The Emperor's New Clothes : Divorce Process & Consequence

ANNEX 2 : ‘PERSONAL CONTACT’ CASE STUDIES


min1

1 P Place

B

----- ------ (eves only) S ---- ---

3.12.95

Dear Sirs

I do hope you’ll be able to offer some help and advice. I am actually writing to your association for advice. I work with a male colleague who, at present, is experiencing some very emotional difficulties with access to his two daughters, who are now resident with his ex-wife (who was recently given the Resident’s Order by my colleague – he was actually granted this by the Courts, and had his daughters for over a year and a half. I believe his ex-wife is withholding his contact visits, without the consent or knowledge of the Courts, he is supposed to collect his daughters for weekends and an overnight stay during the week and, at present, this is not happening.

He needs advice and support from preferably another person who has been in his position (I have not). I am very concerned that these disasters are having an enormous effect on this man, and I don’t seem to be able to help. We are both qualified social workers, but he is unable to use or apply any of his professional skills to his situation. At this stage I feel unsure of giving you his address, name, etc as I am unsure of his reaction. Is it possible one of your members can contact me, as I feel he may not welcome my help/interference, but may respect you.

Yours faithfully

Ms C N


min2

30 B Avenue

C

S ---- ---

17th December 1995

Dear Friends

I have become involved again in litigation brought by my daughters’ mother to reduce my contact with them. Unfortunately, the existing contact is perceived as "generous" which it is compared to that allowed on average. However, it is not when the fact that I was their primary carer for eight years (a fact disputed by their mother, needless to say) is taken into account.

Firstly, I thought you might be interested in the attached summary I made about the conduct of District Judge K-B at S H during our "conciliation appointment" last week. Incidentally, I suspect the bias was due to the other side speaking to him and/or the CWO before we entered the courtroom; is this not considered unethical?

Secondly, I would like to receive a copy of the FNF publication "How to deal with Family Court Welfare Officers" by John Baker, for which I enclose (as a member) a cheque for £2.50.

Finally, I would be grateful for any tactical advice you may have to help me.

Best regards

P H

Comments on the conduct of District Judge K-B
at the conciliation appointment, 13/12/95

Judge K-B’s first statement, after saying he did not have a copy of the Order, was that the contact was "extraordinary, most unusually generous". He said several times I had "too much contact already" and disagreed with MR’s view of the importance of additional staying (or any other) contact with the non-resident parent over that now proposed by them.

He pressured me to give specific proposals. I said I though mediation was the appropriate route to a solution. He said "this is mediation" and demanded a specific proposal. I argued that it would take discussion to reach a proper solution, but, accepting that mediation had proved difficult, we should speak to a mediator separately and so should the children. Then we should be able to reach an agreement as reasonable people, based on the mediator’s findings.

Not good enough, he wants specific proposals. I suggested one afternoon and night mid-week contact (with staying) plus half-terms. He asked B if that was acceptable. B said "no ...", going on to explain. Judge K-B interrupted "that’s enough, no need to go on". He asked for another proposal and I suggested in general terms having extra holiday instead of midweek contact (I might have mentioned more weekends in line with my elder daughter’s preference of every weekend). Judge K-B reacted identically, cutting off B again and saying it was quite unacceptable to have the children "spend so much time away from home". NB: M R’s (family therapy expert) opinion that it is good for children of divorcees to consider they have two homes.

After the failure to get agreement via the CWO, Judge K-B said that "regrettably, despite the lengthy period allowed, you have failed to reach agreement ..." and issued directions. The lengthy period was half an hour – to settle a complex dispute involving the lives of children which an experienced and expert mediator had always said would take several hour-long meetings.


min3

H v H

------------

NOTE OF JUDGEMENT

------------

(NB: This note of an extempore judgement has been prepared at the request of Mr H and with the assistance of his contemporaneous note. Mrs H’ Solicitors were requested to provide their, and their counsel’s, notes of the judgement for my assistance but did not do so.)

This is an application by the father, Mr H, for access. There are three children of the marriage, D (born 22 April 1976), I (born 19 April 1978) and K (born 13 October 1986). K was 18 months old at the time the parties separated.

Counsel for Mrs H asserts that the boys are not willing to meet their father and in those circumstances Mr H does not pursue his request for "direct" access to them, but says that he will continue to write. He complains, however, that he receives no information about their general welfare and would like the mother, directly, or through a third party, to provide information. He wishes to telephone at Christmas and on birthdays. Counsel for Mrs H says that she will ask the boys to write but cannot guarantee that they will because they say that they do not want their father to know what they are doing.

In these circumstances Mr H does not ask me to make any order for access to the boys. All I can do is express the view that it is unfortunate that Mr H is deprived of day-to-day information about their interests to help him understand how the boys are developing as individuals, and that no-one is inclined to give him the information.

It is, on the material before me, clear that Mrs H feels justifiably that Mr H breached her trust by carrying on the affair, the discovery of which led to the breakdown of the marriage. Unhappily she has indoctrinated the boys with her view that there should, as a result, be no further contact with their father. With boys who have reached the age of these two a Judge cannot sensibly enforce contact. I express the hope that her moral virtues will have some place for mercy and forgiveness so as to encourage the children to speak on the telephone to their father and to respond to his letters.

In my view she is not helping them develop as full and rounded adults by inculcating into them her desire to cut off all contact with their father. I accept that in material things they are properly provided for and have a loving and stable home. But Mr H is entitled to write and telephone the boys and I urge Mrs H to encourage them to respond.

So far as K is concerned, there was access until after Christmas. The final visit was unsuccessful and the meeting traumatic. Mrs H suggests that K does not want contact with her father. I have no doubt that the problem is that K lives in surroundings where she is expected not to want contact and that there is pressure from her mother and brothers which militates against her enjoying access.

Mrs H denies that she has tried to cut off communication between K and her father. That may be technically true, but having read Mrs H’ Affidavit, which is one of the most spiteful and full of bile that I have ever read, it is plain that silently, if not overtly, she does her level best to stop K seeing her father.

It is understandable that she has bitterness to Mr H as someone who has betrayed her trust, but it is sad and unfortunate that someone so self-righteous cannot include in their morality any charity or the realisation of the benefits that a continuing bond between K and her father would bring or of the disadvantages to K from not seeing her father, who is a loving and deeply concerned father.

The difficulty is that, against the background the mother has induced, it would single K out for pressure and disapproval if access continued. I have to weigh on the one hand those difficulties, upsets and traumas for K against, on the other, the less tangible benefits that access will bring.

It is a difficult balancing act and I have to be guided by the paramount interests of K. In forming my view I have been much assisted by the careful report and clear evidence of the Welfare Officer, Mrs He. In the present circumstances I have taken the view that, at present, owing to the unhelpful and negative attitude of Mrs H it is not appropriate to renew access. I have no doubt that Mr H is a loving father and that contact with K would be for her benefit, but for the way in which Mrs H has behaved. Mrs H talks loudly and clearly about morality, but her bitter behaviour might well be characterised as immoral. It would be desirable if she could extend her morality to include a measure of forgiveness and an appreciation of the benefits to K’s upbringing of her still seeing her father.

I have decided, with hesitation and regret, that at present it would be best for K if her father sought to develop his relationship with her through letters and telephone calls.

I hope Mrs H will take to heart what has been said and genuinely encourage the resumption of a proper relationship between the father and the children. No doubt that this will cause her difficulties at first, but she professes high standards, and therefore may feel that she should try to alter her behaviour for the future. With a more tolerant attitude, she may encourage the re-establishment of a real relationship between father and children in the future.

Application dismissed. No order as to costs.


min4

-, R Avenue
Q Park
G Road
S
-
---- ---
Telephone: ----- ------
21 November 1995

Dear Sirs

Please find enclosed my application to join your most welcome society. I am presently embroiled in a particularly messy divorce, which I feel is beginning to adversely affect my two young children.

My story starts about one month ago when my wife walked out of my family home without any warning, taking the children with her, whilst I was at work. From that point to this day I have not been allowed to see my children and feel that the way things are going that it will be some time before I will be able to, if ever.

My first course of action was to contact the police, reporting them as missing persons, naturally I was very worried about where they were and what was happening to them. They reported back to me that they were safe and well, but were unable to tell me where they were residing. At this point there was no more that I could do apart from going to the incredible expense of hiring a Private Detective to track them down. I allowed things to cool off at this point, still trying everything in my power to contact them – needless to say I did not succeed!

The matter came to a head, however, when I was served with papers for a divorce, an emergency one I might add, last Wednesday, and was expected to attend a Court hearing yesterday when an exclusion order was to be discussed.

I readily agreed to be excluded from my wife’s life, but would not agree to be excluded from my children’s. After discussions when my wife refused, through her Solicitor and Barrister, to allow any contact, it was agreed that I should have supervised access for three hours at two-weekly intervals at a contact centre in L, the first supposedly being this coming Saturday.

Today, just one day after the Court hearing, I spoke to my wife’s Solicitor who informed me that my children (aged 7 and 9) were not prepared to see me. I informed her that I thought that this stank! She also said that the children had thought more on the lines of seeing me once a month – remarkably grown up for their ages I would say!

As you can probably imagine, I am at my lowest ebb at present that I have been in the whole of my life. I feel that because of all this my children are actually being put "at risk" by the feminist organisation with whom they are presently resident.

I have to say that I desperately need help – I have not got the money to hire expensive legal advice as my wife left me heavily in debt and I am unable to claim much on the lines of Legal Aid. I love my children dearly and feel that I have been excluded from their lives for too long already.

I do hope that there will be some help that you can give me – you are my last hope – and I have to admit that I am at the end of my tether because of all of this.

My home phone number is at the head of this letter, or if you wish to contact me during working hours my phone number is ----- ------ ext 6347. Please contact me soon!

Yours in Great Anticipation

Mr M F


min5

Tel/Fax ----- ------ P D G
51 B Gate
Ref: As date G
S
Your Ref: - ---- ---
Tim Rait, Administration Officer 30 November 1995
"Families Need Fathers"
134 Curtain Road
London EC2A 3AR

Dear Tim

I have received reply from the ----- and have enclosed copy for your information. My last letter to FNF has probably been misunderstood in that I state that trying to beat Solicitors and Judges at their own game is a pointless exercise. Nevertheless it is to be born in mind that, all things considered, I have not "lost" my case!

Our problem is political therefore my present line of attack is in depth political. The recent West case put the ----- in a bad light. Called upon to act on behalf of the West children, they did nothing. I have experienced the same response from them in my "case". The fact is that the ----- gave false information to the Court condemning me at the time of my divorce resulting in long separation for my children from me. During the whole of that time my children were at risk!

From the enclosed statistics it may be seen that the advertising material distributed by the ----- in repeatedly stating the "father" to be the perpetrator of child abuse is undoubtedly false. In that I am not a professional statistician I cannot offer exact breakdown on the cases wherein the true father (married husband) of the mother is responsible for abuse of the children of the family.

In my experience, which is considerable, I have found the true father of the children of the family to be protective of rather than the abuser of the children. I can only trust that you appreciate my point. Until we convince such organisations such as the ----- to be truthful in advertising or lose funding (money!) we, the "absent" parents, will continue to be exploited at the cost to/of our children.

Sincerely

P G

PS: Who has met the costs in the recent High Court case regarding Peter Malkins son?


min6

STATEMENT OF A D

------------

(1) My name is A D. I was born on 20 September 1983 and I am now aged 11½ years of age.

My father’s name is M D and he lives at 55 B Road, - -, - -- ---. My mother’s name is M M B W and she now lives at 12 S Crescent, - -, -, ----, Australia. She is now married to P E B W.

At the moment I am staying with my Dad and my grandparents, P and G D in - -. My younger brother, C, who is also staying in - - is aged 8¾ and was born on 3 May 1986.

(2) Since my mother and father divorced in 1993, C and I have been living with my mother. In April last year (1994), C and I went to live in Australia with my mother and stepfather. We first lived with my Aunty and Uncle in -. We stayed there for four months and then moved to my Step-Grandparents house. I started school at St D mixed Catholic School in - a week after I arrived. C also started St D at the same time.

On December 12 last year Christopher and I arrived in England to stay with Dad. We have been here since then.

(3) I had never wanted to go to Australia. I told Mum and tried not to go. When we went I was excited at first by being there and pleased to see relations. But after a month or so I really missed England and Dad and my family and friends. I counted off every week in my head. As it got to 21 weeks I was counting down. I tried to be happy in Australia but it is just impossible to be happy there. I felt different because I come from a different place and have a different accent. The other children at school explained things in different ways and did not understand the way I would explain things in England. I felt proud of how I did things. I told the other children I did not like Australia. They did not understand to start with but when I told them the full story they understood me and were shocked.

After a month I missed my Dad more. Mum was uptight and school was worse. There are so many things I miss about England. It disturbs me when I hear news about England on the television in Australia. I hear stories of snow-storms in Scotland and it reminds me of all the good times I had with my friends playing in the snow and how Mum wrecked it all by taking us to Australia. Out there we have no close friends. Life was good in England.

In Australia, on the other side of the world and so far away from family and friends, I can’t see them for eleven months and it’s so painful. I have more Uncles and Cousins here than I can mention.

I used to see them a lot. I’ve a big family here and out there I have not. My Mum and Aunty are the only close family I have in Australia.

I think 8-9 months is a long time, and long enough to decide if you like something. If I was asked where home was I would say England. I feel like Australia is my prison. I get out after 9 months and then it is like going back to jail.

In England I loved my school. I was doing really well. I had very very close friends who I grew up with.

I like the way England is. I like London, Cornwall, the countryside and the climate. I miss all these things. I hope that when this is read I will be understood. My feelings are really deep about me staying here. If someone could be in my boots then they would know how I feel.

Dad has always listened to what I’ve said. He always understands if there’s a problem. I go to him. He always listens to me.

I do not want to go back to Australia. I would ask for an appeal if I was sent. I would come back next year and do the same thing. I would have to be forced onto the plane. I would feel very very depressed if I go back.

Please, please look through this. I am begging you. I really want to stay here. I think it will ruin my life to be sent back.

I have spoken to C a lot about all of this and he asked for me to say that he feels the same way too.

I have been in my Solicitor’s office for 3½ hours and I am too tired to write this statement out but everything in this statement is true.

A D
20/1/95
Statement of A D
To his Solicitor
Presented to the Court

min7

4/7/95 Miss A V C
11 V Gardens
-
-----
---- ---- ---
---- ------

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing concerning my boyfriend’s situation with his children since his divorce, and would be very grateful for any information/advice concerning this problem we are having with his ex-wife.

To give a brief description, my boyfriend has a been married for four years, then back in 1992 his wife had an affair and left him and their two young children, to live with the new man in her life. The relationship with that man fell apart, and four months later his wife snatched the children, filed for custody of them and got full custody and filed for divorce for which the decree absolute came through in 1993.

There is an arrangement, that my boyfriend has his two children (now aged two and four years) to stay with him every fortnight for a weekend.

Throughout this arrangement, his ex-wife has been totally unreasonable and the children’s fortnightly weekend stays have often been reduced to one-night stays with no reason but to satisfy the pleasure of annoying my boyfriend, with no thought towards how their children are feeling about it.

It has been seven months I have been living with my boyfriend, and irrelevant that his ex-wife had an affair, divorced him and has been living as common law man and wife with a man for over a year now, since I being on the scene, as you could call it, has aroused a lot of friction from her, which is affecting the children staying with us, and is heart breaking to see the children confused and disturbed being the brunt of the ex-wife’s vindictiveness.

For example, sending the children with summer clothes in winter and vice-versa and a lot of her malicious opinions drummed into the children (which is very disturbing) concerning their father and myself.

Both my boyfriend and I have been very patient during this time by not confronting his ex-wife, as she takes her stress out on the children a lot, about her unreasonable attitude and behaviour in hope that it would pass. Unfortunately it is only getting worse, and my patience broke yesterday on Sunday evening when we dropped the children off at their mother’s house.

I politely asked if she could send the children in future with the right season shoes and their wellies and raincoats just in case of bad weather. This only caused a lot of tension from her concerning the children staying with us again in the future.

My boyfriend and I are very worried and awaiting a call from his ex-wife denying access to the children.

This concerns us both a lot, as we have been told that if his ex-wife does deny access, my boyfriend’s taking her to Court would be a waste of time and money, due to the mother having full custody and the law on her side, at the end of the day, whether my boyfriend has got weekend access through the Courts, his ex-wife can deny access at any time for no reason.

The children have been through a lot through the marriage break-up, it would be devastating for them if they couldn’t see their father any more, as they love him very much and want to stay with us, but being so young have no say in the matter.

That only leaves my boyfriend and myself, but what can we do? What can we say? To an ex-wife who is so unreasonable, to create an amicable situation, knowing what we know?

As I have mentioned previously in this letter, I would be very grateful for any information/advice concerning this dilemma with hope to resolving this problem. I would very much appreciate a speedy reply if it is not too inconvenient, so matters can be settled (if they can) as quickly as possible, for the sake of two young, very confused children and devoted father.

Yours faithfully

Miss A V C


min8

Robert Jones From: J R
Member of Parliament 21 B Avenue
Hertfordshire West - -
Davidson House ----- --- ---
118 Queensway
Hemel Hempstead
Hertfordshire
cc: The National Council for Civil Liberties 14/2/95
21 Tabard Street
London SE1 4LA
and: Families Need Fathers
134 Curtain Road
London EC2A 3ER
14th February 1995

Dear Sir(s)

I am writing to complain about the Child Support Agency’s policies and tactics.

I am the new partner of a man who has a three-year-old son by his former marriage. I am presently six months pregnant with our child. Our relationship is obviously a committed one and we have been engaged since May last year but have yet to marry as we are unsure under the present laws whether or not my assets/income will be viewed as his own when the CSA make a final means tested assessment.

My fiancé has repeatedly asked the CSA for an interview as the interim assessment is totally beyond his means.

His ex-wife left him while he was away working when their son was a year old, taking the child and nearly everything of value in the house, and leaving him with substantial debts that she had incurred in their joint names (which was one of the principal causes of friction between them). She was never homeless but was immediately given a very comfortable and relatively spacious centrally heated one-bedroom flat close to her parents (which she had been waiting for, having told N council and various welfare organisations that she and the child were living on her sister’s floor).

She began claiming income support and child benefits immediately which gave her an income of approximately £500 per month in addition to her rent being paid and the normal benefits such as free dental care, etc and installed her son at an expensive full-time private nursery school run by her parents, which my partner agreed to pay for.

She has also in this time worked without declaring it and gone on a two-month holiday to Spain, leaving their son in S’s care for one month, upon his insistence. He subsequently conceded to her demands for more money when she withheld access to the child as blackmail because above all else he loved his son and wanted a continuing relationship with him. He had not closed the building society account in their joint name and she also availed herself of it regularly. He allowed this out of a sense of duty to her and her son, and also because the amounts withdrawn were not huge, until one occasion when she discovered (although they were divorced by this time) his new relationship, and as a statement helped herself to its entire contents, amounting to over £450.

At this point he ended the informal arrangement, obtaining a Court Order permitting him access to his son, and seeking advice on a maintenance arrangement through the Courts.

This could probably have been resolved relatively amicably were it not for the ensuing intervention of the Child Support Agency.

The first assessment was backdated to the date his ex-wife first claimed income support. It was a huge shock to him to see that none of the costs of her extricating herself from the relationship over the previous 18 months were taken into account except housing: paying off her outstanding debts, costs arising from the divorce and the Court Order to see his son, and having sole financial responsibility for maintenance and upkeep of the family home, not to mention the regular payments he had been making to her, including money for his sons school fees. He called the CSA to explain all this but they said that unless he could supply proof (eg receipts) of the money he had given her or unless she corroborated his story (which logically she would not do) none of it would be taken into account).

My partner has always been prepared to support his son both financially and practically but before the intervention of the CSA felt that he had done so by meeting the costs of his nursery education and by giving his ex-wife money more or less whenever she asked for it. He has also always bought his son all his clothes and toys and looked after him on a regular basis normally at a time convenient to his ex-wife. He was not aware that she had not been declaring the money he had given her for his upkeep. She had not bothered to apply for maintenance through the Courts or to involve the CSA at an earlier stage as this arrangement was naturally highly satisfactory to her.

Despite repeated requests the CSA have never offered him the opportunity for an interview or review of his circumstances but have continued to harass him weekly for the outstanding amount owed to them under the Interim Assessment Order. Both of us are suffering emotional strain as a result of this and feel (with some justice) that now we have set up home together and are expecting a family of our own that we are receiving treatment fit for criminals.

When we decided to marry and start a family my partner offered his ex-wife two alternatives via his Solicitor: to take the house and remove his name from the mortgage or to take her name off the mortgage so that we could live there together and own the house jointly.

As she resents his relationship with me she decided to make it as difficult as possible for him to start afresh so would not agree to either of these perfectly reasonable options.

Naturally I did not want to live in a house half-owned by his ex-wife so I sold my flat at a loss and bought a house for us to live in together and to bring up our baby in. We moved in in late December and my partner rented his house out, again at a loss, so that we could have our own home together. We have no reason to make this a secret from anyone (including the CSA) and are not ashamed of our relationship or decision to live together and marry and have a baby although the CSA’s heavy-handed interference in our relationship and life decisions has made us feel this way.

Last week I received a call at home from a well-spoken woman asking very confidently for S and behaving as if she knew him well but unwilling to reveal her identity or talk to me. (My partner works away a lot and our relationship has to be based on a good deal of emotional trust. Needless to say if I was of a suspicious disposition I might have suspected the worst).

She rang off in a hurry and apparently after this called him on his mobile phone saying she was from a travel agency in H and could she please have his address because she wanted to send him some travel documents. Two days later a letter arrived from the CSA posted in H asking him for details of his "income" from the rental of his property and further demands for money. Why adopt these tactics? I feel harassed in my own home. I did not meet S until he was actually divorced. Neither of us has done anything wrong or ever tried to withhold information from the CSA or his ex-wife or anyone else. I would like the National Council of Liberties to advise me whether this constituted an abuse of civil liberties because I certainly feel it did. The CSA could have written to S via the home he still owns with his ex-wife and asked him outright for his new address and he would have been more than happy to comply with their request. Why involve me in their tacky sordid snooping?

Not only this, I feel I have no option but to return to work full time after the birth of the baby because my partner will not be able to support me due to the CSA debt. It is virtually impossible to employ childminders on an irregular basis to enable S to look after the baby when he is at home, so I will have to pay the costs of a full-time childminder, in the region of £450 per month. I have been told by the CSA that I am expected to pay for this alone and that it cannot be taken into account in making this assessment. THIS IS DISGUSTING. I am appalled by the effrontery of the organisation and the total hypocrisy of them claiming to protect the needs of women and children. WHAT ABOUT MY BABY?

WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO LOOK AFTER ANOTHER WOMAN’S CHILD (ie my partner’s son) EVERY OTHER WEEKEND WITHOUT RECOGNITION OR REWARD AND FOR A WHOLE MONTH WHILE SHE IS ON HOLIDAY IN SPAIN YET BET EXPECTED TO PAY 100% OF THE COSTS OF CHILDCARE MYSELF FOR MY OWN BABY BECAUSE THIS PREVIOUS RELATIONSHIP HAS MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO ENJOY THE REWARDS OF BEING A FULL-TIME MOTHER MYSELF?

These are the questions I would like raised in the House of Commons:

(1) Why is this so-called "absent parent" deemed responsible for all debts and costs occurring as a result of marital conflict and breakdown? These costs should be taken into account when making the assessment. Also the right of appeal should be a sensitive procedure and allow for every possible permutation to be taken into account so that the final assessment is fair to both parties.

(At the moment the CSA poses hypocritically as the moral guardian of abandoned women and children everywhere, an outdated, Victorian concept as irrelevant to the needs of modern society and children as can be.)

(2) Why is the woman who wishes to make an easy escape from her marriage given every conceivable assistance by the State (financial and otherwise) without having to be answerable in any way for the responsibilities of her former existence? Indeed in many cases she is far better off than before. This should have been reviewed at the same time the CSA was being piloted.

(3) How does it help the needs of the child to deprive them of a father at a critical period in their lives simply because the mother may feel inclined to live independently and knows that it is not merely possible but made even easier than before due to the structure and practice of the CSA?

(4) Why are needs of the children and partners of second marriages/relationships so totally discounted? I have to continue working after our child is born because my partner cannot afford to support myself and our child on his own as he now has to pay maintenance. As I will have to bear the costs of childcare totally alone they are effectively making me into the single parent. What incentive practically and financially does this give me to remain in the relationship?

