Sharon Kilby’s story.

CORRUPTION IN COLWYN BAY, NORTH WALES, UK.

PART 3

This part consists of more details of my story, including what my children said and did and quotations from professional witnesses.

During contact at nursery [starting Sept 2002], Jordan would say things like: “Don’t like you or Andrew” whilst he was climbing onto my knee and smothering me with hugs and kisses.  Then in the next breath he’d say: “I love my mummy.  I want to come home.”  Out of the blue [and often when we were in the loo] they both said things like: “I love you.  I want to go home but daddy won’t let me.”  They said things like: “daddy’s nasty because he says I can’t see mummy ever again.”   They call him “a liar” and they make remarks such as: “I don’t like daddy” and “daddy’s horrible” or “I wish we could go on holiday then we won’t have to see daddy.”  Mel told me that she cries at her dad’s because he won’t let her come home.  She said that he gets cross when she tells him that she wants to come home.  She told the nursery carers that she wanted to come home and she cried and clung on to me because she didn’t want to get into her father’s car.  Jordan is so terrified of his father that he was worried sick because he had a toileting accident at nursery and was unable to wear his school trousers.  He said his father hits him whenever he does anything wrong.  He also gets hit when he tries to stand up for me i.e. whenever GW says nasty things about me, he tells his father that he is a liar.  On one occasion his dad hit him so hard that he ran crying to his room, picked up something of his father’s and smashed it over and over again until it was in bits because of his sheer anger and frustration.  Melissa is so scared of her father that in order to please him she had to pretend that she didn’t really like me and didn’t want to see me.  He’d even managed to get her to hit out at me.  Jordan says that his dad drinks all the time and that he likes it when he drinks because he is “nice”.  They said that their father ripped up the family photos that I gave them and that the fluffy toys that I gave them got thrown away by GW.  It got to the stage where Jordan was sad because he was too scared to accept photos even though they were only of our cat.  He said that the photos made his dad angry.

The following are my solicitor Peter Brown’s questions to the Director of Social Services dated 2/1/03 as directed by the Court.  [To date, despite numerous chasers, none of these questions have been answered by any social worker or manager.]

Questions for Terry James, Social Services manager:

1. Did Gareth Williams indicate that he had taken Jordan to see Dr Thackray on Tuesday 20^th August 2002?
2. Did Gareth Williams say that Jordan had told him that Andrew had burnt him with a cigarette?
3. If yes, is it his understanding that this was relayed by Gareth Williams to Dr Thackray?
4. Could he confirm that 246C/20/8/02 is the Police incident number and that he also made out a written report?  Could he also confirm that when our client asked for a copy of that report he indicated that it would be in her file and that she was encouraged by him to request her files from the department?
5. Did he receive our client’s letter dated the 19^th October 2002?  If so, could she have a response?

Questions for Ian Turner, Social Services manager:

1. Please respond to all outstanding correspondence.
2. Please respond to our client’s letter dated the 5^th September 2002 requesting files.  Please let us know when she can expect to receive them?
3. Please confirm that during a telephone conversation on the 5^th September our client was told that a letter had been received from Amphletts alleging that our client had caused the mark on Jordan’s forehead?  Was this the first time he had heard about this or did he already know about that allegation?
4. Could he confirm that he informed our client that Amphletts subsequently told him that they had made a mistake and were retracting the allegation.
5. Did Angela Mattison indicate to him what was in her report of the 1^st October 2002 i.e. that Jordan had whispered into Gay Waring’s ear saying that our client had burnt him.
6. We enclose copy of our client’s statement dated the 10 December 2002.  You will see that in the statement she has reported her recollections of telephone conversations with him.  Could he please let us know if there is anything in that which he disagrees with?

Questions for Angela Mattison, Social Worker:

1. Could she confirm that she told our client on 21^st August 2002 with Gay Waring that Jordan had whispered into Gay Waring’s ear indicating that our client had burned him?
2. Did she inform Mr Turner of the same?
3. Could she confirm that Jordan spoke articulately to her and Gay Waring for 20 minutes on the 21^st August 2002?
4. Could she confirm that Gareth Williams had requested that Jordan be interviewed?
5. Did Jordan tell her where and when he had been burned by Andrew before [her report 1^st October 2002]?

Questions for Maureen Catherall, Social Worker:

1. Could she confirm that she was visited on an almost weekly basis by Gareth Williams when the children were on the At Risk Register during her assessment?
2. Could she confirm that during a visit to our client on the 2^nd February 2000 concerning Mr Williams’ allegation that she was living with a sex offender that she said she would be contacting him to discuss with him the amount of nuisance referrals he was making?
3. Could she confirm that on the 4^th March 2000 during her visit with Alison Parry that she discouraged Gareth Williams from visiting with her and that she didn’t feel that he was putting the children’s welfare first, rather he was looking for excuses to attack our client?  Could she also confirm that he was advised that he could complain in writing if he was not satisfied with that?  Could she also confirm that she and Mrs Parry advised that she would be liaising with the Police to work out ways of dealing with him and his constant referrals which she anticipated at that time would continue?
4. Could she confirm Gareth Williams’ response when told that Social Services wouldn’t be taking action against our client?
5. Could she confirm that following the June 2000 Butlins incident she questioned Gareth Williams’ motives at that time?
6. Could she confirm that on one occasion Gareth Williams waited three weeks after an alleged incident before making a complaint to her?
7. Did she think at that time that his behavior was harassing?

Questions for Elaine Buckley, Social Worker:

1. Could she confirm that she visited Gareth Williams and requested that he stop making unnecessary referrals?
2. Could she confirm that Gareth Williams became angry when nothing came of his referrals at that time?

After 7 months of being in school Melissa couldn’t read one word and Jordan was only just starting to read.  Jordan could only write 2 letters of his name and even the bottom bit of the letter “J” was pointing the wrong way.  Both he and Melissa attempted letter formation which was totally incorrect.  For example they would start writing “r” from the bottom up and “o” in a clockwise direction.  Before they went to school they could write some letters and numbers the correct way.  After a few months of being in school Jordan couldn’t even recognize numbers higher than 5.  Since being at school both J & M cannot speak properly.  Their language is abysmal.  For example they say “them” instead of “those” and they use double negatives, for example: “I don’t never….” They say “lend” when they should say “borrow”.  Jordan says things like: “My dad learned me to ride my bike…. I didn’t saw you…. I sawed him.”  Melly says things like: “I catched the ball.”  Her teacher Mrs Price told me that the majority of the pupils cannot speak properly.  Mark Barrett, Specialist senior educational Psychologist bangs on about the need for various education plans, targets, codes of practice, helping agencies and even therapeutic involvement, saying that they will develop my children’s confidence and social and emotional development.  They will achieve quite the opposite.  They will succeed in turning my children off learning altogether and will just turn them into bored and destructive rebels.  J & M are not parrots.  Mr Barrett reports [17/1/03] that Jordan is “just beginning to understand how to participate in school, relate to other children and take some responsibility for aspects of his learning.”  Presumably it took some months for Jordan to achieve this stage.  Such comments just reinforce my belief that school is not a good place for children, especially young ones to be.  He speaks about “Jordan’s independence skills” saying that it had taken him a whole term for Jordan to develop these.  That is quite staggering.  When Jordan lived at home he had no problems with such ‘skills’.  He [and Mel] were quite competent, confident and independent when attending the social settings that I took them to, such as: nursery, youth club, crèche, friends’ houses…. There has never been a problem with socialization and the last thing they need is an army of ‘experts’ or professionals giving them extra ‘support’.  Mr Barrett describes Jordan as being at a “critical stage in his social and learning development.”  How can he compartmentalize ‘learning’ and ‘socializing’ in this way?  Schools tend to do this and that is why they set children up for failure.  Learning is an ongoing, natural process and for young children is achieved [without them even realizing it] through play and by being involved with family life.  Mr Barrett goes on: “Jordan has begun to make progress within school… the flexible use of support has been crucially important.”  Such rigidity, with targets, grading and assessing and comparing with others will give my son an inferiority complex and will hinder his development.  He will be even more psychologically damaged.  Mr Barrett says that Jordan is benefiting from high levels of support and he will benefit from a focused education plan with specific target areas, such as: literacy and numeracy skills and listening and focusing skills.  If school have found that my son has problems with listening and focusing then that is because he simply isn’t interested and no amount of extra tuition will ‘solve the problem’.  As for the literacy and numeracy skills, Jordan’s standard has dropped considerably since he has been in school.  Mr Barrett’s comment that Jordan “has the ability to learn given appropriate support” is an insult to his intelligence.  The sooner my children are removed from the oppressive school regime the better.  Jesus wept!  The Barrett report just reinforces my belief that the purpose of school is to indoctrinate kids [from the age of 3 when they can barely talk and are only just out of nappies] so that they will be subservient to authority.  Get them young when they are fresh faced and innocent and brainwash and mould them.  School is not the place for children who believe in human rights and justice. School is designed to knock out any rebellion that any child has within and to keep that child uneducated and ignorant – easy to control and a slave to society.  The last thing the Stage stooges want is kids to grow up being happy, healthy, intelligent and challenging – which they know is quite often the result when children are spared the evils of school.

