Issues - Case studies

Case 2

I, XXX of XXX do testify to give evidence to the Court:-
My experiences as a father under the current system of the anti-father UK Family Law Courts/ System is as followings:-
Married in Dec-94’ and have 3 lovely young children of mixed race. Until a few years ago, we were a family living in a lovely extended 3-bedroomed bungalow in a village of Wiltshire. I currently hold deputy department managers post with an
internationally known company.
Irrespective of the our own family, the ex-wife’s constant carping and denigration of the area and house we lived in as she wanted desperately move back to Devon to be with her best close and divorced woman friends and her family by whatever
means possible. The ex-wife premeditated departure from matrimonial home; she abducted the children at the end of 2001 while I was at work. She apparently went to a refuge for a short time, because she was so scared. But before she left she took all her photos off the walls, legal documentation and key personal possessions. Further, whilst purporting to be at the refuge, she spent this time with her parents in Devon and her sister’s in Wales.
About 1-year before she deserted me, she moved out over £10K of savings to as yet truthfully disclosed locations. Prior to her planned departure she had a valuation carried out on the house and harassed me to decorate it. After she deserted me, she asked me to change the name of the house in her name so she could sell and “split” the proceeds. Prior to the custody proceedings she had another valuation carried out on the property. At the custody hearing she denied plans to sell-up and
move and said she would stay in the children’s best interests.
Even though I moved out the marital home to bring stability to the children, this was eventually used against me by the apparently children’s welfare body called CAFCASS (CC), the ex’s legal representative and the “family court”. Nobody really
ever fully praised the stability I brought back to the children or more critically, the instability and distress the ex-wife brought to the children. In later discussions, with the CAFCASS officer involved and his manager, they both confirmed in that the father is shafted once he moves out the marital home.
When I made application for custody for the children’s best well being, I have since been accused of everything under the sun and am still being accused by the exwife (yet her parents have sent me free invitation to enter their home!). The exwife has been absolutely hostile to fatherly and fathers family contact with the children. To date the ex-wife has failed by any organisation on this planet to produce any credible evidence against me.
From day-1 CAFCASS took sides with the ex-wife, at the very first meeting with them, I was immediately given the ultimatum by a female CAFCASS officer with “options” of seeing the children only if I surrendered my passport and via a supervised contact centre. Her other unrealistic “option” was that I would not get to see the children at all. WHAT HAD I DONE WRONG? Although I intensively queried as to why, no explanations were offered whatsoever. When I told this officer that I saw my daughter briefly after a long time of no contact a day earlier,
she was subdued and had regressed, I was treated with total disregard. Amidst the mother’s continual unrelenting hostility, the system of “family law” failed to accommodate the children’s contact with me and I only saw them for the first time only after 3 SOLID MONTHS OF NO CONTACT. These 3-months of forced non-contact were absolutely heartbreaking for me. When I did see the children after this time – they all ran to me with open arms. Retrospectively analysing this, the mother was
using CAFCASS and the system of “family law” on her side to help alienate the precious minds of the children against me and thus claim several months down the road at future proceedings that the children were apparently happily settled with her (as she did eventually do) and that they did not want to see this rarely seen stranger called “their father”.
