MUSA Family Values - Part 2

[caption id="attachment_3987" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Click on Picture If It Is Too Small"][/caption]

CASE NO: FD10C0195

The Musas are far from being alone! Say NO to Forced Adoption! March on Parliament Square on 5th November!

This event is announced on UK Social Services– the blog that was started by a couple that fled to Ireland to keep their baby…

Here’s the corresponding Facebook page.

Now for the rest of the story, well one more part of the abuses that one family of probably thousands in the UK are suffering at the hands of Twisted Social Workers. I am sure it happens in every western country of the world.

THIS IS JUST A SAMPLE of the 'CRAP' offences London Borough of Harringey are committing.

IN ITSELF, THEY ARE ENOUGH!

Ms Rosita Moise

Solicitor

London Borough of Harringey Legal Dept

Dear Ms Moise

RE: Mr and Mrs Musa,

A Minor                 (D.O.B:  03.09.2000)

A Minor                 (D.O.B: 01.09.2002)

A Minor             (D.O.B:  26.12.2003)

A Minor            (D.O.B: 04.08.2005)

A Minor                  (D.O.B: 27.09.2006)

A Minor (D.O.B: 11.06.2010)

I write in respect of the above family and would like to make the following comments:

I understand you, as Solicitor representing London Borough of Harringey, are responsible ultimately for all Statements submitted to Court hearings, in accordance with S.12 of the Children and Family Court Advisory Support Services and the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000.

a. Safeguard and promote the welfare of the child.

b. Give advice to the court about any application made to it in such  proceedings.

c. Make provision for children to be represented in such  proceedings.

d. Provide information, advice and support for children and  their families.

e. Section 9 of the Children and Young Persons Act 2008 S. 22G  places a new duty on local authorities to take steps to secure  sufficient accommodation that is appropriate for the needs of  children they look after within their authority area. Lack of  appropriate carer should not have been and should not be an  excuse to separate a family, neither should it be a reason to  continue to keep them in separate foster placements.  This, in  itself, is an infringement of the Children's Human Rights; to be  brought up in a family - with both parents. In this case, G  and C Musa who are loving, caring, honest and decent  parents.

f) Separate Care Plans are required for each child who are the  subject of proceedings, although large parts of the Plan may be  similar for siblings. The Court has a duty to consider individual  needs of each child and apply for (or not) orders accordingly;  and should not be based on general policy considerations as has  been the case (Berkshire County Council v B. [1997] 1 FLR  171). 

g) With regard to the EPO's I submitted, (I assume the latest one has also been ignored), I was advised by someone who worked for the Organisation, John Hemming MP created that it would be valid for me to do so. I also spoke to John Hemming MP, at the 'Working Party for Family Law' (which I attended in February), about the refusal to accept the Order from Clerkenwell and Shoreditch County Court.  Mr Hemming advised me the application was legitimate and I had every right to submit an application.

h) It is grossly unfair of the Local Authority (and yourselves) to  accuse the family by your acceptance of 'hearsay evidence' and not  require those who have made the allegations / statements are  compelled  to Court to give evidence under oath? This is also a  violation of Mr and Mrs Musas' right to a fair trial (in accordance  with HRA).

i) Acceptance of the house being 'unkempt', 'uninhabitable' etc.,  are unfair reasons to take the children into care, especially as the  LBH provided the Home in the first place for them.  Accordingly,  I note LBH have, in past cases, failed to ensure  the self-perception of needs, mental / physical health, transport,  social networks, care services, finances, risk, race and culture  had been taken into consideration when they were housing this  family. (R v Haringey London Borough Council, ex parte  Norton [1997-98] 1 CCLR 168) which supports the principal of  a comprehensive assessment and considered what needs to be  assessed. No assessment has ever been carried out on this  family's needs.

