My brother and his wife, while she was with me, told me that my mother had now “lost it totally”. They said she is in such a condition she cannot drive a car anymore. When I spoke to my mother over the phone she generally sounded upset, but not as if she had “lost it totally”.
The day I arrived in our native country, I could not find my mother in the people at the airport. She said she will pick me up. I eventually saw her sitting on a bench. She looked straight at me, but did not recognise me. I got a fright, thinking maybe they are right. I walked up to her and when I came closer she jumped up, looked surprised and said, “You look wonderful.” She told me that my sister-in-law told her I looked so terrible. That I lost a tremendous amount of weight and had (also) “lost it totally”. My mother last saw me a year and a half ago. My hair was now short and highlighted and I was back to the weight I had always been, before I had my three children.
We drove to her apartment and I felt uneasy with what my brother had told me of her driving. But noticed at once my mother is exactly the same on the road. I wondered why my brother and his wife were saying untrue things behind our backs?
In my native country I approached and contacted every possible place for help, from legal people at the University, several social services for advice and information, several police divisions and advocates. I walked into walls everywhere.
If I wanted to open a case for the abuse on the eldest child in my mother’s apartment in 2009 and for what the children had told me happens on this father’s parents’ farm, the children physically needed to be in the country.
Legally the children lived in another country and that is considered their domicile, even if they did not have citizenship of that country.
I was told by the authorities that the children told me what happens to them in another country. According to this law, this father consequently changes his ways when he crosses a country’s borderline.
I could not see a path to help my children and once again went crying to God.
I tried phoning to my children, but the phone was not picked up. This phone used to go over to fax or the answering machine. It did not do this and I wondered if this father changed the house number.
Eventually this father did pick up and told me that I must get “treatment” before I am allowed to speak to the children. I asked him if I could just tell my children that I love them and he said no. I begged, cried, yelled and pleaded against a stone wall.
I asked him to arrange for the necessary papers from his advocate for instructions on a psychiatric evaluation. This was the requirements in a court evaluation by the psychiatrists in our native country. They needed instructions and not from me, but another party or a court order. This father said no. I should ask my family to help me. I wondered what my eldest brother would say to that, after he made such elaborate promises, saying this father is going to help me.
I phoned and tried several times and got the same answer, “No, you cannot speak to the children. You need treatment first.” I asked him on whose instructions and he replied, “The social service worker’s.”
About a week later, phoning again, he agreed, with no treatment statement, that I can speak to the children on Skype that evening. I spoke to them! He said I could speak to them the next day as well. But the next day he again he said I first need to get “treatment” before I can speak to the children. I asked him again on whose instruction and he again answered the social service worker’s. I carried on phoning and again he agreed I can speak to the children on Skype that evening, but only for 10min. The following day he sent a SMS that I cannot speak to them and after that I could not reach him on his mobile number and the house phone was not picked up again. I send him a SMS, but he did not reply.
What I did find out when speaking to the children, was that they are coming to our native country. The eldest child told me that they said his picture in his passport is out dated, he needed a new passport, and that they had gone to get this. He wanted to know where I was and do I have a bed to sleep in.
When we visited my eldest brother and his family my sister-in-law was screaming and crying as she had done when she was with me. She was again saying she is trying to protect herself. My mother was shocked. She had never seen her daughter-in-law anything other than calm in the many years she had known her.
My brother and his wife had made arrangements for me to be admitted into a hospital for treatment. They made an agreement with this husband that if he paid for my flight ticket then they will make sure I am admitted into a hospital for treatment. They constantly contacted me or my mother, sending SMS messages and phoning, insisting that they are providing help. They continued after their offer of help had been declined by sending very nasty and insulting messages to my mother, phoning people to slander me and my mother and pre-warned this husband of my actions.
I heard every possible version from my eldest brother and his wife: This father will allow you to see your children if you get treatment. This father wants you back, he only wants to help you. This father is going to divorce and destroy you. This father will not take you back, just get treatment. You will never see your children again, if you do not go for treatment. Even if you do go for treatment now you will never see your children again.
I went for advice on this to my house doctor I used to have when I lived in our native country. She was still my mother’s house doctor. Only to discover that my mother had spoken to her about the incident in her apartment in 2009. I told her everything else. She concluded that she saw no reason for me to be admitted to a psychiatric hospital.
