"Stories" NZ /Canada
The following accounts were forarded by Jim Baily of New Zealand's http://www.handsonequalparent.org.nz/
INTRO:
Below is what they are doing to good Canadian Fathers. And many other Fathers in several other countries-especially the USA. And so close to Fathers day too. Glenn is one of ours and is one of the emerging heroes in the struggle for our most basic of rights. And this is all happening in front of the very eyes of a disbelieving and apathetic public. And an indifferent media. I call it a 'creeping fascism. Glenn is one of 1,200 of us a year going to the new "debtors prison" in Ontario and the liberals in Ontario have promised to make it worse for us. Already they have changed the rules to sentence us to 6 months instead of 3 and have mobilized more resources to ensure we are punished for refusing to accept or allow their continuing oppression.
And the people going to jail in such numbers are just Dads. Just plain 'ol hockey Dads who loved and love their children so much and only wanted to be Dads and watch a bit of hockey. Instead they are being treated like criminals. I know how it feels I am fighting it right now. Imagine those of us who will be in jail this Fathers day too. I wish I was one of them. I might just as well be anyway. Every day is a prison for me now. And I am sure the food is not much better. And I am but one.
Glenn is my new hero. He is out of jail courtesy of his Mom and Dad. Not all of us can count on that support or be so lucky.
I myself faced 30 days in Ottawa jail last September. I prepared myself to go and would have gone too. I was quite ready and had packed my belongings and issued a list of things to so to friends in the event of incarceration. I even had my old watch on and had prepared my Will. I was prepared to die in there. I beat the rap but lost my house. Just like everything else I once owned and had. I still wish they had sent me to jail. It would have been a badge of honour to wear in this modern day fascist state called Canadian society. You know the one where the Conservatives are in charge but the liberals are still in control of the legal-police-justice system ?
Glenn showed tremendous courage in doing this and he went quietly and in acceptence of his fate at the hands of overwhelming, power and tyranny. I didn't even know he had gone to jail. But he refused to bow to the system. There are those who say that this is the only way to defy the 'authority' that oppresses and persecutes us. Indeed it is the way of Gandhi and Mandela. If anyone out there thinks that this cannot happen to you then think again.
I just wish we could know who exactly is in jail this weekend so we could visit and comfort one. And take him a pack of shaving blades or a chocolate or something. Or maybe share a joke or a tear.
Jeremy Swanson
From Glenn
Hi all,
I am out of jail after a week and would have stayed there for the full 30 days, however, not only did my parents in their 70's have to look after my two kids that I have shared custody of, they also somehow managed to come up with the $10,000. they wanted.
I do not no how they did it and have not had the strength to ask.
I have very mixed emotion about what they did as it is my oldest daughters grade 8 graduation next week and wouldn't want to miss that for anything and I know that my elderly parents, in the retirement years do not have the resources to take this kind of hit.
My time in jail provided alot of lessens, some that should not have been so surprising:
1. If a Crack dealer gets a 30 day sentence, he only serves 20 Days and they're back on the street, this is standard. Father serves his full 30 days. Even the guards could not believe this, nor the inmates.
2. 1/2 of the inmates that I was with came from homes without a father.
One of which
told me that it was him and his 2 sisters all of which have different fathers, he is 23 years old and still yearns to find out who his father is. He said that it has effected him horribly his whole life and shows me "love" and "hate" tattooed across his fingers.
3. There was 50 inmates in the "range" I was in. I could not help but wonder, with 80% of those inmates being under 30 years of age and 50% of them coming from fatherless homes, that's 20 out of the 50. How many of them may not have been in there, if over the past 30 years there were laws that encouraged an equal involvement of fathers in their lives. Maybe 10, thats a ratios of 1:5 and considering how many inmates the state is currently holding, at a cost of $200. a day.
Keeping in mind that most of them are in there for drug charges and it seemed that it was crack cocaine in most cases and they did seem to be showing the negative effective of the use of crack, their stories seemed genuine.
The 23 year old that I mentioned in #2 was in for possession of a small amount of marijuana. He certainly, although dropped out of school when he was sixteen, was an intelligent guy and definitely did not show the same jittery symptoms of the ones that were in there for crack. It was horrible to hear how not knowing who his father, and not having a father figure in his life had such a negative impact on his life. He did have an indication who his father might be and is going to try to locate him. His fear over the years has been the possible rejection.
When I left the I wished him the best of luck and truly hope all works out for him and that some of the hate and fear that he has felt for the past 23 years can be eased by connecting with his father.
I just thought I would share this with you all and when the family law is change and horrible stories like this are a thing of the past, it will all be worth it.
Good to be back for now,
Glenn
Toronto, Canada
`````````````````````````````````````
Story 6 - Re - ? - BOTHERED Story
Family Court destroys Father / Daughter relationship
We meet in 1984 and married the same year. Our daughter was born in 1990 and we separated in may 1995
During our marriage and because my wife wanted a career I resigned my position and we brought a business, which would enable myself to be able to spend more time with our daughter.
When we first separated we had shared custody off our daughter no problems not that I saw any, after months my wife took my daughter away accused me off sexual abuse and that my daughter would be in danger in my company if I was not supervised. The lawyer I had at the time said we would go along with what they want). I continued to see my daughter for the rest of the year including week at xmas always with supervisor of course.
