By Martin Newbold
19 years. That’s how long I’ve been fighting.
Nineteen years of false documents, missing children, hidden funds, doors slammed shut, and papers that vanish. Nineteen years of being told “it’s being looked into” — and seeing nothing happen. Nineteen years of watching the same pattern repeat itself, over and over, in my case and in others.
I am not writing this because I believe the courts will suddenly fix it. I am writing it because the truth deserves to be known — whether they act on it or not.
What happened to Emily — and to her sisters
Emily was taken from me. I was her father. I was caring for her. I got her into school. Yet the Section 47 enquiries that are legally required before a child is removed — they were never properly carried out.
The Blair government did not simply introduce a computer database. Between 1998 and the early 2000s it created a national management framework for children’s social services combining government objectives, performance targets, conditional grants, standardised assessments, record keeping, management information and placement/adoption policy. The Integrated Children’s System was the electronic and procedural framework that grew out of that programme.
When Tony Blair came to power in 1997, his government did not merely inherit children’s services and leave them unchanged. It deliberately expanded and reorganised them. In September 1998, Labour launched Quality Protects, introducing for the first time national objectives and specific performance targets for children’s social services, backed by a £375 million special grant to local authorities. Parliament described this as a new framework for changing the management and delivery of children’s services. Hansard
Education was brought directly into that framework. Quality Protects included an objective requiring looked-after children to receive the maximum educational benefit available to them, while government simultaneously began collecting new national data on the educational outcomes of children in care. Hansard
Blair’s wider programme was explicitly about combining increased public spending with reform, targets, performance management and new relationships between the public and private sectors. In his 1997 Labour conference speech he announced what he called the largest public/private partnership in any education system anywhere in the world, while promising targets for schools and intervention in failing authorities. The Guardian
From 2000 onward, this children’s-services machinery was developed further into the Integrated Children’s System: a common system of assessment, recording, planning, review and management information covering children in need and children looked after by councils.
The argument that then needs examining is the financial one: once councils could pay substantial sums for children’s placements—including privately provided education or residential provision—the combination of public money, private providers, performance targets and an increasingly comprehensive information system created financial relationships around children that had not previously existed in the same form. When Tony Blair came to power in 1997, his government did not merely inherit children’s services and leave them unchanged. It deliberately expanded and reorganised them. In September 1998, Labour launched Quality Protects, introducing for the first time national objectives and specific performance targets for children’s social services, backed by a £375 million special grant to local authorities. Parliament described this as a new framework for changing the management and delivery of children’s services. Hansard
Education was brought directly into that framework. Quality Protects included an objective requiring looked-after children to receive the maximum educational benefit available to them, while government simultaneously began collecting new national data on the educational outcomes of children in care. Hansard
Blair’s wider programme was explicitly about combining increased public spending with reform, targets, performance management and new relationships between the public and private sectors. In his 1997 Labour conference speech he announced what he called the largest public/private partnership in any education system anywhere in the world, while promising targets for schools and intervention in failing authorities. The Guardian
From 2000 onward, this children’s-services machinery was developed further into the Integrated Children’s System: a common system of assessment, recording, planning, review and management information covering children in need and children looked after by councils.
The argument that then needs examining is the financial one: once councils could pay substantial sums for children’s placements—including privately provided education or residential provision—the combination of public money, private providers, performance targets and an increasingly comprehensive information system created financial relationships around children that had not previously existed in the same form.
What the official record establishes is the sequence: Blair government → expansion and restructuring of children’s services → Quality Protects funding and targets → education outcomes incorporated into care policy → increased use of management information → development of ICS. What still has to be demonstrated from the funding documents is the stronger proposition that the system financially rewarded particular councils or providers for taking individual children into care or placing them in private schools. https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1999-12-09/debates/e9c66d44-6238-4d5f-9127-a4ca85df6ae9/ChildrenInCare and
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/1997/oct/01/speeches1
| THE FUNDAMENTAL DOCUMENTS THAT WERE FAKED — AND EVERY CHANNEL THAT FAILED |
By Martin Newbold
September 2026
These are the facts — plain and unvarnished.
Form C13, Form C1, the new C102A — these are fundamental court documents. They are supposed to be truthful. They are supposed to be accurate. They are served onto the case to establish who is who and what is real.
| In my case — they were falsified. |
False names. False parentage. False identities. Gerard Keenan named as father — no connection whatsoever. David Cunningham — the true father — erased. Catherine Peters — the true mother — erased. Both dead before they ever knew their own children were placed under strangers’ names.
In the Form C13 created 02/02/2010 at 12:56 by fax and signed by an indistinct signature and no name state “Little is known about Mr Keenan or his family.” also the checkbox the child(ren) beyond parental control is unticked. Ticked against is “the care given to the child(ren) if the order where not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to the child(ren)”
Yet Form C1 of same day 02/02/2010 with crown stamped at 12:55 by fax gives Mr Keenans full name and address 226 Barcroft Park, Newry, Newry City, County Down, Norther Ireland stating incorrectly Mr Gerard Keenan is father of Lauren, and I, Mr Newbold are step-father of Lauren both of these statements are factually incorrect I had no parental responsibility for Lauren.
and states that Gerard Keenan is Lauren’s father and that Martin Newbold is Lauren’s step-father.