I found out via my brother that this father had taken the children to his family farm in a neighbouring country for two weeks, and after that he left the children on his parents’ farm in our native country. This explained to me why I got no answer at home and no reply on the cellular.
But now, the children were in our native country! Once again God helped.
This father again left these three small children, this time for a duration of 5 weeks, in the care of his elderly, weak mother, sickly father and youngest unmarried brother to apparently go and work for his “measly” salary.
This husbands testimonies in court of caring for these children were just lies, just for show and creation of impressions. His actions spoke of disregard for these three small children’s emotional and physical wellbeing while he continued with his selfish life as always.
I approached an advocate in a prominent position. He referred me to a legal firm. He informed me that my chances of succeeding and even being accepted into our native country’s court were slim, due to domicile and jurisdiction. But they were going to try to keep the children in our native country long enough to have a professional assessment done to get the proof that the children had been sexualised. Then the children needed to return to their country of residence, but I would be able to use the report in court there. This was enough for me.
This assessment would be in my children’s mother-tongue. This was the only language in which they were fluent. They spoke no English and very little of the languages of the country we were living in. I raised my children in our native country’s culture. The setting was perfect for aiding these children.
I knew this father and his family’s negligent behaviour with the children and feared that the children were, on top of everything, in danger of getting seriously hurt in their care and asked for protection for them in my court application.
My first ex parte (ex parte: with respect to or in the interests of one side) application did not reach court, only the judges’ chamber. I heard the judge speaking. I sat outside his office. He said, “This country is a respected country. They would not make a mistake. There must be something wrong with the woman if they took her children away. Social services must be involved before I am looking at this. There is no proof that these children are in danger on this farm.”
I opened cases with the police in our native country. The children were now in our native country and now the police could be involved.
I did a psychometric evaluation which consisted of 6 hour written tests and a 2 hour consultation. The results again were positive for me. No psychiatric deviations, but was told to be less obsessive in my knowledge of my children’s abuse.
These things are always good to know.
With this information my legal team tried again, ex parte. The reason for approaching ex parte was because I feared this family will take my children across the border into a neighbouring country. With the second application the judge said he will allow it if the other party is allowed to reply. The case made it into our native country’s court!
In the application my legal representation named this father’s family members that were residing on the farm. I had no problem with this. This family had clearly shown their colours. The eldest brother tortured me and my children without any empathy. The youngest brother refused without empathy to let me speak to my children who were trying to say hallo to me. This father, without empathy, tortured, lied and manipulated and kept my children away from me.
This father was notified of our native country’s involvement via email. A few days later I received a request for agreement to a two week extension on this father’s reply date ordered by the court. It was said, due to this father not being able to file opposing papers, as he was away working. On record, two days after the summons was emailed to him, he flew back to the respected country for several days — my guess is to confer with his legal representation — who then contacted the central authorities and started a Hague application against me for “kidnapping” the children. A reality-less accusation, considering I did not kidnap anyone. If I took my children, this could be different. Many people were telling me I had the right to do just this, saying the respected country’s laws that, proverbially speaking, fired me as a mother, apparently did not stretch to the extent of being applicable in our native country.
This two week extension request of this father made sense. The children had to attend compulsory school in the respected country and their return tickets were booked two weeks away. In light of this — their request made it plain to me that this father’s plan involved playing for time to this deadline. I declined.
This family then came through with an offer to allow the children to be assessed by the same psychologist that did my psychometric assessment and that I could see the children under their supervision for three hours a week. I had at that point in time not seen my children for three months and had only spoken to them twice. If agreeing to this carrot, everything will be solely in this family’s hands again. This was an offer from people there has been no reason to trust. Nothing will be on record. No one to oversee their actions and no repercussions if they did not keep to this agreement. They could even leave the country with no repercussions. I declined. Our native country’s police, in their standard investigation procedures, told me they were going to have these children assessed.
The highly confidential report from the social service worker, which was withheld from me in the respected country, was what they had to use. It was going to be given into our native country’s court and I might finally get a glimpse of this damning report.
They did not disappoint and I even got more than expected. With the very first court reply, this previously highly confidential report was added to this father’s advocate’s affidavit, as a public attachment for anyone to see. This confidential report was provided courtesy of this father’s respected country’s advocates — who legally is not allowed to be in possession of, or distribute, this report.
The legal process to follow is: It is to be translated from the respected country’s language into an international language. Then sent from the one country’s central authority to the other. Where solely the legal representatives will be allowed to only read this at the central authority offices.
