II. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
14.
Particulars of the parties:
The applicant:
Michael Leslie Hickman is a South African citizen, born in Durban, South
Africa on the 23 December 1952, South African ID. No. 521223 5033 087,
resident in Wilhelmshaven, Germany since the 13.07.01.
The German mother:
XXXX is a German citizen, born in Wilhelmshaven, Germany on the 12.April
1963.
The Children:
XXXX Hickman, is a South African citizen, born in Durban South Africa on
the 03 December 1989. South African ID. No. 89.1203 5007 002
XXXX Hickman, is a South African citizen, born in Durban, South Africa on
the 18 October 1993. South African ID. No. 931018 5049 081
29.11.1995. On the 29 November 1995 the children
XXXX and XXX Hickman were abducted secretly without the knowledge or the permission
of the applicant, the South African father, by their German mother, from
their place of permanent residence since birth, at 135 Torquay Avenue, Durban
South Africa and were taken to an unknown destination in Wilhelmshaven Germany.
04.12.1995. On the 04 December 1995 the city of
Wilhelmshaven altered the place of residence recorded in the passports of
both children from, Durban, South Africa to new place of residence Wilhelmshaven
(Neuer Wohnort, Wilhelmshaven) cancelling the old place of residence and applying
the date stamp and logo of the City of Wilhelmshaven without the permission
or knowledge of the foreign parent, photo copies of the altered passports,
XXXX Hickman KA Nr. C 0430980, XXXX Hickman KA Nr. C 6041815, were handed
in as evidence to the file 16 F 931/95 and registered under the document
numbers 3 and 4 respectively.
04.12.1995. On the 04 December 1995 the City of
Wilhelmshaven registered the abducted Hickman children at the address, Bismarckstrasse
96, Wilhelmshaven, noting the date that they assumed residence as the 30.11.95,
The administrative authority of the City of Wilhelmshaven entered a remark
into the register to prevent the address of the children being made known,
as was confirmed by the Jugendamt of the City of Wilhelmshaven at a later
stage to the court in the letter dated 12.06.1996 file number 51-22/04, signed
Eden-Reske. A copy of the change of address which was again made without the
permission of, knowledge of, or the signature of the foreign left behind parent
was entered as evidence to the district court of Wilhelmshaven, where it
was entered into the file 16 F 931/95 and registered under the document number
6.
06.12.1995. On the 06.12.1995 the German parent
made application to the district court of Wilhelmshaven for the granting of
an interim order for the district court of Wilhelmshaven to grant her sole
custody of the South African born and domiciled children, children who had
been abducted to Germany. The application of the German parent to the district
court of Wilhelmshaven has the entry stamp of the family court of Wilhelmshaven,
of the 11.December 1995. with the file number 16 F 931/95 and the document
number 1. The left behind South African parent was not notified by district
court of Wilhelmshaven of the registered proceedings, the South African government
was not notified of the registered proceedings, the children were not ordered
to be returned to South Africa although it was apparent that the German parent
had taken the law into her own hands, that she had contravened the German
criminal code § 235 the abduction of minor children, it was clear to
the family court of Wilhelmshaven that children had been abducted to Germany
from South Africa so as to defeat the ends of justice, it was clear to the
court that the abducting German parent had committed a criminal act.
As so called “proof” that the South African parent had given his explicit
permission for the children to be taken to Germany a fax written and sent
by the foreign parent after the date of the international abduction to Germany,
a letter written in English without the address, name or signature of the
foreign parent without an official translation, was entered as evidence and
interpreted by the German parent to mislead the court into believing that
she had relocated to Germany with the explicit full permission of the left
behind foreign parent. This so called “proof” was accepted without question
by the district court of Wilhelmshaven represented by family judge Fasse and
was entered to the file under case number 16 F 931/95, document number 8,
without any effort being made to establish its authenticity or it’s
content by the court.
The court notified Mrs. Rach of the Jugendamt of the city of Wilhelmshaven
of the court proceedings. As evidence the reply from Mrs Rach to the court
dated 27.12.95 file number 51-20/06 to file 16 F 931/95 document number 10
in which social worker Rach of the Jugendamt of the city of Wilhelmshaven
records that in the family matter Hickman the mother has returned to South
Africa therefore the matter is closed. Mrs. Rach. of the city of Wilhelmshaven
had made no effort to contact the foreign left behind parent in South Africa
although his contact details were known.
20.01.1996. The German parent returned to South
Africa together with the children on the 20 January 1996.
