Complaint with NSPCC falls on deaf ears I sent complaint in to NSPCC safeguarding team which was dealt with by a senior manager to shut it down as been done every time they have been contacted in 13 years quite frankly, I have even been in communication with their supporter’s team who no not even seem to understand the objects of their charities

MY COMPLAINT TO NPPC:

Subject: Urgent Concerns Regarding Child Abduction, Mismanagement, Coercive Behavior by Social Workers, DNA Evidence, Parental Alienation, and International Awareness  Scandal bigger than the post office.

Dear Rebecca 

Following our recent telephone conversation, I am writing to formally outline the serious concerns I have raised with East Sussex County Council (ESCC), under reference 18971405. These concerns revolve around the alleged abduction of my child, subsequent mismanagement by authorities, coercive behaviour by social workers, issues surrounding DNA evidence, parental alienation, and the growing international awareness of these issues.

Thirteen years ago, my daughter Emily was abducted from a location in East Sussex and transported over 500 miles away from her relatives. This action was not only deeply distressing but also illegal, as it is a legal requirement that children should not be moved more than 50 miles from their relatives without proper legal authorisation. The incident and its aftermath have been extensively documented on my website, The Stealing of Emily.

During the court proceedings that followed, evidence was presented by a social worker identified as Christine Elizabeth Stirling. However, I have substantial reasons to believe that “Christine Elizabeth Stirling” is an alias, and that she is currently employed under a different identity in Kent. This deception undermines the integrity of the evidence presented, which has had significant and lasting effects on my case.

The evidence presented in court was under the authority of Mr. Matt Dunkley, who was the Director of Children’s Services at the time. I suspect that Mr. Dunkley may have been involved in serious misconduct, including potential embezzlement, which raises significant concerns about the integrity of the court proceedings. These concerns are based on various irregularities and inconsistencies observed during the handling of the case, which I have detailed on my website.

The lack of support from ESCC has had devastating consequences. The mother of my children tragically passed away, and I believe this was due to the council’s neglect and failure to provide necessary assistance. Additionally, her remains were mishandled—her ashes were left unclaimed at the funeral director’s because no one was informed they were there. This level of negligence is both distressing and unacceptable.

I am particularly alarmed by the coercive behavior exhibited by social workers involved in my case. As outlined in a post on my website titled “Coercive Behavior by Social Workers,” these individuals exerted undue pressure on my family and me, manipulating circumstances and influencing decisions to serve their own agenda rather than the best interests of the children involved. This coercive behavior included making threats, providing misleading information, and using psychological tactics to create fear and compliance. Such actions not only violated our rights but also exacerbated the already traumatic situation.

Another critical issue involves the handling of DNA evidence in the legal proceedings related to my daughter’s case. As detailed in my post, “Requesting FBI Guidance on DNA Evidence in Legal Proceedings,” I have sought the guidance of the FBI regarding discrepancies and concerns surrounding DNA evidence that was either mishandled or misrepresented by local authorities. The absence of reliable DNA evidence has severely hindered efforts to confirm my daughter Emily’s status and has raised serious doubts about the authenticity of the information provided by the authorities. The involvement of a respected external body like the FBI underscores the gravity of these concerns and highlights the potential failures in the current system.

I have serious concerns that my children, along with others, have been unlawfully relocated from East Sussex, Kent, and Norfolk to Northern Ireland without proper documentation or notification of their whereabouts. The lack of transparency surrounding their movements suggests a broader pattern of misconduct. The National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC) has previously highlighted issues of this nature, and I fear that my case is part of a similar, ongoing mishandling.

The issues I have faced are not isolated but are part of a broader problem of parental alienation, which has been recognized as a serious concern in the UK. As discussed in my post “WHO Insights on Parental Alienation: Advocating for Children’s Rights in the UK,” the World Health Organization (WHO) has emphasized the damaging effects of parental alienation on children’s mental and emotional well-being. In my case, the actions of social workers and other authorities have contributed to a situation where my children have been alienated from me, their father, causing long-term harm. This alienation is not only a violation of their rights but also goes against the principles of child welfare that the UK is supposed to uphold. The failure to address parental alienation effectively is indicative of a systemic issue that needs urgent attention.

The serious issues surrounding my case have now gained international attention, particularly in Australia, where the story has been recognized as part of a broader critique of child protection systems. As detailed in my post, “The Story is Now Told in Australia: The Child Protection Racket,” my case has been highlighted as an example of systemic failures within child protection services. This international perspective has brought new light to the potential injustices within the UK system, framing my experience within a global context of concern about how children’s rights are being handled. The fact that my story has resonated beyond the UK underscores the need for urgent and comprehensive investigation into the practices of those involved.

