03 September 2010: Missing girl from Manchester spotted in Toronto
2 September 2010
BBC News
Pearl Rose Gavaghan Da Massa, Pearl Da Massa may now be known as Belle Flaherty
A six-year-old girl who was taken abroad illegally by her mother has been spotted in Canada, police have said.
Pearl Da Massa was taken from Manchester almost two years ago by her mother, Helen Gavaghan, despite her father having joint custody.
The pair have now been spotted in Toronto and are thought to have changed their name to Flaherty.
Police in Greater Manchester and Toronto are now appealing for Pearl's safe return.
Officers said Ms Gavaghan flew to Cancun, Mexico, on 9 December 2008 under her new identity with Pearl.
They stayed at various places in Mexico and crossed into Texas on 30 December.
Helen Gavaghan Helen Gavaghan flew to Mexico on 9 December 2008
In February this year, police discovered Ms Gavaghan had been living in Toronto for about 12 months under the name of Dana Flaherty and Pearl under the name of Belle Flaherty.
It is believed they had been staying at an address in the Parkdale area of Toronto.
Ms Gavaghan is described as 5ft 5in (1.6m) and of very slim or thin build.
She has green/brown eyes and had long black hair, which may now be dyed and/or cut short.
She is described as having prominent angular nose and wide ears.
Pearl is described as having normal build with green/brown eyes and was last seen with light brown shoulder-length hair.
Det Insp Colin Larkin, based at South Manchester CID, said: "It is almost two years since Pearl's father and the rest of her family and friends have seen Pearl and Helen and it is impossible to imagine what they have been through during that time.
"Our aim is to make sure that Pearl is safe and well and is reunited with the rest of her family.
"Helen's parents, who have also not seen their daughter and granddaughter for nearly two years are also keen for Helen and Pearl to return to the UK.
"I appeal directly to Helen to contact police and also, if anyone has information about her whereabouts please contact Greater Manchester Police or Toronto Police."
Help find missing Pearl website
BBC News
Pearl Rose Gavaghan Da Massa, Pearl Da Massa may now be known as Belle Flaherty
Pearl Da Massa was taken from Manchester almost two years ago by her mother, Helen Gavaghan, despite her father having joint custody.
The pair have now been spotted in Toronto and are thought to have changed their name to Flaherty.
Police in Greater Manchester and Toronto are now appealing for Pearl's safe return.
Officers said Ms Gavaghan flew to Cancun, Mexico, on 9 December 2008 under her new identity with Pearl.
They stayed at various places in Mexico and crossed into Texas on 30 December.
Helen Gavaghan Helen Gavaghan flew to Mexico on 9 December 2008
In February this year, police discovered Ms Gavaghan had been living in Toronto for about 12 months under the name of Dana Flaherty and Pearl under the name of Belle Flaherty.
It is believed they had been staying at an address in the Parkdale area of Toronto.
Ms Gavaghan is described as 5ft 5in (1.6m) and of very slim or thin build.
She has green/brown eyes and had long black hair, which may now be dyed and/or cut short.
She is described as having prominent angular nose and wide ears.
Pearl is described as having normal build with green/brown eyes and was last seen with light brown shoulder-length hair.
Det Insp Colin Larkin, based at South Manchester CID, said: "It is almost two years since Pearl's father and the rest of her family and friends have seen Pearl and Helen and it is impossible to imagine what they have been through during that time.
"Our aim is to make sure that Pearl is safe and well and is reunited with the rest of her family.
"Helen's parents, who have also not seen their daughter and granddaughter for nearly two years are also keen for Helen and Pearl to return to the UK.
"I appeal directly to Helen to contact police and also, if anyone has information about her whereabouts please contact Greater Manchester Police or Toronto Police."
Help find missing Pearl website
01 September 2010: Rffj demand public inquiry
Rffj demand public inquiry into the case of social worker coercion of child to implicate an innocent parent.
Last month the Scotsman reported a case where a father was implicated in sickening allegations that could've seen him jailed for several years, the allegations turned out to be a total fabrication by his former partner. >Link to item<
Rather worryingly, further investigations by police uncovered a series of emails from the mother's legal team, her lawyer had asserted that should she invent allegations against her former partner the case would go her way.
