SKYPE ID : shaynelglynahmed


Contact - whatsapp / viber 0092 331 582 4542


*** EMERGENCY UPDATE **** - Mummy’s really ill *** In MAY, Thmes said Emmy might NEVER talk to Mum ever again…she’d let mummy know…but she didn’t say ANYTHING for TWO MONTHS and Mum just got really broken hearted!! In JULY she cancelled our call - LYING about no telephone service due to ‘ALERTS’ *** She said Emmy wants to write, so Mummy waited anxiously, sad, worried sick: hopelessly holding on 6 WEEKS for a letter *** by SEPTEMBER 1st Thmes said there would not be any LETTER FOR MUM : Emmy’s WON’T write TO mum! BUT if Mummy writes, Emmy could reply!!! SORRY!!! Right now Mummy is totally shattered and in hospital with heart trouble, when MUM comes home, we will HAVE to decide what we want from now on***


It is very upsetting for teenagers if their wishes for Contact are ignored. I am going to explain, the court process, and the legal duties of the council and the Guardian from experiences my family has just been through – and I hope this helps. The “Judgment” can appear confusing – and I will explain it in easy to understand terms. I will keep the focus on the Contact Application.

Throughout – I want you to evaluate if we were treated fairly, and what should have happened, and WHAT MUST be done about it.

NOW, here are the facts – and throughout ……………...

" I want YOU to be the JUDGE!!....."



The law says the children’s wishes and feelings about all the applications must be sought.

MY CONTACT APPLICATION - was for a specific Contact ORDER:

1) THREE MONTHS OF WEEKLY EMAILS CONTACT, available to both the teenagers – and they choose to reply and to increase at their own pace, to whattsapp messaging, Skype and finally, to meeting.

2) Council and Independent VOICEABILITY ADVOCATES assisting –even forwarding my emails on – and the teenagers sending their replies to the professionals – for them to send on to me. BUT NEVER TRUSTING JUST THE COUNCIL – OTHERWISE CONTACT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!!

3) The Court monitoring the Contact for 12 weeks to make sure Contact took place – and progressed.

So why were my teenagers NOT asked their wishes about this application?

A special Contact Order (as above) was required – because the Council were not trustworthy:

a) The Council had failed to allow my children to reply to any letters in 10 years – without any explanation to any of us.

b) The council had a long history of interfering with and unlawfully suspending contact, and breaching (breaking) every contact Order ANY court has ever made.

c) The Council had a long history of making false allegations – even trying to send me to prison for 5 years– by twice falsely claiming I breached a “No Contact” order.

d) The LAC Review Reports for two years were entirely falsified – to state the children rejected even my letters and gifts.

e) The Independent Reviewing Officer Ken Gilroy – forged Reports that Carl Finlay IRO had written – and edited out a horrible incident in June 2015 – and instead – rewrote parts of it to falsely claim the teenagers were afraid of me!

f) The Council had IGNORED the children’s requests for Contact since June 2012.

Does it seem right that the Judge, with all the proof of their wrongdoing in front of her would still leave them in charge?

The Council’s Legal Duty

1. Life Story – the council has a legal duty, from day one, to explain why – the living arrangements are the way they are.

2. Contact – if there are restrictions on contact – it should be explained why. They have a DUTY to regularly PROMOTE contact – without the stress of court.

3. To keep children free from exploitation, and safe from harm– physical and emotional. If they are denying all contact – without a “Life Story” – then they are causing guaranteed severe long term emotional damage: anger, confusion and distress.

4. The Council, since September 2008 has had Court Orders which allow full contact, but has denied my teenagers the right to reply to a single letter.

5. The Council sent Voiceability Advocates to ask the children only about telephone, Skype and face to face meetings. They did not ask them to get wishes about email contact – which the teenagers had a right to know about. With only those options given - since February 2017 – one teenager, Emmy, wanted weekly telephone contact and the other, Saph, wanted to wait until June 2018.

