72 year old Grandmother arrested for hugging her grandaughter

a reply to: daftpink
No I do not. Too many facts are missing. Why was this girl put in their custody to begin with? Like Vasa said, their is 8 years of missing things that we dont know. If you want to rush judgement then so be it. Many people did that with a few high profile cases here in the states recently and look how that turned out.

a reply to: daftpink

truthaholics.wordpress.com...

The girl, said to have a mental age of nine, is so unhappy in “care” that, according to Mrs Danby, she has run away 175 times. She was forbidden to see her father after he was jailed for roughly restraining her from “running into a busy road when she was having a temper tantrum”. He has twice since been in prison, once for waving at his daughter when he saw her in a passing taxi on her way to school.

The girls family seems like they love the girl very much. I still can't figure out why she was taken from her family but if I had to guess it would probably have something to do with the girls cognitive capacity. The state is wrong here, in my opinion, dead wrong.

Martin Cardinal, the Court of Protection judge who sentenced Mrs Danby, said: “I am sure this grandmother needs restraint.” It was Judge Cardinal who made news last year when it was revealed that he had secretly jailed Wanda Maddocks –for removing her 80-year-old father from a care home where he had been placed by social workers, and where he was being so ill-treated that she feared for his life.

originally posted by: LoverBoy
a reply to: daftpink
No I do not. Too many facts are missing. Why was this girl put in their custody to begin with? Like Vasa said, their is 8 years of missing things that we dont know. If you want to rush judgement then so be it. Many people did that with a few high profile cases here in the states recently and look how that turned out.

Fair enough I see your from the US but liberties are being eroded here in the UK. I did post other links but you possibly didn't read them. I have issues with the fact this woman's fate was decided in a secret court as these were supposed to be banned in 2013. She was also not present to try to defend herself but you're ok with that, I'm not and I'll keep raising awareness on these issues in the UK as are many MPs and other campaigners.

originally posted by: daftpink

originally posted by: LoverBoy
a reply to: daftpink
No I do not. Too many facts are missing. Why was this girl put in their custody to begin with? Like Vasa said, their is 8 years of missing things that we dont know. If you want to rush judgement then so be it. Many people did that with a few high profile cases here in the states recently and look how that turned out.

Fair enough I see your from the US but liberties are being eroded here in the UK. I did post other links but you possibly didn't read them. I have issues with the fact this woman's fate was decided in a secret court as these were supposed to be banned in 2013. She was also not present to try to defend herself but you're ok with that, I'm not and I'll keep raising awareness on these issues in the UK as are many MPs and other campaigners.

Well, to be fair, it doesn't mention a secret court, but says she had a judgement against her in her absence. That could mean that she just didn't show up for it.

Kathleen Danby, 72, was sentenced in her absence to three months in jail by the secretive Court of Protection in April after a judge heard she embraced the vulnerable girl, 19, against the wishes of social services.

Either way, neither the grandmother nor the father seem to be able to follow the court rulings since they originally started back in 2007, as the article mentions on numerous occasions that they have both been witnessed and arrested for contact.

Another question I have is how is this girl contacting them if she is under government care? How did she meet the grandmother at a Pub under government care? This story really makes no sense to me other than my hunch that it is politically driven and leaving a LOT of stuff out in order to skew judgement.

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: daftpink

originally posted by: LoverBoy
a reply to: daftpink
No I do not. Too many facts are missing. Why was this girl put in their custody to begin with? Like Vasa said, their is 8 years of missing things that we dont know. If you want to rush judgement then so be it. Many people did that with a few high profile cases here in the states recently and look how that turned out.

Fair enough I see your from the US but liberties are being eroded here in the UK. I did post other links but you possibly didn't read them. I have issues with the fact this woman's fate was decided in a secret court as these were supposed to be banned in 2013. She was also not present to try to defend herself but you're ok with that, I'm not and I'll keep raising awareness on these issues in the UK as are many MPs and other campaigners.

Well, to be fair, it doesn't mention a secret court

Kathleen Danby, 72, was sentenced in her absence to three months in jail by the secretive Court of Protection in April after a judge heard she embraced the vulnerable girl, 19, against the wishes of social services.

Either way, neither the grandmother nor the father seem to be able to follow the court rulings since they originally started back in 2007, as the article mentions on numerous occasions that they have both been witnessed and arrested for contact.

Another question I have is how is this girlcontacting them if she is under
government care? How did she meet the
grandmother at a Pub under government
care? This story really makes no sense to
me other than my hunch that it is politically
driven and leaving a LOT of stuff out in order
to skew judgement.

Not a secret court? The excerpt you provided says secretive court!.

The girl has run away over a hundred times. When the hug occurred it was caught on CCTV cameras when the girl was spotted by her grandmother in the parking lot of a pub.

originally posted by: LogicalGraphitti
Wow, unbelievable story. The further I read, the weirder it got. What is a ‘spurious excuse’? Is that all it takes for social services to take children from their parents in the U.K.?

You would be surprised at some of the excuses those scumbags use!
I do have intimate knowledge of those 'services'.
One of the 'women' in that service had her children in a private school!

a reply to: Vasa Croe

You're right again, anyone can be Judged in absentia...
That has no bearing on results.