What happened next was mother made statements implicating the father, making several wild allegations of sexual abuse, she allowed their daughter to be subjected to a series of intrusive examinations and intensive questioning by police and social workers.
The girl, who was 5 years old at the time of questioning, consistently denied any wrong doing by her father, under court scrutiny the judge said the methods used during questioning were flawed and amounted to coercion, he ordered that social worker Tracey Black be removed from child protection duties and the police officers retrained.
Rffj spokesman Mike Kelly said
24 August 2010: She defied the law to find her mother
Winona Varney was reunited with her mother through Facebook, writes Christopher Booker.
Telegraph
By Christopher Booker
Published: 7:25PM BST 21 Aug 2010
For once, after all the shocking stories I have reported on the secretive system that allows social workers to seize children from loving parents for no good reason, to send them for adoption, I can at last report a story where a family torn apart for nine years has been reunited.
When Winona Varney, now a pretty 16-year-old, recently fell into the arms of her mother Tracey at Truro railway station, they had not seen each other since she was seven. During that time, she and her 12-year-old sister Daniella have been living unhappily with an adoptive family, who repeatedly told them that their mother was a bad woman who did not love or want them. But when, in June, Winona managed to track her mother down, via Facebook, a short time later the two girls and their mother were again living under the same roof.
This harrowing story began back in 1997, when social workers from Cornwall county council received a wholly erroneous tip-off that there might be drugs in the house where Tracey lived with her partner. The day after the birth of their first child, a boy, they were made to sign an agreement that they would “work with social services”. Tracey then had two daughters, Winona and Daniella; but their father, who had been in care himself, had a strong aversion to social workers and eventually threatened one with violence.
On the social workers’ insistence, in order to keep her children, Tracey left her partner. She and they were sent to a mother and child unit in Staffordshire, where she often had to protect them from abuse by other inmates. Eventually, though there was no evidence that Tracey had harmed them in any way, the girls were sent for adoption, on the grounds that they were “at risk of emotional abuse”. They were taken in by a couple in a nearby Cornish village, and Winona was given a new name. (Their brother, however, was returned to his mother, after a year in foster care.)
Telegraph
By Christopher Booker
Published: 7:25PM BST 21 Aug 2010
When Winona Varney, now a pretty 16-year-old, recently fell into the arms of her mother Tracey at Truro railway station, they had not seen each other since she was seven. During that time, she and her 12-year-old sister Daniella have been living unhappily with an adoptive family, who repeatedly told them that their mother was a bad woman who did not love or want them. But when, in June, Winona managed to track her mother down, via Facebook, a short time later the two girls and their mother were again living under the same roof.
This harrowing story began back in 1997, when social workers from Cornwall county council received a wholly erroneous tip-off that there might be drugs in the house where Tracey lived with her partner. The day after the birth of their first child, a boy, they were made to sign an agreement that they would “work with social services”. Tracey then had two daughters, Winona and Daniella; but their father, who had been in care himself, had a strong aversion to social workers and eventually threatened one with violence.
On the social workers’ insistence, in order to keep her children, Tracey left her partner. She and they were sent to a mother and child unit in Staffordshire, where she often had to protect them from abuse by other inmates. Eventually, though there was no evidence that Tracey had harmed them in any way, the girls were sent for adoption, on the grounds that they were “at risk of emotional abuse”. They were taken in by a couple in a nearby Cornish village, and Winona was given a new name. (Their brother, however, was returned to his mother, after a year in foster care.)
23 August 2010: New counselling service for Rffj members
Rffj are pleased to now be able to offer free counselling sessions to subscribing members.
Assisting the Rffj team is experienced Psychotherapist and Counsellor Adrian, he is accredited with the Bacp and has a diploma in counselling, he uses the Bacp ethical framework to counselling, (More info on Bacp site)
Members seeking a referral initially can have a brief discussion with our counsellor to find out how we can help, and decide the best way forward.
