This is the original Letter to Byron page from when it was published ‘Live.’
The live blog is no longer updated.
The entire content of Letters to Byron is a book, available in Paperback or Kindle.
100% of proceeds go towards Byron’s legal fund.

Byron does not see his father because of endemic systemic Parental Alienation and Child abuse practiced by members of family law who are above the law. Members of a for-profit model of child abuse protected by qualified immunity in Britain’s Family court exactly as appears in the child abusive judgment of flip judge Michele O’leary in Adler Vs Broulidakis, 2015. A judgment already flagged by review of then President of family law, Sir James Munby

My beautiful Byron,

Thursday again.
Yay.
My Byron time.

Today I found a drawing you did when you were at the Pavilion and they had all the kids draw a picture of their family for fathers day. It was 2013. You were four. I collected you that day and you were very excited to give me this work. Obviously, I have kept it, and today I found it in my usual search for pictures to send you in your “Letters to Byron.”

I like that you drew us on one side.  Funny that you drew John and Wallace and Maria between ‘mummy’ and me. Quite prophetic as it turned out. It was the last thing you ever gave me because ‘Fathers day’ was when you left.

It is funny to think that you drew your family with six in the picture. Now, four years later, only two in that drawing see each other.
Two are dead. And one, me, is very disappointed with British family law. And especially the three members who have placed financial benefit above  child’s best interests. Adler/Amlot and O’Leary.

It is a long list of complaints we have to level at those three You never got to say goodbye to Wallace or to Maria because you were prevented by family court judgment. And you have been prevented from being with me or even skyping me since 16 February 2016. That was fathers day. It will be 3 years next week. All because; family court has placed financial reward for its members above the best interests of a child.

Although family law have ruled that it is in your best interests to not see me, I say it is a bad judgement. It is always in a child’s interests to have a good relationship with both parents. Where family law members place financial reward over a child’s interests, I say, they act in breach of the very code of ethics that they are bound to respect by nature of their office. The SRA Ethical code.

If you ever read through the SRA Code of ethics, you will not find it difficult to identify several dozen examples of how Adler/Amlot and O’Leary are in breach. Their conduct is, by any informed analyses, child abuse. And by any informed interpretation, they have got away with it scot free. Even though the actual President of Family law read through the judgment of Michele O’Leary and said it should be appealed, we have learned the family law allows for such a thing as an ‘Un Appealable’ judgment. Imagine that. You can abuse a child with a bad judgment and you can make it un appealable? And, for good measure, family law provides legal protection to prevent anyone disclosing the specifics of this child abuse.

It appears that members of family law like to help each other when it comes to money. That is more important than doing what is best for a child. These three members of family law, Adler/Amlot and O’Leary all have made money out of stopping you being with me. Even though they belong to a regulated body, subject to a published code of ethics which they breach without censure.

I say that this drawing by a 3 year old shows a close relationship with his father. And that creating and increasing acrimony between parents by litigating, as Amlot and Adler did, and by making a judgment that is maliciously punitive, as O’Leary did, is a breach of multiple instances listed in the SRA ethical code.

That the entire litigation leading to O’Leary’s judgment blighting our relationship is predicated on a provable lie, a ridiculous lie where all two liars had to say is ‘he promised me 50% of his house and business a few months after he met me‘ makes the whole dishonest enterprise worse.
Imagine, they had no evidence for this claim. Not one witness. Not one email. Just a ridiculously improbable claim that someone would give a virtual stranger 50% of their home and business in a ‘promise’. Forcing me into a court hearing to disprove a negative, that should not even have been allowed to progress to a court hearing unless Adler had promised to bring ‘Multiple witnesses’ in the preliminary hearing. But she did promise these witnesses would be there so the court date was set for April 2015, and I had to defend against what I knew was a  lie. A lie that was predicated on the original demand  ‘unless you pay me £100,000, you will not see Byron.‘ I did not pay her what I saw as blackmail and so they sued me in Court. For this so called ‘promise’ that I made when I met her in 2003. I had to bring witnesses to disprove this claim.

I had six witnesses ready to show the facts which reveal the lie. But on the morning of the family court hearing, mysteriously, a new judge switches with the court appointed judge. The judge set down for the hearing in a case with ‘Multiple witnesses’ written into the court order switches to a judge whose first ruling is to over-rule the court order providing for multiple witnesses at this hearing, so the witnesses I had to show the obvious lie, were stopped from giving evidence.

Making it more glaringly dishonest, the multiple witnesses she said would show up to validate her lie, never showed up. She did not have one single witness. But she told the preliminary hearing she would bring ‘Multiple witnesses’  in order to get the case heard.

Family law charged me £12,000 to prepare the statements from the witnesses I had to bring because that was the only way to disprove a negative, I have witnesses ready to call out the lie’s. and yet on the morning of the hearing, the judge, DDJ Burles,  quietly slips away and a new judge appoints herself to this case.
Michele O’Leary. A switch judge whose  first ruling is to say “No witnesses allowed.”  Leaving the coast clear for  two awful liars to repeat  ‘He promised to give me half of his house and business, months after he met me’. It really is that obvious. A fraud by family law.
What I saw was a team of liars using their membership of family law to persuade another member of family law to breach SRA ethical guidelines repeatedly for their financial benefit, at the expense of a child’s future with his father?

And they have done this in a transparently fraudulent way that brings family law into disrepute. Placing financial benefit for members above the best interests of a child.

Pretty grim.

Make me wonder why they bother publishing a code of ethics or even, calling themselves the ‘Solicitors regulation Authority‘. Sounds like an oxymoron.

I love this picture of you from the Pavilion. Happy times for you and for me.

Miss you,

Love you,

Daddy

 

Onto the index of the Next Page (27)