John Hemming MP, who has followed her case closely, described her unprecedented sentence as “ridiculously harsh for what was a minor technical breach of a court order”. That same morning, one newspaper reported that a woman who had a long record of criminal violence and had been found guilty of breaking a champagne bottle over one man’s head, then using it to stab another, walked free from court with a suspended 12-month sentence. The report was headlined “What does it take to be jailed?” The answer may lie , Mr Hemming suggests, more in the fact that Miss Haigh has been outspokenly critical of the failings of our family court system than in that brief encounter in a petrol station.

Social workers followed me to France to snatch my baby

After a landmark court victory, a British mother tells her harrowing story

By Sue Reid

At a cottage deep in the French countryside, a baby girl kicks her feet in the air and smiles at her father, Joe, as she is cuddled by her mother, Marie.

Little Luna is home at last — reunited with her parents at the end of an historic legal battle against British social workers which began when Marie became pregnant and moved to France from her home in Norfolk.

Soon after Luna was born in February, social workers from Norfolk snatched her from her family, flew her to Britain, put her into the care of foster parents and began making plans to have her adopted.

Reunited: Marie, Joe and baby Luna

They had accused Marie of putting Luna ‘at risk’ of harm by keeping in touch with her violent estranged husband, who is not baby Luna’s father and who had previously been jailed for assault.

It is an allegation 31-year-old Marie strenuously denies, saying she never wants to see the man again. But social workers spent up to £250,000 of taxpayers’ money in court and legal fees to try to prove their case.

It is believed to be the first time British social workers have snatched a baby born abroad from its parents — a baby who had never set foot in Britain — and brought it back to this country for adoption.

For 12 weeks, Joe and Marie were allowed to see and speak to their daughter just three times, and only then via video calls to Luna’s foster family on internet phone system Skype.

Then in a landmark decision, the High Court in London ruled Norfolk social services’ actions were illegal. Because Luna was born in France and her parents had a permanent home  there, she was outside England’s jurisdiction.

The little girl was returned to the couple after French social services concluded they were trustworthy parents. Joe and Marie were told: ‘Your new life is ahead of you with your baby — go and enjoy her.’

Marie said this week at their home near Cahors in south-west France: ‘We were so excited. Luna went to sleep that first night back with us as though she had never been away.

But she added: ‘I had lost the chance of breastfeeding her, and we missed her first smile. We blame the English social workers.’

The couple now plan to seek compensation from Norfolk social services for unnecessarily separating them from their baby.

John Hemming, the Lib Dem MP who has advised many parents whose children have been removed by social services, said: ‘The Norfolk social workers don’t seem to recognise any limits on their legal authority.’

The couple’s solicitor, Brendan Fleming, added: ‘I find it amazing that social workers flew to a country outside their jurisdiction and brought this baby to Britain at a cost of thousands of pounds of public money.’

Social workers are under immense pressure not to make a mistake following the Baby P case in London in 2007. He died after suffering many injuries despite being seen by Haringey social services and NHS doctors.

This has led to a big increase in the number of children taken into care — mostly against their parents’ wishes. Meanwhile,  there has growing criticism of the accuracy of evidence given by psychological ‘experts’ in the family courts and a growing mistrust in social services.

As a result, increasing numbers of parents under investigation have fled abroad, worried their children will be forcibly removed from them by social workers.

It is estimated that there are now at least 300 families living overseas for this reason, in countries such as Ireland, Cyprus, Spain, Italy and France, where the social services try to keep troubled families together rather than taking their sons or daughters away.

Marie and Joe have certainly had turbulent personal lives, though they are intelligent and obviously very much in love. They met at school in Norwich at 14, and had a relationship for five years.

Joe ended up working in Rugby as a builder, but returned to Norwich after he fell out with his girlfriend and was homeless.

Tragedy: Social workers are under immense pressure not to make a mistake following the case of Baby P

In the meantime, Marie had married young and had five children by her abusive husband before fleeing his violence. At one stage, she lived with her children in a hostel for abused women.

But when this proved difficult, she asked social services for help. They took the children into temporary care, and have refused to return them (we have hidden Marie’s face here to protect her other children’s identities).

Social services accused her of secretly keeping in touch with her husband, putting her children, including Luna, at risk of violence.

Marie insists her only contact with her ex-partner came when she was living in the hostel and, in desperation, asked for his help in transporting her children to and from their schools. She bitterly regrets this.

‘I am the last person who would want to see my husband — particularly as I repeatedly reported him to the police,’ she said.

Joe and Marie then embarked on a fresh relationship after becoming Facebook friends. They set up home together, and last summer Marie became pregnant.

During one of the family court cases over her other children, Norwich social services learned she was expecting — and warned Marie her baby would be taken into care and prepared for adoption.

The couple were horrified. They were already planning a new life in France, where they could share a house with Joe’s mother in the village of Frayssinet-le-Gelat, near Cahors, where she has lived and worked as a landscape gardener for ten years.

Last November, when Marie was 20 weeks’ pregnant, they left Britain. ‘We needed a fresh start, but we did not run away,’ insisted Joe.

In France, he started work as a general builder. But ten days after Luna’s birth in hospital, a letter was left in their postbox by a courier from Norfolk social services, saying they planned to put Luna into care in England.