Adrian writes about the new service;
“My offer to help members comes from personal experiences of family law, dealing with similar issues as those who find their way to Rffj”
“I understand the pain and loss of separation and how important it is to be able manage these very powerful emotions”
“Counselling is not about receiving advice; if you need practical help and advice on family law matters you are better of contacting the Rffj helpline headed by Ray Barry” (more info on advice service)
“People coming through the counselling experience will feel better about themselves, have greater self-esteem, increased resilience to difficult circumstances, understand their own feelings better and appreciate the feelings of those around them. They will feel more secure and be able to identify goals. They will be empowered with 'tools' to help them achieve these goals.”
“I will be able to offer two time slots for telephone counselling, these are Tuesday and Thursday evenings between 6 and 8pm, if enough people are in need of this kind of support I would also like to set up a therapy group”
Our counselling service is strictly for paid up members only, to request a referral email info@realfathersforjustice.org
To join or to donate Rffj visit our homepage and see the links for secure payments through googlecheckout
Assisting the Rffj team is experienced Psychotherapist and Counsellor Adrian, he is accredited with the Bacp and has a diploma in counselling, he uses the Bacp ethical framework to counselling, (More info on Bacp site)
Members seeking a referral initially can have a brief discussion with our counsellor to find out how we can help, and decide the best way forward.
Adrian writes about the new service;
“I understand the pain and loss of separation and how important it is to be able manage these very powerful emotions”
“Counselling is not about receiving advice; if you need practical help and advice on family law matters you are better of contacting the Rffj helpline headed by Ray Barry” (more info on advice service)
“People coming through the counselling experience will feel better about themselves, have greater self-esteem, increased resilience to difficult circumstances, understand their own feelings better and appreciate the feelings of those around them. They will feel more secure and be able to identify goals. They will be empowered with 'tools' to help them achieve these goals.”
“I will be able to offer two time slots for telephone counselling, these are Tuesday and Thursday evenings between 6 and 8pm, if enough people are in need of this kind of support I would also like to set up a therapy group”
Our counselling service is strictly for paid up members only, to request a referral email info@realfathersforjustice.org
To join or to donate Rffj visit our homepage and see the links for secure payments through googlecheckout
A couple cleared of injuring their baby son have won a legal battle to identify the doctor who gave evidence against them.
Telegraph
By Patrick Sawer
Published: 8:15AM BST 22 Aug 2010
When Victoria and Jake Ward saw their baby son crying and refusing to feed, they took him to their doctor. When the cause of his pain could not be found, they took him back twice more.
The professional couple were shocked to be told eventually that William had a broken leg. But the drama turned into a nightmare when they were accused of having deliberately harmed their little boy.
Arrested, charged by police and threatened with having their child taken away by Cambridgeshire county council's social workers, it took two years for the Wards to clear their name.
Yet even after the criminal case collapsed for lack of evidence and a family court finally decided that the parents posed no threat to their son, the couple were astonished to find that the names of the doctors who had given evidence against them were kept secret.
Only now, three years later, have the Wards managed to draw a line under the affair by forcing the name of the key expert witness to be made public.
He was Karl Johnson, an eminent radiologist who specialises in non-accidental injuries and has acted a police witness in several cases of child abuse.
Mr Johnson, who is chairman of the British Society of Paediatric Radiology and works as a consultant at Birmingham Children's Hospital, told police that in his view William had suffered repeated fractures and had a history of being abused.
The case against the Wards also relied on the view of Dr David Vickers, a community paediatrician, that if no obvious explanation could be found for an injury then child abuse was likely.
The outcome of the case, in a landmark High Court judgement, has helped to lift the secrecy surrounding England's family courts, where campaigners claim that a lack of openness creates an environment in which miscarriages of justice can go unnoticed.
Telegraph
By Patrick Sawer
Published: 8:15AM BST 22 Aug 2010
The professional couple were shocked to be told eventually that William had a broken leg. But the drama turned into a nightmare when they were accused of having deliberately harmed their little boy.
Arrested, charged by police and threatened with having their child taken away by Cambridgeshire county council's social workers, it took two years for the Wards to clear their name.
Yet even after the criminal case collapsed for lack of evidence and a family court finally decided that the parents posed no threat to their son, the couple were astonished to find that the names of the doctors who had given evidence against them were kept secret.
