PART 2 OF SHARON A KILBY'S STORY

Sharon Kilby’s story.

CORRUPTION IN COLWYN BAY, NORTH WALES, UK

PART 2

On AUGUST 20^th 2002 Social Services manager of the out of hours Emergency Duty Team Terence James informed me that GW had told him that he had taken Jordan to see Dr Thackray this morning [Tuesday] because Jordan had told him that Andrew had burned him on the face with a cigarette. This was relayed by GW to Dr Thackray. I was told that my children would be staying with their father. I’d noticed the mark on the previous Saturday evening [17/8/02] after contact. I’d asked Jordan what the cut was on his forehead but I’d got no sense out of him. I’d presumed it was a spot, which he’d scratched [probably unknowingly.]

On 21/8/02 Dr Thackray informed me that Jordan had been seen by two doctors – himself on 19/8/02 [Monday] and Dr Ratcliffe on 20/8/02 [Tuesday]. Why did GW tell Terry James that he’d taken Jordan to see Dr Thackray on Tuesday? Why didn’t he mention Dr Ratcliffe? Dr Thackray told me that the mark looked typical of what he’d seen on both children before. He thought it was Impetigo. [He later told me on 2 further occasions on the 4^th and 11^th September that he felt that the mark on Jord’s forehead was IMPETIGO.] He said that he’d treated Jordan for an infection. He prescribed Fucidin cream, which is the medication Jordan and Melissa always have for Impetigo. Dr Thackray asked Jordan questions but got no sense out of him. He said that he had been told by GW that Jordan had said that he had been burned by Andrew with a cigarette...

On Wednesday [21/8/02] Police officer Gay Waring of the Family Protection Unit and social worker Angela Mattison came to my house after interviewing Jordan. I was asked to leave the room. Gay Waring told Andrew that Jordan had spent 20 minutes repeatedly telling her that Andrew had burned him with a blue lighter and that he has a blue lighter. He repeatedly pointed to his head and arms, showing her how he’d been burned on the arms. She said that Jordan was very sure that he had been burned by Andy. Jordan told her that we were in the kitchen and I had ordered Andrew to stop doing so. Gay Waring also said that Jordan says he is scared of Andy and doesn’t want to return home. [I was listening to all of this from outside the door.] Gay said that both Jordan and Melissa said that they didn’t want to return home; that they wanted to stay with their dad. Gay showed me how Jordan had mimicked the using of a lighter. She pulled a nasty, hateful expression and said that that was how Jordan had looked when he was showing her how to flick on a lighter and how it had been used to burn him. She repeated to me everything she had said to Andy.

Police officer Gay Waring was aggressive towards Andy. She put him under great pressure to ‘admit’ guilt. She said: “Just admit it and the investigation will be over a lot quicker; it’ll be a lot easier for you and then they’ll come back here.” Yeah right! If she can be so overpowering with Andy, how has she behaved with a five year old? She didn’t seem concerned with trying to get to the truth. She was determined to pin the blame on Andy. [By now Jordy will have been scared and confused. He knows that he daren’t make his father angry by saying the ‘wrong’ thing. He will have been wondering where his mummy is and what he has done wrong.]

On Thursday [22/8/02] Associate Specialist in Community Pediatrics Dr Sue Roberts examined Jordan. GW denied me my right to be present during the exam. [Ian Turner later told me on 28/8/02 that Angela had asked GW if he would allow me to be present. GW had said NO.] As the resident parent or even if I only had parental responsibility I had every right to be there. Surely social services should have insisted that I be there? Sue said the lesion was a “healed scab at least 4 days old and therefore more difficult to interpret.” Jordan pointed to his head and said “a lighter” when she asked how he’d hurt his head. He mimicked the actions of using a lighter. She wrote: “Jordan was clear in that the mark had been caused by a lighter. The lesion would be consistent with a burn having been caused in this way.” Also: “Jordan said this had happened in the kitchen at mummy’s house on Sunday.” Sue asked if he wanted to come home. He said “no no no.” She asked why. Jord said: “Because she’s a bitch.” He told her he was “scared of Andrew” and that “Andrew doesn’t like me.” She asked why he would burn him. He didn’t know.

On 23/8/02 Dr Ratcliffe told me that after listening to GW’s allegations, she thought that it could be a cigarette burn because it was the size and shape of one, although she couldn’t be sure. She wrote: “Seen by Dr Thackray and child unable to say how the lesion occurred. Today Jordan has told his father it was caused by Andrew using a lighter. Jordan repeated this to me today.” [She later told me that she didn’t think that the mark was consistent with a lighter burn and she wrote {on 2/10/02} that she “would have assumed that a lighter burn would have caused a more diffuse burn.”] She also wrote: “Father says that Jordan has also now told him it has happened before to his arms and that he does not want to go home today, although Jordan did not repeat any of this directly to me.” [There was no evidence of burn marks on Jordan’s arms. If there had been burns there in the past, GW would’ve noticed and would’ve contacted social services IMMEDIATELY. Also Jordy would’ve told his dad AT THE TIME OF OCCURRENCE.] In the medical notes, she wrote: “Jordan now saying that Andrew burned him – Sunday.” [Jordan doesn’t know the days of the week] In the past all the doctors, including hospital paediatricians have told me that it is very difficult to tell the difference between Impetigo and a burn. Dr Ratcliffe said that because of the burn allegation she had to refer it. The referral was investigated under S47 CA 1989 and Conwy’s Child Protection Procedures.

Social Services manager Ian Turner told me that social services cannot step in unless they think my children are at risk. He said that Andrew is under police investigation. He said social services have no powers to decide residence and contact issues. He said that GW is not in breach of the court order since he claims that he has to protect Jordan from Andrew and since he also has Parental Responsibility that is his right. My solicitor Peter Brown told me that we can only take it to court. Such proceedings could drag on. Meanwhile Gareth Williams has the freedom to continue brainwashing and abusing my children. No one had the power to even force him to allow me any contact with my children [even under supervision.] Ian Turner told me that he had left various long messages on GW’s mobile phone since Friday [23/8/02] [over a period of several days] asking if he will allow me to see Jordan and Melissa, at a venue and date/time of his choice. He said that even if he does manage to persuade GW to allow contact, he cannot provide a social worker to ‘police’ it; not even for a very brief meeting. [No, but social services have plenty of resources for the purposes of aiding and abetting the crooked GW and for harassing me.] GW did not return any of Ian’s calls. Ian wrote a letter to my solicitor [2/9/02] expressing his concerns at the lack of contact and he states: “The situation as presented to us would not automatically prevent his return to the family home.” I frequently screamed and cried down the phone, begging for just a brief encounter with my children. Ian said that he totally understood my distress. He told me that GW is in default and that by rights GW should’ve returned J & M and there should’ve been a case conference. He agreed that GW is brainwashing J & M and forcing them to repeat lies. There was talk of Gay Waring doing a video interview with Jordan. I was told that I could be present. Then Ian told me [on 30/8/02] that he has decided that “in the interests of the child” it wouldn’t be a good idea. He said that he’s just found out that Jordan made a comment to Gay along the lines of: “Please don’t ask me any more questions.” He feels this may be “an abusive process in itself.” What about the abuse of being denied their mummy? That’s an abuse of their rights. In his letter [2/9/02] he wrote: “given Jordan’s stated requests at the end of his medical examination of not wanting to be asked any further questions.” Yet Dr Roberts wrote in her letter [28/1/03]: “Jordan did not say this to me after the medical.” And anyway, given the fact that there were court proceedings, he knew that there would be meetings with a Welfare Officer….

I repeatedly made the following points to all concerned, to no avail. I pointed out that Jordan had not said anything to Dr Thackray. Dr Ratcliffe had to question Jordan. She said there wasn’t much response from him. By Wednesday, GW has had an abundance of hours to brainwash Jordan with the story that he was burned by Andy with a BLUE LIGHTER. GW even got Jordan to show Gay and Sue how to use a lighter. Jordan spends 20 minutes repeating the same lies. He spoke to Gay and Angie [in Angie’s words] ARTICULATELY. Jordan would more likely speak so forcefully to the doctors whom he knows and trusts rather than two complete strangers. GW told Dr Ratcliffe that Jordan doesn’t know the difference between a lighter and a cigarette. It is clear that HE DOES KNOW WHAT A LIGHTER IS. Also cigarettes aren’t BLUE. Further Sue Roberts said that the lesion didn’t “appear to be Impetigo because of the lack of any surrounding infection.” Jordan was treated by Dr Thackray for Impetigo with Fucidin medication. [Dr Ratcliffe told me that Fucidin is used for Impetigo and other open cuts to prevent infection]. So by the time Sue saw the, as she described it, healed scab, any infection that may or may not have been present would’ve cleared up anyway. Furthermore since it had healed in 4 days, it wasn’t much of an injury in the first place. Regarding a previous bout of Impetigo that Melissa suffered, a doctor told me that since it had healed in a week, it was not a burn. Dr Roberts later acknowledged [28/1/03] that if she hadn’t known about the burn allegation beforehand she would not have been able to say with any certainty that it was a burn. [The history had been provided by a man who has a record of lying and behaving maliciously.]

I repeatedly told everyone that GW is clearly putting words into Jordan’s head. It is evident that GW is mentally abusing Jordan [and Mel.] Social Services and the Court welfare officer have files on myself and GW which prove that he has a history of malicious intent and of lying. The fact that he would not allow me to see my children speaks volumes. I repeatedly pointed out that the ‘burn’ is only an allegation. A five year old’s testimony is unreliable [especially when the child is terrified and intimidated and already has behavioural problems, such as the head banging. That is, he is already emotionally disturbed.] Mentally abused children are too scared to tell the truth.

I have repeatedly said that until this is all sorted out J & M would’ve been better off staying in the care of a third party. That way they would not have been under the influence of either of us. But more importantly, they SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STAYING WITH GARETH WILLIAMS since they are AT RISK with him. They would have been subject to the most appalling mental and probably physical abuse. My children would have been frightened and confused and crying for their mummy. I’ve repeatedly asked how can it be that the words of a FIVE YEAR OLD carry such clout that his mother is prevented from seeing her children??? Jordy doesn’t know that by repeating his father’s lies he might’ve sentenced himself and his little sister to a lifetime of abuse and that they might now end up motherless. And I have said that even if Andy was guilty, what was my crime? If I’d done what GW has done, Gareth Williams would’ve kicked my door down, kicked my head in and I would’ve been arrested.

On SEPTEMBER 3^rd 2002 I attended court, just one day after being served with court papers on the 2^nd September 2002. My solicitor Peter Brown had not been able to attend with me and I’d had to make do with a stand in solicitor who had not been able to read up on my case. The only information that she had was that which I provided her with during the ½ hour discussion that we had before going into court. She was totally unprepared and yet was expected to cross-examine GW and myself. There was no medical evidence or any representative from Social Services in court. Ian Turner should have been there. In giving evidence, GW pretended not to know Dr Thackray. [He had taken himself or the kids numerous times to see Dr Thackray.] He stated that Jordan had told Dr Thackray that Andrew had scalded him with hot water. He also said that Jordan told Sue Roberts that he’d been “burnt by fire.” [Sue later told me that Jord had NOT said fire. He had said “lighter”. Nowhere is it stated by any doctor or Gay or Angie that Jord said FIRE.] GW also said on oath that Sue was surprised that Jordan couldn’t read/write. He said that Jord told her that he could count to 10 in Welsh but only 5 in English. [She told me {and confirms in her 28/1/03 letter} that neither numbers or Welsh were mentioned and that she would not expect Jordan to be reading or writing.] He also said that he’d “acted neutral” and “hadn’t prompted Jordan.” He said Jordan and Melissa are “frightened to go back” and that Jordan had repeatedly said that he “doesn’t want to go home.” He said that Jordan has marks on his arms, which I explain as eczema. Sue reported [on 22/8/02] that Jordan “does suffer with eczema, particularly elbows and behind the knees.” [She later acknowledged {28/1/03} that this information came from Jordan’s father. Jordan has NEVER had eczema and his medical records confirm that.] Chris Hind of Amphletts said that his client had previously told Vera Nolan, the welfare officer, that he’d been concerned about marks and he added that social services had been unable to corroborate such marks. The judge D L Hughes said: “No doctor is absolutely certain that it was a cigarette burn.” He said that the “court doesn’t insist that there is absolute certainty.” He said that if it was “probably a burn” then that is sufficient. He said that the father had taken all the responsible steps: he’d contacted the police and social services. Judge Hughes then granted GW temporary residence as he “shares the same concerns as the father.” He granted me supervised contact, leaving it to the solicitors to arrange the details. Later Peter Brown informed me that the courier services had lost my files [including Ian Turner’s letter] on route to court.

On SEPTEMBER 4^th 2002 Dr Thackray repeated to me that he felt Jordan had Impetigo. He then told me that Jordan had told GW that Andrew had “applied some heat source – it could’ve been water or burn of some sort.” [Heat source is vague terminology. Sounds like Dr Thackray is speaking with caution.] He said there was “no mention of a cigarette.” [He did say cigarette when I spoke to him on 21/8/02. Also how odd that he would mention water just after GW had mentioned scalded by hot water yesterday in court. And why say water when the mark looked nothing like a scald?]

On SEPTEMBER 5^th 2002 Ian told me that Amphletts had written to him. They referred to Jordan’s ‘injury’ which they say their “client alleges were caused by Ms Kilby.” Ian was shocked and said that it was the first that he’d heard. Ian told me that he is concerned that the case is dragging on and that he recommends that J & M return home. I wrote to Ian requesting my social services files. Pete also wrote numerous times requesting them. On 20/12/02 Ian wrote to say that the job was in hand. Amphletts wrote that the nursery and church are “inappropriate venues.” GW made no suggestions for contact venue. I learned that GW was putting J & M in school – Ysgol Cynfran, Llysfaen. [Judge Elystan Morgan had twice given me permission to home educate them.]

On SEPTEMBER 6^th 2002 Ian learned from Amphletts that they are retracting their statement…. The allegations are still against Andy. Ian told me that he had got angry with Amphletts and had urged Amphletts to allow contact, telling them that two and a half weeks had gone by and that Jordan and Melissa are being heavily influenced and controlled by their client. Ian agreed that GW was doing everything possible to block all contact and that he has some explaining to do in court. Amphletts said: “The children do not want to see their mother.”

