Justice For Families

It's The Friday afternoon Trick again!!!!

SS have taken my 4 month old daughter on a PPO today. They have refused to place her with any family or freinds saying they don't have time to do the F&F Assessment. The SS have said they will start the assessments on Monday, but in the meantime she is going to a foster placement. I have requested contact with my grand-daughter today, but not heard anything further as yet. I am waiting for the DSM to get back to me.

I am trying to get my 16yr old daughter (baby's Mum) home to me so I can get her away from the situation and hopefully salvage something from this awful chaotic mess we are all now in!!!

I need to know how to oppose an EPO & ICO as the PPO is invalid after 72 hours, which is Monday. DSM has updated me again and mentioned possibility of the LA applying for an ICO on Monday and we need to oppose that application. Duaghter will be unrepresented if there is a hearing as the Sol who have taken her case can't get anyone to court on that day. I have Presidents Guidance on MKF & may use that if I can arrange a MKF to come to court with us, should it be necessary!!!

I know which placement grand-daughter is going to and roughly where it is, and who the fc is. I have requested contact with my grand-daughter today, but the DSM said refused but said she would arrange it to take place on Monday. This is not good as it breaks the bond between Mother & Child !!!!!!!

OMG, I'm so sorry. I'm sure that Mobaldy will be on line later.

Ian Josephs of forced adoption always warned about the Friday afternoons.
You cant get lawyers on to it until Monday, which is why they do it.

My first ever video was for forced adoption.com. 10,000 view later!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_C75RO6LL4



Have you called Ian Josephs?

Telephone: 0033626875684 for free legal advice! Or contact me by email ian@monaco.mc If you give me a contact phone number (MOBILES ARE OK !) and times available to receive a call I can phone you back at my expense.I do not accept attachments as they are time consuming and may contain viruses;please use regular email or fax documents to 0033493220967.For my replies, I type emails with one finger so in complicated cases I prefer where possible to telephone you as it takes a lot less time to advise you this way !

I am pleased to say my grand-daughter and my daughter have been reunited. The DSM wanted my daughter to agree to signing the baby into S.20 Vol Care or they threatened an EPO application, however I suggested a very good working agreement, with clauses which they knew a judge would have deemd more than acceptable.

The LA finally agreed to the working agreement once the PPO had expired and have returned the baby but say they re still applying for care proceedings. Both my daughter and I have signed the agreement which is not as bad as it could have been. I told the DSM that if they filed for an EPO I wanted to be informed because an ex-parte hearing was not appropriate as my daughter wished to contest any application the LA would make. The County Court informed me they had been on stand-by for an EPO application in respect of my grand-daughter since Friday!!! Thankfully it hasn't come to that, and the baby's sw is now doing daily stat visits.

SO pleased for you hunny, Kinda hate being right but look there was nothing ever there to justify any of it, I told you the timescales would not allow it to happen as first percieved, mind you one urgent point to keep in mind is the folks can try and catch you and your Daughter out.

Just think the next time you put your rubbish into your wheelie bin there could be an SW hiding in there waiting to pounce. no need to panic as we have already discussed this today but be on your guard

You were bang on the mark Mobaldy, but it certainly was a close shave. Too close for my liking. They are NOT getting their hands on my grand-daughter and I have told them this repeatedly since they started doing assessments during my daughters pregnancy. The hell my grand-daughter will become a government key indicator statistic.

We will be very mindful of the close supervision she will be under by the sw, and hopefully all will be ok. I remain cautious about the threat of an ICO application, even the posstot father has threatened the poor girl with more court proceedings!!! He should be damn grateful his daughter wasn't lost to an EPO today

MOBALDY, the DSM has been today and said the LA are still applying for care proceedings for the lil one, but have not stated for definite what they are asking for. She did however state that the LA may request an ICO with baby on Placement With Parent Reg's. I asked if the LA would be twin track planning or concurrent planning (just to try ascertain thir position) the DSM said they would be single track planning as the LA want my daughter to come out with a one year Supervision Order, yet I have never heard of single track planning before!!!

I am really sorry to hear that loving mama. If I can be of any assistance. I dont know whether to believe the LA about a 1 year supervision order as what is this single track planning.

On a positive note I had a 1 year supervision order and after a few months I got a assistant sw and few visits

Thanks for that Avenger.

The LA did not pursue an ICO at the hearing, as the barrister stated there were insuficcient grounds as the LA had returned the baby to her Mummy, therefore they could not have serious concerns about the child's welfare.

The LA want my daughter to undergo a psychological assessment and an ISW assessment. They can naff right off, they are not having an ISW cos they are doing it to try get behind the scenes info on me, I refused an ISW assessment cos they tried to stitch me up with an ISW who had worked for this authority over many years in varying roles. They are not fitting my daughter or me up, and I will ensure to inform her legal about this matter. She should not have a psychological assessment as she is only 'A Minor', a new parent, still learning and developing.

