The Fifth District Court of Appeal Rules on Emily

I received the ruling from the 5th District Court of Appeal in Daytona, FL last month. I have been busy with a couple of issues, notably filing the papers for taking the case to the Supreme Court and now I can post an update on Emily's case.

The Appeal court ruled partially in my favour and partially against me.

I won:

• reversal of the $30,000 back child support award;
• reversal of the monthly child support award (it was around $780 per month);
• the mother must pay her share towards the visitation costs (I paid all of it previously)
• that Emily's mother unilaterally removed her from the UK; and
• most important of all -

The Appeal court ruled there was NO jurisdiction in Florida nor anywhere else in the United States!

I lost:

• because they decided they were keeping Emily anyway;
• they ignored the neglect for Emily's blindness;
• they ignored Emily being placed up for sale/adoption; and
• they ignored Emily being given to a pedophile in Wisconsin
• but most of all -

The Appeal Court is keeping Emily with her mother!

A full copy of the opinion is to be found here

I have appealed the appeal to the Florida Supreme Court on the jurisdiction issue and the neglect of Emily's eye condition and several other matters, but this is the last step before we get into Federal court.

Pro Se All the Way!

More on that later...

Japan/UK Dialogue on Accession to Hague Convention

Yesterday, British Foreign Secretary, David Miliband spoke with his Japanese counterpart, Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada regarding Japanese accession to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Miliband quoted Okada as stating,

"I fully understand the seriousness of the issue."

For several years, mounting pressure has been applied on Japanese officials to accede to the Hague Convention.

A recent round of US/Japanese diplomatic talks, have led some parents to criticize both American and Japanese governments for not doing enough to help left-behind parents and internationally abducted children.

It is not just the US that has been making representations; the G8 countries have collectively been applying pressure. Canada, Australia and New Zealand have numerous cases where children abducted to Japan have all but disappeared from the lives of their left-behind parent. In addition, fellow G8 members - the UK, Spain and France - have been raising the issue too.

In the context of international child abduction, the much maligned Hague Convention is still the mechanism of choice, however, Japan has so far failed to accede to the Convention for a number of reasons, mostly cultural and specifically, on the basis that signing the Convention could place Japanese mothers and children in harms way if they were fleeing abusive partners.

Visitation in Japan upon Divorce

In Japan, the notion of shared custody or visitation with a child by the non-resident parent is practically non-existent. One parent, typically the mother, is awarded sole custody and the matter ends there - continuing contact between children and non-resident parents (fathers) is nil to negligible. In many respects, it is the Japanese legal system which is deficient in the inability to recognize the right of a child to continuing contact and involvement with the non-residential parent.

This sharply contrasts with the legal position in many Western countries which, if not perfect in practice, do frequently recognize the bonds of love and support between child and non-residential parent and seek to continue contact between children and fathers after divorce.

The Hague Convention's Cultural Challenge

The issue of domestic violence is a smelly cauldron, and one which the US in particular, does not have a credible leg to stand on. Morally, Japan is right to take its stand with "protecting" Japanese mothers claiming abuse when the US does so in so many cases when the tables are turned - even providing a specific exemption for the two-parent signature law to gain a US passport for children to effect their removal to the US from overseas.

Domestic violence is a challenge no matter whether the Hague Convention is in situ or not.

The issue at hand is the adoption of an international treaty which recognizes the rights of children to both parents by a country which does not have any cultural or legal basis for doing so. In Japan, children go to the mother and father is out of their life until they grow up - this is the practical situation and very close to the legal one.

Imagine the effect of Japanese courts granting visitation rights to "geijin" foreign fathers (and most will be fathers), while Japanese dads can't get a look in. Personally, I don't see that happening in practice, and yet, so many appear to be placing faith in the Hague Convention as a step in resolution of abductions to Japan.

One left-behind parent, Carlos Bermudez with his son, Sage, abducted from the US to Mexico, pointedly quipped:

"You're given a box marked Hague Convention on the side and you open it up to find you have a pea-shooter with which to take on a tank!"