Early 1996 I was served at work with exparte order accusing me of sexual abuse and violence This stopped me from seeing my daughter. After a few weeks we were able to get a hearing in the family court where I got 2 hours a fortnight in supervised facility which did not happen for over 8 weeks(because of the incompetence of my daughters lawyer C4C), as we are all aware that time away from daughter starts a breakdown in the father daughter relationship
A three-day hearing was held in July resulting in the continuation of supervised access supposed to be for six months. During the hearing the Judge was critical of the psychologists report, and stated in his Judgement that my daughter was at no risk from me.
Notes;
The psychologist had dealings with me before as I ran business close to her office and we did not like each other,
Because of the acrimonious relationship with my wife's lawyers and that we had caught my daughter’s lawyer lying about the supervised access (on two occasions) my chances of having fair hearing were zero.
We decided not to appeal the hearing, as it was only six months until a review and it would save money. But alas the system let me and my daughter down the review did not happen to after 12 months. I had no money to have a full hearing so my lawyer and I decided not to submit evidence at the review. Even the court appointed psychologist had recommended that I have normal access, Supervised access was again ordered.
Because of all the problems of no money, chid support etc, I. decided to leave and seek employment overseas. I returned home to NZ 1999. Because I had remarried I did not want the expenses of a full hearing and I was not going back to supervised access we went to mediation which resulted in normal access every second Sunday There were no problems of any sort until I refused to go back the same mediator, My daughter stopped coming in late august 2000, and we started proceedings in the family court, but I was arrested and charged assaulting and abusing my daughter. By time these charges got to the high court there were 9 charges of unlawful and attempted unlawful sexual connection with my daughter, I was found not guilty on all charges .As a result of the above I do not see my daughter and because of the costs of a hearing and chid support I have agreed to my wife’s new husband adopting my daughter.
The family Court did not fully investigate all the facts.
The appointed lawyer let my wife take my daughter and put her into a private church school without my consent.
The court appointed psychologist organized the family counsellor who helped bring the charges that were clearly false.
CYFS
My young unmarried sister became pregnant with the result that her little boy lives with my wife and I and we treat him as our son. CYPS will not let us adopt him because they say I am guilty of abusing my daughter and he would not be safe with me, You have got to laugh, he been living with us all his life, and they not done anything about itI hope this can help I am quite happy to appear in person if required and present all documents to back up what I have stated.
```````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Story 5 - Re - ? - BOTHERED Story
REF NS 1
This case is an example of the madness of family court. The mother is dishonest about new relationship being behind separation. She uses the Father’s hostility on discovery of the relationship to apply for protection order and stop father’s contact with the children So far the case has involved section 9 counselling (three times), 9 judicial conferences, 2 Mediation conferences and three full hearings. Legal costs to parties exceed $80,000. Court proceedings have made process lengthier and more convoluted at each step. Parties now totally estranged although the children now have equal shared care week-on week-off with parents.
My wife spoke to me in early February about wishing to end our marriage. We talked and planned an amicable separation with her leaving the family home. She denied there were any third parties involved even after a name was suggested to her. It has since been found that she had begun a new relationship several months earlier. We separated and the children stayed with Father. In late March Father was stressed from the new relationship being flouted in his face and with the animosity surrounding the break-up. He planned to leave town for a while and the children spent a weekend at their Mum’s new house. An argument occurred on transfer of the children about care of the children’s pets. Father went to leave, Mother restrained father from leaving, Father assaulted by Mother in front of children, Father proceeded directly to the Police station to report assault. No charges are laid but Mother takes a protection order out against Father . Children are included in Protection Order. Mother acknowledges in affidavit that this is only incident of violence in 20-year marriage.
Father foolishly consents to supervision of child contact and delay in hearing his defence against protection order. This is done for sake of children. Mother makes three complaints for breach of order over fathers telephone contact. District Court Judge makes non-association with children a condition of bail and ex-parte interim custody order given to Mother by Family Court . Father changes plea to guilty to have cases immediately heard and to re-establish contact with children.
Father makes another non-violent breach of order by alleged trespass onto Mothers new home. Father refuses bail because of non-association clause with children. Father held in Police custody awaiting trial for five weeks. Father please guilty and suspended sentence given.
Huge bitterness between Mother and Father has fermented during this process. Father’s anger has increased and he is incensed at interference in his parenting by the court.
Father fires his family court lawyer in favour of self-representation. Progress being made since then. Interim custody discharged and temporary shared custody established. Equal shared custody agreement finally confirmed . Protection order discharged 5 months later.
Father had a professional business. The business closed and failed totally shortly after separation. Father now has four convictions for breach of protection order not having appeared in any court prior to these events. Father and Mother now totally estranged and hostile towards each other. The Father now considers court system totally prejudiced and has lost respect for authority such as courts and Police.
The Children have been emotionally harmed by process and animosity generated. Mother acknowledges spending over $20,000 on legal expenses; Father has spent in excess of $30,000 Lawyer for child (three different L4C in this case) have claimed over $30,000 of taxpayers money as well.
``````````````````````````````````````````
Story 4 - Re - Hamilton - BOTHERED Story
“Initiate a full enquiry into the Family Court system” Petition
I am seriously BOTHERED!
My name is Wayne, and as you may be aware, I am walking to Wellington to present a petition to parliament seeking a full enquiry into the Family Court system. First, consider why 'any father' would undertake such a feat.
I cannot speak for any other “disgruntled father”, a name inappropriately given to shattered dads fighting for their children, but I can speak on behalf of my son and I about his interests and the life that I built for him and which has been stolen away.
