“Buyer beware” is my advice to any parent contemplating separation by family court judgment.

Family Court is an adversarial legal process heard in Court rooms procedure developed for trying rapists and murderers ‘beyond all reasonable doubt‘ by slick professional barristers trained over many years to lie with precision. This adversarial conflict between prosecution and defense is no place to determine the future for a vulnerable child. The single judge empowered with qualified immunity from appeal is, beyond all reasonable doubt, a failed model for adjudicating on the future of vulnerable children caught in the crossfire of parents separating. This court process becomes catastrophic for children’s best interests when we continue to allow allowing secrecy laws to protect miscreants family law members when they break the law.  To this day Section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act provides a legal requirement that a judge in family court must first authorize reporting from family court. Meaning any family court judge can make any judgment they choose knowing that their judgment will be un appealable. But more about how that affects reporting of criminality in family court later.

Worst in this process of legitimized child abuse for profit family court service is the ‘All powerful’ judge, appointed by a multiple choice questionnaire, frequently presenting opinions informed by the pathology of narcissistic self-interest in which the child’s well-being plays no part. Able to judge with no jury present, with no appeals process to examine their judgment, with section 12 to ensure their judgments are ‘un appealable’.

They judge with absolute power and complete immunity from oversight accountability in matters where their experience is frequently painfully inadequate, lacking the child psychology background that would enable the best judgment from a child centric perspective. Thanks to Section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act, they have absolute power over being held accountable. They are above the law of the land. After decades of this entitlement to impose their frequently ignorant views on a judgment affecting a child’s future, the status quo in family court now is that a clutch of these narcissistic Deputy District judges make judgments that serve the financial interests of the family law members above the children they are there to protect; from exactly the harm their ignorance of the developing child’s mind visit on those children victims of family court.

Britain’s family court system is flawed beyond repair, harming, not helping the children, allowed to continue its unregulated process only for the sizeable revenues family law represents, from the lowest CAFCASS official to the elite high-earners, the family-lawyers ambulance-chasing high net-worth clients to fuel separating parents animosity all the way to a child abusing judgment in family court. Family Law is a multi billion pound a year business in England.

100% of the time a family court judgement arrives in a disputed hearing the outcome is Child Abuse. And a payday for the members of this elite entitled group.
The Justice Ministry know this.
The Family law members know this.
The children victims most definitely know this.

Witness tampering is commonly understood to be a crime.
A criminal offence. It is a crime to knowingly and maliciously prevent, or to attempt to prevent, another person from: Attending or giving testimony at any trial, proceeding, or legally authorized inquiry.

In the hearing determining the custody of my then five year old son, Byron Broulidakis, brought by my ex girlfriend, Charlotte Adler, the family law solicitor expelled just two years before that as a partner in her Law Firm TWM for dishonesty, the hearing of Adler versus Broulidakis in family court, April 2015, plaintiff Charlotte Adler, her solicitor Tom Amlot, her barrister friend Simon Webster and their switch judge colleague in family law, Michele O’Leary, conspired to steal my multi-million pound properties and prevent my son from seeing me again. By switching the judge set down by the court service for a fix-judge who interfered with the witnesses set down by the court service, concealing their criminality in a an ‘unappealable’ judgment that is no less than larceny predicated on perjury.

Although during this fixed court hearing I was threatened by this same judge, Michele O’Leary, warned that disclosing these details would be contempt of court that she would be sure to pursue thanks to Section 12 of the Administration of Justice Act;  directly after reading this judgment arising from the witness tampering I reported the offenses you can read about in full later, in this family court hearing.

Then President of family law, Sir James Munby heard the details of this witness tampering and in the so called ‘Permission to Appeal’ hearing that followed in 2015, Sir James ruled that the O’Leary judgment should be reviewed in court. Obviously Witness tampering had occurred. The witnesses set down by the court service as the basis for the hearing proceeding given that it was an evidence free claim made by Adler that “He promised me his £2 million home if I left him” were prevented from giving evidence by the same judge switched on the morning of the hearing to take the case.

The O’Leary witness tampering was just the first of many irregularities in this hearing. The fact is, a legal cover up followed. The miscreants succeeded with their deceit and in that process committing a crime far worse than simple witness tampering.
That is child abuse.
The outcome of the O’Leary witness tampering and subsequent deviant financial rulings is that my son has been denied the right to his life with his father by order of a British family court Deputy District Judge, acting with prejudice for the financial benefit of her fellow family law members.

Eight years later I can safely observe that family-court continues to sanction child-abuse and even reward it while making these Judgments by Family court Judges un-appealable. There is no Appeals process in family court; no checks and balances in place to protect against corrupt judgments and that explains why 100% of these judgments in disputed-hearings are inherently corrupt.

Knowing, wilful child abuse every time. According to CAFCASS.

British family law has become the opposite of what the legislation intended when creating family law legislation hundreds of years ago. At a time when slave trading was legal and opposing slave trading was not. Family court no longer represents children’s best interests. Quite the opposite is apposite. Family law in fact is the worst single abuser of children in the UK.

In English family law the function of family court places remuneration of its members above the best interests of the children it is intended to serve. To paraphrase; Family court does not serve children’s interests more than it serves lawyers pockets.

In context; Britain’s judiciary has a miserable past. Historically there are many periods in which classical ethical values were suppressed by law for monetary benefit. Broken family law is not the first association with rotten legislation that is abusive and harmful to children in which members are able to routinely break the laws that apply to non-members of family law, assured of immunity from any oversight.

In 1839 British law represented the right of British Opium traders to sell opium to China despite their governments demand that this practice be stopped after Opium sales had created a nation of addicts. With a collapsing economy die to widespread addiction, China requested Britain stop selling opium to the Chinese. But that would have cost the British establishment a lucrative source of income. So what did the Justice Ministry do next?

British legislators determined the British Opium traders “MUST be allowed to sell their Opium to China.” Leading to the Opium Wars. Enforcing British voters legal right to profit from selling Opium by bombing the Chinese into submission for refusing to buy their opium.

Britain’s involvement in the transatlantic slave trade officially began, with royal approval, in 1663. For a period of almost two hundred years the same British Judiciary defended Slave traders rights to sell Human beings for profit until abolition in 1833. That was British law for nearly two centuries. Profiting from the trade of humans benefited the establishment, boosted the economy and was protected by law for centuries. Abolitionists were prosecuted to the full extent of the law. That was the law then.

Similarly the law allowed only some 2% of British citizens the vote. Woman’s suffrage saw many suffragettes terribly and brutally, barbarically persecuted in Law for trying to win suffrage. The Representation of the People Act 1918 saw British women over 30 gain the vote. Until then the law freely tied women in British courts where protesting for the right to vote was a crime.

Today that same judiciary would never get away with passing legislation to allow profiting from the trade of enslaved men women and children. Torturing women for protesting their absent vote.
Times change. Our values change. And the law generally marks that change by adapting to new demands. The will of the people is reflected in the changing legislation that adapts to reflect the Will of the People in any functioning democracy.

