hm Queen Elizabeth - letter ma'am

HRH Queen Elizabeth
via email

26th November 2007 (copied to BBC)

Dear Madam,


Please pardon my temerity at writing and for this intrusion.

I'm writing as your servant and distant- relative (De Lucy, Robillard, Champagne) and as the daughter of J.G.L Robillard whom was decorated (by your father) for his efforts as a pilot with the CRAF and RAF during WW11.

Please review family court lawyers and judges acting 'in your name' - they are accountable to nobody (no governing body) and acting, in some instances, as power-crazed (sorry for the strong language) but they ought be judging their findings on evidence when at the moment they depend heavily on the words of social workers (childrens services as of April 2007 also have no governing body) whilst all parties whom truly benefit (bar parents involved) are legal departments, all of whom make huge profit often with the hapless parent unaware of why children are taken from them etc .

In an effort to understand this, I took six months of university reading social sciences and dropped out due to is heavy bias toward communism and my refusing to put my name to work I was ordered to plageurise (communist bias)

Also the training of social workers is often popular psychology (most is hypothesis very far from any fact) yet learned men and women willingly accept the view of these people, employed in your name, over that of your citizens and friends that actually know the families involved, wishing for fairness and openess in your public family courts, for their friends (eg friends - up to 20 in some cases, go to court as witnesses for the parent, but the power of authority to rule, outweighs that of any justice)

It would be refreshing to see such judges not depending on their perception of psychology eg a scoundrel knows to 'show remorse' (crocodile tears) will often release him from charges. This is common knowledge and I believe the judiciary are aware of this only recently.

Sadly I have personal tragic experience of these public family courts and despite informing my MP (Sir Rifkind) very little appears to be done to stop the local authorities simply being able to march into anyones home and 'kidnap' children for the sake of filling the needs of job placements, such as permanent adoption and fostering officers and departments.

As a disabled mother and previously an actress, I am sad to find myself an unfortunate campaigner for public family law reform.

This job, separating families, surely ought to be one of a community, including free legal support for a parent in such a plight, as well as impartial support for the child? Too much communist influence is determining the lives of the British people as far as I can see.

The Children Act ultimately says 'the paramount interest of the child' but surely the abuse of that statement- leaving judges to disregard fact eg hundreds of hard fact evidence due to a social worker or two urging it, is contrary to the paramount interest of the child?

Thank you for your kind observation and consideration

As always

your servant

Elizabeth Robillard