It was a Monday late in February 2004. I received a letter from the Golden Key International Honours Society inviting me to become a member, based on my A+ average achievement in my first year at university. My partner seemed to be very proud of me and told me that she loved me. Our 8 month old son had undergone heart surgery less than four weeks earlier, and the successful operation, his fast recovery, my invitation to the Honours Society, a beautiful partner who I believed loved me and even the awesome weather at the time left me feeling euphoric. It was the happiest I have ever felt.
The very next day my partner arrived home from the salon that she “doesn’t work at in any capacity”, and told me that she was considering going away for the weekend with a male client. She asked me how I felt about her going away with this man. I didn’t know what to say apart from asking her to make sure he knows that we are in a committed relationship with a baby boy, to ensure that his intentions were honourable, and for her to agree that she will not take our son along. The euphoria I felt the previous day was replaced with hurt and confusion. I was shattered! Over the next few hours my partner used a form of psychological abuse to bait me into an argument, and soon I made a stand. I asked her stop treating me like a slave, and reminded her that I have got feelings, and that we have a young child to consider. She picked up my son and started walking around the house with him, not allowing him to see me. She told me that she hated me. I reminded her about what she said the previous day. She laughed and said she was pretending, and that she had never loved me, or even liked me. We had met on 18 February 3 years earlier, and I quickly realised that the timing was perfect for her to leave me and make a claim on my home, and return to her comfortable life receiving the DPB while working part time at the salon that she “doesn’t work at in any capacity”. She left her husband days after getting her citizenship, so I was extremely worried.
The next day I found a lawyer and initiated Family Court proceedings. I was terrified that my partner would leave and take my son at a very serious stage of his development and heart operation recovery. I applied to the Family Court in good faith, and believed that the applications and orders where for emergency only, because at that stage I was still in love and didn’t my family to break up.
On the Thursday of that week, the mother simply made a false complaint to the police, saying that I had ‘physically abused her’, and even though the officers accepted that the complaint was false, that the mother’s erratic and hysterical behaviour could be post natal depression, and that it was me, my son’s primary caregiver, who packed everything for my son, including medications, clothing, toys etc, they escorted her away to a woman’s refuge (refuge from what?). The police would not allow me to comfort my screaming son, who had been taken out to car in the street, and also wouldn't allow me to say goodbye to my son. It was clear that as a man, I was a second rate person, and the relationship I had with my son had no value in the eyes of the police. My son and I had virtually never been apart for the past four months, while the mother was working part time, had way less contact with our son, and never even called him by his name, instead always refering to him as 'the baby'. But because I was a man, the police simply didn’t believe me, and left me in a crying heap on the floor.
I didn’t see my son again for 3 weeks, and only after a conference during which an access agreement was made. But the mother ignored this agreement.
It is now 2 ½ years later, and I am still waiting for a custody hearing. The mother’s team of 2 lawyers and 2 barristers have constantly used lies and dirty tactics to destroy me; the mother has constantly used control and alienation to attempt to destroy the relationship between my son and I. The mother has breached court orders four times, yet the judges haven’t even blinked. I breached a court order once, but a judge signed a Warrant to Uplift the day before I even breached the court order!
None of my family members have ever been interviewed by any one associated to the court, and neither have any of the hospital nurses, doctors or Plunket nurses who had regular contact with my son and I before my partner took my son away.
A Consent Agreement made during a judicial conference was altered before the Court Order was posted out (I have a ‘draft’ copy proving this); the psychologist’s list of documents attached to the back of her report does not include my most important affidavits, which I filed in the Family Court not once, but TWICE!; the mother’s lawyer has obstructed justice by getting the mother to sign an affidavit including information she knew nothing about, and latter amended it; the mother’s lawyer also lied to the police, telling them that I swore at the judge (registrars agree that I didn’t); the mother admitted in court that most of the statements in a sworn affidavit were lies, yet the judge said in her decision that I ‘failed to discredit’ the mother, and allowed her to take my son to a communist country outside the Hague Convention. At the commencement of a Stay of Execution Hearing, a Barrister (who has recently been appointed as a judge!) slid his submission along the desk towards me in front of the judge. The jusdge thanked him for his submission, commenting on how well it was put together, and then said "I trust Mr Pruden has read it". He said "no, I've just given it to him now". The judge looked at her watch and said that due to time constraints, we'll have to proceed with the hearing anyway. This is still just the tip of the iceberg!
Most importantly; the mother swore in her very first affidavit that we both cared for our son equally full time, she had no concern for my care of our son, and that she didn’t know who the better parent was. Since I was not working part time before separation and was at my son’s side 24/7; hadn’t committed immigration fraud; married a paedophile to get citizenship; left a vulnerable young girl in the care of a paedophile who was later imprisoned for allegedly abusing the girl; and have never been found to have lied in court or legal documents; then it would stand to reason that I am a better parent and influence on my son, who is always excited to se me, but often cries and clings to me when he sees his mother. This of course will slowly change as the alienation takes hold, which the courts are also ignoring.
Why have my son and I waited 2 ½ years for a hearing!
My patience has officially expired. It infuriates when I read speeches and articles by supposedly learned professionals who support the misguided notions that children don’t need fathers and that there is no bias in the family court. It will not be until there own children are stolen away by this evil secret society, that they will finally see sense and support our calls for change.
This is why I am walking to Wellington!
Notes from JimBWarrior,
Wayne has almost finished his book about the Family Court and hopes to finish the final chapter after his presentation to Parliament and to release the BOOK on FATHERS Day at the "FATHERS Day' Picnic on Parliament grounds.
