« The Testing Industry | Main | Wikileaks »

How our secret state operates against families

False accusation that changed mother’s young family for ever - Times Online

Louise Mason is finally a mother again, leading a family life for the first time in more than five years.

She presents a calm — if brittle — front as she talks of her ordeal since she was falsely accused of harming her baby and having her children disappear into the care system one by one.

The long battle to clear her name and have her children returned to her has left this 38-year-old single mother utterly drained and emotionless. She pauses before answering questions, chooses her responses with caution, and, even as she insists that she is happy, can barely raise a smile.

Shadowing her happiness is the knowledge that, despite being cleared of all claims, she may never have her middle child — taken from her at four weeks — returned. He has bonded so well with his foster family that she may lose him permanently into enforced adoption....


Social workers put themselves above the law - Times Online
This story is, sadly, not unique. It is symptomatic of the extraordinary power that social services departments now wield over our lives.

Before Louise Mason’s trial in 2004, social workers apparently told her that they would be putting her children up for adoption irrespective of the outcome. That is precisely what they did, two weeks after her acquittal. They clung to their own “guilty” verdict despite the verdict of the jury...

We only know about this case because the High Court judge who heard the appeal ordered that Louise Mason be named, so that she could gain a “sense of justice”. That is how our secret state operates. There are many, many other cases that have never come out. Until the family courts open up to public scrutiny there can be no justice..

Another chilling case

Comments

Very kind and thoughful of you to bring Louise Mason's plight to the fore. How unusual to find a single mother that one can sympathise with. But I don't.

A single mother having a child taken from her is hardly noticeable amid the hundreds of thousands of fathers in the UK (and America, and Canada, and Australia, and New Zealand, and.... )who have had their children taken away from them - most often by these self-same mothers hankering after single motherhood and all the 'there, there, dear' benefits that accrue! Whooda thunk?!

The State has been waging a war on Fathers for two generations, with the active complicity of women like Louise. Now the State is taking the children from the women too. Whooda thunk?! No Fathers around to defend them. That was the plan, but mothers didn't care as long as it was fathers that were screwed.

"First they came for... but Louise Mason wasn't one so she didn't speak out. Then they came for..... and again she didn't speak out". Now they have come for Louise.

Tough Louise.

As someone who has worked with Louise's case for many years, I cannot agree with the above comments. Surely the real issue is the powers the social services have over PARENTS, regardless of whether they are male or female, single,cohabiting partners, or married? The real issue, to me, is that criminal courts and juries must be convinced of guilt, on the evidence given, beyond reasonable doubt, by a unanimous verdict or a 10-2 or 11-1 majority. In family courts there are no juries, they are closed to the public, cannot be reported, the only witnesses are professional ones and decisions are made based on instinct, opinion and probability.By people whose own life is not open to scrutiny.
For the record, Louise's partner left shortly before their secod child was born. His family (and he) had the opportunity to care for the children during the two years when Louise was charged and awaiting trial. They declined. He has never paid any maintenance, nor sought any contact with them for four years now, despite living a short distance away.

As someone who has worked with Louise's case for many years, I cannot agree with the above comments. Surely the real issue is the powers the social services have over PARENTS, regardless of whether they are male or female, single,cohabiting partners, or married? The real issue, to me, is that criminal courts and juries must be convinced of guilt, on the evidence given, beyond reasonable doubt, by a unanimous verdict or a 10-2 or 11-1 majority. In family courts there are no juries, they are closed to the public, cannot be reported, the only witnesses are professional ones and decisions are made based on instinct, opinion and probability.By people whose own life is not open to scrutiny.
For the record, Louise's partner left shortly before their secod child was born. His family (and he) had the opportunity to care for the children during the two years when Louise was charged and awaiting trial. They declined. He has never paid any maintenance, nor sought any contact with them for four years now, despite living a short distance away.

Post a comment