Like birds of a feather, Social Workers, Guardians ,Family Court Solicitors and their “carefully chosen experts always stick together” never admitting a mistake and fanatically eager to cover up rather than rectify any errors of judgement they have made. First and foremost I am not out to criticise good and honest Social Workers. It is the few who let themselves be controlled when required to behave criminally, by their senior management when things just do not go to plan, who I do have the problem with. My opinion of Social Services` Secret Family Courts is that they are a legalised mafia, and after you read the following article you will understand why, and where I am coming from.
The below emails are relating to the Chief Executive and me after she was informed of this blog.
Further to your message I have reviewed a number of the tweets you have made recently regarding senior members of staff in this Trust. I consider them to be unacceptable, inappropriate and wholly untrue. I would request that you immediately remove them or we will have no option but to seek legal advice.
Mrs M McAlinden
From: @hotmail.co.uk To: email@example.com Subject: RE: Twitter Date: Mon, 27 May 2013 12:25:15 +0100
Dear Mrs McAlinden
I am not removing my tweets until you correct your records, and while at the present we parents do not know what happened to our child in between 25 March & 10th April 2003 we can certainly prove, as you know, that we never got to see him for fourteen days. When a bonding ten week old baby is not allowed to see his mother for no apparent reason then I quite rightly regard this as Child Abuse and any right minded person would see it as that too. As for your threat of taking legal advice I look forward to having my day in court.
On “Tuesday 25th March 2003 at 8.45pm” the then Armagh Dungannon Health & Social Services Trust/Southern Health Social Care Trust had my 10 week old baby forcibly removed from his mother`s arms by way of a Police Protection Order. This was after Mike Millar SSW held my wife and child against their will in the Trust`s building from 2pm until 8.45pm, with the threat being: You can leave but if you do I will have the baby removed from you in the street. I do not wish to go into the details surrounding the reason for this draconian measure, and not only for personal but for legal reasons also. The main issue is : What happened to our child during the first 16 days in foster care, as we never got our initial contact visit with him until “Thursday AM 10th April 03″.At this time we were unaware that this was a breach of legislation as we believed that social services had the power to do this, and Ms Larkin never raised any issues, well not in front of us. Here is a link regarding contact. http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/child-care-law-roughguide.pdf
Contact with Children Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1996(S.R. 1996 No.443)
6.6 These Regulations, which came into operation on 4 November 1996, set out the steps to be taken by an HSS Trusts where it refuses to allow contact with a child in care.
The Regulations require HSS Trusts to notify parents, and any others entitled to have contact with a child in care of a decision to refuse contact.
Where appropriate, the notification should include the reasons for the decision, its duration, and the remedies available in the case of dissatisfaction.
7 Under the Children Order, an HSS Trust must apply to a court if it seeks to deny contact to a parent. In an emergency, however, a Trust may refuse to allow contact for up to 7 days if it is necessary to do so to safeguard or promote the child’s welfare. In such circumstances, the Trust must comply with these Regulations.
I am going to prove through cross referencing Trust and other agency records that they have been recklessly re written. The records in particular relate to the time our child was taken and up until we saw him for the first time.
The Trust claim they took our child at 6pm on Wednesday 26th March, while the PSNI claim it was the 26th, but at 8.45pm. As I mentioned earlier, it was on 25th March and at 8.45pm.
Thank you for email. Your concerns have been noted.
