Home  |  Top Books  |  Sign in  |        



Like it?
Share it!







More...
from The Horror which Became My Life by Rose Wood

Copyright © 2018–2019 Rose Wood

Chapter 4
The Saga of Court

Firstly I would like to make it clear that there is only one thing I want. 

I want to focus on my children’s wellbeing and to be their Mother again. Their advocate as they need it. I was their full time carer from birth until July 2017. I would like to have my children with me during the week. Currently they are spending more time with a twenty year old nanny, than the respondent, who has day to day care, and what he describes is a full-time, high powered job. This is not acceptable. The children have SPD and ASD and need a parent present to meet their ever changing, and complex needs, after school. For the record, I would never, and have never, hurt my children, nor put them in any danger. I therefore refute the unfounded safety issues the respondent claims he has concerns about, with respect to me being with my children alone. I was the parent who did every night feed, nappy change, sick day off school, sports fixtures and 99.9% of all appointments for their diagnoses, IEP’s , therapy and other doctors visits etc. I had them on special diets and kept in touch with their teachers, helping at any school function I could. This ongoing word battle over who did what and when, is to me, a waste of my time. Its sole purpose is financial gain by blackening my character in an attempt to mislead the court into granting him the power to destroy me. The respondent seems apparently unable to tell the truth. 

Again I am dragged in to this battle because of the serious and false allegations made about me that I wish to prove without doubt are untrue.  The length of time this situation has gone on for, based on bitter vengeful hearsay, is not acceptable in terms of both of the children’s lifetimes.

My aim is to make provisions for the care and repair of my children, who have had their mother removed from their lives for more than a year now. Knowing that my children hear that their advocate, full time carer and most important person in their lives was just a junkie, is distressing.They must be totally confused and this needs to be addressed. In the future how can they trust anyone since the person they trusted the most is not, according to the respondent, what they thought I was. What measure will they use to judge others when their belief system has been thoughtlessly desecrated by the respondent, their own father? They have suffered enough. So have I. The focus of this hearing should not be on testing me over and over without reason, when I admitted I went to a party and took something. The respondent has use my honesty against me and shattered my children’s trust.hy is this man not concentration on protecting the most important thing we each have a vested interest in, the wellbeing of innocent children, who have every right to believe we would always be doing the best for them. The children have been intentionally mislead into believing the respondent's portrayal of their mother as a hopeless junkie.The respondent fails to mention my real persona. I spent 4 years (2000-2005) getting a research masters in chemistry from the prestigious University College London. I was thirty five when I graduated.

I embarked on a Ph.D. in laser physics, which was blue sky research and totally ridiculed by the respondent, despite our research group gracing the front cover of Nature. I have four separate qualifications in yoga. I am also an advanced plant based chef, an expert on the gut bacterial communities and autism, and a vegan.I generated a large following on Facebook and Instagram promoting healthy recipes, nutritional advice and experimental recipe design.

Until I was told I would be working at a brothel, I was working on finding novel packaging for a range of plant based milks assisted by a mentor from Auckland council. I fail to see any suggestions in the numerous affidavits the respondent feels the necessity to file, that would improve my children’s lives in either the short or the long term. Instead he focuses on giving misleading evidence, none of which is justified by a single shred of proof.

I believe that the four of us should still work as family. Making sure, even if we are no longer in a marriage, that both parents are emotionally and financially stable so that the children are not affected. The children’s wellbeing is paramount as stated in the COCA 2014.

The respondent's treatment of my children and I has been utterly cruel. All three of us have had enough. We have all clearly stated this. He refuses to acknowledge anyones needs or wishes.

I wish to state that any reconciliatory attempt I have offered, to end this battle for the wellbeing of the children, has been denied or sadly ignored. 

I asked the respondent why his counsel refuses to answer my emails. He replied, "he doesn't have time to answer your rubbish, and doesn't have to anyway." To date all my attempts at dispute resolution have been refuted. This is the only thing I want. I want my children to have both parents in their lives.This is a basic human right which they have been denied for over a year now. All I want is shared custody and an adult discussion and agreement with only them in mind. This is documented in my parenting plan. I now find myself one year from the original parenting order, compelled to respond to yet another petty affidavit of the respondent, dated 27th August 2018. 

I have little choice but to file as I totally refute his claims. I want to rectify the defamation of my character which has destroyed my life here in New Zealand. There have been numerous privacy breaches which are against the rules. The case involves two minors and therefore is unacceptable.  It is without doubt that the recipients of the information about my private test results knew that I was the subject of the breach and so I am identifiable.

One breach by the respondent to my landlord at the business resulted in the closing of my business and took away my only source of income. I wish to claim damages for the actions of the respondent. These actions have caused distress and grief for myself, my children and all of the members of my family in the UK.To date I have consciously made sure that statements I have made to this court are true and that I can provide evidence to prove they are true. I have always argued that the respondent has not yet produced any tangible evidence to support any of the claims he has made throughout this case.I have found his affidavits to be highly contradictory in places. 

