[Solved] Child Abuse - CCTV- Parental Alienation -

Hi there

I'm so sorry you are having such a distressing time, I do hope that you can take some encouragement from the Dads that have been where you are now and have managed to turn things around... it's not easy, but we will do what we can to support you.

My advice is to try and put aside what others think, what your ex is doing, and concentrate on yourself and your children. Understandably, you are at a very low point, it's really important that you get enough sleep and eat properly, if you have no appetite, try eating a little and often, if you're struggling to sleep, try physical excercise... working up a sweat can help. If things get too much, have a word with your GP about something to help in the short term.

How far along are you with an application for a Child Arrangements Order? Is the contact you have at the moment court ordered, or agreed between you both? Are you still instructing a legal team, or Now going it alone?

I know it's hard to believe right now, but with the right actions, things will improve! You will need to summon all of your patience and resolve, when dealing with outside agencies, you must remain calm and reasonable at all times. This will pay off but it will take time... that's where the patience comes in.

Keep talking and we will do what we can to support you, have a read through some of the stories on here and you will see that your position isn't static, you can move things forward and we will try and help.

All the best

Thank you ! Its all so very strange. When I was arrested I refused to have a solicitor, in fact, being honest, I have seen my wife turn on others like this, and had seen it coming, although I do not think she, or I knew what she was about to initiate would lead to so much heartache.

Everyone I have spoken to has told me that my thoughts and words just do not makes sense. How can you say she is kind, caring, loving, an affectionate mother etc, and then list all of her failings which are in conflict with what you previously said.

I went to my GP and am taking antidepressants. I also had a mental health assessment which was glowing, but they, strangely I thought, sent me to a group for men who had suffered emotional and physical abuse. Up until a month a go I would have welcomed her back with open arms and blamed her for nothing. Even the police warned me that I was dealing with a dangerous person and I could have spent years in jail, but still I could not find fault with her.

Then I was directed too the following video, if its ok to post the link, and everything fell into place. I knew she was worried I was thinking of leaving but...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3an9crV9feM

Everything in court goes my way, but the social services and the professionals do not understand my internal conflict and perhaps think I am crazy.

But the video above shows, its not hard to understand why I have been unable to express whats going on, because everyone thinks she is an angel, but at home she was a jekel and hyde, wolf in sheep clothing psyco,.

We are well aware of what a narcissist is here... some of our other members have experienced very similar from their ex's, who've had a lifetime to hone their skills and learn how to keep their real natures hidden from others around them.

I strongly advise that you try and move away from thoughts of her and what she's done and is capable of.... let it go, otherwise it will continue to twist you up. She wants you to be wound up in her world and the worse thing you can do to her is to untangle yourself and walk away.

Right now you need clarity, concentrating your energy/focus on her will keep you anchored to her... let it go. We understand that you still have feelings for her, that doesn't just go away, but it will start to get better once you transfer you attention away from her and onto yourself and your children.

Don't waste time overthinking what others think of you, again, it will tie you up in knots... be content that things in court go your way and concentrate on being that person that can rise above the bad and do what is best for you and your kids.

I know for a fact that you can say that an ex is a good mother, and at the same time highlight issues and concerns... it's possible to do that as long as you choose your words wisely. The professionals are quite capable of understanding the human condition, what they want to see is someone that is dealing with it in the right way.

You are totally right. I actually only accepted that this is possible, that she could be, a week ago. I guess tougher, simply because she has a way of constantly striking blows. Each week she does something via a friend, family member, the courts that creates huge turmoil in my life. And I guess that's the point you make, while thinking about her I am not focused on the girls. Although without lingering on the point, I have read on no forums, not a single one, of the craziness she has directed at me day in day out, through others. And my huge concern is that she often uses my children to do so, sending messages via them etc.

Given my life situation how do I convince the court they are dealing with someone who is without a doubt dangerous and cares not for anyones needs.

How do I bring about a situation where, having lost everything, I can show that I am without doubt doing everything and will do everything to create a stable, caring, loving environment that will allow for full my girls to be with me the majority of the time ?

The problem is not what she does to me, but what she has done and will continue to do to them, and that really worries me. I have zero love left for her, but wish her no ill, but I know she is not capable of putting the girls first. How do I prove that I will?

It would be a good idea to keep a record of everything, yo then have a chronological record of all events involving your children.

Believe me, we have other members that have had their children used to pass messages, its wrong and you can comment on it during the court hearings.

You ask how you can convince the court they are dealing with someone who is dangerous... simply put you don't, as such. You rise above her antics and concentrate on putting a completely child focused case across, that is the way to show that you are doing what you can to provide a loving environment for your kids.

You have mentioned previously that she is a kind, caring, loving and affectionate mother, the issue is with the emotional damage she visits upon them... children are resilient and your children are young enough that a lot of what is happening goes over their heads. Concentrate on improving the quality of your contact with them and progressing the contact you have... it can be slow to achieve but it is achievable.

What is the situation with court, how far along are you with regard to any Child Arrangements application? This is the arena where you can concentrate your energies, learn about the system and how to work with it.