On SEPTEMBER 9^th 2002 I received a letter from Angie [dated 7/9/02.] She said that she and Ian had had a meeting with GW urging him to allow contact. She enclosed his phone number so that I could arrange it. I telephoned him over 2 days but GW did not return any of my calls. Ian agreed that GW is in contempt of court and that GW’s behaviour does bring into question his motives and integrity.

On 9/9/02 I called at the children’s school hoping to see them briefly since I hadn’t seen them for 3 weeks. I wanted to tell them I love them. I wanted to give them a cuddly toy each and some chocolate buttons [the court had told me 6 days ago that it would expect for me to be having contact.] I hadn’t dared go to GW’s house. I thought the school would be safe. GW told me to “fuck off.” The headmaster Geraint Williams steered me to one side so that I couldn’t be seen by Jordan and Melissa when they came out of school. He accused me of threatening him. I did not. When Jordan came out, GW deliberately placed himself in a position so Jordan couldn’t see me. Shell heard him hiss “smile Jordan, smile.” When I did get a glimpse of Jordan’s face I was shocked. He looked as if he was about to burst into tears. He looked haunted, confused, terrified…. stifled. I wanted to run to him and cuddle him but the headmaster was holding on to my arm, threatening me with the Police if I caused a scene. Why was he treating me and J & M so callously? Melly came out and GW took both their hands and whisked them away. I followed and called their names. I repeatedly told them that I love them. Mel stared at me with the same lost, sorrowful and ‘pleading’ look. She too looked as if she was trying hard to contain her true emotions. Their fear-ridden eyes told the truth. In the car they looked shell-shocked. They wanted to cry but they weren’t allowed to. I asked Jordan if Andy had hurt him; I pointed to my forehead. He said “no” quietly.

On 9/9/02 Dr Thackray wrote a letter to Amphletts for court. He wrote nothing in support of me; his rather cautious letter supports the burn allegation. He wrote: “may have been caused by Andrew by burning him.” Then he mentioned Impetigo. [‘Burning’ is a bit vague. Burned by what? And why didn’t he state Impetigo FIRST? i.e. that he thought the mark was Impetigo.] He also wrote: “As a somewhat suspicious appearance of this lesion.” [Why write ‘suspicious’? He told me on three occasions that he thought the mark was IMPETIGO. Dr Ratcliffe had not even written that in her referral or her medical notes.] He also wrote: “Jordan was brought back to clinic the following day by his father. Mr Williams went on to say that he had noticed the lesion at 3pm on the previous day.” [I would’ve thought that GW would’ve mentioned to Dr Thackray that he had ‘noticed’ the lesion at 3pm.] He also wrote: “and the story now given as to its cause….” [which sounds like the story had changed. Why didn’t Dr Thackray state what GW had said to him? Dr Thackray is specific about times but wary about writing anything about what GW had said to him.] Pete wrote to Dr Thackray on 10/12/02 asking him to clarify exactly what GW had told him. On 22/1/03 he wrote: “I have nothing further to add to the paragraph written on 9 September 2002.”

My solicitor then received a letter from Ian Turner. He reiterated his concerns about lack of contact but then wrote: “The situation has now changed however in that I have had concerning reports from the Headteacher that Ms Kilby turned up at the school and created a considerable stir. This involved making allegations against Mr Williams. [I had spoken civilly to the headmaster and I’d given him facts.] Mr Gareth Williams called at this office on Monday 9/9/02 and stated that the children are clearly saying that they do not wish to return to their mother. In the light of this, the position of this authority regarding the children’s return would be that of the need to interview the children to ascertain their wishes and feelings about this.” This would be after more than 3 weeks of being indoctrinated and forced to lie by their father. What happened to the statement that to interview Jordan would be “an abusive process in itself?” Why didn’t Gay Waring do a more ‘balanced’ interview? The ‘video interview’ should have been done, in my presence, at the time of the so-called ‘burn’. Jordan would’ve been under a lot less influence by his malignant father and some truth might have emerged. But truth is something the police and social services are not interested in. Angie later reported: “Mr Williams requested that Jordan be interviewed. [I find that very hard to believe when he is clearly being uncooperative, lying and hindering contact.] However Ian Turner and Gay Waring did not feel that it was in Jordan’s best interest to proceed with a video interview.”

Ian also wrote in response to Pete’s letter that there was no report made by Social Services Manager Terry James. He writes: “I have not had sight of such a report and I spoke to Mr James on 10/9/02 about this. He confirms that he spoke to both parents independently on the evening when the children initially reviewed with their father and that general advice was given. I understand that his report was of a verbal nature to the duty officer on the following morning.” I’d written in my notes that he told me that he had written out a report. He even gave me a police incident number: 246c/20/8/02. I tried to phone Terry James over several days. I left various messages but heard nothing from him. On 19/10/02 I wrote to him. Pete wrote to Ian on 15/11/02 and 10/12/02 asking for a response. We didn’t hear a dickie bird until Ian wrote to us on 20/12/02. But in that letter there was no mention of Terry James.

By the 12^th September 2002 I was still being denied my children despite the order on 3^rd Sept to allow it. GW wouldn’t even let me speak to my children on the phone.

In court on 13^th September 2002 GW put in his statement that “the children ran away” from me and that I was “shouting and screaming at the teachers.” My solicitor wrote to the Head asking him to confirm this. He wrote numerous letters but Geraint Williams refused to answer the questions. He told Pete on the phone [15/10/02] that they didn’t run away from me but he wouldn’t put it in writing and he wrote that I “started to shout loudly at everyone in the vicinity” which was untrue because I shouted only to my children. GW states: “There have been other incidents at the home involving Andrew who he is extremely frightened of.” [He didn’t say what these ‘incidents’ are. Pete enquired with Amphletts but his numerous letters to them in this regard were ignored until 7/1/03 when we were told that Jordan had allegedly told his father “Andrew had bullied him, squeezed Jordan’s fingers and put his arms behind his back….” I’m sure if there was any truth in that GW would’ve mentioned such to doctors and social services.] Also “I’m concerned as to the children’s unwillingness” [to see me] and “their obvious distress when I discuss this with them although I will continue to make every effort to progress contact further.” That is a clear lie. He is clearly obstructing contact. My barrister Alex Hewitt commented that it was ridiculous that the video interview idea had been scrapped as there was now talk of J & M being interviewed by social services and also a welfare officer. Judge Hughes decided that too many people were seeing J & M, which was too much for any 4 and 5 year old. He said that they are not at risk therefore only a welfare officer need do an assessment. The judge granted me supervised contact at a nursery on Friday 13^th and also on Sunday morning [15/9/02] in church for 4 hours. He stated that Jordan and Melissa would be seen by a welfare officer on Monday 16^th to ascertain who they wished to live with.

However when I got to nursery, GW insisted that he stay also on the grounds that Jordan and Melissa didn’t want him to leave. He had coached them well. At first they refused to come to me but after a few minutes they invited me to play. Eventually I got kisses and cuddles from them but they remained tense and guarded. GW refused to leave. At one point Jordy seemed to want to open up to me. He said that Andy had hurt him on his head. I cuddled him and said: “No darling that’s not true, Andy wouldn’t hurt you. He loves you.” At which point Gareth Williams yelled at me: “Oi, pack that kind of talk in.” I didn’t want an argument or a scene so I said nothing. At the end of the 2 hourly session, Jordan and Melissa politely said goodbye to me as if I was their school teacher. They were too scared to be themselves. I was heartbroken.

I briefly saw my children and GW in Safeways on Saturday 14/9/02. Initially they were tentative, but after some small talk, they warmed to me. They left waving and blowing kisses.

I did not see Jordan and Melissa on Sunday 15^th September because GW phoned the church to leave a message that they were ill.

On SEPTEMBER 17^th 2002 CAFCASS officer Jane Williams reported: “Melissa told me that her mother was a ‘bitch’. I am concerned that this and other negative comments towards their mother made by the children were either in response to direct priming by an adult or comments which responsible adults would have discouraged.” She said: “Jordan became a little upset talking about missing his mother, he appeared to be ambivalent about Andrew.” She also states: “It is worrying that they did not see her for a period of some three weeks prior to a contact session on 13^th September 2002.” She ends: “The court will require an assessment from the Local Authority as to whether:

They feel Ms Kilby is able to protect the children.
Whether a protection plan for Jordan is necessary.”

That’s not a bad report under the circumstances. Jordy and Melly came up trumps despite all the odds. Bless the little angels. They must have a guiding light telling then what to say and how to behave when it really matters.

I was awarded supervised contact of three 2-hourly sessions pw at a nursery and three Sundays out of four at church for three and a half hours duration. [Did GW help pay the nursery fees? Not on your nelly. My dad funded it. We tried to claim expenses from Legal Services. After many letters and many months later we finally did get some of it refunded. The rest eventually trickled in almost one year later.] An Educational Psychologist was ordered to prepare a report in respect of Jordan’s educational needs and abilities. The matter was listed for a review of contact on 16/12/02 and a final hearing was listed for 13^th and 14^th February 2003 to decide on contact and residence and whether the children should attend school or be home educated. The court order of the 17/9/02 also states that “a report be prepared by a CAFCASS Officer in respect of the issues of Contact and Residence, such report to be filed and served by Friday 20 December 2002.” Why wasn’t the report expected to be in before the 16^th December?

On OCTOBER 1^st 2002 we attended a child protection conference. The meeting was biased and not based on fact. Andy and I were treated as suspected child abusers. The panel were determined to make the burn allegation stick. Words like “burn-like” and “somewhat suspicious” were branded about. When I attempted to point out that the medical evidence was inconclusive, that there were inconsistencies in GW’s story, that he had repeatedly lied on oath and was therefore guilty of perjury, that there was evidence of priming, that GW was persistently late [by up to 25 minutes] for contact and on 3 occasions had failed to bring my children, I was repeatedly interrupted by the Child Protection Co-ordinator Mr Graham Seale and told to “save it for the court.” In the minutes it is stated that I “continue to contradict the medical opinions.” That was not correct. I was attempting to get to the truth. It’s a pity the 3 doctors weren’t present, although Dr Ratcliffe did send her apologies. Rather than focusing on the present case, much of the time was spent listening to Dr Groves reading from years old reports regarding the kitchen curtain fire [which she described as a “major house fire.”]

There was nothing mentioned in Angie Mattison’s report for conference or in the minutes about the previous 4 years of GW’s harassing, malevolence and lies or that social services had requested that he stop making nuisance referrals or that GW had been making malicious allegations to doctors since Melly was a baby in his attempts to have my children removed from me. On 31/8/02 I had sent Ian Turner information as stated in welfare reports, examples of which are: “Mr Williams makes referrals which are generally considered to be spurious and unfounded and his watching and apparent knowledge of Ms Kilby’s every move is considered to be approaching harassment.” And “Social Services visited Ms Kilby unannounced on a number of occasions. The referrals coincided with the first and then the final separation. Social Services took the view that they were generally malicious in nature. Mr Williams was invited to meet with a Social Worker and requested not to persist in wasting Social Work time.” And “Further referrals were received in October 1998 directly from Mr Williams and other members of his family. Referrals were also received via the Health Visitor and NSPCC.” And “His general behaviour gives some cause for concern. At interview he told me that he had had Ms Kilby ‘watched’. Mr Williams’ behaviour can only, in my opinion, be making matters worse and this may have a knock on effect on the children.” And “All of Mr Williams’ referrals have been investigated and no action has been taken on any of them.” And “The level of referral and investigation seems to have become so regular.” Also “There is an impression that at least some of the referrals from Mr Williams are more reflective of the hostile relationship between himself and Ms Kilby and the ongoing Court proceedings. Mr Williams has been advised to try to raise his concerns with Ms Kilby before triggering child protection procedures. His referrals have, to date, only resulted in a deepening of the rift and also due to the numerous investigations Social Services have been obliged to make, further alienated Ms Kilby from the system.”

I had also provided Mr Turner with documentation given from the ex headmistress of GW’s older children in Dolgellau to Vera Nolan W/O. She said there were “major concerns about Mr Williams’ care and management” of his older children which were “over and above what in itself was a serious problem of non-school attendance” and “recalls that Educational Welfare Department were involved.” What reward did the Headmistress get for sticking her neck out in her attempts to protect my children from being abused by their father? She was contacted by the LEA and told that Gareth Williams was threatening her with defamation of character.

Nothing was mentioned in conference about Social Worker Maureen Catherall’s suspicions re GW especially regarding the Butlins incident where she “questioned his motives” and said that he “had some explaining to do this time.” Nor was it mentioned that she felt his behavior was bordering at harassment. Neither was it mentioned that she and social worker Elaine Buckley said that GW would get angry when he realized nothing would come of his referrals. Maureen even told him to put in a formal complaint against her if he wasn’t satisfied. Also, she and H/V Alison Parry liased with the police to work out ways of dealing with GW and his constant referrals. But that wasn’t even mentioned in conference either.

Further examples of GW’s malicious intent are that he took Melissa to see Dr Thackray in emergency surgery about a nappy rash. He blamed me, yet she had been clear before going for contact. Dr Thackray said he had “over-reacted.” Another time he bullied me into taking Jordan to the GP about a lump, which he knew was harmless. He insisted on being there also. A church supervisor and other churchgoers witnessed him bullying me and had to intervene. Another time he took Mel to A&E complaining about a rash. He caused the hospital to make another unnecessary referral to S/S. 2 days after that he took Mel again to A&E and then contacted social services himself. On another occasion GW visited Dr Thackray about a 1cm red lesion on Jordan’s thigh. He said that Jordan had told him that I had caused it. On that occasion Dr Thackray told GW that he wouldn’t take action unless I agreed to a referral.

The above information is well documented and social services are fully aware yet it wasn’t mentioned in the conference. Instead it is stated in the minutes: “No concerns have been raised in relation to Mr Williams.” Previous referrals are referred to as being from “anonymous” callers only. It is stated that I had informed the social worker and police officer that Jordan does bang his head but it isn’t stated that I had consulted with Dr Knight about it [after repeatedly expressing my concerns to the doctors and H/V and S/S] and that I have been extremely worried over a number of years about my children’s disturbing behavioural changes due to increasing contact with their father.

