Addition 1 – Behaviour of police

This father, in the court in our native country, makes the following statement on the respected country’s authority’s investigations. I quote: Pursuant to the wife’s baseless accusations of molestation, the authorities in the respected country instituted criminal investigations against me, which investigations exonerated me.
The police in the respected country have investigated the allegations thoroughly. They found no evidence of me molesting my children or perpetrating the horrific acts, as alleged by the wife. There is no such evidence because it simply did not happen.
This father says he has been freed from blame by the authorities of the respected country’s investigations that he claims were thoroughly done. Really!?

During the police interview only one child, a shy child who just turned 5 years of age, was interviewed  in a conference room. The police refused my request for them to also interview the other child, then age 3 and a half. My complaint to them included that this 3-year old child had spoken of being sodomised.

My children were not evaluated for sexualization by a professional psychologist. Many claims have been made by this father and his advocates, that these children had been evaluated. These claims were especially said in the native country’s Court. These claims were misleading and false: My children were only able to effectively communicate in their native country’s language. The respected country has no psychologists that could communicate with my children.

Only two of my children were glanced at by a doctor. The doctor refused to look at the second child, as the child got upset. This was also the child that reported penetration. This doctor’s excuse is not a valid reason for aborting a medical examination. The examination that took place also comprised of simply looking at their bodies and private parts without any lighting or detailed search for scarring due to laceration etc. No further tests were done for STD’s. This was also done outside the scope of a police investigation.

The police youth protection needed prodding with:

Midday 30 March 2012 I felt driven to visit the nearest police station after being told over the phone by the police youth protection division that I need not come to them with a complaint involving child molestation. The nearest open police station officer replied they cannot help me and they phoned their youth protection division saying that I am at their station. Only then was I told I can go to them. At this youth protection division I was not understood due to language and told to return on Monday 2 April 2012 so they can organise for a translator.
On the Monday my statement was taken, I took the children’s push-car and jackets with us to be examined after doing research on the internet for information. These were taken away by the police and brought back later. For this act I am also criticised.

They interviewed the accused a week and a half after I had made my statement. This came about after I phoned this division, wondering what was going on. The police replied they cannot reach this husband, that I should phone them and hand the phone to him. About two hours after this telephonic conversation with the police, I
told this father that the police say they are struggling to get in touch with him. He replied, “I have had no messages that they want to interview me, but I have just made an appointment on my own to go and see them.” Then he was interviewed. How did this husband know to phone the police? Someone later informed me that this husband had tapped the phones, so he was listening in on all my conversations.

The above totals the actions of the police youth protection division.

An invitation to investigate the house was refused.
They refused to take a statement about the suspected pedophile circle the children were referring to as the “zoo”. Bottom line is they refused to investigate this. I was told to investigate myself and to follow this husband around.

Standard investigative procedures in cases of child molestation were not followed:

Normally psychiatric evaluations are done on both the parents. This procedure was not followed.
No further investigation were done, for example, examining this husband’s computers.

What the respected country’s police youth protection division did, is not a thorough investigation resembling protection of vulnerable minor children.

Even if this father managed to manipulate people trained in criminology and convinced them that his wife is “mentally unstable”, would this explain to them the following facts of which they were informed.

– Rumours of this father preferring little boys, spread by previous work colleagues, according to this father.
– The mother-in-law witnessing this father’s inappropriately touching of the sleeping eldest child February 2009.
– The mother who is testifying her children told her their father makes “food” from his penis for their bums and mouths.

But, it prodded no further investigations. Not even a phone call to my mother to enquire about the incident in February 2009.

The report from the social service worker in her report explains which details were concentrated on by the Police Youth Protection division of the respected country. I quote her:
During the hearing the minor was nibbling the nails on his feet. The mother could not set boundaries for her children. This is why she had brought the children’s hamster to the police station and had let this animal run around the offices at the police force.

Let’s look at the moral and physical dangers involved, as well as the criminal laws that were broken.
Nibbling nails: The danger involved with nibbling toes for the five year old child would be germs. I would say no moral dangers, also no criminal laws against nibbling toes anywhere.
I would have appreciated it if she had told him of his feet being dirty and not to do this. This hearing of the child took place without me present.

Hamster at their offices: I allowed the children to take their hamster to calm and comfort them. An exaggerated statement is made that the hamster ran around their police offices. These police were shocked at this “scene”. The moral danger to children: None. Physical danger to children: None. Criminal offence: None.

I was asked where this hamster is. The hamster was with the eldest child. Only as a result of this social service report statement, I occupied myself counting the offices to be “run around in” and found around 20 in that section of the building. Unless you limit the area of movement for the rodent, finding a running/lost rodent quickly, is slim to none. But no police officer occupied themselves in an investigation for a missing rodent, because it was not missing and went home with us.

Why was the focus shifted to hamsters, nail nibbling and impressions of me not setting boundaries?

Based on the above actions of the police youth protection division the following was decided, I quote this father in his court statement in our native country:
The fact remains no criminal prosecution has been instituted following the wife laying charges against me.

This fact remains: no proper standard investigation was done to even enable a responsible and proper decision to be made at prosecutors level. This prosecutor’s office was also not in the least bit interested to follow thorough procedures.

The social service worker interviewed the police youth division officer and, according to her report, this is what they said:
There is no concrete evidence of sexual abuse. Apart from the mother’s statement there is nothing concrete.

She says “apart from the mother’s statement”. Then, I, as well as my witness statement, evolved into a nothing at this respected country’s prosecutors office. I quote extracts of emails:
The Prosecutor’s Office of the respected country decided to dismiss the complaint against this father for sexual abuse because there was no evidence against him.
Then the general advocate of this respected country’s prosecutor’s office proceeded to call me, with no evidence, mentally unstable and/or a witch and a satanist.
According to an email by the general advocate of the respected country’s prosecution’s office the police report was handed over to them and dismissed on 19 April 2012.
The same day, this father’s diary, in which he claims I am “mentally unstable” and violent, was handed into the respected country’s youth court while he filed for and “emergency divorce”.
A man that was, in their eyes, under suspicion of being a criminal up to that day, handed in papers with exuberant examples and uneven explanations to create impressions, claiming his wife is mentally unstable.
The accurate question is how to determine someone’s mental stability? A psychiatric evaluation would be a rational and good place to start such an investigation.
No professional mental evaluation was asked. However, the presumption by everyone was that I am “mentally unstable”.
After this father’s diary was handed into the youth court the social service worker and her companion came to the house early the following week.

arrowbutton