The couple, unable to have children of their own, became foster parents, and in
1998 applied to Cambridge County Council to
adopt the two children they were fostering, Jade and Hannah.
The Council rejected their request; although the full reasons have not been
made public, it would appear the Bramley's parenting of the two children
was felt lacking because of their repeated, No's and Don't to the
children.
The Bramley's appealed to the courts but lost their case and the Council
proceeded with its plan to re-foster the children with another family.
Everything seemed to be going smoothly, with the Bramley's co-operation, and
the children even stayed with their new foster parents.
However, shortly after the children had spent time with their new foster
parents, the Bramley's decided to disappear, taking the children with them.
At first, the disappearance was unexplained; a tragic family accident was
assumed although it soon became clear that the disappearance was well planned,
with the Bramley's drawing around 5,000 GBP out of their bank account, shortly
before their departure.
The initial reaction, at least in the media, was to treat the Bramley's as,
mentally unstable, kidnappers; requests for information about their whereabouts
were made by the police, both locally and nationally, and the case was covered
by the BBC's Crime Watch program, in their usual sensationalist manner.
It was generally assumed that a family of four, whose identities had been so
widely publicised, would have little chance of evading capture and
soon many reports of their appearance around the country began to flood in.
In October 1998 the police concentrated their efforts by searching around the
Norfolk Coast, where the family often enjoyed holidaying, but, later, the
search switched to the South Coast, and Worthing, following further reported
sightings and a belief that the family were staying in holiday resorts where
an out of town, unfamiliar family would find it easier to blend in.
Despite photographs of the family being published on millions of milk cartons;
they managed to avoid detection and no one had any clue as to where they were,
or had been, until their abandoned car was discovered in York in early 1999.
Police investigations switched to York but swiftly switched again to Northampton
following a letter sent by the Bramley's, to many media organisations,
explaining their position and why they had taken the decision to go into hiding.
The contents of this letter was widely discussed in newspapers and a great
deal of public debate ensued as to the rights and wrongs of the situation.
The Bramley's claimed that they were acting in the interest of the children,
that they were loving parents, that the children loved them and wanted them
as their Mum and Dad.
Cambridge County Council's initial response was that they were criminals, in
the manner by which they rejected the Bramley's claim, but have relented
slightly and proposed that, should the Bramley's come out of hiding, they
would allow a court to decide upon the fate of the children's future.
The Bramley's had still not surfaced, after some 18 weeks on the run, and
having taken such little money, it was suspected, by the police, and others,
that someone was looking after them; family members denied being involved
in the matter and claimed they knew nothing about their whereabouts.
The Ending
The Bramley's finally gave themselves up on the 17th of January, 1999.
Whilst the police darted all over the country, following every lead they thought
they had; the Bramley family could have been anywhere.
The police thought that the Bramley's had given up their transport, had
limited their travel options, and must have been in Northampton, from where
they sent their letters to the press; I was not so sure.
If I was on the run, especially if I had a safe house in which to hide,
and help from others, I'd abandon my car well away from where I was actually
staying, to put the police off the scent, and I'd make sure that any
communications sent were from somewhere far away from that location for the same
reason.
The fact that the police publicly stated that they were well on their way to
tracking them down from these two events filled me with surprise; not once did
they credit the Bramley's with having the intelligence to be that clever. If
the police really thought that the Bramley's were that stupid, the same glove
must fit the police as well.
The Bramley's did a fine job of evading capture over four months and could, it
would appear, have done so for ever; all that was needed was a sympathetic
friend with access to a plane and they could be enjoying a new life in a
foreign land.
Despite stupid claims from both the Police and others that they couldn't leave
the country because the children don't have passports; it is unbelievably easy
to leave a private airfield, or even a field, and arrive overseas without
having to go through any form of check. Starting life in a foreign country,
with no identification and no money, may not be easy but can be done.
I didn't think this was the Bramley's aim as their public letter implied that
they wanted to resolve the situation and resume a normal family life, with
themselves as parents for their two foster children.
As it was, the Bramley's were hiding out at Trelee in the Irish Republic.
The Bramley's are obviously, despite of, and because of their actions, a
caring and loving couple and it is clear that they want to do the best for their
foster children. They must have realised that keeping their children away from
school, in hiding and on the run would, in the long term, damage the children
and any illness would immediately mean their instant identification.
Which is probably why they chose to send their letters to the press so
that their arguments were fairly heard and so that, when they re-appeared, they
stood a chance of getting what they sought; the adoption of the two children
they so obviously love.
Now the Bramley's have resurfaced and their children have been checked over and
given the all-clear by a doctor, which didn't surprise anyone; the matter rests
with the court as to whether or not the Bramley's will be allowed to adopt Jade
and Hannah.
Cambridge County Council have pledged to fight any adoption attempt and the
Bramley's may have a long fight ahead of them to secure what they desire.
If the court decides that the Council has the right to say that the Bramley's
should not be allowed to adopt; everything they've done, whether they have
public sympathy for their plight or not, may have been in vain.
In the meantime; the Bramley's and their foster children remain as a single
family unit.
I wish all the family members luck for the future.
Max Clifford
Following the letters the Bramley's sent to the press, arguing their case and
explaining their actions, it became clear that publicist Max Clifford had been
involved, to an extent, in the issuing of these letters.
Max Clifford made it clear that he had no contact with the Bramley's
themselves but had spoken, on the phone, with someone ( who contacted him ) who
appears to have been a close family friend, who sought advice on how the
Bramley's should best present their case; he admits that he suggested writing
the letters to the press.
