THE EXCESSES OF CHILD WELFARE OPEN LETTER TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COUNCIL

THE EXCESSES OF CHILD WELFARE

OPEN LETTER TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COUNCIL

Re: constitutionality of the code of social action and families child welfare Service

Madame le Senior Adviser, gentlemen senior advisors

I have the honour to alert you to deviations permitted by the provisions of the Code of Social Action and families.

Preamble

In France, about 150,000 children are exempt from their parents to be entrusted to the social assistance to children. Certainly, it is not here to question the property merits of certain investments in proven cases of abuse, drug addiction, alcoholism,... Alas, as acknowledged himself Pierre Naves, Inspector General of Social Affairs, in half the cases, these investments themselves do not. Thus, they are so nearly 75,000 children uprooted their families and who will keep all their lives, the legacy of this trauma.

If this scandal is still possible in our country, despite the Naves Cathala 1984 and 2000 reports is the Code of Social Action and families presents serious shortcomings and allows social services violate the most basic human rights.

Unconstitutionality of texts and practices

Upgrade procedure in educational assistance

Articles L221-L221-4, 2-1-L226, L226-3 and 4 L226 entrust to l'aide Sociale à l'Enfance powers very important. Indeed, it is one and the same institution that evaluates:

-parents capacity

-need for placement,

-the relevance of its action,

-the quality of his own work with children and parents...

The process in educational assistance, social services accumulate - in some way - roles of:

-de juge d'instruction (or investigation);

-Attorney (or advocate-general) and

-by judge of enforcement of sentences.

No doubt this concentration missions she intended by the legislature in the interests of effectiveness of social action serving the best interests of the child.

However, this confusion of powers is quite contrary to respect for procedural fairness and the preservation of the balance of the rights of the parties. Many parents of children consider that they suffer a load instruction, on behalf of social services both judge and party, without even having the Faculty of requesting a divestiture to legitimate suspicion.

It can be argued that the placement decision is delivered by an independent and impartial judge of children.

Of course. But in reality, children judge often happy to endorse the proposals of social services.

Indeed, over the years, justices of the kids who used to work with the social services (to whom they entrust the observation and implementation of educational assistance measures missions,) a relationship of trust established between judges and social services. That trust turns gradually into complicity (allusions implicit shaped wink between justice and workers social hearing), or even by collusion. Thus, it is relatively common justice for children to receive social services, resumes, a few minutes before the hearing, while the family patient in the waiting room. This practice should be strictly prohibited by law because it is contrary to the respect of the adversarial.

On the other hand, social workers rarely have the courage to read parents reports that they were sent to the judge (for our part, once at the end of... four years). In addition, by certain practices, it is easy to bypass article 1187 of the Code of civil procedure and prevent families to have access to the records: late invitation, communicated rooms in extremis, consultation in short deadlines and tight schedules (in our case, an hour to see a record of several hundred pages)... Families then occur in front of a judge who has a report they don't even know the exact words.

This is a flagrant violation of the rights of the defence (see article 15 of the code of civil procedure). Social workers should necessarily send a copy of their reports to the families so that they can study.

In those circumstances, the hearing before the judge turn Stalinist trial .

Les familles ont la très désagréable impression que tout est joué d’avanceFamilies have the unpleasant feeling that everything is played in advance.

Parents must then kowtowing and recognize the merits of the educational measure hoping to generate clémence J..

The route is marked: placement in foster care with visits in a neutral place, visits framed home, semi-encadrées tours, placement in foster care with rights to accommodation progressive to, finally, consider a return of the child of an educational Assistance in workplace open.

Point of possible shortcut on the long road to cross.

Even if framed visits happen very well, even if the child screams to be deprived of his parents, unable to consider a direct return in his distress.

This would be to recognize that the placement was not necessary.

Then, to avoid losing face, judges and social workers extend "periods of observation" in wrapping in the precautionary principle.

It is only showing "cooperative" (i.e., by recognizing the quality of the work of social services), parents can expect an improvement in their tours and accommodation rights.

