Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - Administrator

Pages: [1]
1
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/oct/27/forced-adoption-mother-and-child-reunited

Forced adoption: the mothers fighting to find their lost children
At the height of the 1960s, more than 16,000 British babies were adopted many against the will of their birth mothers. Yvonne Roberts meets women forced to give up their children

Veronica Smith, calm and charming, exudes a quiet capability perhaps forged by a lifetime in nursing. She lives in a house on the south coast with panoramic views. The sitting room is full of photographs of laughing children. Veronica, now 72, married for the first time in her 60s. Roger, her husband, was a divorcee with three grown-up children and now several grandchildren. "On the first night we went out, I told Roger the truth," Veronica says.

The truth, the secret Veronica had kept for years, is that far from being childless, in 1964, in her 20s, she had given birth to a daughter, Catherine. What happened after the birth has fuelled an anger in her that refuses to be dampened. "I, and thousands of women like me, were coerced into giving up our children," she says. "I was a perfectly healthy, capable adult. I'm still angry my child was taken away."

The social, economic, and religious pressures that existed at the time are easily forgotten now that the stigma of illegitimacy has been erased and sex without a wedding ring is the norm.  Veronica was a nurse in Butlin's Holiday Camp in Bognor Regis in 1964, and going out with Sam, when she became pregnant. "There was no abortion. The doctor suggested gins, a hot bath, and a douche, " she says. "I wrote to my sister and she said, 'Mummy and I are coming to see you.' My mother was very religious and my father was a lieutenant colonel. She said it would kill him, so he never knew. I was sent to the Catholic Crusade of Rescue. I was a trained nurse, how could I not think for myself? But I was brought up to be an obedient Catholic. It destroyed my relationship with Sam."

She was sent to a Catholic hostel in Brixton, south London. "It was the so-called Swinging Sixties, yet we were made to scrub the floors as penance for our sins. I held my daughter for a week. And then she was gone."

Earlier this month, Veronica was one of a small and unlikely group of doughty women, in their 60s and 70s, dressed in varying shades of red, carrying placards, who demonstrated outside the Odeon Cinema, Leicester Square, London. For many, it was their first taste of public protest. The women are members of MAA, the Movement for an Adoption Apology. Set up in 2010, it is an offshoot of the Natural Parents Network that offers support to people affected by adoption. What prompted MAA's launch was the decision by the state of Western Australia to issue an official apology for forced adoptions that took place several decades ago.  Other states followed, culminating, in March this year, in the then prime minister, Julia Gillard, announcing a substantial support fund and a national mea culpa. "We deplore the shameful practices that denied you, the mothers, your fundamentals rights and responsibilities to love and care for your children," she said in front of 800 people affected by forced adoptions. "You were not legally or socially acknowledged as mothers and you yourselves were deprived of care. You were forced to endure the coercion and brutality of practices that were unethical, dishonest, and, in many cases, illegal."

The members of MAA argue that adoptions during the same period in the UK were similarly highly flawed. They seek a public apology from the British government for women who were also "coerced, cajoled and conned" into giving up their babies. Earlier this year, an Early Day Motion in the House of Commons for a UK apology attracted 88 signatures, but progress has been slow. Perhaps this is because it's a challenge now to fathom the ferocity of punitive disapproval for a girl who "got herself into trouble".  The MAA supporters are hoping the lack of understanding may be countered by the film Philomena, starring Judi Dench, about the forced adoption of a three-year-old boy, Anthony, in postwar Ireland. Hence MAA's presence at the screening in Leicester Square.  The film, co-written by and co-starring Steve Coogan, tells the true tale of Philomena Lee's 50-year search for her son Anthony a hunt helped by the journalist Martin Sixsmith. Philomena had been "put away" in a County Tipperary convent as a teenager, pregnant and deemed a "fallen woman". She worked without pay in the laundry, seeing Anthony for an hour a day until he was given to an American couple from Missouri in return for a "donation". Mother and son repeatedly returned to the convent for information about each other, but the nuns kept silent. Anthony now Michael finally left his mother the only clue he could, his tombstone in the convent's graveyard. The film, Steve Coogan has said, "is about tolerance and understanding".

When I first met Veronica and other MAA supporters, several months ago, it transpired that it was action not tolerance that they seek. Initially, it's hard to see how a government apology is appropriate when their stories are of such profound personal loss. In the 1950s and 1960s, an estimated half a million women became unmarried mothers. Their experiences are a television staple. The drama of lives lived in reverse has a powerful hold, beginning with the mourning for the loss of a child and ending – at least on the TV screen – in celebration at the birth of a new relationship.  However, as I met the women of MAA, they revealed the extent of the stain of secrecy and internalised shame. For some, there were also the complexities of reunions; the negative emotions unexpectedly triggered as deep-frozen memories thawed; the impact of families reshaped and the joy but also the fresh wounds that sometimes prove impossible to heal.  Helen Jeffreys became pregnant at 17 in 1965, in Harrogate. She gave birth to her son in Leeds. "I was 18 and a perfectly competent mother. I wanted to keep him," Helen, now 65 and a counsllor, says. "My social worker refused to offer any help other than to facilitate adoption. When Adam was two months old I had to leave the mother-and-baby home. I was told that if I had nowhere to go he must be placed for adoption. When I signed the papers not one official asked me if this is what I wanted."

Adoption then meant a complete break. Helen believed she would never see her son again. Only much later, in 1975, did it become possible for adopted children, at 18, to request their birth certificate. Adam's birth was also long before legislation that would have given him and his mother a home; the benefits system was limited and the voluntary organisations which offered help did so in the language of sin and moral welfare. Other influences were in play, too, that shaped the " free choice" of unmarried mothers to give up their babies "for their own good".

Half a Million Women, an analysis published by the Post-Adoption Centre in 1992, illustrates how unmarried mothers were seen not as victims of bad luck but often pathologized as "emotionally disturbed" and a "discredited person". (The men, at worst, had to endure shotgun marriages.)  Paradoxically, the woman who gave her baby up for adoption was judged mentally healthy and emotionally stable; those who fought to keep their child were classed as immature and unfit to be a mother. This was a cruel twist as the lack of practical and emotional support might eventually drive a woman to the edge. Add to that the then much stronger influence of religion and the role of society in coercion becomes more of a reality. "Anna", a MAA member now aged 75, came from an affluent Catholic family. Training as a nursery nurse, she became pregnant at the age of 21 in 1959, as the result of a rape. Her parents would only consider adoption. "The baby was a mixed-race so I knew she would be hard to adopt," Anna says. "For three months I visited her at the foster home. I don't know why I gave her away. I still can't answer that question. It makes me ashamed. On the appointed day, I told my daughter, 'I'm going to find you one day.' That was my goodbye. I hate the church for what it made me do and how it's made me feel. It's hard to disentangle your own identity from the idea that you are somehow 'unfit'."

