumatic-stress-disorder which will subsequently, impact on that adult's own abilities as a parent and invariably, will mean their children suffer the same assessment of 'future emotional risk' and then, endure a repeat of the very experiences which so debilitated their natural parent.

While foster carers and adoptive parents receive external and expert help, the same is rarely, offered to natural parents, a majority of whom, are left devastated and suffering psychological and emotional ill-health due directly, to children being removed from their care. Most often, problems in the family home are related to lack of income: Foster-carers receive on average, £500 per week per child in their care, while parents are forced to work long hours for the same amount or less, to raise two or more children.

When it comes to caring for children and/or assessing their needs, a 'future risk or a parent judged 'unable to cope', are extremely shoddy reasons for placing a child into forced-adoption. The severing of family bonds is on an emotional level, tantamount to amputating a limb because there is a 'future risk' that the child may bruise or break that limb. No surgeon would perform such a 'duty' and yet, Child Protection experts do it regularly.

In light of all of the above, it is recommended that children assessed as facing a 'future emotional risk' in the family home, are either, placed into temporary care in order conditions can be improved at home and/or, the family is given aid of a Family Support Worker and/or therapy and mediation. The importance of this approach is highlighted in Dr. Mai Stafford's widely acclaimed Study which concludes that: children fare best and develop more healthily when they have choice, quality time and attention, strong family bonds and are not abusively, controlled.

It is clear, that children who have not suffered abuse in the family home and who share genuine, loving bonds with parent/s and extended family and friends, feel abusively controlled by the strangers who remove them from that home. Such children are naturally, uncooperative with their carers whom they commonly perceive as the enemy - they constantly and very quickly, identify any hypocrisies whereby, they measure quality of care from their parent/s as compared with quality of care by foster-carer or adoptive parent; they seek justification for authority actions and when they can find no validity and are actually, very unhappy, the emotional damages are extreme. Such unhappiness impacts all aspects of their childhood experience, education, and emotional and psychological development; the 'future emotional risk' is translated into ACTUAL DAMAGE.

When we consider the depth and extent of Dr Mai Stafford's Study which involved thousands of participants of all ages over decades, we cannot fail to understand that family bonds are essentially, sacred: A child can empathise with a distressed and/or upset parent, they learn to forgive, they learn to appreciate, they learn to help. A child will rarely feel the same toward inept, foster-carers or adoptive parents, simply, because the pre-existing bonds do not exist.

All of the evidence presented here, shows, without doubt, that child in care of a parent judged 'inadequate' but non-abusive, is facing far LESS risk with their natural parent than they are on being removed from that parent; even children witnessing problems between parents in the family home, commonly, just want their parents to get help so the family can be happy. Causing further distress to already traumatised children who have witnessed domestic violence or upsets, is to pour oil on troubled waters.

In case of extreme aggression, most often exhibited by males, rarely, do police act to arrest & prosecute that individual, unless physical damages are extensive but even then, they regularly leave it to the downtrodden Mum to press charges despite the fact that many such Mums are emotionally & psychologically broken, suffer very low levels of confidence and/or 'Stockholm Syndrome' which is a known reaction toward violent & controlling abusers. Furthermore, if she does press charges, rarely is she provided with family Support to help herself & children through that process.

What usually, happens, is that an aggressive partner is ordered to vacate the family home via an 'Injunction' and should he somehow manage to work his way back into that home (often through obsessive stalking, emotional blackmail & threats), Mum is threatened with removal of her children. Clearly, aggressive males disrupting children's family home, need help and a prison sentence is useless. More preferable would be to establish social-detention-centres where inmates receive therapy and education in childcare & sustaining relationships. 

At some point, British society needs to take steps toward preventing crimes against future generations, by addressing the immense damages our antiquated social system and historical failings, have bequeathed to past & present generations as a psychological & emotional 'inheritance':

Child welfare, child protection and sexual abuse, 1918-1990 

https://www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/child-welfare-child-protection-and-sexual-abuse-1918-1990

Owning Responsibility

All evidence and research to date, shows conclusively, that children fare best with their natural parents. This is reflected in the figures relating to care-leavers; 85% are doomed to suffer social isolation, poverty, crime, abuse, illness, homelessness and/or addiction. The reality is, that children leaving care have as much opportunity in life, as those grown up in poverty.

Neither can we deny the absolute fact, that many children suffer from mild to extreme abuse while in care or with adoptive parents; for every case reported that concludes with a conviction against an abuser, hundreds are either unreported, negated as 'unsubstantiated'/unproven or else, ignored. While the figure may appear low on the books, the underlying reality is in no way diminished and either way, society will pay via the resulting damaged adults of the next generation.

