he has been arrested 9 times now, excluded from school 11 times, and attendance is 69 percent, missing 97 days out of 230 in the 12 months

FAMILY LAW ADVISORY GROUP IN REGARDS THE BELOW INFORMATION STATES: 

 it is wholly wrong for the court office staff at county courts to simply excommunicate partys from cases simply when the going gets tough for the judge. 

in the case below the judge has as local authority have been found to be untruthful and evidence has been provided, the court staff will not allow applications and evidence to make its way to the attention of the judge residing over the case. 

though it can be questioned wether the judge has ordered the court office staff do this FLAG UK have no evidence to prove this may be the actual matter. 

THIS IS AN INSERT FROM RECENT COMMUNICATIONS RE THE CHILD THIS BLOG WAS STARTED ABOUT.  AS YOU CAN SEE THE PLACEMENT FOR THE CHILD HAS COMPLETELY BROKEN DOWN.  YET HE REMAINS IN THE PLACEMENT  SUFFERING

EMAILED:

as we have received no reply from our previous complaint we thought it may be helpful to you to send it again.

complaint 1 Natasha H(SOCIAL WORKER) and her superiors have wrongly refused to provide me information regards my sons involvement with the intensive family suopport programme that the  Bs (special guardians) have been placed on. Using the emphasis on consent to withhold information, wrongly, as the children act clearly states the only time when consent is needed is if the special guardians should change the name of the child or leave the country for a period of more than 3 months. We now inform you that should we not receive full disclosure regards the current situation for (child) and what is actually taking place in the setting he is in to include all facts and information regards the intensive family programme he and his special guardians are placed in court action will commence very soon.

 complaint 2: we have provided evidence (attached) that you were fully aware of the no contact order made against the Bs, yet the court was told by Matt W(social worker) and Janine B (local authoritys solicitor) they had "no knowledge" of it. they lied.

 complaint 3: you stated in regards to(child2) being placed in the residence of the Bs, Mrs ba as in agreement with care plan and for (child2) being placed with his grandparents (the Bs). this is another lie. angela B stated she was happy for (child2) to go into care, and was happy for him to remain at his grandparents for a short while. again you lied.

 complaint 4: in an email to Torquay police officer tristian k you stated you had a legal meeting the day before (01 dec 2010), yet you told the court this was not the case as we had demanded from you the minutes from that legal meeting for months. You denied any meeting took place. in fact you made believe to the court that the PPO was a matter bought about by the police not yourselves.

 complaint 5: in the same email you clearly state a care order will be applied for to "ensure the safety and well-being of (child2)". this is in relation to his father being sectioned. you then go on to explain to Tristian K (police officer) that mother doesn't agree to (child2) staying at the Bs and she has the legal right to collect (child2). You then further go on to inform the police officer that mother threatened to abandon (child) and sent (child) a text message which had been quoted out of context and not in full, the original text was much longer and more explanatory.

You were also aware mother had not sent the text in actual fact. the allegations you made that the mother threatened to abandon the child again is untrue which you were aware of at the time, Nigel B returned (child2) due to his attacking the other children in our home, you did not report that to the officer though. At no time did the mother state she felt unable to cope with (child2) behaviour, we both made it clear to social services and the family court at the time that our actions in removing (child2) from our home was to protect the other 3 children from his disgusting and violent temper and violent attacks on the children. Again that was not mentioned to the police, we believe the police were misled and not fully informed. However even if they had been it is not understandable how a police protection order could be deemed necessary under the circumstances.

The police can only make a PPO in the most "DIRE CIRCUMSTANCES". what is clear here and we make this allegation in the most serious of terms. . . yourselves clearly used a police protection order simply to make sure Angela baggaley could not take the child from the Torbay area. Instead of using a PPO in response to the fathers sectioning under the mental health act. you then used this situation against us in court re (child).

This is a clear abuse of the law. we intend on taking legal action against you concerning this matter. we are seeking police involvement in this matter to arrest Matt Wooley for harassment and will be applying to the court for the court to consider you for perjury. we also note the law states PPO should only take place if the child has suffered harm, you had no evidence the (child1) had received harm in our care. you still dont. this PPO was a sham.

 complaint 6: you have provided us with a less than acceptable bundle of data from our data request. Almost half of the papers you have sent have been blanked over. we have not received meeting notes, reports, case papers, emails, assessments, letters, 3rd party information from letters, emails, faxes, paper files, electronic files, memos.. we do not accept the very small amount of paperwork as a proper disclosure. We are seeking a proper and full disclosure of all files.

This was a complaint sent to social services, we copied it to the court, the judge and all parties. The judge and the court have reacted very strongly to it. as they should especially now that the child in the care of the alcoholic and violent special guardians is being statemented, the special guardians are on a intensive family support programme, he has been arrested 9 times now, excluded from school 11 times, and attendance is 69 percent, missing 97 days out of 230 in the 12 months ... it is getting much worse, he has been put on a final chance course by the police and has started staying out over night running away from the special guardians .. whose own children call 'the wests'. he is 12 years old, facing special school, asbo and a life of abuse and alcoholic drunks slaggin his own mum off constantly. Well done HHJ Tyzack. oh and by the way he was not in any trouble at all in our care, not 1 single referral and the school he was in last year in our care stated " lovely lad, can be a bit excitable, top of the groups, bright future etc etc... so this is protecting the child.

below is the courts response:

Mrs B,

The Court will no longer accept any e-mails regarding your cases at the Court. The Court will only accept postal communication from you.

If the Court receives any written communication at all, depending on the nature of the correspondence the Court may refer the matter to His Honour Judge Tyzack QC to see if he has any direction or comment to make on correspondence received. If the... communication is simply a repeat of the e-mails/correspondence already received and dealt with at the Court, the papers will be placed on the Court file and no further action will be taken.

If the Court receives any further e-mails from you, steps will be taken to block your e-mail address from the system.

Please do not e-mail the Court office again, in order to avoid this action.

Regards

R I

Family Section Manager
Exeter FPC & County Court
Southernhay Gardens
Exeter
EX1 1UH

( 01392 415349
7 01392 415320
 

 our reply

 I can not understand the court office staff doing this, You are aware that i have a application with your court, HHJ Tyzack. I can only take it you are not happy the Royal Courts of Justice have forced you to provide the court files, when you have been refusing to do so for 10 months with me. I will not agree to your demands, i will continue to contact the court by email regardless of you getting your knickers in a twist about it. to be honest i couldnt give two hoots what you think or becky. Ill simply continue to email, and ill continue to email the judge directly.

The information i sent you was for the attention of the judge, HHJ Tyzack .. to let him see just how much he has screwed up my childs life. It is at your court because i intend on taking civil action against the judge. it was therefore pre action protocol to allow the judge and the court to rectify the situation before civil action commences.

have a nice day ,
official complaint on its way to the ministry as we speak.