Homosexuality was a criminal offense until 1967. No matter how heroic the gay person might have been, like Alan Turing who was chemically castrated for being both the Engima code breaking hero whose brilliance in WW2 saved countless lives, and a homosexual. An iniquitous law that caused Turing to end his own life in tortured misery. A marker of how far British Law has not progressed.

For hundreds of years British law blighted the right to pursue ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ for hundreds of thousands of British subjects. An enormous crime against humanity right up until 1967 that took place in the Ministry of Justice when an archaic, barbaric and unjust legislation was changed to reflect the will of the people.

Deviant archaic legislation supported by a conservative establishment for no higher purpose than the benefit it gave to the ruling elite. That is where we are now with family law. Seeing losing parents separated from their children by bad family court judgments that ruin countlless lives for one reason only. The profit benefitting members of family law.

Family law is bad legislation. This is not news. It has been rotten for decades. But it remains in effect. That is why members like ; Michele O’Leary, Charlotte Adler, Simon Webster, Tom Amlot, Richard Castle and Graham Coy can steal my sons life with me along with my home of 27 years in England, with impunity.

British law tends to adapt as time passes. When unjust law starts to burn the reputation of justice. Now is that moment for family law. And yet, there are still many couple separating with children. That opportunity to grift their fortunes in family court remains an irresistible temptation in a Court service that places remuneration above children’s well-being.

We know from many Historical precedents that Britain’s Judiciary is capable of enormous corruption that benefits the establishment; and that those members benefiting from unjust legislation will defend their corrupt interest in self-serving laws against any change that ends their advantage from these corrupt laws; until the last penny of profit is drawn from the law and its implementation, because the howling masses calling time on the entitlement to corruption becomes deafening. That’s when the law changes.

Family law is way overdue for change as the single largest abuser of Children in the UK. It is a multi-billion Pound business benefiting many establishment members ensuring fierce resistance to change from the members of family law. Their narrative continues to be; the child-abuse model is not broken. And does not need fixing. Family law is doing just fine. Lets just prosecute any critics with contempt of court charges. Our Judges are doing a grand job keeping a lid on things. Any press reporting on abuses in secret courts can be prosecuted. It’s illegal to report on Child cases. Isn’t it. Yes it is.

Family law continues unchanged. It remains legal to abuse a child by family court judgment. And it is still claimed to be illegal to report this abuse while family court judges have immunity from any prosecution or any accountability.

In my 20 year experience of England’s family court I have watched liar members of family law fix hearings to ‘win’ baseless nonsense claims with such ease, it is clear; family law is endemically systemically corrupt.

My experience detailed in the book Who Lies wins lists specific procedural elements in a Family court judgment that were called as lies at the time but now, with hindsight, burn with injustice. Lies revealed by factual witness evidence discrediting a dishonest fraudulent claim; and by the reality of a flooded property that was judged to not be flooded simply to cover up Insurance fraud by plaintiff.

A lie that remains revealed years later in the story of my property 7a Riverbank. This property was flooded. For reasons of grift Adler, the plaintiff claiming, claimed it was not flood, all the better to win the value of the property unflooded. And so in the costs application the judge awarded her 100% of that proprty on it’s unflooded value. A sum about £1 million above the reality if 7a Riverbank was flooded.

I had evidence that it was flooded. The switch judge obstructed the witness to this flood damage and said in her judgement that she found I was a liar. I said it was flood damaged, but she found Plaintiff Adler imminently believable and so she awarded to cost based on the property being not flooded.

“7a Riverbank is not flood damaged. The defendant is lying. The Axa Insurance fixed the apartment, just as Mother Adler assured the court is the truth. And I believe her. Not him. In the absence of any evidence I can do that. Forbid any evidence and then cite the absence of evidence in my judgment. Knowing no one will ever be able to examine my judgment in any appeal process. So what if they learn it is flooded and does not sell at the price I set for its forced sale. There will be nothing he can do about my lying judgment.“

A binary example of a lie told in a judgment by a lying judge. Imagine how I feel about this lying judge. Who went on to award costs against me of over £500,000, before adding 8% interest to this sum if I didn’t pay. Which obviously I couldn’t pay because who has that kind of money available? Does that not sound like malice. In a court service where Judges guidance is to not award costs in child matter because awarding costs increases animosity and animosity is never good for the children.

The flood point is just one from a series of lies in family court found out in the same way that gaslighting liars are always revealed by time and hindsight wherever there is interest in establishing the truth. It would have taken any investigator into the truth of this flood matter no more than a visit to the road outside the proprty to smell the stink of flood damage. And yet I was unable to alert one single regulatory body to this fraudulent judgment by O’Leary. Instead I was left with the cost of lsoing 10% of my properties following her judgment. A sum north of £2 million in equity on proprties that the lying plaintiff had no legitimate claim to. My proprties were all in my name and all bought long before I housed Adler as a free loading guest in my home.

The events ending my sons life with his father occurred and are documented in the 2015 judgment of Adler vs Broulidakis. The solicitor mother who sued his father (me) by lying her way to a baseless claim in family court after removing the-then four-year-old child from my home to a concealed address which she would not disclose; then demanding £100,000 before allowing any visitation.

Monetizing the child for financial benefit while still earning top dollar in family law selling advice to high net worth clients on how to ‘win big in family court.’

After this demand for £100,000 was not met and no visitation was allowed, I brought an Application for Visitation in family court. Solicitor mother obstructed that visitation hearing so vigorously she was prepared to lie to CAFCASS with untrue allegations while running up a £40,000 legal bill for me; for bringing an application for visitation to family court. Because obviously; in English family law an Application for Visitation should cost £40,000; to apply to the court to see your son who is being prevented having any visitation. That is normal in family court?

Topping that cortage of family court lies; in the hearing Adler brought in 2015 with switch judge O’Leary, after I raised this obstruction of visitation with the £40,000 legal bill and the fact that Byron was prevented seeing me at that key time soon after separation, Adler’s disclosure read;

“Mother tried to get Father to see son, but he didn’t want to.”

Her premise in that 2015 hearing was; father spent £40,000 on an application for visitation because he didn’t want to see his son?
Gaslighting in family court on a butane-burning level.

When no blackmail money-for-visitation was paid shortly after the separation and demand for £100,000, and I failed to win even one night a week visitation with my son after the expensive application to family court, what followed was a dishonest forcefully-served claim by Adler on me for ‘beneficial entitlement.” A word of mouth claim by Adler that appeared Months after the initial blackmail demand for £100,000, with no substantiation. This claim required me to ‘disprove a negative’ in a family court where the lawyers costs defending it began at £160,000. (In 2015 Pounds.)

