Snatched – Part One | A Conspiracy of Social Workers
Given that I am legally prohibited from talking about what happened to my family without risking arrest, what you are about to read is a complete work of fiction and any similarities to places, wherever they may be, people, living or dead, and/or events or conspiracy of any nature and description, including [but not limited to] any legal proceedings relating to the alleged seizure of a minor, are purely coincidental.
This story is nevertheless being published for the purposes of educating the public about just how vulnerable all parents are to defamatory and malicious allegations by those who falsely claim to have our children’s best interests at heart.
In the late summer, on a quiet street where almost nothing ever happens, in a busy city that used to be famous for fueling the British Empire, two plain clothed women in their late thirties sat in a small car and watched a middle-aged father drive away from his family home, which he shared with his wife of almost seventeen years and their home-educated teenage daughter, who were both inside the house at the time.
After the father’s car disappeared up the street, the two women pulled up outside the house, got out and walked down the driveway, before knocking on the front door. Without a social worker, an appropriate adult or a warrant from a court, when she opened the door they informed the mother that they were detectives from a police station outside of the city’s jurisdiction and they were there to take her daughter under Police Protection.
Police Protection
Under Police Protection powers, a child can be taken from their home and placed in secure care by a Child Protective Services officer for up to 72 hours, in the event that they have already been seriously harmed or that there is a good chance that they will be if they are left in their parent’s care at home.
Unless the circumstances warrant treating it as an emergency, such as in cases of serious physical or sexual harm being reported by eye witnesses as on-going, these powers are never used without a thorough investigation by social services before anybody so much as talks about getting the police involved.
In this case, the two detectives, one acting as a Detective Constable [DC], the other as Child Protective Services [CPS] officer for their station, told the mother there had been some serious but anonymous allegations made online against her daughter’s father, baldly stating that he was an immediate threat of significant harm to her at their home address.
However, neither of the parents knew of this plainly malicious accusation and had received no visits or communications from anybody representing social services, so zero investigations had been commenced before the police arrived, with the unequivocal intention to take the teenage girl away before her father returned from his appointment, from which he did return fifteen minutes after his surveilled departure.
When he saw one of the police officers on the driveway, the father initially panicked and wrongly assumed that something terrible must have happened to his daughter, especially when his wife and the CPS officer quickly appeared through the front door.
Nevertheless, he was somewhat brutally reassured that the police were not present to report her death – they were there to take his daughter away because of an anonymous, online allegation against him, without any substance to it whatsoever.
No Case To Answer
From the very outset, the father calmly told the detectives that there was no case to answer and tried to insist that he would simply talk to his daughter to ascertain if she knew anything about the plainly malicious allegations.
But he was told by the detectives that he was not even allowed to see his daughter, who was sitting in the living room, let alone talk to her, for an undisclosed reason and for an indefinite period of time, as was her distraught mother, who was sobbing in the hallway with her husband, as they were forced to watch the police escort their daughter out of the house and drive her away to an unknown location. Had the father tried to physically prevent them from leaving with her, he would have been arrested and charged with attempting to prevent the police from protecting his child.
Despite this heartbreaking sequence of events, having taken a card containing the contact details for one of the detectives, the father called and left an urgent message on a redirected voicemail just after they departed, frantically reporting that he and his wife needed to know where the detectives were taking their daughter, on the basis that the father couldn’t help but suspect that there had been foul play, given that he knew there should have been at least one social worker or an appropriate adult present when the police were talking to her.
Plus, the whole incident felt very much like it had been carefully organised, despite not adhering to the applicable law and childcare protocols.
Less Than Two Hours Later
Less than two hours after his daughter was taken from the home she had lived in her whole life, a different detective constable replied to the message her father left, informing him that his daughter was safe and secure in the home of an emergency foster family, only a five minute’s drive from her former family home, which just so happened to be a short walk from the home of one of her friends, whose mother is a senior social worker in that borough, funnily enough.
There’s no doubt that qualifies as a Thing That Makes You Go Hmmmmmmmm!?!
But that’s just the start of this conspiracy of social workers.
Conspiracy of Social Workers
Did you hear the one about the three social workers who joined a family club, with a view to grooming children for the care system? Well they all hated the father from the moment they found out that his daughter had never been vaccinated.
But when they found out he doesn’t believe that viruses exist, never social distanced and never insisted that his daughter wear a mask during the Convid restrictions, they began conspiring to manufacture allegations that his world views were an immediate risk of significant harm to her, in order to make sure he had no realistic chance of retaining joint or sole custody in the planned action to take it from him.
But when the social workers heard his daughter had falsely told one of their children that her parents refused to take her to hospital when she had a serious injury, the three conspiring social workers assumed they already had the makings of a case to bring against both parents, so they started privately asking the teenage girl a series of leading questions, all of which were designed to be easily misconstrued as serious allegations of neglect or abuse.
Then they told her how she would be much better off with a nice foster family than staying with parents who were allegedly neglectful and potentially an immediate risk of significant harm, whom they claimed would have to be questioned in a criminal investigation by detectives, if the serious allegations they planned to manufacture inevitably arose.