In 1968, the peak year for adoptions, 16,164 children went through the system, three out of four under the age of one. By 1984, the colloquial term "bastards" had been banished. Official documents referred to "births outside marriage"; contraception and abortion were available, the social mores were changing dramatically. The number of adoptions in 1984 had fallen to 4,189, only 43% of whom were babies. But the cost to many of the unwed mothers of the 50s and 60s proved high.  "I lost my son for 29 years and it had a huge effect on me," Helen Jeffreys says. "I went through a period when I drank, I took drugs. I have underperformed for my entire life. I am no good at relationships. On the day Adam was adopted, right until the last minute, I was hoping for a reprieve, for clemency. It was like a death sentence."

Jean Robertson-Molloy, 77, is a retired social worker. She is open and effervescent, a founder member of MAA who is also active in the Green Party. Her life has also been moulded by that one decision. "My story," she says wryly, talking at her home in north London, "is a very downbeat Mamma Mia." In 1963, aged 24, she travelled to New Zealand, and in a short space of time, she had had sexual encounters with three men. The first was Keith, who raped her. The other two, Andy and Don, were consensual partners. "Don and I drove up the west coast in his little Fiat," she says. "We had a tent and camped for four or five days. I enjoyed it. He was a lovely man."

Soon, Jean realised she was pregnant. She arranged to have her baby adopted in Australia, telling her parents that she was sightseeing. "Later, when my mother learned the truth," Jean says, "she was in tears. She said they would have helped me to keep her if they'd known. I never held my daughter," Jean adds, eyes brimming. "I was so afraid to hold her in case I had maternal feelings. Of the three men, I chose the one I liked least, Keith, as the probable father. Ever since it's almost as if I want people to accept the worst things about me. Years later, when I did find my daughter, I realised that the lovely guy, Don, had to be her dad."

Jean married in 1970. Her husband was 10 years younger. When their children, Johnny and Caroline, were four and five, "he waltzed off so I ended up a single parent anyway".

Twenty years, later, in 1991, Jean traced her daughter, Amanda, who had been raised by an affluent Australian family. "I pretended I was travelling around Australia and asked if I could see her. I think I overwhelmed her. She said we could meet for three hours."

Amanda was happily married to an architect and had three daughters. "She was very ambivalent," Jean says. "Worse than anger is anger you don't express. We never talked about our feelings."

For years, contact consisted of two or three letters a year. Then, in 2010, Amanda saw a newspaper photograph of Jean in the Green Party. "She said she felt a twinge of connection." Amanda came to London and stayed with her birth mother for two weeks. "I said all the wrong things," Jean says tearfully. "I was trying to cram in 40 years of advice. I asked her, 'Why do you always wear black?' I didn't mean it critically."

For the last few days of her visit, Amanda moved into a hotel. "She said, 'We are two very different people.' Back in Australia, Amanda told Jean that she didn't want to have any further contact. Jean hasn't heard from her daughter since. "The apology isn't so much for me," she says, "but for the many women, still silent. It might make the unspeakable speakable." 

Veronica is one who kept her secret until she had a breakdown in 1989. "All the grief that I had locked away came tumbling out." Aged 58, she then began to look for her daughter. Catherine was eventually found, aged 24. "She didn't want to know me," Veronica says. "I was devastated."

She had to wait another 10 years before Catherine resumed contact, prompted by the arrival of her own child. "Catherine's adopted mother died recently and we've become closer," Veronica says. "Feelings are bound to be complicated if your child has been rejected. I just want her to be happy."

Linda Jones, 63, like Philomena, raised her daughter, Carly, until she was three. Then, Linda's mother arranged an adoption. "My mother was respectable and found the idea I wasn't married difficult. I was finding it hard to cope," says Linda.

She subsequently married and had a second daughter. Now divorced, it was her younger daughter, aged 29, who traced Carly, 34, through Facebook. "The sisters are in touch, but I have a very strange relationship with my older child," says Linda. "It's a lifetime of grief and yearning because she belongs to someone else. Then, when you meet, you realise you will always be half a mother."

Helen Jeffreys found her son in 1995. Adam, now called David, was 29. Helen, who had married, divorced and had a second son, says: "I had a feeling David needed to be found. Doors opened as if it was meant to happen." He had been an only child. His adopted mother had died when he was 12, and his adopted father at 18. "He is part of my extended family now," Helen says. "He gets on really well with my father, which is ironic. My dad said, 'Why was he adopted? But he was the one who told me to leave the house.  When I met David it was as if he was an old friend. We went to music gigs and drank a lot of real ale. He was a bit lost. We talked and talked."

Helen is a Buddhist and now David is, too. However, Helen's second son no longer speaks to her, although he is friends with David on Facebook. "He said he felt displaced. He told me, 'I look at this bloke. I can see he's my brother, but he's a complete stranger. It does my head in.'"

"It's not always been easy with Helen," says David, who is now 47 and has been happily married to a younger friend of his mother's for 13 years. "But I am glad I know her. I don't feel resentment. My mother says hardly a day went by when she didn't wonder what had happened to me. She never wanted to do it. That's a big burden for any mother to carry."

Many who gave up their children for adoption in the 50s and 60s did so willingly and without regret. For others, MAA insists, a government apology, backed by funding to help those women who have silently fallen apart over the years, is vital. It is unlikely to happen under a coalition government, but MAA has more faith should Labour win power. A public acknowledgement might appear a superficial gesture to younger generations, but for the redoubtable Jean and Veronica and friends, it offers atonement, and that is beyond price.

For information on MAA, email MAANPN@gmail.com. Philomena is in cinemas now

2
Welcome to Our New Members / Welcome to new members
« on: April 24, 2020, 12:01:40 PM »
Welcome!

If you're not sure where to start come and introduce yourself here.  If you have any questions or suggestions please go the boards at the bottom of the home page.

