Essex Child Womb Child Snatch: Advocacy Fund Evidence Part of Motion In Parliament

The Research of the Advocacy Fund

https://www.academia.edu/5242647/PRESS_RELEASE_and_EXECUTIVE_SUMMARY_THEY_TAKE_YOUR_KIDS_TOO_#1

Has been used to help underpin a motion in Parliament, the Advocacy Fund has hard evidence of 6,500 Foreign National Children taken from 115 countries with the majority of Local Authorities in breach as in the motion as follows:

http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2013-14/830

In addition as the Chairman I am releasing some of the data: The Countries Concerned and the Local Authorities Summary Data (who does what to whom!)

Press and Countries may contact me on chairman@advocacy-fund.org for more details

CARE PROCEEDINGS AFFECTING FOREIGN NATIONALS

  • Session: 2013-14
  • Date tabled: 03.12.2013
  • Primary sponsor: Hemming, John

That this House notes that from time to time foreign nationals are taken into care in the UK; further notes that under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention and also under Brussels II Bis revised (Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003) articles 15, 55 and 56, foreign authorities should be contacted when this happens; further notes that in 2011 Essex County Council stated in respect to a Freedom of Information request that it had no contact with high commissioners or embassies, notwithstanding the fact that it had 21 foreign national children looked-after in 2010-11; recognises that it is clear that Essex County Council is not properly following the Vienna Convention and Brussels II regulations; believes that there are other local authorities that are similarly lax in following international law relating to care proceedings; calls on the Government to take steps to ensure that local authorities do follow international law; and further calls on the Government to maintain records, ideally through the SSDA903 return of the nationality of foreign nationals taken into care in England.

Advocacy Fund Research Report Extracts

The report, with information from the files of the 170 plus Care Local Authorities in England and Wales shows that:
• Over a five year period, more 6,500 Non UK Foreign National Children from 115 countries, were directed to be removed from parents and taken into care in closed evidence proceedings. Many were forcibly removed at birth.
• Some were ‘forcibly adopted.’ (Forced adoption is a term used for removing children and ‘freeing’ for irreversible adoption orders in closed evidence* proceedings which are contested by the parents. Legal obligations to consider paternal or kinship care, or ‘open’ adoptions, are flouted.
• Some Local Authorities detail taking over 1,000 children each.
• In many cases, it is not known what has happened to these children.
• It is rare for the authorities to inform Consulates. There may be can be 30 or more state employees involved in any one case and barely any act in accordance with the State’s Obligations.
o In at least one case where the respective Consulate was informed, the child was repatriated with its own parents.
• OFSTED regulators measure and reward care performance, but not compliance with law.
• MPs, Local Authority Members and Police Commissioners do not have access to files to ensure compliance or account for what may be criminal acts. It is a criminal offence to reveal case details.
• Police refuse to investigate wrongdoing within the UK family court system. **
The Law & Convention (Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963), regarding children taken into state care, which has been ratified across the Globe, is that: ANY STATE AGENCY or OFFICIAL:
including: FCO, Police Constables, Local Authority Social Workers, Local Legal Departments, CAFCASS, & JUDGES have an absolute Duty to inform or see that Consular Offices are informed and to enable Consular access WITH COPIES OF CASE FILES so that rights and obligations are protected. The Duty is ignored, with the active collaboration of senior officials.

Freedom of Information Act 2000 requests made between October 2011 and May 2012 reveal that the majority of Local Authorities in England and Wales do not conform or abide by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963. Most have neither policy nor practice with due regard to the basic tenet of s.37 of the Convention: the receiving State’s duty to inform relevant sending state Consuls regarding their foreign children that have been removed from parents in UK care proceedings.

The UK signed the Convention in 1964. Signatories have the following duty, without exception, under Article 37 (b) of the Vienna Convention of Consular Relations 1963:

Article 37 (b):  “If the relevant information is available to the competent authorities of the receiving State, such authorities shall have the duty:

–          to inform the competent consular post without delay of any case where the appointment of a guardian or trustee appears to be in the interests of a minor or other person lacking full capacity who is a national of the sending State.”(emphasis added)

Nothing in the Convention states that adherence to Article 5 (h) is to be interpreted so as to exclude obligations under Article 37 (b).

Article 5 (h): “safeguarding, within the limits imposed by the laws and regulations of the receiving State, the interests of minors and other persons lacking full capacity who are nationals of the sending State, particularly where any guardianship or trusteeship is required with respect to such persons;”

There appears to be no domestic law or Convention signatory limitation obviating UK any of the UK authorities involved with removing and caring for foreign children from informing the sending states of their parents under legislative “limits imposed by the laws and regulations of the receiving State” Art.5(h) above. 

The usual pattern appears to be that the UK local authority does not inform the relevant Consul once a foreign child is taken into care and judiciary refuse to uphold the same duty to the child and other States Parties to the Convention when the omission is raised in court. Other involved agencies, such as the Police, CAFCASS, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Ministries and regulators, also have no regard to their respective duties as State bodies under the Convention.

The practice is widespread, with foreign children stealthily processed with the full knowledge of previous Presidents of the Family Division including Lord Justice Wall – alongside Lord Justice Thorpe who currently heads UK International Family Law who had directly been involved in such cases receiving notification of the requirements and ignored them.

The dilemma for parents of what appears to be the unlawful removal of children is compounded when subsequent statutory safeguards and processes are ignored by both local authority and judiciary. For example, interim care orders are routinely renewed by post without written consent of the parents. Recent changes to law obviate previous duty to hold monthly interim hearings before care order renewal, making lawful practices previously unlawful. Those hearings now need only be applied for only when affected parents can produce evidence of ‘change’ to the circumstances claimed as justification for the removal of their. Few of the local authorities fully particularise their claims.

