UK Family Law Reform

Free information index

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:57 PM
Subject: Re: German Custody Laws

The issue that was discussed was related to the "proximity network relations", where the family ties are more evident in the Southern countries then in the nordic countries. However, what was said is that because of the nordid walfare State is more supportive the family support network wasn't so evident, but they are there.

The dinamic analise of the 3 last generations and the diferent factors of family and work dimensions where also very interesting. At Portugal, for example, the idea of "ideal of tradicional family" was only establish in the generations 1950-55 and even then was more a perception then a reality. The today reality of diferent family configuration of the generation 1970-75 (that is mine) is very similar to the generation 1930-35. Of course there are other diferences between this 2 distant generations and diferent reason to have similar configurations.

The pappers that they gave to us aren't publish yet...

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:38 PM
Subject: RE: German Custody Laws [1 Attachment]

Supporting the transition to SP in a nation State which welfare payments
seems to be the new problem - from academic papers I have scanned in the
past 24 hours.

I was not aware it was a complicating factor.

I am almost certain I saw Jacques-Antoine Gauthier's name (University of
Lausanne), listed at a conference in 2012 at B'ham Uni. (see the AHRC

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 10:36 PM
Subject: Re: German Custody Laws

Today I was in a seminal of Family Sociology and there were very interesting working in progress:

There were some foreign researchs:
Jacques-Antoine Gauthier, University of Lausanne

Eric Widmer, University of Geneva

They said that the diferences between countries aren't so big as we think. The diference is more on the dimension of the Social Support of the State.

They are doing a work comparing 3 generations and the findings are really interesting. When I have time I will put some of what they said here.

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 10:22 PM
Subject: German Custody Laws


Re: 'Shared Custody in Germany'

This should interest you ref access to parents and caveat of no DV existing.
- the German law appears to make no mention of DV in its 1998 and 2003 law
about shared custody.

See also :

Proksch, Roland (2000) Begleitforschung zur Umsetzung der Neuregelungen zur
Reform des
Kindschaftsrechts (1. Zwischenbericht, Teil 1 und 2) BMj (Hg.), Berlin.

{{ Supporting research on the implementation of the new regulations to
reform the Family Matters }}

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 8:35 PM
Subject: RE: Swedish researchers released a massive study

On 22 January 2013 Charles Pragnell wrote.
Can you provide a link to any research, statistics, or any other evidence that “...... the many thousands of parents who have committed suicide as a result of being forcibly separated from their children”. The major factor most commonly found in male suicide studies worldwide is `Unemployment’ and I cannot find any reference to those who have committed suicide for the reason you state. Do you have documentary evidence of any who have committed suicide for this reason from Coroner’s Inquiry reports? The largest group of males in Australian suicide statistics are males in the 18 -25 age group and aboriginal males are highly disproportionately represented in those statistics. So I’m afraid there is no substance to your assertions.

Research Review


The evidence that family functioning is related to the wellbeing of children, adolescents and adults is overwhelming, and mental health is no exception. It is therefore reasonable to expect that the significant changes in family structure and functioning in the post-war years––such as the increase in sole parent and blended/step households due to increased rates of divorce and ex-nuptial births––would have some effect on the psychological wellbeing of children and adolescents.

According to the Western Australian Child Health Survey (Silburn et al 1996), children in single parent and step/blended households have up to two times greater incidence of mental health problems than children in intact families (two natural parents). Garrison et al (1997) documented an almost 15 times higher prevalence of depression in 12 to 14 years olds not living with both of their natural parents.

Higher divorce rates in a society lead to higher suicide rates among children. Prior to the divorce revolution of the 1970s unemployment was the biggest correlate with suicide, but that has changed. The work of Professor Patricia McCall (1994) of the Department of Sociology of North Carolina State University now shows that the largest demographic indicator of suicide is the family structure within which the person resides, and that the divorced family structure is most dangerous. This link between the rise in adolescent suicide in the past three decades with parental divorce has been found again and again in the literature, and in cross-cultural studies of Japan and the United States. For children the suicide is often triggered by thoughts that their parents have rejected them (Nelson, et al 1988; Noevi Velez& Cohen 1988; Larson, Swyers, & Larson 1995), or have lost interest in them (Wodarski & Harris 1987).

Such a perception on the part of children may sometimes be based in reality and not be just a figment of their imagination. Not only do parents divorce each other, a divorce or mini divorce happens between them and their children (Kershet & Rosenthal 1978). Unlike the experience of their parents, the child’s suffering does not reach its peak at the divorce and then level off (Wallerstein & Blakeslee 1989). Rather, the effect of the parents’ divorce can be played and replayed throughout the next three decades of the children’s lives. These long-lasting effects are found in country after country no matter what the socio-economic status of the family. In 1998 the Parliament of Australia through the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs came to similar conclusions in its report To Have and To Hold.

Each year in Australia, more than 1000 men aged 25-44 take their lives. (ABS 2000) The rate of suicide among these adult males is more than twice the teenage (15-19) suicide rate. The issue of male suicide in the middle–aged group was made more public following the suicide death in 2000 of a prominent Labor MP in his early forties, who had been suffering from depression following his marriage break–up. This tragic suicide shocked the Australian community, a community so accustomed to hearing that suicide was a youth issue. Why would a man, at his stage in life, take his own life?

This death highlighted the very real problem of depression amongst men in general, and its links to male suicide in particular. Perhaps the MP's own words can shed some light on the issue. In a speech made to Federal Parliament in 1997, he said that ...people have a strong desire to feel needed, to feel that they are loved, and to feel that they have some worth and role in life… men kill themselves due to an inability to cope with life events such as relationship break-ups. He concluded by saying:

“There is certainly a need for our community to work towards an environment in which people feel a sense of belonging and meaning…If we can achieve such a state, then the incidence of all suicides.... will no doubt be reduced…. if we can tackle some of the fundamental problems in society, such as the quality of education, unemployment and job security, there will no doubt be a flow-on to reduced family breakdowns, and ...fewer suicides.”

While the male teenage suicide rate has been stable for the past decade, the rate for adult males has been rising since the 1970s. Most of them are casualties of family breakdown. A Queensland study of 4000 suicides found more than 70 per cent were associated with a relationship break-up (Baume 1994). The study conducted by Professor Pierre Baume, Head of the Australian Institute for Suicide Research and Prevention at Griffith University in Queensland showed men were nine times more likely to take their lives following a break–up than women.

The work by Cantor & Slater (1995) is particularly valuable in that it identified people who were separated from various other categories of suicide. Statistics normally classify people as married, single, divorced or widowed, which creates the problem that people in the high–risk separated group get classified as married, thereby creating misleading outcomes both for the married group, who would appear at increased risk, and the separated group, on whom no accurate data had been available, but whom are shown here at extreme risk. Interestingly, marriage seems to protect people from suicide. Married people show lower suicide rates than those who have never married, or who have been divorced (Hassan 1996). Overseas investigators are reaching similar conclusions (e.g. Trovato 1986).

Marriage breakdown is a significant characteristic of male suicide in the 24–39–age bracket. The anxiety and emotional pain of separation and divorce appear to effect men differently. Recent research into male suicide in this age group revealed that males in the separation phase of a marriage break-up were most at risk of suicide, compared with widowed or divorced males (Cantor & Slater 1995). Whilst these are only preliminary findings, they suggest that the severe disruption of separation and the high levels of interpersonal conflict that were associated with it were perhaps the greatest contributing factor, along with separation from children. It seems highly likely that most of the suicide problems associated with separated men may relate to child contact problems (Cantor & Slater 1995).

Cantor & Slater (1995) show the risk of suicide is far higher for men in the period following marital separation––the suicide risk among separated men was 18 times that of separated women––but, after divorce, the rates for men declined to three times those of women. Separated men are also six times more likely to commit suicide than married men, with separated men under 29 being particularly vulnerable.

Where children are concerned, there is evidence to suggest that many men sense they are being discriminated against in Family Court judgements, and often find themselves in financial straits having to pay legal fees and child support payments (Price 1998; Family Law Advisory Group 2001). The difficulty in maintaining contact with their children also heightens the frustration and isolation of separated and/or divorced men (Gibson 1992; Jordan 1996; Trezise 1999).

The research suggests that non-resident mothers may be in the same boat as non-resident fathers, since women with children are less likely to commit suicide than similarly aged women without children (Cantor& Slater 1995). In view of the fact that most children end up with their mothers following divorce (Bordow 1994), it could be that family responsibilities reduce these mothers’ suicide risk. As two thirds of separations are now being instigated by women (Arndt 1986; Family Law Advisory Group 2001), and that in most cases, married men did not want to separate and had tried to resolve the problems it is fathers who are most likely to show the distress associated with being left (Jordan 1996).

“Add to this the social isolation of males, the loss of close relationship with a loved child, homes, and assets; it’s hardly surprising more men seek a permanent way out” (Arndt 1999). Further evidence suggests that the period of separation is one of the most stressful times in a man's life, and often this anxiety and frustration continues for many years (Attorney General's Department 2000). Moreover, men are not inclined to access relationship services, or to seek advice and support when they are in times of need (Price 1998).

Epidemiological studies show a strong correlation between divorce and separation, and mental health problems (National Health and Medical Research Council (1996). Alcoholism and depression are much more common in those who have experienced relationship breakdown. Whilst it is not clear whether depressed people, or alcoholics are predisposed to relationship problems leading to suicide, or that these symptoms come about following, and as a result of relationship breakdown, there is no doubt that men in particular are at risk. According to the Australian Institute of Suicide Research, the NSW central coast area has the highest suicide rate in Australia and one of the highest in the world. Every day one man is feeling so unsupported and desperate that he takes his life.

Clearly relationship breakdown isn't the whole story in the worrying increase in father suicide – there are numerous other relevant factors, such as substance abuse, mental illness, and unemployment. But given the evidence suggesting it could be a key factor; at least it offers policy makers somewhere to start. The semi-orphaning of children resulting from father suicide can no longer be ignored.

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 7:10 PM
Subject: Re: Family Court - when a mess is made

Judicial Review

The court and the judge

On 18 January 2013 20:02, wrote:

To whom does one lodge a complaint when:

The administrative officers of the Family Court are not diligent in correctly filing documents sent to them by both registered mail and also forwarded by email? When addresses have not been updated and court orders have not been received by the respondent?

When a Judge admits to not having read the documentation pertaining to the hearing during the time of the hearing.

Also being accused of not having provided the Court with documentation when I have the proof that I have done so. (that could be turned into being in contempt of court).

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:40 PM
Subject: Fantastic Statistics on the Importance of Fathers

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: Research on family structure and child maltreatment

On Wednesday 7 November 2012 Charles Pragnell wrote:
"Although most of the available research suggests that children in sole-mother families tend to be at higher risk for maltreatment, not all findings are consistent with this. Some studies have reported no significant differences between married and sole-mother families and others have found that differences can be largely explained by other risk factors (e.g., socio-economic disadvantage). "

When Yuri adds the numbers of single mother families compared with others, he finds;
“The data strangely missing from the above statement is the relative incidence in the community of single-parent households compared with two natural parent families. When this factor is taken into account, the difference in child abuse rates becomes more starkly apparent. Since 81% of Australian children 0-14 years live with both their natural parents (Australian Bureau of Statistics 1995) and 30% of child sexual abuse occurs in this type of family, while 13% of children live in female single parent households (Australian Bureau of Statistics 1995) and 34% of child sexual abuse occurs in this type of household––it follows that the relative risk of child sexual abuse in a female single parent household is over seven times the risk in a two natural parent family (34/13 x 81/30). The relative risk of any kind of abuse in a single parent household is eight times that of a two natural parent family.

Importantly, in the context of the current family law conversation there were no reported instances of child abuse in joint residence families.

This shows us that Pragnell is devious and irresponsible.

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:32 PM
Subject: Research on family structure and child maltreatment

On Wednesday 7 November 2012 Charles Pragnell wrote:
"Although most of the available research suggests that children in sole-mother families tend to be at higher risk for maltreatment, not all findings are consistent with this. Some studies have reported no significant differences between married and sole-mother families and others have found that differences can be largely explained by other risk factors (e.g., socio-economic disadvantage). "

My comment

Broad international studies underscore the importance of joint residence as a protective measure against the child abuse risks associated with sole residence households. Australian child abuse and neglect data collected by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) show an over-representation of single-parent households (Angus & Hall 1996). In 1996 for the three states (Vic, Qld, & WA) and two territories (ACT & NT) for which data were provided, more cases involved children from female single-parent households (39%) than families with two natural parents (30%) or other two parent households such as stepparent households (21%).

Angus & Hall (1996) acknowledge the overrepresentation, but fail to comment on its large size. They write:

In all, 34% of substantiated cases of physical abuse occurred in families with two natural parents and 32% in female single-parent families. More substantiated emotional and sexual abuse and neglect cases involved children from female single-parent families than from other types of family–38% of substantiated cases of emotional abuse, 34% of sexual abuse and 47% of neglect cases. In comparison, 31% of substantiated cases of emotional abuse, 30% of substantiated cases of sexual abuse and 26% of neglect involved children from families with two natural parents.