6. The Council disrespected Emmy’s wishes, and said they MAY allow MONTHLY telephone calls – but ONLY they would ‘supervise” with the power to end contact forever: and LAC Reviews should be trusted to report the wishes for future contact.

7. They should have started even monthly calls in February 2017. Instead – they messed around until September 2018 – and they still have not started it.

That’s Thmes Ashraf, Manjit Kaur and Ken Gilroy and their solicitor – four people against Mum and her teenagers. Why are they so against Voiceability Advocates and emails? Because they do not want any witnesses who can help the teenagers have contact – and they do not want us to have the proof of positive contact in emails.

Does it seem right that the Judge, with all the proof of their wrongdoing in front of her would still leave them in charge?

Dad and Step Mum’s duty

Dad and Step Mum, for 10 years failed their legal duty to PROMOTE contact taking place, even though the past Judgments said that they were responsible for the children’s contact.

The most important duty of a ‘parent” is to promote contact – did she? She was hostile and said there should be no contact at all. She confessed to exploiting the children – to get “orders” on them – to force dad to stay with her. Step Mum had committed fraud to get a Parental Responsibility Orders – on an application form which even missed out dad’s name and existence.

Dad – he simply was not bothered – and said leave Contact to the council. He did not bother even ‘instructing’ or contacting his solicitor – and just disappeared. He would always pay attention if it was an immigration matter.

The judge knew exactly what had been going on – with all those terrible incidents – and since 2005!!

That’s four more people against mum – dad, his solicitor, her, and her solicitor. A total of eight people against us.

Does it seem right that the Judge with all the proof of their wrongdoing in front of her would still leave them in charge? Especially when they had both already ignored Court Orders to answer why they had failed to allow any replies, for 10 years.


The law says the children must be informed about all the applications, and the outcomes of previous applications. The Guardian cannot make decisions and applications on behalf of the children – pretending they know of them!

The Guardian should give teenagers the “My Needs, Wishes and Feelings Pack”. This has the applications written on it – and the teenagers complete the Pack, with their wishes, in their own writing. This should then be attached to the Guardians Report. The Report should also be shown to the children.

The Guardians Report should have in it (but did not):

a) details of contact – years of positive happy meetings without any problems

b) that the Council, Dad and Step Mum have failed to promote ANY contact exchanges in 10 years.

c) the council has unlawfully breached EVERY contact Order since 2003

d) that Dr Mumford psychiatrist was in favour of weekly contact – and saw no ‘harm’ in that, and the past Judgments were all positive for contact.

e) report the aggressive nature of the carers – and safeguarding issues involved.

f) report that in 13 years – the Council, step Mum and dad have made 26 court applications – most involving fraud and deception - causing stress, badly affecting school and emotional health, and Mum has started no applications.

g) involve consulting with Mum: the Guardian got caught in a lie falsely claiming Mum repeatedly hung up the telephone on her. Mum asked the Court to Order her telephone records – which proved that it was a lie.

Does it seem right that the Judge would accept the Guardian was doing her legal duty? Especially with all the proof of the wrongdoing and important information missing?


The Children’s Statementsshould be full answers to the Contact applications for weekly email contact, assisted by Voiceability – but there was no proof that they even knew of the contact applications – or any of the other applications. The Statements were very strange – and had nothing really to do with contact. However, the Judge’s are taught that children can be easily be tricked and pressured by adults into giving “statements” against a parent - and to ignore them if that appears to be the case.

Voiceability Advocates Report: shows that the Council did not tell them to ask the teenagers about weekly emails, or if they wanted VOICABILITY Advocates to help with contact and so that is why they only asked about telephone and Skype contact (and face to face). They said, that given those options

1) Taurus is “happy” for weekly contact …and Gemini wants to talk after GCSE’s exams June 2018.