21.01.1996. One day later on the 21. January 1996 the German parent together
with the German grandmother of the children again abducted the children from
South Africa to Germany, after the eldest child had made allegations to his
South African parent, grandparents and his attorney uncle that he had been
mistreated and physically abused by his German grandparents during his residence
in Germany in December 1995 following the previous abduction to Germany and
that he wanted a gun to shoot his German grandmother and wanted to be hidden
from and protected from her. On analysis of the facts and circumstances surrounding
this second abduction the only logical conclusion that can be reached is that
the children’s German mother and the children’s German grandmother fled South
Africa in a panic because of the very real fear of criminal charges being
laid against the German grandmother for serious child abuse and as an accomplice
to international child abduction following the revelations of John-Michael
and his accusations of serious child abuse against the German grandmother
Ursula Focken and the possibility that she would be convicted to a stay in
a South African jail.
28.0.1996. On the 28 January 1996 the German parent
again contacted the family court of the district court of Wilhelmshaven in
an application made on a scrap of paper entered to file 16 F 931/95 as document
Nr.11, in which the German parent states that she has returned to Germany
and that she renews her application for sole custody of the binational children.
31.01.1996. Three days after the second application
was made to the district court of Wilhelmshaven by the German abducting parent,
the district court of Wilhelmshaven, the family judge Fasse makes his decision
this time again without informing the foreign parent, this time without requesting
the participation of the Jugendamt. This time the German parent enters no
evidence in defence of her application for sole custody, the letter dated
2 December 1995, which supposedly gave permission to take the children to
Germany, written after the act on the 29 November 1995 can no longer apply
as she had since that date returned to South Africa of her own free will with
the abducted children. In the deliberations of the German judge no thought
was given to the fact that the German parent had previously deliberately and
Neuer Wohnort Wilhelmshaven openly attempted to mislead the court in that
the German parent had stated that the foreign parent had given her permission
to take the children to Germany, why then did the German parent on the 04
December two days after the supposed permission was given in the letter dated
the 2 December 1995, entered into the records of the city of Wilhelmshaven
that the foreign left behind parent should not know the whereabouts of the
children. The German judge Fasse did not consider to question the strangeness
of the fact that that the German mother travelled a third the way around the
world to South Africa staying there only 24 hours before returning to Germany.
The district court of Wilhelmshaven under judge Fasse once again knowingly
deliberately violates the right of the foreign left behind parent to the right
to a fair trial, in that he once again did not inform the foreign parent or
the South African Government of the court proceedings to decided interim sole
custody of the children, children who had for a second time gone through the
trauma of an international child abduction. The family judge Fasse of the
district court of Wilhelmshaven did not attempt to give the foreign parent
the right to a hearing, the family court judge Fasse violated the foreign
parent’s right to appeal. The German judge Fasse showed bias towards the German
abducting parent and racial prejudice against the foreign South African parent.
The decision of the district court of Wilhelmshaven dated 31.01.1996 file
number 16 F 931/95 made by judge Fasse, awarded sole custody to the German
parent, without making any effort to contact the foreign parent, or of giving
him the right to be represented or to be heard thereby deliberately violating
his right to a fair trial and his right to a hearing.
The decision of family judge Fasse of the district court of Wilhelmshaven
records the following important facts in his decision dated the 31. January
1996 file number 16 F 931/95 which clearly prove his racial bias as well as
the violation of the right to a fair trial and the right to be heard:
The address of the German parent is recorded as being Bismarkstrasse 96,
c/o Uwe Focken, 26382 Wilhelmshaven, the address of the foreign father is
clearly recorded as being 135 Terquay Are, 4052 Bluff Durban, Südafrika.
The German family court judge Fasse of the family court of Wilhelmshaven gives
as his reasoning to award sole custody to the German parent as “ the father
lives in South Africa therefore he is not in the position to exercise custody”.
Furthermore the German family judge Fasse of the district court of Wilhelmshaven
records in his decision that a copy of the judgement must be sent to the
following persons; the applicant, in this case the German parent of the children,
to the opposing party in this instance the foreign parent, the father who
was not informed of the court hearing, included was the condition that the
foreign parent is to be notified by regular post. (Note regular post to South
African takes between six and eight weeks to be delivered), this was deliberately
done by the German family judge Fasse of the district court of Wilhelmshaven,
this clearly shows bias towards the German National, in this instance the
German abducting parent who has committed a criminal act and to purposely
and deliberately violate the right of the foreign parent to have the opportunity
to give evidence or to oppose the decision of the judge Fasse of the district
court of Wilhelmshaven within the normal legal delay of two weeks, before
the next instance, here the higher regional court of Oldenburg. Again the
family court judge has violated the right of the foreign parent to a fair
trail and the right to be heard and has shown his bias in favour of the German
abducting national.
