The Stealing of Emily Institutional Fraud and Toxic Judicial Procedures

Polly Walsh
Customer Relations Manager
Customer Relations Team

Children’s Services
0345 60 80 192
2024-10-09
eastsussex.gov.uk

Complaint: The Stealing of Emily Institutional Fraud and Toxic Judicial Procedures

Your Reference ref: (15938249)

Dear Polly Walsh,

Thank you for your email. However, I have noticed that communications were sent to the following recipients:

have all been invalid, resulting in error 550. Does this not seem avoidant of your legal responsibilities? In fact, there have been recent communications with East Sussex and complaints going back 13 years regarding my daughter’s illegal abduction from her residence by systems that break the Care Acts. You have not addressed any of these:

Information Request (Ref: 19554222)

Copies of Communications:
Could you please provide me with copies of the communications sent to East Sussex County Council on the following dates and times:

Sunday, October 6, 2024, at 4:30 PM
Saturday, October 5, 2024, at 12:26 PM
Saturday, October 5, 2024, at 6:35 AM
Wednesday, October 2, 2024, at 2:16 PM
Friday, September 27, 2024, at 4:56 PM

Email Delivery Issues:
I have encountered several delivery errors when attempting to email the following addresses:

The error message received was: “550 Too many invalid recipients.” Could you kindly confirm if these individuals are still employed by ESCC or if there are alternative email addresses I should use to reach them?

Urgent Call to Action

I urge your office to answer the following questions:

It seems that your legal team is often offline, aloof, or incommunicado. I would like to inquire whether the handling of these legal letters to your principal legal team is merely a delay tactic?
What was the full legal basis behind Northern Ireland Social Services contacting Christine Stirling in the UK mainland?
Why was it necessary for social services to break jurisdiction and involve an external party, particularly when it led to the destruction of critical documents?
Who authorized this breach of jurisdiction, and what specific instructions were followed?
Will there be a thorough investigation into the altering of social work records, as whistleblowers have indicated that these manipulations influenced court outcomes? This is not only unethical but a violation of the standards expected of professionals tasked with protecting children.
How will your office ensure that the welfare of the children involved has not been compromised by the destruction of documents and the manipulation of social work reports? What steps are being taken to restore transparency and accountability in these cases?
Please
- A complete Family Man record related to my daughter’s case.
- A copy of any C110A form that has been filed.
- Documentation evidencing any court fees associated with the criminal proceedings against me or my daughter.
- A complete set of attendance notes with respect to my daughter since she has been in Northern Ireland.
- I note you are aware I have asked for a meeting with my daughter, but you can see Northern Ireland could not meet this obligation which now fails on your service?
Perhaps you can inform me why none of the agency or government departments could meet with my daughter. Perhaps she is not even there? As Newry could not even provide her legal DNA if my daughter is in Newry Northern Ireland illegally as you stated.

The parallels between this case and the Ultranet Scandal in Victoria, Australia, only heighten the urgency of a transparent inquiry. I request your office’s immediate attention to these issues, and I look forward to your thorough response.

Now, it is certain that the children’s director who travelled from East Sussex to Australia on 17th April 2013 was implicated in the Ultranet Scandal under IBAC’s investigations, as reported in the Geelong Advertiser. It was reported there was a “disturbing pattern of improper behaviour” in the Ultranet Scandal. Mr. Allman confirmed he dumped financial documents in a bin at a Bunnings Warehouse after IBAC investigators had been to his home. In phone-tapped conversations between Mr. Dunkley and Mr. Allman, dated October 2014, he is said to have said he had “destroyed evidence.” Dunkley can be heard saying to Allman: “Well, the thing is, you told me you fucking destroyed all the evidence as soon as you knew… the empire was gone, mate… you told me that you just fucking deleted that shit — got rid of it all, kept yourself ‘squeaky clean’. Once you knew this was going on.” Allman responds: “Yeah, I did… my gut feeling told me it was going to go belly up.” Does this not infer that there was a sanction in Dunkley’s head of destroying paperwork?

It should be noted that if someone with an OBE is involved in criminal activities or convicted of serious offences, it can lead to discussions or potential revocation of the honour. Comparisons with Jimmy Savile.

Does this not infer that there was a sanction in Dunkley’s head of destroying paperwork? It should be noted that if someone with an OBE is involved in criminal activities or convicted of serious offences, it can lead to discussions or potential revocation of the honour. Comparisons with Jimmy Saville.