Parents with children internationally abducted to Japan, are in for a very rude awakening when they get to try to use the Hague Convention, as and when Japan accedes to it.

But, there is the rub - I feel sure Japan will accede to it and in doing so, an opportunity will exist to continue to cast some daylight on the murky underbelly of international child abduction and the use of domestic violence allegations as a tool to justify abductions, not by the Japanese, but by the United States. Accession will also mean the US Department of State can shuffle Hague Convention application paperwork and play the waiting game with left-behind parents, with children in Japan, in exactly the same fashion they do so today with parents abducted to any other Hague country.

Japan signing the Hague Convention without a major cultural shift in thinking and behavior is full of challenges and obstacles; but teh Hague Convention is the hope parents with children in Japan will cling to as is the case with the rest of us. Without the US authorities performing a similar acrobatic feat in shifting thinking and attitudes, especially with how they manage Hague Convention cases, my honest view is the entire process is meaningless.

That is not what parents with children in Japan want to hear.

The Scales of Justice Must be Balanced by Ricardo Zamariola

I came across this highly succinct article published in Brazil (obviously in Portuguese but I do not know who made the translation so cannot give credit) - the article itself was written by the Brazilian lawyer, Ricardo Zamariola Jr. Zamariola represented David Goldman in his six-year battle to recover Sean Goldman back to his home in New Jersey.

While this article is written from the perspective of improving the Brazilian legal process for handling Hague Convention cases, the truth is every country has something to learn and could overhaul existing processes to ensure the four-fold issues highlighted by Mr Zamariola regarding judicial sluggishness, are addressed:

1. legal delay encourages international child abduction;
2. it encourages left-behind parents to pursue the "self-help" route and re-abduct the child;
3. abductors are rewarded with custody whether legal or de facto; and
4. it cheats the Hague Convention treaty partner from which the child has been abducted and compromises the trust and reciprocity enjoyed when a Brazilian parent invokes the treaty for the return of a child to Brazil.

One issue which appears to be left is the lack of compliance after a child is returned to their state of habitual residence - Hague Convention orders for the interests of the child, must be complied with (undertakings); proceedings which are then initiated or recommenced must be heard promptly and effectively and it goes without saying, fairly. As the Convention is a civil remedy, it is important that the child is not simply moved from one parent/jurisdiction which is denying the child their rights, to a left-behind parent who then re-imposes the denial of the child to the abducting parent to the detriment of the child.

If David Goldman's wife, Bruna Bianchi was still alive, Sean Goldman should not be denied contact and visitation with his abducting mother, unless there were adjudicated reasons why it would not be Sean's best interests to have that contact. In Sean's case it is moot as Bruna is dead, but one issue which is frequently overlooked amidst the very charged emotions involved is that the Hague Convention is a civil and not a criminal remedy. The Hague Convention should not be used, and its stated aim is certainly not, to deny a child their basic human rights - a right to both mother and father. It is a fine balancing act requiring sensitive, yet robust, judicial management.

Numerous countries should take note - the United States not least.

Here is the article and a link to the original:

The Scales of Justice must be balanced
RICARDO ZAMARIOLA JUNIOR

The Sean Goldman case showed how the issue of sluggishness in the Brazilian Justice system goes beyond the limits of our borders

THE CONTROVERSIAL case involving the minor Sean Goldman reveals how the issue of the sluggishness of Brazilian Justice goes beyond the limits of our borders, compromising Brazil’s international responsibility. We took almost six years to comply with an obligation that we should have honored in six weeks under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects if International Child Abduction.

The Hague Convention is an international treaty that 81 nations have signed up to, includingBrazil. Under its terms, when a child is taken from the country they live in without due respect for the laws in place there – conduct that the treaty classifies as abduction – the country they are transferred to will have to rule on their return to the first country. The convention stipulates that this return take place within six weeks, emphasizing urgency as a way to guarantee the child the least emotional disturbance possible.

Today, however, our Justice system is incapable of complying with the deadline established by the convention because of the ideology that forms the basis of the Brazilian civil procedure.