Absence of Due Process
Despite the usual practice among social workers for many years being to surprise the accused parents with separate informal interviews at their home, after privately interviewing the child allegedly making the allegations, the parents in this case were not informed about the purported investigations until the police arrived at their home to place their daughter in emergency foster care, less than two hours after being placed under Police Protection, without just cause or reasonable suspicion that significant harm had been or would be committed in the event she remained at home.
Moreover, even though the child could be held under Police Protection for 72 hours, within just two hours she was placed with a foster family indefinitely, albeit purportedly in response to an ’emergency’, without so much as conducting an interview, let alone one given under oath, regarding the allegations they were claiming she had made and in the absence of an appropriate adult representing the child’s best interests and acting as an independent witness to the facts.
However, this complete lack of due process at the very start of these proceedings necessarily means that, even in the event that she had consented to go with the two detectives, such consent was manufactured by causing her to rely upon the plainly malicious and dishonest statement that staying with her parents constituted an immediate risk of significant harm from her father, whom her mother was allegedly incapable of protecting her from.
This in turn means that, as a matter of law, the case against the parents is void ab initio, so any and all evidence taken without due process being followed is necessarily inadmissible.
Interviewed By Social Workers
Less than 24 hours after their daughter was taken, the lead social worker and her similarly qualified colleague visited the family home to interview the parents, rather than the police, when the detectives the previous day had told them they almost certainly would be interviewed by one of them.
This naturally indicated that the police had wisely decided that there was zero evidence upon which to base a criminal investigation but that didn’t stop the two social workers insisting that the police investigation was on-going, when all they could reasonably claim was that police protective powers last for 72 hours. But those powers were dispensed with by operation of law the moment the child was placed with a foster family for the foreseeable future of the ensuing care proceedings and in the complete absence of any emergency or immediate threat of significant harm from either parent.
Nevertheless, the social workers maliciously made false allegations of abuse of a physical nature against the father, spuriously claiming to be quoting words from his daughter’s mouth. Without hesitation, he told them in no uncertain terms that those words were not words that she would ever say and that he rejected the allegation that she did in its entirety and without equivocation.
Naturally, they moved on to attempting to convince the mother to incriminate the father, while he was sitting right next to her on their sofa.
Predicated Upon Malicious & False Allegations
After the mother effusively dismissed the very notion that she would have covered up for the father, if he was an abuser [which he most certainly isn’t], the social workers threw another substance-less allegation at him – that there was an undisclosed accusation of a sexual nature against him.
This he dismissed as utterly spurious, on the ground that nothing of a sexual nature has ever transpired with his daughter [nor would it] and to suggest otherwise is both dishonest and malicious, in the complete absence of any evidence to the contrary, save for the word of these two social workers who purportedly interviewed the child after she was delivered to them by the police, without an independent witness to these events.
It turned out they were alleging that accidentally falling backwards on the stairs, unsighted and unbalanced, whilst tripping over the family dog, lightly touching the side of the teenage girl’s bosom for just a split second with his hand, followed by an embarrassed apology with a red face, as witnessed by her mother on the landing, amounted to evidence of ‘abuse of a sexual nature’. Such innocent incidents happen on public transport every rush hour and nobody is ever harmed.
Whilst the allegedly serious physical abuse allegations consisted of the father insisting she brushed her teeth when she lied and said she’d brushed them when she hadn’t; and gently holding her shoulders to stop her shaking with hysteria, during a temper tantrum with her mother, as per the long established protocols when children become hysterical with adults.
Misinterpreted Reassuring Words
Perhaps the most disgraceful of all was the attempt to construe the father’s sensitive reassurance to his daughter, the day after she cried to her mother about feeling fat and ugly, that she needn’t be worried because she is growing into a beautiful young woman, as purported evidence of sexual grooming. This also occurred regarding his expression of relief that she’d stopped biting her ‘lovely lips’, after years of habitually biting them.
Therefore, the whole foundation of the case against the teenage girl’s parents is predicated upon malicious and false allegations against the father by the two social workers who interviewed them [and the senior colleague who was instructing them], the day after they placed the young woman with a well organised foster family, no doubt arranged by the senior social worker at the club who works in the same catchment area, under the criminal pretense that she was at immediate risk of significant harm from her father.
Yet, the malice within the conspiracy kept on getting worse.
Blackmail & Coercion
During the course of the interview with the social workers at the family home, there were two attempts to blackmail and then coerce the mother into signing a Section 20 accommodation under the Children’s Act, effectively purporting to give carte blanche to social services to decide the child’s future, until such time that they have exhausted their investigation into whether or not the teenage girl should be placed in care on a permanent or interim basis. Both crimes were witnessed by the father.
On the first occasion, his wife point-blankly refused to sign, correctly stating that to do so would be akin to signing their daughter away into care indefinitely and she simply wasn’t prepared to do that, no matter how many times they told her she must, threatening that if she didn’t they would be forced to apply for an Interim Care Order [ICO] at a court hearing that was being listed to take place the following day.