Mr Musa was uncertain at the December hearing what His Honour Judge Brasse had stated, so Mr Musa asked Joyce Agyekum what the proceedings meant and what the Judge had requested.  She told him (in front of me, without Mr Musa's prior consent) "the Judge is NOT looking at having the children adopted".  She went on to tell Mr Musa (in front of me) "the Judge has asked the Local Authority to do a Care Plan, because one has not been carried out yet, after all this time".

I am very surprised there have been NO Care Plans / Assessments carried out on this family, in accordance with S.31A Children Act 1989. In accordance with Children Act 1989, S.31, Sub section 3, Paragraph (3A). 'No care order may be made with respect to a child until the court has considered a section 31A plan.  This is an integral part of :

a)   Local Authorities applying for any Order and

b) Applications to extend Interim Care Orders, as I am sure you are  aware. Joyce Agyekum told Mr Musa in front of me, when she  came to visit the family in December 2010.

Accordingly, as you are aware, the Court must determine whether the care plan is in the best interests of the child with the possibility of making no order and returning the child to their former circumstances. I am allarmed that regardless of Judge Glenn Brasse stating the original allegations for the children going into care are confirmed as false/ fake (February 2011).Why the children are still in Local Authority care and why are you, as their legal representatives, are not looking toward assisting them to be reunited with their loving parents, as is your statutory duty to ensure the 'best interests' of the children are met (Children Act 1989 / 2004).  Has 'the delay principle' been adhered to? 

You may be aware,  of a study into delays was carried out in 2002, 'A Scoping Study on the Causes of Delay' (2002).  The study found the following common reasons for delay included:

a) unrealistic timetabling and poor enforcement of timetables,

b)  inadequate preparation time,

c) more than one Judge in a case

d) inadequate disclosure

The aim of the protocol was to achieve more effective case management, address over-reliance on experts and ensure effective use of resources. It introduced a standardised procedure for dealing with care cases applicable to each level of Court, regardless if proceedings are held in the Family Proceedings Court, a County Court, or High Court.  The protocol set a target of cases to be completed within 40 weeks, but not to be used as a quest for speed and consistency to impair it. (Protocol for Judicial Case Management in Public Law Children Act Cases: Application to Become Party in Family Proceedings) [2004] EWHC 116 (Fam).

It would appear none of this protocol has been adhered to as the Local Authority have often submitted Statements to the Court on the day, and therefore, attempted to get Mr and Mrs Musa to 'take possession' of same - which in itself, is a violation of the Human Rights, enabling them to be given time to prepare their case and their right to a fair trial.  As you work closely with the Children's Guardian, It would be both your responsibility's to ensure the Care Plan (S. 31A Children Act 1989) are subjected to rigorous scrutiny. As legal representatives of both the children and CAFCASS, it is your responsibility to (where necessary) return to Court where the Local Authority does not adhere to the Care Plan as this is not in the best interests of the child.

I understand four of the five children taken into care have reported having been abused by various people whilst in the care of the Local Authority. (Barrett v Enfield London Borough Council [1999] 3 All ER 193). This appears to not have been investigated. Do the foster carers have sufficient insurance to cover their fostering role for any abuse the children may suffer or 'significant harm' which they may experience whilst in care?

I am sure you are aware of two high profile cases, such as Victoria Climbie and Baby Peter from which 'lessons were learnt', resulting in the paper 'Every Child Matters', from which is stated the necessity to ensure the children's best interests are met, could you please inform either myself, Mr Paul-Randle-Joliffe as Mr and Mrs Musa's McKenzie friend, as to the whereabouts of their daughter, F? As you have the authority, why have you not applied for Habeas Corpus of F (A Minor).

In accordance with S.31 of Children and Young Persons Act 2008, a new duty has been placed on Registrars to notify Local Safeguarding Children Boards (LSCB)  with the particulars of the death of any child within seven days of registering a death. The family request information on the whereabouts of their daughter, eldest Minor, and

confirmation as to whether she is alive or dead.  The Local Authority have already been 'under 7 day notice (which expired a few days ago) to inform the LSCB and the parents if eldest Minor has either:

a) been murdered / died whilst in LBH care. 

and/or 

b) been seriously injured whilst in Local Authority care.  