Furthermore, I recently uncovered additional troubling details involving misleading information provided by Jane Howard Smith, a key figure in the case. As I outlined in my post titled “Misleading Information from Jane Howard Smith: Urgent Call for Transparency and Accountability,” her actions have introduced significant confusion and obstruction in the pursuit of truth and justice. Her role in spreading misinformation has only served to exacerbate the difficulties in obtaining accurate information and holding the responsible parties accountable. This revelation further complicates an already complex situation and emphasizes the need for a thorough and transparent investigation.

Additionally, I have raised concerns about the astonishing costs associated with my child’s case, which amount to £281,000 per year. This information is detailed in my post titled “Astonishing Child Costs: £281,000 Per Year.” The exorbitant costs not only highlight the financial strain placed on the system but also raise questions about the allocation of resources and the management of funds in child protection cases. The high costs involved further underline the urgent need for transparency and accountability in how these cases are handled and funded.

Moreover, I have addressed issues related to the review of my case, which is discussed in my post titled “Letter to Fantasy Young Person in Review.” This review process has been marred by significant discrepancies and questionable practices, leading to further complications in achieving a fair and just resolution. The inadequacies in the review process only add to the distress and ongoing challenges faced in resolving my case. The review process has been documented through various video links that detail the improper conduct of LAC (Looked After Children) meetings. These videos, accessible through the link above, provide a visual account of the procedural failures and misconduct that have occurred.

The county council in Northern Ireland appears to be acting illegally, failing to process critical information and documentation. Specifically, there has been no lab work or conclusive evidence provided to confirm whether my daughter, Emily, is alive. This raises serious concerns about the integrity and legality of the processes followed by the authorities in Northern Ireland.

Additionally, I wish to highlight a concerning report regarding the manipulation of abuse claims by social workers, as detailed in the Sunday Express article by Ted Jeory dated December 11, 2011. It was reported that social workers are regularly “sexing up” dossiers on problem parents to remove children into care and even to farm them out for adoption. This news story reveals that social workers are pressured to exaggerate or fabricate details to ensure children are taken into care, contributing to a broader issue of systemic abuse within the child protection system. The article emphasizes that this practice was prevalent in the same year that Emily was abducted. It is troubling to consider that Emily was forcibly removed from her court-appointed bi-weekly meetings with me after being taken from her mother’s care. The fact that she was forcibly taken away, crying and dragged out by an unlawful social worker with criminal intent, highlights the severity of the misconduct described in the Express report.

The concerns about biased and sensationalized reports in the family court system, as highlighted in the Express article, underscore the broader issues affecting my case. The lack of transparency and the manipulation of information in these reports compromise the decision-making process and undermine the best interests of children and families. There is an urgent need for accurate and unbiased information to ensure fair outcomes in family court decisions.

David Cameron’s public statements regarding the need to streamline the adoption and care process raise additional questions about why so many children are taken into care in the first place. The issues highlighted in the Express report and the broader concerns regarding the handling of my case are part of a systemic problem that requires urgent reform.

Emily was stolen at the age of four after I attempted to secure a residency order in court. At the time, I was unaware that the Fourplus team had a duty to report any irregularities to Social Services. I expected a fair hearing, but instead, I was subjected to a sham court proceeding with a crooked solicitor, a perjuring social worker who authored all the expert reports, and an unqualified judge. Further complicating matters, my appeal to the High Court was thwarted by my Local Authority, which knew it was acting unlawfully.

The situation in the court became increasingly farcical as I was forced to dismiss my solicitor during the family court proceedings. The solicitor, Mike Gratton, who was formerly in private practice, could not even recall discussions outside the courtroom. His dismissal from the stand further highlighted the breakdown in the legal process.

“Early Help” has proven to be anathema, adding stress, regret, shame, embarrassment, and negative self-worth due to their ignorance and willful disregard of directives. This reflects poorly on the quality of social services involvement.

The current situation in Northern Ireland has spiraled out of control. The Interim Director of Social Services in Newry is not complying with Section 20 of The Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 or Article 19, nor with Section 10 of the Information Acts, which Lord Falkner mandates compliance with. There have been no annual reviews as required, only two Looked After Children (LAC) reviews in thirteen years.

When I began investigating social services and tried to submit my findings to the local court in Hastings, the appeal references I provided seemed to have vanished, as if they had never existed. During this time, I discovered that others, including former social services workers, reported that my social worker had instructed them to lie and fabricate reports. Complaints to Parliament and the Health Ombudsman yielded no results. Despite my efforts to highlight that my daughter was among hundreds of thousands of children abducted and relocated far from their families, my correspondence was ignored or misdirected.

