Part 4 (continued from Part 3, 2th June  2010)

With a new Judge and a new Counsel for Child (CfC) I thought maybe…maybe now fairness and justice would improve but little did I know then that their inflated egos would not stand for a common man questioning a Judge or CfC’s integrity (or as I put it more bluntly later: ‘…. you are employed by us, work for us, are paid by us so get your act together’).

This 2.CfC ended up being Counsel for our daughter for over 5 years and wrote many reports yet in all that time he NEVER talked to me at all except during cross examination in Hearings and ones when he answered me back when I gave him an ‘earful’.

He of course interviewed the mother for each report and included her statements as if they were facts. And because his reports were even more biased than the previous CfC’s I had to also complain to the Court about him.

In his responses to my complaint he not just deceived the Judge with the untrue statement that I had supposedly assaulted the other party (he did the same with report writer) when I had already proven to the Court that this was not the case but he had also previously send a separate report to the Court with the same untrue statement BUT he hadn’t sent that report to me (so that I couldn’t respond to it…) which I of course only found out much later in Court.

But CfC’s response included an even more interesting statement that was nothing short of blackmailing,

I quote: “Mr.(Me)’s attitude and the way he treats his daughter and everyone who is involved in this case, gives rise to serious concerns as to whether he should have contact with his daughter in the future”. — unquote.

He also stated, I quote: “In his own words, I believe his deliberate deceptions and attitude jeopardises the welfare of his daughter, and he is guilty of child abuse”. — unquote.

This not just violates CfC’s practice notes, eg. 16.1/16.2: “The Court will need to make findings of fact. It is the role of the Court not of Counsel to make findings covering violence/assessment of risk/Counsel must not compromise for the sake of expediency, on issues where findings of fact must be made”, but also shows his desire for vengeance and his general vicious attitude towards me by saying I am ‘guilty of child abuse’ when there was no evidence whatsoever of me ever having treated my daughter badly as the Judgement from the following Hearing clearly proves (and contradicts CfC’s statement and therefore exposes HIS attitude).

In that Judgement the Judge stated, I quote: “There is no evidence before the Court to suggest that Mr.(Me) could not have contact with XXX” . “In his report Mr.(report writer) commented that from his observations between XXX (my daughter) and Mr.(Me) he saw nothing that gave him cause for concern”. —unquote.

Therefore CfC’s statements about “the way I treat my daughter” had no basis in facts what soever (and is therefore exposed as purely vicious yet it was sanctioned by the Judge) and leaves only “my attitude…and the way in which I treat everyone who is involved in this case” meaning: ‘complaints about him/the Judge/report writer’ as the reason given by him for “whether I should have contact with my daughter in the future”.

And because my complaints were all official, legal and my right by law and should have nothing to do with whether I should or should not have contact with my daughter, CfC had no basis for that statement either and therefore, as a logical conclusion, his statements are evidence of him being guilty of blackmailing.

Now the Judge who processed the complaint sanctioned all of this blackmailing.

But the ‘promise’ in the blackmailing of CfC (and the sanctioning of it by the Judge, meaning the Judge ‘was in on it’) about ‘whether I should have contact with my daughter in future’ was made a reality after an incident, when contact was suspended based on false allegations (supposed assault on other party) and despite me proving to the Court that the allegations were false the Judge a few days later in the consequent ‘15 minute Hearing’ said I had to wait for a proper Hearing…

Their NAZI strategy was working out: “f.ck the child, deal to the father, teach him who has the power and rules here.”

So by the time of my second complaint about CfC I had already waited one year for that Hearing and our daughter had not seen her father for all of that time (malicious mother syndrome…).

The Court had come up with all sorts of excuses why the Hearing could not happen yet: Busy Court, an updated report from the report writer was needed, Hearing had to wait until my complaint about CfC had been processed etc. (I tested them on that last reason given years later and the Court this time didn’t wait until the complaint about CfC was processed, so as a logical consequence on one of those occasion the Court violated their conduct).

It was 22 month until we finally had a Hearing and 2 years until our daughter got to see her father again and you know what, the Judge in his judgement after the Hearing stated he “could find no reason why I should not have contact….”, so there actually had been no reason to suspend contact in the first place…so that 22 month wait for a Hearing was ‘the Court putting their promise/blackmailing into reality: “Because of my attitude and the way I treat everybody who is involved in this case” (complaint about the Judge/CfC/Report writer) they would make sure I was not going to “have contact with my daughter in the future”.

But because the report writer had nothing bad to say about me in his (updated) 2.report and I didn’t play into the Court’s hands by getting myself a protection order or similar and the accusations of assault had been proven untrue the Court could not deny my daughter and me contact this time. But their plan of vengeance would continue. (See Part 5 of how they finally managed to put their plan into action).

So of course whoever allocates a Hearing (Court Coordinator) was told to ‘let me wait’ which is really ‘letting the child wait’ which is of course ‘psychological child abuse’.

BTW, in that same Hearing the Judge also violated his conduct by not even hearing a application for Section 70/71(allocation of cost because of repeated denied contact= making the Court aware of denied contact) despite that application having been send to the Court, tabled and presented to the Judge at that Hearing.

After hearing the other applications in front of him the Judge said that he would make a decision in the next week and then just walked out of the room before I could say anything.

It was clear that hearing my application would have put the other party into a bad light and that the Judge didn’t want that as his ruling in his following judgement clearly showed.

Despite not hearing my application for section 70/71 he still ruled on it (?!) and he referred to and ruled based only on one case of denied contact while the application was about 16 cases (and he could therefore downplay it all). He just ignored the rest as if they didn’t exist and because WE had no hearing about it his strategy clearly was: ‘Let’s blatantly disregard the Laws of the Court’…

More later.