& yes, the Secretive Court of Protection isn't secretive in the sense that it's all done undercover of darkness...

It's designed to specifically deal with Mental Health.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Vasa Croe

You're right again, anyone can be Judged in absentia...
That has no bearing on results.

& yes, the Secretive Court of Protection isn't secretive in the sense that it's all done undercover of darkness...

It's designed to specifically deal with Mental Health.

Not really. I did post a similar link to this but here is another one and it supports my points...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: daftpink

originally posted by: LoverBoy
a reply to: daftpink
No I do not. Too many facts are missing. Why was this girl put in their custody to begin with? Like Vasa said, their is 8 years of missing things that we dont know. If you want to rush judgement then so be it. Many people did that with a few high profile cases here in the states recently and look how that turned out.

Fair enough I see your from the US but liberties are being eroded here in the UK. I did post other links but you possibly didn't read them. I have issues with the fact this woman's fate was decided in a secret court as these were supposed to be banned in 2013. She was also not present to try to defend herself but you're ok with that, I'm not and I'll keep raising awareness on these issues in the UK as are many MPs and other campaigners.

Well, to be fair, it doesn't mention a secret court, but says she had a judgement against her in her absence. That could mean that she just didn't show up for it.

Kathleen Danby, 72, was sentenced in her absence to three months in jail by the secretive Court of Protection in April after a judge heard she embraced the vulnerable girl, 19, against the wishes of social services.

Either way, neither the grandmother nor the father seem to be able to follow the court rulings since they originally started back in 2007, as the article mentions on numerous occasions that they have both been witnessed and arrested for contact.

Another question I have is how is this girl contacting them if she is under government care? How did she meet the grandmother at a Pub under government care? This story really makes no sense to me other than my hunch that it is politically driven and leaving a LOT of stuff out in order to skew judgement.

If you read all the links most of your answers can be found there.

The girl was spotted by her grandmother when both were out in public. The 72 year old woman hugged her. It was spotted on CCTV. The old woman was then jailed for three months. Think about that. She is sharing a cell with criminals. Do you see those actions as a crime? Misguided, perhaps even irresponsible but to be jailed? And the fact it was done in a secret court means the media or the public don't know. Hence the fact im trying to raise awareness here. Facts are most likely omitted to protect the young girl involved. It doesn't mean it smells of BS or whatever.

If your gran was involved in something like this would you be applauding the judge? The same judge who has been criticised many times for making judgements that the public don't agree with. They work for us remember. If we don't keep tabs on them who will?

The secretive court system is a way to keep those a part of the system (social workers, judges) free from accountability. It happens everywhere. I don't know why I'm having to explain this on ATS. No offence meant but maybe its different in the US. These rulings are now made public but for 100 years members of the public could never know which judges had made these rulings, which social workers encouraged it and what the results were.

any natural home surrounded by people that love you is always better than any type of forced gov. care as long as the home is free of angry physical abuse.

The truth in this case should not be so hard for your hardened hearts to grasp. Her family loves her and she loves them and desires to be with them.

If your hardened hearts continue then soon it will take over and turn your body to stone.

originally posted by: CagliostroTheGreat

originally posted by: Vasa Croe

originally posted by: daftpink

originally posted by: LoverBoy
a reply to: daftpink
No I do not. Too many facts are missing. Why was this girl put in their custody to begin with? Like Vasa said, their is 8 years of missing things that we dont know. If you want to rush judgement then so be it. Many people did that with a few high profile cases here in the states recently and look how that turned out.

Fair enough I see your from the US but liberties are being eroded here in the UK. I did post other links but you possibly didn't read them. I have issues with the fact this woman's fate was decided in a secret court as these were supposed to be banned in 2013. She was also not present to try to defend herself but you're ok with that, I'm not and I'll keep raising awareness on these issues in the UK as are many MPs and other campaigners.

Well, to be fair, it doesn't mention a secret court

Kathleen Danby, 72, was sentenced in her absence to three months in jail by the secretive Court of Protection in April after a judge heard she embraced the vulnerable girl, 19, against the wishes of social services.

Either way, neither the grandmother nor the father seem to be able to follow the court rulings since they originally started back in 2007, as the article mentions on numerous occasions that they have both been witnessed and arrested for contact.

Another question I have is how is this girlcontacting them if she is under
government care? How did she meet the
grandmother at a Pub under government
care? This story really makes no sense to
me other than my hunch that it is politically
driven and leaving a LOT of stuff out in order
to skew judgement.

Not a secret court? The excerpt you provided says secretive court!.

The girl has run away over a hundred times. When the hug occurred it was caught on CCTV cameras when the girl was spotted by her grandmother in the parking lot of a pub.

Secretive is different than secret in the sense that this deals with families so they have to be secretive. The court itself is not a secret court.

Guess this must be a VERY small town if the grandmother just happened to spot her in a parking lot. I could spend years in Atlanta and not see someone I knew my whole life.

originally posted by: deadeyedick
any natural home surrounded by people that love you is always better than any type of forced gov. care as long as the home is free of angry physical abuse.

