This husband’s work has been made a high priority, in that this is the most important factor that is taken into consideration when decisions are made. It even overshadowed the emotional and physical wellbeing of small children. The social service worker’s report dated 4.5.2012 gives the following information on this husband’s work :
The father is wondering about the psychological condition of the mother and does not want the children alone with the mother under any circumstances. For this reason, he had postponed important professional meetings. This father must leave on 12.05.2012 for a week to renew his pilots licence (recurrent training) he had already deferred his test and there was a risk that he would no longer have the right to execute his profession if he did not attend his training.
This training she is referring to is, compulsory recurrent training, once yearly, 3-5 days, for a pilot. Pilot recurrent training information can be found on the internet. http://www.centuryair.com/faq_recurrent-training.htm
Under stress factors for this father this social service worker dramatically repeats, and I quote:
Stress factors FATHER
Professional situation (pressure, risk of loosing his job)
This father, in September 2012 in our native country’s court, states:
I was away from home for most of January and February 2012 for business and compulsory recurrent training in the Netherlands and the United States of America.
The above statement indicates that this father had already done his once yearly recurrent training. The social service worker says he had not done it, but “deferred his test/training”. She gives a new date for this husband’s recurrent training – 12 May 2012
In this husband’s diary to the court, he was arranging, preparing and studying for recurrent training – still after January/February 2012 – , I quote this father in two statements:
– 27 March 2012 The boys left with her and I went to my room to do some work on my laptop. (Account payments, recurrent trng arrangements etc)
– 07 April 2012 I am sitting in my bedroom on my bed studying and preparing for my upcoming recurrent training which starts in 2 weeks time.
Two weeks’ time would be 21 April 2012.
This father in his diary insert 7 April 2012 says to the court he is still preparing to leave his children in the care of his “mentally unstable wife” on 21 April 2012.
The molestation police case was opened 2 April 2012 and don’t forget this husband’s divorce notice delivered on 23 April 2012 for an “emergency divorce” 30 April 2012. This husband loves creating his false impressions and feeding his misinformation.
On 7 May 2012, in the respected country’s court, this husband’s advocate says this father is going to stop working completely and take care of his children – while the social service worker is saying he stresses over losing his job?!
This father wrote an email on 15 May 2012 to a friend and his wife that wanted to come and visit 20 May 2012 to see what is going on. In it he states he has arranged to leave the children 19 May 2012 in the care of his eldest brother. For what reason…“recurrent training”. Adding to this, “If my plans work out.” He telephonically tried putting off the friend’s wife in their plans to visit by insinuating I am angry at them and don’t want them to visit, while he wrote emails to her husband, saying their visit is good with him. I corrected his false impressions with his friend’s wife, and this husband as a result had to postpone his recurrent training for another week. See how easy it is to postpone/change recurrent training, contrary to the social service worker’s drama quoted in her report.
The result in the end was this husband taking the children out of the respected country on 24 May 2012 and leaving them on his parents’ farm for much longer than the time he required for this training.
In our native country this husband makes another statement regarding his “recurrent training” and I quote this husband:
– I had to attend compulsory recurrent training towards the end of May, early June 2012.
Yes, here is this husband’s other statement again:
I was away from home for most of January and February 2012 for business and compulsory recurrent training in the Netherlands and the United States of America.
This husband makes another interesting statement in our native country’s court on agreements he has with the respected country’s court. I quote this father:
– My undertaking towards the youth court was that I would obtain alternate employment if, ultimately, the divorce court orders that the children should be in my custody.
But according to my advocate, this father’s advocate in the respected country’s youth court said that this father was going to stop working. This husband even told people his sister was going to financially support him and the children in his state of unemployment – which is also unnecessary because of this husband’s substantial hidden bank funds.
This husband makes another false statement in court, and I quote: My work takes me away from home for some 50% of the time. I am rarely away for periods longer than 14 days at a time.
I quote this husband in the same affidavit:
I had to return for business on 31 July 2012 and was to return on 4 September 2012.
