Tony Ashby is on hunger strike outside the PM David Cameron's house this 2013 Christmas
Above
is his Christmas table set with two empty spaces for his two daughters,
who endure unnecessary care placements. There is no reason why he could
not care for them.
He is on hunger strike over the Christmas period outside David Cameron's Oxfordshire home.
"The
aim of this protest is to raise public and media awareness of the great
injustices many children and families face in our family courts. This
Christmas lots of children will be spending it apart from their loved
ones and families will be destroyed.
Your support is welcome and will be much appreciated. "
Regards ,
Tony Ashby
FACEBOOK SUPPORT PAGE:
The Oxford Mail article (link):
The Witney Gazette:
IN TONY'S FAMILY LAW CASE:
- IT WAS ACCEPTED THE CHILDREN WOULD BE BETTER REMOVED FROM THEIR MOTHER
- TONY WORKED AWAY MOST WEEKS, COMING BACK ON WEEKENDS
- HIS OWN, PUBLICLY FUNDED SOLICITORS DID NOT KEEP HIM FULLY INFORMED AND DID NOT RIGOROUSLY REPRESENT HIS TRUE POSITION
- TONY WAS FORCED TO SEE ONLY A COUPLE OF HOURS OF HIS KIDS EVERY WEEK AT A CONTACT CENTER
- It upset him to the point of his needing to stay in a mental health unit, being discharged after four days, diagnosed as having developed a stress disorder
- his upset was used to say he was not fit to father the children
- there is no record to suggest he was a threat to the children
- THE LOCAL AUTHORITY SAID HE DID NOT NEED TO UNDERGO A PARENTAL ASSESSMENT AS HE PASSED AN 'INITIAL ASSESSMENT' WITH FLYING COLOURS
- The Local authority then said he could not have the children transferred to his sole care as he had not had a parental assessment
- THE LOCAL AUTHORITY WITH-HELD KEY EVIDENCE FROM THE COURT AT THE FINAL HEARING
- The children's foster carer notes stated that they wanted to see their father and live with him
- the foster carer's notes tell of children being more frustrated and worried as time went on
- the elder child was so frustrated at not living with her father that she was throwing stones at the foster carer's car.
- the foster carer was excellent; she did her job well and accurately recorded everything, only for the local authority to bury the evidence and make sure it did not reach the ears of the court
- THE LOCAL AUTHORITY HIRED A PSYCHOLOGIST WHO:
- performed an 'attachment test' on the children - several months after they had been in care. They would not have known what the test was about. After so long away from reasonable time with their parents, the children should not have been subjected to psychometric tests but observed with their parents.
- claimed Tony had a personality disorder, but did not state which one, or whether the obvious stress he bore was simply due to the perverse situation his children were being forced to endure
- THE SUPERVISED SESSIONS OF CONTACT WERE INDEPENDENTLY RECORDED BY THE CONTACT CENTER STAFF AND NOTES TAKEN.
- in all records, the children expressed their love of their father and did not want the sessions to end
- THESE NOTES WERE NOT SHOWN TO THE COURT
- THE ONLY SUPERVISED CONTACT SESSION REPORTED TO HAVE NOT GONE WELL WAS THE ONE WHERE THE PSYCHOLOGIST AND LOCAL AUTHORITY SOCIAL WORKER WERE PRESENT. BOTH WERE SUPPOSED TO TAKE NOTES. THEY CHOSE TO USE AN ALTERNATIVE VENUE THAN THE INDEPENDENT CONTACT CENTER. THIS GAVE THEM CONTROL OVER THE EVIDENCE.
- the bad report on this occasion contradicts the dozens of other sessions. The local authority refused to hand over the notes made by the social worker even when told by a judge to present them for Tony's Appeal. In truth, no notes other than the psychologist's were made. They were doctored because what she saw contradicted the slanted evidence she wanted to present to the court on behalf of the local authority, who paid her fees.
- the doctored contact center report was the only one presented to the court
- AT HIS FINAL HEARING, UPON SEEING THE FULL CASE FILE, TONY TOLD HIS BARRISTER HE DID NOT AGREE TO HIS KIDS GOING INTO CARE.
- HIS BARRISTER ABANDONED HIM, LEAVING HIM TO REPRESENT HIMSELF.
- THE COURT MAGISTRATES' WHEELED IN A TROLLEY OF LEGAL BOOKS AND TOLD TONY TO 'GET ON WITH IT.'
- after three days with no lawyer, and with his facing lawyers presenting doctored evidence on the other side, the Hereford magistrates ordered his kids into foster care
- THE RESPONSIBLE SOCIAL WORKER LIED TO THE COURT ABOUT TONY'S PARENTS NOT WANTING TO TAKE CARE OF HIS CHILDREN IN THE EVENT THAT TONY WAS NOT ALLOWED TO. NO PROPER KINSHIP CARE ASSESSMENT WAS DONE, DESPITE THEIR BEING HIGHLY RECOMMENDED EARLY IN CARE PROCEEDINGS.
- AT TONY'S APPEAL, LISTED FOR A FULL DAY, HIS JUSTICE RUNDLE WAS EXPECTED TO SIT. AN UNEXPECTED REPLACEMENT HAPPENED ON THE DAY. HIS JUSTICE HOOPER SAT FOR A SHORT TIME, THEN WALZED OFF TO ANOTHER HEARING AT ANOTHER COURT, CAME BACK AFTER HIS LUNCH AND REJECTED THE APPEAL, CLAIMING TO HAVE READ EVERYTHING IN THE MEANTIME, INCLUDING A FULL A4 LEGAL BINDER OF POSITIVE DOCUMENTATION EVIDENCE NOT SHOWN TO THE MAGISTRATES AT THEIR FINAL HEARING. HIS JUSTICE TOBY HOOPER HAD BEEN MADE A RECORDER OF HEREFORD AND AS SUCH WOULD PRESUMABLY HAVE HAD CLOSE LINKS TO THE LOCAL AUTHORITY.
Tony's
children are now to be split up and sent to different foster carers.
The siblings, who have never been parted, will not be at the same home
for Christmas. The eldest girl has been told she will be with the new
foster carers until she is 21. This indicates the social services are
not inclined to adhere to their statutory duty to reunite children with
their parents or take the child's wishes into account. Foster carer
agencies are paid around £400 per week per child from the public purse.
The social services are able to do anything so long as they append the
decision with the universal sticky label that they are doing it in the
'best interests of the child.' There is no perceivable benefit to these
children in the persecution and smearing of and separation from their
decent father, followed by the separation of the children themselves.
That is a sign of a failed foster placement. Instead of undertaking due
process and assistance so the girls can live with their father, the
interests and long term profits of the foster agency continue to be
elevated above those of the children.
No comments:
Post a Comment