Emily Rose Hindle

Arrest Warrant Issued by Florida Judge for Emily's Dad on Stalking from 1,000 miles

2009-10-08T17:26:00.016+01:00

I returned to the UK from the US on 22nd September as the US Department of Homeland Security would not extend my visa despite the appeal process pending in Florida.

I get home to find that the new husband of my ex, Emily's mom, had filed stalking charges against me because Patsy and I had complained to the police of his threats to the pair of us and him claiming to be a cop.

The result was that despite not being served, there was an arraignment hearing on October 2nd in Panama City before His Honor Judge Shane Vann.

I faxed the judge on October 1st to advise His Honor that I was in the UK, had not been served and in any event could not possibly attend because I was overseas.

I copied in the family court judge, His Honor Judge Rowe in DeLand, Volusia County for good measure - I checked with the online system - "No action per Judge"

The result is that Judge Vann has issued an arrest warrant for me because I failed to appear.

The stalking charges have been filed by Paul Swindell, Sheila's new husband - no stranger to the wrong side of law enforcement with an arrest record for assault and battery on several occasions as well as grand theft, not to mention he was arrested for beating his former wife who also had to obtain a protection order to stop him and which the court was convinced, she needed.

He claims I have followed him continuously since April 2009.

Yet, with the sole exception of the Spring Break visitation, I have not been within 500 miles of Panama City.

Paul Swindell claims I have his home under observation and tracked him down.

His wife filed a change of address with the court which is how I was notified of the address.

He claims I have tried to have him fired from his job.

Until he filed these ridiculous charges, I did not know where he worked.

Now, call me cynical but what do you think the odds are that as I am told to leave the US by Immigration, a local police department (Panama City PD) with whom Paul Swindell has connections, should file stalking charges against a man who lives 1,000 miles away and now, 4,000 miles away?

What do you think the odds are that this happens just as we come to the end of the appeals process in Florida?

Answers in an email please but if anyone has a defense attorney willing to represent me pro bono, I'd be very grateful for the referral.

The Avoidable Case Of Christopher Savoie

2009-10-05T12:24:00.004+01:00

Ken Connolly is the author of Throwing Stones and an exceptionally special individual not least because he gives insight into what it is like to be a child subjected to abduction - Ken and his brother were abducted as children by their father in the 70's.

Ken has been tireless in his work aimed at enlightening and educating law enforcement, legislators, the judiciary and the public at large on what it means to be abducted as a child.

The Avoidable Case Of Christopher Savoie

This past week in Japan an American father was forced to take action in order to regain his abducted children. Christopher Savoie, a law abiding citizen was apprehended outside of the United States Consulate while trying to enter with his children. The local police placed Christopher in jail on the charge of child abduction. What is most disturbing is that Christopher was attempting to return his children after they were abducted by their biological
mother against a United States court order keeping them in the United States.

Japanese law is not a co-signer to the 1980 Hague Convention on international parental child abduction. Under this confusing, and often webbed convention, the home state has jurisdiction on child custody issues. If a child is taken to another state, that state has an obligation to return the child. Since Japan does not recognize this convention, it allows an open door policy of stealing children to Japan, as long as the parent is a Japanese citizen.

On the other hand, if a child is taken to the United States, Japan is quick to request the child returned. Since Japan has close ties to the United States, this indifference is often overlooked. This unbalanced system of international cooperation has created the picture definition of forum shopping. Basically, if you don’t like the court outcome, move somewhere where you will get the outcome you want.

What must be understood is that Japan is not the only nation to overlook illegal retention of a child against a sovereign state’s right of custody. However what is important here is that there are numerous cases of non custodial parents who have taken their children to Japan and been given protection. What Christopher’s case shows is that if you try to retain your children, you will be locked up, and charged with the very crime that allowed the non custodial parent to enter Japan. So where did all of this start?

Back in January Christopher Savoie was in divorce court from his ex-wife a Japanese citizen. His wife agreed to live within the boundaries of the court ruling. Simply, she needed only to have them back in time for school. Mr. Savoie raised concerns that his ex-wife would try to take the children to Japan. His concerns were overlooked and as a result of poor judgment, his ex-wife was able to secret his children off to Japan. When Christopher discovered what had happened, a warrant was issued in the United States for the mother’s arrest.

Japan has a history of favoring mothers as the sole conservator of small children in divorce cases. What is different in Japan is that when the other parent loses custody, they are completely severed from their children. Given the Japanese family court system, it only promotes cases like Christopher Savoie. What is still often overlooked in these type cases is the children, and the affect it has on them. While the parents, courts and officials slug it out, the children sit quietly behind the scenes falling apart internally.

As a former abducted child and author on parental child abduction I know exactly how these little children feel and what they are going through. For three years I was abducted by my father and lived in two states. On more than one occasion my father considered moving to Australia. There was the constant fear of being uprooted in the middle of the night and whisked away because the feds were closing in on my dad. On more than one occasion I would wake to the shouts of my father, and cries from my fellow kidnapped siblings.

When asked how long it took to become confused and protect my abductor, I often answer within just weeks of the initial kidnapping. What must be understood is that a child unlike their adult counterpart, cannot reason between the crime and the misguided love of their parent. They do not see an outcome where they will be reunited if they go to the police or make a public plea for help. Their circumstance is just life as they know it. When returned home they are confused even further over the ordeal.

What can make the child’s experience worse is when the abducting parent denies communication with the other parent, and tries to distort their view of the other parent. For me, I can see this as the main cause for Christopher’s son freezing in the street, and not following his father, and sister to the United States Consulate. After his father has been apprehended, the abducting parent can then use her son’s confusion as a viable argument in court. Sadly, this is not due to his father being unfit, but from the abducting mother’s grooming of her child.

What should be taken from this is that Christopher and his children’s ordeal could have been avoided back in Tennessee during the divorce proceedings. The judge was fully informed of Mr. Savoie’s concerns, and history of Japan allowing non custodial parents to abduct their children. Next, if Japan wants equal international rights for children taken abroad, maybe they should change their policy, and join the Hague Convention of 1980, or suffer the same results they inflict upon other State’s custodial rights. Lastly, the effect parental abduction has upon the children involved can have greater impact than stranger based abduction; since the loss of trust is so great.

Ken Connelly is an author, speaker, former law enforcement officer and victim of parental child abduction. His book, Throwing Stones; Parental Child Abduction
Through The Eyes Of A Child, is the first book written from the child’s point of
view during an abduction.

Ken Connelly Author/Speaker Throwing Stones; parental child abduction through the eyes of a child 214 364 4181 iPhone mobile

www.ThrowingStones@ymail.com http://www.facebook.com/l/e8785;www.authorsden.com/kennethdconnelly http://www.facebook.com/l/e8785;www.myspace.com/ThrowingStonesBook

Judge Doyle Steps Down in Foreclosure Case Amidst "Racist" Comments

2009-09-01T21:37:00.005+01:00

The Florida judge who let Emily go blind and claims "In this County we're provincials. We don't do the Hague Convention!" [international law for non-child abduction readers] has found himself in the spotlight yet again.

Judge Doyle has recused himself from a foreclosure case after it was claimed he made "inferences of a racial or ethnic bias" against an attorney, Farzad Milani, reports Jay Stapleton of the Daytona Beach Journal.

Judge Doyle told attorney Farzad Milani, "that he would not do his work while (Milani) sits in his office in Fort Lauderdale smoking his Cohiba cigars and drinking his lattes," according to court records. This isn't racist but then I understand the motion filed in the 5th District Court of Appeal in Daytona contains the juicy aspects of the alleged bad behavior. It certainly persuaded Judge Doyle to step down when they filed in the Appeal Court but let's wait and see.

Judge Doyle's nickname amongst local attorneys is "Wildman" Doyle; whether the claims are true or not, Judge Doyle just can't seem to keep himself out of the local news for one reason or another ... and none of them are good!

Less than a month ago, Judge Doyle ignored the Federal Loan Modification Program, the lending bank and the homeowner, all of whom agreed the foreclosure was not to go ahead - "Motion Denied" says Judge Doyle and the house was sold from under the family despite paying as required (as reported by Channel 9's Jason Allen link for this TV slot is here)

Heat Lightning Strikes Three Times: Ariel Ayubo, Robert Skelton & Karl Hindle

2009-08-26T18:16:00.006+01:00

Ariel Ayubo's son was abducted from the US to Brazil several years ago - I met him at the Sean Goldman rally in Washington DC and was struck by his quiet reserve. On Friday last, Ariel flew to Brazil under close protection (or observation) by the Brazilian Federal police to finally have contact with Lorenzo.

It's a small world as Ariel lives in Edgewater, Florida a few short miles from Daytona where Emily's appeal was filed last Friday.

On Thursday night, I met up with Ariel and Robert Skelton, another Volusia County father who has his daughter, Marissa Joy Kvistad missing after being abducted to Spain and then Switzerland.

A balmy Florida evening descended with a fantastic display of heat-lightning courtesy of Hurricane Bill out in the Atlantic. We meandered along Flagler Avenue of New Smyrna Beach enjoying seafood (it was the local Shrimp Festival that night)as well as each other's company demonstrating that laughter is good medicine.

Thoughts unspoken were on Ariel as he had his flight to Brazil the next day. Rob and I both know what it feels like to be so keyed up at the prospect of seeing your child, if only for a brief few moments and maybe not at all but the hope is there - making sure Ariel was distracted from what lay ahead was the priority and from the smile on his face, I think we can say we succeeded.

Good luck Ariel!

Florida Bound ... Again!

2009-08-16T01:27:00.003+01:00

Frantic packing to get ourselves ready to get down to Florida in anticipation of Monday.

I have a final brief to complete but I am more concerned on the recent developments regarding the admission Florida did not have jurisdiction at the time of the Hague Convention hearing in London which wrongly sent Emily to Florida.

Of necessity things will have to be quiet for a while as London talks to Washington DC and meanwhile I have business in Florida.

Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!
Sir Walter Scott, Marmion, Canto vi. Stanza 17.

Appeal Update: Emily's Mom Admits Florida Did Not Have Jurisdiction

2009-08-13T14:54:00.004+01:00

I received the brief from Sheila's attorney, Kim Banister a couple of days ago and had a flip through.

Within the brief, it is conceded that Florida was NOT the home state when the British High Court sent her to Florida but after 6 years, Emily should stay in the US now - my efforts are nothing more than sour grapes.

SIX years of legal conniving and gymnastics and after so much time has been wasted while Emily has been allowed to go blind in her eye, the argument from the mother is, she's been here too long so she should stay, oh and we can't send her back to the British High Court and tell THEM they made a mistake.

First off - the British High Court did not make a mistake - Barbara Greig, the US Government official tasked with filing Hague Convention applications deliberately misled the British authorities claiming Florida held jurisdiction over Emily - she knew or ought to have known that it did not. The mother also lied about Florida being where she had been living for 6 months as did Barbara Greig - this is fraud.

Second - I am interested to see what Sean and David Goldman's supporters and the Congress of the United States have to say about this argument. After all - if an American court is going to find that Emily has to now stay here, what about Sean Goldman in Brazil?

What about all the rest of the children taken out of America and held for so long - is the principal going to be established that it is OK to abduct children to America and as long as you hang on long enough you win?

If it works this way it works for all those abductors stealing children out of America too.