The decision of judge Fasse of the 31.01.1996 deliberately violated the
rights of the foreign parent and the foreign children to the right to a fair
trail and violated their right to a hearing, the decision of the German family
court judge Fasse of the district court of Wilhelmshaven, clearly and deliberately
legalised a known international child abduction to Germany, in this instance
the German family court judge has clearly and deliberately committed the crime
of assistance in child abduction in accordance with the German criminal code
§235.
Using the authority that the granting of sole custody to the German parent
in the decision of the district court of Wilhelmshaven dated 31.01.1996 file
number 16 F 931/95, the German parent and the German Jugendamt prevented the
foreign parent all contact to his children who had been abducted to Germany.
The social services department of the city of Wilhelmshaven (Algemeinesozialdienst),
here the child welfare office (Jugendamt) made no effort whatsoever to contact
the foreign parent, the child welfare office (Jugendamt) records in it’s letters
to the court that it met met frequently with and assisted the German abducting
parent.
04.03.1996. On the 04.03.96 the German legal
representation of the foreign parent wrote to the district court of Wilhelmshaven
file number st–bo 96/0157 to request inspection of the court file 16 F 931/95.
The German legal representation of the foreign parent made application to
the district court of Wilhelmshaven to regulate access to the children abducted
from South Africa to Germany in the letter dated 07.05.96 file number St-jo
96/0157 as the abducting parent had to date refused all attempts made by the
legal representation of the foreign parent to allow access between the children
and the himself. The district court of Wilhelmshaven court registered proceedings
under the file number 16 F 321/96 to regulate access to the children abducted
to Germany. All written requests for assistance to the child welfare office
of the city of Wilhelmshaven ( Jugendamt) went unanswered, the foreign parent
got no assistance whatsoever from the child welfare office of Wilhelmshaven
to restore contact to the children abducted to Germany. The child welfare
office showed it’s total bias towards the German abducting parent by giving
considerable assistance to the German abducting parent as documented in numerous
reports to the district court of Wilhelmshaven.
12.06.1996. A report was made by the child welfare
office of the city of Wilhelmshaven on the 12.06.96 file number 51-22/04 at
the request of the district court of Wilhelmshaven in the case 16 F 321/96
to regulate access to the children abducted to Germany from South Africa in
November 1995 and again in January 1996. The social worker involved, Mrs.
Rita Eden-Reske reported that the children that were brought to Germany in
November last year have settled in well. The children obviously feel well
here in Germany, they have taken the change in their environment well. The
mother has done all in her power to get all the help possible to settle the
children into their new environment, contact to the father is very problematic.
The mother has huge fears that the foreign parent will kidnap the children
and take them to South Africa. The mother had placed a restriction on information
being given to the foreign parent of both the children’s address as well as
their telephone number. The social worker Eden-Reske of the child welfare
office of the city of Wilhelmshaven (Jugendamt) without ever having made the
effort to contact the foreign parent, without ever having interviewed the
foreign parent records that the foreign parent has made unreasonable demands
in wanting to have contact to his children, then Mrs Eden-Reske of the child
welfare office of the city of Wilhelmshaven recommended that the children
only be allowed contact to the foreign parent during his visit to Germany
under supervision. As regards the foreign parent’s announcement that he would
visit the children during the Christmas period of the year 1996, Mrs. Eden-Reske
rejected the request with the reasoning that during Christmas the children
require rest and that they must celebrate in their familiar environment without
disturbance. The fact that six months previously the foreign parent had abducted
the children to Germany at Christmas time, which the children welfare office
supported, yet they do not recommend contact to the foreign parent because
it will upset the children abducted to Germany once again this shows the
extreme racial and gender bias on the part of the children welfare office
of the city of Wilhelmshaven (Jugendamt) towards the German abducting parent.
(see: Lebensborn, CRC-Watchdog report to the United Nations) The letter did
not have the address of the German abducting parent in it’s place was the
remark “ the address of the German parent is known to the court) again the
Mrs. Eden-Reske has shown her bias and support of the abduction of the children
to Germany again she has shown her support to prevent access between the
children and their foreign parent by keeping their address a secret from
the foreign parent.