In his affidavit dated 25th May 2018, he seems bemused in General Points paragraph 4; when he refers to my occupying the house,

“Rose describes this place as her home.” 

 He then goes on to describe the properties as ‘interests’, which were both rented and, “continued to be rented after separation.” 

In paragraph 5 he states, ‘we could sell the house to release some funds for her."

I find these comments contradictory to a more recently filed occupation order, in which the house was suddenly put forward as the family home. 

This order was filed at a much later stage in the case, but I would hope that, even though there is a time period between the two statements, that his counsel at least, would recall or simply even review the previous statements made by his client sworn on oath to be true. This would ensure his integrity in my eyes, if not the integrity of his client.

I would expect sworn affidavits to be evaluated upon their truth before making statements that are obviously contradictory in a court of law. Not once does the respondent mention the children’s welfare nor their need for a more permanent home in his affidavit dated 25th May 2018, Nor does he mention a pet, which he uses as justification for my leaving the house.

In the occupation order (dated 17th July 2018), what my youngest son is asking for is the cat I bought them which lives at the house with me.

They have been asking to see the cat or months since the respondent has refused to allow any contact between the children and I since April 2018.

Recent correspondence between his counsel and I where he refuses to facilitate any access to the children at all indefinitely is distressing.

I have texts contradicting his reasons for occupancy and I believe that the respondent is deliberately manipulating and misleading the court.

I regret that my children are caught in the middle as pawns and I wish to point out that the respondent, and more disturbingly his counsel, have acted with a severe lack of integrity. It seems they have no respect for the sworn truth, deliberately filing contradictory statements in affidavits. This has resulted in a serious consequence for me; the loss of contact with my children for more than a year. 

At present there is no end in sight. The respondents application for an occupation order should be viewed as an abuse of process, a tool solely to remove me from the only home I have. The reasons for the occupation of the house are fabricated.

The shocking part of this saga is that the children know that their father intends to evict their mother from the house. I have no family here, and nowhere else to go. They have voice concerns about evicting their mother.

For a child, this is unacceptable worry and therefore emotional abuse.

As the main person in their lives since they were born I had spent only two nights away from them in their whole lives, up until they were unreasonably removed from me in July/August 2017. 

The respondent has acted unlawfully taking the children out of Auckland numerous times without my knowledge.

Without a court order in place, he moved house with the children in Aug 2017 and refused to give me the new address.

Once the children had given me the address, in a further attempt to prevent me seeing the children and still without a court order, he left Auckland with the boys. He hid at his mother’s house for around ten days. 

I had no idea where they were and! was not informed that they were even going.

The respondent and the children left Auckland on 23rd December 2017 without any notice, despite an agreement in court made by my lawyer in this court that I would have access to the children on Christmas Eve.

The children returned to Auckland ten days later and I did not see them again until February 2018.

The children were taken to Australia without my knowledge, and after six days of silence I sent a text telling the respondent that I would contact the Lawyer for Child if I didn’t hear from him. 

He then called forcing the children to lie to me on the phone and say they were in Auckland.

Since then I have seen my children a handful of times. 

Supervision has been difficult to arrange, since the respondent will not allow any person I suggest to supervise and is aware that I have no family here in New Zealand to assist. 

I note his most recent offering to the court dated (27th August 2018), where he suggests supervised contact every second week. I asked this week to see the children and have their nanny supervise. He refused.

He does not wish my children to have the sanctity of a mother. 

He attempts to sever the strong bond I have with both of my children using alienating tactics. I have lost my connections at school since they have been have been shut down by the respondent.

There have been numerous breaches of my privacy designed to discredit me and giving out the details of this case.

This case involves two minors and I was clearly identifiable in the breaches.

   

According to the Ministry of Justice website breaches of privacy are serious when they involve;

i. a person who has applied for a protection order under the Domestic Violence Act   

1995(external link), or in respect of whom a protection order has been made under that Act;  

ii. a person whom the Court considers likely for any other reason to be particularly susceptible to any adverse consequences associated with the publication of a report of the proceedings that contains identifying information. These people will be identified in the judgment.

I have examples of breaches in which the respondent liberally gives out information about my urine tests, and laughs at the humiliating protocol he insisted on without good reason. 

N.B. This protocol was one I complained about in my first affidavit in November 2017.

The respondent also discusses the results of my hair follicle tests

I was encouraged to do...







Rose Wood is accepting feedback on this chapter.

Would you like to be a part of it?

Sign in or join to offer your feedback and constructive criticism.

FAQ: I don't feel "qualified" to give feedback. Can I still provide it?





Read books      FAQ      Contact me      Terms of Use      Privacy Policy

© 2019 Dream, Play, Write! All rights reserved.