WTF? Pre-emptive Child Removal

5.56X45mm

5.56X45mm

Milforum Mac Daddy
Vanessa Brookes, 34, who is due to give birth early next month, smuggled taping equipment into a meeting with social services officials, fearing they would try to take her baby for forced adoption.
She recorded a social worker telling her and her husband Martin, 41, that even though there was “no immediate risk to your child from yourselves”, the council would seek a court order to place the child in foster care.
Mother and baby would be allowed “two or three days” in hospital together, but should not leave the premises until social workers came to remove the infant.​
Click to expand...
Pre-emptive Child Removal



Okay.... England has gone a step to far. This is f#cked up. This basically states in England that a child is property of the state. SLAVERY!

First it's the UK Police going into your house without a warrant. Then it was the disarming of the citizenry. After that it was the installation of the Close Circuit Television System. Now it's this.... Has the United Kingdom because Big Brother of 1984?

You folks in the UK need to fight back. You're being watched more then Soviet Citizens were during the height of the Cold War. You now basically have no legal relationship with your children. You cannot defend yourself.

Either hit the restart button or move on over to the USA.
 
Holy Crap Batman!!!!WTF????

You take a kid because there might possibly in the future, we're not certain, but it could happen sometime so to protect the kid from an event thats a possibilty in the future that we're not certain will happen but might in the future we will place the kid in foster care?

Due process anyone?
 
If they told me they were taking my kid, it'd be time to look up home made explosives and improvised weaponry. I'd use a letter opener if I had to.

This is wrong on so many levels.
 
I agree with Inferno

There has to be more to this story, I have been living in Europe for sometime now, nobody just comes and "takes" your baby. Kidnapping is a crime ya know...
 
mmarsh said:
Haven't we all at one time or another? Depression is very common after birth amongst women. Thats hardly an excuse. There has to be more...
Click to expand...


I wonder. There's got to be other articles about on this matter.
But it does seem a bit worrying, the way the UK's going these days.
 
bulldogg said:
Pre-emptive child removal... I love it. Its sooooooooo Minority Report.
Click to expand...

It is just like Minority Report.... The parents have done nothing wrong. Just because someone had a troubled life does not give the state the right to remove a child from their parents. The child isn't even born yet. The article states that the child might suffer from emotional abuse. Key words... MIGHT SUFFER...

That's like me giving you a traffic ticket because you might hit a parked car down the road.

This is all because of the Big Brother Soviet/Nazi Style of Government. The neighbors have complained that the couple's household was disorderly, so the state has decided to step in and remove a child from their parents just because there is some dirty cloth on the floor and a dish in the sink. Seems like the idea of the GESTOPO Block officer getting reports on the area from keeping the neighbors snitching on each other.

Social services took an interest in the Brookes family after Mrs Brookes, who is partially-sighted, was diagnosed with depression and a personality disorder, leading to concerns that her baby might be subjected to "emotional abuse". Neighbours have complained that the couple's household was disorderly, but neither has been accused of abusing or harming a child.
Click to expand...
This sounds like a child farm service for the state. They need young bodies and minds that are raised on Big Brother's system of education so that they will not be free thinkers.

John Hemming, the Liberal Democrat MP and chairman of campaign group Justice for Families, said: "I find it very odd that a newborn baby would be removed when there is not any allegation by the authorities that the child is at risk. Yet this case is not unique. There are many cases in which newborns are removed because of allegations that their mothers may at some later stage 'emotionally abuse' the child."


The case returns the spotlight to claims that social services are being heavy-handed in removing children from their parents, in order to meet Government adoption targets.


The Sunday Telegraph has previously revealed cases of mothers who were not told why their children were taken away, and cases of families whose children were not returned even after the parents had been cleared of wrongdoing. More than 2,000 babies aged under a year were taken for adoption last year, almost triple the level of a decade ago.
Click to expand...
 
the_13th_redneck said:
I wonder. There's got to be other articles about on this matter.
But it does seem a bit worrying, the way the UK's going these days.
Click to expand...

Yes I suspect there is more to this story than what we have seen to date.

I get the impression we have only heard one side of the story.
 
Hmm I wonder if they're gonna have future parents take a test so they have the right away to get pregnant and have a child...just because she has a personality disorder doesn't mean she won't love her child...I mean if she was crazy, that would be another thing but then what about the dad, he doesnt have a right to his child because his wife had a small problem?
 
Philam, there are cases where a pregnant mother has an illness that will render her a threat to the child.
This is the problem. I'm not talking about general depression or something. I'm talking about people who have severe disorders. I've actually seen them. They can seem normal for a while then pretty much without warning start to deteriorate and they can't help themselves so they start to take a dump in their underwear while shivering endlessly while unable to respond to any sort of communication.
It's VERY strange.
But this again is a case of being presumed guilty until proven innocent (or in this case, without a chance to be proven innocent). And I don't believe that is right.
 
Well first of all what the heck does she have, because I guess it all depends on what she has, and how bad it is...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top