The judicial process works with two opposing requirements: speed and justice. A just decision demands reflection, which is an activity that requires time. However, the time taken in finding a solution to the case prolongs the uncertainty experienced by the parties and compromises the very effectiveness of the decision.

It is from balance in protecting these two values - speed and justice – that results a process able to pacify society. And it is precisely here that the balance of our Justice system fails.


The current Brazilian Code of Civil Procedure, published in 1973, above all privileges the value justice, allowing exhaustive re-discussion of each decision and prohibiting the decision on a victor prior to the end of the process. When the Hague Convention is involved, this obsessive pursuit of the fairest decision is reduced, paradoxically, to a situation in which justice is not served for anyone.

This is no exaggeration. On the one hand, the delay in the process prolongs the child’s stay inBrazil, which allows its adaptation to the new environment and means that a return to the country they lived in imposes a second emotional trauma. Sean’s case is a perfect example of this fact.

On the other hand, however, ruling that the child remain in Brazil because they have adapted reveals a cowardly injustice for the parent who rapidly initiates the return process, then having to wait for a response from the Brazilian Justice system – it goes without saying, this is what happens in the majority of cases.

Furthermore, more broadly speaking, not returning the child because they have adapted [to the new country] leads to other serious consequences: (i) it encourages abduction, because the abductor will know that the sluggishness of the Justice system will work in their favor, regardless of the unlawfulness of their conduct; (ii) it invites the parents who have suffered to rescue their children from Brazil independently of judicial order, to get justice for themselves; (iii) it gives custody to the one who broke the law, to the detriment of those who used legal means to protect their rights; and (iv) it cheats the other 80 signatory countries to the convention, compromising the reciprocity expected of them to return children to Brazil who have been taken unlawfully from our country. In the middle of this confusion of values, there is always a child...

This situation illustrates the obvious: we need to shake off our fear of making mistakes and speed up Brazil’s civil procedure.

Fortunately, recent legislative alterations have indicated a way forward. However, the most laudable initiative is from the Federal Senate –yes, we must praise it, when it deserves it – which last October set up a commission to draw up a new Code of Civil Procedure.

Made up of legal scholars of the highest level and presided over by Judge Luiz Fux, of the Superior Tribunal of Justice, the commission will introduce a draft by May 2010.

Dozens of international child abduction cases arise around the world every day, including in Brazil. If we do not balance the scales of Brazilian Justice, adding more weight to speed, the HagueConvention will have no meaning in Brazil.

It will be one more example of that typically Brazilian phenomenon, perhaps unparalleled, of law that does not work. But, should this happen, it will be an example of global proportions, causing us to blush in the international community.

May the case involving little Sean serve as a warning.

1,000 Mile Stalking Charges Dismised with PREJUDICE

Last year I was charged with stalking Paul Swindell, Emily's new step-father by Panama City P.D. in Bay County, Florida - despite residing one thousand miles away in Richmond, Virginia and now here in the UK.

Paul Swindell is a man with a long history of violent offences and arrests including for domestic violence (how ironic), assault & battery and grand theft, and he was the man who <">threatened my fiance and I when we finally got to see Emily last year (for the only time in four years).

True to Floridian form, Swindell has found gainful employment in law enforcement as a corrections officer working for the Bay County Juvenile Detention Center, itself fraught with issues of mistreatment and wrongful deaths of juvenile inmates.

I couldn't make this up but when people hear where this is happening, the standard reaction is, "That's Florida!"

The Banana Republic of the USA has finally decided that there is no evidence except Swindell's say-so that he was "continuously followed" by me - the case has therefore been DISMISSED with PREJUDICE ...

or in other words,

Paul Swindell

You're a liar!

This is the 6th time I have been the subject of a major investigation by US and British law enforcement on the allegations of these two individuals -all ending with the same result - how much money has this cost the US taxpayer?

Hundreds of thousands of dollars?

What are the odds Swindell will be disciplined or punished?

Far less than the odds of me being being accused of some nonsense as soon as they can hatch another effort to try to keep me away from the court and Emily Rose.

