As per the conference, here are some of the common tactics that have been used by statutory agencies to divide and conquer innocent families.
Please remember that this is NOT an every day occurence; however if you are part of any minority community that is of interest to statutory services then it may be something you wish to consider very carefully. There are individuals and organisations that benefit professionally, financially or otherwise from the permananent removal and forced adoption of children. Every time an innocent family is torn apart, it is only the children, their parents and relatives of that family who suffer - so it really is a case of David fighting Goliath.
With this in mind, please make it your business to understand how some professionals have operated, whether consciously or otherwise.
1. Targetting the most vulnerable without their consent
Mothers. Single parents. Young people. Those with learning difficulties. Those with financial concerns. Those on benefits. Those already know to the authorities. Those who don't have a strong network of relatives, friends and community members. Those who cannot or do not access independent professional support and advice. Those with young children and babies. Those who don't understand how the system really operates and its fundamental flaws.
2. Pushing the prevention and early intervention agenda
If professionals are expected to stop harm before it happens, they have to operate according to an assumption of guilt. Rather than simply supporting families, they may be looking for evidence of risk, however small. Anything that diverges from the accepted norm of the time becomes a risk factor, regardless of the false positives that result. Only in this way can newborn babies be removed from their mothers' breasts because of a risk of emotional harm. To use an analogy from the conference, it's akin to prosecuting someone for shoplifting when all they have done is look through a shop window.
3. Promises that, providing there is co-operation, everything will be OK
Angling for compliance from parents (in respect of putting their children into foster care, signing documentation, submitting to psychological assessments etc) in return for a promised positive outcome - and then using the permissions and information gleaned or produced to remove children from their parents.
4. Engendering factions
A professional may covertly instruct one parent to maintain a distance from the other, or use conjecture to persuade a grandparent to act against their child for the sake of their grandchild. This makes it easier for the child to be removed - and often placed elsewhere than with the parent or grandparent who has been "used" in this way.
5. Misrepresentation
Professionals may misrepresent information in statements and reports to give the "right" impression (that is their own subjective impression) to the courts, other agencies and professionals.
6. Psychological assessments
Using preferred psychologists who will give a diagnosis (or multiple diagnoses) that facilitates the agenda of the local authority and is detrimental to the parent who has undergone the psychological assessment.
The objective validity of a "personality disorder" diagnosis is highly questionable, given its rather arrogant assumption that the culture within which individuals operate sets a decent standard of "order" in the first place. In addition, anything that relies upon subjective assessment by another human being who has his or her her own agenda and prejudices should be approached with caution. If a personality disorder is merely a manifestation of generally a-typical behaviours or attributes displayed by individuals then it is easy for an unscrupulous professional to disadvantage a parent (eg. diagnosing someone who quite rightly questions authority as paranoid, for example).
7. Lying to children who have been removed
Once removed, children may be systematically alienated from their family of origin. Ian Josephs has experience of cases where professionals have been trained to lie "in the best interests of the child" - although they may be wrong about those best interests. Removed children may be informed that their parents no longer love or want them, or that their parents are mentally ill and incapable of looking after them.
8. Bestowing selective rights on children
Children might not have the "right" to stay with their families or hear from their parents that they are loved and wanted. But upholding their human rights once in care can mean that professionals are prevented from intervening and stopping dangerous or destructive behaviours that can cause a child to feel more isolated, uncared for and disengaged.
9. Preventing parents from having their say in court
Lawyers (particularly those who are retained by local authorities and thus have a serious conflict of interest) may advise parents that the situation is hopeless and the best course of action is compliance. Parents may be advised against speaking out in court and compelled instead to rely on their lawyer speaking for them - thus removing a possibility for a positive resolution.
10. Preventing parents from having their say out of court
Gagging orders prevent parents and older children from speaking publicly about their ordeals, all in the name of protecting their privacy - whether they want it protected or not. Parents who breach these orders risk imprisonment. Parents are prevented from telling the truth to their children during contact visits: that they love them, that they are fighting for them, that they want them back. They may also be prevented from recording contact visits for evidence - even when their version of events contradicts that of a professional.