The data strangely missing from the above statement is the relative incidence in the community of single-parent households compared with two natural parent families. When this factor is taken into account, the difference in child abuse rates becomes more starkly apparent. Since 81% of Australian children 0-14 years live with both their natural parents (Australian Bureau of Statistics 1995) and 30% of child sexual abuse occurs in this type of family, while 13% of children live in female single parent households (Australian Bureau of Statistics 1995) and 34% of child sexual abuse occurs in this type of household––it follows that the relative risk of child sexual abuse in a female single parent household is over seven times the risk in a two natural parent family (34/13 x 81/30). The relative risk of any kind of abuse in a single parent household is eight times that of a two natural parent family.

Importantly, in the context of the current family law conversation there were no reported instances of child abuse in joint residence families.

While we must be wary of assuming that all sole parent households, step-parent households and cohabiting couples are inevitably risky for children, or that married parents are an absolute guarantee of safety and happiness, for this is clearly not so. But what does seem to be the case is that on average, the risk to children increases as we move away from an environment in which the biological parents of the child are married. Many single parents do a good job in difficult circumstances and many stepparent households function well. However, we should not be surprised when statistics prove that two natural parents generally cope better than a sole-parent, or that step-parent households often experience resentment, jealousy and other tensions, or that unrelated boyfriends of the mother do not have the commitment to the mother's children that a natural father is likely to have. This is common sense.

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 4:01 AM
Subject: RE: Please will you help us
Research on family structure and child maltreatment

This section presents an overview of recent large-scale research from Australia and internationally that has directly investigated the relationship between family structure and child maltreatment. Because most research and popular debate on this topic involves sole-mother families, step families and cohabiting families, these family types will be the main focus of this section. There is little research available on the relationship between child maltreatment and other types of families, such as sole-father, blended, same-sex, foster or adopted families.

Sole-mother families

Although most of the available research suggests that children in sole-mother families tend to be at higher risk for maltreatment, not all findings are consistent with this. Some studies have reported no significant differences between married and sole-mother families and others have found that differences can be largely explained by other risk factors (e.g., socio-economic disadvantage). A selection of the major recent studies involving sole-mother families is outlined below.

· The UK Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) study (Sidebotham, Heron & The ALSPAC Study Team University of Bristol, 2006), followed children (n = 14,256) from birth through to age 6 years. The study found that of the 293 (2.1%) of children who were the subject of social service investigations, 115 (0.8%) were placed on the child protection register, signifying substantiated physical or emotional abuse, sexual abuse or neglect (Sidebotham et al., 2006). Children from sole-mother families had a higher risk of registration on the child protection register than those living in "two-parent" families. The authors reported that the effects of sole-mother status were modified by parental background characteristics such as young parental age, low educational achievement, adverse childhood experiences, and past psychiatric history, as well as socio-economic factors. Poverty was found to be the highest risk factor for both investigation and registration for all children on the register, but again this was moderated by other factors. The extra stresses commonly experienced by sole-mother families created a higher risk environment for these children. Finally, although the relative risk was higher for sole-mother families than for "two-parent" families, the vast majority of sole-mother families (96.5%) had no record of child maltreatment registration.

A Canadian study of child neglect (Dufour et al., 2007) found that "single-parent" families were overrepresented in the child protection system, accounting for 49% of substantiated cases of neglect (comprising 88% sole-mother families, and 12% sole-father families). "Two-parent families" accounted for 38% of substantiated neglect cases. Sole-mothers tended to experience a greater number of parental personal and social problems - including substance abuse, mental health issues, low levels of education, and unemployment - than other parents. Much of the variation in risk by family structure in this study was explained by these differences.

In contrast to the above studies, Turner, Finkelhor and Ormrod (2007) investigated family structure variations in rates of child victimisation for a nationally-representative sample of US children aged 10-17 years and found no significant differences in rates of child victimisation between "single-parent" and "two-parent" families. Victimisation was defined more broadly than child maltreatment and included criminal offences (such as robbery) and peer and sibling aggression.

The above studies suggest that sole-mother status should not, in and of itself, be taken as an indicator of risk for child maltreatment without consideration of the complex range of accompanying issues and risks. It is also important to remember that, as with all family types, sole-mother families are not a uniform group with a predictable or stable set of risk factors for child maltreatment. Mothers become sole-parents in many ways - they may decide to complete an unplanned pregnancy, they may have experienced the breakup of a marriage or relationship, or even the death of a partner (Robinson, 2009). Sole mothers may have removed themselves and their children from situations of family violence or child maltreatment. Although research suggests that sole-mother families tend to be at greater risk of disadvantage (financial, educational, housing, social participation) they also come from a diverse range of cultural and socio-economic backgrounds. As mentioned previously, the vast majority of sole mothers, even those experiencing disadvantage, do not abuse or neglect their children.

A Study of the Prevalence of Child Abuse and Neglect

The NSPCC has undertaken a major piece of national research to explore the childhood experience of young people in the UK, including their experience of abuse and neglect. This is the only UK study, and one of the few world wide, to examine child maltreatment comprehensively, in a large random probability sample of the general population. The 2,689 young people, aged 18-24 years, were interviewed using Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) and able to enter their answers directly to ensure confidentiality.


Common stereotypes about child abuse are overturned in the NSPCC's largest ever study of child maltreatment.

* Myth: the most common form of abuse suffered by children at home is sexual abuse.

Fact: children are seven times more likely to be beaten badly by their parents than sexually abused by them.

* Myth: most sexual abuse occurs between fathers and their daughters.

Fact: this type of incestuous relationship is rare, occurring in less than four in a thousand children. The most likely relative to abuse within the family is a brother or stepbrother.

* Myth: adults are responsible for most sexual violence against children and young people outside the family.

Fact: children are most likely to be forced into unwanted sexual activity by other young people, most usually from someone described as a boyfriend. Less than three in a thousand of the young people reported sexual behaviour against their wishes with professionals working with children.

* Myth: sexual attacks on children from strangers are common.

Fact: sexual assaults involving contact by strangers are very rare. Even with indecent exposure, only seven per cent of the young people reported ever having been flashed at, and just over a third of these said the person was a stranger.

* Myth: most physical abuse is carried out by men, especially fathers.

Fact: violent acts towards children are more likely to be meted out by mothers than fathers (49% of the sample experienced this from mothers and 40% from fathers).

NSPCC Director Mary Marsh says: Modern myths about child cruelty have emerged from the public attention given to horrific and frightening cases of child abuse by strangers. Other traditional stereotypes come from a historical wellspring of children's stories about wicked adult bogey figures. These stereotypes have become part of popular culture. This report challenges us to re-examine preconceived ideas about child cruelty. In some cases it calls on policy-makers and professionals to overhaul thinking and reconsider how to approach different kinds of child maltreatment.


Child abuse destroys children's lives. Over the last 100 years the NSPCC has helped to protect hundreds of thousands of children from cruelty. Yet, at the start of a new millennium, we do not know the true scale of child abuse and neglect in the UK. Official data does not paint the whole picture. There are large numbers of abused children who never see a social worker or police officer and suffer in silence. In March 1999, the NSPCC FULL STOP Campaign was launched to create the conditions whereby cruelty to children can be ended. Hundreds of thousands of people and organisations from all sectors of society have joined the campaign since. But if we are to achieve our ambitious goal, we need to know much more about those cases of child abuse which go unreported. With this in mind, the NSPCC conducted a major piece of research which forms the most authoritative study of child abuse and neglect yet undertaken in the UK. It is called Child Maltreatment in the United Kingdom - a study of the prevalence of child abuse and neglect.

The study has three main objectives:

To help the NSPCC and others develop strategies to prevent child abuse

To help the NSPCC and others plan effective child protection services

To provide a benchmark by which the NSPCC and others can measure progress towards the goal of ending cruelty to children

For ethical and practical reasons, it would have been wrong to interview children on this subject in this type of survey. So the study is based on interviews with young people aged 18 - 24 conducted by survey research company BMRB International between September 1998 and February 1999.

This is the only UK study, and one of the few world wide, to examine maltreatment comprehensively, in a large random probability sample of the general population. The 2,869 young people, aged 18-24 years were interviewed using Computer Assisted Personal Interviewing (CAPI) and able to enter their answers directly to ensure confidentiality. They were contacted through addresses taken randomly from the Postcode Address File, the method used in all major national surveys.

The interviews covered broad aspects of childhood experience, including aspects of family life, social relationships, perspectives on child abuse and experience of abuse and neglect in the family and other contexts. The sample was drawn from all parts of the UK. Most (56 per cent) were still living with their parents. Another 18 per cent were living with partners, while 8 per cent lived alone and 15 per cent had their own children.

The interview questions did not define abuse or neglect but asked the young people if they had experienced a range of treatments, some positive and some negative, as children. Respondents who indicated possible childhood abuse or neglect were asked more detailed questions about their experiences. The survey achieved a response rate of 69 per cent which is unusually high for surveys on this topic. Almost all (98%) of the respondents felt the survey was worthwhile and 85 per cent said that they would definitely be willing to take part in further NSPCC research.


More than nine in ten of the young people said they grew up in a warm and loving family.

Child abuse and neglect is largely a family affair. But we should not lose sight of the fact that most parents and carers are trustworthy - very few are abusers.

An overwhelming majority of the young people interviewed in this study - 92 per cent - agreed that they had had a warm and loving family background, with 77 per cent strongly agreeing this. The vast majority had been praised, hugged, cuddled, kissed or told nice things such as that they were cared for. Nine out of ten respondents reported close relationships with their mothers and eight out of ten with their fathers.

Most respondents had some unwelcome experiences during their childhood. One in three respondents also reported that there was sometimes 'a lot of stress' in their families and the same proportion reported financial pressures and worries. Three quarters said they had been shouted or screamed at some point, four in ten had been called stupid, lazy or a similar name, and over a quarter said they had been sworn at. Over three quarters of these experiences had occurred at home.

A smaller number of the young people interviewed gave a picture of a darker childhood in which they were rarely or never shown affection or were regularly hit, shouted or sworn at, or went hungry. More than a quarter (26%) reported violence between their parents and for five per cent the violence was constant or frequent. A quarter of respondents also said there were things that happened in their childhood that were hard to talk about. One in ten strongly agreed with this.


The uncertainty over the ages at which it is safe to leave children home alone, and the concerns about children allowed out late at night unsupervised by adults, are issues that can be better understood in the light of this study.

The general picture given by the respondents is one of close supervision by parents. Between the ages of five and nine only travelling to school alone was common, usually above the age of seven.

More independence arises after the age of ten but there was a clear pattern that most children in the UK (88%) are not left at home in the evenings without adult supervision until they are at least 12, and they don't stay at home unsupervised overnight before they are 14 (91%).

Asked when they were first allowed out overnight without parents knowing their whereabouts, more than four out of 10 respondents said that this had not been permitted until they were 16 or 17, and more than a third (36%) of these 18 ­ 24 year olds said that this still would never be allowed.

But there were some marked exceptions, which indicate that some children were left unsupervised at a very early age.
Neglect and potential neglect resulting from absence of supervision was assessed on three levels.

Serious absence of supervision included children first allowed to stay at home overnight without adult supervision under the age of 10, or first out overnight without parents knowing their whereabouts, aged under 14. This category included five per cent of the sample.

Intermediate absence of supervision included those first left unsupervised overnight aged 10-11, first allowed out overnight, whereabouts unknown at the age of 14-15 and under 12s frequently left in charge of younger siblings while parents were out. This category comprised 12 per cent of the sample.

A third group, three per cent of the sample, were rated as showing cause for concern because they were first left without adult supervision in the evening, or going to the town centre without an adult or much older child, when they were under 10 years old.

In total, 20 per cent of the sample, or one in five children, were assessed as experiencing less than adequate supervision at some point in their childhood.

Boys were slightly less likely to be supervised than girls on some measures, with girls far less likely than boys to have been allowed out overnight. Respondents in manual occupations were far more likely than those in white collar or professional occupations to have been allowed out overnight, whereabouts unknown. Apart from this measure, social grade differences were minimal.


More than four out of ten respondents had been bullied or discriminated against by other children or young people. For eight per cent this happened regularly over years.

Previous NSPCC research showed that more than half of children aged eight to 15 years sometimes or often worried about being bullied at school and that younger children worried most. This study throws more light on this problem, which is known to cause acute misery to many children.

Generally, bullying is defined as:
occurring over time rather than being a single aggressive act
involving an imbalance of power ­ the powerful attack the powerless

psychological, verbal or physical in nature

This study showed that 43 per cent of young people had, at some point in their childhood, experienced bullying, discrimination or being made to feel different by other children. Nearly all (94%) of these experiences took place at school.

When asked why they believed this had happened, the reasons given were usually personal characteristics over which the young people had no control. 'Size' was given as the reason by a more than a quarter of the respondents. 'Class' (eg. how they spoke or dressed) and intelligence were each cited as the reason by around a fifth of respondents.

Respondents from black and Asian ethnic groups were less likely than white respondents to say that they had been bullied (24% compared to 32%) but more likely to report discrimination (23% compared to 6%). Eight per cent of those who had been bullied or discriminated against gave 'race' as the reason. But this masked a huge difference between ethnic groups: almost seven out of ten respondents from minority ethnic groups who had been bullied or discriminated against put this down to their race, compared to just three per cent of white victims.

Name-calling, insults and verbal abuse were most common ­ almost nine in ten of those bullied said that other children had treated them in this way. This amounts to 37 per cent of all respondents. One in seven respondents had been subjected to physical bullying such as hitting or punching, and one in ten had been threatened with violence. Bullying and discrimination included damaging or stealing belongings, humiliating, ignoring/not speaking to them, and telling lies about them or deliberately getting them into trouble.
A fifth of those bullied, equivalent to eight per cent of all respondents, said that they had been bullied regularly over years. A quarter (10% of the whole sample) had experienced long-term effects as a result.

