Skip to comments.The video judges tried to block: Father secretly records harrowing moment six-hour-old baby is
Posted on 09/06/2013 3:29:55 PM PDT by lowbridge
This is the moment social services took a baby away from its parents when it was just six hours old.
The infant at the centre of the Munby judgment, known only as J, was removed from its parents after his birth in April.
The father secretly filmed the seizure on a webcam attached to the family computer.
It has long been available on the internet but an edited version can only now be published and viewed legitimately.
The views of the father and mother of the four children taken into care by Staffordshire social workers can also now be published following yesterday's landmark judgment by President of the Family Division Sir James Munby.
In June the baby's father was given a suspended six-week prison sentence by a family court judge for his refusal to co-operate in getting the video removed from internet sites.
The parents said social workers removed their baby because they decided their mother was incapable of bringing them up because of her learning disability.
The video shows the father holding the newborn infant at their home when social workers and police come to take it away.
In the video, the mother is clearly distraught and holds onto her baby and rocks it as her husband remonstrates with officers and council staff.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
sorry, do not feel for this lady
social services always takes newborns away from a mother who has had her other childen removed for abuse or neglect
you don’t get to experiment on new children after you screwed it up with the original children
now, can we hear the rest of the story
Are they retarded?
And indirectly this is just another reason why the ‘elites’ and government bureaucrats love gun control. It makes their ‘job’ so much easier when the people they terrorize can’t fight back.
And yes, this is England and the people involved are ‘subjects’ and not truly free people.
Too good to actually read the article?
“A test case in Essex in 2005 involved the parents of a four-year-old girl and a 14-month-old boy removed from their home even though they were clean, well-dressed, well fed, much loved, and had never been harmed.
The case attracted attention because Essex social workers used court injunctions to prevent the parents from discussing their children or anyone from reporting the case.
A High Court judge backed the council and said it was unrealistic for the parents to expect to bring up their children.”
So they want to take their kids away for no reason and then throw them in prison if they talk about it? I bet if they converted to Islam they wouldn’t mess with them.
It says specifically that she has never been found abusive, but she’s learning disabled.
Well grrr, if the only reason is that the mother is dull in IQ. It sounds like the bigotry of boffins. (I’m sure they’d use a cruder word than boffin there.) A mother can be dull and deal with that fact and still do quite a lot to help her kids. Learning disabled, that covers quite a lot of possible territory. If her math and spelling are bad what does that have to do with the case?
Fascists covering up their fascism with more fascism
children probably placed with muslim NAMBLA members, think they are safer there?
A learning disability? Is that code-speak for something else or is she simply dyslexic or something?
As to yldstrk’s point about prior takings, that could simply be a feedback loop where the first taking was problematic and all else stems from that.
A kid 6 hours old has got some value.
The bidding will get started at roughly $20,000 USD.
Any bets on the final price paid?
Wow, I’d have gladly gone to prison but I’d have earned the trip while protecting my child.
Even if a bit dull, she’s probably sharper than most of their Social Services people and their Parliament.
We don’t have NAMBLA here, the clue’s in the name, son.
Wrong, the British have been citizens since 1948.