(5) Why is every father that does not live with his child deemed to be an "absent parent" and treated like a criminal on the run?

(6) Why is there no distinction between genuine absent parents who take no part whatsoever in their children’s upbringing or support and those (like my partner) who seek to give his child the best possible life he can by having him to stay as often as he can, by lavishing him with clothes, gifts and attention, and by entering into a new, permanent relationship thereby introducing his child to the concept of a normal stable family life? Why should he be penalised for this?

(7) Why does the CSA always believe the mothers or custodial parents version of events unless it has concrete proof to the contrary? Divorce and relationship breakdown is an adversarial process and one party often seeks to hurt another in any way they can – and one of the most effective ways is through money. Lies are commonplace. It seems the CSA only believe what they think will get the Government more money, regardless of the havoc this wreaks through individuals’ lives.

The whole thing exposes the CSA for what it really is – a shambolic, simplistic mistake. A badly thought through attempt to recoup costs incurred by social and political decisions and events that have over decades led to the breakdown of the nuclear family. It does not work and, in my opinion, a Government body should not interfere in the very fabric of family life in this way.

I would really appreciate a response as I feel the effects of this legislation in a very personal and distressing way. I want to give my baby every chance to grow up in a happy family and wonder whether anyone realises the impact this harassment and injustice is having on our lives together, and how much harder things are becoming as we both feel increasingly hounded and misrepresented as I approach the birth of my child?

Yours sincerely

-


min9

B
S --- ---
The Right Honourable Sir Archibald Hamilton MP
House of Commons
Parliament
Westminster
London
8 March 1994

Dear Archie

Family Law

We have met, once, on my door step some years ago, but I keep abreast of your views and activities via The Bond, which as local street steward, I deliver in the "Close".

I have not had occasion to write to you before this, but I now find myself and my wife (both in mid-seventies) faced with a family tragedy. You may not be able to assist but I felt I must bring to your notice a travesty of justice in our laws, and the Courts interpretation of these laws, concerning family relationships.

The details of the case, which sparks my interest, I will keep as succinct as I can.

We have one son, born 1957. Educated at Kings College Wimbledon, and a graduate of Newcastle University - now a bank official at mid-management level. Living modestly in B, with wife and three children aged 10 - 8 - 6. Until six months ago an ideally happy family - excessively so - the parents still very much in love - the children healthy, charming, lively, affectionate, happy.

One day their mother announced (in writing) that she was no longer in love with her husband, in fact she now loved "Tony" (a single parent, barman - part time - in a pub in B).

She then said that whilst she would like to move out with the children she had no money, and therefore the practical solution was for him to move out of the house so that she could "start a new life". The DOE would provide herself and the boys with money on which to live!

Visits to marriage counsellors were abortive. Currently she is pressing for a visit to the conciliation service with the announced intention of forcing her husband to move out. The threat is "go quietly or the law will do it for me". No empty threat as far as I can make out, under the law and the Courts interpretation of them "What is best for the children" seems to be the guiding factor.

I should make it clear, no accusation has been made against my son - no womanising, no wife beating. He is a quiet, gentle chap, lives soberly, plays golf and has only one desire in life - to keep his family unit together.

In the locality in B there is a coven of single parents, who I suspect assist each other to devise how best to obtain monies from the State. My son’s wife unfortunately has made these people her friends. Needless to say they are well down of the social scale, bringing up their families on minimum standards, but nevertheless encouraging other unhappy wives to join them. Some months ago I did see a television programme of a Welsh village where the men have become redundant, the State supplies the money to the women on which to live. Last month, consequent to my suddenly awakened interest in family law, I saw a pressure group commenting on a television programme – "Families need Fathers". I have since become a member. I have had no communication with them other than to receive their literature. I have currently been reading their quarterly magazine "Access". I enclose a copy which depicts more poignantly the national picture of this problem than I can hope to do and which I trust you will find of interest if you have not already seen it.

It would appear that:

(1) The machinations of a bored wife to be rid of her husband are a common occurrence in Britain today and these are aided by the existing law.

(2) An Englishman’s home is now only his castle so long as he keeps his wife in good humour.

(3) There is a green paper currently under consideration which I am led to believe does little to remedy this situation.

To conclude, my son does not want publicity of his problems until he has resolved what can be done by arrangement with the conciliation service. I will send a copy of this letter to the Right Honourable A Bowden MP in whose constituency my son lives and also to

"Families need Fathers"
134 Curtain Road
London

EC2A 3AR

I do hope you will find this cause worthy of your support to ensure that the green paper is amended so that the law is not reissued to facilitate by arrangement and money the setting up of single parent families at the instigation of a disgruntled wife.

Yours sincerely

-


min10

Please reply to
FNF c/o 12 G Street
134 Curtain Road -
London -
--- ---
Tel: ---- ------
14/3/94

Dear Sir/Madam

Please find enclosed, cheque for £20.00 to cover my membership. Would you please advise me where I can seek some urgent help/advice before I attend Court at W on 29 March 1994.

The Court appearance is to decide on costs for divorce proceedings. My wife, who admitted adultery (and took our two children (but that’s another story) refuses to pay costs.

My wife left in August 1991. I spent the whole of 1992 trying to win a Residence Order over the children.

I wish I could show the whole file to someone, as even the Court Welfare Officer favoured myself more than the mother for residence. But, the Judge was useless and failed to understand the whole picture. Almost, even worse, was my Barrister. Anyway, please phone or write as soon as you can. It would be better to arrange to meet someone in H or nearby.

My wife still enjoys full-time employment as an Air Traffic Controller and the income of the correspondent (living with her colleague from work!!) and my wife must be on nearly £40,000 per year. As for me, I am unemployed, lost my job due to depression and on income support.

After losing everything I worked for, my wife, my two children (Am, 4 and Al, 7), dogs and then my job after suffering depression, I am now being asked to pay for it.

I am looking for work up here even though the Court case is in W. I do have a Solicitor L B in H, M, but they say they cannot represent me for this particular point.

It may have something to do with a recent application for Legal Aid being refused. (I have made an appeal). I have applied for 60/40 on the sale of the house and therefore need to be represented.

Please help.
Yours sincerely
Previous address, Mr D T W, P, S H Road, -

min11

FNF 36 P Green
134 Curtain Road - -
London -
Tel (H): ---- --- ---
(W): ---- --- --- ext 464
7-4-94

Dear Sirs

I believe that I need your urgent advice. I have been fighting a Residence Order for my two children, a boy of six and a girl of four, for 18 months. I had been the prime parent looking after them, my son suffering from asthma, my daughter from eczema.

A Welfare Report was prepared which was biased against me and factually inaccurate. I complained (as in your "helpful hints") yet both the probation office and a Court Directions Hearing refused to entertain my complaint.

I lost the main Court hearing, the Judge refusing to accept that my ex-wife’s smoking is harmful to my son’s asthma, that my brother and his wife’s (she is an ex-nursery teacher) evidence was not substantial, and that my own mother’s appearance was interesting but irrelevant! The children’s only grandparents are my parents. My ex-wife refuses any contact with her own mother.

My ex-wife is now trying to dictate contact. Off the record, others at the children’s school and the nursery teachers believe the children should reside with me.

I wish to appeal though I can ill afford it! My Solicitor says I am wasting my time, though his heart doesn’t seem to be in my case anyway.

Carlton TV’s London Tonight showed an interest when I phoned them for information regarding a screening of FDFD on 27-1-94, ironically the day after I lost my case.

I should have won this easily, but didn’t. Why? The Home Office is now investigating why my original complaint was ignored. Please help!

Yours faithfully

J M


min12

One day in August 1985 I noticed an inexplicable change in my wife’s behaviour. Our GP told me she had schizophrenia and she was seen by a Psychiatrist who told me he thought she did not have schizophrenia but was depressed. He asked me to try to persuade her to see him again. She refused.

Her odd behaviour ebbed and flowed for two years and in August 1987 she left home and took our 13-year-old daughter with her. I soon heard from a Solicitor saying that she wanted to divorce me. We had enjoyed over 20 years of very happy marriage prior to her odd behaviour starting in August 1985. I felt that if this odd behaviour could be cured, she would not want a divorce and so I strove to prevent it from taking place. My efforts were assisted by three clergymen, our GP, a Psychiatrist, a Solicitor, a Barrister, our son and daughter and contact with MIND, SANE and the National Schizophrenia Fellowship.

However, sadly after four years of trying to prevent a divorce, I had to accept it against my will and my conscience. The horrors that occurred during this traumatic time involved my wife taking our daughter to be hypnotised on two occasions and then she (our daughter) ran away from home (her mother had amazingly been given custody of her). Our daughter then tried to commit suicide by taking 40 paracetamol tablets. I had not seen her for about six weeks when this occurred. I found out purely by chance that she was in hospital.

My wife’s behaviour towards our son (I had been given custody of him) had also been odd, causing her to call the police to deal with him on two occasions. On another occasion our son sought the assistance of a patrolling police woman to accompany him to his mother’s house so that he could speak to her without her either ignoring him or giving him a torrent of verbal abuse.

The scant detail our GP and Psychiatrist had been able to gather was insufficient to put a definite diagnosis of a specific illness on my wife and this allowed her to pursue her illogical goal of divorce. The situation was controlled by her abnormal state of mind aided by laws that take no consideration of the effect that such control can cause. I was forced to accept something that was totally irrational as if it was normal. I did not and I shall do not. My love for my family, my desire to see logic and sincerity prevail will not permit me to do so. There is a blatant shortcoming in the law when it permits (it can be argued that it encourages) bizarre behaviour to triumph over love, commitment and responsibility to one’s family. It is tragic that divorce on demand now appears to be accepted as the norm. It totally disregards the terrible ripple on effects it can cause.

I have often been told "there is nothing you can do". Whilst this may be legally so I have no hesitate in saying that is morally very, very wrong.


min13

One day in August 1985, I noticed an inexplicable change in my wife’s behaviour. From then to October 1985, she altered from being a wonderful wife and mother to being unloving and irrational. At first, this attitude was directed solely at me, but gradually her attitude towards our son also changed. From August 1985 to August 1987, her behaviour fluctuated from being normal to being oddly out of character. She had, on occasions, what she termed "black moods", when she displayed rage and illogical behaviour. At first I did not know what was happening within her and I enlisted the help of three different clergymen who, in turn, endeavoured to get her to view our marriage and family life as she had done for the past 24 years. They all failed. So did the efforts our 16-year-old son and I made.

Because of her continued out-of-character behaviour, I eventually contacted our family doctor and showed him a copy of some writing my wife had done a few weeks previously, in the middle of the night.

He saw her soon after this and told me he thought she should see a Psychiatrist. He arranged a consultation for her at our house in May 1987. After the consultation, the Psychiatrist said to me, "There must be something she hasn’t told me. Try to get her to see me again". She refused.

Sadly, in August 1987, she left home and persuaded our 13-year-old daughter to go with her. Amazingly, she was able to successfully apply for legal custody of our daughter. Custody of our son was given to me. The Court Welfare Officers who were appointed to assess the situation were totally out of their depth. They viewed my concern to keep my family together as having no value and told me I was using "heavy" methods against my wife by seeking medical opinion. Their prejudice was such that I took tape recordings (unbeknown to them) of interviews I had with them to prove that their prejudice was very real. My Solicitor was then able to get them to remove some points they made in their report.

After my wife left home, our GP, who had a genuine desire to help, continued to talk to me about the situation my wife had placed our family in. Eventually, he told me she had schizophrenia. I asked him if it was in order for me to make this known to other people and he said it was alright within reason. Accordingly, I mentioned this to my Solicitor and several of our mutual friends, whom, I hoped would be able to exercise more influence on my wife to see the Psychiatrist again, than our GP, the clergymen, our son or I had been able to do.

My wife’s Solicitor heard of this and wrote to our family doctor precluding him from speaking to me about her mental health, causing him to write back saying that she was perfectly healthy, physically and mentally. He also stated that the Psychiatrist who saw my wife in May 1987 had confirmed that "this particular problem was because of marital disharmony".

I later learned that it was a verbal request from my wife to our family doctor, apparently threatening him with legal action, that caused him to write the letter mentioned above, to her Solicitor.

I was shocked by this letter as it was totally opposite to what he had told me on several occasions previously. To clarify matters, I made an appointment to see the doctor and made a tape recording of our conversation, without him being aware of this, and it is obvious that his main concern was to protect his own professional standing. His words were, "If I say more, I will get into trouble".

Knowing and loving my wife as I do, I was and still am, so certain that there is something out of balance in her mind, that in December 1987, I again contacted the Psychiatrist who had seen her earlier in the year. To my delight, he told me that our family doctor had contacted him, only two weeks after stating that my wife was perfectly healthy, physically and mentally, asking him to see her again. Tragically, for our family, she again refused.

The Psychiatrist told me he did not think my wife had schizophrenia and that it was his view that she might have been depressed, but he needed to see her again to get a clearer picture.

The situation worsened when my efforts to get her to return home were twisted by her Solicitor into acts of "harassment". Truly, I have not harassed her at all and all my efforts stem from love for her and our children. She is now endeavouring to obtain a divorce on very feeble grounds. I am contesting the divorce as we had a very happy marriage until her attitude suddenly and inexplicably changed. However, she has been successful in convincing her friends, colleagues and legal adviser that our marriage was not a good one and that it has irretrievably broken down. I still have 100% commitment to our marriage, so her claim is far from true.

In order to prevent her following the ridiculous path of divorce, I have to establish that she is mentally out of balance. My view is that a cure for a mental disorder is what should be under consideration, not a marriage being examined with a view to ending it.

The following is a letter from a solicitor recommended to me by the National Schizophrenic Fellowship:

"the marriage had not irretrievably broken down or because the allegations were untrue but this is an expensive and longwinded procedure which would be unlikely to result in the saving of the marriage."

I will read on and let you have my thoughts in due course.

Yours sincerely

LB


min14

FLAG J S,

9 Main St,

E,

-,

- ----- --- ---

I am interested in the summary of legal marriage that you offer in your policy papers 1 and 2, and totally agree with the idea of stability of the family and its protection.

My own family was in effect destroyed by the law. Not having a father, my mother was also devastated by the legal aspects of family law. After the death of her mother and a pregnancy, my wife became ill. Initially described as post-natal depression, her illness included taking an overdose and other suicidal tendencies and a constant need to move house, six times in all in approximately four years, and a continual dissatisfaction that allowed no social life or friends.

As one solution to her illness she kidnapped our son and returned to live with her sister, subsequently on the advice of her Solicitor, re-entering the family home and removing everything. Within weeks she went to and got a judgement against me as the cause of her illness and custody of our son.

Although I had effectively stopped her taking an overdose, and supporting her through 18 months of treatment as an out-patient at our local hospital, I was effectively "blamed" for the illness. J, who had been a healthy, extrovert child, within two years was referred to a child Psychiatrist showing symptoms similar to his mother. I was again referred to the Magistrates Court and held responsible for this, because I bought him a bike! His mother could not afford one. I saw my son only two hours a month for two years, although at this time I was, myself, a teacher.

It should have been obvious to the Court that his mother was not well enough to look after him, but her Solicitor was so dishonest he even dressed her in a nurse’s uniform, saying she had nothing else to wear. Winning was the most important thing and, even though she had custody and care and control, she continually left him on his own at night or on the street and also often refused me access saying he was ill. His schooling was neglected and I never really had a clear idea of what he was doing, which turned out to be not very much. Between marriages she worked shifts, was not at home when he returned from school and still in bed when he went to school. Sometimes obviously with different men. All applications to the Court to restore access, etc were generally not in my favour and, eventually, I had to contact the NSPCC. The only resolution to the problem would be to take him abroad. When he refused to go home, his mother called the police who threatened to seize him.

At the age of 15 he left his mother, moved to another school and now lives in France. His mother will not speak to him because he left her and our relationship, although good, is basically one of father and son who were both treated like criminals.

The Solicitor’s part in this was totally despicable and the effect on my family was tragic. Neither my maternal grandmother or uncle saw much of him before they died. My paternal grandfather never saw him at all. My mother and her family could not believe what happened. She had done so much for my wife and her family, a generation that could not even grasp the reality of such a situation. I lost my job, my house in Cumbria and almost my sanity. Local people were so supportive. They prepared a room for J at the initial Court hearing, expecting him to come home with his father. If anything, this was a medical situation for which neither J nor myself were responsible. It seemed the only way his mother could justify her own credibility was by destroying both myself and him, through the legal process.


min15

3rd January 1996

Dear B

A & A B, Hague Convention Case – New York

Further to the telephone message I left recently which followed my discussion with Dr John Campion, I have enclosed a summary of my case and the current status.

I hope we will have made direct telephone contact before this letter reaches you.

I should add that S is acting on my behalf in New York and I am in weekly contact with him, he sends his regards and is well and still actively pursuing his own case.

I made contact with S via Families Need Fathers who I joined in March 1995.

I have also included a recent letter to my MP which gives the current status and lines of activity.

My ex-wife, H, travelled to New York from London on September 24th 1994 with my children, A G (then aged 8) & A V D B (then aged 4), for a "holiday".

My ex-wife decided to remain in New York and retained the children without my consent.

I am in the process of securing my children’s return with an application for their return under the Hague Convention with respect to Child Abduction.

Myself, the children and my ex-wife are all British Citizens. We were married and divorced in England, and both children were born in England as were both H and I.

My ex-wife and the children entered the US on their British Passports with return tickets and obtained visitors visas.

In January 1995 I filed an application for their return with the Lord Chancellor’s office in London which was accepted by the State Department in Washington DC.

At the end of January I went to New York and appeared in a Hague Convention hearing at the beginning of February at the Family Court of New York, Manhattan.

The case came to rest on the habitual residence of the children because they had spent a lengthy period in Nigeria after the divorce. The Judge decided against my petition and made a ruling that their habitual residence immediately prior to them coming to US was Nigeria (even though they spent 9 weeks in the UK living with me immediately prior to leaving for the US) and therefore the Hague Convention application did not apply.

There is plenty of evidence against this ruling not least by way of proving that the children are British and have never changed their habitually resident from UK and also that the Judge made some factual errors.

I had engaged a New York Attorney for the case but I could no longer afford to pay her legal fees in lodging the appeal, having already become in debt in making this Hague Convention application.

In filing the appeal I engaged S (a non-attorney) who is based in Manhattan and gave him Power of Attorney to file and present my case acting as "Councel Pro Se, proxy".

The Judge made his judgement in March, we appealed against this in April and the Appellate Division (Court of Appeal) made its decision on 25th May 1995.

The Appellate Division would not allow S (a non-attorney) to represent and in addition denied the appeal motion in its entirety.

I am firm in my belief that under US Federal Law a citizen (US or other nationality) has the right to be represented in any US Court of Law by either himself or someone of his choosing.

More importantly the Appellate Court wrongfully dismissed the case in its entirety without it being heard, therefore depriving me of equal protection and due process under the US Constitution without sufficient reason, finding of facts and without coming to conclusions of law.

The current position is that S has submitted a Federal Complaint in the New York District Court and a pre-trial hearing took place on 17th November 1995. We are seeking to get the Hague Convention appeal properly heard or get the whole process starting again, and in addition we are seeking damages against various parties who we believe have acted improperly.

Naturally my case has much greater detail if you require it.

Yours sincerely

D B


min16

3, L Tce,

W,

B,

--2 6RX

RE Sunday 12-5-96. After returning from the bus rally and pub dinner with my sister and the two boys H & R, I dropped my sister off at my mothers, then drove home with the boys @ 16-15.

At 16-27 my wife took car to go to work for 16-30, at 18-00 received phone call saying she would be late due to accident concerning old lady, while playing on the floor with the boys and getting them washed & ready for bed, another phone call came @ 19-00 approx, said she was still there, I put boys to bed @19-15, started to get concerned about time at 19-30 boys fast asleep.

At 19-50 rang my parents house if J was there, 2/3 minutes later two silhouettes appeared at front door it was the police, when I opened door and they also, they came in, I noticed J (wife) behind them, after entering living room with police behind me, I sat down so did Sgt E the other officer stood @ living room door.

Not knowing if there had been accusations made against me, Sgt E said (& I quote) ‘R theres not an easy way to tell you this, your wife’s leaving you & she’s taking the boys’. I was gob-smacked, I broke down & stood up & said she can’t take them & can’t do it, there fast asleep in bed, by this time J was doing her bit. In an emotional state I started telling them about J’s abuse & abusive nature with the boys, and her family background, but to no avail.

I was then told by Sgt E ‘I understand your feeling son’. I then said I want to say goodbye to them & give them a kiss, the other officer replyed while blocking the door ‘thats not a good idea son’, then I replyed no, I want to see & say goodbye to them, so I went to open the living room windows, the same officer replyed ‘I wouldn’t do that son if you know what’s good for you’.

Then the phone rang a number of times, then I said, here, I’d better answer the phone and again the officer replied ‘stay where you are I’ll get it’, it was my mother, and would not let me speak to her.

I told them she should be up in 2 mins, and she would explain about my wife, but to no avail.

I also noticed that she was taking the car, to which Sgt E replied ‘you’ll get it back’ then I replied but I need the car, to which he replied again ‘you’ll get it back’, then they stood and went before my mother arrived which would have been less than 5 mins later at 20-09 approx.

PS Wednesday 15-5-96 my sister was informed by W police I had the right to refuse the boys being taken which was 3 days after, and also they have told me to go through a solicitor to retreive the car.

PPS Its Thursday night 16/5/96 @ 23-30pm and no phone call or anything to know where, or, how, the boys are.

Yours Faithfully

RLH


maj1

Dr T J Campion "---- -------"
Family Law Action Group ----- Road
-
18.11.94

Dear John

This letter may seem long-winded, but there has been so much more happen, this is a shortened version. Please take the time to read.

I have been brought up to be honest, polite and to respect the law (innocent until proven guilty) by my parents, who anyone would be proud to call their own. What they, other members of my family and myself have been put through over the last 17 months, can only be described as a living nightmare.

My wife, D and I married on 12.4.80 and we have one daughter, J C, born on 15.7.81. I believe we have had a happy marriage, just normal quarreling as any couple. I have always tried to do the best for my family, working 12-16 hours a day.

8.4.93 Dismissed from my job, which I am appealing against.

11.4.93 I arrive home to find my belongings and work papers packed and outside in the rain.

Stayed at my parents home for the next 12 weeks. During this period I was allowed home between 5 pm and 9 pm each day and a day out as a family each weekend. I could see D was not well so I did nothing to upset her, not even approach the subject of why I had been moved out.

20.4.93 On the way to a job fair we stopped for a meal. D and I decided to cancel an appointment with Relate for the next day as we were getting on well and could sort things out ourselves.

We did everything as normal as a family, apart from me living at home.

27.6.93 A family day out on the beach. D went back to the car with a headache.

J was glad of the chance to talk to me and did so for about 2 hours. I did not force her to say a thing, she was so unhappy with the way things were with her mum and me. I think she wanted me home, but I did not press her on that. J was worried, her mum had mentioned about taking her away. She did not want to go away from her friends, school, pets, etc. I never thought that would happen, but consoled J by saying if it did, keep in touch.

4.7.93 Rang D, who allowed me to move back in.

5.7.93 D had a visit from a counsellor, I was asked to go for shopping so they could be alone. They decided I see the counsellor. I made an appointment that night for later that week.

7.7.93 D took J to school. The last I saw of her. I spent late afternoon and evening trying to find them. I did not sleep that night.

8.7.93 I kept the appointment with the counsellor. Most things discussed with D were confidential, but was told D was worried about my mental state, that she still loved me, but did not like me very much at the moment. The counsellor thought D had or was going through a nervous breakdown.

10.7.93 Message from J on answer-phone.

"Hi Dad, It’s only J, um, we’re fine, and I just wanted to ring you and let you know that we’re okay, okay, bye".

I spent the next three weeks going everywhere for help. I find out they are in a refuge.

31.7.93 I receive a petition for divorce. I could not believe it. In shock, I was taken to my doctor.

3.8.93 See my Solicitor, who is a senior partner.

He said, I could not defend the divorce as I wanted. The only way I could get my family back, was by going for residence/contact. I eventually got Legal Aid for this.

14.10.93 This now being 100 days my family had been away, I write a letter to my Solicitor saying things I was not happy with, which my parents take to him.

A week later I was passed to an assistant to take over, of which I was not informed. It just happened.

