Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People
Equality House, 7-9 Shaftesbury Square, Belfast, BT2 7DP

Subject: Re: Complaints Procedures and Communication

2024-09-11

Dear Alex Tennant and Scott Robinson,

Thank you for providing the link to NICCY’s complaints procedures. I will review the document and submit my formal complaint to both of you, as instructed, given the current absence of a Chief Executive at NICCY.

My primary intention has always been to address the serious issues concerning my daughter’s welfare and to highlight broader systemic issues.

1. Jurisdictional Authority and Court Orders:

The court proceedings related to my daughter’s case were initiated in England as Emily was born in East Sussex. However, the court order subsequently placed my daughter in a precarious setting in Northern Ireland which was a kangaroo court . The Local Authority conducted a Closed Material Hearing in Northern Ireland, not a standard court case. No parent could  attend one being deceased. This distinction is important for understanding the jurisdictional and procedural aspects of my concerns. I also asked McGurk to clarify the legality of these proceedings with the House of Lords, but there was no mention or response regarding this point.  

You mentioned the need for clarity on whether the court proceedings related to my daughter’s case occurred in Northern Ireland or England. To clarify, the proceedings were initiated in England, but the court order placed my daughter in a setting in Northern Ireland. This context is crucial for understanding the cross-jurisdictional nature of my concerns. Additionally, the Local Authority conducted a Closed Material Hearing in Northern Ireland, not a court case. I should also point out that the flawed English Special Guardianship Order (SGO) left my child destitute, and Newry Social Services did nothing to engage or provide a proper assessment. Since then, they have only provided one LAC (Looked After Children) meeting in 13 years. It is believed that the Keenan family  did not take Emily upon the death of SGO making her intentionally destitute, only the other child who is English and born of a previous relationship in Reading not by Keenan who has lied and is now believed deceased This child has brothers and sisters from this relationship. which she has no knowledge about.

The previous Director of Children Services Newry blamed East Sussex for his position before he lost this position in due process of this complaint.

2. Specifics on Court Orders:

You mentioned the need for clarity on whether the court proceedings related to my daughter’s case occurred in Northern Ireland or England. To clarify, the proceedings were initiated in England, but the court order placed my daughter in a setting in Northern Ireland. This context is crucial for understanding the cross-jurisdictional nature of my concerns. Additionally, the Local Authority conducted a Closed Material Hearing in Northern Ireland, not a court case. Absent from any parent one who had passed with ‘blood on their hands’ East Sussex County Council. I should also point out the flawed English Court SGO had passed leaving my child destitute more than 50 miles from her family she was born into. Newry Social Services did nothing to engage or provide a proper assessment. Since that time, they have only provided one LAC (Looked After Children) meeting in 13 years.

While NICCY correctly identifies its legislative remit, my concerns extend to the oversight of how court orders are implemented and monitored by public bodies. Specifically, I am concerned with whether these bodies are fulfilling their obligations under both English and Northern Ireland laws, and whether the implementation of these court orders adheres to legal and procedural standards. The effectiveness and legality of the implementation of these court orders are central to my concerns. According to guidance on judicial conduct, you can use the ombudsman if you are not happy with the way a complaint about a judge, magistrate, tribunal member, or coroner was handled. This approach emphasizes the ombudsman’s role in addressing concerns related to the conduct and oversight of judicial decisions and the implementation of court orders.  

3. NI and England Law Breach:

Neither child involved in this case was born in Ireland. My daughter Emily was born in East Sussex. A report by Social Services, included in the books provided to McGurk, states from an unquestionable Social Services Report from when Lauren’s mother was in England stated that Lauren traveled with her mother to Northern Ireland as from the birth of  another man in Reading, not Gerard Keenan. This breach of both English and Northern Ireland law was not addressed by Ms. McGurk, who only mentioned that NICCY cannot investigate court conduct. I am aware of this situation of remote care and improper care from Newry Social Services, as described by the Irish Times as ‘Not fit for purpose’, is costing the East Sussex Local Authority 330,000 Euros a year  per child and is factored out at around 9-10 million pounds per Local Authority as remote care finance. I should not have to point out that paying for an abduction of a child or children is not only human trafficking but a criminal offense. 