There is a post script - Sean Goldman has not been given to a pedophile - he has not been denied medical treatment and allowed to go blind and his father has not been arrested by the Brazilian authorities or been banned from entering Brazil.
Here in America, all this things and more have been done to Emily Rose and that is simply not right.

Chasing the Cyclone: A Complete Scam

2009-07-30T18:43:00.000+01:00

Martin Boyle: In His Own Words

2009-07-21T20:28:00.003+01:00

The Bring Sean Home group have achieved a notable success: theirs is a forum which is attracting many left-behind parents, or as I shall refer to them from here on in, Chasing Parents (a term coined by Peter Thomas in his book, Chasing the Cyclone but more on that tomorrow).

Martin is a university lecturer in the UK and his daughter, Rebecca, was abducted to Brazil and his quest to recover his beloved daughter and then to simply remain in contact with her ended in imprisonment and deportation - all contact with Rebeca has been lost and she has been raised in a new identity to deny her heritage and her father - this is his story in his own words.

Rebeca Rezende Boyle – Brazil

Martin Boyle

This story shows not only how a jealous and bitter woman can use a developing country’s fractured judicial system to wreak revenge on her daughter’s father and havoc on her child’s life, but also how a timid, lazy and duplicitous British government actively connives in child abduction and the false imprisonment of its citizens.

I am a British man, Martin Boyle, who was married to a Brazilian woman, Mara Silvia Oliveira Rezende. The result of my 15 year battle to see my daughter is that I have had my father's rights illegally removed in Brazil, my daughter has been fraudulently adopted by another man (the modus operandi in Brazil) and I have been imprisoned in São Paulo on a trumped up charge of non-payment of child support - all in a relentless attempt to physically block me from seeing my daughter. I have been simply unable to see my daughter since 1994 because my ex-wife and her family - with the active connivance of the Brazilian legal system and the pathetic dithering of the British authorities - has managed to run rings around everyone, hide my daughter away, commit perjury and simply refuse to cooperate with any request for access.

My ex-wife and I lived in the UK and Brazil and had a daughter, Rebeca, who was born in July 1992. Our relationship broke down and we separated in December 1992 after my ex-wife had engineered my firing from my post as an English teacher and my in-laws’ lawyers had ordered me to leave the family home. I went through a rushed custody hearing which I was not prepared for and which I only half understood and custody was awarded to my ex-wife. I was told I could visit Rebeca one afternoon every two weeks. I was also told that I had to pay £180 sterling a month in child support. I did not have a job or a home (I was sleeping on a friend's floor) because so I left Brazil to return to the UK to weigh up my options.

I returned to the UK in December 1992 seriously depressed and worked sporadically for a few months. I was unable to pay the child support stipulated but did send money when I could. During this time, neither my ex-wife nor my in-laws acknowledged the receipt of any money at all. In June 1993 I finally secured full-time work again and, in the face of persistent refusal to acknowledge the receipt of money, I opened an account for my daughter in the UK and have been depositing the child support there ever since. I did not realise that this act of love and good faith would end up with me in a Brazilian prison 16 years later on a spurious charge of non-payment of child support.

In June 1994, I went to Brazil because my letters had gone unanswered for a year. I was led on a bizarre wild goose chase around São Paulo by my ex-wife, Mara Silvia, before I finally got to see Rebeca in a church hall. I broke down in tears when I saw my daughter. I spent two days there before leaving Brazil again to go back to work. I gave Mara some money and we agreed that there would be regular contact through letters and telephone. She had no intention of maintaining contact. Once again, my letters and calls and money transfers went unacknowledged.

In 1997, after years of non-cooperation from Mara, I divorced her in Britain under English law. She was fully informed through her lawyers and they sent a letter in response only after they had received the decree nisi from the English court. Mara herself refused to respond.

After the divorce, I tried to maintain contact with Rebeca by telephone through my ex-in-laws and there were brief periods when I thought that we were reaching an understanding and I chatted with Rebeca on the phone. She knew that I was her daddy and said she loved me and wanted us to be a family and I said that that was my dearest wish as well. I continued to put the child support payments in Rebeca's account in the UK because Mara and her family simply refused to acknowledge any letters or money transfers. Gradually, contact petered out because the ex-in-laws refused to pass on messages. Mara had long since disappeared with Rebeca and I did not know where she was. I continued putting the child support in Rebeca's UK account though.

Contact occurred on an extremely intermittent basis, with Mara blowing hot and cold, but with some beautiful moments in which I managed to talk to Rebeca on the phone. In the end, though, in 2002 Mara started screaming hysterically down the phone at me, prompting Rebeca to start crying (it was later alleged that I had made Rebeca cry). That was the last time I ever heard my daughter's voice. She was 10.

In 2004 I again started campaigning in earnest to try and make contact with Rebeca. My ex-father-in-law, Milton Pessoa Rezende, promised to take me to see Mara and Rebeca if I came to Brazil. I started writing and emailing through him but still received no reply.

Frustrated and driven to distraction, I boarded a flight to São Paulo in an attempt to see my daughter. I made contact through my ex-mother-in-law, Maria Josefina Oliveira Rezende, who said she would contact Mara but instead, in a grotesque act of bad faith, contacted a lawyer. I myself took on a lawyer who, it turns out, probably thought that this would be a straightforward access/ money issue, but who underestimated the bad faith of the Rezende family. In the end I did not see my daughter and returned to the UK heartbroken. I had made a denuncia, or official police report in Sao Paulo, but nothing was done about it.

Between 2005 and 2008 I tried to get help from the following organisations to see my daughter:

1. The British Consulate in Brazil.
2. The Foreign Office, Child Abduction Unit.
3. Neil Gerrard, MP.
4. The Office of the Official Solicitor.
5. International Social Services.
6. Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
7. Brazilian Central Authority (Federal Authority), and Interpol.
8. Kent Constabulary, (UK regional police force) - Interpol.
9. Reunite.
10. Missing Persons.
11. Brazilian Federal Police, through which I made a denuncia (accusation) in 2005.
12. The Brazilian Embassy in London
13. Brazilian Social Services.
14. Internet social networking sites.
15. Two private lawyers in Brazil, one of whom ripped me off and did nothing, and the other (recommended by the Brazilian Federal Authority) who simply disappeared before doing any work on the case.

I have also made three Data Protection Act requests to the Foreign Office, the Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Office of the Official Solicitor and have uncovered evidence of a degree of duplicity and bad faith on the part of the UK authorities which would cause complete disbelief it were presented as an episode of Yes Minister (e.g. attempting to establish that my daughter had no right to British citizenship so that they could 'get rid of this chap' and 'wash our hands of the matter').

None of these organisations have been able to do anything because my ex-wife has simply refused to cooperate. She has refused to divulge her address, has impersonated a lawyer on the phone to Brazilian social services and the Brazilian Central Authority and had my daughter adopted by her new partner on the grounds that I had abandoned her.

The final straw came in June 2008 when I called a woman at the Brazilian Central Authority who had been dealing with my application under the Hague Convention. I had struggled since 2006 to get the Central Authority to agree to pursue the case under the Hague Convention. They finally agreed in December 2007 after Reunite had called Alex Marinkovic at the Office of the Official Solicitor and asked him to request the Brazilian Central Authority to do this (they had previously refused, so it seems that personal requests carry weight in this area). I dealt with two people in the Brazilian Central Authority, Patricia de Texeira Lamego Soares and Lalisa Froeder Dittrich. They told me that we needed to be quick because the hague Convention did not apply to children over the age of 16, and my daughter would be 16 on 23rd July 2008. We put a case together, and Lalisa Froeder told me that as long as the case went to the AGU (Brazilian Federal Court) before my daughter's 16th birthday, they would deal with it. She and Patricia Soares contacted Alex Marinkovic on 26th May to say that the case had been sent to the AGU and that they would deal with it in about a month. Between then and yesterday, I had no replies to my emails to them. Yesterday, when I called Lalisa Froeder, it transpired that she had gone on maternity leave and had not arranged to have my emails forwarded to her colleague, Stella Chimarrelli. Ms Chimarrelli, however, informed me that the case had been rejected by the AGU on the grounds that my daughter was ALMOST 16, and that they had sent the documentation to Alex Marinkovic in London by normal mail, even though they knew that there was a postal strike in Brazil. They had made no attempt to email me, even though they knew that I was in regular contact with them. If I had not called, the deadline of my daughter's birthday would have passed and I would have been none the wiser. You could not make this story up, and it confirms accusations of Brazilian non-compliance with the Hague Convention. It also shows that my ex-wife's strategy of non-cooperation, refusal to divulge her address and her simply hanging on until my daughter's 16th birthday has paid off for her.

In June 2008 I again returned to Brazil in-person to try and see Rebeca. I was hoping to force an agreement on access and was willing to hand over Rebeca's UK bank account. I never imagined in my wildest dreams what would happen. On arrival at Guarulhos airport I was taken into custody by federal agents and put in a 3mX4m bare cell with 15 - 20 criminals on a charge of non-payment of child support (Brazil runs an archaic system of Dickensian debtors' prisons). I had offered to pay there and then at the airport but was told that either someone else would have to pay or I would have to serve 60 days.

In fact the British consulate ended up conniving with the Brazilian authorities in a disgraceful example of duplicity. The British pro-consul in São Paulo, who is Brazilian, shouted at me down the phone, telling me that I did not know what I was talking about when I was in police custody at the airport. I had told her that all of this might have been avoided if they had done their job and had not raised my expectations back in 2006 when I had first contacted them and they had promised to visit Rebeca and carry out a welfare check. When I was in prison, a consular worker who was also Brazilian, visited me and brought me a ‘gift’ of a packet of chewing gum, ten sachets of shampoo and a comb (I am bald). This same person also contacted my father to say that I was being detained in a ‘room’ with ‘other men in the same situation’ and was ‘not allowed to leave the room.’ I was actually in a 3mX4m cell with no furniture on a concrete floor with 15 to 20 hardened criminals. The consulate also completely confused my father by conniving with the Brazilian authorities in asking for money to be paid and then claiming that more was owed. My father smelt a rat and went straight to the press.

My lawyer got me out on a legal challenge after 15 days but not after he had informed me three days into my imprisonment that I had had my fathers' rights (patrio poder) officially removed and that Rebeca had been adopted by a man I had never even heard of. I had never even been summonsed or contacted about it and did not even know the name of this man. I have subsequently found out that his name is José Augusto Dos Santos Sá and he lives in São José dos Campos in Sao Paulo. Rebeca has had her birth certificate changed without my knowledge or permission and her name is now Rebeca Rezende Sá. Even my parents' names have been removed and replaced with those of José Augusto Dos Santos Sá's parents - people who are not her blood relatives.

Mara Silvia Oliveira Rezende is now Mara Silvia Rezende Sá, and she has behaved with extreme duplicity along with her mother and father in this matter. She has lied and delayed, refused access to the British Consulate and to Social Services in the city of Itu, Sao Paulo. She called social services posing as a lawyer and there has been no comeback. She has acted with complete impunity. Right up until the point at which I was imprisoned in July 2008, she and her parents had kept to the position that they had nothing against my seeing my daughter - just that she needed to be 'psychologically prepared'. When she found out that I was in jail, howver, she apparently danced for joy and said, 'he will never see Rebeca as long as he lives. I hope they deport him without a stitch on his back!' She was completely uninterested in discussing either access or money. I have managed to get this far with the support of friends. I sometimes feel like giving up completely and putting everything in a box marked 'another life' but then I know that I have to do everything to prove to Rebeca that I have never stopped loving her and that I never abandoned her. One day, I might see her and she might tell me that she never wants to see me again as long as she lives, but at least I will have the knowledge that I tried everything because I love her.

