Welcome to Child Protection Resource

We started this site in February 2014 and we will continue to add to and update what is here. It may be that you can’t find what you are looking for right now but we will make sure the information is up as soon as possible. Please let us know if you have suggestions for what would be useful to include. 

Contact Us


Our Purpose

  • The purpose of this website is to try to help everyone – parent or professional – who is involved in the Child Protection (or Child In Need) process to navigate through the confusing legal maze of children’s  services intervention and the family courts.
  • We aim to provide such help by providing general information and links to other useful resources. 
  • We would also like to contribute to a debate about how best to make the child protection system fair, transparent and effective.


How we started and what guides us

We are a group of people who ‘met’ online in various discussions about the child protection system. We have experience of the system from a wide variety of perspectives and were all very worried about the degree of misinformation being offered to some potentially very vulnerable people. We have no official or commercial affiliations, we are all volunteers and contributing to this site in our own time.

Some of our contributors do not wish to disclose their identities  on the site due to the sensitive nature of the subject matters we discuss, but when individuals wish to identify themselves, they will make this clear.

We agree with the words of Lord Laming

‘Please keep me safe’. This simple but profoundly important hope is the very minimum upon which every child and young person should be able to depend. Sadly, sometimes even our imaginations fail to help us understand the dependency of young children or the vulnerability of adolescents, regardless of their displays of bravado.

Most adults recognise that children and young people need security, stability, love and encouragement. As the Chief Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks put it, “Children grow to fill the space we create for them, and if it’s big, they grow tall”. The years of childhood pass all too quickly and become the foundation upon which the rest of life depends.

[…] In general, families are best placed to care for children and promote their welfare. Fortunately the vast majority of parents seek the best for their children and, entirely rightly, the state supports them in this important task. However, parenthood incorporates not only rights but also responsibilities: it is a lifetime commitment. Particular mention should be made of the part to be played by fathers, not least as good role models. 


Who contributes to this site?

Birth Parents, Foster Carers and Adoptive Parents have all contributed so you can see stories from every side of the process. Social Workers and Family Lawyers are among many of the professionals that have also contributed to the site to provide information about what their roles can be.

We hope this will be an ever growing resource – so if you have something you think would be useful to share with others please get in touch and let us know.

We welcome all contributions to the debate as long as they are polite. Our guiding principle is that ‘serious allegations require serious evidence’.

Please feel free to join in, by either commenting on our articles or submitting your own article for publication here.



This is the internet. We can’t carry out extensive background checks on everyone who contributes. If we think something looks credible and helpful we will publish it. If we get something wrong, please tell us. When contributors are happy to be identified, we will provide as much identification as possible to let you feel confident about them. But a lot of our contributors want to remain anonymous for pretty obvious reasons and we have to respect that.

If we provide links to other websites, this does not mean we endorse the content of that site and we can’t be held responsible for what is contained on that site. We hope the links we provide will be useful – if you don’t think they are, please let us know.

As with ANY internet site – be cautious. You often can’t be sure who anyone is. Don’t use this site to replace getting help and advice from the trusted real life professionals you know. We hope we can provide useful general information and links to other resources. Thus we intend to act  as a useful signpost to you. Nothing on this site can be construed as specific legal advice for your own particular circumstances; nobody should ever take any actions, or fail to take any actions, based solely on what they read on the internet.

Views expressed on this website are not necessarily the views of the owners/ creators of the website. We have contributions from all  sorts of people involved in the child protection system. We won’t post anything we think is libellous or which promotes unlawful acts, and anything we do post is done so with the best of intentions.


Comments policy

We welcome any comments from people with an interest or experience in the child protection field. But we ask that comments are polite and supported by evidence wherever possible or appropriate. If we think a comment is deliberately insulting or displays 3 or more of the characteristics listed here, we will delete it and may move it to the Response to Commentators section, where it can be answered without derailing or detracting from any constructive debate.

158 thoughts on “Welcome to Child Protection Resource

  1. Matt Harding

    I think if anyone is going to hurl wild accusations around then they need real facts to back it up on either side.

    1. phillimoresarah

      Hopefully one thing we can all agree on is that the more time we spend on making or dealing with ‘wild accusations’ the less time we have to do anything remotely productive or helpful.

    2. MerlinC

      Unfortunately, on my side I have Matt…. But believe me, only a few abuse/rape survivors will ever speak out in public. Fear, fear, fear… It is Jimmy Savile 2.0 all over again, always.
      I can understand perfectly where anyone who was abused as a child is coming from, I know how it is hard to change name, address, life.. Just to escape the past.

      A friend of mine was sexually abused by her stepfather. She had depression and PTSD for years and one day she decided she had to face the past. She reported her rapist to the police. Well her mum didn’t want to speak or see her anymore and she put every single relative against her.

      It is not easy to speak out. And associations like Fassit are on the victimblaming attitude side (because they think that if there is no conviction the fact didn’t ever happen) and they assert just the opposite of anything said by Rape Crisis, Women’s Aid and all the associations dealing with abuse and rape. I mean, if you want to get an idea about it, just browse the internet and see what Joseph or Hemming stated, even in public interviews.

      The problem is that this Fassit people have no idea of what they are doing and, above all, how much harm are causing to the ones they think they are protecting. Shameful and disgusting to anyone who has suffered abuse in their lives.

    3. Sarah Phillimore

      I think if you want to make a complaint about the conduct of a Judge, as opposed to appealing against the legality of their decision, you need to contact the Judicial Conduct Investigation Office at http://www.judicialcomplaints.gov.uk – they might be able to tell you what options you have if a Judge is now retired.

    4. debbie

      if allegations,concerns etc can destroy people and stopping them doing a job they love and good at there should be evidence . i was suspended on lies taking2 years to get to panel .we didnt know what evidence was used if any .this destroyed us .it also caused trauma to two babies with abruupt moves .we had not seen so cial worker for 4 months prior to moves done by two s workers who i didnt know . i would never advise anyone to foster. we had been carers for 13 years never had anything like this said before.

  2. MerlinC

    For any person who believes in any conspiracy (of any kind, not just this one) evidence is what they believe, not what they see or what is real.

    As Sarah said on Pink Tape, the time to Argue with People Who Are Wrong on the Internet is a waste.

  3. Philip Measures

    I would urge that for this Site to have maximum impact that Moderators ensure that it does not become a platform for the severely disgruntled and angry to vent their upset in ways which cannot be verified – anecdotal reporting has its uses but for real progress to be made what is required is evidence / factual-based and verifiable comments.

    The use of generalised comments as used by FASSIT UK may be correct but lack evidence – and I know that due to how the Family Courts operate that is difficult to substantiate – or not. We do have a legal system and the burdens of Proof have to be met – many will disagree with certain Court decisions but, equally, within the area of Safeguarding / Child Protection we are not dealing with an exact science.

    This Forum, i believe, has the opportunity to really have a positive impact on improving practice – let us do all that we can to ensure that it becomes highly regarded as professionally and publicly credible – and is viewed as a ‘wise’ Forum.

  4. phillimoresarah

    I agree if we find ourselves over-run by unmoderated and wild accusations, this is tedious and unhelpful to anyone. But equally, I don’t want to give the impression that we are ‘running scared’ of any such accusations. I would like to leave them to stand so that we can attempt to challenge them. I think it will be a question of trial and error and finding the right balance – some people sadly have no interest in any debate on this very important issue and certainly no wish to provide substance for anything they say.

    these people shall not be allowed to dominate this resource. But equally we do not want anyone to feel shut out.

    that is my view, but I am one of many. It may be that a different majority view prevails in time. We shall need to wait and see how things develop.

  5. ruralsocialworker Post author

    Hi Philip

    Glad you found us! I recognise you from the carespace forum.

    I agree with Sarah, we are only a week old and will review the comments/moderation policy as we age.

    The whole reason this resource was set up was to challenge the kinds of views we have found to be increasingly pervasive from the likes of FASSIT and John Hemming in the child protection discourse. If by seeking to challenge those views we invite debate in the open where potentially dangerous views can be challenged then I suppose we are meeting our initial aim.

    1. MerlinC

      Well, I wouldn’t know what to answer to any single conspiracy theorist, because any answer I could give wouldn’t satisfy them.

      What I can hope, for the future, is that this site will also give a voice to the “children”. Has any of you noticed that Fassit, justice for families, forcedadoption and the likes never include any “witness” evidence brought up by a child?

      I think that the best option would be to credit or to discredit these parents for what they are. Only then, we would know if LA and Social services acted well or not.

      1. phillimoresarah

        Merlin, I don’t think we will ever reach the ‘hard core’ conspiracy theorists. I remain concerned about vulnerable parents who might read some of the CT stuff and be afraid. I think we can help them by dispelling a few myths.

        And when complete transparency occurs in the family courts, which is what a lot of campaigners want, then all the horrible details of the cases WILL be on public display, including what the parents did or didn’t do. So I don’t want to try to ‘discredit’ parents; a lot of parents went through the care system themselves and had horrible times.