10.11.93 Letter from "Family Court Welfare Service" giving my family’s whereabouts, against my wife’s wishes. I inform my Solicitor that I am desperate to see them but I will keep my word and not make contact until my wife is ready.

25.11.93 Residence/contact directions hearing, C Court. The Judge was told that J did not want to see me, by my wife’s Solicitor. The Judge said that the child’s wishes! would not be the only factor to be taken as there was more to this case.

21.12.93 Joint meeting (D and myself) with a Family Court Welfare Officer. I ring the week before to confirm I will attend. I ask if it is possible to see someone for 10 minutes before to say all that had gone on. I am told this is not possible as they find seeing both husband and wife together is best. D did not attend. I find out after waiting two hours that she rang the week before for a single meeting.

23.12.93 I am desperate to see J for Christmas, always a special time for us. I ring my Solicitor, saying I had had no food or liquid for two days and had not taken my medication, and would not do so until I see J. (My doctor gets me to start again 10 days later.)

25.12.93 Spent all day by the window. Told my family not to visit or phone, I only wanted to see J. I gave up at midnight. The tree and decorations are there to this day, I cannot bring myself to take them down. Presents and cards from family and myself are mounting up. No contact with J on her last two birthdays.

11.1.94 I meet with two Family Court Welfare Officers. I am told they interviewed my wife the day before. The questions they then ask me seem to stem from information gathered from the previous day. (If no joint interview, I would expect an equal assessment by asking the same questions to each person.) I felt like a criminal being interrogated, I could not believe things I was being asked. (In the report weeks later I am accused of threatening behaviour by not answering questions, but just staring. This is down to accusations directed at me which are untrue, how are you meant to behave?)

Afterwards I sat in the car for one hour, as I was not in a fit state to drive. I could not believe how unfair the interview had been, with the Welfare Officers having preconceived ideas of what sort of person I was, after meeting with D. At home, I ring my Solicitor to say what had happened.

9.2.94 My second interview with the Family Court Welfare Officers. I made my feelings known about the previous meeting, what happens is more of the same. It is during these two meetings I tell the one and only lie I have said since my family left. Under so much pressure I say there are no cupboards in our house, but there are.

I showed them photos to prove we are a happy family. Knowing I had not seen my family for seven months, they wanted to see recent photos. I then did this by producing some of a visit to Dublin just prior to my family leaving home.

I am trying very hard to save our marriage, not just for me. I know our daughter does not want it to end. This is probably why extraordinary lengths have been imposed to have no contact between us.

Family CWO "We stated that if one party thought the marriage was over, and wanted the marriage over, then the marriage was over". Are these people on commission?

I give the details of the counsellor we both met, no mention of this person in the Welfare Report, was she even contacted?

There are four people, given by D, that are in the report. None of these have even met me.

A Book Court Welfare Work, Research by [a] University 1991/92

J 2 meetings in Welfare Office
D 2 meetings in Welfare Office
Ds 2 meetings in Welfare Office
J + D 1 meeting in Welfare Office
J + Ds no meeting
D + Ds no meeting
J + D + Ds no meeting
No home visits made, J + D in a refuge.
Ds applying for residency of J (not an option?).

A very brief summary of University states that Welfare Officers in any part of the country do as they please to gather their data, not consistent..

"A persistent theme was once again the degree to which the data illustrates the differential treatment that fathers receive leading to their possible marginalisation in a number of key spheres".

So I could be "Father of the Year" and still not be able to see my child.

11.2.94 I visit a Psychiatrist to check on my "mental state!". His findings are that I am perfectly normal, A1. My wife’s Solicitor has picked out one word from this report, I am obsessed with our marriage.

Is it a bad OBSESSION, knowing the marriage was in difficulty and still wanting to continue?

Or, a good OBSESSION, a normal marriage one day, out of the house the next. No unreasonable behaviour and then find my wife has taken our daughter away.

I am not a very religious person, I have my beliefs. But if this can happen to me, then celebrating "The Year of the Family" in 1994, how long will it be before the end of the family as we know it today? Compare it with 30, 20, 10 years ago, at this rate what effect is it having on our children, and their view of relationships.

I can sit back and wait three to five years or so for my daughter, but I want to prevent now, J hating her mother in the future for what she has been put through.

12.2.94 Appeal for Legal Aid dismissed. (My wife had Legal Aid both for residence/contact and the defence of the divorce. Not only that, it was not only a Barrister that represented her, but a QC on both occasions. I had a Barrister for the residence/contact and I had to represent myself in the defence of the divorce.)

22.2.94 Direction hearing, defence of the divorce, C Court, Decree Nisi not put through.

24.2.94 Direction hearing, residence/contact, C Court. First sight of Welfare Report by both Solicitors! Adjourn to read.

"Conclusion: it is my opinion that J’s best interests would be served by the Court considering making a Residence Order to Mrs W and an order of no contact with regard to contact with Mr W."

15.3.94 I eventually get leave granted to defend divorce as I originally wanted.

18.3.94 First meeting with my Barrister, discussed case for 20 minutes. After my one mistake last August of believing what I am told is right, I now check everything that it is genuine. I ask my Barrister if I could have another Welfare Report done or alter/add to the existing one (which I know is my right to have done). He says "No, if that was possible, everyone would be doing it." Who can I trust?!

It is around this time I read an article on "Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) (child brainwashing). (Please see attached.) This is very disturbing, as a lot of the signs to look for actually relate to what has happened to us. I buy a book of the same name, the author being an American expert in this field. From this moment I strongly suspect this happening to J.

27.4.94 Final hearing, residence/contact, C Court. More delays, as it comes to our notice that J has been seen by a Psychiatrist. My parent responsibility has been ignored, as I have repeatedly requested medical and school reports (even with whereabouts deleted). No permission was sought. It seems J was last interviewed 6 weeks ago, no report yet available and was being "chased up" the day before by the Family Court Welfare Officer. (This report eventually gets completed 20th May and forwarded to myself two weeks before the next hearing, even though the Judge directed it no later than 28 days). Today’s hearing has to be adjourned to see the report.

25.5.94 I receive Child Psychiatrist Report. J seen once alone and once with her mother. "I have since discussed the case with Ms T P, Court Welfare Officer, I have not met J’s father". "Although it would be entirely inappropriate for me to make any diagnostic statement about someone I have not interviewed personally it does sound as if Mr W is an unhappy man who might benefit from help in his own right".

J even states "she had absolutely no memories of Mr W being a nice, kind dad to her."!!!

3.6.94 I receive a supplemental petition (which is later changed to an amended petition). Up to now I have been accused of unreasonable behavior with being strict, which if looked at properly should be questioned. With an amended petition, these things did not happen, admitting lies. The new accusations are, pushing D down the stairs twice, pouring paint over her head. I have spent months trying to imagine these things happening, had I forgotten the incidents? It is very hard to accept when you know you have not done something to just dismiss it.

3.6.94 I rang America to trace experts of brainwashing in children, in this country. I had tried every possible source over the last few months, without success. I was given two names, one being listed in the "UK Register of Expert Witnesses", held by all Solicitors. This person, I find out, does a lot of work that goes to Court.

9.6.94 Final hearing, residence/contact, Wr Court. The Judge taken ill. Case could be heard that day in Wa Court. I show documents to my Solicitor to confirm my story, which she thought was very useful. My Solicitor and my Barrister drive to Wa together. When there, my Barrister would not even look at my evidence, let alone use it. He asks me what outcome I want put to the Judge.

The Court Welfare Officer and then the Child Psychiatrist give evidence.

IN BOTH OF THEIR OPINIONS, NO POSSIBILITY OF J BEING BRAINWASHED. The Judge then awards me no contact with J, not even supervised. All I could have was indirect contact of one letter per month, unsealed and sent via the Court Welfare Officer (to scrutinize). I have kept by my immediate decision of not agreeing to this, as it is inhuman and could not be more severe. I would not say anything which would be bad in a letter (even "I love you" may be misinterpreted), what I would not want is something innocent scribbled out, and J wondering what I am trying to say to her. I know she is thinking about me, no-one can stop her doing that.

(This is what was awarded at the end of the case.)

I then gave evidence.

I was denied my right to have another Welfare Report made.

I was denied my right to have an independent witness called. (I would have been quite happy if his findings were that J was not being brainwashed.)

I was denied the opportunity for the Judge to see J and myself in her chambers. I was risking a brief meeting with her, (not even to speak to her). If J reacted badly towards me as had been stated, I would probably never get to see her again, but I know given the opportunity to freely express herself, not what has happened up to now, J saying things, and then having to go back to the person who made them up. One day, no matter what pressure J has been put under, she will tell the truth.

The Senior Family Court Welfare Officer was in Court as an observer. I was later told (which is to be proved) she was there for one reason only. For the case to go one way and there be no comeback on her department.

10.6.94 My mother is prevented from entering the Court as an observer by my Barrister, and only allowed in when I told him my wife’s friend was in the day before and was there again that day. D gives evidence.

In the summing up of the Judge I was vehemently accused of being a person I am not. It was even stated that the reason for my supposed behaviour was for my (poor?) upbringing, which was totally uncalled for and untrue. The only reference directed to this is in the Child Psychiatrist Report, from what my wife has said. I kept on looking behind to my mother, we both looked at each other in disbelief.

My mother has angina and has been admitted to hospital three times due to no contact with her granddaughter. I have repeatedly begged for J to ring her nan.

On leaving the Court, my Barrister would not allow me to appeal.

Over the coming weeks I did not receive a copy of the Court Order. This had been sent with the rest of my file to the cross draughtsman for costing. When I did get a copy, it had the wrong year of J’s DOB on it. When corrected, by this time, I was out of time to appeal.

19.7.94 My parents visit their Solicitor (my original) for him to represent them on getting to see J. When he realised the connection, he went to reception and my parents heard a lot of shouting. On his return, he made all sorts of excuses and seemed not to want to have anything to do with them.

He gave them the address of another Solicitor.

My mother said they would go as high as possible if needed. Their Solicitor then wagged his finger at them and said "If you do that, I will see to it, you never see your granddaughter again.".

Up to now they have seen no other Solicitor.

I must be getting a bit paranoid, but things that have happened seem to point towards a conspiracy, but I must be wrong!

5.8.94 I photo-copy my (complete) file from my Solicitor.

13.9.94 Appointment with my Solicitor. I query why I was not informed of several papers in my file. A letter from the Child Support Agency. I contacted these last year after finding a letter to my wife, at our home from them. They told me the case was closed. D had asked for me not to contribute and that decision could not be reversed.

I am even being denied my right to pay towards my daughter.

A note that refers to our first meeting with my Barrister. It states "I should prepare a detailed report of each and every complaint I had with the Court Welfare Officer, and handed to my Barrister on the day of the hearing". I did not do this, as I did not know about it.

Also, I should realistically consider two choices:

(1) Holding off completely for a period of six months to let J calm down and perhaps exercise written contact in between.

(2) Ask the Court if I could go before a Court Welfare Officer with J and have an addendum prepared to the report.

These were not mentioned to me before, or at the hearing and No (2), I was told by my Barrister, it was not possible to do.

An advice note from my Barrister dated after the hearing which needs reading several times as this was the person representing me, but totally putting me down.

And so the list goes on.

Next follows what was said about a letter to my Solicitor from the Court Welfare Officer:

Me: I’ve actually noticed, regards the Welfare Officer, I’ve not seen it before, she’s actually
(Ds W) told you, she’s frightened of me.

Solicitor: Yes. Yes, haven’t you seen that?

(NH)

DRW: No.

NH: Because, um, obviously we take a view of things here, if I’d have sent you anything which might have made you angry towards her or annoyed with her.

DRW: Not at all.

NH: It wouldn’t have helped you in future meetings with her. But certainly the Barrister’s seen it anyway, your case, the point is, well she actually made that point at the case, if I remember.

DRW: Well, there’s no need.

NH: I don’t think there’s any need. What she is, is she’s one of these as you saw, I think, one of these quite feminine-type ladies, I got the impression.

DRW: Well she’s in the wrong job then.

NH: Evidently, she’s quite anti-men, rather than pro-family, which is unfortunate.

DRW: Well it’s all wrong, well when she’s got a family of her own. It’s very strange.

(Our daughter is in a refuge with genuinely abused children and mothers and it is down to this woman why I can’t see her.)

I then thank my Solicitor for all that she has done for me, but will have to dispense with her services, as I suspect she is not able to do the job she would like, due to superior intervention.

28.9.94 I attend an appointment with an Investigations Officer from the DSS (since moving back into our home, I now know the reason why I was allowed to visit at certain hours, D had been doing lots of things behind my back including claiming several benefits she was not entitled to, as my wages did not stop until September 1993, were being paid into our joint bank account, of which the main user was D. She had several times (just prior to leaving) tried to persuade me to go with her to close the joint account and start single ones. I suspect the reason D left with J soon after I moved back in, was in fear of me discovering her wrong doing and not anything I supposedly committed.

The reason I was at this meeting was to pay back the money D was not entitled to, before they themselves found out and took action against her.

I explained what had gone on and what I was prepared to do but nothing was to be done, he didn’t want to know, WHY?

12.10.94 Final hearing, defence of the divorce, L Court.

13.10.94 I initially wanted to hand a sealed letter to the Judge which had my full intentions within. For him to keep, and open at the end of the case, he refused.

With representing myself, I was continually prevented from asking witnesses relevant questions on incidents that happened, such as "I will not allow you to continue with that line of questioning" and with a subpoena witness "Do not cross-examine your own witness" when my wife’s QC declined asking her any.

It got to a point that I could not continue, with not knowing what to ask, thus not being able to bring out facts to support my case. This also happened on the first day, so I awoke on the second day at 4.15 am to check and make sure that my questions met with the Judge’s approval, but no.

I felt I was being made an example of by "having the cheek" to defend a divorce (as there are only 50 a year in the whole country out of 150,000 because you are put off every step of the way by all concerned) for trying to keep my family together.

I even said everything on my daughter’s life was the truth, and was ridiculed for this.

In the Judge’s summing up, I was repeatedly called a tyrant (with venom). I have received this treatment at least three times before; it does not get any easier but it only makes me more determined, after I get over the shock, as I am in the right. After refusing the order to leave the house the following day, I have to sign a "General Form of Undertaking". The Judge agrees to see the letter I offered him the previous day (see attached).

A Decree Nisi is granted.

That evening:

3.10.94 See attached Affidavit

I NOW KNOW J IS BEING BRAINWASHED.

(No 3 in Affidavit/BOLD writing and following, back at 9.6.94.)

According to this book on PAS, there are three degrees of brainwashing. For J to be so convincing with professional people I suspect this to be a severe case. The reason for my wanting an independent expert witness.

No matter how hard I try and whatever proof I come up with, I feel so helpless knowing this is taking place and not being able to prevent this happening to J.

1.11.94 A brother signs an Affidavit confirming and adding to the one by a friend dated 31.10.94 (the one attached). Also several things I was not aware of.

8.11.94 I appoint a new Solicitor based in Lv. But I do not appear to be any better off, advice of go through the motions through the Courts. No immediate action to be taken, do virtually nothing for six months.

10.11.94 Appeal to the Decree Nisi sent for a hearing in London.

(1) His Honour Judge D was misled by the petitioner on most accounts of verbal and written statements, on oath, resulting in gross perjury, part of which I have been accused of being violent to my wife, which I have not. I now find out I will be branded a wife beater. Also I have been accused of marital rape, I have never in 15 years forced myself on my wife, Judge D classed this under Civil Law and had the option of Criminal Law, so I must at least feel lucky I am not in prison now.

(2) There was no evidence on which a finding could be based, apart from what has been stated by the petitioner, which I can prove to be wrong.

(3) His Honour Judge D misdirected himself by introducing reconciliation and therapy.

One reason why a marriage might not be working is that one partner has a problem which he or she has not addressed or even necessarily identified.

"During the course of the marriage problems originating in childhood may surface and reveal themselves in the shape of, say, alcoholism or drug abuse, the argument that such addictions have become evident because of the other partner’s attitude does not always hold water. Often these behaviour traits have been there in some form all the time, irrespective of the existence of the partner or of the marriage itself. In such a situation the partner with the problem should make every effort to seek professional help, rather than destroy the marriage because of something within himself or herself as an individual."

(D stated when we first met that she had an unhappy childhood. I do not know if this is true or not. I was always there if she wanted to talk about it.)

J and myself have both seen a Psychiatrist!

"Adults who as children suffered from disruptions of continuity may themselves, in "identifying" with their many "parents", treat their children as they themselves were treated – continuing a cycle costly for both a new generation of children as well as for society itself.

Thus, continuity is a guideline because emotional attachments are tenuous and vulnerable in early life and need stability of external arrangements for their development."

Quote by Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls, in 1981 (the year J was born):

"The family is the primary social unit. The well-being of the whole community requires that children should, so far as possible, be brought up by their own parents as members of one family . . . the institution of marriage is the legal foundation of this family life . . . The only real remedy is the growth of a strong public opinion condemning divorce, and I would add, condemning infidelity. It should not be regarded, as it is now, as the private concern of the parties with which no-one else has anything to do. It is the concern of everyone who has the welfare of the country at heart".

BACK TO BASICS

Also: "He has consistently stressed the importance of justice at the expense, if necessary, of the rules of the law. Overriding principles have appealed to him more than the constrictions of the law."

10.11.94 Application to be released from undertaking of ouster injunction filed.

18.11.94 It is now 71 weeks (500 days) since I have seen or even spoken to J. What I have experienced in Court to date (even with this new overwhelming evidence), I am not confident with the outcome as I have lost all respect with the law and feel this may be dismissed, as have all previous facts.

J is in real DANGER, WILL SOMEONE PLEASE HELP HER. I ask you not to accept what I say here as the truth, but for someone to look at the evidence I have to back up my story. I am appalled with the way I have been treated (have seen many people, some fairly) and it would seem that you stand a better chance when a person is guilty in Criminal Law than you have when innocent, involved in Civil Law (guilty, when known to be innocent or do not upset the status quo).

23.11.94 A sister-in-law signs an Affidavit.

23.11.94 I receive an application for an injunction from doing any act to the detriment of the home.

24.11.94 Release from undertaking of ouster injunction, L Court.

I attend with my parents as observers but they were not allowed to stay in the Court.

The Judge was reluctant to remove the injunction, I insisted that I did not want this hanging over my head with it being open-ended. (This to be brought in any time in the future without my knowledge of any hearing. The first I would know about it would be a visit by someone giving me a date to leave.)

I still do not know whether this is still in force.

I agreed to signing with regard the papers I received the day before, thus dispensing with wasting Court time setting up another date. This was, to not damage building or remove any property from the home (I later found this time to be costly, maybe getting home 30-40 minutes earlier than we did).

An ouster injunction at the defended divorce hearing. This was after I stated (as on previous occasions) I preferred my wife and daughter to be in the family home, where I presently reside, as they are in a refuge. I was not allowed to add anything to this statement. The next thing I know I am being told to vacate the home by noon the next day and then it was being decided what area I should not enter. With this I objected, as I thought this did not sound right and wanted legal advice on my rights.

Judge D adjourned to his chambers. I then heard my wife say to her Barrister "Can I now sell the house?" I want nothing from the house but that is my daughter’s home. Everything I have worked for. Judge D returned and I had to sign a "General Form of Undertaking" not to damage the house until an ouster injunction hearing could be arranged. I am making an application to be released from this undertaking as this can be in the near of distant future.

(With No 2, there are no grounds for divorce out of the five available.)

Under Grounds for Divorce

"It is not enough just to show that the marriage has broken down. If the petitioner fails to establish the particular fact on which she is relying, the Court will refuse a decree.

"Spouses are expected to put up with the ordinary wear and tear of married life. The test has been said to be (would any right-thinking person come to the conclusion that this husband has behaved in such a way that his wife cannot reasonably be expected to live with him, taking into account all the circumstances and the characters and personalities of the parties?)

"Courts go out of their way to discourage defended petitions and the District Judge will try to see any way of avoiding a defended divorce. Only if these efforts fail will the District Judge allow the case to go forward to a hearing of the divorce."

"Knowingly giving false information is perjury which is a criminal offence.

I certainly would never damage the property, as I have done without food, initially with worry about my family, and later I was just able to do without. I went from 14 stone in July 1993 when they left, down to 8 stone 9 lb in December 1993. I have struggled to pay the bills, but also with borrowing money from my father I have been doing the house up, for when eventually my family return, with or without my involvement.

I even asked how did I stand if someone, without my knowledge damaged the property, as it was a grey area and difficult to prove.

On the way home, we pass D’s father’s house, who lives up from La Hall, a mile from our home, all blinds and curtains are closed, then we pass him up the road on his way out in the car (going away, WHY?!).

We arrive at my home to find the door and post smashed in. I thought people would be inside denying me access, but no. I went outside and down the road was a police car, investigating another incident, who I alerted.

We all went inside to see what was missing. Washing machine; cot; budgie cage; lawnmower; 80+ piece dinner service (many of which I have added to in the last few months); all the saucepans, two of which were in the sink to be washed; an expensive Bonsai tree I bought for my wife, its terracotta dish missing and the tree dumped in the sink. Virtually everything from J’s room, with clothes she has well outgrown by now; most of her photos, my only reminder of her physically; (no photos of me, were taken for J). D’s clothes; jewellery; most of the towels, including one that was being used, most of the pillowcases that I washed the day before, in a bag to be ironed.

My wife has not been in the hose for 17 months, several items I have bought in this time are missing: personal papers; the list goes on, but worst of all some Christmas presents for this year I had bought for J and not wrapped yet. Eighty Christmas cards for Reunite that came at the end of October and put with decorations, all taken, three cards dropped on floor. A clock for our wedding from my mother’s sister, who died the day after seeing J for the first time. Mostly our wedding presents, and gifts her family had given us over the years.

With the time they have been away, most things they did not need.

It seems she is in her right to do what she and four or five other people with her (seen by various people) have done.

They actually did, what I was in the Court at the time promising not to do.

Someone rang the police from the Refuge later to confirm it was D (it’s alright, it was only us).

I have had someone in the house, for months, while I go out, usually my mother. At least she was not there at the time. After all she has gone through, I’m sure witnessing the break-in would have killed her.

It looks like there could have been a look-out, as several things had been stacked up on the floor, and others in bin bags.

Thinking later, I can recall seeing three men talking by a car (outside the Court) and stop and look as we crossed the road. I think they were still there over an our later as we left. The Court is half an hour from home. Were they also going to snatch my case papers/evidence?!

The Finances Directions hearing is on 1.12.94. I will refuse a future hearing until all items are returned. I suspect items taken are not all with my wife, the damage done will stay as it is until put right by those that did it. I have kept up the payments on the house insurance, but it does not cover a wife breaking in (not normal). This is just another pointer towards my wife’s true character. She thinks she is above the law:

Fraud

Abduction

Desertion

Child abuse, brainwashing (other offences I’ve seen in Affidavits)

Perjury (it would be easier to list the truth than the lies)

House break-in

Theft (taken before decision reached by the Courts).

She has used the System.

I just wish I was wrong, but if I am right my wife could be capable of doing anything and J is with her. If anything should happen to me, there are other people who will take over until justice is done.

I’ve tried to keep this short, I did not think it would amount to 16 pages and attachments, but with many hundreds of papers, I have left a lot out, which can be seen any time if required.

I would appreciate any kind of help or backing, not for me, this is all for J.

Thanking you in anticipation,

Yours sincerely

Ds W

 
D, wife, age 36
J, daughter, age 14

 

1.12.95 J leaves message on answerphone (recording kept) first contact in 2½ years.

7.12.95 Decided not to take medication or food until after I see J.

13.12.95 Rooftop protest. Wife’s Solicitor would advise her to let our daughter see me.

7 days 14.12.95

14 days 21.12.95 Letter delivered by hand to my wife’s Solicitor. It is now over a week since my demonstration. My intention was to stay on the roof until I saw J, but with an assurance there would be no delay, I came down. I have stayed on the hunger strike which I started on 7th December, as well as not taking my medication from the same day. I will not start until after I have seen J.

I rang the Solicitor later that day, he has spoken to my wife, J has supposedly told her she does not want to see me and NO PHONE CALL WAS MADE!!! He has read my letter and would forward it to my wife.

(LETTER DATED 4.1.96. Thank you for your letter dated 21.12.95 which we have forwarded to our client for her further instructions) Two week gap. Urgent.