Soon there will be a link to the petition for you to read - Copy - Sign and Post to Wayne - The link will also give a progress report as he walks to parliament. Please join him for a mile or 2 if you can and sign his petition while he is walking - maybe offer a drink - a snack - a comfortable bed, to rest his weary bones.
``````````````````````````
Story 3 - Re - North Shore City - BOTHERED Story
Bury my heart in the Family Court:
I left my violent second husband March 2004, he had previously been convicted of assaulting me, and he had also been having an affair for? 4 or 5 months with a work colleague of his. He had also been abusive to my older children, both physical and verbally.
We did a separation agreement, organised a financial settlement, I bought a new house as we agreed that because I wanted a house with a garden I would move.
Everything went well until March 2005, with alternate long weekends, I had a new partner by that time, on a weekend away in March 04 in the Bay of Islands, my son, age 3, jumped into a river at an animal farm and was fished out quickly without any serious consequences.
On return home I phoned the local swimming pool, my ex was aware that his name was on the waiting list at that pool; I was very pleased to find out that there was a vacancy for swimming lessons and booked him in. I telephoned my ex with 5 days notice and discussed about the lessons, I said, I did not mind who took him, I was flexible, so long as he learnt to swim. The next thing I knew I got an enforcement of access order and that is when the nightmare started. We had a hearing about that and nothing was resolved.
By the end of June 05, I was at breaking point, my business partner said she could not work with me because of all the stress from my ex, my emails were tampered with, he had contacted my sick Mother in the U.K., who had had a heart attack, my first husband, old friends, my new partner had been stopped and harassed on several occasions, ( my new partner then left me, saying my life was too stressful ) My brothers wife had died suddenly and unexpectedly, also one of my closest friends (it turned out they both had brain haemorrhages ! ) my Mum had another heart attack and I had a serious problem at work that was probably my fault due to an error of judgement.
I took an overdose, not to die but to put me to sleep for a long time, my children found me, phoned for an ambulance, and I was admitted to the local mental health unit for 5 days for my own safety.
I had barely been home when I was served with an interim custody order without notice; my ex had filed at the court without my knowledge saying I was mad. I then learnt that I not only had to fight depression but fight to get my son back.
After several months of supervised access, that was changed to unsupervised, then to 50/50 care at mediation. In September 05.
There were then months of stress, hand overs were full of harassment, abuse, both physical and verbal, I asked for a protection order that was refused on defence in December 05. The Judge ruled that he was allowed to stand in my street so long as he did not knock the door; I fail to see the difference between the stress levels of the two scenarios.
My older children were stressed out and fighting with each other. I was so depressed.
In October 05 I had surgery to repair my right ankle, (it was severely Arthritic as a result of a serious fall 15 years earlier) I felt better in my self and thought this would be a good thing to do before I returned to work.
I developed Complex Regional Pain Syndrome, (which means that the nerves to my ankle have been damaged during the surgery, it now looks as if it may be permanent damage, ACC have accepted my claim as an injury as a result of treatment) The pain is so intense, it is constant and so debilitating, I can barely function as normal with limited walking and driving ability, the evenings are the worst, when I am tired.
I have had every treatment going, some have increased my depression, some have affected my daily functioning ability, and I am now waiting to see a Neurologist.
On 14th March 06, I was so unwell, I took a new medication, for pain, which was a heart drug, which inter-reacted with my anti-depressants and the glass of wine I drank (yes, I know stupid move, but I was so unwell) I was admitted to Hospital, he obtained details of my admission ( I don’t know how ).
Again he filed for an Interim custody order without notice, for the second time, I am now forced to do supervised access again, but this time at Barnardo’s, he will not allow my adult children to be supervisors or a Nanny or any other supervised access provider. Apparently he has all the say, as he is now the day to day carer.
I defended this Order but because I got so upset in the Court, the hearing was stopped and the Judge ruled against me.
I have analysed my Lawyers and realised that the service had changed once I altered to Legal Aid, there service is poor and advice inaccurate and unsupportive.
I realised that I could not walk away from my son, so I have now decided to represent myself, no one told me I could do that or tell me how to function in a Court environment, I had to find out the hard way that you are not allowed to cry or they think you are mad.
My older children 23, 20, and 16 are devastated by the loss of their little brother, they are allowed no contact with him at all, my ex will not allow it, they have been an integral part of my little ones life until now, we have applied for leave to apply for a contact order, but that will take months if at all.
I have written to Helen Clark, The Minister and The Ministry for Justice, my M.P. Murray McCullay, The Privacy Commission ( he did obtain my medical records without permission ) Peter Boshier, The Midwifery Council ( we are both Midwives ) and Simon Maude at The Law Society no one will help or stop this state funded child abuse.
The Supervised access is for me only, twice a week, I have to drive to Mangere, even though I can barely walk in order to see my son, my older children dearly wish to come with me but are not allowed, they are so distraught by all this.
I have to sit and be “supervised” with my own child as though I am a sex offender or violent. I am not allowed to be alone with my little one or take him to the toilet!
If this is fair and just then I am living on Mars.
I support my older children as best as I can through this, they feel that they are being punished, but the stress of having my son removed from me because of his the lies my ex filed at the Family Court, my injured foot, my depression, my mother is about to die and being unable to work at present is unbearable.
The Men’s support group have welcomed me even though I am not a man, their fight is with the dysfunctional system of the Family Court that ruins families...
I proved that his allegations were false with three different items of medical evidence, if you cry at the Family Court they just decide that you are mad !
Apparently Judicial Mediation is the next thing to look forward to.
I don’t know how much more I can take……………………….
