Guilty of nothing but still lose their daughter

Thursday, 05 February 2009

A JUDGE has crushed the hopes of a couple who fought to be reunited with their little girl after she was put up for adoption by social services – even though he said the evidence used to keep the family apart would not stand up in a criminal court.
The couple, who along with their daughter cannot be named due to a draconian injunction brought against the Advertiser by Enfield Council, had their child taken from them four years ago on the vague basis that she may suffer “potential future harm”.
This was because the father had been accused – though never charged – of shaking his son from a previous marriage, leading to that child being brain damaged.
Perversely, social services allow the father full and unsupervised access to his disabled son. But when he remarried and his daughter was born, social workers, backed by police, stormed into their house when she was just four days old and took the child from its mother, claiming the baby was at risk.
The father has consistently denied hurting his son and the couple were given a final chance to win their daughter back by challenging the shaken baby accusation in the High Court.
But the judge, Mr Justice Mark Hedley, failed to support their case, despite saying: “The father has never been prosecuted for any offence nor have I seen evidence on which a jury could be invited to be sure of guilt of any offence.”
Appealing to the judge after the ruling, the tearful mother said: “You know it’s my only child – I have done nothing wrong and neither has my husband.”
And the father told the Advertiser that although the family will seek an appeal on the judgment, there is little chance it will be successful.
He said: “I feel like my heart has just been ripped out – even in his own ruling the judge said I hadn’t been prosecuted.
“In a criminal court I would be found not guilty and we would be with our little girl right now. We have been given a life sentence and what they have taken away from us will last forever.”
The mother – who has never been accused of any wrongdoing whatsoever – was told that unless she leaves her husband she will never have custody of her child.
Adoption proceedings are due to go ahead within the next couple of months and it is now extremely ments and chose to support the testimony of Enfield Council’s expert, Dr Neil Stoodley, from Frenchay Hospital, Bristol, who claimed it was most likely that the brain damage was caused by non-accidental head injury.
The family were praised for their conduct by the judge, who said they had acted with courtesy, restraint and ability.
“The court can have nothing but admiration for the persistence of the parents in this case or any doubt but that the father’s belief in his innocence and the injustice done to his families is genuinely held,” he said.
Andrew Fraser, Enfield Council’s joint acting director for education, children’s services and leisure, said: “The judgment confirms the validity of the original medical evidence before the court, and means the child remains in her current placement.
“Our main concern is, and must always be,
to ensure that children are safe and protected from harm.”

---

2 comments on this news item

Posted by : Mrs Julie Cheeseman, Cheshunt Hertfordshire | Saturday 07/Feb/2009 | Report this comment

Depriving a human newborn baby of human breast-milk in the first 6 months of its life is child abuse and neglect. It doesn`t work doing it to animals, so should not be done to humans who are the superior beings supposedly. It`s no wonder humans have so many illnesses and emotional problems. If leaving my husband was the only way to get my children back, then I would leave him, innocent or not.

---

Posted by : zeynep bicer, enfield | Friday 06/Feb/2009 | Report this comment

i am appauled by this story,how can these parents treated like this when there is no evidence,i know of a situation where a child was at risk,where both parents are drug addicts,and the mother is a prosistute,while child is present,but yet the jugde ordered the child to remain with mother,how can that be justified when personally that child is at risk these parents deserve thier child back

---

Submit your comment below :
Your Name (required) :

Your Email*(required) :

Your Location (required) :

Your Comment (required) :

Maximum Number of characters for this text box is 400.

You have 400 characters remaining for your description...

I agree to the terms and conditions and comment rules (required) :

The North London Press may not publish all comments.
Your comments may be published on any Tindle Newspaper Ltd. media.
*Your email address will not be displayed.

Enter the code as it is shown below (required):