Everyone in court pretended “the Kaiser had clothes on” and proceeded with this process even after this father’s advocate made the confidential report public.
In our native country’s court an advocate was appointed for my children.
In the respected country, even though I had several times asked for an advocate for my children, my requests were declined.
This advocate appointed for my children by our native country wrote a report that suggested I should have contact with my children and that the children should be assessed. She was court ordered to arrange and oversee the assessment.
Our native country’s court ruled that the children and this father were not allowed to leave our native country until investigations have been finalised.
Our native country’s court allowed me visitation with my children several hours over weekends. I was awarded unlimited telephone access. This father or his youngest brother could not put the phone down on me again. When phoning the farm landline the first time this father’s youngest brother did put down the phone on me once again. I phoned again. He had apparently not seen the court order and put down the phone again. I phoned this father’s mother’s mobile and told her I want to arrange seeing my children for the visitation I was granted. She replied she wants to take the children to church. I told her I can fetch them at church afterwards, not a problem. She had apparently seen the court order. The youngest brother took the phone from her and told me to phone back later, and put it down again. My lawyer wrote a letter to the legal representatives of this family, telling them they could expect trouble if they continue to choose to disobey the court order.
I phoned to this farm again. Again, this youngest brother answered the phone and now he was dripping honey. He could not ask enough questions. How are you? When would you like to see the children? Which child do you want to speak to first?
My children were the same little boys I had known and that had known me. They were all babbling over the phone and wanted to talk at the same time. I sat listening to all their little voices. It was a privilege I have not had in a long time.
The respected country appointed the Family Advocates Office in our native country to represent them in court. Advocates were flown in from a different part of our native country and they constantly talked of over evaluation of the children. Over evaluation is not good, they claimed. This “over evaluation” statement was said several times in several settings, including meetings and the court room.
Reality is: There had been, up to date, no professional assessment/evaluation done on these children. The children were not fluent in any other language than our native country’s. No assessment could have been done in the respected country. No report of an assessment on the children could be seen in the native country’s court room.
A high ranking family advocate told me to leave our native country at once for the respected country and they promise they will do everything they can to help my children. I told her if she showed me the evaluation report on the children she continually spoke of, I will believe every word she says. She did not show me any evaluation report on the children, because there was no report. She then ignored me.
This father’s advocate and the family advocates confirmed to our native country’s court that the respected country and this father had now made a Hague application. This was for kidnapping charges against me for trying to keep the children in our native country to be assessed. I had requested that the children be with me during their assessment, after which they needed to return to the respected country. This request of mine initiated this Hague application I presume in preparation to act quickly. I also presume before the children even make it to their assessment.
This father wrote, confirming in his statements to this court the following: In this regard I record that the Central Authority of the respected country have requested the Central Authority in this 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 did create an uproar of fear in everyone involved. The children’s advocate kept on saying she cannot have these children assessed as per the previous court order, because of this Hague application. This father, his legal representation and the respected country got the desired result. Again I quote this father’s statements in our native country’s court room, reiterating this:
My attorney, has been advised by the Family Advocate’s Office that “they” 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.
Not only the Hague convention that was “thrown in” to cause confusion, distraction and blockages. The respected country’s authorities changed the court in our native country into a circus with lies, and I quote directly from emails sent to court from the respected country’s authorities, lying about the children’s language capabilities:
-As regards hearings of the children by the police, the doctors and the social investigator, the lawyer of this father 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 the respected country’s language in particular the elder ones who goes to school 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.
These respected country’s authorities wrote these emails, knowing that there were language barriers everywhere. It is repeated several times in their social service report that the children are only fluent in our native language. However, this father’s respected country’s legal representation is pointed at in this email as the supplier of this false information.
The cherry on the cake was an email from the general advocate at the prosecutors’ office of this respected country. I quote this man from his email given into court:
After reading all the documents I want to add 2 important points:
The mother seems to have real mental health problems : she seems to believe and/or practice some witches and Satan worship.
Wow!
In connection with mental health rumours:
There was no medical certificate from a professional in front of this man that proved I have “mental health” problems.
I am trying to stop the torture and humiliation of my three small children. This cannot be said as me having mental health problems, for example, if I was a sociopath I would not care about the torture of children. Since I do care, and that is obvious, it can safely be said I am not a sociopath.