4. Involvement of NIPSO:

I understand that NIPSO is investigating the Health and Social Trust’s conduct. However, this does not negate NICCY’s role in addressing broader issues related to children’s welfare and public authority actions. I asked NICCY to firstly meet with my daughter; no indication has ever been made as to why this failed to occur and why my kind messages were not placed in her hands. My only assumption is that my daughter, who is among the 500,000 children (or approximately 330,000) described as being in urgent need of support, could not be contacted due to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).  

5. Mental Health Crisis:

The recent review by Lord Darzi and the NSPCC’s figures on mental health support highlight a crisis affecting nearly 500,000 children. This underscores the need for NICCY’s proactive role in safeguarding children’s rights and addressing systemic failures. The report by Lord Darzi, as detailed by Sky News, reveals a critical situation where nearly 500,000 children and young people are on waiting lists for mental health support, with 160,000 of these individuals waiting for over 12 months. This staggering figure reflects a broader crisis that requires immediate and comprehensive action. Source: Sky News. If these are all identified as  Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Would this not be as said by The English Children’s Commissioner in BBC article as There is no data available for Northern Ireland where DoLs for children are rarely used and described as “absolutely horrific” and a “national scandal” Why is it the Northern Ireland Children’s Commissioner can not agree ?

6. Ombudsman’s Approach:

The ombudsman’s approach to determining complaints is based on what is “fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.” This means that each complaint is decided on its specific circumstances, and there is no single definition for what is fair and reasonable. This approach emphasizes the ombudsman’s role in addressing complaints with a focus on fairness and reasonableness.

7. Website Reference:

For additional context, I have posted details on my website outlining the broader challenges I face, particularly regarding data protection and stakeholder engagement at Southern Regional College. This context is crucial for understanding the systemic issues at play. There has not unlike the Southern Health and Children’s Trust been a response to my Information Request DAP/SAR or the equivalence ignorance of Information request on The Southern Regional College. I should not need to point out these are both legal procedures regarding data. which has not been forthcoming there only statement from Donna Hughes being 

“Should an external agency wish to request this information directly from the College via the appropriate formal channels, the College will of course adhere to our statutory and legal obligations in respect of provision of information.” 

Which is taken to mean that they will not open a dialogue with parents or members of the public. This is strange when taken in context that they appear to have no contactable  principal not teaching faculty of Clerical person parents Teachers Association or Councillor. Just sixteen sales professionals. I have to wonder what they are selling?

8. Blocking Content on X (formerly Twitter):

Blocking my content on X seems a disproportionate response and does not facilitate constructive dialogue. I believe transparency and engagement are crucial in addressing these issues.

9. Request for Review and Action:

I urge NICCY to reconsider its stance in light of its legal obligations and the severity of the issues raised. The effective oversight of children’s rights and public authority conduct remains a priority.

Thank you for your assistance and for guiding me through the complaints process. I look forward to resolving these important matters through the proper channels and appreciate your support in this process.

On the 11th September 2024 I wrote with explanation to two points

Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People
Equality House, 7-9 Shaftesbury Square, Belfast, BT2 7DP

Subject: Re: Complaints Procedures and Communication

2024-09-11

Dear Alex Tennant and Scott Robinson,

Thank you for confirming the receipt of my email on September 11, 2024, and for assigning the case number NICCY09/24-01. I appreciate your attention to this matter.

1.) Kangeroo Court.
I would like to clarify the context behind my use of the term “kangaroo court.” This term was not used lightly but in reference to what I view as a farcical legal process orchestrated by the Local Authority with the aim of abducting my children. It began when I sought a residence order in court, attempting to manage a difficult situation at home. My partner, who had been prescribed anti-depressants for her mental health struggles, had spiraled out of control, spending household money on alcohol to cope with her depression. We were unable to meet bills, and this situation offered no hope for the future.