Volusia County Judge Doyle Makes the TV News - The Judge Who Let Emily Go Blind

2009-07-18T22:41:00.005+01:00

I have been surprised at the number of people who have been emailing me with concerns over Volusia County Judge John V. Doyle.

WFTV-Florida ran a story yesterday on Judge Doyle and his refusal to allow a father of three to remain in his home under foreclosure despite having worked out a deal with the lender who also did not want the foreclosure to continue.

He was rotated out of family court last year and is now in civil court dealing with foreclosures - his latest gaff is when a father of three was in foreclosure - Mr Gomez took advantage of the Federal Loan Modification Program, worked with his lender and came up with the money - his check was cashed, the lender was happy and did not want the home sold from under the family.

But Judge Doyle said "No!" - denied the motion to set aside the foreclosure proceedings and demonstrated once again how when it comes to the law - state law, federal law, international law - it is trumped in his court by his own dogma.

The story was covered by WFTV in Central Florida and the broadcast is here.

President Obama signed the Federal Loan Modification bill into law to help families avoid losing their homes - Mr Gomez did everything he was supposed to do and this was not supposed to happen but President Obama should be advised that Judge Doyle's view is that in "Volusia County, we are provincials - we don't do the Hague Convention!" - nor the Federal Loan Modification Program, nor pretty much else.

I recall Judge Doyle saying, "At my age all I look forward to is a good night's sleep and a decent bowel movement!"

Clearly, Judge Doyle has not yet had a decent bowel movement and is still full of it.

Sean And David Goldman Ruling in Brazil

2009-06-20T15:40:00.004+01:00

Reading the news and looking over the latest developments with Sean and his father, David Goldman, I am even further entrenched in my opinion that the Brazilian step-father and his supporters are simply manipulating the situation to gain advantage.

David Goldman can now have Sean effectively live with him during the week - from Monday morning through to Saturday evening.

Fantastic news - what a brilliant win for David ... err, NOT!

The catch is he has to do all of this in Brazil while David lives in New Jersey, USA.

In other words this is a completely BS court ruling that gives David and Sean everything and gives them NOTHING.

The step-father is clearly doing everything possible to manipulate proceedings including the 11th hour appeal which retained Sean in Brazil when he was set to get on a plane and go home with his dad.

The psychologist who evaluated Sean, and turns out to be paid for by the step-father, claims visitation is not working well for Sean - so how does Sean seeing Dad in Brazil help him? Why would it not be better for visitation to take place in New Jersey and say, step-father take Sean in his custody to America to facilitate reunification?

Probably because as soon as Sean steps foot on US soil he'll be in his father's care faster than you can say, "Uncle Sam" and certainly faster than you can say,"Corned Beef from Brazil".

How about the child support issue?

David Goldman - what a barsteward!

Not one dime paid in child support!

Put that man up against a wall and shoot him for not supporting his kid - abducted to a foreign country which refuses to obey international law, and refuses to return a child to his rightful and lawful parent who happens to be the only one left alove.

Oh, and meanwhile that parent has to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to get through this because the same Brazilian legal system which has failed so utterly and completely, has fuelled a situation where as far as legal costs and all the other ancillary costs of international child abduction just become one great big money pit - I know, $450,000 and counting for Emily.

Abductors should not be rewarded for their behavior and David Goldman is absolutely right when he said,

"Can you take someone's child to another country and then expect the parent to support you in the abduction of the child?"

Actually he is also wrong - the practical reality is, "Yes!", your child can be abducted to a foreign country and youare expected to pay the abductor to support your child.

That's one reason I was assessed by JudgeDoyle in Florida for $30,000 in back child support after Emily was abducted in 2003 - just to go along with the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent trying to find her and bring her home - I think Judge Doyle was trying to say, "Go away" or something like that.

Sean Goldman Update

2009-06-20T00:47:00.003+01:00

The week's news has been rife with the announcement of a psychological evaluation/interview of Sean Goldman who was abducted to, and continues to be retained in Brazil.

Hearing your son say he wants to stay in Brazil and the "claims" of an evaluator, instructed by whom no-one is clear on, must be tearing the guts out of his father, David Goldman from New Jersey.

Sean is now 9 years old and sure there are those who will argue, "Let him stay there, he's settled, he's doing fine!"

Phrases like that have been thrown at me over the years, including the great chestnut, "Emily's with her mother, that's the best place for her."

Insensitive, unfeeling, ill-thought and badly considered horse feathers!

I've thought this through on several occasions over the years and I agree with Josef Cannon, a man who had his daughter abducted from California to Ireland and then again, to the UK.

Josef is right - abductions should not be allowed to stand no matter what the time that has elapsed.

Less articulately, I personally feel it is a complete load of utter bollocks to argue a child can be legally separated from a parent due to the passage of time. Children have 2, and only 2, preminent people with whom they bond in their formative years - Mom (or Mum) and Dad. Sure there are brothers and sisters but parents are the most important for a child when growing up.

Sean's mom is dead. I'm sorry for Sean to have lost his mother at such an early age of his life, but that simply makes it all the more heinous to deny Sean his father for no discernible justification I can fathom.

On another level, the 11th hour stay by a Brazilian Federal judge, of Sean from being returned home to the US with his father to New Jersey smacks of legal gymnastics and skullduggery. The practice of law is like playing chess in the jungle - basic rules but beyond that only limited by imagination.

Psych evals are also like government statistics - you can make them say anything you damn well want them to say!

This tactic is nothing more than poverty stricken imagination seeking to manipulate a terrible situation in which a child is being hurt relentlessly by the separation from his real and natural and LEGAL father.

This shames Brazil to let it drag on so.

Bring Sean Home!

Initital Appeal Brief Filed with Fifth District Court of Appeal

2009-06-13T17:44:00.002+01:00

IN THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

KARL ERNEST HINDLE,

Appellant,

v. CASE NO. 5D08-3850

SHEILA KAY FUITH,
Appellee.

INITIAL BRIEF OF APPELLANT
June 12th, 2009

Appeal from the Seventh Judicial Circuit, Court
In and For Volusia County,
John V. Doyle, Judge.
Case No.: 2003-12692-FMDL

Karl E. Hindle,
Pro Se Appellant
2774 Goolsby Avenue
RICHMOND
VA 23234

Tel: 804 658 0283

CONTENTS

Table of Citations 2
Statement of Case and Facts 4
I Jurisdiction 16
II Florida Factors under F.S. 61.13 23
(i) F.S. 61.13 (3) (a) 24
(ii) F.S. 61.13 (3)(c) 27
(iii) F.S. 61.13 (3)(d) 37
(iv) F.S. 61.13 (3) (e) 38
(v) F.S. 61.13 (3)(g) 39
(vi) F.S. 61.13 (3) (j) 40
(vii) F.S. 61.13 (3) (k) 43
III Child Support 43
IV Visitation Costs 46
Conclusion 47
Certification 49

TABLE OF CITATIONS

Full Faith and Credit Clause of Art. IV, § 1, of the Federal Constitution 34
Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 4
Article 1 of the Hague Convention 20
Article 19 of the Hague Convention 21
The Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction Act s1(a)(3) 17
Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction Act s1(a)(5) 17
Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction Act s2(e) 17
The Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction Act s23 18
18 U.S.C. § 242 19
The International Child Abduction Remedies Act 42 U.S.C. § 11601 20
42 U.S.C. § 11601 20
42 U.S.C. §11601 (a) (1), (2). 20
s212 (a)(3)(A)(ii) I.N.A. 12, 14
F.S. 39.01 27
F.S. 61.13 24
F.S. 61.13(3) 24
F.S. 61.13 (3) (a) 24
F.S. 61.13 (3)(c) 27
F.S. 61.13 (3)(d) 37
F.S. 61.13 (3) (e) 38
F.S. 61.13 (3)(g) 39
F.S. 61.13 (3) (j) 40
F.S. 61.13 (3) (k) 43
Florida Social Welfare Code ss. 409.2551-409.2598 45
Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989) 22
Arcot v. Balarman opinion filed April 9th 2009 5D07-1989 45
Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F. 3d 153, n. 8 (2nd Cir. 2001) 33
Cadle v. Norris, 817 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002 24
Cameron v. Dickey, 871 So. 2d 1022, 1023 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) 45
Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) 21
Croll [v. Croll], 229 F. 3d [133,] 135 n. 1 [2d Cir. 2000)] 34
Davis v. Davis, 305 U.S. 32 (1938) 34
Destafano v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 28 Fla. L. Weekly D1077 (Fla. 1st DCA April 28, 2003) 22
Drakulich v. Drakulich, 705 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) 47
Duquette v. Tahan, 600 A.2d 472 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1991) 19
Feder [ v. Evans-Feder], 63 F. 3d [217,] 226 [(3d Cir. 1995)] 34
Gaylord v. Gaylord, 45 So. 2d 507 (Fla.1950) 34
Holder v. Holder, 305 F.3d 854, 860 (9th Cir. 2002) 23
Knifley v. Knifley 944 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) 23
Kornblum v. Schneider, 609 So. 2d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). 22
Long v. Swofford, 805 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) 22
Vagenas v. Continental Gin Company, 988 F.2d 104 (11th Cir. 1993) 18, 34
Walsh [v. Walsh,] 221 F. 3d [204,] 219 [(1st Cir. 2000)] 33

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS

This is an appeal in respect of the FINAL JUDGMENT OF PATERNITY rendered by His Honor Judge John V. Doyle on October 6th, 2008 and filed on November 10th, 2003.
For the sake of brevity and avoidance of doubt, reference to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 1980 is henceforth referred to as “The Hague Convention” in this initial brief.

Procedural History

Complaint to establish paternity and other relief November 10, 2003
Answer to petition & counter petition December 1, 2003
Expedited petition to enforce foreign custody order April 12, 2004
Report of General Master April 20, 2004
Certified copy of Hague Convention order of High Court April 23, 2004
Stipulated Agreement for time-sharing with minor child May 5, 2004
Order approving stipulated agreement May 5, 2004
Order to continue trial September 30, 2004
Notice of non-appearance of mother February 14, 2005
Order for mother to show cause & child pick-up October 26, 2005
Order for father’s temporary custody October 26, 2005
Order regarding order to show cause (nunc pro tunc to
January 13, 2006) February 10, 2006
Unsupervised visitation and sexual abuse finding March 6, 2006
Motion for emergency temporary relief April 25, 2006
Order denying emergency relief April 25, 2006
Motion for trial date certain May 1, 2008
Order denying motion for trial date certain May 1, 2008
Trial May 23, 2008
Final Judgment October 6, 2008

The minor child was born in Maldon, England, UNITED KINGDOM on March 1st 2002 to Sheila Kay FUITH (an American citizen the APPELLEE) and Karl Ernest HINDLE (a British citizen the APPELLANT) the mother moving to England to live with the father in a home they shared together (App 95-96, App 44).