If your contact at the moment is court ordered, then you should ask the court to look again at a more defined interim order to specify that contact pick up is geared to the interests of the children, allowing her to choose the mode of pick up isn't in the children's best interests due to weather conditions and the time taken up in travelling to and from the car park... you must make these points, you are doing so because it's what's best for your kids, if she is acting contrary to that, which she is, you must show this to the court, making alternative, child friendly suggestions at the same time.

Without having any information about the legal side of your case, it's extremely difficult to advise you with strategies/actions to take practically.

The legal side seems strange. I think my previous legal team were failing. The judge - high court- seems fair, but I made the mistake of challenging social workers which was not a good move. My new legal team wants to challenge the veracity of their report, but its all very confused.

She was granted leave to go to australia for 2 weeks, yet I am told by the home office and us state department that the hague convention is worthless and that a case could be heard there exparte which could allow her to stay. So I wonder why the judge made the ruling, given she wanted to relocate only months ago?

She fights everything, but the judge goes with social worker, who recommended an increase from 1.5 hours up to 2 hours, and two days per week, and without prompting said it should be at home, but she makes if really difficult, because the drop off point was agreed before the judgment, and while she agreed to take them to the house via her solicitor, she then changed her mind.

She told so many lies, and half her family flew in from the other side of the world, so she will, never give up, its not within her. She told my brother the other day, that I was only allowed 2 hours because the court thought I was not stable for longer, this is after telling him she wanted me to have as much access as possible and would never stop me seeing the kids. That was christmas day, the first time she spoke with any of my family. So now she has said they can see the girls but not me. That was morning of next visitation, so of course there are lots of questions coming from those who support me, and now they will see her and my girls regularly, which is bitter sweet because she is very plausible and will no doubt tell them all sorts of stories.

Next court date is to review occupation order, review visitation and set final court date.

My new sol wants to challenge ss report that states ex should be allowed to travel, and suggested not signing passport applications, but that puts me in contempt of court. Is it likely that he will punish me for not signing passports and then punish me again during residency hearing? Its all so scary and confusing !

Forgive me but your new solicitors thinking seems flawed to me; if you felt that challenging the SWs was a bad move previously, why would you think that challenging their report would get you any further.

A report can be challenged on any errors, but it's very difficult to challenge their analysis, apart from a counter argument in a statement... it's also possible to cross examine the SW that made the report at the final hearing. Have you been asked to file a statement at all?

As far as your family are concerned, all you can do is to tell them the truth, hopefully they will understand, the fact that you are suffering should be enough for them to support you through this, perhaps you could let them know that they don't have to take sides, and it's ok for them to visit with your girls, at least there will be that connnection to the paternal side of their family, I believe that will reinforce that you are not the person she wants them to believe you are... Mr reasonable, not Mr unstable!

Did your barrister not challenge allowing her to leave the country in the middle of a case, or point out that she had recently wanted to relocate there permanently?

I thought that only one parents signature was required for a child's passport application... as for your solicitor suggesting you ignore the court order, that's seems a little unprofessional. Bear in mind that it's civil court and you would be unlikely to be punished, although if she returns it to court because you haven't acted, you may find you get wasted costs slapped on you. This is a difficult situation for you, if your barrister had challenged it in court and the judge decided to order it anyway, it would be hard to get it overturned without new evidence to suggest that she wouldn't return.

My last barrister and solicitor are the problem. It actually felt like the judge was waiting for them to do something and hers was biting her fingers to the bone. I did not see the full report, I did not have the opportunity to go through it. TMy legal team stated that the hague convention guarantees my childrens return which is false, and having written to gov depts in uk and usa, I can confirm same. The SW report, is the very item that would allow her to stay. Please see case below :

On Tuesday 9August 2016 the Court of Appeal (comprised of Macur LJ, Beatson LJ and Sales LJ) handed down judgment in the case of Re M (Children) [2016] EWCA Civ 942. The first instance judgment of Russell J was reported at DM v KM [2016] EWHC 1282 (Fam).

The mother had arrived in the UK for a holiday in January 2016 and wrongfully retained the parties' two children from February 2016. Proceedings were issued by the father in March 2016 for the return of the two children to New Jersey, USA from England.

In defence of the father’s application. The mother sought to rely on Article 13(b) of the 1980 Hague Convention. Article 13(b) states that a member state “is not bound to order the return of the child if the person, institution or other body which opposes it’s return establishes that there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.”

The leading authority on Article 13(b) defences is Re E (Children) (Abduction: Custody Appeal) [2011] UKSC 27:

“Where allegations of domestic abuse are made, the court should first ask whether, if true, there would be the grave risk as defined by Article 13b. If so, the court must then ask how the child can be protected against the risk. The appropriate protective measures and their efficacy will obviously vary from case to case and from country to country … Without such protective measures, the court may have no option but to do the best it can to resolve the disputed issues. ”

The mother sought to prove that there was a grave risk that an order for their return would expose the children to emotional harm and otherwise place them in an intolerable situation by virtue of the risk of exposure to serious domestic violence.