3
General Discussion / Jokes
« on: April 02, 2020, 05:12:31 PM »
THE 10 LAWS OF LIFE

1. When one's hands are covered in oil, grease, or glue, your nose will start to itch. (Law of Itchiban)

2. Your insurance will cover everything but what has happened. (Incuranctions So Sorry Law)

3. When things seem easy to do, it's because you haven't followed all the instructions. (Destiny Awaits Law)

4. The cost is always higher than one budget for, and it's exactly 3.14 times higher, hence the importance of pi. (Law of Pi Eyed)

5. The probability that one will spill food on one's clothes is directly proportional to its need to be clean. (Law of Campbell's Scoop)

6. Each and everybody sitting on a commode will cause the doorbell to ring.  (Law of O'golly Gee!)

7. Wind velocity will increase proportionally to the cost of one's hairdo.  (The Hair-Wind Principal)

8. After discarding something not used for years, you will need it one week later. (Law of Irreversibility)

9. Arriving for an appointment will cause the receptionist to be absent, and if one arrives late, everyone else arrived before you. (Law of DeLay)

10. Do not take life too seriously, because, in the end, you won't come out alive anyway. (Law of Absolute Certainly)

4
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-8179547/Touching-photo-shows-toddler-condition-waving-working-Dad-window.html

Touching photo shows toddler with a rare form of dwarfism who is separated from her working dad because she's vulnerable to infections waving to him through the window

    Emmie Gizatullin was born with Kniest Dysplasia, a one in a million condition
    She is self-isolating with her mother and brother while her father goes to work
    Her mother Hannah shared this touching photo of Emmie's father waving through a window

By Bridie Pearson-jones For Mailonline

Published: 11:26, 2 April 2020 | Updated: 11:32, 2 April 2020

A mother has shared a powerful photograph of her toddler with a rare genetic disorder waving to her daddy from behind a window to help raise awareness of the importance of self-isolation.  Emmie Gizatullin from Colchester, Essex, was born with a one in a million genetic condition called Kniest Dysplasia, which is the rarest form of dwarfism. The adorable two-year-old went into total isolation with her mum Hannah Gizatullin, 40, and her brother Adam, 11, earlier this week to keep safe amid the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.  Emmie is very vulnerable to infections and illnesses, while she also struggles with breathing so any virus that affects the lungs could be fatal. She cannot be intubated and put onto a life-saving ventilator because her windpipe is too small.  Her father Marat, 49, is a forklift driver and is still required to go to work so the family decided it would be safest to isolate from him at Hannah's mother's house until things are back to normal.  But the loving dad still visits his family each morning by waving and blowing kisses through the window at a safe distance something which little Emmie looks forward to every day.  The mum is now sharing this heart-warming photograph of a daddy and daughter having a special moment through a window in a bid to send a powerful message to the world about the importance of staying home and self-isolation.  Stay-at-home-mum Hannah said: 'I knew Emmie's condition would make her very vulnerable at this time.

WHAT IS KNIEST DYSPLASIA? 

Kniest dysplasia is a very rare disorder of bone growth causing short stature and skeletal abnormalities which can cause problems with vision and hearing.  Babies born with Kniest dysplasia have a short trunk, shortened arms, and legs, usually, their adult height ranges from 42 inches to 58 inches.  People have a round, flat face and bulging, wide-set eyes. Some affected infants are born with an opening in the roof of the mouth called a cleft palate.  Infants may also have breathing problems due to the weakness of the windpipe.  Severe nearsightedness (myopia) and other eye problems are common in Kniest dysplasia.  Some eye problems, such as tearing of the back lining of the eye (retinal detachment), can lead to blindness. Hearing loss resulting from recurrent ear infections is also possible.

Source: US National Library of Medicine

'She has been admitted to hospital three times in four months with simple illnesses such as croup, chest infection and an ear infection, so the slightest illness can make her very poorly.  She cannot be intubated as her windpipe is too small, so if she were to contract COVID-19 it could kill her because she could not be put onto a ventilator.  I knew we had to do everything we could to keep her safe. We were self-isolating at home with Marat for one week but he was still going to work.  It was making me very anxious. So Emmie, Adam and I moved in with my mum just over a week ago.'

Three months after being born, Emmie was diagnosed with Kniest Dysplasia - a genetic disorder that affects bone growth and causes dwarfism, skeletal abnormalities and creates problems with vision and hearing.  The exact number of incidence are the disorder are unknown, but some predict there are less than 150 cases in the world.  The tot has severe sight and hearing loss, while she also cannot stand and uses a wheelchair for mobility, as she has club feet and short, bowed legs.  Due to a cleft palate that could not be repaired, Emmie cannot talk so communications through British sign language.  And despite being nearly three, Emmie's condition means she can currently only fit into clothes designed for six-month-old babies.  Hannah added: 'Marat is at our home and visits every morning by waving through the window at a distance.  I captured this moment between them and thought it was very special. Despite terrible obstacles, there is still joy.  Everyone has to do their bit to protect the vulnerable in our society.  We are hating being apart and it hurts for Marat not to be with us, but we know we must do whatever it takes to protect Emmie.  She doesn't understand what is going on but even with the brief visits, she is so happy and overjoyed to see her daddy.  You have to take all the smallest glimpses of happiness you can to get through these difficult times.'

'Kniest Dysplasia can affect people in different ways.  For Emmie, she has severe sight and hearing issues. She also needs a wheelchair to get around and uses sign language to communicate.  The condition causes short limbs and short stature, so she is much smaller than other children her age.'

Hannah and Marat were over the moon upon discovering they were pregnant but their joy soon turned to worry after their first scan, when doctors told them something was wrong.  The parents said initially they were warned that Emmie might have Down's Syndrome, and at each scan were given more bad news such as her having a small brain, heart defects, brittle bones, and dwarfism.  Hannah claims doctors even pressured them into having a termination but the pair were adamant on keeping their baby, as they already 'loved and wanted her no matter what'.  She said: 'We were over the moon when we found out I was pregnant and Adam was so excited to have a sibling.  At the first scan, they told us there was something wrong. Initially, the doctors said it was Downs Syndrome.  There was a lot of pressure to have a termination but we knew we loved her and wanted her no matter what.'