Police have been known to assist local authorities with unlawful removals, including immediately after birth by forceful restraint and assault of the mother, enabled by the presentation of false court documentation to hospitals. Many removals effectively amount to kidnap.

Rt.Hon Mr Edward Timpson, MP, Secretary of State for Education, who chairs the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Looked After Children and Care Leavers and Vice Chair of the APPG for Runaway and Missing Children (the last of which has produced a report of 10,000 children going missing from UK care each year, some permanently) has stated, before the Education Select Committee’s investigation on child protection, that “the UK system is so good” he wanted to export it to Barbados. The reality is that the export process is well underway to many who seek guidance from the UK model which frankly is bankrupt.

Statutory Instrument 2009 No. 857 (L. 8) indicates that the UK is producing legal framework without due consideration to obligations under Treaties. Consulates are not listed amongst those to whom details of family law proceedings can be disclosed. The UK family judiciary have a ECtHR record of proven human rights abuses in relation to the suppression of leakage by use of directions and secret imprisonment for several months of those considered to have breached the restricted disclosure list.

The Countries that these children are from are as follows:

THE LIST OF COUNTRIES FROM WHICH OVER 6,500 (at least) FOREIGN NATIONAL CHILDREN WERE TAKEN INTO UK LOCAL AUTHORITY CARE OVER A FIVE YEAR PERIOD.
with the numbers of children affected:

  1

Afgananistan (AF)

41

Hungary (HU)

81

Portugal (PT)

2

Albania (AL)

42

India (IN)

82

Romania (RO)

3

Algeria (DZ)

43

Iran (Islamic Republic of) (IR)

83

Russian Federation (RU)

4

Angola (AO)

44

Iraq (IQ)

84

Rwanda (RW)

5

Australia (AU)

45

Ireland (IE)

85

Saint Lucia (LC)

6

Azerbaijan (AZ)

46

Israel (IL)

86

Saudi Arabia (SA)

7

Bangladesh (BD)

47

Italy (IT)

87

Serbia (RS)

8

Belize (BZ)

48

Jamaica (JM)

88

Senegal (SN)

9

Bosnia and Herzegowina (BA)

49

Japan (JP)

89

Sierra Leone (SL)

10

Botswana (BW)

50

Kenya (KE)

90

Slovakia (Slovak Republic) (SK)

11

Brazil (BR)

51

Korea, D.P.R.O (KP)

91

Slovenia (SI)

12

Burundi (BI)

52

Korea, Republic of (KR)

92

Solomon Islands (SB)

13

Cambodia (KH)

53

Kurdistan

93

Somalia (SO)

14

Cameroon (CM)

54

Kosovo

94

South Africa (ZA)

15

Canada (CA)

55

Kuwait (KW)

95

Spain (ES)

16

Central African Republic (CF)

56

Latvia (LV)

96

Sri Lanka (LK)

17

Chad (TD)

57

Lebanon (LB)

97

Sudan (SD)

18

China (CN)

58

Liberia (LR)

98

Sweden (SE)

19

Congo (CG)

59

Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (LY)

99

Switzerland (CH)

20

Congo, the DRC (CD)

60

Lithuania (LT)

100

Syrian Arab Republic (SY)

21

Cook Islands (CK)

61

Macedonia (MK)

101

Taiwan, Province of China (TW)

22

Cote D’Ivoire (CI)

62

Malawi (MW)

102

Tanzania, United Republic of (TZ)

23

Czech Republic (CZ)

63

Malaysia (MY)

103

Thailand (TH)

24

Dagestani

64

Mali (ML)

104

Trinidad and Tobago (TT)

25

Denmark (DK)

65

Malta (MT)

105

Tunisia (TN)

26

Dominica (DM)

66

Mauritania (MR)

106

Turkey (TR)

27

Ecuador (EC)

67

Mauritius (MU)

107

Uganda (UG)

28

Egypt (EG)

68

Mexico (MX)

108

Ukraine (UA)

29

Eritrea (ER)

69

Monaco (MC)

109

United States (US)

30

Ethiopia (ET)

70

Mongolia (MN)

110

Viet Nam (VN)

31

France (FR)

71

Morocco (MA)

111

Yemen (YE)

32

Gambia (GM)

72

Neatherlands (NL)

112

Yugoslavia

33

Georgia (GE)

73

New Zealand (NZ)

113

Zambia (ZM)

34

Germany (DE)

74

Niger (NE)

114

Zaire (ZR)

35

Ghana (GH)

75

Nigeria (NG)

115

Zimbabwe (ZW)

36

Grenada (GD)

76

Norway (NO)

116

Unspecified Africa

37

Guatemala (GT)

77

Pakistan (PK)

117

Unspecified Asia

38

Guinea (GN)

78

Palestine (PS)

118

Unspecified Eastern Europe

39

Guinea-Bissau (GW)

79

Philippines (PH)

119

Unspecified  Caribbean

40

Guyana (GY)

80

Poland (PL)

120

Unknown

SUMMARY OF FOI RESPONSES

Response to FOI Key :

x No notification policy
+ Has a policy and/or notifies
? Uncertain
?? Did not respond

LONDON

London and abroad Child Protection procedures. – P261, section 5.45

(5.45.4 Professionals should contact national embassies and consulates in London for the countries concerned. Embassy and consulate details are available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website, at: http://www.fco.gov.uk.)