Bill Maloney, Director of Pienmash Films, says it as it really is in the UK Secret Family Court System. I know! – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BVzV1J4HWM Lord Chief Justice Sinead Larkin represented my wife while then employed by Higgins Hollywood Deazley,Solicitors. She is currently a partner in Larkin O`Connor Cassidy, Solicitors, 2 Carlisle Circus, Belfast 14. http://www.loccsolicitors.com/ She refused to make a witness statement against two social workers, Helen Dougan and Mike Millar for perjury, and she also refuses to accept that my wife`s argument is not with her but with the Trust. To make matters more complicated she and her ex boss Damien Deazley and Matt Higgins (pictured below) made up a Court Attendance Note which gave a false account of her cross examination of both social workers. They also changed the court venue from Banbridge to Newry, in line with the Trust. Saying that, it was not Newry PSNI who carried out the investigation, but Banbridge. Sinead Larkin Damien Deazley Matt Higgins
During late 2007 I applied for our client records from the Trust stemming from their involvement from 2003 until 2007. I also requested the same from the family courts. The PSNI were not so forthcoming but any information they did give me showed it was evident they were colluding with the Trust and the family court.
Helen Dougan, Social Worker, has rewritten a number of records, and two of these records in particular show that the PPO was served on “26th March 03″, and the other one reads that we had our “initial contact visit with our child on “28th March 2003″.
I can and will disprove these along with many other fabricated records further down the page.
The rewritten records relate to the time of the order being served up until our initial contact with our child.
Ms Dougan`s rewritten record, dated 24th March 2003. (Sec 1)
You will note that she refers to the RUC (Royal Ulster Constabulary) instead of the PSNI (Police Service for N Ireland) who replaced the name of the RUC during November 2001.
Obviously she never researched this during 2007 before rewriting a 2003 record.
H Dougan`s Daily Record, dated Monday 24th March 2003 (RUC)
Ms Dougan`s (1of 14 Pages) record seen as altered from 25th to 26th.
This could be seen as an error, but read on and it won`t anymore.
OUT OF HOURS EMERGENCY , COORDINATOR`S RECORD SHEET
Note: Baby is seen as 8 months old, and not 10 weeks?
Out of Hours phone call for advice at 5.45pm
Note :Call out session = 3 hours. This time will be contradicted by another record of Nuala Murphy, Health Visitor, (below P46c) as she states Helen Dougan informed her that my wife was in the Trust`s building from 2pm until 6pm, until PPO was served.
Nuala Murphy Health Visitor`s rewritten record, dated Friday 28th March 03.
Social Services went to court for PPO? This is untrue as a PPO is/was granted by a Police Inspector after being assured by Social Services that it was necessary. Newry Court on 27th for EPO? It was Banbridge Court, as you will see below on Sec 5
Ms Murphy seemingly got rewarded by the Trust with a new position as Child Protection Nurse Specialist.
The Trust provided me with this EPO, but because the PPO was effective for 24 hours only this should be dated 26th March, and certainly not out of hours (6pm) on 27th March.
As you will note, below on Question 2 there in no Information System Number.
Section 11= 26th March (with the emergency foster carer) Section 12 = 27th when he was placed with the second carer, Mrs McClimmonds.
Note on (self numbered page 23b) It is signed by Helen Dougan and counter signed by Daphne Johnston, but on a Saturday. (29th March 03)
Social Services do not work at weekends, only the Emergency Out Of Hours Service.
Again they did not do their research when rewriting this record some 4 years later. But Daphne Johnston`s signature looks like it has been filled in by someone other than her, so I am also attaching another page belonging to a Looked After Children Minutes and you will see Mrs Johnston`s signature in the second box, as Manager. No comparison!
I am also going to paste below another Notification Form, dated 29th May 03. This relates to Mrs McClimmonds going on holiday and our child was being placed with another carer for a couple of weeks.
You will note in it that it says our child went into the care of Mrs McClimmonds on Friday 28th March and not 27th.
Compare these 2 pages with the ones above in Sec 6.
Note: Sec 2
Another fabricated record. Looking After Children Care Plan.
Note: The statutory guidelines at top of page: In an emergency it should be completed as soon as possible after a placement has been made.
After reading this record you will note that it was not filled in right away, as it was an emergency. But you will note that information provided by Helen Dougan can only mean it was 2 weeks ahead of its time. For example, on P5 she refers to visits and who attends. As mentioned earlier our initial contact visit was on Thursday 10th April, and I will support this further down the page.
