Free information index
Lord Justice Wall this morning showed the benevolence of an Iraqi dictator. He said 'Anything which shows the proper working of the family justice system is, in my view, to be welcomed'
The law was ignored, fact was ignored and judicial arrogance came to the fore.
Most of the Judgment woffles on previous Appeal, another case and lip service to the legal and factual argument put to the Court.
An open letter was sent to Lord Justice Wall [attached] and it would be appreciated if requests could be sent to him for my committal for perjury/ perversion of the course of justice, contempt of Court proceedings and for bringing the administration of justice into disrepute. Please feel free to forward and to put onto websites this email and the attachments.
Lord Justice Wall has been put on notice that this cannot continue as it is bringing the administration of Justice into disrepute and creating a minefield of problems for the future generations.
There is no point in fathers arguing for Family Law reform and new laws when the judges can cherry pick, ignore their own precedents, and specific case laws from ECtHR.
The judicial abuses of power are the biggest factor in the destruction of Family life in the western industrialized world.
In order to help expose this, we have been preparing a campaign to the United Nations on the abuses destroying the strong families that used to exist.
We are preparing a campaign to the United Nations under 1503 procedure of persistent, systematic and widespread abuses of human rights in the western world. This involves all western industrialized countries abusing families.
We are seeking bodies to support and help jointly and to put their names and/ or group logos onto the petition.
The first stage of the campaign is to get at least ten thousand signatures to the petition. The second step is to amass prima facie evidenced cases and submissions showing the failures of western Governments and Judiciary in the destruction of families.
If you are interested please get back to us.
Destruction of the Family issues
PAS destroys children
UK Only non-Govt Law Centre
No safe place for biased judges in Family Law:
OPEN LETTER RIGHT TO REPLY
Dear Clerk to LJ Wall;
This is for the personal attention of Lord Justice Wall;
I note that the formal hand down of the judgment is to take place on August 25th 06. I do not believe in attending as this will only give pretence and precedence to an otherwise flawed judicial system of protecting one’s own kind as the judgment ignores the truth, the law and the facts of the case. Furthermore it is a deliberate act of judicial abuse of power.
I may as well have read nursery rhymes in Court perhaps that would impress LJ Wall. My children’s welfare has not been paramount as ever and judicial analysis of the factual and legal argument was once again lacking.
I also sent the school report on my son which shows very different behaviour to that which the school and/ or CAFCASS Guardian reported to Court. It has also now come to light that not only were there two bundles before the court which were never served on me but also that there was a witness bundle.
As you expected and rightly so in last paragraph;
‘’ If, in his eyes, I now join the ranks of the biased and the time-serving, the public will, I hope be in a position to judge the fallacy of that approach from the publication of the judgments of this court in his case.’’
You do so by your own actions in this judgement. I couldn’t have described it better myself.
The public cannot judge themselves without seeing the evidence and argument which was before the courts involving – HHJ Milligan, Mr. Justice Sumner, HHJ Bond, Lord Justice Wilson, Mr. Justice Coleridge and LJ Wall and therefore ask for permission for the public to see the evidence against them and the State bodies when you are going public with such self-serving diatribe and trite and I have the right to defend myself against libel, slander and falsehoods. My children’s welfare has never been paramount only the continued cover-up of wrongs by not only the State bodies but also the Judiciary themselves.
In your own words; ‘’Anything which shows the proper working of the family justice system is, in my view, to be welcomed.’’
I have provided three affidavits and insist that I be prosecuted for perjury.
I have provided factual and legal argument, evidence, statements and addendums and insist I be prosecuted for contempt of court as I must have been lying.
I also note the blinkered attitude to Parental Alienation Syndrome and ask you again how can I have changed the children’s memories, blanked their memories, and instilled hatred in my children when I have not seen them since October 26th 1999? How can they hate their father for ‘making things look so good?’ Should I have abused them as the mother aided and abetted by the stepfather has? Should I have lied to them?
You are creating a dysfunctional future generation and this vile system abusing the law and human rights shall be brought back to a just administration; as we, the public, whom you serve have the right to expect.
I request permission to appeal to the House of Lords on the following grounds;
Do Lord Justices as well as other Judges have to obey the law?
Is a Judge permitted to ignore pertinent evidence and fact before them?
Are state bodies under a duty to obey the law and act honestly and openly within Family proceedings?
Is there not a right to justice within family proceedings?
Can Judges at whatever level ignore Human rights case law?
Do parties in Family Court Private law proceedings not have the right to pursue Application for damages and redress under sections 6, 7 and 8 HRA 1998 equally as in public law?
Can Judges make section 91(14) orders to last until a child is over 18?
Can judges select and ignore facts and/ or law as they see fit after it is brought to their attention?
Is CAFCASS a body fit for purpose given that like local Authority social services there is a history of misleading the court, perjury, perversion of the course of justice and other unlawful acts?
Is the UK Family Court sitting in secret able to deliver justice such as in this case when Judges deliberately mislead themselves and make astonishing assertions against litigants who speak protesting at the abuses of human rights and common law?
If State bodies and Judiciary can behave in such manner as I can show, why should anyone in UK obey the law?
Are judges permitted to abuse their power?
Is the children’s welfare paramount in such circumstances as mentioned above?
Should Parental Alienation Syndrome be investigated and assessed by a specialist child and adult psychologist trained in such matters when Judges have no training in child welfare as is evidenced in this case and in case law.
Obviously now I only have one further route; recusal of Mr. Justice Coleridge and any future Appeal cannot be heard by yourself for promulgating the abuses.
I repeat below that which was said in open Court and has simply been brushed under the carpet;
"Blackstones" Constitutional law and human rights volume 8 on Judicial Functions states The principal functions of the judiciary may be described as follows:
To provide for the orderly resolution of disputes, whether between private individuals or bodies, or involving public bodies or the exercise of public or governmental functions by public or private bodies;
To uphold the principle of legality or the rule of law;
To protect the individual against unlawful state activity;
This is an Appeal against the following orders:
Order of February 22nd 2006 made by the Courts own motion
An order of March 29th 2006 by Mr. Justice Coleridge.
It is history repeating again, the only difference is that had the Appellant been from Turkey or of former Eastern Europe Countries there would be massive public and Government outcry. Sadly the Appellant is a British, Caucasian and a male who have lesser rights than illegal asylum seekers who have the Court’s sympathy.