    2. Wenna

      Hi I would just like to say my family suffered harrasment from child protection because I reported my childs disclosure of abuse he suffered at a family centre to the police I also got reosonable evedence to back up my claims of psychological damage done to my child by the child abusers who remain employed by the local authority. The local authoritys responce was to persecute me initialy acusing me of emotional abuse for reporting what my child said to the police!. Eventualy as a responce to my repeated complaints and concerns about other childeren who were exposed to the perpertraitors of my childs abuse social services asked a profecianal wittness to reveiw my childerens medical records and write a report stating I had munchousens by proxy and was a danger to my childeren my health visetor disagreed with this ‘diagnoses’ , in order to protect my childeren from psychological damage of being removed from myself I then had no option but to flee from the UK all actions by UK social services where made with the objective of protecting the child abusers and covering up for failures of the local authority to protect vurnerable childeren, I had my case handed over to EU social services and passed assesment by a qaulified psychologist who assesed me in person and had my case closed here. The corruption I experianced in the UK was on a level with stalins russia I wouldent believe it had I not experianced it first hand , a system to protect childeren completly malfunctioning due to corruption had I remained in the UK or conceided to the ‘blackmail’ that followed my departure to return by the official case handover date or have all 30k of my belongings ‘disposed of’ by the council. Then ultimetly my young childeren would have suffered the horrendus psychological damage caused by being forcibly removed from a loving caring protective parent. It is no suprise that parents finding themselves embrioled in such a corrupt goverment system are leaving the UK in order to retain childeren that the majority love and care for well. I have come accross many many other parents who say their childeren were removed from their care after they reported abuse or suspected abuse of their child this is. Contarery to the best interests of any victim of abuse whosebest chance of recovery from the trauma is to cut contact with the abuser and remain in the care of a trusted adult.

      1. Sarah Phillimore

        what was your lawyer doing? Why did you agree to an assessment by an expert instructed only by social services?
        How did a psychologist from the EU get your case closed in an English court?
        How were you ‘blackmailed’ to return by threats to seize your assets?
        Why do you say it was ‘corruption’ – what was their aim in trying to take your child?

        I am sorry if I sound sceptical, but this doesn’t make sense.

        1. Gemsy

          I have every respect for your view but you must respect others who have experienced wrong doings. I myself wrote on here and you deleted it! ( It wasn’t in reply to anything and wasn’t part of innocent deletion because it was my experience and the only reply I had was your own but still you deleted it.) I was a child that was taken into care from loving parents and the lies and deceit that were written and said, was outrageous.
          There may not be an objective for a few, that are there just because they are horrid people and abuse the the standing and trust they are given by the state to protect children but do the exact opposite. There are however some really wonderful people in social work but you cannot assume that this is the case with them all! There are cases some not reported on but some that are. Nobody wants to open the can worms and admit to any embarrassing wrong doings within their own departments. The best interest of every child should be met. Some social worker prefer to accuse and destroy again I hope it’s the minority but what is wrong with a little transparency and experts held to account. “Social workers have immense powers and terrible responsibilities. If they make a wrong decision, the consequences can be catastrophic. A failure to intervene when a child is being violently abused by its parents can lead to the death of that child, as was shown so tragically in the Baby P case. But a decision to take children away from parents who are, in fact, loving can have almost equally awful consequences.

          ”http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/10580028/Child-protection-services-A-mothers-diary-records-the-awful-death-of-a-child-in-care.html. http://cllrkevinedwards.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/over-to-you-carwyn-jones.html. http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/National/article1420225.ece. http://blogs.channel4.com/victoria-macdonald-on-health-and-social-care/lost-family-told-care-granddaughter/1725. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/8349748/Social-services-took-my-children.html http://www.thurrockgazette.co.uk/news/10921484.Couple____win____their_baby_girl_back_from_social_services_after_she_was_taken_away_for_NINE_months/?ref=var_0

          Now as with social services, newspapers have an editors code of practice (http://www.pcc.org.uk/cop/practice.html) they must adhere to. If they don’t they can be prosecuted. They cannot lawfully print lies but I’m not saying they don’t sometimes ……. But then social worker have a code practice they must adhere to, hopefully they do, but there are some that don’t I can assure you.

          1. Sarah Phillimore

            I apologised for deleting your comment and asked you to share your experiences again. I did not hear further from you. I am sorry you have had such a horrible experience and you are welcome to post here if you think it could help other people or would even be a healing experience for you.

            However, I am afraid I cannot agree that I ‘must’ respect others who have suffered wrong doing. This appears to imply that anyone who asserts they have suffered a wrong doing is telling the truth. To simply agree with other people’s assertions on that basis can be dangerous.

            I do not deny that there are many people who have suffered from mistakes, laziness or incompetence. I hope I do not disrespect their pain but when someone like Ian Josephs continually makes assertions which are simply untrue and which are going to frighten vulnerable people, I cannot just sit back and let that go unchallenged.

            I do not assume all social workers are wonderful. Its very dangerous to make blanket assumptions about an entire group. Nor do I think there is anything wrong with transparency and holding people to account for their mistakes or their carelessness. I don’t think anyone who contributes to this site thinks that. We all want to be involved in a debate about how to improve the system, not get distracted by these pointless arguments about things which aren’t real.

            I don’t accept that the entire child protection system is routinely corrupt, that children are ‘stolen’ for cash bonuses etc, etc. And I cannot ‘respect’ anyone who puts forward that view without at least attempting some sensible argument.

            Social workers do have a code of practice, and you can read about it here http://www.childprotectionresource.org.uk/category/making-a-complaint-about-a-professional/

          2. Gemsy

            Hi, I think you missed my point, I to do not assume the whole system is corrupt but I do know that parts are (parts meaning the people of corruption within the system! Which can’t be denied, it’s hard granted because these people seem credible and why wouldn’t they be believed after all they are social workers :/) BUT as I said before there are some equally wonderful people who work within the system and it’s hard to tell them apart.

            I know there is a code of practice that social workers have to adhere to, but as above, so do the papers and media who are NOT allowed to print lies without the prospect of being prosecuted. By saying that these social workers adhere to the code of practice all the time is like saying newspapers don’t print lies, which in essence we know that sometimes they too, get it wrong but with so many of the media reporting on these wrong doings, something definitely needs to be done! The ones that are in social work that are also dishonest, on a power trip, out to cause malice need to be weeded out and quick before we are failing far to many of our future generations because as said before Social workers have immense powers and terrible responsibilities. If they make a wrong decision, the consequences can be catastrophic. A failure to intervene when a child is being violently abused by its parents can lead to the death of that child, as was shown so tragically in the Baby P case. But a decision to take children away from parents who are, in fact, loving can have almost equally awful consequences.”

          3. Sarah Phillimore

            I agree with you and think it an utter tragedy that a necessary debate has seemingly been hi jacked by those who want to paint some grand picture of a conspiracy at the highest level.

          4. Gemsy

            I am amazed you deleted another comment before adding your own! I deemed it as relevant. Are you now the overseer of relevance to this is issue? Is your opinion the only one that counts? By editing as you see fit is not having a broad view of information in any way shape or form! I’m also astonished to hear you have been given NO proof of any wrong doings (Are you blind or just unwilling to see) The links I provided previously were proof of some corruption written by plenty of newspapers including the BBC, Telegraph… the list goes on(who are not allowed to lawfully print lies by the way). Now I could provide you with my own paper work and say most of it is lies but what proof do I have? Since it is written by social workers and taken as fact but I know my parents didn’t do any of the the things written by them, to me! Then it just comes down to words against words with the written statement of no truths by the social workers! I was the child subject to emotional abuse of the system, by the state! Abuse is abuse and I was taken from my loving parents because of their lies! There are many of us corrupted children too. But can we prove it NO because all we have got is experience and our word against theirs but I know, I was only ever abused by the state and was robbed of my loving home and family.

          5. Sarah Phillimore

            Sorry, don’t know what you mean. The only comments I have deleted are those which I thought were plainly mad and I deleted some ‘innocent’ comments which didn’t make sense once the mad ones were deleted. I did delete one comment of yours, and invited you to make your points again. Maybe another site administrator deleted your comment, I invite you to post it again.

            I have refused to permit only one comment so far, because I could not understand it and I don’t want too much of that kind of thing clogging up the site. But it wasn’t a comment from you.

            Of course my opinion ‘is not the only one that counts’ but as I am one of the site administrators here and do all the work in my own time and for no payment, then I will delete and add as I see fit; the only objections about the content I permit or disallow that will carry any weight with me are those of the other site administrators.

            As I have repeatedly said, you are very welcome to contribute to the site in any way you like as long as you are polite and provide as much evidence as you can for any really serious claims about corruption etc. I appreciate that evidence is not always easy to find. I also don’t think any thing from the Telegraph or the Mail carries any weight I am afraid. They have been hysterical scaremongers for too long and have lost all credibility. In my opinion.

          6. Gemsy

            To add, these statements made by these social workers were backed up by experts I had never even met!!!

          7. Gemsy

            I agree about the mail but the BBC? The Sunday times? The Thurrock gazette?

            The comment was a short comment (an after add) at the bottom of my last comment on the 4th of July (there were 2 comment one long and a shorter one, the latter removed previous to your comment. I waited to reply because I was angry at the fact it was the second of my input deleted, neither of which was abusive or irrelevant. But I am proof that some social workers lie and the experts that backed them up are swayed solely by what is written, by them. Granted this was in the late 90’s but I am aware of many others who have been subjected to the same. My success’s as an adult lay largely on my intelligence and the foundations my parents built and no credit is given to the state. I am angry because this abuse is not heard or disregarded because it doesn’t fit the given profile of being saved by social care but I feel my story holds as much weight as someone abused at home without the involvement of social work. My and other stories from masses of people unheard, shout the words plainly “WE ARE TAKING THE WRONG ONES!”. Can I say again. So we can get it right. This is no game, this is life or death. Get it right because if you did something when the facts are there, you would not need to lie when nothing is found.