30.07.1996. Court hearing at the district court of Wilhelmshaven
on 30 July 1996 in the case file number 16 F 321/96 to regulate access and
case 16 F 298/96 to regulate custody.
30.07.1996. Decision of the District court Wilhelmshaven dated the 30
July 1996 file number 16 F 321/96 made by family judge Lindeke. In the case
16 F 289/96 no decision was made as to the regulation of custody. The children
welfare office of the city of Wilhelmshaven represented by Mrs. Rach recommended
that the foreign parent only have supervised contact to the children because
is could not be guaranteed that the foreign parent would not kidnap the children
and take them to South Africa. The following is recorded in the decision of
the district court of Wilhelmshaven made by the family judge Lindeke; After
argument and after the successful presentation of Mrs. Rach of the child
welfare office of the city of Wilhelmshaven (Jugendamt), it is agreed: the
children’s foreign parent is granted the right to during his presence in
Germany until the 18.08.1996, to see the children three times per week in
the rooms of the clinic for child and youth psychiatry of the Reinhard-Nieter-Hospital
under the personal supervision of both Dr. Epstein and Mr. Volkmann. The foreign
parent is entitled to phone his children once per week on Sundays. The granting
of a more generous access between the children and their foreign parent could
not be granted due to the recommendations made in the report to the court
by the child Welfare office of the city of Wilhelmshaven.
The first of the supervised contacts was made adding the personal inhuman
characteristic German interpretation of the child welfare office of the city
of Wilhelmshaven which clearly violated the rights of both parties concerned,
had been added to the terms of the court decision. When the foreign parent
arrived at the office of the clinic for child and youth psychiatry of the
Reinhard-Nieter-Hospital he was taken to a small upstairs room with a floor
area of about fifteen square metres. The foreign parent was locked in the
room with two social workers to guard him, for a period of about fifteen minutes
before the children arrived. The door was unlocked and the children were
allowed to enter the room guarded by an additional two individuals, the door
was again locked, neither the children nor the foreign parent were free to
talk to one another out of fear of saying the wrong thing, in fear of the
two guards who had remained to supervise every move made and overheard ever
word said. One hour later the children were taken out of the room while the
foreign parent was again locked in like a criminal under constant supervision.
Fifteen minutes later the door was unlocked and he was allowed to leave. Under
German criminal law what occurred, the robbing of ones freedom was a criminal
offence committed against the foreign parent in the name of the German 1933
understanding of human rights and of “ the wellbeing of the child”.
After the first session further access to the children was boycotted by
the German parent, with the assistance Mrs. Rach of the child welfare office
(Jugendamt) of the city of Wilhelmshaven. Only after the personal intervention
of the foreign parent directly to the family court judge Lindeke were another
three sessions with the children possible before his return to South Africa.
Neither the district court of Wilhelmshaven, who had been instructed to do
so, nor the welfare office (Jugendamt) of the city of Wilhelmshaven took any
punitive measures against the German parent who had boycotted the court ordered
access.
After the foreign parent returned to South Africa a few telephone contacts
occurred between the foreign parent and the children who had been abducted
to Germany, thereafter all contact to the children was boycotted by the German
parent with the full knowledge of the Jugendamt and the court.
29.08.1996. On the 29.08.1996, file number 51-22/05,
a report was made by the welfare office of the city of Wilhelmshaven
(Jugendamt) by Mrs. Rach in the case 16 F 298/96 to regulate custody. Mrs
Rach explained in her report; that the mother has her own dwelling, that there
is a strong emotional tie between the children and their mother. She goes
on to report that she does not recommend that the foreign parent be granted
joint custody of the children as requested by him. She also recommends to
the court to exclude access between the foreign left behind parent and his
children who had were victims of international child abduction to Germany.
The matter was again referred to the district court of Wilhelmshaven to
regulate telephonic contact between the children and their foreign parent
and to ensure access between the children abducted to Germany and their foreign
left behind parent over the Christmas period December1996.
03.12.1996. Court hearing of the 03 December 1996
in the case, file number 16 F 321/96 at the district court of Wilhelmshaven
with family court judge Fasse. Mrs. Rach representing the child welfare office
(Jugendamt) of the city of Wilhelmshaven had the following to say: I can not
deny that a emotional relationship exists between the children and their foreign
Father. I can not agree with the application of the foreign parent as it
can not be excluded that he would take the children to South Africa. The
German parent declared that it is to be reckoned with that the foreign parent
will kidnap the children as he has obtained South African passports for the
children.