7 Years Today - New Year Resolution for 2010: Bring Emily Home!

I've received emails over the holidays asking for a summary of what has happened and what the status is now, so on this January 7th, 2010 - the 7th Anniversary of Emily Rose being taken it - here is a summary:

Current Situation
Emily Rose Proceedings

The 5th District Court of Appeal in Daytona, FL has the first appeal before it and has done so since November 2008 - more than a year ago.

The mother has admitted FL did not have jurisdiction over Emily but is now claiming that as Emily Rose has been retained in Florida for so long, she should now stay.

Stalking Charges

In September, 2009 the mother's husband, Paul Swindell, a Corrections Officer filed charges claiming I was continuously following him and had his home under observation.

These are false complaints as I was in Virginia, a thousand miles away when he made these claims.

Nevertheless, the court in Panama City, Bay County has issued a warrant for my arrest despite still NOT being served with any court papers or charging document.

If I return to the US, I will be arrested and incarcerated for several weeks, and probably several months, awaiting transportation to Florida.

My position is this warrant is designed to stop me from continuing the appeal by scaring me into not attending the oral argument as and when it is scheduled.

Read the summary and make your own judgment as to why someone is being charged and prosecuted for stalking from across the Atlantic Ocean.

History of Emily Rose Hindle Abduction
The principal issues are:

1. Abduction of Emily Rose from UK to US with assistance of U.S. Department of State officials, notably Barbara Greig of the Office of Children's Issues and hiding and concealing Emily Rose across the U.S. including when I had legal custody of her;
2. Allowing Emily Rose to go without medical treatment for her eye condition which has now rendered her permanently blinded in her right eye - 9 American and British eye specialists recommended treatment to save her sight (which needed to be completed before she turned 3/4 years old) and it was ordered under a Hague Convention order by a Supreme Court Justice in London, U.K. but completely ignored by the U.S. court and authorities;
3. The sale and adoption efforts of Emily Rose's mother which also placed Emily Rose into the care and contact of a convicted pedophile, Leslie Merriam in Wisconsin;
4. The conduct of Barbara Greig and the U.S. Department of State to block my efforts to litigate in the U.S. by orchestrating my arrest, incarceration and deportation to stop court proceedings and thwart court orders;
5. The continued abuse of Emily Rose by her mother and step-father, including coaching Emily Rose in the making of sexual abuse allegations while the Floridian authorities do nothing - the response of DCF has been to threaten me with criminal proceedings for making false neglect reports when I complained of Emily Rose's eye neglect, for instance; and
6. The filing of over 300 police complaints by the mother, her husband and some of her friends claiming stalking, harassment, domestic violence, child abuse, sexual assault on the child and much more - only to be found to be false by numerous police investigations and court rulings - and yet no sanction against the mother, except to find her guilty of criminal contempt on one occasion has been applied - at a cost of hundreds of thousands of tax dollars, the US government and FL authorities refuse to protect Emily and continue to try to paint me as a bad man no matter how many times the courts say she's misbehaving.

The Hague Convention and History

Emily Rose was born on March 1st, 2002 to Sheila Kay Fuith and Karl Hindle - Sheila is American and I am British, and Emily was born in Britain. Sheila and I were never married.

Emily Rose was diagnosed with an eye condition which was leaving her to go permanently blind in her right eye but she was treatable as it had been caught so early. We started treatment for Emily Rose at the local hospital in Britain.

On January 7th 2003, Sheila took Emily Rose from our home while I was at work.

Sheila went to the U.S. Embassy London, and claimed to be a victim of domestic violence, obtained a passport and took Emily Rose to Maryland, U.S. without my knowledge or consent.

Shortly after, she moved to Minnesota and then Wisconsin.

I started to search for Emily Rose and found that Sheila was married with two children she had abandoned in Minnesota; I did not know of this family throughout my relationship with Sheila.

In March 2003, Sheila tried to sell/adopt Emily Rose to Dale & Shannon Merriam in Wausau, Wisconsin.

This brought Emily Rose into the care of Leslie Merriam, a convicted pedophile.

The police were involved but were advised the U.S. Embassy and State Department had removed Emily Rose from the U.K. due to an abusive relationship, and I was not to know where Emily Rose and her mother were in the U.S.