I also understand contact has also been stopped between Blessing and her parents.  Please advise them if an order terminating contact with both parents has been granted?  If this is the case, (assuming it was renewed after the initial 7 day period), when was it renewed and why were Mr and Mrs M not informed /involved, as approval of the court is required to halt all contact.  This constitutes Mal-administration by various bodies involved in this case for failure to involve and consult Mr and Mrs M in the decision process. This  violates theirs (and their children's) rights to a family life (HRA). As well as violating the following Childrens rights according to the Convention of the Rights of the child.  Articles 7, 9, 9b, 12, s.s 12a, s.s 12b, 13, 16, 18, 19, 20, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37 and 39.

Based on a paper (introduced after Baby Peter's death from the incompetence of LBH care) ' Every Child Matters', Child protection is a part of safeguarding and promoting welfare.....' 'effective child protection is essential as part of wider work to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. However, all agencies and individuals should aim to proactively safeguard and promote the welfare of children so that the need for action to protect children from harm is reduced.'(4)

Why has information been with-held from Mr and Mrs M?  Such as Minutes from Care Plan meetings, involvement in the decision-making process and any (alleged) Review meeting/s that have taken place, this is unlawful. (R v United Kingdom [1998] 2 FLR 445).  Full minutes should be taken in any decision to exclude parents from meetings, alongside everything else discussed at the case conference. Failure to include Mr and Mrs M in the decision-making process fails to respect their right to a family life. (TP v United Kingdom (2002) 34 EHRR 42). Before any meeting takes place, it is the Chair's duty to meet with the family members to ensure they understand the procedure and purpose of Case Conferences. (Re X (Emergency Protection Orders [2006] EWHC 510 (Fam)).

Joyce Agyekum, Social Worker for LBH informed me in December 2010 (verbally), NO Care Plan or Assessment of the family had been made relation to the well-being and best interests of the children in accordance with S.31.  Delays are not conducive to the best interests of the children and is a direct violation of Children Act 1989 and The Convention of the Rights for the Child. Lack of resources is not justification of delays in completing either a Care Plan or Assessments. This, as I am sure you will realise constitutes maladministration and non-feasance by both the Local Authority concerned and yourselves as 'legal representatives' and one who advising the Children/s Guardians' on the legalities of children in care. (Investigation in to Complaint No 97/A/2959 against Hackney London Borough Council (1998) CCLR 66).

It is my understanding a Police interview with Favour took place; the with-holding of the information with regard to the interview/s and the way interview(s) were carried out, Misfeasance and Fraud, with the children (L v Reading Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 346). The local authority and yourselves have failed to disclose allegations made by Favour, in regard to sexual abuse whilst in care and is contrary to Art.8. 

Favour has not had any contact with her family since late 2010 and I am also concerned with regard to her well-being as I am the other children who ALL have also reported being mistreated while in Local Authority care. Please advise, as legal representatives of the children,  how you propose to re-assure Mr and Mrs M that their children are being cared for to the level that would be reasonably expected.  It would appear, the children are being mistreated and abused.  It is, your responsibility as the children's legal representatives, to ensure their safety / rights, best interests and voice are heard, free from threat / fear and intimidation. Please see the below Convention of Children's Rights, which are absolute rights.

As you are aware, Mrs Musa has - for the most part - been a 'litigant in person' and therefore all procedures should have been explained to her from the outset. Accordingly, she has the right to represent herself under her fundamental Human Rights. She and Mr M had intended to be advised by trheir McKenzies friend, Mr Paul Randle-Jolliffe, which was denied after a few hearings. Particularly, after he was extricated from the Court (24 February 2011) for pointing out (correctly) to Ms Joyce Agyekum she had committed a serious criminal offence under oath. The lack of legal representation in care proceedings violated the guarantee of effective access to courts under Art.6 and the procedural guarantees of Art.8. (P, C and S v United Kingdom (2002) 35 EHRR 1075).