But if families have the impudence to try to prove their learning abilities and refute the conclusions of the social workers, they are so beautiful game to explain to the judge that parents are the "denial" of their own difficulties, resulting a return back with restoration of visits in a neutral place.

The system is Machiavellian.

To exit this Kafkaesque situation, some families are steps so that their child is represented by a lawyer of the hearings. They hope thereby give weight to the word of the child who wishes to return to his family. Naively, they think voice of counsel for the child attached to their own counsel may slightly rebalance a broadly favourable all-powerful social services force report. Unfortunately, in the face of the record (essentially constituted by Informes de l'aide Sociale à l'Enfance), counsel for the child quickly made a negative picture of the family. It then receives the child accompanied by his assistant social focal point (since it is the legal representative of the child). During this appointment, it is impossible for young children to express themselves freely: Assistant social focal point reformulate questions him address the lawyer, it guides in his answers, it réinterprête his words... when it is not directly expressed in the child's place. Things look bewildered family which, she has no right to speak to give his version of events, because counsel for the child cannot hear parents because of conflict of interest. Counsel for the child therefore agree with the arguments of the social Assistant the mass was said. This device is absurd.

Any child placed should necessarily be assisted by a lawyer and free to meet without the presence of his assistant social focal point: counsel is to raise the floor of the child, not that of social services.

When judges of the children have little facts to blame the parents, they discharge the responsibility of the investment by asking parents and/or the child psychological expertise. Based on this expertise, they can find arguments in support of the motivations of the judgment.

Alas, the psychological expertise is an art than a science: point standards or strict protocols that define a good practice. The expertises are heavily biased: they assess parents and children mortified by breaking family ties not their earlier statements.

Thus, expertise rushed in a quarter of an hour will allow a judge in good conscience, to procure a child in his family for years. In the case of Outreau, was told "cleaning lady" expertise We are many that some women of the household are more conscientious than some "experts".

Finally, many investments are motivated to "educational deficiency", without any further qualification.

Alas, no legal text defines specifically what is meant by educational deficiency. This ground should therefore be declared unconstitutional. If a judge finds that parents are unfit that he should take away their child, it should be able to articulate facts narrative and compelling to justify such a measure (children left alone during countless hours, school attendance both days without justification, vagrancy evening until such time...).

Imagine we condemn someone for flight without being able to specify what he stole? This would not hold two seconds before a court.

Imagine someone dismissal for serious misconduct without being able to specify the nature of the fault? This would not hold two seconds before the labor.

Yet, for many years in France, can snatch a child to its family without having to specify the exact nature of the facts alleged against parents.

Indeed, article 2-1-L226 concern information gathering on does not impose on individuals that implement policy welfare proving the revelations they communicate to the judge.

The very notion of disturbing information is not defined.

Thus, the social worker can transmit a unfounded rumour or even his personal feelings Regardless, it is his opinion that faith.

For a judge, the ASE ratios Gospel lyrics...

Cet article n’est pas conforme à la présomption d’innocenceThis section is not consistent with the presumption of innocence(article 11 of the human rights). The burden of proof should be the responsibility of the ESA; parents may not defend itself against an Assistant. social impressions

Similarly, the motivation for the placement for "lack of collaboration with the social services" should be banned.

Evidence to the contrary, the placement is a solution of last resort when the child is moral or physical danger to his family.

The placement must be motivated by a proven inability of parents, not by the existence of a conflict between the family and social services.

Some parents have objective reasons to complain about social assistance in childhood.

But in the grotesque logic of social workers, if a family did not accept the placement be extend placement so that it better understands the reasons for the investment!

It is permitted to consider whether, in some cases, extension of the investment is not, in fact, a method to muzzle relatives who would be tempted now to complain against social services for defamatory, false testimony, signature extortion, violation of parental authority, moral harassment...

