Issues - Case Studies

Case 4

I /// of ////, do provide this statement knowing that it will be placed before the Court as evidence. I'm also willing to testify to these facts under oath. Proofs of the evidence given below can be obtained by visiting www.justiceinfamilylaw.co.uk

Article 3 of my Human Rights was infringed by suffering inhuman and degrading treatment by the legal profession, by four [4] Court Welfare Officers, the Legal aid Board, Gillingham School [Dorset] and the system generally.

The Legal Profession
Unaware how the system works, I was led by both sets of solicitors like a lamb to the slaughter. By this, I mean that they were working together to undermine not only my best interest, but also by portraying me in a bad light. Together with the mother they schemed to make unjustifiable excuses so to deny me access to my son XXX and by delaying the proceedings, by not initiating the involvement of the Court Welfare Services, very soon after the marriage had irrevocably broken-down. In doing so they have ensured that my son XXX would only bond with his mother and not his father, which would become evident if and when access was granted, meaning I would have to start at the very beginning with supervised access.

It was only after as a 'litigant in person' I made an application for an Interim Access Order, that I managed to gained access to my son after nineteen months of near denials [only 4 access visits] from the mother and the connivance of the legal profession. I later found out from a letter, that my own solicitor had lied in a letter to the court, by misinforming them that access was ongoing when in fact it was not. I later took my complaint to the Solicitors Complaints Bureau, and won the case, but he wasn't struck off as I requested.

The Court Welfare Officers
As for the Court Welfare Officers and now CAFCASS are all members of NAPO who just follow the guidelines as stated in their Anti-Sexism Policy booklet [of which I have a copy]. Their booklet is a true indictment of their bias against heterosexual males, while promoting the rights of lesbians and gay men. In doing so they have excluded themselves from ever writing an unbiased welfare report, in other words ALL welfare report were fraudulently written. All together 3 court welfare officers were involved in my case, where each one produced a report. All three reports carried out a character assassination upon myself, while falsely portraying the mother to be whiter than white. They knew full well that the mother was the source of the problem, but did nothing to advise her that it wouldn't be for the best interest of our son XXX to needlessly make him fatherless.

(i) The first Report
The first report wasn't too much of a character assassination, but still portrayed me in a bad light compared to the mother, who was freely using our son as a pawn so to deny me access. In the report Mr.Toze states: "Much as I sympathise with the Petitioner's [me] views on the matter, I would recommend to the court that the consideration of staying access is deferred for at least eighteen months. This is because I believe the mother's objections to be valid and because I fear she would find staying access so upsetting and difficult to accept, at this stage, that its imposition would be counterproductive"

(ii) The second Report
The second report was full of lies and contradictions, cemented by a complete savage character assignation carried out by a woman in her seventies under the name of Mrs. Speakman. As soon as I came into contact with this woman, she made it quite clear where her alliances laid with and had even had the extreme audacity to equates the love of a father to that of chocolate/sweets. In her report she requested that the court should make an order. This was done as a face saving exercise for the court, because they knew she wouldn't adhere to, thus giving a free hand for the mother to do her worse. When I complained about Mrs. Speakman to the senior court welfare officer a Mr. Meech, he came back to me after he had spoken to her, and told me that although she made that comment, I took the whole thing out of context.

(iii) The third Report
The third report was done after the mother had turned my son against me, and because according to the mother didn't want to see me. This too was full of lies, for she was saying that my son didn't want to see because I must have done something to upset him, therefore in the wrong. This time too she requested that the court shouldn't make an order, another face saving exercise for the court and a free hand for the mother to sill do her worse, which she did.

(iv) The Legal Aid board
I have warned the Legal Aid Board [I have copies of letters] on numerous occasions that the mother through her solicitors were fraudulently obtaining Legal Aid funding to pursue a case where the mother's own recalcitrance resulted in the case been referred back to court on numerous occasions.

(v) The School
The school in question is Gillingham School [Dorset]. Unlike Gillingham Primary, Gillingham School decided to ignore me totally as a parent with parental responsibility, by enforcing their own set procedure contrary to the written law. Before any information is sent to a non-resident parent, the mother and the child/ren must agree for it to be sent to the father, even though there is no court order to prevent it. It took me a long time to make them comply, but would only do on request. In May 2001, I found out that our son was doing a paper round before going to school and because the mother was unconcerned of the detrimental effect this would have on his education, as a last resort, I contacted the school year Head Mrs. Steel via a confidential letter, requesting for her assistance. Within two weeks of this letter, my relationship deteriorated, which made me realise that Mrs.Steel broke my confidentiality by not just informing the mother, but also informing my son [confirmed by my son]. Since then, although I speak to my son over the phone, we have not see one another for more than 2 ½ years. By treating me in such a degrading way, the school has been sending signals to my son that his father is to be ignored and treated with contempt.

