Panorama - The Missing Children

Demonique

"The Missing Children
By John Sweeney
Panorama

It seems hard to imagine a crueller fate for a mother: that her first three children should be taken away forever because of damning medical evidence of abuse - and then for her to discover that the whole thing may have been a mistake.

Nicky Webster and her husband Mark, from Cromer, Norfolk, have won the right to keep their fourth baby, Brandon, but have lost their first three children in forced adoptions. They have to call them in public, A, B and C - it is an offence for anyone to do otherwise.

The couple lost A, B and C because they were found to have abused Child B - but it now seems likely that he suffered from undiagnosed scurvy after a GP took the toddler off a vitamin-boosted diet of soya milk. Had Mark and Nicky known the full facts, they may never have lost their children.

The original Family Court case - they never faced a criminal trial - took place in 2004 behind closed doors. At that hearing medical experts claimed that Child B, their toddler son, had suffered metaphyseal fractures - not clean breaks but chips or cracks at the ends of growing bones - because of child abuse. In a trial which lasted just one day the judge agreed with the experts and A, B and C headed for adoption - which is irreversible in Britain.

When Nicky was heavily pregnant with Brandon, in 2006, she feared that Norfolk Children's Services would take their fourth child too - so she fled to Ireland.

Norfolk social workers followed the Websters to Ireland and gave the couple an ultimatum: either stay in Ireland and lose the child to foster care or return to Britain and go to a kind of "Big Brother" assessment centre where the very authority who had taken their children away would monitor their parenting skills with their newborn son.

The BBC went to court with the Mail on Sunday and won a landmark judgment allowing us to give the Websters' names, show their faces and report the evidence in this Family Court case - a system which has attracted controversy because irreversible forced adoptions take place with no jury or journalists allowed, and evidence is weighed on the balance of probability, not reasonable doubt.

Despite a protracted assessment lasting five months - two months longer than normal - the Websters passed with flying colours and Judge Holman announced last week that Brandon could return to a "caring and loving family".

But tonight's Panorama will report that evidence suggesting exactly that - that the Websters were good parents - was suppressed at the original child protection case conference in December 2003.

Their health visitor - the one professional who knew them best - believed that Nicky and Mark were not child abusers. Child B was placed on the at risk register because of the unexplained fractures, but what about Child A and C.

The health visitor voted that they were not at risk, but her superior took her out of the conference and she returned in tears, and changed her vote.

In a statement read out in court last week, the health visitor said: "The team leader told me that the medical opinion was overwhelming and that I should agree with her, that I should not let my emotions get in the way. I was very upset but felt I had to do what my superior said. I was very unhappy. I had given my professional opinion that neither parent would deliberately harm their children."

Nicky and Mark never gave up hope that an innocent explanation could be found for Child B's fractures. After hours and hours on the internet Nicky discovered that scurvy can cause fractures.

Her son, Child B, was allergic to cows' milk and wouldn't take solids. He'd been placed on vitamin-boosted soya milk. Then a GP advised them to replace the boosted soya milk with a less-rich shop bought version to encourage the toddler's appetite for other foods. But still, he wouldn't eat solids.

The family followed the GP's advice for nine months - not realising that he was in grave danger of suffering from scurvy because of a lack of vitamin C.

Now four leading experts have said that scurvy - a disease that virtually died out in the eighteenth century, and which can cause brittle bones - is a much more likely cause of the fractures seen in his x-rays than abuse.

Too late for the Websters: unless A, B and C choose to get in touch with them when they grow up they will never see them again.

Despite the couple's continuing grief over their first three children, Nicky has sympathy for the adopting parents whom they have never met: "We know that they're providing good and loving homes for our children and we're eternally grateful for that because we want them to be happy and secure and loved.

But it's really hard coming to terms with somebody else raising your children when you know they should be with you."

People may ask why focus on one case which shows the system in a poor light when social workers and medical experts do so much to spare children from abuse often at the hands of their parents.