The social workers reported [26/3/03] that for almost a month GW repeatedly ignored their attempts to contact him even though he had been instructed to cooperate by his solicitor.  They stated that they’d been unable to speak with his older children.  They made reference to an occasion when in her father’s presence Melissa was too scared to come to me; she had pushed me away and had tried to hit out at me saying she didn’t like me [yet days earlier, in front of the social workers, once her father had left the room she had spent much of the contact time just cuddling up close to me.]  On that day the social workers had planned to transport us to my house to observe the children’s natural reactions.  They reported that it did not take place and they felt that this contact was for the most part frustrated by GW.  They also made reference to the repeated allegations about me abusing or neglecting my children, stating that there have been seventeen referrals/reports to S/S directly or via other agencies. Pat and Elaine also mention the significant number of Section 47 Investigations following allegations of physical abuse or neglect issues.  And they state that the majority of these allegations have been made by GW; that all have been investigated and that all have been unfounded.  They also state that he takes every opportunity to restate his allegations to other professionals and that he has been spoken to on two separate occasions about making unfounded referrals.  They point out that as a result I have never had the opportunity to rebuild my life. 

I was told by teachers that GW was encouraged on at least two occasions to let Jordan come into school like all the others do.  But GW refused and insisted on escorting Jordan to his class.  The Specialist Senior Educational Psychologist, Mr Barrett [in his 13/3/03 report] speaks of Jordan's "communication skills" saying “Jordan is now volunteering information and showing considerable more confidence EG he talked at length about his birthday."  Jordan needs months in school and extra support to achieve that?  He naturally gained such 'skills' long before he started school.  But he soon lost his confidence and became very guarded because he was removed from his home against his will, denied his mummy, forced to repeat lies by his father and thrust into school.  Of course, such facts are not acknowledged in the Barrett report.  Why didn't Mr Barrett question why Jordan [and Mel] were so lacking in confidence and so distrusting???  If the problem was Andy and not GW, Jordan and Melissa would've been happy and contented and oozing confidence because they did not see Andrew for nearly 8 months.  The social workers state that the evidence does not back up GW’s claims.  It is pretty clear that the problem is the children’s abusive father.  Jordan's teacher told me that both J & M were very insecure and very wary of adults for a long time.  She said Jordan is opening up and is ok now but Melissa is still distrustful.  The social workers report: "The school have noted Jordan is less clingy to his father since he has had staying contact with his mother."  Regarding Melissa, Mr Barrett reports that she is "Making progress, showing initiative, for example she is beginning to organize others and she plays with others in a more sophisticated way."  Why doesn't he just say she is now indoctrinated to the system and is able to perform to expectations?  He says: "Melissa continues to benefit from the structured and consistent school and home environment."  [The social workers report that the children's lives whilst living with their father has been unstable!]  He also says: "A careful note will be made of any changes in Melissa's social and emotional well being but currently she is well settled.”  [No doubt now that I'm having more contact with my children he will next report that he has concerns about Melissa being unsettled and about her general well-being….]

During a review at school on 20/5/03 I learned that the school ‘experts’ were pleased that Melissa is now able to write her name.  I had taught her to write it apart from the ‘a’ which she had almost grasped before she started school.  School taught her to write the ‘e’ the wrong way round and to even start her name by writing the ‘e’ first.  It is reported by her teacher that she copies letters of words in the wrong order.  EG she will start at the right hand side and work backwards.  Also even her copied letters are the wrong way round or unreadable.  Another strategy for Melissa in class is re her attention.  The ‘experts’ fail to see that Mel’s ‘problem’ is that she simply isn’t interested in school.   Jordan is reported to have a short concentration span and that he is easily distracted.  That means he is bored in school.  He won’t learn if he isn’t interested.  At home he can spend hours just building with his lego blocks and meccano.  He’s even happy spending time just doing maths with Shelly or myself.  It is also reported that he is struggling with his reading i.e. he tends to memorise whole sentences rather than learn individual words.  This is reported to be the case with Melissa too.  Yet when I got J & M to read Peter and Jane and other books, they were able to read the words separately and even managed to read virtually whole books.  They were both keen to move on to higher levels too.  There is something seriously wrong with the school’s methods of teaching my children to read.  When I pointed such things out and also the fact that since being in school both J & M now write letters and numbers incorrectly I was given short shrift by Mrs Wregglesworth at Ysgol Cynfran and informed that my children are making progress.  Incidentally it is clear that GW doesn’t bother to help the children with their reading books because Melissa’s teacher wrote down the words that she was supposed to learn in February/March 2003.  She did not learn those words until Shelly and I taught her a couple of months later. 

It isn’t fair or wise to try to compare Home Educated children with their school peers.  A Home Educated child might be considered to be ‘behind’ his/her school counterpart according to a school’s assessment and yet the child might be far more advanced in other [perhaps more important] areas.

During June 2003, on the instructions from his father, Jordan began behaving violently with his toys and household items and doors as soon as his father brought him for contact.  Jordan is now too controlled and intimidated by his father to disobey him.    Melissa also is too scared to be herself in front of her father and she would run back to him on cue crying.  Yet as soon as he leaves both J & M are totally different, completely relaxed and loving and ‘normal’ and wanting to come home.  Mel cried often at night in her sleep and she coughs constantly.  I hear her saying to herself things like: “I don’t like daddy.  He hurts me.”  She makes recordings in her toy tape recorder and says things like: “I love my mummy.”  She and Jordan say that their daddy is nasty and a liar and that they love me and A & S.  Yet in school, in front of their father, they treat me as if I’m a stranger and I heard them both excitedly telling him that they cried for him “at mummy’s” and Jordan happily told his smirking father that he was “angry at mummy’s” and that he’d thrown his toys around the lounge and had “slammed mummy’s doors.”

After a meeting at school I was promised copies of my children’s work including comments and reports by their teachers.  After a few weeks of enquiring, the Headmaster refused me the copies saying that it would cost too much and that he was under resourced.  I asked if I could leaf through my children’s work and select just a few for copying.  This was important because of the court proceedings and because at the end of term the resident parent, GW, was to receive the children’s school work, not me.  I offered to do the copying myself and even pay for the copies.   He then sent me some sample pages of his choosing. 