The study confirms previous studies suggesting that bullying and discrimination, especially at school, is one of the most common forms of harmful aggression experienced by children and young people in the UK.


Seven per cent of the young people suffered serious physical abuse by a parent or carer.

In England in the year to 31 March 2000, there were 30,300 children on child protection registers, of which 8,700 were registered for physical injury, sometimes allied to other forms of abuse and neglect.

The study attempts to distinguish seriously abusive treatment from more usual forms of physical chastisement.

The young people were asked whether they had ever as a child experienced being:

Hit on the bottom with a hard implement such as a stick

Hit on another part of the body with a hard implement

Hit with a fist or kicked hard


Thrown or knocked down

Beaten up, being hit over and over again

Grabbed around the neck and choked

Burned or scalded on purpose

Threatened with a knife or a gun

A quarter of respondents said they had experienced at least one of these violent acts either in the family, at school or in another situation. Yet these are acts which both the present study and previous research have shown are unacceptable to the great majority (in most instances more than nine out of 10) of the UK population.

78% experienced this violence at home

15% at school

13% in a public place

Within the family it is primarily birth parents who mete out violent treatment. Of those who were treated violently in childhood:

49 per cent were treated violently by their mother

40 per cent by their father

5 per cent by their stepfather

3 per cent by their stepmother

Bruising was by far the most common injury suffered as a result of violence, but respondents also reported broken bones, head injuries, bites and burns.
The study graded the childhood maltreatment on three levels:

Serious physical abuse was where the violent treatment either caused injury or carried a high risk of injury if continued over time or throughout childhood.
Intermediate physical abuse was where violent treatment occurred occasionally but caused no injury, or where other physical treatment/discipline was used regularly over the years and/or led to physical effects such as pain, soreness or marks lasting at least until next day.

Cause for concern was where the injury or potential harm was not immediately serious but where less serious physical treatment/discipline occurred regularly and indicated problems in parenting or the quality of care which could escalate or lead to continued distress for a child.

The study found that seven per cent of the young people had suffered serious physical abuse at the hands of their parents or carers.

There was a strong link between the socio-economic status of the young person and serious physical abuse. Young people in semi-skilled or unskilled manual jobs were three times more likely to have suffered serious physical abuse than those in professional jobs.

Another fourteen per cent of respondents suffered at the intermediate level of physical abuse. And a final three per cent came from families where there was cause for concern about how children were treated.

In total, more than a fifth of respondents suffered physically to some degree. Their parents or carers, at least sometimes, breached the standards shown by previous research to be accepted by the vast majority of people.
Girls were slightly more likely than boys to be seriously physically abused by parents or carers but boys were a little more likely to have experienced physical abuse at intermediate levels.


Six per cent of the young people were subjected to serious physical neglect at home.

In England in the year to 31 March 2000, there were 30,300 children on protection registers, of which 14,000 were registered for neglect, sometimes allied to other forms of abuse.

Physical neglect: lack of physical care

Almost all the young people questioned took for granted that their parents or carers would provide food, clean clothes and medical care. Less than one in a hundred reported frequent failures of care on these issues. Small numbers of respondents also reported lack of care on other individual issues:

Three per cent often had to look after themselves due to their parents problems with alcohol or drugs

Two per cent regularly had to look after themselves because their parents went away

Less than one per cent said they were allowed to go into dangerous places, that their home was dangerous or unclean, or that they were abandoned.

As with physical abuse, lack of physical care and nurturing was assessed on three levels.

Serious lack of care was identified as lack of care which carried a high risk of injury or long-term harmful effects.

Those who were seriously neglected as a child frequently went without food as a young child

frequently were not looked after or taken to the doctor when ill as a young child

frequently went to school in dirty clothes as a young child

regularly had to look after themselves because parents went away or had drug or alcohol problems
were abandoned or deserted lived in a home with dangerous conditions

Intermediate lack of care was identified when the lack of care was less serious but happened regularly, or was serious but happened only occasionally (for example, occasionally went hungry because there was no food to eat).

Cause for concern was identified when the lack of care was not serious but indicated problems in parenting or quality of care (eg. respondents said that they had been given no dental care as a child, sometimes had to go to school in dirty clothes, or lived in an unclean home).

The study found that six per cent of respondents had suffered serious absence of physical care by their parents or carers.

The study underlines the links between child neglect and social disadvantage. Respondents in semi or unskilled employment were ten times more likely to have experienced serious absence of care in childhood than were respondents who were in professional jobs and almost twice as likely as those in higher education.

Another nine per cent of respondents experienced intermediate lack of care with a further two percent indicating some cause for concern. In total, 18 per cent of respondents experienced absence of care to some level in their childhood.


Six per cent of the young people were emotionally maltreated consistently in childhood

Emotional maltreatment is not a new phenomenon ­ history is littered with examples of emotionally abusive and neglected childhoods. However, in terms of child protection thinking in this century, emotional or psychological maltreatment is a comparative newcomer. It was only in 1980 that emotional abuse was introduced as a criterion for children on child protection registers.

Previous research concluded that emotional abuse is the most hidden and underestimated form of child maltreatment­ unlike other forms of abuse, it leaves no physical injuries. Emotional maltreatment is inextricably linked with all forms of abuse and neglect, all of which can create fear, guilt, loss of self esteem and self confidence, and isolation from the support of other people.

There is evidence that with all abuse and neglect it is often the psychological damage that lasts longest. But while other forms of maltreatment can show physical evidence, emotional maltreatment, when it occurs alone, is often not visible to others and is the hardest form to deal with through child protection procedures. This is why there has been so little research and so little evidence about it.

This study is the first general population research into the prevalence of emotional maltreatment in the UK.

The experiences of each respondent were grouped and analysed according to seven types of emotional treatment. Most maltreatment in these categories was by parents or carers.

Terrorising ­ threats to harm the child, someone or something the child loves, threatening with fear figures, threats to have the child sent away, making the child do something that frightens them.

Proxy attacks by harming someone or something the child loves or values. This could include deliberate attacks on the child¹s possessions or pets, and also includes violence between carers.

Psychological control and domination, including attempts to overly control the child's thinking, and isolation from other sources of support and development.

Psycho/physical control and domination - physical acts which exert control and domination causing distress rather than pain or injury, such as washing out the mouth with soap.

Humiliation and degradation ­ psychological attacks on the child's worth or self esteem, which could be verbal or non-verbal.

Withdrawal ­ withholding of affection and care, exclusion from the family (including showing preference for siblings and excluding the child from benefits given to other children in the family).

Antipathy ­ showing marked dislike of the child by word or deed

The most common emotional maltreatment was terrorising. Over a third of respondents reported some of the experiences in this category. The most common was of being sometimes really afraid of my father/ stepfather followed by threats of being sent away.

A quarter had experienced extreme psychological domination, with parents who were unpredictable and/or allowed them no freedom of thought or expression.

Almost a fifth of respondents had experienced physical punishments such as having their mouths washed out with soap or their noses rubbed in wet sheets, or had experienced constant verbal attack such as being told throughout their childhood that they were stupid, or that their parents wished them dead or never born.

One in ten had loveless childhoods, reporting that parents never showed them affection and excluded them from treats the other children were getting, while a similar proportion had experienced seeing a parent or a pet harmed or had treasured possessions destroyed in proxy attacks.

Most people have unpleasant, frightening or embarrassing experiences at some time, even with loved members of their families, but these experiences are usually occasional events. Emotional maltreatment is persistent and pervasive to a level that can destroy the child¹s self confidence, happiness and trust in other people.

The research assessed this by looking at how many of these experiences the child had on the seven dimensions and assigning a score between 0 and 14. A score of seven or more meant that the respondent had experienced damaging treatment on at least four of the seven dimensions.

In all six per cent of respondents had scores of seven or more and were assessed as experiencing serious emotional maltreatment. Young women were twice as likely to have high scores as young men.

These findings indicate that a small proportion of respondents experienced multiple attacks on their emotional well-being within their family for much or all of their childhood.

However, the study also shows that a much larger number of the respondents experienced parenting which was at times insensitive. Parents who tell their children that they wish they were dead or had never been born, for example, may be reacting to stress or family crisis rather than expressing a genuinely held long-term view, but it is hard to imagine a more hurtful thing to say to a child.


One per cent of the young people suffered sexual abuse by a parent or carer and three per cent by another relative.

In England in the year to 31 March 2000, there were 30,300 children on protection registers, of which 5,600 were registered for sexual abuse, sometimes allied to other forms of abuse and neglect.

Sexual abuse within the family

The laws on sexual offences against children are currently under review. In July 2000, a Home Office Review proposed replacing current sexual offences such as incest with a range of new offences including familial sexual abuse, adult sexual abuse of a child and sexual activities between minors. This study increases our understanding of the way that sexual offences affect children, whether committed inside and outside the family.

In the study, 18-24 year olds were asked whether they had ever experienced any from a list of sexual acts when they were under 16. Respondents were also asked whether these activities had taken place against their wishes or with their consent, at what age it had happened and how old the other person was. This information was used to assess whether they had experienced sexual abuse.

Their answers were grouped as follows according to the nature and seriousness of the activities.

Penetrative or oral acts involving sexual or anal intercourse, oral sex, or the insertion of finger, tongue or object into the vagina or anus.

Attempted penetrative or oral acts, as above.

Touching or fondling the respondents' sex organs or private parts, getting the respondent to touch a person's sex organs or sexually arouse them.

Sexual hugging or kissing.

Being videoed for pornographic purposes, shown pornographic videos, magazines, computer images or photos, or being made or encouraged to watch other people having intercourse or performing sex or pornographic acts

A person exposing sex organs for to excite themselves or to shock the respondent

Relatively small numbers of the young people had experienced sexual abuse by family members.

One per cent of the young people had been sexually abused by a parent or step-parent, nearly always the male parent. Nearly all involved sex acts involving genital or anal physical contact. Very few said they had been used by a parent to make pornography, made to watch sex acts or exposure. Male and female respondents were equally likely to have been abused by parents.

Three per cent of the young people had been sexually abused by a relative other than a parent. Three quarters of this group were young women. A wide range of relatives were involved - nearly all were male, with brothers and step-brothers mentioned most often. Again, most of this involved genital or anal physical contact, with one per cent being used to make pornography, or made to watch sex acts or exposure.

One in ten of the young people had experienced penetrative sex, oral sex or attempts at these against their will by people known but unrelated to them. A large number reported the use of physical force or threat.

Sexual abuse outside the family

Far more of the respondents had experienced unwanted sexual behaviour with non-relatives than with family members. Nearly all occurred with people known to the child, the vast majority with 'boyfriends' and 'girlfriends'.

Penetrative or oral sex acts which occurred against the young people's wishes or with people at least 5 years older

70 per cent occurred with 'boyfriends' or 'girlfriends'

17 per cent occurred with 'someone recently met'

10 per cent occurred with a fellow student or pupil

6 per cent occurred with a friend of parent or sibling

4 per cent occurred with neighbours

4 per cent occurred with a female stranger

3 per cent occurred with a male stranger

2 per cent occurred with babysitters

Very few respondents reported sexual activity involving professionals responsible for their care, and none involving care workers.

The only unwanted sexual activity experienced frequently from strangers was indecent exposure. But even among the seven per cent who reported this, respondents were twice as likely to experience it from a known person than from a stranger.

Up to 75 per cent of those reporting sexual acts against their wishes or with someone much older were female. More than nine out of ten of these young women reported that the other person concerned was male. For the young men who reported similar experiences, the picture was more mixed.

Sexual incidents most often took place either in the respondent's own home or in the home of the other person. Other locations were rarely mentioned, except for indecent exposure, where 30 per cent of incidents occurred in an open place such as woods or parks, or abandoned buildings.

Where respondents reported actual or attempted oral or penetrative sex against their wishes, physical force and blackmail had been commonly used. Force had been used in six out of ten attempts to coerce them into oral or penetrative sex attacks and blackmail in four out of ten attempts.

Most sexual behaviour which is unwanted or involves a much older person occurs in adolescence. Around three quarters of male and female respondents who experienced actual or attempted oral or penetrative acts against their wishes or with an older person were aged between 13-15 years when it first happened.

Only 28 per cent of the young people who had experienced sexual acts which were unwanted or involving a much older person told anyone about at the time; 27 per cent told someone later, and 31 per cent had never told anyone. Of those who had told someone, most had told a friend, while a minority had told a parent or other relative. Hardly anyone had told police, social services or other professionals.

Six per cent of respondents reported having been involved in 'consensual' sexual behaviour when aged 13-15, with someone five or more years older than themselves.


Families are the primary source of love and nurturing for nearly all children. But significant minorities of children are confronted - either occasionally or regularly - by stresses, problems and abusive behaviour with which they should not have to cope.

For many children too, the wider world of school, friends and community is one which is fraught with the threats of bullying, discrimination and - particularly for girls - sexual harassment and violence.

This study underlines the need for children's voices to be heard by the people who can help them. Children need the self-confidence to speak out and someone they trust and in whom they can confide.

Large numbers of children find it too difficult to talk about the abuse and difficulties which they face in their lives. If they do tell someone, it is very unlikely to be a professional concerned with their care. In this way, distressing and harmful childhood experiences can remain hidden for many years.