At conference the ‘suspected burn’ that Melly had as a baby was again brought up. In the minutes it was referred to as “possibly a burn” and “the burn”. In the minutes it is stated that I am of the view that the mark on Jordan’s forehead was eczema. I have never said that as is evidenced in court. It is further stated in the minutes: “Based on past history there were concerns about the burns that have been reported.” There were only 2 alleged burns – one on 5/2/99, which was eczema and this latest one [20/8/02] which was probably Impetigo.

The Head Geraint Williams presented himself at conference as being neutral. So why did he go to such lengths to stop me having a brief encounter with J & M on 9/9/02? All he had to do was usher me and GW and J & M into his room for a couple of minutes. Then there would not have been a ‘scene’. Why didn’t he question why GW was blocking contact, especially since his actions were in violation of judge Hughes’ order? Why didn’t he want to see for himself if my children wanted to come to me or not, rather than just listening to GW?

The Head likes to keep a tight rein on his ship. I was not allowed to speak with the teachers; he had ordered that I direct my enquiries through him. Just before Christmas I managed a meeting with them but the Head perched himself at a table just outside the little room that we occupied so that he could listen in. The room did not even have a door, only a curtain! Jordan’s teacher seemed more sympathetic to our plight and said that although she wasn’t supposed to discuss other things with me, she did want to hear my side. I gave her some documentation detailing the history but she was too terrified to take it from me. Talk about being ruled with an iron fist. What kind of democracy is it when teachers aren’t allowed free speech with parents? We ended up whispering throughout the meeting and she managed to smuggle a statement of mine out. She asked for the rest of the papers to be hidden in a kid’s tray so that she could retrieve it later. I wasn’t convinced that she had managed to do so, so just to be on the safe side I copied it all out again for her and wrapped it up in Christmas wrapping to give to her at the school concert. But I wasn’t allowed to speak briefly with her in private their either. The Head watched me like a hawk and when I tried to give the teacher her ‘present’ he was there in a flash shadowing me!

Social Worker Angie Mattison also states in her report: “Jordan did at one point whisper into Gay’s ear and said that his mother had burnt him. Then asked again he said it was Andrew.” On 5/9/02 Ian Turner had expressed shock at this. Pete wrote to Ian and Chris Hind of Amphletts numerous times asking for clarification but his letters were ignored. In GW’s 3/12/02 statement for court, he wrote that “It has always been my case that Andrew was responsible for this non-accidental injury but I am concerned to know that Jordan told the Child Protection Office of the Police that he thought it might have been mummy.” So, did he learn this just by what he read in Angie’s report? It sounds like Jordan didn’t tell his own father that he thought that I had burned him. Why would Jordan be confused about who [if anyone] had burned him when he was clear about other things such as that it was done with a blue lighter in the kitchen on Sunday? Amphletts themselves admit in a letter of 9/12/02 “OBVIOUSLY IT IS DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE HOW THE INJURY OCCURRED.” On 7/1/03 Amphletts finally responded to our question. The reply was inconsistent mumbo jumbo. It was obvious Mr Hind was exercising caution. He writes: “Our client did make statements to the allegations which had been reported to him by Jordan and confirms that they were later withdrawn. [Why were they?] However they stand in so far as they can do in that our client has stated in open correspondence that he was told via a social worker and the police family protection officer…” Then he says: “We also understand that it was not our client who had made these allegations but the above third parties.” Also Amphletts now state [7/1/03]: “Jordan then said to the Doctor that ‘Mummy had burnt him’.” This is new! No doctor has mentioned that Jordan told him or her that I caused the mark on his forehead. Pete wrote to Amphletts [16/1/03] asking for clarification. He asked: “Could you simply let us know if Jordan told his father that our client had caused the burn, and if so when.” The other side preferred not to answer our question. Instead the monkeys wrote [25/2/03]: “We would confirm once again that we have already canvassed this particular matter at length with yourselves. We would confirm that Jordan initially advised the Child Protection Unit and then our client that Andrew had caused the injury to his face. [If he’d been burned, wouldn’t Jordan tell his own father before telling any authority figure???] Jordan then stated that it was your client who had in fact caused the injury.” [Stated to who?]

Amphletts also wrote on 7/1/03 to say that they are including a letter, which was sent from the headmaster Geraint Williams to my solicitor on 14/10/02 in their bundle for a court directions hearing. How did they get hold of that letter? Is it normal practice for Heads to send copies of confidential correspondence to opposing solicitors?

Up until 10/11/02 I had on average less than four hours contact pw. [I was supposed to be having nine and a half including the Sunday session.] Up until then GW failed to bring J & M six times. He was in continual breach of the court order. On virtually all the other days he was late, quite often by between twenty and thirty five minutes. He refused to notify me and there were many times when he failed to notify church or nursery of his absences. He gave ludicrous excuses. Pete wrote to Mr Hind of Amphletts numerous times in this regard but his letters must have found the trashcan. On 7/1/03 the excuse was that GW did not arrive in Colwyn Bay until 3.30pm. [That would leave him half an hour to get to nursery. The journey is only a few minutes long.] Also in that letter Amphletts wrote: “Our client has no clear recollection” and “genuinely cannot remember.”

In front of GW J & M are mainly guarded and tense and too afraid to show me affection. During the first few sessions it was obvious that GW was brainwashing them. [For details of the sort of things my children used to say and how they behaved, see more details of my story in part 3 {p1}.] I was warned by Alex, Pete and June not to ‘coach’ my children but I made it clear that I will respond openly and honestly to their questions and comments. This is necessary for their sanity. It would be wrong of me and more confusing for them if I didn’t explain why they couldn’t come home, why I could only see them for short periods at nursery and church, why we couldn’t go out anywhere, why they couldn’t see Andy and why we are in this situation. I also made it clear that I couldn’t let them believe that Andy did burn Jordan and that Andy doesn’t like him…. To do so would have resulted in them being even more disturbed.

During contact GW would sit on the wall outside and spy on us when we played in the garden. I didn’t make a fuss because I didn’t want June to have to play ‘policewoman’ or she might just have discontinued the contact arrangements. Sometimes he insisted on communicating with J & M. He would refuse to leave the TV room when we were in there. He would be abusive [even in front of other children] and always threatened not to bring J & M again. He even started to insist on one of the carers taking Melly to the loo.

On NOVEMBER 8^th 2002 I went to the eye clinic to be with Jordan during his appointment to see if he needed glasses. GW was furious that I’d turned up. He shut the door on me so that he could have a word with a nurse in private then he snarled at the receptionist: “She is not supposed to be here. I have custody. If she is here again I will call the police.” He then barked at the Orthoptist: “Jordan doesn’t take too kindly to being BURNED.” He then threatened not to bring my children for contact later because I’d had about 20 minutes playing with Jordan in the waiting room. He carried out his threat. Later I was told by social services that in order to avoid any future conflict the clinic would prefer that only the resident parent attends appointments with Jordan. So the bully wins again. [When J & M lived at home, GW made medical issues an excuse to harass and cause me problems.] I had told GW about Jordan’s previous eye appointment dated 11/10/02 and Pete had also notified Amphletts numerous times but despite saying he would take Jordan, he failed to do so. He cancelled Jordan’s and Melissa’s dental appointment too. It was months before Amphletts finally answered my question regarding the dentist. I still had PR but absolutely no say in the lives of my children whatsoever. GW did not care about the medical and dental needs of his older children either. They missed a lot of schooling due to a variety of ailments, which is well documented.

Since my children have resided with their father, their health has suffered. They lost many contact days due to illness and they have had a number of days off school due to “illness”. When I see them, one or the other or both are nearly always ill. They’ve had diarrhoea, vomiting, bad coughs, colds and constant runny noses. Melissa is always coughing and when she runs about she breaks into a fit of coughing. It wasn’t comfortable for them to be ill at nursery or church because they were surrounded by other kids and they couldn’t just lie quietly on a couch or take a nap in bed. Also they infected others, which wasn’t fair. Melly had a sore bottom for a while. I encouraged GW to check her after she uses the loo and that he should use sudocrem. Jord also complained that his “wee wee” hurt and he often has filthy ears. When I point such things out to GW I get verbal abuse. Melly went so thin too.

I am also very worried about my children’s mental health as well. Just before Jordan was 3 he was assessed by Dr Groves as being well within normal range for his age. At this point J & M only had a relatively short amount of day contact with their father. They were also sociable and happy. However at nearly 6 years old, Jordan was assessed as functioning around the level of a nursery aged child. The psychologist reports [9/12/02] him as “demonstrating a clinically significant level of behavior difficulties which are internally expressed.” He is described as “withdrawn, fearful of doing something wrong, worrying, acting like a younger child, appearing confused, nervous, anxious/depressed.” This tells me that Jordan is suffering enormous pressure from his father to behave in a manner, which will please his father. Melissa [at 4] was also assessed as being on the level of a pre-schooler and described as being “withdrawn” and “demonstrating a clinically borderline level of behaviour difficulties which include thought and attention problems.” Both are reported to be “socially withdrawn” and their teachers told me that neither child had a friend and that they wouldn’t ask their teachers for or tell them anything. The truth is they simply don’t trust anyone, especially ‘important’ adults anymore because they know that no one is listening to them. Mel’s teacher told me that at 10 weeks on Mel was still standing in silence in total bewilderment, just watching while her class sat and got on with their work. Both are assessed as having “weakness in language skills” and Jordan has “difficulty in speech production.” The psychologist stated that “Jordan did not respond appropriately to questions such as ‘what do you like at school’?” and she said that he needed help to “engage in a simple conversation.” This shows that Jordan is being stifled by his father and is not being allowed the freedom to respond spontaneously when interacting with others. This is more proof that my children are being brainwashed and forced to repeat lies. How could Jordan speak so articulately to Gay for so long unless his father had been force-feeding him over a good many hours? The headmaster states: “They have to be told everything, they just stand there, the first impression was that they had missed out on education.” Doesn’t he mean that they had missed out on indoctrination? How can he jump to his conclusions? I think it is clear that my children’s problems stem from the fact that they are suffering [as Alex Hewitt put it] classic emotional abuse. How can they learn when they are suffering trauma? The answer is not the ‘special needs register’ as Geraint Williams states and Speech Therapy/additional learning support as the psychologist recommends but to be removed from their abusive and violent father and to be living and learning at home where they are loved, relaxed and happy. The psychologist might have drawn the same conclusion if she had been given the information that I had sent. [This included recent statements by GW and myself and information from welfare reports.] Instead she based her report on information provided by the school, some of which must have been passed on by GW. Such info included years old reports from the LEA regarding Andy’s and Shelly’s H/E inspection. The more recent [and more impressive] reports from the LEA that I had sent to the psychologist [Ros Randle] were disregarded.

Labels will just stigmatize J & M and enforced learning and testing and assessing just leads to failure. Melly, at 4 hadn’t even reached statutory school age and Jord at 5 had only just reached it. In some EC countries school starts at 7 because it is believed that school for younger children is unnecessary and even a hindrance. GW didn’t give a fig for his older children’s education either. The Headmistress said that both were underachievers and both suffered emotionally when their mother was forced to flee due to the D/V. GW didn’t attend any school functions or parents’ evenings. The Head was always complaining by phone and letter. His older son did school vandalism and his reports at school and tech were abysmal.

On NOVEMBER 11^th 2002 the NSPCC sent me copies of referrals that I had requested. On one of the reports it is stated: “Concerns: Child Sexual Abuse? Gareth, the father of Melissa and Jordan, had all four children with him one weekend. It is reported that he found these two children who were sharing the same room, naked with Andrew on top of Michelle [this has not been previously reported].” It hadn’t been previously reported because it is just another lie. Where do such thoughts come from? Virtually everything that GW accuses me of, he is guilty of. This makes me wonder if he has been sexually interfering with his own children. It makes me wonder what he’s getting up to with Jordan and Melissa. I have strong suspicions. Jordan told me that his father has taken Melly into his bed. Melissa said that her father wipes her “wee wee” and that he also dries her “wee wee” after she has had a bath. She cries and tells him not to but he won’t stop. She says that he doesn’t wipe her bottom though after she has been to the toilet. He expects her to do that herself. Much of the information [including whole sheets] on the NSPCC reports has been blanked out. This shows that the NSPCC are more concerned about protecting paedophiles and child abusers rather than abused children. The identity of caller is of course blanked out. On one report it is stated: blank blank blank blank case conference last week, and feels the mother is suspected of causing the fire. It is obvious that the blanked bits read something like: “HE was at a.…” It is obvious the ‘concerned’ caller is slanderer GW.

Chris Hind wrote to accuse me of breaching the court order by removing J & M from the church [on 10/11/02] and taking them to the beach, swimming and to my home. This is another blatant lie. Three people were witnesses to the fact that we did not leave the church and they signed statements to say so. [One witness [a magistrate] got into trouble with court colleagues and superiors for doing so!] According to one of the church leaders, GW formed this opinion from something J & M told him. The supervisor told me that GW had been to see him at 6.30pm on the evening of 10/11/02 to say that the children had told him that afternoon that I had taken them out. CAFCASS officer Ivor Hughes told me [on 14/11/02] that GW was stopping contact because he couldn’t trust me anymore. He was also saying that he wanted to be in the same room as us in nursery to make sure that I didn’t take J & M from there too. Ivor said that GW had called the police. He said he had an incident number but he wouldn’t divulge it to me and he wouldn’t give me the name of the police officer who he said he’d made enquiries with. Pete has asked Amphletts for clarification and information but is stonewalled by Mr Hind. Ivor told me that J & M are too young to give an opinion on who they want to live with. He said they have to be 8 or 9 to be listened to and about 11 or 12 to influence proceedings. So why was Jordan listened to about the burn, especially when he is showing confusion and the burn story is full of inconsistencies? Also why did Ian say that regarding the children’s return he would interview J & M to ascertain their wishes and feelings and why did judge Hughes order the welfare officer to ascertain who they wished to live with?