The Head Geraint Williams states in his 30/6/03 report: “All cases are referred to the Educational Psychologist, namely Mr Mark Barrett and all reports sent to him.  Mr Barrett also reached the same conclusion as myself and all other professionals assisting the children.”  Barrett obtained ALL his info from the Head!   He stresses his fear that should J & M return to home tuition they will “once again become isolated and withdrawn from society.”  He fears they will become “social outcasts.”  The Head has a narrow interpretation of ‘socialization’.  It is the ability to mix freely and comfortably with different people.  A lot of socialization learned in schools is highly undesirable.  The world is full of socially inadequate folk; all of whom have been to school.  No home educated child is socially lacking.  Jordan’s and Melissa’s problems are caused by their abusive father and by school.  The Headmaster also refers to the first day of school when he and GW prevented me from having any contact with my children.  The Head physically restrained me and GW held my children firmly by their hands.  The Head states that his main concern at this time was: “They showed no emotion whatsoever.  This was not the actions of children living in a normal living environment and because of this it was clear that they were not developing as normal children should.”  [During the October 2002 Child Protection Conference Geraint Williams had not mentioned such concerns.  On the contrary, he stated: “There are no concerns about their behavior.”]  How does he think abused children behave?  Did he expect them to try and run to me crying and did he expect them to punch and kick anyone who tried to stop them?  The children were not allowed to show ‘normal’ emotion.  They existed in a climate of fear, being ruled by an iron fist [at their father’s house and at school], too terrified to disobey their father.  They were being brainwashed and ordered to ‘smile’.  They were in a state of confusion and shell shock and had been stripped of all normal emotion by their father.  Why wasn’t the Head concerned about that?  Why did the Head treat me with such utter contempt and why did he go to such lengths to keep me away from my children? If he had told GW to let my children come to me, instead of encouraging GW’s vile behaviour, then he might’ve seen some ‘normal’ emotion.

Melissa and Jordan do not like school.  Mel became so anxious and subdued when her teacher Mrs Helen Price tried to take her hand to lead her into class.  At a review meeting on 9/7/03 Mrs Price said that Melissa often gives a blank expression when spoken to and that she is still very very quiet and very careful about what she says.  I was told that she is still slow in speech and language development and needs to visit a speech therapist.  I again explained that the answer is to remove her from the maligning influence of her father because until she can live free from fear and secure with the knowledge that she can speak her mind freely, she will continue to be hampered in this area and no amount of ‘therapy’ will do any good.  Her mind is elsewhere.  She cannot relax and benefit from anything in school while she is so troubled.  Mrs Laura Smith [SENCO] was sympathetic but the Headmaster Mr Geraint Williams refused to listen.   He even ignored me when I said that the new contact arrangements [Tuesday to the following Monday every other week, pick up/drop off at school] were better.  I told him that the judge had remarked that it is much better for children to settle with one parent for a few days or so rather than be passed around after a day here or there.  I added that the children won’t have to witness any problems relating to the handover which is obviously a good thing.  And I said that hopefully the court order will now be respected; all of which has to be beneficial to the children as it will help them gain more confidence and will enable them to concentrate better at school.  Mrs Smith agreed.  The Headmaster said nothing.  I again asked if I could be given my children’s work at the end of term.  GW and the Headmaster said nothing.  They just looked at each other.  I then asked if I could just borrow their work for a few days or so instead.  The Headmaster said he would discuss it with GW and would let me know.  Why didn’t he ask GW for an answer during the meeting?  Why the secrecy?  It is not surprising that I do not believe that the Headmaster is as impartial as he tries to have me believe.  When I again raised concerns about my children learning incorrect letter formation at school, the Headmaster disagreed, yet the evidence speaks for itself and the teachers had agreed that their letter formation is poor.  I gave a couple of examples such as Jordan writing ‘e’ starting at the bottom until he has a ‘c’ which then turns into ‘e’ but the straight bit ends up curved.  Also Melly writing a ‘6’ completely the wrong way, starting with the circular bit and finishing at the top of the number.  Jordan writes a ‘d’ as a ‘b’ and his ‘p’ turns out to be a number ‘9’.  Teachers and social workers try to tell you that most kids make such mistakes and that they soon learn the correct way.  What nonsense.  How can they learn the correct way when they are allowed/encouraged to write incorrectly?  The Head and others at the meeting couldn’t seem to grasp the point that there is a correct way of writing and that there is a reason for this.  For example, both J & M would write many letters starting from the bottom, working upwards; thus ‘n’ ends up looking like a ‘c’ which has fallen over i.e. it has no straight edge.  Likewise ‘r’ and ‘m’ do not have straight edges.  Also both J & M have no idea which letters drop below the line and which ones don’t.  Thus ‘p’ and ‘y’ end up looking like capital letters.  Another problem with school methods is that my children have now learned that all letters are the same size.  I have had to teach them that some letters are tall and some are half as tall.  And after one year in school, neither J or M could write any letter from memory except for those which made up their names, and even they were formed incorrectly and thus looked untidy and ‘babyish’.  This is of great concern to me because I have noticed that when I try to correct them now, they so easily go back to writing the way the school taught them.  For the purposes of damage limitation I would rather the teachers just let my children play during their incarceration at school.  At the meeting much fuss was again made about Melissa being able to write her name neatly although she did miss out the ‘a’.  I again repeated that I had taught her to write these letters long before she started school.  I was ignored.    J & M were not learning to read at school.  They were unable to read individual words.  Mrs Price said that school concentrate instead on discussing the story.  It was reported that both J & M say the whole sentences in their reading books rather than recognising and learning individual words.   What have my children been doing at school?  The evidence is that they have been learning a lot of bad habits, which will be very hard for them to break.  [During the summer holidays of 2004 both J & M were still making many mistakes with letter and number formation.]  2 years out of their lives has been wasted educationally and instead much damage has been done, educationally and otherwise.   The only words that J & M learned to read were the ones that they learned by reading the first ‘Read it Yourself’ books with Shelly and I during contact.  Mrs Wreglesworth is more concerned with labelling than learning.  She reports [9/7/03] that both J & M will “remain at School Action on the Code of Practice” and that they will both be “monitored by school in line with their Special Needs Policy.”  She also points out that both children are over learning things – Melissa is stated to be “still over learning” some letters and Jordan is stated to have “over learnt the key vocabulary for sight reading at Level 2 of the school scheme.”  How can a child over learn anything?  And why be criticised for it?  

Jordan and Melissa constantly come up to me and Andy and Shelly and tell us that they love us and want to live with us.  They both want constant cuddling and continual reassurance.  Shell tells me that if I’m missing for just a minute Melissa gets very anxious and repeatedly says: “Where’s mummy?  Want mummy.  Want to be with mummy.  Want to go to mummy.”  They also say that they don’t want to go to school and want to learn at home.  They say that they don’t like daddy.  I tell them that they must tell the social workers how they feel and what they want because Pat and Elaine get to talk to the judge.  I tell them that they must not tell the social workers what their daddy tells them to say; only what they want.  They said that they can’t because they are scared of daddy.  They said that he will be angry and will smack them.  Jordan said that he tells his father that he likes him more than me, but that he’s only pretending.  He says that he will be smacked if he doesn’t.  I tell them that they can whisper into Pat’s or Elaine’s ear and say that they are scared of their dad.  I said that Pat and Elaine won’t tell their father but I know that it is pointless saying such things because my children know that their father will find out what they have been saying to the people that matter.  Mel asks things like: “And then he’ll stop?”  Jordan says things like: “Can I stay here with you forever?  If I tell the social workers that I want to live here, then I don’t have to see daddy ever again?”  He knows that he has to go to his father so there is no way he is going to say what is in his heart.  Only my two defenceless young children know what goes on in their father’s house behind closed doors.  They daren’t speak the truth.  They will not do that until they are confident that they never have to see him again.  And even if they did spill the beans it would make little difference because the truth is ignored and suppressed by the child abusing legal mafia.  There will come a point when my children will feel that they cannot trust me either because I am forever telling them that the judge decides when they come home, yet we have been before the judge so many times now and they are still not allowed to come home.  The freemasons were forever adjourning undoubtedly hoping that one day we wouldn’t get such a good report from Pat and Elaine i.e. when the likes of their boss Ian Turner had managed to totally discredit me.  How do you explain to a 5 and 6 year old that hidden evil forces control their fate, which even the social workers [the very people with the supposed power to have children removed from or returned to their parents] are oblivious to?  Pat does agree that some things are odd and don’t add up.  She said that she and Elaine couldn’t for the life of them understand why CAFCASS hadn’t managed to complete their assessment and write a report.  She said they tried their best to have the assessment shifted back to them as they are the people who deal with custody issues.  She said the idea of CAFCASS transferring an assessment to social services is just unheard of.  She said that they have never been asked to write 3 reports as they have been asked to do in our case.  Yet she doesn’t want to believe that there are secret and sordid manipulations going on in high places.  She and Elaine have obviously been persuaded by their crooked bosses that they should put pressure on me not to publish my story on the grounds that the very people I am attacking are the ones making decisions about my children.   A gagging order was slapped on me on 3/7/03 in court.  But it is odd that it took the Masons so long to request that I don’t publish.  My story began being published on the VOMIT site in September 2001 and I had told social service managers Ian Turner and Terry James this in August 2002; I had even sent them my story in the naïve hope that they were honest and trustworthy and not Masons or beholden to the murky business of Masonry.