From a desperate mother who has been “thrust to the wolves” of the Family Court.
`````````````````````````````````
Story 2 - Re - Manukau City- BOTHERED Story
Since my split with my ex, I had wanted a 50-50 time with the kids. I also organised for her to have access with the kids even when she actually had no access during the protection order.
Before I went into court, I had suggested that a 50-50 spilt arrangement for shared custody be in place. A week on and week off arrangement seems the most appropriate situation. However my ex rejected that because se had nothing to lose by going to court. She had either the present arrangement or at worse a 50-50 arrangement.
She came out on top with all that she wanted and more. The judge however didn't see it that way, and rules for the mother, He turned my interim dad to day care custody around and ordered my girls to stay with their mother for the week and I have 3 of 4 weekends.
This is quite unsatisfactory because I was coaching my girls for their school work and o had been sending them to school for the past year. Now that she is with the girls, I am only concern that they will not be able to perform their best at school without coaching.
How can a judge turn our lives around overnight? Fe should not have the right knowing that he gave me day to day custody due to the fact that their mum was a violent person towards me. Even though she is not violent towards the girls, he should at least ordered a 50-50 arrangement.
This is another gender biased case.
Leon Tang E Security Ltd
P.O. Box 86-087Mangere East
Auckland
mob (021) 635 800
tel/fax (09) 278 1919
Email: esec@esecurity.co.nz
Web: www.esecurity.co.nz
````````````````````````````````````
The Craig and Louise Martin Story
13 days of torture and torment by CYFS that led to baby Patricks death
Most of what is contained herein will be able to be supported by documentary evidence and there may be references to this documentation. Some of the events I will relate have no supporting evidence never less they are truthful, to the best of my recollection and supported by common sense and logic
We have a wealth of evidence to prove wrongdoing; in fact we have enough evidence to at least show that there are grounds for up to 13 criminal offences to have been committed by the department, by the caregiver and by the police.
Patrick was born on the 12th of January 2002. Louise had some difficulty with feeding Patrick and like a lot of first time parents we experienced difficulties that were unexpected. Patrick ended up having a bout of gastro enteritis and spending a week in starship hospital. Because of these issues Louise ended up somewhat stressed and eventually in a state of postnatal depression. It became clear to us both that we needed some support, we needed some sort of help. We had learned at our antenatal class how to identify the signs of possible postnatal depression. We had learnt that 1 in 3 women who have given birth end up with some form of stress and that 1 in 10 end up with depression.
Having identified the signs, unfortunately our circumstances didn’t allow us to reach out to our family for help. This didn’t mean that we weren’t capable parents and because of our lack of family help we went to the organizations that are there to help us. We were put in contact with the maternal mental health group, the support being given by them turning out to be nothing short of hopeless. The level of communication that Louise received about what she could do to help, herself with the depression and the stress was absolutely disastrous.
The woman that we ended up with for support, Sharon Milgrew had personal issues, specifically with me, whether it was personality conflict or what ever it was she basically ended up treating us as if we were a burden. She did not carry out her legitimate duty of helping, supporting and providing care for a woman in need. Louise exercised her right after a period of time of being treated by Sharon Milgrew, requesting under the health code of rights a change of caregiver.
The response of this woman was petulant. She stormed out of the room and left a message on our answer phone to say no one is available to treat you for several weeks. Basically, all support Louise was supposed to be getting was dropped. This woman took it personally that we weren’t satisfied with the level of care.
A couple of days after this on 3rd May, Louise had an incident with Patrick. A minor incident. Patrick was having difficulty feeding. Louise gave him a minor shake and ended up hugging him for the next half an hour because she felt guilty about it. At no stage did we ever deny that there was anything going on in the house that didn’t need some kind of support. Possibly our parenting skills needed help. The incident was so minor that when I got home from work, Patrick was happily playing in his bedroom. The level of shake that Patrick received had no malice behind it, no intent behind it, and was not a deliberate act to harm him.
The incident was so minor it was less than what a trained respite worker would do to get Patrick’s wind up, it was less than what he would do when he was playing in his bouncenette. Because there was no intent or malice behind it, we did what we thought was the right thing. We contacted the Maternal Mental Health people again and asked them to do what they were supposed to be doing for Louise when we first approached them in February, treat my wife and help her, and that she had given Patrick a shake. I mentioned it, the reason being to highlight the level of stress that she was under and to emphasize the lack of support and care she was getting.
They then turned around and informed CYFS, which they are apparently legally required to do so. Waitemata Health admitted that the level of care could have been better but they didn’t have the resources to provide that care while Louise went through this difficult period. Waitemata Health suggested that CYFS would be able to provide assistance. We were assured that CYFS did not just take children. They only take children that are at risk, that are being abused, that are being neglected. Other than that they provide services within the community that support people that need that extra little bit of help
I was reassured that that is what they would do for us. By 8th May, medical professionals that had been involved with our care got together and met with Lorraine Sheffield and Michelle Boyd of CYFS to discuss our case. During that meeting, information was passed across to them that we can prove was falsified and manipulated by CYFS in their report of that meeting. We can prove that through common sense and logic again and supporting evidence that we have gained form Waitemata DHB who had gone back to their staff and said did you ever say this. The staff said no or that’s been misreported or that’s been taken out of context. Combine that with the other information in this report by CYFS, we can show that there was a deliberate act by CYFS to paint a false picture of what was happening in our home.