There remains a very serious problem that cared-for children have no instant resource by way of immediate, protection if they report abuse while in care or if adults strongly suspect that children are at risk with their carers. Parents and guardians with genuine concerns, are told to contact the local authorities with whom the child has been placed. 

When largely, privatised Social Services, Family Courts, legal professionals and child care, are earning £21bn a year in Government funding, we cannot fail to take into account the risks associated with financial incentives, for local authorities to hold onto children in their care for as long as possible and also, the incentives to take charge of as many children as they can accommodate. If this means ignoring serious damages to children then so be it; what can the parent do? Who will listen to that parent? The answer is: NO ONE. 

There is absolutely, nothing in place for families to instantly rescue children from abusive carers unless, the concerns are supported by local authority professionals. Again, the conflict of interests between abusers and peer pressure, among local authority employees, means that few will dare to risk careers and favour, by going against a conspiracy of silence. A child suffering in care is regularly deemed less of a concern than a child suffering in the family home. Even when a child dies at hands of their carer, it is unlikely, that 'carer' will be prohibited from caring for children, and as previously evidenced via the case of Gareth Myatt, may even get promoted.

British authorities are presently operating on a seriously, dangerous level of delusion when it comes to correctly assessing child needs and risks. Commonly, Family Courts abide by stereotypical judgements about the people in attendance at their Court Hearings:

All professionals are completely trustworthy and honourable

All professionals tell the truth.

All professionals have children's best interests at heart.

All professionals are beyond suspicion.

All professionals are absolutely ethical and never make mistakes.

All parents are dishonourable and untrustworthy.

All parents tell lies.

All parents have only their own interests at heart.

All parents are suspect.

All parents are ignorant and a potential risk.

All children removed by LAs are rescued.

All children in LA care are safe.

All children in LA care are there because they are at severe risk in the family home.

All children are in LA care because that is in their best interests.

All children who beg the Courts to be returned home, are confused.

All children who report abuse and neglect in LA care, are exaggerating or lying.

The fact is, both professionals and parents are equally capable of abusing children, lying, acting selfishly, and committing crimes:

'...many parents have complained that reports compiled by social services are "inaccurate", "false" or "misleading". It has been reported by parents that these reports or statements are not allowed to be amended, despite evidence of reports or statements being incorrect, contra to ICO guidelines and the DPA.

It appears that the complaints process is not been adhered by the LA across the UK and all that happens is social workers say "we will hold your letter on file stating our records are inaccurate"

Should the matter go to court, it has been reported that the LA provide courts with the inaccurate reports or statements but fail to give the courts letters by parents to show records how and why the reports are inaccurate.'

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/inaccurate_misleading_or_false_r_4

Letter To Sir James Munby President of the Family Courts Royal Courts of Justice

'...The example of Baby P and others is constantly used as a vehicle for social workers to remove even more children from homes than they would normally have taken yet the families have never perpetrated these kinds of acts! 

Removing children unjustly from their homes equally harms children but that harm is often carried into adulthood! But opponents of the system say that social workers are removing children to cover their own backs!'

http://www.childrenscreamingtobeheard.com/letter-sir-james-munby-president-family-courts-royal-courts-justice/

By now, it is clear, that there is a see-saw mechanism at work; the public is invited by the media, to express outrage after the tragic death of Baby P and because of the manner in which that outrage is addressed, the public is now expressing equal outrage on the severe damage being suffered by countless, children on being removed needlessly, from their family homes, except, that outrage is dampened by a media black-out under rules of secrecy and threat of imprisonment. 

Regardless of the publicity and authority actions on the issue of Baby P, all such deaths in the family home have in no way lessened. 

Meanwhile, non-abusive parents identified as a 'future emotional risk', face Court Orders to take control of any future children born to that parent. It is extremely, disturbing to witness how many newborns are being forced from their mothers, the emotional impact of such loss on both mother and baby is severe. In an effort to combat their grief, many such mothers will immediately become pregnant again and to the effect, they become a veritable, LA-baby-producing service and birth many more children than they would normally have; at what point will focred-adoption become forced-abortion? Is that the slippery-slope we're on?:

Are we failing parents whose children are taken into care?

'Social services can remove child after child from the same mother, without her being offered the help she needs to become a good-enough parent. The result is heartbreak, and very expensive – but now judges are calling for a new approach.'

'Some women have had four, five, six and more children removed; infants can be subject to interim care orders and removed from their mothers from the moment they are born. Some family solicitors and barristers report dealing with cases involving babies eight, nine and 10.'

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/apr/25/are-we-failing-parents-whose-children-are-taken-into-care

Time has proven beyond all shadow of doubt, that children can suffer greater severity of risk at the hands of strangers or non-direct family members and friends, than they do via their parents. Naturally, this is so, due directly, to parent-child emotional bonds.