Article 6 of my Human Rights was infringed by denying me a fair hearing.
(i) The Court
All my evidence made out in all my statements were completely ignored, while at the same time lies by the mother was passed on from the Court Welfare officers and accepted as true evidence, when presented in court. The district judge in Yeovil had the extreme audacity to say to me that I'm making a plethora of applications, when he was aware that this was due to the mother using any devious tricks to undermine my relationship with my son. Way back in 1994, the mother's outburst in court was a definitive sign of how recalcitrant the mother is, when she said: 'What you never have...you never miss' meaning that although I'm an extremely good father, and because XXX wasn't allowed [by the mother] to receive my love, my affection and care for our son, then it wouldn't be missed.
(ii) The Court Welfare Officers
All the court welfare officers who have been involved in my case knew full well that the source of the problem was the mother, and yet kept feeding false information from the mother both at court and in their welfare reports, while disregarding factual evidence I had given them, thus ensuring I wouldn't receive a fair hearing. It became apparent that these court welfare officers were in fact probation officers with only days of training in family court cases.

Article 8 of my human rights has been infringed by denying me (i) the right of family life, (ii) to being a proper parent, (iii) with sexual bias, (iv) delays in preparing reports, (v) lack of appropriate expert to deal with the problem at the source, (vi) the cost of legal representatives and travel to and back when attend hearings in Yeovil, so I could be a parent to my son.

(i) The Right to Family Life:
The legal profession, the Court Welfare Officers, the Judges, the Legal Aid Board and the mother have all been instrumental in denying me the right of family life and (ii) to being a proper parent to our son XXX.

(iii) Sexual Bias:
I suffered sexual bias at the hands of the legal profession, the Judges and the Dorset Court Welfare Service through their officers who are members of NAPO, a trade union who openly promotes anti-heterosexual bias against men/fathers, therefore all their reports are fraudulently written.

(iv) Lack of appropriate expert:
Due to their inadequate training and the extreme bias against fathers bestowed into them, the Court Welfare Officers were incapable to deal with the problem at it's source, so to ensure access/contact resumes as swiftly as possible and is maintained.

(v) The Cost of legal Representation and travel to court hearings in Yeovil:

From the offset, I was told to believe that the proper county court for the hearings to be held was where the child resides, in this case Dorset, but the case was moved to Yeovil which happens to be in Somerset. At the hearing which took place in 1994, I requested for the proceedings to be moved from Yeovil to Salisbury. I went on to explain, that the distance from where the mother resides to Yeovil or Salisbury would be the same 26 miles, but would make my travelling that much more bearable. After explaining this, the judge rejected the suggestion outright, proving once more, that their intention was to make it as hard as possible for me, so that I would give up on the son I love very much.

Article 10, the right to freedom of expression e.g.. gagging orders, secret courts. All these hearings took place behind closed doors in a secret court, so that all the injustices which were perpetrated to me were covered-up.

Article 13, the right to effective redress against persons
I first lodged my complaint in 1996 against the Dorset Court Welfare Service, where I experienced stonewalling from the very first contact, by delaying their replies or by passing on my letters to different individuals, in a ever ending spiral, which eventually made me gave up.

In 1998 I lodged my second complaint together with another father, who was also grieved by the Dorset Court Welfare Service. We were then led to believe that both our complaints would be dealt with through their complaint procedure, only to be fogged off without any explanation whatsoever, at a conference of the subcommittee. This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the complaint procedure is non-existent, and only a great insulting farce.