x London Borough of Barking and Dagenham do not have a written policy and do not follow legislated procedure. They do not notify Embassies except in cases where adoptions have already completed. They have taken 172 Children of Foreign Nationals into care, of which 3 adopted, from NG, AF, AL, IR, ER, GH, SO, CG, KE, DZ, RO, US, BD, BI, CM, CN, DM, NL, ET, IQ, LT,, PK, PL, PT, SL, LC, UG and ZW.

x London Borough of Barnet have no written policy but do have a full time agent from UKBA on staff who assists with issues surrounding Children of Foreign Nationals. It could be assumed that this individual is aware of the legislation and contacts the Embassies on a case-by-case basis but without a policy this cannot be assured. Of the 239 Children of Foreign Nationals taken into care, 8 adopted and from AF, AL, DZ, AO, AZ, BD, CF, CN, CG, ER, GN, IR, IQ, IE, JM, KE, KW, KR, LV, MW, NZ, NG, PH, PL, PT, RO, RU, SA, SL, SK, SO, ES, LK, SD, SE, TT, TR, UG, US, VN, ZM, ZW, Kosovo, Palestinian Territories and Yugoslavia.

x London Borough of Bexley have no information concerning numbers and have no written policy or procedure in place to notify Embassies.

? London Borough of Brent have no written policy, but do notify Embassies on a case-by-case basis. They have no information on numbers.

x London Borough of Bromley do not have a written policy and claim most Children of Foreign Nationals are either UASC or have no discernible or recorded nationality (what?). They have taken 51 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from ER, IR, SL, CN, SO, IQ, AF, AL, PK, MN, SD, VN and CI.

x London Borough of Camden have no statistical information beyond 2007, therefore is limited to the following: 229 Children of Foreign Nationals taken into care and 2 adopted from AF, AL, DZ, AU, BD, CA, CG, ER, ET, GH, GN, IR, IQ, IE, IT, JM, LV, LT, MA, NG, PK, PL, PT, RO, RU, SL, SO, UG, US and Kosova. They have no written policy and do not inform Embassies.

x London Borough of Croydon have no written policy and do not inform Embassies as a matter of course. They have taken 1118 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF, AL, DZ, AO, BD, BI, TD, CN, CG, CI, EG, ER, ET, GM, GE, GH, GN, IN, IR, IQ, KE, KW, LY, MY, ML, MR, MN, MA, NE, KP, PK, RU, SL, SO, LK, SD, TR, UG, UA, VN, CI, Africa, Asia, Europe, Palestine Territories and Syria.

x London Borough of Ealing do not have a written policy and do not consult with Embassies as a matter of course. They refer to the London Child Protection Procedures.

x London Borough of Enfield do not have a policy but as a matter of course, they do consult with Embassies when required. They have taken 37 Children of Foreign Nationals from AF, AL, CN, CG, ET, IR, IQ, MW, RO, RU, SO, TR and VN.

x London Borough of Greenwich do not have a written policy but they do liaise directly with local authorities in EU sending States. They seek advice from Embassies in “some” cases. They offer no details on numbers or nationalities.

x London Borough of Hackney have a written policy and refer to the Pan London Child Protection Procedure.

x London Borough of Hammersmith And Fulham have no policy and do not notify Embassies. They offer no further details.

x London Borough of Haringey have not responded to enquiries though it is known via wide alternative media coverage of at least one family of seven Children of Foreign Nationals that were removed and are now considered “missing” by most commentators, on the grounds that they had in fact been smuggled into the UK by the two individuals who accompanied them – who, by proof of DNA matching, turned out to be the biological parents of said children. LBH continued to claim that they were not the parents, which was accepted by the Proceedings and the children were subsequently put up for adoption (we think). The parents are currently languishing in separate prisons with no contact with each other, no access to legal advice or Consular access and no contact with their children. They will be deported when they have served their sentences with no further contact with their children. See  http://www.salem-news.com/articles/august152012/musa-sentence- jg.php for more details.

?? London Borough of Harrow have yet to respond to enquiries.

x London Borough of Havering have no written policy and do not notify Embassies. They liaise with the Home Office in cases involving Children of Foreign Nationals and have taken 17 into care and adopted 1 from AF, AL, DZ, BR, GN, IR, KW, LB, PT and Kosova.

x London Borough of Hillingdon have no written policy and only consult Embassies when looking to return Children of Foreign Nationals to their families in their country of origin. They offer no informaiton on numbers, but do offer that they have taken children from AF, ER, ET, IR, IQ, CN, VN, NG, SL, PK, IN, LR, GN, SN, GH, DZ, UG, ZA, RW, ZW, SO, LK, KW, BD, KE, SD, CM, TR, TD, TZ, AL, PT, DRC, the Palestinian Territories and South Korea.

x London Borough of Hounslow do not have a written policy and do not contact Embassies as a matter of course. They have taken 151 Children of Foreign Nationals into care and adopted 10 from IE, PT, LT, SO, ER, ZA and LK.

x London Borough of Islington do not have a written policy and are of the belief that it’s not a statutory requirement to notify Embassies. They do not offer details on numbers or nationalities.

x Royal Borough of Kensington And Chelsea act upon the Hague Convention but have no written policy concerning Children of Foreign Nationals. They have taken 99 children into care and adopted 29 from CN, RU, US, ET, GH, LB, MA, PH, IN, TH and BZ.

x London Borough of Kingston Upon Thames say they do not record the origins of Children of Foreign Nationals nor do they notify Embassies.

x London Borough of Lambeth do not have a written policy, and while they are not forthcoming with numbers, they do tell us that they have taken Children of Foreign Nationals from AF, US, DZ, AO, BD, BR, CM, CA, CH, CG, NL, EC, ER, FR, GH, GD, GW, IN, LB, MC, NG, IR, IQ, IE, IT, CI, SL, SO, ZA, ES, SD, JM, KE, PK, PL, PT, RO, TZ, UG, VT, ZM, ZW and Zhiran. They do not, as a rule, inform Embassies.

x London Borough of Lewisham have a written policy concerning Children of Foreign Nationals however this does not include Embassies’ notifications. Their assessment process is completely proprietary and is biased in every case (to which they offer no details or statistics) toward the Local Authority in Public Law Family Proceedings.