When the mum gave birth to Emmie, Hannah was told there would be palliative care in place as they did not think she would survive.  But amazingly, Emmie grew stronger every day while in the NICU and went home after four weeks of intensive care.  Now the 'happy and cheeky' toddler is loving life with her family and Hannah said she is always 'spreading joy' by waving and smiling at strangers on the street.  She added: 'It was hard as I had no idea if she was even going to survive being born.  Although doctors said she would look strange, Emmie was the most beautiful baby girl I had ever seen and had the biggest brown eyes.  Despite all the challenges, she has she is such a happy and cheeky girl. She is very bright and uses sign language beautifully. She absolutely loves her collection of books and puzzles.  When we go out she always makes new friends, as she gets so much attention because she is so cute and friendly. She waves at everyone she sees.  We love her so much and will do everything we can to keep her safe during this time.  Everyone needs to do their bit and look after each other by staying at home.'

5
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2006/dec/11/childrensservices.uknews

Expert hired by couple to clear name finds they probably did harm the child
· Parents threatened with losing a six-month-old son
· 'No evidence' of brittle bone disease in fractures

Clare Dyer, legal editor

Mon 11 Dec 2006 00.11 GMT
First published on Mon 11 Dec 2006 00.11 GMT

A couple who claim they were victims of a miscarriage of justice when their three children were taken into care probably inflicted the injuries that prompted social workers to act, according to an expert they briefed in the hope of clearing their names.  Mark and Nicola Webster were given permission last August to instruct a consultant paediatric radiologist to take a new look at the x-rays of their son, who suffered fractures to both arms, both legs, and a rib. He and his younger brother and older sister were taken into care after a court found that one or both parents had caused the broken bones.  The couple, who are now threatened with losing their fourth child, six-month-old Brandon, are fighting to prove their innocence, although they know their other three children, named only as A, B and C, will not be returned to them.  The Websters made legal history last month when their application, supported by the media, to have their case heard in open court was granted by a high court judge, Mr. Justice Munby. Previous high court care cases have been heard anonymously behind closed doors.  But now, in a further judgment, the judge has revealed that the couple's own expert, the consultant paediatric radiologist, named only as Dr L, has produced a report with "clear and unequivocal" conclusions which are damning for them.  The couple, from Cromer, Norfolk, had suggested alternative explanations for the fractures such as brittle bone disease, of which the mother has a family history, though she is not herself a carrier. Another suggestion was that the boy's four-year-old sister might have injured her brother, then nearly two.  But the report says: "The fractures in this child are of the 'classic metaphyseal lesion' type and are highly specific injuries for inflicted injury. The number and distribution of fractures suggest all the child's limbs were forcibly twisted on one or more occasions with enough force to cause the fractures. The degree of force is inconsistent with normal handling. The degree of force identified to cause these injuries is described as such that an observer would be clear that an assault had occurred.  It is my opinion that a four-year-old would have insufficient strength to inflict these injuries.  These fractures suggest that he had been injured by one or more episodes of forcible twisting of the limbs and compression of the chest.  There is no evidence to suggest that suffered from an underlying bone condition that would predispose him to fractures of the kind found.  It is my opinion on the balance of probabilities that one or other of the parents inflicted these injuries."

The couple is now pinning their hopes on the report of a California-based paediatrician specialising in child protection whom Mr Justice Munby gave permission for them to consult last month. His brief is to look at B's injuries and any link with brittle bone disease.  The Websters fled to Ireland before Brandon was born when Norfolk county council threatened to take him into care, then returned to England under pressure from social workers. Their claims of a miscarriage of justice received huge media coverage under Mrs Webster's maiden name of Hardingham.  They were allowed to take Brandon home under supervision last month after spending five months caring for him in an assessment centre, where they were closely watched. The high court will decide next June whether they will be allowed to keep him or whether he too will be adopted.

6
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/8703817/Social-workers-accused-parents-of-bone-disease-baby-of-child-abuse.html

Social workers accused parents of bone disease baby of child abuse
Two children who were taken into care after social workers mistook a baby's brittle bone disease for evidence of abuse have been reunited with their parents.

By Matthew Holehouse
10:28 AM BST 16 Aug 2011

The team of social workers accused a mother of abusing her baby son, when in fact he was suffering from a rare bone disease.  Parents Paul Crummey and Amy Garland were horrified when doctors told them their baby son, Harrison, had eight fractures in his arms and legs just weeks after he was born.  But they were devastated when social workers accused them of shaking their son by the legs and took him and their daughter Bethany, now five, into care.  The terrified couple was arrested, and banned from seeing their two children without supervision.  It took 18 months for social workers and doctors to realise baby Harrison was suffering from a rare form of brittle bone disease meaning the slightest touch could snap his bones in two.  Now, the family, from Bristol, have been reunited, after prosecutors decided to drop the case when they realised Harrison was suffering from Osteogenesis imperfecta.  Their nightmare began when Harrison was just six-weeks-old.  Miss Gardland, 26, said: "For the first weeks he was bringing up blood with his milk and he was irritable.  I knew something wasn't right so I took him to the hospital. They did tests on him but everything came back absolutely normal."

But when she got home she noticed his legs were swollen.  X-rays later showed Harrison had several fractures in his arm, feet, and legs.  Miss Garland said: "We obviously had no idea that this condition was in our family so when they asked us how they happened we were left with the answer that we didn't know.  They said they needed to investigate it and we were happy for them to do that."

Tests showed Harrison's vitamin D levels were abnormally low so he was given injections.  As soon as the fractures were discovered, South Gloucestershire Social Services were called in to speak to the couple.  Police arrested Miss Garland while she was in the hospital with Harrison and Mr. Crummey, who was recovering from an operation at home, was also arrested.  They were questioned separately under caution by police. Neither of them had been in any sort of trouble before.  "The police and social services asked us a lot of questions. They asked me if there was any family history of violence," said Miss Garland.

"We found out the police were speaking to all our neighbours asking them what we were like. They went through our house. I was in absolute shock. I was shaking. I felt like a criminal," she said.

While Harrison was in the hospital, Miss Garland was not allowed to be alone with her son.  "I wasn't eating and I couldn't sleep because I was worried they would take him from me," she said.

"Paul and I weren't allowed to be alone together. I never for one second questioned Paul. Neither of us needed to ask each other. We just knew."

At the time, Bethany was just 20-months-old and was placed in the care of Miss Garland's father.  The case was brought before Bristol County Court, where a judge ordered the family to live in a family placement centre.  "The judge didn't want to separate me from Harrison because I was still breastfeeding," the mother said.

"We were watched 24 hours a day and there were cameras in every room. It was like a prison because even when we were allowed to go out we had to have staff with us."