Sheila and Emily disappeared completely in May 2003.

I had meanwhile retained lawyers in Wisconsin and Minnesota to start legal proceedings but was advised there was no jurisdiction and to file in the U.K.

I filed in July 2003 in the U.K. and was awarded parental rights on August 14th, 2003.

Sheila agreed to meet in Florida in August 2003 to discuss issues because I was dealing with the F.B.I. who were looking at warrants for the arrest of Sheila for medical neglect and child endangerment.

Sheila and I met in Florida where she told me she was living in Virginia.

She claimed she was getting medical treatment for Emily but she was lying and leaving Emily Rose to go blind.

I offered reconciliation if Sheila returned to the U.K. - she accepted.

On September 19th, 2003 Sheila and Emily Rose returned to the U.K. whereupon the British police stopped Sheila and removed Emily Rose from her mother and gave her to me.

Sheila then invoked the Hague Convention claiming I had kidnapped Emily Rose from Florida.

Barbara Greig at the Office of Children's Issues claimed Florida held jurisdiction because Sheila and Emily Rose had lived there for more than 6 months. This was a lie.

The High Court London heard the Hague application and sent Emily Rose to Florida for proceedings to take place but ordered medical treatment for the eye condition "forthwith upon return".

Greig and her boss, Glen Keiser then arranged for the revocation of my visa privileges and the refusal of visas to travel to the U.S. for Florida court proceedings and for court ordered visitation with Emily Rose.

Finally, I was allowed to travel in April 2004 with my visa expiring on 20th April (restricted by Greig and Keiser recommendations) - Greig communicated visa restrictions to Sheila and her attorney for use in timing court hearings after my visa expired.

As I was preparing to leave the U.S. I was offered a chance to see Emily Rose, but only on my day of departure - this was to try to entice me to violate the visa conditions and was made on the day before my flight.

I was also summonsed to defend myself against a domestic violence injunction application to be heard on the day after the visa expired - if I stayed to defend myself, I violated the State Department restriction to leave the country, if I didn't defend myself it would justify barring me from any further travel to the U.S. (which was happening in any event).

I applied to extend the visa and stayed.

I won the domestic violence injunction - Sheila was admonished for her dishonesty.

I was then arrested by U.S. Immigration for overstaying the visa beyond the State Department restrictions (even though I had applied for an extension) - this was ordered by Barbara Greig, responsible for the Hague Convention implementation with the U.K., but subsequently denied by the then director of OCI, John Ballif.

The US Immigration report paints a very different picture citing the State Department was responsible.

I spent a month in immigration detention until I was deported in May 2004. I was then permanently barred from entering the U.S. on the grounds I had harassed the American citizen mother - the U.S. Embassy claimed it did not have to follow the court orders or the Hague Convention.

When the British Government sought explanation it was advised that, Greig and the State Department had no involvement in my arrest and deportation, that they did not have any authority to conduct any investigation into my presence in the U.S. and that they had not done so. Further, the U.S. Department of State was not stopping me from seeing Emily Rose or litigating in Florida by delaying or denying visa issuance.

I was permanently barred from entering the U.S. on the grounds I had harassed the American mother - William Muntean of the U.S. Embassy, London was presented with my court orders under the Hague Convention and from the Florida court granting child visitation and the domestic violence finding in my favor. His reponse when denying the visa to get back to the U.S. was simple:

"We don't have to follow those!"

I was unable to travel to the U.S. until January 2005, after I had obtained a visa with the help of the offices of Congressman Mica.

Upon learning of my visa being issued, Sheila abducted Emily Rose out of state and hid her.

Missing & Endangered: Abducted from Florida

Emily Rose was classified as a Missing & Endangered Child by Florida Department of Law Enforcement (F.D.L.E.) but the U.S. Embassy would not allow me back in to the country to look for her nor to continue legal proceedings.

Emily Rose was located in Kansas/Missouri and brought down to Florida in January 2006 whereupon the judge ordered Emily Rose will stay with her mom and we would start visitation yet again.