The CAFCASS officer appointed (or “practitioner” as CAFCASS likes to proudly call themselves) to my case has failed to produce a fair completely honest report. As far I am concerned I have not been treated fairly and they (including by the secondary female officer) have been totally sympathetic to the ex-wife and bent over backwards for her. The report has substantial errors, omissions and unjustified reasoning and conclusions in his report. According to CAFCASS’s complaints
mechanism, any complaints have to be dealt with AFTER the custody hearing. This is far too late and I the father have not only had to endure a whole process of “family law” proceedings defending a untruthful and biased report, but also a mass of allegations from the ex-wife, together with extremely aggressive, intimidating and trick cross examination by the mothers council, on top of which the hearings are often driven by Judges who have a low esteem for fathers like myself. For a
man, a father, to go into a secret family courtroom is like walking on eggshells as he is seen as the perpetrator and the mother, a saint. Further, even if a father could ever prove wrong doing from a welfare officer or in the rare instance a welfare officer admitted liability, the custody has already been
executed and there is absolutely no redress. Regardless of the bests interests of the children, this always guarantees a win-win-win scenario for the mother. To date, CAFCASS have failed to qualify the comments errors and omissions in the welfare report in my meetings with them. Recently I asked for a copy of the notes the CAFCASS officer made to prove my case, but it appears according to the South- West Deputy Regional Manager, that the notes have been destroyed – how perfectly
convenient! Further, CAFCASS’s own complaints procedure was only completed only in April-03’, it is self-written, self-investigated, self-audited, self-concluded and only executed AFTER the custody hearing. This is rather incestuous affair and
akin to Police complaints being handled by the Police themselves! Both the officer concerned, his manager and CAFCASS HQ have stated that they have no follow-up process to the custody recommendation made by their so called expert
“practitioners”, further convenience as they will never take ownership of their mistakes thus avoiding litigation for negligence, gross error and suffering. It’s no surprise we are seeing that around half of all contact orders are broken by
recalcitrant mothers. Despite exceptional delays, my complaint with CAFCASS had reached the appeal stage at in Nov-03’ (about 1year from initiation – the Children Act 1989 declares that the children’s welfare is paramount and delays should be
avoided). In Jan-04’, I received further communication from CAFCASS HQ that my complaint has been yet further delayed as the entire CAFCASS board has resigned. At the custody hearing in Aug-02’, so far as I am concerned the now retired Circuit
Judge Webster QC believed whatever the mother had to say with no independent external evidence, just her sole word. I was treated like a unloving, uncaring and insensitive bastard, what I had to say was treated with contempt. Despite the exwife’s known and factual track record of unrelenting hostility to the children’s fatherly contact, her privately disclosed cultural hatred, her constant selfishness, her child abduction and in my view the irreparable suffering she caused the children, her solid plans to move to Devon, her greed for money, the fact that the children are of black ethnic origin, the “family court” rewarded her with child residency. This is the role model the “family courts” wants to raise the children. Further, to the best of my recollection, Judge Webster QC told me that in the children’s reluctance to return to their mother, I should to the effect “encourage the children back to her”. TO ME THIS IS ABSOLUTELY PEVERSE. I HAVE TO TELL THE CHILDREN TO GO BACK TO THEIR PERFECT MOTHER WHEN THEY DON’T WANT TO! Guaranteed, if this situation was reversed, I would be behind bars of jail under charges of abuse by the so-called “family court”. Judge Webster QC, merely rubber stamped the court systems so-called “expert” CAFCASS report as in my belief he has always done in the past (it would be interesting to see out of all the cases he has heard how many fathers have ever been deemed suitable to be ever given custody). I further ask, if Judges ALWAYS rubber-stamp the social officers reports – why bother to have a court proceedings at all?
During my ongoing discussions with CAFCASS, the principle case officer and his manager have stated that they do not recognise mother and father as equals. In one of my many communications to CAFCASS HQ, they wouldn’t even formally make a clear and simple statement that they recognise mother and father as
equals (EXHIBIT-RRC1). THIS IS SO FUNDAMENTAL, and lack of a formal statement paramount’s to nothing less than STATE LEGALISED SEX DISCRIMINATION (violations:- CA (1989), 1975 Sex Discrimination Act, Art-6 HRA, Art-2 UN Convention on the Rights Of A Child, ETS-177 etc.). I recall that during the
original custody hearing and cross examination by my former barrister, I can recall that Judge Webster QC didn’t even flinch an eyelid to questions relating to equality put to the CAFCASS officer, I can recall at the time I was absolutely horrified, but my hands were tied.
In the same year the mother was rewarded with custody, and based on case law, she was further rewarded £180K in the form of the matrimonial home and “personal maintenance” payments (what are CSA payments for then?). On top of this, she now receives massive monthly income from me – essentially 40% of my current net salary (tax free for her). It is my belief that together with other income from her undisclosed earnings from her lucrative music teaching she is netting in the region of £2000 a month (tax-free)! When the “family courts” rewards
mothers with so much for their selfish and malicious acts, I can imagine it’s a perfect state backed meal ticket for her and it also my belief that it actively encourages other wemen of similar mindsets.
