Mummy's Still Here

by Jeanne D'Olivier

  It was ironic that someone who belonged to a group supporting fathers should be turned down on this basis. One would have thought that would have gone in his favour, if they were worried that he would have any bias in my direction but common sense was never a factor in anything that happened. There appeared to be one agenda only and that was to ensure that I never saw M again.

  Two of my neighbours had also been proposed as contact supervisors. They had both been police checked and had worked in local government, but they too were rejected. The reasons given then were that anyone who knew me would not be suitable. How could I fight that? I could not propose anyone I did not know and they would not agree to a Contact Centre, so this left me in no-man's land. It was a closed shop and I was out in the cold and freezing.

  Dr T left the house after heated debate. Dad and I had both professed our strong feelings about the way that things had been conducted. None of this went down well with Dr T but we could hardly be expected to just accept not seeing M which was what he seemed to be pushing for us to do.

  I had been asked more than once by Giles, Jill and the psychologist whether I would agree to walk away from my son - allegedly for his sake. Had I really believed he was happy and safe, I may have done that purely to end this dreadful process for my child who could not fail to be more and more damaged by it, but the truth was I still believed he was in danger. What was more, what message would that give M? I loved him dearly, had only ever wanted him to be happy and have a wonderful and normal childhood - but from the minute he had told me what his father had done to him - none of our lives would ever be close to normal again.

  I felt M's pain as if it were my own and would have swapped places with him and endured it for him if I could. I was torn between my strong desire to see him and protect him and a growing fear that maybe walking away was the only thing to do.

  The last of the preliminary hearings had gone so much in R's favour, that I had no doubt where we would end up. Now that Dr T had shifted his initial position there seemed to be no hope left. I talked long and hard to Christopher about writing to the Judge and saying that I would walk away, in the hope that she would leave contact open if M was ever reported to concede to see me. I knew this was my doubt speaking and that I was so oppressed now that I could barely see straight. I even got as far as writing the email to the Judge to tell her my decision. It was the hardest letter I had ever written and I did so through endless tears.

  I rang Christopher to read it to him but he advised me to keep fighting. He was certain that whilst the Judge may well leave contact open should I pull out of the ring at this stage, M would be told that Mummy did not want to see him or care and I could not bear that. I had to go on and see this through to what seemed to be the now inevitable conclusion - if only to show M that I had done all in my power to save our relationship and always would. I pushed all doubts away and decided that Christopher was right. Even if I lost everything, I had to try. I would never have forgiven myself if I had not seen this through to its conclusion, for it was not yet over and whilst it felt hopeless - for M's sake, as well as my own, I had to complete the process.

  I scrutinised my evidence, wrote copious notes, organized everything into carefully indexed files and worked day and night to put forward the strongest case I could for maintaining a relationship with M. I could do no more. The letter to JS was never sent.

  Should I have walked away at this point in the proceedings? Would the Judge have left contact open to me at this stage? I had no way of knowing nor had I any other remedy than through the Court - attempting to reason with R would never have worked and his position was firmly fixed - no contact- forever.

  I thought back to what was now nearly a year earlier - the last time I had seen M without supervision. The wonderful day we had spent playing cricket in the sunshine and laughing as we ran round the house playing hide and seek with Robert. Had R been jealous of Robert? Had it bothered him that another man had engaged with his son and spent a happy time with him? It was likely but I think R had always been determined to cut me out of M's life if he ever got residency. He knew that doing so would hurt me more than anything else he could possibly have done and he wanted me to suffer. He wanted me punished for daring to report what my son had told me. He wanted me to pay for calling him a paedophile - even though I was one hundred percent certain and always would be, that he had abused my son.

  The final hearing was now only days away. I was nervous but as well-prepared as I possibly could be. I had seen Giles's position statement and he was recommending no direct contact until M was nearly 15. Four years without seeing my son was inconceivable.

  The Psychologist's report was less harsh. He made no recommendation at all but in the absence of doing so, this put Giles in a stronger position because Judge's rarely take responsibility for decisions of this kind. If they rely on a Court Expert, they can abdicate blame and as we had seen in the Island's proceedings, the Guardian's views carried greater weight than anyone else's. The Guardian is seen to represent the "voice of the child". In reality this is rarely the case - but in giving them that label, they are of course abdicating responsibility too.

  To ensure his position was as strong as possible, R had requested bringing M to see the Judge. I objected to this on the grounds that M had not seen me for nearly six months now and had only been subjected to those who were firmly opposed to him doing so. He would be brought to Court by his father and questioned in the presence of the Guardian Ad Litem and who knew what would be said to him beforehand. I could only surmise and everything pointed to R coaching M for this meeting.

  The Judge consented to the meeting and Christopher advised that I ask to be present, which was refused. I was told that there would be a full transcript of the meeting sent to me afterwards to allow me to see what had been said by M and what questions he had been subjected to. The Judge also stated that she would see him in the court room, rather than her chambers so that he would be more inclined in a formal setting, to state his true wishes.