21 days 28.12.95

2.1.96 My mum went to see wife’s Solicitor. Surprised I was still on hunger strike. He said it was about time J has her own Solicitor. He would contact one in Ld. Hear something in a few days.

28 days 4.1.96

8.1.96– Contacted wife’s Solicitor three times this week, no reply, delaying 12.1.96 tactics.

35 days 11.1.96

16.1.96 Went to wife’s Solicitor’s office, not there, asked if he could contact me, no reply.

17.1.96 My mum spoke to wife’s Solicitor, says he can’t communicate with me, rubbish, I have no Solicitor, I am representing myself (I am my Solicitor), he has to speak and write to me, fobbing-off tactics.

Gave number of Solicitor to represent J. I ring and find out HE HAS BEEN HER SOLICITOR FOR OVER A YEAR!!! He was abrupt and would not talk any more to me. Last saw J a year ago and wouldn’t look into it any further. Would not listen to the tape recording. I said as parents he should treat us equally and look after J’s best interest. What about my "parental responsibility", why was I not informed of his involvement?

42 days 18.1.96

24.1.96 Not seen or spoken to J for 932 days (133 weeks).

50 days 26.1.96 My wife has repeatedly stated that she will not stand in her way if J wanted to make contact. I fear what threats she has received to have absolutely no contact with any of my family for 2½ years.

J has made contact with a local friend about three times in this period, all rushed, nervy phone calls which ended quickly when someone came near the phone.

No matter how ill I get, I cannot allow this abuse of our daughter to continue.

D W


maj2

Divorce Law
Personal Tragedy and Public Farce

 - -
April 1995

The forthcoming White Paper on divorce promises to end "quickie divorces" and reduce hostility. It will do neither – it will further increase fragmentation of the family and simply shift the human misery and hostility that inevitably accompanies it away from the courtroom and public gaze into the domestic scene to be picked up by the provisions of the Family Homes and Domestic Violence Bill – now going through the House of Lords. I offer my own account of the sordid reality of divorce that lies behind the bland rhetoric of the Laywers and Politicians – from a child’s and a parent’s point of view.

I was born in 1946, just after the War and never knew my father. He had been in the Army and deserted my mother when I was two years old. Whatever the reason I just hated him for the suffering he caused us. I lacked a whole raft of knowledge and schoolboy skills that boys learned from their fathers; knowledge about football, cricket and fishing and a general worldliness. My sister and I both lacked confidence because of not having a father and the effects have lasted through to the present day.

My mother had to bring up the family on her own on a small income and life for her seemed to be one long drudge. She had to leave early each morning to cycle 10 miles to work (she could not afford the bus fare) and came home late. Saturdays consisted almost exclusively of shopping and Sundays were taken up with washing, ironing and the occasional bout of gardening. My mother was always tired. We did not suffer crushing working-class poverty, but a humiliating and sordid middle class poverty, holding values and aspirations quite out of kilter with financial reality.

Hardship did not draw us together – it separated us. I felt a constant sense of pity for my mother coupled with an irrational anger that she should have prevented this happening and that she should manage things better. My mother was a source of constant frustration to me and I clearly needed a father to understand me, to challenge me and direct and control my mental and physical energies. These childhood experiences left me determined that my own children should be brought up in a physical and emotional security.

After I got married a daughter was born and I had not thought that such fulfillment and happiness was possible. She was particularly special because she was our "firstborn" and I felt that she was part of me and part of my future. We lacked money because my earnings were not great and my wife had stopped working. I had to work very hard because I was studying for my PhD as well as lecturing at a university and all my spare time was taken up with renovations to the house. We were keenly planning a period abroad if I managed to get the post-doctoral post in Canada that I was after.

But all these carefully constructed and hard worked for plans were shattered one evening that I shall never forget. Completely out of the blue, after I had put our daughter to bed, my wife announced that she had been having an affair with the brother of my best friend and wished to leave with our daughter to "sort herself out". I was deeply hurt and shocked and did not believe what was happening. My wife clearly had no understanding of the seriousness of her proposal and no understanding of my attachment to my daughter.

She was also acting quite irrationally. She said that she would get a small flat and that I could live nearby so that I could still "play a part" in my daughter’s life. Apart from any moral considerations this was unworkable from a purely practical point of view. All my career plans would have to be abandoned and I would have no means of supporting myself. I was very badly frightened. I moved into my daughter’s bedroom and, basically took over her care. My wife spent many evenings and most weekends with her "boyfriend". I just dropped my work and spent all my efforts trying to get friends involved to act as mediators. All to no avail, however, and I was forced to consult a Solicitor.

It was then that I was confronted with the full idiotic bigotry of the legal system. I found that I would have no chance in any custody dispute simply because I was a man. I was shocked and outraged that the law would support my wife but I was told that the law was not concerned with "who slept with whom" but simply with who could best look after the child. I pointed out that who slept with whom would be viewed as being very relevant to the question of who could best look after the child to most normal people. But I was told that my wife’s affair would probably count in her favour because my daughter would then have a "father figure" around. The argument that I put forward, that if I were to get custody I would work for reconciliation and allow my wife free access to my daughter, counted against me on the grounds that the tension would be bad for the child.

It was at this point that I mentally gave up and realised that I was being forced to take part in nothing more than a shabby farce. Strong pressure was put on me not to fight for custody but this conflicted with my powerful feelings towards my daughter and my natural sense of justice. My mind was made up for me when my wife’s lover phoned one evening and threatened that my wife would be difficult over access if I did not agree to her leaving. I decided then to fight to keep my daughter away from these evil people.

This provoked my wife into effecting an abduction of my daughter using male "bodyguards". In a state of great distress, anger and shock, I telephoned the police who traced her but refused to do anything about it or even tell me where she was because my wife had claimed that she had been threatened. The following day my wife came round with the police who kept me "guarded" in one room while she stripped the house of all the belongings of herself and our daughter. I was left in such a state of grief and anger that I had a complete mental breakdown, was unable to work, and had to receive medication.

It took almost a year for the custody case to be heard. I was only able to fight the case because, by that time, my contract of employment had terminated and I was rendered unemployed (for the first time in my life) and was therefore eligible for Legal Aid. My longer term career plans had by then been completely destroyed.

There then followed a stream of petty arguments over access and money with my wife set against a very distressing and provocative background. My daughter never wanted to go back to her mother after access visits and wanted to know "why she wasn’t living in Daddy’s house." I nearly always had to force her out of the car in tears. My wife’s boyfriend used to hide behind the front door watching. I was driven to distraction as I felt I was being forced to harm my own child and at the same time being blamed for it.

I was provoked beyond endurance on one access visit. I physically attacked my wife and picked up my daughter to take her away and back to her home. I then came to my senses and returned her and walked away. I had never physically attacked anyone before in my life, let alone a woman. I was then subjected to the further humiliation (set up by the mediator) of having to pick my daughter up in a public car park. I came very close to going away and never seeing my daughter again just to be able to preserve my dignity – and my sanity.

Despite a Welfare Officer report stating that we were both perfectly normal loving parents and strongly recommending joint custody, this was refused because of my clear hostility. Having got the custody she wanted and most of the equity in the house (in lieu of maintenance) my former wife then got a full time job, moved 30 miles further away and bought herself a new house. She subsequently moved twice again and lived with another boyfriend. The earlier "father figure" who had broken up my marriage and my daughter’s stable home departed the scene. My career was totally destroyed. I was unemployed and I was left with debts of around £10,000. Most seriously of all, I was in a state of chronic agitation and distress at losing my daughter, although unlike some unfortunate men, I was at least still in contact with her.

I took on some temporary work and struggled to survive on my own in my home so I could keep in contact with my daughter. But I could not earn enough money and debts mounted. The gas was cut off and, during a hard winter, I had no heating in the house and had to cook on a camping stove. I became more and more depressed and twice nearly committed suicide.

My mother then came up from London to stay with me and, because of her assistance, I managed to survive. Eventually, however, I had to sell the house at a very low price and move to London to live with my mother and get proper work. For the first time in 15 years I did not have a home of my own and I had to take up a junior position starting a new career from scratch.

I managed to keep in contact with my daughter under tremendous logistical difficulties. A round trip to collect her took some 12 hours by train and could be managed only with my mother’s noble efforts. Partly because of these difficulties and partly because of her developing new interests, my contact with my daughter has dwindled to mainly half-terms and holidays with the occasional extra long weekend. I have been refused permission by her school and the Education Authority to see my daughter at school or attend any functions.

My experiences have made me very bitter and very suspicious of both the law and of women generally. However, despite this, I have managed to get married again and have a son who is very dear to me and a wife who is very loyal and understanding. I have managed to buy another house which we share with my mother who is now frail and needs looking after. Debts have been largely paid off but I still have no pension (having had to cash in my previous one in order to survive) which causes me great anxiety.

My former wife has now married again and lives, with my daughter, with another man who is very wealthy. They have a large house with two new cars, horses, stables and an extra holiday cottage. They have a standard of living way beyond anything I could even dream of. Despite this, with the advent of the CSA, I am now liable to pay her substantial sums of money which (if enforced) would mean that, not only would I be unable to provide myself with a pension, I would have to leave my home yet again. This would entail still further disruption and hardship for myself and my family and I have no idea what would happen to my mother. We live with this "Sword of Damocles" constantly over us.

I am a respectable professional man who believes strongly in marriage and the traditional family and the need to bring up children in stable and wholesome environments. I also believe strongly in personal morality and respect for the needs of others. There is therefore something deeply wrong when I find myself completely at odds with what the State expects of me. We seem to have policy driven by the exotic and perverted ideas of an intelligentsia that is increasingly becoming removed from social reality. And the needs and values of ordinary men and women and their children are being marginalised and ridiculed by them. I am bringing up a young son and instead of looking forward to his getting married and having children (as I should be) I am fearful of it.


maj3

- Quay
-
-

Dear Sir

I was divorced in January 1993. I have two children now aged 15 (C) and 13 (M). My ex-wife has been adulterous with a number of men during the marriage. Three are mentioned in the proceedings. These were long (eight months and 18 months) intimate affairs in which the two children were involved, ie considerable socialising all together behind my back and going into the men’s homes when their wives were away.

The children, with whom I had a loving and close relationship, were nevertheless brought up in latter years to keep all information from me, if possible. I never pressed them as they were having to lead a double life. I was just always there. For 2½ years I took over the role of seeing the children off to school and being at school to pick up the youngest at 3.30 pm. Despite a very demanding job as a site engineer at a large industrial museum, my enlightened employer condoned my short working day, and wrote to the Court to say it could continue.

None of the affairs my wife involved herself in – there have been many more than the three – have lasted. I have been gentle and kind and forgiving, even after confronting her over the first of the last three mentioned. My consuming interest has been my children and my home life with them (and her if she wants it). I have always left her the option to go, or to come back into the family.

I have taken years of physical and emotional abuse – the last three affairs were flaunted in front of me. I have been punched in the face (for going to visit the headmaster) and slapped many times. I have had my possessions removed from the house and smashed in front of the children. Her slovenliness then became a deliberate dirty campaign because I slowly took over all household duties including cleaning.

She petitioned for divorce – not me – on the grounds that I went to bed at 9.30 pm (after I had put the children to bed), that I closed the "joint" account, and eventually taped the telephone. At the time she had a job bringing in £7,000 pa, she had no bills to face except the Poll Tax, and she kept "our" account up to £500 overdrawn without the bank’s authorisation. I spent nothing on myself. She tried to get me to pay the tax on her self-employed earnings – three years’ worth. I earned £18,000 pa and paid all bills including her petrol to work bills and, after closure of the joint account, gave her the cash after bills were paid. She got free Legal Aid – how? I have had to borrow money to employ a Solicitor and defend myself.

As she was clearly having another affair – not coming home to the children and me until after midnight most nights of the week, and going without warning for weekends away from us – I feel fully justified in taping the phone. It revealed that she was inviting these men into our home when she knew that I would be away, and that she was taking my children into their homes to stay, make meals, etc. On one day she rang all three men to make assignations. Her mother – no friend of mine – has called her behaviour nymphomania in conversation with me. The phone taps also revealed a pre-planned and carried through act of driving her car at one of the men, his wife, and three children (one pre-school age) in a very narrow lane. This was told in a hysterical state to another of the three men immediately afterwards. The man driven at came to confront her, also hysterical, but found only me. He claimed my wife had tried to kill him. By this time he had not only gone back to his wife, but he had told me that my wife had invited him to have sex in a neighbour’s house where she was feeding their cats.

My wife, being the sole female in a motorway construction gang, handed out cards inviting men to have sex with her – see enclosed, and made sure that I would find one – to provoke me, I presume. She also had to be treated for sexual infection immediately after a weekend away with another, who turned out to have been her lover only days before we were married and who lost his wife for six years (and baby daughter) as a result of this affair. Now back with the same wife he was eventually named by my wife as an adulterous partner to force our case to go to Court. I very reluctantly went to Court to defend my position as a parent, thinking I had an overwhelming case of abuse, neglect, and poor parenting against my wife.

All of the above were denied by my wife and disbelieved or considered irrelevant by the Court and the Court Welfare Officer. The Court Welfare Officer was given transcripts of the relevant tapes and copies of relevant diaries, etc.

My wife defiantly told me (29.6.92) that after the divorce which she wanted and I did not, that she would make sure the children had nothing whatsoever to do with me. This is an open statement of the Parental Alienation Syndrome that the children had been pressed into for the past years and my reason why I would gently put up with anything to avoid divorce and the losing of my children. She further told the children in front of me (17.3.92) not to let me anywhere near the school. The school were kept informed of all of this.

PAS: Those two statements above are the building blocks for PAS in our case. I was so pleased to see it defined in Access – such a common thing, but brought out into the open at last. The double life my children were leading was, of course, the starting point for PAS in my children’s lives.

With two days and two Barristers booked for our contested case in Court, the following took place: the Judge read quietly my wife’s case of unreasonable behaviour against me and her admission of adultery. Then my response (defence) stating the dreadful things she had done. The Welfare Report was silently read which said there was nothing to choose between us as parents yet she (the Welfare Officer) found my need to have a moral judgement made in my favour by society to be extreme. And that my ambiguous attitude towards my wife to be somewhat disturbing. This latter refers to a comment that I gave the most intimate and damning condemnations of my wife, whilst simultaneously seeking reconciliation with her.

No-one seems to believe, faced with the total loss of my children (and my home, etc) that that is exactly the way it was. I didn’t mind what she did. I just wanted to be with my children as they grew up.

The Judge looked up, declared that it was quite plain the relationship was at an end, and said that he was not prepared to go into any details. Immediately my daughter was brought in as a surprise witness by my wife’s mother. The Judge took her into chambers and returned to say that she wanted to live with mum and thought her brother was of the same opinion. The Judge added that he thought the children should continue to live in the matrimonial home.

What could I do but back off from everything?

My wife, having had many unsuccessful affairs (some I chased off, most I ignored, all I forgave) set out to provoke, then smash up the marriage and my relationship with my children. Failing in all of this and unable to come to terms with it in her mind, she played the trump card – to put my daughter centre-stage. This reinforces PAS to a high degree. She knew what she was being asked to do. She experienced the Judge himself, and all of her mother’s family shutting me officially out of her life. Later my wife said that C felt that if she hadn’t gone to Court "she would never see her mother again". Who could have put that thought into her mind? I never, ever talked to the children about what their mother was doing with these men or about the divorce at all. There was nothing good that I could have said, that wouldn’t have twisted their heart strings yet more. And to my mind I didn’t want them to brought into it at all. Clearly, they had been worked on by my wife and her mother.

Can the Courts bring in a surprise witness like this, giving me no chance to consider the implications? I believe it is against proper practice to give no-one warning. Of course most daughters will stand by their mother, whatever she has done, especially if it is perceived that she is in a tight spot. If it is on the other hand acceptable practice – let’s broadcast it! Just commit adultery, get your child to support you in Court – hey presto, instant divorce on demand, straight on with the CSA for a good living, keep the matrimonial home .....! There is then nothing a good dad can do, and people like me won’t waste the time and about £14,000 of joint Solicitor’s fees which come from the joint family (ie the children’s) assets). I realise I am generalising – one in 10 cases go the man’s way – but it cuts right through all this stuff about parental equality.

A further question. The Court Welfare Officer – a woman, as I have said – saw my children with my wife. It was without my knowledge. It gave my wife the ability to prime them, to oversee the occasion. Bearing in mind PAS, it would again have emphasised in the children’s minds that mummy was the proper parent, and I was just the dad – a sort of ancillary to the family unit. I am very aggrieved about this. They were asked their views about this, and that by an official person with mummy in the background. From that time on, the children’s demeanour towards me changed – didn’t want bedtime stories, etc. The Court Welfare Office have admitted that the procedure of not seeing the children in neutral circumstances was "unusual" but refuse to make a convincing explanation of why it was done – or why the evidence I gave them of attempted murder, multiple adultery, sexual infection, printed cards and use of a neighbours house for sex made her as good a parent as me. Can a Court Welfare Officer, without reason, exclude a dad in this way?

Everyone, including the school, have been told of my wife’s intention to exclude me from my children’s lives, ie PAS. C has been at her present school for four years, M, two years, same school. During that time I have had 40 face-to-face interviews with the staff at all levels, 276 letters have changed hands, mainly from me, and about 20 phone calls. I have always been polite, but persistent, yet copies of parental handouts fail, in the main, to get to me, or are too late to be of use in generating conversation between me and my children. I always approach my former home, my children and my ex-wife with cheerfulness, pleasantness and good grace for the few minutes each week to give pocket money. I have refused to be "raised" or angered in front of the three of them through the years before and after divorce, ie I give no cause to generate PAS.

I have at last brought this situation with the school to a head. The County Education Office and County Solicitor just pass me back to the school. L refused to answer my letters. The new head of governors is suitably embarrassed at the past volume of correspondence over missed parents evenings, missed school plays, educational decisions in which I took no part/had knowledge of. Two years ago there was an election of parent governors at which I was specifically excluded.

It has taken considerable correspondence, personal visits to the school and visits to school governors at their homes to get the six parental handouts I missed leading up to my daughter being taken on a skiing holiday in Italy. It has finally come 10 weeks after she returned – and done with bad grace by the school. I have told them – throughout the years – that they are acting illegally by not sending me this information automatically as I ask, and even worse withholding it when I find out from other parents and specifically ask for it. They are saying – when I can get a reply – that they forgot, or that it is "administratively impossible" . . . "because of the cost of postage". When I then asked them why the 70 SAEs I sent to all staff with an explanatory letter were gathered up and returned to me without explanation, I get no comment. I take that as a deliberate act of misinformation. My ex-wife has throughout all this time been heavily involved in PTA and social events throughout the school. County Education Office inform me that Pupil Post is all that is required, even for the parent governor nomination process.

From my experience, PAS is institutionalised in the education system – if the individuals wish it. The Children’s Act has moved on to say on paper that both parents are equal before and after separation. Yet educational directives to cope with the increasing number of people like me do not exist – or do they? This is another specific question. I want to be sure of my legal ground. I have given notice that I will publicly ask for the headmaster’s resignation and a proper re-run of the governors election to include all parents. I have nothing left to lose now with the CSA banging on the door. But if I can shake the education system from the top into formal recognition of us Estranged Parents’ existence and rights, it will have all been worthwhile.

I think public opinion is turning in our favour just a little – to recognise the unfairness of it all. I have found every door to have been slammed in my face, in what I consider my right to be involved in the raising of my children. Is it not a fundamental of European Human Rights, that children themselves have the right to have equal access to both parents? I have behaved in an exemplary way (deliberately so under provocation) and have lost it all.

My relationship with my children is just about nothing now. I know they love me and have a respect for me – but from a great distance now. My fight is for all those other parents, men and women coming along behind. What happens in the home is of course for the husband and wife to deal with. But half of the children’s life is at school. To find PAS so intensively alive here is intolerable. To be so completely shut out of my children’s schooling was to shut the last door of knowledge of what they were doing. And they saw it. "Officially" in their eyes. It made my position as a parent untenable.

Please can you help me with proper legal basis – yes or no – for this argument I have with the school, the Court Welfare Office and the Court Proceedings as I have outlined them. And how can she have free Legal Aid to do all this whilst I have to borrow to defend?

Yours respectfully

B L M


maj4

To: European Commission of Human Rights A R F

Council of Europe 8 - Avenue
Strasbourg ------------
------ ---- ---
ENGLAND
cc: Mrs L Golding, MP Tel: +44 ---- ------
cc: Families Need Fathers E-mail: a@------.demon.co.uk
cc: Chief Clerk, S County Court
cc: Court Administrators Office, S Date: 4 August 1995
cc: Chief Probation Officer, S. Probation Service

Dear Sir/Madam

This letter describes some legal proceedings which occurred between July/August 1994 and February 1995 and, in particular, it summarises my complaints against ....

1. The S County Court, and the very one-sided manner in which the Court has dealt with this case.

2. The conduct of the Court Welfare Officer, Mr - -, and the contents of his Welfare Report.

3. The conduct of the Police in removing the children from my care in August 1994.

Case details are as follows:

Court: S Combined Court, , -, S, England.

Case number: Case No 93 D ---, M L F v A R F.

This case is a clear demonstration of the bureaucratic nightmare (and bunglings) that surround Court proceedings, and, more importantly, a clear demonstration of how the Courts discriminate in favour of the mother (and against the father) in cases involving children. In England, an institution known as Families Need Fathers is aware of this (all-too-common) discrimination, and is continually trying to increase awareness of this discrimination, especially among those who have the power to eradicate it. They are aware of many cases of such discrimination, but I doubt whether they even know of a more one-sided case than this.

It is my view that the Court, in not dealing with this case in a proper and fair manner and not acting so as to allow contact with the children has, to my personal detriment, violated a number of my fundamental rights accorded to me by the Convention on Human Rights, these rights being listed under Articles 6 (Paragraphs 1, 2, 3a?, 3d?), 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention. Therefore, I ask the European Commission on Human Rights to take up the matter on my behalf. I make this application within six months of the final hearing. A letter from the Secretary to the Commission says that there "must be an element of procedural unfairness" – my complaints record many such elements.

(It is also my view that the Court has consistently put Mrs F’s interests before those of the children concerned in this case, and thus violated the rights of the children accorded to them by The Children’s Act, 1989).

Please note that I have put the majority of these complaints to the relevant authorities at one time or another (sometimes repeatedly). Some complaints have elicited a response, others have not. However, where I have received a response, the response has invariably been either something along the lines of "We cannot comment on judicial decisions" or an immediate blanket dismissal of my complaints. Not one has ever brought a positive response or resulted in a review or investigation.

Many of the complaints have also been notified to my MP, Mrs L Golding, who passed them on to the Lord Chancellor. However, this appeared to be a waste of time, because the responses from the Lord Chancellors’ Office were just regurgitations of obfuscatory and evasive responses issued by the Court Offices and, again, did not answer the key points that I was trying to make.

I know of no other way of pursing these complaints, other than through the Commission.

1. BACKGROUND

Mrs F (my ex-wife) and I separated in August 1993, and I had the children for most of the time initially, but we later settled into a pattern wherein we would each have them about half of the time.

In the earlier months of 1994, we came to a loose agreement about arrangements for the summer holidays. However, in May 1994, I applied for child benefit and, as a result of this, Mrs F began preventing me from seeing the children. I had booked a holiday for myself and the children at the end of July, and I suspected that she would try to ruin the holiday by preventing me from taking them. I managed to get them by collecting them ¼ hour early on the last day of term, and we went off on holiday. I returned from holiday to receive a Court Order ordering me to hand the children over to the care of Mrs F. I understand that such an ex-parte Court Order can be made only if the welfare of the children is at risk in some way. However, to this day, I still have no idea what claims Mrs F and her Solicitor must have put to the Court in order to obtain such an order, and the Court has continually refused to tell me what (if any) evidence Mrs F offered, and also refused to give me the opportunity to (a) challenge this evidence and/or (b) put forward substantial evidence of my own to suggest that, if anything, the children were more at risk with Mrs F.

This initial decision by the Court, based on what can only have been false claims by Mrs F, put me at an immediate and enormous disadvantage, and it has proven impossible for me to recover from this disadvantage. This "knee-jerk" reaction by the Courts does not serve the causes of justice.

Some key events/dates are as follows . . .

Date

Event Notes

11/08/94?

Court hearing. Initiated by Mrs F and her Solicitor. Mr F not invited. Ex-parte Order granted, giving children over to Mrs F.
Judge: not known.

