34 Using the Secrecy of UK Family Courts to Cover-Up Criminal Activities: 07.03.15

EXCEPTIONAL EMERGENCY PETITION

By Sabine Kurjo McNeill (German), on behalf of Association of McKenzie Friends, on

Using the Secrecy of UK Family Courts to Cover-Up Criminal Activities

with the support of over 14,000 online signatures

Summary

  1. I Sabine K McNeill am spokesperson and publisher of petition 1707/2013 to Abolish Adoptions without Parental Consent which is still open in the Petitions Committee.
  2. I have acted as principal McKenzie Friend for a Russian mother since November 2014 and need to bring to your attention a matter of utmost urgency regarding the protection, safety and return, of her two children. There may be countless other children who, according to evidence thus far presented, remain at very serious risk.
  3. This petition is being triggered by the exceptional severity of the case of a Russian mother whose two children made seemingly unbelievable accusations against their British father: the organisation of child sexual abuse and the murder of babies in a school, church and other public places, involving some 20 children and 70 adults.
  4. Secret court proceedings resulted in the sustained removal of the children from the mother’s care since 11 September 2014.
  5. Furthermore, the mother and her McKenzie Friend left the UK jurisdiction for fear of imprisonment around 12 February 2015.
  6. Current fact finding hearings are hoped to result in the transfer of the children to their Russian grandparents via the Russian Consul. Based on past experiences and patterns, however, custody is expected to be given to the abusive father.

The Context of the Petition

  1. This petition is filed in the wake of petition 1707/2013 on the Systemic Patterns of Child Snatching and Forced Adoptions in the UK
  2. Channel IV publishes that a child is taken every 20 minutes as part of their film on forced adoptions: 15,000 kids and counting.
  3. Hence there are many parents who hope for a Fact Finding Mission of MEPs as an avenue for having their children returned to them, whether from care or after an adoption against their will.
  4. It is based on the experience of some fifty cases where this one is distinctly the worst, with respect to the levels of criminality, evidence and cover-ups.
  5. Online, the petition Return the Whistleblower Kids and Abuse Survivors to their Russian Family has gained over 14,000 signatures since 01.02.15.
  6. This email to the Home Secretary Theresa May MP caused an internet explosion that was accompanied by internet cover-ups exercised by YouTube and Facebook.

Violations of EU Directive, UN Convention and EU Charter

  1. On the systemic level, this case is an example of the violation of EU Directive 2011/92 on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography.
  2. An Infringement Notice had been served on the UK on 27.01.14.
  3. Furthermore, this case comprises the serious violation of
  4. the UN Convention of Child Rights:
    • o the 8-year-old boy and 9-year-old sister are not being believed or heard, let alone taken seriously;
    • o instead they were forced to retract their allegations;
  5. EU Convention Rights:
    • o Article 6 (fair trial), 8 (family life) and 10 (freedom of expression);
  6. and the Charter of Fundamental Rights:
  7. The engagement and support of PETI member Tatjana Zdanoka MEP resulted in the Local Authority backing away from their court case.

On The Emergency of Child Related Petitions

  1. Six months of ‘care’ with two sets of strangers after the traumatic breaking the deal to tell the secret of abuse for these 8- and 9-year old children.
  2. Furthermore, the ‘fact finding hearing’ is expected to be finished by 12 March 2015, but should have been taking place in an open criminal rather than secret family court. An intervention by an MEP may just be enough for reason to prevail!

Case ZC1400315: London Borough of Barnet v Draper before Mrs Justice Pauffley

An unfair Trial in Barnet County Court

  1. Judge Vera Mayer did not want to make any concessions, after the mother decided to act as ‘litigant in person’, as neither her solicitors nor her barrister were acting in her or her children’s interests.
  2. The judge did not question the validity of the reasons for the Local Authority keeping the children under their control.
  3. She did not allow for the children to come home for Christmas.
  4. She did not address a Non-Molestation Order against the father.
  5. She ordered WEEKLY contact with the father who also managed to get a laptop to his children for skype conversations and FORTNIGHTLY contact with the mother.
  6. Grandparents and half-brother have had hardly any contact at all.
  7. After four hearings in Barnet, she transferred the case to Dame Anna Pauffley OBE in the High Court.

Unfair Trial in the Family Division of the High Court

  1. Dame Anna Pauffley OBE began by
    1. a) Making a ‘corporate gag’ by asking Belinda McKenzie to give an undertaking on behalf of the Association of McKenzie Friends not to publish anything about these proceedings.
    2. b) Confiscating the Police videos for the mother’s ‘protection’.
  2. On 26 January it was clear to the mother and her McKenzie Friend that the judge had no intention of returning the children to her.
  3. She dismissed the Position Statement as being penned by the petitioner and the mother being under her undue influence.
  4. As a consequence, the online petition Return the Whistleblower Kids and Abuse Survivors of Hampstead School to their Russian family was published and the rest is internet history.