The child was diagnosed with an eye condition (known as amblyopia) at age 6 months. (App 213). This was causing the child to become permanently blinded in her right eye. (App 213, 217) The recommended treatment was occlusion therapy (a patching of the eyes to stimulate the development of vision in the afflicted eye) (App 213, 217, 209-210). Treatment needed to be administered and concluded on a timely basis as by the time the child reached 4 years of age the child would be permanently blinded in the affected eye (App 209-210, App213 & 217). Surgery was also recommended for the correction of a squint (which is a symptom of the amblyopia) and would assist in the stimulus of the affected eye (App 209-210, 213, 217 et seq). The child commenced occlusion therapy (patching of the eyes) at the local hospital where a team of British doctors treated her on a weekly basis and she was scheduled for surgery for the eye alignment correction (App 213 et seq).

On January 7th, 2003 the mother did remove the minor child and herself from the shared home and obtained a US passport for the minor child without the knowledge or consent of the father on the basis of false domestic violence allegations made by the mother against the father (App 95-98, Dep Shannon Merriam p.16 l.20 et seq, Dep Teri Jacobson p.15 l.20 et seq).
The minor child was removed from the United Kingdom to Maryland on or around February 12th, 2003 by the mother with the assistance of the U.S. Department of State (Dep Shannon Merriam p.69 l.16et seq). The mother engaged in nomadic wandering moving to and from various States including Minnesota, Wisconsin, Maryland, Kansas, Missouri and Florida (App 95-96, Dep Shannon Merriam p.19 l.19, p.26 l.22 & p.20 l.20 et seq, Dep Teri Jacobson p.6 l.25 and p.26 et seq, Dep Robert Ozier p.16 l.17 et seq)

The mother, without seeking medical advice, terminated the child’s medical treatment for her blindness (App 96, Dep Shannon Merriam p.36 l.10 et seq) despite being aware of the child’s need for treatment (Dep Shannon Merriam p.37 l.p.6 et seq, p.71 l.8 et seq).
The father attempted to locate the child but the mother concealed the child in various places and States in the United States (App 96, Dep Shannon Merriam p.28 l.6 et seq,) claiming an abusive relationship with the father (App 96, Dep Shannon Merriam p.16 l.24 et seq, p.34 l.12 et seq). The mother did not recognise the appellant as the child’s father (Dep Shannon Merriam pl6 l.10 et seq).

The mother attempted to place the child in what has been described as a “long-term guardianship” (Dep Shannon Merriam p.33 l.15 et seq and p.34-40 generally, p.55 l.3 et seq) and “adoption” (Dep Leslie Merriam p.12 l.3 et seq), in March and April 2004 to extended family members. This was without the consent of the father who was advised of the arrangement and objected to it (Dep Shannon Merriam p.39 l.7 to p.40 l.1) but was not advised of the identity of who the prospective adoptive parents were or where it was taking place so he made enquiries (Dep Shannon Merriam p.66 l.7 to p.68 l.25). This arrangement foundered due to the father’s involvement of law enforcement (Dep Shannon Merriam p.41 l.2 et seq).

The “guardianship” or “adoption” arrangement placed the child into the care and contact of Leslie Merriam (Dep Shannon Merriam p.54 l.21). Leslie Merriam is a convicted child sex offender (Dep Leslie Merriam p.36 l.7 et seq).

The father filed in Chelmsford County Court, England in June 2004 and that court seized jurisdiction subsequently issuing a parental responsibility order in favor of the father (App 31, App96). The mother contacted the father and agreed to meet in late August 2003 in Florida and agreed to return with the child to England (App 96). The mother and child subsequently entered the U.K. on September 19th, 2003 (App 96).

The British police removed the child from the mother upon arrival and gave the child to the father based on his British parental responsibility order (App 96).

The British Lower Court proceedings were stayed by the British High Court (the Supreme Court) as a Hague Convention application was filed on the mother’s behalf by Barbara Greig of the Office of Childrens Issues, US Department of State. An initial hearing took place on September 29th 2003 whereupon the father surrendered the child to the mother as ordered by Sir Justice Coleridge (App30-32, App 96).

The Hague Convention application claimed the mother and child were subject to the jurisdiction of the State of Florida and the father had wrongly retained or wrongly removed the child from the jurisdiction of the State of Florida based on that Hague Convention application (App 30 – 32, App 96).

On October 3rd 2003, the High Court found the father had accordingly wrongly removed or retained the child from the jurisdiction of the State of Florida and his British parental responsibility order was also quashed (App 30-32, App 96).

The High Court ordered the child and parties to the State of Florida for proceedings to determine the child’s future as a consequence, with conditions, none of which the mother complied with (App 96). The most notable condition was the mother was to arrange for medical attention for the child’s eye condition “forthwith upon her return” (App 31).

The State of Florida did not and could not have held jurisdiction at this time (App 43) nor could any other State of the United States (App 43 et seq) and the claim jurisdiction vested in Florida is false.

The father filed the paternity and residency proceedings at issue on or around November 10th 2004 claiming paternity and other relief as he had been ordered to do by the High Court in London (App 97). The mother responded with a counter-petition filed on December 1st 2003 (App 9, and in which she used a Wisconsin driving license as proof of identity (App 10) and stated her address in Florida was a “mailing address” (App 9). The mother also claimed the father was making child pornography with his minor children and the child in question (App 112).

Subsequent filing by the mother irrefutably demonstrated she had not been resident in the State of Florida for the six months prior to filing the action at issue nor The Hague Convention application in London (App 43 et seq).

The father was not allowed to travel to the United States as his visa privileges had been revoked by Barbara Greig of the U.S. Department of State (Dep Robert Ozier p.10 l.3) on the mother’s representations and complaints of harassment and abuse (Dep Shannon Merriam p.70 l.7 et seq, Dep Robert Ozier p.9 l.18 et seq). The clear intent was to deny his access to the Florida courts and to his child and finalizing international child abduction under color of law (Dep Robert Ozier p.10 l.1 et seq, p.9 l.18 et seq; Dep Shannon Merriam p.70 l.12 et seq;

A hearing was scheduled for February 19th 2004 which was continued as the father was refused a visa to travel to attend court hearings (App 21-22).

A visa was procured for attending hearings in April 2004 whereupon the father successfully defended himself against a domestic violence injunction application of the mother. The mother was admonished for abusing the domestic violence protection process by His Honor Judge Doyle in DeLand.(App 111).

Only on May 5th, 2007 was the father allowed visitation and a child support schedule was entered into with the father paying child support and enjoying visitation with the minor child until May 27th 2004 (App 82-84). The father was “forced to leave the United States” (App 139) by US Immigration officers on the morning of May 27th 2004 as he waited at the pick-up point for the child (App, 139, App 244, App97). The “forced removal” was initially claimed by the authorities as due to an expired visa at the time of the arrest and deportation (App 139 and App 97). However, subsequent discovery uncovered it was predicated on the representations of the mother with the cooperation of Barbara Greig at the U.S. Department of State to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that the father was a threat to the child and mother despite the ruling of the court on the domestic violence claims (App 244, Dep Robert Ozier p.25 l. 5 et seq). The father was incarcerated and eventually deported (App 5).

The father was rendered permanently visa ineligible for travel to the United States due to harassment of the mother, the Lower Court rulings notwithstanding (App 242-243, Dep Robert Ozier p.25 l. 5 et seq): s212 (a)(3)(A)(ii) I.N.A. prohibits aliens seeking to travel to the U.S. for criminal purposes and was overcome only for court ordered obligations (App 242-243) which visitation is not (it is a right to be exercised or not and therefore not an obligation which must be done). To obtain a visa, he must overcome the ineligibility each and every time he applies for a visa (App 242-243) and requires a court date certain, though the Index on Appeal demonstrates continuances resulting from when this did not work either (App 198), or the trial judge refused to give a date certain (App 184).

The father overcame the visa ineligibility to travel to the U.S. in January 2005, whereupon, the mother initially concealed the child in a domestic abuse shelter away from the father (Dep Robert Ozier p.15 l.24 to p.16 l.5 and Dep Teri Jacobson p.11 l.11 to p.12) and refused to comply with the legal process (App 91) claiming, “... the judge was criminally on the take, that Karl [the father] had bought him off.” (Dep Robert Ozier p.40 l.14)(emphasis added).

The mother subsequently abducted the child out of State in February 2005 (Dep Robert Ozier p.16 to p.20 and Dep Teri Jacobson p.11 to p.12) and the child was classified as “Missing and Endangered” by F.D.L.E. (Dep Teri p.22 l.7). The Lower Court finally issued a pick-up order for the minor child in October 26th 2005 whereupon a temporary custody order was issued in favor of the father (App 99 and 100).

The mother and child were hiding in Kansas and Missouri with the assistance of Barbara Greig of the U.S. Department of State (Dep Robert Ozier p.9 l.25 – p.10 l.11, p.25 l. 5 et seq, p.33 l.24 et seq, Dep Teri Jacobson p. 37 l.16 et seq, p.20 l.15 et seq, p.23 to 25) and the mother claimed she was changing her and the child’s identity with the assistance of Barbara Greig of the U.S. Department of State (Dep Robert Ozier p.17 l.1 to l.17).

The mother and child subsequently returned to Florida and a hearing occurred on January 13th 2006 (App 109-110) whereat the mother was found guilty of criminal contempt (App 111) but retained primary residency of the child and escaped jail as the Lower Court did not wish to traumatize the child by imprisoning the mother (App 112). The father was awarded what the court termed “reunification” visitation – visitation with the mother and her observer from a domestic violence shelter where she was residing at this time (App 111-112, Dep Teri Jacobson p.16 l.25 – p.17 l.5).

On January 30th 2006, in a second set of sexual abuse allegations made by the mother against the father, the mother alleged the father had committed a serious sexual assault upon the child during a reunification visitation session (Dep Teri Jacobson p.16 l.18, App 137-138). The court then ordered, “The Court finds no evidence that the Petitioner, KARL ERNEST HINDLE, has acted or behaved inappropriately in regard to his visitation with the minor child, Emily Rose Hindle.” (emphasis the Lower Court’s) (App 137). The court did not change residency of the child at that time nor punish the mother for her continuing, criminal and extreme misconduct.
A hearing in May 2006 took place on an emergency basis as the father’s visa waiver was expiring and the child still had received no medical treatment for her eye condition (App 139-143). This was despite the reaffirming diagnosis of Dr. Robert Cordero who conducted an Independent Medical Examination (App 209-210) in accordance with the order of the Lower Court of January 13th, 2006 (App 112). The court ruled there was no emergency and the father returned to the United Kingdom (App144).

The father then found he could not return to the U.S. again to pursue litigation as he could not overcome his visa ineligibility (App 242-243) because of the recommendation of Ms. Barbara Greig based on “harassment of the American citizen mother.” (App 180, App 242-244, s212 (a)(3)(A)(ii) I.N.A.). The Lower Court would not set a trial date certain (App 184) which further precluded the father obtaining a visa waiver of ineligibility to travel to the United States (App 180-181).

A restricted visa waiver was eventually procured for trial in May 2008 and the father attended (this is self-evident from his attendance at trial) and he returned to the United Kingdom shortly thereafter in accordance with that restricted entry.

The trial judge, His Honor Judge John V. Doyle, had heard all matters on the case since filing including the domestic violence application filed by the mother (Dep Robert Ozier p.40 l.14 et seq). The court also advised that the mother was to cooperate in unblocking the father’s visa issues which had been created by her conduct and arranged a telephone conference with the U.S. Department of State and wrote to that agency (App 198).