At the end of that meeting, the medical professionals that had an intimate knowledge of our past, were led to believe by CYFS that an agreement had been reached that the Maternal Mental Health services would cooperate with CYFS to give Louise the correct treatment that she needed and Patrick would stay in the home because it was a low risk situation. Waitemata DHB said that it was a low risk situation and they have records to show it was a low risk situation. CYFS told Waitemata DHB directly that Patrick would stay in his home and Louise would get the support and help she needed. That is the impression that Waitemata DHB walked away with. Documents that Waitemata DHB recorded after the meeting clearly showed that they believed that Patrick was going to stay in the home.
After that meeting, two CYFS social welfare workers came to our home but we were not there so they left their card. The next day on 9th May, an arrangement was made to meet the social workers at our home at 11 o’clock. At this meeting, the behavior of the social workers could only be described as very strange. Unlike what you’d expect of social workers if they had any concern about the safety of the child. When they came into the house they sat on the couch. They didn’t ask to see Patrick, ask about his living conditions and had no interest in him whatsoever.
You’d expect that if they had any concern for Patrick’s safety they would have wanted to see him immediately. One of the social workers sat and listened while the other one took notes. I would be the first to admit I was somewhat excited when I started retelling the story of how Louise had been treated by the Maternal Mental Health Service, how we had been mistreated by the CAT team on several occasions and that now Louise was severely depressed.
Involvement of the CAT team and the Maternal Mental Health was entirely because of the post-natal depression. I was telling this story to Michelle Boyd and Mark Postow and I was upset because of the way that my wife and my family had been treated or rather the lack of treatment that they had been receiving. I was extremely concerned for their wellbeing and this probably came through in the tone of my language when telling them how frustrated that I was about the lack of care and service.
During the whole of this time they never asked to see Patrick or his living conditions at all. Louise said,”Well you’re here about Patrick and do you want to see Patrick” and the response was, quote: “If you want.” Unquote. Patrick came out and we sat him between the two social workers. Patrick was sitting on the couch he would look at me and giggle, which he often did at other times because of the close bond between us. Mark P just glanced at him and Michelle Boyd, for some reason, reached over and lifted his elbow up and went back to scribbling her notes and completely ignored Patrick.
All they ever wrote in their notes that day having seen Patrick was, quote: “baby sighted.” Unquote. They never saw his room, they never saw his living conditions, and they never asked how we cared for him. They focused purely on the incident of 3rd May. And they asked loaded questions. Mark Postow demonstrated how he thought the shake might have happened. He never actually asked Louise for a demonstration. He demonstrated and then Michelle Boyd wrote down the notes. All this behavior seemed a little bit strange to me but I accepted that this is what they were supposed to do and that they were here to help us. It got to the point that Louise and I were so much at ease with what they were offering and how they were going to support us that they said, quote: “no, no, no, there is no need to take Patrick. We will institute community support for you.
Get you to sign a contract and we will do everything we can to help you.” They actually promised that to us.
They suggested that Louise had Patrick go to Starship hospital just as a precaution to check out that there is nothing wrong with him. We knew that there was nothing wrong with him but we were happy to do what they suggested. Mark Postow and Michelle Boyd took Louise to Starship hospital. Patrick was checked out at Starship hospital and everything was fine. All of Patrick’s records show that not only was he a healthy and happy little boy, he was ahead of development for his age. If Patrick had been neglected or abused in any way there would have been a physical or an emotional reaction to it. However at Starship hospital nothing was found.
The fact that Patrick was ahead of his development shows that’s how much we took care of him, how much we loved him. All the information showed that everything was fine. The information from the Waitemata DHB had said they he should stay in his home, the medical information from Starship hospital had shown that there was nothing at all wrong with Patrick. The information that we had provided about Patrick showed that he was at no risk and I was, at that stage, considered an adequate protector. CYFS actually record that in their notes.
Before leaving Starship hospital, Mark Postow sat with Louise in a room, without the presence of Michelle Boyd, and said that; “we’d like to put Patrick under a temporary care agreement”. Louise asked, “what is a temporary care agreement?” Mark Postow replied that it is an agreement between the caregiver - the parents - and CYFS to take the child into temporary care and protection for a period of 28 days. Louise neither agreed nor disagreed. All she said was that “I’ll have to talk to Craig about it.” Louise cried all the way home, very quietly, but when Michelle and Mark could hear her, Mark P turned up the car stereo. This made Louise feel worse so she cried a little harder and Mark turned up the stereo again. When Louise arrived home she walked inside to me where I was busy in the kitchen.
I asked Louise what’s the matter and she didn’t know how to answer. Mark P walked in behind and called out and the first thing that he said was, not “Craig we need to talk, we would like to enter into a temporary care agreement.” The first thing that he said was, quote: “Bad news Craig, we’re taking Patrick.” Unquote. Mark never mentioned the temporary agreement to me at any time.
My immediate reaction was “over my dead body.” Louise took Patrick down the other end of the house. I basically told these people to fuck off. They asked me could I guarantee Patrick’s safety. I said that I could guarantee his safety and he is perfectly safe in this house and will remain safe in this house. You people were supposed to help us, not rip our family apart. They said “so long as we have a guarantee about Patrick’s safety, then that is fine.” They went away and then later that night they came back with six policemen to serve a place of safety warrant on us. It was extremely truamatic and nothing less than a home invasion, the police were not willing to listen to us. I was barricaded in the kitchen while a policewoman took Patrick from Louise’s arms. Patrick was asleep in Louise’s arms and she had intended to check that the car seat in the social worker’s car was suitable for Patrick and if it was not so she was going to give them Patrick’s car seat. But she was cornered in the hall and the policewoman removed Patrick from her arms.