Her claim was that “he promised me 50/50 like we were married“. And with no evidence at all to substantiate this unlikely deceit, I was forced into a family court hearing, where a sequence of events clearly at odds with credible legal practice led to the seizure of my home and income generating property business to be force sold for the benefit of plaintiff. With ruinous financial consequences for me that at the same time created enormous animosity towards the lying thieves that was never going to serve the child’s best interests.

In the same judgment switch judge O’Leary knowingly gave 100% control over all visitation to my son to the family law solicitor Adler, ending all visitation opportunities for him.

He was five at that time.

Just like that – following a judgment based on lies made law by a lying judge, I was made homeless, my income stream ended, with costs awarded against me accruing at 8% by order of this family court judge whose judgment was made ‘Un-appealable.’

To date I have not received one penny from the theft of my home, where my equity in 2015 was above £2 million when it was seized by this highly irregular conduct in family court, transferring my title into Adler’s name and awarding the entire proceeds of a forced sale to a lying lawyer, fired as a partner in a law firm (TWM) two years before for dishonesty, who contributed not one penny to my properties.

Properties in my name at the Land Registry since 1986 when I bought them. Plaintiff was 14 when I bought 7 Riverbank. I didn’t even know plaintiff ‘Adler.’

The Family Court Service set down this ‘Beneficial Entitlement’ hearing for three days following Adler’s reassurance at the preliminary hearing that she would bring multiple witnesses to prove her seemingly implausible word of mouth claim, with no evidence. Not one shred. Not one e mail. Not one family member willing to say they heard something. Not one legal document as you would expect from a lawyer. Just nothing beyond the obvious conclusion that this was a desperate lie made to force me into a defendant position in family court where I was threatend “I can fix any outcome. This is what I do.”

Defending her claim at that time required I spend some £160,000 in legal fees. £12,000 of that money was spent deposing seven witnesses with statements and documentary evidence. All of which was disclosed in the run up to the hearing. Witnesses with hard evidence that was ruinous to her claim, including the matter of Insurance fraud (in six figures) relating to the flood at 7a Riverbank.

Plaintiff knew the witness evidence undermined her claim completely and that the Insurance fraud presented information that crossed the criminal line. Behavior inconsistent with remaining a member of the Law Society able to practice law.

I speculated that she would be crazy to proceed with the hearing knowing the witness evidence that was coming her way. Surely once the witness evidence was heard in the Court, her lying goose would be cooked and I would be able to see my son again.

THEN; at the actual hearing plaintiff brought no witnesses because her claim was a lie. Who would risk perjuring themselves for her benefit? Not even her Mother would validate her lie in court. Whereas my seven credible witnesses disproving her claim, with informed insight into the claim being judged, were deposed and ready to give evidence. Exactly as as the Court service had prepared this hearing for. Three days to allow for multiple witnesses from both sides.
Her witnesses to prove her word of mouth claim and my witnesses to bring hard evidence that would be career ending in it’s criminality.

Sure enough on the morning of day one Adler had no witnesses and no evidence. She brought only her word. Her word as a professional liar in family court. A professional liar with previous form.
Previously she had been fired as a partner in her law Firm for dishonesty. Adler was expelled from the TWM partnership after a unanimous vote by the partners at an extraordinary partners meeting where I represented Adler to hear for the first time an astonishing list of grievances by the partners at TWM regarding her serial, habitual dishonesty. After the unanimous expulsion vote, Adler was escorted to her desk, told to pack her personal belongings, before being escorted from of the building. A dishonest solicitor judged by her peers to be a dishonest solicitor.

Her credibility is further reflected in family court records showing she obstructed an Application for visitation for her son to see his Father shortly after separation.

A mother who proactively fought tooth and nail to prevent her son from seeing his Father for even one night a week, withholding the child’s address from father while writing; “You pay me £100,000 and then you can see him as often as you like.”

This evidence regarding solicitor mothers credibility was available to the court, being relevant in a case requiring a decision on her unlikely claim that ‘He promised me 50/50 like we were married’ was likely to be true. 50% of a £2 Million (Plus) net worth from an estate in which she had made no contribution. A claim that developed in the O’Leary judgment to be; 100% plus a residual £500,000 costs award attracting 8% interest in perpetuity.

For reasons that are fully disclosed in the book, two things happened on the morning of the first day of the Adler/Amlot ‘Beneficial Entitlement‘ claim that deviated from the Court service direction for the hearing. At 8am on morning one there was a surprise switch of Judge. The Judge set down for the hearing by the court service, DDJ Burles, who was known to have no conflict of interest in this case by prior check, simply recused himself to allow a switch judge to appear. The switch Judge was known to my barrister Richard Castle who introduced news of her switch to me with the description of “A gross incompetent with a personal grudge against me. If we get O’Leary we will lose”.

Directly after appointing herself as the switch judge O”Leary’s first decision was to obstruct the witnesses, summarily excluding any witness evidence in this case set down for ‘Multiple Witnesses.’
The seven defense witnesses deposed at considerable legal cost to provide concrete substantiation to the civil claim being heard in family court were simply forbidden from giving evidence. Their statements were struck from proceedings by switch judge O’Leary.

But hold on. The Court Service set down this case for multiple witnesses because Adler said she would bring them. She brought none. I brought seven. The Court Service has set down a three day hearing before DDJ. Burles in which I have seven witnesses appearing with hard evidence. While Adler has failed to bring even one.

She didn’t need to. It was simple.

They switched the judge, out went Burles, in came O’Leary who simply prevented any evidence being disclosed. The old witness tampering ploy. That no one can ever know about because of family law secrecy.

Just two instances of the Court service direction for this hearing being disregarded to achieve what was clearly a fixed outcome, the results of which we now see was a fix, based on gaming the Court service direction, reliant on the fact that their judgment was in a ‘secret court’ where no one would ever know.

“You can’t tell anybody what happened or you will be in contempt of court.“

But Byron should know, right? This was a defining moment in his future.

No mention was made of Plaintiffs promise at the preliminary hearing that established the ground-rules for this hearing; her promise of bringing multiple witnesses to substantiate her claim, being the premise she relied on to advance this claim to a full hearing.

And so, with a switch judge to get rid of the firm evidence discrediting her, the path was clear for the Plaintiff, the child’s own Mother, to live happily ever after free from any accountability for fraud, perjury and larceny; and progress parental alienation of a five-year-old child who, eight years later, has had no contact with Father and cannot even receive a Birthday card C/O his school without first paying to get an order from Family Court.

Guilty rapists and murders are let off with far lower cost consequences than that in Britain’s court service. But for O’Leary this was a ‘good judgment that served the child’s best interests”

In 2015 former CAFCASS CEO Anthony Douglas, reported that Child Abuse occurs in 100% of contested cases in family court. Clearly this 100% figure should be alarming to Britain’s law makers. Parental alienation is not illegal. Yet by any reasonable metric, when a child is abused it is child abuse. The authors of that abuse being child-abusers.

