The selected target areas are
1.The influence of the psychiatric profession on social workers in child protection and the consequent alliance of social workers and the psychiatric profession.
2.Poor standards and corruption in the supply of expert witness reports in the family courts.
3. Psychiatric professionals prescribing mind-altering drugs to children
We begin this with a video and a review of the video by an expert.
See Mother on the run video here.
See Ben Capel's review of Mother on the run here.
Poor standards and corruption in the supply of expert witness reports in the family courts.
One high profile case has been chosen as an example of what is going on in the employment of psychologist expert witnesses in the family courts, beginning with a story by John Bingham, Social Affairs Editor of The Telegraph, published on 10 Dec 2015. The title is 'Father unable to cope because of own parent's Holocaust ordeal.'
It can be read here.
It attempts to be all the more convincing by added images of children in extermination camp dress and the railway lines leading into the camps.
The summary says, 'Boy taken into care amid claims father suffering 'vicarious trauma'.'
Melanie Gill, a psychologist who acted as an expert witness, told the court the father appeared to be suffering a form of 'vicarious trauma' - a term more commonly used by counsellors to describe a phenomenon associated with accounts of extreme suffering or pain. Ironically, or fittingly, she was acting for the father's barrister, although her report appears to be used by the judge against him.
Judge Veronica Hammerton said that the father did not accept his parents' suffering as the explanation for his problems and, in support of the psychologist, "Her view was that the father was suffering from unresolved trauma described as a 'vicarious trauma' from his parents' experience of the Holocaust. - - - the father is 'continually overwhelmed by his traumatic antecedents, associated with both his and his parents'traumatic past with the result that he is sometimes unable within his thought processing to consistently represent J accurately as a child separate from himself'."
What we are not told
From what follows, make your own judgement about how much you can believe from a state with compliant 'expert witnesses' and journalists.
The father is a Russian-born concert pianist who was living with his 12 year old son in a London region. Before the events culminating in the court ruling above, the boy had already been taken into 'care' for over a year, which action the father believed had damaged him. Despite being returned, the father defied the confidentiality demands of both the local authority and the courts and publicly protested about what he believed to be a breach of family rights. A major motivation for these protests was what he believed to be continuing hostile Social Services intervention. Also as an artist he may have placed too much reliance on media interest.
During the summer of 2014, the BBC filmed some of his public protests outside the offices of the local authority and the court. They also sent a journalist and camera to Ireland to film and record Brian Rothery (the writer of this web site), co-ordinator of the Ectopia help network, giving him advice by telephone, while another camera filmed him in London at the other end of the line. All this footage was suppressed by injunction initiated by the local authority and at the same time the father was threatened with both imprisonment and mental sectioning.
In March 2015 Russia Today (RT) took up the story, making him one of the main families in a near hour long documentary on the UK's forced adoption scheme. Despite court rules, they both filmed and named father and son and identified the local authority. The documentary was screened world-wide and brought responses from as far away as Argentina and the US. To the surprise of all who believed that RT were outside the jurisdiction of the UK courts, the local authority sought and obtained not just an injunction against RT but an order threatening to seize the UK assets of RT (which has a bureau in London) unless all versions of the documentary worldwide were taken down. RT removed all English language versions.
A supporter of the father re-uploaded the suppressed video in the hope that others will copy it and replace it online should this version be removed also.
The expert reports
There were two expert reports at the heart of this human tragedy, the second, mentioned above, requested by his barrister - the Gill report and used by the judge to take his son for the second and apparently final time.
The first was a damning report used when they took his son for the first time into foster care for over a year, commissioned by the local authority. This was the Celest Van Rooyen report which will be examined first.
The Van Rooyen report
It is purely co-incidental that this expert was severely criticized in a later case by a judge. Her report was chosen because it was both used in a high profile case and made available to us by the father. Its inclusion here does not imply that we believe her intentions to have been dishonourable.
Critique of the Van Rooyen report
The Gill report
This report was chosen because it was both used in a high profile case and made available to us by the father. Its inclusion here does not imply that we believe the expert's intentions to have been dishonourable. We believe her to have been well-intentioned but wrong.
Critique of the Gill report
Go to the search for honourable professionals.
Psychiatric professionals prescribing mind-altering drugs to children
Back to index page.
Contact us by email at