While no one likes to dwell on worst-case scenarios, when it comes to assessing risks to children; all known extremes need to be taken into account, along with financial incentives associated with crimes against children i.e. Sale of child-'pornography' and 'snuff' videos. Illegal drugs are a very common feature of incentive among child abusers, with children regularly reporting being forced to consume drugs as part of the abuse. It does not take a mathematician to calculate the dynamics of illegal drug-use and the potential for serious damage to children, at hands of people who do not even, have any emotional attachment with those children.

In a society where parents are known to abuse and neglect their own children, to the extent, that for every child professionally identified as abused and/or at risk, another 7 remain unidentified, there is a serious level of concern about the levels of care those 'identified' children will receive from strangers.

Detective Clive Driscoll leaves us in no doubt that children in Lambeth care homes were in the 80s, handed over to sadistic abusers who took the children to woodlands in Kent in order to 'hunt' them with dogs. Forced to abandon his findings and indeed, his whole case of investigation, by "senior officers", Detective Driscoll is compelled to alert the public and authorities through publishing a non-fiction book?

Some may find it an easy task, to dismiss such evidence as Detective Driscoll presents, as being a 'rare extreme'. Baby P was not considered a 'rare extreme' and the truth is, Vicky is not a 'rare extreme' as the thousands of historical abuse cases now expose via reports to police, from adult survivors who experienced all kinds of abuse and neglect while in LA and adoptive, care. 'Vicky' took her own life and suicide is another very much underreported impact of childhood trauma; suicide rates are increasing among all British children:

About 7% of UK children have attempted suicide by age of 17 – study

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/feb/21/uk-17-year-olds-mental-health-crisis

Historical child abuse reports are also, commonly negated by police as 'difficult to prove', regardless of the fact that abusers are very likely to remain active in abusing children and therefore, investigations can and do, facilitate rescue of children who would otherwise have continued to suffer in silence and left alone to cope with the damages.

We can be in no doubt that by today, child abusers are well established at even, the highest tiers of UK authorities. We know that like attracts like; we know, criminal forces of power at liberty to operate with impunity, can very quickly and easily, silence or coerce their fellow work-mates. It is fair to say, that many employees within UK child services and police, are working under duress.

All of the historical evidence, highlights, the further evidence that the majority of historical abusers employed in local authorities, got-away with their crimes and even, with multiple crimes reports cited against them:

Major study reveals true scale of abuse of children living in care

'More than two out of five foster carers in proven abuse cases had been subject to previous allegations – yet they were still caring for children. About a quarter of foster carers in these cases were looking after children who fell outside the age they were formally approved for.

More than 60 per cent of abuse victims in care are girls and the mean age of victims is nine. More than half of all substantiated allegations related to under-nines. Of those affected by a proven incident, 45 per cent were removed immediately from care, but almost a quarter remained where they were.

The researchers put in freedom of information requests to Britain's 211 local authorities on allegations of abuse in care and had responses from 156. They found evidence that warning signs were missed where children appeared to be settled in long-term placements but were in fact suffering ill-treatment.'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/major-study-reveals-true-scale-of-abuse-of-children-living-in-care-9587244.html

When it comes to fairly, assuring child safety, it is by now very clear, that the shrouds of secrecy covering Family Court decisions and actions, is not helping children. The secrecy needs to end especially when we are well aware that abusers commonly threaten children with police & care-proceedings if they dare to disclose the details of "our little secret".

The idea that privacy must surpass the need for clarity and publicity in identifying suspects and victims, is foolish in the extreme, to the point that such efforts to protect a child's 'privacy' are tantamount to criminal negligence, when privacy means lawfully suspected abusers may continue in their professions and interactions with very vulnerable children, unhindered, by police arrest & investigations and in full knowledge, there is virtually NOTHING the general public can do with even, the media, refusing to air parental and public concerns.

That so many working within Local Authorities have failed to ask questions in face of the criminal levels of negligence and systemic abuse, is itself, evidence supporting the concern that far too many professionals are in sufferance under peer-pressure, to support each-others decisions and actions; known risks to children are compromised against risks associated with threats to oneself and/or loss of favour, one's position, title, or job. The very fact Ofsted has had to establish a 'whistleblowers' helpline for concerned professionals, is indicative of the problem and, there's the added suspicion that all such helplines exist mostly, to prevent publicity via the media.

Regardless of whether or not one believes parents and child witness testimony, children have a right to justice; if present Family Court and LA actions cannot even, provide basic justice for British children, how can they be trusted to adequately assess risks to children in the family home and/or risks posed by foster carers, corporate-parents or adoptive parents?