2) Taurus does not want to be asked over and over again by the Council because Dad and Step Mum are AGAINST any Contact which is a worry

Judges are taught to be aware of pressure on children – and to listen to them and protect them with Court Orders so they get their wishes for contact.. they know that is one child is facing pressure from carer’s to reject contact – then it’s likely the one is too....but does it appear that instead – not only were their wishes ignored – but what they did say was twisted to mean something else entirely?

The Guardian and Roger Seddon – the Children’s Solicitor said to let the Council decide contact , and was against emails and Voiceability Advocates helping.

That’s two more people against mum and us – the Children’s OWN solicitor is working against them. If you include they tricked them into making hostile statements – that makes ten people – including my own teenagers – against me!

Does it seem right that the Judge with all the proof that the teenagers were not asked properly about contact, but still wanted it “weekly” would ignore them, and agree to leave the Council in charge?


Notice something strange about the written Judgment?

1. It says 6 times that it would take seriously Mum’s concern that the teenagers were not asked their wishes about weekly emails – but then says that they HAVE been asked!

2. It says 15 times – that the teenagers wishes for contact will be taken seriously – but then ignores them!

3. Nowhere in the Judgment does it say ANYWHERE that Emmy is “happy” with weekly contact – or that Saph “wants to talk” after her exams (June 2018)

4. Even though Emmy was “worried” about the carer’s hostility to contact – it is twisted to say that what Emmy knows and is really is saying is that the step mum is worried FOR her and wants to “protect” her …but that is not what Emmy said or meant!

5. The Judge says that Emmy may want ‘some’ contact and Saph does not have any wishes about contact – but that is not true!

6. Many families have weekly contact at a Contact centre – and children have to travel there. Mum’s Contact application is for 12 weeks of emailing – sent through Voiceability and the Council – who then send it on to the children . However, the Judge REJECTS this – saying the teenagers will find weekly emailing “intrusive” – but “weekly” contact is exactly what Emmy wanted! Emails do not involve inconvenient travelling anywhere, do they?

7. The Judge rejects email contact because she says it cannot be “monitored” – God forbid mum wrote anything wrong – it would be seen by the council and the Voiceability Advocates – right?

8. Mum has no worries about writing anything bad – it is why she said she is happy for professionals to be involved, and asked that the Judge keep an eye on contact for 12 weeks – to make sure it was ok.

9. Emmy, clearly worried about the carer’s hostility to telephone contact, said not to be asked “over and over again” – the Judge twisted this and said it means they do not WANT the Court to check that 12 weeks of emails are ok – or to be listened to for any increase in contact to whattsapp, messaging etc.. But that’s not true.

10.The Judge even said that the May 2017 contact letter was “inappropriate” – but the teenagers finally have it – was there anything “bad” in there?


1. THE Guardian Sian Heffey is mentioned 40 % of the time – and given a lot of importance – even though she never asked about the children’s wishes for contact, and her report is missing all the positive information about years of contact meetings and 10 years of unanswered letters. Despite all the wrong doing – it is made out that Mum is making a ‘false complaint” – is she?

2. Dr Mumford is mentioned 10% of the time – but not one paragraph mentions that he says contact MUST happen – and that there is no ‘risk’ with even weekly contact meetings!

3. Even though ‘other judgments’ are mentioned so many times – not one is reported as saying that Contact was “bad” – because they all reported contact was good!

4. The step Mother is mentioned 20% of the time – and no mention of those horrible incidents or why she has failed, in 10 years - to assist with replying to contact letters even once!

5. The Council has not explained why they have failed to help with replies for 10 years. There is no mention of why they made false LAC Review Reports for 2 years – claiming children rejected even letters and gifts!

6. Dad is barely mentioned at all – and he has not explained why he has failed to help with all contact replies for 10 years!

7. The Judge said that contact is best if those ‘closest’ to the teenagers manage it – even though those ‘closest’, dad, step Mum and the Council have never allowed it. Is that right?

