What does it say about the fairness of the UK system of child ‘protection’, when a father from South Wales gets punished simply for having gone to Brussels to campaign against state child-snatching?

Can he be blamed for trying to kill himself, when he’s not allowed to see his son for his birthday?

What can be done with a social services who maliciously and sadistically use contact with your children as a big stick to beat you with – when you are already suffering from being separated from them?

Particularly when the majority of children are taken under the ridiculous (and legally unique in the world) pretext of being at ‘risk of future emotional harm’!

Isn’t a full, normal life full of this precise risk? How many arguing teenagers / parents fall under this category? All of them!

Many people will be surprised to lean that there are actually adoption targets for social services, and even more surprisingly, ‘perks’ when these are met: one 12-year-old daughter who had been taken at 10pm in the evening found the evidence on the bank statement of her foster parent that out of the £400+ per week she received to look after a snatched-child, she was paying a kick-back to the social worker!

No wonder they take so many children!

But the big-business aspect of this “respectable” child-trafficking industry is another book in itself.

The economic costs of child abuse were addressed in a letter by a long standing campaigner to the Children’s Commissioner. But one has to ask, what difference do these sorts of studies make?

We can only hope for a cumulative, long term effect out of the increasing number of short term actions people are making as the problem gets worse and worse.

John Hemming MP expressed his concerns by tabling this Early Day Motion:


That this House notes that a group of parents, in conjunction with the association of McKenzie Friends, went from the UK to petition the European Parliament on 19 March 2014 about miscarriages of justice in the family courts in England and Wales; he further notes that this included José and Carla Pedro, a Portuguese family living in Grantham, who were arrested on their return; he notes that they saw this as punishment for petitioning the European Parliament; he also notes that a second petitioner Emyr Wyn Jones was prevented from having contact with his children because Carmarthenshire Council deliberately arranged a meeting to discuss contact at a time they knew conflicted with his attendance at the European Parliament; they had previously punished him by curtailing contact when he told his children he was going to the European Parliament; he further notes that Article 5 of the 1688 Bill of Rights confirms the right of petition; the MP notes that this right should be recognised throughout the European Parliament, and is concerned that authorities in the UK appear to be preventing people from complaining about the way the authorities are acting.


Icon for the Public Domain license

This work (The European Dimension of Forced Adoptions by Sabine K McNeill) is free of known copyright restrictions.

Share This Book