Efforts to broaden the legal definition of child abuse to include parental alienation have floundered as recently as Baroness Meyers efforts to introduce PA in the Domestic Violence act in 2021.

Before the 2019 publication of my book detailing a working process in family law and the systemic endemic child-abuse element populating every disputed judgment made in Britain’s family court, where often-unqualified judges enjoy qualified immunity in a judiciary with no Appeals process, the content was reviewed by a media lawyer.

This lawyers role was to examine the authors legal position in disclosing the actual facts of the 2015 judgment in Adler Vs Broulidakis by switch judge Michele O’Leary. Examining how legitimate any disclosures identifying members of family court as liars may be when we know they claim to have qualified immunity in law to lie as they see fit. Able to dismiss any critique of their process as ‘Contempt of Court.’

Family Court Judges are the sole deciders of any judgment in family court. Their judgments cannot be challenged. They remain immune to any appeal process regulating their professional competence.

Although we know from the CAFCASS numbers that there is Child abuse present in the majority (if not all) judgments that are disputed in family court, there has not been one prosecution of one single family court judge. This is a disconnect logically and well as practically. If children are being abused – the the child abusers should face prosecution. Surely. It is as obvious as the slavery analogy. When judges ruled in favor of slave traders and punished critics of this legislation who criticized the slavers.

Family law in its current form depends on immunity for its senior members. Especially judges who know they can impose personal prejudices that often depend on simple blind ignorance to make judgments that cannot be appealed. Judgments that are simply child abuse.

This vulnerability to judicial corruption in Family Court in not limited to the UK. The British family law model is applied in many Countries worldwide. it is, I believe, a global pandemic of child abuse. Because we have failed to adapt laws written hundreds of years ago when the options available to law makers by way of intellect and experience were very different. Consequently we inherit a dated system wholly premised on an adversarial acrimony generating model of child abuse where the child abusers are protected by legal immunity and the tempation by greedy lawyers to priofit from this arcane legislation is all to often irrisitible.

Why, when child-abuse for profit is so clearly happening on such a widespread scale, does this widespread child-abuse continue without intervention by the Justice ministry. And how does Family law continue to operate this model of child-abuse for profit with qualified immunity for its abusive members when so much actual hard evidence exists showing exactly how this multi-billion pound a year business model operates.

This information describing broken family law being used to abuse children for-profit is widely and easily available to any researcher. Almost everyone knows someone who is affected by alienation of children from other family members. Stories with key words like ‘secret-courts’ and ‘parental alienation causing misery for lawyers profits’ abound. Yet still we see no progress toward reform that will end this systemic child abuse authorized and sanctioned by the Justice ministry.

We see judges in Britain’s family court abusing children in court judgments because;

+ They know they are immune from any accountability. Singularly entitled with absolute and unregulated power to judge by whatever whim they see fit at that moment.

+ They are allowed to have ‘bad days’ where kid’s lives are ruined, knowing that it makes no difference to their job status. They know they can make whatever opinion-based judgment they choose, no matter how harmful it may be to the child, for whatever reasons they feel justify this child abusive end, with absolute confidence that they are immune to regulatory oversight examination. The un-appealable judgment

+ They do not recognize child abuse as child abuse in the same way that establishment favorite Sir Jimmy Savile did not recognize child abuse. Because they say it is not child abuse then it is not child abuse. And if you say it is they will prosecute you.

HoldingFamily Court Judges accountable in a working Appeals process is way overdue. As is ending their qualified immunity.

When any judgment penalizes one parent to the extent that it creates a wall of endless acrimony between the child’s parents that can never be crossed that is an abuse of the child’s rights.

Consider the qualifications of a Deputy District Court Judge sitting in Family court, wielding absolute power free from any oversight.
Any member of family law, barrister or solicitor wanting to become a Deputy District Judge in family court needs only two criteria; a recommendation by a sitting Judge, and a multiple choice application questionnaire.
I have been through this process and fillwed out the DDJ form. It is worrying simple. That’s all you need.
Now your on the bench and get to hear cases in family court knowing you have no oversight.

The standards by which judges are appointed in family court, when considering the absolute power free from oversight that follows the appointment, are not just sub standard. They represent gross negligence by the MOJ whose task it is to make sensible and responsible appointments.

The motivation most associated with this job of ‘Family Court Judge’ has a special appeal to;
those members not getting much work as barristers or solicitors, who could do with regular work albeit modestly paid. Individuals who I have learned experientially have a narcissists attachment to the power of ‘playing God’ with people’s lives, with the same immortality of a God able to translate subjective-opinions into actual law without having to reflect on the possibility that an appeal process might hold them accountable. You get to be ‘The Judge’. Your opinion is now law. You are special. And no one can challenge your supreme authority. You can enjoy that adrenaline buzz that absolute power provides.

This is a job for life where no matter how badly you fail, you can be assured no examination of your misconduct will ensure any actual accountability. In legal terms their conduct when failing to represent a child’s right to be properly represented in a court of law does not follow them, as serial failure in any other professional body assuredly does.

This quantity in family law protecting members from examination for writing opinions as law enables any level of child abuse.
There is no ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’ metric in family Court. Only the opinion of the Judge matters. And that opinion, no matter how poorly informed it may actually be, cannot be challenged. Even when the judgment glares with prejudice and dishonesty, discredited by cold hard factual evidence, they remain indemnified by family law.

The Adler Vs Broulidakis hearing in 2015 is the subject of this book
WHO LIES WINS , released November 2019. It spent four weeks at #1 in Amazon’s Family Law genre. Proving that that there is some hovering interest in this subject that affects many more than the silence in main stream media suggests. Literally millions of parents around the world are experiencing PTSD right now because they are not able to see their children. Only because another family court member has been paid to win a judgment that abuses the child’s right to see both parents.

Children suffer life-long harm following these deficient judgments visited on their childhood. Research the behavioral outcome for the children growing from these family court disputes. You will find no surprises there. The damage done to young developing minds by hateful animosity and parental alienation has a predictable outcome in the child’s development. This is known to any family law member who disputes a child case in family court. Knowing what they do is child-abuse is no deterrent while it remains legal. Not when the money is so very good.

The court room is no place to weigh up the pros and cons of what’s best for the child. Knowing what ‘Children’s best interests’ means is not a great challenge but is an important quality in law. All children want the same thing when their parents separate.
To see both parents equally. To not be monetized as agents for financial gain by a legal process.

Children’s lives turn on the decisions made by family court judges. And in the behavior of family law members using child visitation for financial advantage. Generally, all kids untainted by parental alienation and child abusing courts reflect the love of both parents.

We know how people behave during separation.

Behavioral science provides an enormous resource for predicting behaviors. Possessed with this information we know how best to represent the child’s interests when the parents go through that separation pain. Making those child affecting decisions is best left to those professionals in behavioral science and child psychology. Not lawyers who have passed a multiple-choice exam to become family court judges, often because they are failing as solicitors or barristers, often because they are drawn to the narcissists attachment to absolute power over others – without any oversight checks measuring their reliance on amateur psychology. And with the blasphemy-equivalent charge of ‘Contempt of Court’ to threaten any critics exposing their child abusing errors.