I wrote to my solicitor Peter Brown to inform him that I had written to James Todd of Vomit regarding Amphletts’ complaint on 15/7/03 that I hadn’t adhered to the C/O re the removal of my articles.  I explained that Mr Todd’s reply is that there is no Web page to which he now contributes and that this has been the case for over a year.  He suggests that Amphletts write to him and specify the inaccuracies.   Also that he should contact Mr Ian Johnston who once administered the site.  Peter then sent me a rather threatening letter:  “You have given an undertaking to the Court to remove the articles and if you don’t use your best endeavours to do so you will be in contempt of Court.”  Isn’t that the kind of letter the opposition solicitors are supposed to write, not my own solicitor?  Solicitors acting for rebels do not risk their careers for their clients; they collude with the dirty brigade to crush their clients instead.  On 10/10/03 Pete sent me another threatening letter after he had received a response from Mr Johnston.  He writes: “We suggest you contact Mr Johnston.  As you are aware, with the articles, it is your responsibility to get them removed and that will assist the forthcoming court hearing.  If you do not do it, then it is likely that it will be used against you in the hearing by Mr Williams’ barrister.”  Actually the court order states that I am to use my best endeavours.

Much of what Social Workers Pat and Elaine say in their 3^rd report [dated 9/10/03] could have been taken from Welfare Officer Vera Nolan’s reports.   For example: “Pat and Elaine have repeatedly stated to both Ms K and Mr W that their ongoing animosity towards each other will continue to cause emotional harm to J & M.  We have repeatedly sought to point out to both parents that they must endeavour to conduct themselves appropriately when in the company of their children.”  Vera took the easy option of reporting in neutral terms and failed to acknowledge that the children and I are being bullied relentlessly by GW.   If GW won’t co-operate with social workers and blatantly breaches court orders, what chance have I got? 

The social workers and school state that the children are happier now that they are having more and consistent contact with me, which exposes GW’s lies about them not wanting to see me.  They state: “Jordan’s teacher reports that he now speaks openly and positively about his contact with his mother.”  Similar comments are made about Melissa.  Pat and Miss Baker told me that I was a taboo subject for a long time.  It is clear that the children have been too fearful of mentioning their mummy in school because of the influence of their father.  However the social workers’ remarks regarding school staff not experiencing problems relating to anxiety is not quite correct.  Quite often, teachers had to physically remove Melissa from me.  Miss Baker has witnessed her extreme reluctance to part from me.  This is despite the fact that I’d be encouraging her to go in and had to prise her fingers off me and push her in.  She is worried that I won’t be there at the end of the day to collect her and that her father is there instead.  Once I kiss my children goodbye they never know when they will see me again.  They have distressing memories of having sparse and irregular contact with me.   Their father has caused them to be very insecure.  It is heartbreaking and all the more reason why home education would be much better for them.

The social workers continue to stress their fears of priming; also that the evidence does not support GW’s allegations and thus that they believe he is the liar [one of us has to be], which is why they should not be in favour of shared care.  They state: “We continue to have some reservations that GW may be encouraging the children to deny that they love or wish to live with their mother.  This is not borne out by our observations of contact between J & M and their mother and half siblings which can only be described as very positive experiences.”  They report: “On 6^th October at school Jordan talked enthusiastically about his contact with his mother, Andy and Shelly, relating activities which they enjoyed together.  However when asked directly where he wished to live he became subdued and then stated that he wished to live with Dad.”  Also “When we asked Jordan if Daddy ever told him what to say to us, he became subdued and stated that he did not know.”  That is very revealing.  They also state: “Jordan stated clearly that he loved his father, Andy and Shelly but that he did not love his mother.  This was totally contrary to his accounts of contact with his mother, which always appeared to be very positive and rewarding experiences.  The level of confidence and demands for attention which Jordan exhibits in the company of his mother, A & S confirms that he has a close bond with his family.”  Regarding Melissa, they report: “Contact is now a very positive experience for Melissa.  She clearly values the time which she spends with her mother, Andy and Shelly.”  Also “When we spoke with Melissa in school on 6^th Oct it was apparent that she continually looked to Jordan for his responses to our questions before answering.”  And “Although she spoke excitedly about activities undertaken with her mother, Andy and Shelly she would only say that she loved Daddy, Andy and Shelly and that she wished to live with Daddy.  This did not seem to be consistent with her recounts of events during contact with her mother.  The closeness which Melissa shares with her mother is very evident during contact.”  They further report: “Both J & M are very talkative, speaking in an animated way about their time spent with their father and time spent with their mother, A & S.  However both J & M – though it was observed that Melissa does defer to Jordan – became quite reticent when asked about their feelings towards their respective parents or where they would like to live.”  [Incidentally I’m surprised the children were asked this as Pat said that they never ask such direct questions of kids as young as J & M.]  The social workers repeatedly stress such things as: “From our observations and opportunities to speak with both children, their contact with their mother and half siblings is a very rewarding experience for them both” and “J & M have demonstrated a close and enjoyable relationship with Andy.”   It is obvious that my children are far too scared of their father to say what is in their hearts and what it is they want.  It is obvious that they are being forced to say things which aren’t true.  All the evidence is there.  Why is this allowed to continue?  Why don’t Social Services remove the children from their abusive father immediately?  Social Services manager Terry James told me to have GW prosecuted for emotional abuse.  When GW first took my children from me Social Services manager Ian Turner told me that social services cannot intervene unless there is evidence of a child/children being abused.  How much evidence do they need?  If they’re not going to do that then they should at the very least be strongly recommending the immediate return of my children and that the father should have much reduced contact.  Joint care would enable him to continue to deny me contact and continue to emotionally abuse the children.  How can the social workers be in favour of that? 

Wherever possible, the social workers have tried to present our case neutrally but in the doing they do not reveal the true picture.  On the one hand they say: “Each parent blames the other for inciting any conflict” and “because of the difficulties which the adults have in acting reasonably together in the best interests of the children….” then they back up what I am saying which shows that I am telling the truth and that GW is the liar.  For example, they report: “Mr W has made what we believe to be malicious referrals with regard to Ms Kilby.” Regarding the allegation that J & M had head lice and flea bites, they state: “We were concerned about this allegation because, in our view, it was completely unfounded.”  Also “He reported the children to be ill on sports day knowing that their mother would be attending school on that day.”  And “GW has also failed to attend a hospital appointment for Jordan’s hearing to be assessed and two Opthalmic appointments.  It is felt that this is because he is aware that SK may well be present.”  They further expose GW to be the liar when they state that the evidence does not back up his allegations.  For example: “We have not observed anything which might cause us to believe that Jordan is in any way wary or frightened of Andy.”  Their 3^rd report is full of comments like they have repeatedly “stated to both Ms Kilby and Mr W that their ongoing animosity towards each other will continue to cause emotional harm to J & M.    We have repeatedly sought to point out to both parents that they must endeavour to conduct themselves appropriately when in the company of their children.  To do otherwise will cause J & M emotional distress.”  Since the court order of July 4^th 2003 until we attended court on 24^th Oct 2003 I had no direct contact with GW yet he still caused them emotional distress and he was still able to deny contact.  For example, he told school that he was keeping Melissa off school [14^th and 15^th Oct] because she had a cold.  This was during my contact time.  By rights I should have been able to go to his house and collect her and nurse her back to health in my own home.  But if I had done that GW would have assaulted me and swiftly thrown me off his property.  At such times not only does my child miss out on contact but he/she is also separated from his/her sibling.  This is a further blow because they both look to each other for comfort.  When I saw her in school on 16/10/03 Melissa was very upset and choking back tears in class.  Teacher Mrs Ventri witnessed this.  In front of her father she was too scared to run to me; she didn’t dare to even look at me.  He insisted on taking her into class.  When the children lived with me GPs told me that illness wasn’t an excuse to prevent contact.  The social workers are missing the point and they have watered down the reality of the situation when they state things like: “In focusing on the best interests of the children, the main aim should be the reduction of opportunities for dispute.”  The main aim should be reducing the opportunity for GW to abuse the children and behave malignantly.   You don’t achieve that by giving in to the aggressor.   Social services shirk their responsibility as so-called protectors of children when they don’t focus on the real problem.  They fail children when their reporting presents a distorted picture.

