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.
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
Jugendamt Wilhelmshaven 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 Wilhelmshaven
made no effort whatsoever to contact the foreign parent, the
Jugendamt
Wilhelmshaven 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 Wilhelmshaven
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 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
Jugendamt 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 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 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 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 child welfare
office of the city of Wilhelmshaven (Jugendamt) 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 national 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 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 well being 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
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
Wilhelmshaven and the court.
29.08.1996. On the 29.08.1996,
file number 51-22/05, a report was made by the
Jugendamt
Wilhelmshaven 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.
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
Jugendamt Wilhelmshaven 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
Jugendamt Wilhelmshaven
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/jugendamt/ja_docs/000403_ja_bulla.htm
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 Wilhelmshaven
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.
Every conceivable dirty filthy
trick in the book has been used by the Jugendamt Wilhelmshaven 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 the Jugendamt Wilhelmshaven
to culturally alienate and to brainwash (Germanise/nazify) the foreign
children since their unlawful abduction to abducted to Germany in
1995 and again in 1996.
Everything possible has been done by by the Jugendamt
Wilhelmshaven 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 since the unlawful abductions
in 1995 and again in 1996 by the Jugendamt Wilhelmshaven, to help
find a civilized solution to end the blatant violations of human rights
neither have they done a single thing to help bring about contact between
the victim 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 by the
Jugendamt Wilhelmshaven.