After three months, the staff could find nothing wrong and recommended the family should stay together.  But social workers applied for an interim care order and the children were placed into foster care with their grandfather.  They were only allowed to see the children for six hours each day under supervision for over a year.  "It was horrible. When I went home at night and the kids weren't there, I just broke down," said Miss Garland. "There was so much going on in our lives. We were a mess. We took things out on each other."

In January 2009, Miss Garland found a medical expert who believed Harrison had Osteogenesis imperfecta after looking into the family's medical history.  Six months later, the two other doctors involved in the case agreed he could have the condition after reading the expert's report.  South Gloucestershire Social Services then dropped their case.  Miss Garland, who has another daughter, Juliet, 18 months, with current fiance Kai Howell, 29, said: "When I heard the news, I couldn't even speak. I was sat in my mum's garden in tears.  Straight away, we took them to the park. It felt so right to finally be together as a family."

A month later, Harrison was diagnosed with Osteogenesis imperfecta. Doctors also tested Bethany, who was found to have a lesser type of the condition.  Harrison is still having vitamin D injections to help strengthen his bones and sees a physiotherapist to help build the muscle surrounding his bones.  Mr. Crummey, 41, said: "All we wanted to do was help our sick child but we were treated like criminals. We had to sit and watch Harrison in pain.  We've missed out on so much of our children's lives. They've been through so much. It tore Amy and me apart because we didn't know how to handle it.  We've never received an apology from social services. It makes me feel very angry."

A spokesman for South Gloucestershire Council said: "While we cannot comment on individual cases, we do have a legal duty to protect children and young people living in South Gloucestershire and we always put the welfare of the child at the heart of how we deliver our services."

7
Articles / Cleveland scandal 20 years on
« on: March 28, 2020, 03:05:39 PM »
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/1204607.cleveland-scandal---20-years/

20th February 2007
Cleveland scandal 20 years on

 Some of those caught up in the Cleveland Child Abuse Scandal 20 years ago speaks out for the first time.  Reporter Graeme Hetherington follows the stories of one of the many families devastated by the false accusations, a vociferous opponent of the medical establishment, as social services worker at the centre of the storm and a leading medical officer, brought in to try to resolve the child sex abuse crisis.

The family

In 1987, more than a hundred families had 121 children taken into care by Cleveland County Council's social services department and treated in two hospital wards at Middlesbrough General Hospital.  Two paediatricians, doctors Marietta Higgs and Geoffrey Wyatt used a place of safety orders to remove the children for their own protection.  All but 27 would be returned to their families but not after a long and determined fight.  Selina Allen (not her real name) was nine when she was taken from her family in Middlesbrough by social services. She would not see them again for seven months.  Now 29, the memories are still vivid, but she refuses to allow her anger and the feeling of injustice to affect her.  "It's a determination to show that they have not beaten me and I am not going to let them ruin the rest of my life. They took seven months of my life and I'm not going to let them take the rest it.  It was cruelty we received cruelty at the hands of people who were supposed to protect you."

Her father, Matthew, who also had two foster children and two other daughters taken from him after an inaccurate diagnosis by Dr. Marietta Higgs, recalls the feeling of absolute powerlessness, a feeling which eased once a pressure group was formed to help families traumatised.  Mr. Allen, speaking on BBC Radio 4, said: "Instead of us being on the back foot, we gained confidence and strength from the knowledge that we were not alone.  And then the power positions changed and suddenly we began to have the power they then had to start justifying their actions they couldn't continue to adopt a very hoity arrogance."

Northern Regional Director of Health

MEDICAL experts were brought in to try to resolve the failings of the social services system which resulted in the children being taken into care without the chance for parents to have their say.  The Government's current chief medical officer, Liam Donaldson, was then northern regional director of public health during the judicial inquiry, which changed the face of child protection.  The findings of the Butler-Sloss report formed the basis for the 1991 Children's Act, aimed at preventing such scandals occurring again.  When he started to assess the crisis, he was shocked by the scale of the scandal.  Talking publicly for the first time, he said it was implications about the prevalence of sexual abuse that was so astonishing.  He said: "There was a figure of one in 20 and I remember one of the managers in the health service down in Cleveland saying to me well are they really saying that I can open my upstairs window and look down the street and count 20 houses and say well there is sexual abuse going on in there, there must be because that is the statistic.  It just didn't seem plausible, so it gave people an excuse to say this is just nonsense, it's not happening."

Mr Donaldson and the chairman of the Regional Health Authority called doctors Marietta Higgs and Geoffrey Wyatt to a meeting after a group of parents started threatening to sue, and MP Stuart Bell was calling for them to be removed.  He said: "They explained that they had relied very heavily on one particular diagnostic test, which was new as far as I was concerned. I put it to them that in any field of medicine a test no matter how accurate it is it will have some margin of error and might be false positives, people who were labelled as having children who are abused, but in fact, the test was falsely labelling them even though it may be accurate in other respects."

The pair were banned from working in child protection following the investigation into the scandal.

Hospital Social Services Worker

IT was not only families affected by the fall out of the sex abuse scandal, but many health care workers have also been left emotionally scarred.  One social service worker, who did not want to be identified, talked about the shock and confusion created by the sex abuse crisis.  She said: "One Monday it was nine o'clock and the phone rang, I picked it up and it was Dr. Geoffrey Wyatt and he said 'right, I want to refer the children from this school. All of them, I want to refer to the whole school'.  I asked why? And he said, 'because they are abusing each other'. I asked him what he wanted us to do, and he said 'bring all the children in'.  I rang my team manager and said Geoffrey Wyatt had just referred to this school, the whole school and he said 'is this a joke?' and I told him it wasn't a joke and he was just speechless."

Not everyone agreed with the diagnosis. In fact, a rift developed in Cleveland between the two doctors and the county's police surgeons resulting in Cleveland Police refusing to investigate further allegations made by the paediatricians.  Hospital services were stretched to breaking point and many children were held for weeks on end in the two children's hospital wards.  She said: "We couldn't place all these children in care, I mean it was just mind-boggling. You clung to the routine, you clung to the system that you had and the only system that you had and you clung to that and did the things you would normally do for child abuse but obviously it was much worse than that.  It was the route you went down because it was all you could do, we had no precedence. On this scale, there was no precedence."