For over a month GW blocked contact again and I did not see J & M until 12/12/02 in front of Ivor in the CAFCASS office. The session lasted 1 hour. J & M just fell into my and Shelly’s arms and kissed and cuddled us, much to the chagrin I should imagine of GW and his conspirators in crime. You would not think that such a long time had passed without contact. Bless them. God’s angels must be guiding and protecting them and giving them strength, courage and hope. Despite all the evil manipulation going on behind the scenes and the fact that they were cruelly snatched from their home and were only seeing their mummy for the odd hour or so here and there and in unnatural surroundings, J & M know the TRUTH and seem to understand the situation. Even at their tender ages of 4 and 5, they knew more than the men in power gave them credit for. They know the difference between truth and lies, good and bad and they know that their father behaves badly. Amphletts told us that contact was to be reinstated but then GW immediately defaulted. On 2/12/02 they wrote: “We were with our client for a considerable period of time on 28/11/02. Our client has now specifically instructed us that contact will now be reinstated with accordance with the court order commencing 2/12/02 and obviously the weekend contact will be over the weekend of 6^th December. Our client instructs us that the reason he considered that contact was inappropriate to continue was because of his fears that your client had taken the children away from the church.” If he genuinely believed that I had breached the c/o by taking J & M from church, why would he state in the letter that contact is to recommence on Sundays also? As it happened I did not get any contact until the 12^th December. Nor did I get an explanation. Pete could not get any sense out of Amphletts by phone or letter. In his statement of 3/12/02 GW states: “As a result of my belief that the children are at risk I stopped contact because and know that Sharon Kilby took the children away from nursery and she had taken the children away from the church.” [Later in his 30/4/03 statement he admitted that he believed I had breached the court order by taking the children out of the church only because of what he said Jordan had told him.] June Flack of the nursery said that he was lying. She wrote [12/3/03]: “Mrs Kilby has never removed Jordan and Melissa Williams from the nursery. I have always been present when they have attended and it is not possible for them to have left the premise without my knowledge.” Pete asked Amphletts [10/12/02] to tell us when I’m supposed to have taken J & M out of the nursery. The other side remain mute. Ivor tells me that he wrote to the church making enquiries but that after more than 3 weeks had not had a reply. The church leader told me that he had been trying to phone Ivor but had been unsuccessful. Ivor told me that he hadn’t had any phone messages either from the church….

Also on 14/11/02 Ivor told me that he had been struggling to find out if social services would have any objection to me having unsupervised contact as he was trying to move the situation on [i.e. arrange for me to have some unsupervised contact starting at Christmas until the February 2003 final hearing so that hopefully I would be granted residence of J & M then.] Mr Seale told him that the question of unsupervised contact hadn’t cropped up at conference and that they’d only discussed what would happen if J & M return home to live. [Well actually it had cropped up. I had asked what the situation was regarding me having J & M home for some of the Christmas holiday but I was ignored.] Mr Seale told Ivor that if I am to have home contact then a social worker should be making an assessment. He apparently informed Ivor that if Angie was still there the process would have been underway…. Ivor said that he’d written to social services urging them to get cracking.

Ivor also informed me on the 12^th Dec 2002 that GW had said that the reason there had been no contact was because of Melissa’s persistent cough. [She had not been absent from school for a month.] She was coughing a lot at CAFCASS. No excuse was offered as to why Jordan had not been brought for contact. I later learned from the psychologist’s report that Mel had been admitted to hospital because of this persistent cough.

On 12/12/02 Ivor told me that Jordan had told him that we had left the church and had gone to the beach and then swimming in the pool and then back to my house where we had mashed potatoes and sausages with Andy. Here is more evidence of GW’s lies and of forcing Jordan to repeat those lies. Why wasn’t Ivor concerned about the emotional abuse of my children? Ivor told me that he was unable to move matters on as things had stagnated. He said he’d had replies from Graham Seale and Ian Turner but that neither had answered his question as to whether it was ok with social services for me to have unsupervised contact. He said that Mr Seale had said that he didn’t know what the answer was; it was whatever was stated in the minutes. He said that Mr Turner was basically saying that if the court wanted social services to be involved, then they would be. He informed me that the only thing he can do now is make a recommendation to the court that Social Services get involved and do a risk assessment. Here you have a welfare officer whose job it is to ensure the welfare of children, knowing full well that GW was in continual blatant breach of the C/O, knowing that he lied about me taking J & M from the church, knowing the full history of GW’s PROVEN lies and malicious intent as documented by other welfare officers and social workers, knowing the details of the present case such as the lying on Oath and the priming, knowing that GW refuses to answer questions through his solicitor, knowing the strong bond of love between my children and I and especially between myself and J & M despite all the attempts to keep us apart and knowing that it is his job to make recommendations on residence and contact…. and he decides to obstruct proceedings, thus furthering the abuse of my children. Mr Turner and Mr Seale also frustrated proceedings. They have enough evidence that GW is abusing J & M. These 3 men and Mr Hind are aiding and abetting child abuse. If that’s not true, Mr Hind should refuse to represent his client and they should all be shouting from the court room rafters and insisting on the immediate return home of my children. Then they should be assisting the police in prosecuting GW for: child abuse, harassment, slander, perjury, contempt of court, wasting authorities’ resources…. If this isn’t a conspiracy, I don’t know what is.

On DECEMBER 16^th2002 my barrister Alex Hewitt summed up the farce saying that it was Ivor’s job to make recommendations but that he doesn’t seem to want to take responsibility and is passing it on to the Local Authority. She pointed out that W/O Jane Williams had recommended on 17/9/02 the involvement of Social Services, so she couldn’t understand why they hadn’t already been asked to do a risk assessment. She explained that a Section 37 social services report is for kids who are at serious risk of harm such that care proceedings are imminent. She agreed with judge Hughes that such an assessment would not have been necessary. After speaking to the other side Alex informed me that Barrister Hornby [who represented GW back on 17/9/02] had been calling for a section-37 risk assessment then. Really? Alex said that after reading my statement the judge’s position had changed. He decided that we would need social services involvement and that he wanted a full and proper hearing. It was passed to a higher level – for circuit judge David Davies to take over. Alex told me that Ian Turner would take charge of doing a Section 7 risk assessment, which is basically along the same lines as what a welfare officer does! Which raises the question, why hasn’t Ivor done the risk assessment and made recommendations as to residence and contact? Also why isn’t he expected to produce a report? He has had meetings with me and GW and J & M and A & S over 3 months, not to mention correspondence with church supervisors and June of the nursery but there is nothing to show for it. Alex said that she feels Ian will be very helpful as he has a great deal of sympathy for me. But none of his letters so far have been supportive and he hasn’t yet given evidence in court. This is despite the fact my solicitor and Mr Hind agreed in court on 3/9/02 that a representative of the Local Authority should be served a witness summons. Neither has he answered questions that I have repeatedly asked him; nor has he produced my files yet. We were told that Ian’s assessment would take at least 8 weeks and would consist of two sessions pw of one and a half hours duration each. It was stated that Ian’s report would be filed by 26/2/03. There was more chance of me having tea with the Queen than that report being filed on time. It was decided that my only other contact would be a two-hourly supervised session in the Nursery. That meant less contact. Regarding GW’s continual and blatant contempt of court, he didn’t even get a slap on the wrist! The February final hearing was of course scrapped and the new date scheduled for around Easter. Well what a surprise.

On DECEMBER 20^th2002 Ian Turner wrote: “I understand that [Ivor] has recommended a comprehensive risk assessment and I must express my surprise that this assessment was not undertaken by CAFCASS for the court.” Also “The intention of this Authority would be to convene an initial Child Protection Conference in respect of the children, should unsupervised contact commence with their mother or should they return to her care and control.” What was Ivor saying about Ian not answering his question about the position of social services if I am to have unsupervised contact??? Someone’s telling fibs. Why didn’t Ian tell Alex in court the position re social services and unsupervised contact? Then we could’ve proceeded immediately with the unsupervised contact. Judging from what Ian is saying Social Services don’t need the court to order their involvement, the position regarding social services and unsupervised contact is clear and it was Ivor’s job to do the assessment. So, IVOR had the authority to move things on. It would appear therefore that he should have recommended in court or in a report that some contact in between 16/12/02 and the February final hearing should be unsupervised and a child protection conference be convened immediately. Ian also stated in his letter that there would be about four observed contact sessions.

Talk about passing the buck and buying time. This is what you might call Masonic p..s taking! Since contact started I have been traipsing backwards and forwards to the contact venues and hanging around for hours not knowing if I’ll have contact or not. The Masons are sending me round in so many circles that I’m going dizzy. They’re hoping to send me to the funny farm. Either that or they want to see me pushing up the daisies. They enjoy playing pass the parcel with other people’s lives. The problem is there is no one to make the music stop.

As directed by the court, Questions were sent out to the doctors, 5 social workers including the 2 managers Ian Turner and Terry James, DC Gay Waring and the Headmaster on 2/1/03. Social workers Elaine Buckley and Pat Williams told me that my questions to social services have to be addressed via the legal route. Yet Ian Turner answered other questions within days of our asking without having to refer to the legal dept. To date I’ve had no replies from Social Services and they still haven’t sent my Social Services files. [See details of my questions to them on p1 of part 3.] Janet Hughes from the social services legal dept told Pete that the reason for the delay was that they were having a job chasing people up as some of the social workers had left. That was a lie. Only one – Angie Mattison has left and even she hasn’t left social services; she received a promotion in the same line of work and has transferred only a few miles away. DC Gay Waring told some porkies in her reply on 28/1/03. Amongst other things she states: “Jordan said that Mummy’s lighter was orange.” I don’t have a lighter and I don’t smoke. Presumably she is saying this because I made the point that cigarettes aren’t blue!!! She also wrote: “Jordan did whisper on one occasion that his mother had burnt him” and that “Mrs Kilby was informed during the visit.” I wasn’t informed. Isn’t it odd that Jordan apparently knew details such as the colors of lighters and where and when he had been burned and yet he is confused about who had burned him! This is especially so since at 6 years old he still didn’t know the days of the week. [I await answers from Ian Turner and Angie Mattison regarding the afterthought that I might have done it.] The Headmaster is contradictory in his reply of 27/1/03 regarding dates of school absences.

In court 14/1/03 Judge Hughes said that the court order of contact sessions [2 days of an hour and a half a piece pw] had been arranged after the call between Alex and Ian on the 16/12/02, implying that Alex was at fault. That was not true. How would the judge know that anyway unless he and Ian Turner had had secret briefings? Why would Alex draw up a court order specifying contact arrangements which included social services unless Ian had already instructed her as to those arrangements? It would appear that both Judge Hughes and Ian Turner are lying. It was decided that I would have contact at nursery on Mondays and Fridays 4-6pm. Judge Hughes also told us that the legal department of Colwyn Borough Council hadn’t received the order to commence the assessment and that he intended writing to them to make sure that they do get the order. It was decided that Ian Turner’s assessment was to be done before the 27^th March 2003. The final hearing was re-scheduled for the 7^th and 8^th May and the matter was again shifted - for circuit Judge Elystan Morgan to preside over.

On 31/1/03 the Social Services legal dept wrote to inform me that the social services report would not be completed on time. They had to seek a directions hearing to amend the timetable.

Regarding my numerous outstanding questions with Amphletts, they finally responded in a letter dated 5/2/03 which I received on 17/2/03 as follows: “We would confirm having discussed the contents of the same with both our client and instructed Counsel and unless you can put forward appropriate representations and authorities to ourselves we consider it is inappropriate for our client to be cross examined in correspondence and that these matters should be dealt with by way of statements and cross examination at trial.” Cowardly liars. Mr Hind and fellow rogue Amphletts solicitors are big and bold enough to lie, lie, lie in their antagonistic accusatory letters, yet they shy away from answering simple questions in return. These fork-tongued men have their sucking straws in the same spittoon. Judges, police, MPs and all sorts of officials too all have their snouts in the same stinking trough. They are treacherous, inhuman vipers.

After several months of school Jordan and Melissa were failing miserably. Mark Barrett, Specialist senior educational Psychologist put the blame squarely at my feet because I’d kept them out of school. [See details and his remarks on p3 of part 3.]

The social workers had intended to observe contact at my home but GW angrily made his objections clear to them despite the court order stating that it was up to them to decide when and where they observed contact. He was also insisting on there being another child conference before the start of home contact but the social workers put their foot down. He continued to be uncooperative regarding contact. For example he left it to the last minute before notifying nursery of his absences or he didn’t bother to notify nursery or give a reason as to why he failed to bring J & M for contact. Or he simply lied about why he failed to bring them. He failed to keep an appointment at his house with the social workers. For the next few days they tried unsuccessfully to contact him. They left various messages, which he failed to return until finally they had to refer to their solicitor who had to write to Mr Hind urging their client to co-operate. [See confirmation in their 26/3/03 report p4 of part 3.] During their assessment he continued to attack Andrew and to try and cause trouble for us and in the doing he continued to waste the health profession’s precious resources. He visited Dr Groves requesting a medical review “because he is concerned that Melissa appears to be excessively anxious about monsters.” He told the doctor: “Andrew would often tease her about monsters and frighten her.”

The children continue to be ill and contact sessions continue to be cancelled. On one occasion GW refused to abide by the court order and bring my children for contact and instead forced my 6-year old son to tell me over the phone that he didn't want to see me. I heard GW ordering Jordan to tell me why but my terrified but brave little boy remained silent. I then heard GW saying: “You’re dropping me in it, Jordan.” After I was cut off, God knows what punishment Jordan endured from his father for his courage and show of disloyalty. Since Christmas 2002 Melissa has had swollen glands, flu, constant coughing, sore throats and earache. Whilst living with her father she was steadily losing weight and she went so skinny. Also she has been diagnosed with Asthma. It is another sign of her inner torment, a symptom of the abuse. Jordan has had earache, sickness and colds and conjunctivitis. For many months I couldn’t recall a day when they were both free of illness. They were both referred to an ENT Surgeon. I only discovered this via my children's medical notes. I was told by Melissa's teacher that she had been examined by a consultant and is booked in to have an operation. She has enlarged and inflamed tonsils and adenoids. One of the common causes of this is repeated infection of the ENT area. I believe that her constant illnesses are mainly stress related due to the abuse. Jordan chewed so much on his fingernails that they were almost completely bitten away. When contact progressed to overnight stays I discovered that Jordan was still head banging in bed. His father had claimed that since living with him Jordan had stopped doing so, saying that it resumed because of overnight stays with me. The truth is Jordan has never stopped head banging. GW also stated [30/4/03] that Jordan had become quite violent. That would not surprise me. Powerlessness, injustice and lies turn the best of us incandescent with rage. J & M displayed all the signs of unhappiness and anxiety. Both of them say that their father is always smacking them. For more than 7 months J & M had not been home, their larger Christmas presents and Jordan’s birthday present had remained unopened and Andy had still not been allowed to see his little brother and sister.

