Re: East Sussex County Council Children’s Services – Emily Newbold

4:05 PM (2 minutes ago)
to gemma.morris, Carolyn.Fair

Dear Carolyn Fair, Gemma Moriss,

I am writing further to my previous correspondence concerning your failure to provide satisfactory documentary evidence regarding my daughter, Emily Newbold, including confirmation of her welfare, whether she was lawfully adopted, and the legal basis for her removal from my family.

As previously notified, I am recording your conduct under my published Unreasonable Conduct and Behaviour Policy (UCB).

My published UCB policy:

https://martinnewbold.co.uk/Unreasonable_Behaviour_Policy

In view of your senior position within East Sussex Children’s Services, would you be willing to provide an official photograph of yourself for inclusion alongside the public record of your involvement and correspondence concerning this matter?

Please also confirm your full name, official job title and departmental responsibilities so that the record accurately identifies you and your position.

Providing a photograph is voluntary. However, my outstanding requests for documentary evidence remain unanswered.

I continue to require written confirmation of what enquiries have been undertaken to establish Emily’s welfare, what records establish her legal status, and what lawful restrictions, if any, prevent disclosure of that information to me as her father.

If you are unable to provide that information, please identify the officer or statutory body responsible for addressing these questions and the legal reasons for any refusal.

I expect a substantive written response.

Quo vadis, iustitia?

Quo vadis, iustitia? I have to inform William Moore that he is breaching my published UCB by failing to provide the decision after the date he stated he would in his communications [https://martinnewbold.co.uk/Unreasonable_Behaviour_Policy…]. (https://martinnewbold.co.uk/Unreasonable_Behaviour_Policy) Paragraph 68: The Ombudsman can open a new case and reconsider an investigation decision. Paragraph 69: This can happen in exceptional circumstances, including where the original evidence was flawed, the investigation was unfair, or new information could have significantly affected the decision. Paragraph 6 also says they normally review decisions only once, except in exceptional circumstances. Providing you notice, four families are affected by the flawed decision of the PHSO. This case involves a social worker who allegedly committed fraudulent corruption of GRO records and incorrect classification of genogram data in court, which has left the Cunningham family without their daughter Lauren and my family, Newbold, without Emily and another unrelated Irish family being given both children, whilst forged documents have been expressed in NI GRO to cover her tracks when reporting in Reading to Newry advised Newry that her mother moved there with her daughter and she was not born in Newry. The Liverpool GRO has conflated two children on one birth certificate in the folios to contravene the legal registration of children; this is subject to imprisonment under the crimes on this paperwork. I have been provided no DNA evidence cross-matching to provide evidence that my daughter was ever in Northern Ireland. In addition, Social Work Northern Ireland said they could not identify my daughter in Northern Ireland. Oddly, there is a Christine named social worker and children flying out on Lolita Airlines; is this where these children ended up, Teterboro and then into the arms of Jefry Epstein and associates? So you call any of this safeguarding children?

For the avoidance of doubt, this matter has already been brought to the attention of approximately 640 Members of Parliament, resulting in approximately 5120 communications, including acknowledgements, referrals, constituency notices and Parliamentary office responses.

Despite this extensive correspondence, not one response has provided a substantive answer establishing the whereabouts, welfare, safeguarding status, educational status, NHS status or statutory traceability of my daughter, Emily Newbold.

I will not accept further acknowledgements, automated replies, procedural deflections, constituency restrictions, generic assurances or referrals which fail to identify an accountable public authority and provide a substantive answer to the safeguarding concerns raised.

You are hereby given TEN CALENDAR DAYS from receipt of this notice to provide a substantive written response, delivered by post to my stated address, identifying precisely what enquiries have been undertaken, which authorities have been contacted, what evidence has been examined, what conclusions have been reached and who is personally accountable for those conclusions.

If you contend that the matter falls outside your responsibility, you must identify the relevant statutory authority, explain the basis for that position and confirm what action you have taken to bring the safeguarding concerns formally to its attention.

Should this deadline expire without a substantive response, I intend to refer the documented history of unanswered safeguarding enquiries, together with the previous Parliamentary correspondence, to the appropriate oversight, regulatory and legal authorities for examination of potential failures of statutory responsibility, accountability and safeguarding procedures.

Yours sincerely,

Martin Newbold
Father of Emily Newbold
The Stealing of Emily
https://thestealingofemily.co.uk/

October 15, 2026