? The City of London Corporation refers the Inquiry to individual Local Authorities and to the now-defunct General Social Care Council.

x London Borough of Merton does not have a written policy and informs the Inquiry that of the 20 Children of Foreign Nationals they taken into care from ER, AF, IR, PK, AL, SH and SY, not a single one has had or been informed of their right to Consular Access.

x London Borough of Newham has no written policy and are unwilling to divulge statistics for reasons unknown.

?? London Borough of Redbridge refused all enquiries citing cost of process.

x London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames do not have a written policy, however claim that is because they have taken no Children of Foreign Nationals. Which is known to be untrue.

x London Borough of Southwark have no written policies in place nor are they forthcoming with any other information.

x London Borough of Sutton have no written policy and no differentiation is made on any children due to nationality.

x London Borough of Tower Hamlets do have a written policy which includes notification of Embassies, however they do not record nationalities hence have no statistics to offer.

x London Borough of Waltham Forest claim they do not hold any information. They do not have a written policy.

x London Borough of Wandsworth are of the belief that Consular notifications are not a Statutory requirement, hence have neither written policy nor statistics of Children of Foreign Nationals.

x London Borough of Westminster City have no written policy and treat Children of Foreign Nationals as they would any other children.

 ENGLAND

 + Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council claim to have taken no Children of Foreign Nationals for care or adoption in the past five years. The contact informs that they use an organisation/guideline called Family First, however the only online reference we can find to Family First is the giving charity which operates a number of furniture warehousing projects up and down the UK and supplies beds, cookers and other whitegoods and basic furniture, to families in need by way of reference from Social Services. That said, they will attempt to place a Children of Foreign Nationals with family or friends in the first instance after consultation with the relevant Embassy/HC.

x Bath and North East Somerset Council deal with each case on an individual basis. They have no policy on Children of Foreign Nationals, and claim to have taken no Children of Foreign Nationals in the last five years.

? Central Bedfordshire Council deal with each case on an individual basis. They deal with cases involving Children of Foreign Nationals as part of the care proceedings; there is no further information for this Authority.

? Birmingham City Council claim not to have any statistical data concerning Children of Foreign Nationals in care or adopted. This suggests a number greater than zero but with Birmingham having such a large multicultural community this is highly unlikely. Cases are dealt with on an individual basis. They deal with cases involving Children of Foreign Nationals as part of the care proceedings; there is no further information for this Authority.

+ Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council deal with relevant Embassies. They do not keep statistical information, or keep records of countries of origin although they do attempt to determine country of origin. They liaise with International Social Services, the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, and relevant Embassies.

? Blackpool Borough Council deal with each case individually. They claim to follow the relevant regulated practices, and say they have taken no Children of Foreign Nationals into care or adoption in the last five years.

x Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council did not divulge their practices, however they do admit that they have no written policies concerning Children of Foreign Nationals. They do also admit that they have taken 21 Children of Foreign Nationals in the last five years from the following nationalities: CD, ZW, IR, AF, NG, PK, SL, BD.

x Bournemouth Borough Council base care/adoption decisions based entirely upon reports of their Children Services department. Data is held on ethnicity not nationality, however they are not willing to share this information.

+ Bracknell Forest Borough Council have taken 4 children from ZM and ZW in the last five years. They made contact with three Embassies during proceedings and one after, following efforts (presumably with 100% success rate) to identify nationalities.

+ Bradford City Council do not have a written policy however they do check with Embassies. Of the 91 Children of Foreign Nationals taken into care (none adopted), 48 were asylum seekers, and the embassies of the following States were consulted: AF, BD, BA, CM, CN, CZ, ET, FR, IR, IQ, IE, JM, LR, MW, NG, KP, PK, PL, SI, VN, ZW.

x Brighton & Hove City Council liaise with the Home Office (surely the wrong people to talk to in cases involving Children of Foreign Nationals), and say this fulfills obligations under the Children Act 1989 and the Adoption & Children Act 2002 – neither of which makes any consideration for nationality a priority (or even mentions it) – other than which there is no written policy and the claim that there is no requirement for the Local Authority to notify High Commissions/Embassies in respect of inter- country adoptions. This is completely incorrect, as it is the responsibility of the Local Authorities and/or Department of Health to send the relevant paperwork to the source State Embassy for notarisation before the adoption application can be made (source: SSIA/Cymru [Attached PDF at Appendix I] & Vienna 1963).

x Bristol City Council do not have a written policy concerning Children of Foreign Nationals and have thus far refused to divulge any further information.

x Buckinghamshire County Council do not have a policy concerning Children of Foreign Nationals except to state that they deal with adoption cases as legislated through the High Court according to the Adoption & Children Act 2002.

