Skip navigation

Listen to the Full Broadcast:

http://www.crystalwalton.com/Me_and_the_Media.html#Unreliable_Evidence,_Social_Services_in_the_Family_Courts

Unreliable Evidence, Social Services Evidence is becoming Unreliable in the Family Courts.

BBC Radio 4 Reports, An increase in children going in to care, against the wishes of parents and based false Social Services evidence.

Social services have to make up false evidence so they can meet new government targets.

This means children like baby P (Peter Connelly) are left with abusive parents and more children are taken in to care away from inocent parents like Sarah and Ian Walton (These are there real names).

Listen to the Full Broadcast:

http://www.crystalwalton.com/Me_and_the_Media.html#Unreliable_Evidence,_Social_Services_in_the_Family_Courts

Advertisements

Listen to the full Broadcast

http://crystalwalton.com/Me_and_the_Media.html#Met_accused_of_’campaign’_against_shaken_baby_witnesses

Three leading pathologists have accused the Metropolitan Police of attempting to discredit them as expert witnesses in so-called Shaken Baby court cases.
About 250 Non-Accidental Head Injury (NAHI) cases go to court every year, with the outcome often relying on a expert testimony from pathologists.
The Royal College of Pathologists has called for an inquiry into the claims.
Responding to the allegations, the Met said the force was “completely committed to the judicial process”.
The scientific debate over NAHI has grown increasingly acrimonious over the past 10 years.
At first it was played out in select gatherings of pathologists before ending up in courtrooms and inquests up and down the country.
That debate turned toxic, with one side accusing the other of proselytising suspect scientific theories.
Now, senior consultant pathologists have accused the Metropolitan Police and others of an orchestrated strategy to discredit them as expert witnesses for parents and carers accused of murdering their children.
Dr Waney Squier, Dr Irene Scheimberg and Dr Marta Cohen say their evidence is based on a speech made by Detective Inspector Colin Welsh, a lead investigator with the Met’s Child Abuse Investigation Command.

FULL STORY:

http://crystalwalton.com/Me_and_the_Media.html#Met_accused_of_’campaign’_against_shaken_baby_witnesses

Crystal Walton; A pawn in a shameful adoption system

The Original News Story Of Crystal Walton

(Before any gagging orders!)
Crystal Walton; A pawn in a shameful adoption system!
Two-year-old Crystal Walton smiles at the camera, her blonde hair blowing in the wind. The photograph of the enchanting little girl looks as though it should have pride of place in a treasured family album. Yet nothing could be further from the truth.
This picture was used to advertise Crystal’s availability for adoption – appearing in a tabloid national newspaper with an accompanying blurb describing her as a “clever, lively, cheerful toddler” who likes puzzles and swimming.
A phone number was printed alongside for anyone interested in becoming her new parents.
Perhaps a million people saw the heart-breaking advert which had been placed by a London council, and streams of callers offered to take care of her.
Yet that is not the whole story. The truth is that Crystal had become a pawn in an adoption system that should shame
In 2000, Tony Blair set new targets to raise the number of children being adopted by 50 per cent – to a total of 5,400 every year.
He promised millions of pounds to councils that managed to achieve the targets. Some have already received more than £20million for successfully pushing up the number of adoptions.
This sweeping shake-up in social policy was designed for all the right reasons: to get older children languishing in care homes into happy new families with parents.
But the reforms didn’t work. Encouraged by the promise of extra cash, councils began to earmark those children who were most easy to place in adoptive homes – babies and cute toddlers such as Crystal.

This Story Has Been Re-Instated, Legal Action Be Damned

Part of the ‘Crystal Walton Story’ along with other families!
Hundreds of heartbroken parents who claim social services “stole” their children have launched a legal bid to win them back.
The 500 mums and dads say it is impossible to get justice in the UK and have turned to an international court.
Families argue they are the victims of social workers who are over-zealous after cases such as Victoria Climbié and Baby Peter and a process in family courts which is excessively secretive.
They also say that the courts rely too heavily on the opinions of experts or social workers and that it is wrong that there is no right of appeal. The UK now has 64,000 children in care…a 6pc rise since 2006.
If the Court of Human Rights in The Hague backs the new case, it could let parents bring proceedings against councils – and get their children back.