            Social workers have immense powers and terrible responsibilities. If they make a wrong decision, the consequences can be catastrophic. A failure to intervene when a child is being violently abused by its parents can lead to the death of that child, as was shown so tragically in the Baby P case. But a decision to take children away from parents who are, in fact, loving can have almost equally awful consequences.

          8. Sarah Phillimore

            I agree with your last paragraph. I am not sure what more I can say. The best decisions are not always made but I believe that is because SW are over loaded with cases and too much box ticking is required. If you want to post links again, please feel free.

          9. Gemsy

            Again you miss read. I said the 4th of July, a short after comment after the long comment. Do you do this often?

          10. Sarah Phillimore

            I may well misread things if I am in a hurry. I don’t pay forensic attention to the comments section. You seem to be very angry that I have deleted your comments. I have not. If it is important, post it again.

          11. Sarah Phillimore

            Sorry. That was bad tempered of me. sometimes I need to step away from the keyboard. I am genuinely sorry that you feel your comments have not been treated fairly. I stress that I will not delete comments unless they are very rude or display characteristics of unhinged conspiracy theorising. there is no wish here to stifle genuine debate.

  6. sue donim

    What advice would you give to a parent/carer who is facing alleged CP issues and has been denied the right to reconvene CP Conference whos, Formal complaint re process and false allegations have not been allowed to progress through the statutory complaints process and who is facing the PLO process not being able to challenge any of the documents from the section 47 through to the core croup minutes

    1. phillimoresarah

      My advice would be to get a good lawyer, one you can trust and work with and challenge what is happening with their help.

  7. Katy Carr

    No-one denies that at one point LAs were incentivised financially to increase adoptions – but it was adoptions of children already in care, not forced adoptions. An adoption without the parents’ consent tends to be extremely expensive when you take into account legal fees, fostering costs, experts’ fees, social worker time and the like, but I have never seen any of the conspiracy theorists do the sums as to whether the financial incentive actually outweighs these costs.

    1. phillimoresarah

      I agree – it would be interesting to see Ian Josephs for example, do the sums. But I won’t be holding my breath…

    2. Winston Smith

      When what is now known a s Forced Adoption was started in1973 as policy it was sold to LA’s as saving them huge amounts of money from their budgets.

      Child in Care £5,000 pa
      Adoption fee to agency £8,000

      You recoup your money in less than 2 years.

      It was at1973 prices but it was a lot of money in those days.

      1. Katy Carr

        That calculation is totally irrelevant. It leaves out of consideration the costs of fostering and opposed adoption proceedings, including the cost of lawyers and experts. Also it includes no reference to the alleged financial bonus which certain people puts forward as the motivation for forced adoptions. Given that foster care can cost in the region of £400 a week (in fact up to £900 for specialist placements) and the costs of opposed adoption proceedings can run into tens of thousands of pounds – indeed hundreds of thousands if they go to appeal – the bonus would have to be absolutely staggering to make this exercise worthwhile.

  8. Matt Harding


    I wouldn’t be so quick to judge that people believing in forced adoption do not care about the children. I would imagine many of them are possibly parents who believe to have been wronged by SS. I know that if my wife and I lost our son it would devastate us. Saying that these people do not care about the children (quite possibly their own) is somewhat callous.

  9. Andrew Tilley

    I am intrigued by this comment by Philip Measures – “within the area of Safeguarding / Child Protection we are not dealing with an exact science.”????????

    If a court has the power to remove a child or children then the the process mist be even more rigorous than trial by jury. It must be so close to absolute certainty so as to be beyond reproach. There is no space for opinion – it must be 100% factual!! Correct 100% all the time.

    It cannot make mistakes!!

    I am an observer but mky views are as valid as anyone else’s – it might be my children (unlikely now due to their age) or grandchildren that are affected.

    1. phillimoresarah

      Andrew, I am intrigued as to how you think something that relies upon the judgment of fallible human beings can ever be ‘correct 100% all the time’.
      If you are aware of such a system currently operating, I would really like to know what it is as I think we could all learn from it.

      1. Andrew Tilley

        We must stop meeting like this!!

        My point is that it must err irrevocably and always on the side of keeping families together unless there is clear, substantiated proof that a child is severely at risk. If you don’t then you have a problem to rectify it afterwards when new information may become available.

        If a case of abuse won’t stand up to criminal charges then it shouldn’t stand up in any court quite frankly. And if a court is so sure of abuse, then charge the perpretators.

        1. phillimoresarah

          I think the debate about the burden and standard of proof is an interesting one. I think we have struck the right balance between keeping children safe but not removing without a rigourous examination of the issues. But if anyone would like to contribute a longer post about this issue, I do think it is worth debating.

          1. Andrew Tilley

            For me, a lesser standard of proof is saying we’ll take 100 children for adoption and accept that 5-10% may be ‘iffy’ or perhaps ‘wrong’. That to me is incorrect.

        2. MerlinC

          Following your reasoning Andrew I wouldn’t be a rape survivor, given that I am in the 90% of rape victims who never see any justice.

          Therefore, your judgement about matters of abuse is clearly FLAWED.

          Evidence about rape and abuse cases is so difficult to find that you would probably ruin so many children that you can’t believe.

          Again, I am convinced every day more that forced adoption theorists are essentially a group of bad, disgruntled parents who cannot admit they are bad parents.

          Conspiracy of my boots, my mum would say….

          1. Andrew Tilley

            That’s where you’re wrong. I’m none of those, nor am I a conspiracy theorist.

            You think it’s OK then to have the (for argument’s sake) 5% collateral damage of wrongful adoptions/miscarriages of justice to prevent a Baby P (or any other child).

            Or a Ched Evans to move on to rape trials? Who will hopefully soon be cleared.

          2. phillimoresarah

            It is certainly not ‘ok’. But my worry is, if you adopt a lower standard of proof then you will end up with more than 5% of children left in abusive and dangerous situations. As ever, it is all about balancing risk and harm. Sometimes we don’t get the balance right.

          3. MerlinC

            You might assert that you’re none of those, but the comment you just made “it is ok to have the 5% of miscarriages of justice” is the one made by the false allegations bandwagon every time they try to reform the justice system concerning DV and rape cases…. And FYI all rape and abuse apologists insist that to keep the 5% of innocent people out of jail, well.. 90% of rapists are too.

            I know the abuse issue is off topic but the conclusion could be the same: we want a better a system for everybody, with less mistakes as possible. A system that guarantee 100% of right decisions doesn’t exist.

            If to avoid the percentage of mistakes you bring down the whole system already in place, you could probably avoid the 5% of miscarriages and also… The rest though.
            When I was a child, social services didn’t exist at all where I was born. Parents were free to inflict any kind of abuse and horror on their children, children were their property.
            If you want to go back to such a situation..well, be careful what you wish for.

          4. Andrew Tilley

            So you are indeed saying that you accept collateral damage. What’s the effect of allowing adoptions incorrectly. It’s like this:


            It’s also not really a lower balance of proof when there is no proof is it? And when new evidence is brought that is the time to begin talking about adoption reversals. When they find out in later life they were taken away wrongly from their real parents – the adoptive parents will be the ones that will be hurt big time. Ive put you an article on twitter that shows that.

            A Baby P or L or Q is not a reason to tighten regulations around levels of proof. At the end of the day you wouldn’t want that to happen to anyone on a murder charge. Proof is proof – the thresholds should not be different just because we’re talking about children.

            And not considering parents, aunts, uncles as guardians just because they don’t accept the guilt of their relations is not a reason to place outside the family.

          5. Andrew Tilley

            Well actually Sarah will (I think) assert that I am none of those. I am not a rape apologist (other than believing Ched Evans is innocent) and I have no children in care. I have so many kids that Im never sure when the front door is opening next!!!

            I am merely someone very concerned at what is going on. You still havent said anything other than to make me believe you feel whatever small percentage of collateral is OK as long as most child abusers are caught. Funny how so few charges ensue from these cases!!!

            Not sure what your Mum’s boots have to do with this :)

          6. Andrew Tilley

            I feel a bit like a cracked record. I accept that you have to have a system and I accept that everyone wants (vainly) for it to be perfect.

            The one element you must have though is a safety net ie what you do when it goes t*ts up. After all, if someone is imprisoned wrongfully for rape (your chosen analogy) and found to be innocent – they will be released immediately and receive compensation. Forced adoption has to invent a recourse to react to these cases other than just sighing and pouring a cup of tea.

          7. phillimoresarah

            I would like things to be perfect but its a completely irrational thing to ‘want’ because I don’t believe it is ever achievable. All we can do is aim for the least worst option. Maybe it is time for balance to shift. The problem is the debate has become so polarised and some of those ‘against’ the current system, I am afraid, do their cause enormous harm by often coming across as utterly irrational and very unpleasant.