  I was even more concerned now. Regardless of the safeguards, I still felt M would likely parrot his father's views. He had to live with him after all.

  I had received a phone call from M a few months earlier. It was 11.30pm at night. He was very distressed and between sobs, he had told me that he did not want to see me. I had been horrified but knew that this was not what he really felt. If this had been genuinely what he wanted, he would not have been crying his heart out when he said it. He had clearly been manipulated by his father who must have had a fight on his hands to get M to concede, due to the lateness of the hour.

  Now M would be put into the same situation with the Judge in London. My heart was breaking as I thought of the terrible pressure my little boy was now under and I asked Christopher again whether I should now walk away so that he would not be put through anything more. He reminded me that M would be put through far worse if he couldn't see me and would feel that I had given up on him. It was a Hobson's choice but I couldn't bear for M to feel that I had abandoned him and so, on balance, I could only hope for a miracle - that M would stand up for his rights - no matter how unlikely this now seemed.

  I waited for the transcript of the meeting with mounting trepidation. It eventually arrived by post, sent by the lawyer representing the Guardian and contrary to what I had been promised, there was no proper transcription. All I had was a few notes that the solicitor representing Giles had made. The meeting had, contrary to the Judge's promise, taken place in chambers so there had been no independent transcriber or recording of the meeting. One could not even be sure that the notes were an accurate report of what had been said. Given the Guardian's biased position, it was likely that they were selective at best.

  The Judge having assured me that the meeting would take place in the court room and that M would be told that he must tell the truth about what he wanted had been the one thing we had clung to in the hope that he would not lie under those conditions. However, now she had re
neged on this and held the meeting in chambers with the Guardian and possibly even his father. This meant there was no possible way of getting an accurate transcript. It was a complete frame-up and Christopher told me that it would give me a very strong Appeal ground should we lose. He too was now having to concede that it was looking likely.

  M's wishes as represented by the Guardian's solicitor were as expected. He alleged to not want to see me but when asked why, he said he didn't know. Beyond that there was only a brief conversation with the Judge about school and his interests.

  This was another bitter blow because against so much collaboration between Court Officials, I was virtually powerless even before we stepped into Court for the Final Hearing.

  I was reminded of the former Guardian's tactics. He had gone to see M with his father and his father's wife present, even after he was formerly released from record. He had provided a so-called verbatim transcript of the meeting which had again ended with M allegedly saying he did not want to see me and this had been emailed to R to use in Court. I had objected to this piece of evidence being included, again to no avail. There was one sentence in the supposed transcript, if it were indeed a true and accurate account, that was the most chilling and the most telling. M had told the Guardian, "I do not want to have to say I don't want to see my Mummy." Surely if the Judge was going to accept this evidence, she would at least, be convinced now that he was being put up to saying this. I clung to this hope. I had little else to cling to.

  On one occasion R had written to me, copying in M and stating that his wish was to see myself and my father "buried in a box." If that wasn't inappropriate, then what was? Any child receiving that would be clearly worried about the safety of his mother and grandfather and I had raised it with Giles who had dismissed it as "unfortunate but understandable that his father would feel that way."

  M would later deny to his grandfather much of what had been put in evidence as his wishes and feelings, but at that time, with neither of us having any access to M or even phone calls, it was our word against R's and the Guardian. All I had to challenge any of this with, were the many recorded memories of our former life by way of photographs, letters and testimonials and holiday videos showing a happy, loved and well-cared for child. I had nothing current though because they had not allowed me to see him now for nearly six months.

  In ensuring that no expert saw me with M after the "enjoyable" contact that Giles had witnessed, they had given me no possible way to demonstrate the close loving relationship I had always shared with my son was still as strong as ever. No doubt they were also concerned that without his father's intimidating presence, M might behave very differently towards me or express his oft-repeated wish to come back to live with me and they would have had to report that to the Judge. So long as there was no evidence of the relationship between M and I, they could say what they liked and make any recommendation they chose.

  It seemed almost futile now to go through the motions of the Court hearing. The writing was firmly on the wall - the overwhelming view was that I be brutally cut out of my son's life.

  Christopher still believed that we had everything to fight for. He felt that there was sufficient evidence of the wonderful relationship that M and I had shared and the former Judge's view that M needed both parents. Whilst the Island's Judge had shown the most extreme bias in favour of M's father from the onset and what one could only describe as misogynistic hostility towards me, he had stressed the importance of M maintaining a relationship with both parents in his final Judgment. He had even gone so far as stating that the change of residency was based on the fact that he believed R was more likely to promote contact than myself, given my beliefs.

  Christopher felt that this Judgment could be sufficiently relied upon to ensure that I had regular contact, if not shared residency. He was still adamant that, despite all evidence to the contrary, the Court had to leave me with a generous Contact Order. I wished with all my heart that I could trust his judgment on this, but my past experiences told me that this was unlikely. Now M was purported to not want to see me - whether this was indeed true or not - I knew in my gut that the five precious minutes I had shared with him on Christmas Eve, six months earlier, were likely to be the last moments we would spend together for the foreseeable future. It was a chilling and frightening thought and a scenario that I could neither accept nor live with. If my intuition was correct, my life would be meaningless and untenable.