The report contains some untruths and it isn’t altogether factual or just.  They state that since their last Addendum provided for court in May 2003, GW has fully cooperated with the contact arrangements.  Social services themselves have documented that this isn’t true.  They also state that I agreed to carefully consider shared care as a serious option.  I said that such arrangements are obviously better than 3 nights pw contact, but in order to stop GW denying me contact and to protect my children from abuse, residence to me is the only option, preferably with much reduced contact for GW.  The social workers report: “They also drew pictures of their families which included all family members.”  Actually I saw both pictures and Melissa did not draw her father or her older half-brother [GW’s son, Leighton] and neither of them drew their older half-sister [GW’s daughter, Kimberley].  Why weren’t these facts reported?  Pat had commented about the drawings on the phone on 5^th August 03 and had said that she firmly believes that Melissa wants to come home to me to live and that she had told them that she “loves mummy to bits.”  Pat said that Jordan had said that he wants to live with “mum and dad.”  She told me that their pictures reflected that.  I had overheard some of the things that J & M said to Pat and Elaine on 1^st August.  I heard Melissa telling Pat that she doesn’t want to live with her dad because she doesn’t like him.  When Pat asked her if her dad gets cross, she said “yes” and that he punches things and hits her and throws her in bed.  I also heard Jordan telling Pat that he wants to live with “both”.  Melissa even told Pat in front of me that she is scared of her father.   Yet none of these remarks are in the social workers’ report.  WHY???  [Later when giving evidence, Pat said she didn’t recall that conversation.  All she said was a safe neutral “they want mum when they are with her and dad when they are with him.”  Yet even that wasn’t stated in the report.]  Further examples of the social workers reporting inaccurately are: “We anticipate that when Social Services withdraw there may well be problems with the non caring parent having regular and consistent contact.”  Presented in such a way they are suggesting that I too did not and would not support contact.   They know that this is not the case and acknowledge so in their statement: “Following her separation from GW, SK demonstrated her willingness to promote contact between J & M and their father.”   Why didn’t they report accurately and state that there would only be continuing problems re contact if the children continue to live with their father?  Also, they “have continued throughout the assessment to point out the importance of Ms K and Mr W reaching an agreement to be civil towards each other in front of the children.  Although Ms Kilby acknowledged the benefit of this action for the children she sees this course of action as being conceding to Mr W.”  That is not quite correct and is again woefully missing the point.  Being civil towards each other is not the issue because when we do have direct contact we are civil; we barely say anything to each other.  The issue is the behind the scenes, secret and sly behaviour of GW.  It is not about ‘winning’ either.  This is about my two children being abused by their father and about my struggle to protect them.  This is about my struggle to have regular contact with them, in fact.  We are constantly under attack by GW.  My children are intimidated by their father.  He is ordering them to turn against me.  If they dare disobey him and dare show their love for me, he bullies them.  I have continually explained that it is simply not possible for us to work together without 3^rd party witnesses.  GW refuses to keep his side of the agreement.  He refuses to comply with court orders.  He lies and manipulates at will.  It is all documented by the welfare agencies.  I am in a damned position.  You cannot work with someone who is an evil-minded, compulsive, habitual, barefaced liar.  The police should have dealt with GW and his criminal behaviour years ago.  The Dolgellau police should have dealt with him when he was abusing his ex wife and his older children.  The courts should have dealt with him long before now.

The social services 3^rd report contains illogical statements and flawed recommendations.  The social workers state: “Only by giving each parent equal rights, roles and responsibilities, the likelihood of future acrimony may be diminished.” Also, “Although we had previously felt that the children should return to the care of their mother, we are now conscious that this may likely lead to ongoing acrimony.”   Such reporting leaves me dumbfounded.  Do the social workers seriously suppose that by having everything shared that GW will miraculously start behaving himself and start to consider the welfare of the children?!!!  They have now given GW carte blanche to continue in his heinous ways.  I have repeatedly told the social workers that whilst GW has residence or joint residence, he will deny me contact and manipulate to his heart’s content.  In so doing, the children suffer.  He can also continue to prevent J & M attending important medical appointments.  Is this right?  When the children lived with me he did not have the same opportunities.  Reporting such as: “The only possible fair outcome for them as parents would be a shared care arrangement” is downright shameful.  This isn’t about what is fair for us parents, this is supposed to be about the protection and welfare of children and what’s best for them.     

The reporting is contradictory.  For example, on the one hand P & E say: “We continue to be concerned for the emotional well-being of both J & M whilst they are in the sole care of Mr W” and they report widely of their fears of priming, yet on the other they state that “to reduce contact between the children and either parent could prove to be detrimental.”  It is evident that reduced contact with their father would be beneficial to J & M.  Why didn’t the social workers stick to their original recommendations?  Why have they backed down?  What has changed?  NOTHING.  The evidence is that GW has continued with his criminal behaviour and that he will continue to do so because the relevant agencies condone it.  It doesn’t seem to matter that the children are being harmed by their father.  The social workers have even reported their fears that GW will not change his ill-willed ways.   It would appear that pressure has been brought to bear on the social workers to not report truthfully, accurately and clearly and make recommendations which would serve the children’s best interests.  GW’s aim ever since I left him in1998 has been to cause me as much pain and hardship as possible.  He achieves this through my children in exactly the same way as he did with his ex wife and her children.  He succeeded where she was concerned.  It is acknowledged in welfare reports that GW is working to cause all of my children to be removed from me by triggering child protection procedures against me.  That is a crime.  His malicious referrals are relentless.  Pat and Elaine report that there have been 17 referrals requiring investigation, but that didn’t include the almost weekly malicious referrals to social workers Maureen Catherall and Debra Curbishley during their 9-month comprehensive risk assessment when my children were on the At Risk register. Many men have been locked up for cases of harassment of a far less serious nature.  When are the law enforcement bodies going to protect domestic violence victims – the vulnerable women and children - from violent and vindictive men like GW?   

Pat and Elaine state: “We have suggested that a neutral third party should be agreed to execute transfer of the children until such time as the parents can communicate civilly in the presence of J & M.”  That should read “as the father”, not parents because he is the one who is doing the bullying and the threatening and he is the one who refuses to give the children emotional permission to come to me and instead tells them not to do so and to run back to him.  But that statement is again dodging the issue and is a misrepresentation of the situation.  GW can quite often be civil towards me when we are in direct contact with each other, in fact, he can be very nice towards me.  But he is fork tongued and full of treachery.  The issue is the importance of changing the behind-the-scenes sly and thuggish behaviour of the father. The evidence shows that GW has bullied, lied and schemed, brainwashed, primed and controlled the kids in a negative and harmful way throughout.  The evidence shows that he will continue to do so unless and until the law enforcement and child protection bodies stop him.  Until then there will always be a need for 3^rd party witnesses.  

On the matter of the burn, the only thing that the social workers report is that Andy denied the allegation.  There is an abundance of evidence that GW has repeatedly committed perjury in this regard.  This is further backed up by the fact that many questions addressed to his solicitor Mr Hind of Amphletts remain unanswered. 