All of the above translates to multitudes of children growing up bereft of necessary therapy by way of early, intervention toward minimising the impacts of those damages in adulthood.

Conclusions: ILGs, Family Support 

All of the evidence here presented, fully supports with utmost, importance, the recommendation that every child taken into police custody, local authority care, and/or reporting crimes to police, is provided with an Independent, Legal Guardian/ILG, who has no connections to local authorities and is answerable to an alternative body such as e.g. 'Healthwatch' and/or 'Family Law Society'.

The cost of providing Independent Legal Guardians to cared-for children and/or children reporting crimes to police, is minimal when we consider the costs related to taking children into care unnecessarily and/or ignoring the crimes they have reported: Damaged children grow up into damaged adults who are deprived of a capacity to experience joy and made heavily dependent on NHS and State Benefits.

Failure to provide this vital resource of an ILG, means that all such children are knowingly, placed at even greater risk as posed by potential and actual abusers employed in local authorities. Background and police checks can no longer be accepted as 'proof' that an individual is not a risk to children: Jimmy Savile died with a clean CRB as have countless abusers in the years since such checks were introduced. 

Were it not the case that so many police and other authorities including government, are known to have conspired to protect child abusers from arrest and investigations and/or are themselves, implicated in the crimes, the public could perhaps, be more trusting of criminal background checks. In a climate of such known and widespread abuse of children, the public can afford no such luxury of implicit trust; as previously stated, Britain is suffering a crisis of child abuse in the form of a widespread, psycho-sexual disease which is itself, the legacy of a history of endemic abuse of children, which in turn, has been aggravated by decades of British authority ignorance. 

Police chief ‘120 per cent convinced’ [ex UK Prime Minister] Edward Heath was a paedophile

The head of the police force investigating reports of child sexual abuse by Sir Edward Heath reportedly believes in the allegations “120 per cent”.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/mike-veale-convinced-edward-heath-paedophile-wiltshire-police-child-sex-abuse-a7588101.html

Prosecution & imprisonment rarely has any permanent impact; paedophiles will continue to be paedophiles on their release. What we need are walk-in therapy centres where people struggling with desires to harm children via sexual and/or sadistic abuse, can turn to for help before they commit any crimes. 

Until Britain has managed to raise psychologically & emotionally healthier and better-educated generations, existing hardened paedophiles will continue to damage children and sow the seeds for the next generation of abusers, regardless of how much therapy or medication they receive; gated, secure-communities/open-prisons could be an answer and could be somewhat self-sustaining with residents growing their own food, making their own clothing and sustaining their own eco-power sources. 

The above suggestions are infinitely more positive abnd acceptable than e.g. 'Lowering the age of consent' which many professionals are suggesting on strength that police are claiming there are simply 'too many' child abusers for them to prosecute. It is deeply disturbing that our police & courts are more concerned about people using, buying, or selling a harmless plant than they are about child abusers; paeophiles commonly receive fines, suspended sentences and even, Community Service! 

'There are too many pedophiles in Britain to put in jail' says Police chief

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/697742/Police-chief-debate-sex-offences-paedophiles-prison-crime

Age of consent should be 13, says barrister

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22459815

It appears that rather than recognise the inherent failings within Britain's antiquated social systems, we simply accept that the child abusers have 'won' because it's just too much trouble & expense to protect our children from predators! Strangely, same professional sources do not appear to feel the same way about drug-crimes or theft i.e. Women are regularly imprisoned for stealing baby food or nappies and people on Benefit Sanctions are incarcerated for e.g. Stealing a chocolate bar. 

The reality Britain now faces, is established on a solid foundation of evidence; time has told and things have got worse instead of better. Trying to solve the problem by removing children from their family homes on grounds of 'future emotional risk' has done nothing whatsoever, to limit the rise of serious crimes being committed against children and in fact, has increased the levels of risk and harm. 

The evidence conclusively shows that the very process of forcibly removing children from a 'future emotional risk' in the family home, causes actual and lasting emotional damage to children who then, are left entirely, at the mercy of adults employed in local authorities; authorities which are known to harbour and protect, child abusers:

Hundreds arrested as Canadian police smash worldwide pedophile ring in 2013:

“The arrests included 40 schoolteachers, nine doctors and nurses, 32 people who volunteered with children, six law-enforcement personnel, nine pastors or priests and three foster parents,” said inspector Joanna Beavan-Desjardins.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/hundreds-arrested-as-canadian-police-smash-global-paedophile-ring-8940562.html

Why are there no facilities provided for children to flee to, on running away from neglectful or abusive carers & parents? 