Law bidding families are being disfranchised by biased decisions solely based on CAFCASS or similar agency officers despite the finding of Lillie & Reed v Newcastle City Council & Others  EWHC 1600 (QB).
In the case of Re J (Care Proceedings: Disclosure)  2 FLR 522 FD where there was concealment and an attempt to mislead a parent and the court. Circumstances surrounding this case are no different.
Last year the Court of Appeal removed HHJ Milligan from further conduct of this case due to his gratuitous words ‘Come to me in a different frame of mind and anything may be possible.’
The Court of Appeal kindly stated that there must be great progress in this case. I come before you to say there has been none to date. I did not pursue HHJ Milligan doggedly to have a better class of bias. I did it to protect my children’s my rights and rights of any citizen under articles 6 and 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Article 6 rights are fundamental and not to be offset or balanced against anyone else’s rights under article 8. Article 17 clearly states that no one in power least the Judge has the power to act which will violate the rights of the citizen. This is further protected by article 13 of the European Convention on human rights.
Yet the manner in which I have been treated to date makes me believe that I am a victim of an politically correct institution – Jews in the WW2 were better treated and put out of their Misery but I am persistently being tortured – something even ECtHR accepts as a violation of Article 3 of the Convention e.g. Tekin v Turkey where mental torture is recognized.
The respondent mother locked my son in the bedroom from the age of 2.5 to 5, she has lied to child welfare person including health visitor, GP, counselor, schools, her solicitor, social services AND she is rewarded by all.
Aided and abetted by the State institutions, respondent and her husband believe they are above the law, unlawfully changing my children’s surnames, telling false stories to my children and alienating them, misleading the Court, and with such confidence that they arrive at Court without lawyers knowing their acts will be blessed by CAFCASS and Mr. Justice Coleridge with impunity.
If a third party abused my children I would be supported by the State in pursuing them for redress and to help my children. Just because the abuser is my ex-wife, it is covered up and even a Guardian who is supposed to represent the children independently turns blind eyes and deaf ears.
In the words of Lord Laming, - “the professionals involved were ready to accept the excuses of the primary carer and abuser” – and – “too often it seemed that too much time was spent deferring to the needs of the mother and not enough time was spent on protecting vulnerable and defenceless children”. In the Climbie Inquiry the main abuser Marie Therese Kouao made sexual abuse allegations about Carl Manning to the social workers to cover up her abuse.
Para 15.10 Lord Laming in the Climbie enquiry said :- The basic requirement that children are kept safe is universal and cuts across cultural boundaries. Every child living in this country is entitled to be given the protection of the law, regardless of his or her background.
I had Appealed the involvement of HHJ Milligan on the grounds that he was a biased judge as he has invented hearing that had never taken place, denied daytime wetting in my daughter despite being given the pediatric notes, made judgment on evidence he had refused to be allowed in Court and abused his power and acted against the children’s best interests even accepting a one and a half page letter to the mother’s solicitors as a ‘report on the mother’s fitness for residence having seen her medical records’ as the Court had ordered.
The truth was the mother’s solicitors did not inform the psychiatrist of the Court order, the letter was based on only two meetings with her in the UK for postnatal depression not emotional instability, and borderline personality disorder and he took into account no evidence, no statements, neither carried out any psychiatric or psychological testing and simply repeated whatever the mother told him.
The facts, symptoms and issues relevant to the welfare of the children still remain uninvestigated on behalf of the children. In volume five, section L page 7A it is clearly stated that ‘the outcome of investigations and assessments carried out by Social Services did not indicate the need to invoke Court proceedings that would in turn have led to a much more detailed assessment i.e. a comprehensive assessment.’ That form of assessment is more in-depth and takes a wider view of all significant factors including if necessary parental Alienation or psychological abuse.’ 5L7A.
Yet the Social worker Maggie Smith had previously stated in her report and under oath that she had carried out a comprehensive assessment.
Judge Milligan was a biased Judge; this can be seen by the statements he made e.g.
‘She (the mother) started by using the sock in the door idea that she got from father to restrain him from leaving his room and also taking the handle off. Again that is an idea that came from father.’ 2L8[3-7]
‘This is a man to whom I think it has never occurred that there might be another view that might be as good as or better than his and I have to consider his evidence in the light of that assessment.’ 2L(16)
‘Father says that she is a manipulative liar. I do not believe this for a second. I thought that this was a truthful lady whose evidence I accept and in so far as it conflicts with the father’s evidence I have no hesitation in preferring what mother had to say to me.’2L9. (I was only allowed the last ten minutes of the hearing to cross-examine the mother).
‘Social services report that there had been many complaints by the father to them that the mother was unfit, so much so that they were in the view of social services, bordering on harassment and had given rise to investigations from the period of June 94 to August 97 and these investigations had thrown up no child protection issues or concerns’. 2L12.
This is contrary to the facts; the Community Psychiatric nurse reported concerns to social services in June 1994; we had moved to Spain from August 1st 1994 until November 1995 and the Social Worker Neil Toyne only made a single house visit on 8th July 1996. Further, Social Services had set-up a care package at the mother’s request. All of course missing from their investigations and reports.
Social services carried out the assessment of risk 5D1 without meeting me, taking into account evidence and interviewed only the judge and CWO. I was also informed in the report that I had no right to make a complaint about the report, 5D5 [6-8]. Could not call HHJ Milligan to give evidence and despite statements under oath and in reports the GP 4H10 and 44 para 11, health Visitor 3B(3) and school 3E14(3) all deny any involvement in the assessment of risk.
When questioned regarding the locking in of my son she said 5G13G ‘’I’ve checked with the health visitor as well about the locking in the bedroom and that was dealt with a long-time ago and ‘’It was admitted between the health visitor and the mother and it doesn’t happen now.’’ This is contrary to the truth. The health visitor notes 3B4-11, senior nurse managers confirmation 3B3 and the child and family guidance notes 3B12-22 show this to be untrue.
When challenged on the health visitor’s involvement and pointing out the Health Visitor had no involvement with the my son since October 1998 and my daughter since 1996, the social worker changed her argument ‘’okay then there’s currently no concern.’’ 5G9. It beggars belief how a person who has not seen my daughter for four years and my son for one and a half years could have any concern for them.