8.The Judge accuses mum so many times of “not listening” to what the children want – when it is ONLY mum who is saying that the children’s wishes should be respected by EVERYONE – and they should be allowed to CHOOSE how much contact they want – and who helps them.

9.Mum respects the teenager’s wishes not to talk about the past or their home life, but the Judge says 6 times that Mum does not agree to any conditions and therefore Contact won’t even start, and to blame MUM!

10. The Judge says she agrees with the Guardian that it is Mum who is likely to make more court applications – but the fact is step mum has made 17 stressful court applications!

Does it seem strange – if it’s MUM really has a SERIOUS mental health disorder – why has it never AFFECTED contact? why has mum NEVER hit her children or raised or even raised her voice? Why do not mum make false applications, lie, or commit fraud?

Does any of that seem right?

What MUST be done?

1. Teenagers owe it to themselves that they MUST become aware that they have a Right to contact – and nothing in law can stop them picking up a phone – or contacting any of their parents. No law or court Order can stop them. It is as simple as that. To trust your instinct – on what is right for you. A choice MUST be made – not to allow irresponsible adults to interfere with Rights to contact. Hey – it’s GOOD to talk!

Then – GET OUT OF THIS MESS!! By getting the right people on board to help – people who back you up:

a) Voiceability Independent Advocates. They are NOT social workers – and are CONFIDENTIAL – so never repeat what you said to anyone. They help with attending all meetings – and with court stuff. They make sure you are NOT pushed around – and you are “seen and heard”: and your wishes respected. That is why people like the Council, step Mum and the Guardian do not like them!

b) Voiceability Independent Visitorask Voiceability for this – it’s a really great scheme – a dedicated person especially for you – they come out to see you every few weeks – take you out to any activity you want to try – and they are confidential – and advise you!

c) Calling Voiceability is the BEST thing any teenager has ever done! Everything starts to change – for the better! Voiceability Advocates: 01274 44 91 73 – the school can help you phone them- they talk to you and come out to see you right away! Remember to mention Advocates like Chantelle or Kristina.

d) New Solicitor - Sack the Children’s solicitor and the Guardian – if they are working against you – you don’t need them ! I have helped Children sack their solicitor, and hire another one - it is easy! Teenagers should just be shown how!

UPDATE - urgent!

Thmes and Manjit are creating a false record that MUM is refusing to give her telephone number – so contact cannot be set up! That is a lie! next – they will say that I am NOT agreeing to a Contact Agreement – or any conditions on what we can discuss – and that will be a lie, too!

They are supposed to allow me to work with them to present a “life story” – and have not. Would anyone trust them to tell the truth?

Why does the Council make false reports? To try and stop a child from suing them for millions of pounds in compensation, especially if the suffering was avoidable, and because of their bad mistakes! So they victimise the child twice! They are EXPERTS on creating false records and making false allegations……

The Council does everything to keep the child from having any witnesses:

Lots of parents are denied contact with their children – to STOP that child having any WITNESSES to the abuse!

It’s why the Council HATES Voiceability Advocates and tries to prevent their full involvement!

It’s why the Council HATES websites like this one – which informs families of their Rights – and they are trying to say that my teenagers object to it! well – who ever objects to anything – can inform me themselves!

Denying contact is UNLAWFUL – that’s why Ken, Manjit and Thmes allow false reports to be made – stating it is the children who REJECT Contact!

Excluding mum from LAC Reviews, and denying her SW Reports – is unlawful! Now, they are saying that my teenagers DO NOT WANT me to have the reports – so NO ONE who can help – has any PROOF!

FORGING Council documents – is a serious criminal offence – and part of professionals taking part in the organised cover-up of abuse -so to cover it up – they are NOW (December 2017) saying the teenagers WANT the reports to be ‘edited’ before they are given to me. Well – did my teenagers ASK them to forge a LAC Report of June 2015 – and blame that horrible incident on me?