10.12.1996. The decision of the court of the 10
December 1996 case file number 16F 321/96 the family court judge Fasse of
the district court of Wilhelmshaven, repeats the untested, unfounded allegations
of both the German abducting parent “The foreign father has made known both
my mouth and in written form that he intends to kidnap the children to South
Africa” and the German representative of the child welfare office (Jugendamt)
of the city of Wilhelmshaven, Mrs Rach in his judgement, therefore violating
the right of the foreign parent to a fair trail. Instead of enforcing the
court ordered access between the foreign parent and the victim children and
ordering sanctions against the uncooperative German abducting parent, Judge
Fasse of the district court of Wilhelmshaven adds insult to injury. Judge
Fasse who had legalised the abduction of the children to Germany in the first
instance, decided the following; The foreign left behind parent will have
no further telephonic access to his children. The foreign left behind parent
will not be granted the right to access to his children abducted to Germany
as requested over the Christmas period, between the 20.12.96 and the 05.01.97,
as there exists the danger that foreign parent will misuse his right to access
to kidnap his children to South Africa, as recorded in his letter dated the
20.03.96.
12.08.1997. The foreign parent and the German parent
were divorced at the district court of Wilhelmshaven. The foreign parent was
represented by his German attorney. Sole custody of the children was given
to the German abducting parent. No arrangement was made for access between
the abducted South African children and their South African parent.
13.10.1999. On the 13 October 1999 the foreign
parent again travelled to Germany in an attempt to gain access to his children.
15.10.1999. On the 15 October 1999 an urgent application
was made to the district court of Wilhelmshaven to grant access to the foreign
parent to his children by means of an interim order. Under the direction of
the German family judge Ms. Blohm the case was registered under the file number
16 F 1432/99 to regulate by urgent interdict the interim access between the
foreign left behind parent and his two sons being held hostage in Germany.
Although the foreign parent was there for two weeks the court made no effort
to terminate for a hearing to allow him to see his children. During the stay
of the foreign parent in Wilhelmshaven Germany, the foreign parent was approached
on behalf of the German child welfare office (Jugendamt) under the direction
of Mrs. Rita Eden-Reske by the German police inspector Dieter Has who presented
himself as being on official duty for the child protection unit of the German
police in Wilhelmshaven. The German police inspector Dieter Has made contact
to the foreign parent on four occasions, on each and every occasion the foreign
parent was threatened and intimidated by the German police inspector Dieter
Has, the German police inspector Has acting on behalf of and together with
the German child welfare office, directed by Mrs. Rita Eden-Reske went out
of his way to intimidate and to terrify the foreign parent, so that he would
forget about his children and not ever return to Germany. On the third occasion
his contact to the foreign parent was supervised at the child and family psychiatric
department of the hospital of the city of Wilhelmshaven (Reinhard-Nieter-Krankenhaus,
Klinik für Kinder und Jugendpsychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Friedrich-Paffrathstrasse
100, 26389 Wilhelmshaven) under the supervision of the German psychologist
Frau Renate Terlinden. Mrs Terlinden was acting together with and on behalf
of the German child welfare office (Jugendamt) under the direction of Mrs.
Rita Eden-Reske. The German abducting parent was also present. During the
session of interrogation, intimidation and coercion the German police Inspector
Has went out of his way to intimidate the foreign victim parent and to make
the foreign parent as fearful as possible. On the 26 October 1999 the German
attorney representing the foreign father was contacted by the German family
judge Ms. Blohm, as documented by the German family court herself. Judge
Ms. Blohm herself entered a remark into the file 16 F 1432/99, written
in her own handwriting, where she documents a phone conversation with the
German attorney of the foreign parent, a phone call in which she convinced
the German attorney of the foreign parent to withdraw the application for
an urgent interdict to regulate in an interim order the access between the
foreign parent and his children who had been kidnapped to Germany. The application
was withdrawn on the advice of and in collaboration with the German family
judge Ms. Blohm, without the German attorney having informed her foreign
client of the fact. The foreign parent had travelled to Germany to attend
a court case to give him the possibility to see his children. The foreign
father returned to South Africa on the following day without the issue being
attended to. On the very same day the 26 October 1999 the German attorney
representing the foreign parent entered a new application to regulate custody.