She stated under oath ‘’I have worked with thousands of families and I can tell you I can sense without even knowing when a mother’s emotionally unstable I don’t even have to look at them I can sense it a mile off.’’ 5G9B I have suggested to the director of social services the social worker be employed by the Police forensic dept to prevent cases such as that of Dr. Shipman.
‘’I have every confidence that what his mother tells me is true or else he wouldn’t be able to concentrate at school and he wouldn’t be putting on weight.’’ ‘’I am sure that this can be clarified through the mother. There are no problems with his eating and sleeping.’’ 5G5/6 Again such reliance on the mother’s words alone is biased and unprofessional.
Describing my son under oath she said ‘’You’ve got one child that is actually a little bit disruptive and all over the place’’. This is contrary to the Social work addendum describing him as a delightful typical 6 year old boy. He has now been referred for a full assessment. 5G14B
She said ‘’The fact that he gets a tap on the mouth for spitting or swearing I do not believe to be inappropriate’. Most six year olds spit and swear.’’ My son has never spat or sworn in my presence. 5G17B.
Describing my son’s aggression to his sister; she said ‘’He will hit Xxxxxxxx – if he doesn’t hit Xxxxxxxx I’d be very worried. He will learn not to hit Xxxxxxxx when she slugs him back one day he’ll stop.’’5G17F.
Article 6 rights are fundamental and not to be offset or balanced against anyone else’s rights under article 8.
In recent case heard by this Court Neutral Citation Number:  EWCA Civ 6, it was stated;
Para 6; Inconvenience, costs and delay do not, however, count in a case where the principle of judicial impartiality is properly invoked. This is because it is the fundamental principle of justice, both at common law and under Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. If, on an assessment of all the relevant circumstances, the conclusion is that the principle either has been, or will be, breached, the judge is automatically disqualified from hearing the case. It is not a discretionary case management decision reached by weighing various relevant factors in the balance.
Maggie Smith Social worker under oath stated that she wished all fathers were as caring as I 5G13G and that the reason my children behaved appropriately when with me was associated with the way in which I treated them. 5G4B.
LJ Wilson last November described me as highly intelligent. Mr. Justice Coleridge even stated in his judgement that I gave a lucid and articulate presentation.
The respondent mother’s full diagnoses of emotional instability after a battery of psychological tests with the risk of psychological abuse of the children, her borderline personality disorder and manipulative personality have never been assessed or investigated which may well be related to the symptoms of Parental Alienation Syndrome and psychological abuse.
Similarly the symptoms in the children – my son’s sleep disturbances, anxiety, referrals to child and family guidance every year since 1997 barring 2003, his counseling for low self esteem and lack of confidence in 2004 and referral to psychiatrist in 2005 or my daughter’s daytime wetting and UTIs since 1997 neither have been investigated.
As a result the children have been placed at risk of harm, yet the judicial comments I personally have evidenced couldn’t be invented;
HHJ Milligan ‘This is a man to whom I think it has never occurred that there might be another view that might be as good as or better than his and I have to consider his evidence in the light of that assessment.’
‘’This is a man, in my judgement, who is pursuing his own interests which is completely different thing to standing back and taking a serious view as to what may be in the best interests of the children themselves...This is a man who is blind to the children’s needs insofar as they come second to his own plans’’
Mr. Justice Sumner in April 2002 said in this Court ‘If he is unable to separate his own intense feelings about the injustice to him and the poor care that this mother gives, the children will not have a proper relationship with their mother if there is the risk that her standing with them will be undermined.’ 2N14.
Mr. Justice Coleridge in his judgement of March 29th this year stated ‘What the father seems quite unable to appreciate is that the ongoing proceedings are doing much more harm to the prospects of his seeing the children than if he desisted.’
I refer the Court to Raja V Austin Gray (a firm),  EWHC 1607 (QB) 31st July 2002 and in particular paragraph 12 where it states; It seems to me that it is reasonable and in the public interest to expect professionals, and indeed anyone else offering particular skills for reward, to exercise them with reasonable competence. This includes the Judiciary with their ample pensions, lawyers, barristers, Guardians, Social workers, CAFCASS officers.
LORD DENNING SAID: “Whoever it be, no matter how powerful, the law should
provide a remedy for the abuse or misuse of power, else the oppressed
will get to the point when they will stand it no longer. They will find their
own remedy. There will be anarchy.”
I am now at that point.
Appeal of February 22nd 2006 order
The first Application arises from an order dated 22nd February 2006 of the Courts own motion that has been unfortunately delayed as Bournemouth Registry informed the Court of Appeal that there had been a hearing behind the order.
The Appeal from the order of the Courts own motion on February 22nd 2006 was outstanding and to preserve my position I had no choice but to walk out after informing the Judge of the reasons before the hearing and at the end, contrary to the order which states that I did not give notice, Mr. Justice Coleridge rose and gave me five minutes to pack the voluminous papers.
It is unfortunate that the Appeal of the order dated February 22nd 2006 has been delayed beyond my control due to Bournemouth Courts informing the Court of Appeal that there had been a hearing that day when there had been no hearing and no Judgement.
Mr. Justice Coleridge made an order on January 31st 2006 for a half day directions hearing after he had requested the directions that I sought.
Mr. Justice Coleridge then made an order of the Courts own motion. I was unaware of any written request. I was unaware of the making of the order until it was received on February 27th 2006.
Family proceedings rules 4.14 state —(1) In this rule, "party" includes the guardian ad litem. (2) In proceedings to which this Part applies the court may, subject to paragraph (3), give, vary or revoke directions for the conduct of the proceedings, including-
the timetable for the proceedings;
the service of documents;
Directions under paragraph (2) may be given, varied or revoked -
of the court's own motion having given the parties notice of its intention to do so, and an opportunity to attend and be heard or to make written representations,
I am unaware of or had any notice to parties being given, pursuant to 4.14 (3) a, or of any written request 4.14 (3) b or 4.14 (3)c, have not had the opportunity to be heard or to make representations. Therefore the Court is in breach of the above rule in making the order of the Court’s own motion.
I did not have the right to put my case on the making of that order. I took the appropriate step and Appealed.