? Bury Metropolitan Borough Council cite confidentiality as the reason for sharing no information on policy or numbers, other than to state that they liaise the FCO regarding Consular visits to Children of Foreign Nationals in care.

x Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council do not make enquiries as to nationalities of Children of Foreign Nationals, nor do they follow legislated procedures for informing Embassies.

x Cambridgeshire County Council do not make enquiries as to nationalities of Children of Foreign Nationals, nor do they follow legislated procedures for informing Embassies. They liaise with the UK Border Agency on matters of immigration.

x Chester Council do not have a written policy and do not follow legislated procedure: it is left to the biological parents to inform the Embassy of the situation. It is however the duty of the authority and not the Parents.

x Cornwall County Council do not have a written policy and do not attempt to determine nationality.

x Coventry City Council do not have a written policy and holds no information on nationalities, suggesting that they make no attempt to determine nationality.

? Cumbria County Council cite risk of identifying individual children as a reason for not divulging information. They have provided no further information.

? Darlington Borough Council have taken three Children of Foreign Nationals from IR and AF. Cases are considered individually; there is no further information on policy.

+ Derby City Council does not keep statistical data, however they do state that proper liaison is kept with the relevant Embassy.

x Derbyshire County Council do not hold any information on Children of Foreign Nationals, and have no written policy.

? Devon County Council have been in touch with one single Embassy concerning a single Children of Foreign Nationals; this was “around 7 years ago”.

x Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council do not follow legislated procedure concerning Children of Foreign Nationals; they do notify the Home Office after proceedings have completed, and have taken 20 Children of Foreign Nationals into care and adopted 2 from AF, CG, GH, IQ, IR, NG, PK, PL, TR.

x Dorset County Council do not have a written policy, but they do say they have taken 13 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF, BD and IQ.

x Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council have chosen to seek legal advice on the question of written policy, suggesting they do not have one, and they do not follow legislated procedure on Children of Foreign Nationals. They have taken 9 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF, AL, CN, IN, IR, PK, and continental Africa.

x Durham County Council do not have a written policy, and they claim to have taken no children into care or for adoption in the last five years.

x East Riding of Yorkshire Council do not hold any information on Children of Foreign Nationals, and they do not follow legislated procedure in dealing with such cases.

x East Sussex County Council do not follow legislated procedure unless it satisfies a proprietery “best interests” test to do so. They have taken 9 into care and 2 for adoption, out of which 7 were notified to the Embassy. Those taken were from CG, PL and GH.

x Essex County Council do not make contact with Embassies. They have taken 138 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from CN, RU, GT and MU. They have no written policy.

x Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council does not follow legislated procedure in Children of Foreign Nationals cases and does not notify Embassies. They do not have a written policy. They have take one Children of Foreign Nationals into care but refuse to divulge her nationality.

+ Gloucestershire County Council does not have a written policy, however they do liaise with Embassies in cases (numbers unrecorded) dealing with Children of Foreign Nationals from Nigeria, South Africa, Australia, Pakistan, India, Slovakia and Poland.

x Halton Borough Council do not follow legislated procedure in dealing with Children of Foreign Nationals. They have taken 4 Children of Foreign Nationals into care and 1 for adoption from AF and IR in the last five years.

x Hampshire County Council do not follow legislated procedure, do not liaise with Embassies nor the FCO in Children of Foreign Nationals cases, and have taken 118 Children of Foreign Nationals into care and 3 for adoption from AF, BD, BR, CN, ET, PH, IN, IR, IE, JM, JP, PK, PG, PL, PT, ZA, LK, TR, VN and ZW.

x Hartlepool Council do not have a policy in place, nor do they have any information on Children of Foreign Nationals.

x Herefordshire Council follow West Midlands Safeguarding Procedures which does not include information on Children of Foreign Nationals procedure, hence it can be said that they do have a written policy.

x Worcestershire County Council has no written policy regarding Children of Foreign Nationals; they do not inform the Embassies particularly concerning UASC as they are of the erroneous belief that in such cases (asylum seekers) they do not have to inform those Embassies.

x Hertfordshire County Council does not follow legislated procedure on Children of Foreign Nationals nor do they have a written policy. They have no liaison with Embassies.

x Isle of Wight County Council does not follow legislated procedure nor do they have a written policy.

x Kent County Council do not have a written policy. They liaise with Embassies on an advisory basis only, and have taken 55 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF, AL, BA, CZ, DE, IR, IT, LV, MA, PT, RO, SI, ZA, ES, VN, ZW and NL.

+ Kingston Upon Hull City Council have taken two Children of Foreign Nationals for adoption, one from TN and one from NG, one in accordance with International Law. They do have a written policy in dealing with Children of Foreign Nationals.

+ Kirklees Borough Council have taken 5 Children of Foreign Nationals from UG, PK and ZW into care, following notification requirements.

+ Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council do not have a written policy and do not follow International law regarding care/adoption of Children of Foreign Nationals.

? Lancashire County Council are currently revising their written policy (they have none in effect). They make some effort to determine nationality, however beyond that there is no information on whether or not they follow legislated procedures in subsequent liaisons.

x Leeds City Council liaise with UKBA and the Home Office to determine immigration status, but they do not follow legislated procedure on notification of Embassies. They have taken 258 Children of Foreign Nationals into care and adopted 1 from AF, BD, CM, CH, CG, ER, FR, GH, GN, IR, IL, IQ, CI, KE, MW, NG, PK, RU, SB, SY, TR, VN, ZM, ZW, Dagestan, and some unspecified.

x Leicester City Council have no written policy and do not follow legislated procedure. They describe Children of Foreign Nationalss exclusively as UASC, with 37 taken into care, 68 described as “in need” and 9 adopted from AF, IQ, IR, CG, ER, IT, AL, VN, SO, ZW, ZA, BR, NG, NO, NL, LR, Ivory Coast, the Palestinian Territories, and the Caribbean region.

x Leicestershire County Council do not have a written Children of Foreign Nationals policy and refuse to divulge any information.