SAGA OF INAPTITUDE
Listings of Letters and Documents
1. Mine to Davies, initiating my first complaint 30/01/95
2. From Rudenko, dismissing my complaint 03/01/96
3. Mine in reply to Rudenko 16/04/96
4. From Harvey, making excuses he had not received documents sent 06/05/98
5. From Harvey, but signed Pritchard-Jones, informing of investigation date 17/08/98
6. Mine to Harvey, making rudimentary requests and recommendations 19/10/98
7. From Pritchard-Jones, informing of complaint dismissal 26/10/98
8. From Pritchard-Jones, complaining about contacts with committee members 04/12/98
9. From Graham Smith to my MP, informing about our group making complaints 15/12/98
10. From Graham Smith, making excuses to stop investigation 05/02/99
11. From Meech, informing me of long delay 21/05/90
12. From Meech, informing me again of long delay 30/05/90
13. My solicitor to ex' solicitor, informing of access obstructions 02/10/90
14. My solicitor to ex' solicitor, informing of phone and access obstructions 29/10/90
15. My solicitor to ex' solicitor, informing of my offer to buy clothes 29/10/90
16. My solicitor to me, asking why XXX is not under the care of the doctor 06/12/90
17. Note from doctor, doctor being told what to say by the mother 28/12/90
18. My solicitor to ex'solicitor, informing again of phone & access obstruction 03/01/91
19. My solicitor to ex'solicitor, informing of more denials & hiding of toy 17/01/91
20. My solicitor to me, asking to supply information about joint account 25/02/91
21. My solicitor to ex' solicitor, reaffirming purpose of joint account 08/03/91
22. My solicitor to ex' solicitor, informing of wasted journey to Dorset 05/06/91
23. My solicitor to Meech, urging him to finish long awaited report 03/01/91
24. My solicitor to Toze, urging him to finish his long awaited report 03/03/91
25. My solicitor to Dorset C.W.S , urging them to finish this long awaited report 04/05/91
26. My solicitor to Toze, again urging him to finish his long awaited report 14/05/91
27. My solicitor to Toze, urging him to produce his finished report 05/06/91
28. From Meech, informing me of new delay to process application 28/10/93
29. My letter to my solicitor, confirming events of 13/01/94 dated16/01/94
30. From my solicitor, supplying me with correspondences 21/01/94
31. From my agent Portland Bartlett & Co., confirming events of 13/01/94 dated14/01/94
32. From my solicitor to Meech, complaining about events of 13/01/94 dated 21/01/94
33. From Meech to my solicitor, making unjustifiable excuses 27/01/94
34. From my solicitor to Meech, refusing to accept his unjustifiable excuses 07/02/94
35. From my agent, summary of judge B.A.Smith summing up 05/05/94
36. From Dorset Social Services, more shenanigans from the ex to deny contact 02/02/95
37. My response to Social Services, XXX is as reported by the mother 08/02/95
38. First report (illegible), what the mother wants..the mother gets 29/05/91
39. Second report, much of the same, but to the extreme 08/03/94
40. Third report, much of the same and the culprit is let off once more 20/09/95
41. From Dorset C.W.S, informing me of another delay to process my application 01/08/95
42. Mine to C.W.S, complaining about being passed on from pillar to post 05/08/95
43. From Eccleston, stressing the fact that she is the third to be appointed 07/08/95
44. From Eccleston, acknowledging my concerns for the delay 11/08/95
45. Mine to Eccleston, requesting for her to explain of methodology & reasoning 17/09/95
46. From solicitor complaint bureau, informing of their involvement 09/10/95
47. From my MP to solicitor, confirming MP' involvement 26/10/95
48. Mine to Eccleston, informing her of renewed contact shenanigans from the mother 22/10/95
49. Mine to Eccleston, informing her of more contact shenanigans 05/04/95
50. Mine to Eccleston, informing that the mother is bribing XXX to stop contact 04/03/98
51. From Eclesston, requesting for me to make another application 16/03/98
52. Mine to Eccleston, informing her of my refusal to go through another farce 18/03/98
53. The Headteacher informing me of illegal school procedure 11/11/99
54. What I am entitled by law from the school
55. Insulting misleading letter from Yeovil County Court 21/01/00
56. Sarcastical letter from the chair of school governors 24/01/00
57. My reply to his most insulting letter 25/01/00
58. My letter to the headteacher requesting for copy of school report 23/05/00
59. My letter to the chair of board of governors, after been stonewalled by the head 09/06/00
60. My letter of enquiry to the chair of school governors 21/06/00
61. My letter to the head requesting for him to reply to my query made to chairman 06/09/00
62. My letter to the head requesting for a copy of school progress report 17/11/00
63. From the headteacher with a copy of XXX's progress report 22/11/00
64. My letter to the head explaining a few of the simple truths 05/12/00
65. From the year head giving me misleading information Dec/2000