In dealing with a number of cases involving parents being encouraged to play the family justice system for the profit of solicitors, Kids for Cash UK (K4CUK) has seen multiple instances of domestic abuse being perpetrated by the mother, followed by false allegations of domestic violence against the father to achieve a fast tracked, legal aid funded, ex-parte Non Molestation Order, that allows the mother time and space to alienate the child(ren) from the father. The Non-Mol is also a handy tool to convince Children’s Services, the police and other agencies of the ‘vulnerability’ of the errant parent. By this point, the path of deceit has added perjury and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice to the mix. My original story went on to evidence end to end, systematic fraud that included the involvement of the Legal Services Commission.
In these cases, the Child Support Agency (CSA) has often been used by the mother as a further weapon against the father, with the agency having a reputation for failing to properly take into account the situation of the ‘paying parent’ in circumstances where they have been the victim of serious criminal offences perpetrated by the ‘receiving parent’. Too often, the CSA has gone beyond bureaucratic incompetence into evidenced malpractice but many parents are frightened to speak out in case of retribution by the agency. However, I am fortunate in that I have a CSA case of my own that evidences agency malpractice and criminality as the accepted norm. Undoubtedly, those with an agenda will rush to make a negative judgement without having detailed knowledge of the case but it is more important to get the whistleblowers’ story into the public domain.
In February 2012, I had a prearranged meeting with two CSA officers at my home address. The meeting lasted just under two hours and was recorded by me. Whilst the officers struggled to fit me into one of their pigeon holes, they were surprisingly candid about blowing the whistle on malpractice within the agency. During the meeting, the officers revealed that, because of the way information is stored on the CSA’s IT systems, the information imparted by me during the meeting would be ignored. Their view was that case officers would not review the information held in the free-text fields before processing a case. As a result, the officers advised me not to provide certain details on their form, their fear being that I would be railroaded by the process without due regard to my circumstances. The officers clearly understood that the process was deeply flawed and that malpractice was rife within their organisation. Having concluded the meeting with the officers scratching their heads as to how they were going to deliver an assessment when I didn’t fit into any of their predefined criteria, I awaited further contact… and waited. A year later and still no contact, I concluded that they had given up on the idea.
Roll forward to the end of August 2013, when though my door pops a court summons. The summons included a court date with an option of a final demand lump sum payment. There have followed three letters from me, all of which the CSA have ignored, some of which the CSA claim to have ‘lost’. The CSA’s Client Services Director, Jim Edwards, has now had a letter and a copy of all of the previous letters sent to him via surface mail, as well as a copy sent by an electronic webmail form. So far, there’s been no response but I have received a revised court date with information that demonstrates that the agency must have received some, if not all, of my previous letters.
The impending proceedings evidence the CSA’s willingness, as a matter of standard process, to disregard known flaws in its own processes with an assumption that the court will rubber stamp its abuse of the legal process, whilst ignoring the fact that no statutory assessment has been provided and that, by the CSA officers’ own admission, none of the circumstances related in my meeting of 2012 will have been taken into account.
In such circumstances, CSA officers responsible for bringing the case to court are committing a number of criminal offences:
- Misconduct in public office
- Conspiracy to pervert the course of justice
However, a difficulty in prosecuting officers arises because the CSA flatly refuses to reveal the names of the casework manager(s) involved in any case. So, what to do? Firstly, we must see if the CSA allows the case to go to court in circumstances where its officers know that it shouldn’t be there. Secondly, if it does go to court and the agency still refuses to disclose the names of the individuals responsible, a police complaint will be made. If the police fail to act, which is business as usual for public sector crime in most force areas, an application will be made to the court for details of the identities of the officers responsible. K4CUK has already made a request to the Chief Crown Prosecutor for an urgent meeting on this and a number of other victims’ cases relating to corruption and malpractice within the public sector.
What happened next? See Derby Magistrates in the Dock at: http://davidgaleuk.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/derby-magistrates-in-the-dock/
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:
David Gale | Interim Chief Executive | Kids for Cash UK | w:http://www.KidsForCashUK.org
Kids for Cash UK – protecting vulnerable children by exposing paedophiles and investigating criminal corruption in the family justice and social care systems
David Gale’s Facebook page is available via: https://www.facebook.com/DavidGaleCampaignNews