Note on P2 (self numbered P42) she refers only to 24th & 26th (not 25th?)
This means the emergency carer had our child for 3 days and not overnight as stated by senior management.
Helen Dougan`s rewritten records for 28th March 03. States we had contact.
Note: Granny, mother& father – urine smells very strong – t/c to surgery – Dr can see child 3.40 on 1st April re UTI – Placement medical booked 10th April.
Note P 51. She has redacted most of the page, but rewrites that she took our child to see Dr Rogers for UTI.
P.53 Nuala Murphy, Health Visitor`s record -”3.4.03″. Helen had brought child to GP on request of mother
P. 86 Page of Initial LAC Minutes – Seen by GP on 3rd April due to a possible urine infection.
P.56 Form IMR – U R T I 3.4.03 & P53 & P86 completely show that Ms Dougan is a liar, a cheat and has has sinister reasons for doing this.
P.56 Form IMR – U R T I 3.4.03 & P53 & P86 completely show that Ms Dougan is a liar, a cheat and has has sinister reasons for doing this.
Note: When Trusts are releasing information it is overseen by senior management.
P 73a. This is Page 2 of the Looked After Children (LAC) Review Minutes.
Note: Helen Dougan`s record on P50 ie mother father & Grandmother is not stated (below) on 28.3.03.
Sec 3. Mother Father Both Other adult
28.03.03 28.03.03 X
8.4.03 8.4.03 X Mrs awl = Granny
I am going to disprove contact was on 8.4.03. (below in Sec.13)
This is a page from the minutes of the LAC Review held on 9th April 03
The wording ie supervised contact 3 x per week etc. Clearly shows we did not have contact as yet, and the rules were being laid out for it.
Note: Also contact will be given “tomorrow to compensate for the one missed due to a court appearance”. This LAC was held on Wednesday 9th April, and we were at court on the previous day and missed our first arranged contact due to the case being heard in the afternoon.
Our initial contact was therefore the following morning, Thursday 10th April 03.
Sec.13 Court hearing on 8th April 03.
This was the day that the court granted us reasonable contact- 3 x per week for 1 hour each duration.
Requesting contact! Can arrange tomorrow morning 9.30 – 10.30am
Noleen McCoy Contact Officer has also fabricated this record.
Note she too has problems writing times and dates.
This should be dated 10th April. I refer to Sec.13 CONTACT – Also contact will be given “tomorrow to compensate for the one missed due to a court appearance”.
I decided to phone the PSNI in Armagh during January 2006 and got speaking with a Sergeant, who was not based there at the time of the police involvement, and I explained to him the confusion surrounding the date of the PPO being served. Because I was weary about the police supporting the Trust I told him I believed the order was served around the time of 24th March,(hoping he may check 25th and make me aware) and the Trust are claiming 26th March. He done a computer check for the incident while on the phone, and he said: Oddly enough there is nothing for 24th, but never mentioned 26th. He then asked me for the names of the officers involved in the incident, so I gave him the names and he told me he would phone me back the following day. He contacted me and told me: No, it was definitely not 24th, so I asked him if he would check for the 25th March, and he went quiet for a few seconds and then asked me if I would be at home on the following day, as he was busy, and would contact me. I knew then he was put in a difficult position and to be honest I did not expect to hear from him. He never got back and I phoned and left endless messages, sometimes twice a day, on his voice mail for around a week, to no avail.
He was obviously put in a difficult position, so I decided not to contact him any further.
I then wrote to the PSNI Administration in a letter, dated 1st February 2006, and it had taken them 4 months to confirm the date as being 26th March.
It was about year or so later I phoned the police again, and spoke with a different Sergeant, and I asked him if would do a Police Incident check for 25th March 03, but he told me this is not permitted anymore.
Although we were given a vast amount of records which took me a very long time to cross reference and assess it.