I have sent a copy of this to Mr Hemming and request him if he can use his 'Parliamentary Privilege' to name this family because of the amount of Fraud, Malfeasance, Misfeasance, Non-feasance, Perjury, Harrassment, Intimidation, threats this family are continually having to endure a) from London Borough of Harringey and b) the Judiciary as a whole. Staff within London Borough of  Harringey are continually and consistently abusing their position (yourself included for malfeasance, Fraud, interferring with witnesses, Perjury, perverting the course of justice and harrassment) and are not focussed on the needs of the CHILDREN. You (personally) have also breached every Human Right Mr and Mrs Musa (HRA Article: 3, 5 (4) & (5); Article: 6 Subsection 1 & 2; Paragraphs. 3 (a),(b),(c),(d),(e); Article: 7 Subsection 1 & 2; Article: 8 Subsections 1 & 2; Article: 9; Sub sections 1 and 2; Article 10: Subsections 1 & 2, Article 11: Subsection 1 & 2, Article 14.

When you accessed information from the Police Data base and forwarded it to a Social Worker fraudulantly claiming to 'work' for Hertfordshire County Council, you breached the Data Protection Act 1998 (malfeasance and fraud). According to Public Order Act 1994, S51, you have abused your position as 'Leading Solicitor' for LBH by intimidation.

Intimidation:

'(1) A person commits an offence if-

(a)  he does an act which intimidates, and is intended to intimidate, another person (the victim).

(b) he does the act knowing or believing that the victim is assisting in the investigation of an offence or is a witness or potential witness or a juror in proceedings for an offence; and

(c) he does it intending thereby to cause the investigation or the course of justice to be obstructed, perverted or interferred with.

Threats

(2) A person commits an offence if -

(a) he does an act which harms, and is intended to harm, another person, or, intending to cause another person to fear harm, he threatens to do an act which would harm that other person.

(b) he does or threatens to do an act knowing or believing that the person harmed or threatened to be harmed ("the victim"), or some other person, has assisted in an investigation into an offence or has given evidence or particular evidence in proceedings for an offence, or has acted as a juror or concurred in a particular verdict in proceedings for an offence; and

(c) he does or threatens to do it because of that knowledge or belief'.
also attempted to pervert the course of justice by using coercion and intimidation (threats to 'assess' me to take my child away) as you have other friends of G and C M. I am of the belief your Department have attempted to stop me: 

1) Submitting a statement to the Court (February 25th), the proceedings of which, I have NOT and am not party to. Although my communications recently with various 'professionals', has possibly changed that status.

2) Maliciously, and falsely getting a Social Worker to visit me, under false pretences, 'posing' as a Social Worker from Hertfordshire County Council.  I believe this was your way of ensuring I would not submit a Statement OR testify on behalf of G and C on Monday, 28th February. 

You and I both know, the Social Worker who came to see me in February - Ms Runya Mupfumbati (who is actually called Runyararo Editor Mupfumbati, DOES NOT work for Hertfordshire Social Services, but for a London Borough.  I was advised by GSCC (General Social Care Council) to report her to the Police. 

3) A few weeks later, I learnt from a Social Worker where I live now, there were claims from the UK Social Services to be half way through a Section 47 Assessment, which was and is UNTRUE (as I am certain you and others know). WHEN Runya and Nicola Phang (Family Assistant who IS from Hertfordshire - and fraudulantly gained information on my son from his school) LEFT my home, she stated "the case will probably be closed". 