It is my belief that because I have a high hard earned income, I have managed to get more “contact” that most other fathers ever would. Despite the fact that I have this “generous contact” as the “family courts” and the mother would like call
it, I have nothing but constant hassles CSA for matters including assessments and continued high payments despite the fact that I have to take time off for childcare.
In June-03’, at a full hearing regarding the ex-wife’s continued contact hostility, her rejecting birthdays cards to the children, making unilateral plans for the children’s education, her curtailing telephone contact etc, she gave an indication that she was considering moving. This is less that 1-year when she stated that she had no plans to move in the children’s best interests – take note CAFCASS and Judge Webster-QC – I advised you what her plans were and she told CAFCASS directly of her plans to move and yet you knowingly backed her custody application
for HER PURE SELF INTEREST. During this hearing I was denied a McKenzie friend on the basis that Recorder Dixon and the ex-wife wanted a “level playing field”, or more truthfully a leveling down and no other witnesses. Despite hard evidence from myself, and practically no preparation or any hard evidence from the ex-wife,
Recorder Dixon backed the mother. The ex-wife filed 2 different statements into the proceedings (the un-sworn one to me), she was granted a 2nd cross-examination by Recorder 1week after she refused to ask any questions (I recall Recorder was almost badgering her to cross examine me – he was in my opinion looking for anything to bang me with, but she flatly refused 1st time around and lost her chance). Worst of all, the mother even wanted to bring our youngest son into the live proceedings (I objected immediately), but as I recall in his summing-up the
Recorder said little about this. It is my belief that the ex-wife knew she was in the wrong and deliberately failed to make childcare arrangements so that she could use our son as a weapon and shield. During these proceedings the ex-wife stated
that the children were reluctant to see their father and she had to “encourage” them to see me. The Recorder believed her, no questions asked. Fact, the children have always run to me at handover and do not always want to return to her upon return. It is undisputable fact that during the proceedings whilst we discussed how to proceed owing to the ex-wife’s deliberate failure to make childcare plans, our youngest son not only walked freely walked into the Court Room, but he came in sat down freely on his father, IN FULL SIGHT OF THE RECORDER. At this hearing I asked for shared care residence for the young children, mid week contact, and longer contact weekends in the children’s best interests, the ex-wife refused all and the Recorder backed her all the way. As I recall, the Recorder said I
was more interested in my rights than anything else. At one point in this hearing, I really thought my request for additional contact time would be granted, but when the Recorder questioned me to the effect “are you really planning to take all this time off” – it then dawned on me subliminally that he would never do this, as he was more interested in using me as a continued financial wage slave. I also recall, in these proceedings the Recorder had the audacity to say to the effect “this is the only mother the children have!” to me this was an extremely insensitive and sexiest statement, and he was implying, I, the father, was nothing less than superfluous in relation to the children’s needs. At the end of these proceedings I was totally mentally destroyed and gutted. I thought about complaining, but having experienced how anti-father the “family courts” are, I thought it prudent not to complain because of repercussions at future hearings and the tremendous amount
of stress this was causing me.
In a July-03’ proceeding regarding ancillary matters, the Judge described me as the “main financial provider”. Again, a mere wage slave. In Dec-03’ the mother gave less than 1months and totally unilateral fate complete notification (breaking the existing contact order in several places) that she was removing the children to Devon and had covertly sold the stable and habitual
address in which the children had lived. Be aware that I sacrificed my position to maintain the children’s stability and well-being by providing this home for them. This shocking announcement was also COINCIDENTALLY JUST AFTER I had gone at great expense weeks earlier to purchase a new home in locality purely for the children’s sake. During this same month a prohibitive steps placed on the mother to prevent the children from being removed. Her reasons advanced for moving to
Devon were, her family live there and the marital home was too old - not too old to make over a £100000 pure PROFIT! When Judge Meston QC asked what plans the mother had made for the children’s welfare – she replied NONE – I was totally
horrified. At a hearing in the middle of the same month, Judge Field stated that the children’s welfare was paramount and requested a welfare report and a Circuit Judge should hear the case possibly at Bournemouth. A CAFCASS officer present
gave reasons that no such report could be generated in the timescales imposed by the mother (mother in further breach of existing Court Order by the end of the same week). 2-days after this hearing, I a Litigant In Person, WAS GIVEN LESS THAN
A DAYS NOTICE TO A FULL HEARING by the “family court” to assess the removal of the prohibitive steps order with or without my attendance. At this hearing the mother came with full legal representation and its no surprise that my plans to maintain the children’s status quo were shot to pieces once again, yet the mother HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WHATSOEVER ARRANGED FOR THEM!