The rules were not complied with. The order was in breach of article 6.1 HRA 1998 and Family Proceedings rules 4.14. Either the rules and due process exist and should be followed or they do not. In this case they do.
Due process had not been complied with. I had not even had the right to disclosure of documents known or that should exist pursuant to Civil proceedings rules and for which I had supplied a detailed statement and list of documents to be disclosed dated September 9th 2005.
It has never been addressed other than Mr. Justice Coleridge simply stating on March 29th 2006 ‘I’m not ordering disclosure.’ without giving any reasons.
The order of February 22nd without my input, knowledge or any right to give argument whether in writing or orally reduced the full complex case from a half day hearing for directions ONLY to a half day final hearing for hearing of removal of the Guardian, appointment of child and adult psychologist Dr. Lowenstein the other 16 directions sought along with the Guardian’s Application for a section 91(14) order when she has not done any effective or otherwise investigation, without the right to due process and in breach of article 6.1 and 8 HRA 1998.
A half day hearing was insufficient time for the matters to be heard and these had unilaterally been condensed by the Judge sitting showing Mr. Justice Coleridge was operating with a closed mind as was shown by his giving defences on behalf of the Guardian and refusing argument from me on disclosure simply stating ‘I am not going to order disclosure.’
He had also ordered the Guardian to prepare a report on contact. I have not made an Application for contact. The only contact that may have been considered was interim contact until expert had reported as to the abuse of my children and their current psychological state as well as thta of the mother who has never been investigated and the issue of alienation whether described as PAS or PA.
He also ordered any skeleton arguments to be filed the day before the hearing. This did not give any time for a litigant in person to consider whatever argument may be given.
If the Applications that I sought were refused it is obvious that I would appeal.
Disclosure had not even been addressed. The order also gave directions for the Guardian to file a report on contact.
My Application was for residence or shared residence which has not to date been addressed.
This order to file a report on contact was no doubt explained by the Guardian’s Application for a section 91(14) order.
What Mr. Justice Coleridge was no doubt unaware of and yet ignored in it’s totality when raised in Court is that she had not met parties, and had carried out no investigation of medical or behavioural concerns, contacted the children’s school or GP to get the medical files, paediatrician, checked the social services files or had investigated my son’s counselling for low self esteem and lack of confidence and his referral to psychiatrist and the reasons for it.
The order of January 31st had set the hearing for directions only.
I therefore submit that the order was unlawful, unfair and had an unfair effect on the hearing set for March 29th 2006 to which my only response could have been to put my case on the three most urgent matters for removal of the guardian, appointment of child and adult expert psychologist Dr. Lowenstein and disclosure and to preserve my position by leaving Court after the blatant bias shown to me and when the Appeal had not been heard against the order of February 22nd.
The Guardian’s solicitors notes
I have also requested for release of the solicitors notes of the meetings and conversations with my children prior to the hearing.
It has been delayed beyond my control. I have the right to the notes since the Guardian’s solicitor cannot usurp the role of the Guardian and she was not giving legal advice but as she clearly stated in her letters to was carrying out the role of the Guardian in understanding the wishes and feelings of the children.
There has been no assessment of Gillick competence in my children. If my children are sufficiently aware and able to understand and make decision on their own behalf then they should have been shown the papers concerning them before Court.
I tried to inform my children on December 2nd 2005 of the truth but Mr. Justice Coleridge closed me down when I did so.
The solicitor for the Guardian has been regularly in contact with the children. These notes have not been released and has been requested after Mr. Justice Coleridge refused by way of Court order dated 21st November 2005 to have them released. I did not Appeal directly at the time as after meeting my children and witnessing Parental Alienation Syndrome as the Court had consistently been warned was signed of sick by my GP.
The Solicitor cannot undertake the role of the Guardian. It usurps the role of the Guardian who is supposed to have specialist training in questioning children. If the Guardian’s solicitor can carry out the role of the Guardian CAFCASS could be scrapped.
Volume 1 H 16 letter dated 15th September Guardian’s solicitor stated that my daughter no longer had utis, yet this is not in the Guardians notes and could only have been told to the Solicitor direct. My daughters UTIs were ongoing but the guardian had not sought the medical notes GP letter dated 9th September 2005 Vol 1 K 12]
Guardian’s solicitor met my children to prepare statements [letter dated 20th September 2005 vol 1 H 28 para 2/3 ] ‘I interviewed the children because it is part of my job.’ Yet the Court had not been notified my children were instructing the solicitor direct.
In letter dated 13th October 2005 [vol zero, K 1] ‘I have also spoken with the children directly and communicate with them regularly. A lot of what the children have said they have repeated both to the Guardian and myself but some of the things they have said to me alone. Consequently the children’s wishes and feelings will not always be fully expressed in the Guardian’s contemporaneous notes.
In vol 1 H 38A letter dated 9th November 2005 Solicitor stated ‘My role at present is to build a relationship with the children so that I can fully understand their wishes and feelings.’
If the children were being represented by the Solicitor to be legal advice then FPR 4.11 applies—(1) In carrying out his duty under section 41(2), the guardian ad litem shall have regard to the principle set out in section 1(2) and the matters set out in section 1(3)(a) to (f) as if for the word "court" in that section there were substituted the words "guardian ad litem".
where it appears to the guardian ad litem that the child-
is instructing his solicitor direct, or
intends to, and is capable of, conducting the proceedings on his own behalf, he shall so inform the court and thereafter-
shall perform all of his duties set out in this rule, other than duties under paragraph (2)(a) and such other duties as the court may direct,
shall take such part in the proceedings as the court may direct, and
(iii) may, with leave of the court, have legal representation in his conduct of those duties.
The Court was not informed.
Since these communication had been made from the respondent mother’s house, all parties except myself would be aware of the contents of the communications. They were not to give legal advice as the Court was not informed pursuant to FPR.
I have the right to know what has been said as she was not giving legal advice but according to her own words carrying ou the role of the Guardian.
The children’s words have not been based on the facts of the case and with allegations of psychological abuse and Parental alienation syndrome would be very important in evidence and argument for appointment of child and adult psychologist Dr. Lowenstein and the behaviour of the Guardian for her removal. I therefore submit that these notes should be disclosed.