16/08/94

Children taken from Mr F by police  

26/08/94

Court hearing. 1st hearing to which Mr F was invited.
Mr F asked for Welfare Report to be produced.
Mrs F allowed to insist on supervised contact only.
Judge: Judge T.

19/10/94

Court Order (??? Made ex-parte. I do not know what initiated this Order).
Judge: District Judge S.

10/11/94

Court hearing.
(Directions appointment).
Appointment granted to consider application by Mr F for Order giving defined contact.
This appointment was granted around the same time as the one for 21/11/94, and for the same purpose. Appointments kept, but adjourned.
Judge: District Judge R.

21/11/94

Court hearing.
(Directions appointment).
Appointment granted as a result of Court Welfare Officer referring lack of contact to Court.
Judge: District Judge R.

10/02/95

Court hearing. Final hearing, to take into account Welfare Report.
Judge: not known.

2. COMPLAINTS AGAINST S COUNTY COURT AND ITS HANDLING OF THE CASE.

2.1 Hearing of 11/08/95.

My complaints about this hearing are that . . .

(a) The Court granted Mrs F an ex-parte hearing (ie I was not invited to it), despite the fact that I was available to attend it, and also despite the fact that it was likely to involve Mrs F making a number of serious allegations against me (see point (b) below).

(b) The Court allowed Mrs F to put forward various claims/allegations/evidences about my putting the children’s welfare at risk in some way, without . . .

telling me what these claims/allegations/evidences were

giving me the opportunity to challenge these claims/allegations/evidences

allowing me to put forward my own side of the case and present my own claims/allegations/ evidences/witnesses.

As for telling me what the claims/allegations/evidences were, the Court has consistently refused to tell me, and I still do not know. As for giving me the opportunity to challenge the claims/allegations/ evidences and put forward my side of the case, the Court has consistently refused to give me such an opportunity, until the final hearing (when it was all too late).

I contend that I have never, at any time, put the children’s welfare at risk, and that there has never been any evidence to suggest that any allegations to the contrary are true. However, the Court did not allow me to put forward this contention.

2.2 Appointment of 26/08.95

My complaints about this hearing are that . . .

(a) At this hearing, I expected to be given an opportunity to present my side of the case and bring the overall situation to the attention of the Court, and a letter from the Court offices (dated 18/08/95) said that I would be allowed to "put forward my evidence" at this appointment. I was given no such opportunity.

(b) At this hearing, Mrs F was allowed to wholly dictate the terms and conditions of contact, by being allowed to insist on supervised contact only, on dates/times that she could specify, and using supervisors that she could nominate (two of whom lived a considerable distance away). I was subsequently advised by the Children’s Legal Centre that this should not have been allowed to happen. (The actual wording of their letter was . . .

"It is not the case that where the Courts have ordered reasonable contact the resident parent can either dictate the terms of the contact or insist that it be supervised where the Court has not ordered supervision. It is open to you to return to Court and ask for an order giving you clearly defined periods of contact . . .").

This same advice was given to me by a member of Families Need Fathers.

2.3 Appointments of 10/11/95 and 21/11/95. I was granted two appointments for the same purpose, the first having been initiated by myself and the second having been initiated by the Court Welfare Officer. I pointed this out to the Court offices and suggested cancelling one or other, but was told to attend both. At the first appointment, the Judge realised that they were for the same purpose and adjourned the hearing to the appointment for the 21/11/94.

My complaint is that the first appointment was a complete and utter waste of time and money all round (for my part, I had to pay for this appointment and take time off work). I contend that the Court offices ought to have realised that the appointments were for the same purpose in the first place (without my having to point it out), and should then have cancelled one or other, and that they should certainly have done so once I had pointed it out.

2.4 Appointment of 21/11/95. On 06/11/95, I wrote to the Court offices with some important information and asked them to bring this information to the attention of the Judge prior to the appointment (of 10 and/or 21/11/95), so that he would be in full possession of the facts. (I considered it necessary to do this because I was not being given an opportunity to present my side of the case.)

My complaints are these . . .

(a) When I attended the appointment of 21/11/95, it was patently clear that this information had not been brought to the Judge’s attention, and he said that he knew nothing of my letter (of 06/11/95).

(b) When I then began to present the information, the Judge interrupted me and advised me that the Court Order had been made by a Circuit Judge and that he did not have the authority to overrule the judgements made by a Circuit Judge (. . . I assume that this meant that he was lower-ranking Judge).

Thus, the appointment was again a complete and utter waste of time and money. The Court ought to have realised, when I first submitted an application for an order giving defined contact, that I was seeking a new/modified order, and ought to have granted an appointment in front of a Judge of the same rank as the one who granted the first Court Order.

2.5 Hearing of 10/02/95.

My complaint about this hearing is that, upon entering the hall (in front of the Courtrooms), I was then immediately lead, by Mrs F’s Solicitor and Barrister, to a small discussion room and put under immediate and intense pressure to agree to arrangements which were very much in Mrs F’s favour, and more-or-less kept there until I bowed to the pressure. At no time was I seen by a Court official, and thus at no time did such an official ever explain to me what was happening, ask me if I wanted to participate in such "negotiations" or explain to me that I could terminate the "negotiations" at any point.

My complaints about the Court can be summarised as thus. First, it granted Mrs F an ex-parte hearing, allowed her to make a number of false claims/allegations against me and then acted upon these false claims/ allegations, without ever telling me what these claims/allegations were. Second, it then effectively prevented me from challenging these claims/allegations for a period of 6+ months, by which it was all too late. Third, it allowed a number of (I believe) invalid procedures to occur during the proceedings. Fourth, it took no action to re-establish contact with the children or to penalise Mrs F for preventing contact. On top of all this are the various bureaucratic bunglings which I have described.

3. COMPLAINTS AGAINST COURT WELFARE OFFICER, MR - -, AND CONTENTS OF WELFARE REPORT

3.1 Appointment of 01/11/94. I was given appointment to see Mr - on this day, and I wanted to take an important witness (who lives some distance away) with me. I took time off work to collect the witness, attend the appointment and then return the witness home. However, when I turned up for my appointment, I was told Mr - was not there, and had to go to London on urgent business.

My complaint is that I was given no notification that the appointment had been cancelled, and I wasted a considerable amount of time/energy/money in attending this appointment.

3.2 Various interviews. The preparation of the Report involved my having a number of interviews with Mr -. My complaints about these interviews are as follows . . .

On a number of occasions, I tried to express to Mr - some of the many concerns I had about Mrs F’s past record in caring for these children, and I described specific events. On every occasion, Mr - dismissed my complaints with a statement along the lines of "Well, people do extraordinary things when they are under pressure" or "The Court is not interested in what has gone on in the past"

I contend that someone’s past record in caring for children is a reasonable guide to the way in which they will care for them in the future, and thus is highly relevant to the future welfare of the children.

On one occasion, I brought along two witnesses, who I wanted Mr - to talk to (these were people who shared my concerns about Mrs F’s past record of caring for the children), because I was concerned that Mr - had shown not the slightest interest in talking to any of the witnesses I had put forward, or taking their views (provided in written statements) into account.

Apart from a polite "hello", he ignored the witnesses completely and did not question them on any issues concerning the children.

On another occasion, Mr - more-or-less confirmed whose side he was on by saying that unless I could prove that Mrs F was involved in drugs or prostitution, then I stood little chance of gaining control of the children.

3.3 Lack of contact with the children. Mrs F prevented all contact for a considerable period (three months), and during this period I wrote numerous letters to the Court pointing the situation out and asking for assistance in gaining contact. On the few occasions when they decided to respond, they told me to refer the matter to the Court Welfare Officer, and I did so. However, Mr -’s attitude was largely one of reluctance and annoyance rather than concern and helpfulness, and eventually he said that he had no authority to enforce contact arrangements.

3.4 Contents of Welfare Report. My complaints about the Welfare Report are many, but are essentially threefold . . .

(a) The Report clearly ignored most of what I had to say, and certainly did not represent my views or the views of witnesses that I had put forward (people who shared my concerns about Mrs F’s past record of caring for the children).

(b) The Report contained numerous inaccuracies, false and misleading statements and omissions.

(c) The Report turned out to be quite superficial, and was ultimately a complete and utter waste of time, serving only to delay legal proceedings.

Some specific complaints are as follows . . .

The Report said that I "removed the children from her (Mrs F’s) care and control", implying that an Order was in place granting Mrs F such care and control. This was not so.

The Report said that I "took them on holiday without consultation and without letting her (Mrs F) know their whereabouts", again implying that I was at fault. The Report failed to describe the events leading up to this incident, and the reasons why I decided not to inform Mrs F of their whereabouts (though she knew we were going on holiday), and thus presented a misleading picture of events.

Furthermore, such consultation did take place.

The Report implied that "reasonable contact" had taken place. This was not so, as the number of faxes I sent to the Court, Court Welfare Officer and Mrs F’s Solicitor will confirm.

The Report implied that Mrs F was not seeking to deny me contact with the children. This was not so, and the Report fails to mention either that Mrs F insisted on supervised contact, using supervisors who lived a considerable distance away (thus preventing contact from taking place) or the long period (several months) in which Mrs F prevented any/all contact from taking place.

The Report mentioned some arrangements that were subsequently agreed between Mrs F and myself, but failed to mention Mrs F’s flouting of these arrangements.

The Report failed (completely) to mention any of my (numerous) concerns for Mrs F’s past record in caring for the children, nor the pile of documentation/evidence I provided to Mr -, nor the various witnesses whose names I had put forward.

The Report failed to mention that I gave up my job in Order to look after the children properly (because I felt Mrs F was incapable of doing so).

The Report implied that I had no future plans for the children. This is not so. The Report failed to mention that I completed application forms for a Residency Order and gave these to a Solicitor who then sat on them for several months, and it failed to mention the plans that described, in detail, to Mr -.

I should point out that S Civil Courts Family Welfare Service publish a leaflet entitled "Welfare Reports". This describes what a Welfare Report is, its scope and content, what is involved in its preparation, etc. This leaflet says that . . .

The Report "outlines" . . . the views of the parties involved". I contend that the Report prepared by Mr - did not outline my views.

"The Court Welfare Service undertakes . . . to treat you equitably and fairly". I contend that this did not happen, and that the Welfare Officer showed a clear bias in favour of Mrs F.

"The report helps the Court to make decisions that are in the children’s best interests". In view of my complaints about the Report, I do not see how it was able to do this.

"The Welfare Officer has to listen to them (the children) carefully and help them express their wishes and feelings". I contend that Mr - did not do this, and that he continually put Mrs F’s interests and wishes before those of the children.

The report ". . . is a detailed and balanced document". I contend that it was neither.

3.5 Discussions prior to hearing of 10/02/95. Complaint 2.5 describes some "negotiations" that took place prior to this hearing. These "negotiations" involved Mrs F’s Barrister and Solicitor trying to pressure me into agreeing to arrangements which were very much in Mrs F’s favour, but which had very little to do with the best interests of the children. My complaint about Mr -, who sat in on these "negotiations", is that he was supposed to have been there to represent the interests of the children and yet he said absolutely nothing (about what the children wanted or what arrangements might be in their best interest).

My summary is this. I called for a Welfare Report on the assumption that it would involved an impartial and yet thorough investigation into all issues concerning the children’s welfare, and that my views would be taken properly into account and expressed in the Report. None of this happened. However, Mr - made it patently clear, for the outset, whose side he was on, and I suspected that the Report would reflect his (and only his) views. This is exactly what it did.

4. COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE POLICE

The children were taken from my care and handed to Mrs F by the Police on 16/08/94.

My complaints concern the manner in which this was done, and these are that . . .

4.1 The children were taken away by two male officers, and without an accompanying adult who the children knew.

4.2 The children were taken away in the back of a van without seat belts.

4.3 The officers took not only the children, but also other things (which they were not authorised to take), such as all of the clothes I used for the children when they were with me and an expensive suitcase.

(Note: I think that the officers were from ----- CID, - Police Station, - St, -, -, England).


maj5

A copy of a letter to a fellow sufferer

G A S, 42a - Rd, -, -, England

2/11/95

Hi Phil

I will stick to Phil as I appreciate your reasons for using this name. I am writing to you to confirm our telephone conversation approx. 31.10.95, and also give you some more information, although the documents you sent to me make my son’s problem fade into insignificance at the moment. I believe the warning at the top of the page to be very apt, I think comment on the contents are beyond words except to apologise to you on behalf of the human race of which we are all temporary members and in turn by our complacency, carry the responsibility of it’s actions that allows these atrocities to continue in the so-called civilised world of 1995.

For my part, as promised, when the fiasco imposed upon my son and myself concludes, you will receive all and any documentation that can help you depict the atrocities of the legal system regarding "Family Proceedings" in my country as is world wide. I am sure you appreciate that as is normal in these proceedings, the mother of my son has made documentation of this case lengthy and unnecessary, so please accept the odd "Snippet" until such times if at all this charade ends.

On 12th September 1995 my case went to directions at the Magistrates Court, my party was required to submit all evidence and witnesses within 14 days, the mother of my son was asked to submit the same 14 days thereafter, which would then make it 10th October 1995, giving both parties 14 days to construct their case before further and last directions on 24th October 1995, before the Court hearings scheduled for the 20th and 31st October 1995. I, for my part, conformed with the Court’s request, the mother of my son submitted her evidence on 23rd October 1995, the day before directions and 14 days late of the Court directions. I believe as a clever and purposeful attempt of her counsel to disrupt and disorientate my counsel, giving them no time to absorb or discuss the evidence with myself before directions.

Needless to say, directions didn’t go well. I felt the that the Clerk to the Courts seemed somewhat peeved at our lack of organisation disregarding the "Dirty Tricks" of the other counsel, there was no reprimand issued to the other counsel and no explanation was asked for and none offered. Instead, both parties were informed that their evidence was too lengthy and witnesses too many. Both parties were asked to curtail both, there was no regard given to the fact that my evidence and witnesses were for the most part rhetorical in defence of untrue, unfactual, slanderous allegations lodged against me, and for the other part, complete proof of my involvement, love and attachment to my son. I was told all other statements submitted would be accepted and read by the Courts yet would not be referred to in Court in an attempt to shorten proceedings and reach a quicker conclusion. Four witnesses in my favour were cancelled. Her curtailed witnesses’ statements were referred to, mine were not.

On 28th October 1995, I had what can be loosely called "contact with my son", under the necessary restricted, supervised conditions imposed upon my son and myself by his mother (with a little help from the Courts), this consisted of two hours in what we call a contact centre, which is a church hall. This contact had been taking place every fortnight for two hours on a Saturday afternoon since approximately August 1995 (preceding 6th June 1995, we had twice-weekly unsupervised overnight contact for 16 months). This contact was normally supervised by my son’s newly appointed nanny (since Court proceedings) plus a host of social workers; the last two contacts preceding the Court hearing were supervised by the mother of my son.

At the first of the above mentioned meetings, my son made reference to my home that he used to enjoy so much. I asked him if he knew why we couldn’t go there any more, he replied "It’s because you are horrible and nasty, and your home is not a good place for me to be." I asked him who told you that, he replied "MUMMY." I asked him if he believed that, he replied "No", how long for, I put to you, he is four years old and his mother has residence.

On the second of the above mentioned visits (the final one before the Court hearing) my son kept disowning me and spasmodically ran back to his mother and would then return to me. This behaviour was unusual so I questioned why he was doing it. He replied "Mummy said I had to." Needless to say, at Court one of his mother’s statements were when asked if my son had any attachment was "at the last contact my son seemed to reject his father a lot, as the other supervisors will bear witness." I reported both incidents to my counsel, neither were mentioned in my counsel so far at Court.

At the hearing I had to give evidence first. I portrayed my involvement with my son and only referred to my ex-partner in direct response to her counsel trying to avoid derogatory statements to my ex-partner, in an attempt to quell the acrimony within my ex-partner, not knowing what my ex-partner’s counsel had in mind for later when I had forgone my right to respond.

As an explanatory note, I should add that I am subject to a police investigation, which I believe was, and is, a direct result of being "Set Up" by my ex-partner as a contingency plan of discrediting me and preventing unsupervised contact for my son and myself. Unfortunately, because of her self-confessed profession (prostitution) this was easily done and I now await the result, yet again, needless to say how the Court responded to this information (it’s not good).

During my interrogation at Court I feel my son was forgotten by his mother’s counsel, who relied upon sowing the seeds of doubt attached to the police investigation – bearing in mind it has been going on for six weeks and still no charge. I will refer to this later.

I will not go into great detail of what happened in Court. I will let the eventual documentation prove that. I think you may have some idea. Basically, my ex-partner came out with guns blazing following the all too often adopted policy suggested by their counsel – "Sling enough mud, and some will stick". I, for my part having had my say, was not allowed to repute or disprove any of the slanderous, fabricated, totally untrue factless propaganda that ensued and, being the final say, I don’t need to tell you the impact I believe it had on the Magistrates.

I will, however, state three incidents that concern and distress me greatly. Firstly, when I was giving evidence, the Court recessed and during this period I tried to question my Barrister over a matter, only to be told that I could converse with no-one because I was in mid-witness. During my ex-partner’s term of witness, the Court recessed and my ex-partner immediately vacated the Court, located one of her witnesses who was to be called after her, and took them to a secluded area and indulged in deep, meaningful conversation witnessed by two persons. I immediately reported this breach of condition to my Barrister.

The second being of the same. During yet another recess, my ex-partner was sitting in between both witnesses of hers who were due to be called, quite plainly discussing certain aspects of the case – this time watched by the Court Usher who, after a few minutes of being uncomfortable that I was witnessing this event, asked my ex-partner to desist as it was unlawful. I also reported this to my Barrister. Neither incident was mentioned to the Court.

The final, yet most concerning of all, was during the testimony of my ex-partner, when I felt her lies were starting to trip her up, she resorted to mentioning my police investigation and, in an explosive statement, stated that if the Court wanted proof, her counsel had on or about her person evidence of what the police were investigating, there was an immediate adjournment in which all legal representatives retired to a private room, on returning to myself my Barrister said that the evidence could not be submitted as it might influence police procedure and a possible Court case, yet offered me no other explanation or content of their lengthy private meeting.

There are two points that concern me over this incident: one being that preceding the Court hearing, it was made evident that my ex-partner and counsel had extensive knowledge of the police investigation, bearing in mind that I had told no-one except my own Solicitor and had received no indication from the police of the content of their investigation. The most important point is what were my ex-partner and counsel doing in receipt of, as they put it, conclusive evidence with regard to a police investigation upon myself? If it was evidence that they themselves used to instigate the police investigation, then surely the police should be in receipt of all evidence. If it was evidence seized or discovered by the police, then what were they doing with it? My Barrister viewed their evidence and considered it inconclusive and non-committal. I believe it was yet another show to deceive the Magistrates, the hearing was adjourned until 9th November 1995 for the Court Welfare Officer to attend and give evidence.

Yours suffering

G A S


maj6

To: D J R Mr R B H
18 - - Road 29 - Ave
19th September 1995

In 1985, I petitioned for and was granted a divorce on the basis of Mrs H "Unreasonable behaviour". A "Mesher" agreement was reached. Joint custody, ie equal responsibility in all important aspects relating to the children’s welfare was granted to both parents in view of my former wife’s unreasonable behaviour. Care and control, ie responsibility for the more mundane day-to-day needs was granted to the respondent. However, the use of the word "Control" in this context was never intended to be taken literally.

Since then, I have endured a malicious but subtle campaign, perpetrated by my former wife, to discredit me and undermine my relationship with the children. Over the last 18 months or so, this behaviour has intensified with blatant lies, the extortion by you and your partner of the children’s total life savings, the wilful obstruction of the children’s "contact" rights and ultimately, your conclusion and conspiracy to exacerbate the situation by making in false statement, defamatory allegations against me and my family among which are:

(A) That I have consistently and blatantly "refused" to support my two eldest children. (I assume this means both morally and financially.)

(b) That equally I refuse to support my three younger children.

(c) A ridiculous allegation that I have somehow, deliberately and irresponsibly, fathered numerous children throughout the area.

(D) That I am under investigation for Fraud by the DSS and other agencies.

(E) That I have actively refused to communicate with the CSA in relation to my former wife’s recent claim for DSS benefit.

(F) That I am an "absent and errant" father.

I refute vehemently, these serious allegations in their entirety. In addressing each below, I enclose various copies of documents which provide clear evidence of my vindication.

(A) Financially

I have always responded accordingly, to any request for maintenance payments. In addition, I have incurred great financial costs in maintaining my parental responsibility to R and B, including total transport costs in relation to extraordinary "contact". The constant provision of a second home, clothing, food, furnishing, annual holidays, days out, school holidays, personal possessions, birthdays, Christmas, etc, etc. I alone have financed in full R’s equestrian training. Until 1990, I met the full cost of insurance premiums required on the matrimonial home. Between 1985 and 1990 I made significant voluntary maintenance payments by cheque and in cash directly to my former wife.

I have made permanent and adequate arrangements for the children’s future financial security. In 1990, I voluntarily gave over the sum of £13,000 to both you and my former wife by way of property transfer in conclusion to the "Mesher" agreement reached at the time of my divorce. This was a gesture of goodwill on my part and I was under no obligation to do either. This arrangement was in full and final settlement of any further financial claims against me by my former wife. I even voluntarily contributed £100 towards your legal costs and condoned your use of tax concessions relating to the children.

(A) Morally

I am a man of clean record and clear conscience and have spent much of my working life helping those less fortunate than ourselves. I have an impeccable track record of moral, emotional and practical support to the children and without exception have, and will continue to comply fully with the responsibility that the joint custody order requires from a responsible parent.

(B) I have displayed equal love and devotion to my three younger children and you are in no position to question that.

(C) I and my partner of nine years have, as we are quite entitled to, without sanction from you, three small children who are given equal status in every respect to their elder brother and sister.

To "bastardise" these innocent children is not only deplorable but indicative of the depravity you have displayed in making and sustaining these grossly untrue allegations and indeed, full justification for our recent parental decision to stop my six-year-old daughter, C’s association with you and your partner.

(D) I am not in receipt of any DSS benefit and consequently cannot be under investigation for benefit fraud. I have no knowledge of, or reason to believe, that I may be the subject of any other investigation.

(E) I have corresponded accordingly with the CSA in relation to your partner’s latest claim for DSS benefit and am currently awaiting assessment under the Child Support Act.

(F) The use of the word "absent" in this context is universally recognised as inappropriate and derogatory. It is evident that a man, such as yourself, without any parental responsibility or indeed the prospect of ever having any, is completely unqualified to comment on what is or is not "errant" in these circumstances.

(- Endorse here with legal statement)

I have tolerated this evil vendetta for over 10 years, in the interests of protecting my children it is, without doubt, both futile and damaging to all concerned. I am now resolved to bring it to an end by utilising all means at my disposal.

Notwithstanding any other action or proceedings which may be brought, either now or in the future, I hereby inform you that unless I receive either:

A full and unequivocal withdrawal and apology, in the correct form

or:

Full substantiation of your allegation

I will reserve the right to issue proceedings against you, D J R, through the Courts.

I trust I need not remind you of the severity of the situation or its possible consequences and strongly advise that you comply. I seek not revenge, but justice

Yours faithfully

Mr R B H


maj7

22 - Road
-
-
Kincardineshire
---- ---
---- ------
Enclosed is my case history in respect of S J D

I met C in 1984, both marriages were at the verge of breakdown, she had a boy called M. We set up home in Aberdeen, but she wanted a move into the country to hide from R (her husband). R was granted access, and C always made excuses not to be there, her main concern was for maintenance, on various occasions he went to Solicitors. I was also granted access which I took, but C went to great lengths to make them unwanted. That eventually I stopped the arrangement. Basically, I felt they were settled with their mother. She eventually moved and married Rb. She has always given me the respect of a father, and has sent photographs when requested, she is of deep religious beliefs, a Jehovah’s witness, who do not like "outsiders" interfering with their beliefs, for which I respect her views and beliefs. Only one son "L" has not joined Jehovah’s witnesses and we are in regular contact.

I made the fateful decision to marry C on 23.1.87. She showed violent moods, apparently she had them with her first husband. Her parents, J and S L, are also aware of the tantrums.