x Lincolnshire County Council refer all Children of Foreign Nationals cases to Nottingham County Court sitting as the High Court. They do not follow legislated procedures on determination nor of notifying Embassies. They have taken 63 Children of Foreign Nationals into care and adopted 4 from AF, DK, EC, ER, ET, IE, IE, LV, LT, PK, PL, RU, PT, SD, VN, and the Palestinian Territories.

x Liverpool City Council do not follow legislated procedures, and have taken 183 Children of Foreign Nationals from CN, BD, IN, PK, described as “other Black”, “other Asian”, and “African”. This suggests that no attempt is made to determine nationality. They do not have a written Children of Foreign Nationals policy.

x Luton Borough Council do not follow legislated procedure, and have no records concerning Children of Foreign Nationals. They have no written policies concerning Children of Foreign Nationals.

x Manchester City Council do not follow legislated procedures, have no written policy and no attempt is made to contact Embassies. They have taken 295 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from Africa, Asia, Europe, middle East, Oceania and “Not Known”.

x Middlesborough Borough Council do not have a written policy and do not follow legislated procedure. They have taken 25 Children of Foreign Nationals from CN, US, NL, PL and RO into care.

x Milton Keynes Council do not have a written policy and do not follow legislated procedure. They make enquiries of the UKBA as to immigration status, and have taken 49 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF, ER, IR, IQ, NG, VN, and “African”.

x West Berkshire Council have no written Children of Foreign Nationals policy and do not follow legislated procedure. They have taken 49 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF, AL, ER, IR, IQ and SU.

x Norfolk County Council do not follow legislated procedure and have no written policy. They have taken 61 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF, HU, CH, PT, and “others”. They do not liaise with Embassies.

x North East Lincolnshire Council sometimes follow legislated procedure and notification requirements but only in cases where wider families are already identified. They have taken 6 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF, BR and ZA.

x North Lincolnshire Council do not follow legislated procedure nor do they have a written policy. They do not hold statistical data on Children of Foreign Nationals removals.

x North Somerset Council do not follow legislated procedures, and they do not liaise with Embassies. They have taken 10 Children of Foreign Nationals into care and adopted 7 from RU, AF, IQ, TH, GT and Eastern Europe.

x North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council do not have a written policy and do not follow legislated procedures. They do not liaise with Embassies unless it is in accordance with and satisfies the “Best Interests” test. They have taken 55 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF, BD, CN, CZ, IR, IQ, PL, UG, ZA, US and “African”.

? North Yorkshire County Council are currently drafting a policy on Children of Foreign Nationals with the stated intention to have had one in place by January 2012. Enquiries are in motion to determine whether or not they have a policy in place. They cite protection of the child in refusing to give the country of origin of the one child they have taken into care.

x Northamptonshire County Council have no written policy in place and do not follow legislated procedure; indeed they have stated their intention not to follow legislated procedure in removing Children of Foreign Nationals, of which they have 1,000 (countries of origin not disclosed and a suspiciously round number), only that they sometimes consult with UKBA in determining residence status.

x Northumberland County Council claim they follow legislated procedure in informing the sending State’s Embassy/HC at the earliest opportunity. However, of the three Children of Foreign Nationals in care in the district, none were notified to the Embassies of AF or IR.

x Nottingham City Council have no policy on informing Embassies. They hold no information on numbers or nationalities.

+ Nottinghamshire County Council refer to the Vienna Convention 1963 which puts the responsibility of informing Embassies of the status of Children of Foreign Nationals squarely in the laps of Local Authorities. However, they hold no data regarding numbers or nationalities.

x Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council rely on the consent of the parents to notify Embassies, which is an unnecessary and unlawful obstacle, in our opinion one which would allow them to claim that consent was sought but refused. They cite privacy of the Children of Foreign Nationals for refusing to divulge numbers or nationalities.

x Oxfordshire County Council treat Children of Foreign Nationals as they would those legally resident. Of the 217 Children of Foreign Nationals taken into care, none of the Embassies of the following countries were informed: AF, AL, DZ, BW, CH, CG, IR, EG, ER, ET, GH, IQ, KE, JM, MK, NG, RO, UG, SO, ZA, SY, VN, ZW, Kosovar, “Other” and “Not Recorded”.

x Peterborough City Council have no written policy; they are ignorant of Convention and do not follow legislated procedure. That said they regularly liaise with an organisation called Families Across Borders who then liaise with the Sending States’ Child Protection Service but this does not conform to law.

x Plymouth City Council do not have a written policy and do not follow legislated procedure. They have offered no further useful information.

x Poole Borough Council do not follow legislated procedure; they leave the task of notifying to a private adoption agency, hence see no need for a written policy. They have taken 3 Children of Foreign Nationals for adoption from ET, TH and TW.

x Portsmouth City Council do not follow legislated procedure beyond the Adoption with A Foreign Element Regulations 2005 (UKSI2005:392/2) which makes no reference whatsoever with Consular access to Children of Foreign Nationals. Of the 74 Children of Foreign Nationals taken, 3 were adopted from MA, NG, CG, AF, BD, GM, AO, IQ, IR, VN, ER, SD, AL, UA, RO, PH, ET and Serbia.

x Reading Borough Council have not seen Children of Foreign Nationals in care and adoption proceedings as an issue to be dealt with.

x Redcar And Cleveland Borough Council do not have a written policy on Children of Foreign Nationals, nor do they follow legislated procedure.

x Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council do not follow legislated procedure and do not have a written policy. They are of the belief that should such a situation arise, that they would only be obliged to notify in “some” cases.