In terms of severity and frequency, there are different levels of child maltreatment. When children at risk of significant harm are identified, children's services must act quickly and decisively to protect them. And firm action against carers may be appropriate when a child has suffered serious abuse or neglect.

However, not all cruelty to children is planned or intended to cause harm. Our approach to child protection must be a sophisticated one, geared up for preventing child abuse and neglect.

Although children from all social backgrounds can suffer maltreatment, the study found strong links between serious physical abuse or neglect and socio-economic grade. This indicates that children in families facing poverty and social exclusion are particularly vulnerable.

If we are serious about reducing the incidence of child cruelty, we must give more support to those families pushed to the limits by extreme stress, medical conditions or socio-economic pressures.

This report presents a challenge to society in general, and professionals and policy-makers in particular, to create the conditions whereby no child has to worry about going hungry or being assaulted in the family home.
It also challenges us to rethink the ways we support families in the UK and care for children both inside and outside the family setting. Most child abuse goes unreported or undetected. We need to find ways to reach its many hidden victims.

We know that cruelty to children can be brought to a full stop, if the will to do so exists.

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 2:11 AM
Subject: Questions about child abuse offenders

RT HON Beverley Hughes MP

Minister for Children
Young People and Families
Department for Education and Skills
Caxton House
Tothill Street

Dear Beverley Hughes,

I represent a parents' group which has taken a great interest in children's safety for a considerable number of years. We would therefore be most grateful if you could answer on behalf of our members all of the questions listed below.

(1) Could you detail how the collection of information about child abuse offenders operated nationally before the Children Act 1989 and how it altered after that legislation?

(2) Could you detail how the DoH and the NSPCC were involved in collection of information prior to the 1989 Act and that you have always been fully aware of this situation?

(3) Could you give us your appraisal of how successful you think devolving down responsibility to local authorities for the collection of data has proven since 1991?

(4) Given that child abuse still continues and that the identity of perpetrators by age and sex and by other markers, such as marital or socio-economic status, were listed prior to the 1989 Act, (and biological father vs. step-fathers were identified by the annual Family Court Reporter), what steps are being taken to identify perpetrators today?

(5) Given the number of public inquires in recent years into horrific child abuse and deaths cases would you agree that implement the government's stated intention of reducing such incidents, the best course would be to give the NGOS the tools to do the job by identifying the culprits?

Yours Sincerely

David Mortimer

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 11:15 AM
Subject: Case Reference 2006/0230615

Dear Mr Mortimer

Unfortunately we do not collect any information on child abuse perpetrators, just on children.

If you are asking more generally about how we decide whether to collect particular data: a case will be put forward by the relevant policy team, which is then scrutinised internally and externally on feasibility, purpose, burden, value for money, duplication and resourcing, before either being approved or rejected.

Yours sincerely
Jill Sewell
Public Communications Unit

Your correspondence has been allocated the reference number 2006/0230615. To correspond by email with the Department for Education and Skills please contact

-----Original Message-----
Sent: 12 December 2006 13:28
Subject: Child abuse perpetrators

Dear Paul Sutton,

Please will you kindly accept this message as an official request for information under the freedom of information act.

I would like to know what the (a) gender and (b) familial relationship was of offenders in substantiated child abuse cases in Milton Keynes over the last 3 years, broken down by (i) physical abuse, (ii) emotional abuse, (iii) sexual abuse and (iv) cases of neglect.

Yours sincerely
David Mortimer

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 11:51 AM
Subject: FOI Request

Response being sent on behalf of Sally Mottram and Paul to your emails dated 10th and 12 December 2006:

Dear Mr Mortimer

Your request for information has now been considered. However this authority does not hold information of the description specified in your request.

Yours sincerely

Jane Spencer,
Freedom of Information Liaison Officer

-----Original Message-----
From: dave.mortimer
Sent: 23 May 2005 23:37
Subject: Do you have any studies which explore the relationship between family structure and abuse?
Dear Janet,

Thank you very much for your reply. I wonder if you would be kind enough to tell me, if you have any research which explores the relationship between family structure and abuse?

Best regards

David Mortimer

A study conducted by the Family Education Trust in Great Britain meticulously explored the relationship between particular types of family structure and abuse, accumulating clear data on family configuration in cases of abuse from 1982 to 1988 (Robert Whelan, "Broken Homes and Battered Children," Family Education Trust, Oxford). The results of this study shed light on a pattern that is highly correlated with child abuse today in both England and the United States: the absence of marriage and the presence of cohabitation. The evidence from Great Britain indicates:

The safest environment for a child - that is, the family environment with the lowest risk ratio for physical abuse - is one in which the biological parents are married and the family has always been intact.

The rate of abuse is six times higher in the second-safest environment: the blended family in which the divorced mother has remarried.

The rate of abuse is 14 times higher if the child is living with a biological mother who lives alone.

The rate of abuse is 20 times higher if the child is living with a biological father who lives alone.

The rate of abuse is 20 times higher if the child is living with biological parents who are not married but are cohabiting.

The rate of abuse is 33 times higher if the child is living with a mother who is cohabiting with another man.

----- Original Message -----
To: dave.mortimer
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 10:47 AM
Subject: Do you have any studies which explore the relationship between family structure and abuse?

Dear David,

Thanks for the email. I really don't know of any studies ... but you might try doing a google search to see if there are US studies in this field.

Best wishes,

Professor Janet Walker

Newcastle Centre for Family Studies
18 Windsor Terrace
University of Newcastle
Newcastle upon Tyne

Tel: +44 (0)191 222 7644
Fax: +44 (0)191 222 7871

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2005 9:17 AM
Subject: Do you have any studies which explore the relationship between family structure and abuse?

Dear Dave,

No, sorry, this is not an area we have studied here. Obviously there is an awful lot of research available on this topic in general, although Im less aware of studies that have linked family structure with abuse.

Professor Carol Smart


Centre for Research on Family, Kinship & Childhood

University of Leeds
Leeds LS2 9JT, UK
Direct line +44 113 343 4431
Secretary +44 113 343 4874
Fax +44 113 343 4600

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 6:40 PM
Subject: Edmonton man imprisoned after false accusations by stepson acquitted almost 20 years later...

By Ryan Cormier,

Edmonton Journal January 22, 2013 6:00 AM

EDMONTON - An Edmonton man who has already served “every minute” of an eight-year sentence for sexually assaulting his young stepson has now been acquitted.

In a decision released Monday, the Court of Appeal of Alberta acquitted the 47-year-old man because the boy later recanted and said his biological father forced him to lie during a 1994 custody dispute.

In a special commission hearing held last year, the boy, who was nine at the time and is now an adult, testified that allegations of sexual abuse and rape against his stepfather were completely false.

“It is not the truth,” he said. “The truth is he did not do any of that.”

The court allowed the man’s appeal of his 1995 convictions and, because Crown prosecutors would stay the charges in any new trial, an acquittal was ordered.

“It is obviously not the fault of the appellant that he was convicted based on unreliable evidence,” the appeal court decision reads. “Nor is it any criticism of the Crown prosecutor, defence counsel, or the trial judge; it is merely a reflection of the fact that while the Canadian legal system is very good, it is not perfect.”

Neither the man, a local truck driver, nor the boy can be named because of a court-ordered publication ban.

The boy was five when his parents separated in January 1989. In the next two years, his biological father left for Saskatoon and his stepfather moved in with him and his mother. In June 1992, the boy went to visit his father in Saskatoon for the summer. The biological father later refused to send his son home.

The boy’s parents then began to go through divorce proceedings and a custody battle.

In the fall of 1993, the nine-year-old boy made allegations that his stepfather had sexually assaulted and raped him while they lived together in Edmonton.

Last year, the stepson, now in his late 20s, said his father held a knife to his throat in the laundry room of their Saskatoon home and told him to accuse his stepfather. His biological father was angry, court heard, because his sons referred to their stepfather as “daddy.”

The father coached his terrified son on the false accusations and sexual details for 90 minutes, according to testimony. The boy added explicit details to his accusations that he learned from a pornographic magazine.

“When I was a kid and these allegations came up, I was threatened, and as a kid you do what your parents tell you to do,” the stepson testified before the special commission. “You are young, and you don’t know right from wrong. And when your parent threatens you, you basically just do what you’re told.”

The boy first told his stepmother the lies, then later the Saskatoon police.

At the special commission, University of British Columbia psychology professor John Yuille said he watched the Saskatoon police interview videotape and was not impressed. The officer conducted the interview “extremely poorly,” Yuille said, because he always seemed convinced the child told the truth. The accusation was full of vague answers and absent detail, Yuille said.

During a 1993 Christmas visit in Edmonton with his mother and stepfather, the boy came out of his room crying and apologizing to the couple. “He said he was sorry for saying that stuff and apologized,” the stepfather testified to the special commission in April. At the time, charges had not been laid and the stepfather wasn’t entirely sure what the child was talking about, court heard.

In January 1994, the boy testified to the abuse at his parent’s custody hearing and was placed with his father. A month later, the stepfather was charged with sexual assault. At the trial, the boy again testified against his stepfather. During cross-examination, the boy was asked about recanting his story, but he “held firm.”

In February 1995, the stepfather was sentenced to eight years in prison. He served “every minute,” according to the appeal court, because he denied responsibility. “You have refused all program or treatment interventions stating that you have no faith or trust in the ‘system’ and that given your ‘innocence’ regarding your convictions, you see no benefit,” the Parole Board of Canada told him in 2000. While the stepfather served time, the boy’s biological father returned him to Edmonton in February 1998. Now living with his mother, the boy told her he’d lied about the abuse allegations.

In March 2000, as his stepfather was denied parole, the 15-year-old boy signed a statutory declaration that the allegations were false. The admission had no impact on the stepfather’s term and he was released in January 2003 after his full sentence ended. Three months later, the stepfather and the boy’s mother rekindled their relationship and moved in together. The boy, then an adult, lived with them. He felt incredibly guilty, the stepfather recalled, and the relationship was distant at first. Now, court documents state, the former accuser allows his stepfather and mother to babysit his six-year-old child.

In 2001, the stepfather applied to the federal minister of justice for a ministerial review of his convictions. Minister Rob Nicholson referred the case to the Court of Appeal of Alberta to determine if the boy’s recanting counted as fresh evidence. Special Commissioner Ernest Marshall presided over the review and submitted his report to the appeal court in June 2012. “Consideration of this testimony gives rise to a reasonable inference that the allegations were false and the recantations were correct,” Marshall wrote. The boy’s biological father testified and denied he had coerced his son. Marshall was undecided on whether the man told the truth. “It seems to me that the full truth of the alleged threats to the complainant by his father may never be known,” he wrote. “I am not prepared to make a finding on this issue.”

Jeremy Swanson



"Immo Facta Quam Verba"

MY Dad


Western Desert-1940-43 1st SAID CTH 8th Army

Italian Peninsula 1944-45-6th SAAD CTH 8th Army

With MY DAD in 1955-Cape Town South Africa

Canadian Dads

Jeremy Swanson FRA:

Equality for Fathers International

Equality for Fathers International forum

Fatherscan Discussion board:

"For The Children. Always The Children”

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: What do you suggest as government policy?

Whilst you get your calculators out to do advanced mathematics you appear to be missing the simple idea that forms the basis of any so-called "family law" - the Marriage contract.

It is still the law in EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD that a Deserter is barred from receiving maintenance.

Section 5 (2) of the Family Law (Maintenance of Spouses and children) Act, 1976 states.

The Court shall not make a maintenance order for the support of a spouse where the spouse has deserted and continues to desert the other spouse.

i.e. only a Deserted Spouse is entitled to apply for maintenance.

Why pay maintenance if you are not the deserter? No matter how much it is you don't have to pay it!

On 21 January 2013, at 19:33, mark wilson wrote:

Some thoughts:

1) Make it against the law to impute income. i.e if someones income goes from $80,000 to $20,000 then the other spouse who may get child support sees the child support based on $20,000 and no imputing is allowed. No submissions required. This is automatic.

Two parents plus kids. If the parents split the kids stay where they were before split. The Court is not allowed to order to have kids moved. For instance if one parent gets a better paying job somewhere else then...tough luck that parent cant move the kids unless the other parent agrees. ie if you see your kids only 4 out of 30 days if the parent who has them the 26 days wants to move this parent can't take the kids with the move. Make this law.

Start off with the premise parents split kids time 50/50. The only instance a parent gets less is if they are incarcerated or if they say they want less,

If one parent says the other parent is a lousy parent than short of the alleged lousy parent being jailed for not providing neccessities of life the alleged parent still gets children 50% of time if he/she wants. No parenting assessment required.

If office of children's lawyer thinks one parent is lousy then the OCL should contact the police and present a report to the police. If the person is not incarcerated by police then the parent can still continue to parent 50/50.

Bottom line:Experts are not needed to assess parenting capabilty of parents. If a parent does not provide care than someone should phone the police and arrest the person for not providing necessities of life to child. If the parent is providing the necessities of life than the state should stay out of the parents life!

If the police do not incarcerate a person accused failing to provide the necessities of life then accused parent can keep on parenting 50/50. If the police arrest a parent then the judge should not provide bail if judge believes the person once released will let their own child die due to not providing necessities of life once released. The Judge must believe the parent will be a danger to his child and therefore keep the parent locked up.

