UK Father Claims Organized Miscarriage of Justice

More custody battle lies at work -- with blind and biased social workers as usual too

A Christchurch father has gained access to sensitive information revealing an organised cover-up by authorities which he says has prevented him receiving custody of his son. And after dedicating the last year of his life solely to winning backthe boy – who has been shown by a variety of experts to be at serious risk from the mother - he has also called into question the impartiality of a district judge.

Over the past year a bitter custody battle has been fought costing an estimated £1 million of tax payers’ money that he says may not have been necessary had important information not been concealed. The Advertiser and Times can also reveal that during the breakdown of the couple’srelationship a campaign of “mud throwing” by the mother was launched in an attempt to smear her husband’s name that had devastating consequences. A friend of the mother was so taken in by what he later described as “convincing” stories of rape and abuse at the hands of her husband that he was propelled into acting. Wearing a balaclava the man broke into what he believed was his target’s house and in afrenzied hammer attack, struck the sleeping man with several blows to the head.

The victim – who was deemed lucky to live after having three fractures to the skull and a metal plate put into his head – was in fact not the intruder’s intended target. After being caught the attacker sentenced to six years in prison and while inside admitted his actions were based on the lies of his female friend and has even apologised to his intended victim. As well as calling for a series of reforms in the judiciary and the way information is handled by government departments, the father - David (under a false name) - has asked MP Chris Chope to take the case up to the House of Commons. The MP admitted the information - showing a succession of inconsistent statements and allegations by the mother - disclosed to David during the custody battle was “bizarre”.

In condemning the “collusion, incompetence and bias” operated by Dorset County Council’s Social Services, particularly the Christchurch and Ferndown teams, David says internal documents released at the asking of a judge about a co-ordinated “cover-up”, also involve the complaints team and legal services. In particular, the disclosure papers from the social services revealed how a Christchurch social worker spoke to the son, who admitted his injuries were the result of his mother and pleaded to be allowed to live with his father. Yet despite this the boy was told he had to return to his mother – only to be foundto have fresh injuries the following week.

Even after numerous occasions when the son had expressed his desire to live with his father and explained fear of his mother, senior officials at social services said the injuries, which include scratches to the neck and back shown in photographs, were accidental. Since the custody battle began the Christchurch social worker has since left with David trying in vain to speak with her and having evidence that his attempts have been blocked, because he says, of what else she may reveal apart from her statement.

In an email between two senior social services officials, in reference to the former Christchurch social worker, one states to the other: “I remember you telling me that you weren’t prepared for “x” to meet with David”. As all emails were sent to the various departments and key players, David is concerned that the senior social services figures were able to wield considerable influence or “bully” other agencies or those further down the pecking order. He gave the example of when a member of the child care agency CAFCASS consulted with the social services figure - even though they are supposed to be separate bodies. And “influenced” by the senior figure, formed the same view that he was safe with the mother, despite the child care agency member not having investigated the situation herself. The collusion between departments and, in particular, influence exerted by social services is seen by David as a means of not losing face. “It is easier to continue forward the same approach of avoiding or hiding information, rather than to reverse a big error that has snowballed out of all control.”

The systematic attempts to discredit David by his wife and then social services can be traced back to shortly after the couple’s separation in 1997. With his partner making a series of false accusations, which included raping her and abusing his son, he says it served to “get him out the house, gain custody of the child and therefore acquire housing refuge from the state”. Yet when appearing in court she has denied making these allegations of domestic abuse, leading to accusations by her former husband of perjury. A variety of statements to police and social services reveal her accounts to be inconsistent – a fact confirmed by a police officer who was involved in the case.

On obtaining the social services documents, David belatedly discovered that his wife was suffering from two personality disorders, including paranoia, which was confirmed by two psychiatrists in 1996. Two psychiatrists at the time of the baby’s birth said she was suffering from post natal depression and “could not love the child” and also demonstrated psychotic behaviour, such as believing the baby to be dead. David, after later making the claim to social services that she may in fact be suffering from a more sadistic personality disorder, has since been shunned and even threatened with the police by Dorset County Council’s legal service if he contacts them again. They now simply put the phone down on him even if he is ringing to express a concern, he says.

He is angry that the personality disorders were kept from him at the time and that the damaging accusations she made, although retracted by her, and proved to be unfounded, have stayed on the social services file. They have even been read out in court. These are two areas where he would like to see reform, with a correction mechanism put in place on those wrongly tarnished, as well as important information not to be kept fromthose it affects.

Serious reservations have also been expressed over the judiciary and in particular a district judge who presided over the residency hearing for the child since the end of last year. Over one aspect in particular, David said the judge was guilty of a “complete fabrication”. The judge said that he had slapped his former wife, but not even social services or the mother of the child had claimed this – she merely said she was grabbed. And even though the judge had stated there was to be no new evidence that day, he received a piece of paper from the mother’s barrister before admitting he was wrong – and subsequently changed his view to her being grabbed instead. David wanted the transcripts of the case but was unable to afford the £3, 500 to see if the correction was noted. This event happened on the same day when the father attempted to hand the judge a letter from his son saying he wanted to live with his father, but this was declined, leaving the father feeling unfairly dealt with.

An expert in child psychiatry, who had carried out an assessment of the boy, told the court of his concern if he remained with his mother but this information was also dismissed.

According to fathers’ rights group, Mankind, evidence used in courts, which highlights the benefits of awarding custody to the mother is often flawed and unfairly balanced toward the female. Chairman for the South East region, Paul Randle-Jolliffe, explained why John Bowlby’s study on “Maternal Deprivation”,often used as evidence in court, is problematic: “The problem being that Bowlby's work was used politically to get women back into the home after World War Two and has been used by both the courts and other social agencies as a gender position despite other evidence and Bowlby's sample being unrepresentative of the majority of the population and erroneous in some areas.”

He added: “Many ordinary people suspect that things are wrong but they cannot put their finger on what is actually happening because they do not really know. Only when the juggernaut hits you like in (David’s) case - and with all the super dads you see on TV being just the tip of the ice berg - do you look deeper - or walk away from your children as many fathers for their own sanity do. Mothers are just as much the victim but even more so are our children. (David) is unusual in that he has proof of all he says, most of us do not! What you must realise is that there is a hidden agenda being promoted under the banner of equality and that it is global right into the UN.”

More here


(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)