British Law, the Ministry of Justice, could be taking a holistic view on representing the child’s best interests with honesty and integrity when this resource for child-centric resolution is so readily available to law makers. Clearly they do not for one reason. The same reason it took so long to abolish slavery long after the law failed to represent the will of the majority.

Money matters more than children’s lives in family Court. This is a rich pie with many hands grabbing their piece. Un regulated capitalism predicated on the rich rewards in child abuse. Whenever there is some ‘net worth’ in separating parents the British family law model creates the accident for the ambulance chasers to follow.
British family law is a money tree whose roots extend deep into the establishment elite. Without the acrimony this choice of adversarial system produces there would be no more pay days for the family law gang skimming the high-net worth clientele from the top.

Animosity is the currency that drives the demand for their services. They are enabled and encouraged by the legislation to increase acrimony between parents, placing monetary gain over the child’s best interests in what is willful, pre-meditated child abuse by those law makers who avoid doing their duty to justice for our children. While enjoying the rewarding benefits the job provides.

For more on this point, try Google ‘Can you sue a family court judge who lies‘.

O’Leary, the switch Judge in the Adler vs Broulidakis judgment continues to enjoy qualified immunity. She has a very small following on Twitter where she identifies as;
Lawyer; Juvenile delinquent; lover of champagne and fun.

Michele O’Leary, the last minute ‘switch judge’ whose 13 page judgment in 2015 contained 42 typo’s. And confirmed 7a Riverbank was not a flood risk, ordering its forced sale at a price confirming it was flood repaired, when it was not. After preventing witnesses confirming this fact from giving evidence.

Child abuse is when a parent, caregiver, judicial institution or indeed any random stranger, whether through action or failure to act, causes injury, death, emotional harm or risk of harm to a child. Denial of opportunity for the beneficial entitlement to parenting in accordance with the traditional mummy daddy equally important model is child abuse.
Parental alienation is child abuse. One parent obstructing the child’s right to see the other parent is child abuse.

This Adler vs Broulidakis judgment appears in a second book, published in September 2020. Called LETTERS TO BYRON.

This time the Adler Vs Broulidakis family court story is told in the form of letters from father to son.

The book comprises the last 132 letters I sent weekly to Byron, online on a public blog after lawyer-mother Adler and family law did not provide me with my sons address to continue writing by post. Solicitor mother moved and simply refused to provide me with Byron’s new address, effectively ending my opportunity to continue sending him weekly letters as I had been doing from soon after she removed him from my home in 2013.

The books storyline is;

Family Court are plainly guilty of falsifying truth in the matter of Adler Vs Broulidakis, 2015. With pre meditation. And in full awareness. Deliberately suppressing evidence to enable their abusive discriminatory and irregular judgment to proceed.

The nature of human greed and legal opportunism means that instead of prioritizing a child-centric model for representing children’s rights at this time when they are made vulnerable by separating parents hostility, we have instead evolved a legal process in which ambulance chasers are encouraged by arcane legal statutes to identify high-net worth individuals and pursue a sizeable chunk of their net worth in a sequence of behaviors that are clearly identified in this simple seven step formula.

Here you go: The high net-worth child abuse recipe for British family law for aspiring family law members.

+ Identify and woo high net-worth separating parent. Follow news reports of high earning personalities separating with children involved. Especially if they live locally. Be first to call offering help.

+ Win clients confidence. Say what you know a separating parent most wants to hear. Groom the playing field for acrimony and animosity with reassurances that you always ‘do your best fighting for your client.’ Have your friendly forensic accountant establish the bottom line of the net worth on offer. This will enable you to decide exactly how many billable hours to allocate to this client.

+ Become the clients primary influence in decision making. Groom client in the pathology of alienation. Lead them to the value of weaponizing the children for the Court hearing.

+ Steadily increase animosity with opposing side knowing animosity is essential to urge the client to go ‘all the way’ to a disputed hearing. Knowing this means 100% assured child abuse is no deterrent. Send many letters. Be sure to obstruct all visitation with alienated parent effectively by attaching enormous cost to every visitation. Guide Mothers comments to Cafcass registering trigger responses. Create a paper trail of unsubstantiated allegations against the other side. Keep control over visitation as a priority.

+ Prioritize acrimonious litigation over sensible resolution. Parental alienation is your friend here. Encourage the clients inner Alienator to put aside any concerns for the child. Increased acrimony always benefits your billable hour prospects. Avoid any mediated resolution like the plague. ‘Doing right by the child is doing wrong for your career’.

+ Pursue maximum financial advantage for your client knowing that is accompanied by the opportunity for maximum billable hours. Know the other parent will have a powerful want factor for visitation with their child. Maximize exploiting this predictable parenting instinct by challenging and minimizing visitation. Increase the leverage value by attaching maximal cost to the non-residential parent for every moment of visitation the residential parent allows. For insurance, consider having mother ask questions of child that may form false memories of abuse during visitation. In case that is needed should a custody battle ensue.

+ repeat the family law mantra. “It is my duty to the client to win the maximum amount.” Ethically you are doing nothing that is not legal. You are a ‘smart winner’. Not a child abuser. If you have any qualms about abusing children then you cannot expect to succeed in your primary obligation in British family law to “Get the best financial outcome for your client.” A process reliant on conscience free child abuse.

+ When you lie, believe what your saying. Eventually it will become the truth. The more you lie in court, the quicker you will be able to present your truth.

+ Believe inflexibly; the money matters more than any child’s future. This delusion will sustain you in later years when the ghosts of those children whose lives you ruined for your professional ambition arrive in your dream patterns.

As some 10,000 UK born children annually will attest, the child abuse model of British family court represents the very opposite of placing the child’s best interests to the fore. It is a sophisticated if obvious exploitative model for extorting maximal return by way of billable hours in a process predicted on abusing the child’s basic rights;
To have equal access to both parents post separation. Without becoming leverage in any financial transaction.

To not see a court system foment endless animosity between the parents that impacts on the child’s prospects of ever seeing both in the same light again.

The methodology in family court abuse has another comparable with former Sir, Jimmy Savile, for so long our establishment favorite.
The victims know what happened.
They reported it. At the time.
The system that should have acted in Saviles case, failed. When those kids reported the abuse, they were serially ignored. The establishment protected its own.
It is the same with British family law.

The system defends itself. Like a self-cleaning oven. I have recently read a compelling piece by a family law barrister explaining that ‘there is no such thing as parental alienation’.

The so called ‘regulatory bodies’, The Legal Ombudsman and the Solicitors regulatory authority, exist to cover up the abuses and maintain the status quo.