She was on one particular occasion, in the presence of my son L, systematically destroying furniture; food jars were smashed and hurled to the walls. I sat and watched her letting it out of her system – I felt it might make her feel better. She eventually went to her bed and I cleaned up to the best of my ability. In the morning she started again. It is to my disgrace that I snapped, leapt across the room and seized her by the throat. If my son had not intervened, I would have killed her. She went to the toilet and deliberately cut her arm/hand and then asked to leave. I drove six miles to F, Social Work Department and she was sent to B Women’s Refuge. After two days we met and she returned home. This particular incident was before we married.

On various occasions, she had tantrums, breaking things at will over a period. We had S on 12th October 1995, again before we married and I thought we were happy. She always told people she was happy (witnesses can be supplied). Eventually, after spending a fortune, she took and passed her test (car). She also had a brand-new motorbike purchased for her. She spent every night "gallivanting" around the town, chasing young men – often going out on Saturday night and returning late on Sunday. Eventually we discussed separation, and she walked out leaving the children with me. I was devastated and took an overdose. Her remarks were "YOU COULD HAVE FINISHED THE ROOM YOU’RE DECORATING FIRST". I applied for a divorce and almost got custody of M and S. She realised that and pleaded to come home, to which I agreed. She had, unknown to me at that time, struck up a relationship with D H, and suddenly up and left again, taking the boys (whom I saw daily). That relationship didn’t last long and she came home again, much to her parents’ disapproval.

She has never had a stable relationship with her parents and often, if they didn’t adhere to her demands, fell out with them. I remember one day, I had the boys and they asked to see their grandparents. I felt then, and still do, that family ties are important so I took them to see J and S. On return S told C and she flew out of the house and punched me flat on the nose, which bled. I complained to the police but, as I had no witness, they couldn’t press charges.

After that, I completely went to pieces as she stopped the access because of that. Her parents told me that if I had proceeded with the divorce and custody, they would have been happy as they knew I would always keep in contact, which I have always done to this day.

I became depressed, ill, and my son L was now a problem child. He has been in various homes because of my break-ups in two marriages, was involved with thugs and often came to the house. With the condition I was in, I could offer no resistance. One day they came in and asked me if I would take them to the Isle of Skye, so I did. While I was sitting at the car park at Skye, they broke into someone’s residence and I realised that I had been set up. They stole cheque books, etc and forced me by blackmail and threats to obtain a car, which I did. They were soon caught, I was charged and, for the first time in my life, sat in the dock. I was given 240 hours community service, and I really felt justice had not been fair, especially as two of the hard nuts got a year’s probation each. I did my community service in Aberdeen and both of my social workers gave me a good report. In fact, we still send Christmas cards and phone on occasion.

Eventually my relationship with C deteriorated to the point that I stayed in Aberdeen all week working and came home on the Saturday, to which she eventually cleared off to the Sunday. On one occasion she and myself had a row and agreed to split. She came that day and said she wanted to borrow the car and I gave her the keys. On getting into the car she yelled she was going to smash it. Half an hour later, friends came out and told me it was smashed. She had deliberately driven into a wall and run down to the police station and said a dog ran out in front of her.

On another occasion, she left and was living with a girl of ill repute (who at one stage was charged for obtaining money under false pretences). She attacked me physically in the street and ran off to the police. To this day I don’t know why but I was charged and fined £100.

These occasions are only a few mentioned, in our marriage, and the final stage, when I came home and M asked me who was sleeping in my bed when I wasn’t there. I went away and came back to find her with yet another male in the most compromising position. I packed and left. She promised access and for two weeks she did, as she got money. On the third occasion she came, I was out of work. I went back to collect my belongings as she was phoning the guest house at all hours. I told her I was coming to collect my clothes and took L as a witness. On appearing she was packing the car with gear because she had been informed that the house was in my name. I took one washing machine, a carpet and my personal belongings. I informed the council I wanted the lease terminated and I was informed that she had demolished the bathroom and kitchen.

From that date she disappeared. I have made hundreds of calls, spent hundreds of pounds touring the countryside, to no avail. I eventually got a detective onto her on 7/12/93, who traced her within one week. She was at an office where I am a campaign officer for a voluntary organisation, screaming abuse. She was served with a writ and disappeared again but, to my Solicitor’s diligence and a contact, I have traced her to a school. I phoned them and she has gone back to using her maiden name. They are sending me details but it seems S is unsettled. I immediately phoned my Solicitor and we will be petitioning for interim custody.

Because of my struggle for access/custody, I have been involved with "Parents Forever" of which I have been asked to become chairperson for Scotland. I am also actively involved with "Scotland’s Act for Children" run by David Jessner and Paul Duddy, who are actively engaged with Lord Fraser in having access/custodial laws changed, the first motion coming in the Queen’s speech in November.

It is also noted that I was actively involved in the campaign for fair maintenance against the Child Support Agency and have had various meetings in the House of Commons, at which I often bring up the subject of access/custody. The reason I am applying for custody is I have had one steady relationship, have a house, and a secure background. I am actively involved in the Labour Party and have been advised to become the next councillor for Kincardineshire in order to become an MP, for which I am strenuously striving for.

My son and M have been subjected to various forms of mental cruelty by denying the rights of law in respect of access. As the law stands now, if I got access, she could still avoid it by moving about, etc. I want my son, S, to have a secure background based on love and affection, security. I am willing to allow within reason access to C at any time. I must stress that in the five years’ separation, I have always saved birthday/Christmas cards, presents for S. I have never given up hope and will fight for S, not for myself, if necessary even through the European Rights. I rest my case.

Known to myself, men with whom she has committed adultery: D H, J G, J McD, R McQ.

YOURS

S D


maj8

F had two children by previous marriage. We met in 1977-. Married December 1977. J was 8½ years old and H 7 years old.

We met early in 1977 and relationship became serious by summer. By this time, F had expressed that she wanted to get married. I did not want to rush into marriage after failure of my first marriage, especially with two children involved. Although the children got on well with me, we did not live together. I discussed with F my reservations of getting married without living together for a short period, to see if the whole family were compatible.

F refused my wishes and replied that she had lived with someone in a previous relationship and it would have to be marriage or end relationship. This was the first action of what was to be her non-compromising attitude, which I did not realise at this stage. I was prepared to go along with F’s wishes to show my love for her and agreed to get married.

F moved house from her council house in the August of 1977- to house vacated by parents. (Her father had purchased own house). Better area and not on main road.

I had house (small modern semi) from my first marriage and on our marriage wanted to move into my house. F’s opposition to this was: too small, not as convenient for shops and wished for us to live in her rented house (although very inferior construction in terrace and could not be extended). I again conformed to her wishes, this being the second major issue. (I think that even at this stage she was looking to the future and, if divorce took place, it would be her home or part thereof.) Consequently, we rented my house out until 1979 and F had not changed her mind about moving, suggesting instead that we sell my house and use some of the money to finance a business (wholefood shop, where her interests lay) and purchase her council house (our home) with 100% mortgage with the discount offered to her as council tenant. Once again, I complied with her wishes, although the house could not appreciate at the same rate as my house (hers was constructed of a special concrete method).

The seal was now set in her favour, with joint names and her previous tenancy of the house. The capital placed into the building society in November 1979 was £10,000+. On purchasing our ex-council house, we had a gas-fired central heating system installed. I fitted the kitchen with units and other money was spent on curtains and recovering the lounge suite. This still left £8,000+ and, with interest over the next three to four years (including the steady withdrawal of cash amounting) amounting to £1,500, a total of £11,500.

No outright extravagance took place but the whole of the capital was eroded and completely exhausted by the beginning of 1983.

F, from the outset of our marriage had refused to discuss a budget, interpreting any suggestions of economy related to our income as an insult and slight on her character. This resulting in discussing finances only when bills arrived. I was constantly accused of being mean and miserly. The building society capital was continually transferred into our current account to pay bills and, when the capital was exhausted, we began to go into overdraft with resulting regular bank charges.

I had trained as a radio and TV engineer in my original job and had continued spare time repairs during our marriage to try and make ends meet. During the year of 1983, I tried to make an average of £20 per week in spare time work in order to get basic needs. My salary at the university was too low to meet the needs of our family.

F had refused to take any employment, only the one evening of two hours yoga class teaching. The money earned at yoga was classed as her money, which was used to buy her vitamin supplements and other personal requirements, but not to ease our debts.

F taught yoga and her attitude of everything Natural in eating habits (vegetarian) she took very seriously. She had had many health problems during her life, mainly stemming from bronchitis. Any cold-type virus went to her chest. She had, since her divorce from her first husband, used IUD form of contraception, not believing in the pill. This had caused problems resulting in heavy periods and weakening her. It was at this time when our relationship started and I was to pay for the folly of her ways. When F became pregnant with A she had a bad six months. Always tired or wanting to sleep. I was often late for work and took time off. Obviously J suffered from these circumstances. It is worth mentioning that during our whole time together I never failed to give her her daily cup of honey and lemon (no ordinary cup of tea for her). I cannot remember a day when the exercise was ever reversed.

It was because of F’s heavy periods and the birth of the two children, which made F suggest that I should have the vasectomy. She had gone into hospital after N’s birth for two days for repair surgery. This was the ideal time for F to have had a sterlisation operation. As she did not want any more children (she was also aware of her intentions). I consented to a vasectomy in the hope that it would save the marriage and show my love.

During F’s pregnancy with N, she undertook visits to a Naturapath whom she met during one of her monthly "Wheel of Yoga" meetings. She paid a number of visits which, together with prescriptions cost a substantial amount of money from our tight budget (although this came from house sale capital).

F has always suffered health-wise. Glandular fever 1982 (lasting 12 months) and although I accepted this, the burden fell on me.

Since our divorce, F has been into hospital many times for various operations, including a gluten-type allergy, resulting in her reverting back to a meat-eating diet after preaching vegetarian for some many years. The children were brought up vegetarian, but the children have problems with her now she is eating meat, and they vegetarian. Many health problems.

-I have kept diaries throughout my separation since 1985 of all events regarding children.

 

EAC, born 29/6/41. 36½ when married F.

FP, born 27/5/48. 29½ when we married.

FP (maiden name, reassumed name after divorce from first husband FMcG). Two children from first marriage, J and H. H is an albino and partially sighted. She attended StV’s School for Blind and Partially Sighted Children. Resident Monday – Friday. Home weekends and holidays. J attended local school.

Our first child, A, born 7th July 1978.

Our second child, N, born 9th December 1980.

I had vasectomy operation in September 1981.

Visited Marriage Guidance in L during early 1983 and second counsellor in BW and at her home during late 1983 up to January 1984.

Although threats of divorce had constantly been made by F, she became more specific in threats to see Solicitor and trying to force confrontory situations and saw Solicitor early in 1984. Stopped sleeping in same bedroom and moved in with children in January 1984. During early 1984, advised me that she would not be washing my clothes, etc as she was seeking divorce. I countered by saying I could not work, look after the children, work in my spare time and wash my own clothes.

I changed my job in March 1984 to a computer firm. The salary was an improvement, but I could not increase housekeeping much immediately as our debts had to be cleared. I had a company car and running around petrol, plus no travel expenses to work. The job change was traumatic. I was trying to save a marriage which F had no intention of saving and told me so. I had courses to attend to learn the job and a lot of travelling involved.

I found that the worry of the threatened loss of my home and children a constant stress and worry causing poor job performance. F constantly provoked situations of confrontation if things were running smoothly using her children against me, eventually making them instrumental in the divorce.

During our first visits to Marriage Guidance, they became farcical and obvious. She was using them as sounding blocks to attack me and not as any reconciliatory agent, refusing any suggestions from them. Eventually the counsellor said she could not see us any more and it was up to us.

We continued later with another counsellor (senior and just into retirement). A nice person, but impressed with F and the pattern was similar. It was now obvious that she had used the system to maximum advantage (two Marriage Guidance Counsellors).

From January 1984, F had started keeping notes of my behaviour and the bad situations that arose noted. I now became fully aware of what was happening and became very worried.

I saw a Solicitor for advice. He told me that there was no possibility of her divorcing me and to sit tight. I could, however, take steps to divorce her on mental cruelty grounds. As I did not want a divorce, all I could do was wait.

With the help of the daughter of our neighbour, who was a Solicitor’s secretary who provided divorce information, F eventually one morning in September 1984, once again engineered a confrontation, resulting in her attacking me whilst I was using the telephone to ring my company for my daily work. I threw my hand up to fend off the blows and caught her cheek.

I had never raised my hand to F during our marriage, but she had on at least one or two occasions raised her hands to me.

I left for work. I also called in at lunch time, leaving at 1.30 pm – 2.00 pm to attend an appointment for an x-ray on my hand. Our neighbour was present and Mrs C did not appear distressed. I returned home at 5.30 pm to find nobody home. I suspected something had happened. I rang my parents-in-law who lived five minutes drive away. Her father informed me she had gone to stay with friends, saying that was all he knew and could not tell me any more. She had actually seen the Solicitor in the morning and had gone to a refuge for battered wives, taking the two younger children with her. I had taken N to playgroup and A to school that morning and was destined not to hear from or see them for two weeks. I found out that they were very upset at not seeing me.

I was very distraught and in a state of panic seeking comfort from my family and a close friend.

I saw my Solicitor as soon as possible, his advice was to wait and contact him when I heard from my wife or her Solicitor.

My contact with my wife was a Court Bailiff delivering a Court Summons with an application for an Ouster Order. This arrived on the Wednesday following her leaving.

On seeing my Solicitor he was in high spirits, laughing off the feeble points of her petition on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour. I had already informed my Solicitor that I wished to apply for custody of my two children (we had been extremely close from their birth).

The Solicitor appeared confident and I knew how the record stood regarding fathers and custody, but trusted the law as I had been an excellent father and had done no wrong.

When F disappeared with the children on Friday 14/9/84, my next contact with them was a telephone conversation on 25/9/84 following the Court hearing of the injunction, when N referred to the "O Homeless Families Unit" as "at that place".

F took children to a battered wives home for deprived children from violent homes, yet in her evidence at the hearing she stated that I was too loving (claustrophobic in her words) with my affections.

Following the first hearing, F sent A to Scotland on an adventure holiday (six years of age) without my consent. Went with organisation called KIND (L organisation: Kids In Need and Distress). A disliked the holiday and said "it was horrible". F did not have the telephone number of the cottage nor did she have any intention of contacting her. I obtained the phone number from L office and rang her on the Tuesday 23/10/84 at 9.00 pm and spoke to an assistant. Rang and spoke to A Thursday night 25/10 and Friday 26/10/94. Most mothers ring their daughters when they are in their teens when away without their parents. A was only six years old.

Following the hearing for ouster injunction on 25th September 1984, a Welfare Report was required for the next hearing on 30th October 1984. Mrs S of Welfare saw F with children at the house they were staying in (after leaving hostel). This house was her brother-in-law’s parents home, as they in residential home. Welfare Report ½-hour half interview with me 18th October 5.00 pm. Second interview ¾-hour 22nd October 6.00 pm. I had requested the Wednesday when the children stayed with me for the evening (interim access arrangements) but she could not make it and said that it did not matter that the children were not with me to make the Report. It was obvious as she eventually stated that she saw no problem with the mother and her recommendation would be in her favour. As far as I was concerned, it was a farce. If the mother appeared competent that was all that was needed.

All that was left was the second hearing on the 30th October when the Magistrate "was left with no alternative" but to oust me from my home because F would not live with me. All the financial implications of my capital and her non-contribution, not bringing anything financially into the marriage, meant nothing.

I was given four weeks to find alternative accommodation and move out. I eventually moved in with a married couple who were friends at my old place of work at the university. They lived in a three-bedroom semi in W K, I stayed from the beginning of December 1984 until the end of February 1985 when I purchased a two-bedroom Barratt flat with 100% mortgage. I had no capital but for that rendered for Solicitors fees, etc. I had contributed over £200 towards my Legal Aid fees.

My access to the children was at that time every other weekend (Friday to Sunday evenings) and alternate Friday to Saturday evenings, plus holidays.

During my employment with C whom I joined in March 1984, the stresses of driving long distances and the constant worrying about the children, plus the whole unrealness of the scenario told on me and I had several interviews with my manager regarding my performance. I had tried looking for alternative employment, eventually accepting a job locally at MPTE M Tunnels intended as a stopgap. I had to purchase a car (having lost my firm’s car) cash only allowing an old car to be purchased.

Because of the hours, which involved days off in the week, and working two weekends out of six, the access arrangement changed to every weekend when I was off (to compensate for losing two whole weekends in six). Eventually I was saw more of the children in the holidays because of my days off in the week.

During the latter part of 1984 (November), the children wished to try horse-riding lessons, having earlier given up dancing lessons because neither of the girls wished to continue. The girls took an immediate love to horses, which has continued and grown over the years. We took our holidays on a farm for a number of years to have the use of ponies.

We eventually bought a pony for the girls to share in 1990. A showed great promise in show-jumping during 1991 and we bought a larger jumping pony. Since that time the girls spend their time with the ponies and we attend the show-jumping shows instead of going away on holidays. A has the ability and wishes to make a career in show-jumping if possible. I give up a lot in order to help her to try and get "a foot on the ladder".

The girls have always expressed their wishes to stay with me. F has said on a number of occasions that A could stay with me but not N, which A did not want if N could not stay. Also F would want her to stay at weekends, which would stop her horse-riding (which is her life).

The horse-riding activity has helped N a lot, increasing her self-esteem (being younger N felt more insecure than A) and helping her in her school work.


maj9

THE PERSECUTION AND EDUCATION OF A FATHER

The facts behind a Divorce and Child Residence case,

and the subsequent enlightenment of the father.

Mark Bradley tells his story,

describing the persecution he received from

the various parties involved, and his education

in the realities of family law

Background : Jennifer had abandoned Mark in the winter 1989/90,

abducting the children, Kate then 4, Paul then 7, from Southampton to

Lancaster, some 350 miles distant from their father, friends,

relatives, school and area of upbringing.

 The actions and conduct in the legal case

The ex-wife - communication problems

When Jennifer abandoned me, it was essentially in a state of hysteria. Communication was cut immediately. I was forced to accept correspondence done through a solicitor at great expense, including that for trivial arrangements about the children.

The ex-wife - legal aid

The costs were alarming : for myself that is, as she was on legal aid, while I had to fund everything myself, and with solicitors costing 45 pounds an hour, just that aspect of the case caused deep anxiety.

I later learned from others that this is very common, i.e. a woman behaving irrationally, spending alarming sums on solicitors and barristers, money which they had not earned. Meanwhile the man has to provide for himself, through his own earnings, and is often pressured into acting for himself in court. This is provided of course that he is sufficiently articulate. One wonders about those good men who may be less gifted, who face this same situation.

In addition to the injustice of this, the family assets, to be used for the benefit of the children, were being squandered on lawyers. I was totally unable to prevent this. While I could control my own costs, I had no control at all over her spending. I had earned about 2/3 of the family assets, and was used to controlling them. Now those very assets, of which I had been the primary earner, were being used to dispossess me of my children, home and life savings.

Having mentioned my ex-wife's spending on lawyers to my then solicitor, he replied "she can spend HER money any way she wishes". That was my own (second) solicitor speaking to me.

In law there is an expression 'equality of arms'. Was there an 'equality of arms' in this case with one side legally aided but not the other ?

The ex-wife - lies in the divorce petition

The divorce petition stretched to ten pages of allegations about my 'unreasonable behaviour'. A careful analysis of this showed that 95% was untrue, with the remaining 5% simply a description of normal family life which everyone will recognise.

My first reading of this petition was a great shock that someone I'd devoted my life to could tell such vile lies about me. I had apparently hid money from her and kept the children short while I bought expensive clothes and financed my own pension. On reading this, my hands started to tremble. They didn't stop trembling for two days.

Once I'd got over the shock, I phoned my solicitor to instruct him to contest the divorce. As this was an entirely new experience, and being quite naive at the time, I decided to accept my (second) solicitor's advice. This was not to contest the divorce. The reasons given were that :

On the first reason, my solicitor was incorrect, on the second, correct. This decision resulted in the accusations being afterwards accepted by the court, in the welfare report, and by the district judge in the financial matters.

I later learned that most men find themselves in this position, and fall into the same trap. Why do men suffer from this naivety but not women ? The answer to this is that :

The solicitors

It seemed sensible to obtain a female solicitor, and try to act in a conciliatory manner. So my first solicitor was a woman.

The advice obtained had nothing to do with the written law, my rights, or the interests of the children who were then being kept in distressing circumstances, 350 miles from their home. I should have been warned immediately about two major aspects : to beware of a fabricated 'unreasonable behaviour' divorce petition, and to prevent the 'status quo' coming into place with respect to the children.

As an example, one item of advice was that the word 'unreasonable' meant anything which my ex-wife considered, for her purposes, to be unreasonable. I later learned that that was not the intention of our MPs who introduced the present divorce law, but that the test of unreasonableness was for others to decide : however our senior judges had apparently corrupted Parliament's intentions in case precedents of 1973.

The solicitors did not warn me about the danger of letting the children stay with my ex-wife, and so allowing what is called the 'status quo' to come into existence, even though the children were then living in temporary accommodation, 350 miles from their home, school, family and friends.

Any issue I raised was said to have little chance of success in court. In so many words, I was told that I had very few rights. How do these solicitors justify their charges, and how do they sleep at night giving advice such as this ?

But the lack of appropriate advice was only one problem. Amongst the things which this first solicitor said in the privacy of her office were :

When I consulted another female member of the same practice, in order to make a will, I had smoke from a cigarette blown into my face.

Do you think this treatment by these solicitors was :

a) reasonable, fair and correct ?

b) impolite but correct ?

c) impolite but could have been better ?

d) impolite and incorrect ?

e) abusive but correct ?

f) abusive and could have been better ?

g) abusive and incorrect ?

h) contributing to systematic persecution and human rights violation ?

This first solicitor were dismissed, and I was later to try to obtain compensation from them, and to have them disciplined by their professional bodies, although, as I have learned, these bodies usually ignore complaints.

Also, what action do you think should be taken against these solicitors ?

The local solicitor

When it came to the hearing on financial matters, I engaged a local solicitor in Lancaster. Before the hearing, he arranged with my ex-wife's barrister, without my authority, a 25% increase in child maintenance. During the hearing, I instructed him that I would act for myself, and he could attend as a McKenzie friend. The increase in maintenance was obtained, and the District Judge concluded that I had, during the marriage, "kept my wife and family short". The solicitor I had engaged was in effect acting in the interests of my ex-wife, not myself. I refused to pay his bill, but he sued me in the small claims court, and I was made to pay him 250 pounds for his 'services' to me.

Do you think I had appropriate representation here ?

The barrister

At the first custody hearing, I employed a barrister chosen by my solicitor. He was pathetic. He should have put forward my solicitor's view that the welfare report was a "catalogue of factual inaccuracies". He should have pointed out that my wife had committed perjury, that her solicitor had committed subornation to perjury. He should have pointed out that the Court of Appeal judges had made illegal case law decisions in corrupting Parliament's intentions on fundamental issues, and made a demand that the present judge adhere to law. He should have referenced the welfare checklist directly. He did none of these things, but charged me 1,250 pounds for a day and a half of his time.

When I asked him, on our first meeting just 30 minutes before the hearing, what his strategy was, he replied "to do our best". He didn't even understand what the question meant.

Should he be practicing law ?

The Welfare Officers

I contested custody/residence twice. Once before the Children Act 1989, and once after. On each occasion a Welfare Officer was appointed to produce a report. The officers travelled from Lancaster to Southampton in order to visit myself, while the children were with me.

The first officer seemed reasonable when we met. But the report produced was a monstrous travesty of the truth. It contained statements directly contradicting what he had been told. It contained irrelevant gratuitous insults about my beliefs.

The second officer involved knew of the complaint about the first report. When he arrived, one of the first things he said to me was that I was "going over the top" in my complaint about the first report. Then, later in the day, he asked me what was wrong with the first report ! This was clearly lies combined with deliberate intimidation. The second report was more careful in details of fact, but the conclusions had little if any basis in the facts.

It is contempt of court to tell others the specifics of what is in these reports, so I cannot provide details of what was stated. We are dealing with essentially secret reports. But I can tell you that, as well as untruths in large numbers, i.e. 36 in a 6-page report, there were gratuitous insults given in statements which were irrelevant to the case.

Do you think the Welfare Officers were honest people ?

The Child Psychiatrist

For the second residence hearing under the Children Act 1989, an additional report was to be obtained from a child psychiatrist.

This report concentrated on the children's ascertainable wishes. Both children were reported to say that they would rather be with myself, but it appeared that the child psychiatrist's expert opinion was that some drawings which they had produced of family groupings showed their real "inner feelings" ! (The second welfare officer also correctly reported the children's wishes to be with myself).