This brings me to the issue of the Guardian’s notes and her failure to prepare contemporaneous notes. The Court ordered that the Contemporaneous notes be released to me after CAFCASS had tried to argue they could only be disclosed after proceedings had ended in breach of article 6.1 HRA 1998. The Guardian’s solicitor stated they were contemporaneous notes yet the Guardian under stated they were only an aide memoir.
The Guardian stated that her notes were an aide memoir and not contemporaneous notes under oath to try and justify matters appearing in her report that were not in her notes. It should also be remembered that the Guardian’s solicitor was also interviewing and communicating with my children.
I draws the Court’s attention to the CASE OF T.P. AND K.M. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Application no. 28945/95)
The local authority, which is charged with the duty of protecting the child and is a party in the court proceedings, may reasonably not be regarded by a parent as being able to approach the issue with objectivity. The question whether crucial material should be disclosed should therefore not be decided by the local authority, or the health authority responsible for the medical professional who conducted the interview.
The same principle applies to CAFCASS officers.
The Guardian’s notes are not full or contemporaneous. Her excuse was that they are an aide memoir. Allegations of a serious nature have been made. The notes should be full and contemporaneous. The Guardian under oath cannot remember the date she told me she would first see the children and introduces matters not in her notes into her final report.
Notes must be contemporaneous and full. This would then comply with the duties of a registered social worker, working together under the Children’s Act, and Police and Criminal evidence Act 1984.
In the Report of the Inquiry into Child Abuse in Cleveland (1987). At para. 12.34, it is to be noted that unanimity was recorded among the experts who had given evidence to the inquiry in relation to a number of matters. Those were endorsed by the inquiry team:
All interviews should be undertaken only by those with some training, experience and aptitude for talking with children.
The need to approach each interview with an open mind.
The style of the interview should be open-ended questions to support and encourage the child in free recall.
The interview should go at the pace of the child and not of the adult.
The setting for the interview must be suitable and sympathetic.
There must be careful recording of the interview and what the child says, whether or not there is a video recording.
It must be recognised that the use of facilitative techniques may create difficulties in subsequent court proceedings.
The great importance of adequate training for all those engaged in this work.
In Lillie and Reed v Newcastle City Council, a libel case heard in open Court at paragraph 405 it is stated: what I derive from the expert evidence generally (and indeed from the Cleveland Report, the Memorandum of Good Practice and the recent judicial pronouncements on the subject) may be shortly and simply stated:
Young children are suggestible.
Great care is required in analysing and assessing the weight to be given to statements from young children.
It is important to take into account the context of any such statement and how it was elicited (for example, whether any pressures, rewards or leading questions were used).
It is necessary to focus also on the wider circumstances of the child’s life in the period leading up to any such "disclosure" that might explain or colour what the child is saying.
It is vital to take into account delay between any event recounted and the statement itself.
One should take into account carefully any bias or pre-conceived ideas in the mind of an interviewer.
It is desirable to have in mind throughout any scope for contamination by statements from others, whether children or adults.
Similarities between what one child is saying and the statements of another may be two-edged, in the sense that they might tend to corroborate one another’s accuracy or merely reflect a common source.
One should be wary of interpreting childish references to behaviour, or parts of the body, through the distorting gauze of adult learning or reading
And in paragraph 406 ‘the Review team’s own expert Professor Bull told them that " the way in which a child is interviewed/ questioned will have a profound effect on the accuracy of a child’s testimony, especially if the child is very young and the event(s) in question are in the distant past". The general thrust of the research carried out in recent years by Professor Bruck and her colleagues is well known. Indeed... anyone nowadays looking into allegations of child abuse would be "mad" not to take it into account. .... What the research has thrown into stark relief is quite simply that very young children do not appear to have the same clear boundary between fact and fantasy as that which most adults have learnt to draw.
and in paragraph 408 At the risk of over-simplification, it is possible to highlight some of the propositions thrown up by the research that need to be addressed. ...It is important, first, to recognise that, although such obvious factors as leading questions, repetition, pressure, threats, rewards and negative stereotyping can fundamentally undermine the evidential worth of a child’s account, it may well be that a child will tailor his or her account in response to more subtle and less easily detected influences. In particular, there is (or may be) a tendency to say what the child perceives the questioner would like to hear. Moreover, it may not be as easy to spot that a child is adopting such an approach, as it would be to identify a leading question. What had, I believe, not been generally appreciated prior to the recent research was that children do not merely parrot what has been suggested to them but will embellish or overlay a particular general theme with apparently convincing detail. This can be very difficult to detect, even for those who are experienced in dealing with children.
CAFCASS clearly are not following good practice in questioning children and arriving at results which are predictable given the lack of objective, impartial and knowledgeable procedure and research being used or is that CAFCASS’s intention to use it in reverse just as the methodology of PAS investigations.
The need for notes to be contemporaneous and full are also noted in guidance given in Working together under the Children Act and supplements from the Department of Health. The Guardian was plainly wrong to not keep contemporaneous notes and as ever Mr. Justice Coleridge ignored the facts of the hearing before him.
Meeting with my children
The meeting with my children on December 2nd 2005 was very revealing. Mr. Justice Coleridge had stated that it may raise a whole raft of issues yet he ignored them despite bringing them to his attention.
It was clear that the respondent mother and stepfather have manipulated them. 1AC5A…Their hostility was illogical and at times severe manifesting many of the features of parental Alienation Syndrome.
I was accused by my daughter of manipulating them for giving them a good time, 1AC7 and 1AC what am I supposed to do? Abuse them as the mother has done and then attempt to cover it up? Would I be rewarded with residence if I had so behaved?
They hated their then six year old, now seven-year-old cousin. 1AC9A-B.
They had been given false information regarding material on websites that they claimed to have seen but could not since it did not exist. The Guardian’s solicitor had threatened me with applying to Court for publishing material the Guardian admitted under oath that she had not checked f to see if it was true. 1AC15-17.
On November 10th 2005 my son had requested help for his behavioural problems yet at that meeting he stated they had ended six months previously. 1AC12E/G.
My daughter had memory blocks of violence by the mother which Mr. Justice Coleridge heard on the tape. 1AC9/10.
My daughter accused me of inventing my son being locked in the bedroom by the mother and stepfather. 1AC11B.
My daughter did not know if I had made hundreds of Applications or a couple. 1AC4E.
Yet my son stated that the stepfather admitted he knew he was doing wrong but blames my son. My son now believes that he used to beat people up. 1AC11.
My son had memories from when he was two and a half, which is psychologically impossible. 1AC11F
Both children bluntly refused Christmas presents. 1AC.
This was all false information fed by the mother and stepfather. All of this need proper input as my son has had behavioural problems with the mother from 1997. My daughter has had daytime wetting and urinary tract infections since 1997 for which there is no physical cause and daytime wetting lasting over three months is indicative of emotional abuse, never mind seven years.
My daughter sent a loving letter in April 2001 4(O)1-4.
I refer the Court to Sommerfeld v Germany whereby it states:
42. ‘‘it must determine whether, having regard to the particular circumstances of the case and notably the importance of the decisions to be taken, the applicant has been involved in the decision-making process, seen as a whole, to a degree sufficient to provide him with the requisite protection of his interests.
43. ..Correct and complete information on the child’s relationship with the applicant as the parent seeking access to the child is an indispensable prerequisite for establishing a child’s true wishes and thereby striking a fair balance between the interests at stake.
44. In the Court’s opinion, the German courts’ failure to order a psychological report on the possibilities of establishing contacts between the child and the applicant reveals an insufficient involvement of the applicant in the decision-making process. ’’
In the case of CASE OF GÖRGÜLÜ v. GERMANY (Application no. 74969/01) 26 February 2004 it is stated that ‘‘Although the essential object of Article 8 is to protect the individual against arbitrary action by the public authorities, there may in addition be positive obligations inherent in an effective “respect” for family life. Thus, where the existence of a family tie has been established, the State must in principle act in a manner calculated to enable that tie to be developed and take measures that will enable parent and child to be reunited
In the case of ELSHOLZ v. GERMANY (Application no. 25735/94) 13 July 2000; The Court, having regard to its findings with respect to Article 8 considers that in the present case, because of the lack of psychological expert evidence and the circumstance that the Regional Court did not conduct a further hearing although, in the Court's view, the applicant's appeal raised questions of fact and law which could not adequately be resolved on the basis of the written material at the disposal of the Regional Court, the proceedings, taken as a whole, did not satisfy the requirements of a fair and public hearing within the meaning of Article 6 § 1. There has thus been a breach of this provision.
Yet my children have not been able to tell fact from fiction, truth from falsity and unless an expert independent and impartial child psychologist is brought in the children will not have their psychological integrity respected, their voice will not be heard or their medium and long term best interests or their welfare respected.
If after the meeting with my children Mr. Justice Coleridge had any real concern that there was no problem with them, he would not have made the order dated 31st January for a half day hearing for directions.
The Guardian had sought three experts as of 17th November but the person who thought an expert was not so urgent was Charles Hale QC after reading the Guardian’s initial core bundle which did not include the evidential material necessary only the orders and judgments and the social worker’s flawed and invented investigations.
Mr. Justice Coleridge said in the hearing ‘I’m not reinvestigating ..subjecting court proceedings and funds.’ His only concern has been with cost and the judge offered no guarantee sufficient to exclude any legitimate doubt in this respect as afforded by Article 6 of the ECHR. (De Cubber v. Belgium, Publ. Court, Series A, vol. 86, pp. 13-14, § 24).
The Applicant feared that his submissions and evidence would not be given a fair hearing, not only before the hearing but also during the hearing when subsequent behaviour further proved the matter.
It must be remembered that I did not know what was said in the Judgement as once the Applications for removal of the Guardian, appointment of child psychologist and disclosure had been refused I had no choice but to leave Court as the Appeal of the order of February 22nd 2006 was awaited to be heard.
The skeleton argument for the Court of Appeal was provided on the basis of the facts of the case and also on the facts of what had happened in Court.
The Judgement is date stamped 1st June. I did not receive it until 4th June 2006. Despite an email from Mr. Justice Coleridge’s clerk that they thought the reel had left Portsmouth, I discovered that neither Mr. Justice Coleridge or his clerk had ordered the transcript at Public expense and the order was in Bournemouth County Court without any instructions on implementation.
As I suspected Mr. Justice Coleridge would ignore relevant matters, ignore the children’s welfare, and ignore anything I said and misled himself and further he introduced matters he never raised in Court.
Mr. Justice Coleridge states he does not believe that I did not receive the emailed skeleton argument of Charles Hale, I do not have email at home and did not even know it was being sent and never have been asked or consented to service by e-mail as is required by FPR.
I did not receive it until half an hour or so before the hearing. He invents matters in his Judgement as he never raised this in Court. Charles Hale stated in Court that it was unfortunate that I had not received it.
If Mr. Justice Coleridge had raised this in Court I would have disabused him. Charles Hale or the other parties did not raise this. I had thought that my opponents were the other parties but turned out to be Mr. Justice Coleridge by inventing his judgement after the event.
The judge ordered a report on contact in his own motion order dated February 22nd 06 and then in his Judgement [para 7 page 4] he states that he moved onto the third Application for residence, shared residence or contact. The Guardian’s report was only on contact. I was unprepared for such a change but this has only appeared in the Judgement – in Court he stated contact .
I had not applied for contact. I disabused the Judge when he stated he was going to hear my Application for contact in that, until an expert is involved even interim contact was premature. The blame for any suffering of my children [and there is a long history of problems, resides entirely with the mother, stepfather and the State bodies and biased Judges.
Mr. Justice Coleridge knew that I was appealing the order. [Page 18E of the Judgement]. I had notified all parties and the Court not only prior to the hearing but at the beginning of the hearing. Knowing that I was appealing his order of February 22nd and he refers to Applications for appointment of child psychologist, removal of Guardian and disclosure (although he denies in his judgement and simply misleads himself [Page 3 para 6]).
It was pursued when he himself refused it after lunch with out permitting any argument or giving any reasons.
I was not given the Appeal on April 28th 2005 by the Court of Appeal because the previous section 91(14) order was time unlimited [Para 4 and 39] but because HHJ Milligan had the appearance of bias for the gratuitous words ‘come to me in a different frame of mind and anything may be possible.’
I appealed on his bias and the hearing before him was for his recusal for being a biased judge. I had not Appealed the section 91(14) order since it was given by fraud and by a biased judge who gave me a homily as I was leaving Court. Mr. Justice Coleridge is merely protecting the lower Court judges he is responsible for. He cannot change the basis or the grounds upon which the previous Appeal heard on April 28th 2005 was made or given.
Mr. Justice Coleridge states para 3 that only one hearing was heard by HHJ Bond and all other by himself. This is untrue. There was only one hearing on November 21st 2005 heard by Mr. Justice Coleridge. HHJ Bond heard matters on July 1st, August 1st, and September 9th 2005.
I have not made an Application for contact – Mr. justice Coleridge ordered a report on contact in his order of February 22nd 2006 of the Courts own motion. (para 4). The Application before the Court was for residence/ shared residence after the system sorts out its own mess.
There is no analysis or mention of the argument that I put to Court.
There is no mention of the case law that I raised.
Whilst Charles Hale refers to the mother and stepfather being heard; there is no mention whatsoever of their argument. The stepfather had not even given a statement so could not give evidence in Court.
There is nothing on the issue of the children’s surnames unlawfully changed by the mother.
There is nothing on the failure of the Guardian to check the websites before instructing her solicitor to threaten me, when there was nothing to see on fathers4justice and only my name on men’s hour.
There is nothing on the perjury of the social worker. There is nothing on bias of HHJ Milligan or the fact that there is no estoppel and the welfare of the children has not been paramount.
He states Para 42 ‘The system cannot be used by litigants to fight campaigns against the statutory services for its own sake.’ I would remind the Court that the Judiciary should not be protecting criminal and unlawful acts of the State bodies. Their acts have perverted the course of justice and misled the Court and been against the best interests of the children and their welfare.
There is no analysis or even comment on the decision making process of the Guardian.
I do not need leave to Appeal from Mr. Justice Coleridge. Page 19. No Jugde is going to give permission to Appeal when he himself refuses the Applications, he would be admitting that he was plainly wrong.
The Judge refers to two bundles from the Guardian I was never served with these. I was only sent an up-dated index, which appears to be for one bundle which I neither received.
I did not have the whole morning as Mr. Justice Coleridge states we did not go into Court until 11am.
Mr. Justice Coleridge did not use or consider the welfare checklist.
Mr. Justice Coleridge stated that there are no concerns of the children and deliberately ignored my son’s regular referrals to child and family guidance, counselling for low self-esteem and lack of confidence, and referral to psychiatrist. My daughters maturity which is a factor for child protection where children are not permitted to be children. My daughters ongoing urinary tract infections and daytime wetting since 1997. The mother’s emotional and psychological history and my daughter describing the mother’s behaviour as being the same as my son.
Mr. Justice Coleridge has the temerity to state that I am abusing the family Justice system (para 42) and the system is itself in serious danger of abusing the children. He is misleading himself. No wonder he did not want to read all the documents before the Court. He then will have realised that the children have already been abused by the mother and stepfather, under the noses of the child protection system.
The case law referred to Mabon was not used in the skeleton argument and never served on me. Mr. Justice Coleridge ignored the case law that I provided for parties and the Court. This seems common practise throughout his judgement and in his behaviour in Court.
Mr. justice Coleridge stated (Para 42) ‘The father has been warned and counselled by judges over and over again, that he will not achieve his aim by endless forensic brute force.’
I do not know where this comes from. Again matters raised in the Judgement were not raised in Court or I would have disabused him. Perhaps applying an agile brain to the actions and omissions of the state Authorities and what she be good practice is uncomfortable rather being led by the nose with State controlled lawyers.
The tape he refers to in Para 7 and 26 is evidence from 1995 to October 1999, shortly before the mother stopped all contact in breach of Court order. It was evidence of what the children have been subjected to by the mother, her violence, instability, punishment of my daughter for disclosing the locking in of my son, and evidence of alienation in that the children’s memories have been altered, and my daughter had memory blocks.
Sara McCartney MP heard the same tape. Her reaction was instantaneous: ‘it sounds like the mother is unstable.’ Mr. Justice Coleridge states that ‘The mother sounds, on occasions, to be completely besides herself and at the end of her tether.’ Para 26. This is untrue. She was having psychiatric and psychological therapy for problems of personal origin with the risk of psychological abuse of the children.
That tape must be played in open Court. It contains selected material to show that after the psychiatrist had signed the mother off simply for postnatal depression her behaviour was the same. As proof that I was the victim of violence at her hands. To show the extent to which the mother went including punishing my daughter for disclosing the locking in of my son to the class teacher and to the CWO Linda Middleditch. Her unlawful threats to kill me and that I would never see the children again.
It is also proof that on January 3rd 1998 my daughter did say ‘Daddy I don’t want her to hit you’ on another occasion of violence by the mother and also that her solicitor was behind her actions forcing her to do things that she did not want to do and not acting on her instructions as he should be.
This is clear evidence that Mr. Justice Coleridge should not act as child psychologist. The mother was fully diagnosed as being emotionally unstable after a battery of psychological tests.
In Para 27 Mr. Justice Coleridge refers to ‘a very lengthy statement by the father running I think to some 59 paragraphs over six pages.’ I never submitted any skeleton argument for the hearing.
In Paragraphs 33 to 37, Mr. Justice Coleridge addresses the issue of appointment of child psychologist. Mr. Justice Coleridge does address any arguments presented. He states that ‘The father is convinced that the children’s views are planted by the mother. It is far more likely in my Judgement that the children’s views are the result of the father’s actions and behaviour.’ This is trite.
How can a person who has not been in contact with their children from October 26th 1999 be blamed for the children’s changes of memory, memory blocks, the hostility to the whole of his family including grandparents and seven year old cousin as evidenced in the meeting with the children and when the children admit they have been told all of this by the mother and stepfather. This is not just father blaming. This is arrant nonsense.
The Guardian never pointed out that there has never been a difficulty with the children talking happily about happy events in the past. The Guardian admitted that the only photo the children had was from 1995 or beforehand when I had a beard. There were no photos of me after. I had long hair and no beard from 1996.
The mother’s hostility and psychological/ emotional problems and the admittals by my daughter that the mother’s behaviour is similar to that of my son in being unable to control herself. There can be no evidence for concern for a psychological report if the Judge and Guardian act partially and ignored the evidence. Mr. Justice Coleridge made no mention in his judgements of my son’s referral to child and family guidance after 1997 every year barring 2003, his referral to a counsellor for low self esteem and lack of confidence and his referral after to a psychiatrist.