You have breached my Human Rights Article 1, to be protected by law. Particularly in your role as a Solicitor, have seriously breached this Human Right; you have abused your position and breached all the Solicitors Code of Ethics (as have the Social Workers broken all Social Workers Code of Ethics in relation to this family and anyone who is/has been their friend). You have also breached the following:

Article 3: When June McKenzie (Manager, Children and Families) and Tracey Davies (Social Worker, Children and Families) became aware of my full name in a meeting earlier this year, I KNEW YOU would take a course of action to 'punish' me for being friends with Mr and Mrs Musa and trying to assist them in such capacity, which have been proven since (as above). I am, always have been, and will continue to be entitled to choose whoever I want as a friend. If any friend suffers an injustice, I will help them in whatever capacity I am able to.

Article 8: My right to MY HOME (in the UK) was breached by YOU when you forwarded details about me to Runya Mupfumbati (Runyararo Editor Mupfumbati) and when she came to my home under false pretences.  You have also breached my sons rights to his home.  Due to YOUR actions, I have lost nearly everything I own/ed. I hold YOU, personally accountable for this and may in the future consider proceedings against you. How many other children's lives are YOU (personally) going to destroy all to cover up lies, fraud and to pervert the course of justice for this family who are VISITORS to the UK?  All in the hope that MICHELLE COLLINS' career will be 'protected'.  She has no right to protection of her career IF she the false, fantacist allegations originated from her; which she confirmed to the Court in February 2011, were 'only meant as a joke'.

As you could only access the basic information from the Police Data base to pass onto Runya, she was unable to be clear with respect to certain aspects:

1. When she visited me she said: "I have come because we have  had a referral from the Police. They are concerned you are  ringing them, sending them e-mails and texting them.  They  have concerns about your mental health because your house was  untidy last time someone visited you". She knew this was  digitally-recorded because I had a call on my mobile.

2. It is mandatory that ALL referrals from other 'professional

bodies' to Social Services are signed, and not just signed 'The  Police', as she stated.

3. Because you passed this referral to Ms Mupfumbati, you have  also breached my sons Human Rights and therefore, you are  responsible for child abuse.

You (it would appear) have consistently and continually 'punished' those who have been friends with Gloria and Chiwar Musa, by:

a) having peoples children taken into care (falsely) by way of an EPO,

b) having people arrested; I understand you have 'Frank' - Gloria and Chiwars friend held at the moment in DETENTION because of his loyalty to the family.  Please be mindful of his Human Rights: Article 1; Article 3; Article 5, Subsections 2, 3, 4; Article 6: Subsection 1, 2, 3 paragraph (a), (b), (c), (d), (e); Article 9: Subsection 1 and 2; Article 10, subsection 1 and 2;   

Freedom of association, with whoever I choose (Article: 11);  

To lead a life free of fear of harrassment and intimidation;

Finally, I would like to bring to your attention  my concerns that Mr and Mrs M are being intimidated by having various 'visitors' go to their home, in the last few days/weeks. I believe this is  to try and ensure they do not get the right to a fair hearing later this week, when they are due to appear at the Royal Courts of Justice (26th). It is for that reason, alone, I intend to forward a copy of this e-mail to the Appeals / Family Courts; should anything happen to them beforehand, the various 'authority's' will be aware of the background to their case and possible reasons a to why they may not be present.

I would appreciate your response to this e-mail within the next 10 working days. Thank you.      

Yours sincerely

(Name Ommitted For Safety Sake)


B.A & B.Sc (Hons) OPEN

CC:   CAFCASS

Appeal/s Courts

Royal Courts of Justice

The Law Society

Judicial Review Complaints Office

Mr and Mrs Musa

Mr Paul Randle-Jolliffe

Rt. Hon Grant Shapps - who I have kept informed of this case,  since October / November 2010.

UNICEF

NB:  For the record and for reasons of my personal safety/ security I would like to bring to your attention by my contact with you, my life (and/or that of close friends/family) may be threatened / in danger of harm: direct and indirect.

