|Remnant News Watch|
|The Nazi Tactics of Social Services|
|REMNANT COLUMNIST, New York|
A pregnant woman has been told that her baby will be “taken from her at birth because she is deemed capable of ‘emotional abuse’, even though psychiatrists treating her say there is no evidence to suggest that she will harm her child in any way,” reports David Harrison of the Sunday Telegraph, UK (Aug. 26, 2006):
Social services' recommendation that the baby should be taken from Fran Lyon, a 22-year-old charity worker who has five A-levels and a degree in neuroscience, was based in part on a letter from a paediatrician she has never met. Hexham children's services, part of Northumberland County Council, said the decision had been made because Miss Lyon was likely to suffer from Munchausen's Syndrome by proxy, a condition unproven by science in which a mother will make up an illness in her child, or harm it, to draw attention to herself.
"The paediatrician has never met me," said Miss Lyon. "He is not a psychiatrist and cannot possibly make assertions about my current or future mental health. Yet his letter was the only one considered in the case conference on August 16 which lasted just 10 minutes." Referring to the Hexham children's services decision as "barbaric and draconian," she is seeking a judicial review of the case, asserting that social services’ refusal to accept submissions in her defense is “scandalous.”
In accord with social services procedure, a doctor will turn Miss Lyon’s newborn, which she has named Molly, over to a social worker, provided there are no medical complications. David Harrison notes that “social services' request for an emergency protection order – these are usually granted – will be heard in secret in the family court at Hexham magistrates on the same day.” After this is done, anyone who discusses the case in public, including Miss Lyon, will be deemed to be in contempt of the court.
John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP (Member of Parliament) and chairman of the Justice for Families campaign group, said the case showed "exactly what is wrong with public family law," adding, "there is absolutely no evidence that Fran would harm her child. However, a vague letter from a paediatrician who has never met her has been used in a decision to remove her baby at birth, while evidence from professionals treating her, that she would have no problems has been ignored."
Miss Lyon’s case resonates with critics concerned that the substantial rise in the number of infants being taken from parents by social services are being done so in order to meet adoption “target” numbers. In a statement posted at www.fassit.co.uk, the website of the organization, Fassit (The Families anti-Social Services Inquiry Team), Mr. Hemming writes:
The government's plan to increase adoptions was flawed from the start. It is very difficult to successfully adopt a child older than 5. Hence the pressure to increase adoptions applies mainly on younger children. In 1995, 2,870 children under 5 were taken into care and 910 children under five adopted from care (32%). In 2006 4,160 children under 5 were taken into care and 2,190 children under 5 adopted which is over 60%. For the government to achieve their target almost all of the children taken into care under 5 have to be adopted a ludicrous objective
Comment: The scenario proposed for Fran Lyon sounds like it could have come from a science-fiction film. On the very day a woman gives birth, her infant is snatched from her arms and handed over to “the system.” If she dares speak out concerning this abomination, she is branded a criminal. We have already seen how school-aged children in Germany are being ripped from their families for the “crime” of being home-schooled.
The Sunday Telegraph report cited above notes that the request by social services for an “emergency protection order” in Lyon’s case will be heard “in secret” in the Hexham family court. The secretive nature of social service agency and family court procedures is an alarming fact. Another Sunday Telegraph editorial (Aug. 26, 2007) on the case states:
To most people, it will seem grotesquely unjust that any child could be removed on such a basis. Northumberland County Council is, however, far from unusual in acting in his way. The courts have endorsed the removal of hundreds of children from their natural parents on the basis that there is a possibility that they might "abuse their child emotionally".
Some of those forcible adoptions are appalling acts of injustice. How can such things happen in Britain? The answer is simple: the courts that enforce the taking away of children from parents on local authority say-so operate in secret. It is illegal to reveal their proceedings, or even their judgments.
Because “children's interests cannot be served by secrecy, for secrecy allows incompetence and injustice to flourish unchecked,” the Sunday Telegraph has launched “Stop the Secrecy: Open the Family Courts,” a campaign to end the ban on reporting any proceedings in the Family Division. How badly is such an initiative needed? During this past summer, the fassit website was closed down for a few hours by the London Borough of Enfield. John Hemming, criticizing the move, stated, “the Fassit website was closed down because it contained details of a particular miscarriage of justice that is subject to a reporting restriction order,” adding the question: “If people are threatened with imprisonment for talking about the details of a miscarriage of justice relating to a family court case then why would any family wish to take the risk of adopting a child forcibly removed from his/her parents?”
Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D., is assistant professor of government at Patrick Henry College and president of the American Coalition for Fathers of Children. In his article, “The Nightmare of Family Court” (The Sunday Independent - Apr. 22, 2001), he notes that “in some American jurisdictions it is likewise a crime to criticize judges”:
A father protesting outside his Los Angeles home on Fathers' Day 1998 that he had not seen his son in more than two years was apprehended by police for a "psychiatric evaluation". Following his congressional testimony critical of family courts, a Georgia father was stripped of custody of his two children, ordered to pay lawyers he had not hired, and jailed. "We believe the court is attempting to punish [him] for exposing the court's misconduct to a congressional committee," said the president of a local fathers’ group.
Meanwhile, the Daily Mail, UK reports (Sept. 5, 2007) that “a homosexual foster couple were left free to sexually abuse vulnerable boys in their care because social workers feared being accused of discrimination if they investigated complaints.” Craig Faunch, 32, and Ian Wathey, 41, one of the first homosexual “couples” in Britain to be officially approved as foster parents, were jailed for the sexual abuse of four boys, aged eight to 14. Even though the mother of two of the boys reported her suspicions concerning Faunch and Wathey to the Wakefield Metropolitan District Council, no action was taken. In fact, more young boys were sent to live with the “couple.”
A report by the children’s charity, Kidscape, accused the Wakefield Metropolitan District Council of treating Faunch and Wathey as "trophy carers." The report cited Council members admitting that “by virtue of their sexuality they had a 'badge' which made things less questionable,” that “the sexual orientation of the men was a significant cause of people not 'thinking the unthinkable',” and that “a number of staff were afraid of being thought homophobic.” The report concluded that “those in charge of overseeing the safety of children in the care of Faunch and Wathey had allowed political correctness to override common sense.”
Fran Lyon suffered emotional problems at age 16 after being abused by her father and sexually assaulted by a stranger. Yet, she overcame such daunting obstacles to graduate from Edinburgh University and now works for two mental health charities. In effect, Miss Lyon is being persecuted for her past, something the “experts” would never in a million years have done to the homosexuals, Faunch and Wathey.
Dr. Stella Newrith, a consultant psychiatrist, who treated Miss Lyon during her childhood trauma, told Northumberland social services, "There has never been any clinical evidence to suggest that Fran would put herself or others at risk, and there is certainly no evidence to suggest that she would put a child at risk of emotional, physical or sexual harm."
But the “baby collectors” – possibly upping the ante since today’s married couples are producing few, if no, offspring – have an ace in the hole: “Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (MSBP).” Coined in 1977 by British journalist Roy Meadow, MSBP is considered a form of child abuse whereby a parent or caretaker produces or simulates illness in a child. According to the advocacy group, Mothers Against Munchausen Allegations (M.A.M.A. - http://www.msbp.com/), this frivolous diagnosis is not recognized by either the American Medical Association or the American Psychiatric Association. They state:
The inventor of this label/diagnosis, Sir Roy Meadow, has now been completely discredited in the UK courts and there is a tremendous public outcry for review of all cases in which he has ever been involved. We believe there should be a review of all cases world-wide in which MSP label has been used.
The motives of the accusers can be multi-faceted. Often, allegations are used by a doctor or institution to evade a medical malpractice lawsuit, or to simply rid themselves of a troublesome mom when frustrated and unable to diagnose a child's condition. Increasingly, this label is being deliberately misused by opposing parents in child custody suits. Many nurses and even doctors have been accused.
Because of the inordinate and absurd amount of power allotted to social service workers, family courts and judges, it is imperative that these “professionals” be strictly monitored on a case-by-case basis and handed only the most severe legal punishments in cases of malfeasance or incompetence. It may not be too late to break their stranglehold.
Want More News?
and includes at least three additional news stories and analysis.
Subscribe to The Remnant! For more information, please click here.