Complaints to Social Work England and the HCIP were ineffective, with both institutions refusing to investigate breaches of their code, claiming the social worker was not on their register despite being employed in Ashford.

Finally, in a recent statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer acknowledged the need to reform family law, stating that many legal cases, particularly in family law, should not go to court and that significant investments will be made to improve the system and reduce costs associated with children in care. This acknowledgment underscores the need for systemic reform and highlights the broader context of my ongoing struggle for justice.

Thank you for your attention to these urgent matters. I hope for a prompt and thorough investigation into the issues outlined.

RESPONSE FROM SANDRA ROBSON

Dear Mr Newbold,

I understand you contacted our Supporter Care Team this week regarding your complaint. I have therefore reviewed your contact with us as an appeal of the response to your complaint. There’s information about our complaints process here .

Reading through your emails, it’s clear that the circumstances around the care of your daughter have been extremely distressing for you. It’s also clear that the responsibility for Emily’s care has been with the Health and Social Care Trust and that decisions regarding this have been made by the Court. With this in mind, I am confident that we have responded to your contacts with us in line with our practice standards and with our responsibilities under safeguarding legislation and guidance. I also acknowledge that Emily is now an adult.

I believe that you have made complaints to the Health and Social Care Trust and there is the option to escalate this to the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman (nidirect.gov.uk) if you have not done so already.

You have raised some queries about the way that the NSPCC operates and how we spend our money; there is information about this here  which should answer those questions.

We will now consider this complaint closed and, as such, will not be able to enter into further correspondence about it. If you wish to pursue the complaint further, you can of course contact the Charity Commission to discuss that, there’s information about their role here .

I hope this helps to clarify our position and I wish you well.

Kind regards,

Sandra Robinson

Service Head – NSPCC Helpline

Reply to Service head.

Subject: Re: A-2741037, E-2707490, C183469 – NSPCC Complaint

9th August, 2024

Dear Ms. Robinson, NSPCC

Attachments

1 ) Gmail – Re_ E-2707490 C183469 NSPCC Complaint

2) 2024-07-30 CRIMINAL COMPLAINT Southern Care And Social Trust Ref SA 0106 5117 3GB

3) 2024-08-08 – letter to CPYS Laura Spiers Criminal Investigation SAO45398300GB

4) 2024-01-29 – To Colm Mcafferty  – THIS IS MY STATEMENT OF TRUTH Ref SA010651195GB

5) 2023-12-10 – Colm McCafferty Ref SA10756868GB

6) 2023-12-06 – Colm McCafferty(enclosures) Reference SA010756871GB

Just some of the letters I have written to this criminal entity above

CC: 

International Criminal Court
Oude Waalsdorperweg 10
2597 AK, The Hague
The Netherlands

Tel. +31 (0)70 515 8515
Fax +31 (0)70 515 8555

References https://thestealingofemily.org.uk/news

Thank you for your response.

I understand from your email that you have reviewed my complaint and believe that it has been handled in accordance with your practice standards and safeguarding legislation. However, I still have concerns regarding specific aspects of my complaint that were not fully addressed.

You mentioned that the responsibility for my daughter Emily’s care falls under the Health and Social Care Trust and that decisions were made by the Court. While I acknowledge this in part, my concerns also involve the actions and responses of the NSPCC in this context.

When I contacted East Sussex Children’s Services regarding the complaint (ref: 18971405), they clarified that, given my daughter’s correct date of birth, she is still considered a child. They indicated that if Emily were regarded as an adult, they would not be processing a complaint about her as I initially contacted Adult Social Services. This discrepancy contradicts the statement made by your staff that Emily is already considered an adult.

Additionally, it is important to note that an illegal closed material hearing was conducted by the Health and Social Care Trust. This hearing was conducted despite the illegality of relocating Emily 500 miles from her family, which exacerbates my concerns about the handling of her case.

I also note that you have ignored my letter to the ICC and ICJ, including the attached letters of criminal complaint. These documents, which were critical to my case, were not even considered in your response. Furthermore, you have not addressed the content available on the website thestealingofemily.co.uk, particularly the latest post from today, titled “Appeal to International Criminal Court: Unresolved Criminal Activities in Northern Ireland.”

You also did not consider the LAC notes that clearly state my daughter is being held in South Down, Newry, as detailed in the post titled “Addressing Ethical and Legal Concerns in South Down, Newry: Advocating for Accountability and Reform in Social Work Practices.”

I am attaching my original response to this communication, as your reply seems devoid of addressing the core content of my complaint.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Best Regards–

Kind Regards
Mr. Martin Newbold