GW continues to be irresponsible and controlling. He wouldn’t bring Melissa’s asthma inhaler or the children’s uniforms. He continues to try and prevent me attending my children’s medical appointments. During Jordan’s hospital appointment GW lied to hospital staff about Jordan wanting me to leave and he tried to have me removed. Staff had to intervene on my behalf. Jordan was anxious and subdued because his father would not allow him to come to me.

It would appear that I am on the receiving end of the full wrath of the Masonic Mafia. I can cry, scream, swear, punch anything in my sight…. But it won’t get my children back. The only thing I can do I tell the people what’s going on. If this can happen to me, it can happen to anyone. At the end of the day, the only court that matters is the ‘people’s court’. The people will eventually bring the perpetrators of evil to justice.

On 27/3/03 the tide finally began to turn. In court it was decided that I would have a build up of home contact including overnight stays until the final hearing in May. This is because the social workers Pat and Elaine turned out to honest and decent and this was reflected in their report. They told the TRUTH, a rare phenomenon. They stated that GW refuses to allow contact at my home and that he is obstructing contact between Jordan and Andy, and they reported that GW is uncooperative and frustrating their assessment and their efforts to move proceedings on. They stressed their concern about the priming and their worries that GW could be feeding my children negative images of us. They reported that J & M behave negatively – timid, subdued, shy…. in front of their father but that when he leaves, their whole demeanour changes; they become much more positive – at ease, lively, active, bubbly…. The social workers conclude that GW’s behavior is detrimental to the welfare of J & M and that since they have resided with him their life has been unstable. Their recommendation is that J & M should return home to live and that contact should lead to the return of J & M to my care under a residence order with defined contact arrangements. [See more details of their 26/3/03 report on p4 of part 3.]

In his second report [dated 13/3/03 but sent to me by my solicitors on 6/5/03] the Specialist Senior Educational Psychologist Mr Mark Barrett continues to show bias and present a distorted picture. He states: "Jordan's father confirms Jordan's self-confidence and his enjoyment of school" and "Jordan continues to talk more at home particularly about school." Regarding Jordan's 'independence skills' Mr Barrett reports: "Jordan has yet to separate from his father in the morning and still needs him there to be taken to class. This is an area on which school are currently focusing." Yet in his first report dated 17/1/03 Mr Barrett wrote: “There has been a noticeable development in Jordan’s independence skills. For example, he will now separate from his father in the mornings.” Oops!!! Mr Barrett goes on: "In terms of literacy and numeracy skills Jordan is once again making progress. He can now write his first name and his letter formation is developing." Cobblers. Every time I saw him write his name it was unreadable and even his teacher told me that his letter formation is poor. She showed me some of his work. It is clear that he gets confused about which way round quite a few letters and numbers go. [See more details of the Barrett report on p4 of part 3.] Mr Barrett reports: "Melissa's father notes that Melissa is now back 'on track' and will once again leave him at the door on coming into school." Hang about. What about Mother's input? I wasn't even asked if I wanted Barrett's involvement. Come to think of it neither was I asked if I wanted the psychologist R Randle to assess the children. I was told by my solicitor Pete that the involvement by an independent psychologist was needed to help settle the issue of Home Education or school. Barrett's input was arranged rather slyly by GW and the Headmaster Mr Geraint Williams. I didn't get an invitation to either of the meetings. I didn't even know they'd been and gone and I wasn't even sent a copy of the reports. According to Mr Barrett I don't even have an address. I only have a c/o CAFCASS address! I only got to see the second Barrett report on the day before we were due in court on 7/5/03. Wouldn't it have been a bit fairer if I'd been allowed to get a representative from Education Otherwise to assess my children too? Oddly nothing is mentioned in the Barrett report regarding academic achievement such as Melissa's literacy and numeracy skills or either child's reading skills. I suppose that just consolidates the view that the real purpose of school is not to educate kids but to tame and mould them for their future adult role as slaves. It is stated in the Barrett report that two further meetings are planned for reviewing Melissa's progress. I learned that there was also another review planned for Jordan. Jesus wept. Melissa at four wasn’t even at statutory school age! Why all this attention and fussing over my kids? It's a pity the school authorities aren't this conscientious with all children; if they were maybe they would all get an education. Commonsense would suggest that both my children would be making more progress and would be much happier and settled if they weren’t being emotionally abused by their father. Further my experience tells me that if they were being Home Educated [and their father was not permitted to thwart my attempts to teach them] both my children would be more advanced academically.

During a review on 20/5/03 it was decided that one of the targets for Melissa is to get her to communicate with her peers and her teacher and to talk confidently. Mrs Wregglesworth and other educational ‘experts’ fail to accept that Melissa isn’t able to do any of that whilst she is being forced by her father against her will to speak and behave in a way which will please him but which she knows is wrong. She cannot possibly trust the people in school when no one in authority can see why she is unhappy and they don’t help her. All she knows is that ‘important people’ are listening to her father and siding with him. She and Jordan saw that the Headmaster prevented me from speaking with my children and giving them a cuddle on their first day in school and that no one else tried to help. My children were and are terrified and traumatised and they saw that I was deeply distressed. Jordan’s teacher reports a great deal about his progress regarding confidence. She states things like: “Jordan joins the class now without showing any signs of distress” and “He has learnt to trust his Class Teachers and no longer gets over-anxious.” Also “Considerable extra time has been spent with Jordan to provide him with emotional support or reassurance. He is gradually becoming less hesitant and nervous if asked to provide an explanation, for example, how/where he hurt himself.” No one asked why my children were/are so distrustful and anxious. Why weren’t school staff concerned that maybe marks on Jordan had not been caused by innocently playing in the playground but were/are inflicted by his father? Jordan and Melissa are too scared to speak the truth and they know that no one is listening to them anyway. They have learned that at school you are spoken to and given orders and that in order to survive you have to shut up, be good and obey. [For more details of this review see p5 of part 3.]

The social workers' second report [dated 6/5/03] was just as supportive as their previous one and it too carries the recommendation that the children should return home to me to live. They reported that they continue to have concerns re GW cooperating with them and also with the contact arrangements. They state: “Gareth Williams was required to be directed by the court to comply with Social Services’ repeated requests.” They state that his reluctance demonstrates that he is not recognizing the needs and the wishes of the children. They add: "SK's level of powerlessness and frustration in being denied contact with her two younger children has, at times, caused her to act extremely. Given the circumstances, we would tend to be sympathetic to her circumstances." The social workers state that they do not support GW's belief that Jordan is frightened of Andy and that the behaviour of the children is not consistent with his claims. They say it is very apparent that Jordan does not manifest any fear of Andrew and that he actively seeks to play and spend time with Andy. They express their concerns about the priming and they refer to Melissa's behavior in particular in school. The school reported that Melissa was crying in school and saying that she didn't want to go to "Mummy's house." She could not say why. She just "wanted her daddy." The social workers stated that Melissa was very anxious and not spontaneous. They are concerned that Melissa especially is being prompted by her father to state that she does not want to see me and they believe that what she says may not be her own views. They point out that her behavior during contact suggests a close loving relationship with me. They report [6/5/03]: "Once her father left Melissa was very close and loving towards her mother seeking and receiving a very close and loving relationship. Melissa eagerly sought to be close to her mother, sitting on her knee and cuddling her closely." The social workers state that all my children share with each other and also with me a very loving, close and confident relationship. Nowhere is it stated in either report that GW has a loving or close relationship with the children. Neither is it stated by the social workers or by the judge that they believe him to be honest. In contrast it is stated in the judgment of 24/8/00 by Judge Elystan Morgan: "I regard Ms Kilby as a very honest person, a very candid person, priding herself in not overstating her case or in seeking to conceal her motivations in any way at all." The social workers state that I cooperate fully at all times with Social Services and they found me to be "open and frank" throughout their assessment. Of course Gareth Williams does not accept their findings. It is clear from his 30/4/03 statement that he is challenging their authority. He says that he does not accept what they say and he denies that he failed to cooperate with them or the contact arrangements. He also accuses them of being biased because they told him that it is their view that the children should return to live with me.

Thank goodness that there are some decent people working within the area of child care/child protection. However within the upper levels of the hierarchy of Local Government and her Agencies, evil is flourishing. There was no way the trial was going to go ahead with such favorable reports from social workers and most importantly their strong recommendations that my children be returned. The Masonic Mafia would see to that. On 7/5/03 in court Judge Morgan agreed with the opposition that since I was challenging Mr Barrett's report, he was needed in court. However since he was unable to attend, the judge ruled that the matter would be adjourned. My barrister Brendan Anderson informed me that the judge needs to do a full risk assessment as there is the question of the physical abuse of Jordan by Andrew. He said that the judge needs to know where J & M will be educated so that he can assess the level of risk. I was told that if the children are going to be Home Educated the risk to them is potentially greater than if they are at school all day. [It didn't seem to matter that I'd had substantial contact over Easter including overnight stays! This was a point which Elaine later made too. She said to me on 27/6/03 that if it has been assessed that a child is safe having overnight contact, what puts them at risk on the other nights? Neither did it matter that all the evidence points to perjury and priming by GW….] In recent months my solicitor Pete had repeatedly said that it didn't matter so much now what had caused the lesion on Jordan's forehead or who [if anyone] had done it. What was more important was the social workers' recommendations. [Somehow I think that their reports would have sufficed had they been in support of GW.] I protested that residence and education are two separate issues and I asked why residence couldn't be decided immediately and the education issue left for another day. Judge Morgan said that other matters had been raised in the report which needed to be addressed i.e. he “considered the Barrett report in a peripheral way could assist me in coming to a conclusion on the residence issue.” This is the judge who had said in March that the matter had gone on long enough and needed to be resolved with some urgency. I was beginning to feel like throwing up again. Brendan had told me back on 11/4/03 that Barrett wouldn't be able to attend on the 7th and 8th May, the dates scheduled for the final hearing. He had said that we didn't need him as the other psychologist Carol Moore of Randle associates was coming and he had agreed with me that it shouldn't be adjourned. Why didn't Brendan warn me that the other side could use Barrett as the excuse to adjourn? Why didn't Pete? Pete waited until 23/4/03 before writing to Amphletts to state: "We understand that Mr Barrett may not be able to attend court on the 7th and 8th May. We are making enquiries to see if the 9th May is a possibility. In the meantime, for the record, we do not accept the contents of his report but in the event that we are not able to accommodate him on the 9th May we would not wish for any further delay which we do not believe to be in the best interests of the children and are happy to simply include those reports within the Court Bundle. Please confirm that you are content with that." Well, knowing what a truly despicable creature GW is, of course he wasn't going to be content. Pete and Brendan must've known this was going to happen. Of course Brendan acted surprised and denied knowing that it might. Pete said that Amphletts had accepted our letter. Trainee solicitor Emma said that we couldn't know unless the other side had disclosed that they were going to make the application on the 7th May.

It emerged that Barrett was available after all to attend on the 9th May so I asked why proceedings couldn't go ahead. Brendan told me that it was a question of whether Carol Moore could come on that day also which was unlikely because she was booked to attend on the 8th. I asked why we couldn't deal with her on the 8th and Barrett on the 9th. Brendan told me that they might want to listen to each other. Jesus, the excuses get worse by the minute. And this isn't a conspiracy??? How do these men sleep at night? Where are their consciences? Who involved Barrett anyway and why? Obviously GW and the Ysgol Cynfran Headmaster. Where's the neutrality in that? Why wasn't the Randle report enough? Even social worker Pat remarked that Barrett hadn’t even spoken to J & M and had based his report on the findings of Randle. Presumably the dirty brigade didn't like my analysis of the Randle report and they needed reinforcements. Obviously the Rat pack had plotted this way back in September. They have used everything and anything to delay the process. There was talk of the assessment being shifted back to CAFCASS. They didn't get away with that so they use Barrett as the excuse to procrastinate. What next? The Judge later confirmed the obvious; that the longer this matter remains unresolved the greater the advantage to the opposition on the basis of the status quo. When I learned that it might take many months before we come before the court again I asked what the situation was if I conceded on the Education. Brendan told me that that was a different ball game and that if I gave up on the idea of Home Education then we could do away with both psychologists and the trial could go ahead immediately to decide residence. "Fine,” I said, "Go ahead. Leave them in school. Time is of the essence." I added that I could always raise the issue again when J & M are older. After discussions with the other side Brendan told me that I have to accept the psychologists' reports which means that I have to agree with them and that in the doing I will be forfeiting the right to apply to Home Educate J & M at any time in the future. He said that the judge wants to be sure that I'll fully support State Education. I argued that it wasn't fair to put such demands on me or the kids because situations change; what if J & M really hate school and become school phobic? What if they are failing miserably there? Brendan said that I can always apply x years down the track but that I'm unlikely to be successful because I will have agreed with the Barrett report. In any case, he told me, the judge wanted to be sure that I wasn't going to raise the H/E issue again in a year or so. I informed Brendan that I'll go along with their demands on the basis that a decision is made today [7th May] about residence. I reminded him that my children are being abused and my priority is to get them back. I had to say that I couldn't exactly agree with Barrett though because that would be hypocritical of me. However I was prepared to fully support school. Brendan said that if the judge finds that I don't agree with the psychologists that might go against me when he makes his decision about residence. I reminded Brendan that I'm not the one who disrespects judges and breaks court orders…. I also assured him that during my older children's spells in school I fully supported State Ed then, unlike GW. Brendan asked me what I agree with in the Barrett report. I had to be perfectly blunt and say: "Not a lot." Well, I couldn't lie; could I? That went against me. The opposition barrister Robert Hornby declared to judge Morgan that it was important that I agree the Barrett report but that judging by my statement it was perfectly clear that I had very different views. He stated that he wanted a statement from me outlining my plans [my what!!!] and he told the judge that he will need to cross examine me to find out why I now agree with Barrett…. In the end Judge Morgan decided that everything was going to have to be heard come what may within 2 months.

