Sunday, 19 July 2009

Appalling evil of State functionaries & Rerum Novarum

Christopher Booker reports in the Telegraph the case of a normal, loving family whose five year old daughter was forcibly removed by the State and who is now to be put up for adoption, to lose contact with her natural parents and family for all her childhood.

No one who has any knowledge of this family is in any doubt that the action is completely unjustified; there is no suggestion, even from the stupid and deluded State functionaries who are pursuing the vendetta, that the parents were violent, or abused her. They seem to have made a snap decision based on an erroneous impression of a 'messy house'.

God help a Catholic academic of my acquaintance, whose immensely loving but chaotic and utterly disorganised home is filled with the laughter of his four children; the State 'mess police' would recoil at the state of his wife's studio, have vapours at the teetering piles of books and papers in the room he uses to work, and no doubt ascribe demonic intentions to the Byzantine icons that decorate the hallway with improbably painful scenes of Christian martyrdom.

This distasteful case reminds me of the authority that the family has lost under this evil Leviathan State; Leo XIII's Rerum Novarum reminds us what relationship should pertain;
No human law can abolish the natural and original right of marriage, nor in any way limit the chief and principal purpose of marriage ordained by God's authority from the beginning: "Increase and multiply."(3) Hence we have the family, the "society" of a man's house - a society very small, one must admit, but none the less a true society, and one older than any State. Consequently, it has rights and duties peculiar to itself which are quite independent of the State.

A family, no less than a State, is, as We have said, a true society, governed by an authority peculiar to itself, that is to say, by the authority of the father. Provided, therefore, the limits which are prescribed by the very purposes for which it exists be not transgressed, the family has at least equal rights with the State in the choice and pursuit of the things needful to its preservation and its just liberty. We say, "at least equal rights"; for, inasmuch as the domestic household is antecedent, as well in idea as in fact, to the gathering of men into a community, the family must necessarily have rights and duties which are prior to those of the community, and founded more immediately in nature. If the citizens, if the families on entering into association and fellowship, were to experience hindrance in a commonwealth instead of help, and were to find their rights attacked instead of being upheld, society would rightly be an object of detestation rather than of desire.
Thus only when the fundamental rights of family members are 'transgressed' in Leo's words, by physical or sexual abuse for example, does 'society' in the person either of the State (bad) or of neighbours and the local community (good) have the right to interfere. In the absence of such evidence, a mere deviation by a family from the prissy norms of a low-level State functionary, be such deviation however eccentric, gives no right of interference.

And before anyone quotes the case of Baby Peter, a whore sharing a house with two of her for-today sexual partners as well as the poor bastard by-blows of her whoredom doesn't constitute a 'family' - whatever the views of Harriet Harman and her evil doctrine - and should never have been supported by public money or provision in the first place.

Parhaps Labour ought to listen to the words of Barack Obama on the subject.


Anonymous said...

The family must fight this in every way that they can.

The local Citizens Advice Bureau is a starter. Then, if the family is a low income one, they should seek legal advice for a legislative review (I think that's what it's called) of this case to ascertain whether the authorities have acted in a draconian way, & whether they have legally justifiable grounds to have done so in this case.

Let's hope the family is a low income one, because if they are, the taxpayer pays for their case. It's much harder if you have a bit of money, because you have to pay yourself - unlike in the USA, lawyers in the UK don't seem to do "pro bono" cases.

Best of luck to them. My advice: never stop fighting the evil state!

Pat said...

Part of the problem is that social services are expected to get it right. Of course a body of angels would be nice- but there isn't one.
I'm sure most social workers are the same as anyone else- they need an income to support themselves and their families and they go for the best they themselves can get. Neither Sainthood nor even a vocation can be expected.
We need to accept that cases such as Maria Caldwell, and baby P will continue to crop up whatever we do- and not throw our liberty (or our money away) in a folorn hope of achieving perfection. By and large adopted parents are less good parents than real ones, foster parents are worse, paid functionaries in care homes are functionaries in carehomes or generally awful (even the good ones work normal hours- not 24/7 for a lifetime so they're not there most of the time, and they take holidays and they might move jobs).
It seems to me an example of the pursuit of perfection making things worse.

JuliaM said...

"Part of the problem is that social services are expected to get it right. "

The main part of the problem is (as we have seen with some police cases recently) that once having made the initial allegation, they are hugely reluctant to back down and say 'OK, we misread this one, no case to answer'.

Once in the system, you are presumed guilty, and every event is then scrutinised for guilt, and if none found, discarded.

JuliaM said...

"We need to accept that cases such as Maria Caldwell, and baby P will continue to crop up whatever we do.."

The fact that there exists parents determined to abuse? Yes.

The fact that the failings of the SS are just fated to happen anyway? No!

We need to 'learn lessons' from each failure in order not to have it happen a second time.

Budgie said...

The notion, by Pat, that there are excuses for the gross errors perpetrated by the Social Services is dangerous rubbish. If the SS sets itself up as the arbiter of acceptable behaviour, then they will be judged on their own reckoning.

Most Social Workers are not the same as everyone else. There is a clear ethos of support for state interference, if not outright support for Liebore. Middle class, independent values are treated in a hostile manner.

Real (blood) parents are disregarded whilst live in lovers are given the benefit of the doubt. Far too much account is taken of supposed ethnic or cultural differences, leading to cases such as Victoria Climbie.

The whole SS industry is rotten to the core, setting out to undermine the family (outrageously because they have hijacked the words, the family must be defined as two married heterosexual blood parents of their own children). The SS aim to destroy British Christian based society rooted in the independent family.

banned said...

One problem is that as the law stands once the case has reached the childrens Court the Parents are forbidden to discuss the case with anyone other than their lawyer and their MP.
In this way CAFCASS gag the very people whose children they are stealing. Once an adoption process is underway Judges have ruled that it is in the Childs best interest for it to proceed no matter how inept the civil servants have been proved to be and no matter how blameless the parents.

In a Kafkaesque detail, if the parents of the stolen child show any negative attitudes towards the child stealers this is presented as " hostility " and thus confirms their unfitness as parents.