Although the Judge appeared to be fair, he in made his judgment very long (in my belief keeping transcription costs beyond easy reach), his summing-up made reference to our daughter still being of “tender years” (DEBUNKED Maternal Deprivation Theory), he told off the mother (just words, no action), he not only USED but he also ALLOWED THE MOTHERS COUNCIL to use material from a REJECTED 2nd bulky lever arch file statement which I was ambushed with about 30 mins prior to the hearing. The Judge said that change was part of life and the children would soon adapt to the new situation and friends. For the record, the last time the children were uprooted they all suffered (and still are to and extent) tremendously, yet he shot to pieces my proposals to minimize change while a welfare report was produced and then gave the mother leave to
remove the children! Recorder Murphy went on to give the mother a whole calendar month to sort out herself out and CAFCASS were ordered not to produce welfare report before this time. I critically ask what use is a retrospective welfare
report AFTER THE CHILDREN HAD MOVED! Does the Judge really think that all fathers are total morons I ask? I can guarantee this new welfare report produced by a social worker will say to the affect that the children have suffered once again, what they need now is stability, they should not be moved and they will back mother claims of more slanderous allegations against me and have completely severed the children’s links with their father and his Asian family by the end of 2004.
COINCIDENTALLY, NO CHILDRENS WELFARE BODY WAS PRESENT AT THIS SUCH AN IMPORTANT HEARING ANNOUCED AT LESS THAN 1-DAYS NOTICE BY THE “family court”. The Judge ignored the feedback from the Headmaster of the children’s school who stated in private conversation that the children having gone through a trauma needed stability now and he would back that in writing. He also ignored the special needs of our youngest Son who requires speech therapy. He ignored the Children’s right to a private life (Art-8 HRA). He also paid little attention to the
new drastically REDUCED contact arrangements that the mother imposed and which make it practically impossible for the children to regularly see their Asian family in the Midlands, in fact I can recall him saying that it was my responsibility to maintain the children’s Asian links – I ASK HOW when he has cut my legs from
beneath me! Further, he deferred my application for child residency till May-04’ – by this time the mother, CAFCASS and “family courts” will be claiming that there is apparent status quo with their role and perfect mother, and this should not be upset and thus my application for residency in the children’s bests interests becomes essentially academic and guaranteed totally useless. The mother, together with the aid of CAFCASS and the so called “family courts”, has achieved her purely selfish ambition of returning to Devon together with high financial rewards, just so that she can be close to her family and her circle of divorced and other women-friends. All this is irrespective of children’s welfare and all the other lives ruined in the process.
In amongst all the proceedings I have been party to; I have been trying to learn more why the “family courts” and welfare services operate in such secretive and discriminatory manners. Some of my findings are outlined here:- The Lord Chancellors Department, the Court Service and CAFCASS, ALL FAIL to keep data to which gender custody orders are made. The Times[1], in private discussions with barristers, 3rd party discussions, this appears to be some 93% in the mothers favour. I must draw an educated conclusion that the 7% residence to fathers is mainly accredited to where the ex-wife does not want the children. This is essentially stating that ALL WOMEN ARE PERFECT MOTHERS and ALL FATHERS ARE TOTALLY INCAPABLE, INCOMPETENT, UNCARING, INSENSITIVE IMBECILES, never ever being capable of childcare. Further, it’s far easier to shaft a father, as there would be more of a political backlash if the children were ever to be taken away from a careless and negligent mother. Shock, horror, a mother could never be careless or negligent to her own children!

In 2002, I spoke to a Hampshire MP with connection to the LCD on a 1-2-1 basis, he stated in private that I would never get custody and he would see whether the UK was in violation of Human Rights Law because of gender issue. When I after the
Children’s custody hearing, a little wiser, went back to him to address the gross issues of the discrimination and exploitation of fathers, he became very defensive and effectively denied there was discrimination in the UK system of Family Law. It should be noted that on this occasion this MP had a transcriber with him.