He also decided that he wanted Dr Roberts to attend court. He ruled that a letter needed to be sent out to her first asking specific questions, one of which was: "Could the application of Fucidin cream have reduced the infection to such a state that it resembled a healing burn?" That was very telling. Brendan had already wanted to send such a question to her but I'd been reluctant and Pete had agreed that we were better off not asking any more questions as she might just send a reply which could inadvertently [or maybe intentionally] support the opposition. I didn't have much faith in Dr Roberts anyway; not when she'd supported the burn allegation by writing [after examining the healed scab]: "Jordan was clear in that the mark had been caused by a lighter. The lesion would be consistent with a burn having been caused in this way." Brendan had also reminded me that she didn't think it was impetigo because of the lack of crusting. Why would the judge now insist on asking her that very same question; almost word for word? Obviously he had been prompted to do so by my very own Judas, Brendan Anderson. I asked why, if it was so important that we have Dr Roberts, why not Dr Thackray too? Why not the 5 social workers that I haven't yet received one answer from? Why aren't they, especially managers Ian Turner and Terry James and social worker Angela Mattison being subpoenaed? Brendan said that if I wanted everyone to attend then we'd need a 5-day hearing and that would take quite a long time to come to court. Emma informed me that we'd had a letter back from the Chief Legal Officer of the social services legal dept. They stated [23/4/03]: "I would be grateful if you could confirm the nature of the outstanding queries as the solicitor dealing with this matter is currently on sick leave." Good Lord, what kind of excuse is that? And anyway why hadn't I seen this letter? After 2 or 3 hours of being in the Kangaroo court my head was fuzzy with the insanity of it all. The stench of corruption was choking me. God, it is so hard to keep level headed and sane when all around you, people are feeding you bullsh..t. Judge Morgan did acknowledge that GW was frustrating contact and he declared that if it happens once more the matter will be up before the court immediately. Yeah right. Pigs might fly! Eventually it was decided that the final hearing would be on the 3rd and 4th of July in Chester. The matter shifted yet again to a new judge. Judge Stephen Clark was scheduled to preside.

The Freemasons use any means to obstruct, frustrate and delay in the courts. They regularly commit Common Law offences, which carry long prison sentences, even up to life imprisonment. The people are slowly but surely waking up to their crimes. The whole criminal operation is just below the surface, barely covered now, stinking and putrid.

Chasers were sent to the Social Services legal dept on: 16/1/03, 13/2/03, 4/4/03, 12/5/03 and 19/6/03. The Chief Legal Officer wrote on 14^th May 2003: “Thank you for your letter dated 12^th May 2003. I confirm I will revert to you when I receive instructions.” This was received by my solicitors J W Hughes & Co on 15^th May 2003 but not sent out to me until 4^th June 2003. On 27^th June 2003 the Chief Legal Officer wrote: “Thank you for your letter dated 19^th June 2003. With regard to the outstanding queries, I have again requested instructions and will revert to you as soon as this information is available.”

I repeatedly asked Pete since 11^th March 2003 to send letters to Drs Ratcliffe and Roberts simply asking them to confirm if they were told by Jordan that I had caused the ‘burn’ on his forehead. Despite assuring me that he would, it wasn’t until 24^th April that Pete finally sent the letters. Neither doctor responded and I repeatedly asked my solicitor to send chasers. Pete assured me that he would do so. He didn’t. On 4^th June 2003 my solicitor wrote: “We cannot chase the doctors for their answers now because they would have to be jointly instructed to do so since all of their reports are now before the court.”

Gareth Williams is turning my children into robots. [See details on p5 of part 3.] Also he continues to breach the court order. After a holiday GW had been due to deliver my children for contact. He failed to do so. [He didn’t even go on holiday. He lied about that too.] On another occasion he parked his car near my house, he got out, opened the back door and pretended to speak to my children; he then closed the door, got back in and drove off. I had no contact with my children that weekend, I had no explanation and he was non-contactable. He later stated that Melissa had deliberately caused her nose to bleed and was saying that she didn’t want to see me. Social worker Elaine Buckley informed me on 27/6/03 that he had contacted social services manager Terry James who had advised him that he should do what a responsible parent would do and that if he has concerns he should NOT take the children for contact. This is the very same Terry James who refuses to answer my questions and doesn’t even acknowledge receipt of correspondence and who doesn’t return my phone calls. He is also the guy who advised me to request my social services files and encouraged me to have GW prosecuted for emotionally abusing my children. Elaine also informed me that GW said that he had reported me to the police about allegedly grabbing at Melissa. Elaine was unable to get hold of the police report and she wanted to know why the police didn’t refer the incident to social services. [On 14/7/03 she told me that she had now seen the police report; it wasn’t reported through on what they call a CIV16 and that it isn’t entirely clear what GW is saying to the police. She said that I’m not allowed a copy of the police report or to even have sight of it. Why ever not?] She also told me that he had taken Melissa to A&E where she was diagnosed with tonsillitis. He told the hospital that I had injured Melissa. Elaine said that it is stated in the medical records: “query – social services are aware.” Yet they hadn’t reported anything to SS. On school sports day when I was due for contact, he failed to take the children to school; the excuse was that they were both sick. They were both well and in school on the preceding and following day though. He later stated via his solicitor that the children became hysterical when they became aware that I’d be attending. Elaine told me that my children were not ill on sports day and that my children told her that they didn’t love me and didn’t want to live with me. When asked for a reason Jordan said: “We were burned.” On the following weekend I had no contact either. This was despite Elaine telling Gareth Williams about the emotional effects this was having on the children and that he has a responsibility to allow/encourage contact with me and that to do anything else is VERY VERY WRONG. She also told him that the children should be encouraged to forget all about the alleged burn; that he shouldn’t keep on talking to the children about burns and making allegations. [Melissa has also now been primed to say that I burned her when she was a baby.] Elaine said that she believes her talk fell on deaf ears. She and Pat then tried to contact him via letter and phone calls over a period of days but he was not contactable.

Jordan is still guarded at school but not as mistrusting as Melissa and he could trust teacher Miss Baker. She wanted to write a report/letter documenting what Jordan had confided in her, which would have reflected the extent of the priming by his father and the fear and despair of the children. However she knew that it wouldn’t be sanctioned by the Headmaster Geraint Williams, she was unable to go behind his back and divulge to the social workers Pat and Elaine, she could only explain to them on 6/10/03 the difficult position she is in.

On 14^th June 2003 I received a letter from Mr Chris Hind of Amphletts dated 9^th June 2003. He writes: “With further reference to this matter the writer would confirm having spoken to Mr Mark Barrett who is of the opinion that he can add very little to what he has incorporated in his reports which are before the Court and who has suggested that Mr Geraint Williams the headmaster of Ysgol Cynfran would be a more appropriate person to call to give evidence at the hearing. On this basis we have made an application to the Court for a further directions appointment to be listed before his Honour Judge E Morgan with a view to considering this matter and possibly amending the previous directions order and will advise you of the hearing when we are notified of the same.” Pete stated that Mark Barrett is unwilling to give evidence because since he obtained information solely from the Headmaster he feels that only the Head need do so. Jesus wept! Judge Morgan ruled on 13^th June that both Mr Barrett and the Head are to attend court on 3^rd/4^th July.

On 21/6/03 I received a letter dated 6/6/03 from Conwy County Council Education Department addressed to Amphletts regarding “clarification of the information he [Mark Barrett] may be able to provide for the Court.” It is stated that Mr Barrett’s documents “have a specific social/education focus and are not psychological reports as such.” Also “We understand detailed psychological reports for the children have been prepared by Psychologists Randle and Associates. Mr Barrett would not be in a position to comment on these independent reports.” It is concluded: “Any issues relating to children being educated out of school by parents are the responsibility of other LEA officers and are not within the role of an educational psychologist, such as Mr Barrett.” Which all confirms that it was a waste of time involving Barrett; i.e. there was never any need to adjourn the final hearing to secure his attendance. How do these slippery, cowardly creatures sleep at night? How do they stop themselves tripping up over their rapidly extending Pinocchio noses? The dirty brigade will happily sell their souls for 30 pieces of silver. [Incidentally the social workers told me that Mr Barrett did finally talk with the children on the 2/7/03, just before the scheduled final court hearing!]

Doctor Roberts responded on 9/6/03 to the questions posed by the court. In addition to information already provided she states: “It is possible that the injury is due to some other form of trauma” and “There was no evidence of blistering as seen in the early [her underlining] stages of a burn, the injury having healed considerably [my italics] over those few days.” Remember Dr Roberts had been asked to report on a healed scab. The alleged ‘burn’ had allegedly happened on Sunday 18^th August ‘02, Dr Roberts had examined the healed scab on the following Thursday 22^nd, so the injury had therefore healed in a matter of 4 days or less. Regarding the question re the Fucidin cream, Amphletts attempted to further delay proceedings by referring to the Fucidin medication as ‘Sudafed’ cream. Dr Roberts had presumed that to mean ‘Sudocrem’ and based her answer on that presumption. Ms Carol A Roberts of Amphletts attempted to make the correction and wrote back to Dr Roberts saying that the medication in question was ‘Felicidian’! Oh God. It beggars belief.

The Headmaster Geraint Williams reveals his bias in his 30/6/03 report for court. He played his part in denying the children their mummy and denying them the truth. The Headmaster aided and abetted the abuse of my children. [See details on p6 of part 3.]

On 3^rd July 2003 at Chester county court word came back that GW was unable to attend because he had been beaten up. Bit by bit we learned that he had been hit twice by a metal bar on the front and back of his head such that he fell unconscious. It happened so quickly that he didn’t know who it was. This allegedly happened at 6am on the first morning of the latest ‘final’ hearing. The police investigated and advised him to go to hospital for a check up. Amphletts were unable to find out any names of officers. A friend drove him in. Dr Roberts [who had turned up to give evidence] used her clout to move him up the queue. Glan Clwyd hospital at first said that protocol states that he would need to be kept in overnight for observations because it was an attack Amphletts then informed us that he had been fitted with a neck collar and had been discharged in the early afternoon. Also that he has been assessed fit enough to attend court in the morning [4/7/03] and listen to the proceedings. Witnesses were sent home and the case adjourned. I was told that the judge had now decided that 3 days are going to be required. [The case was scheduled for 2.] There was apparently a problem with fitting the barristers in with Judge Stephen Clarke’s timetable to hear the remainder. Dates were mooted. GW’s barrister Sian Morris said that she could make herself available for 2 days in July but my barrister Alex had no further dates free until August. Such dates didn’t tally with the Judge’s though. Eventually I decided to be a LIP [litigant in person] and represent myself. I instructed Alex to tell Sian Morris that we will go ahead ‘tomorrow’ as planned and that we can finish it in July on the 2 dates that she is available. I was then told that Sian Morris doesn’t want to do the case in July because of her other case. It was finally decided that the matter would be transferred to Mr justice Hedley and that it would be heard on 24^th, 28^th, 29^th, 30^th and 31^st October 2003. Gareth Williams turned up in court the next day [4^th July] with barely a scratch on him. If he had been walloped with a metal bar he would have had at the very least severe bruising and probably a lump or two. Alex said that he didn’t look as if he’d been attacked. Amphletts declared concerns that I had published my story on the Vomit website. I have now been asked not to publish anything else about the case on Vomit or any other site pending the final hearing. Judge Clarke said my article “is not helpful.” Alex told me that if I refuse I will have an injunction slapped on me. I am also ‘asked’ to try and remove the existing article. I am now GAGGED. Whatever happened to free speech? Isn’t that what our soldiers liberated Iraq for? I had wanted to take the children to Butlins in September as it was the only time we could afford. I was denied this because it would be during term time and “the children are behind in their school work and have lost too much schooling already.” Perhaps it is just as well as I know GW would’ve thwarted our plans at the last minute and no doubt one of the kids [probably Mel] would’ve been ill anyway.

Melissa was so pitifully thin, had no energy and was constantly ailing. She was often feverish at night. She only picked at her food. In her sleep she’d cry: “Want mummy, want mummy.” I was so worried about her. If she lost any more weight I feared that she’d end up in hospital. It broke my heart to see her so pitifully thin and fragile. Before she and her brother were so cruelly snatched from us in August 2002 she was healthy, happy, confident and carefree. But she became so troubled and so sickly.

Dad enquired with the police for more information re the alleged attack. He was sunk in the usual sea of Masonic obfuscation. He was finally directed to PC Roberts who said that investigations are ongoing. He asked dad questions like: “What’s it got to do with you?” and “Why are you so worried?” It has everything to do with dad since the finger of blame is being pointed at him. Dad also believes that there was no attack, that there is no investigation and that the police are lying.

On 15/7/03 Amphletts solicitors complained that I had not adhered to the C/O re the removal of my articles from the Vomit site. [See p9 of part 3 for details.]

The court ordered medical report signed by Mr S R Burney, Associate Specialist and dated 16/7/03 states that records “confirm that Mr Williams attended the department at 10.31 hrs. On examination his Glasgow Coma Scale was 15 [normal]. There were contusions over the right parietal region and mid frontal area. He had a reduced range of cervical spine movements with tenderness over C1-2-3. There was a bruise, approximately 8cm by 6cm, over his left upper arm. There was no focal neurological deficit.” Spoken like a Mason. Hells bells, why write 10.31 hrs? Most normal people would write at approx 10.30 hrs…. Why the fancy words? In my dictionary, contusion means bruise. Mr Burney is obviously lying when he says there was bruising over the right parietal [which means skull] area…. If that was the case then there would have been visible bruising to Gareth Williams’ head also. There wasn’t. And if GW had bruising over his upper arm, why didn’t he mention it? He said he had been hit over the head only. I didn’t bother pointing any of this out to the legal Mafia though; it would’ve just given them another excuse to adjourn on the basis that Mr Burney would be needed to testify because I am challenging him. This is the way freemasonry works. These are the many underhanded diversions they practice. They have all their men in key positions ready to produce all reports necessary. The same would happen with the court ordered police report. A police Masonic stooge would come up with the goods. This is how easily and successfully they fool the public and the honest and decent workers in the judiciary and public services.