Long-term Child Rights campaigner, [the late] Maggie Tuttle, suggested a 'safe-house' needs to be a provision by every local authority and, due to there being no such shelter available, she independently established a charity to establish one in her own locality. Regardless of LAs' neglect in addressing the problem, the need for such 'safe-houses' is immediate: Why have Maggie Tuttle's efforts been ignored?

SAFE HOUSES FOR 100,000 CHILDREN:

'It is the intention of the charity ‘Children Screaming to be Heard – The Silent Witnesses’ to raise the funds necessary for the first Safe House to be put in place in Essex, going on to raise funding for Safe Houses to be set up throughout the country. After speaking with many police officers, who have all agreed, Safe Houses would be the best idea for the 21st century, as many children are picked up from the streets and they can be sat for up to nine hours in a police station, only to be collected by the social services to be sent back to their abusers, only for the child to run away again.'

http://www.childrenscreamingtobeheard.com/safe-houses-for-100-000-children/

Absconding children are at a very high risk of suffering severe and long-term damages. Many children who go missing are never found nor seen again. Since it is known that cared-for children are proportionally more likely to abscond than those in family homes, risks associated with absconding or going 'missing', cannot be ignored as an identified, 'future physical risk' against every child taken into LA care. Again, this point further clarifies the importance of assessing risks to children, on the balance of damage-limitation when it comes to making decisions about protecting children from future emotional risks, in the family home.

There are by today, a multitude of cases against the corporate-parent and a multitude of children suffering, as a direct result of the ongoing discrimination against natural parents whose actions, are zealously scrutinised and negatively interpreted by Child Protection professionals, who are lawfully, known, to commonly dismiss or ignore, even, very serious abuses suffered by children in LA care.

That so many parents have had Family Court decisions overturned in the Crown and High Courts because professionals and experts are regularly, proven to have lied, committed fraud, and falsified or exaggerated, evidence against parents, is evidence enough that countless children have immeasurably suffered unnecessarily: 

Unfortunately, if the child has been adopted, it is extremely unlikely, that the later, legally-recognised injustice of unnecessary forced separation, will ever be repaired as LAs then explain; the child will suffer 'emotional damages' if they're forced to break established bonds with their adoptive parents:  

It is precisely, that point, that most pertinently expresses the dire need for LAs and family Courts, to employ extreme caution before removing children from their family homes on grounds of future risks: Childhood emotional bonds with parents, grandparents, siblings, and external family, are a sacred, natural, right of human life.

Children's loss of contact with older relatives, particularly grandparents, is a serious concern as it weakens a child's emotional foundations in the sense their capacity to empathise and connect with elderly people generally, will likely be compromised in adulthood. Grandparents represent a living testimony of family continuity and personal history as well as, providing children with a wealth of information, wisdom of life experience, love, and support. 

Where ever possible, grandparents need to be included in all State-care provisions but currently, they are all too often excluded and even prohibited from contact with their grandchildren, and some grandparents ending up in prison after feeling compelled to secretly gain contact:

Woman jailed for breaching court order by hugging granddaughter is freed

Contempt of court proceedings were brought against Danby by Derbyshire county council, which is responsible for looking after the 19-year-old.

The local authority had alleged Danby was in breach of court orders made in September 2013 and in January and April 2014.

The orders banned Danby from any communication, save a single supervised monthly phone call, or visiting the granddaughter’s home town or college, or going within 100 metres of the girl.

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/dec/31/woman-jailed-hugging-granddaughter-court-freed-birmingham

On examining the case referenced via the link above, one is left wondering why local authorities were so afraid of a child in their care, having unmonitored contact with a non-abusive grandparent, especially as the girl is 'special needs'? Has the girl suffered abuse while in care? Are they afraid of what she may say to her Nan? Again, the importance of providing an ILG is highlighted.

To dismiss the concerns and evidence here presented, as 'rare' or 'minor' when compared to the bigger picture of generally protecting children, is to remain stoically, anaesthetised to the harsh, facts of reality. Thousands of children are suffering very serious levels of abuse in Britain every year, both in care and in the family home. Professionals, parents, and local authorities alike, are collectively, covering up crimes and silencing victims either, through ignorance, denial, direct complicity, and/or coercion.

How is it possible with up to 2,000 children a month being taken into LA care, that the United Nations Child Protection Committee can state in their JULY 2014 Report, that arrest and conviction rates of abusers for crimes against children in Britain, remain "extremely low"? How can that BE?

http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=CRC/C/OPSC/GBR/CO/1

Rarely, are parents of cared-for children, charged with any crime - though some do end up in prison for breaking Family Court Orders i.e. Parent waved at their child on unexpectedly seeing them in public, and no one is interested in the psychological damage to the child, if that parent had simply ignored them! 