+ Medway Council are aware of the legislation and have a written policy. They do not keep records of nationalities in a searchable format.

x Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council do not have a written policy and are ignorant of the legislation surrounding the obligation to notify Embassies. They have taken 30 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF, SK, DZ, NG, IR, LT, KE, RO, SO, ZW, MW, IQ, SD, VN, KP, MA, PK, CG. Recent media coverage has found that Rotherham seem to be more concerned with the political leanings of carers than of the cultural heritage of the children. See:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9700001/Foster-parents-stigmatised-and-slandered-for- being-members-of-Ukip.html

x Rutland District Council do not have a written policy and do not notify Embassies. They have taken 9 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF and ER.

x Salford City Council have no written policy and do not inform Embassies. Of the 15 Children of Foreign Nationals taken, 3 are adopted. These are from CN, CK, LR, PL, IE, ER, RU, GM.

x Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council does not have a Children of Foreign Nationals policy and do not notify Embassies as a matter of course. They have taken 43 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF, CH, CG, IR, IQ, JM, SD and Kosova.

x Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council do not have a written policy nor do they follow legislated procedures. They do liaise with the International Social Service and FCO.

x Sheffield City Council do not have a written policy nor do they follow legislated procedures. They have taken 38 Children of Foreign Nationals into care but there is no more information offered.

x Shropshire County Council have no written policy nor do they consult with Embassies. They have taken 17 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF, IR, CH, and Ireland.

x Slough Borough Council do not have any policy or information regarding Children of Foreign Nationals.

x Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council do not have a written policy and describe all Children of Foreign Nationals they have previously taken (no details given) as UASC.

x Somerset County Council do not hold any information on Children of Foreign Nationals, nor do they state any intention to follow legislated procedure or have a written policy.

x South Gloucestershire Council do not follow legislated procedure and do not have a written policy. They have taken 10 CN into care, 2 of which adopted, from PK, AF, SO, RU and ET.

x South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council are in the process of revising their written policy. They liaise with International Social Services and the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association but not with Embassies. They have taken 2 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from Nigeria.

x Southampton City Council does not have a written policy nor do they follow legislated procedure on notifications. Of the 60 Children of Foreign Nationals taken, 5 are adopted but no further details are offered.

x Southend On Sea Borough Council have no written policy nor do they follow legislated procedure. They follow the National Assessment Framework which only caters for the “best interests” test. They offer no details on numbers or nationalities of Children of Foreign Nationals taken.

x St. Helens Metropolitan Borough Council do not follow legislated procedure nor do they liaise with Embassies. Of the 9 Children of Foreign Nationals taken, 1 is adopted from IR, IQ, VN and HU.

x Staffordshire County Council have no written policy and they do not notify Embassies. They have taken 23 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF, US, CA, ER, IR and VN.

x Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council have no written policy and do not liaise with Embassies. They have offered no further information on Children of Foreign Nationals.

x Stockton On Tees Borough Council have taken two Children of Foreign Nationals into care, although they are not willing to provide information on nationalities citing privacy issues. They have no written policy in place and do not liaise with Embassies.

x Stoke On Trent City Council have no written policy in place and do not follow legislated procedure. They have no information on numbers or nationalities of Children of Foreign Nationals taken into care.

x Suffolk County Council in Re H (a child) (unreported) sent facsimile messages directly to every hospital in Spain to locate an expatriate family and have a child (the contended) born in Spain, hence a Spanish national, removed from the family and transported to the UK without first hearing an application under Hague BII/R. This attempt to transport a child (a Spanish national) to the UK with the stated intention to adopt, failed when the child was removed by the Spanish authorities for ten months while the parents were assessed, and the child was subsequently returned to their full time care. In Re H (different case, same family), the Lord Justice in the Appeal Court dismissed the assessments by the Spanish as “Third World” while disposing of an appeal for sibling contact. See: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/6.html and connected Judgements. As to the question, Suffolk have no written policy nor demonstrably, do they liaise with Embassies. They have taken 134 Children of Foreign Nationals, of which 1 adopted, from AF, IR, IQ, VN, CH and LK.

x Sunderland City Council do not have any policies regarding Children of Foreign Nationals whatsoever. They have taken 15 into care although nationalities are not listed.

? Surrey County Council do not have a written policy although they do liaise with Embassies in most cases. Of the 357 Children of Foreign Nationals taken into care, 2 are adopted.

x Swindon Borough Council do not have a written policy and are ignorant of the Law concerning Children of Foreign Nationals. They offer no information on numbers or nationalities.

x Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council do not have a written policy and do not follow legislated notification procedures. They have taken 1 Children of Foreign Nationals from Serbia.

x Thurrock Borough Council have no written policy regarding Children of Foreign Nationals. They are of the belief that they do not need one. Their justification of this is that “most” Children of Foreign Nationals are UASC and the risk of contacting the Embassies in question are a detriment to their safety. They do liaise with the UKBA in these matters, and have taken 86 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF, IR and ER. They will not disclose how many they have taken for adoption.

x Torbay Council have no written policy regarding Children of Foreign Nationals and offer no information.

x Trafford Metropolitan Borough Council do not have a written policy although they do offer Consular access to Children of Foreign Nationals who they consider to be of age and maturity to withdraw consent. They offer no information on numbers or nationalities.

Wakefield City Council do not have a written policy and only notify Embassies if they deem it necessary. They have taken 3 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF and LT.

x Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council do not have a written policy and offer no information on numbers or nationalities.

x Warrington Borough Council are not only aware of the Law regarding Children of Foreign Nationals, they apply it. They do have a written policy and they also liaise with Children & Families Across Borders. They have taken 6 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from LR and CN.

x Warwickshire County Council do not have a written policy and do not follow legislate procedures. They will not divulge information concerning Children of Foreign Nationals and no reason is given.