If a parent is charged with assaulting their spouse then 50/50 parenting arrangement does not change.

If a parent is charged with assaulting their child then person should be locked up until trial.
If the person is found inoccent then they get double the time they lost due to being incarcerated once released.(ie if incarcerated for 120 days they would have lost 60 days due to the 50/50 rule. Now for the next 120 days they get 90 days and the other parent gets 30 days and the parent who was not charged pays the newly released innocent person child support for those 120 days)

If a person signs a peace bond then they still get 50/50 time with their children, no parenting plan no arguements or submissions required to have this occur. This is automatic.

No child support accrues while a person is incarcerated.

Either parent will be entitled (if they so ask) to have pick up and drop off at the police station. The other parent cannot refuse. No reason required.

Note the only time the state has any business in a parent parenting is if the parent is failing to provide the necessities of life and as this is a crime then the parent will be jailed and can't raise the child anyway. Once released the parent can go back to raising the child 50/50 if they wish for they have served their sentence. If the parent once released and raising the child 50/50 again does not provide the necessities of life the offender will be again jailed.

The state has no business determining how much TV a parent lets his child watch, what food the parent sends with the child, what activities the parent signs their child up for, how the parent interacts with their child, if the child gets enough exercise, if the child is happy etc. Criminal laws look after problems.

On Sun, 1/20/13, wrote:

Subject: What do you suggest as government policy?
Received: Sunday, January 20, 2013, 10:27 AM

Bob, This is what the pre-court hearings now taking place in Ontario are portrayed as. Many would portray them as times where players are wrongly imposing Draconian agreements, calling them "consent" and eliminating the ability to appeal such decisions as there is no record. You may want to expand on what you mean -- too much gets lost under the cover of the interpretation of words.

In, "Bob Hebblethwaite" wrote:

My opinion as it always has been is Mandatory Mediation. It's my belief, if
parents were to go through this process before a judge even gets involved,
would keep a lot of judges out of these proceedings. Keeping conflict(s) to
a minimum, hence, less stress on our Social Systems. It can't help but be a
win win for everyone concerned, especially our children who are most
affected by these situations.

On Behalf Of Advocate
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 5:36 PM
Subject: What do you suggest as government policy?

I was approached by a government policy adviser.
I am asked to submit a policy item pertaining to men.

What would that look like?

In 15 words or less; what would a policy suggestion that is obtainable from
the government?

Keep it realistic; there are things the legislature can and cannot do; ie,
judges are arms length from government anything court based is not valid.

This is my agenda;
collect ideas from as many people as possible so this can be a community
effort and everyone is part of the submission
come up with an answer from everyones suggestions
re send conclusion to submitter s

I will collect ideas until Jan 23

Live for nothing; die for something

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 2:49 PM
Subject: chat with us ? 01754 228273

We love the stuff you are sending fancy a chat ? we are looking for new guests

Thanks for Emailing Andy Peacher & Kevin Bull

The Earth Needs Rebels Radio Show

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: Attachment theory

They are simply not taught properly at the universities and you dont have to score too highly to get on a a social work course. You can earn enough points to become a social worker after six months part time study.

At my uni, even on the psychology course, Bowlby's theories are the dominant attachment theory taught. Maybe 5% of the stuff on Bowlby criticises him. Every other researcher referred to slaps Bowlby down, but the student needs to do the extra reading and choose that particular exam title to go any further than the lecture. Many, perhaps most, won't. My kids have cost Hackney Council such a fortune in risk assessments and s.47s as there is simply no understanding of how a child can say one thing in one location and retract it the moment it leaves that location and jumps into the arms of the father she has accused of something. Last time around, I demanded the presence of a mental health specialist working for the council who advises the social work teams. I have a reasonably good relationship to some CSWs in Hackney (and a rather poor attachment to others) so they sent a clinical psychologist, with plenty of experience, and we chatted for about an hour and a half. She had never heard of parental alienation, tho she took up a concept of 'the mother speaking to me through the child.' The social workers were also pissed off that they could not move any further forwards, as a couple of them were slowly turning towards my way of thinking but needed permission from on high to help properly, and that did not happen.

I sent them tons of research on PAbefore the meeting; not passed on to the clinical psychologist.

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 10:22 AM
Subject: When are family court judges going to start referring cases of perjury' to the police?

Maybe we should ask our (A) local courts' how many cases of perjury each judge has referred to the police & (B) The police how many cases have been referred to them by the local family court judges?

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 10:03 AM
Subject: Watchdog to oversee discipline of judges

Watchdog to oversee discipline of judges

JUDGES will be subject to a disciplinary regime headed by a judicial complaints watchdog under measures outlined yesterday by the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor. Judges who have complaints lodged against them will usually remain anonymous when the Office for Judicial Complaints starts work in April. Announcing the scheme in London, Lord Falconer of Thoroton said that anonymity would be necessary for minor complaints because the public would not be objective about complaints involving the judiciary. Lord Woolf, the senior judge in Britain, said that judges were in a unique position. “They are having to continue to act as a judge and it is important that the confidence of the public in their ability should not be undermined,” he said. Unlike the review procedure for other public servants, such as police officers and doctors, judges will not be named and shamed after making mistakes. The Office for Judicial Complaints will be overseen by a £50,000-a-year ombudsman who will monitor the way in which complaints from the public are handled and investigate complaints from judges and lawyers about the judicial appointments process. The office will investigate allegations regarding inappropriate remarks made in court, rude or offensive conduct towards someone in court or unacceptable delays in giving judgments. The office will not consider complaints about a judicial decision or the way in which a judge conducted proceedings.

Response from DCA regarding the 273 complaints about judges 13th January 2006

Dear Mr Shipperley,

As you know, Louise Jackson, my colleague in the DCA Ministerial Correspondence Unit has asked me to review your complaint against the Judicial Correspondence Unit (JCU). Unfortunately, due to a personal bereavement immediately before Christmas, I have only just completed that review. My findings are set out below, together with my response to your substantive question – which Andy Tutton has been considering.

Firstly, you criticise Mr Tutton, in the JCU, for a lack of response to your letter of 3 October. I have checked the JCU’s correspondence database (which records details of all letters received) and cannot find any record that your letter arrived in this office. I understand that you chased your original letter and on 9 November, the JCU explained that that letter had not been received. You provided a copy by return post. Having not heard anything further from Mr Tutton, you wrote to Ms Jackson with this complaint, on 1st December.

From my review of the papers, I see that Mr Tutton initially requested internal advice from the DCA’s Access Rights Unit on 14 November. That Unit has overall responsibility for the handling of Freedom of Information Act requests. Mr Tutton was concerned that the JCU’s database solely shows whether a case concerns judicial conduct or personal conduct. It does not provide the detail that you sought about the 273 cases that had gone forward to investigation in the financial year 2003/04. I am satisfied that he was right in seeking specialist advice from our internal experts.

I find that Mr Tutton followed up his request for internal advice on 2 December. He received a response on the same day – by which time you had written to lodge this complaint. The response directed him to two very detailed letters that have recently been placed on the DCA website in connection with requests for information about the detail of dispute cases arising from complaints against judges. I attach them for your information because they set out, very fully, the Lord Chancellor’s approach to the release of information in this area. I attach hard copies in case you do not have easy access to our website. I hope you will find these letters helpful.

foi_req051207a.pdf and foi_req051207b.pdf

I should finish by emphasising that Section 139 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2004 places a duty of confidentiality on the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice in their handling of conduct and discipline cases involving judicial office holders – unless they conclude that there is a strong public interest requirement to break that confidentiality. Such circumstances might arise in the event of a serious criminal charge being proved against a judicial office holder. In the main however, the content of complaints against judicial office holders, tend to feature alleged rudeness in court or inappropriate language i.e. alleged racist or sexist statements.

I apologise that my review has taken so long to complete but hope that you will understand that my absence from the office has prevented me from replying to you any sooner. I also hope that you will find the additional information that I have provided to be helpful to you.

Ms Pennie Turrell

Head of Judicial Correspondence Unit

The Judicial Discipline (Prescribed Procedures) Regulations 2006

Statutory Instrument 2006 No. 676

The regulations prescribe the procedures to be followed in the investigation and determination of allegations of misconduct by judicial office holders under chapter 3 of Part 4 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (c.4). The procedures govern the exercise of the Lord Chancellor's powers to remove judicial office holders and the Lord Chief Justice's statutory powers formally to advise, warn or reprimand them, or to suspend them from office. They also govern the investigation of allegations about judicial office holders appointed by the Lord Chancellor who sit wholly or mainly in Scotland or Northern Ireland. In these cases, the Lord President of the Court of Session or the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland has the same powers as the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales.

The regulations also form part of the implementation of the Concordat agreed between the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice in January 2004. The Concordat sets out the principles governing the allocation of functions between the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice, including an outline of the procedures to be followed in judicial disciplinary cases.

Part 1 provides for the citation and commencement of the regulations, defines certain terms used in them, and provides for the designation of dedicated officials in an Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC) to support the Lord Chancellor and the Chief Justices in the investigation and determination of allegations. It also provides for time limits and their extension.

Part 2 deals with the persons to whom complaints are to be made. It provides for the making of rules by the Lord Chief Justice to govern the investigation of complaints (1) against magistrates by local advisory committees, and (2) against members of specified tribunals by their President or other designated senior judicial officer. It provides for complaints to be withdrawn, and for either the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chief Justice to refer complaints for further investigation.

Part 3 provides for the initial consideration of complaints other than those against magistrates or relevant members of tribunals. It enables the OJC to make enquiries, and to dismiss a complaint to the extent that it falls within criteria set out in the regulations. Nominated judges will be appointed to advise the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice on the action to be taken in cases not dismissed by the OJC.

Part 4 deals with the decisions which the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice may take after a case has been investigated by the OJC and nominated judges, advisory committees or tribunal Presidents.

Part 5 enables the Lord Chancellor or Lord Chief Justice to refer cases for investigation, for the appointment of investigating judges and the procedures to be followed by them.

Part 6 provides for the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice to dismiss cases, or to determine what disciplinary action they propose should be taken, to notify judicial office holders against whom it is proposed to take disciplinary action, and for the taking of final decisions after considering any representations.

Part 7 provides for the establishment of review bodies and for their functions and procedures.

Part 8 contains miscellaneous provisions for: cases to be deferred; procedures on the interim suspension of a judicial office holder; publicity in relation to disciplinary hearings; procedural requirements in relation to investigations by the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman, and for the application to Scotland and Northern Ireland of relevant provisions of the Act relating to the Ombudsman; the delegation by the Lord Chief Justice of any of his functions under these regulations, apart from the rule-making power contained in regulations 9 and 10; and transitional arrangements for complaints made before the commencement of the regulations.

Ministry of Justice
Selborne House
54 Victoria Street
T 029 20 415544

27 September 2007

Dear Mr Shipperley,


I refer to your letter of complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office, in which you asked for an assessment to be made, in to the handling of your FOI request which you made on 3 October 2005. I have looked into the matter and apologise for the initial response that was sent you.

After investigating your case, it appears that your letter of 9 September 2005 was not received by the Judicial Correspondence Unit. A search was undertaken of our system, but no letter appears to have been received by the Department from you.

With regards to your first question, unfortunately the information is being refused under Section 12(1) of the Freedom of Information Act. A public authority does not have to comply with the request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with the request exceeds the appropriate limit. The appropriate limit for Government is set at £600.00 or 3.5 working days (24 hours). Our calculations suggest that at least 36 hours would be required to complete this task. By way of context the 273 files that you seek information from are amongst over 1,000 files. Unfortunately, there is no simple way to flag up the 273 files you are interested in therefore, over 1,000 files would need to be reviewed to identify those that fell in the terms of your request. As I am sure you appreciate this would take a long time, therefore, this aspect of your request is refused.

However, I can provide you with the information that you sought in your second question. Of the four cases where further action was taken, the types of action taken were as follows: In one case a judicial office holder was reprimanded, while in the remaining cases three judicial office holders were issued with guidance as to their future conduct.

I hope this information is of use to you. However, if you are still unhappy with the Department’s response to your first question you can ask the Information Commissioner to continue their assessment under Section 50 of the Act. The address is:

Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, WILMSLO, Cheshire SK9 5AF.

In the meantime, if you have any queries relating to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Access to Information
Information Rights Division.

Department for Constitutional Affairs
Judicial Correspondence Unit
2nd Floor
Selborne House
54-60 Victoria Street

Monday 3rd October 2005

Your Ref: CT0016/2005

Dear Mr Tutton,

Re: Complaints about Judges

Thank you for your letter dated 28th September and the information contained therein.

Further to my previous request, as permitted under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, please could you provide the following details :-

1. Regarding the 273 cases taken forward for investigation, what 'personal conduct' prompted further investigation (e.g. 5 Judges used profane language etc.);
2. Regarding the 4 cases where further action was taken, what further action was taken (e.g. 1 Judge was sacked etc.).

Please note that I am not making request for any personal details, as I appreciate I am not entitled to them, but I am asking for summary information which your Department clearly holds and is in the public interest.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Mr. A. A. Shipperley

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to introduce a process/system of accountability for family law Judges.