The German family judge Ms. Blohm had effectively prevented the foreign father
the right to a fair trail and the right to be heard. The foreign parent returned
to Germany one month later on the 26.11.1999 to attend the hearing that was
to be terminated during his next visit in November/December 1999, only to
find out that behind his back the matter had been finalised between the German
Family judge Blohm and the German attorney representing the foreign father
without his participation that he had demanded.
22.07.2000. On 22 July 2000 the foreign parent
travelled to Wilhelmshaven Germany to attend a court hearing in the case
16 F 605/00.
22.07.2000. The foreign parent once again made
application to the district court of Wilhelmshaven for a hearing to determine
contact to and access with his children during his proposed two week stay
in Germany. A date was set for the hearing, the German parent was ordered
to appear personally together with the children before court. The foreign
parent travelled to Wilhelmshaven for the court hearing only to find in the
court room that the German parent had been given permission by the judge
presiding, judge Ms. Blohm to go on holiday with the children for the entire
duration of the foreign parent’s stay in Germany. A more blatant abuse of
the foreign parent’s rights could not possibly have occurred. Judge Ms. Blohm
was well aware that the foreign parent was coming from South African to see
his children, the German judge Ms. Blohm also was well aware that she could
not rule for the foreign parent to see his children who she herself had sent
on holiday away from Wilhelmshaven. This was a blatant deliberate act to
defeat the ends of justice and to deny legal remedy to the foreign parent
and the foreign abducted children by both the German judge Ms. Blohm as well
as the attorney defending the German parent, Dr Uwe Biester a politician
for the Christian Democrat Union, in both the City council as well as the
State government, where he has a seat on the judicial review commission.
The foreign parent returned to South Africa once again without seeing his
children, once again without being denied the right to a fair trial and justice.
December 2000 16 F 605/00 UG the foreign parent made
application to the court for a court ruling in regards to access to his children
over the Christmas period.
The foreign parent notified the court that he would be in Germany from the
22.12.2000 to the 10.01.2001 so that he could see his children over the Christmas
period. Furthermore he requested that the court make a ruling to prevent the
children from being absent on his arrival in Germany. Two days before the
planned departure from South Africa the German family court judge Ms. Blohm
notified the foreign father that the matter had to go to court and that she
had set aside the 08.01.01 two days before the planned return to South Africa,
as the date for a court hearing excluding in advance the possibility to see
the children over the Christmas period.
The foreign father rebooked his flight at the last moment for the period
05.01.01 to the 16.01.01, which incurred financial penalties, to allow some
time to be with his children following a favourable court decision. On the
03.01.2001 two days before the planned departure date a fax arrived in South
Africa from the German family court judge Ms. Blohm cancelling the court hearing
set for the 08.01.01, stating that the foreign parent should remain in South
Africa and await a further date for a court hearing. Again with a considerable
financial loss to the foreign parent following the cancelling of the flight
to Germany.
Although many letters were written and many phone calls
were made no termination for a further court hearing was made.
13.07.2001. In desperation the foreign parent travelled
to Germany arriving on the 13 July 2001 where he entered into a hunger strike
in Berlin with a number of other foreign parents for three weeks. The group
of hunger strikers were finally met by a delegation of German politicians
and members of the German Ministry of Justice.
Following the hunger strike in Berlin together with the other foreign parents,
the foreign father was granted a hearing in the district court of Wilhelmshaven
under the German family judge Dr. Sven Bessel. Dr. Bessel was the same judge
who had a few months earlier convicted the foreign parent on bogus charges
of insult laid against him by the Jugendamt of the city of Wilhelmshaven in
connection with the letter of complaint to the South African Government in
regards to the intimidation on behalf of the Jugendamt in 1999 that was experienced
by the foreign parent, a court process that was conducted without the knowledge
or legal representation on the part of the accused, the foreign South African
parent.
15.08.2001. In the court hearing of the 15 August
2001 Dr Bessel granted the foreign parent three hours of supervised contact
to his children before he was due to return to South Africa. This access to
the children was boycotted by Ms. Rita Eden-Reske of the Jugendamt of the
city of Wilhelmshaven, the German judge Dr. Bessel although the foreign father
approached him immediately and directly, refused to ensure that the meeting
took place. Dr Bessel refused to enforce his own decision even although he
knew that the father was to return to South Africa the following day.
31.10.2001. At great financial loss and damage
to his business the father lengthened his stay in Germany. On the 31.10.01
the foreign father was again heard in the case16 F 867/01 regarding the failure
to enforce the court ordered access to the abducted South African children.