GW continues to fail to address the children’s medical needs and he continues to waste NHS resources. He failed to keep Jordan’s ENT hospital appointment on 9/9/03 and he failed to notify the hospital. He failed to keep Jordan’s appointment at the Eye Clinic on 23/9/03 and he failed to notify the clinic.

The tide turned again. The social workers’ third report dated 9/10/03 reveals that Pat and Elaine appear to be not that concerned about abused children but rather in protecting their jobs and of not rocking the boat. It would seem that they have been influenced by their mafiosi managers or the legal mafia into watering down their report. It is illogical and contradictory; there are some untruths and it is in the main presenting a picture of a pair of warring parents who refuse to work together for the sake of their children. In short it is a complete U-turn to what they have already stated. Well such a report was bound to come sooner or later, wasn’t it!!! They now recommend joint residence. The social workers have neutralised the situation by repeatedly stressing that the problem lies with both me and GW i.e. that we are both as bad as each other. It is astonishing that more than 5 years on and after all the harassment, stalking and intimidation I have endured from GW, social workers still make remarks such as: “We have spoken at length with both SK and GW pointing out that there has been virtually no change in their attitude towards each other or their dispute about their children since 1998 when Vera Nolan, Court Welfare compiled a comprehensive report. We have again advised both parents that they must put their differences to one side and begin to concentrate more upon the emotional needs of J & M.” This is especially so since they wrote more fitting comments in their first two reports. The only conclusion I can draw is that they have been subjected to some pressure from their superiors or the legal dept to dumb down their remarks and neutralize the matter. They did tell me that both their other reports were edited by the legal dept as some of their wording was too explicit. They said that they have to be careful that they are not accused of bias and they were worried about writing something that the barristers might be able to “drag them over the coals” when giving evidence. I find this staggering. Child abuse is a crime and should not be played down or, worse, covered up. What is the point of social workers making an assessment if someone else changes what they report? Surely the social workers are qualified to report as they witness? [For more details please see p9 of part 3.]

I was told [4 days before the final hearing] that my barrister Alex Hewitt wouldn’t be able to represent me because her present case would overlap mine. She is the only person who I had any confidence in. More Masonic maneuvers?

Re the alleged assault on GW, the Police report finally landed in my lap on 21/10/03. It was dated 18/8/03. David Hill, Force solicitor writes to Amphletts: “We write to confirm that your client reported an assault that is alleged to have taken place at 6am on 3/7/03. It was alleged that your client was assaulted at his home address, on the doorstep, by an unnamed male person in his garden. He alleges that he was struck to the forehead and fell to the floor, sustaining a swelling and bruising to his head. Unfortunately the crime has been marked as undetected, notwithstanding house to house and other enquiries.” Why write “allege”? Didn’t the attending police officer witness his injuries???

A report from the fire service was sent on 23/10/03. [It had been ordered in court on 7/5/03 but not mentioned on 3/7/03 in court.] It is dated 21/5/99. At the time of the fire there was no report or social services at least would already have a copy. I know there was no report because one of the things I kicked up about was the fact that my children were registered At Risk rather abruptly despite the fact there was no fire report or fire representative at the child protection conference. Social services stated in a letter dated 26/9/03 that there was no such report in my files. Little clues that this report is fake is in the statement: “Child with lighted paper ignited paper and washing powder carton.” It has never been stated that a child was responsible, confirmed in the case conference notes of 29/6/99, which states that the fire official concluded that the fire was started by a person or persons unknown. It is also stated that the time of the call to brigade to the time of arrival was 7 minutes! Two sets of neighbours were witnesses to the fact that it took twenty odd, maybe thirty minutes for them to arrive. The chief fire officer is S A Smith DMS MIFireE, the person in charge at first attendance was R McGrath LFF and the person in charge of the fire was A S Hughes, Station Officer.

In court in Chester on 24/10/03 under cross-examination social worker Pat Williams presented a picture of warring parents as much as she possibly could. She said it was a case of ‘tit for tat’ and said that she didn’t believe that GW abuses the children or that they fear him. [Isn’t priming abuse? and if it isn’t fear then what else makes the children behave in a way that totally contradicts what they say?] When questioned about CAFCASS official Ivor Hughes’ contribution, she said that he didn’t have much to say, his notes were one-line sentences, which were ineligible; they weren’t in any proper format. Pat also stated that she and Elaine want nothing more to do with our case. She was, of course, under orders from her Mafiosi bosses and undoubtedly told to say that because they had reported some truth about Gareth Williams’ criminality, albeit only the tip of the iceberg.

The High Court Judge Mark Hedley prejudged the outcome before Pat [the first to testify] had finished giving evidence. He stated that he was inextricably linking the issues of education and residence. He said that if he gives me a residence order he will allow me to Home Educate. He also made it clear that he sides with the ‘educational experts’ and that he is obliged to follow the social workers’ recommendations. He made it clear that he wasn’t interested in the history. He said that he didn’t feel that the findings of fact in relation to burns, priming or whatever [obstruction of contact, breach of previous court orders, perjury….] were going to influence his decision: they had no relevance. He referred to GW and I as “point scoring” and said that the case was about the “hear and now.” To that end his only concerns were about the children being damaged by the acrimony between parents and he told us to stop battling with each other. He said social services are not to be used to ‘police’ the handover of the children, adding that they are not the “crutch for inadequate parents.” He supported the status quo, saying that what the children need most is the least amount of change possible. When my barrister Fiona Jamieson told him that I would fully support State education if court decides my children are to remain in school, he said that he wasn’t interested in that. He said that he wasn’t going to let me have that safety net now; his attitude being: if you live by the sword, you die by the sword. He hinted that he would not give the non-resident parent generous contact in his comment that there is obvious unfairness if one parent has every weekend with the children. Regarding fears that GW will continue to deny contact he said he can get around that by adding a penal notice to his order. He then made a joke about us both going to prison. The writing was on the wall, wasn’t it? The best I could hope for was to try and persuade judge Hedley to agree to a joint residence order by saying that school does have some benefits; one of which was that it would facilitate contact. It worked. The problem is that I was unable to move the children to a closer school and now that social services have walked away, the only 3^rd party witnesses I have are schoolteachers who are headed by a biased headmaster who suppresses the truth.

It costs £6.60 per day [£33.00 pw] to take the children to school and back. I get no transportation assistance.

My mail continues to be tampered with. Anything other than bills or other official mail continues to arrive opened.

I still await my social services files. According to Team Manager Ian Turner in his 20^th December 2002 letter, the social services department have a “policy of open access to files.” However numerous chasers have been sent to social services to no avail.

Amphletts solicitors continue to send letters of provocation. For example on 19^thJanuary 2004 they wrote that their client had said that I had “breached the Court Order which was made by failing to return the children to him at the conclusion of the Christmas holidays.” They “trust this will not happen in the future and must ask for an explanation as to why this occurred.” If they’d thought to check the court order they would’ve noticed [and would’ve been able to tell their client] that I was expected to return the children to school [which I did] and not to him.

I am still being excluded from some of my children’s health-related appointments and still being denied information. I did not get sight of a letter dated 16^th January 2004 from the Senior Community Pediatrician Dr Lindsay Groves re Jordan until 13^th March 2004 despite it stating that a copy had been sent to me. Neither did I get sight of a Memo dated 13^th January 2004 from Dr Groves re Mel until 17^th March 2004. The letter contained details of more of GW’s malicious allegations and his disgraceful scheming. It also reveals Dr Groves’ bias towards GW. [See p14 of part 3.]

Letters of harassment continue to arrive from Amphletts solicitors. On 24^th March 2004 they wrote asking for documentary evidence confirming my current employment, saying that they understand that I now work every morning. What business is that of theirs?

In Cardiff County Court on 5/4/04 I asked if the court order could be changed slightly to allow both myself and GW to attend the children’s medically related appointments. At the moment it states that only the parent whom the children are residing with is to take them, which means that if an appointment happens to fall on a date when the children are with their father I am not allowed to attend also. I pointed out that animosity issues are no excuse because GW is able to behave himself better in front of 3^rd parties; also that health professionals have been able to manage any problems that GW has caused in the past. Judge Hedley refused on the grounds that we are too hostile towards each other. Judge Hedley shows blatant bias. All the evidence, including numerous professional witnesses, proves that GW is the bully and the troublemaker and I the victim; also that he is the one who wastes NHS resources. As a result Judge Hedley ruled that I could not stay with my 5-year old daughter when she was scheduled to go into hospital to have her tonsils removed. He forced me into a verbal ‘agreement’ that I would have only 2 hours with her after her operation. That meant that I could not stay overnight with her. I was heartbroken and outraged. Melissa wants her mummy at her side whilst she is in hospital, not her violent and abusive drunken father who she is terrified of. I am without doubt that if the date of her admission to hospital had fallen on a day when J & M were living with me, Judge Hedley would have granted the father unlimited hospital contact citing ‘special circumstances’ which would have meant that there would’ve been nothing to prevent him staying overnight too if he so wished. In fact, I have no doubt that if I had behaved as GW has done at numerous medically-related appointments over previous months/years, there would have been letters or reports by health professionals documenting events, condemning my behaviour, which would have gone against me long before now in the court proceedings. There has never been any such letter written in condemnation of Gareth Williams’ behaviour.

After discussions with hospital staff however, including 2 consultants during my attendance at the hospital on 16/4/04 for Mel’s pre-op check up, it was decided that for the sake of Melissa’s welfare the op should be cancelled and rebooked for a time when the children are living with me because I gave consent that I would not restrict GW’s visitation. This also made sense because I was the parent who had signed the consent form for the surgery and I was the one at Mel’s pre-op consultation and who had discussed the pre-op hospital procedures. The consultants felt that both parents should be with Melissa and one consultant phoned GW in a bid to sort it out and avoid a legal wrangle. However GW voiced his objections saying that there is a court order in place, which allows me only one-hour visitation. Hospital staff also informed me that there are facilities for both parents to stay overnight. Yet Amphletts had told us in court on 5/4/04 after they had allegedly phoned the hospital that their policy is that only one parent can stay! The consultants obviously cared about what was best for Melissa or they would not have cancelled the op and instead would have told me there was a court order in place and nothing they could do about it. On 17/4/04 I received a copy of the C/O which states that “in the event of either child being admitted to hospital for treatment, each party will be at liberty to visit the child.” There are no restrictions there so why did Hedley bind me to a verbal agreement? On 19/4/04, after discussions with the hospital’s legal dept, it was decided that the op should remain postponed until Mel’s surgeon Mr Zeitoun had spoken with me and GW. But Amphletts show more malice by threatening me with a prohibited steps order in a letter dated 27^th April 2004. [Yet only 7 days earlier in their 20^th April 2004 letter, Amphletts had stated that they recommend that their client accepts the offer of Dr Zeitoun to mediate in order to resolve matters. They stated that they were reluctant to suggest to their client that the matter be resolved by way of a specific issue application though would have no option if the mediation was not successful.] Amphletts sent another threatening letter [dated 25/5/04] directly to me telling me that I have 7 days to respond to their client’s statement. They also reveal more malice in their accusation that I again breached the court order. I hadn’t. It had taken them more than 3 weeks to tell me that I hadn’t returned the children to their client on the 3^rd May. I wasn’t supposed to return them to him; I was supposed to return them to school on the following day. Their delight in antagonising know no bounds. Victims of the Masonic Mafia are constantly swimming against the time-consuming tide of malice, oppression and destruction. Freemasons may think they are above the Law and that they have life-long protection from the brotherhood but they sell their souls to the Devil and are in debt bondage forever. Little do they realise that they are, in fact, the most enslaved of all.

Mr Zeitoun was also of the view that visiting times should be equal and he saw no reason why both parents could not stay overnight. He informed me during our meeting on 25/5/04 that he had spoken with GW on 24/5/04 but that GW was making it clear that he wasn’t interested in mediation. I had hoped that Mr Z could have persuaded GW to be more reasonable about my visitation and I had written down my proposals with the vague hope that we could come to an agreement with the help of Mr Z so as to avoid yet another court hearing. [One of the things that needed clearing up was that any time I did have with Melissa would be alone because {and witnessed and recorded by social services} she is too stressed – fearful, anxious … whilst her father is also present.] However Judge Hedley ruled in the meantime [on 4^th May 2004] that GW “do have leave to apply for a specific issue order in respect of a proposed tonsillectomy.” It should not have gone to court. He should’ve struck out such an application and ordered GW to sort it out through mediation. He should’ve made it clear to GW that as Mr Zeitoun was kindly offering to mediate he must accept and he should’ve threatened that if the matter ended up in court again GW would be the one having to accept restricted or even no visitation. [This was the kind of tone my barrister Fiona Jamieson was using on me on 5/4/04.] This is especially so because it is a High Cost case. Hedley should’ve also chastised Amphletts for fraud of the public purse on the grounds that they were acting prematurely.

The matter was finally resolved on 15^th July 2004 with District Judge O W Williams presiding. GW and I both signed undertakings that we would comply with the court order of 5^th April 2004 where “each party will be at liberty to visit the child” whilst Melissa is in hospital. Judge Williams also expressed his annoyance at our presence in court yet again. But rather than criticise and punish the culprit GW, the one who repeatedly instigates court action and then continually breaches court orders, continually refuses to co-operate with Social Services, wastes government agencies’, Courts’ and NHS resources, repeatedly makes malicious and unfounded allegations, continuously physically and mentally abuses his children, regularly prevents them seeing their mummy, habitually commits perjury…. Judge Williams completely neutralised the situation and threatened us both that this case is now bordering CARE PROCEEDINGS. He said the kids are so exposed to the “level of conflict that it is so tragic.” [That was his only concern.] This is despite the fact he hadn’t read up any of the history! His threat is also despite the fact that social workers Pat and Elaine had outlined GW’s non-compliance with them re his latest breach of court order in a letter dated 14/7/04 to court and also that they had stated: “The social workers’ opinions were that the children had been primed.” It amounted to the social workers’ and welfare officers’ extensive involvement being immaterial and obsolete, their previous numerous reports and those of the school being effectively disregarded. [When it suits the Masonic mafia, the courts take guidance from the professionals and when it doesn’t suit them the Masonic judges/magistrates simply disregard the experts’ opinions. {See another example of this on p10 of part 1 re Dr Knight’s comments.} This is blatant bias; blatant judicial double standards.]

