Issues - case study 8
Claim No Ref: WJCJ/TM/2419437
Regina v OConnell
--------------------------------------------------------
I, //// of //// do testify to give evidence to the Court.
1. Since the birth of our children I have been very involved in their care and after the birth of our youngest child in 1990 I became their main carer. My wife was violent towards me and the children. In late 1995 my wife asked for a divorce and told me to leave the house, this I refused to do.
2. In January 1996 my wife obtained an ex parte ousting Order and an interim Residence Order on perjured evidence. The Official Solicitor was invited to act on behalf of the children.
3. Both children asked to live with their father even in preference to living with both mother and father. The Official Solicitor recommended that the mother be awarded residence.
4. In the main hearing the Official Solicitor case manager heard the Judge remonstrating with the mother for her violence toward the children and for lying on other matters.
5. Despite being aware of the evidence of my wife’s violence and of her untrue allegations the Official Solicitor case manager repeated the untruths as if they were true and interviewed the children in the presence of their mother
6. In 1997 the older child wrote to the NSPCC twice complaining of the mother’s violence and in May the mother stopped contact with the father. The Official Solicitor supported this action despite not having seen the children since April 1996.
7. The letters were dismissed by the Official Solicitor as being untrue and written at either the father or the paternal grandmother’s dictation
8. Social Services interviewed the children who displayed fear and said that they were hit by the mother A Psychiatrist was appointed by the Official Solicitor. The letter of Appointment did not mention the children’s allegations but did ask that the father’s suitability to have contact be examined.
9. The Psychiatrist did not look at the allegations of violence by the mother.
10. Neither she nor the Official Solicitor Case Manager, Peter Bailey asked the children about their treatment by the mother. When the older child tried to speak about this she was told to “shut up”.
11. The older child wrote a long letter to Peter Bailey giving much detail about her mother’s treatment of herself and her sister. This letter was never produced to the court but the father was cross examined as to its provenance with the suggestion that it had been written at his dictation. Peter Bailey knew from the child that this letter had been written whilst the child was at a friend’s house and without the father’s knowledge.
12. The older child started running away to the father and each time was returned to the mother’s flat. In September she ran away to Wales. In the Main Hearing the Judge ordered that the younger child remain with the mother and made no Residence Order for the older but ordered contact with the mother.
13. In 1998 the younger child ran away and was caught by police and returned to the mother.
14. In June 1999 the younger child again ran away and remained with the father for ten days. She complained to a GP about bruises inflicted by her mother and repeated this to Social Services. Social Services recommended that the child remain with the father.
15. The Official Solicitor case manager, Peter Bailey did not interview the child but recommended summary return to the mother. He also supported the mother’s removal of the child from London to Essex and her refusal of contact with the father or between the siblings. Contact was then made one day per month.
16. In March 2000 the Official Solicitor was ordered to appoint a “confidante” for the younger
17. In April 2000 improved contact was ordered and on the Official Solicitor recommendation the younger child’s contact with the father was made dependant on the older having contact with the mother and the father and his family were ordered not to contact Social Services for any reason.
18. In September 2000 the younger child ran away to Wales. Social Services recommended that the child should be allowed to live with the father. The Official Solicitor did not see the child and recommended summary return. The Official Solicitor then supported reduction of contact with the mother to determine periods of contact. He also requested the making of a Section 91 (14) Order against the father.
19. In April 2001 the child again ran away from the mother and was taken from her bed by police officers.
20. Throughout this time the Official Solicitor’s Case Manager latterly with CAFCASS legal Special Casework department, Peter Bailey and their Counsel have behaved in such a way that lawyer’s and Mackenzie friend’s new to the case understood them to be the mother’s lawyers.
21. Also through out this time the reports written by Peter Bailey and his appointed psychiatrist have contained factually untrue statements that they knew to be untrue.
22. From 1996 until 2001the child’s contact with the father (and later her sibling) has been denied or reduced to a minimum by the mother. Peter Bailey and his appointees have supported this on each occasion. At each substantive hearing contact has been reinstated.
23. Peter Bailey and his appointee have known for themselves or from Social Services and Child Psychologists and Psychiatrists as well as other witnesses that the mother has prevented the younger child being interviewed on her own whenever possible and that the father constantly and actively encouraged the renewal, maintenance or improvement of contact between the older child and the mother. They know that the mother refused to have contact with the older child on several occasions. Despite this they have always claimed that the father would not encourage contact were he to have Residence and that the mother would.
24. They have consistently ignored the sworn written or oral evidence of thirty witnesses that supported the father’s case and showed the mother to be untruthful and mistreating the children.
25. The older child has just told me that she wrote to Dr Lucey in late 1999 or early 2000 telling of her and her sister’s experiences with their mother. She received a reply from Lucey dated 31st January 2000 in which she said that the Official Solicitor would be given a copy and that the letter would be attached to her report. The letter was not attached to her report nor was it brought before the court.
I, //// DECLARE THAT:
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

signed ////
Dated this 13th day of July 2003