Step By Step Advice.
Section 20, Of The Children Act 1989.
A section 20 is part of the Children Act 1989 (amended in 2004) and it means you agree to your child being placed voluntary with the Local Authorities.
You don't lose your Parental Responsibilities and the Social care have no power of removing your children. You can take your children back at any time you want as you still have full Parental Responsibilities . THEY DON'T TELL YOU THIS!!
The Social worker will ask you to verbally agree or sign a section 20 agreement, on the pretence you are handing your children over on a temporary basis. NO Social worker has the right to use the section 20 to start care proceedings. What they will do now is go through the back door of the courts to try to get an Interim care order, What they need to do is prove that the children are likely to suffer significant harm if they stay in your care.
The Social worker will tell the judge that you agreed to the section 20 because you could not cope even on a temporary basis. 99% of the time the Judge will not even read the whole statement of truth by the social worker but quickly skim over it, the social worker 9 times out of 10 will write that your child is in immediate risk of significant harm and in the view of the Local authorities your children will be safer in the care of the Local authorities. 90% of the time the Judge will grant an Interim Care Order that will run until your final hearing.
YOU CAN APPEAL THIS EVERY MONTH !!!
My advise is to do it !!!
Remember you have already agreed to the section 20 in the Judges eyes and he already thinks your a threat to your children.
There are many ways that the Social Care system abuses the Children act.
It is important that you ask the Social worker for a copy of the written Section 20 you signed, 90% of the time they cannot produce one. Over half the parent's that come to me for help swear blind they have never signed a thing. Most the time the social worker's shove any old thing under your nose and make you sign it!
They cannot start court proceedings on a Section 20. You need to raise that question and ask them how did they get that hearing!!!
Remember most guardians are nearly always Social Workers or ex social workers aswell they rarely side with the families.
They will also abuse you just to get what they want. They will try to push your buttons until they see a reaction whether it be tears, anger or shear desperation this then gives them grounds to say that you are mentally unbalanced.
My Advice is do not under any circumstances sign a section 20 !!!
If you do sign anything voluntary or they make you sign by threatening you with losing your children permanently if you feel bullied, intimidated or pressured is to sign absolutely everything not matter what with a capitol "V.C" before your signature this means .......
Vi Coactus (V.C.) is a Latin term meaning "having been forced" or "having been compelled." In Latin, cōgō means "to compel," or "to force." The passive particle of cōgō is coāctus meaning "having been forced" or "having been compelled." Vi Coactus or V.C. is used with a signature to indicate that the signer was under duress. The signer uses such marking at the end or the beginning of one's signature to signal that the agreement was made under duress and it is their belief that it invalidates their signature.
What if I don't sign ?
Then they will try to get an emergency hearing and apply to the courts for an Emergency Protection Order to remove your children as you are uncooperative and are not willing to work with them and they feel your children are in immediate danger.
How can i retract a section 20 agreement ?
A voluntary section 20 is exactly that VULUNTARY!!!
You can withdraw your consent of the section 20 at any given time you choose to. To do this you must first email the director of children's service's for your county and the team manager, you must give them a formal written notice that you withdraw your consent to the section 20 and that you want your children to return your children immediately !!!! within 48 hours !!!!!!
which means they have 48 hours to apply to the courts for an Emergency Protection Order or an Interim Care Order to be able to keep your children in placement or they have to return your children immediately and without delay !!!!! after 48 hours if they haven't returned your children you can legally report them to the police for holding your children against your children's and your will !!! legally the children have to be returned into your care.
Case law guidance.
Judge Munby called the misuse “not just a matter of bad practice” but also insisted: “It is wrong, it is a denial of the fundamental rights of both the parent and the child, it will no longer be tolerated, and it must stop.”
As a result of the concerns, Munby set out new guidance for what “future good practice requires”
Where possible, the agreement of a parent to a section 20 arrangement should be properly recorded in writing and evidenced by the parent’s signature.
The written document should be clear and precise and drafted in simple and straight-forward language that a parent can readily understand.
The written document should spell out that the parent can “remove the child” from the local authority accommodation “at any time”.
The written document should not seek to impose any fetters of the parent’s right to withdraw consent.
Where the parent is not fluent in English, the written document should be translated into the parent’s own language and the parent should sign the foreign language text, adding, in the parent’s language, words to the effect that ‘I have read this document and I agree to its terms.
Judge Munby said: “From now on, local authorities which use section 20 as a prelude to care proceedings for lengthy periods or which fail to follow the good practice I have identified, can expect to be subjected to probing questioning by the court. If the answers are not satisfactory, the local authority can expect stringent criticism and possible exposure to successful claims for damages.”