After Patrick was taken, I had a migraine so severe that I was taken to North Shore hospital. The staff thought that because of the severity of my condition that I had a bleed inside the brain and took x-ray’s to establish that this was not the case. Next day, in a traumatize distressed and excited state; I made a comment that anybody hurts my wife and my child, somebody is going to die. That amazingly ended up in my records and everything that they have used against me happened after the fact that Patrick was taken. My normal natural human reactions they’ve used against me.
Now this is the way that the mental health act works and this is part of the problem. Natural human behaviors and reactions to certain situations that have been considered natural human behavior and reaction since the beginning of time are now labeled as mental disorders. What they didn’t say was that if they hadn’t taken Patrick I wouldn’t have these reactions in the first place.
The night that they took Patrick we rang the CYFS office and informed CYFS of baby formula that Patrick needs because of his feeding difficulties.
Louise went to see Patrick the next day and CYFS put another note in their file to say that the baby was uncomfortable around Louise without including the facts. Patrick became distressed when he saw his mother because he was given his bottle by a social worker to be fed. It was too hot. They ended up giving him a hot bottle that would have burned his throat with the wrong formula in it. Louise said “I’m not going to feed him this, it will burn his throat.” So the social worker went away to cool it down. Patrick had seen the bottle and thought that he was going to get fed. When he didn’t get fed, he became upset. Patrick had been taken the night before and Louise was under stress. It’s a well known fact that babies can sense the stress of the parents and he would have reacted to that stress.
Louise asked the caregiver what type of formula she had used but she was unable to answer and they had the incorrect teat on the bottle. It was a size suitable for a one-year-old, not for a baby five months old. . CYFS also turned up one hour after they told Louise that she would be able to see Patrick. Louise had been waiting and became very angry and agitated. The car seat that they were using for Patrick was also not the appropriate seat for a child of his age
When I was released from hospital, Louise and I engaged a lawyer. Pamela Williamson of Davies Law. It became very clear within a very short period of time that she was on the side of CYFS. She didn’t represent us properly at all. She asked us to write affidavit that was basically conciliatory towards CYFS and to admit to have done things that we hadn’t done. Another person advised us, that when we do the affidavit to tell the truth, so we re-submitted our affidavit to Pamela Williamson. She said that she wasn’t prepared to represent us anymore. As she didn’t wish to follow our instructions we were happy to change to another lawyer.
We engaged another lawyer and were prepared to fight to get Patrick back with no strings attached. We wanted CYFS out of our lives and to leave us alone. The day after we employed him, I called the bank to get a bank loan because we had been told that the cost would be in the region of $10,000 over the next 6 months. The reason for borrowing this money is because this lawyer did not take on legal aid cases. The day after we employed this lawyer, we had a visit from 4 policemen; a social worker and two people from the mental health organization who had been informed before we had that Patrick had died. They turned up at 4 o’clock in the afternoon on the 22nd May and said that he’d died. The distress that we have suffered is beyond any description, beyond any words.
In the period of time that CYFS had had Patrick they had never informed us of how he was being cared for, never told us about anything what was going on with him. Through the employment of a private investigator and the use of the official information act we have since been able to find out what happened to Patrick.
Having looked at all the information looked at all the disparities in that information it appears as though we were set up to have Patrick taken from us from the very beginning. Having seen the falsified information, having gone back to talk to the people from Waitemata DHB, having noticed the contradictions, compared notes, it appears that all they were concerned with was to remove Patrick.
Since Patrick’s death we have gathered so much information that we can show that they manipulated and falsified evidence and how they managed to get a place of safety warrant based on the information that they had is beyond me. The place of safety warrant was not obtained from a judge but a normal everyday citizen who just happens to be a JP.The place of safety warrant claimed that there was a child in our house at risk of, or was being abused emotionally, physically or mentally – they had no evidence of that. Social workers walked into court and sued for custody Exparte. The affidavits of the two social workers were acts of perjury. We can prove beyond any doubt that they have perjured themselves.
We have been to our MP and parliamentarians from other parties. None of them have showed any interest in helping us. I managed to speak for a couple of minutes with Helen Clark in Tauranga. I asked her how it is possible for an organization to take children without cause and allow them to die and then turn their backs on us. We have written to the CEO of CYFS who has not asked to see any of our information. They basically came back to us and said that CYFS have done nothing wrong. We wrote to the Prime Minister and she wrote back to us supporting the CEO of CYFS. We wrote back to Helen Clark and said how is it possible for you to support the CEO of CYFS when you haven’t heard our side of the story, or sat down for five minutes and thought about how is it possible that a child taken from a place of safety and placed in another situation that was supposed to be better than we could provide ends up dead thirteen days later. Helen Clark has basically told us to go away.
In a copy of the caregiver’s statement she refers to the fact that Patrick was constantly crying. He went from being a happy little boy to this baby who constantly cried and grizzled. Imagine what was happening to this child, who loses the only things in his life that at an instinctual level make him feel happy and secure. His mother, his father, his environment and his routine. CYFS did not even put together a care plan, which they are required by law to do immediately.
Patrick was 70 grams lighter from the day he was taken on the 9th of May to the day of his autopsy on the 22nd of May. Factor in his growth rate that he should have been achieving, then Patrick effectively lost half a kilo in weight. Any pediatrician or nutritionist will tell you that if an infant doesn’t grow at all within a few days, then there’s something seriously wrong. Patrick did not gain over 400 grams that he should have. CYFS were feeding Patrick the wrong formula base (Even though they had been told the night he was removed) and never changed that formula base when we told them. We only found out on the 16th May that they were feeding him the wrong formula so we informed them of the correct formula that he should have been on, and they did nothing to change it. They couldn’t even get his basic feeding arrangements right.