Let Harriet Harman answer that question from when she was Justice Minister last year; "I want people to be confident that the evidence is scrutinised, is challenged and opening the Family Court up so their proceedings can be reported will be part of people actually answering that question about whether that evidence is properly and robustly challenged. The stakes in these cases could hardly be higher. What we all want to be sure is not that a situation could be rectified after it's gone wrong, but that it's right in the first place."

Then she was promising to change the law so that cases could be reported (anonymously unless the family chose otherwise). Now the government has abandoned the idea after a consultation exercise.

So the cloak of secrecy falls once again on the Family Courts and Brandon's case becomes even more special."


So, what do posters think? Should the law be changed and the children returned to their parents?

Moonbeam

No,

Adoption needs to be final for so many emotional and psychological reasons.

I didn't know legally forced adoption existed though an dpresumed kids in potentially dangerous situations were put in foster homes.

The_Conductor

I find it appalling that the word of the social worker who was assigned to the case was not taken, and she was forced to change her testimony by her supervisor. I wasn't aware of the existance of forced adoptions in the UK, and know that they don't exist in Ireland (where its not possible to legally adopt the child of a married couple, post the 1954 legislation and its corrigendums).

While I have every sympathy for the parents, I think an assessment would have to be carried out of what was in the best interests of the children, possibly on an individual basis. Its possible that some of them may be further hurt by the trauma of the whole episode, or indeed its possible that they may be joyfully reunited with their parents. I simply do not know.

Regarding the heavy handed manner in which the parents lives were destroyed by Social Services, while there could never be financial recompense for what they have endured, and may possibly endure into the future, I think its necessary that some sort of a creative punishment be thought up that encourages them to think twice and to properly investigate cases in the future. What this may entail, I do not know, nor would I offer suggestions.

All you can feel is sorrow, when you hear stories like that above, sorrow for everyone involved. I applaud the determination of the parents to run away to Ireland to have their 4th child, and their subsequent strength and stamina to appear in the programme.

S.

MaryMagdalene

Hmmm tricky one but I'd have to say No (and I'm a birth Mum). Given that they were 3+ when originally taken and are now 7+ I think that it would be much too disturbing for the children. Either way someone is going to hurt and priority has to be given to protecting the children.

However, I do think that the birth parents and Brandon are entitled to access. I think they should be raised knowing their parents and brother. The adoptive parents may not like this but they can't have it all their way either. All sides have to make sacarifices. The birth parents and Brandon have lost their family, the adopted parents have gained this family at their expense, albeit they are innocent of any wrong doings.

Also I would like to see criminal proceedings against those responsible.

MaryMagdalene

Forgot to add that "Open adoption" is quite widespread in UK now. (This is where the child knows birth parent but lives with adopted parents. Birth parents have access etc.)

Mrs OBumble

These stories always have more to 'em than is ever published. "B" refused to eat solids, did he? What kind of parent can't manage to convince a kid not to eat any kind of solid, especially if it's body is wanting vitamins. Yeah, right.

catherinesara

Oh yes forced adoption takes place in UK.

This is to meet targets set by government.

However it was intended to be to have children already in care adoped and not new born babies, which are easy to adopt.

Then the Gov rewarded the Local Authorities with rewards for meeting the targets- so the social workers were set the task of getting enough children adopted.Millions of tax payers money given to LA's

Forced-adoption.com will enlighten you if you want to know more.

Now though, it has led to all kinds of problems and many parents loosing their babies at birth for various reasons.Post natal depression is enough to have your baby taken as seen in nurse and her lawyer husband this week in news.

No, you dont not need to have abused your child for SS to come and take it.

It is often on the word of a spiteful neighbour or relative.

It is very serious here now as one family is in Royal Court Of Justice on Tuesday to explain that even though a high court judge refused a care order the SS took the child anyway and somehow managed to get a lower judge to stage a court hearing to stamp adoption approval. But the court has no record of the case ever taking place.
Oh the lawyers, social workers, guardian were all in on it.
So the parents could get no where legally as it was a phantom hearing and the judge refused to give judgement to the President of Family Court.
It was the media that managed to highlight it.

This is not an isolated case either.

So you see - this is what happens in secret courts when the truth is hidden.

The sad thing is that in this case, the other children were seriously abused in care , by being prostituted out, raped, tortured, starved, drugged etc....and not one person listened.

When the parents complained- the judge said- stay quiet or I will make sure they are abused in care.

Now, all children are removed from foster care, but it took 5 years of torture for the children and parents.

The new baby was never abused by his parents ever, but he makes good money and bonus for LA.

Just so you know what goes on in secret.

Lawyers here get threatened by some social workers - that if they fight for truth for parents- Social workers will take theirs too.

So, there is so much fear here from Corporate Parent who owns all children from birth.

USA also had a huge number of adoptions.Billions of dollars poured into it.

Adoption is a big industry world wide and babies create vast wealth.

From birth to adoption here- can create 500,000 pounds for all involved.

Perhaps- now we know why they have secret courts and we in Ireland did not know what was going on.

Just so, no one is in the dark- foster agencies from UK have spread their wings to Ireland.

In UK - you can earn over 400 pounds per week to foster and more if child is disabled.

I am researching for years on this in case anyone wonders how I know so much.

catherinesara

There are hundreds of cases like the Websters that are never in the media because of the contempt of court issue.

If you tell anyone what happens in these courts or discuss your case- you can be sent to jail.

Over 200 people per year get jail time here for telling truth.

Grandparents got jail here last week for making contact with their grandson in foster care - because he asked them for help - as he was being abused.

Best interests of the child is a cover up for greedy people who want money and power.

I have one woman in jail- for saying I love you to her son-

I love you- was deemed emotional abuse- she will not see her children now till they are 18.

Matri -Genocide is alive and well still.

Mygsy

JustMary wrote: »

These stories always have more to 'em than is ever published. "B" refused to eat solids, did he? What kind of parent can't manage to convince a kid not to eat any kind of solid, especially if it's body is wanting vitamins. Yeah, right.

As far as I know from reading up on this issue, the child threw up any solids it was fed, and the "kid" was a baby at the time so any convincing tactics obviously wouldn't work......

Portia 27

Moonbeam wrote: »

No,

Adoption needs to be final for so many emotional and psychological reasons.

I didn't know legally forced adoption existed though an dpresumed kids in potentially dangerous situations were put in foster homes.

Forced Adoption is back in full swing in UK.

Any excuse is used, because adoption is big business and each county is rewarded by bonuses for the number of children adopted out to strangers.

There is £500,000 to be made per child for all agencies involved, so they all get together and share the spoils of money.

It is now coming to light, that some children - when adopted are having their entire identy wiped out by the court system, so these children will never find their natural mothers.

Adoption should be reversed because adopted children often suffer terribly and can never be whole until they find their natual mother whom they bonded with for 40 weeks.
Many adoptees are now coming forward worldwide to point out the negative side of the business.

Of course, the agencies don't mind, because these children are the commodity.

The Natural Mother suffers for life, but she is not important in their eyes.

The one who adopts is also used- because often this person is a needy individual who feels the need to have a child to feel complete, and if that means taking some one elses, they tend not to care.

So, looking at that, the baby is used,

The Natural Mother is used.

The adoptive Carer is used.

But the ££££££££££££££££££ is the name of this game.

The system does not want people to know the truth though.

And what about USA, wher children are adopted legally and then sold to paedophiles.

No, they do not tell people all that is going on, for fear they ask questions.

The courts where all this takes place are secret, so who is ever to know.

Things ahve not changed much since Paddy Doyle's accounts in God Squad.

The do gooders are mainly on ego trips- not conscious of course- because they are fed the propaganda that what they are doing is wonderful but as Charles Pragnell wrote- in the future , we will look back at Man's Inhumanity to Man/Woman once again.

Portia 27

My son was allergic to milk too, and loosing weight.

The doctor said he was spoiled, and only for a specialist- I might have had him removed too, and some court expert- paid £10,000 to say I was suffering from some dis- order.

People have no idea how this system works and the corruption that lies within.

It took me years to convince me of how anti natual family it is.

It is no different to Hitler and his best interests of the child- where state social workers decide if you are an appropriate person or not.

And we fools are paying our taxes so that all this is allowed to happen in secret.