          8. Andrew Tilley

            Of course it’s become polarised. You’re talking about human beings’ flesh and blood. It’s become nasty out of desperation. That will continue I suspect until something gives that makes everyone sit up and pause.

            And I’m nothing if not cuddly!!

  10. Philip Measures

    Comments on Leicester ‘Baby Z’ Serious case review of 2-2-2104.

    This is interesting in that the following appears:

    ‘…As it appears that the GP was considering non-accidental injury (see above) this is a flawed response; whilst the colouring and aging of bruises require expert medical opinion and all safeguarding medical examinations are carried out by experienced paediatricians, the GP should not make a direct referral to paediatricians. A referral should be made to Children’s Social Care and thus Community Paediatricians would become involved as part of the safeguarding process….’

    The clear guidance is that where there are Safeguarding concerns GP’s should refer to Children’s Social Care and not to Paediatricians – the logic being that Children’s Social Care will then refer to the relevant Community Paediatrician (nothing is said about referrals to Police).

    I attach the relevant Link and just wonder if others would like to see if I am correct in raising this as an issue – I would have thought that GP – Paediatrician Referral was something to be encouraged. Also whether passing potentially serious concerns which may well require an immediate specialist paediatric assessment to Children’s Social Care to action that is an unnecessary step rather than GP to Paediatrician and then Paediatrician to Police / Children’s Social Care.

    Our Systems must be easy to follow and not have built in delays / unnecessary actions.


    Click on BLUE ‘LINK’ in 3rd. Column.

    1. Sarah Phillimore

      What were your lawyers doing? If the LA tries to act contrary to a court order, you need to get it back before the court urgently. Did you get advice on an appeal?

      1. Sarah Phillimore

        This sounds horrifying – if any representative from a local authority lied to you about whether or not your appeal had succeeded then there should be any number of legal avenues you can use to bring them to account. Free standing human rights application? Misfeasance in public office? If what you say is true then it needs urgent investigation. Did you not have any legal representation at the appeal hearing itself?

  11. Sarah Phillimore

    Thanks for raising this Philip, that does indeed seem an odd way to proceed. Shouldn’t the GP be referring to both? Interested to hear other’s views.

  12. Andrew Tilley

    But people found innocent get to walk free and do at least get tried in a proper court with a proper level of proof (hopefully). Family courts and adoption currently have no comeback or correction method for miscarriages of justice.

    1. phillimoresarah

      But that isn’t true is it? There are clear mechanisms of appeal. If what you mean is that adoption orders once made are rarely reversed, I agree. But the reasons for that are due to the harm that would be done to a child to be moved from an adoptive placement back to birth parents who by now, sadly, may be strangers to him or her.

      1. Andrew Tilley

        Yes I know that. That still sounds mortally flawed to me though. Im sure something could be done. I do believe some adoptions have been overturned in secret but maybe not with babies – probably older children.

        1. phillimoresarah

          I know a lot of older children do seek out their birth parents and this can cause problems if not handled sensitively by all. But I am not sure what you mean by adoptions ‘overturned in secret’ – do you mean via a court process or by a child wanting to live with his/her birth parents?

  13. Childcare Proceedings Exposed

    Investigate Core Assets the private adoption and fostering agency who’s sister company Carter Brown supply expert witnesses. If there was no money to be made, this would end overnight. Sadly, if you have family courts, judges, solicitors, barristers who practice family law they all want a payday. So children are need otherwise there wouldn’t be a role for them all.

    1. phillimoresarah

      So are you saying that children are only taken into care to keep private adoption and fostering agencies going? That no child is ever at risk of injury or death at the hands of his parents or carers? Do you think Daniel Pelka should have been taken into care?

      1. Andrew Tilley

        I dont think it’s at all relevant to quote pelkas, baby Ps etc. These children will continue to be abused and will die. The issue is not with those cases but with those that are borderline and based on opinion.

        1. Whitershadeofpale

          We are never going to have a system that is 100% perfect all of the time.
          Ultimately we are in a position where CPS always going to have to make difficult and borderline decisions. If those decisions are wrong you could be left in a situation where a child has been removed from the family home for poor reasons it you could have a situation with a dead child or one living in terror for their whole childhood.
          At the moment the courts have decided that removing a child is the lesser of 2 evils and I agree.
          This doesn’t mean that I think making wrong decisions is ok and should just be accepted. I think we should always be looking for new ways it do the best for families. That said I really do think that the advise on here is invaluable and can be used to get a good results. Learning how to work with the system we currently have is the best chance a family has of staying together.

        2. MerlinC

          What a show of empathy Andrew. If you don’t mind I will copy and paste your comment “these children will continue to be abused and will die” on an abuse/rape forum I am a member of as evidence of what society thinks……

          1. Matt Harding

            As opposed to your belief that all assumptions of guilt are true? I understand that no conviction does not equate to lack of guilt. At the same time you have to understand that not everyone accused of something is automatically guilty. I am sorry for what has happened in your past, but at some point you have to grow as person instead of becoming embittered and painting with such broad brush strokes.

          2. MerlinC

            No Matt, you are misunderstanding what I wrote. And as many non-survivors you think that victims are ‘bitter’ instead of ‘knowledgeable’ about certain issues.

            I might say, what you posted is usually the ‘defensive argument’ used by people who think abuse is rare as opposed as common. You’ve no idea how many of friends have confessed to be abused as children, later in adulthood.
            I don’t paint anything with such broad strokes, I KNOW as opposed to your “I think” or “I believe”.

            Well given that my abuse is both in childhood and adulthood, to grow as a person sounds like an insult Matt. I’ve grown to be ‘this’ person, how wrong or right that can appear to others. Maybe it can also be food for thought, Matt.

          3. Matt Harding

            Have you thought about using constructive arguments instead of aggressively attacking others? You say you don’t use broad strokes yet you and several others are the most polarized in the comments. Try given reasoned arguments whether for or against such issues. Have reports and other material to back up what is said. This advice goes for Winston as well.

            Instead of attacking other lets try and help each other, sound good?

  14. Sarah Phillimore

    Andrew, I am sorry to read what appears to be such a dismissive comment about the ‘pelkas and baby Ps’. I hope that wasn’t your intent.

    I hope we can continue to try to improve systems to safeguard such children so they don’t have to suffer and die. The ‘borderline’ cases can only benefit from such improvement.

    I don’t agree we should just accept these children will die. Victoria Climbie, Peter Connolley and Daniel Pelka were all abused over a long period of time and could and should have been rescued.

    1. Andrew Tilley

      It wasn’t dismissive. My point is that those cases would still occur even if there were no wrongful adoptions. Ergo you shouldn’t justify adoptions based on the actions of child murderers.

      1. Sarah Phillimore

        I disagree. These children are killed because of failings in the system designed to protect them – social workers did not challenge or investigate sufficiently, different agencies didn’t share information with each other, the risks the parents posed were not analysed sufficiently or at all.

        Improving the child protection system as a whole will hopefully prevent these kind of child killings, and will be of benefit to the more ‘borderline’ cases.

  15. Sarah Phillimore

    True. I don’t think we should accept that children can left to be abused over many months and there is no effective intervention.

    But in my view, those who spread fear and distrust by repeating unfounded conspiracy theories are a big part of the problem, encouraging families like Fiona Anderson’s not to engage or co-operate.

  16. phillimoresarah

    I am shortly going to remove comments from this page that illustrate 3 or more of the characteristics outlined here http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html unless anyone has any compelling arguments as to why they should remain.

    I think there is a real danger such unhelpful contributions will detract from the serious purpose of this site.

    We will continue to gather together comments and respond in our response to commentators section
    to rebut any accusations that we censor and are not prepared to engage in debate.

    EDIT – I have had to remove some ‘innocent’ comments that no longer make sense when the offending comments have been deleted.

    1. Andrew Tilley

      I dont think urban75 is a safe reference point for any website given that is largely a haven for marxist loons

  17. Fassit

    I recollect this site lambasting our group for the following comment: Fassit are finding that social workers are removing hundreds of children from innocent parents each year through sheer incompetence and organisational failure what could best be described as blatant discrepancies between the evidence presented at Court by expert witnesses (social services; health; education etc.) and the actual events or material facts of the case..”
    Well now you can lambast the High Court Judges as well who said today that Judges and social workers have been conspiring to remove children unjustly from their parents.
    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2562249/It-never-happen-Appeal-judge-slams-cut-paste-decision-family-court-led-social-workers-taking-baby-parents-unjustly.html#ixzz2tihUKGaC

      1. Matt Harding

        I find this sentence to be of great concern.

        65. Whilst I might be able to understand why such methods may have been developed, I am profoundly alarmed by their existence. Informal inquiries reveal, anecdotally, that the practices I have described are not confined to this area but are widespread across the country.

        I think the new transparency guidelines are certainly needed if this might be common practice.

        1. phillimoresarah

          I will try and get a longer response up by the weekend – it is true that Magistrates often ask for assistance in drafting their ‘facts and reasons’. This is because they have to provide written justification for all their decisions and often the drafting of this document can take many hours, leaving parents waiting around court until very late in the evening. In an attempt to short cut this process I have often been asked to draft something that can be agreed to save time. I can see why this is criticised as poor practice on occasion but it is NOT the evidence of Judge/lawyer collusion that the Mail seems to think.

