I call on you the Singletrack oracle do you know anything about Britain’s ‘illegal child snatching’?

Article 1
Article 2

My pregnant girlfriend has got herself in a bit of a tis after reading the two recent articles in the Telegraph about children being taken from their parents for no good reason, then these children being put up for adoption in the UK rather than being returned to family in Slovakia.

There has been very little info on this in Scotland but is big news back in Slovakia where it is being reported to have happened to Czech families as well.

What are your opinions? do any of you have any further info on the topic?

Cheers

Rusty

..and more importantly, which type of child snatching is legal?

Whats an “illegal child”?

Quick bump for the daytime crowd.

I realise the tile is a little over the top and sensationalised but any further info would be greatly appreciated.

Seems legit.

any further info would be greatly appreciated.

Such as the reason why social services took the children from their parents in the first place, which the writer has conveniently not even intimated at in the slightest. If the parents aren’t suitable carers, why should it stand that the grandparents (who may be virtual strangers to the kids) be any better?

On that writer’s dedicated webpage (click on his name) his strap line is:

‘Christopher Booker of The Sunday Telegraph exposes the ever-growing power of the European Union in Brussels and the excesses of mad officialdom.’

In other words he’s a sh1t-stirrer.

With all due respect, I say this to you and your girlfriend: get a grip.

OP you GF has nothing to worry about.

Seems the UK authorities have acted entirely appropriately. Your girlfriend’s assertion “no good reason” is not correct. The parents of these kids have demonstrated they are not fit parents. Social services have a duty of care. If the Slovakian parents referenced here looked after their kids properly social services would not have got involved.

In my view it would be easier and cheaper to send the whole family back to Slovakia but I suspect Social Services have a concern that the children would continue to be treated poorly by their parents and thus that isn’t an option.

Were they braaaaahn babies? Is so…..

all i know is that christopher booker has some issue with child protection services and does as much as possible to paint them in a bad light.

can’t find the article but there was two articles (one from telegraph) one focused on social services removing children from a house and the parents had ‘no idea why’

the other article in another paper said that the reason was the dogs they were breeding were running riot and crapping in the kids bedrooms amongst other stuff.

I have no idea which article was true, i just was amazed at the spin that two journalists could give on the same story.

EDIT:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8148987/Forced-adoption-another-win-for-the-child-snatchers.html

& what was not reported

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/2046118.vet_could_smell_decaying_carcasses_at_dog_breeders_house/

The parents of these kids have demonstrated they are not fit parents.

not read all of the above but taking children into care because they were left with at 17 year old whilst parents were at work seems a bit OTT in it’s own right.

There’s 17 year olds with their own very young children who live alone with social services not involved.

wwwwas, you’re mixing up two different cases

not read all of the above but taking children into care because they were left with at 17 year old whilst parents were at work seems a bit OTT in it’s own right.

There’s 17 year olds with their own very young children who live alone with social services not involved

That is because the author will have reported a half truth [ i may be ebing kind saying it is half true] and presented it as the real reason.

The author is a complete idiot who hates scoial workers and regularily writes Daily mail type rants about social workers
He really really hates then and there are many “scare” stories out there of him misrepresenting the facts to make social workers look bad and portray them as illegal child snatchers who we should all be scared of.
In essence he writes poor polemics designed to simply attack social workers that are often factually innacurate

from Wiki

Christopher Booker has written a number of articles raising concerns about the Family Court system in England and Wales. But his writings on this issue have also drawn criticism from the judiciary for alleged inaccuracy.[33][34] In a High Court judgement in April 2011, Judge Bellamy stated that: “Mr Booker’s articles contain significant factual errors and omissions”,[35] and took issue with Booker on two cases he had covered:

“In the first article Mr Booker gives the impression that it was ‘faint bruising’ which prompted the parents to take L to hospital and which gave rise to what he clearly regards as the over-zealous and unjustified actions of social workers working for the same local authority so recently criticised by me in Re X, Y and Z (Children). As he will come to understand when he reads this judgment, it was in fact L’s floppy arm which prompted his parents to take him to hospital. That floppy arm was the result of a spiral fracture of his left humerus. X-rays showed that he also had six metaphyseal fractures. In his first article Mr Booker makes no mention of any of those fractures. It was those fractures which led to the safeguarding measures taken – and in my judgment appropriately taken – by this hospital and by this local authority…

In his second article Mr Booker asserts as fact that in this case ‘the council has depended, in its campaign to seize this baby, on the same controversial paediatrician about whom the judge was so excoriatory’… I shall refer to that doctor, as I did in Re X, Y and Z (Children), as Dr M. At no time has Dr M had any involvement at all in the case I am now concerned with. Indeed, to the best of my recollection his name has never even been suggested as a possible expert to be used in this case.”

FWIW haviong worked in theis are it is nigh on impossible to get intervention and when they do “snatch” it is because of immenent danger.
Even if a social worker [ in relaity it will be social services/ support services first] was involved say via a CAF the goal is to suppor tthe parets to parent well

It is all Bollocks tell her not to worry

Right so it would appear this reporter is a bit of a shit stirrer and that is possibly why there has been very little reported else where.

However, reports from Slovak media are that in a number of cases the kids are being taken into care for unsubstantiated reasons.

I personally think it may be down to the various different rules in different countries throughout Europe and misconception of the UK system in comparison to their own.

reports from Slovak media are that in a number of cases the kids are being taken into care for unsubstantiated reasons

Yes they get a court odrder from the courts to remove kids and place them in care but they dont give a “substanitated” reason to the judge – does this sound remotely likely?

The reality is that it is very difficult to remove kids from parents- being crap is not enough reason you actually need criminally bad parenting.

http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed28647
Guidehere i assue still current ish?

In Re O (Supervision Order) [2001] 1 FLR 923, Hale LJ (as she then was) emphasises that ‘the court should begin with a preference for the less interventionist rather than the more interventionist approach. This should be considered to be in the better interests of the children … unless there are cogent reasons to the contrary …’

In X Council v B (Emergency Protection Orders) [2005] 1 FLR 341, in the course of setting out a number of guiding principles in relation to emergency protection orders, Munby J held that ‘separation is only to be contemplated if immediate separation is essential to secure the child’s safety: ‘imminent danger’ must be ‘actually established’. Other principles that can be distilled from the case include:-

“does this sound remotely likely?” To me no it does not, to her being stirred up by her mother it seems like the most plausable thing in the world.