Department of Education and Training south-west regional director Matthew Dunkley suspended as corruption probe continues | Geelong Advertiser
Geelong Advertiser
PressReader.com – Digital Newspaper & Magazine Subscriptions
PressReader

Department of Education and Training south-west regional director Matthew Dunkley was suspended as a corruption probe continues | Geelong Advertiser

The experienced social worker in Southern England who shared with a Sunday Express investigation the troubling reality of council managers exerting pressure on him and his colleagues to rewrite reports that are perceived as “too positive.” This distressing situation involves the demand for “more dirt” on parents, aiming to enhance the likelihood of obtaining court orders to place their children in care. These actions not only impact families but also serve to elevate councils’ Ofsted ratings. the Express Whistle blower is alleged by the Express the worry of having another Baby Peter Conoly on an authority’s hands had created a climate of fear that was destroying innocent families. He said These psychologists create such a high standard of for parenting that most of us would fail. The findings were last night described as a “national scandal” by one Lib Dem John Henning MP who was demanding a full Parliamentary inquiry into Britain’s child protection system.

Nishra Mansuri, of the British Association of Social Workers, expressed deep concern regarding the whistleblower’s comments, emphasizing the significant impact of budget cuts on social workers. She highlighted that t

he heightened pressure stemming from these cuts has led to a situation where crucial decision-making is compromised. Mansuri’s remarks underscore a pressing issue within the social work sector, shedding light on the critical need for sustainable support systems for social workers to ensure the welfare of those they serve.

Sexed up reports and psychobabble are happening as a direct consequence on social workers to provide children into this oppressive system and the correct decisions are not being made. Why wont the government and its paymasters release information in regard to the cohort that it states would or should never be in family court. Why are they not releasing this. Courts are being asked to make claims on biased improper or information which is sexed up reports. Children need to be in their families. They are told to make things look bad change the Emphasis of all reports making the family looks problematic. The paymaster experts are too busy collecting their pay-packet leaving social workers to write these reports under a non de plume calling it nebulous abuse in the form of a cloud or hazy vague or ill-defined report.

In a news story by TED JEORY 00:00, Sun, Dec 11, 2011 it was said Social workers ‘sex up abuse claims to snatch children for adoption’ SOCIAL workers are regularly “sexing up” dossiers on problem parents to remove children into care and even to farm them out for adoption, a whistleblower reveals today. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/289232/Social-workers-sex-up-abuse-claims-to-snatch-children-for-adoption.

It is deeply concerning that discussions surrounding children’s welfare are couched in market terms, reducing them to mere commodities. Instances such as Coram’s reference to children as “stock” in their minutes underscore the pervasive commodification of vulnerable individuals within institutional frameworks. Such dehumanizing language underscores the urgent need for a paradigm shift in how we conceptualize and approach children’s welfare.

I understand the concern about the impact of biased and sensationalized reports on social workers’ decision-making in the family court system. It is crucial for all parties involved to have access to accurate and unbiased information to ensure that the best interests of the children and families are upheld. The lack of transparency and the use of manipulated or exaggerated reports can indeed undermine the integrity of the decision-making process within the family court system.

I previously asked you to note this court judgment before The Honourable Mr.JUSTICE COBB, Neutral Citation Number: [2021] EWFC 76 Case No: ZC20P01589] (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/HCJ/2021/76.html), where it was stated under 49: Section 31F (6) of the 1984 Act is most likely to be deployed in a children’s case where the relief sought is the rescission of an earlier order (as here). The Family Court has wide powers under the CA 1989 to vary or indeed discharge its own order where it can be demonstrated that the circumstances have changed, and the interests of the child require variation or discharge of the court-ordered arrangements.

In determining an application for variation or discharge under the CA 1989, the child’s welfare will unquestionably be paramount; this may influence the jurisdictional route which the applicant chooses to take. Having considered the arguments and the case law above, it seems to me that the principles by which the court will determine whether to exercise its power to rescind (or, where applicable, vary, suspend or revive) an earlier order under section 31F (6) of the 1984 Act are as follows:

The first point of reference should be whether one of the ‘traditional grounds’ for the proposed review has been established:
a) Fraud,
b) Mistake,
c) Innocent (or otherwise) misstatement of the facts on which the original decision was made;
d) Material non-disclosure;
e) A new event or material change of circumstances which invalidates the basis, or fundamental assumption, upon which the order was made;
f) If the order contains undertakings;

Moreover, I bring your attention to events involving the Northern Ireland Children’s Commissioner. As certain mechanisms in English law exist to rescind an order, then why would I not expect the Northern Ireland Children’s Commissioner to act in good faith and have an active position as a fraud, mistake, innocent (or otherwise) misstatement of the facts on which the original decision was made or otherwise to then rescind orders? Perhaps this must be an indication of something else that she/he is not at either place or house to be incommunicado or impeached.

In respect to a judge’s jurisdiction, my complaint is an applicable approach that should be set out by Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury: In re B (a Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33; [2013] 1 WLR 1911, namely whether the judge’s conclusion on proportionality was wrong. As Lord Neuberger stated on appeal from Trinity Term [2013] UKSC 33 [2012] EWCA Civ 1475, JUDGMENT 12 June 2013 in the matter of B (a Child) (FC) at paras 91-92.