Only now, three years later, have the Wards managed to draw a line under the affair by forcing the name of the key expert witness to be made public.
He was Karl Johnson, an eminent radiologist who specialises in non-accidental injuries and has acted a police witness in several cases of child abuse.
Mr Johnson, who is chairman of the British Society of Paediatric Radiology and works as a consultant at Birmingham Children's Hospital, told police that in his view William had suffered repeated fractures and had a history of being abused.
The case against the Wards also relied on the view of Dr David Vickers, a community paediatrician, that if no obvious explanation could be found for an injury then child abuse was likely.
The outcome of the case, in a landmark High Court judgement, has helped to lift the secrecy surrounding England's family courts, where campaigners claim that a lack of openness creates an environment in which miscarriages of justice can go unnoticed.
21 August 2010: The agony of being a part-time dad
William Leith - Times
Last updated August 21 2010 12:01AM
Writer Louis de Berničres has spoken about the pain seeing his children part-time. William Leith knows how he feels
I remember the weekends. Going to pick my son up on a Saturday morning. I remember walking down the drive of the house where my son lived, where my ex lived, where I had lived. The anxious moments on the doorstep. The sudden, terrifying thought that I might have come at the wrong time, or on the wrong day. I always wondered how my voice would sound. When I spoke it sounded shaky and weird — not like my voice at all.
And then I would hear Billy’s voice. My son! There was always a rush of emotion, a balloon expanding in my chest. As a father, when you are separated from your child, you feel vulnerable, even if you see him a lot. It’s the separation. It’s the sense of not belonging. You stand on the doorstep, and you hear your son’s voice, and you feel two things, the tremendous rush of love for your son existing inside the hollow pang of separation. The door opens. Now you must say something. It’s not surprising that your voice sounds weird.
You collect your son’s things. You keep it simple. You talk about Crocs, wellies. Does he need his waterproof? That’s fine — you have a spare one. I was always buying clothes for him. That’s what you do, when you’re a single father at a loose end. You buy spare clothes for your kid. You worry if you’re spoiling him. Maybe you are. Maybe you shouldn’t get him these hoodies and T-shirts. But then you realise: they are not presents for him, really. Who are they for?
Last updated August 21 2010 12:01AM
Writer Louis de Berničres has spoken about the pain seeing his children part-time. William Leith knows how he feels
And then I would hear Billy’s voice. My son! There was always a rush of emotion, a balloon expanding in my chest. As a father, when you are separated from your child, you feel vulnerable, even if you see him a lot. It’s the separation. It’s the sense of not belonging. You stand on the doorstep, and you hear your son’s voice, and you feel two things, the tremendous rush of love for your son existing inside the hollow pang of separation. The door opens. Now you must say something. It’s not surprising that your voice sounds weird.
You collect your son’s things. You keep it simple. You talk about Crocs, wellies. Does he need his waterproof? That’s fine — you have a spare one. I was always buying clothes for him. That’s what you do, when you’re a single father at a loose end. You buy spare clothes for your kid. You worry if you’re spoiling him. Maybe you are. Maybe you shouldn’t get him these hoodies and T-shirts. But then you realise: they are not presents for him, really. Who are they for?
12 August 2010: High Court backs boy who rejected father
Judge Bellamy said that the case raised serious issues about children who had become "alienated" from a parent
Independent
By Terri Judd
Thursday, 12 August 2010
A schoolboy who was told by a judge that he must live with the father he claimed to hate yesterday succeeded in forcing the High Court to reverse its decision.
The 12-year-old boy, who can only be named as S, won the long court battle after Judge Clifford Bellamy said that "by consent of all parties" the boy should continue to live with his mother.
However in a written ruling yesterday the judge added: "On July 21 2010 a wholly deserving father left my court in tears having been driven to abandon his battle to implement an order which I had made on January 4 2010 that his son, S, now aged 12, should move to live with him."
The child had been transferred to foster care in mid-March to begin "introductory meetings" before moving in with his 43-year-old father at the end of the month but during each visit, the boy put his head in his lap, put his fingers in his ears, and refused to eat and drink.
