Child theft.

I have established that in England, a child has no right of access to its parent. This has led to the Child Protection Industry, which is growing and profitable. Each child stolen brings in an income of 25,000 p.a. to the industry.

Because Sloss is anti-father, the industry has the support of her Family Courts.

It has been suggested that if the English Child Protection Industry steals a foreign child in order to improve its budget, this runs foul of the laws of the child's home country.

Following the assertion made to me that a German child has the right of access to its parent, a German govt. brochure has been cited to me. On my request, it has been translated, as follows;

Published by:


Bundesministerius der Justiz Ref. Presse-und Oeffentlickeitsarb 53170 Bonn / Germany


Bundesministereium fuer Familie Ref. Oeffentlichkeitsarbeit 53107 Bonn



Translation into English:

Who has a right to access?

The right to access of a child/minor to both his parents generally is intended to serve the wellbeing of the child/minor and is of special importance for his/her development.

Access can be via personal encounters, via letters, phone calls, etc.

The following have a right to access;

1 The child/minor

2 each parent

3 the grandparents of 1

4 the siblings of 1

5 the husband or wife of a parent, or ex-husband, who lived with the child (= step-parent)

6 any person with whom the child has been for a longer period of time (e.g. fosterers, etc.)

It is also the law that a child has a right to contact and access to all other people when this is to further his/her development. The access to all these people must be made possible and must be furthered.


The extent of infiltration of the English Child Protection Industry by paedophiles is not clear. It is possible that the theft of a child brings a second, extra-financial, benefit; the opportunity to bugger it away from its relatives. Sloss statements in favour of bizarre family structures, and of giving them control of others' children, gives us cause for concern. Her own family is dysfunctional, see

. Ivor Catt 20aug01]


It appears to me that the theft of foreign children while visiting England by the Child Protection Industry is a bigger threat to the English Tourist Industry than Foot and Mouth. These children are physically stolen by agents of the High Court. One wonders how far the Separation of Powers can be exploited before it fails. (The English Family Courts are secret, and gagged. There is no procedure in the English Family Courts for addressing allegations of perjury, which is rife. There were less than 25 perjury trials in England last year.) Ivor Catt 20aug01