Trial concluded same day under protest from the father’s attorney, Mr. David Ferguson Esq. that the His Honor was not being fair and it is self-evident that five years’ of evidence on the part of the father alone, could not have been heard fairly in one day of trial.

Final judgment was eventually issued October 6th 2008 almost five (5) years after the case had commenced in 2003; the mother was granted primary residency, visitation to father and back child support of $29,154.00 against the father. All cost of visitation to be borne by father which was to take place only at Panama City where the child now resided. The Lower Court Final Judgment appealed also states:

“1. This court has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action.
2. At least one of the parties hereto has been a resident of the State of Florida for at least six (6) months prior to the filing of this petition.”

The father now appeals to the Honorable Court and filed a timely appeal.

I. Jurisdiction

Summary of Argument

The trial court erred in seizing jurisdiction over the matter after being apprised of, and continued throughout proceedings to be apprised of, the failure of jurisdiction due to lack of residency of the mother in the State of Florida who obtained a judgment by conducting a fraud on the British High Court to send the child to Florida.

The standard of review is de novo.

The Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction Act s1(a)(3) states the purpose of the legislation is to;
“assure that litigation concerning the custody of a child takes place ordinarily in the state with which the child and the child’s family have the closest connection and where significant evidence concerning the child’s care, protection, training and personal relationships is most readily available, and that courts of this state decline the exercise of jurisdiction when the child and the child’s family have a closer connection with another state”

The father’s position is that the home state of the child was England, the mother failing to establish residency in neither the State of Florida nor any State of the U.S. The mother and child had spent one month in the jurisdiction at the time of the Hague Convention proceedings in London and three months at the time of filing the case at issue, and that the child had spent one continuous year of her then 18 month life in England (App43-44).

Further, Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction Act at s1(a)(5) states that it is to;
“deter abductions and other unilateral removals of children undertaken to obtain custody awards” (emphasis added).

Further, the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction Act at s2(e) states that;

“ “Home state” means the state in which the child immediately preceding the time involved lived with the child’s parents, a parent, or a person acting as parent for at least six consecutive months, and in the case of a child less than six months old the state in which the child lived from birth with any of the persons mentioned. Periods of temporary absence of any of the named persons are counted as part of the six-month or other period.” (emphasis added)

The mother nor child did not reside for six continuous months in any State of the United States nor specifically, in the State of Florida (App 43-44).

The Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction Act further states at s23, “The general policies of this act extend to the international arena.”

The child resided with her father and mother from birth until the child’s “other unilateral removal” in February 2003 in England (App 44) which is elevated to the status of “Sister State” in this instance. See Vagenas v. Continental Gin Company, 988 F.2d 104 (11th Cir. 1993) (treaty between United States and Greece elevated foreign judgment to status of sister state judgment).

The mother and officials of the U.S. Department of State did cause an “other unilateral removal” of the child from England to the United States in February 2003 without the knowledge or consent of the father to gain sole physical custody, and deny the rights of the child to her father, and any rights the father may have or subsequently acquire, as a color of law fraud to deprive the father and child of their rights (see 18 U.S.C. § 242).

The child was sent to the State of Florida after representations by the mother to the British High Court and a Hague Convention application filed by the U.S. Government (Barbara Greig) claimed the child was subject to the jurisdiction of the State of Florida which was clearly false (this is self-evident from App 30-32 and App 43-44 and consideration of the Final Judgment herein appealed). This was an additional fraud on the part of the mother and Barbara Grieg of the U.S. Department of State who filed the Hague Convention application to get the child sent to the State of Florida in an international child abduction under color of law (again 18 U.S.C. § 242).

In 1988, the United States entered the Convention, the text of which can be found in Duquette v. Tahan, 600 A.2d 472 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1991). The objects of the Convention are to "secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State, and to ensure that the rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in other Contracting States." The father clearly had rights of custody for the purposes of the Hague Convention due to his parental responsibility order issued by Judge Hallett, Chelmsford County Court in England on August 14th 2003 and which was quashed by the British High Court due to the fraudulent claim that the State of Florida held jurisdiction (App 31et al).

Congress implemented the treaty in 1988 by enacting the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, often referred to as ICARA. See 42 U.S.C. § 11601 et seq. ICARA vests concurrent jurisdiction over claims brought under the Convention in the United States District Courts and in the courts of the states.

42 U.S.C. § 11603(a). Congress has found that the international abduction or wrongful retention of children is harmful to their well-being and that persons should not be permitted to obtain custody of children by virtue of their wrongful removal or retention. 42 U.S.C. §11601 (a) (1), (2).

Article 1 of the Hague Convention states the removal of a child is considered wrongful if it is "in breach of rights of custody . . . under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal . . . ."

The father had a parental responsibility order issued by the English court which seized the matter in June 2003 and which was quashed by the High Court as a consequence of the fraudulent representations on her residency in Florida by the mother and Barbara Greig of the U.S. Department of State.

The mother attempted to wrongly domesticate the Hague Convention order as a custody order in the State of Florida on April 13th 2004 and stated her address history for the prior five years which clearly demonstrates a lack of residency in any U.S. State or Florida and clearly identifies England as the “home state” (App 43). According to that declaration, the mother had been living in the State of Florida since August 2003 i.e. only one month at the time of filing the Hague Convention application (September 2003) and only 3 months prior to the father filing the case at issue in November 2003. (Article 19 of the Hague Convention states that “A decision under this Convention concerning the return of the child shall not be taken to be a determination on the merits of any custody issue.)

The mother’s counter petition (and the father’s Florida petition) to the action should have been dismissed as a consequence of the fraud the mother committed to render the child to the jurisdiction of the State of Florida. The trial court should not have allowed the mother to benefit by her conduct and continuing conduct in ignoring orders and thwarting the legal process in the U.K. and U.S. and the powerful law represented by an international treaty and should have returned the child to her father and ordered her return to her home state, i.e. England rather than wrongly retaining the child in Florida.

The basic standards governing fraud on the court set forth in Cox v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43, 47 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998):

The requisite fraud on the court occurs where "it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system's ability impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party's claim or defense." Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989).... The trial court has the inherent authority, within the exercise of sound judicial discretion, to dismiss an action when a plaintiff has perpetrated a fraud on the court, or where a party refuses to comply with court orders. Kornblum v. Schneider, 609 So. 2d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992). And following Destafano v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 28 Fla. L. Weekly D1077 (Fla. 1st DCA April 28, 2003), and Long v. Swofford, 805 So. 2d 882 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003), where the courts disposed with prejudice for serious, palpable "fraud on the court."

The plaintiff is not the “fraudster” in this instance but the mother/defendant who has knowingly abused the system of laws of and between the United States and the United Kingdom to create a safe harbor in the United States for her misconduct aided and abetted by Barbara Greig of the U.S. Department of State. The mother has also “knowingly” refused to comply with orders of the UK and Floridian court including accusing the trial judge of being “criminally on the take” (Dep Robert Ozier p.40 l.14and Dep Shannon Merriam p.60 l.8 et seq).

The Hague Convention and UCCJA (supplanted by the UCCJEA) specifically attempt to remove the creation of safe harbors for abductors and jurisdiction shoppers which has been allowed to fail in the case at issue. Article 3 of the Hague Convention seeks to deter parental abductions by eliminating the primary motivation for abductions, which is to obtain an advantage in custody proceedings by commencing them in another country. Holder v. Holder, 305 F.3d 854, 860 (9th Cir. 2002). In this instance, the other country is the United States.

II. Florida Custody Factors

Summary of Argument

The trial court erred in not applying the factors for a primary residency award based upon substantial evidence and ignoring substantial evidence to the detriment and harm of the child and her interests. There is no evidentiary support for the award of primary residency to the mother. The court was advised the mother was negligent in several filings of the father.

The standard of review is de novo.

The Lower Court did not make a determination in the best interests of the child in accordance with the factors used to determine primary residency in the best interests of the child in defiance of substantial evidence to the contrary that the best interests of the child are served by the child primarily residing with the mother. The trial court’s findings must be supported by competent, substantial evidence (Knifley v. Knifley 944 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

The finding that it was in the best interest of the child for the mother to be designated the primary residential parent is not supported by competent, substantial evidence, and therefore cannot be affirmed. (Cadle v. Norris, 817 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002).

The factors for determining which parent shall be designated as primary are stated at F.S. 61.13 as;

“3) For purposes of shared parental responsibility and primary residence, the best interests of the child shall include an evaluation of all factors affecting the welfare and interests of the child, including, but not limited to:”

The statute then enunciates the factors which we shall use as sub-heads, where relevant, for this initial brief.

F.S. 61.13 (3) (a) “The parent who is more likely to allow the child frequent and continuing contact with the nonresidential parent.”

The mother has gone to extreme lengths not only to deny visitation and contact between the child and her father but to end it permanently by invoking the power of the U.S. government (App 193,242,243, 244 cf s212 (a)(3)(A)(ii) I.N.A.).

The mother unilaterally removed the child from her country of birth to the United States without the knowledge of consent of the father in February 2003 and concealed the child throughout various States including Maryland, Wisconsin, Minnesota, the State of Florida and others (App 95-98, Dep Shannon Merriam p.16 l.20 et seq, Dep Teri Jacobson p.15 l.20 et seq)
The mother has sought to adopt the child out and gave her into the care of strangers to the child without the father being consulted and with people and at a location the father was not allowed to be privy to by the mother shortly thereafter (Dep Shannon Merriam p.33 l.15 et seq and p.34-40 generally, p.55 l.3 et seq) . This arrangement failed when the mother found the father had to be informed and his consent obtained and he involved law enforcement in Wisconsin (Dep Shannon Merriam p.41 l.2 et seq).

The mother has continuously filed police complaints and involved the U.S. Government in assisting her to conceal the child from the father and misuse and abuse the domestic violence and child protection measures since removal of the child from the United Kingdom.

Upon jurisdiction being fraudulently ceded to the State of Florida, the mother has filed numerous criminal complaints claiming stalking, harassment, child pornography and sexual assault upon the minor child being made by the father in efforts to have him arrested and to evade the legal process in the State of Florida and elsewhere, as well as to deny contact with the child.

The mother sought and successfully achieved the revocation of visa waiver privileges for the father to come to the United States to enjoy visitation (and to engage unhampered in the legal process) (App 242-243, 244, Dep Shannon Merriam p.70 l.7 et seq, Dep Robert Ozier p.9 l.18 et seq).

The mother made representations to the U.S. Government, including Barbara Greig of the U.S. Department of State and U.S. Department of Homeland Security which culminated in his arrest and incarceration at the hands of U.S. Immigration leading to his deportation when visitation was initiated in Florida in 2004 (App242- 244).

The mother subsequently hid in a domestic violence shelter and subsequently abducted the child out of State when the father was subsequently allowed to return to the United States to deny the exercise of court ordered visitation in January 2005 (Dep Robert Ozier p.15 l.24 et seq and App 99).

The mother subsequently accused the father of serious sexual assault upon the child after the child was located and returned to the State of Florida (and evidence is available which the trial court refused to allow entered and is in the father’s possession) in January 2006 (Dep Teri Jacobson p.16 l.21 et seq, App 137).

The mother has filed or involved law enforcement in the State of Florida, elsewhere in the United States and in the United Kingdom on over 300 occasions resulting in five major police investigations of allegations made by the mother against the father and two for sexual assault and abuse of the child and his other minor children. This has been done to attempt the arrest and incarceration of the father to further deny his access to the child (and to the court) and which directly led to a lifetime ban being imposed on the father being allowed to travel to the United States by the U.S. Department of State. (App 242-244, App 193)

The father clearly wins on this factor.

