WOULD YOU SEND a 1 year-old American baby girl from peaceful UK to war-zone Ukraine?


The identities of all in this piece are for the moment concealed, pending the judge’s decision on Monday

Would you send a 1 year-old American baby girl from peaceful UK to war-zone Ukraine?

This is the decision with which an Appeal Court Judge will be wrestling in her chambers on Monday 3rd March, having before her the application brought by a UK-based American father (F) for Permission to Appeal against the Leave granted last month by a High Court Judge to his UK-based Ukrainian partner (mother/M) to Permanently Remove their 1 year-old baby daughter (B) to the Ukraine.

F works for a UK-registered company and M has been a student since coming to live in UK nearly 10 years ago. They met in London in April 2010 and separated in August 2013 as an admitted result of M’s parents (maternal grandparents/MGPs) forcing M and F apart for the third time, when B was 9 months old. In September M applied to the court for an ex-parte non-molestation order using a witness statement in which M admitted in court she had made major false allegations.  Since receiving this order, B has been in exclusive care of the MGPs & M with F being permitted contact a maximum of 1.5 hours, once per week until November, when the Judge ordered contact be increased to twice per week.  Despite the orders of the High Court, M has manipulated the situation to curtail contact so dramatically, that B has only been able to see her Father about 50% of the time prescribed by the court.

M now wishes to return with B to live with her parents permanently in Kiev, at which point F will have no further contact with his daughter.

Right from the start the Ukrainian grandfather (MGF) & grandmother (MGM) have been interfering in this erstwhile happy couple’s life and have been out to destroy their relationship. While recognising that M and F were very much in love and that F took very good care of M, nevertheless they did not approve of the relationship, so they forced her to choose between them and him.  When she chose him, they cut her off financially, bought the company that F worked for, and continue to pressurise the couple until M and F separated.

MGM is said to have Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy and appears to exercise total control both over her daughter and her husband. From the start of M’s relationship with F which was originally a very happy one – and F is sure that they still at bottom care for each other – the MGPs who are extremely wealthy have been harassing F through shadowy third parties sent to stalk and threaten him in the vicinity of his and M’s London home. During August 2013 the nuisance escalated into actual physical violence against F while F, M & B were on holiday in Bulgaria. Prior to arranging the holiday M had given F an assurance that the MGPs would NOT be joining them on the holiday but when they arrived at the airport in Bulgaria, the MGPs were waiting. Tensions developed and the couple had a tiff during the course of which M became violent, scratching and hitting F, then she called up her parents who were on another floor of the holiday complex. The MGPs came running from the elevator and MGF punched F in the face while he was holding B causing him to fall and the baby to hit her head. MGF then continued to punch F in the back while he was on the ground with the result that he had to spend several days in hospital with a bleeding kidney.  While MGF was punching F, MGM forcefully ripped B from his arms, scratching him with her fingernails and leaving deep wounds and now permanent scars on the right ribcage of F.  All of this was caught on CCTV; however, when M provided this from the resort which of which the MGPs are part-owners, the CCTV was highly and blatantly edited.

F recovered but a few days later his car-tyre was slashed with a knife and further damage done to the car the following day, as a result of which F moved to a different hotel in the town for his own safety. By now he had no doubt that the MGPs wanted him out of the way so they could abduct B.  For this reason he locked B’s passports in the room safe without divulging the combination. When M found out that F had placed them in the safe, M had resort security open the safe citing that the MGPs were owners of the holiday complex (which they are).  Later the MGPs booked tickets for M and themselves to fly back to London together with B. F was not informed about this but being already suspicious had alerted the police and border control, however no action was taken – Bulgarian border control would not intervene in the case of a non-Bulgarian baby, they said in their written reply.

On the evening of the MGPs’, M and Bs’ flight back to London with F not knowing they were about to fly out, F was asked to babysit B and duly came over to the complex from his hotel.  Upon the return of M, F began to head back to his hotel but just outside complex gates he was set upon by 3 thugs who bound his hands behind his back, beat him and told him to stay away from MGM and her family and forget about B if he wanted to live long enough to have more children.  They then stabbed him with a knife and continued to beat him unconscious. He came round and was tended to by security guards; however, they refused to call the police or ambulance; he had to do this from his own mobile phone with the assistance of passers-by from the same resort. While waiting for ambulance and police, resort security called MGF who came to see him bleeding on the ground.  MGF just looked at him and smiled until the ambulance arrived. This was caught on CCTV.  Once F was put into the ambulance and on his way to the hospital, the MGPs, M & B got into their car to go to Sophia Airport, a 4-6 hour drive away.

From September through February there has been a sequence of hearings in the Family Court regarding contact and other issues between M & F. In October F was subjected to another bout of stalking and was attacked twice more. The first time, he was beaten unconscious by the same man who stabbed him in Bulgaria and an accomplice. On the second occasion he was discovered with hands again bound behind his back in front of the US Ambassador’s residence – the cyclist who found him assumed him to be dead. Part of this second attack was audio-recorded.  Despite M having denied any intentions of leaving the country (when interviewed by the local Children’s Services in October and November as part of a Section 37 report), on 13th  November M made a verbal application for Leave to Permanently Remove B to the Ukraine, overshadowing F’s application for residency.

The Leave to Remove application was heard between 10-14 February in the High Court. One business day before commencement of the proceedings F lost his Counsel as MGF had cut him out of his employment – unbeknownst to F, MGF had bought the company he worked for, thereby effectively drying up the source of funding to pay his lawyers and forcing him to represent himself as a litigant-in-person against one of the most expensive law-firms in London.

F tried to get the case adjourned for 30 days in order to acquire funds to keep his lawyers on the record, but the Judge refused the adjournment. F, being an American and layperson, ignorant of British court procedure or the finer points of British law, then had to absorb 10 lever-arch files of documentation and learn how to conduct himself as a barrister, as well as prepare all of his own documents and arguments with less than 1 business day within which to do that.

The case went against him as the Judge declined to believe that the pictures of his severe injuries dating back to the August 2013 attacks in Bulgaria were genuine, despite F having detailed medical documents to support the photos of the injuries, and even an account by a previous Judge who had seen first-hand injuries relating to the first attack on him in London.  F offered to show the court scars of the wounds on his body but the Judge would not allow that. Instead the Judge and the CAFCASS officer asked to make a recommendation in this case – this individual admitting from the Witness box to his own family being from Kiev and that he speaks Ukrainian – were conspicuously unctuous and obsequious regarding M and the MGPs whom they viewed as good, moral people with everything needed to bring up and educate a child while F was ‘a dangerous fantasist’ and penniless with no long-term plans for B’s upbringing.

Accordingly, Leave to Remove B was granted on Friday 14th February, to have effect at 4 pm on Wednesday 19th February.  F immediately applied for a Stay of Removal which was heard at 2 pm on 19th February with M and B scheduled to fly out to the Ukraine next morning. Thursday 20 February turned out to be the bloodiest day so far in the current crisis affecting Ukraine. Fortunately for F, the Appeal Judge granted a temporary stay, for “other reasons” than just the fact that the situation in the Ukraine was so unstable, she said.  This has enabled F to receive and file a transcript of the previous judge’s Judgment containing additional telling information in his Permission to Appeal application.

With Kiev now a warzone and the evidence of F’s painful struggle to save his daughter and family now before the Court of Appeal judge for the second time, F desperately hopes that justice, reason and humanity will prevail. The MGPs are very dangerous people with a propensity for lying, bribing and bashing their way through life (M and MGF actually said in court that he’d bribed the police and that blackmail is part of everyday life in Ukraine).

Will the Judge on Monday have the the moral integrity to question her colleague’s 14th February judgment and ask herself whether he could possibly have been influenced? Will she grant F Permission to Appeal to keep his beloved daughter in the UK where she will be physically safe as well as continuing to benefit from the loving care she enjoyed from F for the first 9 months of her life while he still had normal access to her? It is poignant that hardly a year ago M wrote a touching testimony to F’s qualities as a father saying “I do not believe any little girl could have a more genuine, honest and loving father, nor be luckier than our little girl.” And how would people in America think of an American citizen being roughed up by Ukrainian thugs or an American baby being sent to the Ukraine with Russian tanks rolling into the country?

For further information contact  07770 927734


Enhanced by Zemanta

About Sabine Kurjo McNeill

I'm a mathematician and system analyst formerly at CERN in Geneva and became an event organiser, software designer, independent web publisher and online promoter of Open Justice. My most significant scientific contribution is www.smartknowledge.space
This entry was posted in Child 'care', Child 'Protection', Child abduction, Family Courts, Judges, McKenzie Friends, Rule of Law and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to WOULD YOU SEND a 1 year-old American baby girl from peaceful UK to war-zone Ukraine?

  1. Joyce Ramer says:

    No, would not but I would not allow adoption either.

  2. Casey says:

    Well If UK keeps playing world police condemning Russia for occupying Ukraine while UK and allied forces keeps occupying Afghanistan/Irak since a decade all that for crude oil instead of democracy I really wonder how long the UK will remain peaceful??

  3. M says:

    Can you take my email addresses of your system as I do not want to receive any further news from you

  4. rena ostertag says:

    I think the baby should remain with his father for the time being.
    Also, I agree with Casey and Joyce Ramer.

  5. Reblogged this on No Punishment without Crime or Bereavement without Death! and commented:

    A war could help a judge’s decision and a baby’s fate!?…

  6. Pingback: IN AND OUT of Court Rooms – on behalf of Britain’s Children | A Battle for Britain's Children and others' Human Rights

  7. Reblogged this on justiceforkevinandjenveybaylis and commented:
    Yes if the child is to be with her parents

  8. Henry Hall says:

    It’s always a dilemma when the equities go one way and the law goes the opposite way. British judges are invariably able to concoct a dishonest solution to interpret the law to produce the outcome they seek and I’m sure they will again.

  9. Pingback: Thursday 13th March in Court 72 at 2 pm, B4/2014/0514 Baby K. | A Battle for Britain's Children and others' Human Rights

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s