Later, after the court cases, my children were referred for treatment to the very same department in which the child psychiatrist was based. I was later to ask their GP the basis of the referral, but I was refused any information. The hospital management also were obstructive. After a strong letter of complaint, the Senior Child Psychiatrist telephoned me to ask "what business of mine it was". After a threat of legal action to the hospital management, they said that I was entitled to a copy of the case file on payment of a 10 pounds fee. I did not take them up on that, as I doubted that I would receive accurate information anyway.

Have you ever heard of a more obvious corruption of facts and professionalism ?

The balance of representation in Court

My ex-wife, being legally aided, was represented in court by a solicitor and barrister at all three main hearings. I had paid for my own solicitor and barrister out of my own pocket for the first custody hearing. I had subsequently acted for myself because I had not had correct advice and representation, and could no longer afford the costs. My costs had totaled about 5,000 pounds before I began to act for myself.

Furthermore, my ex-wife's solicitor and barrister acted unprofessionally both before and during the hearings. They deliberately introduced spurious information immediately before the hearings, and acted in an aggressive manner, seemingly to gain some advantage. The barrister told untruths to the judge on two occasions, on one of which I was able to obtain an apology to the judge. The barrister also cross examined my 70 year old mother on largely irrelevant issues, and I had to intervene and ask the judge to stop this, which was obtained.

But acting for oneself against a trained and experienced barrister is no easy task. There was no equality of treatment.

The Judges

The first judge I applied to, in the County Court, who took the first custody hearing, relied on the welfare report for independent evidence.

This first report, in being so untruthful, was of course challenged. The judge was told unequivocally that the report contained 32 statements which were either untrue, misrepresented the facts, or gave the facts in an unbalanced way. The judge's reaction was to :

The written judgement listed the numbers of untrue etc. statements, did not say that my analysis was incorrect, but ignored my analysis. The judgement went on to say that the report was "sensible and not one I would basically criticise".

The same judge at the second residence hearing was much more careful and respectful towards me. This was only because I was known to have submitted an appeal to the Court of Appeal, and had applied to the European Commission of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Acting for myself, I addressed the Welfare Checklist of the Children Act 1989. The judgement essentially ignored my evidence. I was ordered to pay my ex-wife's costs for the second residence hearing, despite the fact that I was perfectly entitled to go back to court under a new law - the Children Act 1989.

A district judge heard the financial matters. He was informed that I had applied to the European Commission of Human Rights about the case. His judgement decided that, unknown to me, and despite the fact that I provided very well for my family with a large house, car, holidays etc., I had apparently "kept my family short". The judgement ordered me to sell the family home myself, and to hand over most of my life savings to a woman who had abandoned me, taken my children to the other end of the country, and had committed perjury to achieve a divorce. Not only was this judgement untruthful and unjust, it could only be described as an obscenity.

The judges who had conducted the most significant hearings, i.e. about the children (second residence application) and about finance, were both informed by myself directly in court, during the full hearings, that I had already applied to the European Commission of Human Rights in Strasbourg about the previous conduct of the case. They therefore had the clearest evidence of serious malpractices in the legal case, yet refused to act on this evidence. The District Judge, when told of my ECHR application, adjourned the financial hearing pending my second residence case. The County Court judge, when told of my ECHR application, even scorned and mocked me by saying in court during the hearing "Mr. Bradley, you can apply to any court in the world you wish". Reasonable people would have asked what had occurred during the case to lead me to apply to ECHR. There were of course a number of reasons for my application. But neither of these judges asked : we must therefore draw our own conclusions about their behaviour.

These hearings were all 'in chambers'. A legal expression which means that the public and press are excluded. My own family and friends had been excluded, and no-one, either public or press, were allowed to witness these proceedings in court. Judges could clearly say anything with arrogance and impunity.

Do you think we have a fair judiciary in this country ?

Costs against me

I had applied twice for custody/residence, once before the introduction of the Children Act 1989, and once after. At the second hearing, before the same judge, I referred to the malpractices in the first case, by quoting my appeal submission, and my application to the European Commission of Human Rights. I also referred to the Parliamentary briefing papers on which our MPs had accepted the terms of the Children Act in its passage through Parliament. The judge therefore had an opportunity to correct previous mistakes, and to apply the law as Parliament had intended. She did neither.

The very same County Court judge heard a later hearing on costs. She decided that I had been quite unreasonable in returning to her court, and awarded my ex-wife's costs against me. This totalled about 8,000 pounds.

This raised the legal costs for myself to nearly 15,000 pounds. My own earnings had been confiscated, and used to pay some lawyers who had assisted my ex-wife. They had assisted her to commit perjury, to keep the children 350 miles from me and their home, force me to sell that home, and confiscate most of my life savings.

I had been forced to pay their bill myself from my own earnings, while my ex-wife, who had committed these illegal and uncivilised acts, had been state assisted. She would have had to repay only some of the 2,000 pounds which she had incurred during the first case. Her criminal behaviour was also condoned by both judges, and she had used our own children as pawns in this.

The expression 'uncivilised obscenity' occurs to me in this context, but is hopelessly inadequate.

Consider your answer to this : what greater injustices or incivility, in a case such as this, could be possible ?

Financial outcome

After the legal bills and other costs had been settled, my ex-wife had about 42,000 pounds, and I had about 28,000. She had the endowment policy, which would realise about 30-40,000 pounds when it matured in only ten years time, and I had kept my pension.

Her parents had moved to Lancaster to be near her, in fact buying a detached house just around the corner. My ex-wife had obtained a job with an assurance company, and had a cheap mortgage. I strongly suspected that she had given her parents an amount of the money to 'help' them, as they did not sell their house in Southampton.

None of the money, either capital or child maintenance, was in any way being audited as used for the benefit of my children. It appeared that I was being enslaved in order to provide for her and her parents.

Health problems

Because of the shock and trauma of what was being done, and the lack of any defence for myself in the legal proceedings, I was under the care of my GP. I was prescribed beta-blockers for just over a year, and referred to a psychologist.

Despite this, I was able to understand the proceedings, and to take what limited measures I could to defend myself.

The subsequent attempts at remedies

Criminal proceedings on perjury

The police were contacted with regard to the criminal offence of perjury by my ex-wife. The subornation to perjury by her solicitor would have to wait for another day.

The police reluctantly, after I had pressed the area Chief Constable, spent some time investigating and produced a report for the Crown Prosecution Service.

Their astonishing conclusion was that there was not enough evidence about perjury, despite photographs to prove at least one statement a lie under oath. The CPS would not bring a prosecution.

Do you think it correct that a woman's perjury is condoned in court proceedings, and that women should be above the law ?

Solicitors

When time became available, I made a complaint about my first solicitors to the Solicitors Complaints Bureau (SCB). They referred the case to the Solicitors Indemnity Fund (SIF).

As the SIF suggested that I ask the solicitors for my money back, their fees being only 520 pounds and only part of the overall claim. They refused, so I sued them in the Small Claims Court. Despite massive evidence, the District Judge turned down my application. They had given no proper advice and had set about verbally abusing me. But the judge decided that they were not in breach of contract. He was not content to find this, but against the available evidence, also gratuitously ridiculed my discontent with my previous experiences in law.

Once the SCB/SIF had received the Small Claims Court judgement, they relied on this to dismiss my complaint. The case was later referred to the Legal Services Ombudsman (LSO). They also relied on the Small Claims Court judgement, despite the fact that they are not allowed by statute to question any judicial decision ! In other words, they can rely on but never question a judge's decision regarding a solicitor and barrister ! The career progression path from barrister is to judge, so the judge involved was probably once a barrister, and barristers are 'instructed' by solicitors i.e. they rely on them for their 'briefs'. It was a deliberate stitch-up between the SCB, SIF, LSO and the Small Claims Court judge.

Court Welfare Officers

A complaint was made to the CW officer's superiors, and taken up to Probation Committee level. The initial response, from the Senior Welfare Officer, said that although he had no evidence, the complaint could not be substantiated. The Chief Probation Officer obtained a copy of the Judgement in the case, and quoted the Judge's views, which I shall comment on elsewhere. The Probation Committee panel which heard the complaint simply ignored the major aspects and the evidence. The Home Office cannot be involved in individual cases, so the Probation Committee answer to no one above them, and so no further action could be taken.

My MP expressed some concern about what I'd told him had happened regarding the CWOs. But he wanted a legal opinion.

I approached two solicitors. The first, an acquaintance, said it wasn't his area. The second, who was my second solicitor on the case, and had at the time said that the welfare report was a "catalogue of factual inaccuracies", would not give a opinion once he knew it was for my MP. He prepared a letter which pointed out that further legal action would be expensive, and charged me 50 pounds. My MP’s request for a legal opinion had cost me 50 pounds and had achieved nothing.

Is there no resolution to a corrupt legal system ?

Matters raised with my MP

Most aspects were raised with my MP, who passed on questions to the Lord Chancellor's Dept. and others. The replies were standard, usually to obtain legal advice and to appeal. There were no other routes beyond those I had taken, and so no remedies to the malpractices I had been subjected to.

The European Commission of Human Rights

My MEP had sent me a leaflet about ECHR and some details of the European Convention. It seemed to me that a number of the laws, or articles as they are called, had been violated by the UK system of family law.

An application was prepared which quoted 9 articles in the Convention, giving evidence and argument about violations of those articles. These included the right to a fair hearing, respect for family life, sex discrimination, freedom to enjoy one's possessions, and freedom of speech.

The application was declared 'inadmissible' because no violations of the convention had been found by the judges. Rule of Procedure 52(2) of the Commission states that reasons will be given for a decision. No reasons were given. Subsequent requests for reasons were blatantly ignored, and the matter has been taken up with others in Europe.

Are all judges throughout Europe equally unjust and corrupt ?

Considerations and conclusions

What I later learned

There were, clearly, two separate laws - one for men, and a totally different set of laws that were occasionally applied to women. It was as if two sets of written laws existed, to be applied to men and women separately.

By the time my ECHR case had been decided, I was in touch with other fathers who had gone through similar cases in the UK. Their stories were all different in detail, but very similar in the way they had been abused and persecuted. The malpractices were common, and the divorce rate of 160,000 per year gave an indication of the huge scale.

Some of these fathers had become very determined, and had studied the law and the history of the law. I learned something of the history of family law, which included aspects such as :

I had learned the history of family law, and at least understood why I had been persecuted. This history did not however explain why so many components in the legal system were currently so corrupt. It did not explain why there was no resolution in Strasbourg. It did not explain why so many fathers had apparently put up with the destruction of their lives without complaint - that itself was puzzling and astonishing, and perhaps a subject for future historians and psychologists.

Unanswered questions

In attempting resolutions to these problems, I had come up against dead ends. The questions asked had never been answered, and reasons for my complaint or my case being turned down were never given. That itself speaks volumes about the situation.

However, I was absolutely determined that my own children, and others of their generation would not be treated the same. And also that if possible I would be compensated for the Human Rights violations against me, and that those responsible would be brought to book. That included solicitors, barristers, welfare officers and judges, as well as those responsible for these people, including the Area Probation Committee, the SCB and the LSO.

I have evidence that could bring a criminal prosecution for my ex-wife, and her solicitor. I have evidence of persecution by solicitors, of totally inadequate representation by a barrister in not pointing out to the judge that Parliament's intentions had been illegally corrupted by judges in higher courts. I know that judges in the UK are guilty of corrupting Parliament's intentions and for operating unfair hearings. I have evidence of such activity by three judges in the case. I do not know at this point in time the route to getting a Judge disciplined or prosecuted, but this ignorance will not prevent this being a major objective for the future.

The future

As a professional person, never out of employment, I had expected to look forward to a retirement without want. However, I had been forced to remortgage myself until I was 66 years old. I knew that I could not work until that age, and that this presented me with a significant financial problem in the future.

So far as the children's education was concerned, I knew they must be told, when of an age to understand, what has happened to the family, and the facts about family law. In particular I knew that I must tell my son that, if he contemplates marriage, then it will mean nothing but responsibilities and liabilities without any defence. I knew that such advice from a father would seriously disrupt his view of women, of the law, and of society. But there was no option, as a father, I must advise him correctly. So far as my daughter was concerned, I had to counsel her that, if she has children, she must respect the rights of others in this, especially the father.

None of this concept of the future gave me any grounds for optimism.

Some perspective

It is clear that a man and father's life may be substantively destroyed by the whim of a woman assisted by family law courts, and this when he has done no substantive wrong. It is clear that a woman committing the criminal offence of perjury, in order to rid herself of a husband, could profit from this. A fundamental principle of law is that a person should not profit from criminal activities, but this principle had been massively violated. It is also clear that a woman may leave a marriage, contribute no further to the (ex-)husband's life, and yet still continue to receive most of the benefits which accrued from that marriage, provided by the husband. That is, in the form of the husband's life savings, his home, and maintenance at least for the children, and maintenance directly or indirectly provided for herself. And all this at the expense of the husband's and his children's future life.

All this is, in itself, a very serious situation. But when this is achieved by serious legal malpractices of those taking part in the case, and when there are no resolutions to these malpractices, we have, to say the least, a deeply alarming situation. Given the scale of this, it is most probably the greatest scandal ever in British legal history.

An education in Law and Politics

The manner in which judges have been allowed to corrupt Parliament's intentions, the manner in which they are allowed to operate unfair hearings, the fact that they answer no no-one for their behaviour needs to be resolved rapidly.

But also, the process of law-making by the Law Commission and Parliament, and how these bodies react to pressure groups such as the NCoOPF, requires complete overhaul. A report in The Daily Mail of 23 Oct 95 described how a Parliamentary Secretary, John Taylor MP, had not told a Committee looking at further family law proposals, just what those proposals contained. The proposals overturned fundamental principles in family and property law. It was clear that new law making was out of control, as was the interpretation of current laws.

That our MPs refuse to deal with complaints, presumably because of short-term political objectives and pandering to the demands of one-half of the electorate, is a situation we have not met before in a democracy. Democracy as we operate it appears unable to deal with this problem.

Couples now enter into marriage contracts, but the terms of which are unknown to them. This is because the terms are determined by family law amended after the marriage. And this family law is determined by a future Government, pressure groups, and judges over which the parties have no influence. These changes to the law are driven by lawyers, not by letters to MPs from constituents. Couples should receive their written contract at the time of marriage. As with any contract between two parties, no third part should be able to change it.

Above all else, we have some Government depts making inappropriate law with regard to separation/divorce and children's issues, while other depts e.g. Social Security, handle the consequences. A Dept. of Marriage is clearly needed.

Family law is in a state of utter degeneracy, is out of control, and those responsible for it answer to no one.

It had taken about 5 years as a member of the father's movement to learn all this. I knew that we had a lot of work still to do.

Mark Bradley, Southampton.

Names, places and exact dates have been changed, in order to provide confidentiality. For the sake of brevity, a number of details have had to be omitted. Otherwise, this is a true story. All the material facts are direct from memory and from the case documents.

This is an extended version of Mark Bradley's case which was first published in Male View magazine #3 July/Sept 1993.

MB 2 May 96


maj10

The Flow Chart

P S married J C 12 July 1975.

May 1987 she instructed Ps to start proceedings for a DIVORCE.

June 1987 asked J for a divorce. J instructed B, W & L.

Hurricane 15/16 October 1987, Black Monday 19 October 1987 destroyed J’s orchards, decimated liquid cash savings.

June 1988, after a year in which agreement had been reached on all major aspects, P left home with W and her mother, but leaving J with a "Without Prejudice" problem on his hands over her future intentions regarding money. Discharges Ps, effectively tying J’s hands over freedom to shift assets, to honour agreement.

Summer 1989 engages C, C & O over W’s school fees. J agrees to meet 50% each term.

June 1990 engages M & P, local I agent, G & G, local counsel, N, -.

Amicable Court Order – 10.10.90, J agrees liable for all funding from all sources W’s school fees – "He’s in charge".

February 1991 J finds himself divorced not on grounds of two year separation, with consent, as had been agreed ever since September 1987 – so he thought, but on undefended unreasonable behaviour lodged 3 August 1987 by Ps, thus interlocking Ps, C, C & O.

8 March 1991 J, the respondent, alone in front of Judge T loses joint custody, Section 41 hearing.

"In view of the great distance apart I am going to grant sole custody to Mrs C and would have suggested that you do not see your son W until he is old enough to travel to see you by himself. However, since she is not here, I am going to grant reasonable access and in my opinion half a day a month is more than ample for a man of your character – you are unfit to be a father. If you disagree with my ruling you are welcome to have another hearing in E where you will get equally short shrift for a man such as you".

NO MAN SPEAKS TO ME LIKE THAT WITH MY TRACK RECORD AS A FATHER.

End of March 1991 discovers M & P don’t think the agreement of Spring 1988 a binding contract, by coming after more money for their client, P. J advises school, W at, may not meet school fees contrary to Court Order 10.10.90.

Mrs C, April 1991 goes to the Masons, who are thus locked into M & P, and others.

J discharges Bs, starts acting in person 18 October 1991.

D J L, after substantive hearing 7 May 1992, on 6 August 1992 gives judgement based on, J feels, false evidence. He appeals, goes in front of Judge B, 26 January 1993, discovers Halifax will repossess W’s home, second week February 1993, abandons appeal and bails all, so he thinks, out of Halifax.

Angry at Judge T, 8 March 1991, J goes in front of L J B-S, 7 July 1993. "I am shocked at what has happened. There has been a disastrous chain of events, none of which were your fault, which as caused and is still causing you, severe distress". But can’t help since the Act J has appealed against is no longer on Statue Book. But she states solely because of this technicality he cannot go to full Court of Appeal. If the Act had been still legal she would have had no hesitation in placing J in full Court of Appeal, continually states distress to him of these events through no fault of his own.

J studies MacGregor on Damages, Jackson & Powell, Professional Negligence. Having quoted "Ad testificandum" at Taxation Hearing, 25 June 1993. Now at a hearing on Taxation, 12 August 1993 points out he’s still never had full and frank disclosure of masonic details, ref 4 May 1992 prior to 7 May 1992, thereby, he feels, all have broken their Duty of Care to himself because of the wording first line, second para, Court Order 10.10.90.

13 August 1993 strolls into the House of Lords, hands writ for exemplary damages to Lord Mackay with these words "One of your Judges slandered me 8 March 1991. L J B-S gave me an apology, 7 July 1993. I’ve come for exemplary damages".

September settles out of Court with Mackay’s Counsel, S B. We admire your guts, Mr C, not many men would have the courage to do what you have done, then come and meet us and settle amicably even though you have proved to us the slander, financial loss, legality of the Acts, Judge acting coram non judico with twin brother Judge on the same circuit.

Get taxation notes, 30 September 1993, D J L. On reading these – which seem to point to a legal Duty of Masons to have kept him fully informed of their involvement over W’s school fees, honouring J’s legal rights as his father, J goes once only to the Masons in Great Queen Street: we don’t recognise you as W’s natural father. 10 October 1993.

19 October 1993 J reports N to Bar Council for allegedly conniving at withholding details Trust agreement of Masons in letter of 4 May 1992.

25 October 1993 J serves writ for Broken Duty of Care on Bs, Ps, Cs, M & P, G & G, N, resulting in facing 81 defendants, 80 Solicitor partners, one Barrister, quoting Myers & Elman 1940, Joint Liability Civil Contributions Act 1978 over first line, second para, Court Order 10.10.90, thus interlocking M & R, M, P & Co, C with Defendants.

D J Compston, 8 November 1993, J tries for Locus Standii Certiorarii, which leads him to

Mr Justice D B, 22 November 1993. "You’re in the wrong Court for a Locus Standii, Mr C, and you’ve already been to the Court of Appeal. What’s it all about? J explains Masons don’t recognise as having any Joint Parental Responsibility for W, explains details Court Order 10.10.90 first line, second para. Use a Witness Summons and if you have any trouble with the Masons, come back and see me at once and I’ll get them into the High Court for you. J feels he has a useful ally.

17 December 1993 Bar Council endorse actions N fully entitled to hide material evidence, especially if it affects a child in divorce.

February 1994

Court of Appeal, 7 July 1993 J goes to District Judge M being concerned at discrepancies in transcript. "Why did you come over here and not the Royal Court, Mr C?" "They don’t seem very pleased to see me!" "I’m not surprised. The bearer of bad tidings is never very welcome, Mr C." Suggests route J should follow having studied both transcripts.

HOWEVER INSTEAD. FEBRUARY 1994, APRIL 1994.

J goes first to Jenkins, his MP. "To think something like this is happening in real life to one of my constituents. J, I just can’t believe it but you have it all in writing" thus leading to his mate, J Taylor, who confirms transcript is "cooked" in writing!

Meanwhile, having winkled Masons out of Great Queen Street, J engaged first with S B, who admit in writing, 6 April 1994 Masons hid evidence back in December 1991 over Court Order 10.10.90 concerning J’s liability to W, thus confirming J’s suspicion to actuality that D J L, B acted on false evidence. S B, later G, now interlocked with others before them.

Having already tried six times to negotiate writ withdrawal, 25 October 1993, written details J shows, fully confirmed by all lawyers for defendants present – which he immediately shows to D D J W when asked to reply mid-day, 22 March 1994, Lincoln. "I am here against my will. To sign the form the defendants are asking is not only ILLEGAL upon myself but would mean I have to forget completely about the welfare, life of my son W." Watch colour drain from all lawyers’ cheeks as they confirmed to W all of the above.

Explained to D D J W his concept as a fruit grower of Duty of Care, M & E, 1940 Court Order 10.10.90, Masons letters with S B, gets interim judgement. "It is obvious that there are going to be further proceedings over DIVORCE COSTS, Masons, so I am striking all reference to them out of the pleadings which was exactly what I had been stating to ALL DEFENDANTS – to allow me to honour Court Order 10.10.90, ever since January 1994 over the form they wished me to sign.

Rest of pleadings, which I knew immediately when W stated above, would be struck out, were, thus collecting twin sets of costs, 23 August 1994, 26 September 1994, 26 October 1994, 19 May 1995.

I stated at all these – it seems strange that all the defendants, 81 lawyers and all their defending lawyers, another couple of hundred, having written to me 20 November 1993, that the writ of 25 October 1993, was vexatious, frivolous, scandalous, abuse of Court process, hopeless with no chance of success had then refused to agree a negotiated withdrawal. After all, ALL SOLICITORS, BARRISTERS impress upon their clients, NEGOTIATE, DON’T LITIGATE. So I re-read the pleadings. They were in a Catch 22 situation and DID owe me a Duty of Care over W but played with Cogged dice they could hopefully trust professional standards not to be proof against loyalty to the Tribe – which, of course, is exactly what transpired.

Lincoln, 23 August 1994, D D J B gravely concerned at details he has studied for an entire weekend, Taxation hearing P & Co, asked for detail breakdown. Gets it. Now, of course, backed up by 6 April 1994 letter from Mason’s Solicitors is utterly shocked. Turns to P – J having shown he had tried six times since December 1993 to withdraw his writ "Why did you not negotiate?" "Why should we? If Mr C has to forget about the welfare of his child that’s his problem, not ours" is the cynical reply.

Lincoln, 26 September 1994, equally stunned, D D Wa.

Lincoln, 26 October 1994, D J R, the most acrimonious Court Hearing I have ever attended with J, Senior Partner, M & R (N R G), stating "Of course we knew the form we wanted you to sign back in January 1994 was illegal on you. That was your problem. It was obvious you had been ripped off by my clients, my colleagues, but you don’t think you could lick 81 lawyers single handed. As to W who cares about children in divorce."

L Court, 19 May 1995, H H Justice L utterly shocked. Comes down like a ton of bricks on all the defendants including the lawyers acting for them, especially when he discovers all refused point blank six times to negotiate a withdrawal of the writ. Satisfactory for both sides.

By then, of course, Court of Appeal 2 February 1995 confirmed broken Duty of Care by all defendants in L, 22 March 1994. Transcript, Verbal Judgement 2 February 1995, Court Order 10.10.90. Letter 4 May 1992, 6 April 1994, all read by L.

In the meantime, J, 21 March 1994, reports Ps, C, M & P, G & G, B for broken Duty of Care to Solicitor’s Complaints Bureau, gets equally dusty answer, like Bar Council (17 December 1993), Spring 1995.

