Children’s services in Britain is ripping toddlers away from innocent loving families to meet adoption quotas. The government has set quotas for the number of children under five to be placed in forced adoptions. The government makes money off of these adoptions by charging desperate barren parents huge fees for healthy, attractive children.

This heinous action mirrors conspiracy theories in the United States. In the United States, child protective services in various states have been accused of targeting attractive, healthy children, especially those with blue eyes and blond hair, while ignoring the abused children of drug addicts in the ghetto.

The child stolen by protective services in this British story comes from a family full of people with blonde hair and blue eyes. The boy was healthy. Children like this are easy to sell to parents that are desperate to adopt. The state can charge huge amounts of money in fees. It is one of the most heinous government revenue generating hustles imaginable.

From UK Daily Mail…

You could be forgiven for thinking Wendy Tricker has the perfect life. A five-bedroom house in Shropshire; a good career as a management accountant; a supportive and successful husband; two BMWs, a Mercedes and three acres of land filled with a menagerie of animals.

It’s a lifestyle their little grandson adored; running around the grounds, feeding the ducks and chickens, helping Granny walk her beloved eight-year-old German Shepherd, Rupert, whenever he visited.

But the four-year-old boy hasn’t been to see her for nearly 18 months. And Wendy hasn’t seen him at all since last May. Nor has her daughter Charlotte, 21, the youngster’s mother.

There’s been no family rift. Instead, the Trickers insist they are the victims of a social services department hell-bent on taking a child away from his perfectly safe, loving home.

And, short of a miracle tomorrow — when the young boy’s adoption case will be finally rubber-stamped by the courts  — those social services will be successful.

Wendy is among a growing number of grandparents who maintain their families are being taken from them for the most insubstantial of reasons.

Last month, this paper reported on the case of Graham and Gail Curlew, from Sheringham, Norfolk, whose grandchildren were removed from them with no reason ever given.

Then there were Lee and Katrina Parker, from Colchester, Essex, who very nearly lost their grand-daughter simply because social services thought their family, with seven children, was too large.

It is hard to think of a worse wrong the state could sanction. And yet, partly because of the ongoing privacy of the family courts, the outcry doesn’t seem to be forthcoming.

Maybe it’s because most of us simply don’t believe it could happen to us; that only dysfunctional, neglectful families have children who are taken into care.

‘They decided to take him from us the moment we set foot in the hospital,’ Charlotte says. ‘They didn’t want me to be a good mum: they wanted adoption. Lovely children are in demand for adoption. He’s been so loved, he’ll be easy to love. If he’d really been abused, he’d be difficult, and who wants “damaged goods”?’

The government target is to increase adoptions of children in care. Children who go back to their parents — or to loving grandparents — do not meet the target. Thus, in 1995 the number of children under five adopted in England was a mere 560, while children under five whose care ceased (a term that includes those who go back to live with their families) was double this.

By 2012, the number whose care ceased was much the same, while adoptions had more than quadrupled: of these a staggering 1,100 were ominously described as ‘consent dispensed with’.

‘The obsession with adoption is splitting up many families merely because of government diktat,’ says John Hemming MP, chairman of Families for Justice which fights for those who suffer at the courts’ hands.

‘I expect in years to come the then government will apologise to the children for what has been done to them today. What matters now, however, is to change the system so the needs of children come to the fore rather than government policy.

‘In particular, the system ignores grandparents. For children to be taken into care is often a traumatic step, whereas staying with grandparents is normal life and a far better option than foster care. However, grandparents, uncles and aunts have no right to be heard by the court.’

Wendy agrees: ‘The impact this has had on my grandson will never heal. Any physical trauma he suffered was gone within days.  Losing his birth family will haunt him for ever.

‘And that’s not even thinking of the rest of us. I’ll be 65 before I see him again [when he turns 18 and is allowed to search for his biological family], if I ever do. He gave my 82-year-old mother reason to go on living after she suffered a stroke. Yesterday, she pointed at his toy in her house — she won’t let us remove it — and the tears were streaming down her face. She will never see him again.’

And what of Charlotte, who’s been warned by her barrister that if she has any other children, they will be taken into care, too?

‘If I could just hold him one more time,’ she says, ‘I think I would give my life.’

Source : http://conservative-headlines.com/2014/02/police-s

Letter to speaker centres on case of six-year-old in London removed from her Latvian mother after claims of neglect and says social services breached international law

Latvia’s parliament has formally complained to the House of Commons that children of Latvian descent are being illegally and forcibly adopted by British families.

Adoption is the ultimate for of child abuse. While adopters say the child was "Chosen", the child has no say in the matter. Is it any surprise then that the failure rate of adoption is as high as 1 in 4? Or that the suicide rate is very high? Or that there are probably millions of people around the world suffering from a "Primal Wound" and desperate to find out who they are?

Adoption is a selfish act, you take other peoples children to raise as your own on the basis that if they were left with their family, that they might have a bad outcome in life and the almost guarantee them bad outcomes? A judge once said; "Adoption is the breaking up of one family to create another". Children are not pets that can be moved from home to home. Biology means everything, babies start their relationship with their parents in the womb. These babies do not come from "orphanages", there are very few orphanages left in the world. The Adoption Industry is a legal child-trafficking operation, there is big money to be made.