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.