          For e.g. if I act for parents and the LA want to submit a document with which I don’t agree, then I object and get it amended.

          I can also understand that by baby number 8 everyone might be getting a bit weary. Of course, that doesn’t excuse poor practice, but it doesn’t automatically equate to corruption.

          But hopefully this will be able to form part of what we hope to do with this site – provide some balance and necessary discussion about what we need to change and why.

  18. Jemsy

    I see my comment has been deleted! It was of personal experience. I am now wondering if this comment with be published. How very one sided it will be if neither comments come back, to get a better rounded view. I know from personal experience that social workers will lie, if they have got it wrong, in fear of being reprimanded or worse. Yes their is a code of conduct to follow but I can assure you not everybody is playing ball.

    1. phillimoresarah

      Sorry, yours may have been one of the ‘innocent’ comments that got deleted in a purge of the ‘mad’ ones (which were putting people off – some have been moved to Response to Commentators) If you would like to share your personal experience with us, that would be great. I am hoping to get a post up on codes of conduct and making a complaint etc so if you want to give your perspective that would be helpful. All we are interested in are the facts; we want to get as close to the truth as is possible and discuss how we support what is well done in the system but tackle what is badly done.

  19. EducatedJustice

    I have personal experience of social workers lying, falsely accusing, and altering past records to suit their agenda. I saw a family lawyer to get advice, when we had politely declined further “assistance” from them (which was only ever because of our disabled daughter) and the lawyer told me that they are known to alter records pretty all the time. She was a very reputable solicitor. My children wrote letters for me to bring to meetings at which social services were present, about how unhappy they were at school, the social workers barely looked at them and conveniently omitted to comment on their existence in their report. I have a reputable witness who heard a social worker say to me that they would “not say anything against schools”. This same witness saw how they stated one thing then reneged afterwards. My eldest child almost had a nervous breakdown from her school not supporting her with bullying problems. Instead, social services did all they could to make it look like I was making things up and two social workers who never even met me or knew my family, started citing potential for emotional harm from me to my daughter, when I was the only person emotionally supporting her and seeking help for her. These accusations were despite clinical reports on file from professionals who had spoken to my daughter alone when she said her distress was because of school. Social workers also argued against clinical reports of diagnoses and told me that I had written notes my daughter had written. They just told so many lies. In front of me a student social worker tried to push my daughter to go off alone with her and even when my daughter point blank told her she didn’t need to, she wouldn’t drop it. I attended a meeting with both children at social services’ request with two social workers, they horrifically recorded utter lies about the meeting, falsely stating I had prevented the children talking, when I had witnesses (it was held in a public place) that this was utter lies. When I got copy files I was horrified at the perpetual lies they had told. Every report they wrote was full of factual errors, and when I emailed them corrections they ignored them. In case you want to say I am posting without evidence, obviously no-one is going to post their confidential documentation online to prove what they say, but I have not exaggerated or misrepresented any of what happened. I am very factual and this is the truth. As a parent who had done not a thing wrong, I have found first-hand what it is like to get sucked into a system with an automatic blame culture, where they will try to build a case against you (and I could see they were getting towards MSBP/FII by the nature of correspondence I saw). I had to raise a complaint with the council and all they did was send it to social services themselves. There is no independent complaints process. I could say so much more, they were responsible for causing both my children much distress and I regret ever allowing them into our lives. I even attended a safeguarding training workshop during which a role-play was acted out and the CAFCASS person there automatically assumed against the family in a situation deliberately left ambiguous, no other professional present stood up to say any different. They do not understand particular disabilities and certainly never acted in the best interests of our children. Thankfully they are now out of our lives but I will warn anyone I can, that no matter how innocent you are and how good a parent you are, you are taking a big risk in any involvement with social services.

      1. EducatedJustice

        Thank you Sarah. So am I, and the sad thing is, that experiences like this make you lose entire trust in professionals. When they are supposed to be the ones you can trust, look to for advice and support and have an equal partnership with, this is a sad state of affairs.

        1. Sarah Phillimore

          I am seeing this play out in the King family case. Something has gone very badly wrong there. It does seem that there is increasing mistrust between professionals and parents. I wish I had an answer about what the best thing would be to tackle this. More transparency? More accountability?

    1. C

      I second this. Our experience with social services has been of repeated duplicity, coupled with an inability not to tarnish every innocent remark with their extremely calloused, bureaucratised, ‘trained’ and occluded vision. Their complaints process is entirely corrupt, designed only to protect them and exhaust the complainant. What is as depressing is that it is generally considered pointless to raise a protest against this behaviour unless something very severe has happened to you – as the general opinion is that the law will protect them in any way it can…. ‘for the sake of the children’…
      In our case social services presented plenty of false evidence to the Stage 3 hearing, and since they had picked the underqualified and inexperienced panel, it was never challenged. The LGO knowingly received false evidence from social services, but did not comment on it. ( Social services sent them a false chronology of events, that was proved false by audio recordings.)

      There must be a mechanism for making these people, if not honest, then at least accountable, if there is to be any hope of regaining trust in the social contract.

      1. Sarah Phillimore

        Sorry Carol, I have edited your comment to remove the particular names you have given. This is because I don’t know what kind of things have been found or not found proved against this person so I have edited his name out. This may be over cautious of me but I don’t want to name people as ‘guilty’ of anything unless I am very clear this is actually the case – or I and/or others involved in this site could be in trouble. But I hope you agree that removal of the name does not detract from your point about SW not having legal knowledge – which is true and a good point. That means they have to be able to trust the lawyers who advise them.

        1. Sarah Phillimore

          That sounds very odd indeed. Why would a solicitor be asking for payment for ‘medical expertise’? Do you mean the solicitor was asking the LA to reimburse his firm for money paid out to a medical expert?

    1. Sarah Phillimore

      Sorry, I don’t think I can offer any helpful comments. I don’t understand this post. What is the reference to ‘7-10’??

      1. Carol Bird

        An MRI Scan was needed to confirm a condition Cerebral Atrophy. Then changed to confirm date 2 Skull Fractures, Subdural Haemottoma, Billateral Brain Haemorrhages happened, before being sent back home 48hrs later

  20. C

    Educated Justice: It is vital to be accurate, and not mud-slinging. (Our case against social services is all about their slap-dash manner and inaccuracy, which has caused us great and unwarranted distress.) The GMC probe – as far as I can tell- failed on all counts at the tribunal hearing which ended on 28th Feb. 2014, and the sensationalism of the Daily Mail paints a false picture. Yes, he seems to have some very unsavoury ‘cavalier’ attitudes, and I don’t like his callous ‘pragmatic’ approach to making money out of misery, but – he was not struck off, and all the charges against him were found unproved.
    Perhaps this highlights underlying problems within our professional tribunal system – I can’t say… but I won’t pronounce judgment on him, any more than I would expect judgement to be pronounced on our family, on the basis of misleading misinformation.

    1. Sarah Phillimore

      Thanks, that is very interesting. I am ashamed to say I did not realise the tribunal had been and gone and that he wasn’t struck off.

  21. C

    Dear Sarah,
    With regard to Carol’s story, it is difficult to make out what is what. Perhaps a preview button before final posting might help give people a chance to ensure clarity.

  22. Sarah Phillimore

    I am not sure that an inability to preview a post is the problem here. I think it is difficult when you are very enmeshed in a situation to be able to take a step back and present it clearly so that someone outside it can understand what is going on. Carol – it might help understanding if you can set out your story in chronological order with dates. I am afraid I am finding what you are saying very confusing at the moment.

  23. Sarah Phillimore

    Sorry, I am still finding this quite hard to follow. Are you saying your grandson went to hospital for investigation for possible injuries to his brain, it was then alleged that someone had hurt him and there is a medical note saying that he had hit his head on the fridge but this wasn’t actually about your grandchild? Then court proceedings were taken out using another child’s name and you weren’t allowed to refer to any medical records that supported your case that your grandson had a medical problem?

    I just don’t understand why medical evidence would not be allowed as the hospital was ‘not party to the case’. Any medical evidence about your grandson is obviously relevant and should have been examined in the care proceedings.

    If what you are saying is true then it does sound like a deplorable cover up of epic proportions. But I am still struggling to understand what you are saying happened. Is my précis accurate?

    1. Sarah Phillimore

      Then that does sound appalling. No decision about a child’s injury or illness which leads to that child being removed from home should ever be made without full disclosure of all medical records and expert opinion on what those records say. I am sorry to read that things appear to have gone so badly wrong in your case.

      I have also edited your comment to remove the child’s name.

      1. Sarah Phillimore

        Section 33 3(a)-(b) says (I paraphrase) While a care order is in force with respect to a child, the LA designated by the order shall have parental responsibility for the child and have to power to determine the extent to which a parent (or other person with PR) can exercise their PR
        Section 33 7 (a)(b) says ‘While a care order is in force with respect to a child no person may cause the child to be known by a new surname or remove him from the UK’.

        So they can’t rely on section 33 as giving them the power to change his surname as it explicitly denies them that power.