Many of the children removed from their non-abusive family due to over-zealous assessments related to unproven or minor issues of concern, are rendered socially disadvantaged for life: Family Courts and their LAs, need to accept once and for all, that a child's emotional bonds must not be severed while other options such as Family Support are viable.

Problems related to marital/relationship breakdowns, learning difficulties, manageable or temporary mental health problems, adult-abuse, are all, most successfully addressed via Family Support (which is a Human Right), education, therapy & mediation, and without forcing already disturbed children into repeatedly and instinctively, trying to form bonds with a series of strangers, while suffering the grief of separation.

Every child taken into care, needs a system of therapeutic support to address any damages they have suffered, most especially, bereavement counselling, as it is a fact that children grieve even, after the loss of connection with abusive or negligent parents and need help to understand that authority actions were in the child's best interests and/or that they were suffering abuse at home; contact with non-abusive extended family is also, a vital necessity. 

At every step, children need to be consulted and their wishes and concerns taken fully into account before any decisions are made about their future. Although such a requirement is already, lawfully established, commonly, children's wishes are thoroughly ignored; an Independent Legal Guardian would act to ensure that every child is fully represented.

A 'minor' human being?

A complete re-evaluation of the CHILD is required if British society is to genuinely improve the psychology and learning of future generations. Damage has been done, and the legacy continues unabated while ever, authorities and public alike, are encouraged to bury the issues and the crimes, as a 'minor' concern. This extends to government actions too i.e. Economic policies such as 'austerity' get rolled out regardless of foreseeable detrimental impacts on children - the term 'minor' is relied on to justify ignoring those impacts as 'unimportant' and 'insignificant' factors that otherwise, would severely limit any such policy.

Austerity and poverty in general, amount to very severe levels of present & future emotional & physical risks against every child in every nation, and Britain, being a country led by a social hierarchy that has historically profited from imposing poverty at home & abroad, unto this very day.

There is absolutely nothing 'minor' about a child, they are every one, a VERY IMPORTANT PERSON/VIP and need to be treated with the utmost respect and given every consideration toward their rights, safety, and well being: 

The current legal definition 'minor' as applies to a child, needs to be erased - the word 'minor' reflects an antiquated, inhumane judgement against children and has an all-pervasive, negating, subliminal impact on social-conscience and how children are generally perceived by the general public.

Until Britain has stringent Child Protection Directives in place in line with those established by the United Nations and EU, no child in Britain is truly safe and justice is merely, at the discretion of individuals employed in local authorities: 

Strip searching of children must be prohibited without consent of an ILG, and, if deemed necessary, needs to be performed exclusively by a registered doctor in sole presence of a nurse (certainly not, as has been suggested, in presence of police, parents or social workers!).

The tasering of children is tantamount to corporal punishment and needs to be prohibited.

Cared for children are at a much higher risk of being strip-searched and tasered by police.

The present circumstances are intolerable. Risks to children are immense when only local authority concerns will instigate Section 47: There are countless cases providing concrete evidence exposing the very serious loopholes in the present system; child abusers acting alone or in groups, have ample opportunity to commit and cover-up crimes against children. Because such loopholes exist, a job in child protection, police, or other authorities, offers a 'get-out-of-jail-free' card to abusers who are attracted into such employment, in the same way, the lone, paedophile is attracted to a children's playground: It is as easy for childcare professionals, to abduct, abuse and even kill a cared-for child, as it is for a member of the general public to steal a bottle of milk from a doorstep: 

Over 2,000 cared-for children missing every year in UK - including 180+ babies under age 1 and nobody held accountable?

'Rescued' trafficked and refugee children fare even worse, with a very much higher percentage going missing from care-placements: 

Child trafficking victims disappearing from UK care at 'alarming' rate

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/nov/14/child-trafficking-victims-disappearing-from-uk-care-at-alarming-rate

Eight foreign kids in care in Northern Ireland have gone missing since 2005, health trust reveals

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/health/eight-foreign-kids-in-care-in-northern-ireland-have-gone-missing-since-2005-health-trust-reveals-34763116.html

The only difference between the man in the dirty raincoat, hanging around a school and an abusive, professional, is that the abusive professional had opportunity and means, to find a legitimate way to gain access to children and receive income and social status as an added bonus: We can be in no doubt that a desire and capacity, to abuse children, is not in any way, an issue of education, social-class or ethnicity.

Independent Legal Guardians for children reporting crimes and/or entering LA care, will at least, provide a safety net whereby, both parents and children will have resource for their concerns to be taken seriously and instantly, acted upon. There of course, remains the risk that the ILG profession will equally, attract potential child abusers, however, an overseeing body of management shared between two or more organisations such as Health Watch etc., could provide an instant resource for immediate complaint, should an ILG fall under suspicion or prove negligent in their job. 

