Addition 4 – Hoodwinking a court

While in our native country, I started court proceedings, trying to have my children assessed for sexualisation. This father had dropped the children off on his parents farm in the native country for 5 weeks of their summer holidays. The children were in the care of his elderly parents and his single, middle aged, youngest brother.
I approached our native country’s court with what my children had told me, also the suspected pedophile circle and how it was dealt with by the authorities in the respected country. Added to this were this husband’s rumours of him preferring little boys and inappropriate behaviour of him with our eldest son, witnessed by my mother. As well as this husband’s questionable behaviour in trying to “defend” himself by abusing me, ruining my life as well as trying to alienate me from my children.
When my case was accepted into our native country’s court, this father wanted a two week extension, which would delay the court proceedings to about the date he intended to leave our native country with the children. An obvious avoidance technique which I refused.

In our native country’s court this father, throughout his statements, repeats the following information:
– Pursuant to the wife’s baseless accusations of molestation, the authorities in the respected country instituted criminal investigations against me, which investigations exonerated me.
– No criminal prosecution followed upon the charges laid by the wife.
– The fact remain no criminal prosecution has been instituted following the wife laying charges against me.

This husband and his native country’s advocate needed to manipulate our native country’s court to influence them. This was done by lying, saying there were court trials on child molestation. I quote them:

-Further, a court of competent jurisdiction has pronounced, not once, but twice on the allegations of molestation made by the mother against this father.
– I am instructed that the charges of molestation were in fact fully investigated, not only by the relevant police authorities, but also the social service and the youth court.
– No less than two courts and the police and prosecuting authorities in the respected country have come to the same conclusion.
– On 7 May 2012 the youth court considered the allegations against me as well as the best interests of the children. At the hearing, the wife was represented by her advocate, and my advocate, represented me. Neither her not I were required to be in attendance.
– Notwithstanding at least two orders of a court with competent jurisdiction, and the respected country’s authorities finding no evidence of any sexual abuse and/or molestation, the wife forges ahead.
-The respected country’s authorities also instituted proceedings in the youth court to establish the veracity of the wife’s allegations and to establish the best interests of the children.

No documents on these phantom “molestation court cases” were provided.
The authorities on the child molestation case, that I had opened, did not take any proceedings into any court, not for veracity or any other reason. Not a youth court, not a civil court and not a criminal court. The reason is pure and simple – the case was closed at prosecutor’s level around two and a half weeks (19 April 2012) after I had approached the police.

But, this husband states the respected country’s authorities also instituted proceedings in the youth court “establishing veracity of my words”.
This is another lie. This husband himself, not the authorities in the respected country, started the proceedings in the youth court against me. He gave this youth court a “diary” filled with lies and exaggerations, claiming I am “mentally unstable” and a “danger to my children”. In the top corner of the cover page of his diary is hand written: Deposited at the youth court 19 April 2012. After his deposition, this social service worker quickly visits the house and on 23 April 2012 I receive a notice for a divorce hearing dated 30 April 2012.

Combining this husband’s declarations/statements in our native country’s court on the respected country’s court procedures, reveals the following startling court procedure:
This husband says he had been on trial not once, but twice in the respected country for child molestation in procedures that was dismissed at the prosecutor’s level. During this “molestation trial” (where no child has been assessed in an investigation), where he is absent (not required to be in attendance), the court gives him full temporary custody of the children he is on trial for molesting. In this same trial his wife is declared “mentally unstable”, without a psychiatric certificate or an evaluation ordered.

With me asking our native country’s court to intervene in protection of my children, this husband continues the above sham, stating:
In essence the relief sought by the wife in the previous application amounted to her asking that this native country’s court sits as a court of appeal against the orders of the respected country’s court.

This husband feels himself justified in stating:
-The wife is opportunistic and mischievous in launching present proceedings.

This husband informed his advocate in the respected country that he and the children are prohibited from leaving our native country until an investigation for molestation has been completed. The advocate of this husband wrote a letter to the general advocate of this respected country, also stating:
The mother has introduced a petition to the judicial authorities in their native country to ask for the custody of the children.
This order is also in violation of the articles 1a and 3a of the Hague Convention 25 October 1980, without prejudice to any other text. I thank you to take in charge that file to grant the immediate return of the children.
I insist in the sensible aspects of that file as the children’s mother is unstable and that every appropriate measure has to be taken to avoid their return near to her.
I also insist in the fact that the case is urgent as the children are going to school in this country and they have to start their school year.

On the statement of me asking for custody of the children in our native country, this is once again a grossly exaggerated statement.
This husband counters his own respected country’s advocate, stating my aim in our native country’s court as the following:
The wife approached our native country’s court on or about 13 August 2012 for relief, which included an interdict that I may not remove the minor children from our native country, pending finalisation of an investigation by the office of the Family Advocate and/or Department of Social Service.

I applied for an interim order, for permission to have the children in my care during the investigation, knowing that they would need to return to the respected country because of their domicile.
I also put forth that the children be placed in protective custody.
My reasons for this were: You cannot expect children that are aware of being small, vulnerable and in their minds completely dependent for survival on an abusive person, to rebel against that authority. This “hostage scenario” is the situation that had been created for these children.