  24. C

    Consider presenting the information about how the social workers – it has to be named individuals listed in the hcpc register – have been guilty of malpractice. This will initiate an investigation via hcpc, where if what they have done is considered heinous enough, they may be struck off as unfit to practice – but equally importantly, it is a cost effective way of having your case reviewed, and if they are found to be at fault, this information will stand you in good stead in any other court proceedings. Also consider asking for any inaccuracies in reports to be properly corrected – and if/when that is ignored, apply to the ICO ( Information commissioners office). The DPA ( toothless though it is in many areas) does specify accuracy and proportionality as necessary components of data files. Don’t expect much from the ICO though they are by their own admission paper tigers, and any decision they make will have to be enacted via court.

    1. Sarah Phillimore

      Carol, I have just amended that post about bringing public bodies to account as I wasn’t clear about the strict time limits for a JR claim. I have added this ‘A further difficulty is the strict time limit specified by CPR Part 54.5(1). You must make your application for permission to apply for judicial review promptly and in any event not later than 3 months after the grounds upon which the claim is based first arose.’

      so it may be that a human rights claim is more appropriate for you as I suspect you are going to be out of time for JR.

      1. Sarah Phillimore

        Sorry, I didn’t appreciate that the Judge had given that steer towards Judicial Review. I hope you get some results.

      1. Sarah Phillimore

        Sorry, I am not aware of any rule of law that permits a court or indeed anyone to unilaterally or arbitrarily change a child’s name – although it does often happen that a child’s name is mis-spelled or the wrong surname gets used when the parents aren’t married. I really don’t know what has gone on in your case, I can only agree with C’s suggestions that you try the route of getting access to the data held by the hospital which may go to help you with your assertion that the wrong child’s medical records were relied upon.

        It has never been my experience that the court deliberately adopts a form of naming to ‘identify’ the children of unmarried parents. But when parents don’t marry it is fairly common, but certainly not a universal practice, for the parents themselves to refer to their child by a combination of both mother and father’s surnames.

  25. C

    Your experience sounds utterly dreadful – though not I am afraid to say entirely unexpected. When bad mistakes have been made, a kind of bureaucratic protectionism kicks in. “Pour sauver les autres”…

    The information that you give seems generally to derive from a long time ago – 1997. What has happened in the interim? Has the case remained active?

    You say in your post of 1st September that you are now going for judicial review. Has an application been made? By you as a ‘litigant in person’, or do you have a solicitor/barrister in place?

    As Sarah has pointed out, one of the greatest inhibitors in terms of application for JR is that the decision must almost always be challenged within 90 days – otherwise the judge may rule you out of time.

    I am having trouble getting things straight with regard to your case. I have some questions with regard to your chronology:

    Did Mr. Strachan ever get to present his evidence in court? If not, how does he feel about this? Have you had direct contact with him? Or is he part of the cover up?
    What does the family doctor have to say? Did he ever get to present any evidence? Wouldn’t he be able to provide positive ID and link that to the medical record?
    Where did the ‘Metcalfe’ name appear from – exactly? Is there another child/ case that has somehow got mixed up – or is it just invented?
    You say in your Chronology:

    All this information is covered-up in the Hospital File in the name of (RJB)
    my Grandsons birth certified name, the doctors medical file, Local Child Clinic
    Non of this evidence or his Cerbral Atrophy was ever to be discussed with anyone otherwise R would be taken and we his family would never see him again

    Who told you this? Do you have it in writing?

    Do you have the bailli reference to the case that Paul Focke QC defended?

    He went on to become a judge and is now retired… How does he feel about what went down? He may have some infuence somewhere important.


    Individual social workers or hospital professionals registered with hcpc can be investigated by them for malpractice. All members have a duty to follow a code of ethics. So it is worth pursuing things there.

    I have seen you FOI requests to the Dept. of Health in April 2014 – and their rather inadequate responses. I would discuss the best way forward here, with the ICO. There are exemptions to your receiving personal information – as were quoted to you – but these can be considered and overruled by the ICO. If as you claim, names were altered and logged inaccurately, etc. then these are breaches of the DPA, which the ICO are supposed to police. They are toothless and pettifogging… but if you persist and manage to drill your with through to the upper levels of management, you can get a more sympathetic ear as they are interested in any cases of flagrant data injustice which might end up in them getting stronger powers in data protection from the government. You can sometimes get access to Data Subject Access Request information that is exempted, if the data may be required for future legal proceedings.


    This below ( copied from Wikipedia) re-iterates what Sarah says above about Section 33:

    A person who gains a residence order for a child will hold parental responsibility for the time the order is in place.[33] Despite this, the Act forbids anyone to change the child’s surname or remove them from the United Kingdom without permission from all those with parental responsibility or with express permission from the court.[34] Under section 63(3) of the [1980 c. 43.] Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 the court has powers to punish those who do not abide by the ruling set out in the residence order.[35]

    The child’s surname can only be changed with the express permission of the court. Was that given?

    I can’t help thinking that this is an appalling case of data confusion. Contact the ICO on 0303 123 1113 and open a case with them. Press them to investigate it. Copy everything to your MP, and to the I.T. Governance of both the L.A. and the NHS trust, and all senior administrators at the hospital ( who will not want to appear uncompliant in the eyes of the ICO as the ICO is able to hand out hefty fines to corporate bodies.) Force them to acknowledge your issue.

    The responses from the Dept. of Health are inadequate. To say the least.

    I repeat Sarah’s advice to me. Do your best to be clear and concise in your dealings with these people. And add some my own, learned by my own mistakes.
    Remember they are dealing with this stuff all day, every day… and have limited patience for your emotion. Even though of course your outrage is entirely justified, it may just become an extra burden for them – and thus hamper your progress.

    This may be important to the ICO:
    The request for my Grandsons medical File was made prior to Local
    Authority Court proceedings due to False Accussations of injuries

    Obviously the whole name change farrago should be brought to their attention, with all the documentation you can provide.

    Best of luck. Hope this helps.

  26. C

    Sorry Carol, I am now bewildered. Did these doctors who unanimously agreed see your grandchild?
    Or another child?
    Where and when does the Metcalfe originate from?

    …and what was the huge mistake you were saved from by having your application to appeal rejected?

    This judgment happened long ago. Has anything else relating to the outcome of the case occurred in the interim?

    1. Carol Bird

      Stated in the last Court
      Mr Constable
      And they had plenty of opportunity to correct any of these matters as they went along. I do think that they have misunderstood the use of the additional name M******* as nothing more than a means of identifying rather than changing the name to show that it is a child of two parents who were not at that stage married but were under different names- that is all

  27. Sarah Phillimore

    Carol, have I copied and pasted from the correct judgment?

    ‘The parents seek leave to appeal and also an extension of time, and in presenting their applications this morning all members of the family have spoken. The principal point on which they seek to persuade this court is that there has been a substantial miscarriage of justice because, they assert, the evidence of Dr. Cling Chong was not before the trial judge and, had it been before the trial judge, it would have led to a different conclusion.

    That submission is quite simply unsustainable. In relation to Dr. Cling Chong, I have already recorded that, although not actually present at the meeting of experts, he was kept informed of its developments and concurred in its conclusions. Furthermore, in the judgment at page 16, the judge specifically recorded:

    “[Dr. Chong] was not called before me because on the 24th January, 1997, all the doctors involved in this case met and unanimously agreed that the injuries seen in R were caused non-accidentally. He was not called and no criticism is made by anybody of that decision.”
    Finally, I would only wish to emphasize the quality of the legal team that represented the parents before Bennett J. They had as their counsel both Mr. Ford and Mr. Focke QC. The judge specifically said at page 35 of his judgment:

    “I wish to record my indebtedness to the skilled cross-examination of Mr. Focke and his very skilful presentation of this case on behalf of the parents.”

    It is easy to understand how traumatic for the parents and, indeed, for the grandparents has been this outcome. But it is a case in which there was a wealth of expertise and complete unanimity amongst the experts, including the expert specifically instructed on the parent’s behalf. The judgment of Bennett J is particularly full and careful, as an issue of such importance demanded. But, in my judgment, it would be quite impossible to conclude that anything that has been said or written in support of these applications discloses the least error in the trial proceedings or the least prospect of success on an appellate review. For my part, I would refuse these applications.’

    So I am not clear what is the issue about the wrong child. Are you saying the legal team missed this pretty crucial point?

    1. C

      Why didn’t QC Fockes follow through? If all you say is correct – and I have no reason to doubt it – then it should have been a relatively simple matter to correct at the time.

      Have there been other appeals, efforts at correction prior to April 2014?

      If not, why has the case become a concern again now? Has something happened?

    2. Carol Bird

      I have yet to see this 8 man agreed signed doctors report, this report was brought up in the last court attended by Judge Gillian Matthews, & Mr John Constable, luckily we as a family still having QC Fockes original sent by Fax with all information, Hotel, Room, time, date, name of sender Sally Cahill, the childs name is {redacted}, states as quoted BUT ONLY SIGNED BY 2 DOCTORS, KLING CHONG & SAN LASARO, 6 doctors declined to sign this one, whether there is one report as these judges state in the name of {redacted} (a false name) signed by 8 doctors and one in the name of {redacted} only signed by 2 doctors, does prove the two different names used in this case, did make a difference, and the doctors knew what was going on

      1. C

        San Lasaro’s reputation has been destroyed.
        ..And then there was one.
        Don’t know about Mr. Kling Chong…

      2. Sarah Phillimore

        Sorry Carol I have only just notice that you named a child so out of possibly abundance of caution I have removed that name.