At the final hearing in May 2016 before Russell J, the mother alleged that she had been subjected to a number of serious and violent incidents of domestic abuse during the marriage. The mother accepted that she had not reported any of her allegations to the police. She did not produce, nor seek to adduce, any corroborative evidence, for example, a medical report, photographs or other witness statements. The father denied the allegations.

Despite denying the allegations, the father in order to ameliorate any perceived concerns offered a wealth of undertakings to the Court, supported by written evidence from a US attorney in respect of their enforceability, he agreed:

Not to prosecute the mother for the offence of child abduction;
Not to attend the airport of arrival;
Not to remove the children from the mother’s care;
To vacate his 3 bedroom property and allow for the mother and children to reside there;
To pay the rent and outgoings on the property;
To provide reasonable maintenance;
To pay for the children’s return flights in the event that the existing return flights cannot be revived;
To obtain a non-molestation order on a without prejudice basis; and
To commence proceedings before a competent court of the USA in respect of the children.
Notwithstanding the father’s offered undertakings Russell J dismissed the Father’s application. She concluded that a return would present a grave risk of emotional harm to the children. She found that the undertakings offered by the father amounted to “no more than vague and ephemeral assurances and do not amount to protective measures at all sufficient to meet the needs and circumstances of the children in this case.”

The father appealed and was successful. The Court of Appeal determined that the Judge had not conducted a proper evaluation of the protective measures.

The Court of Appeal reiterated the Re E test and the three step approach, namely (i) identify the risks, (ii) consider protective measures and (iii) in the absence of protective measures, the Court should do the best it can to resolve disputed issues. The Court of Appeal concluded that the Judge’s approach to the issue of protective measures was ‘wrong’, and inconsistent with Re E in that the Judge ‘merged the first and third step of the exercise upon which she should have embarked’.

The conclusion of the Judge at first instance was that the protective measures amounted to little more than ‘vague and ephemeral’ assurances. The measures proposed were developed with the assistance of a New Jersey attorney and were intended to be fully enforceable in that jurisdiction. It was argued on behalf of the Father that the conclusions made by the judge in respect of the protective measures were incompatible with the written evidence before the Court and based on a lack of evaluation.

It was further argued that the undertakings offered were not only adequate but went above and beyond what would ever be required by an English Court as a means of protecting a victim of alleged domestic abuse. The Judge at first instance not only found the enforceability of the undertakings doubtful despite evidence to the contrary she also doubted the effectiveness of the New Jersey police force as a first port of call if the mother found herself in fear of violence. The Court of Appeal, putting things very simply, found no basis to ‘legitimately doubt the efficacy of the USA courts or police force in enforcing protective measures’. The Court of Appeal feared that Russel J’s approach was ‘confused’.

Russell J devoted a great deal of her judgment to the CAFCASS report. The onus upon the Court was to look at and evaluate the effect of domestic abuse on the children, as opposed to the returning parent. The Court’s error was to accept the children’s views as evidence of domestic violence. This was neither the purpose nor the conclusion of the report and Russell J’s comments, were ‘not sufficiently careful to avoid the perception that she had reached adverse conclusions against the father and was sympathetic to the mother’s plight’.

The CAFCASS officer concluded that the children were not at grave risk of harm at the hands of their father and the final recommendation was that there should be contact, albeit supervised. The relevance of the report was questioned by the Court of Appeal who went further to say that the Court ‘was ill advised to interpret factual scenario’ from the report.

At its most simplistic evaluation, this case reinforces the need for proper and balanced evaluation of the issues and allegations in Article 13(b) cases. The summary nature of the assessment that should be conducted does not exclude the need for legal scrutiny of allegations. The strength in the father’s case lay in the weight and effectiveness of the protective measures.

This decision reiterates that it is not within the remit of English Courts to determine the ability of other 1980 Hague Convention signatories to protect potential victims of domestic abuse. Nor is it the English court’s responsibility to determine other signatories’ ability to adjudicate family proceedings. It reinforces the message that whilst Hague proceedings are not a fact finding exercise that the line between the two types of proceedings is dangerously thin, and occasionally blurred.

The Court of Appeal has in effect set the bar for future cases as to the strength of proposed protective measures. One criticism of Russell J was her failure to consider a conditional order for return upon the father’s performance of his offered undertaking, notably his offer to obtain injunctive orders and secure accommodation etc. This case relays the message that protective measures must be explored to the very fullest extent and early as possible in proceedings.

The Court of Appeal allowed the father’s appeal and ordered the return of the children to the state of New Jersey.

Marianna Michaelides of The International Family Law Group LLP, together with Hassan Khan, led by Christopher Hames QC acted for the successful Appellant.

http://www.iflg.uk.com/guidance/child-abduction-court-appeal-article-13b-defence

Whilst I appreciate the case law involved, this refers to UK/USA , where you are concerned with UK/AUS.

It is a complex area and I think you may benefit from talking to Reunite who specialise in child abduction cases. You will find their telephone helpline number here

www.reunite.org

Did the mother give any undertakings that she would return to the UK?

Ask I said before without knowing your case it's extremely difficult to give anything other than general advice.

All the best