District court of Wilhelmshaven

The South African father:
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:
Nicola Hickman (Born Focken) is a German citizen, born in Wilhelmshaven, Germany on the 12. April 1963.

The Children:  
John-Michael Hickman, is a South African citizen, born in Durban South Africa on the 03 December 1989. South African ID. No. 89.1203 5007 002

Sebastian Richard Hickman, is a South African citizen, born in Durban, South Africa on the 18 October 1993. South African ID. No. 931018 5049 081

The German grandparents
Uwe and Ursula Focken, both German nationals, resident at Bismarckstrasse 96, 26382 Wilhelmshaven, Germany. Both played and active role in the abduction of the children to Germany, without their help the abduction could not have taken place..

The abduction and the state assisted boycott of access that has followed

29.11.1995. On the 29 November 1995 the children John-Michael and Sebastian Hickman were abducted secretly without the knowledge or the permission of the applicant, the South African father Michael Hickman, by their German mother Nicola Hickman, 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, John-Michael Hickman KA Nr. C 0430980, Sebastian Richard 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 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 Nicola Hickman 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 Nicola Hickman (Focken) 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 Michael Hickman 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 Nicola Hickman had committed a criminal act. It is clear for all to see that the district court of Wilhelmshaven assisted the German abducting parent to legalize the abduction of the children John-Michael and Sebastian Hickman to Germany

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 so called "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 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  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 Nicola Hickman returned to South Africa together with the children and the children's German grand mother Ursula Focken on the 20 January 1996.

21.01.1996. One day later on the 21. January 1996 the German parent Nicola Hickman together with the German grandmother of the children Ursula Focken again abducted the children from South Africa to Germany, after the eldest child John-Michael had made allegations to his South African parent Michael Hickman, grandparents Trevor and Stephney Hickman and his attorney uncle Bruce Hickman that he had been mistreated and physically abused by his German grandparents Uwe and Ursula Focken 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 Ursula Focken 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 Nicola Hickman and the children's German grandmother Ursula Focken fled South Africa in a panic because of the very real fear of criminal charges being laid against the German grandmother Ursula Focken 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 Nicola Hickman (Focken) again contacted the family court of the district court of Wilhelmshaven in an application made on a scrap of paper, made in the hand writing of Frau Rach of the Jugendamt Wilhelmshaven, which was 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 Nicola Hickman (focken) enters no evidence in defence of her second 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 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 back to South Africa only 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 Michael Hickman 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  rparentsight 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 Torquay 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 Michael Hickman who was not informed of the court hearing, included was the condition that the foreign parent Michael Hickman 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 Nicola Hickman (Focken) 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, in this case the higher regional court of Oldenburg. Again the family court judge Fasse has violated the right of the foreign parent and his children John-Michael and Sebastian Hickman to a fair trail and the right to be heard and has shown his bias in favour of the German abducting national Nicola Hickman (Focken).

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  legalized known international child abduction to Germany, in this instance the German family court judge Fasse 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 Jugendamt made no effort whatsoever to contact the foreign parent, the Jugendamt records in its 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 Attorney Helmet Stumm 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 attorney Helmut Stumm 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. The German attorney Helmut Stumm having inspected the court file of the district court of Wilhelmshaven would without any shadow of doubt have seen that incorrect procedures had been followed, he would have clearly seen that he was dealing with an international kidnaping he would have surely known that the abducting parent and here family were guilty of committing an offence §235 of the German criminal code, he would have clearly seen that the rights of his foreign client had been badly violated, yet he made no mention of these facts to his foreign client, neither did he do anything to rectify the matter. All written requests for assistance to the  Jugendamt went unanswered, the foreign parent got no assistance whatsoever from the Jugendamt Wilhelmshaven to restore contact to the children abducted to Germany. The child welfare office showed its 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 Jugendamt Wilhelmshaven 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 Nicola Hickman (Focken) 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 Nicola Hickman (Focken) has huge fears that the foreign parent will kidnap the children and take them to South Africa. The German mother Nicola Hickman (Focken) 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 Jugendamt Wilhelmshaven 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 Jugendamt 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 Nicola Hickman (Focken) 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 Jugendamt Wilhelmshaven towards the German abducting parent Nicola Hickman (Focken). (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 German nationalist 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 Jugendamt 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 Jugendamt Wilhelmshaven, 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 Jugendamt 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 well being of the child”. (This was reported to President Nelson Mandela in writing where the treatment recieved was likened to the treatment black South Africans recieved at the hands of the South African Nazi Apartheid Regime)

After the first session further access to the children was boycotted by the German parent, with the assistance Mrs. Rach of the Jugendamt 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 Jugendamt 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 in the name of the 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 Jugendamt 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 Jugendamt 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 legalized 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 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 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 finalized between the German Family judge Blohm and the German attorney representing the foreign father without his participation that he had demanded.