The caregiver has lied to the police in her statement. She told police that she had six children in her care at the time of Patrick’s death. We now know through information we have received that she had 12 children in her care. There is no way in the world that she could have provided the emotional and physical support that Patrick would have needed. She openly admits to acts of neglect and abandonment in the police statement and nothing had been done about that.
Patrick’s death has been put down as a cot death. If that were the case, then he would have been one of the first babies that was crying when he died.
According to the Caregiver’s statement she came home at five past 12, went in and saw Patrick. Patrick was crying at 12:30. She went out and made Patrick a bottle and he was still crying a couple of minutes later. She then went back to Patrick’s bedroom with the bottle and found that he was dead. Why was she unable to revive him?
The pathology showed that there was no reason, such as failure of an organ, a blood clot etc., so he simply just stopped breathing. This means that if she turned up a couple of minutes after he stopped breathing as she has stated, it should have been fairly easy to revive him. She couldn’t revive him! There is evidence that he was moved after his death. He was rolled over onto his stomach to suggest that he had suffocated. There is no evidence of asphyxiation.
The caregiver called an ambulance a few minutes after finding Patrick dead and she claimed she carried out CPR. One of the ambulance officers noticed that there was some strange blood pooling on Patrick. Down the front was completely pale and down the sides it was red. According to our information and our knowledge, for that blood pooling to happen, Patrick must have been moved after he died. It must be surely grounds for re-investigation.
What we have concluded has happened is that the caregiver has gone out and Patrick has been left alone. Because of the trauma and stress that Patrick had been through, he has had a reaction, had stopped breathing and nobody has been around to help him. The caregiver came home, found Patrick dead and has made up her story to cover what has happened
We have been to the police and made our concerns known. We have pointed out to them the anomalies in the caregiver’s statement and that surely these anomalies and our concerns should warrant a re-interview. The police have shown no interest.
How CYFS managed to get a place of safety warrant, we can only assume two things. One is that they don’t need any evidence to get a warrant. If it is incumbent on the police to show just cause when they seek a warrant how is it possible that CYFS can gain a warrant? Or is it that CYFS can go and get a warrant and, in effect, act as if they’re above and beyond the law,
If CYFS do have to show just cause, then considering all the information that has been provided to them, the only way they could have possibly provided information that allowed them to get a place of safety warrant was to falsify the information. We have the proof that they have carried out two acts of perjury in the Family Court to support their claim for custody.
Proof that they failed to provide the necessities of life, which is a criminal offence. We can prove acts of negligence and abandonment on behalf of the caregiver. Proof of negligence on behalf of CYFS not ensuring Patrick’s safety. Patrick was the only baby in the house that was not in a safety sleep. The caregiver has said that in her statement.
Patrick was happy, healthy, safe and nurtured in this home. He was taken from his home and placed in a position of risk, specifically emotionally and by doing so they did it by force and this is assault.
Given that they gained the place of safety warrant by deception then that makes it null and void. They have gained entry to our home under false pretences. They took somebody out of this house against their will and without the legal grounds, and it doesn’t matter what the warrant says. It can be shown that the warrant should not have been granted because it was granted through deception and dishonesty; therefore it’s null and void. The conclusion must be that he was taken by an act of kidnapping and it was against his will and the will of his parents. This little boy lost everything that he had in his life that kept him happy and stable. He was traumatized and distressed over the next 13 days, as described in the caregiver’s statement. Constantly crying and screaming and frustrated. He was not fed properly. As a result, he had a physical reaction resulting in his death. Had he stayed in his home, the day that he died, he would have been at home in his cot, in his safety sleep, he would be checked on a regular basis. If what happened to Patrick had happened at home then we would have been able to do something about it and he may have still been alive today.
Based on the premise that Patrick was taken from a place of security and safety, placed in a position of risk and ended up dying – this then is grounds for a charge of manslaughter.
The day after Patrick died, Susie Sligo, who was apparently the manager of the Waitakere CYFS office, stated that they had serious concerns for Patrick’s safety. Information that had been given to them showed that there were no serious concerns and that all they had to do was provide Louise with support. That they had serious concerns was a lie.
Secondly, she has said that they have capable social workers that make judgement calls based on the information.
A judgment call should be based on and support the information that is available. CYFS took the most extreme action possible, not for a little baby that has been burned or beaten or neglected in any way, but for a baby that was healthy and happy and thriving so therefore their judgement call should have been for him, Patrick, to stay in the home.
Thirdly, one day after Patrick’s death, Susie Sligo said that there was no wrong doing by workers in her department. How is it possible for her to make that statement when the investigation had barely got off the ground?
Steve Maharey has lied to the public. He said on the 3rd November that he comes down very hard on social workers that do not do their job properly. At a minimum we can prove that they did not carry out a care plan and keep him safe. Yet we have had no response from Steve Mahary and he hasn’t even bothered to contact us. We have written to the CEO of CYFS and Waitemata DHB and copied this letter to Steve Mahareys office. Maharey’s office said that they acknowledge receipt of our letter and they will get back to us but we have never heard another thing.
CRAIG and LOUISE MARTIN
News years eve 2002
Martin, C & L
Ph 09 813 3647
posted by OutCry @ 6:20 PM
8 comments