I contend that both statements are factually incorrect. Gerard Keenan was not Lauren’s father, and I was not Lauren’s step-father. I also had no parental responsibility for Lauren.
The obvious evidential question is therefore:
How could one form say at 12:56 that “little is known about Mr Keenan or his family”, while another form from the same day, apparently transmitted one minute earlier, gives his full name, address and purported parental status?
A further question follows:
What evidence was relied upon to identify Mr Keenan as Lauren’s father and me as her step-father, and who supplied that information?
However, we know these factually incorrect statements bare the names
This wasn’t a mistake. This was deliberate. And I haven’t sat silent — I have taken this to every single authority there is. Every reference below is a paper trail. Every number is proof I did everything the system told me to do.
| EVERY CASE — EVERY REFERENCE — EVERY BODY |
🏛️ FAMILY COURT
- Hastings Family Court — HB10C00055
- Form C13 — falsified paternity
- Form C1 — falsified details
- Form C102A — served online — false information on public record
⚖️ CIVIL & FRAUD
- Online Civil Money Claim — Claim No: 640MC413
- Martin Newbold v Nationwide Building Society
- Serious Fraud Office — Refs: c98c91180d570dc · 5e118dc08da84da · NFRC241207046189
📝 DATA PROTECTION & INFORMATION
- ICO — IC-337307-W2B4
- ICO — IC-362648-R4R7
- ICO — IC-387636-L3F2
🌏 INTERNATIONAL & OVERSEAS ANTI-CORRUPTION
- IBAC & OVIC — CASE-20246844
- IBAC Formal Complaint — F243411550406 (24 Dec 2024)
- OVIC — CD/25/5885 (11 Feb 2025) · C/25/00916
- United Nations Human Rights — Ref: 2025-0012619 CRM:0221975
🏢 LOCAL GOVERNMENT & NEGLIGENCE
- Formal Negligence — East Sussex County Council — 19567481
- Local Authority Ref — 19567481
- LGSO — 24012899 · 24/351 · 24/365
- OPNI — PONI 50239746-2024
- Standards Committee — PCS183
| SOCIAL WORKERS CREATED FALSE BIRTH CERTIFICATE & RECORDS |
1. Beyond the Liverpool Register Office mismatch, social workers directly created and/or issued false documentation in Lauren’s name, including a fabricated birth certificate that does not reflect her true identity or true parentage.
2. Multiple false versions of Lauren’s birth record exist:
- True record: Lauren Louise PETERS — Register C39D, Entry 098, Liverpool — mother: Catherine Peters — father: David Daniel Cunningham (omitted)
- False Record 1: Lauren Louise MIELLO — Certificate BCS 290647 — issued in place of true record — different name, different parental details — conflated deliberately
- False Record 2: Separate fabricated birth certificate — created/distributed by social workers — containing false details, false names, and false parentage — never registered lawfully
2.3 This is not an administrative error. The creation of multiple conflicting birth documents — including one prepared or circulated by social workers — was done to:
- ✅ Hide that David Daniel Cunningham was the true father
- ✅ Hide that Catherine Peters was the true mother
- ✅ Justify placing Gerard Keenan as a false father on Form C13
- ✅ Disconnect Lauren from her siblings Paige, Daniel, and Emily
- ✅ Prevent the true family from ever being identified or reunited
| THE TRUTH BEHIND THE NUMBERS |
Every single reference above means:
- ✅ I followed every proper procedure
- ✅ I filed formal complaints at every level
- ✅ I escalated to independent watchdogs
- ✅ I took it to international human rights bodies
- ✅ I named financial institutions and fraud authorities
- ❌ And still — the false documents stand.
Form C13 is supposed to be the foundation of the case. It tells the court who the parents are. When that is falsified — everything built on top is rotten.
C1, C102A — all served, all filed, all carrying false information. The system accepted it all without question. And when I challenged it — I was ignored, fobbed off, shunted between bodies, and hit with £7,000 costs.
| THIS IS NOT ONE PERSON’S COMPLAINT |
This is a paper trail across continents and authorities — all saying the same thing:
- Fundamental legal documents falsified
- True parents erased; false names inserted
- Children separated; funds unaccounted for
- Every official channel pursued — no proper investigation
- Juliette Lewin — same pattern, same silence, same 19 years
If every reference above does not prove something is deeply broken — what will?
They can ignore me. They can lose my letters. They can keep the press out. They cannot make this list disappear. Every number is a record. Every case is a question they have not answered. And the truth remains — the foundation documents were fake, and they let it stand.
If I don’t write this, who will? If we don’t speak, what happens to the next family?
“The people identified above made it impossible for me to have my happily ever after. Through the actions taken in these proceedings, I was left destitute. I contend that this was contrary to the Overriding Objective — the requirement to deal with cases justly, fairly, and proportionately.”
Royal Mail tracking is presently unavailable for KD115120532GB. The surviving email record contains two date references that do not reconcile on their face: an email dated 30 September 2023 saying the certificate was received that morning, and a later email referring to signed-for delivery on 30 October 2023. The Royal Mail tracking page does not presently resolve that discrepancy.
Martin Newbold
September 2026
Leave a Reply