Howdy partners, I hope you're all near something soft, because this is gonna knock you for six. I have been meaning to get my teeth into something juicy, concerning the UK's forced adoption/human trafficking operation, and what I am about to discuss with you has more links than George Sorros, in a chain-mail suit!

source
That's right, you are in for some serious reading. So get ready for a data-dump, because this is gonna be the mound, of the hound, of the Baskervilles....The turd of the Almighty... A Richard the Third, in a dumper-truck!

It's gonna be big, let's just put it that way.

I think it is best to get us all on the right track and acquaint ourselves with some basic terminology. This should see us all in good stead and assure we fully understand what is being discussed.

Important notes terminology

"All adoption agencies in England are one of two types of organisation; either they are part of a Local Authority (LA) or they are an independent Voluntary Adoption Agency (VAA). The main difference between the two is that LAs have children in their care, and VAAs do not. Both however prepare and support people to become adoptive parents".
source

- Internal placement = prospective adopters recruited by LA

- External placement = Prospective adopters recruited by another LA or by a VAA

- Inter-agency fee = Where an external placement is made, an inter-agency fee is charged. Originally known as the ‘Reimbursement of Costs Scheme’, established in 1978 in England and Wales.

- Foster Care = Non-permanent state of adoption; facilitated by LA resources; or through 3rd party VAA's. (This also holds a possibility of the child being handed back to the birth-parents)

- Adopted care = Permanent separation from birth parents, with "approved" adoptive parents. In the UK, this also means that no contact can be made between the birth-parent and child/adoptive family, once an adoption has been secured, via the family courts. UK family courts do not have to disclose any evidence to the public, going against any traditional form of law (and all common sense, imo).

- Special Guardianship = Parental responsibility is granted to the Special Guardian, which may be exercised to the exclusion of all others. Nevertheless parental responsibility is not removed from the child’s birth parents, providing them with ongoing involvement with important decisions in the child’s life including changes of name, removal from the UK, or consent to adoption. However, day-to-day decisions can be taken by the Special Guardian acting alone.

- Placement order = A placement order is a court order authorising the Local Authority to place a child for adoption with any prospective adopters who may be chosen by the authority

- ARI /Adoption Research Initiative = An internal inquiry panel, set up to find ways of increasing UK adoption numbers.

source

So I guess we should get on with things... only problem is where to begin...

source

How about this for a case-study of "forced adoption". This inquiry was commissioned by the EU Parliament(The powerless committee of delegates from member states, who act as an advisory body to an undemocratic EU commission).

Also, we will be looking into an internal review, carried out by ARI, into the child care services provided by the UK. This report was commissioned by the former Department for Education and Skills. The dissemination and implementation programme has been funded by the Department for Education.

It seems to me that the aim of this particular study was to assess cost and weaknesses in the system, rather than address any of the malpractices going on throughout the childcare services and family-courts. The Inquiry panel make no attempt to hide the fact that this review was carried out to find ways in which adoption numbers could be increased and saving made.

source

For now though, it is time we opened up a more realistic case study and return our attention to the review commissioned by the EU.

Under the Adoption Act 1976, parental consent could be dispensed with for adoption on one of six grounds, of which by far the most frequently used was that the parent was withholding consent “unreasonably”

Through the 1980s, awareness of children’s rights began to develop, culminating on the international stage in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. At the domestic level, the English parliament passed the Children Act 1989, which made the child’s welfare the paramount consideration in all decisions concerning them.
The Children Act was a revolutionary instrument in English law, bringing together both the public and the private law on children into one codified piece of legislation. However, it did not include adoption, which remained under the 1976 Act.

Forced adoption has always been a fiercely debated issue, home and abroad, and rightfully so. As we now know, from the information yielded by various public inquiries, presently being held all over the world, the child welfare system has always been a place of abuse and corruption. The Church of England has shown itself to be heavily involved in, what can only be described as, human-trafficking and systemic child-abuse.

UK adult prisons are no match for the care system and it should now be acknowledged that any child placed into the care of the authorities, is being done so with full disclosure of the facts. Therefore, the agents and judges, who are passing these adoption orders around like M&M's, will realise how it should be obvious to anyone with a conscience, that putting a child into the care of the state is, itself, child abuse.

And besides that...

source

(http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2016/556940/IPOL_STU(2016)556940_EN.pdf)

Hopefully, we are all aware by now, that these guidelines are perilously subjective and open to interpretation. Coupled with the employment of social workers and teams of under-qualified assessors, who give out initial reports to "trained professionals"(If you want to call social workers that), this is certainly a poisoned chalice to behold.