Lincoln, 5 January 1995, J having, so he thinks, finally nailed the Masons to appear in Court, walks into L only to discover H H Justice H has done an ex-parte hearing with G on 3 January 1995, struck out of the Witness Summons, looked at the detail laid down to be heard by him over divorce costs, 5 January 1995, which, of course, fully implicate the Masons whom he has now discharged from the hearing, conveniently remembers he has a prior holiday booked, cancels the rest of his work scheduled for that week and vanishes, arrogantly ignoring the expensive wasted costs of all parties booked to appear in Court before him that week.

J, bloody angry at the Masons, after all what did the Grand Master state in public back in 1986. "No-one gets anything out of Freemasonry except principles by which to live, and the more we live by such principles, the better lives we shall lead and the more we will contribute to Society. These principles are FREEDOM, TRUTH, HONESTY, TOLERANCE, BROTHERLY LOVE and ALWAYS TO ADVANCE THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE.

Thinks they don’t seem to believe in their principles except to protect themselves – are they above the law? Hammers through the paperwork, he KICKS ARSE and whips Masons, S B, G straight into the Court of Appeal, 2 February 1995, where the Masons, their lawyers, get the verbal thrashing they richly deserve and J gets the judgement that promptly turns the entire FLOW CHART and ALL the names within it GREEN.

Armed with this judgement, transcript, letter, 6 April 1994, backed up by a HIGHER COURT, J goes in front of H H Justice G, M, 14 June 1995, for a wasted Costs Order over divorce costs from B, 26 January 1993.

With a judgement record proving costs resulted from false evidence, all germane to the appeal before his eyes, G calmly sticks two fingers up to the judgement from the Court ABOVE HIM, and finds for all the defendants who have already admitted hiding material evidence from J who then picked up the costs bill in 1993.

And before ANY LAWYER says to me "A JUDGE IN A LOWER COURT CAN’T DO THAT – HE BLOODY WELL DID".

J, unable to get his costs, facing another stitch-up, chats to S, Lord Mackay’s Counsel, visits House of Lords – considers his next move.

Warns M S, D J, Bar Council, he wishes to report N and other Barristers, finds Bar will re-open file if fresh evidence. "No" J replies "No fresh evidence, just a judgement from R, W, Court of Appeal, 2 February 1995, confirming my original charge back in 19 October 1993 was well founded." Stunned silence. "Will send you details which now includes Barristers B, M, C, G. But since you have already found N innocent of this charge are you stating you can try a man twice on the same evidence, ie presumed innocent in real life?

Repeat with T P, Solicitors’ Complaints Bureau, now includes S B M & R, P & Co. Gets equally stunned silence.

D J A, M Court, 19 July 1995 – J tries to lift injunctions on all the monies left him – now being some five hundred thousand pounds poorer as a result of P leaving him with a Without Prejudice letter on his hands back in Spring 1988 to reluctantly pay divorce costs.

J, July 1995, has a long discussion with Bar Council and Solicitors’ Complaints Bureau, states you are generic lawyers to me. You cannot act independently of my charges. Nor do I expect hearings to take place without myself present. One Barrister or one Solicitor found guilty implicates ALL the other defendants.

They are either ALL INNOCENT or ALL GUILTY.

M, 7 September 1995. District Judge A. Is there anything you wish to say, Mr C? Yes, Ma’am.

I realise there is nothing I or you can do about H H Justice G. Yes, I realise that also, Mr C. Then at dictation speed –

I feel sad W has been forgotten by everybody except his father. As a fruit grower I am bound by laws to cover safe food production. Other industries, professions also have legal checks, including Barristers and Solicitors.

Yet Mrs C, her lawyers, the Masons, their lawyers and all the lawyers I took into Court including their defending advisors were all well aware of the implications upon myself of Court Order 10 October 1990.

Yet no-one gave me assistance yet all must be aware of the House of Lords principle.

A – you mean M and E, don’t you, Mr C. I am inclined to agree with you.

Yes Ma’am, it is about time some Judge had the "bottle" to enforce Court rules on professional lawyers, flouting them, to protect private citizens following their legal duties.

There are plenty of penalties concerning non-disclosure or default by respondents in material manners.

Yet the only one available to cover default by a petitioner and their lawyers – and is well known to all professional lawyers, has persistently never been enforced in this action.

As a result I, the respondent, have picked up the bill for the default of the petitioner in inadequate filing of the documents, details of which were required of me by the Court to fully honour my obligations to W and the Court. All lawyers connived at this non-disclosure. I regard this as deliberate breaking of Duty of Care to the Court following M and E and indirectly a broken Duty of Care to myself, W’s father.

Mrs C’s lawyers have been paid for the deceit which is, I believe, a felony, whilst all the lawyers in the flow chart acted with their eyes wide open in assisting non-disclosure to myself which I am inclined to think breaks their professional indemnity, ie arson.

I don’t like it at all, but W is the true loser.

-----------------------------

Nothing in the UK Courts appears to have changed since Lord Tenterden CJ stated in 1827 "It is better that for the judiciary to be protected, sometimes that an innocent man may be condemned." That’s fine provided you are not that INNOCENT MAN!


maj11

The M Family – Case History

The Family

A born 12.6.82

J born 11.8.83

L born 21.10.85

Mother: M, born 30.1.43; Father: J, born 10.8.26

Married 13.11.82

History

Autumn 1989

Mother decides "relationship is finished."

Demands separation, father to leave home.

Refuses to discuss her problem.

22.3.90

Mother abducts children from family home, with two accomplices, to rental accommodation in the next village.

Tells children they are going on holiday.

Children upset because father is missing.

Mother phones father’s brother to say what she’s done.

Refuses to disclose whereabouts.

Brother phones father at work to inform him.

Father leaves work hurriedly, locates children and mother.

Unsure of legal position and practicalities of work, father does nothing.

23.3.90

Father sees Solicitor, D M F. No positive advice given except to start application for access and custody (under Guardianship of Minors Act).

24.3.90

Father goes to mother’s rented address. Children delighted to see him, jump in his car for dental appointment and visit to friends.

Father tries to persuade mother to return with children, on any terms. She refuses. Children even more upset. From then on, father has great difficulty seeing the children, but eventually succeeds. Children overjoyed at coming home to Dad, and express desire to stay.

Again father gets no proper legal advice. Advised to wait for Court hearing.

Mother makes continual efforts to brainwash children. Joined by grandmother.

Children upset, but resist, and tell father.

Mother tells father "F--- your rights, and the children’s wishes don’t count".

1.6.90

Father’s application for custody comes before Judge P C. Mother alleges father is an alcoholic.

Mother behaves disgracefully. Judge extends half-hour hearing for further investigation and evidence. Adjourns over weekend to 4.6.90.

Father has children for the weekend, after being with mother and grandmother for three weeks. Discovers all three have serious head lice infestation and daughter has infected cradle cap. Treats both successfully. Mother phones, saying Judge "awful woman".

4.6.90

Court re-assembles.

Judge asks mother to return to matrimonial home. Mother refuses, twice.

Judge asks mother why she did not discuss and agree financial arrangements before desertion and abduction. Mother says "I thought he would see sense if I took the children".

Judge awards three months interim custody to father, quoting L C J B-S.

Requests father to hire nanny, as still working, which he does.

Daily, alternate weekends, and half the school holidays access to mother.

Mother ordered to return children to father that evening.

Mother snorts and rages throughout judgement, refuses father’s help. Brings children to father in the evening and demands to stay "to protect L". Accuses Judge and father’s counsel of being "in collusion" against her.

Father refuses to let mother into house.

6.6.90

Mother goes to Social Services and alleges child sexual abuse by father.

SSD decide to take no action, but the school teachers and other parents are informed of the allegations behind his back. Father meets unanimous hostility from teachers and many parents over ensuing months, as mother escalates her allegations. L reports brutal "examination" by grandmother, and becomes disturbed for months.

Father reports incident to SSD who do nothing except make a scurrilous note implying father is fabricating!

Police are called in by SSD, and ask mother to make Statement.

Mother sees Solicitor, M G, and refuses to make Statement.

Sept 1990

Nevertheless, Social Services eventually call a Child Protection Conference.

Children are interviewed individually, on video, by policewoman and social worker.

Father is cleared and children are each recorded saying they want to stay with father, who is not allowed to accompany them to the interviews.

Children remain with father and thrive, doing better at school. Father deals successfully with disturbance to L called by grandmother’s assault and a similar "examination" by mother, also recorded on Social Services’ file (which father is not allowed to see, and then only partially, until 1994!).

Mother records two Social Workers seeking "way round the law".

17.90.90

Mother issues first divorce petition.

June 1991

After a 12-month totally successful "status quo" prolonged by mother’s false allegations, the case comes before Judge M N, at B County Court, for a five-day hearing.

Court Welfare Officer, J D, reports that all three children wish to remain with father and will be unhappy if returned to mother.

CWO also reports that mother has accused father of sexual abuse of L, and that father has stated mother has a lesbian record. In CWO’s opinion, if one or other of these is true it would indicate that parent to be unsuitable to have custody.

The video of the children’s interviews is shown to Judge N. During the hearing the mother reveals that she has a criminal record for serious credit card fraud, jumping police bail and going into hiding for six years before being arrested.

Mother commits perjury as to her lesbian past, and other matters. Grandmother commits perjury about an illegal abortion which she procured for the mother, and other matters.

Judge N "hears" all the evidence, overwhelmingly confirming that Judge C had been correct and insightful in awarding custody to father in 1990.

10.6.91

Judge N says:

Mother has not accused father of sexual abuse.

Mother has never had lesbian relationships.

Mother’s credit card fraud was an idealistic prank.

Mother has not denigrated the father at the school or to the children.

Mother is a calm, determined, but very feminine person, etc, etc.

Judge N hunts around in the evidence like a rat on a sewage farm for scraps to hold against the father. She comes up with:

He is insensitive to women and children.

He cannot get on with other adults.

He has denigrated with the mother.

He has wiped his son’s bottom.

He pushes the children too hard at school.

He plays with them at their level.

He talks to them about inappropriate matters, etc, etc.

Judge N ignores the wisdom of Judge C, whom she does not like, and the significance of the CWO’s report.

[Judge N is known by fellow Judges to "favour the ladies", and now refuses to socialise with a Judge who later gave a character testimony for the father. Some people think she is an excellent Judge though "sometimes erratic" and "took quick to make up her mind". The children and the father agree with the nickname she goes by in other quarters, which is "Madame Whiplash".]

Judge N ignores the wishes, best interests and wisdom of the children, and orders them to return to the mother.

Father is advised he cannot appeal against this "cruel decision".

From then on, father has to comfort three very unhappy little children and a broken-hearted Nanny, although spiritually castrated and disemboweled herself.

How he achieves this has never been explained, or even noted by Judge N.

Mother continues brainwashing the children, telling them father drinks too much and might go mad and "come after you with an axe". Tells L "Daddy’s sick, you mustn’t let him cuddle you or take you to the doctor". Father sees the children Wednesday afternoons, alternate weekends and half the holidays.

He continues to give the children every possible support at school and (almost) contrives to maintain their educational progress.

Mother and grandmother continue to denigrate him to the children.

Mother becomes very angry when children say they want to return to father, and hits A repeatedly for it.

The children plead to father to "get us back".

15.8.91

Father is ordered to pay maintenance of £1,100/month.

14.10.91

Father is invited to attend a candle-lit all-night vigil outside the Law Courts, welcoming a "new dawn" of justice for children and, by the same token, fathers.

This is the coming into force of the Children Act, 1989.

Father attends, with other members of Families Need Fathers. Hope is in the air, due to the prominence given to the "wishes in the Children Act check list.

Because of this and the continuing pressure from the children, the father begins to think he stands a chance of getting a fair hearing under the new Act. (Naive.)

3.2.92

Father issues application for a Parental Responsibility Order for A who was born before the marriage and is not his natural son.

12.2.92

Mother, having refused to discuss plans for the children’s education with the father, and having made secret plans to take them out of private education into a State school and to remove them from S to Y, where they knew no-one, issues application to vary the access/contact arrangements accordingly.

8.5.92

Judge N invites the Official Solicitor to "act on behalf of the children" – which he utterly fails to do.

24.6.92

Judge N orders the two applications to be consolidated and to be transferred from B to M.

The hearing is immediately listed for a nine-day hearing at M, starting on 14.8.92.

It remains so listed for several weeks. The Official Solicitor confirms he can be ready by 14.8.92.

July 1992

The case is suddenly, mysteriously and without explanation transferred back to Judge N at B, allegedly by M Court, and re-listed at B. This causes a delay of over seven weeks, contrary to one of the principles of the Children Act.

6.7.92

The Official Solicitor sees the children, with mother.

6.8.92

Father having been advised by D M F "You don’t stand a chance if you go before N again", applies to Judge H for the case not to be heard by her. Application refused, and leave to appeal granted.

11.9.92

Official Solicitor consents to act (having already intervened).

24.9.92

D M F, still concerned that father would not get a fair hearing from Judge N, briefs junior Counsel for Appeal. Brief is inadequately and hastily prepared by D M F, under pressure of urgent conveyancing work, without consulting father.

Counsel very nervous and reluctant to present the arguments in the brief, which should have been more thoroughly researched. (Even so, one of the three points is logically unassailable).

The Appeal proceeds.

Father advised not to be present by D M F.

Appeal heard by L C J B-S and L C J W. Both appear more concerned to support J N, on whom they pour fulsome praise, than to consider her lack of impartiality in a rational manner.

In dismissing the Appeal, L C J W does remark on the "never explained" transfer from M to B in July. Counsel for father is congratulated on the "delicacy" with which he puts father’s case.

The listing for a nine-day hearing by Judge N in September is confirmed.

In preparation, D M F, still under conveyancing pressure, fails to obtain statements from numerous witnesses for father in time. Judge N refuses all but three, saying "No more evidence! No more evidence!, and especially none denigrating the mother!

D M F also fails to secure services of father’s choice of senior counsel, leaving it too late.

The Official Solicitor and his servant psychiatrist, Dr M H, see the children and the parents, but refuse to see the children at their father’s home. Dr H subsequently admits putting leading questions to the children.

The Official Solicitor (Mr D T) files his report very late, with only a few working hours left, instead of the 10 days of "good practice!".

Counsel advised father that the body of the report is heavily in the father’s favour, and the OS’s recommendations, supporting the mother, "are untenable. We should be able to knock these down quite easily".

The OS’s report and that of Dr H are subsequently found to contain a number of errors of fact.

The most serious of these is failing to report A’s wishes correctly. During the hearing, the father asks the Court to allow A to correct this fundamental blunder.

Judge N refuses to allow A to be heard in any way. She is supported in this shocking decision by the Official Solicitor’s Counsel, Miss S, and Counsel for the mother.

The OS’s error becomes "fact".

Mother’s plan to remove the children from private education in her home area in S to a State school in Y are described as "well thought out".

Father’s plan to keep the children in private education is criticised on false grounds, as not being co-educational (which it is).

Father’s plan also criticised because it would "hold A back for a year" which is manifestly untrue. Evidence ignored.

23.10.92

Judge N gives mother everything she wants saying "I can sympathise with mother’s desire for a fresh start". Judge N ignores all aspects of mother’s bad behaviour: eg hitting A, breaking an undertaking not to tell him about his parentage, repeated obstruction of access, further allegations of sexual abuse and other denigration of the father amounting to perjury and her blatant selfishness.

Judge N also accepts further perjury by the grandmother as evidence.

Judge N has the children brought to Court, to tell them her decision in person, with Mr T in attendance.

Judge N announces "The children are very positive about it, provided father makes them understand they must now live with mother and that this is certain" (ie brainwash them, subjugate them). Break their spirit!

The children say:

"She made us laugh a bit about the wig, but she wouldn’t let us talk, and when she stopped, that man (Mr T) started on about football in Y.

She kept on with things like "And I understand there are lots of lovely things to do in Y, I believe there’s a - Museum".

It was horrible being in the same room with her. She was like a witch".

[Fathers note. Subsequently Mr T (OS) denied to me that this was how the children reacted.

He and Judge N both consider I am "insensitive to children".

Their own arrogant insensitivity is beyond belief. So much for these so-called experts, who claim to understand my children better than I.]

Outcome for children. They are bemused and bewildered and immediately ask father again to "get us back".

Education of all three is set back by approximately 12 months. Father excluded from giving support as previously by terms of Contact Order, and obstruction at schools by mother.

Mother and grandmother, now completely unrestrained, continue brainwashing and denigration of father to children and at schools. Mother obstructs Contact Orders on every possible occasion. Continues her allegations of sexual abuse, at Social Services in Y and in S.

Mother continues to upset A about his parentage. "That man stole all the money from your Post Office account. He’s never been a good father to you and his brother’s a nasty man too".

Contrary to what mother said in evidence, she has no relations in Y. Father has, but mother refuses all contact with them.

Fortunately for them, the children’s new teachers are very unsupportive and understanding, and helpful to father despite mother’s obstruction.

The children make new friends, but miss their old ones.

They are forced to live in "two separate worlds", mostly in the one they do not prefer.

Their education declines due to enforced lack of father’s support and encouragement. Rows with mother escalate, with some violence, but she refuses to accept child counselling, as advised.

[Fathers note: This is what is called "putting the children first."]

Outcome for mother. She continues to be unhappy. Her "psychological problems" (hinted at as paranoid by Dr H) do not go away. She does not find employment in the "real world" as advised by Judge C, and as promised to Judge N.

She refuses Psychiatric help for herself, when offered.

She refuses to discuss anything at all with father. Still claims "the children’s wishes don’t count", and says their education is "peripheral".

[Father’s note: "Heav’n hath no rage, etc."]

Outcome for father. He is doubly distraught for the children and their unhappiness, and for the damage to their education.

He is advised he cannot appeal against this disastrous decision which plainly ignores the interests of the children and the "no order" principle.

In any case, the hearing leaves him heavily in debt. Nevertheless he is ordered to pay the Official Solicitor £500 towards his costs of £14,500 for desecrating his children’s lives!

Judge N again orders him to pressurise the children to accept her decision and restricts contact to six visits a year and one telephone call per week. She pours acid into the wounds already inflicted. Father, at age 66, is obliged to seek work and take in lodger, to make ends meet and to pay the heavy costs of contact and maintenance. He is seriously in debt for the first time in his life. The proceedings so far have cost him £134,000 (plus Legal Aid since 1993). Total approximately £160,000.

[Father’s Note. The mother has had at least the same amount in Legal Aid, which I will eventually have to re-pay out of a life’s hard work. The mother has scrounged all her life and has no funds of her own, although she now has to pay £117/month to the Legal Aid Board, out of the maintenance I pay her!

The children have lost out on a grand scale in terms of life-style, though the mother’s is still far better than ever before she married me. The children’s inheritances have been savaged.

This is called "justice".]

December 1993

Mother threatens to defy Court Order re Christmas contact, upsetting the children who wish to spend it with father. Father starts proceedings to enforce order. Case is listed. Mother backs down, in fury, and listing is vacant at last moment. Children delighted, spend "best Christmas ever" with father.

Father applies for unrestricted telephone contact, and minor increase in staying contact.

24.12.93

Mother immediately renews allegations of sexual abuse (this time escalated to paedophilia, as it transpires later) at Y and E G Social Services.

Social Services note history and decide to take no action, but do not inform father what is going on behind his back.

[Father’s note. This is clearly obsessive malice on the part of the mother, but the pathetic Dr H described me as being "obsessive". The mother subsequently described my exercising my right to see the Social Services file as "undermining" her!!!

Judge N criticises me for being "excessively!" involved with the children and writing to Joe at school, replacing a letter and £5 which the mother stole when I sent them to him at her address!

This is the kind of nonsense which the Appeal Court Judges described as Judge N’s admirable objectivity and impartiality in surveying the evidence; to Hell with rational thought.]

8.2.94

Mother repeats allegations of sexual abuse, at Y Social Services.

17.2.94

Mother demands £1,760/month maintenance in T W Court. Father, having taken in lodgers to try to clear his debts, is punished for his efforts. Mother’s fraudulent debt to W Council comes to light.

Maintenance is ordered at £1,275/month making it impossible for father to re-pay creditors.

Mother still refuses to work.

Divorce suit, at mother’s request, transferred from T W to Judge N at B, to be heard by October at the latest.

21.3.94

Mother issues second petition under Section 1 (2) (d).

7.4.94

Mother changes Solicitors for third time, on grounds of distance.

Dec 94

Father changes Solicitors for second time, D M F having wound up his business £500,000 in debt and having been allegedly negligent. Second Solicitor admits own negligence, and advises father to take a second action against her.

19.12.94

Hearing vacated.

16.1.95

Children apply ex-parte for leave to ask to increase contact with father (though in fact still wanting Residence).

Leave refused by J T on unknown grounds.

[Father’s note. The Official Solicitor said J T found the children not competent. Their Solicitor said they were, and J T never even saw them.

The children’s Solicitor, H H & Co refuses to provide them with Counsel’s notes of judgement.]

19.1.95

Mother applies for cessation of all staying contact and of half-term contact. Also for reduction of main holiday contact, and of telephone contact.

Grounds: children and father in collusion against her!

20.1.95

Judge N calls in Official Solicitor again.

4.4.95

Decree Nisi pronounced.

1.6.95

Father applies to have order for summer holiday contact enforced, at H Court before Judge K.

[Father’s note: Children not having had a holiday for five years, due to mother’s failure to give contact dates in time, I went ahead and booked a cheap camping holiday and informed the mother. Two months later, she announced she had booked another holiday at the same time and told me to cancel my booking. She also said I could not have half the summer holiday, as ordered. This illustrates her ongoing defiance of Court Orders.]

8.6.95

Judge K examines the evidence and sees that the mother and Ms N, her Solicitor, are not co-operating with father or the Court. He rebukes them, orders father’s holiday arrangements to stand, and mother to pay costs. Thanks father’s Counsel for helpfulness and honesty.

[Father’s note: Judge K was as perceptive as Judge C in 1990, unlike Judge N ever since.

For their pains to be impartial, Judge C is described as a "maverick" and Judge K is known as Mad Harry.]

The main applications – mother’s cessation of staying contact with father’s for a minor increase, and unconstrained telephone and postal communication – are listed for hearing by Judge N on 13-15.9.95.

14.9.95

Judge N rejects both applications and defines contact for next 12 months, to be renewed at 12-month intervals until 1998, subject to a Section 91 (14) order which she imposes on both parents until September 1998.

Telephone and postal communication still limited to one each, per week.

She also discharges Judge K’s order as to costs.

The Official Solicitor again fails to report the children’s wishes accurately, having put emotional pressure on them during the interview as to how it would affect their mother! He also fails to correct his previous error, and to investigate and present abundant new evidence about the mother brainwashing the children and denigrating the father, and emotionally abusing them. He says he does not share the father’s concerns about the boys’ education, in spite of the evidence from the school.

Since the hearing, the mother and her Solicitor, Ms N, seek deviously to undermine the Contact Order. The mother continues to abuse the children emotionally, especially A about his parentage.

She finally agrees to mediation, but brings it to a premature end, wasting the first session by repeating allegations of sexual abuse, and the second by trying to undo the Contact Order.

She refuses to discuss anything, even money to her own advantage, with father, and declares education is "peripheral".

The father’s initial and naive euphoria at having contact defined rapidly evaporates. The children continue to ask father to help, which he cannot; and the Official Solicitor like Pontius Pilate washes his hands of them and tells father to make them accept the situation. The boys’ academic and sporting attainments continue to decline. The Official Solicitor refuses to accept any responsibility, against all reason, and tries to blame the father!

It is sad but true that nobody, least of all the children, has derived any benefit whatsoever from Judge N’s and the Official Solicitor’s interventions in these proceedings. On the contrary, the children and their father have suffered serious damage and gross humiliation at their hands. The children have been betrayed by their mother, and the very system which is supposed to protect them.

Their entire futures have been damaged and worse is no doubt in store, the present situation being clearly unstable.

This is basically the fault of an adversarial legal system which is designed to conceal the truth rather than expose it, leaving judicial "discretion" free to create havoc as it pleases. Neither the children nor the father have even been listened to, let alone shown any consideration or compassion. The mother has always been put above the children’s best interests, as she puts herself above them.

Now the law, pompously, arrogantly and cruelly, refuses to acknowledge its blunders, and still less to rectify them. The law demands respect for itself, even to the extent of depriving little children, insisting that they, and their father, continue to be bound by its own abuse of power.

SUCH A LAW IS BENEATH CONTEMPT.


Back to TENC Contents list