As the system currently stands, in the closed Courts of Family proceedings, Judges are able to act without accountability to any inspectorate or indeed to those seeking justice, including the families and the children whose lives their decisions impact upon

The Prime Minister's Office has responded to that petition and you can view it here:-

The judges who work in the family courts are committed to fairness and achieving the best results for children in all cases. They are tasked to make very difficult decisions about issues that will have far-reaching effects on the children involved. Decisions taken by judges, including family law judges, may be scrutinised and if necessary overturned on appeal, therefore all members of the judiciary are accountable for their decisions through the appeal system.

The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice cannot intervene in judicial decisions or consider complaints about judicial decisions as this would not be consistent with judicial independence. They are however responsible for matters concerning judicial conduct and discipline. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 introduced a regulatory framework for handling complaints about the personal conduct of judicial office holders and resulted in the Office for Judicial Complaints (OJC) being established in April 2006 to support the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice in relation to these responsibilities. The process followed by the OJC is outlined in full on their website: (new window).

If a finding of misconduct is upheld against a member of the judiciary, the Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor may decide to take disciplinary action; for example a reprimand or a requirement to undertake additional training. The ultimate sanction would be removal from judicial office, although for High Court Judges and above, judicial independence dictates that this would require a vote in both Houses of Parliament.

The Government has consulted widely on the principles of openness in family courts. We have been told by children who have gone through the family court process that it is important that their identities are not revealed, and their right to privacy and anonymity is maintained. Therefore, the media will not be allowed into family courts as of right, but, along with any others with an interest, will be able to apply to the court to attend.

An ongoing consultation, which closes on 1 October, asks questions about whether the law should be changed so that disclosure of information about family law proceedings heard in private will be permitted primarily for the purpose for which the information is disclosed rather than what information can be disclosed or to whom it can be disclosed. We are also consulting on whether the identity of a child should be protected after the end of proceedings, unless there is an order to the contrary on welfare grounds. Members of the public are encouraged to take the time to respond to this consultation, which is available at: (new window).
YouTube Channel:

View website:

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 9:03 AM
Subject: Stepping back

Hi folks,

While I no longer practice, and have held such stance for the past 14
months, I have taken a more observational role in the machinations of
the UK's criminal underworld that is known more commonly as the Family
Legal system. The time spent has left me unshockable and slap-happy to
the abuse of those who work within the system purely for financial gain,
and also the abuse I continue to get from those rare individuals damaged
by it who nevertheless feel it necessary to compound their own troubles
by laying unfounded accusations, and when evidence is demanded, they
just scream louder and louder those same accusations until everything
else is drowned out and the whole point of the exercise is lost.

I have handled the abuse, the accusations, the lies, the threats and the
violence. I can't do it any more. My wife, who has always maintained
that voice of practicality (and continues to screen my calls, bless
her!), was taken very ill Tuesday night and had to be rushed to hospital
where she remains in critical but stable condition. Given the nature of
her illness, even if she does pull through I have now to give her one
hundred percent of my time and energy. Sadly, at the expense of all else.

However, I would like to continue my membership of this list so I can
catch up when I can, but I will not be in a position to offer advice or
opinion on any topic.

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 7:56 AM
Subject: Re: Attachment theory

1. What qualifies the SW to pass opinion as evidence?

2. Is she aware of the difference between Bowlby's attachment theory and
SS' attachment therapy (of which the MAPPA restraint procedures play a
small but significant role)?

3. Is she also aware of the demonstrable fact that anything less than
50/50 contact between separated parents and offspring has only one
outcome, desirable or not: alienation? And that this outcome is part and
parcel of the bastardisation of Bowlby's work?

4. If I might offer my own very qualified opinion: Social workers are
collectively unqualified to offer opinions on attachment *theory*, while
they are trained in the use of techniques intended to alienate child
from one parent or another (or both!). Like, telling the child to lie to
his school and tell them that his father is deceased. Makes the kid look
bad when his father walks past the school, child forgets where he is and
runs to the fence...

I could go on, but I've destroyed enough social workers on the stand
they hate me enough.

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 3:26 AM
Subject: RE: Maybe you should ask your local authority exactly the same questions?

Also remind them that the CA 1989 puts the onus on them to collect the data.

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 3:19 AM
Subject: 'Shared Custody in Germany'

WARNING: this is an uncollaborated article and may not fully
reflect the true situation in Germany. It is taken from "Shared Custody"

Germany has always a bit of a 'black hole' on the world stage when it comes
to custody practices and shared parenting. It's a problem also encountered
when searching for data and statistical information on other topics such as
false allegations, sex offences, gender violence etc.

Perhaps this is partly due to German culture or very few German sites
thinking to have a "translate" option into English - which has a ready-made
world-wide audience. This reticence may reflect the German preoccupation
with all imparted TV series and programmes having to be dubbed into German
before broadcasting.

To correct this disadvantage it is pleasing to see a divorce/custody study,
written in English, brought to our attention by Prof. Roland Proksch. Based
in Nuremberg, Roland Proksch first trained as a lawyer in 1980 before
training in US-style divorce / custody mediation techniques.[1]

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 6:07 PM
Subject: Jimmy Savile: The FOUR Rings?

Tim Hicks up-dates some major developments in the Savile investigation in Scarborough and Whitby.

Further to my recent “Corruption Busters” article on Jimmy Savile, we have received more information from Whitby and Scarborough residents, liaised with some national and local press organizations and accessed additional open sources. We have also had access to the Operation Yewtree and Operation Ornament Reports into Savile.

This has allowed us to develop fresh information on Savile. In particular, it appears he operated in paedophile-rings and we believe we have now identified three or four of them, and I am investigating a possible fifth.

Although Savile was a loner, never married and apparently did not form normal human relationships very easily – or indeed at all – he seems to have had close relationships with these five people:

1) His mother Mrs Agnes Savile, with whom he lived in her flat at the Esplanade, Scarborough, for much of his life.

2) Mr Alan Franey, who was a member of the Leeds General Infirmary Management Team when Savile worked there as a volunteer, and who became the General Manager at Broadmoor after Savile specifically requested Mr Franey to assist in his Broadmoor taskforce.

3) Mr Peter Jaconelli, who was a local Councillor and former Mayor of Scarbrough.

4) Mr Jimmy Corrigan, who was a Scarborough businessman and member of the same running club as Savile.

5) Mr Cyril Smith MP, who was first identified as a paedophile in 1979 by “Private Eye”.

The fresh information we have developed is as follows:

A local man has confirmed that Jaconelli did commit sexual offences against many boys at his Judo Club, which he ran from 1955 onwards, and at his ice-cream parlours.

Corrigan, Savile and Jaconelli frequented “Michaels’s” night-club in St Nicholas St, Scarborough, which was owned by Jimmy Corrigan and was subsequently sold and re-named “The Penthouse”. It was a highly popular venue with a reputation far beyond Scarborough as can be seen from the list of famous groups it attracted, frequented by young people from far beyond Scarborough, giving rise to further concerns that they may have used it to procure victims.

The owner of the property in Whitby that had Satanist paraphernalia in a room called “the chamber”, also used the “Michael’s/The Penthouse Club” and it seems to have been central to their operating.

Corrigan knew the owner of the property in Whitby containing “the chamber”, which was visited regularly by Savile and Jaconelli, although we have no evidence that Corrigan participated in any of the activities – whatever they may have been – that took place in “the chamber” or rituals room located there.

We have obtained further evidence of the close friendship between Savile and Mr Corrigan, which was not just limited to the running-club that Mr Franey, Mr Corrigan and Savile were members of:

“Jimmy was a close friend of Jimmy Corrigan who owned the amusement arcade on the Foreshore and Jimmy was one of my customers. I spent a lot of time with him through work and socially and was aware that he and Jimmy Saville had lots in common. They both had a “Roller” and when they took delivery they immediately ordered another one because there was a waiting time of 3 or 4 years. Then they would sell the old one on at nearly the same price they paid for it.“

In his 1974 autobiography “As it Happens”, Savile boasts that he and a millionaire friend had sex with six girls provided for him by a Council Chairman as a reward for attending. We suspect that the ‘millionaire friend’ was Jimmy Corrigan. It appears from the description “girls”, and the fact that one of their fathers took the girl away, that they were under age.

Prior to moving to The Esplanade, Savile’s mother lived in Foley Street, Scarborough, very close to the May Lodge National Children’s Home. Savile visited his mother in Scarborough frequently and although we have no evidence to suggest there were any offences committed against children from the home, it remains a concern. It also appears he had some contact with at least one child from the home as a result of his charity fundraising, although this appears to have been completely innocent and not a cause for concern.

In the last article, we pointed out that Savile travelled regularly between Leeds and Scarborough by train and frequented the Wimpy Bar that stood opposite Scarborough station; our concern being that he may have been committing sexual offences on the Leeds to Scarborough line. The Operation Yewtree report confirmed that Savile committed at least one offence on a train, having assaulted a woman on a train from Leeds to London in 2009. A spokesman for British Transport Police (BTP) said,“BTP received a historic allegation against Mr Savile in October 2012. This was in relation to an incident on board a train traveling between Doncaster and Leeds in 1974. This offence was investigation by the Metropolitan Police’s Operation Yewtree team. BTP have not received any further allegations of Mr Savile committing offences on the railway network”.

Savile’s close relationship with Cyril Smith, referred to above, is very interesting and revealing. Both men shared a close friendship for forty years, no doubt reinforced by their common sexual preferences. Both were devoted to their mothers (Smith made his mother the Lady Mayoress of Rochdale and Savile referred to his mother as “The Duchess”), never married, escaped detection by the Police, evaded prosecution by the Crown Prosecution Service for the whole of their criminal paedophile careers, thereby escaping any consequences for their crimes during their lifetimes, although they were known to the Police and the CPS.

The decision by the CPS not to prosecute Savile and Smith at the time has been extensively criticised.

According to The Mirror, Cyril Smith was connected to another paedophile named Horgan who was also involved in the Satanic and sado-masochistic abuse of children. The article alleges “The shock revelation over the satanist and MP’s friendship raises questions over any role Smith and Jimmy Savile may have played in Horgan’s paedo ring. Horgan organised a series of satanic-themed orgies for like-minded paedos. In one of them he raped little Michael and an even younger female child before watching on as others did the same. The monster, whose youngest victim was only two, also hung up his stepson and the girl on hooks. In further horrendous episodes he stripped the children naked, blindfolded them and tied them to a cross next to a black magic altar so that his “disciples” could use them for sex. Youngsters from two to 13 were drugged, tortured and sexually abused during the satanic ‘ceremonies’.”

The Rings

According to Operation Yewtree, there is “no clear evidence” he operated in paedophile rings, although “whether he was part of an informal network” is still being investigated.

However, according to the BBC, Savile “had different groups of friends in different places. They were his “‘teams’, he called them”. It appears from the above that Savile operated in the following “Teams” (to use his term instead of the usual ring, sect, covern, network or gang):

A paedophile “Team”/Ring in Scarborough, involving Mr Corrigan, Mr Jaconelli and possibly others.
A Satanist “Team”/Ring in Whitby, involving Mr Jaconelli and possibly others, centered on the property in Whitby which had “the chamber’ in it. Whilst we do not know what went on there and it could have been entirely innocent, when you have a cocktail of satanist and sadomasochistic paraphernalia, and Savile, an innocent explanation is unlikely.

A Satanist “Team”/Ring in Stoke Mandeville Hospital, involving Savile and several others.
There was also a fourth “Team”/Ring in Rochdale, led by Horgan, who was closely associated with Cyril Smith. Smith was certainly Savile’s oldest friend and a very close confidant.

Although it must be stated we only have circumstantial evidence linking Savile to the paedophiles who are alleged to have committed offences in the Rochdale “Team/Ring”. Given his obsessions and that he is alleged of have thought of committing sexual offences against children “every waking minute”, it is unlikely that this was coincidence or that Savile would have been unable to resist the temptation or pass up the opportunity of participating.

It certainly raises a concern that remains unresolved. In particular, the description of the room used in Stoke Mandeville is strikingly similar to the description of “the chamber” in Whitby, and the description of rape is similar to the description of rape that occurred in Rochdale, providing further corroboration.

Although North Yorkshire Police did miss an opportunity to arrest Robert Smith (one of Britain’s worst offending paedophiles) in 1987, merely issuing a caution instead of arresting him, their recent record for investigating paedophiles in Scarborough and Whitby is actually quite impressive. They seem generally to have quite an effective and aggressively-led Protecting Vulnerable Persons Unit and it appears it dealt with a lot of paedophile activity, particularly in Scarborough.

Yet North Yorkshire Police did not disrupt the longest running and most successful paedophile-ring in British history that was operating openly for over fifty years in small seaside towns where they were well known locally for their activities.

Surrey Police have confirmed that it contacted North Yorkshire Police on the 20th of July 2007 asking if they had intelligence or information on Savile. (Operation Ornament. Report can be accessed here Reference: paragraph 7.15). They received a response confirming that North Yorkshire Police had no knowledge of him on the 21st or 22nd of July 2007; although according to The Express, Savile’s activities had been public knowledge locally and allegations of sexual abuse had been made against Savile to the Police in 2003 (during the successful investigation of Brian Rutter) and he had been a subject of interest in that inquiry.

If this is so, then the information and intelligence developed should have been recorded in the system in 2003, and then passed to Surrey Police in July 2007. It was not.

Savile was a nationally known and very influential figure, connected to the highest levels of British society, who had regular Friday morning meetings with nine police officers in his flat in Leeds. It is not yet clear if officers from North Yorkshire police attended them, although a spokesman for British Transport Police (BTP) said “We are unaware of any BTP officers attending any private meetings with Mr Savile.”