F.S. 61.13 (3)(c) “The capacity and disposition of the parents to provide the child with food, clothing, medical care or other remedial care recognized and permitted under the laws of this state in lieu of medical care, and other material needs.”

Summary of Argument

The trial court erred ignoring the child’s medical condition, the mother’s neglect of that condition rendering the child permanently blinded in her right eye and the order of a Superior Court issued under an International Treaty second only in authority to the Constitution of the United States of America. The trial court further erred in ignoring the mother’s inability to provide the child with food, clothing, medical care and a stable home.

Standard of review is de novo.

F.S. 39.01 states that:

'Neglect' occurs when a child is deprived of, or is allowed to be deprived of, necessary food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment or a child is permitted to live in an environment when such deprivation or environment causes a child's physical, mental, or emotional health to be significantly impaired or to be in danger of being significantly impaired.”

The child was born with a congenital eye condition known as “amblyopia” causing her to become permanently blinded if left untreated. The child also has an ancillary medical eye condition known as “esotropia”, a turning inwards of the right eye and which is symptomatic of the underlying amblyopia (App209-210, 212, 213).

Amblyopia is described in the letter of Dr Cordero dated May 2nd, 2006 which also describes the conditions as they affect the child (App 209-210). The condition and initial diagnosis along with the treatment regime is described in Dr. S. McCabe’s letter dated September 30th, 2003 (App 213). In total, NINE eye specialists have recommended therapy for the child – Dr. Bell, Dr. Omi, Dr. McCabe, Dr. Jackson and others (UK doctors as per App 213 through 227), Dr. Cordero (App 209 – 210), Dr. Odes and Dr. Perez of Bayhead Eye Center (App 211 and 212).

The mother took the child to Dr. Gold who did not initially believe Emily was treatable (by this time the child has received no medical treatment for a year and a half) but subsequently included a caveat in his medical notes that “patching” could be tried in May 2004 (App203 et seq).

The mother also took the child to Shand’s Medical Center on or around June 4th 2006 who state the child was permanently blinded (at age 4 ¼ years) but remained silent on whether treatment had been possible.

The mother also took the child to Anthony Aker, O.D. of the Eye Center of North Florida (not a medical doctor or practice) on September 6th, 2007 who confirmed blindness (at age 5 ½) (App 199) and again remained silent on whether the child had been treatable.

The mother deliberately withheld and denied medical attention for the eye condition until such time as the condition had become permanent in the full knowledge of the consequence.

Timeline:

1. Emily diagnosed with eye condition September 18th 2002 (App 213) by British doctors who commenced treatment and the mother and father were present at all meetings and consultations;

2. Emily receives no treatment upon removal to United States in February 2003 and no medical attention is sought nor opinion for cessation of medical treatment despite being aware it was required (Deposition Shannon Merriam p.37 line 6 et seq and p.36 et seq generally) and despite the advice of Emily’s doctors and their concerns at the mother’s conduct (App 217, App 213) and being notified in writing by the British hospital enclosing all the medical notes and correspondence (App 214); and

3. The High Court under the Hague Convention order issued an order on October 3rd 2003 allowing the mother to take Emily to Florida on condition that:
“iii) FORTHWITH upon her return to the United States of America to take such steps so as to ensure that EMILY receives such necessary medical treatment in relation to her eye condition.” (emphasis added) (App 31)

4. Emily examined by Bayhead Eye Center (App 212) as a sham to pass off mother’s compliance with the Hague Convention order for medical attention. This is not a medical practice. This examination does observe the child has vision in the afflicted eye at this time (something the British doctors could not establish due to the child’s young age (App213) as the child by now is almost one year older.

5. Emily examined by Dr. Robert Gold and states child is now blind and untreatable (at age 2 years) (App 203-206) though Dr Peres and Dr Odes observe vision 6 months earlier (App 212);
6. Emily examined by Dr Cordero of Central Florida Eye Specialists of DeLand, a pediatric and board certified ophthalmologist on May 25th, 2004 who advises patching therapy and surgery in a concurrence with the British hospital diagnosis (at age 2 years)(App 209-210);

7. No treatment ensues for the child who required treatment before she reached the age of development of her eye at around the age of 3 years after which the blindness becomes permanent (App 209-210, App 213, App 217);

8. The mother at all times is repeatedly made aware of the consequences of failing to patch the child and is in possession of the child’s medical notes from England in a letter sent to the mother when in Minnesota by the British hospital on July 15th 2003 (App 214 et seq).

9. Child examined once more by Dr. Robert Cordero in January 2006 (App 208-209) with both parents in attendance (child aged 4 years) in accordance with order of Judge Doyle of the lower court (App 112)) and confirms treatable diagnosis and the child may still benefit from patching but also notes that :

“My impression is that she still has a right esotropia, that is a right eye that turns inward, and has a dense amblyopia, which basically means that at this point, at age four, she will for the most part, have a preference for using her left eye.” (emphasis added) (App 210).

10. Mother seeks examination at Shands Medical Center with Dr Khuddus on August 14th 2006 (i.e. when child is by now 4 ½ years old) confirms permanent blindness and mother claiming child was diagnosed as “blind at birth” (App 200) but no mention of ability to treat the condition at that time nor the finding of vision by Dr Cordero (App 209), Dr Odes and Dr Perez (App 212), nor response to pupillary stimulation (App 216); nor her own claims to the British hospital, “Mother feels child beginning to recognise objects during occlusion” (App 224).

11. Mother takes child to Anthony Aker, O.D. of The Eye Center of North Florida who confirms blindness (App 199). This is not a medical doctor or medical practice.

The father’s position is the trial court has seriously erred in ignoring the child’s medical needs and the obvious medical neglect of the mother of the child in defiance of Florida law and child custody factors for primary residence and Hague Convention order rendered to protect the child from harm.

The High Court rendered an order with a series of “undertakings” attached (App 31 – 32). Blondin v. Dubois, 238 F. 3d 153, n. 8 (2nd Cir. 2001), explains the term "undertaking". Although the Hague Convention does not use the term "undertaking," in cases under the Convention courts use the term "undertaking" to refer to a promise by the petitioning parent "to alleviate specific dangers that might otherwise justify denial of the return petition. Typical undertakings concern support, housing and the child's care pending resolution of the custody contest." Carol S. Bruch, The Central Authority's Role Under the Hague Child Abduction Convention: A Friend in Deed, 28 Fam. L.Q. 35, 52 n. 41 (1994) (explaining use of undertakings by British courts). See also Symposium, Women, Children and Domestic Violence: Current Tensions and Emerging Issues, remarks by Linda Garder, 27 Fordham Urb. L.J. 567, 757 (2000) (noting increasing use of undertakings by United States courts); Walsh [v. Walsh,] 221 F. 3d [204,] 219 [(1st Cir. 2000)] ("The undertakings approach allows courts to conduct an evaluation of the placement options and legal safeguards in the country of habitual residence to preserve the child's safety while the courts of that country have the opportunity to determine custody of the children within the physical boundaries of their jurisdiction."); Croll [v. Croll], 229 F. 3d [133,] 135 n. 1 [2d Cir. 2000)]; Feder [ v. Evans-Feder], 63 F. 3d [217,] 226 [(3d Cir. 1995)].

Further see Vagenas v. Continental Gin Company, 988 F.2d 104 (11th Cir. 1993)
(treaty between United States and Greece elevated foreign judgment to status of
sister state judgment) and as such, pursuant to international law, the British High Court ruled that the child’s mother was to seek medical attention for the child’s eye condition and this aspect of the ruling is a valid foreign judgment which the trial court was obligated to follow pursuant to the United States’ membership in the Hague Convention treaty.

Further see Full Faith and Credit Clause of Art. IV, § 1, of the Federal Constitution and Davis v. Davis, 305 U.S. 32 (1938).

Further from Gaylord v. Gaylord, 45 So. 2d 507 (Fla.1950):

“The proper forum in which to attack the validity of such decree, (if, indeed, it may be attacked by the Respondent in any court) is the jurisdiction in which it was rendered.
We should not attempt to determine the validity of a decree of a sister state or of a foreign country. More certainly, we should not do so unless something appears
on the face of the record which discloses its invalidity.”

Accordingly, the trial court erred in failing to follow the Superior Court order rendered for the child’s eye condition and in any event, failed to apply an acceptable standard of judicial discretion in rendering orders in the best interests of the child.

The mother has a history of non-compliance with the medical advice of the Emily’s doctors who have recommended therapy:

“Emily was last seen on 9th January 2003, she had not been wearing her patch at all.”
(App 213 letter of Dr McCabe dated September 30th 2003 and forwarded to mother with medical records per App 214 July 15th 2003 in Minnesota)

“The mother has not brought Emily to the clinic on several occasions which is unfortunate as if we do reverse the eccentric fixation her vision will remain poor in the right eye permanently…”
(App 217 letter to Dr Southey from Eye Consultant, Dr Bell of May 28th 2003 and forwarded to mother with medical records per App 214 July 15th 2003 in Minnesota)

Further the mother was aware of the need for medical treatment for the child and did not seek or provide it (Dep Shannon Merriam especially p.37 l.6 et seq, also p.3 6 l.10 to p37 l.18, p.49 l.11 et seq and p.71 l.8 et seq and Dep Teri Jacobson p.29 l.25 to p.30 l.11)

The mother has a history of claiming the condition was not treatable despite being advised it was a treatable condition (Dep Teri Jacobson p.13 l.21 to p14 l.4) and despite the child noticing she could not see out of her eye (Dep Robert Ozier p.14 l.5 et seq and p.33 l.2 et seq).

The Lower Court has never ordered medical treatment for her blindness. The record is silent with no orders ever being issued in connection with the child’s medical treatment save for an independent medical examination of January 13th 2006 (App 112) and conducted by Dr Robert Cordero by which time the child had become permanently blinded due to the passage of time and denial of medical treatment (App 209-210).

The mother has a virtually non-existent work history and the capacity for very limited career progression working in Burger King (Dep Shannon Merriam p.43 l.10 et seq) and claims to be “afraid if she did go to work anywhere, that would put her name out there in public access where she would be found.” (Dep Robert Ozier p.26 l.14 et seq). Further, the mother has “...no interest whatsoever in working. She didn’t even ask about getting a job or anything like that.” (Dep Robert Ozier p.38 l.11-15) and has relied on domestic violence shelters across the country as hotels when she cannot find someone to support her and the child.

The mother’s family have expressed their opinion that the mother cannot care for the child on her own (Dep Shannon Merriam p.51 l.23 et seq) which motivated them to seek placement of the child elsewhere from her mother (Dep Leslie Merriam p.12 l.9 et seq).

At the time of trial the father was in receipt of approximately $3,000 per month made up of disability income and benefits and part-time income from freelance writing and resided in his home with his eldest son and had done so for approximately 2 years. (App 188-192). The child derived right to medical treatment at no cost in the United Kingdom by virtue of her father (App 141).

The father clearly wins on this factor.

F.S. 61.13 (3)(d) “The length of time the child has lived in a stable, satisfactory environment and the desirability of maintaining continuity.”