In a private discussion with a junior Judge in 02’, the Judge stated that he had mandated by the powers of the family law system that custody must always go to the mother because that’s the way its always been. Around May-03’, this statement
was cross-validated by another father suffering at the hands of this system of “family law”. This is horrific and nothing less than active perversion of true justice, it goes against several laws and it is nothing less than corruption breeding corruption from top to bottom. In my professional opinion the judiciary and welfare service are very smart in ensuring absolute unquestionable control at their fingertips by maintaining full containment policies to achieve this. This approach guarantees no external visibility of their criminal acts to the press or public. Their chief arsenal of weapons include secret courts where no impartial press and public are permitted to proceedings, they slap on prosecution notices on legal paperwork so that you can never show your paperwork to anyone else such as the press who would question their decisions. Legalese says they use these methods because of the private nature of the divorce and to protect children – this is total horse manure, in reality it’s a cover from which certain members of the biased judiciary and its
welfare officers can work. It is my belief they behind the scenes, and high-up, the LCD, CS and CC collectively work to deliberately ensure custody always go to the mother and they further ensure non trace-ability of gender by failing to apparently keep or disclose official records to which gender custody has been awarded (EXHIBIT-RRC2). Excellent containment policies. Currently, as far as I am concerned the 1989 Children Act is not worth the paper it’s written-on and the 1992 adoption of the UN Convention on The Rights Of Child
is nothing less than a gesture by LCD and the government. No fault divorce has been on the table for years but surprisingly it has never made any progress. Why? Money!
There are many fathers that would like to speak out openly about this system of “family law”, but they are too afraid of loosing any scrap pet of contact they have with their children and any backlashes at future court hearings by impartial Judges
in their secret courtrooms. I am certain there will be retaliation from the judiciary to what I have said in this statement and from the ex-wife’s council. I do all of this because firstly, despite what the “family courts” and selfish mothers think,
children need both parents for their social & mental development to achieve their full potentials in life. Secondly, I love my children and I have their best interests at heart and finally, because I want to bring light to the deep void of darkness and
discrimination that dares to call itself the “family courts”.
To regretfully conclude, to what I personally being subjected to and bear witness, CAFCASS are gender biased and they like the Judiciary are still entrenched in a ancient and historic stereotype that the children should always be with their mother – point blank. The father’s role is breadwinner (wage slave) – point blank.
The majority of Judges play lip service to the real meaning of the 1989 Children Act, they deliberately pervert it and use it slate fathers. The UK Judiciary and CAFCASS do not see that father’s have any valuable input in relation to the Children’s welfare with the exception of money (thus apparently reducing the load on the state social bill). I am certain that the complete legal system of “family law” solicitors and barristers are fully aware of the discrimination that goes on against fathers, but they will not say anything as to do so would be a threat to
their source of highly lucrative and immoral income. Finally, I must state for the record, it is not necessarily the Law that is at question, but it the corrupt execution that is carried out in secret “family courts” that is. I believe that the facts stated are true and that the opinions I have expressed are correct. I will swear the contents of this statement under oath and am willing to attend court as to give evidence.
References:
[1] Fathers Fight Back, News Review, The Sunday Times, Article By Gitangeli Sapra, 15th June 2003
Glossary:
LCD – Lord Chancellors Department
CC – CAFCASS
CS – Court Service
CSA – Child Support Agency under the new guise of Department Of Work And Pensions
HRA – Human Rights Act

Dated this 12th day of January 2004
SIGNATURE:
Full name: Mr. XXX
EXIHIBIT-RRC1

(Communication To CAFCASS HQ Requesting Information Including Equality)
One of my letters to CAFCASS HQ querying their stance on gender equality:-
CAFCASS’s long awaited response only after querying their continual delay to
respond:-

EXHIBIT-RRC2
(Communication To LCD Dept Requesting Figures On Child Related Information)
One of several letters to the LCD requesting statistics on child custody statistics
and their surprising response of the Data Protection Act (note that I never asked for names, addresses etc.)

== End ==