Clifford has denied, since his involvement became known, that the Bramley's
are planing to sell their story to the media ( although I am sure that he
pointed out, even just in passing, that they did have a story they could sell )
and says he is not receiving payment for his advice.
Whilst Clifford may well have been telling the truth; I just can't help
wondering how the press came to be aware of his involvement in this matter.
I am quite sure that the Bramley's never announced the fact, nor anyone who was
trying to protect them.
However Clifford's involvement became public ( perhaps he wasn't even involved
but has seized a golden opportunity to claim he was ! ); how this affects the
public's view of what the Bramley's have said becomes difficult to assess.
When the letter was seen as something which came from the heart; sympathies
were undoubtedly forthcoming. If the letter is seen as something which was
designed to achieve those sympathies in the first place; they could quite
quickly evaporate.
It would be sad, and ironic, if the advice which Max Clifford claims to have
given, which originally did the Bramley's so much good, turned out to be their
undoing because of the public knowledge of Clifford's involvement.
If this turns out to be the case; whoever tipped the press off about Clifford's
involvement would have a lot to answer for.
If it was Clifford himself, I am sure his reputation, in the public's eye,
would rapidly decrease.
Who Knows Best ?
The Bramley case has brought, once again, the role of Social Service departments
in adoption cases to the fore.There have been quite a few cases where people, who on the surface, seem quite
suitable as parents of adopted children, have been refused the right to adopt
because it is felt, by the controlling Council, that this is not so.
Notably there have been cases which have involved problems where a mixed-race
family would be created, cases where one or both parents smoke and cases where
people, who seem to be quite capable of fostering children over many years, are
considered unfit when it comes to adoption.
The common theme in all these cases has been the Council's claim that they,
"Must do whatever is best for the children"; something with which I am sure
everyone would agree, but, at times they do seem to go too far.
Whilst it is obvious that a child should not be placed within a family fuelled
by violence, abuse or where the child would be neglected; I don't really think
that such families often apply to adopt and can be easily rejected if they do.
Ideal families who adopt are few and far between and even then there is no
clear definition as to what makes an 'ideal' family.
A wealthy family, with respect to average wealth, will affect an adopted child's
view of the world as much as one below average wealth would. A decision as to
which would make the best family to adopt is clearly defined by one's own
political and personal beliefs.
The same can be said when we consider the religion, or beliefs, of an adopting
family.
Is a family which takes foreign holidays better than one which prefers to stay,
firmly footed in the UK, and prefers camping to hotels ?
The big problem is that Social Workers, and those who decide who will make the
best adopters, do so without reference to the real world and apply
political, or moral, judgements which in some cases are plainly ridiculous or
grossly unfair on those who put themselves forward as adopting parents.
For those of us who are born into a family unit; we have no say in how we are
brought up in a family.
True, Social Services will come and rescue us if we become victims of violence
or abuse ( although there are many instances where they have failed to do so;
with tragic consequences ) but generally we are at the mercy of the family in
which we are brought up.
There are many who, having been brought up in what are generally considered
ideal family units, turn to crime and drugs ( the son of Jack Straw, the Home
Secretary, being a classic example ) whilst others, having suffered a fairly
unpleasant or tough upbringing can reach the pinnacles of success; the success
of Robert Maxwell, for one, cannot be disputed before his demise.
The truth is that, although the family in which we are brought up, can, and
does affect us, what that family is does not automatically make us any
better or worse in general.
When considering people to act as adopting parents; Social Services act as
self-righteous, gods and sometimes look for idealistic attributes which do not
generally exist.
Balanced against the average family unit; what the Social Service's people
desire can, at times, be seen as idealist and when these ideals prevent
those who would, generally, if they had their own children, be seen as
reasonable, or even good, parents from adopting, there is something seriously
wrong.
In the Bramley's case; Cambridge County Council seem to be saying that they
said No and Don't to their foster children too many times to
make them viable to adopt children. Unless they are totally restrictive in
their ability to allow their children to enjoy a happy and reasonable
existence; I don't really see that this is a genuine cause for concern.
Perhaps they say No and Don't more than 'ideal' families
but, it's probably fair to say, they do so less than others.
If this is the only reason Cambridge County Council has to offer as to why the
Bramley's are unsuitable to adopt I can fully understand why the Bramley's have
done what they have.
If there are other, serious, grounds for concerns about the Bramley's adopting;
these should be explained.
Hiding behind the, "We don't discuss individual cases", argument does not help
anyone at all; the public needs to be convinced that Social Services are
acting reasonably and fairly.
The public can make the decision as to what is best for a child as well
as any Council or Court can; we entrust these decisions into their hands
because it makes sense to do so.
If anyone starts applying criteria or anything which the public doesn't like,
or feels is unjustified or beyond commonsense, then they have the right to
change such things.
Indeed, most complaints against Social Service departments, as a whole, occur
when they either fail to perform their roles we have delegated to them or when
they start applying their own rules beyond those which the public would.
Social Workers have a terrible reputation, perhaps unjustified. On one hand,
they are seen as interfering in normal family units. On the other, they are
see as ineffective and incompetent.
Tales of children taken into care in cases of alleged abuse, later found to
be entirely non-existent, are commonplace as are the failures of the service
to act when real and genuine risk exists. Reports of abuse within children's
homes are becoming more and more common, both in the past and in recent
years.
The role and function of Social Services needs to be put under the spotlight;
perhaps the Bramley case will achieve that.
Somehow, from past evidence; I doubt if that will be the case.