David Cameron has publicly said there are too many children in care and that the adoption or care process needs streamlining, but critics say the real issue is about why so many youngsters are taken into care in the first place. The experienced social worker in Southern England who shared with a Sunday Express investigation stated, “Now it is certain that the children’s director who travelled from East Sussex to Australia on 17th April 2013 was implicated in the Ultranet Scandal under IBAC’s investigations, as reported on the Geelong Advertiser, where it was reported there was a ‘Disturbing pattern of improper behaviour’ in the Ultranet Scandal. Mr. Allman confirmed he dumped financial documents in a bin at a Bunnings Warehouse after IBAC investigators had been to his home, in phone-tapped conversations between Mr. Dunkley and Mr. Allman dated October 2014. He is said to have said he had “destroyed evidence.” Dunkley can be heard saying to Allman: “Well, the thing is you told me you fucking destroyed all the evidence as soon as you knew … the empire was gone, mate … you told me that you just fucking deleted that shit — got rid of it all, kept yourself ‘squeaky clean’. Once you knew this was going on.” Allman responds: “Yeah, I did … my gut feeling told me it was going to go belly up.” Does this not infer that there was a sanction in Dunkley’s head of destroying paperwork? It should be noted that if someone with an OBE is involved in criminal activities or convicted of serious offences, it can lead to discussions or potential revocation of the honour. Comparisons with Jimmy Saville.

Summary of Institutional Failings and Family Background

Emily’s story begins with significant upheaval rooted in her mother, Cathryn Louise Gummerson’s tumultuous life. Born in East Sussex in 1972, Cathryn faced instability from an early age, allegedly spending part of her childhood in care. By the mid-1990s, her struggles escalated, leading to her children being placed into care due to concerns for their safety. Cathryn’s subsequent relationships were marked by further instability and challenges, which created an environment rife with trauma and insecurity.

Emily’s early life was heavily influenced by her mother’s struggles, leading to a lack of consistent support and care. This instability continued as Emily became involved with various social services, which failed to provide her with the necessary protection and support. Despite numerous reports and interventions, the systems in place often fell short, leading to further complications in Emily’s life.

The institutional failings are not isolated incidents but rather reflect a systemic issue within social services that has repeatedly failed to address the needs of vulnerable children. Communication breakdowns, lack of accountability, and inadequate response to safeguarding concerns contributed to a situation where Emily’s well-being was compromised. Moreover, instances of miscommunication among professionals and neglect of crucial evidence have hindered her ability to receive the care she desperately needed.

There have been numerous attempts to reach out to the Northern Ireland Children’s Commissioner to address these issues and advocate for Emily’s rights. Despite these efforts, there has been a significant lack of engagement from the Commissioner’s office. The following is a list of letters sent to the Northern Ireland Children’s Commissioner that failed to elicit a meeting with my daughter or any meaningful response:

List of Letters Sent to the Northern Ireland Children’s Commissioner

Letter dated January 15, 2023: This letter outlined Emily’s case, emphasizing the urgency of her situation and requesting an immediate meeting to discuss her welfare and the failures of the existing care arrangements.
Letter dated February 28, 2023: A follow-up communication reiterating the concerns expressed in the previous letter and seeking clarification on the Commissioner’s role in safeguarding children in similar situations.
Letter dated April 10, 2023: Highlighted new developments in Emily’s case and requested an urgent review of her circumstances, along with a meeting to discuss potential interventions.
Letter dated June 5, 2023: Provided additional documentation and reports illustrating the ongoing issues Emily faced and requested a direct meeting to address these concerns comprehensively.
Letter dated September 20, 2023: A formal complaint regarding the lack of response from the Commissioner’s office and the apparent failure to engage with Emily’s case, underscoring the urgency of action needed.
Letter dated November 15, 2023: An appeal for accountability and transparency in the handling of Emily’s case, urging the Commissioner to take a proactive stance in ensuring her rights and well-being are prioritized.
Letter dated January 10, 2024: A final attempt to engage the Commissioner, summarizing the ongoing failings of the system and the need for a direct conversation to advocate for Emily’s welfare and rights.

These letters represent a persistent effort to seek help for Emily and highlight the inadequate response from the Northern Ireland Children’s Commissioner. The absence of a meeting or substantive engagement only exacerbates the sense of neglect felt by Emily and her family as they navigate a system designed to protect but often fails to do so.

To date, there has been no reply from the Northern Ireland Commissioner that addresses these critical concerns. It raises serious questions about the accountability of the systems in place. It comes to my mind that you are paying for these services, and this has currently placed the Local Authority in a debt of £45 million, which is projected to rise to £85 million next year. Both the Irish Times and TUSLA have stated that the care system in Northern Ireland is not fit for service.

Do I ascertain from the dismissive email you provided, Karen, that you are content with these services being funded for substandard care that continues to expose children to risks from harm and predators? The implications of such complacency are profound and demand urgent attention and action.

Kind Regards
Mr. Martin Newbold

thestealingofemily.co.uk