If I had major depression I don’t think I would be still standing through all the torture I have had to endure and all the torture I had to witness my children endure.
If I had “lost touch with reality” or had “delusional psychosis” why then is this father, and everyone else involved with him, creating false impressions and telling lies?
There would be no need to lie, create false impressions and manipulate if I was mentally ill.
In reality I had every right, with everything that had happened, to feel shocked, unhappy, angry and worried for the safety of my children. It is the normal human response.
On the topic of witches and Satan worshipper:
I have being ridiculed as belonging to a Christian sect in this respected country for writing an email to a Christian author. Who, according to the social service worker’s dramatic quote in her report, “has exceptional powers in combatting Satan”.
Combatting Satan and worshipping Satan are two totally different concepts. One is opposing and one is agreeing. Reporting child molestation, a crime, to the police depicts an opposing action.
This general advocate of the prosecutor’s office had no evidence of the statements he made. Was this general advocate’s intention slandering me in our native country’s court to improve this father’s position in the court?
Another extract from his email points out why this respected country decided not to follow up on my witness statement, and I quote: The Prosecutor’s office in this respected country decided to dismiss the complaint against this father for sexual abuse, because there was no evidence against him.
There are undeniable rumours of this father preferring little boys, being spread by others and this father himself.
There is a witness that had noticed inappropriate, physical behaviour of this father with his child and she confided in her house doctor at the time. I, as these children’s legal guardian and their spokes person, heard them speak of their abuse. This is said by a general prosecutor to be no evidence. I am 100% sure the law says that a witness is evidence.
The law does not specify what weight will be put onto the witness according to colour, age or gender of this witness.
But, does a person’s psychiatric position influence the witness statement?
How about discrediting and slandering the witness in a court?
But why do that, if there is nothing to hide, as is claimed by the people involved?
Reality is: If there is something to hide, then the key interest would be destroy the witness, oppress and silence the victims.
This is what is being done to me and my children.
This email of the general advocate of the prosecutor’s office of the respected country was read out loud in court by the judge in our native country’s court.
Well appreciated from our native country’s court in these proceedings was that they ordered an evaluation on the children’s language skills. The family counsellors interviewed both this father and me, separately, as well. The conclusion of this interview was:
1.1.1The 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.
1.1.2 The eldest two children’s communication and understanding in their native language is the best and the smallest child could not be assessed as he is still too young.
1.1.3 Allegations of sexual abuse by this father toward the eldest two children by the wife is cause for concern and thorough assessment and investigation need to be completed. Thus Protection Measures need to be established for the minor children pending the completion of these assessments and investigations.
1.1.4 Allegations regarding the stability of the wife’s mental health by this father need to be clarified by medical professionals.
1.1.5 International Social Services need to be approached and included in order for the children’s best interest to be ensured.
In the respected country’s courts, this father, the social service worker and his advocate, repeatedly in their papers, claimed that I have “lost all touch with reality”. But, in our native country’s court “vexatious and malicious” replaced “lost touch with reality”. I quote this father and his advocate’s sayings as example:
– I deny that service of the application would have defeated the purpose thereof. I do, however, state that the wife’s purpose with her application is malicious and vexatious.
– I submit and shall demonstrate that the wife is vexatious in her approaching the above Honourable Court in view of at least the following facts and circumstances:
Requesting that three small children are professionally assessed by order, protection and control of a court, in their native language and culture, is deemed vexatious and malicious in their eyes. These three small children had not been assessed before, contrary to normal procedures, and the request itself falls in the category of protection.
Another aspect was thrown into the mix to create confusion in our native country’s court.
After avenues in our native country boiled down to jurisdiction and domicile, I requested my respected country’s advocate beginning July 2012 to make an application for an appeal against the court decision in the respected country. I received no reply. This was before I had known my children were coming to our native country
When my case was accepted into our native country’s court around 27 August 2012, a notification was sent on 4 September 2012 that this appeal in the respected country was now scheduled for 18 September 2012. The result in our native country’s court was: This father and his advocate claimed I had two cases in two different countries, forum shopping in legal terms. I quote this father’s statement in court:
– In the result she is forum shopping, which constitute nothing more than vexatious and malicious litigation.
But, at the time of me approaching our native country’s court there had been no reply from my advocate or a court in the respected country on my appeal request.
As far as “forum shopping” is concerned, the bases of the case/complaint in court needs to be the same.
Our native country’s court was approached with the information of my children being molested by their father and suspicions of exposure to a pedophile circle.
There was no such case or hearing in the respected country.
Although the false impression given to our native country’s court by this father and his advocate, was that the respected country’s authorities showed interest and courts had hearings and verdicts with a children’s molestation case. I quote this father and his advocate from their court statements:
-Further, a court of competent jurisdiction has pronounced, not once, but twice on the allegations of molestation made by this mother against this father.
-On 7 May 2012 the Youth Court considered the allegations against me as well as the best interests of the children. Neither the wife not I were required to be in attendance.
A court “considering” child molestation charges without the accused present? Especially confusing when adding the following statement of this father and I quote:
The fact remain no criminal prosecution has been instituted following the wife laying (molestation) charges against me.
The police case for child molestation was stopped at prosecution level on 19 April 2012.
In fact, this father’s child abuse case never at any point reached any court in the respected country. And the claims made were horrendous lies.
Then I received an email from my advocate in the respected country informing me that the appeal there was postponed. The respected country’s authorities now wanted to have both this father and me present in an appeal court. I quote the respected country’s authorities:
During this audience the judge of the Appeal Court explained to the lawyers that as far as the parties were not present at the hearing (including the appealing party) the affair would not be taken and was postponed sine die. The affair will be taken as of the return of the parties.
The respected country’s court initially took very quick, radical decisions with neither this father nor me being present in the first court hearing. Now they wanted us in the appeal court?
The irony was that this appeal court did not involve this father’s molestation charges. In reality it involved the rumours of my “mental instability”. What I am saying my children told me, is only utilised as their evidence/proof of my “mental instability” — without a psychiatric evaluation stating so.
On 15 September 2012 12:06 PM I received a SMS from this father, saying:
The second child fell off the wagon and broke his right tibia. At the clinic, orthopaedic surgeon said he is ok and put on plaster of Paris. He must not step on the foot for 4 weeks. Can see the child on farm this afternoon between 3 and 6? Just let my parents know pls.
It was a 6 hour drive away and time being 12:06 PM, I was not going to make it between 3 and 6. This father knew this very well. But it sounded “nice” from him, did it not?
In this message this father creates the impression that this second child had just “fallen off” the wagon the same day as the SMS was sent, and that they are physically still at the clinic.
I swallowed this false impression, until:
The child told me, telephonically that night, that the wheel went over him.
During our following visitation the child told me his arm is sore. When I pulled up his sleeve, half his arm had a contusion and the whole arm was swollen.
On requesting the X-rays from the hospital, the information showed that this arm had also been X-rayed. The X-rays were taken 20:15 the day before this father sent me his message.
I contacted the children’s advocate and gave her the information that my child was driven over. “Yes,” she said, “accidents do happen,” and did not bother further. I suppose I was upset because it was my child that got hurt and nearly killed in negligence.
In this court of our native country the presiding judge delayed his ruling until the next day, saying he will first and foremost take the children into consideration. This was heavenly news to me. The next day he started the court procedure with jurisdiction, domicile, Lis pendens, forum shopping and the Hague convention, etc. Laws safely written on a piece of paper outranked lives, welfare and protection of children.
Our native country’s court authorities passed the buck. The buck the judge had passed, was the future of three helpless boys. The ruling was that this father was allowed to leave the country, with the children, and our native country’s court’s documentation should be communicated to the respected country’s authorities, for consideration. Investigations, if so required, should be done in languages we understand and there should not be unnecessary interference with my right to see the children.
This judge either sighted Lis pendens (Latin for law suit pending — meaning the appeal that realised the moment I approached our native country’s court and was then postponed by the respected country’s court for a reason that did not prohibit this court to start with). Or he sighted the Hague Convention as his reason for this. It is not obvious from his order which is applicable. However, the judge states and I quote:
It cannot be accepted that two parallel procedures be undertaken between the same parties about the same dispute in two different countries.
Was this guy deciding on my mental stability in a custody hearing? Or on a professional investigation and evaluation for children in a molestation case?
It was simply stated in our native country’s court that the protection of the children was looked at in the court hearing of the respected country. What I asked falls into “that category” and that I am approaching our native country’s court with conjecture and this court could not see why I asked it to intervene when the respected country could take care of the children in their jurisdiction.