I count 35 days away, which is a period a lot longer then 14 days. I suppose 14 days do sound better for his false “caring image”. A contract pilot is not required to work for periods longer than 20 days. If this pilot works for longer then it is because the pilot wants to. The longest period that this father left the children alone in the care of nannies has been six weeks. On questioning his behaviour, this husband and his advocate respond by explaining that his “pilot recurrent training” is for a month. And in order for him to carry on working he has to do this training that lasts a month – this is why he leaves his children for so long.
This husband and father can so easily be proven as a lier, but apparently no court operates by looking for the truth.
I repeat, the range in time needed for this recurrent training is between 3-5 days.
In the respected country’s court the approach changed from “this father is going to stop working”, (for good impression to get custody of our children), to “this father has to work to support his family”, but actually to increase his already ample funds. This father’s advocate in the respected country now said: This father has a mortgage to pay.
The “proof” handed into this respected country’s court is a mortgage document from a bank, dated six years back.
This husband does not pay a mortgage per month. The house has basically been payed off and he payed the extension and renovations, about $600 000.00, in cash. He will not be able to produce bank statements over the last years to proof payment of a mortgage.
This mortgage account is still open for interest rate reasons and in the names of his and his youngest brother. This double name arrangement is made for this husband’s other “public” bank accounts as well. For his “hidden” bank accounts he fraudulently uses company names, as well as a fraudulent name for himself. (He opens bank accounts using his second name as his surname.)
But this husband’s advocate, to create the impression in court of a meagre income, financially struggling father with a minimal salary, gave a simple letter stating the following:
Dated: 11 May 2012
Since his first employment dated 20 December 2006. His monthly salary had been confirmed to 3500$(three thousand five hundred US dollars).
With this letter this father now claims he has worked for 5 years for the same company on the same salary.
The social service worker’s information in her report differs from this father’s. I quote from her report:
The father works as a self-employed pilot for various aviation companies and often travels abroad for work.
This false salary letter stating 3500$ per month, is below the allowed amount that is legally required to get and maintain a residence permit in this respected country. But, just the Stressless sofa combo in the living room is worth about four months of this father’s court claimed “salary”.
The truth is this father, on all the contract flying that he had done, averages a total income of 1000$ per day.
I had done his administration for a year and a half, including the invoicing. The computer I worked on, is missing. All the paperwork I had done, is also missing. And this husband tried to scare and deter me, saying I am involved in fraud, when I enquired on the whereabouts of these.
So this husband continued to work. The court approved of this even after he initially said to them that he was going to stop working. No one monitored the situation or these small children. These small children, on top of everything, are ultimately in the care of coming and going strangers. This father employs nannies to care for them, some he did not even interview. This is an extract from a testimony of someone that spoke to this father telephonically:
This father rang our home telephone number. We had a conversation which included me asking him how the children were. He replied they were fine. When he mentioned that he was still working, I asked him who was looking after the boys. He replied that he had a new nanny. I asked what happened to the previous one and he said that he had to pay her to leave as it had been like having four children in the house. When I asked what she was like during the interview he must have had with her he said that he hadn’t interviewed her at all prior to employing her, but that he had spoken to the young lady’s mother over the phone and that she had said that her daughter was very good with children.
This is the same man that says in a court how he worries for the welfare of his children. This father’s actions exhibit no care, no compassion or empathy, total lack of responsibility and total selfishness where his children are concerned.
There had been eight/nine nannies to date that came and went in his search for the “perfect” nanny. Very few of the people he employs have child care experience. Some did not even speak his children’s language. He has left these small children in their care for periods of a month and more.
In the end we have his “chosen” nannies. The “family of nannies” that perform and condone child abuse for money.
Further to this, he creates an environment of insecurity, instability and confusion for these children. while repeatedly saying to whomever, “The children are fine.”
“Fine” is just said as a creation of impression by the person that creates these trying situations for these children. This includes the respected country’s authorities, who, in giving this man full control over these children, had also helped in abusing them.
