Addition 5 – Still no assessment

To block me further from getting help for my children in our native country’s court, false claims were made by this father and his advocate that my children had received play therapy in a child molestation investigation in the respected country. I quote them. (Dates are added for clarification.):

– This father was interrogated for two days by the youth police. [Around 12 April 2012] – The charges were dismissed [19 April 2012] as false and no criminal prosecution was instituted.
– The social service worker conducted a full investigation into the allegations of molestation.

The social service worker states she was at the house afternoon 2 May 2012. She faxed her report to court on 4 May 2012 9:38AM.
This social service worker claims to have been in the house two weeks after the molestation charge against this husband was dismissed. This means she was not involved in an investigation into allegations of child molestation, as is continuously claimed.
I continue quoting the false claims in our native country’s court on this social service worker’s “involvement in an investigation of molestation”:
– Her investigation included interviewing the applicant, 1st Respondent, all three children, the eldest children’s respective teachers, the doctor that had done the two children’s physical examination and youth police investigative officer.

It is claimed this social service worker’s investigation included interviewing “all three children”. Neither of these social workers present during the unannounced visit to the house spoke to any of the children, let alone three children. The youngest child was two years old. The children did not speak any language to the extent that they could understand what the children were saying or that the children could understand them.
Even in her report this social service worker comments that the children virtually only speak their native language.
They continued unabashed, and I quote:
– The children also participated in play therapy.
There is no document in our native country’s court or the respected country’s court that proves this statement. This is said scrupulously by this husband, his legal representation and the family advocates representing the respected country in our native country’s court.

This husband elaborated on these impressions by making the following statements in our native country’s court:
– Also part of the investigations, the children were subjected to no less than 2 sessions of interactional/play therapy by a psychologist.
– On 3 May 2012 the mother was interviewed by the child psychologist during her session of all three boys.
– On 22 June 2012, I together with the two youngest children partook in a interactional session when this same psychologist interviewed me. The eldest child was not part of the session as he was at school.
– As set out hereinbefore, the children have been assessed by a psychologist in the respected country. The mother is fully aware thereof as she was present during at least one of the two sessions.
– The authorities in the respected country have done everything they had to do to establish the best interest of the children.

This husband says “also part of the investigations”. The dates he gives, 3 May 2012 and 22 June 2012, are not in the scope of the police case that was stopped on 19 April 2012.
The 3 May 2012 session was about 20min and was only to see if the second child is autistic. The child played in the corner. She did not join the child and she did not speak a word to the child. Her comment at the end of this was: Having observed his behaviour, that he is not autistic. Then she ignored me listing his irregular behaviour and pleas to look at child molestation as another option for it.
As for interactional/play therapy:–child_interaction_therapy – Parent–Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) is a form of behavioural-parent training for children ages 2–7 and their caregivers. It is an evidence-based treatment (EBT) for young children with emotional and behavioural disorders that places emphasis on improving the quality of the parent-child relationship and changing parent-child interaction patterns and is for a child displaying behavioural problems.

This while this husband and his advocate claim in court the children are doing very well and is happy in the care of their father? So why therapy on 22 June 2012?
After seeing this husband’s lies and false impressions in our native country’s court, I phoned this psychologist that saw the second child “to determine autism” on 3 May 2012. I asked her to write a statement. She refused and then asked me if we are going to keep to the appointment for the children that afternoon? This was in September 2012. The children were not even in the respected country at the time. This psychologist, that apparently did interactional therapy with these children, seemed to be unaware that this father had full temporary custody and was doing his utmost ensuring the children and their mother had no contact.
The psychologist mentioned here, who supposedly did interactional/play therapy, does not speak these minor children’s native language and they spoke very little of her language.
By all professional, effective and responsible psychologist standards it is required that a minor child be assisted, evaluated or treated in his/her first language.

These children had, to date, not been assessed/evaluated for sexualisation by a professional. This husband and Co’s statements claiming, or trying to create, an impression of a different situation, are blatant lies.

This husband/father also made the following statement in our native country’s court and I quote: The children’s interests cannot and will not be served by subjecting them to continuous evaluations.
This husband/father’s above statement is nothing but pseudo reasoning. The correct statement is: The abuser’s interests cannot and will not be served by subjecting small victims to continuous evaluations.
This husband/father with his words and actions also ensures that evaluation/assessment of these children are again avoided.
There had been no evaluations for sexualisation.
The impression this “I am called a pedophile” husband/father wants to create with his statement is that an evaluation for sexualisation is detrimental to a child. This is obviously a false impression.