Sheila was found guilty of criminal contempt but not jailed or punished by the judge, His Honor Judge John Doyle.

On January 28th, 2006 Sheila accused me of having anal sex and other sexual activity with Emily Rose.

I went into hiding because several people connected with Sheila threatened to kill me and I waited for the investigation to be conducted.

The consensus of Daytona Beach P.D., D.C.F. and the State Attorney as well as the medical personnel at Halifax Medical Center, Daytona, was that no abuse had taken place and Sheila was coaching Emily Rose in the making of statements and teaching her the male masturbation motion.

In May 2006 there was a hearing on the child sexual abuse and the treatment for Emily Rose's eye condition.

The judge refused to hear any evidence of the sexual abuse report by Sheila - her attorney, Kim Banister lied to the court repeatedly that her client was not behind the report - she had a copy of Sheila's handwritten police complaint in her possession when she did this.

Judge Doyle had the investigating D.C.F. official removed from the court room.

Judge Doyle also refused to hear evidence on the eye condition and claimed;

"A patch? A patch! Is that what this is all about? It doesn't seem important to me!"

With that, Emily Rose was allowed to go permanently blind and I had then to return to the U.K. because my visa was expiring.

I said,

"But she's going blind!"

Judge Doyle ordered me removed from the court room.

Upon returning to the UK I applied on numerous occasions to get a visa to travel back to the US for court ordered visitation, but more importantly to conclude the legal proceedings.

Multiple visa requests were denied - officially the US Embassy claimed I was attempting to emigrate to the US, unofficially and as recorded during visa interviews in the Embassy, the reason they were using was the harassment of the American mother and they were ignoring the findings of the Hague Convention and the US court ordering visitation and finding the mother in criminal contempt for her conduct in making false allegations and abducting Emily from Florida.

With the assistance of several attorneys, Congressman Mica's offices and the British Government a visa was procured for trial in May 2008 - some 5 years after Emily was sent for "prompt and effective" hearings in the US.

We had request three days for presentation of evidence including the evidence of the fraud on the British High Court with the mother's and State Department's claims that Florida held jurisdiction, Emily's blindness and medical neglect, the sexual abuse coaching, the sale/adoption of Emily and being given into the care and contact of a convicted pedophile.

Judge Doyle threatened to jail me to "straighten me out" and that we would only have the day to present evidence and if we did not leave enough time for the mother to respond he would automatically award custody to the mother.

Judge Doyle refused to allow depositions to be read into the record - depositions of the pedophile, Leslie Merriam; members of her family who testified she was not fit to look after Emily; the medical evidence; the sexual abuse evidence and more - all were ruled not admissible.
Judge Doyle did not keep out the evidence of the mother and Barbara Greig at OCI arrangin for my arrest in 2004 - upon reading the correspondence Judge Doyle exclaimed:

"Mr Hindle, the Federal Government is screwing you!"

When the jurisdiction issue was raised, Judge Doyle dismissed the lack of jurisdiction stating:

"In this county, we're provincvials. We don't do the Hague Convention!"

I returned to the UK shortly after trial because my visa was once more restricted by the State Department - Emily's mother would not allow me to see her during my visit.

Finally, in October 2008, Judge Doyle issued a final order - Emily was to be kept in Florida with her mother with visitation given to me and a $30,000 back child support bill which took no account of child support already paid.

In November 2008, I filed an appeal with the 5th District Court of Appeal in Daytona - in the mother's appeal brief she admits, Florida did not have jurisdiction at the time she and Barbara Greig of OCI told the UK court it did in fact have it.

By now, financially exhausted (having spent over $400,000), I was forced to represent myself in the legal proceedings.

In November 2008, I tried to see Emily for court ordered visitation - I flew to the US and then drove with my fiance from Richmond VA to Panama City FL - we ran into Sheila at the local police station where a police officer read the order to Sheila (Emily's mom)and told her she had been ordered to give me Thanksgiving visitation.

She flat out refused.

She then offered visitation a few days after Thanksgiving and set a date, time and pick up in Panama City.

We drove back to Richmond VA (990 miles one way)because of work and made the trip back a few days later for visitation.

