Issues - Case Studies

Case 3
I, //// of ////// do testify to give evidence to the Court:-

My experiences as a grandparent under the current system of the anti-father UK Family Law Courts/ System outlined below:-

The family lived in Europe from 1993 when our granddaughter was 2.5yr old. We the grandparents used to talk to her every Sunday morning on the phone. Even at that age we had nice sensible conversations. She adored us. Her mother wrote “she thinks every red van is granddads camper van, and walks around with a video of inspector Morse under her arm”. She thought the picture of John Thaw was Granddad. In 2000 the phone calls became shorter and seemed to change. It became simply a question and answer session, and then she would say, “I’ve got to go now…”. She was clearly finding it difficult to speak to us, and before Christmas we stopped calling, during this period it was noticeable that when her father let her call from his office she was her old self again. The process of alienation had begun.

In 2000/2001, £130K of funds had been removed from a joint account and smaller amounts stolen. Mediation and court action failed to resolve the matter.

In Nov 2001, her father came home from work to find the apartment empty. All that was left, were 2 large settees and 2 china mugs missed in the rush.

A month later she was traced to her new house in England purchased at a cost of £195K. The legal process began, but the barrister advised not to proceed under the Hague Convention as father did not have parental responsibility (PR) - he was not even aware of it. So it went to the “family court”. This advice was queried by both the Judge in High Court and a Law Lord in the Appeal Court.

The full hearing in May 2001 lasted 5days and resulted in PR and 2hrs contact each fortnight. This also required 8hrs travel each way plus overnight stays, time and expense. Several frustrated attempts, led to an application for the order to be enforced. The High Court Order had provided a review after 6 months in the County Court. Father applied to Southampton County Court for the Order to be enforced. This was later found to be a mistake, it should have gone back o the High Court. In the County Court, in 1hr, without the witnesses, without the written evidence, without hearing from either parent, the Judge ordered NO CONTACT! Father could, however re-apply after 6 months.

In the Appeal Court the Judge said that he, the Judge in the lower Court should have started from the foot of the High Court case, instead of which, he had started a new case without hearing the witnesses, without the written evidence and without hearing either parent. He had treated the father, a Litigant In Person, discourteously, had not allowed a written statement by the father which he should have allowed, had allowed a cross petition by the mothers barrister improperly submitted. He also made an error of fact and the Judge said father and daughter had suffered a denial of justice.

The most recent hearing in Decemeber-03’, the fathers family are now confined to indirect contact for 2years after which there maybe a review. The Judge at the end of his order said, “some fathers are here because of their own failure and this father has done everything asked by the Courts. He is blameless”. He went on to criticize the mother at length and ended by saying “if only the mother would change her attitude, this matter would quickly be resolved”.

The mother, and I believe the Judge is well aware of this, is a proven liar (she has stolen from friends). A fraudster (she drew family allowance for seven years while living in mainland Europe) and now is in now in my view abusing her daughter. The mother didn’t speak to her own father for 20 years and has a twin brother she still does not speak to.
This is a clear case of parental alienation as can be found anywhere. Also I believe this is a clear case of the courts failure to use the powers they have. I have heard a Judge a in the High Court say he is ‘impotent’ in these cases and a law Lord in the Appeal Court saying the same. My definition if impotent is weak, feeble and helpless. Not I suggest a description of High Court Judges.
Dated this 8th day of January 2004
SIGNATURE XXXXX
Mr /////

End of Statement