There is no effective oversight to act on reported fraud in family court. The truth in family court is whatever the judge decides it to be. No matter how far from actual truth this opinion may be, it is unchallengeable. That is the condition of British Family Law.

Simple math.
If, as CAFCASS say, 100% of disputed judgments involve child abuse and PA, and around 10,000 children are affected annually in this way, how many solicitors, barristers and judges have the regulatory bodies struck off for child abuse and PA in the past hundred years?

The reply to my inquiry under the FOI act to the Ministry of Justice makes perfect sense.
I was to there has been; Not one prosecution.
Child abuse by family court judgment is legal to this day. Just as slavery was once legal. Just as burning unwanted people in ovens during the early forties was legal in Germany.

Nothing that happened in my sons experience through family court since 2013 leading me to this writing session today is worth even a note of censure to any of the participants in this sequence of events. I can specifically point to at least 24 specific offenses in law committed by the family law members in this case and note that there was not one moment in which any regulatory oversight stepped in.

They break their own laws with impunity.

My experience inside Britain’s family court is not dissimilar to many others I have heard from.

Identifying what the problem is a good place to start.

What can be done to end this child abusive legal system.

Two options exist.

1.) Turn a blind eye. Do nothing. Stay conservative. Leave things as they are. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. (This is a successful business worth Billions a year.) Pretend family court is not abusing children. The devil is in the detail. Its all a matter of interpretation. Its not really child abuse if the judge says its not. Is it. Let’s continue to add 10,000 children abused by family court to the roster of misery that will continue to reward family law members, annually.
10,000 kids a year is a small price to pay for this important financial opportunity family court represents for its members. So a few alienated dads commit suicide and memes saying #familycourtkills abound. That’s just a negligible minority. Collateral damage well worth protecting our legal definition of child abuse in family court.

or

2.) Decide whether it is time we ended the betrayal of those children who continue as collateral damage in a flawed family court system. Abused by a legislation that downplays value of their rights to be exempt from the hostility between their warring parents choosing to monetize their future in family court.
Make lies matter in family law. Hold liars accountable. Especially when they are the judges whose lies matter most. Stage the Nuremberg trial moment for the top 20 offenders in family law – with victim statements to make them look the children products of their abusive for profit judgments in the eye.

Family law review – viewed holistically from the outside in a property metaphor – is like buying a building in Central London. It’s a big and valuable location. It’s a multi billion-dollar business as well. Year in, year out. Recession proof too. Couples with money are always separating and arguing. But the building has problems. The roof leaks. The plumbing is shot. The electrics short out daily.

What does the owner do?

Send in a repair crew, keep on patching up. Or flatten and rebuild new and better. Often it makes better economic sense to flatten the building and start from scratch. Often this costs less than patching the broken shell. New architecture. New walls built with the new materials now available. New plumbing. New electrics. New insulation. Solar panels built in to self-power the entire building.

I suggest putting an end to family court entirely.

Defund family court and from the ashes of that child abusing edifice, build a child-centric model representing children’s rights with the fairness and justice they deserve. Equally, across the board. Not placing a target on the children of parents with some net worth.

A family law service that put’s children’s interests first.
A new model of representation for children of separating parents that uniformly attributes the closest version of 50/50 joint custody that practicality allows. And crucially, punishes parental alienation and child abuse by parents involving children in their financial ambitions during separation, along with ending the adversarial court room aspect that profits from creating animosity between parents.

Yes, not all parents separate and explore the pathology of Alienation. Many parents do right by their children and do not spend fortunes on Family Law. This problem affects only a specific demographic, a minority of children of separating parents with some semblance of high net-worth making them targets for the family law vultures. And the parents of psychologically unwell partners who choose the pathology of the alienator above responsible parenting. None the less; the harm done to these children through no fault of their own is a compelling reason to make change happen now.

This is a problem that can be fixed. Very easily, with just one stroke of a legislators pen.

The science behind what is right and what is wrong is clear.
Child abuse is wrong. That much is certain.
Anyone involved on either side in British family law, plaintiff or defendant, knows what is going on. Doing nothing about it makes those responsible for holding corrupt members of family law accountable, complicit in the disputed hearing standard that repeats in every disputed hearing. That is Child abuse.

Despite spending extraordinary amounts on trying to win visitation for Byron in family court, Adler and Amlot’s ferocious, adversarial, deceitful style of acrimony building refusal for any visitation, attaching so much legal cost to every single visit, I no longer see Byron. Byron no longer sees me.

The bright, high achieving student I raised for four years is now progressing along a very different educational path.
The fact is; seven years after our last visit, we both miss each other daily.
I think of him constantly.

Directly after the O’Leary judgement, I then took advice from a senior family law member, Fiona Shackleton. The outcome was I retained her top London firm, Payne Hicks Beach. To overturn what they called the “Horrible judgment by O’Leary.” That led to a ‘Permission to Appeal’ application. And an £80,000 bill for legal representation by another family law member. Sure enough, that money led to another Court Hearing.

The President of family law himself ruled in the ‘Permission‘ hearing where he found there was irregular legal process. The O’Leary Judgment stank in the judgment of the President of family law who was moved to comment on the irregularities contained in O’Leary’s judgment in Adler vs Broulidakis, 2015.

I found the whole process traumatic. Emotionally and financially ruinous. These really are thieves walking in broad daylight. Without even the pretense of any respect for doing ‘the right thing’.

Missing Byron was more traumatic than having my home and income properties seized by family court. I was despondent over being unable to see my son while senior members of family law knew this impropriety was taking place.

Throughout this nightmare process no one in a position to act with authority said one word in my sons defense.
The injustice of the system was beyond belief. This was clearly a mugging. Never more than thieves walking in broad daylight.

I spoke to my MP – Dominic Raab, himself a lawyer. Nothing.
I wrote to the SRA. Nothing.
I wrote to the SRA again. Again nothing.
I wrote to the ministry of Justice. Worse than nothing. Laughable.
They wrote; “We trust our family court judges to make good decisions There is no need for any new appeals process or oversight.“

In the two years post flood I was able to negotiate some visitation, at considerable expense with Amlot. I traveled to the UK 18 times to see Byron and attend the court hearings. Commuting from California, my home after the flood in February 2014 made my home, 7a Riverbank, uninhabitable.
My 18th visit ended on 16th February, 2016.
That proved to be our last meeting that ended with a long tearful embrace. “I miss you so much” he repeated through his tears. After I left Adler stopped even Skype chats for Byron with me. That has been extraordinarily traumatic for us both. A pain that reminds me of O’Leary every time. Qualified immunity is a thing.

How did this grotesque gross incompetent steal my home, my business and my son just by lying?

After that final farewell, I had no further way of contacting Byron. Adler took his iPad. All that remained was writing ‘Letters to Byron‘. I wrote to him every week. By post. With photos to illustrate the weekly letters. At least he would receive weekly letters from me. Twice weekly. Every week.