At this point, I made the difficult decision, with the support of my mother and others advocating for us, to take my daughter temporarily and file for residency. This was not intended to create division in the family but rather to alleviate the strain we were all under. However, the social worker, Christine Elizabeth Stirling, used this situation to her advantage, coercing my partner and manipulating the proceedings, which I have outlined in my article linked here.

At this stage in the court process, expert witness reports were submitted, and all were favorable to my case. However, Christine Elizabeth Stirling abruptly interrupted the hearing and claimed that these expert statements were worthless. She then presented to the court a series of statements gathered through coercion, attempting to shift the outcome in favor of the Local Authority.

Things seemed to be moving in their favor until a chance conversation between the social worker and my solicitor was overheard outside the hearing. When we returned to court, I requested permission to call my solicitor to the stand to reveal what had been discussed outside. Under oath, he claimed he could not remember what had transpired less than ten minutes earlier. As a result, he was dismissed on the spot, and Judge Hollis stepped in to act as my legal advisor, or McKenzie friend.

I then called Christine Elizabeth Stirling to the stand and asked her the same question regarding her conversation with my solicitor. Remarkably, she also claimed she could not remember the discussion.

Stirling also requested additional expert reports, which clearly reflected her input, despite the fact that my meetings with these experts had been positive. She submitted attendance notes and fabricated statements showing her presence at the experts’ offices just before my appointments with them. It became evident that she had intervened with the court’s experts without any valid reason.

When I questioned her on the stand under oath about these meetings, she again stated that she could not remember. Seeing that she was struggling, Judge Hollis excused her from further questioning, stating that she was overworked. However, the judge also ruled that her evidence could not be used and ordered that a new expert from Action for Children be brought in for the case.

I then began supervised meetings with my daughter Emily, alongside the court-appointed contact through Action for Children. These meetings went well. We played together, and I took care of her during our time, with the observer expressing satisfaction with my care. However, something strange happened when we were asked to leave the building through the back entrance after the session, which I found unusual but complied with.

As we were leaving through the back door with Jenny Loyd, we saw Christine Elizabeth Stirling entering the center through this same rear entrance. I asked Jenny Loyd what Christine Elizabeth Stirling was doing there at Action for Children in Hastings, and in a moment of clarity, Jenny Loyd informed me that Christine Elizabeth Stirling was at Action for Children to write the expert report for the court.

When we returned to court, Christine handed in this document, which she had written but had signed with someone else’s name. Judge Hollis refused to address the issue, stating that this matter belonged in a criminal court, but provided no guidance on how to pursue that.

From this point, things worsened significantly. Despite the lack of evidence, a decision was made to place the children under a Special Guardianship Order (SGO) with individuals from another country whom the children had never met. Documents were submitted to the court from Newry Police, indicating that the SGO recipient was unsuitable, known to the police for criminal damage and assault, and was pending prosecution. An emergency meeting was held with Judge Hollis in Brighton Court, but during this time, the social worker had flown to Newry and made all of these charges disappear. It is also alleged that she created false birth certificates and tampered with the General Register Office (GRO) records. The Brighton court was then provided with false documents indicating that there were no issues with the SGO’s criminal background.

During this time 2009-2010, four separate appeals were made to the Appeal Court, all of which were rejected, and the court refused to intercede.  

A summary of the key legal issues involved in your case, based on the information provided:

1. Coercion and Manipulation of Court Proceedings

• Allegation: Social worker Christine Elizabeth Stirling is accused of manipulating evidence by coercing individuals and presenting fabricated statements. The claim is that she intervened in the preparation of expert reports, which is highly irregular and could violate due process.
• Legal Issue: If evidence was coerced or fabricated, this violates the principles of fairness and integrity in legal proceedings, potentially leading to a miscarriage of justice. It also raises concerns of professional misconduct by the social worker.

2. Tampering with Expert Testimony

• Allegation: Stirling submitted expert reports she allegedly influenced, and later handed in a document falsely attributed to someone else. This was not addressed by the family court.
• Legal Issue: Presenting falsified evidence or influencing expert testimony can constitute perjury, fraud, and obstruction of justice. If true, such actions would not only undermine the legal process but could also result in criminal charges against the individuals involved.