For me it was obvious. The respected country could not take care of these children in their jurisdiction: They did not have a professional that speaks the children’s language. No investigation assessment/evaluation for molestation can be done in the respected country.
The respected country did not follow child molestation investigative procedures and had not ensured the safety of children. The respected country’s actions protected and ensured this husband’s financial safety, his comfort and his desires.
I now wanted to appeal against the ruling that allowed this father to leave with these children without completing an investigation.
The police cases in our native country were still open. Allowing this father to leave also meant hampering these investigations. I obtained new representation since my previous legal representatives were against appealing.
No one had the actual ruling of the judge when I approached the court with the appeal application about a week later.
This father was aware of my preparations to appeal. He and his advocate were pre-warned of this.
My youngest brother phoned me and said that our eldest brother phoned him with stories. Saying I had trapped this husband into marrying me by saying I was pregnant at the time of our marriage. This was the only reason why this husband now claimed he married me.
I was pregnant, but had a miscarriage five months before we got married. He saw the pregnancy test. He also knew of the miscarriage. I had emails throughout of this “husband” proclaiming his love. He planned the renovations of the house and sent me the plans, asking me to comment. Another email, sent a month after the miscarriage and four months before our wedding, contained wedding invitation choices from which this father did choose.
I tried printing these, but they looked unreadable. I went to an office shop. After the invitations were printed, I asked the shop assistant if she can read it easily. She said yes. She asked why I wanted it. I talked about my coming divorce, about my three children and that it is now being said that I trapped this man into marriage. This lady looked shocked and asked me if I had a picture of this husband. I showed her a picture on my computer and she said that this husband with another man had, several months before, been in another branch of these office shops.
She happened to be at this shop at that time. She recalled there were several people in the shop and this father spoke loudly of his “mentally unstable” wife that is incapable of caring for their three little boys. This father loudly said that his wife is accusing him of raping his very own children. The shop assistant asked this father not to be so loud, as there were other customers. She witnessed this father cut, paste and change existing emails. She said that it appeared he was making it look as if two people were fighting in the emails. This father had pictures of the children that he wanted copied. In one picture a little boy was naked and had a big blue bruise on his thigh. This is child pornography by our native country’s laws and the assistant refused to make copies of these fraudulent emails and naked pictures.
The time that this father went to this office shop the children had been in his sole custody for more than a month. This meant the children received these bruises during his care. What amazed me were the chances of finding information such as this, in such a way that could be compared to finding a needle in a haystack. I knew it was God.
The lady did not want her identity exposed, but wrote a letter. I gave this and her contact details to the police in our native country that investigated the molestation charges. I also dropped a hint of this in my appeal paper to see if this father will continue with his planned lies, in his mission to slander me. Obviously trying to keep me away from his small victims, who I am declaring, had confided in me.
My new advocate in the appeal went in strong on the fact that the children need protection. I could not listen while my advocate pleaded for the lives of these three children that are being molested. The reality that she was talking about my three children was too much. I left the court room and went out into the hallway. About half an hour later the family advocate that represented the respected country’s authorities ran out the court room, phoned someone urgently and in distress, saying, “They are concentrating on the criminal aspect.” She saw me and walked away, talking softly over the phone. I did not know her and she did not know me. Should me trying to protect my three children be upsetting to her? It was distorted into something else for distraction and preventing help for three small boys. She must have been pleased with this distortion.
The children’s advocate was in court. I had informed the children’s advocate on how my children were abused, physically and emotionally, on this farm. Also that the second child was driven over in negligence. She said she will follow up on this, but it was just hollow words. With the previous ruling she was appointed to oversee and arrange assessment for the children, however, when someone asked her on this, she spoke about the “Hague application” in reply as if this excused her from doing what a court had ordered. These people were supposed to have the children’s best interests at heart. It was written on posters on the family advocates’ offices walls. I, out of love for my children, was fighting these people who had these posters on their walls.
While they either agreed, but did nothing in their power, or coldly debated on laws, or tried to find excuses to do nothing.
After my advocate had pleaded for my children, this father’s advocate simply stood up and said this father and the children are no longer in the jurisdiction of our native country’s court. They crossed into a neighbouring country.
This presiding judge in the appeal court said that he did not have the ruling of the previous judge, since this had not been typed yet. He postponed the court for two weeks.
The children’s school had started in the respected country and by law the oldest two children had to attend. This father now had permission to leave our native country for the respected country. But he did not. These were this father’s words in court, when he and the children were kept back:
It is in fact to the detriment of all three children to remain in this country indefinitely as they ought to return to their habitual residence.
This father did not take the children to their habitual residence. Why did he not fly back to the respected country?
The second child’s leg was still in plaster, but, on my enquiring, the airline said he is allowed to fly. It could be that this father did not want questions as to how the child’s leg got broken and was waiting for the plaster of Paris to be removed. If someone asked this child about his leg he replied the wheel went over him. This is not a nice temporary custody picture. Especially since this father did his utmost to convince everyone he is this wonderful, conscientious, caring father.
But why go to the neighbouring country, why not wait in our native country?
I also had court appointed visitation with the children and unlimited telephone access. This father was trying to prevent me from having any contact with my children. He wanted to alienate them from me.
So far, going to the neighbouring country solved two problems for this father.
I struggled to reach the children in the neighbouring country. The landline was not answered and the cellular I kept getting a “not available” message.
I sent a SMS to this father’s mother’s cellular, asking where the children are and got this reply by SMS 4 October 2012 1:53PM: As mentioned earlier the children is with this father in the neighbouring country with his brother.
On saying I cannot reach them and when they will be coming back I got this reply from this father’s mother; SMS 4 October 2012 3:23PM:
We also cannot reach them and have not been informed when they will be coming back.
Comparing these replies with this father’s court statement in the appeal court, it gives another picture. I quote him: 3 October 2012: As at the date of deposing to this affidavit and since the afternoon of 28 September 2012 the children and I, together with my Mother, and my Father, have been in “the neighbouring country,” visiting my brother on his farm.
His mother gives the impression in her messages she is not, that she does not have contact and knows nothing.
This father then gives elaborate information in his reply to the appeal court on why he had not left for the respected country. I am giving a summary of this father’s statement:
The eldest child’s “residence” permit had expired on 19 September 2012 it was necessary to attend the Consulate in our native country for purposes of obtaining a new permit. This father explains in his statement how he instructs his advocate to make the necessary appointments and arrangements for this with the Consulate. The boys, his mother, father and he departed 27 September 2012. They stopped in the city and he met up with his advocate at the Consulate. At the meeting was explained which documents were required and what arrangements had to be made. The Consulate representative advised that he only needed to provide a copy of the eldest child’s passport with the completed documentation. He and his advocate spent the greater part of the afternoon completing the application form.
(This application form requires a few ticked boxes and he has to rewrite his address, name and the child’s name a few times.)
The consulate refused to accept the completed forms late afternoon 27 September 2012. (This consulate’s rule is only accepting visa applications in the morning.) His advocate undertook to attend the consulate on Friday morning 28 September 2012 to deliver the application form.
This allowed him to leave for the neighbouring country with the children the following morning.
(The date, 28 September 2012, the date I appealed in the High Court on the decision that this father may leave with the children, without completing an investigation.)
This father proceeds to tell how the Consulate representative the following morning had “changed her tune” and did not want to accept only a copy of this passport. How he was already near the border and could not turn back, to give her this passport. He crossed the border and his eldest brother drove to fetch this passport from the neighbouring country the following day. (An approximate whopping 12 hour drive for this eldest brother.) The eldest brother, having brought this child’s passport back into our native country, handed the passport to this father’s advocate and she gave in the passport the Monday morning (1 October 2012) at the Consulate. Saying this application at the Consulate is going to take 5-10 days to consider. (This meant the child was in a foreign country without his passport.)
Their aim and punch-line: I quote directly from this father’s court statement: The boys and I cannot depart “this neighbouring country” until I receive the eldest child’s original passport from the Consulate.
The children were not within the area of jurisdiction of the above Honourable Court at the time the appeal application was launched on 28 September 2012. And I submit that in light of the above, the Honourable Court does not have the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the present application.
Here is the reason for this father’s hurry to cross the border: The children would not be within the area of jurisdiction of our native country’s court at the time the appeal application was launched.
This father repeats in this statement of his that the application at this consulate was for a “residence permit” for this child. But, this consulate is not authorised to handle residence permits. They are only authorised to handle tourist visas. This father knows the differences between these very well from his profession.
This father’s advocate phoned the police, enquiring about their investigation. Also stating, mindful that the wife did not bother to hand over to the police the most pertinent exculpatory documents already in existence.