Mr. Justice Coleridge ignored the ongoing daytime wetting and related urinary tract infections in my daughter.
Mr. Justice Coleridge ignored the fact that the mother has never been investigated for the diagnosis of emotional instability and borderline personality disorder which despite Court order in 1997 has never been investigated and is most probably linked to the mother’s behaviour.
Mr. Justice Coledridge ignored the fact that it is proven in the words of the children that the mother and stepfather have told false stories to the children which is typical of alienation.
Mr. Justice Coleridge stated that a large degree of co-operation is needed for a psychological assessment. If that is the case; no child would ever go to the dentist, GP or school. Alienation would never be addressed or psychological difficulties. My son happily wanted help on November 10th 2005. He asked for help, and he wanted to go to a psychiatrist. I asked the Court if necessary to make the children wards of Court. Time and time again Mr. Justice Coleridge has bent over backwards for the mother/ Guardian and ignored the children’s welfare in the process.
In Para 21 he refers to my position statement of 362 pages. This was not my position statement but an addendum to remind the Court of the law and child psychology. My Position statement was not put in the Guardian’s bundle. She deliberately misled the Court and has refused to amend it.
In Paragraph 37 Mr. Justice Coleridge refers to the third and main application for contact. I have never made an Application for contact. Mr. Justice Coleridge invented this in his order dated February 22nd 2006.
Mr. Justice Coleridge stated in paragraph 41 that ‘the father is on a crusade in relation to the past.’ Mr. Justice Coleridge ignores the past and present, as the Guardian; the welfare issues for which there has been no investigation such as UTIs/ daytime wetting from 1997 to at least February 2005, my son’s regular referrals to child and family guidance, counselling for low self esteem and lack of confidence, referral to psychiatrist and the mother’s psychological and emotional history and diagnoses with the risk of psychological abuse of the children which is inconsistent parenting which seems to be ongoing and has never been investigated in the UK.
Mr. Justice Coleridge as the Guardian ignores the fact that my son had been referred to a psychiatrist in 2005 which I had stopped because it had to be a report from the Court due to PAS and/ or alienation and psychological abuse which is inconsistent parenting typified by the on-going problems that Guardian and Mr. Justice Coleridge have all ignored.
In Para 11 Mr. Justice Coleridge states that ‘The father has always maintained that the children are at risk with their mother, in the face of the clearest evidence that this was not so; that evidence has been produced by a number of statutory services.’ I don’t believe Mr. Justice Coleridge has even bothered to look at the evidence or factual arguments in the various submissions. It has never been investigated. The only investigation by Statutory body involved social services who never met me, invented their report, and interviewed the Judge and CWO as the sole bodies contacted.
Mr. Justice Coleridge states that the ‘battle over the children has waged ...over an astonishing nine years.’ Para 10. He forgets that I was banned by virtue of the section 91(14) order from April 2000 until April 2005. A total of five years! There have only been 10 hearings up this Application on 27th February 1997, December 1st and 2nd 1997, 1st May 1998, 17th August 1998, 23 rd September 1998, 27th October 1999, January 13th 2000, 11th April 2000, 17th December 2001, 22nd January 2002. I was subject to a section 91(14) order wrongly imposed by HHJ Milligan from April 2002 to April 2005. Plenty of time for the mother and stepfather to cover up their abuse and to alienate the children further as this case shows.
Mr. Justice Coleridge stated in para 6 of his Judgement ‘in particular, a Dr. Lowenstein, the American exponent of the much questioned theory ‘parental alienation syndrome.’ He ignores the fact that Battered women’s syndrome accepted in the Criminal Courts is not in DSM 1V and was refused for inclusion, that Parental Alienation Syndrome is accepted in Germany, Holland, Spain, Israel, passed two Frye tests in the USA and a Mohan test in Canada. There is also a PAS file set up for the DSM Committee meeting this year and reporting in 2010. I raised in Court that the recognition of PAS in the UK appears to be a political problem.
Having training in anger management and special needs it is obvious that PAS exists. The transcript of the children clearly shows factors of PAS from memory blocks, new memories, lies from the stepfather that my son used to beat children up, my son having memories from two and a half years old, hostility of the children’s own volition, extension of the hostility to the whole of the father’s family including a seven year old cousin, and extreme hostility because ‘you made it look so good.’
What was I supposed to do? Abuse the children like the mother? Would I have been given residence if I had behaved in the manner that she has done?
When challenged on findings of HHJ Milligan as a biased judge Mr. Justice Coleridge stated ‘She’s bound to rely on his findings.’ Yet there is no estoppel the children’s welfare cannot be paramount if biased, and fraudulent and untrue material is relied upon.
The decision that the Court makes will also be based on wrong facts, not be in the best interests of the children, against their welfare and medium and long-term best interests which is allegedly the courts paramount consideration and simply promulgate the abuses experienced to date.
When challenged on the biased and perjured evidence of Maggie Smith Social worker Mr. Justice Coleridge said that he would not re-open social services enquiries and it would be extremely abusive of the children. He then said If the children have problems – then I’d try to discover more regarding the past... your daughter is an extremely pretty young lady. Do only ugly children need help?
He ignored my son’s referrals to child and family guidance, for counselling and to a psychiatrist, his request for help on November 10th 2005 and my daughter’s daytime wetting and urinary tract infections which are clear indicators of concern as well as the fact that they were lying in Court before him.
I have already mentioned that the Guardian’s solicitor has already admitted in writing that Mr. Justice Coleridge did not hear from the other parties when I have the fundamental right to adversarial process as recognised in European jurisprudence.
A judge has no locus standi to raise the defence of fact for a party! He thus became the Defendant! And, he ceased to be a judge! In other words, he was, in law, a biased judge( See: Langborger v. Sweden (1990) 12 EHRR 416 at para 32). This is a blatant breach of article 6.1 HRA 1998.
Similarly it has also been admitted that I did proceed with my Application for disclosure contrary to the words in his judgement stating that I did not proceed. A further breach of article 6.1 especially when he just said I’m not ordering disclosure and refusing further argument.
Join us in campaigning for equality and justice.