In light of evidence concerning suspects employed by local authorities, acting in gangs and groups, there is an urgent need for an independent, national police-unit dedicated to investigating suspect local authorities and promptly rescuing children from their care. Such criminals serve also, to protect individual abusive parents too, with many abused children being given increased contact with abusive parents. Perhaps this is why so many children are removed from families for sake of only, a FUTURE risk?

Forced adoption amid such a terrible climate of abuse as is happening in Britain today, does very little to resolve the associated problems and risks. Adoptive parents are known to have terribly abused children in their care as  is formerly evidence in this Report: 

The witness-victim 'Vicky' focused on by Detective Driscoll, had been adopted by abusive parents. 

A 14-year-old was permitted to return to her Mum after suffering 8 years "extreme abuse". Her case was treated as an 'isolated incident' that "no professional at the time could have envisaged".

3 children abused & neglected by their adoptive parents for 10 years.

Such risks, as exposed within an ethos of strict secrecy,  cannot be assumed to be 'isolated' - they need to now be fully "envisaged" as a real possibility: When it comes to assuring child safety, a possibility needs always, to be treated as a probability because every child's welfare is of utmost importance; if just one child a year suffers in silence at the hands of adoptive parents, that is one child too many.

Present authority actions under the guise of safeguarding children, are no different to a fire officer noting fire risks in the family home and as a result, addressing those risks by demolishing that family home: In light of present-day knowledge and understanding of child psychology, Britain's present Family Court and Child Protection system is guilty of harming & trafficking children.

It is a well-established and known fact, that children controlled, neglected, and/or abused by often, familiar-strangers/emotional-unknowns, are more likely to commit and/or suffer, worse degrees of self-harm, abuse and crime in adulthood. This is directly related to the absence of any emotional attachment between abusers and children. Therefore, the risks posed by strangers in form of adoptive parents and LAs, need to be thoroughly acknowledged. Since we have no way of knowing for absolute certainty, that professionals and carers can be completely trusted, collectively, they present as much a 'future emotional risk' to children as do parents in the family home.

An individual can look very good on paper but the pieces of paper are just that. 

Indeed, it is greatly disturbing to find that people, as fully trained teachers, social workers, medical professionals, child psychologists etc., are committing crimes against children. Such people absolutely know the full extent of damage they are inflicting; the very fact that highly educated, professionals can abuse a child, exposes the reality, that adult education in the field of child-care, does very little toward changing an abuser's desires. 

The problems, very clearly, need to be addressed according to the proposals suggested herein and, through prompt therapy for & support for child victims, in order that fewer people grow-up with an innate capacity to abuse others and/or suffer abuse:

Myles Bradbury was jailed in December 2014 after carrying out medical examinations on boys “purely for his own sexual gratification” while working at Addenbrooke’s hospital in Cambridge.

'The paediatric consultant haematologist used a spy pen to take photos of some of his victims and abused others behind a curtain while their parents were in the room. 'His victims included children with hemophilia, leukaemia, and other serious illnesses.'

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/07/nhs-trust-pays-600000-to-abuse-victims-of-childrens-doctor

Provision of family support, mediation, and therapy are important steps to consider before permanently removing children from family & community i.e. A Support Worker arrives as a to-be-trusted and professional, family friend who is there not to judge or criticise but instead, to build on the positive aspects within any parent-child relationship and also, to facilitate the provision of therapy, education or mediation and thereafter, assess the results of those interventions.

There have been some social experiments using CCTV cameras in family homes. This is highly inappropriate: If children are at such risk in their family home as to need continual CCTV footage, those children cannot lawfully, be left in that family home. CCTV used for such purposes is itself, an abuse and invasion of a child and adult's privacy and there is the added, identified risk, that such footage could fall into unscrupulous hands. Also, there is the obvious, risk that abusive parents will control their actions until the cameras are removed.

The State has an ethical responsibility to ensure that adopted and cared-for children are absolutely safe and yet, once the child is assessed as 'settled' in placement with an adoptive parent, the family is then left outside of any further LA involvement or supervision. It is necessary therefore, for LAs to intermittently, monitor adopted children, to ensure their continued safety and well-being and most especially, considering present circumstances, where it is known, that abusers employed in LAs, are assessing adoptive parents and arranging for children to be delivered into their care: 

All known 'loopholes' present serious risks to very vulnerable children and therefore, need to be closed.

The present rates of forced adoptions and child-care proceedings, need to be dramatically limited and all existing adopted & cared-for children, to be granted an ILG, while there is yet, a chance to stave off the damage. 