Savile was also adept at manipulating the Police or intimidating them if necessary, and has been alleged to have routinely bribed Police Officers. One serving Police officer acted as his driver and bodyguard, another officer “Inspector 5” who was the West Yorkshire Police Force Incident Manager based in their control room, acted as Savile’s PA when Surrey Police asked to interview Savile undr caution as part of a criminal investigation (Paragraph 7.25 of the Operation Ornament report above) and made arrangements for the interview to take place at Stoke Mandeville Hospital the next day, instead of a police station. During this interview set up by “Inspector 5”, Savile threatened Police Officers and was able to manage and dominate the interview easily, because it took place in Hospital premises, not a Police Station, as would be the normal practice.

Could this ability to influence an intimidate Police officers explain why the Surrey Police enquiry in 2007 elicited no mention of the 2003 Police interest in Savile, which should have existed in North Yorkshire Police computer records?

Although I am open to correction, it appears to me that either The Express report is wrong; the information gathered in 2003 was not entered into the computer; it was subsequently removed, or it existed and this information was not disclosed to Surrey Police. In this context, I am aware from another investigation of allegations of corruption against at least one Officer in the North Yorkshire Police Force Intelligence Bureau – which handles requests for information from outside forces – although this took place three and a half years later in 2010.

We will probably never know the explanation for this inconsistency, because North Yorkshire Police Chief Constable Tim Madgwick is refusing to comment or provide any explanation. Contrrast this with the open, prompt and helpful response we received from the British Transport Police.

In summary, the worst serial offender in British history operated openly in Scarborough and Whitby in the longest running paedophile-ring in the history of policing in the UK despite being known to the police.

That is bad enough.

However, the final piece in this chain of events is that it was ex (Acting) Chief Inspector Tom Fox, who commanded policing in Scarborough for some time during Savile’s period of offending, who as Councillor Tom Fox recommended that he be made a Freeman of the Borough in 2005.

To be fair, Councillor Fox has now moved that the honour is withdrawn. However, Councillor Fox makes no mention in his motion of any regret over his original recommendation.

At least his motion to withdraw the Honorary Freeman status from Savile has been published nationally, giving him excellent personal publicity.


If any reader has information they wish to pass on to the Metropolitan Police investigation into the activities of Savile and his associates in Scarborough and Whitby, they should contact:

The Operation Yewtree Incident Room, on 0208 217 6446

indicating they are doing so pursuant to the Real Whitby investigation.


Follows Success of Online Petition and Motion from Member of Parliament

NEW YORK, Jan. 24, 2013/PRNewswire/ – In the wake of the child-abuse scandal surrounding BBC presenter Jimmy Savile, the United Kingdom lifted its 500-day travel ban on American journalist Leah McGrath Goodman and restored her visa this past week, allowing her to complete an investigation into allegations of systemic child abuse in the UK and its territories.

As reported by The Guardian and the BBC, Goodman was banned after being detained and questioned by UK authorities in September 2011 about her research into allegations of horrific crimes against children at the orphanage Haut de la Garenne on the island of Jersey, a leading offshore tax shelter controlled by the British Crown.

Amid fresh allegations about Savile’s predatory activities on the island of Jersey, Member of Parliament for Birmingham Yardley John Hemming filed a parliamentary motion in September 2012 protesting Goodman’s ban. “I am pleased that Leah now has her visa,” says Hemming. “They should not have banned her in the first place. She wished to investigate the story relating to Jimmy Savile and Haut de la Garenne before it became public. Clearly, her ban was part of the cover-up which should be investigated itself.”

Trevor Pitman, a member of Jersey’s Parliament, initiated a petition in defense of Goodman in September on, signed by thousands.

“I'm pleased our campaign has been successful,” says Pitman. “Leah's ban was politically motivated and symptomatic of a justice system that has been hijacked.”

Haut de la Garenne made international headlines in 2008, when Jersey police launched an investigation into nearly 200 complaints of alleged abuse, torture and murder at the children’s home. The investigation was abruptly halted in 2009 after the island’s Health Minister and Chief of Police were removed from their jobs under pressure to end the probe.

Leah McGrath Goodman, a member of The London Speaker Bureau and contributor to Fortune plans to write a book on her findings. Her first book, “The Asylum: Inside the Rise and Ruin of the Global Oil Market,” will be released in paperback by HarperCollins this spring.

SOURCES: John Hemming, Trevor Pitman, Leah McGrath Goodman

For more information, visit:

Related links:

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:18 AM
Subject: Affidavit of Phillip Golding





B E T W E E N:








B E T W E E N:-



RUQIA ALI Respondent




I, PHILLIP MICHAEL IAN GOLDING, of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, Selborne House, 54 - 60 Victoria Street, London SWIE 6QW, MAKE OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:-

1. I am employed by the Department for Constitutional Affairs. There is now produced and shown to me marked PMIG/1 a copy of a journal called 'CONTACT' dated April 2003.

2. On 28 November 2003 and 3 December 2003, using a standard PC, I conducted an Internet search to seek to establish how and to what extent two articles in CONTACT could be read on the Internet. These articles were "MR JUSTICE SINGER CHILD ABUSER'' (the "Singer Article") to be found on pages 1-3 and "THE JUDGMENT THAT DAME ELIZABETH BUTLER-SLOSS & THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS DO NOT WANT YOU TO SEE'' (the "Alexander Judgment") on pages 11-15.

3. I would first refer the Court to the issue of CONTACT as published. I draw the Court's attention to the column at the top right of p.6 under the sub-heading "Dr Pelling Publicly Pronounces Judgment'' and, in particular, the last sentence which reads "So now the whole world can read the Judgment via the Internet – just email and ask for a copy - and we are also producing it in this Issue of CONTACT". There is a further reference to this email address on p.16 which states:

"With a view to maximising the exposure of the rotten English Family law system copyright in this publication is hereby waived. Articles may be reproduced in full or in summary, but acknowledgment would be appreciated. CONTACT No.5 is also available as a Word document on request from".

4. The exhibits to which I refer hereafter in this affidavit are copies of the documents which I have printed off the relevant websites. I used the leading search engine known as Google. A document headed 'Our Search: Google Technology', which provides information about the features of Google, is now produced and shown to marked PMlG/2. For the purpose of conducting a search I used the following search terms –

"michael pelling''
"yahoo groups attorney general pelling"
"child access orders".

5. I found no difficulty in finding sites and printing off material from the various websites. Two sites provided the Singer article in full (exhibits PMIG/6 and PMIG/13). I was also able to access both the Singer article and the Alexander judgment in full from exhibits PMIG/4 and PMIG/7 (as can be seen from exhibit PMIG/11). Several sites provided links to an e-mail address run by Paul Warren from which the journal CONTACT could be obtained in Word format on request.

6. I first searched "michael pelling" and found 83 items. The first ten items are now produced and shown to me marked PMlG/3.

7. I selected item 4, "Open Justice Campaign 2003'' ( That item is now produced and shown to me marked PMIG/4. I then clicked on a link inviting me to read more about Dr Pelling (now produced and shown to me marked PMIG/5). Clicking on the link "Dr Pelling's Story", I was redirected to a Fathers for Life site which contained extracts from CONTACT, including the Singer article. This is now produced and shown to me marked PMIG/6.

8. The "Hits Counter", which displays the number of visitors to the site, indicates that the Fathers for Life site has been visited on 359,522 occasions since 19 June 2001. Exhibit PMIG/6 appears to have been posted on the site on 13 July 2003 having been emailed by Dr Pelling on 12 July 2003 to and It appears that Dr Pelling emailed exhibit PMIG/6 to these Yahoo! Groups and that it is likely that one of those members was able to place it on the Fathers for Life site.

9. I returned to the site which I have referred to above as exhibit PMIG/4, namely the Open Justice Campaign on the Fathercare website, where I found a series of 5 links entitled "pelling pages”. I clicked on no.1 and was taken to which is now produced and shown to me marked PMIG/7. Looking down that page, there is an image of the CONTACT journal. Clicking on that image, it opened an email addressed to (now produced and shown to me marked PMIG/8). The email address is the same as that set out in CONTACT, as referred to above in para.3. The email is a request to provide a copy of CONTACT. Also contained within exhibit PMIG/7 I noticed a number of images on the left of the page suggesting that CONTACT " and has been freely available on the Internet", and another quote, "CONTACT 5 Journal published in Canada by The Children's Voice". This quote contains a link to the Fathercare site with an icon entitled "The Children's Voice" (exhibit PMIG/9). Clicking on the icon provides a link to a site called "The Children's Voice" (exhibit PMIG/10), which contains a link entitled "CONTACT 5 – East London Fathers Journal – UK Publication". Clicking on that link produces a full version of the CONTACT journal containing both the Singer article and the Alexander judgment (exhibit PMIG/11). I recalled seeing the "Children's Voice" icon in both exhibit PMIG/4 and exhibit PMIG/5. On returning to those pages, I found I was also able to link to the full articles produced as exhibit PMIG/4, in the same way as I had done so from exhibit PMIG/9. The same icon contained in exhibit PMIG/5 is not actually a link. Also in exhibit PMIG/7 is a link entitled "or CONTACT 5 Journal via email from Thailand" which opens an email addressed to Paul Warren (as seen at exhibit PMIG/8). As before, the email is a request to provide a copy of CONTACT.

10. I then searched Google with the term "fathers4justice". There were 373 hits. Again, I concentrated only on the first 10, which are produced to me as PMIG/12. I selected Fathers4Justice (Wales) ( There was nothing on that page about Dr Pelling so I clicked on a link to the Fathers4Justice main website, conscious of the fact that Dr Pelling had emailed Fathers4Justice on 12 July 2003 (exhibit PMIG/6). There was nothing directly referring to Dr Pelling. However on clicking on the navigation "Join the movement'', now produced and shown to me marked PMIG/13, it is clear that Fathers4Justice runs an Internet forum. It is through this forum that Dr Pelling appears to have sent his email of 12 July 2003 (exhibit PMIG/6) which contained a copy of CONTACT.

11. Returning to the search on "fathers4justice'' (exhibit PMIG/12), I clicked on the second item - which opened up a web page containing an email submitted to a Yahoo! Group by Paul Warren entitled "Attorney-General and Internet". This is now produced and shown to me marked PMIG/14.

12. This led me to do a search on Yahoo! Groups under the search - yahoo groups attorney general pelling. This produced 107 items. Copies of the first 10 items are now produced and shown to me marked PMIG/15. The first item was a repeat of exhibit PMIG/14. The second item, now produced and shown to me marked PMIG/16, is entitled "Attorney-General writes to Dr Pelling". It is from the same Yahoo! Group, and is the preceding message to exhibit PMIG/14. It is a message sent to this Yahoo! Group, on August 17, by a Dave Mortimer forwarding an email from Dr Pelling. Dr Pelling's email was to a Fathers4Justice members only group (probably the one referred to above in paragraph 10). I infer that one of the members of the group forwarded it to the public Yahoo! Group which I had accessed from the Google search (PMIG/15).

13. The email now produced and shown to me marked PMIG/16, contains extracts from CONTACT including the Singer article and provides a method of obtaining a Word version of CONTACT on request by providing an email link to Paul Warren.

14. Finally, I carried out a search using the words "child access orders'' which led to 21 items. Included in the first 10 items (exhibit PMIG/17) were two references to the Fathers for Life items produced as exhibit PMIG/6 which includes a copy of CONTACT.

15. Accordingly it is clear that the Singer article and the Alexander judgment are widely available and easily accessible on the Internet and/or by email through an address available both on the Internet and given by Dr Pelling in the offending issue of CONTACT.

SWORN this 5th December 2003, at the Royal Courts of Justice, (Signed)

Strand, London WC2A 2LL

Before Me (Signed)

An Officer of the Supreme Court authorised to administer oaths.

U.K. Justice Singer abuses child

From: "Dr Michael Pelling"
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 23:51:41 +0100
To:, "Fathers 4 Justice"
Subject: [fathers4justice] ATTORNEY GENERAL ATTACKS!

Dear All, 12 July 2003

Seems that the Attorney General intends to bring a prosecution for criminal contempt against me after all, arising from events on 23 January 2003 at the RCJ when Forhad Matin escaped the evil clutches of Mr Justice Singer, the Family Division's very own child abuser. [For those who may not know about this, or wish to refresh memory, attached copy of magazine Contact No.5][Also below]

The Attorney General is applying to the President (Butler-Sloss) at Court 33 RCJ on Thursday 17 July 1030 for the following:

An indication whether the interests of the child Forhad Matin are such as to preclude the institution of proceedings for contempt against Michael John Pelling;

The release of information and documents relating to these proceedings [ie the Matin Residence case] to the Attorney General for the purpose of instituting and prosecuting proceedings for the committal of Michael John Pelling for contempt of court arising from his conduct in relation to these proceedings;

Permission for the Attorney General to obtain and use within any committal proceedings a transcript of the hearing on 23 January 2003.

I don't know why the Attorney General sat on his arse for 6 months before doing anything - could this be the beginning of the Establishment backlash against F4J, following on the successful close-down of the Principal Registry? Or was he too busy giving advice to the Government as to the legitimacy of killing children in Iraq?