Until in April 2016, my letter to Byron arrived back “return to sender. Address unknown“. They had moved.
I emailed Adler requesting my sons address.
Her reply was “Talk to my lawyer“.
That started a process that took NINE months to provide the address. Nine Months. Why would she do that?

Is it not classic alienator behavior. She placed upsetting me above any thought that Byron might be concerned over why I stopped writing to him. And stopped calling him. And stopped visiting him every few Months? Her real success is that Byron has not been able to speak to me since that nine month break even by letter writing. While she knows all that is possible and legal for a member of family law.

And what do we think she has told Byron? To explain her actions. “Daddy doesn’t want to talk to you?”
“Daddy is too busy for you?“
“Daddy can’t even be bothered to write to you.”

Byron should know one day that; when he passed his 11+ exams and faced a new school choice in 2021 that our promise to him was kept. A fine educational opportunity in California was available as promised to him. But how to let him know he had this choice? Literally the sole reply from his mother when offering input into his education remained ‘Talk to my Lawyer.“

There is no lie too large that it would not become truth if a family court judge spoke it. That is the bar of justice in British family court. A remarkable parallel to American Politics, where the Trump GOP established “the lie has become the equal of the truth“. As long as the establishment say it is Blue, then it is Blue. The post truth era is a reality.

“There can be no harmony in a lawless society” Right? John Major was not wrong there.

For the law to work it must be seen to work.
When corruption in the process is reported, ignoring it is the opposite of justice. When the oversight for catching fraudsters in family court is entirely absent there is no surprise when corrupt members take advantage of this qualified immunity to promote their own ends in a ‘lawless situation.’ Where the word of the judge cannot be challenged. Our Secret Courts.

The events I describe happened in the records of British family law.
The documentation proving who lied exists, now as it did then, and if any residue of doubt exists, the doubter need only walk in front of my former home 7a Riverbank and hold that doubting nose to the wind.

If you smell flood rot then Amlot/’Adler/Webster lied in court. And O’Leary was the willing accomplice in making the lies her judgment.
Costing Byron his opportunities for growth with me.
Abusing a child in any traditional legal or ethical interpretation of what child abuse is.

The Adler Dilemma of 2013. The choices;

1.) Sex with a (married) Polish boxing Instructor, who is very fit, whom she calls ‘The Pole” in a romantic tryst agreement that requires both being single.

Or 2.) A kids future with his dad? A kid whom she hardly see’s anyhow. Daddy is the one at home raising him. Mummy is at work all week and on weekends lately, supposed to be her ‘Byron time’, she is going to ‘Boxing class’. Months before leaving, she is absent for four hours at a stretch every Saturday, on the one day a week she would spend with Byron and his dad.

There is a chapter in Who Lies Wins called “I want to come with you” which details how determined he was to be with me. He had a plan. His choice was to live in California with me. Although we have not spoken since February 2016, and all he has to go by is his Mothers family law version of events I do not believe he is alienated in any way from his memory of our relationship.

Tom Amlot was the author of Adler’s Beneficial entitlement claim and he negotiated every visit with Byron with surgical precision, maximizing my legal cost for the minimum amount of time with Byron.

His advice to Adler when she retained him is paraphrased in summary as follows;

“OK. So your not married. And now your leaving him. How can we monetize this situation. Get him to pay you a big sum?
The properties are all his, your contribution to living costs is minimal. Your not named on any mortgage and you don’t pay anything towards the mortgage. You have your own apartment rented out bringing you a passive income while you live with him for free. Plus you earn six figures a year with your own law firm that he financed and helped you set up. Really, in the circumstances you have no legitimate claim, so our best chance is to amke up a nonsense. Let’s go for beneficial entitlement.
We say he promised you half of his estate. He will then face a six figure legal bill trying to disprove your claim in court. He will have to retain a family lawyer who will advise him to take a commercial view. Paying us off will be cheaper than mounting a defence. And of course along the way we can run him up legal bills to see Byron. He loves his son. He will pay whatever we ask to see him. This is like taking candy for a baby.

And if he doesn’t take a commercial view we run him up a bill every step of the way until he has no money left. Then, when the time comes, we apply for costs against him for my bill in obstructing his sons visitation. That will really amp up the animosity and we will win enough to make sure he is broke and homeless. He will go away and you can live happily ever after with Byron and your family law husband. We’ll get our Judge to add 8% interest to my bill. That will teach him that every time he tries to talk about Byron, he is paying me to abuse his own son.”

I have a question regarding family court procedure. Specifically the issue of Michele O’Leary profiling me as mentally infirm. A conclusion she has reached before she even met me.

It does seem a little off that a family court judge would start a hearing with a five-year old boys future on the line by referring to his father in this less than impartial manner.

In her very first address to me at the start of my ‘cross examination’ she referred to me as mentally infirm. Hardly objective as you would expect from a judge in a court room addressing a defendant in a family court matter brought by another member of family court.

A defendant who has done absolutely nothing wrong. I am the defendant for heavens sake. I didn’t bring this action. I am not in a criminal court addressing some capitol crime; trying to explain some vicious stabbing murder.

Is it appropriate for a judge to take this malicious pejorative tone with her every utterance to a father in family court for his son. A conclusion she has reached in the two hours between switching to take the case and then starting the hearing. A conclusion she reached at the same time as reaching the conclusion that the witness evidence should be suppressed.

She would repeat this profiling slur multiple times in her judgment.

How would a judge who has only just taken this case KNOW from the get go – even if it was true – that I was a mentally infirm liar?

I presented as a fairly normal looking 54 year old Greek male, in a Charcoal grey Hugo Boss suit, wearing a perfectly fitted white Armani collared shirt and smart black Italian shoes.
No obesity.
No facial warts. No nervous tics.
I spoke in a measured voice, with no obvious impediment to logical articulate communication.
In fact. Nothing at all to indicate that I am
1.) Mentally infirm or
2.) A liar.
And yet. Michele O’Leary already knows this much about me before I have said a word.

Here’s what happened. After the removal of my child and the nasty litigation I became depressed. I saw my GP who prescribed anti depressants. Solicitor mother knows I have been depressed. (Who wouldn’t be after the events you can read about in the book.) I have made no secret of the fact that, at 54, I have followed medical advice and started a course of NHS Anti Depressants.

It is simply not acceptable for any judge to profile me as mentally infirm because I have seen a doctor for depression after a traumatic shock on father’s day.

I say this is the information Adler/Amlot have shared with O’Leary along with guidance to use this information to attack my credibility as being ‘mentally infirm.’ A useful insurance to have on record for when she blocked any visitation for Byron.

“We say we can’t let Byron see his father because he is mentally infirm.”

I believe the evidence makes plain; this Judge has spoken ‘off the record’ with the solicitor plaintiff and her team. Who have advised her on how to approach fixing the judgment, starting with removing all contrary evidence and then conflating a depression diagnosis with mental infirmity. Profiling me for a dishonest advantage.