Unbelievably the social services report ends with the suggestion that it might be an idea to refer the matter back to CAFCASS - simply because GW has refused to cooperate with the social workers.  Talk about giving in to the bully!  It is one thing that the children and I are intimidated by GW, but why are social services intimidated by him?  Are they capable of doing their job or not?  They cannot be concerned about the children’s welfare.  If they were they would be protesting strongly and reporting in the same tone if they heard a suggestion from GW or anyone else which would lead to further delay in court proceedings.  They would most certainly not be encouraging it.  The social workers “have real doubts about Mr W’s ability to co-operate with us further” and “would suggest that consideration be given to referring the matter to CAFCASS for a report regarding residence if further report is required.”  They say: “We appreciate that there may be some delay but it may mean that Mr W will be more co-operative with a CAFCASS officer.”  Most staggeringly of all is their mention of Ivor Hughes.  He is the incompetent official who passed the assessment to them in the first place! 

Dr Groves reveals her lack of impartiality in her remarks in a 16/1/04 letter: “It is of great concern that apparently at former meetings, e.g. with Education Mrs Kilby will be heard to be verbally abusive towards Mr Williams in front of other adults and professionals.  This is clearly emotionally very abusive to the children should they be aware of it or hear it.”  If she had checked with School staff she would have known that GW is lying about that too.  I have always conducted myself calmly and civilly at meetings and I only ever politely point out the facts to those present.    Dr Groves has been involved in this case since the first child protection conference on 15^th June 1999.  She has never mentioned any concerns about Jordan and Melissa being emotionally abused by their father despite the copious amount of evidence of this including the reports from Social Services.  She is even aware that GW is a liar because she states in her letter that he told her that the Young Persons Health Advisor Bethan Lloyd had visited me to give advice regarding his allegations.  She adds that Bethan told her that that wasn’t true; in fact Bethan has not at any time mentioned any concerns to me re GW’s allegations [which are that because of contact with me, Jordan’s confidence is declining, he soils his underpants and hides his heavily soiled undies, his head banging has increased and that contact with me is unsettling for both Jordan and Melissa….] which suggests that she believes that GW behaves maliciously.  The truth is Jordan head bangs at his father’s house and he soils and then hides his underwear there because he is terrified of his father.  But those whose job it is to protect children all too often fail to do so and instead side with and protect the abuser.  I was also excluded from two Speech and Language therapy assessments re Melissa that had resulted from a school referral.  This was despite the school’s assurances that I would be notified of my daughter’s appointments.      

The children [especially Mel] are often reluctant to come to me when changeover is at H/Q.  On one occasion GW pushed Mel towards me telling her to “go to your mother.”  It was nauseous.  There he was playing ‘Mr Nice Guy’, doing what all the welfare professionals tell estranged parents to do i.e. he was seemingly giving Mel emotional permission to come to me; this after he’d spent the previous week brainwashing my kids and telling them NOT to come to me; NOT to show me affection.   If they dare tell him they love me, he threatens that he will take them away and that they will never see me again.  They are so terrified of him that they sit almost emotionless in his car.  Mel wanted to wave to me and blow kisses through her father’s car window but when he saw what she was doing, she immediately clammed up and just stared at me; her big beautiful eyes haunted, sorrowful, sullen…. GW poisons my kids’ minds on a regular basis; telling them that Andy and I burned them when they were babies….

Pat’s and Elaine’s manager David Hynes tried unsuccessfully to contact GW during the week beginning 7/6/04 when GW breached the c/o yet again.  GW even hung up on Pat when she did finally get through.  He made excuses as to why they could not see the children, even saying that he had a hospital outpatient appointment [they didn’t check that out though.]  He told more blatant lies when he accused one of them of having an affair with my dad.  It got to the stage where P & E again had to refer to their legal dept in an effort to secure his compliance.  I can imagine the reaction if I’d contacted the Authorities complaining that the children are frightened to return to their father’s because of something he was saying.  I’d be considered a laughing stock, told to stop wasting their time and ordered to hand the kids over.  I’d probably even be arrested; my door would be kicked in if I didn’t answer it and I’d be prosecuted.  I can imagine the reaction of Social Services if I refused to allow them to speak to J & M.  They would step in almost immediately and snatch the kids.  They wouldn’t give me 5 minutes if I was trying to dictate terms, never mind days or months on end of non-cooperation.  Then they’d follow that with a heavily damning report against me.  Why are the Child Welfare agencies allowing Gareth Williams to continue to play games with them?  Why are they letting him make complete and utter fools out of them???  When I tell the social workers that GW is forcing my children to repeat lies, they say I’m probably right but that priming is difficult to prove.  They said they have to hear it from J & M.  I begged Elaine to somehow try and urge the kids to open up and tell the truth about what is happening, what their father is doing.  I suggested she say something like: “If I told you that you don’t have to see daddy again, how would you feel?”  She said that is exactly what she wants to do but there are ways they can go about it and ways they can’t; not without leaving themselves wide open to having complaints made.  It is up to P & E how they interview the kids.   Surely the important thing is to GET J & M TO REVEAL THE TRUTH.  DO SOCIAL SERVICES WANT TRUTH OR NOT???   What terrified child is going to squeal on his/her violent and abusive father, especially when the child knows he/she has to go to that abuser again?  I asked the social workers to do a video interview in my presence.  I was told that they need to talk to the children first; also that they would need GW’s consent too.  Jesus!  It beggars belief.  It is no wonder that so many children in society are being abused.  There is absolutely no protection for them but plenty for their abusers.  In any case, why interview the children at all?  Haven’t they had enough of that already?  Why do they have to suffer any more trauma?  Pat said on oath [24/10/03] that the assessments cause J & M distress.  Aren’t 3 explicit social services reports and numerous welfare reports sufficient to show that GW is priming the children and that HE is full of malice and has ulterior motives?  [Pat and Elaine stated in their 14/7/04 letter to Court that they are “concerned regarding the effect of numerous investigations on the children.”] 

Look how it is one rule for Gareth Williams and one rule for me.  By joves if I made referrals to the child welfare agencies I could bet my life that the rules would swiftly change.  If I and/or some of my friends and relatives phoned all the agencies, playing the same sort of dirty games as GW & co, the kids would be asked if I’d put words into their mouths.  J & M are not scared of me so they would simply tell the truth and say “yes”.  Even if they didn’t repeat things that I’d given them permission to say and even encouraged them to say, social services would trick them into saying what they want to hear.  Then I’d be accused of priming which I am without doubt WOULD GO AGAINST ME IMMEDIATELY.  And if that didn’t work, social services would simply be economical with the truth.  They are experts at that.  They can report what they like because interviews with kids are done in secret.  It’s obvious why S/S managers are not so keen on doing a video interview.  They daren’t risk a bit of truth emerging.  When I told Pat that I wouldn’t put it to the test, she said she knows and said that I can’t lower myself to that level.    Jesus wept, over the years all I’ve ever been told by all the child protection agencies, including doctors and psychiatrists, is to hand my children over to their abusive father for contact, even if they were ill.  Social worker Maureen Catherall told me to put my screaming, crying babies into their father’s car.  A judge threatened me with prison, even though I’d never once blocked contact.  No one EVER gave me permission to deny contact.

When I asked Pat if she could see now why I was begging her and Elaine NOT to recommend Joint Residence last October [2003], she told me that they felt that if GW didn’t get some of what he wanted, he would just make my life as miserable as hell.  Well it is clear that he will do that, regardless.  Why are the social workers allowing him to make the kids’ lives miserable too?   I told P that I knew this was going to happen sooner or later, that’s why I really wanted her and E to stick to their guns with the residence bit and HIM to be forced to accept just contact.  She said: “Elaine and I battled and battled and battled and it would’ve started even earlier if you’d had the most custody as he would still have had the contact.”   She said she was amazed that he had left it this long.  She said she is as frustrated as me that this hasn’t been sorted and that Gareth Williams has got to answer for all this.  Why don’t they report in such strong tones then???  If they did, maybe he would have to answer for his crimes and maybe Jordan and Melissa would get the protection they need.  Until then, Gareth Williams and men like him will continue to abuse their children and cock a snoop at authority.  It is high time that social and welfare workers raise issue with those at the top of their chain of command for the sake of the children.  It is not ok to take the safe, easy option of sitting on the fence; not where children’s lives are concerned. 