  With Christopher's help, I put all thoughts of the future aside and focused only on the present. Despite my fears and reservations, I went into Court determined to fight with every part of my being to retain a relationship with the little boy I had carried for nine months, given birth to and raised on my own for the majority of his childhood. I refused to accept that those years could count for nothing in the eyes of the Right Honourable JS.

  Chapter 10

  Into the Abyss

  The day of the hearing arrived. I hadn't slept for days, but had spent night after night going through the evidence and highlighting the things that I felt may help us most. I read and reread all of my questions for cross-examination of the Court Officials and annotated each report carefully, to demonstrate its weaknesses and many inconsistencies.

  It is pertinent here to refer to the case of a mother that paralleled mine in almost every way and had begun at roughly the same time in 2007. Gerry, who had become a close friend and had even visited me in jail after reading about my criminal trial in The Times Newspaper, had reported the abuse of her first child, who had been a year younger than M when she made disclosures of sexual abuse by her father.

  She was then pregnant with her second child by a different partner and had been subjected to the most terrible treatment by the UK Courts, Social Services and the police - culminating some time later in her being jailed for accidentally running into her daughter in a petrol station, once the father had been given residency. Understandably she had not been able to resist the temptation to speak to her daughter who was in the back of her father's car. This was in breach of the non-contact order that had been made against her and she had been sentenced to three years in jail. Her sentence was preposterously disproportionate to her alleged crime - the crime of saying "hello" to her beloved child but it was a terrifying reminder of the appalling treatment that women who reported abuse were subjected to at this time.

  Gerry had come from a similar middle class background to my own. She had been a successful race horse trainer and was well respected by her peers. Her life had been destroyed and she had gone to jail only weeks after giving birth to her second child. The baby had spent the first year of its life behind bars with its mother. This may sound incredible to anyone who has no experience of the crimes against mothers and children in Britain at this time, but it was sadly all true. Gerry and I have remained in contact since our first meeting and are friends to this day. She has shown incredible bravery and fortitude throughout but like any mother in this situation, she has lived in fear of the system ever since - to the point where she has left the UK for the sake of her second daughter whom she feared may be taken from her as well.

  Gerry is personable, intelligent and extremely strong and we have spent long nights talking into the early hours, sharing our pain, grief and anger at the terrible injustice of what has happened to us, which has taken a huge toll on both our physical and emotional well-being.

  I have heard the stories of so many mothers since who have endured the same fate as us. Mothers who innocently reported abuse to the authorities, only to be accused of coaching their children, being vindictive and hostile towards the abuser and ultimately losing custody and all contact.

  There seemed to be a formula that was being routinely used to cut those who reported abuse, out of a child's life, completely contrary to the daily message that was being strongly voiced in the media, that "not" reporting abuse was a crime. Even if the Courts disagreed that there was sufficient evidence to support the mother's concern, surely taking
the child from a loving home because of this, was preposterous. It seemed that since the term "emotional abuse" had come into play as a reason for removing children, anything could be used to take a child from its parents. If you shouted at your child when he was naughty, had a religious belief that didn't chime with a social worker's views, or God forbid loved your child beyond anything and spent too much time with them, you could lose custody. I had heard some crazy reasons from the various women who Christopher and John Hemming would often put in touch with me. I could do nothing to help them, any more than I could help myself or my child. In the end I had to ask that they stop giving out my number for I found listening to their terrible stories and anguish, only made me more acutely aware of my own pain and I needed all my strength to fight my own case.

  In some cases the mothers and children had been subjected to domestic violence, in others sexual abuse, but each of the cases bore close resemblance to each other in the way that the matter had been dealt with and we all shared a feeling of powerlessness and despair.

  Gerry's case was being strongly relied upon by the Guardian in our case. Her case had been very high profile as the Judge had unusually removed the injunction which prevented publicity. This should have been a way of her getting a voice for the wrong she had experienced. However, his reason for doing so had been to publicly shame her and the press only reported from the father's perspective and she became vilified constantly as a mother who had "allegedly" coached her daughter to make up abuse. I had seen Gerry's daughter's evidence and knew that she had strong reason to believe that the abuse had taken place. It should be pointed out that the father in her case, had a brother in the same police force who investigated her daughter's allegations. I found it particularly disturbing that in one Social Worker's report, she had written that if the child was to say her father had abused her, she was to be told that this was not the case and she must have imagined it. This chimed with a report in our case where my son had allegedly said to Miss Whiplash, that he no longer knew what was real or what was a dream. Whether you believe in my innocence or Gerry's, the fact remains that our children our innocent and have been punished in the worst possible way, for against their wishes, they have been forced to leave their homes, their family and the people who love them most, to be placed with people they have claimed have hurt them and who before doing so, they had not lived with or even known that well. Can one really say that differs from Forced Adoption?