The child has been moved though nine States and dozens of different locations throughout the United States including domestic violence and abuse shelters around the country such as in Kansas (Dep Teri Jacobson p.33 l.14), Florida (Dep Teri Jacobson p.12 l.4 et seq and Dep Robert Ozier ).

The mother has a history of nomadic wandering not only between the States of the U.S. but also within the State of Florida having lived variously in Debary, Deltona, Daytona and Panama City as well as in several battered women shelters (refer to Statement of Facts and Case History and Depositions generally).

The father shared in all aspects of co-parenting the child until her unilateral removal from the home and her country of birth. The mother has gained advantage under this factor by her misconduct and criminal contempt for the orders of the Lower Court and the laws of and between the United States and United Kingdom. The sad fact is the longest period of time the child has enjoyed in one home remains the initial year of her life when she resided with her father in England.

The father clearly wins on this factor.

F.S. 61.13 (3) (e) “The permanence, as a family unit, of the existing or proposed custodial home.”

The father has demonstrated a stable home environment during the pendency of the proceedings moving only once when the sale of his home was necessitated to fund litigation in this case. At time of trial, he had primary residency of his son and a fifty-fifty time sharing arrangement with his eldest daughter in the United Kingdom (App 188-192).

The mother has provided no evidence of a stable home except photographs purporting to be of the child’s bedroom at an address in Panama City, FL. (App 254-255).

The father clearly wins on this factor.

F.S. 61.13 (3)(g) “The mental and physical health of the parents.”

The mother’s health was unknown though an order for a psychological evaluation was issued for her to undergo but was never conducted due to the abduction out of State and the father’s previous deportation situation.

The mother’s family expressed serious concerns for the ability of the mother to care for the child and concerns for the child’s welfare in her care (Dep Shannon Merriam p.51-52 extract from p.51 l.8 onwards is below).

“Q. All right. Would you describe your Aunt Sheila as always sane?
A. No.
Q. No? Would you describe your Aunt Sheila as flaky?
A. Yes.
Q. How about when she was in the area with Emily and you did have contact with her, what was her state of mind at that time?
A. I think flaky is a good description.
Q. Do you think she was irresponsible?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you think that she was incapable of properly caring for Emily without help?
A. Probably.
Q. Probably? Was that the general consensus of the family?
A. Yes.”

The father has no mental issues and the record is silent because he has none. His disability relates to injuries received during military service affecting his left leg (App188-192) otherwise his health is excellent.

The father clearly wins on this factor.

F.S. 61.13 (3) (j) “The willingness and ability of each parent to facilitate and encourage a close and continuing parent-child relationship between the child and the other parent.”

The father has a history of successfully co-parenting his two eldest children with their mother, his former wife in the United Kingdom (Dep Donna Hindle p.7 l.11 et seq).

The mother was married with two minor children in Minnesota when the relationship commenced (Dep Shannon Merriam p.10 l. 21 et seq) and the mother abandoned her relationship with them (Dep Teri Jacobson p.27 l.1 et seq, Dep Robert Ozier p.28 l.6 et seq).
The mother’s conduct in using the child in false sexual abuse allegations including coaching of the child demonstrate the mother’s incapacity to support a close and continuing parent-child (father-daughter) relationship (Dep Teri Jacobson p.16 l.18 and App 137-138) and indeed, her efforts to destroy that relationship. Further the mother’s alienating behavior upon the child directly, “…Sheila became upset and told Emily that she could not speak of him anymore and that he was a bad man” (Dep Robert Ozier p.24 l.15-19).

The mother has gone to extreme lengths to keep the child and father apart including but not limited to, unilateral removal from the United Kingdom (App 95-98, Dep Shannon Merriam p.16 l.20 et seq, Dep Teri Jacobson p.15 l.20 et seq), invoking the U.S. Government to bar the father from entering the country (Dep Robert Ozier p.10 l.3, p.25 l.1 et seq, App 242-243 and others); seeking the father’s arrest on charges of child pornography being made with his minor children and the child at issue (App 12); changing her and the child’s identity to conceal the child from her father (Dep Robert Ozier p.17 l.1-17); have the father arrested and deported on false allegation of harassment etc., (App 244, Dep Robert Ozier p.25 l.5 et seq); placing the child in a long-term guardianship without the consent of the father and concealing the location and parties to this (Dep Shannon Merriam p.33 l.15 et seq, p.34-40 generally and p.55 l.3 et seq); abducting the child from the State of Florida to deny contact between child and father (App 111); denying telephonic contact (App109 et seq) and other numerous egregious examples found within the record on appeal.

The father has never concealed the child when the child was in his care in the U.K. and has complied fully with the orders of the Hague Convention, surrendering the child when ordered to do so and pursuing visitation in Florida with complete submission to the court. (App 30 et al, Record generally) The record is silent on any misbehavior of the father because he has committed none.

Further, the photographs purporting to be of the child’s bedroom (App 254-255 demonstrate no photographs of the father in the child’s room and only of the mother).
The father has completed the Mandatory Shared Parental Responsibility Class (App 187) but notes no certificate of completion for the mother.

The father clearly wins on this factor.

F.S. 61.13 (3) (k) “Evidence that any party has knowingly provided false information to the court regarding a domestic violence proceeding pursuant to s. 741.30.”

The mother filed a false domestic violence claim against the father in April 2004 (Dep Robert Ozier p.40 l.14 et seq and especially claims of judge being bought off and “criminally on the take”) which was dismissed, the mother being admonished for her behavior. Further the mother has consistently claimed to be in fear but the trial court has never found any justification for this (App 111 and especially reference to reaffirming finding from previous domestic violence hearing).

The father clearly wins on this factor.

III. Child Support

Summary of Argument

The lower court assessed $29,154.00 in back child support with no consideration of child support paid (App 82-84), child support offered and refused, no abatement for the time the father was in the United States and legally prohibited from working and no abatement for the period of time the child was concealed including when the mother abducted the child out of state and the child was missing and endangered.

The lower court also wrongly used public assistance income the father was in receipt of due to disability in the United Kingdom as the basis for calculating current and retroactive child support.

The lower court also misapplied the child support guidelines and behaved unfairly against the father in favor of the mother when it failed to impute full-time income for the mother (who claimed only 20 hours of work per week) yet imputed 40 hours for the father while he also had primary residency of one of his other children and was classified as medically disabled at that time. Further, the mother and father’s child rearing circumstances were identical and either both suffer the same legal impact and restrictions child rearing imposes or neither suffers them.
The record is silent on evidence of the father’s child support payments yet child support was paid (App 82-84). The trial court did not allow the father sufficient time to present FIVE YEARS worth of evidence giving only the day for the hearing to take place which is self-evident from the Procedural History.

The father contends that the trial court erred in calculating current and retroactive child support as it took into account income in the form of “public assistance” received from the United Kingdom social security system (App188-192).

The father was medically assessed as disabled and unable to work by U.K. medical doctors and was in receipt of Housing Benefit (a payment direct to his landlord for his rental payment on his home) and Disability Allowance paid as Income Support in respect of his disability(App 188-192).

While “public assistance” is defined in ss. 409.2551-409.2598,

“7) "Public assistance" means money assistance paid on the basis of Title IV-E and Title XIX of the Social Security Act, temporary cash assistance, or food stamps received on behalf of a child under 18 years of age who has an absent parent.”

The income the father received would be included in this definition but for his residence being in the United Kingdom and the public assistance being paid by the British social security system.
The father also contends that the trial court’s calculation of child support should use actual income to calculate retroactive child support as in Cameron v. Dickey, 871 So. 2d 1022, 1023 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004). The Lower Court should determine the actual income earned by the parties during the time of the arrearage and utilize those figures in calculating the award of retroactive support (Arcot v. Balarman opinion filed April 9th 2009 5D07-1989) .

The father was unable to legally work while remaining in the United States during the protracted litigation of this case as he had no work permit to do so nor would he have been allowed one under the circumstances as he was specifically under visa restrictions as a consequence of the domestic violence representations of the mother and faced incarceration and deportation if he contravened Federal Immigration law (App 242-243).

The father was awarded a temporary custody order on October 26th 2005 by the lower court and no order for extinguishing child support was given as no order for said support had been issued by the court. The child was returned to the jurisdiction on January 13th 2006.

IV. Visitation Costs

Summary of Argument

The trial court erred in placing the burden of visitation costs entirely upon the father and not arranging a split between the parties.

The standard of review is de novo.

The mother unilaterally removed the child to the United States from the United Kingdom without the knowledge or consent of the father in February 2003. The mother relocated with permission of the court to Panama City, Florida from Debary, Florida. The court ordered all visitations to take place in Panama City and the full cost to be borne by the father.

The Lower Court should have split visitation costs giving weight to the parties’ respective qualifying incomes following Drakulich v. Drakulich, 705 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). The Third District Court of Appeal for Florida held that both parents should pay for the cost of transporting the child in proportion to their incomes.

CONCLUSION

The Appellant respectfully request the Fifth District Court of Appeals should:
In the FIRST INSTANCE to vacate all orders of the Lower Court ab initio due to lack of jurisdiction and order the return of the child to her father and home state and take action to secure the safety of the child and prevent her further removal and concealment within or without the State of Florida; or

In the SECOND INSTANCE, and failing to rule as in the first instance above, to reverse the Order of Primary Residency to the mother and return the child to the father and order a correct assessment of child support arrearage together with an order preventing the removal or further concealment of the child within or without the State of Florida;

In the THIRD INSTANCE, in the two aforementioned instances are not so ordered, to vacate all orders of the Lower Court and refer the case to Federal Court for a retrial of the whole matter and further proceedings and return the child to the father pending those proceedings together with orders to prevent the removal or concealment of the child within or without the State of Florida; or

In the FOURTH INSTANCE, in the event none of the above courses of action is taken, to vacate all orders of the trial court and remand the matter to the Lower Court for retrial of the case with a jury deciding the outcome and return the child to the father pending those proceedings together with orders to prevent the removal or concealment of the child within or without the State of Florida.

AND FINALLY, in the event none of the above are ruled, to correct the child support and visitation cost issues.

AND IN ANY EVENT, to order charges of criminal medical neglect of the child are preferred against the mother for the neglect of the child’s eye condition leading to her permanent blindness.
_____________________________
Karl E. Hindle
Appellant (Pro Se)
Dated:

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on _________________________________, I, Karl Hindle, mailed a copy of this brief and appendix upon appellee's attorney, Ms. Kim Banister, Esq., at Community Legal Services of Mid-Florida, Suite 100, 128 Orange Avenue, Daytona Beach FL, via Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested.
_____________________________
Karl E. Hindle
Appellant (Pro Se)
Dated:
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
This is to certify that the undersigned has complied with Florida Rule 9.100(1), including the font and margin requirements.
_____________________________
Karl E. Hindle
Appellant (Pro Se)

David & Sean Goldman: Dateline

2009-06-08T02:32:00.002+01:00

I just finished watching the Dateline piece on the Goldman's as I steal myself for a week of legal preparation and drafting.

My other half asked me why Dateline wasn't covering all the other cases - and with Brazil alone there are around 50 to 70, and Brazil is by no means unique - there are in fact hundreds and thousands of children and parents going through this.

I've become very focused these last couple of weeks so I have not been following David's efforts as closely as I have been; in fact all I am thinking of is getting the initial brief filed and getting that ticked off my To Do list.

For those who have more time than I do right now, you can follow David's battle to get Sean home here:

Bring Sean Home

For everyone else who have been wondering why I fell off the face of the earth - I'm just head down and concentrating on the next phase which should be coming to a head sooner rather than later.