Emily and her mother did not show.

I did get a summons from the court in Volusia - I was being held in criminal contempt for failing to pay child support and harssing the mother. My child support was current and the mother was claiming me calling or trying to contact her about Emily was harassment.

It was thrown out but Emily and I didn't get to see her for court ordered visitation for Christmas, in January, in February and nor for her birthday.

I filed for criminal contempt of the mother for her behavior - I was then allowed to see Emily for Spring Break in 2009.

With trepidation and submerged hope, we traveled to Panama City FL a third time - to be confronted by a man who threatened first me, and then my fiance - a five foot nothing, not quite 100 pound, kindergarten schoolteacher - in front of Emily and two Panama City PD police officers called to protect the mother who stood not ten feet away and did nothing.

The reason why the police did nothing became apparent - "Paul" claimed to be a cop.

Nevertheless, we came away with Emily - all of us scared.

Patsy (my fiance) and I complained to the police - but we didn't know who the man was except he was called Paul.

We enjoyed a week with Emily - the first time in 3 years we'd seen each other and it was wonderful but Patsy was so scared, she was frightened to be alone (and I admit, so was I).

We had a further hearing in May 2009 on the mother's conduct - the judge refused to act because the matter was before the Appeal court. He asked if I would try visitation again and I refused - I was and continue to be too frightened to do that again - I was right to refuse.

In September 2009, I was advised to leave the US by US Immigration even though we were still waiting for the Appeal to finish.

I returned to the UK and shortly afterwards, Patsy forwarded some papers which advised I had been charged with stalking the man who had threatened us in Panama City - he turned out to be Paul Swindell, Sheila's new husband, but instead of being a cop, he was a Corrections Officer.

Paul Swindle claims I have followed him continuously since April 2009 and have been watching his home, a trailer on a trailer park in Panama City. With the exception of the Spring Break visitation I have not been within 500 miles of Panama City in 2009 - coming to Florida for a one day visit in May for a court hearing at which Judge Rowe refused to act, and again in August, with Patsy, to file the final appellate brief and catch up with my fellow LBP's and friends, Ariel Ayubo and Robert Skelton in New Smyrna Beach on the east coast.

I faxed the court in Panama City explaining I had not been served and was in the UK and asking for representation to be provided. Instead, Judge Shane Vann issued a warrant for my arrest because I had failed to appear before him.

Today, I cannot return to the US as, as a foreigner, I will be arrested and detained by Immigration until transported to Florida for the stalking charge. Unless this is resolved, the Appeal will not proceed as I must attend the oral argument hearing before the Appeal Court - if I do I will be arrested and jailed, if I don't the case will end.

Summary

After experiencing the pain and fear which goes with losing a child to abduction, I have learned a signal lesson - the fear you may feel for yourself is nothing compared to the fear you feel for those you love. Your wife, your husband, your children - I would rather be shot at every day than go through the fear I feel for Emily.

The fear I felt when I found out about the sale/adoption of Emily and especially, when I found the pedophile's involvement - I have never felt fear to such an extent in my life.

To have to stand by and wait for your child to go blind is horrific - a 50 cent eye patch was all that was required, but less than 40 miles from where man was sent to the moon, this did not seem important to the American judge and officials, and least of all to Emily's mother, Sheila Swindell.

To date, I have had over 300 police complaints filed against me by Emily's mom and her friends, including her new husband - stalking, domestic violence, harassment, making child pornography with my children in England, having sex with Emily, attempted break in at her home, surveillance of her home, kidnapping, child abuse and more.

300 reports have produced 6 major police investigations of these complaints in the US and the UK.

They have resulted in 8 instances of the US and UK courts ruling none of this has happened.

Unfortunately, the authorities in the US Government and in Florida are not interested - sooner or later, they will get a verdict even if they have to make up the evidence.

The cost to Emily - her eye and her Daddy and family - the cost to the US taxpayer, hundreds of thousands of your tax dollars.

The cost to me - I cannot write about that.

The cost to Sheila for behaving this way - nothing. No punishment, no sanction - nothing.