The Crystal Walton Story!
I was gratified this week to find that an article I wrote in December has been quoted in full by the Court of Appeal. (I only hope there were no typos.) It is flattering that Mr Justice Munby takes The Times seriously. It is of more import that he decided to publish his judgment on the case that I wrote about six months ago. For it is only when judges make their reasoning public that we can start to debate the grounds on which children should be taken into care.
A few long-suffering readers may remember that this peculiar case concerns a woman whose baby was removed by social workers, not because the child came to any harm but because there was a suspicion that her father might have injured a child from his previous marriage. That suspicion was never proven, no charges were ever brought and the child of the earlier marriage was never removed. But a woman who everyone agrees is blameless has lost her only child – for ever – because she is deemed to be besotted with a man who may pose a danger.
As so often in these situations, there are complex allegations and flawed characters. In my view it is questionable whether the father’s inability to conceal his loathing of social workers makes him unsuitable for parenthood. Mr Justice Munby has decided on several grounds not to grant an appeal. The case may still go to Strasbourg, but it will be too late: the child will have been adopted.
Full Story: http://crystalwalton.com/Me_and_the_Media.html#The_rank_hypocrisy_of_family_court_judges

The Crystal Walton Story!
What a strange, fumbling kind of justice system it is that condemns a woman as an unfit mother for the heinous crime of trusting her husband. Yet this is what seems to have happened in a recent case that I feel compelled to write about, even though legal restrictions force me to leave out much of the detail.
The nub of the case is this. A woman, let us call her Janie, gave birth to her first and only child a year ago. That baby was taken away from her and subsequently put up for adoption. Not because of her own failure to care for the baby — her own love and care never seem to have been in question. No. She has lost her baby because of a suspicion that her husband John may have injured another child in his previous marriage almost ten years ago.
The suspicion was no more than that. John was never charged with anything, let alone convicted. Social workers were never sufficiently worried to take that first child into care. Since his divorce John has shared custody of that child perfectly amicably with his ex-wife. Yet the same local authority which left the first child with him has forbidden him to see this new baby. And his new wife, despite having nothing to do with the first case, may never see her baby again.
Full Story: http://crystalwalton.com/Me_and_the_Media.html#Family_courts_are_the_B-side_of_the_law

Daily Mail; Crystal Walton, The Scandal Of The Baby Snatchers!

 
The Original News Story Of Crystal Walton
 
 
(Before any gagging orders!)
Crystal Walton; A pawn in a shameful adoption system!
Two-year-old Crystal Walton smiles at the camera, her blonde hair blowing in the wind. The photograph of the enchanting little girl looks as though it should have pride of place in a treasured family album. Yet nothing could be further from the truth.
This picture was used to advertise Crystal’s availability for adoption – appearing in a tabloid national newspaper with an accompanying blurb describing her as a “clever, lively, cheerful toddler” who likes puzzles and swimming.
A phone number was printed alongside for anyone interested in becoming her new parents.
Perhaps a million people saw the heart-breaking advert which had been placed by a London council, and streams of callers offered to take care of her.
Yet that is not the whole story. The truth is that Crystal had become a pawn in an adoption system that should shame
In 2000, Tony Blair set new targets to raise the number of children being adopted by 50 per cent – to a total of 5,400 every year.
He promised millions of pounds to councils that managed to achieve the targets. Some have already received more than £20million for successfully pushing up the number of adoptions.
This sweeping shake-up in social policy was designed for all the right reasons: to get older children languishing in care homes into happy new families with parents.
But the reforms didn’t work. Encouraged by the promise of extra cash, councils began to earmark those children who were most easy to place in adoptive homes – babies and cute toddlers such as Crystal.

This Story Has Been Re-Instated, Legal Action Be Damned

Part of the ‘Crystal Walton Story’ along with other families!
Hundreds of heartbroken parents who claim social services “stole” their children have launched a legal bid to win them back.
The 500 mums and dads say it is impossible to get justice in the UK and have turned to an international court.
Families argue they are the victims of social workers who are over-zealous after cases such as Victoria Climbié and Baby Peter and a process in family courts which is excessively secretive.
They also say that the courts rely too heavily on the opinions of experts or social workers and that it is wrong that there is no right of appeal. The UK now has 64,000 children in care…a 6pc rise since 2006.
If the Court of Human Rights in The Hague backs the new case, it could let parents bring proceedings against councils – and get their children back.

Part of the ‘Crystal Walton Story’ along with other families!
This Article Has Been Remove Under Protest and Threat of Legal Action!
%d bloggers like this: