Welcome to the new website of
Parents Against Injustice
The original organisation was set up by Sue Amphlett in 1985 and disbanded in 2000. Unfortunately this was due to the fact that sources of funding to keep the organisation alive had been withdrawn.
However, to keep the hopes alive Alison Stevens who was part of the original group was still active in Leicestershire. She was later joined by Chris Smith in Essex and Trevor Jones in Islington, London
The group had dealt with nearly 13000 cases over its history. Therefore, it seemed a shame that this organisation had to die when there are so many parents and carers who are caught in the web and do not have anybody to turn to and help with their case. The group is here to campaign, lobby, give advice and support to parents and carers who feel they have been wrongly accused of child abuse, make parents aware of their legal rights, assist them in getting lawyers and help them recover after being pulled through a system which often leaves them feeling abused themselves.
"Doctors opinions are merely that – opinions. Rarely can a doctor prove his diagnosis with definitive pathological tests. There may be many causes for particular signs and symptoms. But, once a Doctor has made a diagnosis of non-accidental injury, other possible underlying causes are no longer investigated, such as birth trauma or congenital defects."
Sue Amphlett founder of PAIN (Parents Against Injustice)
At PAIN we believe that child abuse is the most heinous of crimes but know that mistakes do happen and that children have the right to live with their parents as stated in the Children Act 1989.
Every child has the right to have the freedom to live with the people that love them most.
We are also looking for volunteers who can help with this just cause and to fight for children’s and parents rights. If you have any issues relating to this or your own case then please contact: email@example.com
Please note there is a huge difference between the family panel registered solicitor and the childrens panel, for example the "Guardian ad litum" can only be represented by a solicitor who is a member of the childrens panel. One of the key issues is finding a solicitor that is experienced in child care matters. There is a childrens panel which will only have solicitors that practice in this field. To find a solicitor in your area you can go to the web site www.solicitors-online.org.uk this link will enable you to locate a solicitor in your area that is on the childrens panel.
A Parent’s Statement
The present climate for paranoia about child abuse is fostering a situation that promotes social engineering. Natural parents who are not abusive are being deprived of their children simply by virtue of being single or ‘non conventional.’ If any unsubstantiated allegations are drawn up against them they stand to lose their children and the overwhelming powers of Social Services which are not accountable to anyone kick in with disastrous results in terms of psychological harm and serious trauma for those unfortunate children of falsely accused parents…so much for the Government’s recent mantra of “Every Child Matters”.
Unverified accounts of neglect or abuse are used with atrophy by Social Services to the detriment of the life and development of the children who are denied access to history and parental contact.
Social Services at present seem to have so little training or experience that I have little trust in them. Their educational qualifications are negligible, their experience the same and they are taking over the future lives of my two children.
The Domination of the process and the System defy the principles of true justice and the rights of people. This reeks of Nazism and dictatorship – individuals in departments having the power to manipulate and socially engineer young children’s, and their disempowered parent’s, lives.
Financial and social status seems to figure more in Social Services considerations in carers than stability in the childs prospective home. Statistics reveal that whatever the background, more children who are taken into care, result in disaffected young adults, failing in education, relationships and social behaviour.
Being denied contact with family and family relationships is a critical factor in social breakdown. Social Services are active in this, by being crucial in “social engineering” at the present time.
BABIES ARE BEING SNATCHED FOR ADOPTION
Press Release from The Association for Improvements in the Maternity Services 29th January, 2007
The government is denying that social workers are targeting babies for adoption. Listening to desperate calls from pregnant women or mothers of new babies and toddlers
on our help-line would quickly show their denials are not true. Health visitors are often instructed to give all parents a “risk rating”, if possible while the child is still in the womb, or soon after the birth – this is done without parents’ knowledge or consent. The questionnaire used is highly inaccurate as a predictive tool, and has a very high rate of false positives. Pregnant teenagers, the unemployed, anyone with a history of mental illness, and so on, are on the watch list – supposedly so that they can get extra support, but it is often simply extra surveillance. Midwives are instructed to report risk factors, and are losing the trust of the women they care for.
When social workers investigate mothers as a potential risk to their children we see incredibly high stress levels in women who fear losing their babies (even if the fear may not be justified). Research has shown this high level of stress hormones in the mother’s blood can reduce the baby’s growth as well as causing behavioural problems in childhood. We also suspect that it is affecting the process of birth in a number of our clients. For example, delaying birth beyond term.
Expectant mothers who were themselves brought up in care have an increased risk of social workers taking their babies, without even giving them a chance to show that they can be good parents, and providing them support and help. The State is, in effect, saying “as your corporate parent we gave you such damaging care that you are unfit ever to be a parent yourself”.
Mothers with a previous history of mental illness (perhaps caused by bereavement or
a damaging relationship), or mothers with postnatal depression (very common) or psychosis also risk losing their children. The extreme shortage of mother-and-baby psychiatric units where they can safely be together is a scandal; Primary Care Trusts are seldom willing to pay for such care outside their area. The grapevine in many communities is accurately circulating the risks, so mothers who may need medical care tell us they are concealing mental illness, for fear of their children being taken. Two academic studies have shown that questionnaires to identify postnatal depression no longer work, because mothers lie. This is dangerous, since we now know that suicide is the major cause of death associated with childbirth.
Women also tell us they are concealing the fact that their pregnancy resulted from rape, or that they suffer domestic violence, for the same reason. One man, after beating up his wife, hands her the phone and says “Now call the police – and the social workers will come and take your kids.” So she stays silent. Others tell us that social work intervention has resulted in aborting a baby they would have wanted.
Not all attempts to have children adopted succeed, and mothers may have them returned after weeks, or months. The intense bond fostered by the high levels of oxytocin the mother has from giving birth and breastfeeding has been damaged. The baby has lost the breast milk which gives life-long health advantages, and contact visits are never frequent enough to breast feed.
We are a pressure group with 40 years’ experience in supporting parents with complaints about maternity care. But since the unprecedented growth in calls about child protection proceedings in the last 9 years or so, we have accompanied clients to meetings and observed social workers’ home visits. We have been horrified at what we have seen, and equally appalled by the lack of accuracy and bias in many of their reports, and the selectivity of evidence they give to the courts.
Questions should be asked of the Commission for Social Care Inspection. In their annual inspections up and down the country they criticise local authorities whose adoption figures are not high enough. It is the rise in the adoption total that wins Brownie points, NOT a reduction in older children lingering in long term “care” with an unsettled future. Hence the social work snatching of new born – prime adoption material, which also met the needs of settled, wealthier, older infertile couples. As one client told us, “What they are doing is redistributive eugenics.”
Perhaps it is time we started measuring and recording the damage caused by ‘child protection’ interventions and doing the kind of cost-benefit analysis which is now required for drugs, surgery and other health interventions?
Beverley Lawrence Beech, Chair AIMS
Beverley Lawrence Beech Tel: 020 8390 9534 Email Beverley.Beech@aims.org.uk
Jean Robinson Tel: 01865 552276 Email Jean.Robinson@aims.org.uk
Association for Improvements in the Maternity Services, 5 Ann’s Court, Grove Road, Surbiton, Surrey, KT6 4BE