10.01.0. My total dissatisfaction at the biased and uncooperative stance taken by Frau Eden-Reske representing the City of Wilhelmshaven (Jugendamt)

April 2000. In response to the letter above criminal charges laid against the foreign father Michael Hickman by Dieter Viering on behalf of the Jugendamt Wilhelmshaven.
Read the full  and disgusting story here:
http://www.michael-hickman.info/sumpf_docs//000403_bulla_viering.html

22.07.2000. On 22 July 2000 the foreign parent Michael Hickman travelled to Wilhelmshaven Germany to attend a court hearing in the case 16 F 605/00.

22.07.2000. The foreign parent Michael Hickman 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 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  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 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.

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 minimize 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.

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 him being openly biased 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 (The German judge Staubwasser was asked if he intended giving the foreign parent a fair hearing, he was asked if he was capable of giving the foreign parent a fair hearing. He refued to answer the questions, he refused to put my questions to him in the official court transcript) 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 went ahead and made his judgement regardless of whether 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)
Dr. Uwe Biester CDU und Uwe Focken CDU dirigieren das AG Wilhelmshaven
 
13.05.04.  Nearly one year after the German psychiatrist Dr. Heinz Wintersched was tasked with the task of declaring the foreign parent Michael Hickman mentally unstable so as to prevent him all further access to his children, he finally delivered his so called "psychiatric report". He made his report after never having met the foreign father neither had he ever spoken to the foreign parent over the telephone. His entire report consisted of four pages, a report that took a year to complete. He determined that the foreign parent was suffering from paranoia and was therefore a danger to his children. He recommended that the foreign father not have access to the children until they are adults.
 
29.06.04 a critical appraisal of the made by the psychologist and family law specialist Horst Schmeil, which very thoroughly analysed  the so called "psychiatric report" made by Dr. Heinz Winterscheid declaring it as being unprofessional and fake was entered at the district court of Wilhelmshaven.

23.07.2004. On the friday yet another court hearing under the direction of the totally biased German family judge Staubwasser, a total fiasco from beginning to end. The foreign father rejected judge Staubwasser on the grounds of bias after he refused to enter specific important items into the court transcript. When asked whether he was prepared to grant the foreign parent a fair trial he refused to answer. When he was asked to guaranteed the foreign parent a fair trial, judge Staubwasser refused to answer the question although it was repeated three times. Judge Staubwasser accepted the motion to reject him on the grounds of being biased, he got up and left the court room ahead of the foreign parent, Michael Hickman.
 
26.07.2004. On the Monday the German Judge Staubwasser although he accepted his rejection and had terminated the court proceedings and having left ahead of the foreign parent, he went ahead and made his judgement. He made the judgement that the foreign father was to be forbidden all contact until they are adult to his children who were unlawfully abducted to Germany nine years previously, children who he has not officially had contact to for nine years, since their abduction.

13.08.04. Beschluß des AG-Wilhelmshaven Es hat mich auch in Erstaunen versetzt, daß der Kollege Winterscheid die Unverfrorenheit besitzt, an der Verhandlung teilzunehmen. Ganz offensichtlich will er um jeden Preis seine Paranoia Theorie an den Mann bringen, und dazu muß er Sie gesehen haben. Ein international anerkannter Kollege, den ich hier in der Mail nicht nennen möchte, ist bereit, sie neutral und wissenschaftlich fundiert zu untersuchen und dabei wird mit Sicherheit kein gerichtsgefälliges Gutachten herauskommen.
 
 21.08.04. Sehr geehrter Herr Hickman, es war nicht besonders Klug, die psychiatrische Erkrankung ihrer Frau N den Gericht zu verschweigen. Diese Form von Rücksicht dient Niemanden, am wenigsten Ihren Kindern. Sie können Ihre Kinder nicht in der Obhut einer schwerkranken erziehungsunfägen Mutter zurücklassen. Jetzt ist das Gericht gefordert, den Sachverhalt aufzuklären, wenn es sich nicht den Vorwurf gefallen lassen will, Kindesmissbrauch billigend in Kauf zu nehmen. Handeln Sie Herr Hickman, bevor Ihre Kinder einen dauerhaften Schaden erleiden. Ich hoffe, dass dem inkompetenten (oder vielleicht auch nur geschäftstüchtigen) Kollegen Winterscheid langsam die Einsicht kommen wird, wer hier in Wirklichkeit krank ist.

1) Isolierter Antrag auf Sorgerechtsänderung wegen Kindeswohlgefährdung im Wege einstweiliger Anordnung im Eilverfahren zu regeln;

2) Beantragt wird, wegen Kindeswohlgefährdung durch die Kindesmutter und ihrer psychischen Labilität die Übertragung der Sorge auf den Kindesvater und eine psychiatrische Untersuchung der Kindesmutter und Kinder im Sinne des § 1666 BGB,um das Ausmaß der Schädigung festzustellen;.
 