To complete the picture, add hearings take place in camera in the Office of juvenile judge. It delivers what is modestly called measures "educational assistance". In this way, unlike an accused person who incurs as a mere fine criminal parents - that they may yet be deprived of their children for months - were even not entitled to a real trial , with adversarial public debate, with the possibility to call witnesses to bar, with an option for grandparents or parents, for example, to participate in the proceedings alongside parents,...

With the current procedure, justice for children is not forced to be embarrassing to audition character witnesses who would attest to capabilities of parents or even close family members could support the child. (For two years and a half, my husband unsuccessfully requested auditioned for educational assistance for the benefit of her stepson).

Of the Act l e judge must decide the placement as a last resort ; but in practice, no text is compelled to seek solutions alternatives.

Social services and children judges can quietly continue to feed children's homes.

Children judge should be compelled to receive anyone who wishes to be heard (with parental consent). These accounts would then a solemnity such that the judge could not afford to ignore or to categorize them (as it can currently do with simple certificates on honour).

In short, placement is ease to a judge of children is not tire in cross-examination of the family and/or to seek alternative solutions.

The judge may say that he followed the recommendations of the ESA;

ASE may say it has done to implement the decisions of the judge.

Everyone "covers" mutually; no risk...

except for one in two children who is destroyed.

The benefit of the doubt is not never benefit families. All of this in defiance of the fundamental right of the child to live with her parents. The Convention on the rights of the child only remains beautiful incantatory statement. Article L 223-4 relating to the collection in the opinion of the minor is not binding.

Judges can release their glibly hiding behind the opportunity for families to call. But in reality, the remedies are illusory: placement measures are long scale a toddler, but very short scale Justice: renewable by maturity of six months to a year. So if parents really want to see their visiting rights, advance, it is much faster than waiting for the next sitting praying instead of embarking on a long, paralyzing, costly and risky appeal procedure.

In conclusion,

the placement process is a flagrant violation of article 10 of the Universal Declaration of the human rights which States that "every person is entitled full and equal to that its cause is fairly and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal" because articles L221-1 L221-4, 2-1-L226, L226-3 and L226-4 does not guarantee the principle of equality of arms of parents on social assistance to children who:

-reporting,

-organizes the subtraction of children,

-instructs the folder to the attention of the judge,

-assesses the parents

-advocating the extension of the investment

-judge the quality of the minor load by its own services,...

At the level of enforcement of the judgment in educational assistance

Unconstitutional the educational Assistant procedure-level would finally step so serious if very important l'aide Sociale à l'Enfance powers were entrusted to officers impeccable which show also demanding towards themselves with parents.

But to each his way of doing professional. Some meet families, listen to them and try to understand. Unfortunately, point inspector to control field work and harmonize practices. Then, a lot can perpetuate extravagant habits inherited from another time.

Parents who feel violated

Anyone who has never faced l'aide Sociale à l'Enfance cannot imagine that families have to endure.

Social workers begin by reading the decision of Justice but parents cannot make comments, ask an explanation on the merits, or have a copy of the ESA report which relied on the judge (in violation of the new article L223-5).

Social workers are there to enforce a court decision, not to comment on (même_s'ils_ont_eux-mêmes_lancé_la_procédure_ou_préconisé_un_prolongement_dele_de_placement).

Finally, parents do not know what actually alleged them. Each question is the same refrain: "it is a judicial decision".

Funny pedagogy. May be hope that actually defaulting parents will advance through argument of authority?

Social workers are in their logic: they are convinced that children are placed for their good and that parents are unfit. Most social workers, without even realize, have a quite dreadful patronnesses ladies condescending attitude. If they stood in place of parents viscerally attached to their children, maybe would they include violence that is subjected to families.

Social services are not just to listen to the suffering of parents unfairly separated from their children and ladétresse children who feel abandoned by their parents. As members of "the Arche de Zoé", social workers imagine saviour of children without design sometimes act in firefighter-arsonists: they separated from siblings, break the links between children and grandparents, denigrate the capabilities of the parents in the presence of children ("you know your mum she cannot really take care of you"), try to say the child to the evil of his own parents ("your dad is not nice to you, huh?"). Can you imagine more destructive?