The Trust withheld some very important ones for example, Placement Plan 1was one of these, and it would show the name of the Emergency Foster Carer, and the date our child went to and left this placement. Another, Placement Plan 11would also show the date when he left the care of the emergency carer.
The reason why I refer to this emergency carer is because we were always informed of other carers names and addresses. As well as this the records claim he only spent one night with this carer, but in fact he was with her from 25th until 28th March.
Trust records show he was then placed with another carer, Lynn McClimmonds from Tandragee, who stated that when she received our child on “27th March he was pale and very quiet”.
We began to try and work out their motive for keeping us apart for so long, and wondered why these agencies would have to go to such extremes, especially as far as breaking the law.
We believe they are covering up the fact that either our child was accidentally injured sometime after Helen Dougan fled the Trust`s building with him, or else he was physically abused by the emergency carer.
It is a very long time(16 days) to keep parents and baby apart, so we were thinking there may have been tell tale signs of an injury.
I have my child`s medical records and there is nothing to suggest anything untoward happened to him, but then if he was injured he was treated somewhere other than a hospital, and I can only surmise it was at the carer`s home.
Mr McCafferty, Head of Family Support took 6 weeks to inform us of this person`s name. This person is indeed, or was a foster carer then, but given the above I cannot take Mr McCafferty`s word as gospel, mainly because he is currently facing court proceedings. He covered up a serious case of abuse which was inflicted on a 3yr old child, and there is at least one Police Incident when neighbours in Markethill Co Armagh (the same town as Mrs Stockdale) heard the child screaming and phoned the police. Apart from this the same carer had the child at A&E at Craigavon Area Hospital I believe over 100 times. She was medicating the child and making him ill, and it later transpired that this MONSTER had a condition called Munchhausen by proxy. Mr McCafferty`s modus operandi, along with the Trust`s lends no credibility whatsoever about the name he has provided.
D/CI Stephen Wright provides a bogus reference number, as seen in OCMT letter, dated 23 February 2011.
Since this D/CI Wright will not answer any further questions, in fact I have sent him a vast amount of emails since.
The Trust provided this so called true copy of an EPO, dated 27th March 03 and seen as being signed by District Judge, Paul Copeland at 6pm. (out of hours) I am going to show this has been fabricated (below)
All the above clearly shows that the records have been manufactured/refurbished in 2006 by the Trust because
Subject: CD/Transcript Request – Southern Health & Social Services Trust v (Child: Jnr) (01/16084/01) (27/3/03 before District Judge Copeland)
Thank you for your e-mail dated 16 May 2013.
Having liaised with Newry Courthouse in relation to the above matter, I regret that it will not be possible to provide you with either a CD audio recording or written transcript of the above proceedings as at the time these proceedings took place our recording system was not available.
Should you require any further assistance in relation to this matter, might I suggest you contact Newry Courthouse on Tel No: 3025 2040.
Regarding the above email. We were present in court and there was indeed a stenographer present during the 4 hour hearing.
Below – Theresa Rankin Deputy Clerk of Court`s cover letter and a list she is offering under the Family Court Rule
Note: She omits in the cover letter the 5 minute application for a hearing for discharge of EPO on 28th March 03, but instead she refers to it being listed on 31st March.
Pay particular attention to the record of the hearing on 27th March when the EPO, they say, was granted.
EPO court record continuation. 28th March timed at top of page 09.51 – 27th March – 20 minute hearing – the next hearing as being 31st March.03
P.001 Signed @ 6pm on 27th March (out of hours) and this means the social workers would have went to the Judges home for the EPO, or an arranged venue, and this would be recorded by the court on the following morning
Showing that hearing was held at 3:21 and lasted for 20/30 minutes. The hearing would have ended at approximately 4pm yet it is signed at 6pm.
Compare the EPO record – 9 Pages to this link and you will note it is has been fabricated by the Clerk who provided it, but bear in mind the judge`s signature too.
Below there are 2 different court venues for 3rd April 03?