I say it is clear; O’Leary has been chosen for this hearing specifically to rule as she did, briefed by Team Adler/Amlot and Webster on what to say.
The ‘Mentally Infirm Liar‘ narrative is pre agreed. And fits in seamlessly with Webster’s repetition of “I put it to you you are lying” that prefaced virtually every question he asked me.

It is a deliberate gaslighting tactic that has no place in an honest judiciary.

For anyone reading the transcript of the O’Leary hearing;
Count the number of times Webster starts with “I put it to you, you are lying“. And how many times O’Leary leads her narrative to me with ‘Mental infirmity‘ or ‘Mentally infirm liar‘. Count the number of times they confirm ‘7a Riverbank has no flood issue.’ And use the unflooded valuation in the costs award negotiated by family law Barrister Simon Webster.

The overwhelming evidence is that O’Leary’s judgment is simply larceny predicated on perjury for a work colleagues benefit. The consequences of that fraudulent judgement, aside from its impact on the reputation and credibility of British family law, is that it abused a five year old boy.

He is not a statistic. He is an actual human being with inalienable rights assured to him enshrined in law.

His name is Byron.

Byron is 14 now. His life and his outlook on life is very different to that which was taken away from my home in that devious mafia style ‘fathers day hit.’

Now it falls to Byron to find me again. As I was told by a family court judge recently, “The neural pathways at that age are developed. He will not forget you.”

To this day; Byron is still prevented from any contact with me.
The law as an institution dispensing justice has failed Byron.
Liars have prospered and their lies have been covered-up by the oversight responsible for family law.

What if;

My son actually does want to be with me. And receive gifts from me. And learn from me. And share my life with me. And show me all he learns? And ski with me. And swim with me. And hike National parks with me. And play the piano with me. And be dropped off at school by me. And collected after school and taken to football training. And play his drum-kit.

What if he still loves me as I do him? Even after family court judgment that he cannot even receive letters in the post from me?

What if all of this opportunity was denied to my son by a deviant liar who got away with lying and continues to get away with lying.

During ten years of housing and helping Adler I attended countless functions with judges and barristers and solicitor members of this clique and even formed friendships with several. Across the board I can observe, they have a different perception of truth to friends I have known who do not lie for a living. Their truth is whatever the law allows.
They really are invested in the value of lying to win the legal argument. They lie habitually.
And lie.
And then lie some more.
More lies = more billable hours. More acrimony = more billable hours.
Their mission statement in one line;
Lie. Litigate. Increase Acrimony. Apply for costs. Don’t settle. Dress smartly in court. Win at all costs. Remember, who lies most wins. Winning is getting the most money for your client which also means the most billable hours for you.

At time of writing in mid 2021, my former home, 7a Riverbank still stinks of flood rot. Just like those ethical members of family law who made it this way with their ‘Beneficial entitlement’ lie and their O’Leary lying judgment that still stands to this day.

7a Riverbank has not sold as O’Leary directed in her judgment. Adler has failed to sell the flooded property; exactly as I informed the court would be the case when the judgment found instead that my claim was the lie of a mentally infirm liar.

I have received no payment from this court order seizing my property. I expect there is no possibility of getting any payment from the home I bought and paid for over thirty years ago without the means to pay a huge sum to British lawyers to sue the thieves.

Simply because a liar lied and another liar made it law in a broken family court system.

You can read the complete story including extracts from the trial transcript (that cost me £5,000) and the bulk of the O’Leary judgment in WHO LIES WINS. And some parts in LETTERS TO BYRON.

I apologize for overserved detail, occasional repetition and long-winded writing but the sad fact is; Nothing is being done about more awful child abusing thieving behavior by a gang of lying child abusing thieves.

Byron is invisible to British justice. He is unable to reach me by any means, unable to resume the life he is entitled to; benefiting from the guidance and support and love of both parents. I have been disappeared from his life. His educational opportunities with me have been denied to him.

Finally; one last extract from WHO LIES WINS. The story of the football game.

After Fathers day 2013, I tried to arrange visitation; to return Byron to his home with me.

From the get go. I had a friend act as intermediary liaising with Adler, hoping to avoid any litigation and to just agree visitation. Every week I offered activities that I knew Byron would enjoy while he spent weekends with me. He had his room in my home. There was no reason Adler would have not allowed him to spend the weekends with me.
Except.
She demanded £100,000 before she would agree to even one single overnight. Reassuring me that “You will pay. This is what I do.”

On one weekend, after 12 consecutive weeks of his visitation being cancelled last moment, I had then manager of Crystal Palace, Ian Holloway, offer an opportunity that no English mother could say no to.

Ian invited me to bring Byron to his Managers Box at Selhurst Park to watch his first game of premier football. I put forward times for collecting Byron Friday afternoon (from Delia Golds home) and returning him Sunday afternoon. Byron was Four and a Half. He would have his first experience of premier football and meet the team as well.

It was a three PM kick off at Selhurst Park. Sunderland were the visiting team. This was weekend 13 since he had left. The previous 12 weeks in a row Adler had cancelled the visitation by email every time, usually at last moment before the agreed drop off at the intermediaries house. To cause maximum upset. The way lawyers do. Send the email at 5.30 on a Friday afternoon. Best for ruining the recipients weekend.
But this time, how could she?
Its football. Its the Premiership.
Its the manager inviting a boy to meet the team at his first real game. Watching from his private box as his personal guest.
Palace are playing well. It can only be a memorable experience for a four and half year old that can only be beneficial to him. There is no possible down side.

Friends of mine took bets that Adler would not be able to refuse this opportunity for her son. What kind of mother would?

At 5.30 on the Friday before Saturdays game she wrote.
“Byron will not be able to join you. He is too young for a football match.“

Adler had repeatedly told me “Pay me £100,000 and you can see Byron as much as you want. Not before.” She wasn’t going to fall for any football match ploy.

“First the money. Then as much time as you want with Byron“.

I last spoke to Byron on February 16th, 2016.
If your thinking of using British Family law then bear in mind the story you have just read as a character reference for members of family law.

Unless your intention is to abuse your child, avoid family court.

My last Letter to BYRON ends this way.

Byron,

When you can;
Call me.
(Facebook Andrew Brel and use the messenger to video or phone.)

You know you can be with us anytime you choose to.
You decide, let me know your decision and I will take care of all the travel details.
We still have your home in California waiting for you.
We miss you A LOT.
You have a voice in this decision.
You can have any amount of time here; as well as there.
School in California. Holidays there.
Or vice versa.
School there and Holidays in California.
It’s your right to choose.
I miss you and I have not forgotten you.

Daddy

Both books about Byron and British family law are available in paperback or Kindle.
WHO LIES WINS. / LETTERS TO BYRON

My Retail Bookstore is here Andrew Brel Books (Amazon, Audible and Apple Books.)

My Paypal Patron support is here