GMC Code Of Practice.
GMC code of practice and false accusations of non-accidental injuries .....
If I had a chance to talk to these professionals I would be asking them the following questions .....
Please feel free to use the opportunity to ask them yourself.
Not all families are bad, if your gut instincts tell's you that a social worker is wrong then why side with them please stop being intimidated, and stand up tall, stand by what you know and believe in, listen to your gut instincts and your training. You took a medical oath and vowed to do a professional job to care, help and support families if you dont then you are as accountable as any social worker is.
You have a gmc code of practice to follow dont choice to be just another sheep we all know something has got to change with children's services eventually and we all know they will never admit fault or blame themself, so who will children's services put all the blame on to ? who feet will the fault lay at ? who will take the fall when someone has to be accountable ?
Believe me when I say that if a social worker's case goes wrong, if they get caught out and come under the firing line in any court proceedings then make no mistakes about it, you are treading on very thin ice here as they will make sure you end up being their scapegoat. leaving you wide open to being struck of the medical register through to prosecution under criminal proceedings under numerous charges including malicious communications act, ultra vires, gross misconduct, medical negligence, fabricated statements and falsifying reports, incompetence, perjury the list goes on and on as to what they can make you accountable for.
Remind them that there is a thin line if they choose to step over that thin line, and they make a conscious decision that they know will 100% destroy a once happy family by doing something they know is wrong by doing it anyway just for a peaceful life because a social worker asked them to, will they be able to live with themself or with their conscience because of the actions they chose.
Not only do children's services attack parents but they work together hand-in-hand with the NHS staff or the social workers will try to convinced the NHS staff and to get them on there side as well in an attempt to remove new-born babies and children from there mother's care by using false allegations and un-proved excuses, stating the child is in danger because the mother poses a risk, which in most cases the mother has not even done yet, or stating the child has an injury that could not of possibly of been caused by an accident and blaming the mother of a non-accidental injury.
Now concentrate for a second on medical law.
Under the GMC code of practice it clearly states by law that medical professionals have to justify their medical justification.
Legally Doctors are only there to diagnose or treat they not there to make judgements biased from personal opinions and views.
Many G.P's and Doctor's, midwifes and health visitor's cannot do this.
If your family rights have been taken away then use your legal right to seek a second opinion immediately DO NOT DELAY.
Parents need to seek professional advice on medical law.
Social worker's know solicitors will rarely challenge doctors and NHS staff because they not qualified in medical law.
The demise of legal aid just makes matter worse.
Many doctors, midwife and NHS staff are using judgements based on their personal views and opinions disguised as professional medical diagnosis and professional opinions there is a big difference here. Medical opinion is when a doctor or a midwife should be able to describe the scientific facts and be able to outline the difference between Non accidental injury and true injury and true medical diagnosis and their reasons behind such judgements where a child is at real risk of immediate harm and danger and one based purely on their personal beliefs and opinions, when making statements using personal opinions such as the child COULD BE AT RISK OF FUTURE HARM which is not a professional medical diagnosis or treatment.
Now this is where a case can be taken over in to criminal proceedings, which means these medical professionals can then be investigated. What is even more interesting is a lot of these laws are often to easily stepped over in to criminal law. It is important to check that these medical professionals have not stepped over this fine line between medical diagnosis and treatment over to personal views and opinions. There are more parents starting to use criminal law on these social worker's, midwifes and Drs.
Malicious Communications Act.
Children's services have been using doctors and NHS staff for years to remove babies and children from hospitals, we all know children's services and the NHS are working together, and solicitors wont challenge doctors or midwifes because their not qualified in medical law.
Many doctors and midwife are using their own personal opinions disguised as medical opinions but there is a huge difference. Medical opinion is when a doctor or midwife should be able to describe the scientific facts here and outline the difference between the truth and the fabrication and they should be able to explain the diagnosed medical reasons where a child is at real risk of immediate harm and when in there option the child COULD BE AT RISK OF FUTURE HARM which is not a medical opinion but a personal opinion . Under the GMC code of practice it states they have to be able to clarify their medical justification, now many doctors and midwifes cannot do this.
this is where a case can be taken from civil courts over in to criminal proceedings which can investigate these professionals. A lot of these laws step over in to criminal law, it is important to check if midwifes and doctors have stepped over this fine line. More people are using criminal law on doctors, midwifes and social workers..
Parents need to seek professional advice from a solicitor that specialises in medical laws and if there families rights have been taken away from them then they need to be using there right to seek a second opinion, Docotos are only there to diagnose or treat they not there to make judgements.