Parents feel humiliated, discredited, patronized; They must comply with the procedures of the ASE because only the ASE holds truth. They are professionals: they know what to do so even if they have never seen the child. (Advisor child attached to the Service for the Protection of childhood, Director of the home... don't know the child only mediated by the Assistant reports social focal point or educators). It is claimed to help parents in their educational mission, but being challenged any capacity.

All dialogue is impossible.

Depending on the circumstances:

- either, parents do not have the right to express themselves,

- either, they can but it denigrates or it calls into question their word ("it is you who say");

- either, they dare not speak, because they know that their comments will be transcribed and forwarded to the judge without having a right of replay.

Only say parents-teachers meetings where it is the social assistant that meets the teacher while parents wait in another room until finally, the family is invited to enter.

No wonder that some families will no longer lose their time to attend the convocation of social services: they are familiar with the music.

Anyway, it is ESA is correct and is not listening.

So what good? Social services will be so beautiful game to advise the judge on the theme: "You see that parents are irresponsible;" We want to help them, they don't even come! «Thankfully, children are placed».

Only the strongest families resist the urge to slamming the door and stoically attend appointments.

Obsolete training

Social workers have only a very sketchy background in soil-Psychiatry; their knowledge appear to be confined to the theory of Bettelheim. (Ancient theory according to which everything disorder in childhood is due to a deficiency in the mother, care then pass through a "parentectomie"). The problem is that today ' hui this theory is regarded by all as obsolete. (Indeed, Bettelheim committed suicide; according to some, because he had achieved his mistake; other monstrosity, had proved that he had falsified his clinical observations).

Conclusion: all behaviors of children are analyzed by the prism of Bettelheim. Parents are necessarily guilty, and if they do not admit, is that they are in denial. Accordingly, the investments extend (and child trauma worsen).

Favourable to social workers reports

It is doubtful objectivity of certain assessments.

Firstly, the families do not attend reviews! (Imagine on a Council of class without representatives of students, a Committee of business without trade union representatives,... in short, any system without counter-power ). Everything is based on the testimony of Assistant social focal point is necessarily an infallible papal. (The TISF involved directly in the families are not obliged to attend syntheses).

Need to break this cult of secrecy. Moreover, articles L221-4 L223-5, 2-1-L226 L226-5 are regularly violated. often, it "fails" to inform parents.

Social services should conduct their cultural revolution as physicians who, in their time, had to accept patients access to their medical records.

Assistant social focal point is not to prepare a report acknowledging that she made an error of assessment and it must immediately return the child to its family. To enhance his own work, she has any interest to explain that parents are responsible for all problems; This will allow, by contrast, highlight the action of the social worker who has much merit to manage difficult families.

Some career defense comes before the defence of children.

DDC educators in children's homes and the TISF (whose jobs are threatened in troubled RADM) are also in a situation of conflict of interest. "The interests of the child [who] (...)". "should guide all decisions concerning" (article L112-4) is not necessarily theirs if the child is leaving home or in-home observations are unnecessary.

No recourse

Social services can crucify family; but they do not like bite them.

Simply ask specific questions to demonstrate the vacuity of the folder causes irritation of the social assistant.

And when one dares to say there are untruths in its reports, it has stoked the ire.

If the morgue to defend it is accused of having an attitude of mistrust.

Parents likely to criticize the action of social services can rest assured that the judge will be informed.

Good professional social worker know what words will fly to discredit the recalcitrant parents who do not want to go through the ranks: "parents in denial", "parents who refuse to cooperate",...

So that their access rights are not restricted, parents are forced to shut up and obey.

If a family has the impertinence to file a complaint in libel case against social workers spread slanderous informations, it receives a threatening letter from the President of the General Council. Instead of an inquiry into its internal dysfunctions, Conseil Général is quick to warn the public prosecutor. The latter probably forgetting its role as guarantor of individual freedoms, bravely rank the complaint (it is true that he had endorsed the judgment in educational assistance).