        I am also a bit confused – you asked me to remove all your comments, which I did but now you have posted again? the problem is now that a lot of the comments made by myself and C will make very little sense as your comments to which we were responding have been deleted.

        I assume you are ok for this one to stay?

        1. Carol Bird

          I asked for removal due to the fact I had taken up so much of this forum, NOT that I was ungrateful for the support and answers, As a family we would not be where we are today without this forums help and information, irrelevant of outcome, the last case in Middlesbrough Court in front of Judge Gillian Matthews,
          Which was in Open Court and my Grandsons name change being the cause and legallity for doing so were the points discussed

          1. Sarah Phillimore

            Thanks for clarifying – it’s fine to comment as and how you wish! If there is a problem with comments, they can be moderated at this end. I am glad you have found the site helpful.

  28. C

    Are you saying that the evidence below was registered for the wrong child?

    …Or are you saying that this evidence is in the correct name – but the adoption order was then made out in a different name?

    The essential record is as follows:

    “R had two skull fractures situated on the left and right side of the skull. One is fresh and compatible with the injury taking place on the day of admission, the other is older and cannot be dated. The older haemorrhage . . . had been present for at least seven days and could be older. The fresh haemorrhage associated with the left parietal fracture could have occurred on the 4th September or within a few days prior thereto. The old subdural haemorrhages were likely to be the outcome of a vigorous shaking incident…..
    The old fracture . . . is the outcome of an impact injury. That is to say the head striking or being struck by an object. The new fracture is the outcome of an impact injury and is compatible with a fall, as described by the parents, relating to the 4th September.”
    The opinion expressed by this gathering is recorded by the judge as follows:

    “R has suffered two impact injuries to his skull and one episode of severe shaking/whiplash injury to the head. A further episode of shaking injury immediately before his admission to hospital is also most likely on the evidence. There are no predisposing factors in R’s development or behaviour (video tape viewed) and there is no pre-existing brain abnormality which increased vulnerability. A number of scenarios have been presented and considered and none of these are tenable as explanations for his multiple injuries.
    We, the undersigned, are fully agreed on a strong balance of probability that R had suffered shaking head trauma and impact head trauma and that much of this trauma has been non-accidental.”

    1. Carol Bird

      This was made in the name R[redacted] (As printed) the split case was joined and stands to date
      NO FURTHER APPEAL, the injuries are from reports off reports (doctors) paid for by Redcar & Cleveland Social Services (started by Dr Kling Chong and I have evidence of his request for payment from RCSS) in fact I have QC Fockes Full Court File, including the SUPPOSED 8 man agreed doctors report, which is in the name
      R[redacted] and only has 2 doctors signatures Dr Kling Chong & San Lazaro obviously the other 6 doctors refused to sign it, knowing it was in my grandsons birth certified Surname
      Not one court order within this case could be carried out, which included I Carol Bird obtain R[redacted] medical file from South Cleveland Hospital, for the ombudsman to investigate, but within the court case file of documents a medical file is listed, for R[redacted]the same hospital that I received a letter confirming they do not have a medical file in this name, but do have a medical file in the name of R[redacted] and this order does not give me access to it

  29. C

    I have done a little internet research into the background surrounding your case – and discovered this:

    Dr. San de Lazaro was severly reproached by Mr. Justice Eady in the 2002 libel case brought by Dawn Reed and Christopher Lillie after the Shieldfield nursery scandal – but she was remarkably not found guilty of professional misconduct by the GMC, and continues to practice .
    ‘ ‘where physical findings were negative or equivocal, Dr San Lazaro was prepared to make up the deficiencies by throwing objectivity and scientific rigour to the winds in a highly emotional misrepresentation of the facts’, the GMC appears to have reached a different conclusion. They have failed in the first place to recognise that the problem at the heart of the Lazaro case is one of multiple misdiagnosis. They have failed in the second place to recognise that Dr Lazaro’s honesty and scrupulousness – or lack of it – appears to have played crucial role in her misdiagnoses.’ –

    …one of our earliest sources, who was familiar with Dr Lazaro’s working methods, described her as ‘a legend in her own imagination’ with ‘a penchant for playing God’. – Richard Webster 2005

    from November 2012 ‘…the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority is reviewing cases where she has been involved and would be “extremely reluctant” to accept her opinions in the future. Dr Lazaro is a frequent diagnostic witness and prosecution expert in sexual abuse cases in the north-east.’

    Have you ever had any contact with Vera Baird about this. She is now Police Commissioner in Nothumbria and Teeside, is a QC, and was previously very critical of Dr. San Lazaro? She may be a good resource. This is her contact: 0191 221 9800 Or Email: enquiries@northumbria-pcc.gov.uk


    Now I understand where the Metcalfe originated… and perhaps begin to understand the nature of the error/cover up, if there was one. Where Social Services are concerned ineptness is always more likely than malicious intent. At least at the outset.

    However if what Mr Constable said in court is the case, I don’t understand why the other medical records would not be admitted, as it is clear that they are for the same child. Unless there is some cover-up originating in the hospital, in which case, your case there must be strengthened by the evidence already piled up against Dr. San Lazaro… and the outrage that she is still practicing.
    …Perhaps file complaints against the other doctors who consorted with her..?

    “The judge said she was “unbalanced, obsessive, and lacking in judgment.”” – BMJ – Aug 3 2002

    That seems generous.

    Also on Page 30 of the judgment ( see Bailli):
    “All the doctors to which I have referred, save for Dr. Chong who was in London and could not be present, met under the auspices of the Guardian Ad Litem on the 24th January, 1997.”

    …and that the Guardian ad Litem had picked Dr. San Lazaro.
    “the guardian ad litem obtained leave to consult Dr. San Lozaro in Newcastle.”

    Were the findings of Dr. Livingstone in Leeds substantially different? I note he was not among the colloquy of doctors meeting under the auspices… Were they presented to the court?

    Are you saying that your son and his partner admitted to the non-accidental injury charge as a means of possibly regaining access to their son?

    This mess all occurred in 1997. I am still unclear whether you have been actively pursuing it ever since, or gave up from understandable exhaustion. If so, what happened this April to re-activate your concerns?

    Any data controller has an obligation for their records to be accurate. Challenge the medical records at the hospital.

    Who were the three doctors called before Mr. Justice Bennett?

    1. Carol Bird

      3rd May 2000 We the family with the help of R[redacted] mother, asked her to alert RCSS to the fact we the family knew R[redacted] new name and address (which was true), We had to attend Leeds Court (RCSS) applied for an Injunction to be put on us. Luckily this case was before Judge Cazalat (who had been involved in the care case) during this trial the realisation of this judge of who we were came to him, he stopped the trial, sent us all out of the court for a couple of hours.
      When we went back he started the case, That he remembered us the family, including the mother (Name)
      and that he wanted the court to know we were one of the most honest families ever to appear before him, and what could he now do, to which I replied ‘What can you do? all we can do is sue, to which he nodded, he made further comments, and the case ended with a promisary that we would not upset R[redacted] adoption in what we did next

  30. C

    Perhaps it would be worth contacting Vera Baird again – if you are able to present a concise, coherent set of reasons why the judgment – based on Dr. San Lazaro’s overseeing of submissions via the Guardian ad Litem – is flawed. She might be persuaded to look into it further.
    Unfortunately the GM, who one might expect to police medical ethics vigorously, seem reluctant to censure Dr. San Lazaro.
    What of Dr. Livingstone? And the other doctors? Are they still practicing locally? What about the GP – who was aware of the jerking head incidents prior to any allegation of non-accidental injury?

    1. Carol Bird

      We visited Vera Baird, when she was our local MP, the only remark she made was on the Court of Appeal Notice, that was in the name of R[redacted]( WRITTEN EXACTLY THIS WAY) Stating the split case was joined, that the only way RCLA could change the name was to appeal, back at the court of Appeal, but
      the fact that, no further appeal RCLA could not change the name stated for any further litigation

  31. C

    Have you got a solicitor or barrister on board, or do you plan to be litigants in person?
    Misfeasance or Malfeasance covers it. But both are civil torts.
    For info. of JR, See here: http://www.adminlaw.org.uk/docs/JR%202012%20by%20Richards%20QC.pdf

    There is a good Overview of Judicial Review among the articles at http://www.39essex.com/

    But – as has been said here before, it is most unlikely that you will be able to file for JR, unless you can find a decision to challenge that is less than 3 months old.
    Best of luck with your proceedings.

  32. C

    …one last thought: the name issue seems to come down to the lack of a hyphen. If the two names (B. and M.) are intended to indicate the names of the parents respectively, as the LA claimed, then there should be a hyphen between them, indicating that both are surnames. Otherwise B. may be taken as a middle name, as seems to have occurred in your situation.

    I think making a complaint about Dr San Lazaro via the GMC may bear fruit – after all, she has already been reported at least once to them. Its free, and any censure of her would only help your case.

  33. C

    I was speaking to the ICO on an unrelated matter, and asked some general questions about your situation with regard to personal medical data. They confirmed that even though they are medical records, they fall under their remit as being personal data, and said that you ‘would be well advised to speak to them’.
    Hope this helps.

