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
back the 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's relationship 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 a frenzied 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 found to 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.”
The “web of
deceit” circulated by David’s former wife has also extended to members of
his family, who were initially taken in by some of her accusations. But like
the hammer wielding attacker, who saw her psychiatric reports while in
prison -and then revealed she was prone to “paranoid” and “hysterical”
behaviour– the relatives have now also realised they were duped. But others
have steadfastly refused to look at the documents, in particular her
psychiatric reports and statements of inconsistencies.
As a result of
backing her out of “blind loyalty”, David says that a local church leader
has not been interested in the facts and has even committed perjury, due to
a sworn statement where he said he had not had a meeting with David but had.
Accusations of
meddling have also been levelled at the church. Despite a court order
entitling the father to see his boy on a Saturday, the church stepped into
to look after the child for a week when his mother went on a holiday abroad,
leading to David lambasting the clergyman’s behaviour as “shameful”.
While the case
is now going to the court of appeal (at a cost of £15, 000), where there
have only ever been two cases reversed in favour of the father, David is
convinced in his belief of the need for reforms. He would like to see vital
information not being withheld from those it directly affects, such as his
then-wife’s personality disorders, as well as having false information
changed. After the attempted murder he believes the police were too quick to
hand over authority to social services and there needed to be a greater
involvement from them in such cases.
While he
believes the Children and Human Rights Act is acceptable he would like to
see judges retrained so they do not automatically give custody to the
mother.
Calls for
greater objectivity and less “obvious professional bias and protection” from
the judiciary towards social services is another key aim.
The secrecy of
the family court does not embody the notion of a “fair trial” in David’s
opinion, because of a lack of scrutiny where the judge can edit out parts of
the transcript.
Finally, he
would like there to be greater deterrence to perjury, with the judiciary
coming down harder on those who make false statements and are able to get
away with it.