?? West Sussex County Council have yet to respond to any query.

x Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council are of the belief that as they consider the circumstances arising to be unlikely, they have no need for a written policy.

x Wiltshire County Council do not have a written policy concerning Children of Foreign Nationals or notifications, and do not hold a searchable database concerning numbers/nationalities.

x Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead do not have a policy and can offer no information on Children of Foreign Nationals.

x Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council have a written policy but this does not include notifying Embassies as a matter of course. They have taken 7 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from SY, SO, CH, IQ and IR.

x Wokingham District Council do not have a written policy, however they do consult with Embassies as a matter of course during adoption proceedings only. They have not offered details on numbers or nationalities.

?? Wolverhampton City Council have yet to respond to enquiries.

x Telford and Wrekin Council follow DfE guidelines only in cases involving Children of Foreign Nationals, having no written policy and offer no details on numbers or nationalities.

x City of York Council do not have a written policy nor do they notify Embassies. They do consult with the Home Office and the Immigration Service and have taken 2 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF and IQ.

x Council of the Isles of Scilly do not have a written policy but claim they do follow legislated procedure. They do not offer any information on Children of Foreign Nationals taken into care or adopted or their origins.

WALES

 x Blaenau Gwent Council have taken one Child of a Foreign National but are unwilling to divulge nationality. They do not have a written policy on notification.

x Bridgend Council do not have a written policy and they do not inform Embassies. They have taken 9 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF, IR, IQ, RO, ZA and US.

?? Caerphilly Council have refused all enquiries.

x Cardiff Council have taken 367 Children of Foreign Nationals from AF, BD, BI, CN, CG, CZ, EG, ER, FR, DE, GH, GY, IN, IR, IQ, IE, JM, KE, MT, NG, PK, RO, RU, SL, SO, SD, UG, VN, YE, ZW, Kurdistan and Slovakia. None of these have had Consular access and no Embassies were notified.

x Carmarthenshire Council claim that the 4 Children of Foreign Nationals they took into care from AF and BD, were all unaccompanied asylum seekers. Hence, no Embassies were informed.

x Ceredigan Council claim the two Children of Foreign Nationals they took into care (origins not specified) were unaccompanied asylum seekers. They have no written policy.

+ Conwy County Borough Council have a written policy in which is included mandatory notification of Embassies. They have taken 4 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF and IQ.

x Denbeighshire Council have taken one child from PH for adoption, however at the time the information was supplied the process was incomplete. They do not have a written policy, and refer the Inquiry to the All Wales Child Protection Procedures.

+ Flintshire Council have no policy on Children of Foreign Nationals, however the one child they have taken into care from PL was notified to the High Commission.

x Gwynedd Council have taken two Children of Foreign Nationals into care from AF. They have not notified the Embassy, and have no written policy in this regard.

x Isle of Anglesey Council do not have a written policy, and have taken 10 Children of Foreign Nationals into care from VN, AF, IE and ZW with no Embassy notifications having taken place.

x Merthyr Tydfil Council claim to have taken no Children of Foreign Nationals into care or for adoption, and they have no written policy.

x Monmouthshire Council do not have either statistics or written policy.

x Neath Port Talbot Council have taken 11 Children of Foreign Nationals from AF, IQ and IK without having notified any Embassies. They have no written policy except to apply proprietary “best interests” tests as to whether it is to the child’s advantage to actually obey International Law.

? Newport City Council have taken 28 Children of Foreign Nationals from AF, CZ, ER, IR, IQ, LT, PL, SK, VN and the Palestinian Territories. While they do not have a written policy, their standard operating procedure is to seek advice from the welfare sections of the relevant Embassies.

x Pembrokeshire Council do not have a written policy and offer no statistics. They default to the Welsh Assembly (who not only do not have the qualification or authority to advise on individual cases but they also do not have the authority to make blanket policy regarding Children of Foreign Nationals; this function is carried out by the UK Government in Westminster.

x Powys Council have clear procedures on overseas adoption (children being from the UK but adopted overseas) but nothing on Children of Foreign Nationals, beyond treating them as unaccompanied asylum seekers. They have taken 1 child into care and 1 for adoption from IR and RU.

x Rhondda Cynon Taff Council have no policies or procedures in place regarding Children of Foreign Nationals, however they do keep statistics: 4 into care from VN, IQ and NG, of which none were notified to the relevant Embassies.

x Swansea Council do not, as a rule, notify Embassies. They do not have a written policy and have taken 15 Children of Foreign Nationals (of which 2 adopted) from AF, KH, CH, ET, IR, IQ, PK and VN.

x Torfaen Council have taken one Child of a Foreign National but without a written policy and without notification to the Embassy concerned.

? Vale of Glamorgan Council has no specific policy regarding Children of Foreign Nationals and claim to have never encountered such a case.

x Wrexham County Borough Council have taken 8 Children of Foreign Nationals but neglect to mention their origins. They have no written policy and do not notify Embassies.

List of UK Local Authorities that listed US child citizens in their care since 2011.

USA:

Barking and Dagenham (London)

Barnet London Borough (London)

Bridgend Council

Camden London Borough (London)

North Tyneside

Lambeth London Borough (London)

Middlesborough Council

Staffordshire Council

Kensington & Chelsea London Borough (London)

Advertisements
Published in: on December 8, 2013 at 2:08 pm  Leave a Comment  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://jolliffe.wordpress.com/2013/12/08/essex-child-womb-child-snatch-advocacy-fund-evidence-part-of-motion-in-parliament/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: