OUR CASE, AND HOW THE CAFCASS OFFICER LIES TO TAKE OUR 10 YEAR OLD AWAY
If you are about to start or are involved in a family court residence or contact case, read on and be failry warned
We have been involved in a family court case now for 4.5 years. The children lived with us, until 2006.
The father applied for residency of the children and after about 6 months we volunteered residency to him as we were threatened by the local authority that unless we gave the children to him we would have a newborn child taken from us. The boys are now 13 and 10, so at the time they were 6 and 9.
The father breached contact in the first 3 years constantly, allegations were made by ourselves to which the court took no action at all, in fact they refused to investigate or even have a finding of facts hearing. However it was abundantly clear from the very start that all the other parties in the case and the judge were only interested in allegations by the father about ourselves, but in specific me,
Even though the case was mainly aimed around me, i have never been allowed party to the case.
For 3 years this case rumbled on, finding of facts hearings, allegations after allegations from the father ... including one of kidnap, which was investigated and no charges were bought though i was charged with public order sec 4 and then aquitted in court after a 2 day trial. This one allegation alone by the father led to us having no contact with the children for 10 months.
The father not once faced any penal notice or even a telling off by the court every time he breached the contact orders, every occasion he was backed by the cafcass officer.
in 2007 we were succesfull in having the cafcass officer removed from our case when it became obvious she was not willing to work with us and had acted dishonestly. This turned cafcass against us even further. They closed shop on us and in total we have met with a cafcass officer for a total of 30 minutes in the past 28 months.
In 2008 it became apparent to the judge at the time that not all seemed right in the case and she had all parties assessed by expert psychologist/psychiatrist Dr Judith Freedman and Mr Lawrence in London. For the first time in 3 years (after 10 months of investigation by Dr Freedman at a cost of £80,000) the finger was firmly pointing at the father for causing the problems and she raised issues that were very serious for him. We came out of the report in a very good light.
Though Dr Freedman turned out to be a real idiot in a second report. If you come across Dr Judith Freedman and Mr Jonh Lawrence Dr Freedmans husband be aware, they have a very bad reputation for reccomending full time foster care.
the final hearing was due in November 2009. we attended court as per usual by video link as we live 180 miles from Exeter County Court to our surprise our normal judge HHJ ROBERTSHAW (who we must say was a very good judge looking back) was replaced by the head judge for the family division HHJ TYZACK. The final hearing last 10 minutes, the judge litterally said "the father has come to the descision he wants the case over with and is offering to give you as much contact directly overnight as is reasonable but on a very regular basis, would you be prepared to agree to that. Taking into consideration we had around 7 direct overnight contacts with the children in the previous 3 years we jumped at the chance. This was a huge mistake.
We had 2 overnight contact in the following 2 months, then the father reverted back to type and refused contact. We applied to the court about 6 times to have the case put back in front of a judge but we were denied.
The father was married to my wife and has known her for 20 years. In that time he had had 5 mental breakdowns and had been sectioned 5 times. He is a G.P and psychiatrist. When not ill he is a good father and a nice person to know and we usually got on with him. However he has been ill for some time, we told poeple such as social services in 2009 when he was stating he would kill himself and the children, they refused to investigate.
we have always self-represented.
In January 2010 we knew the father wasn’t well and was saying suicidal stuff and threatening to kill the children, we applied to the court for residency of the children and for an order by the court forcing the father to have a psychiatric evaluation. The court refused our application at first but then in April 2010 the father was sectioned under the mental health act for the 5th time. The children were placed into our interim residence.
The cafcass officer Mr John Ingham of Exeter Caffcass , was solidly against this and protested to the judge in court. after a couple of months it became clear the older boy would not be able to stay, his relationship with his mum had been damaged and he did not behave well at all, he beat up his younger siblings and threw our 2 year old little boy down the stairs, younger brother was beaten and battered by older brother on a dailly basis. older brother was returned to Torquay by me, not the mother to safegurd the other 3 children. When older brother left left I sent him a message from his mother stating we did not want any contact with him untill he got help to deal with his violent issues. It was tough love but needed doing he was a danger.
younger brother remained with ourselves, we have worked closely with the headmaster of his school on a weekly bassis for 9 months that he has been here. He is recieveing specialist help at our request and has improved his behaviour no end since moving to us. before he came his behaviour was so bad at school he had been expelled.
The court order that a section 7 report be made on both children by both Leicestershire social services and Torquay social services.
This was the second section 7 report.
the reports were finalised in November this year and the final hearing was to take place on the 9th and 10th December2010.
Dr Freedman made a second report at our request, we were the only party due to pay as we could not get legal aid. Though the doctor was funded the first time around.
The Guardians report was damning of us, alleging emotional harm and the risk of emotional harm. based on the fact i have a criminal record, (nothing sexual or violent), they also alleged i would not work with professionals and that i didnt like authority and my attitude toward authority was wrong. This they said was significant harm to the child.
While at the same time the father who was found to be telling the children for over 9 months their mother and i are dead and the poeple calling asking to speak to them were pretending to be us. Ok the man was dilusional and suffers from psychotic and schitzophrenic and schitzo effective disorder and has now been sectioned 7 times under sec 2 of the mental health act, but the guardian says he has no conserns about him whatsoever. I remind readers cafcass officers have spoken to and met us for a total of 30 minutes in 28 months.
The doctors report was not damming but raised concerns, she also stated the matter had become intractable.
the father had another breakdown the week before the hearing, he has been sectioned again and is currently in Hospital.
The judge ordered a section 37 on both children, placed older brother into interim care and adjourned for 1 week.
we were then told by social services that if we didn’t agree to a section 37 assessment younger brother would be taken from us and put into interim care, The judge stated younger brother was at risk of significant harm of My behaviour because of his attitude toward authority departments and his refusal to work with professionals.
However the local authority who did a very extensive section 7 report and a section 47 investigation (referred to them by the guardian) concluded there was no evidence of any risk whatsoever. Including any type of emotional harmn only 2 weeks before the hearing.
it was because if this we refused to do a section 37 assessment.
The information the judge is using to place Tunde into interim care is purely historical in this case and has been investigated and assessed many times over already. it seems the judge is taking a 6th or 7th bite at the cherry.
2 x section 7 reports
1 x section 47 referral investigation
4 section 37 referrals
3 seperate cafcass officers reports amounting to 7 reports in general
2 x expert psyco-analyst reports
1x non expert pschologist report
4,5 year old family court (high court) case
over 50 hearings
50 to 60 orders
3 residency orders
and
no referralls made in our area by schools or health depts
4 referrals made agaisnt us to our local social services by the guardian, 180 miles away
after meeting us once for 30 minutes in 28 months
the guardian is colluding with the judge we are sure, the guardian is 100 % against us , and has refused to meet with us throughout his assessment. He states he does not believe what we say but everything the father says he believes, it is very transparent when you read the report.
so now our lad is in Loughborough and travelling in a taxi to school. in a foster home. The outcome of this action down there was supposed lead to younger brother being returned to the care of his father and be reunited with his brother in Torquauy.
However in a surprising move social services in Hinckley do npt agree and have refused the requests of Torbay social services, the Guardian and the judge to return him and have kept younger brother in our area, because the social worker in our area agrees with us that there is no evidence of significant harm and no evidence of likelihood of it.
She told the judge at the hearing that she did not believe the criteria was met for interim care order and that the suggestive allgations made by the guardian would not be deemed by Hinckley social services as a risk of significant harm or emotional abuse. Yet the judge went ahead and ordered the interim care order.
This was not applied for by either local authority. the decisicion to enter the child into interim care was soleley made by the Judge
The judge did this in our opinion because we have upset him, we have written in our statement that the case has been mismanaged for 4.5 years and that in our opinion he and the other judges in our case were inadequate and have colluded with the other parties in the case. in esscense we believe the judge has spat his dummy out.
We have a 4 year old girl and a 2 yr old boy as well, we believe the guardian is attempting to destroy our family, if it is ordered that younger brother has suffered significant harm in the final order and taken from us permanently, it will be a matter of time before they come after the younger ones. we believe the action against us and placing the boys into interim care is a smokescreen, and in fact the real agenda is to take our younger children.
the judge called our case the most complex case he has ever seen in 30 years and probably one of the most complex cases in the country. what we say to HHJ TYZACK is : No Your Honour it isnt complex at all you have simply stuffed it up as did the other judges in this case. you have mismanged this case and you work against us and for the father. You are a disgrace to the justice system
We have been involved in a family court case now for 4.5 years. The children lived with us, until 2006.
The father applied for residency of the children and after about 6 months we volunteered residency to him as we were threatened by the local authority that unless we gave the children to him we would have a newborn child taken from us. The boys are now 13 and 10, so at the time they were 6 and 9.
The father breached contact in the first 3 years constantly, allegations were made by ourselves to which the court took no action at all, in fact they refused to investigate or even have a finding of facts hearing. However it was abundantly clear from the very start that all the other parties in the case and the judge were only interested in allegations by the father about ourselves, but in specific me,
Even though the case was mainly aimed around me, i have never been allowed party to the case.
For 3 years this case rumbled on, finding of facts hearings, allegations after allegations from the father ... including one of kidnap, which was investigated and no charges were bought though i was charged with public order sec 4 and then aquitted in court after a 2 day trial. This one allegation alone by the father led to us having no contact with the children for 10 months.
The father not once faced any penal notice or even a telling off by the court every time he breached the contact orders, every occasion he was backed by the cafcass officer.
in 2007 we were succesfull in having the cafcass officer removed from our case when it became obvious she was not willing to work with us and had acted dishonestly. This turned cafcass against us even further. They closed shop on us and in total we have met with a cafcass officer for a total of 30 minutes in the past 28 months.
In 2008 it became apparent to the judge at the time that not all seemed right in the case and she had all parties assessed by expert psychologist/psychiatrist Dr Judith Freedman and Mr Lawrence in London. For the first time in 3 years (after 10 months of investigation by Dr Freedman at a cost of £80,000) the finger was firmly pointing at the father for causing the problems and she raised issues that were very serious for him. We came out of the report in a very good light.
Though Dr Freedman turned out to be a real idiot in a second report. If you come across Dr Judith Freedman and Mr Jonh Lawrence Dr Freedmans husband be aware, they have a very bad reputation for reccomending full time foster care.
the final hearing was due in November 2009. we attended court as per usual by video link as we live 180 miles from Exeter County Court to our surprise our normal judge HHJ ROBERTSHAW (who we must say was a very good judge looking back) was replaced by the head judge for the family division HHJ TYZACK. The final hearing last 10 minutes, the judge litterally said "the father has come to the descision he wants the case over with and is offering to give you as much contact directly overnight as is reasonable but on a very regular basis, would you be prepared to agree to that. Taking into consideration we had around 7 direct overnight contacts with the children in the previous 3 years we jumped at the chance. This was a huge mistake.
We had 2 overnight contact in the following 2 months, then the father reverted back to type and refused contact. We applied to the court about 6 times to have the case put back in front of a judge but we were denied.
The father was married to my wife and has known her for 20 years. In that time he had had 5 mental breakdowns and had been sectioned 5 times. He is a G.P and psychiatrist. When not ill he is a good father and a nice person to know and we usually got on with him. However he has been ill for some time, we told poeple such as social services in 2009 when he was stating he would kill himself and the children, they refused to investigate.
we have always self-represented.
In January 2010 we knew the father wasn’t well and was saying suicidal stuff and threatening to kill the children, we applied to the court for residency of the children and for an order by the court forcing the father to have a psychiatric evaluation. The court refused our application at first but then in April 2010 the father was sectioned under the mental health act for the 5th time. The children were placed into our interim residence.
The cafcass officer Mr John Ingham of Exeter Caffcass , was solidly against this and protested to the judge in court. after a couple of months it became clear the older boy would not be able to stay, his relationship with his mum had been damaged and he did not behave well at all, he beat up his younger siblings and threw our 2 year old little boy down the stairs, younger brother was beaten and battered by older brother on a dailly basis. older brother was returned to Torquay by me, not the mother to safegurd the other 3 children. When older brother left left I sent him a message from his mother stating we did not want any contact with him untill he got help to deal with his violent issues. It was tough love but needed doing he was a danger.
younger brother remained with ourselves, we have worked closely with the headmaster of his school on a weekly bassis for 9 months that he has been here. He is recieveing specialist help at our request and has improved his behaviour no end since moving to us. before he came his behaviour was so bad at school he had been expelled.
The court order that a section 7 report be made on both children by both Leicestershire social services and Torquay social services.
