Position Statement


before Mrs ANNE JUSTICE PAUFFLEY on 26.01.15 at 2pm

This is to put on record that the mother continues to dispute the following:

  1. The grounds on which LB Barnet is keeping her children in care – since 11.09.14 – via an Interim Care Order issued on 24.09.14 “until the conclusion of the proceedings or further order” – after they made allegations of exceptional gravity against their father and their school, implying both failed in their duty of care;
  2. The refusal of her applications to discharge the Interim Care Order[i];
  3. The cancellation of her Residence Order[ii] as part of these proceedings;
  4. The increase of contact for the father from every other Saturday to weekly, in disregard of the children’s very serious allegations against him;
  5. The inequality of contact between mother (fortnightly) and father (weekly).
  6. The allegations against her ex-partner as a ‘substitute’ for the real abuser.
  7. The supposed retractions of her children’s allegations as part of a ‘frame game’.
  8. The necessity of an Order ‘behind her back’ for McKenzie Friend Sabine McNeill to attend – without any Statement of Truth.

With seemingly ‘wilful blindness’, two hearings in Barnet Court and two hearings in the High Court failed to address any of the real issues. Hence the mother hereby submits her efforts to re-balance the picture painted by LB Barnet, the father and the children’s Guardian:

1. Fear of Exposure by Secret Judiciary, Father, LB Camden, LB Barnet, Cafcass and Met Police, Christchurch Primary and other Schools

  1. Publicity is the Very Soul of Justice[iii]
    • Jeremy Bentham (1748 – 1832): Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion, and the surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial. In the darkness of secrecy, sinister interest and evil in every shape, have full swing. Only in proportion as publicity has place can any of the checks, applicable to judicial injustice, operate. Where there is no publicity there is no justice.
    • To gag or not to gag[iv] is about HHJ Peter Jackson and Medway Council in another Russian case: “If an application for a Reporting Restriction is made – it should be properly made, on proper notice and so that all matters can be tested.”
  1. English Social Media
    • McKenzie Friend Sabine McNeill published a blog post for less than 24 hours – enough for the abusive father to recognise himself – and to withdraw his application for committal to prison in Court 44 on 19 January 2014.
    • Similarly, only the Senior Solicitor of LB Barnet and ‘those in the know’ can recognise the case where neither parent nor the children are identified.
  2. Mainstream Media
    • BBC Breakfast published John Hemming MP’s recommendation to Flee the country because parents don’t get a Fair Trial.[v]
    • Russia TV has recently filmed a number of Russian and British cases and the House of Commons meeting about the Inquiry into Organised Sexual Abuse. [vi]
  3. SaveTheFamily.eu – in Russian
    • Initiated by Tatjana Zdanoka MEP for Latvia – member of the EU Petitions Committee for the third term and extremely familiar with all petitions made by UK citizens and their consequences.
  4. Before the EU Petitions Committee in Brussels
    • Abolish Adoptions without Parental Consent – Systemic Patterns of Child Snatching and Forced Adoptions in the UK[vii]
  5. Judicial Fairness
    • To produce an Order without any Statement of Truth, after the barrister had a private meeting with the Judge goes against the principle of ‘fair procedure’ as in this case[viii].
    • In the mother’s view the inequality of arms is stacked not only against her children, but also against her.
  6. Political Correctness
    • Belinda McKenzie attended a hearing in Watford on 23 May 2014 when Justice Parker announced the end of the secrecy of family courts[ix].
    • Sir James Munby invites the courts to embrace the reality of the internet, and especially social media[x].
    • For the High Court to consider committing potentially criminal offences, to cover up crimes does not seem to be in the best interest of the UK, given that there are International Concerns about UK Law[xi] and the petition about Systemic Patterns of Child Snatching and Forced Adoptions in the UK[xii] is currently a live issue in the EU Petitions Committee

2. The Return of the Children: Discharging the ICO

  1. Past Hearings:
    • 09.14: Para 15. “In the interim girl A (born 2005) and boy G (born 2006) are placed in the care of London Borough of Barnet until the finalisation of the proceedings or further order.”
    • 10.14: Para 15: “The children are placed in the care of LB Barnet until the conclusion of the proceedings or further order.”
    • 12.14: Para 15: “The children are placed in the care of LB Barnet until the conclusion of the proceedings or further order.”
    • 12.14: Para 15: “The children are placed in the care of LB Barnet until the conclusion of the proceedings or further order.”
  1. Recent Submission
    • 01.15: Discharging the ICO (2 pages) by email.
    • The allegations against Mr C instead of Mr Dearman are only pure hearsay, compared with the veracity of the allegations and the support by evidence, not only by way of video, but also diary pages and drawings by the children – of the detailed private parts of their abusers…
    • To provide further evidence, the children should undergo a test for Sexually Transmitted Diseases.

3. Safeguarding the Children: Application for a Non-Molestation Order

  1. The Judge has offered to deal with the Judicial Review. In the same vein, the mother asks her to consider the Non-Molestation Order that she submitted.

4. Guaranteeing the Mental and Emotional Health of the Children: Inequality of Contact between Mother and Father

  • In the event that the Judge feels that the children should continue to suffer their traumatisation in care without professional or maternal support, the mother would like it to be recognised that her children are suffering avoidably.

5. Re-opening the Criminal Investigation: the JR against the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police filed on 22 December 2014

  1. The Met is more concerned about using ‘confidential documents’ than the investigation of criminal allegations.
  2. The Met contacts an ‘unnamed’ Council which suggests to destroy the evidence for the JR.
  3. Hence the mother asks the Judge whether she would order the Met to re-open the criminal investigation?

6. Fair Procedures vs Unfair Treatment in these Proceedings

  • On 21.10.14 Duncan Lewis Solicitors made an application on behalf of the mother with the father and LB Harrow as Respondents. However, the mother has to fight LB Barnet, the father and the Guardian and sees the traumatisation of her children being ignored.
  • Can a secret family court be used for criminal investigation and sentencing?
  • Is it not the function of the Police to interview the witnesses rather than the mother contacting them for witness statements?
  • To avoid high level embarrassment, the following possible arrangements might be worth considering:
  • Instead of starting public law proceedings against the school, the children are returned – with immediate effect – to live with the maternal grandparents in Russia.
  • Instead of mobilising English and Russian social media, the father is given a non-molestation order for life, anywhere in the world.
  • Instead of joining the Russian government to the proceedings, the children are released to their mother and maternal grandparents with immediate effect.


[i] Case Management Order of 10.12.14

[ii] Statement in support of Residence Order 10.05.10

[iii] http://victims-unite.net/2011/05/03/publicity-is-the-very-soul-of-justice-it-is-the-surest-of-all-guards-against-improbity-it-keeps-the-judge-himself-while-trying-under-trial/

[iv] http://victims-unite.net/2014/11/18/to-gag-or-not-to-gag-the-hon-mr-justice-peter-jackson-teaches-medway-council-a-lesson/

[v] http://victims-unite.net/2014/01/13/john-hemming-recommends-flee-the-country-because-you-cant-have-a-fair-trial/

[vi] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPlxrNQ6xmE&feature=youtu.be

[vii] https://www.change.org/p/eu-parliament-abolish-adoptions-without-parental-consent

[viii] http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/1449.html

[ix] http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/the-secrecy-of-the-family-courts-should-be-lifted-now.html

[x] https://pedrofamily.wordpress.com/encouraging-munby-quotes/judgements/

[xi] http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2013-14/345



10 thoughts on “Position Statement

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