One final life lesson for me is that if you are going to succeed in recovering any semblance of a relationship with your child, perhaps even to be fortunate enough to recover your child, you must act from the love you feel for them and not the anger you feel against those who have taken them.

Love is true and will keep you going, but anger and hate will twist and warp you into a creature which you and your child will never recognize. When Emily Rose and I are reunited, she is going to see her daddy and she will see how much I love you - she will never see an angry man.

For those in America who have been frustrated at how slow things have been for David and Sean Goldman - the legal machinations and the endless appeals - it took 5 years for a trial in America only for the judge to say he doesn't do the Hague Convention and today, 13 months have elapsed since the filing of the first Appeal which has still not been heard.

If it wasn't for so many Americans who have helped along the way, I wouldn't be where I am today on this road, but then again, if it was not for the American authorities and people like Barbara Greig, Leslie Merriam, Judge Doyle and Paul Swindell, I wouldn't be on this road at all.

Seven long years - how much longer before America steps up to the plate and does the right thing?

WI Police Report - Emily Removed from UK by US Embassy & State Department

Christmas Day 2010: Sean Goldman Home, Thousands More To Go

Christmas Day is always a bitter-sweet affair for me: I see my children as I have done this morning, but thoughts of Emily are inescapable.

Emily and I have had one Christmas together - her first Christmas before she was taken 14 short days later.



Happy Christmas Emily Rose - Daddy loves you darling ;)

Yesterday, I received a call from Robert Skelton in Florida with the news that Sean Goldman had been handed over at the US Consulate and by now is back in the US with his dad, David Goldman.

That is news beyond many parents fantasies. Good luck to both of them with their new life together and I wish them happiness as they catch up with each other for the stolen years taken from them.

A sweet development but for the bitterness.



Why be bitter? Sean is home, David Goldman has succeeded where so many have failed?

I feel bitterness because of the following, many of whom I have come to know personally and consider as friends:

Carlos Bermudez and his son Sage (in Mexico)



Ariel Ayubo and his son, Lorenzo (Brazil)



Tim Weinstein and his children (in Brazil)



Rob Skelton and his daughter, Marissa Joy Kvistad (somewhere in Europe probably)



Martin Boyle and his daughter, Rebecca (in Brazil)



Mayra Elsafi and her children Tariq & Sarah (thought to be in Sudan)



Ken Thompson and his son, Andrew (probably in Germany)



Michael Shannon and his children (in Egypt)



Devan Davenport and Nadia (in Brazil)



Larry Synclair and his son, Larry Jr. (in Russia)



Joseph Cannon and his daughter, Shelby (in the UK)

Sean Goldman To Remain In Brazil

Brazil's Supreme Court has stayed the Appeal Ruling won by David Goldman, 3-0 and Sean Goldman will now have to remain in Brazil until his testimony can be heard.

David Goldman flew to Brazil yesterday with Congressman Smith in anticipation of collecting Sean and returning with him to their home in New Jersey. The step-father and the boy's Brazilian family have appealed that court ruling and it is now likely that Sean will have to remain in Brazil at least until February when his testimony will be heard.

Sean and David Goldman have not seen each other since June last year; on the other hand, Emily and I have not seen each other since March and David is getting court time far faster in Brazil than I am in Florida - the Appeal for Emily is still waiting to be set for oral argument and the calendar has been booked through to March 2010 (without us on it).

My heart goes out to both of them nevertheless.


Good luck guys.

David Goldman Wins Appeal Before Brazilian Court 3-0 - Sean to be Returned by Friday

David Goldman has won a federal appeal before a Brazilian court comprising three judges - the verdict was unanimous.

The order involves Sean being home in New Jersey by Friday, but...

His step-father and family have filed yet another appeal.

This is exactly the kind of delaying tactics which need to be stopped - not just in Brazil, but anywhere.

If the ruling is there is no jurisdiction - the domestic legal process should then be stopped immediately - no jurisdiction means no more!

The MSNBC piece on this can be found by following the David Goldman link.

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

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

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

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

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!

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

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.

Martin Boyle: In His Own Words

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

by

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.