Pete said this is tantamount to ABUSE.  Of course it is, my children are being abused by their father and [worse] by ALL the child protection authorities due to incompetence, inaction and corrupt practices.  Further all my children and I are suffering a gross violation of Article 3 [mental torture] in the European Court of Human Rights.  I also suffer a gross violation of my Article 6 rights – a right to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial judge; and also the right to free expression.   

Pat and Elaine finally managed to speak with Jordan and Melissa at school on Monday 14^th June 2004.  Elaine told me that J & M speak positively about their time with me, Andrew and Shelly but that Melissa is “stuck with this little primed phrase” of not liking me and that I am going to hurt her.   [In their 14/7/04 letter to Court, they state that Melissa was “unable to describe the context of the circumstances leading up to [her] statement” and “there was insufficient evidence to conclude they were at risk from their mother.”]  She said they are delightful kids.  Elaine told me that the teachers are pleased with both J & M.  They have no problems at all with their schooling; there is nothing negative in their behaviour at school; nothing being picked up by the teachers that is of any concern whatsoever.  Both are doing very well at their work, both have bags more confidence and both have lots of friends.  The teachers say that the children know which parent is collecting them and there is certainly no reticence at the end of the school day.  Many people, including teachers, parents, local Llysfaen residents and folk who use the same busses as us have all told me what big changes they have noticed in J & M over recent months.  They all say that J & M are so much more happier now and relaxed and confident.  That is more proof if it were needed that J & M have been deeply affected; deeply traumatised by the abuse inflicted on them by their father.  As regards GW’s referral, Elaine told me they have no concerns; they have no evidence to support his allegations.  As a result they arranged for me to see the children at school [Elaine didn’t specify a day so as to avoid giving GW the opportunity of keeping them off again.]   Shelly and I saw J & M at school on 16/6/04.  The children were, after initial surprise and slight anxiety about whether they were ‘allowed’ to show us affection, very happy to see us.  They were both openly loving and close towards me and Shelly.  Melissa was very close to tears.  During our time on the school playing field afterwards, Melissa spent most of the time lying on top of me and cuddling up close to me.  She kissed me and whispered that she loved me.  [She was too afraid to say the words in front of other children and teachers.]   Shelly asked Jordan if his dad had told him and Melissa to say that I’m going to kill them.  He said “yes”.  She encouraged him to tell the social workers the truth.  He told us that he can’t because he is scared of his dad; he said his dad shouts at him, hits him and throws him in bed.  He said he doesn’t like his dad.  He said when he is older he will tell Pat and Elaine everything; that his dad makes him say things….   Anyway, putting priming aside, what happened to social services’ concerns about children needing the emotional permission of a parent to go to the other?   GW is clearly not giving that.  Elaine visited me [15/6/04] regarding more of GARETH WILLIAMS’ never ending list of so-called ‘concerns’.  Her visit revealed that he is still stalking me and my kids.  I asked Elaine if she and Pat would now write a supportive report for court, which would help in my application for full residence, but she said they wouldn’t do that unless asked by the court and she added there is no reason why the court would ask them for one.  Pete said if social services had real concerns they’d be talking about having a case conference and taking action.  He said that since that is not the case, I do not have strong enough grounds to apply for residence.  [I recall my barrister once telling me a few years ago that if GW continues to make malicious allegations that would be reason enough to stop his contact!]  I shouldn’t have to apply for the protection of my children.  The Judge should’ve automatically ruled residence to me and prison for Gareth Williams.  The social workers should be in full support of that.  No child on earth is safe whilst we have stinking, evil Masonic infested agencies and courts.

Re the allegation that Jordan walked to his father’s [26/6/04], I later walked there with J out of curiosity.  It took us 1¾ hours and he was walking quickly; even running at times.  J initially told me that he’d walked to his father’s but the next day he said that he hadn’t.  He said he’d been sitting on our driveway waiting for Shelly and his father drove up and told him to get in the car.  I asked him to tell P & E or his teacher what really happened but he said he can’t because he is scared of his dad.  I told him that his dad won’t know cos I won’t tell anyone.  He said his dad finds out everything.  He said when he’s older he won’t care if his dad puts him in bed early without his tea cos he will jump out of his window and run to my house.  He said that he wants to die.  He has made comments about wanting to kill himself before.

It has been widely reported in welfare reports that GW is stalking us; he knows my movements and he is having me watched.  Therefore I am extra careful about not letting J & M out of my sight but it is impossible and unrealistic to watch both kids at the same time every second of the day.   There are times when I’ve asked them to wait outside public toilets for me or when I am playing in the park with one child and the other is playing on something else.  There are plenty of opportunities for GW to snatch the kids or one of them and that has been one of my biggest dreads.  He regularly drives down my road and is often seen in the local area.  His daughter Kim and her husband are also often seen at the places we frequent.  P & E said that I run the risk of smothering and over protecting the kids though; after all they are 6 and 7 years old and 8 year olds are considered old enough to be unaccompanied in a swimming pool.      

GW regularly keeps J & M off school for no other reason than ‘illness’.  He is never more specific.   He was guilty of the same re his older children.  Welfare officer Vera Nolan documented that the Headmistress of Dolgellau High School [where his older children attended] told her: “There were major concerns about Mr Williams’ care and management of L & K.  These were over and above what in itself was a serious problem of non-school attendance.”  So much for his concern [and that of the LEA, child protection and law enforcement agencies] about the children receiving an education!   J’s and M’s school reports [July 2004] state that in the last year M was absent 35 days i.e. 7 weeks and J absent 15 days i.e. 3 weeks.   I had kept Mel off school for 2 of those days and Jordan off for only 1 of those days.  GW did not take Jordan to school until mid morning on the Monday after the weekend when J went missing [28/6/04] because he knew I’d be there dropping Melissa off and that I would speak to him.  Neither did he allow J to go to school on Tuesday 29/6/04 because it was Sports day and GW knew I’d be there.  His excuse was that J had a ‘cold’.  He was making sure that I didn’t get a chance to reassure and comfort J and ask him to tell me the TRUTH.                

In court on 15/7/04 Judge Williams threatened both GW and I with Care Proceedings and prison.  Why such strong tones?  Could it have something to do with the surprising result of me gaining a small court victory!

Jordan in particular is so controlled by his father now that he does not realise the consequences of his actions.  On one occasion [23/7/04] he stormed off in a huff and headed towards his father’s house just because Shelly wouldn’t allow him to play on her game cube.  Luckily he was spotted by a kindly school teacher [Barbara Jones] who recognised him and stopped him.  He lied when he told her that Shelly was hurting him because he couldn’t say what she’d done.  He later admitted that he’d lied.  This is very dangerous because kids Jordan’s age [7] act on impulse; they just don’t think.  He felt he’d suffered an injustice and so he did what his dad is constantly telling him to do.  He ran off.  Jordan does what his father tells him to do because he is so screwed up and is too scared to do otherwise.  He has been programmed by his irresponsible father to run away and to lie about us if I or anyone else in our family tries to discipline him.   Gareth Williams obviously doesn’t care that he is encouraging the kids to walk into danger - next time Jordan might be found by a murderer.  What chance now have I got of disciplining the children?  What a nightmare now for Shelly to baby-sit the kids or for any future baby sitter that I might employ.  I have not punished J for walking off.  He knows now he can get away with whatever he wants because if I so much as raise my voice to him or refuse him something, he will just be off.  The kids are constantly being told by their father that this is what they’re supposed to do.   The schoolteacher contacted social services but thankfully Elaine was sympathetic towards me and brought him straight back.  Jordan has no idea that this could however lead to me never seeing him or Melly again.  J & M told me on 16^th August 2004 when they returned to me after their two weeks summer hol with their father that he had made Jordan PROMISE to leave ‘mum’s’ and walk to ‘dad’s’.  Jordan is being FORCED to walk to his father’s.  There doesn’t have to be a reason.  What if he gets run over by a car if he attempts it another time or what if he gets stopped by ‘Jack the Ripper’.  Now I have to lock the doors and shut the windows to prevent him walking off and I have to watch him like a hawk when we go out anywhere.  We shouldn’t have to live like this.  It is a never-ending nightmare.   