The hearing was actually held at Newry. The High Court provided the Banbridge copy to me in person and I was told that I must not discuss the contents of the report with the media or any other organisations, or else I may charged for Contempt of Court. In other words it is a gagging order.
As a matter of fact, I already had a copy of this report which was provided to me by the Trust. The only exception being was that there a vast amount of the courts version of the report redacted and made it very difficult to comprehend. But I believe the Trust`s version did not match the courts.
As far as the threat of being done for contempt of court goes, as it has already been breached, I am wondering what is keeping the family court from doing so.
I will gladly go to prison for what I see is a blatant violation of my family`s human rights.
He refutes the allegations staring him in the face
Mr Holland never done his research. This was never investigated by the PSNI or the Ombudsman.
From: @hotmail.co.uk To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: RE: Correspondence for the attention of Mr Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 13:17:49 +0100
Dear Mr Holland
I just received your email, followed by the hard copy in the post.
Upon second reading I notice you state: The matters you have raised have been investigated independently by the Ombudsman and the police respectively. This is totally incorrect! This means that your view for not initiating any further action is a contradiction in itself. Will you please get back to me after researching this and explain yourself.
He now refers to my wife making the complaint, which was investigated by the PSNI and the Ombudsman. It is a complete and utter load of rubbish, and makes his reason for not initiating any further action hypocritical.
I did make a judicial complaint to the Lord Chief Justice about the personal conduct of the judge, but was told that the judge is not in breach of conduct. I then asked if this means the judge never signed the order, but was again told the same. I can only surmise that the judge`s signature has been photocopied and placed on this order, but then again there are that many liars involved in this, so it could well be the judge`s.
Mr Finn, for the Communications Group did inform me that it is the judge`s signature.
Subject: ‘omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta’
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2013 16:10:42 +0000
FAO DISTRICT JUDGE COPELAND
Dear Judge Copeland
Mr Finn has confirmed to me that the signature on the enclosed Court record regarding the granting of an EPO is indeed your signature, but because of being provided with wrong information in the past by the court staff I would ask you to confirm if this signature was written by you? I feel that ‘omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta’does apply in this case, as the Supplement for an EPO which was provided to me by the Clerk of the Court is evidently fabricated.
As you know, I was provided with the EPO record, consisting of nine pages which I enclose for your convenience. Firstly, as you know, the hearing is seen as being heard at 3:23pm on 27th March 03, and it lasted for 30 minutes, but the Order is signed at 6pm. Could you explain why it is signed out of hours please? Further to this, I am pasting this link for you to read, and it relates to 2003/2004. Compare this with the provided records – http://www.jsbni.com/Lay-Magistrates/Documents/EPOPACK.pdfCommon sense shows the record is not authentic, so can you at least offer me some explanation, please.
There has previously been extensive correspondence regarding these matters. No further advice is available, we now consider this correspondence to be closed.
Our child was placed into care at 8:45pm on Tuesday 25th March 03, and he remained (as shown above) there not for an overnight but until 28th March.
I don`t care who or what you are; I love my child and I will continue to be a thorn in your side until you show some courage and admit your faults.
People would say to me; just get on with your life and forget it, but they need to ask themselves if they would if it were their child.
I received this letter today , 20th September, and for the life of me I cannot understand how on earth the Chief Executive can state they have investigated this rigorously and have been transparent.
Just about had enough!
THE NICTS BROUGHT INTO DISREPUTE BY THE LCJ!
From: @hotmail.co.uk To: email@example.com Subject: NICTS brought into disrepute Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2013 16:55:04 +0100
Lord Chief Justice
Further to this http://t.co/eTxpT3ZyEsThe ball was in your court but all you could offer was: Your concerns have been noted. My days of pleading for justice are over, as you`ve read a dirty file which incriminates the NICTS colluding with the Trust, and the rooftop protest lays solely over your refusal to do the humane thing. I look forward to my day in Court!
The Lord Chief Justice letter below = I am not being open or transparent with you, as you are insignificant.