Although the German mother stated very clearly that she was not prepared to
allow contact between the children and their foreign father thus openly defying
the German judge Dr. Sven Bessel, the German judge Dr. Bessel refused to
apply sanctions against the German parents who openly defied his authority
in and out of court. The German mother was supported in her actions by the
Jugendamt of the city of Wilhelmshaven.
20.08.2002. In a letter form Hans-Dieter Siehl
of the city of Wilhelmshaven, the foreign parent was threatened with criminal
proceedings by the city of Wilhelmshaven after making an official complaint
in regards to bias towards the German abducting parent and to the inactivity
of the officials of the Jugendamt of the city of Wilhelmshaven to the supervising
authority.
03.09.2002. Arte Television broadcast a program
on international child abductions to Germany and the injustice that the victim
foreign parents and their foreign children face. The foreign father was interviewed
on television.
04.09.2002. Hearing to decide access and custody
of the foreign children abducted to Germany in the case 16 F 605/00 a case
in which the final decision had been delayed for more than two years.
The representative of the German Jugendamt recommended the exclusion of
access without reason to the children who had been denied meaningful access
to their foreign parent since their abduction to Germany.
04.10.2002. The German judge Staubwasser in his
judgement excluded access to the children for a period of six months, to children
where court ordered access had been boycotted for a period of over one year
with the full help of the judges of the family court of Wilhelmshaven, the
social workers of the Jugendamt of the city of Wilhelmshaven and the Verfahrenspfleger,
Claudia Markworth. The main reason for the exclusion of access to the children
unlawfully taken to Germany was that the foreign father had made the injustices
against his victim children public in particular via the medium of the internet.
22.11.2002. A grievance application
was made to the Higher Regional Court of Oldenburg in respect to the exclusion
of access to the South African children abducted to Germany in 1996 for a
period of six months in the decision of the district court of Wilhelmshaven
of the 04.10.2002 .
03.02.2003. The German judges Dr. Bartels, Dr.
Schubert and judge Kuhlmann (see 26.08.2004) of the Higher court of Oldenburg
rejected the grievance application of the 22.11.2002 case number 14 UF 186/02.
11.03.2003. A grievance application was made to the German Federal Constitutional
Court in regards to the decision of the Higher Regional Court of Oldenburg.
26.03.2003. The German Federal Constitutional Court
rejected my grievance application;
1. The decision of the 3 February 2003 in the case 14 UF 186/02 at the Higher
Regional court Oldenburg.
2. The decision of the 12 August 1997 in the case 16 F 298/02 of the
District Court of Wilhelmshaven.
Additional information
Case two
03.04.2003. an application was made to the District
Court of Wilhelmshaven to regulate access between the children abducted from
South Africa in 1996, and their foreign father by the means of an interim
court decision, so as to minimise the harmful effects of parental alienation
on the victim children. The application was given the case number 16 F 229/03
UG.
21.05.2003. an interim court hearing was held in
which the German family judge Staubwasser rejected the application outright
without consideration of any of the facts presented. Judge Staubwasser ordered
a psychological investigation of the applicant father. The wording of the
brief to the psychiatrist was in no uncertain terms designed to prevent the
father all access to his children and to lay the ground work to have him deported
from Germany so as to once and for all times settle the problem in the only
too well known, centuries old German way, which was tried tested and
perfected by German officials and judges between 1933 and 1945.
03.06.2003 the decision of the German judge Staubwasser
used as it’s main ground for the rejection of access between the foreign children
and their foreign father, the fact that the father had continued to report
on the German family courts and the scandalous working methods and decisions
of these courts in the international media in particular via the medium of
the internet.
10.08.2003. Grievance procedures were instituted
at the higher regional court of Oldenburg.
01.09.2003. The German judges Dr. Bartels, Dr.
Schubert and judge Kuhlmann (see 26.08.2004) of the Higher court of Oldenburg
rejected the grievance application of the 10.08.2003 case number 14 UF 126/03.
26.09.2003. Grievance application to the Federal
Constitutional court
11.11.2003. application to the German Federal Constitutional
Court case number 1 BvR 2176/03 was unanimously rejected by the German judges,
Judge President Papier, judge Steiner and judge Ms. Hohmann-Dennhardt.
This second matter was unfortunately not taken up with the European Court
of Human Rights in Strasbourg because the legal delay was missed due to the
pressure of other cases pending, threats on behalf of the German authorities,
lack of financial means and psychological and physical stress caused by the
enormous injustices being experienced.