MP Stuart Bell

ONE opponent to the growing scandal in 1987 was Middlesbrough MP Stuart Bell.  He was a pivotal member of a support group formed to help the families affected by the accusations.  Mr. Bell campaigned for a judicial inquiry into the actions of the two doctors at the centre of the sex abuse claims and Cleveland County Council's social services department.  Parents were being denied access to their children on the word of doctors Marietta Higgs and Geoffrey Wyatt but, after witnessing first hand the family breakdowns across the town, he challenged their diagnosis.  He said: "The reaction within the families was also very devastating, one woman was told that her child had been abused and, of course, the implication was that the husband had done it and that split the family.  This particular Friday was very dramatic and from then on my life was taken over completely."

As a result of the collapse of the majority of the cases, 121 children were taken into care but 80 percent were returned to their families. A judicial inquiry was carried out by Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss.  The report, published after a 74-day hearing at Middlesbrough Town Hall, criticised the work of both doctors and a lack of communication between the agencies involved in child protection.  Sue Richardson, a child abuse consultant for Cleveland Council's social services department, was dismissed from her post.

8
General Discussion / Why “Birthmother” Means “Breeder”
« on: March 24, 2020, 07:14:38 PM »
http://babyscoopera.com/why-birthmother-means-breeder/

Why “Birthmother” Means “Breeder”

by Diane Turski

I had never heard the term “birthmother” until I reunited with my son. When the social worker who located me referred to me as his “birthmother,” my first reaction was to instinctively recoil in distaste. What is a “birthmother?”

It occurred to me that perhaps she had merely applied this ridiculous-sounding term in an attempt at political correctness, so I ignored it. However, when my son’s adoptive mother initiated her first contact with me she referred to him as my “birthson.” What is “birthson?”

And what would a “birthfather” be I didn’t know that fathers gave birth! In a “birth family” are there also “birth sisters,” “birth brothers,” “birth grandparents,” "birth aunts,” “birth uncles,” “birth cousins,” “birth pets,” etc?

It was then that I began to suspect that these ridiculous “birth” terms were not merely being applied in a benign attempt at political correctness. Was it possible that the adoption industry intended to insult us by applying these ridiculous labels to us?

Is it possible that we mothers have been so naive that we haven’t yet realized their true intent?

Could it be that we are insulting ourselves every time that we apply or allow others to apply these ridiculous terms to us?

Investigating, I learned that U.S. social workers had collaborated about 30 years ago to invent their own list of contrived terms to appease their adopting clients. Adopters no longer wanted anyone to use the original term “natural mothers.” Why?

Three reasons:

1) it indicated respect for the mother’s true relationship to her child she could not be written off as a “convenient slut” whose only value was reproduction,
2) it recognized that the sacred mother/child relationship extended past birth and even past surrender, and
3) it implied that the adoptive mother’s relationship to the child was unnatural.

The adoption industry didn’t want adoption to be considered unnatural – they could lose customers this way! After all, people were paying good money for “a child of their own.”  Adopters didn’t want a reminder that the child they were adopting still had a loving parent somewhere else. After all, social workers had promised them a child “as if born to.”  So social workers responded by creating a list of ridiculous “birth” terms meant to confine the mother’s relationship with her child to simply giving birth, ending at that point. In other words, “birthmother” is simply a euphemism for “incubator” or “breeder.”  Then, social workers deliberately disguised their disrespectful intent by calling it “Respectful Adoption Language.” “Respectful” to adoptive parents, who are now to be called “parents,” as if the two natural parents no longer exist.  Deliberately creating the term “birthmother” was a further attempt to break the bond between mother and child; in addition to altering birth records to indicate that adopters gave birth, sealing the original birth certificate, and changing the child’s identity with a false adopted name. Adoption is built on lies and denials of truth, so we mothers shouldn’t be surprised that “Respectful Adoption Language” is just another deceitful ploy.  However, one truth that cannot be denied is the truth that thousands of mothers and their lost children have found in reunion: that the deep spiritual/emotional mother-child bond between them has never been broken, despite the decades they were separated. That natural motherhood is forever, that the relationship extended *past* birth. Adopters feeling threatened by this sometimes try to pressure adoptees to end reunions: instead, they should hold their brokers accountable for lying to them with the “as if born to” sales-pitch.  Now that we mothers have learned the truth about the invention of these ridiculous “birth” terms, what should we do about it?

Do we really want to continue to disrespect ourselves and allow the adoption industry to continue to disrespect us by applying and allowing others to apply these terms to us?

Or should we insist on applying truly respectful language, such as the term “natural mother,” which is still used in other countries who have not been as propagandized by the United States adoption industry?

I believe it is time for us mothers to defend ourselves and our children from further insults and attacks.

9
Forum Administration and Announcements / Privacy Policy
« on: March 22, 2020, 06:54:26 PM »
Privacy Policy

Our aims and duty of care

We recognise our duty of care with regards to your data and will always endeavour to do the right thing with the personal data you choose to share with us, including not compromising your anonymity; protecting your privacy; storing your data securely and giving you control over your own data.

Our mission at Privacy Policy

Our aims and duty of care

We recognise our duty of care with regards to your data and will always endeavour to do the right thing with the personal data you choose to share with us, including not compromising your anonymity; protecting your privacy; storing your data securely and giving you control over your own data.

Our mission at Forgotten Mothers UK is to make it a safe forum, be respectful, be able to share opinions, give advice and be supportive.  We believe that securing your data, preserving your anonymity, protecting your privacy, and giving you control over your data are an important aspect of that mission.

Data you give us when filling in forms (when joining, for example, or when using the site) helps us show you more relevant things.

Your data 

We store the IP address, cookies, approximate location, and any enquiries you’ve made. For registered members we also store the username and email address; discussions you may have with Forgotten Mothers UK site moderators; and a summary of decisions we’ve taken about you if we’ve reviewed your use of Forgotten Mothers UK forum for any reason. Registered members may also have given us more data on sign up.

We store your email address and contact you, and, we store things such as IP address and cookies so that our systems recognise you if you return to Soul of Adoption.

We don’t require your name or address when you view Forgotten Mothers UK content or register with the site, and you can use Forgotten Mothers UK fully without providing it.

We store the following data for all users, whether registered or not:

•   IP address, cookies, device ID to identify your web browser and device.
•   Page browsing information to enable us to show you more relevant things.
•   We do not pass your personal data to Google.  Google uses cookies and can learn about your browsing on Forgotten Mothers UK to inform Google ads and other Google services, as explained here: https://policies.google.com/privacy/partners

We store the following information for registered members:

•   Username and email address so that you can log in.
•   Discussions that take place over email or via Private Messages between you and Forgotten Mothers UK moderators so that we have a record.
•   A summary of any actions we may have taken with regard to your use of Forgotten Mothers UK (usually in response to reported posts) so that we have a record and can moderate fairly.

