Late afternoon end September 2013 the doorbell rang. It was a young lady from an independent organisation investigating welfare of children. She explained that this husband approached them saying he is concerned for the children’s emotional and physical welfare and that my living in the upstairs apartment is detrimental to the children. This husband, after his first eviction court case did not succeed, made a new case and approached this independent organisation to get support for his cause.
She explained that in their investigation into the children’s welfare she saw them every week to interact with them. She wanted to arrange a meeting with a psychologist and herself to come and see me. I welcomed this, but found it strange that this husband would involve them to such an extent with the children, taking a risk so to speak, in his aim to get me evicted.
She further explained that she struggled to reach me – that is why she came to the apartment. She also said that “nanny seven” discouraged her to do this, by saying I am not going to open the door to her. She explained that if she could not reach me she would have approached the court with only this husband’s information. This husband’s actions in approaching this organisation started to make sense in that his aim was only to get his side in court. It became more clear when I asked her the contact number this husband gave her for me. She gave a number for an old cellular contract. I had a new number for nearly a year already. This husband knew this because I had phoned the house from the new number several times and the house phone had caller ID. I contacted the cellular company to enquire about this old number and discovered that this husband cancelled the contract seven months before her visit. This meant this husband purposely gave her a cellular number he knew would result in making it difficult for her to reach me.
In the meeting with her and the psychologist I gave an overview of the situation and this husband’s behaviour. In another meeting I gave her some of the documentation that I had given to the appeal court.
This organisation started an investigation into actions that were taken and continued sessions with the children. She told me that the children are not giving any information.
This organisation did not have the same authority as the social service office, but they requested the social service to do another enquiry. The social service did have another enquiry scheduled for a year later. They pushed for this to be done earlier.
This was successful and a new social service worker, also new to their office, with more life experience visited me. She also spoke to the children, who apparently said they would like to see me more. She spent more time on the case than the previous social service workers.
Then I received a letter from a judge requesting a meeting with this husband, me and our legal representation. The social service report stated that the children’s behaviour in school had become troublesome in the past months. The eldest two children showed signs of aggression, disruptive behaviour and a lack in concentration.
The judge remarked that the previous social service report, done end April 2013, stated the children are fine, well mannered and doing well in school.
This husband replied that me living in the apartment is disrupting the children. There was a problem with his conclusion in that I had been in the apartment for a year already, not just the past few months. I told him this.
The social service worker and the organisation commented on this husband’s work program where he stayed away for weeks at a time, literally leaving the children several times for months and even a month and a half at a time in other’s care. The judge commented on this as well.
This husband and his advocate then claimed his pilot recurrent training is for a month — giving this as the reason he stayed away for six weeks.
In the real world recurrent training for a pilot is 3-5 days.
He also stated he works more during the children’s school period so he can spend time with them during holidays.
When every holiday period he had left the children, for at least a month, alone in someone else’s care.
The judge asked him if he had control over his work schedule and he replied yes.
She also commented on the fact that there had been nine nannies to date. This husband, taking the words of the previous judge said in the appeal court, replied he was only looking for the prefect nannies and he is happy with the current nannies – nanny seven, her young son and nanny seven’s young daughter in law. These people are his “perfect” nannies. He repeatedly said to the judge there will be no new nannies and these nannies are his choice.
I told the judge that the children had been thrown around from person to person and country to country. That they are insecure and confused in an environment directly created for them by this father.
The cherry on the cake to me and for any thinking person is: The children’s behaviour indicated trauma in the time period/care of this father’s chosen “perfect” nannies. This father, stating he is not going to employ any more nannies, meant he was content and happy with this situation — to the extent that he left his children in their care for months.
Obviously this situation, where his children are struggling, suited him perfectly.
The judge said she had phoned, but there was no space in the children homes. She also said she is going to order another psychiatric evaluation of me with the same psychiatrist that did the previous court ordered psychiatric report.
This father with the children and his chosen “perfect” nannies left again for nanny seven’s home for the holidays. I doubt if this father is going to spend the holidays with them – irregardless his nice words in court.