Evidence

  1. As evidence of sexual abuse and exploitation, twenty-one videos were recorded privately, before the children were taken to Barnet Police on 05 September 2014 to report the crimes and be interviewed.
  2. While these videos are essential evidence, especially for online activists, they were never part of court proceedings.
  3. Yet an Injunction Order was issued on 10 February 2015, causing the McKenzie Friend to leave the jurisdiction, since a prosecution was suggested by the Local Authority – due to the secrecy of family court proceedings which is based around the confidentiality of the identity of children.
  4. Whilst abroad, I filed an Application to set this order aside in hard copy, using a form that can be used also in my absence.
  5. On 11 September 2014 the children were video recorded a second time and taken into care under an ‘Emergency Protection Order’. Until then, the children had always lived with their mother who had a Residence Order for them.
  6. In contrast, the father was allowed to see his children only twice a month on Saturdays and two Non-Molestation Orders had been issued against him, besides five Police call-outs and 3 Police reports due to domestic violence.
  7. The Police interviews with both children were recorded separately on 05.09.14 and 11.09.14 and ordered to be disclosed, after the Police had closed the case on 22 September with ‘crime not confirmed’.
  8. However, this was challenged in a Judicial Review on 22.12.14 against the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, requesting the re-opening of the case.
  9. After the mother dismissed her second solicitor, she received copies of the Police videos from them. However, on the first opportunity, the High Court Judge ordered the return of these videos, even though “the genie was out of the bottle.”

Cover-Ups

  1. Anybody doubting the children’s veracity, will be convinced when reading these extracts of the expert who analysed both the Police report and the interviews.
  2. However, besides the retractions as first major cover-up, the premature closure of the case is of highly questionable, as also illustrated by the expert Witness Statement.
  3. A full list of items is published on https://whistleblowerkids.wordpress.com/this-case/cover-ups/

Issues to be Addressed

  1. The Position Statement spells the issues out:
    1. a) The reasons or grounds on which the Local Authority keeps the children.
    2. b) The Judicial Review that Dame Pauffley wanted to take under her jurisdiction which is questionable.
    3. c) The Non-Molestation Order against the father who clearly presents a major risk to the children.
    4. d) The inequality of contact between mother and father.
    5. e) The lack of contact for grandparents and half-brother.

Remedies Sought

  1. The most desirable option is to hand the children over to the Russian Consul who has been attending court hearings ever since Barnet, so that they can return to Russia with their grandparents.
  2. Furthermore, the warrants against mother and myself need to be cancelled and any potential prosecution or court order that may still be made.

Other petitions relating to the UK system of family courts:

  1. Petition 1229/2013 by K. Z. (German) on enforcement of a court judgement so as to allow him to exercise his visitation rights with his child
  2. Petition 1655/2013 by Laila Brice (Latvian) on alleged discrimination in the United Kingdom on the grounds of ethnicity, religion and language
  3. Petition 1707/2013 by Sabine Kurjo McNeill (German), on behalf of Association of McKenzie Friends, on Abolition of Adoptions without Parental Consent (forced adoption) over 2500 supporters.
  4. Petition 1847/2013, by Eugene Lukjanenko-Soifertis (Dutch), on religious and ethnic discrimination against a child by the British authorities
  5. Petition 2096/2013 by Scott McDonald (UK) on the removal of his child by the British social services
  6. Petition 2287/2013 by Ale Ambrasaite (Lithuanian), on alleged discrimination by UK authorities on the grounds of ethnicity, religion and language and violation of the European Convention on Human Rights
  7. Petition 2468/2013 by Roy Fox (British), on the practice of forced adoptions in the United Kingdom.
  8. Petition 2473/2013 by Ale Ambrasaite (Lithuanian) on alleged discrimination by UK authorities on the grounds of ethnicity, religion and language and violation of the European Convention on Human Rights
  9. Petition 2498/2013 by Bogusława Głażewska (United Kingdom), on the removal of her children by social services
  10. Petition 2542/2013 by D.S. (British), on Forced adoptions
  11. Petition 2543/2013, by Safia Deriche (British), on the return of her child, who has been taken into care by the British authorities
  12. Petition 2546/2013, by Audrone Barkauskiene (Lithuanian), on her son, who has been taken into care