We also store the following optional data for registered members:

•   Registration data: facts about you that you choose to provide in the sign-up process, such as your date of birth and gender.  We do not share this information with anyone else. Provision of this data is optional; you can skip this stage.
•   Private Messages that you choose to send other users.
•   Data that you provide when taking part in surveys and polls.

Posting on Forgotten Mothers UK

Of your registration data, only your Forgotten Mothers UK username is displayed on screen for other Forgotten Mothers UK users to see but posts on Forgotten Mothers UK are visible to anyone on the internet. So, when posting, you should bear in mind that any personally identifying details you include in the text or pictures you post could be seen by anyone.

Registered members of Forgotten Mothers UK can start discussions and add comments, pictures and videos to existing discussions within Soul of Adoption forums. This is optional in the sense that it’s up to you whether you post on Forgotten Mothers UK or not; if you do post we always store the contents of those posts. These posts are public, but of your registration data, only your Forgotten Mothers UK username is displayed on the screen.

Forgotten Mothers UK forums are visible to search engines. This means that any personal information users choose to share in their posts on Forgotten Mothers UK can be seen widely. We cannot control who sees these posts.

Your permissions and choices

You can change your registration data and your email preferences on Forgotten Mothers UK at any time on your Profile page.

Your registration data

You can change the information that you provided when you registered, including your email address and Forgotten Mothers UK username, on your Profile page.

If you still wish to post on Forgotten Mothers UK you’ll then need to register a Forgotten Mothers UK username and password via our Registration page.

Your posts

If you’re ever worried that you’ve said too much, hit ‘report’ on one of your posts and explain the problem to our site Moderation team; they will be happy to help if they can. You can request a retrospective name change this means that all your previous posts will appear under a different username.

Your cookies

Most web browsers automatically accept cookies. A cookie is a small, temporary file which a web server sends to your web browser to be stored. Cookies allow Forgotten Mothers UK to identify your web browser and device if we see it again.

Cookies do not contain your name or other personal details and there are some benefits to you and Forgotten Mothers UK:

•   “Information storage and access” cookies allow you to perform certain functions like logging into Soul of Adoption. Cookies improve your experience of the site.
•   “Measurement” cookies allow us to gather information about how many people visit Forgotten Mothers UK, how often, and what they look at while on the site (a process called ‘analytics’). If you visit multiple pages or come back to Forgotten Mothers UK after a break, cookies mean we do not count you as a new visitor.

Data requests

If you’d like you can ask us to provide details of the personal information we hold about you, under the 2018 EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). To request this information, please email us at admin@forgottenmothersuk.org.uk

How long is your data held

Any personal data you give us, or that we collect when you use Forgotten Mothers UK will be retained by us for as long as it’s needed to perform its function. Registration data is held permanently unless you deregister. There’s no one-size-fits-all time limit, but we regularly review the data we hold to ensure it is still necessary.

Any personal data that you give us will be retained by us for as long as it's needed to perform its function.

There's no one-size-fits-all time limit, for example.  Information you give us when you sign up is stored permanently unless you choose to delete it or your Forgotten Mothers UK account is deleted.

Private Messages are stored until you delete them. If your account is deleted your messages will also be deleted.

We regularly review the data held by Forgotten Mothers UK and delete information that is no longer needed. All the data we hold is stored securely and only accessible to authorised staff members, who have regular data training.

Exceptional circumstances - safeguarding and official investigations

If there are obvious safeguarding reasons, or if we are contacted by the police about a possible breach of the law, we may share your personal information with public authorities without your permission. If we are compelled to do so by court order, we will share your personal data to the extent specified in the order.

If there are compelling safeguarding considerations, we may share your data with public authorities without your permission. We understand 'compelling safeguarding considerations' to mean credible evidence of imminent risk of serious harm, especially to a child or vulnerable person.

In such circumstances, on the judgement of a senior person within Soul of Adoption and in consultation with the Data Protection Officer, we may proactively contact relevant authorities (the police or ambulance service, for example) and share any relevant data we have, such as location data, relevant posts, private messages, details of any children who might be at risk, and descriptions of the situation.

If contacted by the police about possible breaches of the law disclosed in posts, we may sometimes on the judgement of a senior person within Forgotten Mothers UK and in consultation with the Data Protection Officer share your personal information with them. We will share your personal information if compelled to do so by court order, for example under Section 5 of the 2013 Defamation Act.

Complying with the law and best practice around data

The way we store and process data is compliant with the UK 1998 Data Protection Act, the 2018 EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and other relevant pieces of legislation.

The way that we store and process data is compliant with the following legislation:

UK Data Protection Act 1988 (DPA)
EU Data Protection Directive 1995 (DPD)
EU General Data Protection Regulation 2018 (GDPR)
ePrivacy Directive 2002 (amended 2009)

If our data is compromised

If our security is breached, our data is compromised or if we fail to comply with the law, we will tell affected users as soon as we become aware of the failure. We will report any data breach to the Information Commissioner and, if appropriate, the police, in a timely fashion.

Used appropriately, we strongly believe using data improves the user experience on Forgotten Mothers UK  Data you give us when joining the site can help us to improve the site.

If via human error, or via a breach of our security, we fail to comply with the law, we will let affected users know as soon as we are aware of it. We will report any data breach to the Information Commissioner in the UK and, depending on the circumstances, the Police.

Changes

Our skills or parts of them may change or be updated at any time. Further, this Privacy Policy might change.is to make it a safe forum, be respectful, be able to share opinions, give advice and be supportive.  We believe that securing your data, preserving your anonymity, protecting your privacy, and giving you control over your data are an important aspect of that mission.

Data you give us when filling in forms (when joining, for example, or when using the site) helps us show you more relevant things.

Your data 

We store the IP address, cookies, approximate location, and any enquiries you’ve made. For registered members we also store the username and email address; discussions you may have with Forgotten Mothers UK site moderators; and a summary of decisions we’ve taken about you if we’ve reviewed your use of Forgotten Mothers UK forum for any reason. Registered members may also have given us more data on sign up.

We store your email address and contact you, and, we store things such as IP address and cookies so that our systems recognise you if you return to Forgotten Mothers UK.

We don’t require your name or address when you view Forgotten Mothers UK content or register with the site, and you can use Forgotten Mothers UK fully without providing it.