His court guardian described the meeting as "extremely difficult", adding: "S did not look at his father and had his head down for the whole time. I spoke to S after his father had left and he was feeling numb but 'good'. He said to say thank you and said that this was not the end and he would think about seeing his father after his GCSEs.
Independent
By Terri Judd
Thursday, 12 August 2010
The 12-year-old boy, who can only be named as S, won the long court battle after Judge Clifford Bellamy said that "by consent of all parties" the boy should continue to live with his mother.
However in a written ruling yesterday the judge added: "On July 21 2010 a wholly deserving father left my court in tears having been driven to abandon his battle to implement an order which I had made on January 4 2010 that his son, S, now aged 12, should move to live with him."
The child had been transferred to foster care in mid-March to begin "introductory meetings" before moving in with his 43-year-old father at the end of the month but during each visit, the boy put his head in his lap, put his fingers in his ears, and refused to eat and drink.
His court guardian described the meeting as "extremely difficult", adding: "S did not look at his father and had his head down for the whole time. I spoke to S after his father had left and he was feeling numb but 'good'. He said to say thank you and said that this was not the end and he would think about seeing his father after his GCSEs.
12 August 2010: Need help and advice on your case? Please read the info below before you contact us.
Rffj are a UK based campaign group, fighting for the rights of children and parents to be able to have and maintain their relationships after parental separation or divorce.
We get many enquiries from those suffering at the hands of the legal system, many who are in need of practical advice but perhaps are not in a position to get involved with our campaigning.
Due to the volume of enquiries, Rffj set up a support service in March 2010, headed by our media spokesman Ray Barry, ably assisted by member John Ison and a dedicated back up team.
The Real Fathers For Justice campaign group is funded solely from donations.
To continue the campaign, we need your support, please consider subscribing as a member or making a donation to support the advice line. You can contribute via Googlecheckout secure payments links on our homepage
Ray Barry writes about his experiences heading the service.
"We have been running the advice service for four months now."
"The volume of enquiries has been increasing to ray@realfathersforjustice.org and we are now receiving at least four or five hundred emails and calls every month."
"We provide a free initial advice service for the enquiries, this is based on my 8 years experience of advising litigants in family law cases. For those who need further help, we offer a professional Mckenzie Friend service at very competitive rates."
"We have no source of funding for the campaign group or the free initial service; this makes it very difficult to keep it going, we feel it is very important to continue and urge all that contact us to make a contribution" (see the google checkout secure payment links halfway down our homepage)
"I remember when I first encountered divorce papers coming through the post, and cold impersonal proposals from my wife’s solicitor about my future relationship with my children, I felt outraged, but I also felt out of my depth. I had never had any dealings with courts or solicitors before."
We get many enquiries from those suffering at the hands of the legal system, many who are in need of practical advice but perhaps are not in a position to get involved with our campaigning.
Due to the volume of enquiries, Rffj set up a support service in March 2010, headed by our media spokesman Ray Barry, ably assisted by member John Ison and a dedicated back up team.
The Real Fathers For Justice campaign group is funded solely from donations.
To continue the campaign, we need your support, please consider subscribing as a member or making a donation to support the advice line. You can contribute via Googlecheckout secure payments links on our homepage
Ray Barry writes about his experiences heading the service.
"The volume of enquiries has been increasing to ray@realfathersforjustice.org and we are now receiving at least four or five hundred emails and calls every month."
"We provide a free initial advice service for the enquiries, this is based on my 8 years experience of advising litigants in family law cases. For those who need further help, we offer a professional Mckenzie Friend service at very competitive rates."
"We have no source of funding for the campaign group or the free initial service; this makes it very difficult to keep it going, we feel it is very important to continue and urge all that contact us to make a contribution" (see the google checkout secure payment links halfway down our homepage)
"I remember when I first encountered divorce papers coming through the post, and cold impersonal proposals from my wife’s solicitor about my future relationship with my children, I felt outraged, but I also felt out of my depth. I had never had any dealings with courts or solicitors before."