I was forced to apply for a Specific Issue order for the return of my children when their father yet again in contravention of the order made by the Honourable Mr Justice Hedley only 2 months prior deliberately contravened that order by refusing to return the children to me during the week starting 7^th June 2004. It was due to be heard in court on 15/7/04. GW had admitted keeping them off school for a week to prevent me picking them up there in accordance to the C/O. Keeping children off school without good reason is in itself a jailable offence. He claimed in his solicitor’s letter dated 7^th June 2004: “The authorities have advised [him] that he should not return the children to [my] care and that he does not return the children to school.” Pat and Elaine confirmed that he lied about that. During that week he refused to allow Pat and Elaine to interview the children; he would not co-operate with them, he failed to return their calls; he called them biased and requested that other social workers take over. His excuse for again denying me my children was because of comments that he says I made to the children. He states via his solicitor that both children have “been indicating that they ‘do not want to die’ and that as a result they ‘do not want to go back to mam’s house’.” Pat told me on 7^th June 2004 that GW had referred it to the police and NSPCC. One of his relatives phoned the NSPCC too because Mel allegedly repeated to someone else in GW’s family that I’m going to kill the kids. Pat told me that the NSPCC also spoke to police. She read some of the NSPCC report out to me: “The police officer spoke to Gareth Williams and both the children and Melissa was adamant that she did not like mummy and that mummy hurt her…” She also read out a NSPCC report dated 29/4/04 re Mel’s operation. On 10^th June 2004 Pat told me that GW had again contacted the NSPCC to say that he will allow the children to be seen by her & E but that the children are not to be taken from his house because he said they are frightened that the social workers will return them to ‘mum’s’. Pat said that I was not allowed to see the reports and when I requested copies from the NSPCC, team manager Chris O’Marah wrote [14/7/04]: “I have had a search through our database and cannot locate any information recorded as the date you specify. The most recent report we have was following a call some months earlier.” Something is adrift! I wrote back on 16/7/04 asking for a copy of their most recent report. I sent a chaser on 15/8/04. On 25^th August 2004 Mr O’Marah sent it. It is dated 20^th January 2004! [Please see p20 of part 3 for more.] Pat told me that Police Officer Dinnis had interviewed the children in front of their father at his house on Thursday 3^rd June 2004. The police sent their report to Social Services. I was refused a copy. My solicitor Peter Brown told me that they won’t divulge it at ‘this stage’ because it could interfere with their investigation against me! Of course the Police fraternity won’t release anything in writing. They are worried that I might find something contradictory in their reports, something that would expose their fraud. Why the secrecy if they have nothing to hide??? Pat told me that the police report states: “Whilst Gareth Williams was talking to Melissa, she stated that she didn’t want to die. Dad asked her what she meant. She said mummy had told her that she was going to die as she was sick.” Pat said the report also mentions the tonsillectomy and that the PC had reassured her about being ill and getting better [Oh God, give me strength!] It also says: “The children have hinted that mummy has talked about dying with them. Gareth Williams told the police that he was due to swap over the children today however due to his concerns he is going to see his solicitor to get an emergency order.” HANG ABOUT! This Police Officer Dinnis is supposed to have spoken with GW and J & M on Thursday 3^rd of June 2004. GW was not due to hand the children over to me until Monday 7^th June 2004. WOOPS! Here is a hint that this ‘report’ is fraudulent and must have been written by a lying Mason. No wonder the windbags won’t let me have a copy. My solicitor Peter Brown told me on 7/7/04 that he would request PC Dinnis’ report. He wrote to PC Dinnis on 19^th July 2004 and he sent a chaser on 19^th August 2004 to the North Wales Police, Child Protection Unit. The wimps preferred not to respond in writing [of course] and instead PC Dinnis telephoned my solicitor to say that the information has simply been passed to the Child Protection Unit!!! [See p15 of part 3 for more details.] In court I was told that my application re GW’s latest breach of C/O had been thrown out because the matter had resolved itself. GW of course did not even get the slightest of rebukes from Judge Williams, never mind a threat of incarceration. I was warned by my barrister not to rake up any history or make any applications to the court for a penal notice to be attached to the court order or I would be “committing parental suicide.” She said Judge O W Williams will “go completely ballistic.” So much for His Lordship Hedley’s threat of prison when we were in court in October 2003! Then he had stated “he’ll only do it once” when my barrister Fiona Jamieson asked Pat if GW will revert to obstructing contact again if social services’ involvement discontinues. Justice Hedley also said: “Then change residence” in response to Pat stating that GW may continue to frustrate contact. And he said that he wasn’t “keen on the social services being used as a body for parents to complain to.” No wonder judge Hedley swiftly shifted the case onto another Judge.

There were devastating developments on 26^th June 2004. Whilst I was at work, Shelly took J & M to the park. When it was time to return home again Jordan somehow got separated from the group. He had been trailing a short distance behind and when the girls disappeared around the back of a hut Jordan just disappeared, in a matter of seconds. Shelly spent around 20 mins searching for him in that area, to no avail. She then headed for home to look for him there. I arrived home not long after she had and immediately raced back to the park in a blind panic trying to find him. I immediately raised the alarm and within no time various leisure centre attendants and members of the public were helping in the search. After an hour and a quarter of frenzied searching at the park and around local roads I called police. After a few minutes the police told me to go to the leisure centre where PC 1895 Williams was sitting in his police van just outside, waiting to speak to me. He informed me that Jordan had walked home to my house, found the doors locked and had walked to his father’s. PC Williams told me that GW had phoned police to say that Jordan had turned up at his house. I asked what time. He said he couldn’t tell me as it was subject to the data protection act. I asked roughly what time. He said it was about an hour before I did. During our conversation he changed that to “about half an hour” and later again to “about a quarter of an hour” before I had phoned. I asked him to confirm the time I had phoned police. I was told it was 3.24pm. That’s odd because according to Shelly’s mobile I had made that emergency call at 3.15pm. [Perhaps the control room had given the time that the police had called me back.] I later learned from GW’s solicitors in a letter [dated 28^th June 2004] that the police had told him the time that I had phoned police. [That wasn’t subject to the data protection act!] It would be impossible for Jordan to walk to his father’s in the time suggested. 2 leisure centre attendants saw all 3 kids, 2 scooters and the dog walking around the boating lake at 1.30pm. They knew the time because of their dinner break. According to PC1895’s story, they went to the park and J was left in ‘the tunnel’. He was frightened. Shell said they were playing in the tunnel [a cylindrical part of the climbing frame] but that she didn’t leave him there. Pat and Elaine later told me that J told them that he had “looked for Shelly in the jungle” [a wooded area of the park that we pass through on our way out of the park]. By the time J had allegedly done all this and then got himself to my house it would’ve been getting on for almost 2pm. Amphletts confirmed [28/6/04] what PC 1895 told me i.e. that J arrived at his father’s at 2.55pm. For J [aged 7] to be able to get to his father’s in approx 1 hour, he would have had to run flat out all the way. The route is mainly up hill; up very steep hills and the distance is 3.7 miles. PC 1895 Williams told me that the way Jordan had described the journey to him had been perfect. The social workers said that Jordan was unable to tell them the route; he could only say that he took “a quick route, but it didn’t seem that much quicker.” PC 1895 told me that on receiving GW’s call, he had gone to the park to look for me. Why didn’t he call in at the leisure centre to tell them that he was looking for me? Why didn’t he call at my house first or attempt to phone me? Shelly was at home and could contact me. The Leisure centre manageress told me that what she came to understand from her brief chat with PC 1895 just before I spoke to him was that J had rang his father. When I asked her where he had phoned from, she said that’s what she couldn’t find out; that was where the story went a bit muffled.

PC 1895 Williams later came to my house. He did not jot down one word of what Shelly or I said, let alone take a statement from either of us. If he had he might’ve been able to figure out the truth for himself. Instead he was more concerned about protecting himself from being exposed as a liar and of aiding and abetting a child abuser. He was easily provoked; he kept on springing to his feet and ranting on that he didn’t need to “justify times or nothing” to me just because I was asking for information. He kept telling me it was all data protection [more like Freemasonry protection] and that all the info would be in his report, which will go to ‘Family Protection’. P & E told me that the police report was extremely brief. [Wonder why!] My solicitor Peter Brown wrote to PC1895 asking for a copy. He sent chasers on July 20^th 2004 and August 19^th 2004. Finally PC Williams telephoned my solicitor to say that the information has simply been passed to the Child Protection Unit! PC1895’s story is clearly a blatant fabrication. PC 1895 is clearly collaborating with GW. Pete wrote on July 21^st 2004 requesting the ‘Out of Hours’ Social Services report. He sent a chaser on August 19^th 2004.

I give my heartfelt thanks to all those wonderful members of the public who helped me search for Jordan. I don’t know who you are but I know that one day you’ll read this message. My special thanks goes to the lovely Julie Lee who was there for me when I needed her most. My deep felt thanks also to Margaret [manageress of Colwyn Leisure Centre] and her team of dedicated staff.

My solicitor Peter Brown wrote to me on 19^th August 2004 telling me that he’d subsequently had verbal responses from PCs Williams and Dinnis and yet his letter to them is dated 19^th August 2004 also! He states: “We enclose copies of all those letters for your records.” He didn’t. Instead his copy letter, dated 19^th August 2004, and addressed to North Wales Police, Child Protection Unit states: “We refer to our letter dated 20^th July 2004 and we would be grateful to hear from you. We also enclose a copy letter dated 19^th July 2004, which we sent to PC Dinnis and understand that a brief referral report was also sent to you. Perhaps you could let us have a copy of this by return.” Pete’s copy letter, dated 19^th August 2004, addressed to Social Services also states: “We refer to our letter dated 21^st July 2004 and we would be grateful for a response.” It seems as if those dates were just plucked out of a hat. I would be amazed if such letters even existed. I had specifically asked Pete for copies of all the letters that he sent out. My solicitor certainly seems to be communicating with some caution. Is he, like all the other solicitors with their sucking straws, slurping from the same spittoon as the high-ranking police and social services parasites?

The conspiratorial web of deceit, lies and falsehoods is a truly frightening and bewildering state of affairs. The obfuscation, contradictions and doublethink are mind blowing. Such is the foreboding and formidable strength of Secret Organizations such as Freemasonry that those of us on the receiving end of their venom are not believed [even family and friends don’t really want to believe] and we are made out to be the liars and fabricators and nutters. Their tactics are intimidation and mind games. Their silent, savage, supreme control is so all-powerful and successful that it is easy to become convinced that they are right after all. Sometimes I start wondering if I am going cuckoo. Even dad sides with them, calls me crazy and tells me the way I’m going I will end up in a nut house.

But I’m not that weak and it comforts me to realize that I’m not alone - so many of us are suffering in silence trying to fight the same fight. Never in the history of the world has there been the monopolization that we see today or the massive unrest, poverty and degradation or the destructive weather patterns or the increasing arms race or the global warming and environmental threat to our planet or the obsession with sex and pornography. This is the result of the actions of a minority of self-important, self-indulgent, self-effacing men. Those very men who control the SECRET SOCIETIES and therefore the future of the WORLD. THEY are our SATANIC RULERS and THIS is the final conflict that the bible predicts.

My family live in a spiral of never-ending nightmares. How many other unseen shattered lives are out there because of our Authorities’ unlawful and abhorrent dirty tricks? My prayers are FOR and TO all of you, whoever and wherever you are, who suffer injustice, oppression and slavery. Fight for your speech. Let the world know about your pain. Name and shame the evildoers. Hand deliver your story if need be. Erect posters, protest…. Fight for the right to be heard. It might take a while but never give up. WE hear you and WE care and WE will win. Collectively we are a force to be reckoned with.

Daily I live in fear for my babies - all four of them. I live in fear of being locked away in a loony bin somewhere. But it gives me some satisfaction to understand that they live in fear of exposure and that they are endlessly looking over their shoulders and covering up their sins. They would like to keep their murky business behind darkened windows and closed lodge doors. They think they can shut up and lock up those who trouble them. They think they can hide behind their libel laws and their clever, wealthy lawyers. They are wrong. Satan cannot sneak about in the dark forever.

God says we must challenge evil but it cannot be overcome by violence or force. To obtain the power necessary to win we must first conquer ourselves. To do that we must get rid of all hate in our hearts. We must be kind to our enemies and we must love most those whom we should hate the most [that’s a tall order but it does make sense.] We must be patient and serve others and we must control our selfishness and our greed. Love, truth and goodness are the greatest powers of all and will eventually triumph over evil.

Everyone can be saved, it just depends on which master you choose to serve - there are only two. Thank God for the people who publish the truth. God bless all the people who expose corruption, all the women who fight male dominance and who fight for equality and all the decent Masons who do have the courage to fight the poison within their organization. God bless also the men who, for moral reasons, choose to go to jail rather than join the army. God bless the women of opposing war-torn countries who unite to preach peace. God bless the police officers who leave the force, rather than serve their bent bosses. [The war-profiteering ruling elite cannot continue with their lies, greed, corruption and wars unless thousands or millions are willing to be used as cannon fodder. If the politicians want war, let them kit up in combat gear and face the enemy’s angry gun.] And God bless the ‘flower power’ protesters. We must all do everything possible to fight for a just world, a peaceful, loving and giving world - GOD’S WORLD.

Thank you for reading. Good luck and God bless.

From Sharon Ann Kilby. Email: Sharon@Kilby18.freeserve.co.uk.

For more details of my story including quotations from professional witnesses, please read part 3; OR go straight to part 4.