It's no wonder, in these circumstances, some fathers lose their nerve and take it to those who were deprived of their children or that some mothers return the violence of the system against themselves and attempt suicide.

Rather than to realize that, in some cases, they are originally from problem, social workers are then supported in their analysis: father was abusive, the mother was psychologically unstable Fortunately we intervened to protect children.

Human rights violations

No section of the Code of social action and families limit interference of social services in private life (which is contrary to article 12 of the Droits de l'homme).(For our part, we had undergo the presence of a technician Intervention social and family at our wedding.) Given the circumstances, civil marriage has had to stand in a small Committee: 8 adults with two professors aggregated, an engineer, an honorary notary... (In short, there was no reason the presence of TISF apart from probably the willingness to humiliate the bride and groom).

Section 375-7 of the civil code, which allows the judge to determine the nature and frequency of visit and parents, accommodation rights infringes freedom of religion (article 18 of the Droits de l'homme). Indeed, the judge may oppose the presence of children of religious ceremonies (marriage,...), and social services refuse to supervise visits Sunday depriving families of the right to attend Sunday mass with their children. Parents who wish to can even not to entrust their children to God to help them cope with this terrible separation.

Anyway, the days of visits are imposed (in our case, Friday) and regardless of whether the parent-child encounters occur on school time: wherever ESA déscolarise child is not "educational deficiency".

Even when parents still have parental authority, they do not have their word to say about their children's school choice. This is the ESA decided in violation of article 26 of the human rights which stipulates however that the parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education to their children.

When educators or social workers have documents to sign to parents, tend them generally a WAD of paper initialled on the field. Difficult to take the time to read them without any social worker makes you feel his frustration. Difficult under pressure, to refuse to sign the "project for the child" (as defined in section L223-1). Difficult to give his authorization to administer "non-urgents drug therapies":

-either not sign and social workers will be able to accuse parents of want of care;

- either on signs and parents no longer have the ability to oppose that can put their child on Ritalin for example. This is extortion of signature.

For our part, while our child suffered from a simple dysphasia, we had us resign to allow hospitalized in a psychiatric unit where he was in contact with children with very severe pathologies (many other children placed elsewhere). Was it or the threat of a request for withdrawal of parental; social services would then have full powers.

ESA is often challenging families who did not graduate and who do not have intellectual means of defending himself against a powerful administrative structure. It generally parents in financial difficulties, which depend on legal aid, and with no physical means choosing an experienced lawyer who will invest in the folder. In addition, parents are destabilised, gnawed by nights without sleep deprived of their sole source of happiness: their children. Parents willing to sign anything to few it promised one hour of additional weekly home visits. It is an abuse of dastardly weakness.

A sad accounting balance sheet

In the case of poor families, it cost much less the community to help families by advancing a few hundred euros or in providing a guarantor to assist in accessing private rental Park (when there is a shortage of housing co-OPERATIVES). But not. It prefers to pay foster, assistants social referring TISF, guidelines for home educators... For some, the social is a "business" that pays off.

This must be added the cost of legal aid for poor parents) and congestion in the courts, not to mention that of the CMPP, because finally, social security will need to support a psychiatrist soil in an attempt to repair the psychological damage is inflicted on the child. Sad accounting balance sheet.

Conclusion

Madam and gentlemen les Hauts advisors, I tried to alert the legislature by my MP, but my approach has remained a dead letter. Many other helpless families initiative, petitions circulating on the Internet to try to awaken the Executive (Cabinet, Prime Minister, President of the Republic); without result.

Madam and gentlemen les Hauts advisors, you are the last resort of tens of thousands of parents, while treating and magnets, unjustly deprived of their children. By declaring unconstitutional some articles - trivial individually, but whose aggregation allows all abuse - you only can impose the reform of a system that is a disgrace to the country of human rights.

Yours sincerely, Madame and gentlemen les Hauts advisors, more environmentally friendly greetings.

Brest, July 4, 2010

Ms. JAFFRY Emmanuelle