When the second occasion transpired, having been accused of covering up for and colluding with her husband to get their daughter out of care and back home within 72 hours, despite their insistence that the mother would not be standing accused of any serious offences, she apologised to the father, wilting under the pressure being applied and believing the promise that to sign the Section 20 would prevent an application for an ICO, she went ahead and signed.
Social services nevertheless took the Section 20 accommodation and applied for an Interim Care Order the following day all the same.
It is therefore the father’s view that he witnessed the blackmail and coercion of the mother into signing and that social services were and remain estopped from making the ICO application from the moment they promised not to upon signature of the Section 20, which renders the ICO application itself void ab initio on the ground of estoppel.
Departure of First Ground Relied Upon
Since the initial alleged ground used for the legal basis of his daughter being taken into care was that he was a purportedly an immediate threat of significant harm, in a failed but valid attempt to remove the basis for the social workers’ case, the father left the family home of his own volition within forty hours, in the hope that his daughter would be allowed to return to her mother without any care order being issued and within the 72 hours social services would technically have been allowed to hold the child in care without one.
Before he left, the father issued a sworn declaration that he would not return until he was invited back by his purported accuser, which was filed into court by her mother to explain his absence from the hearing of the ICO application later that day, which he did not attend because he did not think it served the best interests of his daughter.
The ICO was issued without any concern for the total lack of evidence against the father, or his actual absence from the city where he was purported to pose a significant risk of harm to his daughter, which meant that he was literally incapable of doing so, as well as being bound by his voluntary oath to stay away until invited back by the alleged victim of his non-existent abuse, whose contact details were deleted from her phone [and his] at the instant she was taken.
Social services were granted the ICO by alleging neglect against the mother, for not taking her daughter to hospital when there was absolutely nothing wrong with her, in the absence of their ability to reasonably argue that the father was any kind of immediate or significant threat.
Application For Permanent Care Order
Over the course of the first nine days after the teenage girl left her parents’ home with two detectives, neither parent had any idea where she was, who she was with or whether she was safe from harm. All they knew was that she had been delivered to a foster family just a few miles from where she used to live with them, which was both cruel and agonizing.
Then on the ninth day of enforced separation, social services attempted to have the beautiful, intelligent and hugely talented thirteen year old girl made subject to a Permanent Care Order [PCO], on exactly the same grounds the ICO had been issued a week earlier and without any substantive change in the circumstances, save for the plainly false and malicious allegations being served upon the mother. If a PCO was granted, her daughter could easily disappear into the billionaire’s adoption industry, never to be seen again.
While he became of no fixed abode, the father shared all his contact details with social services [as he did with the police], which didn’t once try to contact him after the interviews on day two and he was not served with a single court document pertaining to the care proceedings concerning his daughter. He did, however, file an emotive affidavit rebutting all the allegations and demanding that her safety and well being be ascertained by bringing her before the court at the hearing.
Safety Assured, PCO Dismissed & Service Denied
When this transpired and the young woman everybody described as ‘delightful’ spoke, what she said resulted in the serious allegations against her father being dropped for lack of evidence and the his name being removed from the proceedings because he wasn’t registered as father, as well as the application for a PCO being dismissed.
From that moment, social services and their solicitor, who drafted the entire case, realised that all the father needed to do to obtain custody of his daughter was to make an application to have the ICO discharged, with the teenager being released straight back to his care and protection. So they did everything to make it look like they were trying to serve the court papers upon him, without ever intending to do so.
It therefore took three months of hounding the legal representatives and court administrators involved to finally disclose to the father most of the court documents, which enabled him and his legal consultant to construct an unbeatable defence and counterclaim, after he emphatically established as a point of law that his rights as a father to receive all the documents in the case were granted by God, not by a judge or the state.
Father Fights Back
This directly resulted in three of the conspiring social workers and their conducting solicitor being removed from the case, after the father accused them of committing abuse of position, malicious falsehood, gross negligence, misconduct in public office and unlawful seizure of a minor, in a comprehensive email which copied in every party with an interest in the proceedings, including senior court staff.
Furthermore, the new solicitors for social services and the replacement lead social worker have finally been copying the father in on all court papers without being ordered to each time and they even invited him to express his views on how the care proceedings concerning his daughter should progress to the best possible conclusion. His response was to lay out a realistic plan to restore full custody at the earliest opportunity.
Suffice to say, that night he wept with tears of joy and relief, as he knew in his heart that the worst of all times were almost behind him, with the reunion with his daughter on the near horizon and knowing that he would never have been able to endure the terrible sorrow of the temporary but traumatic loss, were it not for the love for and faith in the daughter he cherishes so dearly, which has sustained him through the very darkest of hours on more than a dozen occasions.
Part two of this entirely fictitious tale from the front line of the war against family to follow in due course. Until then, thanks so much for all your love and support. It will never be forgotten but will forever be cherished.
Much love from Bernicia x.