We store the following data for all users, whether registered or not:

•   IP address, cookies, device ID to identify your web browser and device.
•   Page browsing information to enable us to show you more relevant things.
•   We do not pass your personal data to Google.  Google uses cookies and can learn about your browsing on Forgotten Mothers UK to inform Google ads and other Google services, as explained here: https://policies.google.com/privacy/partners

We store the following information for registered members:

•   Username and email address so that you can log in.
•   Discussions that take place over email or via Private Messages between you and Forgotten Mothers UK moderators so that we have a record.
•   A summary of any actions we may have taken with regard to your use of Forgotten Mothers UK (usually in response to reported posts) so that we have a record and can moderate fairly.

We also store the following optional data for registered members:

•   Registration data: facts about you that you choose to provide in the sign-up process, such as your date of birth and gender.  We do not share this information with anyone else. Provision of this data is optional; you can skip this stage.
•   Private Messages that you choose to send other users.
•   Data that you provide when taking part in surveys and polls.

Posting on Forgotten Mothers UK

Of your registration data, only your Forgotten Mothers UK username is displayed on screen for other Forgotten Mothers UK users to see but posts on Forgotten Mothers UK are visible to anyone on the internet. So, when posting, you should bear in mind that any personally identifying details you include in the text or pictures you post could be seen by anyone.

Registered members of Forgotten Mothers UK can start discussions and add comments, pictures and videos to existing discussions within Forgotten Mothers UK forums. This is optional in the sense that it’s up to you whether you post on Forgotten Mothers UK or not; if you do post we always store the contents of those posts. These posts are public, but of your registration data, only your Forgotten Mothers UK username is displayed on the screen.

Forgotten Mothers UK forums are visible to search engines. This means that any personal information users choose to share in their posts on Forgotten Mothers UK can be seen widely. We cannot control who sees these posts.

Your permissions and choices

You can change your registration data and your email preferences on Forgotten Mothers UK at any time on your Profile page.

Your registration data

You can change the information that you provided when you registered, including your email address and Forgotten Mothers UK username, on your Profile page.

If you still wish to post on Forgotten Mothers UK you’ll then need to register a Forgotten Mothers UK username and password via our Registration page.

Your posts

If you’re ever worried that you’ve said too much, hit ‘report’ on one of your posts and explain the problem to our site Moderation team; they will be happy to help if they can. You can request a retrospective name change this means that all your previous posts will appear under a different username.

Your cookies

Most web browsers automatically accept cookies. A cookie is a small, temporary file which a web server sends to your web browser to be stored. Cookies allow Forgotten Mothers UK to identify your web browser and device if we see it again.

Cookies do not contain your name or other personal details and there are some benefits to you and Forgotten Mothers UK:

•   “Information storage and access” cookies allow you to perform certain functions like logging into Forgotten Mothers UK. Cookies improve your experience of the site.
•   “Measurement” cookies allow us to gather information about how many people visit Forgotten Mothers UK, how often, and what they look at while on the site (a process called ‘analytics’). If you visit multiple pages or come back to Forgotten Mothers UK after a break, cookies mean we do not count you as a new visitor.

Data requests

If you’d like you can ask us to provide details of the personal information we hold about you, under the 2018 EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). To request this information, please email us at admin@forgottenmothersuk.org.uk

How long is your data held

Any personal data you give us, or that we collect when you use Forgotten Mothers UK will be retained by us for as long as it’s needed to perform its function. Registration data is held permanently unless you deregister. There’s no one-size-fits-all time limit, but we regularly review the data we hold to ensure it is still necessary.

Any personal data that you give us will be retained by us for as long as it's needed to perform its function.

There's no one-size-fits-all time limit, for example.  Information you give us when you sign up is stored permanently unless you choose to delete it or your Forgotten Mothers UK account is deleted.

Private Messages are stored until you delete them. If your account is deleted your messages will also be deleted.

We regularly review the data held by Forgotten Mothers UK and delete information that is no longer needed. All the data we hold is stored securely and only accessible to authorised staff members, who have regular data training.

Exceptional circumstances - safeguarding and official investigations

If there are obvious safeguarding reasons, or if we are contacted by the police about a possible breach of the law, we may share your personal information with public authorities without your permission. If we are compelled to do so by court order, we will share your personal data to the extent specified in the order.

If there are compelling safeguarding considerations, we may share your data with public authorities without your permission. We understand 'compelling safeguarding considerations' to mean credible evidence of imminent risk of serious harm, especially to a child or vulnerable person.

In such circumstances, on the judgement of a senior person within Forgotten Mothers UK and in consultation with the Data Protection Officer, we may proactively contact relevant authorities (the police or ambulance service, for example) and share any relevant data we have, such as location data, relevant posts, private messages, details of any children who might be at risk, and descriptions of the situation.

If contacted by the police about possible breaches of the law disclosed in posts, we may sometimes on the judgement of a senior person within Forgotten Mothers UK and in consultation with the Data Protection Officer share your personal information with them. We will share your personal information if compelled to do so by court order, for example under Section 5 of the 2013 Defamation Act.

Complying with the law and best practice around data

The way we store and process data is compliant with the UK 1998 Data Protection Act, the 2018 EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and other relevant pieces of legislation.

The way that we store and process data is compliant with the following legislation:

UK Data Protection Act 1988 (DPA)
EU Data Protection Directive 1995 (DPD)
EU General Data Protection Regulation 2018 (GDPR)
ePrivacy Directive 2002 (amended 2009)

If our data is compromised

If our security is breached, our data is compromised or if we fail to comply with the law, we will tell affected users as soon as we become aware of the failure. We will report any data breach to the Information Commissioner and, if appropriate, the police, in a timely fashion.

Used appropriately, we strongly believe using data improves the user experience on Forgotten Mothers UK.  Data you give us when joining the site can help us to improve the site.

If via human error, or via a breach of our security, we fail to comply with the law, we will let affected users know as soon as we are aware of it. We will report any data breach to the Information Commissioner in the UK and, depending on the circumstances, the Police.

Changes

Our skills or parts of them may change or be updated at any time. Further, this Privacy Policy might change.

10
General Discussion / Welcome!
« on: March 22, 2020, 06:22:13 PM »
Welcome to Forgotten Mothers UK!

This forum is specifically for mothers who were forced to surrender their babies to adoption, however, it is also open to anybody who can be supportive and can influence the wrongs of the past.

Pages: [1]