This husband’s advocate in the respected country thought that the Hague Convention is applicable. The Hague Convention is (
(As a practical matter, term “wrongful removal or retention” means removal of the child from his or her country of “habitual residence”, unless prior to such removal the left-behind parent so consents in writing or there is a judicial order authorising the removal and due process had been afforded to the left-behind parent.) 
This Hague convention was by no means applicable. I had not removed the children out of their country of habitual residence. This father removed the children himself. The children were not in my care. They were in his parents’ care. The court case in our native country was on a criminal matter – child molestation. Our native country signed the Hague Convention, subjective to its laws.
Irregardless, a Hague “application” was submitted by the respected country. In this, sections are left void and information negated.
Under place where the child should be: is inserted the house address in the respected country.
Under place where the child is thought to be, (or habitual residence of the child), – is left void.
The question below this requires the information concerning the person alleged to have removed or is retaining the child: this is void.
Accompanying this “Hague application” is a letter written by the same general advocate that wrote an email to our native country’s authorities in which he states “the wife is mentally unstable and/or a witch and a satanist”.
With this “Hague application”, this husband in our native country’s court stated:
In this regard I record that the Central Authority of the respected country have requested the Central Authority in our native country to take all necessary steps in terms of the provision of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspect of Child Abduction, to secure the return of the three minor children to the respected country. 
This “Hague application” in it’s inadequate state, stopped the investigation into the best interests of the children in our native country. I quote this father openly stating this:
My attorney has been advised by the advocate of the Family Advocate’s Office that she cannot in these circumstances proceed with an investigation into the best interests of the children until such time as the proceedings in terms of the Hague convention have been finalised. 
A legal convention that was instituted to aid people was used in an abusive manner, preventing child safeguarding procedures.

Until this day this husband and his advocate state with bravado and drama in the respected country’s court that they made a “Hague application”.
These actions by them are in line with aiding injustice.

This father’s advocate in the respected country continues with:
The case is urgent the children are going to school and have to start their school year.
This father himself keeps the children out of compulsory, punishable by law, school of the respected country. In total about a month and half.

The respected country’s authorities, throughout my activities in my native country, reacted as such:

– They immediately approached our native country’s authorities with a “Hague convention application” (half completed, but obviously accepted by our native country’s authorities) to charge me with kidnapping on no grounds.

– In the beginning of July 2012 I had asked my advocate in the respected country to appeal on this respected country’s ruling to give full temporary custody to this father, but received no reply.
After this husband received notification that my case was accepted into our native country’s court, I received notification from the respected country on 4 September 2012 that this appeal is scheduled for 18 September 2012.
This was just in time for this husband to state in our native country’s court:
The wife has noted an appeal against the orders of the youth court, which appeal is scheduled for hearing on or about 18 September 2012. In the result she is forum shopping, which constitute nothing more than vexatious and malicious litigation.

– The respected country’s authorities appointed the Family advocates office in our native country to represent them. This office claimed the children had received all and every help needed and constantly repeated “over evaluation is not good”.

– This husband’s divorce was added to the mix. I quote him:
For reasons I do not canvass herein, the marriage relationship between the wife and me deteriorated to such an extent, that I instituted divorce proceedings in the respected country during or about April 2012. The divorce proceedings are pending and have not been finalised.
I will canvass this husband’s reasons for divorce, as he has put this in his divorce papers delivered 23 April 2012, in short:
This husband claims that I am accusing him unjustly of molesting his children since March 2012.
He claims I am violent.
This father claims I am mentally unstable and refuses treatment.
He says I have contact with a Christian sect
He says I smoke
He says I have no respect for him.

– The central authorities in our native country received emails from the central authorities in the respected country that contained false information on the children’s language skills. Also creating the false impression that everybody communicated with my children. I quote extracts from emails by a high ranking official in the respected country:

As regards hearings of the children by the police, the doctors and the social investigator, the lawyer of this husband indicates to me that the parties were able to express themselves in English including the children.
The children were also able to express themselves in this respected country’s language in particular the elder ones who goes to school in this country and who thus speak without problem this language.
According to the lawyer he confirms that the children were not confronted with any language barrier and that they expressed themselves freely that allows it their young age.

This respected country’s official had a social service report, and, in this the opposite is clearly stated:
– The children hardly speak at school. They virtually only speak their native language.

Our native country’s authorities did a language assessment on the children and found: The minor children are only able to communicate in their native language and are not able to fluently understand the respected country’s language and understand no English.

After all these clearly intended discrepancies, our native country’s court passed the buck back to the respected country. Ruling Lis pendens, saying there is an appeal in the respected country’s court hanging and the native country cannot also rule on this same matter. Or using the Hague convention, saying there is no reason for our native country to interfere when the respected country is capable of taking care of the children in their jurisdiction. Also finding me vexatious and “Forum shopping” in trying to protect my children. This indicates that this husband’s charade of “twice in court for molestation” was either believed due to lack of care/interest or purposely to prevent a child molestation investigation.

This husband was allowed to leave the country back to the respected country. Included in this order was that all the court documents needed to be communicated to the respected country for further investigation and consideration. I appealed in our native country against this decision to let the children go without an evaluation.
This was when this father crossed the border into the neighbouring country. He sent the eldest child’s original passport back into our native country for a “residence permit”. He felt unable to wait for this in our native country with all the procedures running, but in the appeal court he claimed he had always planned the trip to the neighbouring country. When in his previous affidavit he stated his plans were to return directly to the respected country. Then, according to this father, he was “stuck” in this neighbouring country without a passport for the eldest child to cross the border with – having arranged it as such that only the child’s passport, not the child, exited the neighbouring country.
But a month and a half before he crossed this border, a new passport for this eldest child was collected. Meaning he had two passports for this child. He omits this in his court statements.
This husband, claiming in the appeal court he cannot leave the neighbouring country until he received the child’s passport back, was also a lie. He was not “stuck”, but by choice stayed out of our native country’s authorities’ jurisdiction. Meaning, with intent he avoided an appeal court and police investigations into child molestation.