  34. C

    This is so long ago now… but surely the A& E had copies of any letters, linked to time and doctor who attended, etc.
    I am sorry I can be of no real help… Judicial review seems unlikely at this distance. I don’t know enough about human rights law to be able to give you a good steer – but surely there is somebody who can. Have you tried speaking to anyone at Coram – or Family Rights Group? They might be able to offer some assistance. Did you get any joy with the ICO, or GMC?

      1. C

        If they have acted unlawfully… and you write to them about it and get a response which doesn’t satisfy you, then, it can be possible to use that response as the basis of your JR challenge. You would need to get legal advice from someone with a good grounding in public law, for the best advice on this. Preferably a barrister with a strong understanding of medical professional negligence and human rights…

      2. C

        You can also supplement that with a DSAR – Data Subject Access request – for you family data. Be as specific as possible about what you require.
        Here is a template set up for the hospital. Make alterations to send another to the local authority. ( I am unsure whether the £10 fee for data processing will be required. Some organisations require it, some don’t):

        [ADDRESS LINE 1]
        [ADDRESS LINE 2]
        Dear Sirs
        Data Subject Access Request – Data Protection Act 1998
        I am writing to make a data subject access request pursuant to s.7 Data Protection Act 1998.
        [My grandchild [NAME] attended [Hospital] between [DATE] and [DATE].  Consequently, [Hospital], as a data controller, [holds and processes OR held and processed] personal data of which my family and my grandchild are the subject.]
        [This is a general request that relates to any of [my] personal data processed by or on behalf of [Hospital]. To help you comply with the request, you should know that it is likely that personal data is held relating to the following matters:
        The decision to [SUBJECT MATTER].
        Conversations between [NAME] and [NAME].
        Medical Reports about [SUBJECT MATTER].
        Where such personal data cannot be supplied without disclosing information relating to another individual who can be identified from that information, you should take reasonable steps to secure the consent of such other individual or redact the personal data as appropriate.
        [Some of the data processed may be held in the form of sent and received e-mails, records of telephone calls and other conversations, and word-processed documents. Presumably these can be identified through the use of search tools or from a manual perusal of your records.]
        [In relation to e-mails, you may limit the search to e-mails between [NAMES] during the period [DATES]. However, in relation to [SUBJECT MATTER] please ask [NAMES] whether either is aware of others who are likely to have exchanged e-mails containing personal data about me. If so, please search the e-mails of anyone that either of them identifies as well as those individuals mentioned above.]
        My Grandchild’s certified birth name is spelled [NAME]. However, I have found people using a number of variant spellings including [VARIATIONS]. This may be helpful, particularly when searching records.]
        Once you have identified personal data within the scope of this request, please provide:
        A copy of the information constituting the personal data;
        A description of the data;
        An explanation of the purposes for which the data is processed;
        An identification of the sources of the data;
        Details of all parties to whom the data has been disclosed or may be disclosed.
        I enclose a cheque for £10 in respect of the maximum prescribed fee together with a copy of my driving licence and passport to confirm my identity.
        I look forward to hearing from you in relation to the above within the statutory time limit of 40 days.
        Yours faithfully

  35. debbie

    nothing in social services will change and innocent people can and will be treated appauling just corupt social workers stick together telling awful lies . we are vetted family checked unannounced visits training, give 13 years of our life into this then concerns raised we didnt see any evidence or who by . using removing babies to get at carers. i believed in no smoke without fire. icould never believe this could happen ..it should go criminal route at least there would have to be evidence. i wrote childrens ministers mp they didnt want to know . they could have followed it to see how carers are treated . they didnt ask for update or outcome. so that was who can change things. nothing getting better

  36. Sarah Phillimore

    Sorry, its not possible to comment helpfully on the basis of that information. You can apply to JR a refusal by a CJ to grant you permission to appeal but the circumstances have to be ‘exceptional’. I don’t know what your grounds of appeal were or why you were refused so I can’t comment.

  37. Sarah Phillimore

    I don’t think anyone has been offended by your comments Carol – or at least no one has said anything to me!
    But I can’t help thinking that the advice given to you earlier by C showed a path that might be more helpful to you, i.e. trying to clear up the issues around the misuse of data and the misrecording of your grandchild’s name. The courts are going to be stuck dealing with the issues that are before them; so if you need to challenge a primary fact (that the wrong child’s details were presented to court) the data protection route might be the better one.

    But obviously I don’t know the full circumstances of your case and haven’t seen any papers so any comments I make are going to be of limited help to you.

  38. Sarah Phillimore

    It is not my experience that children of unmarried parents are treated differently. But it is odd that a name was used if that was not the name used by either of his parents. In my experience, courts are very quick to deal with errors in the way a name is recorded. Did his parents point this out at the time?

  39. C

    Have you presented this anomaly re: names to any of the medical authorities that oversee national health, e.g. British Medical Council, Professional Standards Authority, the hcpc – if you have the name of the medic(s) involved? Have I asked this question before? Anyway, its worth the price of the phone calls. Otherwise it is free.
    I would have thought the the court could request the RJB records under discovery, if there was any chance that they related to your grandson… but I’m not legally trained so can’t be sure of this. It just seems like the common sense way to clear things up.

    1. Carol Bird

      Our case has now been refused by Judicial Review until after it has been heard in OPEN court, the transcript from the last court is entered, Mr Constable will be called as a witness by ourselves, it will be his statement made on why my Grandsons name was changed and legality of doing so, and what this caused, a child that was instructed by his GP to be taken to a hospital for investigation of brain damage from complicated birth, to a child that had suffered from injuries 2 Skull fractures, Subdural Haemottoma, billateral brain bleeds caused by his parents or Grandparents, covered up that my grandson needed help for development problems from a confirmed (in the medical file withheld by SC Hospital now James Cook) condition Cerebral Atrophy, forcing us to approach an outside Charity then known as Rescue Foundation now Cerebra, forcing them to keep this secret from RCLA otherwise they would carry out their threat of taking my Grandson from our Care

  40. Edmond Dantes

    This is an excellent example of people trying to improve things.
    However, it is doomed to failure –
    1. There are huge numbers of children and adults who’s lives have been ruined over many years by the tyrannical organisation that has evolved into social services. These people’s lives have been criminally ruined, much in the same way people who were enslaved. This site offers no repatriation or reparation for these people to become ‘normal’ human beings again. They are the damned.
    2. This tyrannical organisation has an endemic abusive mindset. It cannot be repaired; only total disbanding will stop the infection. A new organisation with all new people. In fact, the NHS should be allocated the budget and allowed to recreate the ethos of the organisation around good mental health practices.
    3. The abusers can hide here, and use it to ambush the unwary.
    4. It is abusive to insist that only hard evidenced proof is to be believed from people who are criminally abused by social workers, local authority, cafcass and family court.
    5. The system requires moral decency to work, and that is greatly absent in this modern social services.

    This is not pessimism, but reality.


    Edmond Dantes

    1. Sarah Phillimore

      No one can hide on this site and ‘ambush’ anyone. I ask for evidence whenever possible because I am simply fed up of extravagant claims that ‘foster care is a multi billion dollar industry’ as just one example. Whenever I ask for even a scintilla of evidence, what do I get? Silence.

      I am not asking people to provide me ‘hard evidence’ that they feel abused, distraught and afraid. The evidence of at is plain to see.

      I am asking for a dialogue that moves beyond wearisome hyperbole and defeatism. There has to be a middle ground.

  41. C

    Today I accidentally stumbled upon something that might be considered relevant ‘evidence’ – not of a billion pound treasure pot, but a part of the ‘picture’. Certainly a motivation for schools to report to Social services if they anything – no matter how trivial comes their way: ‘The children weren’t wearing coats’, ‘ the mother was dressing her child in the car’, etc. Here is the ‘evidence': https://www.gov.uk/pupil-premium-information-for-schools-and-alternative-provision-settings

    I certainly agree that both hyperbole and defeatism are as exhausting as trying to get an honest response from a local authority – and I couldn’t recommend either.

    1. Sarah Phillimore

      Agreed. No one’s assertions get any more credible by exaggeration. It simply poisons debate. I have found my perceptions of the child protection system as an ‘industry’ definitely undergoing a shift in the past year but my shift may have come sooner and been more pronounced if so many proponents of that view were less hysterical in their endorsement of it.

  42. sam

    I must admit when you first started this resource I would not after first glance use it , as what you said was so different from my own experience. However now I can see that you look at both sides, actually I have seen your viewpoint shifting.
    I find it a valuable resource now , so my viewpoint has shifted as well.

  43. sam

    Actually what I should have said was hopefully they were routed towards the right solicitor! Still a little cynical . I am sure you understand

  44. C

    CPR is certainly a very helpful resource. You can see that just from looking at the number of times its info. pages are being referenced on Facebook.
    Any self respecting local authority that understood the word ‘Care’ might consider including links to this resource in the documentation they give to parents at the outset. That would save a lot of time and effort.

  45. Sarah Phillimore

    Sorry Carol, I have redacted the names out of possibly over abundance of caution.

    Thanks for the update, I hope you get the outcome you want.

  46. C

    Thanks for updating, Carol. My heart goes out to you and your family for the neddless suffering that you have been put through. I hope justice will eventually be served.

    1. Carol Bird

      No Judicial Review Allowed for Family Law Cases
      Radio report, Middlesbrough has the highest number of Children in Care in the country????????????????????????


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>