08 August 2010: Telegraph - Family court system could implode
The Telegraph have published a series of articles of interest to us this weekend, mainly about the problems in public family law;
Link to source
We must protect children from their protectors
Link to source
Family court system could implode, warns its top judge
Link to source
Council branded 'barbaric' by family of man wrongly taken by social workers
Link to source
Britain's forced adoptions: the hidden scandal we can't ignore
Our social workers normally hit the headlines when some Baby P-type horror story comes to light, showing how they failed to intervene when a child was so maltreated by its parents that it died.
By Christopher Booker
07 Aug 2010
What don't usually make the news, however, are the hundreds of cases when the social workers' failure is the very opposite: where, aided by police and courts, they seem determined to remove children from responsible parents, to consign them to an often miserable life with foster carers or to adoption.
Having examined many such cases in recent months, some in exhaustive detail, and spoken to experts who are deeply disturbed by what is going on, I have no hesitation in describing this as one of the worst hidden scandals in Britain today.
Link to source
We must protect children from their protectors
Link to source
Family court system could implode, warns its top judge
Link to source
Council branded 'barbaric' by family of man wrongly taken by social workers
Link to source
Britain's forced adoptions: the hidden scandal we can't ignore
Our social workers normally hit the headlines when some Baby P-type horror story comes to light, showing how they failed to intervene when a child was so maltreated by its parents that it died.
By Christopher Booker
07 Aug 2010
Having examined many such cases in recent months, some in exhaustive detail, and spoken to experts who are deeply disturbed by what is going on, I have no hesitation in describing this as one of the worst hidden scandals in Britain today.
06 August 2010: Media runs for cover at mention of 'family law'
Irish Times
The in camera rule was never intended to shield the legal system from public scrutiny, but that is the result of media’s interpretation of it, writes JOHN WATERS
IMAGINE THAT, sometime in recent days, the following events had occurred: that a garda had broken into a private dwelling and, without being able to display a warrant or court order, seized an infant from its mother’s arms. What if the mother, in the course of this break-in, had sustained an injury? What if the mother and the child were Irish citizens and if the purpose of this operation was so that the child could be despatched to a foreign jurisdiction and forcibly adopted?
Imagine that this distraught mother, on subsequently calling to ask the Irish childcare authorities about her son’s health and welfare, had been told that she had no right to such information. Imagine, finally, that no authority in this jurisdiction had ever expressed the slightest concern about this mother’s capacity to care for her own child?
There are many questions that should properly flow from such a scenario but I have, to begin with, just one: should such a story be considered newsworthy? Does the public have an interest in knowing about it? Yes or no? How, in terms of importance to our democracy, would such a story rank alongside one about, say, the dubious expenses of a public representative?
These events described above occurred in this State within the last week. But because they followed on proceedings in Irish courts which were held in camera, I have a difficulty. These proceedings had many worrying aspects, not least that they were allowed to proceed. But, arising from the interpretation of the law accepted in most media organisations, I risk being censored if I seek to give further details.
IMAGINE THAT, sometime in recent days, the following events had occurred: that a garda had broken into a private dwelling and, without being able to display a warrant or court order, seized an infant from its mother’s arms. What if the mother, in the course of this break-in, had sustained an injury? What if the mother and the child were Irish citizens and if the purpose of this operation was so that the child could be despatched to a foreign jurisdiction and forcibly adopted?
Imagine that this distraught mother, on subsequently calling to ask the Irish childcare authorities about her son’s health and welfare, had been told that she had no right to such information. Imagine, finally, that no authority in this jurisdiction had ever expressed the slightest concern about this mother’s capacity to care for her own child?
There are many questions that should properly flow from such a scenario but I have, to begin with, just one: should such a story be considered newsworthy? Does the public have an interest in knowing about it? Yes or no? How, in terms of importance to our democracy, would such a story rank alongside one about, say, the dubious expenses of a public representative?
These events described above occurred in this State within the last week. But because they followed on proceedings in Irish courts which were held in camera, I have a difficulty. These proceedings had many worrying aspects, not least that they were allowed to proceed. But, arising from the interpretation of the law accepted in most media organisations, I risk being censored if I seek to give further details.