‘I was distraught,’ said Marie. ‘They said I had to “return” her to England, although she had never been to England. They said she was “at risk” from me because of my husband.’

The couple wrote back to Norfolk social services saying they were not going to cooperate in an ‘illegal kidnapping’. But by early March, social services in France had been contacted by Norwich social workers.

Joe and Marie were invited to meet a female judge and local social workers in a Cahors court house to discuss their baby’s future. At the end of the meeting, the judge said that until matters were ironed out, Luna must go into the care of a French social services.

‘We left without Luna and I cried all the way home,’ Marie said.

‘For the next few weeks, Luna was fostered by a woman locally. We were allowed to see her at a social services centre twice a week.’

However, on Friday, March 23,  matters changed for the worse. At the end of a visit to Luna, Joe noticed gendarmes outside the centre as two English social workers walked inside to take six-week-old Luna to Britain.

‘We were cuddling Luna, and even the male French social worker in charge of our case was welling up,’ said Joe.

‘We put Luna in her car seat on the floor, and left the centre so we would not have to watch her being carried off by strangers.’

That was the last they were to see of their daughter — apart from three Skype sessions — for the best part of three months.

It was then that their English solicitor, Brendan Fleming, advised Joe and Marie to ask the High Court in London for an urgent ruling on their case. The couple flew to England for the May hearing, when a judge told Norfolk social services that France, not England, had jurisdiction over the baby.

In mid-June, Luna was returned to her French foster mother, while social services in France looked into their case. And finally, Marie and Joe were exonerated.

Two weeks ago, the couple got the news they longed to hear. ‘You can take your baby home,’ said a judge at a hearing in Cahors.

‘We walked out into the street cuddling and kissing our daughter,’ said Joe.

‘Now the nightmare is over and she is ours for ever.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2182245/Social-workers-followed-France-snatch-baby.html#ixzz22tVjPn6r

Adoption halted as court told baby milk led to 'innocent' couple being accuse of abuse

Vitamin supplements in baby milk may have led an innocent couple being condemned for battering their newborn son, a top family judge has heard

Adoption halted as court told baby milk led to 'innocent' couple being accuse of abuse Photo: ALAMY

By John Bingham, Social Affairs Editor

11:58AM BST 20 Sep 2012

It suggests that the broken bones could have occurred during his difficult forceps birth, or even in the womb.

Blood tests to check for signs of vitamin deficiency, when the boy was four weeks old were normal.

But the court heard hat it is possible that it was "masked" by the formula milk given to him by his mother – which contained Vitamin D supplements.

He added that there was "striking" evidence of severe abnormalities in the functioning of the baby boy's liver, an organ instrumental in processing Vitamin D.

The judge temporarily halted the adoption process and ordered urgent medical reports.

Having a child taken away is an “exceptionally awful” ordeal, he remarked, adding that it was essential to examine whether the Vitamin D deficiency explanation for the boy's injuries was "more than an intellectual possibility".

He also noted that there was no evidence of emotional difficulties, domestic violence, alcohol or drug abuse, or any signs of dysfunction within the family, to indicate a risk of child abuse.

Mr Shrimpton said that one of the country's top endocrinologists, Professor Stephen Nussey, who has carried out pioneering work on the causes and effects of Vitamin D deficiency, will be instructed to carry out that task if he is available at short notice.

Observing that medical knowledge on the causes of infant injuries is in a state of constant movement, the barrister added: "This is an important case. It is starting to take on the appearance of a leading test case".

After hearing expert evidence in June last year, a judge at Sheffield High Court ruled that one or other of the parents must have been responsible for the baby's injuries. The same judge refused to change her mind earlier this year and freed the boy for adoption.

However, Lord Justice McFarlane observed: "Medical knowledge of how some children may have bones that are more susceptible to injury than normal children has moved on".

Emphasising the extreme urgency of the case in light of plans for the boy's imminent adoption, the judge gave the parents 28 days to obtain a report from Professor Nussey, or another expert, in support of their case.

The local authority involved in the case had informed the Appeal Court that suitable adoptive parents have already been found for the boy but no further steps in the process would be taken prior to the court ruling on the case.

The case will return to the Appeal Court once the expert medical report has been obtained.

Brendan Fleming Victory Sees Mother Reunited with Children

http://www.brendanfleming.co.uk/

As the high-profile Pacchieri Case continues to develop, Brendan Fleming has issued a further statement:

• Posted by Alison J Stevens on December 29, 2013 at 17:45
• View Blog

“No application for a further hearing has yet been made by Brendan Fleming Solicitors; this is because no legal funding is likely to be made available to us. We regard this case as so important that we are willing to work on it for no fee; but to defray the remaining costs we are setting up a ‘fighting fund,’ which we hope will allow the case to proceed as soon as possible.

 

The strength of feeling and sympathy for her and the view of the public that she should be reunited with her baby and offers of assistance is something I have not experienced before in undertaking family cases. I am truly grateful to everyone and so is the mother.

 

Those who wish to assist us to fight the case of Ms Pacchieri by donating toward the fighting fund may do so by e-mailing info@brendanfleming.co.uk.

 

Thank you for your continued support.”
Brendan Fleming