There are too many loopholes for comfort in the present, child-protection-system based on secrecy and blatant ignorance, where professionals are given an automatic benefit-of-doubt when it comes to addressing suspicions raised against their actions and decisions; 

professionals who have power to heavily focus on even, very minor doubts about a parent's ability to adequately, care for their child; 

professionals who earn up to £3,000 per hour and who regularly, have more to gain financially, by removing children from the family home than they do, by helping families stay together.

Concerns about 'who-is-going-to-pay' for the proposals for change as suggested in this report, need to be dismissed because we are currently paying far higher costs toward damaging children and ignoring their abuse, as well as uselessly imprisoning, assessing & housing child abusers - we cannot forget either, the wider costs to society in general via increased dependency of NHS & Benefits through drug abuse and associated health problems suffered by their victim-survivors, coupled with, the costs of policing & prosecuting the increased crime-rates among adults who suffered abuse as children - not forgetting, the economic, physical & emotional costs to their victims of crime, NHS and insurance:

Children exposed to poverty and trauma more likely to offend as adults – study

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/people-children-research-university-of-edinburgh-b2032202.html

Due directly, to the severe risks, British children face both at home and in LA care, and until, Child Protection Directives are fully established, removal of children from family homes and forced-adoption, needs to be performed with extreme caution.

Where Family Courts must consider removing a child permanently from the family home, of prime importance are the reasons why a child was removed from their natural parent or guardian and Court proceedings on a par with criminal courts in terms of assessing evidence: Family Courts have a duty to be vigilant and more open toward challenging LA actions and decisions; there is an urgent and pressing need, for Courts to be fully alert to the risks.

When we thoroughly appreciate the importance of emotional-bonding for children, we understand that prompt removal from the family home must really, be a last resort used deployed for interim protection from immediate danger. 

It is hoped that the experiences, evidence, facts, proposals, and insights provided here, will be thoroughly and carefully considered before any further decisions are made in relation to the issues around child welfare in Britain. Present circumstances are highly unsatisfactory and far too many children are left to suffer in silence. 

In light of the evidence:

A: No child deemed at a 'future emotional risk' can be permanently removed from their family home and/or forcibly adopted, without suffering actual, emotional harm. Such actions are, therefore, criminal damage against children: All children entering State-care require bereavement counselling.

B: Family Support is VITAL; there is a far greater chance of successfully combating and addressing, a future, emotional risk within the family home by strengthening family bonds and improving home conditions, than there is through forced separation and inflicting actual damage, through LA care and forced-adoption.

C: Financial incentives, coupled with identified risks posed by child care professionals, police, abuser-parents and corporate or adoptive parents and foster-carers, have left vulnerable children at a serious disadvantage and which, is left unaddressed within the framework of existing UK Child Protection Protocols, which are completely, inadequate and which are heavily imbalanced in favour of protecting abusers: Independent Legal Advisors are a vital necessity.

D: Family Court secrecy denying concerned parents, carers and children, the rights to free speech in publicly, airing their concerns about risks to children, needs to end: Where ever a parent, carer or child's concern is supported by lawful evidence, any attempts to silence witnesses or victims is unlawful and constitutes a perversion of the course of justice as well as, an infringement on Human Rights.

E: All persons entering into every aspect of employment with children, need to be more stringently assessed with focus in particular, on levels of empathy, self-development, and skilled in child communication.

F: Investigations into historical child abuse are of immense importance and serve not only to identify otherwise unknown abusers but also, their victims of both past & present.

G: Abolish the legal term 'minor' as an antiquated judgement against children that has no place in 21st-century law & society.

H: Recognise children as 'developing-human-beings' who require as much attention to their psychological welfare as commonly given to their physical development.

If local authorities are going to employ very high standards in assessing risks to children living at home with their parents, then equally, they need to uphold those same high standards when providing alternative care.

Article 3.1 Human Rights: Children have a right to Family Life.

"In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration." 

Finally, regardless all of the evidence & concerns shared here, my heartfelt thanks and deep appreciation extend to all competent parents, as well as; guardians, carers, foster-carers and adoptive parents, who have selflessly provided genuine care & love to countless children in need: Such individuals are a vital resource in every society and their tremendous efforts can never be negated. 

It's time Britain honoured the indisputably balanced and professional guidance of  'Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs for Kids and Teens'

What drives us to act the way we do or make the choices we make? Abraham Maslow, an American psychologist, believed our actions and unconscious desires were driven by a progression of needs. This system was called “Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs” and is one that is taught broadly within psychology. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is depicted as a pyramid, with the most basic needs on the bottom, the psychological needs in the middle, and the self-fulfillment needs at the top of the pyramid.

https://www.teenrehab.org/resources/helping-your-teen/how-maslows-hierarchy-of-needs-affects-your-teen/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs