IN A HORRIFIC SCENE, Hannah’s ex ambushed her on the way to school, doused her children and her with gasoline and set them on fire. The children died at the scene, but Hannah was taken to the hospital where she died 12 hours later. The father killed himself at the scene after stopping a bystander from helping Hannah, saying he wanted to see her burn to death.
Hannah had left the marriage in November due to her husband’s violent behavior. It is believed she was granted a restraining order, but the father was allowed to battle her for custody of their three young children.
And therein lies the problem. A father who is violent to the mother or the children should automatically lose his right to custody. Instead, family courts are minimizing violence by fathers and granting them custody, deliberately endangering children.
OUTRAGE at MSM
MUCH of the mainstream media is portraying the father sympathetically saying he was a “good bloke” “a fun-loving ex-NRL star,” and a “dedicated dad” who was upset because he was in a custody battle for his kids. This shows the patriarchal influence over mainstream media.
But fortunately there's an outcry about this compassionate portrayal of a woman/children murderer on social and alternative media:
“#HannahClarke and her kids were murdered by a violent man. Australia’s patriarchal mainstream media spins it as him being a top bloke who was good at sportsball. When are they going to tell the truth about domestic violence?” @DamienWise tweeting outrage at MSM
“You would think that by 2020 people might understand that if a custody battle could lead a man to kill his own children, then there is a reason his ex was trying to keep him the f**k away from them…”
Claire Boland tweet
“#HannahClarke and her kids were murdered by a violent man. Australia’s patriarchal mainstream media spins it as him being a top bloke who was good at sportsball. When are they going to tell the truth about domestic violence?” @DamienWise tweet
'Goodnight my babies’, read a news.com.au headline, as though Rowan was simply tucking his kids in bed instead of brutally setting them on fire.
By leading with a quote from the murderer, this headline centres Rowan as a loving father.
By constantly mentioning the killer’s hobbies and former job – and failing to name Hannah and her children – these stories attempt to soften Rowan’s actions.
By focusing on the custody case and describing Rowan as a dedicated father who was driven crazy after being separated from his kids, these pieces justify his despicable actions and place a degree of blame on Hannah for leaving her clearly dangerous husband and trying to keep her children safe.”
FROM: Stop Calling Murderers “Good Blokes”
“…[T]he media reporting to date fuels the narrative that we know is so damaging. It focuses on the man who fell from grace, as though this act was in isolation.
Time and time again, history has taught us that entitled men kill the women in their life and her children to exert power, control and dominance.
And yet, we hear so little about Hannah and her children. Instead, the narrative implores us to empathise with a “troubled” man or to demonise the killer as some kind of “monster”. This is an exercise in othering.
Overnight, I’ve been contacted by friends of Hannah and they describe her in the most beautiful of ways: A woman with grit, resilience, determination and a wonderful mother and caring partner.
And in spite of all of her life’s achievements, the Australian media has, almost collectively, wanted for us to feel for the person responsible for the deaths of a woman and her children. No thank you. Not today, not ever.
Hannah, I am sorry we failed you. I hope that if there is a life after this world, you’re reunited with Aaliyah, Laianah and Trey where he can’t hurt you anymore ❤️
Post by Tarang Chawla
TWC NOTE: It is a good thing that people are recognizing media bias towards fathers and voicing outrage at the sympathetic portrayal of a killer father, but we also need public outrage at Family Courts for routinely endangering women and children after divorce.
WHY is this happening?
To understand why there is an epidemic of Family Court judges giving custody to abusive fathers, watch this powerpoint video:
The Custody Crisis: Why Women Are Losing Custody & Unable to Protect Their Children
WANT TO HELP?
Want to help end the crisis? Join your local coalition to help raise awareness and fight for a new system where women have the power to keep and protect their children after divorce: WomensCoalitionIntl@gmail.com
*If you appreciate the work of the Women's Coalition, please consider contributing in one of these ways:
Facebook donate button: https://www.facebook.com/TheWomensCoalition
Host a Facebook fundraiser.
Use Amazon Smile: https://smile.amazon.com/
[Pictured: Hannah, Laianah, Aaliyah and Trey]
"I kept telling the judge, if you're not going to remove the children, they are going to die under his care and custody."
Justyna, Thomas’ mother
Little Thomas died of hypothermia after being forced by his father to sleep in the garage in 19 degrees weather without a mattress, blanket or pillow. His father was caught on tape the next morning pouring a bucket of cold water over Thomas’ head while he was unable to even walk due to hypothermia, and then suffocating him with his hands over his mouth.
New York Family Court Judge Hope Schwartz Zimmerman granted sole custody of Thomas and his brothers to their father two years ago and kept them in his sole custody, despite ongoing severe abuse and neglect documented by his mother and many professionals: counselors, doctors and child protective services workers.
And, as usual, the judge allowed the abusive father to keep all three boys away from their loving mother, Justyna.
Judge Zimmerman disregarded all the evidence of abuse and Justyna’s pleas for protection. Her only concern was keeping the father in power over his children, and over Justyna through her children.
Now Little Thomas is dead, after years of enduring horrific pain and torture, enabled by a biased family court system that routinely grants custody to abusive fathers.
The father has been charged with murder and imprisoned without bond, which is the only reason Justyna has been granted temporary custody of her other boys.
Mother of slain 8-year-old says father was abusive for years
Officer Charged in Murder of Son, 8, Kept in Freezing Garage, Police Say
TWC NOTE: Don’t be distracted by the media’s focus on child protective services’ failure to protect. It is the family court judge who makes the ruling in a contested custody case, so that is who is responsible for the child’s death.
Be Part of the Change: Be part of your local Coalition!
Email: firstname.lastname@example.org [Subject: local coalition]
*If you appreciate the work of the Women's Coalition, please consider donating on Facebook or Paypal: http://bit.ly/DonateWomensCoalition
[Pictured: Justyna and Thomas]
“I cannot live with [my father] anymore. I can’t take any more of his abuse and the courts forcing me to live like a prisoner with [him]. PLEASE HELP ME! I am afraid for my life and will keep running away until I am safe at home with my mom.”
12 year-old Avery
“Clint is sadly still living with his abuser…but not for long. The deviant is being exposed for what he is and the community is rallying to help my children get to safety.”
Kassia, protective mom
12 year-old Avery ran away from her reportedly abusive father 5 days ago in Austin, Texas. The Amber Alert got much media attention, with law enforcement falsely claiming she was in danger with her mother so that the public would turn her in.
A warrant was issued for her mother, Kassia, even though she insisted Avery ran away on her own. Kassia has posted bond and awaits trial.
Avery turned herself in two days ago, and apparently was not forced to return to her father—yet.
Kassia is not allowed to know where her own daughter has been taken, but it is feared that Avery has been forced into “reunification therapy”, which is where children often go when they will not stop reporting abuse. That is where they are tortured into recanting abuse by fathers.
Avery and Kassia have been trying for years to get protection for her little brother, who reported ongoing sexual abuse by his father.
As usual, Family Court covered up the abuse and gave sole custody to the father.
The publicity from Avery running away and bravely writing her letter exposing her father's abuse is gaining public support for her and her brother.
“My sister and her children have been in a nightmare since November of 2016 when my niece made an outcry of sexual abuse to her brother by her father. Many outcries were made by my niece and nephew and investigations…After countless people failed to help/protect Avery and Clint, the children were forcibly removed from Kassia’s custody in July 2019…They have been with their abuser with absolutely no contact with their mother since then.
Avery ran away because she is being tortured mentally for sticking to her guns and stating over and over that she doesn’t want to live with an abuser…Here is Avery’s account, in her own words and writing. I am begging you, for the sake of my niece and nephew to PLEASE SHARE THIS POST. SOMEONE HAS TO HEAR THESE CHILDREN AND HELP THEM!!!”
For more info on the Custody Crisis: https://www.womenscoalitioninternational.org/
To join a local group to help end the crisis: email@example.com
[Pictured: Kassia & kids]
“[Avery] absolutely knew that something bad was going to happen and nobody would believe her unless she had it on film…I would hate for justice not to be served and the system again fail my precious daughter."
Protective Mom Allison
A brave Florida teen, taken away from her mother at a young age and placed in the sole custody of her abusive father, resorted to secretly recording the abuse in the hope of finally being protected.
The teen’s wealthy father was arrested earlier this month after the video surfaced, but was immediately released on a paltry $4,000 bond. The teen was placed temporarily in the custody of her father’s best friend, where he threatened her to stay silent about his abuse of her dog and her or she would be thrown into foster care.
Allison, the teen’s mother, has filed a domestic violence injunction on behalf of her daughter. The father is fighting the injunction, saying a minor’s counsel should represent the teen’s interests. But, as most protective mothers know, children’s attorneys often side with abusive fathers, especially wealthy ones.
Allison has been fighting unsuccessfully for her daughter virtually her entire childhood. The judge apparently made false findings that she was mentally ill and a drug addict in order to justify giving sole custody to the father.
Although it is being portrayed the reason the girl was not protected is that she was not believed. However, that is implausible as she has been reporting abuse for years.
The truth is she was systematically discredited and silenced, just like millions of other children around the world, where systems function to maintain the father’s control and entitlement, regardless of how abusive he is.
Hopefully, since this case is getting international attention, the teen will be spared the usual outcome—forced to continue to live with her abusive father—and instead be returned to the loving arms of her protective mother.
Watch this page for updates.
FOLLOWING are excerpts from:
Mother of teen who captured video of alleged abuser: 'She is absolutely my hero'
Tringas said she and her daughter tried reporting the abuse for years, but she said authorities did not believe them.
That's when the teen installed a Nest camera to capture the actions of 47-year-old Damon Becnel.
“Nothing was done. Nothing has ever been done to help my daughter," said [Allison] Tringas.
“She absolutely knew that something bad was going to happen and nobody would believe her unless she had that on film," added Tringas.
In the videos, you can watch Becnel scream, point and headbutt the girl.
The video also shows Becnel hitting the dog, holding an object to its neck and threatening to cut the animal's throat.
His arrest report states that the object was a knife.
“What he did in one night is going to probably take years to undo," said Tringas.
Becnel was arrested and charged with one count of child abuse and one count of animal abuse.
Tringas is thankful her daughter took matters into her own hands.
“She is one strong and one smart little girl and I couldn’t be more proud of her. She is absolutely my hero. She is my hero. I would hate for justice not to be served and the system, again, fail my precious daughter," said Tringas.
Becnel was released on a $4,000 bond. He's scheduled to appear in court on February 4.
FOR MORE INFORMATION on the Custody Crisis:
[Pictured: Protective Mother Allison]
Jennifer Dulos, mom of five, disappeared last May, and her ex was finally charged with murder on Thursday. There is considerable physical evidence that supports her ex murdered her, and he being held on $6 million bail.
Jennifer feared for her children’s and her lives after filing for divorce, but, despite credible evidence her ex was a serious threat to her children and her, Judge Donna Heller denied a protective order and kept her embroiled in a custody battle with him for over two years.
Domestic violence advocates and legislators are being interviewed by the media in regards to Jennifer’s case, and are insinuating that judges are making “mistakes” giving custody to “abusers” (male or female), and they are proposing more training, "tools" and laws.
The truth is judges know exactly what they are doing when they deny protection to women and children and give custody to controlling and abusive fathers. The system is designed so judges can violate the law with impunity, but the larger problem is that judges are falsely finding women to be liars, alienators, mentally ill or emotionally abusive to justify switching custody to fathers. No amount of training, tools or new laws will stop that from occurring.
Family Court was created by men, for men, after their power in the family was threatened by women gaining the power to leave a marriage. So it should not be surprising that men created a system which perpetuates male control after divorce.
This is the dirty little secret that women don't know about until it is too late—until after they lose and/or are unable to protect their children. Then they are gag ordered to not speak about their case, which helps keep women and the public in the dark about this epidemic.
The Women's Coalition is now forming local activist groups for the purpose of forming a coalition powerful enough to demand and achieve an end to the custody crisis.
If you would like to be part of your local group, email firstname.lastname@example.org. Put "local group" in the subject line.
[Please be patient: we’ve received hundreds of responses already and are processing them.]
When Fotis Dulos was arrested, police and advocates had a message: ‘It’s a case of domestic violence’
Previous TWC post:
For more information on the custody crisis: https://www.womenscoalitioninternational.org
[Pictured: Jennifer and her children]
Caroline Brehat was arrested and jailed in Italy, where she was vacationing with her new husband during the holidays. Police arrested her under an Interpol “Red Notice” that was generated by the FBI and stemmed from a New York Family Court custody case, in which the judge endangered her daughter by giving custody to her abusive ex.
After spending a week in jail, an Italian judge, under intense diplomatic pressure from the French Ministries of Health and Justice, declined to extradite Caroline to the U.S. She was released from jail and allowed to return home to France. Caroline is safe for now because France does not extradite nationals, but she cannot leave France again for fear of being extradited to the U.S. for prosecution.
This constitutes a rare victory for a mother who has to flee to protect her child, and it likely only occurred because of Caroline’s ties to the French government. Most mothers would not be so lucky and Caroline is acutely aware of that. So she is writing an article on women who have been jailed to help raise awareness about the crisis. If you have been jailed and would like to be interviewed, comment here or private message her.
Caroline, an author and translator for the United Nations, had fled home to France in 2013 with her young daughter after fighting unsuccessfully for many years to protect her daughter from her abusive father in a New York family court.
After some years, a French court granted her sole custody on findings the father had sexually abused her daughter. After more years, the international Hague Court upheld the French court’s ruling.
She thought her battle was over and that she and her daughter were finally safe. But, no.
Despite the evidence of abuse and the solid support by French and Hague courts, the FBI got involved and convinced Interpol to issue a Red Notice. A Red Notice is generated to alert law enforcement internationally to dangerous fugitives, typically rapists, murderers, child abusers and armed robbers for the purpose of extraditing them back to the country where the crime was committed.
Shamefully, the FBI used this otherwise valuable tool to catch and prosecute a protective mother. As in so many cases where American mothers flee with their children, the FBI and U.S. Marshals help locate them,ignoring the evidence of abuse. Notably, it is almost exclusively cases involving sexual abuse that warrant this high-level government involvement.
Had Caroline been extradited to the U.S. for prosecution, she would likely have been found guilty and gone to prison for many years and her daughter returned to the abuser. That’s because most criminal court judges exclude evidence of sexual abuse by fathers and/or don’t allow mothers who have fled to use paternal abuse as an affirmative defense. Criminal courts and law enforcement often aid and abet family courts in covering up abuse and punishing women who dare challenge male authority in the family, the ultimate patriarchal agenda.
Caroline’s case was one of hundreds submitted to the U.N. Commission on the Status of Women by The Women’s Coalition. They subsequently wrote a report acknowledging the systemic discrimination against women in family courts around the world. [Linked below.]
Caroline will be writing an article about women being jailed for running away to protect their children from an abusive ex. If you have been jailed and ould, you can pm
from the jurisdiction where a Family Court judge orders a woman to give her child unsupervised to an abuser. escaping abusive men.
French woman arrested in Italy on the basis of an American international arrest warrant has been released https://www.europe1.fr/faits-divers/info-europe-1-la-francaise-interpellee-en-italie-sur-la-base-dun-mandat-darret-international-americain-a-ete-liberee-3940688?fbclid=IwAR3FpBMQwHeqhUkfw6NIbNS1niP5M3hiExDzgOux3R7PIoBo8CB0qWEQgNE
The call for Frenchwoman to be imprisoned in Italy because her violent ex has been heardhttps://www.nouvelobs.com/societe/20200102.OBS22988/l-appel-pour-cette-francaise-incarceree-en-italie-a-cause-de-son-ex-violent-a-ete-entendu.html?fbclid=IwAR3PzT3_PQo_ZM1n25_EGXcbeIczlHLucJmnWrQNaB4A_OOtQS89BOjuaHs
Original Story from 2014:
Rare Victory - Protective Mom Finally Wins Protection for Daughter!
8 Years and A Quarter Million Dollars Later - Nelly Gets Sole Custody
Complaint to UN: 1drv.ms/w/s!Aof0RIpSsZZCgfRf8RUnclNDGa0blg
“…The working group discerned the following categories in which communications had been most frequently submitted to the Commission:
….(i) discrimination against women resulting in the loss of child custody to abusive fathers.”
Women’s Coalition U.N. Petition: Success!
“God help us if [the Supreme Court justices] conclude that [the Hague Convention] did require that an 18-month old baby be ripped from her mother, her only caregiver, and sent to a country and parent she did not know, who the district court FOUND had been abusive to her mother.”
“Over the last 15 years at DV LEAP, and the many more years I have been in this work, we have observed biases in [family] courts that are specific to women; patterns that contribute to ongoing unjust court rulings.”
Joan Meier, JD, founder of DV Leap
An American woman fled home from Italy four years ago with her newborn baby to escape domestic violence by the baby’s biological Italian father. The descriptor “biological” is used because a man who commits violence on a child’s mother should not be considered a real father.
The father initiated a Hague Convention case, in which it was ruled that she had to return her then 18-month-old baby to the father in Italy. Mom has had only occasional short visits with her daughter, now 4, in Italy since then.
The mother filed in a U.S. district court, claiming the Hague ruling was in error due to the domestic violence (grave harm) exception. The district court made a finding that the father had committed domestic violence. The U.S. Supreme Court accepted the case and it was argued last month by pro bono attorneys (pictured) from DV Leap and the California based firm Gibson, Dunn, and Crutcher.
Since the Hague Convention stated priority is to protect the interests and safety of the children, and there is a “grave risk” exception, the Supreme Court ruling will reflect the fundamental question of whether a father who is violent with a mother represents a “grave” risk to their child(ren).
The Supreme Court justices appeared to be “all over the place” on this case, so the attorneys believe it may be a while before a ruling is issued. The Coalition will follow up on this important case, so watch this page.
Note that even if there is a positive ruling in this case, the core problem of family court judges making false findings to justify giving custody to controlling and abusive fathers remains.
MORE INFO on the Hague and DV:
The Hague Convention was implemented to ensure that the “rights of custody … under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting States.”
The overarching objectives of the Convention are to discourage international child abduction and to ensure the “swift return to the status quo prior to the abduction of a child.” More importantly, the Convention was instituted “to protect the interests and safety of the child.”
The Convention sets forth several defenses that the abductor may plead to prevent the return of the child. These exceptions include…article 13(b), where the child would be exposed to “physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation” (i.e., the grave risk exception]. As a result, there is a tension between “discouraging child abduction and protecting victims of domestic violence.”
The term “domestic violence” is not mentioned in the Convention, and Convention courts have struggled with determining whether fear of future domestic violence should encompass a grave risk.
Domestic violence against the abductor and/or child should be an explicit or implicit exception to a parent’s Convention petition because of impact the abuse has on the abductor and the child, even if the child is not physically present to witness the abuse.
...[C]urrent trend indicates that mothers have become the abductors in an attempt to return to their home countries with their children after living abroad in an abusive marriage. Mothers have resorted to fleeing their husbands’ home countries because they have found that these countries provide little, if any, assistance to address domestic violence incidents. Abusive fathers, playing the part of the left behind parent, use the Convention’s dictates “as part of their coercive control” to have their children returned to their country. In turn, mothers face the difficult choice of returning to the home with the children or allowing the children to return alone with the historically abusive father.
… [G]rave risk defenses are fact-intensive and require the appropriate evidence, which often includes direct evidence showing that “the existence of a grave risk that would expose the child to physical or emotional harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.” Legal scholars have noted that children’s exposure to their mother’s victimization to domestic violence does not typically give rise to a successful grave risk defense…
…Courts should ensure that the child will be safeguarded from further violence and will not be adversely impacted emotionally. This determination can be made without conducting a best interests of the child custody analysis, which is to be conducted in a separate family court proceeding. Otherwise, “[m]aking the abuse of the victimized parent irrelevant to an Article 13(b) defense often deprives the victim of the only defense available to her, making the victim feel powerless to protect herself and her children.” Additionally, the abusive father may continue to maintain control over the domestic violence victim by using the children as pawns with years of protracted custody litigation.
… The child’s interests and safety cannot be protected when the child is ordered back to his original country of residence, where signs of past domestic violence against the parent and/or child were likely present. Therefore, evidence of physical or emotional domestic violence against a parent or child should constitute an exception under the Convention’s grave risk exception.
ISSUES IN FAMILY LAW: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE CIVIL ASPECTS OF INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION by Michael Moran
The Supreme Court ruling in this case should be that since the father has committed domestic violence, it is automatically an exception to the Convention and the child must be returned to her mother; and the father shall be restricted to supervised visits at the discretion of the protective mother.
It is the Coalition’s position that any father who commits domestic violence on the mother or the child poses an unacceptable risk to the child. To allow Hague judges to decide whether or not the risk is “grave” simply makes it an extension of the Family Court system where judges have the power to minimize risk. With the long history of the Hague siding with fathers, it is obvious that the Hague Court is, in effect, working to entitle and empower fathers, just like Family Court.
It would be momentous if the Supreme Court would make the broader assertion that domestic violence terminates the right to legal custody and unsupervised visitation. But don’t hold your breath. Join The Women’s Coalition and help battle for our children’s well-being and safety after separation or divorce.
If you would like to join a local group, please send your county, state and country to: email@example.com
[Pictured: Joan Meier and BryanWalsh (left); DV Leap attorneys (right)]
Happy Birthday my beautiful, wise and intelligent daughter Hedda. I congratulate you on your 18th Birthday today. Mamma is so proud of you.
I remember so well when you were born 18 years to the day and the moment I saw you I loved you and my love has always been the same and no matter what you are told this is the truth.
I never abandoned you. You were stolen from me.
I have never stopped fighting to get you back. In 2015 I was banned from The UK Courts. I hope you will start asking questions, why you are prevented from seeing all your family in Norway, your Grandma Sheila in South Africa, Your Great Aunt Lorna in London. Everyone loves you and misses you.
This photo is over 2 years old and I would love a photo of how you look now.
I hope you have a Great Celebration with good friends.
Sending you love and hugs and can't wait to hold you in my arms again!
Dear Mr. Clark,
The Women’s Coalition is calling for a boycott of UK Athletics due to its outrageous complicity in the cover-up of sexual abuse by one of your coaches. It has come to our attention that Doncaster Council, likely with Family Court connivance, has instructed you to suppress the ban on Vicky Haigh's ex-husband. But you should not have capitulated.
Your silent ban on this perpetrator coaching children, contacting them on social media, and his supervision at UKA events is not enough. Parents have the right to know the facts and make up their own minds about whether they want their children around him. Arguably, teenagers also have a right to know. And, perhaps just as importantly, you have an obligation to parents and children outside UKA clubs and events. He is a danger to all children, not just the ones who attend UKA.
Also, you deprived Vicky of this crucial knowledge four years ago, which supports her daughter’s original disclosures, thus vindicating her. She could have filed to regain custody of her daughter then, attempting to protect her, before the perpetrator had a chance to further Stockholm and brainwash her. Now he has had many more years in which to turn Vicky’s daughter completely against her, a common perpetrator strategy enabled by Family Court, designed to silence children and disempower their mothers.
The Coalition’s mission is to raise awareness about the epidemic of women losing custody to controlling and abusive men. Vicky Haigh’s case is a perfect example of how the Family Court system, often with the aid of social services, Council, and the criminal justice system, conceals evidence of abuse, deems the mother a liar or mentally ill, and switches custody to the abusive father. In the worst cases, such as Vicky’s, the mother is denied any contact with her child and is incarcerated to punish and intimidate her into submission and silence.
We understand that you were not the Chair when the cover-up took place, but you now have the opportunity to make things right and clear UK Athletics of this stain on your reputation. On behalf of our nearly 25,000 followers, The Women’s Coalition requests you belatedly do the right thing: publish the ban and the facts which led to it.
Cindy Dumas, M.A.
Executive Director, The Women's Coalition
Facebook post with more info on the cover-up and the boycott:
Massive Cover Up of Vicky's Ex’s Abuse of Child He Coached
UKA/Council/Family Court/Police Collude: Endanger Children
BOYCOTT UK Athletics for endangering children! [See below]
“Vicky’s ex-husband was found guilty of sexual misconduct with a minor by UK Athletics, resulting in a ban from coaching children…In failing to publicly report the ban, UK Athletics, Doncaster Council and Family Court have caused children in the community to be left at risk, including Vicky’s daughter…
…In 2014, Doncaster Council had suceeded in getting a no-contact order for Vicky and her daughter as a result of her attempts to protect her daughter from sexual abuse by her ex; therefore, any evidence that goes to prove Vicky’s innocence and the wrongful removal of her child would have to be buried—which is precisely what has occurred.”
- Legal commentator
"There has been a determined effort to deprive me of a mother-daughter relationship, where the Court has ensured that I am completely separated from her. My daughter has lost out on her grandmother, her younger sister and all of her maternal family for 9 years. I don't want my daughters losing their children like I did. This biased system has to stop with this generation.”
- Vicky Haigh
UK’s most famous Protective Mum, Vicky Haigh, recently discovered that UK Athletics had banned her ex in 2015 from coaching children, after he sexually groomed and stalked a child, a criminal offense which often leads to sexual assault.
UK Athletics (UKA), Family Court Judge Annabel Carr, and Doncaster Council have colluded in covering up the ban, so parents are left in the dark and children are endangered. Doncaster Council (likely at the direction and complicity of Family Court) pressured UKA to not publish the ban, which is the usual procedure.
Nobody informed Vicky that her ex had been banned, even though she still holds parental rights. Vicky has not been allowed to have contact with her daughter for the last nine years, due to Family Court deeming her reports of child sexual abuse by her ex being deemed lies. Vicky found out about the ban when Doncaster Council filed a motion to discharge their care orders on her daughter. She launched a battle to regain custody, but Judge Carr, fully aware of the ban, approved the discharge and continued sole custody with the perpetrator.
Judge Carr has enabled “Stockholming” (creating a trauma bond with a perpetrator) and coercive persuasion (brainwashing) of Vicky’s daughter to convince her that her her mother is a liar and her father is the victim. This is a common occurrence in Family Court to help fathers keep control and punish their exes.
The South Yorkshire police have also been complicit in the cover up. They used the illogical excuse that the victim was busy with testing and was not available for trial. The same officer who helped cover up the abuse when Vicky’s daughter was five was involved with this new phase of the cover up.
It is obvious why all these systems are all colluding to cover up the ban: it supports Vicky's long-time stance that her ex is a child sexual abuser and that Family Court was wrong in removing her daughter from her custody. They may be liable for defamation and wrong-doing. Vicky may be considering suing them, and she should for all the pain she and her daughter have endured. Also, the revelation would draw public attention to the systemic agenda to conceal abuse by fathers.
Doncaster Council used an absurd justification for concealing the ban: that it would "upset" Vicky’s daughter to publish it. Yet they were placing her at risk leaving her under the control of the perpetrator she had reported sexual abuse by when she was five.
It is common in sexual abuse cases to justify concealing evidence of abuse from the public and media by claiming it is necessary to protect the child, when it is actually done to keep the public from knowing the truth. That is why a new system is necessary, one that is open and provides due process and protection for children.
UKA MUST PUBLISH THE BAN!
The public should be informed about bans on coaches so they can decide if they want their children around a perpetrator. The only place the father is required to be supervised is at UKA events which leaves other children at risk.
There is a famous U.S. case, in which the mother had also gone to jail and had been on supervised visits for six years after reporting sexual abuse by the father. He molested his daughter’s friends and was sentenced to prison, and she finally got custody returned. https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2014/8/25/1324443/-Judge-I-Gave-a-Child-Molester-Custody-of-His-Daughter
Please boycott of all UKA facilities, activities and events until they agree to publish the ban against Vicky’s ex and future bans against all perpetrators.
CONTACT UKA CHAIR Chris Clark
Let Mr. Clark know you are outraged UKA has not published the ban on Vicky Haigh’s ex-husband, and that he should immediately publish it. It is the public’s right to know. [Note: Mr. Clark was not the Chair when the cover up began.]
PHONE: 0121 713 8400
[Note: It is TWC policy to not publish names or pictures of fathers who are abusive or have wrongly taken custody away from mothers, but you can click on the link to the biased Daily Mail article which sides with him.]
Like millions of mothers around the world, Vicky Haigh had her daughter unjustly removed from her custody after she was falsely found to be lying and alienating, hence emotionally abusive to her daughter. A no contact order was issued after which Vicky ran into her child at a petrol station and greeted her. She was sentenced to three years in prison, a draconian punishment meted out to a woman who dared challenge male authority in the family. After Vicky was released from prison, she moved out of the UK, but she has never stopped fighting for her daughter, who she has not been allowed to see for 9 years.
Video of speech by Vicky about the Family Court crisis:
Explosive New Revelations in Victoria Haigh Interview
Vicky Haigh Speaks About Family Court Crisis in New Interview
Daily Mail article siding with the father:
Racehorse trainer previously jailed for approaching her daughter during bitter custody battle now banned from contacting the ten-year-old for three years
[Pictured: UKA Chair Chris Clark (top left); Judge Annabel Carr (bottom left); Vicky Haigh (right)]
Cindy Dumas, M.A. has been researching, writing, and raising awareness about the Custody Crisis since 2003, when she was unable to protect her children from their abusive father. She fled into hiding when Family Court failed her and was tricked into returning home, when her children were given to their abusive father.