When #Mothers allege #ChildSexualAbuse, #CSA without fail, they loose custody


Bias against Women Alleging Abuse in Family Courts – published by The Global Womens Institute at the George Washington University in Washington DC

The subject line is spoken after minute 5 and 15 seconds.

This week, High Court Judge Pauffley can change the trend with her judgement over the whistleblower kids who are also expected to be given to her criminally abusive father.

But the internet publicity surrounding the story may just have the power to change the past and the future…

Advertisements

About Sabine Kurjo McNeill

I'm a mathematician, software designer, system analyst, event organiser, independent web publisher and online promoter of positivity.
This entry was posted in Court Hearing, Family Court Reform and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to When #Mothers allege #ChildSexualAbuse, #CSA without fail, they loose custody

  1. Reblogged this on 'Whistleblower Kids' in the Court of Public Interest and commented:

    Maybe Dame Anna Pauffley OBE will change the trend on Thursday!?

    • Jacobs ladder says:

      Hi Sabine, I hope you’re doing OK and would like to thank you for your continued hard work with this case under what I’m sure have been very taxing circumstances in the last few weeks.

      If you haven’t seen it already, I just wanted to draw your attention to the following video in You Tube by “UK Vigilant Journalist”

      ‘Hampstead Satanic Abuse Claims Part 4 The Evidence So Far’

      This is the fourth video he’s made about the Hampstead case. If you watch it, and if you read the comments beneath it, you’ll see that one of his main issues – along the problems he has with the mother’s ex partner’s behaviour – is that he’s rather skeptical about this idea that there HASN’T been a real investigation into the case. His suspicion seems to centre on the second document (out of the 8 documents) in the ‘Judicial review’ file at the google drive link. I’m talking about the 2 page document called ‘1.No crime’d CRIS report -pdf’.

      He has noticed that these 2 pages are numbered 76 and 77 (of a 77 page report) and that the words “details of Investigation” are written at the top of each of these pages. So he’s basically asking:

      Why are we being led to believe that there hasn’t been a investigation, when there’s a 77 page report out there about an investigation? And what do the other 75 pages of this report contain and why are we only being allowed to see the last 2 pages of it?

      At 3:38 in his video he says that although he’s appreciative of your work, he’s concerned that your disclosure of only 2 pages of this 77 page report is “selective” and that there should be full disclosure before we’re expected to believe that there hasn’t been an investigation.

      Hoping you won’t shoot the messenger here, but just thought I’d bring this to your attention so maybe you can address his concerns. Perhaps you could respond in the comments beneath his you tube video? Or just leave a reply here. You may want to do this before he makes his next video, which he’s said might focus in more on this issue. He may well have even tried to contact you about all this already.

      Keep well Sabine, and thanks again.

      • Oh dear, dear Jacob’s ladder,

        I am afraid I do have too much on my plate to follow individual ‘learning curves’.

        I hope that the author of the videos appreciates that I can be held in ‘contempt of court’ with ANYTHING I publish. Hence I have only ‘made available’.

        The JR was filed ‘just in time’ on 22nd December. Since then we got this ridiculous ‘acknowledgement of service’ and have moved on and on and on!

        I do not have an electronic version of the full Police report. It takes time to scan, store and upload! I didn’t even read it. Only the retired constable who could spot with his trained eyes what there was.

        He spotted the entry “CRIME NOT CONFIRMED” on 22 September. Hence the deadline for the JR 3 months later.

        Kylie Wilson who wrote the Witness Statement is the only other person who read the report with trained eyes.

        Hope this helps and illustrates that I do NOT have secretive / bad / misleading intentions in my online activities and ‘passivities’…

        • Jacobs ladder says:

          OK thank you very much for replying Sabine, I appreciate you taking the time to get back considering how busy (and probably harassed!) you have been. Please take care and once again, thank you for everything you are doing.

  2. socialaction2014 says:

    Reblogged this on Social Action.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s