There is a very thin line between medical diagose and treatment which is to often to easily spetted over in to personal opinions once they step over that thin line in to personal views and opitions when they are treading on thin water and the threshold from civil courts in to criminal proceedings then you can use the malicious communications act.
Freedom Of Expression.
Under section 62, paragraph 251 of the children's act 2004. You have the right to tell your story, discuss your case in detail and even show documents to whom ever you like friends, family or even neighbours, even using the names of people or your children. no one can stop you from discussing anything in private. But there's a clear statutory law in place that prevents anyone from talking to the press or public sector and given them any information that might help them in publishing and identifying any children concerned or being the subject of care proceedings. If a parent was to publish recordings or even an account of their case publicly that identifies their children then the local authorities could get an injunction to stop you. But once that information is out there, it’s out there. They can go and get an injunction against you and place a gagging order on you, but we all know what’s shared on the internet never really disappears. If someone has shared it, it will always exist.
NAI And ITP Explained.
ITP - Haemophillia. Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP) is the lowering of the platelets and is a congenital bleeding disorder. Mongolian spots are often mistaken for NAI bruising.
Features less likely to be inflicted.
Fractures - Fracture in a school age child with witnessed.
Bruises - Bruises on the shin of a mobile Child.
Burns - Burn to mobile Toddler with splash marks.
Bites - Witnessed biting from another toddler.
Investigation in to NAI.
NAI - Haematological screening. Non accidental injury (NAI).
Features More Likely to be inflicted.
Fractures - fracture in non mobile child, Rib fractures, Multiple fractures without significant mechanism.
Bruises - Bruising in the shape of a hand/Object, Neck bruises, Buttock bruises in a child under 2 years of age.
Burns - Any bruise in a child who is not mobile, Trunk/Abdominal Bruising, Burn in the shape of an implement, Glove and stocking burn (forced immersion).
Bites - Bites shaped unlikely to be from a small child.
Other - Maxilliary Frenulum, T zone on face normal- outside of this abnormal.
Hallmarks of non accidental injuries.
• There is a delay in seeking medical help.
• The account of the accident is not compatible with the injury.
• The parents reaction is abnormal, normal parents reaction are full of creative anxiety, abusing parents tend to be more preoccupied with their own problems like when can they go home.
• The story of the accident is vague and lacking detail or may change the story each time it is told.
• Parents actions give cause for concern they may become hostile, or they rebut accusations that have not yet been accused of, or they may leave before the doctor arrives.
• Multiple attendances to A+E.
• Previous Child protection concerns.
There are five child risk indicators.
1) Three or more previous attendances
2) History inconsistent
3) History/examination inconsistent
4) Delay in presentation
5) Fracture or head injury in under 1 year old.
If number 5 comes back as a positive or there is a total of two positive indicators then the case should be discussed with the paediatric registrar.
The Law on gagging orders.
If they try telling you, you aren’t allowed to show or talk to anyone about your case files or your document’s regarding your family’s case, and they try telling you it’s illegal and if you do you will be in trouble.
Recite this to them....
“under section 62, paragraph 251 of the children’s act 2004.” Allows you to show your documents and to discuss your case in detail, including name’s, with as many individuals as you like!!! You are however still forbidden to reveal to the press/ public sector any information that might identify the children concerned in your case.
The family courts are so obsessed about secrecy and scared of being investigated, or for a scandal of a case of forced adoption leaking out to the media that the family courts have made it a deeply secretive system.
Case’s made up of false and biased alligations against honest, hard working happy decent families. Because of all the secrecy the public only occasionally hear or see the odd case leak out into the media of this human tragedy that now seems to be unfolding right across our country, the adoption system is held within these secret court hearings, of course all these cases are being conducted behind these closed doors under a false veil into which is hidden from the public full of order’s made up from false testimonials from corrupt social worker’s where parent’s don’t even stand a chance to prove otherwise all protected under a gagging order, with a law made up from these very same people!!! Under the excuse “to protect the identity of the children concerned” now ask yourself this! How can this be protecting the children, when the children concerned are very rarely named in court in the first place anyway??? It’s standard protocol for the courts to refer to children in such case’s as “child A” and “child B” ect....and so on....the same as the appellant being referred to as “subject A” and the respondent being referred to as “subect B”.
From the moment a child is named on a social service’s care order until there adopted under a placement order, us as parent’s are considered to be breaking the law, a crime punishable by imprisonment if we tell anyone what we are going through and what is happening to our family or the suffering that is being inflicted on our families. Anything from talking to writing a letter can land use in jail for breaching a court order.
High Court of justice judge, Mr Munby once said “it seems quite indefensible that there should be no access to media, no access to public as to what is going on in the family court where judges day by day are taking children away uunder false pretences of social worker’s.”