Lawful Definition of "harm" to a minor.

source

Infants in care proceedings

In December 2015, the University of Lancaster published research that indicated that the number of newborn infants who are subject to care proceedings have increased: from 802 in 2008, to 2,018 in 2013.

The report also suggests that at least 1 in 4 women will return to the family court, having previously lost a child through a court order. Once a first child has been removed, her next child will be more likely to be removed also. This removal will occur closer to birth, and that child is much more likely to be adopted. This suggests that women may be caught in a cycle, and are not getting the required level of help needed to bring about changes in their lives, and overcome the difficulties which caused the first child to be removed.

As you can probably tell, this report just keeps on going and in every paragraph there is something worth quoting. To say that this report is damming would be quite an understatement. Maybe not as big as when they knighted Jimmy Savile... I mean, he really was a loyal servant of the crown and he deserved much more for the part he played. But then again, the Royals really did show quite the gratitude, when they granted Sir Jimmy Savile 4 days in a state of rest.

"And on Tuesday, around 5,000 people paid their respects to the star when his coffin was displayed in the Queens Hotel, in Leeds"..."The Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall led the tributes to him."

source

Yes, they like us to forget these little details, especially when we are supposed to believe how Prince Charles was "Fooled", yet again, by his "close friend", Bishop Peter Ball , who turned out to be another "man of God" caught abusing children.

Many of the children that Peter Ball abused would have been placed into his care, after they had been taken from the family home , as the Church of England run many orphanages and foster homes all across the world.

The ongoing IICSA has already given testimony to many civil servants, all stating that the abuses within the care system and judiciary are still ongoing, in every sector and by no means are they "historical". Whether it has been on-line grooming and the police' inept and irresponsible approach to tackling it, or whether it's gangs of men, terrorising a community, after being given free reign by the authorities to do so, it all points back to the same theory.

This is organised, cruel and wholeheartedly directed at the poorest of society... And for what??? Well, that's the easy part. We know Jimmy liked to do some depraved things to the dead and maybe Rolf Harris was playing his didgeridoo when it all went on, I wouldn't be surprised. Obviously, there are some very dark people residing amongst us and they always stick together, so this make those freaks easy to spot.

You see, the real problem is, and this is where the real fucking retards come into play, is the army of minions, willing to either ignore the horrors, or simply laugh in the face of it all. Both parties are profiting, whichever excuse they decide to use, so I hold the same amount of disgust for Sir Jimmy Savile, as I do for the director of public prosecutions, Alison Saunders.

After all, it was Andrea who saw to it, that Melanie Shaw was sent to prison, an injustice that has gone on for over 2-years now. Along with this, Alison has a long history of corruption within public inquiries. This harbinger of death has been involved in everything; from the Hillsborough disaster, right the way to dear little Madeleine McCann. If Alison would only prosecute half of the paedophiles she is aware of, I would sleep a lot sounder at night. It is her only job, to decide whether there is a public interest to prosecute and we get nothing, no justice, no security, just lies. This woman is evil incarnate and unskilled for her job, being that she is the 1st and only DPP to have been awarded the position without the consent of her peers... Hmmmm, "Without consent"... Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

But let's not get bogged down with the "Who did what, to who", lets focus on one of the main driving forces...

Money.

"The cost of LA foster care is approximately £25,000 per year. Adoption is considerably less expensive than foster care and moving children from foster care frees up valuable fostering placements"

But it seems the VAA's aren't happy with the slice of cake they're currently receiving... Greedy piggies.

source

I stated earlier on, that this internal review was biased towards ignoring many abuses, while trying to justify their actions. I still stand by this, but would just like to add; that it appears this review wasn't just set up to increase the use of VAA's, it also intends to suck more profits from the endless government troughs, by claiming poverty. Think it's high time we all put some thought into how we reply to our next council tax demand.

I think we all deserved a rest now, so please come back for part 2 and we will delve deeper into the internal inquiry and look at some of the disturbing practices taking place behind closed doors.

In part 2 we will also be hearing from the some of the parents who took part in the ARI's internal review

Please don't forget to come back. I will be posting part 2 in a few days time and for those waiting to hear whether I received a reply from the council official I contacted, please, don't hold your breath. I've heard nothing yet and it is honestly par for the coarse, here in the UK.

Please consider donating to @familyprotection, via you steemit wallet. Your steem really does go a long way to help families caught in this web, thank you for steeping forward.