The LA also want the papers from my case releasing into my daughters case, the answer is a resounding NO, as it would expose my daughter to highly sensitive information from my case which coud be damaging to her.

I am applying to be made party proceedings, C2 all completed.

I've googled single track planning. Found ZERO sites mentioning it in the context of single, concurrent planning or twin track.

In fact, it seems concurrent planning MUST be USED...

The introduction of the
expectation of twin-track (also known as parallel) planning in all care proceedings
may assist in addressing some of these problems, especially if it is given emphasis in each child’s case.



The research study into three agencies implementing concurrent planning demonstrates that, for the children involved, they:

moved faster to permanence and involved the children in fewer moves between carers and it is possible to say with confidence that concurrent planning worked well for the children in the study
(Monck and others 2003, p.269)

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cach ... l=en&gl=uk

This google site gives definitions of concurrent planning. Twin track planning.


this document is a judicial board definition Appendices. Reading concurrent planning is quite amusing.
A family that WANTS to adopt a child will work to return it! **arched eyebrows**

GRRHH!!

no mention of single track planning in the judicial appendices.

Thankls Secrets, something is going on for sure as my daughters sw has made a false entry on record to state I said my daughter had left the baby with me for 12 hours, TOTALLY UNTRUE.

I rang the crisis line for a moan today cos I am as stressed as I can get, all my other support people are unavailable for sometime, so used the crisisline service for the manner it is intended, an hour later ss rang to say they had received an email stating I had said I would hurt the baby, yet I have never stated such a thing, never even had such thoughts ever in my life. I have never ever in my entire life had thoughts or feelings to hurt any child. The ss wanted to come out to see me, so I agreed. They said they would write it on my grand-daughters file that my call to the crisisline was an appropriate use of the service as I am under alot of stress at the moment, all due to the la and legal proceedings, my healthcare professionals are not available and there is no danger of me hurting any child, they had seen my grand-daughter who is fit and well. I aksed for their findings in writing although they are reluctant, I will keep pressing for this letter as I believe it is vitally important to ensure the record is set straight. The visit was of course recorded on a voice recorder lol, so there is a transcript of their visit

I am writing them a letter to state I have never had any thoughts or feelinsg to hurt any child at any point in my life. I am also speaking to my GP re the matter tomorrow and may make an appointment to go in to see her, get that visit in writing as back up to send to them, conculsion from GP: Nanny is overwhelmed by stress due to SS.

This is a nothing more than a set up, I smell nasty sewer rats!!!

loving Mama wrote:This is a nothing more than a set up, I smell nasty sewer rats!!!

But by the sound of it you are doing a good job covering yourself, remember they hate the truth and cold hard facts and recordings do that job perfectly well

The good news after another hearing, no order on the baby at the moment as all is going well with the working agreement. On a positive note even though I was not made party yet the other grandparent was not permitted into court (her son is 20 yrs of age), yet I was (my daughter is still 'A Minor). It was my sol & I who opposed the other grandparent being in the court room.

The not so good news is:

1. The not so clever CC Judge did not realise he was sitting as a HC Judge, and wants one of the parties to provide him with the relevant legislation to inform him why the case should be dealt with by the High Court. Cn someone please post me a link & I will try to educate the judiciary!!!!

2. Bloody baby's sol still wants disclosure of the case file from my case into this case, but the Deputy Service Manager and I are both opposed to this. I strongly oppose that as it will leave confidentiality a huge issue!

3. The judge needs a skeleton arguement for my applying for party status to be mad party to my daughters proceedings, so even though I had the C2, C1A, N16A all done and a position statement etc etc the judge wants more and will not hear my application until nexthearing, in about 4 weeks.

4. There is to be an advocates meeting to timetable etc etc but my sol can't attend as she hasn't got funding as my application to be made party wasn't dealt with by the judge. She told the judge who didn't give a hoot - SET UP.

5. The Judge today wants to list my case for a case management conference and my daughters directions for the same day, i.e a full day of litigation! presumably under the same judge, CONFLICT OF INTEREST! Again both the DSM & I were both opposed to this in court, yet the Judge continued to harp on!!!!

My healthcare team are strongly against my being involved in a full day of litigation at present due to physical health problems which is not able to withstand that. Due to this and the complexities of both cases I have instructed a sol. I am keeping my eye on her though and she is fully aware I will not stand any nonsense.

loving Mama wrote:
1. The not so clever CC Judge did not realise he was sitting as a HC Judge, and wants one of the parties to provide him with the relevant legislation to inform him why the case should be dealt with by the High Court.

Falls off chair laughing.
I thought I'd seen it all, but I'd like to have seen your case.