3) Antrag auf eine lückenlose Aufklärung und Anhörung aller hier genannten Zeugen;

4) Mit einem kinderpsychologisches Gutachten einen wissenschaftlich anerkannten Gutachter zu beauftragen,der die Interaktion zwischen Vater-Kind- und den Beeinflussungsgrad der Kinder (PAS) untersucht;

5) Ich gebe zu bedenken, daß sich Herr Richter Staubwasser und der Psychiater Dr. med. Winterscheid sich selbst aus freien Stücken für befangen erklären sollten, um sich weitere Peinlichkeiten zu ersparen,

14.09.04. zu den Antrag auf einstweilige Anordnung im Eilverfahren von 02.09.04
Es ist mittlerweile zwei Wochen vergangen seit Eingang meines Antrages auf einstweilige Anordnung im Eilverfahren wegen Kindeswohlgefährdung ohne dass jedoch das Amtsgericht Wilhelmshaven in dieser Angelegenheit tätig geworden ist.

Anbei sind im Anhang zwei Briefe der Staatsanwaltschaft Oldenburg zur Sache der Ermittlungsverfahren gegen den Großvater Uwe Focken wegen mangelnde Selbstbeherrschung und die Gewalttätigkeit und die Gewalttätigkeit an Herrn N und der Antragsteller Michael Hickman, die unter anderem Auskunft über gewalttätigen Charakter des deutschen Großvater Uwe F geben.

1. Brief der Staatsanwaltschaft Oldenburg vom 13. Jan. 2003 NZS 333 Js 2224/03

2. Brief der Staatsanwaltschaft Oldenburg vom 26. Jun. 2002 NZS 333 Js 31137/02
  
16.10.04. Es wird beantragt:Eine halbe Sekunde begleiteten Umgang mit meinen Kindern John-Michael Hickman und Sebastian Richard Hickman um mich zu verabschieden.

Gründe:Der Antragsteller wird Wilhelmshaven für immer am 21 Oktober 2004 verlassen.

No answer to date. Kein Antwort bis Heute
  
03.11.04. A thorough independant psychiatric investigation was made of the foreign father Michael Hickman by the very experienced psychiatrist Dr. Klempel, a psychiatrist with extensive experience as a psychiatrist in South Africa and Australia. (NEUROPSYCHIATRISCHES  GUTACHTEN über Herrn Michael  HICKMAN). The psychiatric report made makes it very clear that there is no evidence whatsoever of any trace of psychiatric dosorder to be found. It severely criticises the so called "psychiatric report" made by Dr. Winterscheid saying that it is totally unproffesional and of no value at all, it goes on to say that the report made by Dr. Heinz WInterscheid was clearly done as a favour for the district court judge Staubwasser of the district court of Wilhelmshaven to find grounds to prevent access between the foreign father Michael Hickman and his sons John-Michael and Sebastian Hickman.
 
05.11.04. An renewed application was made to the family court of Wilhelmshaven to review the decision of judge Stuabwasser in denying me access to my children in view of the psychiatric report done by Dr. Klempel.

26.11.05 Criminal charges have been laid against the family court judge for in connection with the criminal collusion between him and Dr. Uwe Biester. 26 November 2005. The charges being deception in legal proceedings, defeating the ends of justice, misuse of office. (Strafanzeige gegen den deutschen Familienrichter Staubwasser vom Amtsgericht Wilhelmshaven auf Grund von Prozessbetrug, Rechtsbeugung und Amtsmissbrauch unter Korruption durch den Rechtsanwalt Dr. Uwe Biester.)

26.09.06  To date the district court of Wilhelmshaven has refused to process my application of the 05.11.04

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 perceived 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. Peter Tromp, “a parent who dares to call a German judge a nazi or to criticize 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

Every conceivable dirty filthy trick in the book has been used to prevent the foreign parent Michael Hickman and his English speaking family from having contact to the abducted victim children.

Every thing possible has been done by all concerned in Germany to culturally alienate and to brainwash (Germanise/nazify) the foreign children abducted to Germany nine years ago.

Everything possible has been done by all concerned in Germany to bring about parental alienation PAS between the children John-Michael and Sebastian Hickman and their father as well as the entire extended family members.

Not one single thing has been done in nine years on the part of the district court of Wilhelmshaven, the Jugendamt of the City of Wilhelmshaven or any other official or politician in Germany to help in any way possible to help find a civilized solution to the problem faced or to help bring about contact between the children and their foreign family.

What we see here is a very clear classical case of Nazi ideology and present day German Nationalism being put into practice.

This documentation of the case is by no means complete and will be continued at a later date.