Families Destroyed By The Corrupt & Unqualified

By TLB Contributing Partner: Christina England, BA, Hons

Over the years, many thousands of children have been injured by routine vaccinations. The majority of them are looked after by their parents in their own homes. However, some require medical intervention, specialized education and extra financial support to meet their needs.

This extra intervention usually involves the family needing additional support from social services. However, sometimes, contacting social services, especially after a suspected or confirmed vaccine injury, can have devastating consequences.

Educational psychologist Lisa Blakemore-Brown highlighted exactly what can happen in an article titled False Illness in Children – Or Simply False Accusations?

In her article, Blakemore-Brown described a tragic case in which she had been involved concerning a child who had developed a dangerously high fever immediately after receiving routine vaccinations. Shortly after, the child began to bang his head, soil himself, and lose all of his language ability.

After many investigations, the child was diagnosed with Asperger’s syndrome. The mother began to suspect that the vaccinations were the root of the child’s problems and decided not to have her other children vaccinated. As time went on, she became desperate for help. She turned to the social services and begged them for respite care because she was finding her elder son difficult to manage.

Instead of receiving the help this mother so badly needed, she was accused of Munchausen syndrome by proxy (MSBP) and her children were taken away from her.

(MSBP is a diagnosis given to a parent or caregiver to describe certain aspects of their behavior. This behavior usually includes subjecting what appears to be a previously healthy child to unnecessary painful tests or medical interventions, such as scans, x-rays and surgical procedures to gain the attention of the medical profession.)

In foster care, the youngest child, a little girl, was vaccinated against the will of her mother. Instantaneously and tragically, the child’s behavior deteriorated in the same way as her brother’s had, only this time, the foster mother had videotapes of the child before and after vaccinations to prove the timing of the behavioral changes. Despite this compelling evidence, both of the younger children were placed into a new family.

Family Courts Make Decisions by Gagging the Parents

Before a child can be removed from their parents’ care, social services have to refer the case to the family court.

A document titled The legal system explained: the Family Court states that:

“The Family Court and Family Division deal with all kinds of legal disputes to do with children and the breakdown of relationships.

Most seriously, the Family Court will deal with cases where the government (local councils, in practice) intervenes in a family to protect children from harm. That can lead to the children being taken into care and eventually adopted or placed with extended family.”

This all sounds pretty straightforward, but in reality, it is anything but.

It has been proven that many of the experts used by the family courts are under-qualified, which means that, due to their lack of experience, children are being forcibly removed from their loving families and either placed into foster care or put up for adoption.

In fact, many of the experts, including pediatricians and psychologists, used by the family courts have never even met the children and families that they are being asked to write their reports on. These reports are the same reports that judges use as evidence on which to base their decision.

In 2012, UK’s Channel 4 made a documentary titled UK family courts are corrupt with unqualified experts stealing children. Investigators described how some of the experts who are being used by the family courts to decide children’s lives are under-qualified and corrupt.

In their documentary, which can only be described as shocking, one mother stated that:

“I knew that I had had problems, don’t get me wrong, I knew that I needed some support and help there but I couldn’t quite understand what I’d done that severe, that they would take them off me forever.”

Channel 4 stated that:

“In the end, the court ordered the removal of the three boys and, hardest of all, the adoption of her youngest child.”

The mother, who was only identified in the documentary as “Sharon,” stated that:

“I wasn’t allowed to say goodbye, I wasn’t allowed to say, you know, I love you, I miss you, or anything like that. So I had to go into the room with my four year old little girl, give her a cuddle and act normal, give her little presents and then when I came out of there, social services said that I wouldn’t ever see her again.”

Channel 4 continued:

“But she never gave up fighting the expert opinions about her, ultimately overturning the judgement and in an exceptionally rare case, winning her daughter back from the brink of adoption.”

Sharon stated:

“But I didn’t see her for nearly two years, you know, so that’s still a long time not to see your little girl. You know, when you know that you haven’t hurt them or done anything.”

Eventually, Sharon had all of her children returned, but this could never make up for the devastating effect that the “experts’” mistakes had had on the whole family.

However, others are not so fortunate.

One mother, Stephanie Freeman, agreed to describe her experiences to The Liberty Beacon.

She stated that:

“My two precious sons were stolen by social services in 2011. After some research online, I found thousands of people on social media who were also in the same boat, that child stealing by the state was a real thing and that I wasn’t alone in this nightmare.

I quickly became a huge campaigner against child stealing and forced adoption. I covered my car in ‘stop forced adoption’ signs which was known as the campaign mobile. I was involved in organizing conferences to raise awareness about how social services take children, and not abused children. Quite the contrary, the majority of children, are very much loved healthy happy children. But, of course, it’s these non-abused, non-broken children that are highly adoptable or indeed highly attractable to the sexual abusers/pedophile rings.”

She stated:

“I wanted everyone in this world to know who my sons Lewis and Ryan Freeman are and I shared photos and videos of them time and time again on social media. I sloganized the photos saying how they had been stolen by Lincolnshire county council. My photos and videos became viral. The council were worried that I was making such a noise and making my children well known that they wouldn’t be able to find adopters so they then made an application to the court to gag me.

Did it work? Hell no!”

Shockingly, Stephanie discovered that errors had been made and that the order was in fact illegal.

She continued:

“I saw their mistake in the court order and continued to shout loudly on social media which continued to go viral. I was one angry and upset Mum who was doing everything I could for my boys. I wasn’t backing down and letting them take them so easily.”

She explained to us that:

“A lot of parents feel threatened or indeed are threatened by these gagging orders/injunctions and will be silenced. Social services and the family court tell you that if you don’t abide by these said gagging orders/injunctions that you will go to prison. Well, my thoughts were if I had done anything truly wrong especially, what they were accusing me of doing to my boys? Then prison is where I should be, right?!