[NOTE From Adamite.com: Our understanding is that ' This is a lawyer who had to flee England for their own safety. This person is still on the case but from a different country. ' Sleep on that one. If this is wrong, we will omit this comment and place a retraction on our website stating we did not mean to bring any falsehoods to this case of the Musa Family like so many other people in the Haringey Council]

Convention on the Rights of the Child

Artcile 3. Governments must do everything to make sure children   and young people are safe and well looked after.

Article 4 Governments must do all they can to make sure

children and young peoples human rights are upheld.

Article 6 Every child and younger person has the right to life.    Governments must do all they can to make sure every child   and young person has the best possible life.

Article 7 Children and young people have the right to be cared for   by both parents.

Article 8 Governments should do everything possible to prevent the   right of every child and young person to a name and a    nationality and to a family life.

Article 9 If a Court is thinking about who a child or young person   should live with, everyone affected by the decision     should get the chance to be heard - including the

children.

Every child and young person has the right to keep in    regular contact with both parents, so long as this is the

best thing for the young person.

Article 11 Governments must work together to stop children and    young people being taken illegally to another country.

Article 12 Every child and young person has the right to express his   other views freely about everything that affects him or

her.

The child and young persons views must be given due   weight, depending on his or her age and maturity.

The child and young person has the right to be heard in

all decision-making processes involving the COURT

hearing.  The Child and young person can speak for him

or herself, or someone else can speak for him or her.

Article 13 Young people can go to Court if they think their

Human Rights are being interferred with unfairly but

only if these rights are in the European Convention of

Human Rights. The convention on the rights of the child

can be used to support a case, but it cannot be used on it's

own.

Article 16 The law must protect every childs and young persons

right to privacy.

Article 18 Governments must do all they can to help parents look   after children well.  Parents are the most important

people in a child's and young persons lives.  Parents must   do what is best for children and young people.

Article 19 Governments must do everything to protect children and   young people from all forms of violence, abuse, neglect   and bad treatment.

Help must be available for children and young people

who are hurt from violence, abuse, neglect and bad

treatment.

Article 20 Children who are separated from their parents have the    right to special protection and help.

Article 26 Governments must support every child's and young    persons right to have enough money.

Article 27 Children and young people have the right to a standard of   living that helps them develop fully.

Parents have the main responsibility for making sure   children and young people get this right.

Governments must support parents.  The amount of

help the Government gives depends on how rich the

country is.

Article 30 Children and Young people from minority communities   must NOT be stopped from enjoying their own culture,   religion and language.

Article 34 Governments must do everything to protect children

and young people from all other cruel inhumane or

degrading  treatment or punishment.  This is a

absolute right with no excuse for breach of it.

Article 39 Governments must give good support to children and   young people who have been hurt, abused or exploited.

This support must promote children's and young

peoples health, self-respective and dignity.

Article 42 Governments must make sure everyone gets information   about this convention - that includes you and all the people   you know!

Below are a few of the Human Rights, Mr and Mrs Musa have endured by yourselves, the local authority and the court process.

The right to family life - including, NOT living in fear that the front door will be broken down at any time and someone come into THEIR HOME without prior notice - and WITHOUT USE OF FORCE.

A Fair trial - non-interference with witnesses, the right to be represented by whom-ever a PERSON CHOOSES.

The right to receive help if 'your' rights have been ignored.

The right to Liberty.

The right to say what 'you' think - freedom of expression.

The right to be informed, AND DECIDE which information a person wishes to IMPART.

The right not to be PERSECUTED, Intimidated

These Rights and freedoms belong to EVERYONE without discrimination. This means the Convention applies equally to children and young people.

Adamitenews on Twitter
Adamitenews Network Blog
Adamitenews on Youtube
Adamite News on Facebook

There is a serious Human Rights gap in the UK with respect to the UN and the EU:

• The United Nations (UN) are trying to ensure the Rule of Law
  


• Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the UN says

Article 13.

• (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.


• (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.