3. Failure of the Court to Investigate Criminal Allegations

• Allegation: Judge Hollis identified the falsified expert report but refused to address it in family court, suggesting it should be dealt with in criminal court, yet no guidance was provided on how to pursue this.
• Legal Issue: The court’s failure to address clear indications of criminal behavior (fraudulent reports, perjury) raises questions about the adequacy of the judicial response. Family courts typically focus on civil matters, but if criminal conduct is identified, appropriate referrals to criminal courts should be made.

4. Special Guardianship Order (SGO) Placement with Individuals with Criminal Backgrounds

• Allegation: The children were placed under a Special Guardianship Order with individuals from another country, despite evidence from the police that the SGO recipients had pending criminal charges. It is alleged that the social worker facilitated the removal of these charges from police records.
• Legal Issue: The placement of children with unsuitable guardians who have a criminal background could breach child protection laws and raise serious safeguarding concerns. Additionally, the alleged tampering with police records to facilitate this decision constitutes a criminal offense, likely involving misconduct in public office or fraud.

5. Appeal Court’s Failure to Intercede

• Allegation: Despite multiple appeals, the Appeal Court refused to intervene in the case.
• Legal Issue: If legitimate legal grounds for appeal (e.g., procedural errors, fraud, coercion) were presented and dismissed without proper examination, this could be a failure of the justice system to provide appropriate oversight. The refusal of the Appeal Court to intercede may warrant further investigation if due process was not properly followed.

---

Potential Legal Violations:

• Fraud and Perjury: In relation to the falsified expert reports and fabricated statements.
• Obstruction of Justice: If there was deliberate manipulation or destruction of evidence.
• Misconduct in Public Office: By the social worker, if she abused her position to manipulate court proceedings and influence the outcome.
• Safeguarding Failures: Placing children in an unsafe environment with unsuitable guardians.

Legal recourse could involve criminal investigations, potential civil suits for professional misconduct, or further appeals in higher courts (or international courts if local remedies are exhausted).

This summary can help clarify the potential legal pathways and challenges involved. Let me know if you need further detail!.

My complaint involves serious concerns about the conduct and decisions of the Southern Health and Social Care Trust, specifically regarding their failure to comply with data protection regulations and legal obligations. Despite numerous letters of complaint, the Trust has not provided a satisfactory resolution or reinstated Emily’s lawful contact. Furthermore, the Trust’s rulings have breached the 50-mile rule concerning the placement of children more than 50 miles from their parents.

The issues also extend to the Trust’s failure to address breaches of Section 10 and Section 50 of the relevant regulations. The Trust’s lack of transparency and accountability has exacerbated the situation, impacting Emily’s well-being and the integrity of the legal process.

Additionally, I have been referred to the General Regulatory Council (GRC) directly by Carly at ICO and instructed to raise these issues again with case officer Alex Wheeler.

I urge NICCY to review this case thoroughly and provide a comprehensive response that addresses the failures and breaches outlined. Please let me know if you require any additional information to facilitate this review.

In respect to the Closed Material Procedure Hearing, There is a description of this in my book entitled the same in the series of The Stealing Emily Closed Material Procedures ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-1666407280 

The procedure operated in Northern Ireland by Southern Trust was unlawful when the SGO died unexpectedly due to liver failure the Southern Health And Social Care Trust had a duty to make aware of all parents . A letter came from a Social Worker in Newry . who did not make herself available  to my family and instead when finally tracked down on the spot informed me in a telephone call that she would breach GDPR and contact  Christine Stirling in England  when this was no longer within her jurisdiction

2. Closed Material Procedure (CMP) Issues:

In this case of Emily described in your book “The Stealing of Emily: Closed Material Procedures” (ISBN: 978-1-66640-728-0), the Southern Health and Social Care Trust in Northern Ireland was found to have conducted the CMP unlawfully. Specific issues include:

1. Unlawful CMP Procedure:
   • The CMP was deemed unlawful, particularly following the unexpected death of the Special Guardianship Order (SGO) due to liver failure.
2. Duty to Inform:
   • The Southern Health and Social Care Trust had a legal obligation to inform all relevant parties, including parents, about the SGO’s death. The Trust’s failure to do so breached this duty.
3. Failure to Provide Court-Appointed Contact:
   • The Trust did not provide a court-appointed contact, which would have been crucial in offering support and ensuring communication between the Trust and Emily’s family. The lack of this contact significantly impacted Emily’s health and well-being, as such a role would have played a vital part in addressing her needs and facilitating necessary support.
4. Failure of Social Worker:
   • A social worker from Newry failed to make herself available to the family. When eventually contacted, she indicated she would breach GDPR regulations by attempting to contact Christine Stirling in England, despite this being outside her jurisdiction.
5. Lack of Honest Response and Complaints Handling:
   • Once the CMP was conducted, the Trust did not respond honestly to any points raised. Numerous letters of complaint were filed, yet the Trust did not reinstate Emily’s lawful contact or provide an explanation for how their rulings breached the 50-mile rule of a local authority holding a child more than 50 miles from their parents. This lack of transparency and failure to address the complaints effectively exacerbated the situation.

Legal Concerns:

1. Unlawful CMP Procedure:
   • Conducting a CMP in a manner that does not adhere to legal standards compromises the fairness and legality of the process.
2. Failure to Inform:
   • The Trust’s failure to properly inform all relevant parties about the SGO’s death breaches legal and ethical obligations.
3. Lack of Court-Appointed Contact:
   • The absence of a court-appointed contact deprived Emily of essential support and effective communication, which could have positively influenced her health and well-being. This omission highlights a significant procedural lapse that undermined the effectiveness of the care and legal processes.
4. GDPR Breach:
   • The social worker’s decision to breach GDPR regulations by attempting to contact Christine Stirling outside her jurisdiction raises serious concerns about data protection and jurisdictional authority.

Complaint IC-285793-B2Z0: This initial complaint was filed concerning breaches of data protection regulations. Despite submitting comprehensive documentation, I have not received a satisfactory resolution.

Complaint IC-292644-B2S7: My new complaint highlights further breaches, specifically related to Sections 10 and 50. I have included the ICO compliance document for your reference.

Additionally, Carly from the ICO referred me to the GRC for further action. I have been instructed to raise these concerns directly with you.These issues underscore the importance of adherence to legal and procedural standards in sensitive cases to ensure justice, proper support, and compliance with legal norms.

1. Failure to Address Complaints:
   • The Trust’s lack of honest response to complaints and failure to reinstate lawful contact, coupled with their disregard for the 50-mile rule, further undermines the integrity of the process. This lack of transparency and accountability exacerbates the impact on Emily and raises serious concerns about the Trust’s compliance with legal and procedural standards.

These issues underscore the critical need for adherence to legal and procedural standards in sensitive cases to ensure justice, proper support, and compliance with legal norms.

Urgent intervention is needed to address these unresolved issues.  

Your sincerely

Martin Newbold

Recent posts

• September 6, 2024Challenges in Data Protection and Stakeholder Engagement at Southern Regional College
• March 26, 2024THE STEALING OF EMILY – Closed Material Procedures (‘secret courts’).
• September 6, 2024Potential Criminal Concerns at Southern Regional College: Need for Investigation
• September 6, 2024Urgent Assistance Needed: Resolving Data Protection and Stakeholder Engagement Issues at Southern Regional College

If these articles have impacted you, please be courageous and comment on the page. If you have faced legal frustrations, consider adding your case to those who feel the system is broken. Please note that this is on a secure server and requires validation data, which will be compared with the Family man database to ensure submissions can be verified. Do not hold back your emotions; this situation is truly horrific and evil. If you are not seeing the survey below this might mean you need to try a different Internet browser:

The Stealing of Emily – Review of cases for illegal Separation. | Crowdsignal.com (survey)