I used to think, rather naively, that J & M will grow up knowing the truth about their father and that it wouldn’t be too long before they would be telling welfare officers that they don’t want anything to do with him.  Little did I realise that evil men like him have such a hatred for the mothers of their children that they will never stop punishing them for refusing to be controlled anymore, for finally standing up to their abusers, for daring to leave them and for holding them to account.  Little did I realise that monsters like him have such a hold over the weak and vulnerable and that it is easier for kids to go along with what they are being bullied to say and do by their bad parent rather than standing up to evil and choosing the good parent.  Little did I realise that men like him are protected by our paedophilic-polluted, misogynistic child welfare agencies, law enforcement bodies and courts.

On 25/8/04 the NSPCC sent me their most recent report.  There was no mention of the reports that Pat had read out to me i.e. the 29/4/04 report re Melissa’s operation or the 3/6/04 report re me allegedly telling the kids that I’m going to kill them.  [Referrals had been made to the NSPCC by GW and one of his relatives.]  There was no mention of GW’s call on or around the 10^th June to the NSPCC re his request that P & E do not take J & M from his house because of the children’s supposed fear that P & E will return them to me either.  It would seem that Mr O’Marah or someone else at NSPCC is either lying or has somehow misplaced them and if the latter is the case, then why didn’t Mr O’Marah simply contact Pat and ask for copies of hers?   The report that NSPCC did send me is dated January 20^th 2004.  As usual the identity of the caller is protected in compliance with the Data Protection Act!!!  The only bit of truth contained in the NSPCC report is on the last page re their call to Pat.  It states: “The call was terminated due to another worker pressing panic alarm and in danger at Conwy Social Services.”  Social services pose a grave danger; not just to its workers, but to society at large whilst its higher echelons remain infected by Freemasonry.  The NSPCC counsellor KS advised the caller that if the situation failed to improve, to call the Helpline again.  Her name and telephone number was provided to the caller.  It’s a shame she didn’t give her details to me.  I would have been able to tell her that she was supporting and encouraging a child abuser and that she was working for a Masonic/paedophilia contaminated agency.  It is high time that those well meaning but naïve and brainwashed workers at NSPCC and similar agencies realised that they are furthering the suffering of little children.  The detail included in the 6 page report reveals that the caller could be no other than the father himself – the child abusing slanderer Gareth Williams or a close member of his family [possibly his sister Cheryl Whittingham, who is reported as being a significant other.]  There is no evidence to substantiate any of the allegations but plenty to disprove them.  Everything that is reported [except for a new allegation {that incidentally took GW several years to mention!!!} that I’m supposed to have told GW that my dad abused me when I was a little girl, that J has “openly said he does not like his grandfather” and consequently the NSPCC state “It is of serious concern that the children are having continued contact with their maternal grandfather”] has been stated numerous times before in various referrals/reports/statements.  As a result, the recommendation of the NSPCC’s KS is that “CAFCASS be involved, so that the children can have their say.”  This, of course, has been Gareth Williams’ plan all along.  His ultimate aim is to have my kids removed from me and for me to be denied all contact with them.  Pat informed the NSPCC that all the information received in the referral was known to social services.  Pat and Elaine have helped ensure that his dirty scheming has not worked so far.  However there will come a day when it does go back to CAFCASS.  Jordan is now 7 years old, Melissa 6.  God knows at what age they will be able to influence court proceedings.  Going on the pattern of events thus far, that eventuality is not too far away.   My children will of course be obliged to continue to repeat to the ‘important’ people everything that their father forces them to say.  If nothing changes, I will ultimately lose contact with my children altogether.  My fate and that of my children will be sealed, just like it was for GW’s ex wife and her children.  My biggest dread is looming.  Will anyone help us?       

The Masonic Mafia are probably hoping that I’m gonna give up the fight, throw in the towel and leave my kids to their fate.  Failing that, no doubt they are hoping that I will suffer the final straw which tips me over the edge.  They’re probably hoping I’ll flip my lid and do something in haste that I’ll live to regret.  They probably want me to hire a ‘cleaner’ [which will be another scum Mason] to duff up the devil’s advocate or they think I might snatch the kids and run.  Either would give them the excuse to lock me up for a very long time and deny me my kids once and for all.  The dirty brigade will do anything to silence their critics and steal from the public purse.  They engineer long drawn out proceedings in their Kangaroo courts; they concoct anything to keep their victims floundering in a sea of evil.  They steal your time, money, health and your sanity.  And if you’ve got kids, they’ll take them too.  Freemasonry is a festering sore on society.  

Be very suspicious of those who occupy positions of trust.  They are occupied by criminals, paedophiles and money priests dressed as judges and lawyers and officers of the State.  They are a monstrous con job - a den of vipers and thieves.  But the systemic corruption is sliming out of the huge cancer that has now burst open.  It is being exposed now like never before and the treacherous leeches are slowly destroying themselves on the sword of TRUTH.   Police states only rise when good people allow evil to continue unchecked.  The Bible says to rebuke evil; it doesn’t say to keep quiet.  The Lord is your Shield.  Trust in HIM.  Stand up and shout out for what’s right.  

Sharon@kilby18.freeserve.co.uk

A VISITOR FROM THE PAST

By Thelan Paulk, 1986

P O Box 437

Watervliet, MI 49098-0437

I had a dream the other night, I didn’t understand.

A figure walking through the mist, with flintlock in his hand.

His clothes were torn and dirty, as he stood beside my bed.

He took off his three-cornered hat, and speaking low, he said:

“We fought a revolution, to secure our liberty.

We wrote the Constitution, as a shield from tyranny.

For future generations, this legacy we gave,

In this, the land of the free and the home of the brave.

“The freedom we secured for you, we hoped you’d always keep,

But tyrants laboured endlessly while your parents were asleep.

Your freedom gone – your courage lost – you’re no more than a slave,

In this, the land of the free and the home of the brave.

“You buy permits to travel, and permits to own a gun.

Permits to start a business, or to build a place for one.

On land that you believe you own, you pay a yearly rent.

Although you have no voice in choosing, how the money’s spent.

“Your children must attend a school, that doesn’t educate.

Your Christian values can’t be taught, according to the state.

You read about the current news, in a very biased press.

You pay a tax you do not owe, to please the I.R.S.

“Your money is no longer made of Silver, or of Gold.

You trade your wealth for paper, so your life can be controlled.

You pay for crimes that make our Nation, turn from God in shame.

You’ve taken Satan’s number, as you’ve traded in your name.

“You’ve given government control, to those who do you harm.

So they can padlock churches, and steal the family farm.

And keep our country deep in debt, put men of God in jail.

Harass your fellow countrymen, while corrupted courts prevail.

“Your public servants don’t uphold, the solemn oath they’ve sworn.

Your daughters visit doctors, so their children won’t be born.

Your leaders, ship artillery and guns to foreign shores.

And send your sons to slaughter, fighting other people’s wars.

“Can you regain the freedom for which we fought and died?

Or don’t you have the courage, or the faith to stand with pride?

Are there no more values, for which you’ll fight to save?

Or do you wish your children, to live in fear and be a slave?

“Sons of the Republic, arise and take a stand!

Defend the Constitution, the Supreme Law of the Land!

Preserve our great Republic, and each God-given Right!

And pray to GOD to keep the torch, of Freedom burning bright!”

As I awoke he vanished, in the mist from whence he came.

His words were true, we are not free, we have ourselves to blame.

For even now as tyrants, trample each God-given Right.

We only watch and tremble, too afraid to stand and fight.

If he stood by your bedside, in a dream, while you’re asleep.

And wondered what remains of our Rights he fought to keep.

What would be your answer, if he called out from the Grave:

IS THIS STILL THE LAND OF THE FREE, AND THE HOME OF THE BRAVE???