Case three
23.07.2004. The matter again when to court in Wilhelmshaven
on the 23 July 2004, a court hearing attended by representatives of the South
African Government and foreign observers, a court hearing that was a complete
and utter fiasco, a hearing that was complete perversion of the law. Legal
proceedings to decide access to prevent further parental alienation of the
victim children case file number 16 F 229/03 was deliberately delayed for
period of one year by the German judge Staubwasser in an attempt to deny justice
to the victim children and their foreign father amongst other reasons. The
hearing was prematurely terminated by the foreign parent after he had rejected
the German family judge Staubwasser on the grounds of his openly bias attitude
towards the German abducting and boycotting of access German parent and unacceptable
dealings of the judge Staubwasser in particular his refusal to enter into
the official transcript of the hearing the questions put to him for inclusion
and his refusal to enter into the official transcript of the hearing other
important information in particular his refusal to record exactly what he
and the other responsible authorities had done to ensure the well being of
the children, to mediate between the parents and to help reduce the conflict
between the opposing parties.
26.07.2004. The German judge Staubwasser who had
been rejected in the hearing of the 23 July 2004 on the grounds of bias when
ahead and made his judgement regardless of where he granted the foreign victim
a fair trial or not. The German judge Staubwasser arbitrarily imposed the
exclusion of access between the victim foreign children and their foreign
parent until the year 2008.
02.08.2004. A grievance was entered at the Higher
Regional Court of Oldenburg.
26.08.2004. The grievance entered at the Higher
Regional Court of Oldenburg was rejected by the German judges Dr. Schubert,
Dr. Bartels and judge Kuhlmann on the 26 August without considering the application
entered on the 15 August.
Please note: The German judges Dr. Schubert,
Dr. Bartels and judge Kuhlmann concerned had previously repeatedly
been rejected due to bias.
An appeal to the Federal Constitutional Court is at the moment in preparation.
(if rejected by the Federal Constitutional Court this will be the basis of
a further application to the European court of human Rights)
Of very serious concern
to the applicant
01.11.2002. At the request of the foreign parent
a meeting was held at the German Federal Ministry of Justice in Berlin. Present
together with the foreign parent Michael Hickman were Mr. Peter Weideman
the South African Minister of Consular and Administration of the South African
Embassy in Berlin, Mrs. Dagma Ham of the South African Embassy in Berlin,
representing Germany Dr. Horst Heitland and judge Eberhard Carl of
the Federal Ministry of Justice. At the meeting judge Carl clearly made known
that if the South African father did not stop making public, in particular
via the medium of the internet, what he percieved as being unjust actions
towards the him by German judges, the foreign father would greatly reduce
his chances of ever gaining access to his children.
10.11.2002. Judge Eberhard Carl of the German
Federal Ministry of Justice in Berlin, tasked to deal with international child
abductions, threatened the foreign father over the telephone in a conversation
that was overheard by a witness who is willing to be named if required. Judge
Eberhard Carl said in very clear terms that if the foreign father continued
his legal battle for what he believed were his rights, if he did not stop
reporting the details of the alleged injustices that he claimed, in particular
via the medium of the internet then he (judge Eberhard Carl) would personally
see to it that the foreign parent would never gain access to his children.
12.12.2003. Judge Eberhard Carl of the German
Federal Ministry of Justice in Berlin again threatened the foreign parent
in front of witnesses (both of whom would be prepared to makes statements
if required) at the French Embassy in Berlin in regards to making his previous
threats of the 10.11.2002 public knowledge and reminded him that he would
not ever gain access to his children because the foreign father had disregarded
his warning not to continue to make the matter public knowledge in particular
not via the medium of the internet.
23.07.2004. The German Judge Fiedelak of the Higher Regional Court
of Oldenburg temporarily based at the District court of Wilhelmshaven, made
the following statement to an international observer at the court hearing
of the 23 July 2004 from the Netherlands, Dr. XXXX, “a parent who dares
to call a German judge a nazi or to criticise a German judge has no right
to access to his children”. An allegation that is in the first instance
untrue.
The views of these two senior German judges sums up
very concisely how German justice and the German way is applied to foreign
victim parents
Further detailed information regarding this case can be gathered from the
web site
http://www.michael-hickman.org.
Yours Faithfully
Michael Hickman
Wilhelmshaven Germany |