Social services tried to have me committed to prison three times in one year because of my campaigning and me exercising my human right to freedom of expression. Two out of these three times, there was no actual injunction because the wording was incorrect on said orders. The barrister for the local authority was clutching at straws at the final committal hearing; he asked for a brief adjournment so that he could find a case law to rely on as to how I had breached the order that didn’t exist and why I should go to prison. Telling the judge that it would not be an injustice to commit me. You could clearly see and hear their desperation at wanting to silence me. Some minutes later, he returned to the court room with a case law that was completely irrelevant and the judge (as corrupt as she was, she was involved in writing adoption laws) told him that it would be an injustice to send me to prison and basically told him to shut up. That was the end of that and we did indeed leave that time with an actual injunction against me until my youngest son Ryan turns 18 which is in five years’ time.

This all happened in 2013, I believe (not 100% sure without checking my files). There was no mention of Lewis though … so there was my window again to continue to share information, etc., about Lewis, which I do. He is turning 18 years old in a few days.”

Freeman concluded that:

“The Social Services got a section 34.4, a no contact order against me, which stopped all contact between my boys and me. The last time I saw them was beginning of 2013. So, of course ceasing our contact meant that they could mould Ryan (who was three and a half at that point) into a child who didn’t know who I was and brainwash him to believe anything they told him, making him adoptable and wiping his memory, in effect. The ceasing of contact meant they could also separate my boys without telling me, to again further mould Ryan.

Let’s just say that these people (parasites) quite often were either illiterate or very worried regarding me making my children ‘unadoptable,’ so to speak, that they quite often slipped up, which of course went in my favor.

I did quieten down eventually, as after a four year long court battle, I sadly lost to the system.

A final order was made for Lewis to remain in long-term foster care (which has seen him move from carer to carer over the years) and Ryan was forcibly adopted in 2015.”

In fact, thousands of parents like Freeman are being effectively gagged by the family courts every day. Parents often report that are being warned not to share their story or give their names to the media. If they do, they could face criminal charges.

What is even more worrying is the fact that if parents dare to present reports from experts and professionals outside the judicial system, this evidence can often be refused by the court for a growing number of reasons.

Here is a list of reasons courts regularly use to refuse evidence, especially when a vaccine injury has been identified.

1. Reports from retired professionals cannot be used as evidence.

2. This professional has since been struck off, or reported to the authorities, for medical misconduct.

3. We cannot accept any reports from professionals who practice overseas.

4. We cannot accept this report because the professional in question is speaking outside of their field of expertise.

5. The professional who wrote this report is now deceased and, therefore, their medical opinions can no longer be used as evidence.

The list is endless.

In many cases, the parent, along with their friends and family, are also refused the opportunity to present their own verbal evidence in court. This leaves parents totally unable to defend themselves and meanwhile, the courts hold all the cards.

New Battlefield, Different Name

Naively, parents believe that the wrath of social services disappears once the child reaches the magical age of eighteen. However, this myth could not be further from the truth.

Once a child reaches eighteen, parents face a whole new ball game. They discover that in order to gain access to specialist day centers for adults, or any other special needs facility, including further specialist education, they are required to get an assessment from a social worker, working in adult services, to gain funding.

If a suspected vaccine injury has been mentioned anywhere in the child/adult’s medical history, it can lead to a myriad of problems.

This can happen even if you or your family have never been involved with social services in the past.

Adult services can refuse funding, leaving parents either having to try to pay for the placement themselves, or they may be unable to access the facility altogether.

At this point, the parent can appeal, but if they do, they can unwittingly give adult services the opportunity to delve deeper. Not only does this give them the right to look deeper into the child’s background, but also their parents’.

If adult services believe that the now ‘said adult’ is at risk in any way, they can refer the case to Adult Protective Services. This can happen if adult services believe that the parent have neglected their child in any way, such as refusing to have them vaccinated. At this point, the case can be referred to the Court of Protection.

However, the Court of Protection has limited jurisdiction over any young adult, unless they can prove that the young adult lacks mental capacity. In order for them to gain control, they can, if they see fit, declare that the young adult in question lacks mental capacity.

This is highlighted in detail on The Court of Protection website, which stated that:

“We make decisions on financial or welfare matters for people who can’t make decisions at the time they need to be made (they ‘lack mental capacity’).

We are responsible for:

• deciding whether someone has the mental capacity to make a particular decision for themselves

• appointing deputies to make ongoing decisions for people who lack mental capacity

• giving people permission to make one-off decisions on behalf of someone else who lacks mental capacity

• handling urgent or emergency applications where a decision must be made on behalf of someone else without delay

• making decisions about a lasting power of attorney or enduring power of attorney and considering any objections to their registration

• considering applications to make statutory wills or gifts

• making decisions about when someone can be deprived of their liberty under the Mental Capacity Act.”

Once a lack of mental capacity has been established, the Court of Protection invites an Official Solicitor (OS), who works for the court, to represent the young adult in court.

Whether or not the young adult (or his/her loved ones) would like the OS to represent him or her is immaterial, because once they have been declared to not have capacity, the case is automatically given to the OS by the Court of Protection.

If the OS and the Court of Protection believe that it is in the best interest of the young adult to be removed from their home and be cared for by the state, then the state has the right to have them forcibly removed and put into a state care facility.

For more information, please read: When is it right to remove a young learning disabled adult from their family’s care?

It appears that if your child has learning difficulties due to a vaccine injury, the state can decide what is best for them, whatever their age, with or without your permission.