Affidavit by the respondent
I (Name) of (Location) make oath and say as follows:
1. I am the respondent and make this affidavit in regard to the the prohibitive steps order by the application in regard to my daughter H (DOB )
2. Having discussed the matter with legal council and with CAFCASS I am led to believe that there is no justification for a ruling to extend the prohibited steps order beyond age 16.
The reason for the ordering of indirect contact in 2009 after a long legal battle was to protect Harriet from suffering further “harm resulting from the implacable hostility of the resident parent towards contact” It is not apparent that the views, needs and welfare of Hare really the applicant’s main concern or driver of this application.
3. I have had no direct contact with H since the break up of my marriage in 2006 outside of a few chaperoned visits. Since 2009 I have written as outlined by the court. Despite this I have no evidence that there is indirect contact or that the applicant “uses her best endeavours” to ensure my letters reach my daughter or are read by her. However it is clear from the Mothers affidavit that she has received and read them.
It is interesting that it is a cause of concern to the applicant that letters to H from me are not always hand addressed! Why is this an issue, unless there is the desire to intercept or censor?
4. I acknowledge that GCSE’s are a very important time for H as stated by the applicant (para 6) and have been fully supportive of her efforts to date and congratulated her on her outstanding result this year.
I attend the parents evening at school each year and meet with the Head mistress to discuss H's progress and I can assure the court I would do nothing knowingly or willingly to harm my daughters education or emotional wellbeing and have fully learned from any mistakes I have made in the past in this regard.
5. At para 7 the applicant asserts I have sent 10 letters in 2011 to Harriet. This is incorrect. I believe I have sent 4 letters plus a card congratulating Harriet on her GCSE. If this resulted in a breach of the order it was not unintentional and I apologise to the court. The applicant does not comment on any breach in 2009 or 2010 this therefore suggests that in these years I had stayed within the bounds of the order and this is an isolated event. The evidence pack of letters etc is not consistent with the accusation and includes:
i. extracts from a PhotoAlbum (1 page from a Christmas present 2010
ii. letters from 2009 and letters not written by me.
iii. Additionally where I have sent a card and enclosed a letter inside; these are being seen by the applicant as separate. This is somewhat misleading.
For example ‘Letter 6’ referred to on page 25-27 of the applicants appendix is a birthday card sent with letter 2 of 2011.
iv. ‘Letter 4’ referred to as being ‘sent twice’ was indeed sent in a letter to the applicant as well as direct to H. It is one letter not two. My letter to L is attached at appendix A and is self explanatory and perhaps acted as the catalyst for this latest application.
v. The letter from Mike K was not sent by me or directed to be sent by me. Furthermore Mike is not subject to any prohibition order as suggested by the applicant. Why would she suggest this?
I would ask the court to also consider paras 11, 12 and 16 and ask whether this application is really about H and her wishes and interests or is a desperate attempt by the applicant to stay in control and stop any contact between Hand I. I would ask the court to consider the evidence and ask the court to dismiss the request by the applicant for a penal order to be enforced. If you require a copy of every letter sent by me since January 2009 to date I can provide these so the court can judge the letters in context. I am sure the court will draw different conclusions from those the applicant would like you to draw.
7. Regarding H’s feelings on contact. Whether the applicant reflects H’s true feelings accurately or not is impossible to judge from the submission. Certainly P from NYAS (para 21 refers) who represented H throughout 2008, was of the opinion that ‘H’s opinion of her father was not based on fact and was strongly influenced by her Mother.’ If H is of the views stated at Para 24 and elsewhere, why is no affidavit submitted to the Court from H herself as to her wishes? Why is the application not from H? Is she even aware of this hearing? At age 16 H can no longer be considered too young to make her own decisions and under the law of England and Wales should have the right to make up her own mind. As her Father I would support that right and it is also backed up by case law. It would appear the applicant feels differently.
8. Para 16 refers to the Fact find by Judge L on 60+ points raised by the applicant in support of the original prohibitive steps order. In his findings, Judge L refers to the fact he has to remind the applicant on numerous occasions she is under oath. This para and the application in general are good examples of the applicant attempting to mislead the court. My visit to Jersey referred to, was to attend a public event outside of H’s school and therefore, not in contravention of any order by the Jersey Court. The applicant knows this. Whilst I accept my actions were misguided they were within the law. The applicant knows this but despite this continues to attempt to paint a picture of a reckless law breaker.
9. Another example of this is Para 13. The respondent had no knowledge of the prohibitive steps order issued on 1 Feb 2010 by Judge L until it was received through the post some weeks later. He had no notice of a hearing and no opportunity to defend himself. To this date he does not know he was accused of however he has fully complied with the order.
11. Whilst H is doing exceptionally well at School and is happy and settled there; the respondent believes that the applicants real reason for the extension of the prohibitive steps order is to stop any contact taking place before H is removed from the jurisdiction. The respondent has good reason to believe that the applicant intends to emigrate after A levels or if the order cannot be continued to 18 then to withdraw H after GCSE’s.
12. I can assure the court that my sole desire is for the long term health and wellbeing of our daughter and as such I believe that it should be her decision and not the applicants what contact if any she has with me. I would therefore ask the court to dismiss this application.
Sworn at Court
In the County of
This 11th day of January 2011
Comments