This was the second section 7 report.
the reports were finalised in November this year and the final hearing was to take place on the 9th and 10th December2010.
Dr Freedman made a second report at our request, we were the only party due to pay as we could not get legal aid. Though the doctor was funded the first time around.
The Guardians report was damning of us, alleging emotional harm and the risk of emotional harm. based on the fact i have a criminal record, (nothing sexual or violent), they also alleged i would not work with professionals and that i didnt like authority and my attitude toward authority was wrong. This they said was significant harm to the child.
While at the same time the father who was found to be telling the children for over 9 months their mother and i are dead and the poeple calling asking to speak to them were pretending to be us. Ok the man was dilusional and suffers from psychotic and schitzophrenic and schitzo effective disorder and has now been sectioned 7 times under sec 2 of the mental health act, but the guardian says he has no conserns about him whatsoever. I remind readers cafcass officers have spoken to and met us for a total of 30 minutes in 28 months.
The doctors report was not damming but raised concerns, she also stated the matter had become intractable.
the father had another breakdown the week before the hearing, he has been sectioned again and is currently in Hospital.
The judge ordered a section 37 on both children, placed older brother into interim care and adjourned for 1 week.
we were then told by social services that if we didn’t agree to a section 37 assessment younger brother would be taken from us and put into interim care, The judge stated younger brother was at risk of significant harm of My behaviour because of his attitude toward authority departments and his refusal to work with professionals.
However the local authority who did a very extensive section 7 report and a section 47 investigation (referred to them by the guardian) concluded there was no evidence of any risk whatsoever. Including any type of emotional harmn only 2 weeks before the hearing.
it was because if this we refused to do a section 37 assessment.
The information the judge is using to place Tunde into interim care is purely historical in this case and has been investigated and assessed many times over already. it seems the judge is taking a 6th or 7th bite at the cherry.
2 x section 7 reports
1 x section 47 referral investigation
4 section 37 referrals
3 seperate cafcass officers reports amounting to 7 reports in general
2 x expert psyco-analyst reports
1x non expert pschologist report
4,5 year old family court (high court) case
over 50 hearings
50 to 60 orders
3 residency orders
and
no referralls made in our area by schools or health depts
4 referrals made agaisnt us to our local social services by the guardian, 180 miles away
after meeting us once for 30 minutes in 28 months
the guardian is colluding with the judge we are sure, the guardian is 100 % against us , and has refused to meet with us throughout his assessment. He states he does not believe what we say but everything the father says he believes, it is very transparent when you read the report.
so now our lad is in Loughborough and travelling in a taxi to school. in a foster home. The outcome of this action down there was supposed lead to younger brother being returned to the care of his father and be reunited with his brother in Torquauy.
However in a surprising move social services in Hinckley do npt agree and have refused the requests of Torbay social services, the Guardian and the judge to return him and have kept younger brother in our area, because the social worker in our area agrees with us that there is no evidence of significant harm and no evidence of likelihood of it.
She told the judge at the hearing that she did not believe the criteria was met for interim care order and that the suggestive allgations made by the guardian would not be deemed by Hinckley social services as a risk of significant harm or emotional abuse. Yet the judge went ahead and ordered the interim care order.
This was not applied for by either local authority. the decisicion to enter the child into interim care was soleley made by the Judge
The judge did this in our opinion because we have upset him, we have written in our statement that the case has been mismanaged for 4.5 years and that in our opinion he and the other judges in our case were inadequate and have colluded with the other parties in the case. in esscense we believe the judge has spat his dummy out.
We have a 4 year old girl and a 2 yr old boy as well, we believe the guardian is attempting to destroy our family, if it is ordered that younger brother has suffered significant harm in the final order and taken from us permanently, it will be a matter of time before they come after the younger ones. we believe the action against us and placing the boys into interim care is a smokescreen, and in fact the real agenda is to take our younger children.
the judge called our case the most complex case he has ever seen in 30 years and probably one of the most complex cases in the country. what we say to HHJ TYZACK is : No Your Honour it isnt complex at all you have simply stuffed it up as did the other judges in this case. you have mismanged this case and you work against us and for the father. You are a disgrace to the justice system
Add starLikeShareShare with noteEmailAdd tags
Dec 19, 2010 6:32 PM
No comments:
Post a Comment