The truth in this case should not be so hard for your hardened hearts to grasp. Her family loves her and she loves them and desires to be with them.

If your hardened hearts continue then soon it will take over and turn your body to stone.

I think the point many are missing here is that there is nothing written on why the child was taken away from ALL of her family.....not just dad, but mom is apparently not in the picture, and for some reason grandma is not allowed contact either. That is rather odd to me.....a court doesn't typically rule out EVERY family member for no reason.

No hardened heart here, I just think there is a lot more to this story than what is being reported. What IS being reported is very one-sided and references direct quotes from the grandmother and the father. The girl is obviously an adult and of age to speak with the media, so why haven't they gotten her story?

a reply to: daftpink

I read them, and the answers are still just one-sided. The grandmother happened to spot her, but that was not the only instance, it happened more than once with the grandmother. It also happened more than once with the father. This speaks more to them not following the court order than accident. How many times are you going to accidentally run into someone in random places in a town. I mean Derbyshire, where the girl is supposedly located, has a population of 770K people. Chances of running into someone at a pub or a model train exhibit have got to be pretty low. Chances of running into them at BOTH only 4 days apart have to be astronomical.

I mean the story says the daughter was moved from Orkney(where the father lives) to Derbyshire to a care facility. If I am not mistaken, these places are 12 hours apart. The grandmother was arrested in Liverpool, which is over 2 hours away from Derbyshire. So how is a mentally handicapped adult getting from Derbyshire anywhere near the grandmother or the father?

Case wreaks of one-sided reporting here.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

. The girl is obviously an adult and of age to speak with the media, so why haven't they gotten her story?

It could have something to do with her having the cognitive capacity of a nine year old but that's just speculation on my part. I also believe that her mental capacity gas a lot to do with her being removed from the home in the first place but, again, that's just speculation. At any rate it is absolutely confounding to think that this woman was jailed for hugging her grandchild under any circumstances short of abuse.

originally posted by: CagliostroTheGreat
a reply to: Vasa Croe

. The girl is obviously an adult and of age to speak with the media, so why haven't they gotten her story?

It could have something to do with her having the cognitive capacity of a nine year old but that's just speculation on my part. I also believe that her mental capacity gas a lot to do with her being removed from the home in the first place but, again, that's just speculation. At any rate it is absolutely confounding to think that this woman was jailed for hugging her grandchild under any circumstances short of abuse.

I agree, and that is why I am confused at this story. It is only one side of the whole. The fact that both grandmother and father are not allowed contact, there is no mention of ANY other family, and it has been 8 years, all lead me to believe there is more to this than what the two that are claiming victims in this case are letting us on to.

a reply to: daftpink

It depends on why the child was taken away in the first place. They cannot just take your child away without cause. I know, I was taken away a couple times as a child. My father would like to be gone for weeks at a time. No adult supervision. That was the first time. The second was a gun charge where he went to jail. I guess it had to do with being a single parent and not doing the job. Both times he did what he needed to do to get us back. This doesn't excuse his actions on why it happened. I felt like there was no need because I already cooked, cleaned, and went to school without someone telling me. Being so young at the time is probably why I felt this way. I still wouldn't use it as a crutch to justify bad actions. I just grew up faster than most.

If they say you cannot make contact with your child and you do so, you know there's ramifications to those actions. Maybe you should have thought about that before doing whatever you did to get your children taken away in the first place.

Them finding eachother in a parking lot is spiritual and should not be ignored. My goodness just let them live their lives. Perhaps sign some liability waiver and save some tax dollars. Who cares what they do as long as no one is being beaten or held against their own will. Wait someone is being held against their will and the gov. is holding them even though a clear message has been sent by the captive.

Why don't all you state lovers tell us what would be the need to hold her captive at this point.

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Well, to be fair, it doesn't mention a secret court, but says she had a judgement against her in her absence. That could mean that she just didn't show up for it.

Exactly. And the source states that she was already in trouble back in February for violating the restraining order (or whatever they call it in the UK) and contacting her granddaughter. She knowingly did this. It wasn't a secret to her. And it is she who dismissed the arrest of her son for whatever it was he did to the girl as being carried out by a "spurious excuse". She doesn't agree with the court's ruling, so instead she encourages her granddaughter to lie and sneak around to see her, etc. It's a sad story but I'm pretty sure there's a very good reason why this woman and her son were ordered to stay away from the girl, and if we had that info this would take on a very different slant indeed.

a reply to: tigertatzen

nah
if they had done something to abuse the girl then they would have criminal charges to reflect that unless it is just differing opinions on how they should raise her in which case the gov. needs to go pound sand. They can accuse of whatever but the facts are facts. They kept it quite for some reason other than protecting the girl. Solid charges in the light would not need any special court.

originally posted by: daftpink

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
a reply to: daftpink

Well, doesn't all this just stink of a witchhunt.

Sorry really not sure what you mean by that.

witch hunt
noun

1.
an intensive effort to discover and expose disloyalty, subversion, dishonesty, or the like, usually based on slight, doubtful, or irrelevant evidence.