Thanks for the emails - I do read them and they do give me courage.

Judge Rowe Hearing: June 3rd 2009

2009-06-04T16:24:00.001+01:00

I was in court in Florida yesterday and the result of the hearing was my subpoenas were quashed - the Court of Appeal holds jurisdiction and therefore the Lower Court cannot allow them to continue.

Not good but not bad - simply allow the appeal to go forward.

I did submit a letter to Judge Rowe outlining why I believe visitation should now cease with some supporting documentation reproduced here.

His Honor Judge R Rowe

Volusia County Courthouse

101 N. Alabama Avenue

DeLand FL 32724

June 2nd, 2009

BY HAND

Dear Judge Rowe,

Hindle-v-Fuith (n.k.a. Swindell) – Case Ref: 2003-12692-FMDL

I love Emily dearly, more than life itself.

It is with a great deal of regret and soul-searching that I have come to the following decision.

After having one visitation since final judgment of October 6, 2008, when we should have enjoyed 6, it has become crystal clear the severe damage Emily has suffered as a consequence of her mother’s continuing, unchecked and criminal efforts to deny visitation and more insidiously, to poison our little girl’s mind and emotional bonding with her Daddy.

I also hold a justifiable basis to be in fear both for my physical safety and my liberty.

The mother continues to incite third parties and law enforcement to me harm both physically and to charge me with stalking, harassment and other charges. This fear is based on a previous one month’s incarceration at the hands of US Immigration who acted on the mother’s claims I was a threat to her and our child and so prompted a chain of events resulting in Judge Doyle stating at trial, “Mr Hindle, the Federal government is screwing you!”.

That the Immigration authorities acted as they did based upon the mother’s false claims, which she continues to repeat post-trial and post-judgment is undeniable.

By seeking contact and visitation, it is clear her mother has and continues to inflict the most horrific psychological trauma upon little Emily in order to poison our relationship and stop visitation and contact taking place. The mother also continues in her efforts to have me arrested and charged with her false claims of stalking and harassment as well as inciting third parties to do me harm and in addition, continues in her claims I will abuse Emily.

When the domestic violence and child protection processes are misused, they become not a shield for protection, but a powerful and devastating weapon of attack.

For six years Emily has been in the middle of an extremely high conflict dispute with an international dimension and after visitation with Emily for Spring Break, the first in 3 years allowed, during which I and my fiancé were physically threatened and abused by the mother and her husband, in front of the child and other matters I have reached a sad conclusion. It cannot be in the interests of any child to be so treated and my only alternative is to withdraw from seeking contact in order to remove the mother’s perceived need to cause distress and conflict to thwart the relationship between Emily and her Daddy.

Visitation cannot take place with the constant and justifiable fear I have for further arrest and incarceration at the hands of the mother and her legal team’s continued claims I am harassing and/or abusing our little girl. I will not seek visitation unless I and Emily can do so safely and without the fear of physical and/or verbal assault or from the continuing efforts of the mother to abuse the system. Under the circumstances, and given the mother has had the threat of jail hanging over her head for years but has continued to thwart the orders of the Honorable Court, I no longer have any faith in the Honorable Court’s ability to enforce any substantive visitation in the interests of Emily.

I have asked for hearing time on the substantial change in circumstances represented by the mother’s unabated criminal conduct in this case which includes over 300 instances of law enforcement involvement, 5 major police investigations, 2 sexual abuse investigations and continuing efforts of the mother to deny visitation on the grounds of abuse, harassment, stalking and a multitude of other claims all of which have been demonstrably false and found so by the Honorable Court on numerous occasions.

Judge Doyle made it clear at trial that if the mother continued making her allegations they represented a substantial change in circumstances. For the purpose of trial the mother recanted them all only to leave the court and repeat her vile behavior in claiming abuse, to be in fear and filing several police complaints as I tried to firstly, arrange visitation and secondly, to exercise it.

Panama City P.D. have advised me that the mother’s conduct is at the threshold required for criminal interference in visitation charges to be laid but they feel their hands are tied as the Honorable Court has the matter for consideration and therefore, they cannot proceed. A similar view has been expressed to me by the Florida State Attorney’s offices.

This criminal conduct continues unabated to this day after the mother being found guilty of criminal contempt, after trial and after the issuance of final judgment.

In addition, there exists a justifiable basis to be in fear for my safety and liberty posed by the mother’s continued conduct notwithstanding the window-dressing efforts of her attorney to give the impression of compliance with the final judgment.

I have read the sexual abuse investigation notes provided by Daytona Police Department and I vomited after reading some of the investigation notes which culminated in a finding of false allegations by the mother and coaching of Emily in the making of the most evil alienating statements:

““My daddy hurt me here” and put her hand over vaginal opening”

“When I attempted to obtain anal swab – child was hysterical.”

Page 2, Children’s Advocacy Center, Sexual Assault Program report(copy attached)

“Emily also said he touched her top but “she just has little ones.””

Sheila Fuith (the mother), Daytona Beach Police Report January 30^th, 2006 (copy attached)

I cannot allow little Emily to be subjected to this filth nor risk this in future – why the Honorable Court has not jailed the mother is answered simply by the fact, borne by the court file and record, that the Honorable Court has not heard any of this BUT not for lack of trying

I have been appalled at the bare-faced dishonesty and perjury of the mother and her attorney, Ms Kim Banister, who denied several times in open court and at trial that the mother had not made these allegations (and yet Ms Banister was in possession of the handwritten complaint of the mother in this instance).

Your Honor should note this complaint was made two weeks after the finding of criminal contempt of the mother and also upon the very same day of the mandatory Parenting Class. It was also made after the child had been located after being abducted out of State by the mother and classified as “Missing & Endangered” by F.D.L.E. (missing child poster attached).

At the Parenting Class, both speakers, Regina Proskine and Dave Thomas, very strongly advised that making false sexual abuse allegations was a terrible alienating tactic and that coaching a child in the making of sexual abuse allegations was in itself a form of sexual abuse of a child. That same day, the mother falsely claimed I had anally, vaginally and auto-erotically sexually battered Emily and coached her in the making of statements and actions including the male masturbation motion being taught to our little girl.

Sexual battery upon a child requires a mandatory life sentence in the State of Florida and an arrest on that charge will result in substantial time in jail awaiting trial. I have previously enjoyed a month in immigration detention in 2004 as a direct consequence of the mother’s representations to the US Government’s Barbara Greig at the Office of Children’s Issues, Department of State; this included claims I was a threat to her and Emily before and after Judge Doyle dismissed her domestic violence injunction application (US Immigration papers attached). I have no desire to repeat that experience whether it is for child abuse allegations, the continuing claims of stalking and harassment laid at me by the mother or for any other reason.

I have no answer for Emily when I was asked, “Why did you hurt me?” and “Why are you a bad man?” I do not believe Your Honor has any answer to such questions either; who could possibly answer these questions from such an innocent mind which has been warped and twisted to satisfy the unlawful and unchecked vile nature of her mother?

I have been equally appalled at the ignorant dismissal of an international treaty ceding jurisdiction to the State of Florida after false claims the mother was a legal resident in the State of Florida. The mother claimed in London and was supported by the aforementioned Barbara Greig, to have been a resident for six months in Florida and as a consequence, Florida held jurisdiction over Emily. Upon subsequent filing in Florida in this action, the counter-petition and other evidence demonstrated the mother had lied to the court in London and was not a resident of Florida for the six months prior to filing (refer to #43 of record on appeal held in trial court file) – a jurisdictional defect repeatedly brought to the attention of Judge Doyle who has chosen to ignore it in an egregious error of judgment demonstrating collusion in this international fraud (copy final judgment attached).

Nevertheless, the Hague Convention order (copy attached) required the child to receive medical treatment for her treatable blindness in her right eye only for no treatment to be forthcoming nor any enforcement by Judge Doyle:

“In this County, we’re provincials. We don’t do the Hague Convention.”

Judge Doyle, Trial May 23^rd,2008

“A patch! A patch? That does not sound important to me!”

Judge Doyle, Hearing May 10^th,2006

The Hague Convention is an international treaty adopted by the United States and ranks second in authority only to the Constitution of the United States of America.

Emily is now permanently blinded in her right eye for the sake of a 50 cent eye patch for a few hours a day until she reached the age of 3 and for which NINE eye doctors, British and American have recommended therapy (medical report of Dr Cordero (US) and Dr Bell (UK) attached).

To let a child become permanently blinded is a stain on the reputation and character of the State of Florida and of the United States of America.

In addition, my feelings of disgust cannot be sufficiently expressed in connection with what has been described as a “cavalier attitude towards the safety and well-being of the child” (Paul King, Central Authority London, U.K.). Depositions of witnesses testifying to the mother’s efforts to unlawfully adopt Emily out which placed her into the care and contact of a convicted pedophile, Leslie Merriam (Sex Offender Register entry attached) have been simply ignored by His Honor Judge Doyle and not entered into the court record along with several other items.

To date, no punishment has been passed upon the mother.

I will seek a change in residency and the current appeal in the Fifth District will run its course but I can no longer justify my part in placing Emily in the middle of this bitter and evil climate of fear and perversion any longer. I accept the court and the laws have been thwarted by her mother but I do not accept this state of affairs should be allowed to continue one day longer. In the absence of any effective relief from the Honorable Court for more than 6 long years, I am compelled to place Emily’s interests first – no child should be allowed to suffer under such circumstances.

It is in Emily’s interests to have her real father in her life but this is neither possible nor desirable given the appalling cost for little Emily – the continuing climate and environment filled with fear and created by her mother to destroy the relationship little Emily have. Furthermore, I cannot do Emily any good, nor my family and other children if I am incarcerated once more and the risk of this at the hands of abuse allegations is very real – even an arrest for child abuse of the form the mother claims would entail substantial jail time awaiting trial even if finally acquitted, and life imprisonment if found guilty.

Your Honor has a woman who has been warned repeatedly of the threat of jail if she does not comply; she continues to ignore this threat and as there is no order Your Honor can issue which the mother will comply with short of jailing her, without a change in residency this little girl will lose her father. I do not relinquish my position that a change in residency is in the very best interests of Emily and will continue with the legal process and the Appeal to this effect.

This in no way implies I will not financially provide to the best of my ability for Emily.

It is time for this little girl to be a child free of this conflict and I can only hope that with my withdrawal from seeking contact, Emily’s mother will cease the manipulation and distress inflicted upon her and at some future date, Emily and I will be allowed a loving relationship free of unchecked perversion and criminal interference.

Sincerely,

Karl E. Hindle

cc:

Governor Crist – FL.

Congressman Mica – FL.

Congressman Smith – NJ.

Sir John Stanley M.P. – London, U.K.

Secretary of State Clinton – Washington D.C.

Sheila Fuith Attorney Letters to US Government Regarding Arrest of Emily's Dad

2009-06-04T16:07:00.004+01:00

Dr Cordero: Medical Report on Treatment for Emily's Blindness

2009-06-04T16:04:00.004+01:00

Sheila Fuith False Police Report of Child Sexual Abuse

2009-06-04T15:17:00.002+01:00

The police report in the mother's handwriting claiming sexual abuse of Emily two weeks after being found guilty of contempt.

Judge Rowe Hearing

2009-06-04T15:13:00.005+01:00