No.5 East London Fathers Journal April 2003



CONTENTS: Mr Justice Singer - Child Abuser p.1/ Strasbourg Fiasco p.4/ Campaign for OpenJustice p.5/ Local Case Report p.7/ OfJudge Report p.8/ McKenzie Friend Law Report p.12/ Judgment Banned by Dame E.Butler-Sloss & The ECHR p.12/ Through the Chair p.18




Extraordinary scenes took place at the Royal Courts of Justice on 23 January 2003 culminating in the Honourable Mr Justice Singer abusing a defenceless 10-year old boy in the passageway outside Court 32, aided and abetted by a CAFCASS Children & Family Reporter and two of Her Majesty's High Court Tipstaffs. Forhad Matin, born in March 1992, was terrified of going to his Mother's house where he had been regularly beaten and assaulted by her and her relatives, so when Mr Justice Singer made an Order that he go and stay with her he refused to obey it. This so incensed the Judge that he spent nearly half-an-hour outside his Courtroom trying to intimidate and threaten Forhad into submitting to his Order, finally reducing the child to tears. Try as he would, however, he was not able to break the will of this brave boy, and the Judge was forced to reconvene the hearing and rescind the Contact (access) Order he had made, so that Forhad was able to go home with his Father.


In the public interest CONTACT brings you a full account of what took place that day. It's no exaggeration to call it child abuse: one of the nastiest things the Honourable High Court Judge said to Forhad was ­ "If you don't go with your Mum I'll put you in a place where you can't see your Mother or your Father ­ How do you like that?" ­ which Forhad understood to mean that the Judge was threatening to put him in a children's home. In one form or another the abuse of children who want to live with, or have a meaningful relationship with, their fathers is happening every day in the High Court Family Division and in County and Magistrates' Courts throughout the country. The malign ethos of the Family Division is still that children should be in the effective custody of their mothers not their fathers, and nothing infuriates the Judges more than the child who votes with his feet, repudiates the maternal Residence Order, and elects to live with his father. Child power is increasingly becoming the response to the stupidity and stubbornness of the Judiciary.


There is no censorship in this story, of names or anything else. Censorship of any kind is against the editorial policy of CONTACT (see this Issue's Editorial). The Family Division uses censorship by injunction and contempt laws to suppress free debate about its wretched decisions and to hamstring effective campaigning by those who want to publicise injustice. If you did not know who Forhad Matin's Father was then you could not communicate with him and work with him to reform the law and the way the law is applied by the courts. Reciprocally, neither he nor others can communicate with and support you, the reader, in your own battles in the courts and campaign for change if you are forced to remain anonymous with your very name suppressed (because it is your child's name too and the child is not to be identified, according to the judges). That is exactly what the Judiciary and those who formulate family policy want ­ to stultify protest and stop men working together: it has nothing to do with protecting children.


Abdul Matin has been battling in the courts for over 7 years to ensure he sees his children. Originally in Edmonton County Court his case was transferred to the High Court in 1997: see the reported case Re Matin (Minors) (Contact: Supervision) [1998] 1FLR 721 CA where the Court of Appeal removed an absurd supervision order imposed by Judge Tibber at Edmonton. Forhad always wanted to see more of his Father to which his Mother Ruqia Ali reacted with harsh physical chastisement. On 26 November 2002 in the early hours of the morning Forhad was dragged out of bed by his maternal Aunt, one Nashima Ali Hipkiss, by profession a social worker, and Mother and Aunt held a kangaroo court for Forhad's crime of wanting to live with his Father. The Aunt brutally assaulted Forhad to punish him for this crime and knocked out one of his teeth. The Mother also threatened to kill Forhad if he did not live with her. Typically as happens in these cases the Police and Social Services were not interested when Abdul reported the matter ­ after all it wouldn't do to have a social work professional prosecuted for child cruelty and assaulting a child occasioning actual bodily harm.


Forhad was again viciously beaten by his Mother on 27 December 2002 and then went for a holiday Contact stay with his Father until Sunday 5 January 2003. On return to his Mother's he ran away from her back to his Father who was waiting at the bus stop, and adamantly refused any more to stay with his Mother, albeit she had a Residence Order under the Children Act 1989. So Forhad went home with his Dad and has lived with him since. Ms Ali made attempts to enforce her Residence Order but failed because each time Forhad resolutely refused to go with any one sent to take him from his Father. On 16 January 2003 Mr Justice Hughes made a Recovery Order under s.34 Family Law Act 1986 and sent the Assistant High Court Tipstaff, Mr Philip Johnson, to Forhad's School to collect him and hand him over to his Mother. But Forhad refused to leave the safety of his Headteacher's Office and the Judge on hearing this declined to order the Tipstaff to physically carry Forhad away by force. So his Father was able to collect him and take him home from School.

However, Mr Justice Hughes directed a further hearing on 23 January 2003, requiring Abdul Matin to attend with Forhad. You might think that the Court would have taken steps to protect Forhad and at least ordered (as Abdul requested) that he reside in the interim with his Father pending a full investigation of what he had been suffering with his Mother. That is not how the Family Division works. Mother custody is sacrosanct and has to be preserved at all costs, never mind if the child is tormented, injured or even killed in the process. Had it been the Father with the Residence Order ill-treating the child the Court would immediately have transferred Residence on hearing the Mother's plaint. All the Court did in Abdul Matin's case was to suspend his Contact Order and make a series of orders to enforce the Mother's Residence. The Father resisted none of these orders ­ every time it was Forhad who stood his ground and refused to leave his Dad.


On 23 January 2003 Father and son duly attended Court 32 at the Royal Courts of Justice at 2 PM accompanied by Dr Michael J.Pelling as McKenzie Friend (also personal friend by now of Abdul and Forhad), and Mr Anthony Torrance (also legal adviser and family friend) & Mr Steve Stephenson (of Families Need Fathers). A CAFCASS Children & Family Reporter, Mrs Muriel Raleigh, was in attendance. In Court before Mr Justice Singer, Abdul Matin applied for his son to be seen personally by the Judge, which is what Forhad wanted: however the Judge ruled he would not see Forhad, who was to be interviewed by the Reporter. This was done and the Reporter then truthfully gave evidence. After hearing this sad and shocking account not even Singer J could insist that Forhad would reside with his Mother, but in typical Family Division manner refused to make an Interim Residence Order for the Father.

Doing his best to salvage the mother custody default, and ignoring the very real dangers to Forhad and his manifest fear, the Learned Judge then ordered immediate (literally) Contact with the Mother at her home for 2 days to 25 January 2003. He ordered that the Father should immediately leave the Royal Courts of Justice and go home, though on protest this was changed to going down to the RCJ Great Hall and waiting there. The Judge's plan was to get the Father out of the way and by force somehow restore relations between Mother and son ("building bridges", he said). Too bad if Forhad got beaten to pulp or killed in the process. A more crass and stupid plan would be hard to imagine, but this is the English High Court Family Division. Had the sexes been reversed all Dad would have got would be supervised Contact in a Centre.


The Judge directed the Reporter Mrs Raleigh to convey the news to Forhad, who was outside Court 32 in the passageway with Mr Torrance & Mr Stephenson. Despite the Judge's order that Abdul should leave, he stayed in Court 32 with Dr Pelling. After a while the latter became alarmed at what the Reporter might be telling Forhad, fearing that she would lie and say his Father had gone, so Forhad would think he had no option but to go with his Mother. This was exactly what the Reporter did. Dr Pelling went out and interrupted the Reporter to tell Forhad that he was not being told the truth, his Father was still there in the Courtroom, and if he did not go with his Mother then his Father would be able to take him home. The Reporter got cross at her lie being exposed, and her attempts to persuade Forhad to get up and go with his Mother failed. During these attempts the Reporter repeatedly pawed Forhad about and pulled him by the shoulder to force him to get up from where he was seated by his friend Mr Torrance.


A while later the Judge himself came into the passageway, dressed in his overcoat and on his way out of the Royal Courts of Justice. By this time another Tipstaff was also on the scene, Mrs Susan Cheesley, the Acting Deputy Tipstaff, and she told the Judge the problem they were having in persuading Forhad to comply with his Order. Whereupon Mr Justice Singer wheeled round, went back down the passage and confronted Forhad. There then ensued the remarkable spectacle of a High Court Judge (in contravention of his own judicial decision) haranguing threatening intimidating and humiliating the 10-year old boy Forhad for half-an-hour in an ultimately vain attempt to bully the frightened child into going home with his Mother. Forhad bravely resisted but at the end was reduced to tears and held his head in his hands in miserable despair. When Forhad begged for his Dad to be with him, the heartless Judge said, "No, you don't need your Dad with you". When Mr Justice Singer saw he was not getting his own way with Forhad, he resorted to crude threats, abusing his authority as a High Court Judge to say for example, "If you don't go with your Mum I'll put you in a place where you can't see your Mother or your Father ­ How do you like that?" ­ which terrified Forhad into thinking the Judge would put him in a children's home.


Eventually even Mr Justice Singer had to give up, and he reconvened the case in Court 32, immediately rescinding his earlier Contact Order. While the parties went back into the Courtroom Dr Pelling took the opportunity to sit beside and comfort the distressed Forhad, whereupon the Assistant Tipstaff told him not to talk to Forhad and assaulted Dr Pelling by grabbing him to pull him away from Forhad. Dr Pelling then returned to Court 32 as McKenzie Friend and Mr Justice Singer informed him that he was going to take steps to have a summons issued on him for criminal contempt of court. However, Dr Pelling is disappointed to have heard nothing further on that score. Then the Judge ordered that Dr Pelling should not continue any more in the case as Mr Matin's McKenzie Friend and so he left Court 32 and went out to tell Forhad the good news of his victory. Whereupon the Assistant Tipstaff again intervened in a threatening manner and Dr Pelling had to take Forhad down the other end of the passage and tell the Tipstaff to keep out, warning him that he now faced legal proceedings.

The hearing concluded shortly after; Forhad continued to live with his Father despite the Mother retaining Residence. On 31 March 2003 Mr Justice Johnson adjourned Abdul Matin's applications for a Residence Order for Forhad and a Shared Residence Order for Forhad's sister Forida (born 1990) who wants to live with both her parents. We hope that at the final hearing on 29 April 2003 the 8 year saga that Abdul Matin and his children have suffered within the English Family law jurisdiction will conclude and that Johnson J [the most hated Judge in the Family Division whose erratic judgments are a by-word and who only escaped compulsory retirement on 9 February 2003 on reaching 70 because he was appointed before the amendment to s.11(2) Supreme Court Act 1981] will for once show a little wisdom and compassion and make the right orders. It will not, however, be the end of the saga so far as the general civil law is concerned.


Because Mr Justice Singer was not acting in a judicial capacity when he tormented Forhad in the passageway outside his Court, and indeed was on his way out of the RCJ and acting in contravention of his own Order that he would not interview the child, it is believed that he has no judicial immunity from suit. Of course, the Reporter Mrs Raleigh and the Tipstaffs Johnson and Cheesley have no immunity anyway. So Forhad on 28 March 2003, suing by his Father as litigation friend, issued a Claim in the High Court Queen's Bench Division (No.HQ03X01005) seeking damages in excess of £15000 plus aggravated and exemplary damages for all that he suffered at the hands of these four persons on 23 January 2003.

He is suing in tort for common law harassment threatening health and safety, statutory harassment (the 1997 Act), intimidation, and trespass to the person, and for human rights violations under the Human Rights Act 1998. The latter are for inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention on Human Rights (this Article is absolute), and for violations of the right to respect for private and family life under Article 8(1). He is further suing all defendants for misfeasance in public office. The day the Claim was issued Senior Master Turner immediately ordered it be not served and be struck out, an obviously craven act designed to thwart justice being done against the High Court worthies who have persecuted Forhad. This decision is now under appeal.


Because the Assistant Tipstaff Philip Johnson interfered without lawful authority and assaulted Dr Pelling when he sought to comfort and talk with Forhad, Dr Pelling on 6 March 2003 also issued a Claim in the High Court QBD (No.HQ03X00730) for damages in excess of £15000 plus aggravated and exemplary damages, suing for trespass to the person, misfeasance in public office, and for violation of the right to respect for private life under Article 8(1) of the Convention. The day after the Claim was issued one Master Foster made an own motion Order that no person be permitted to examine the Particulars of Claim without Leave of a Judge or Master ­ normally the public have a right to inspect the Claim and take a copy, on payment of the prescribed fee: Civil Procedure Rules 1998 r.5.4(2). Since the Learned Master's Order only applies to the Court File, Dr Pelling is happy to provide anyone interested with a copy of his Claim ­ and you can also obtain it by emailing a request to


East London Fathers Journal No.5, April 2003 (PDF file 355kB)

The Judgment that Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss and the European Court of Human Rights do not Want You to See (PDF file 129kB)

Update 2004 04 04: Dr. Pelling goes to court Apr. 6, 2004 to fight for his freedom. The UK AG intends to have him put away and out of the way.

Index to information on Dr. Pelling's fight for justice and against star-chamber courts.

Comments 23rd January 2013

Comments 22nd January 2013

Comments 21st January 2013

Comments 20th January 2013

Comments 19th January 2013

Comments 18th January 2013

Comments 17th January 2013

Comments 16th January 2013

Comments 15th January 2013

Comments 14th January 2013

Comments 13th January 2013

Comments 12th January 2013

Comments 11th January 2013

Comments 10th January 2013

Comments 9th January 2013

Comments 8th January 2013

Comments 7th January 2013

Join us in campaigning for equality and justice.