Newcastle, northern England, November 13th, 2013. The Brazilian woman, XX, 40, received a visit from a social worker. The news was bad. XX, who had five days to leave her home, had lost custody of her two daughters for social services. The reason: she would not have a home in which to house her daughters. The social worker, XY, handed her a document; she had to sign section 20 of the Children’s Act in the UK. It was a contract whereby XX was to hand over full custody of KA, 2 years old, and KR, 12. In sum, both girls could be put up for adoption. With no time to consult an attorney, the Brazilian mother, who was unaware of what the contract meant, hesitated. Besides, thought the Brazilian mother, how could XY, the social worker, know she would be homeless within five days? XX, from the State of São Paulo, Brazil, refused to sign the document. XX had been residing in the UK for 14 years and knew enough about the British authorities, who usually keep a cordial shade to hide a double game.
Inflexible, the British social worker XY said that if the Brazilian mother refused to sign she would have to call the police. Her daughters, she warned, would be taken anyway. She had now adopted a more truculent manner. The Brazilian mother, who is a Hare Krishna, hoped there was some truth in the promise of the social worker: once she had a new home, she would get her daughters back, both from different fathers, the first from a German man, and the second from a Briton. Two weeks later, says XX to CartaCapital, she got a house. What happened to the daughters? They stayed where they were, that is, under the “protection” of social assistance. “I was mentally destroyed, having lost over 110 pounds in a month,” tells me XX. The case of a 5.5-foot tall woman who weighed 198 pounds after giving birth to KA, suffering a drop of 88 pounds would worry Brazilian doctors. However, in the UK it seemed to have had no effect. “Here in the UK there is not the slightest concern for the fate of foreigners and their children,” a British source that provides services to the government tells me. XX was just one more victim of a British systematic forced adoption market, the only one in Europe. It is worth 2 billion pounds annually.
Sometimes these cases involve the British upper classes. Such was the case with Victoria Haigh, who now lives in Paris with her second daughter, R. Haigh, now 43, is a former champion jockey and horse trainer. In Britain, she lived with her first daughter, identified as X. In 2010, Haigh was deemed unfit to care for her daughter by X’s father, backed by the judiciary. Haigh had claimed that the girl’s father, David Tune, sexually abused their daughter. By losing custody of X, Victoria challenged the British legal system. The result: the daughter was returned to her father, Tune. Victoria tried to approach her daughter in a parking lot. She was sentenced to three years in jail in December 2011. Victoria served nine months.
Victoria was arrested again when she invited X to the christening of her half-sister, but was released in May last year. “When I was pregnant with R, I fled to the Republic of Ireland to give birth to my daughter there, and now my Irish daughter and I live in Paris,” says Haigh. She claims that her husband is a pedophile, and abused their first daughter. “But he did not cause problems for the system like me,” adds the horse trainer, who says she is ashamed to be British.
In fact, this mafia scheme involves judges, lawyers, psychiatrists and, of course, social workers. According to Ian Josephs, who runs Forced Adoption (see interview), the scheme involves “more than 25,000 children.” “They are removed annually from British parents, most of whom have not committed crimes.” A significant share of children are placed for adoption. Josephs adds: “Many institutions are bad, every year 10,000 children go missing in the UK, and the number who die is very high.” My source close to the British government claims that there are pedophile rings that prey on these “missing” children.
Josephs does not have details about pedophile rings. He recalls, however, that when he was a British county counselor in the 1960s, he worked on the case of a mother who lost a child to foster care. The boy, 12 years old, with an IQ of 150, was placed in a secluded school four times more expensive than Eton boarding school, the most prestigious private school in Britain. Josephs asked the boy if the school was good. “Rubbish,” snapped the boy. There is something positive? “Yes, the money I earn.” How? “Sleeping with the teachers.” On Josephs’s website, Forced Adoption, we see similar cases to XX’s, the Brazilian mother. It also guides parents and offers contact for financial assistance to flee the UK. Mothers and fathers may have flaws, says Josephs, but most do not deserve to be separated from their children. These kids, says the government source, “are placed for adoption like dogs and cats.”
There was the recent case of the Italian Alessandra Pacchieri, then 33 years old. In the summer of 2012, she went to London and applied to be a stewardess for the airline Ryanair. Pacchieri, who is bipolar, was pregnant. She passed the test. Pacchieri started having panic attacks and called the social services. She was then forced to have a cesarean. The social services claimed that because of her mental problems she was unable to raise her newborn child. Now outside the UK, Pacchieri cannot see her baby. According to the Italian daily Il Fatto Quotidiano, the case triggered a legal battle between Italy and the United Kingdom. Pacchieri, who had stopped taking the drugs in order not to affect her daughter in the UK, asked an American aunt to take care of the child. But, surely, the baby will remain in Britain. Josephs, from Forced Adoption, asks: “Why does this not happen in Italy, France and other countries?” Simple, the government source retorts: “Italians treat people humanely.” XX, the Brazilian mother, was not treated humanely by a system that uses the so-called “politically correct” behavior, as Joseph emphasizes, “to appropriate babies and put them up for adoption.”
There was, it is worth remembering, the case of a Brazilian Edygleison Martins dos Santos, who in 2006, at age 3, was held in England. Reason: his parents were accused of beating him. In fact, he had spots on his body and his nose was bleeding because he suffered from a low platelet count and Wiscott Aldrich syndrome. The parents fled to avoid arrest, and left the child with an uncle. A year later, the British discovered that the boy was sick and needed a bone marrow transplant and sent him back to Brazil. At 5 years old, in 2008, Edygleison died of heart failure at the Hospital das Clínicas in Curitiba, in southern Brazil. There is another case of a Brazilian requesting anonymity currently going through the UK courts. She used heroin sporadically and lost her baby to the social services, as she is allegedly unable to care for the newborn.
As for XX, the Brazilian mother of KR and KA, she can only see her children twice a week, each time
for one hour, under supervision of social workers. When the Brazilian mother cries, the assistants write reports highlighting her emotional instability. Ditto if she cries in a plethora of court hearings. Sometimes these reactions are induced. Just before a hearing, the Brazilian mother was told her baby was sick. It was a lie to make her cry. Positive reports from three social workers made about XX were discarded. The only ones considered of any worth are those by XY, the social worker who originally took her two children away, and other assistants who wrote reports after the removal of the children. According to a trial in August, KR will stay with a foster family until she is 18 years old. XX sent letters of KR to CartaCapital, in which she says she wants to return to her mother. The fate of KA, the two year old, will be decided in January 2015. In the meantime, the Brazilian mother lives in distress. She needs ten thousand pounds for expenses for litigation to prevent the adoption of her daughters. Perhaps, if she gets the money, she can prove how the British system is nothing but a sham.