This father is probably referring to the “highly confidential” social service report, that I was not allowed to see, and the respected country’s prosecutor’s emails and report, also “highly confidential”.
In this father’s statements his advocate, who is again not legally allowed to be in possession of these documents, sent these “highly confidential”, now translated, documents to the police.
These apparent “exculpatory” documents did have three things in common, which are:
None are exculpatory documents. These documents do not state this father is innocent of child molestation.
The general advocate of the prosecutor’s office says, “No evidence.” This does not in reality mean “not guilty”.
The social service worker in her report makes out that I am “mentally unstable” and have “lost touch with reality”. With this she had abused my witness statement and gave a twisted reason for my protective actions and cries for help for my children.
She solely felt and saw an opportunity to oppress me and my children. Aiding this husband’s abuse spree and aided him in causing more suffering and trauma for children.
None of these documents say all investigations necessary have been conducted – all evidence obtained and examined, small children have been provided with protection, ensuring their safety and security and assessments done in their mother tongue. This is what one would expect from such a respected country, detailed, professional work, however, this is not done.
Another thing these documents have in common is that both documents make slanderous and false statements about me.
Another problem was solved for this father, with him and the children being in the neighbouring country, and I quote this father in his court statement: On the police telephoning my advocate to enquire about the boys, more specifically the second child, being subjected to an evaluation by a social worker my advocate told him that the children were in the neighbouring country.
After having unlawfully handed in these “exculpatory” documents of his, the police still wanted to assess the children. These children were not only out of the court’s jurisdiction, they were also out of the jurisdiction of the police.
Then this father, from the neighbouring country, writes in his statement and I quote him: I have no doubt that the police will not find any evidence, much less sufficient evidence to warrant the institution of criminal prosecution against me and/or my father and/or my brother on charges of sexual molestation and /or rape of the children.
The implications for this eldest child who was, according to this father’s statement, without a passport in a foreign country was huge. When found, he could be placed in an orphanage until extradition papers were organised. The child’s emotional trauma would be tremendous. My advocate advised me to have the eldest child removed, based on this father’s statements saying the child is illegally in this neighbouring country. I did not want my child to be taken to an orphanage in this neighbouring country, also not to be alone, not on top of everything else. My advocate then tried to arrange that this father and this child be escorted back into our native country and for the child to be placed in foster care in our native country. This would be emotionally less severe for the child. Before these arrangements could be finalised the child’s passport was, according to this father’s advocate at the court room, being rushed to the neighbouring country by this father’s parents.
All lies: This is a wonderful example of this father & co.’s capabilities in creating impressions, disruptions and luring people into actions that they can twist and use in turn as a weapon.
Recent evidence revealed that this father’s complete “the child don’t have a passport, I am stuck in the neighbouring country” tale was a smoke screen.
This father is omitting to divulge that a new passport for this child was picked up middle August 2012. This child’s old passport only expired in December 2012.
Meaning the child had two passports at the time.
This father could cross the border at any time with the children and was not “stuck”.
He made it sound to the police and the court that he had no control over being out of their jurisdiction and no control over not being able to return to their jurisdiction. He basically created an alibi for avoiding judicial authorities with his false statements.
Another law this father was breaking, was one of the respected country’s laws. I quote this father
-The children’s schools are set to reopen in September 2012.
– Both the eldest two children are compelled in terms of “the respectable country’s” law, to attend school from the age of 4.
As a self-contradictory answer to his own statements, he kept the children in the neighbouring country, out of school, for another month.
Nothing happened with the appeal. Not even after this apparently “innocent” father so openly and arrogantly stated that he is out of everyone’s jurisdiction and lied about having driven over his child.
The judge stated in court that the matter had already been decided on (res judicata) and the children are out of the court’s jurisdiction.
This father hid away with the children in this neighbouring country until about middle October 2012. He then took the children and flew back to the respected country.
Did this father’s child endangering, child neglecting, lying, fraudulent, hampering a criminal investigation and law breaking actions in any way upset any authorities in the country’s involved?
After this, I prepared a statement on this father’s financial dealings and my involvement in this. I went to the police and tax office and gave them the information. No one said yes, this is a crime. Apparently only I thought so. Maybe this husband was right. One could do as one pleased. Cross borders to avoid investigations: lie in courts: open bank accounts in anybody’s and any company’s name.
