The
South African father:
Michael Leslie Hickman is a South
African citizen, born in Durban, South Africa on the 23
December 1952, South African ID. No. 521223 5033 087,
resident in Wilhelmshaven, Germany since the
13.07.01.
The
German mother:
Nicola Hickman (Born Focken) is a
German citizen, born in Wilhelmshaven, Germany on the 12.
April 1963.
The Children:
John-Michael
Hickman, is a South African citizen, born in Durban South
Africa on the 03 December 1989. South African ID. No. 89.1203
5007 002
Sebastian
Richard Hickman, is a South African citizen, born in
Durban, South Africa on the 18 October 1993. South African ID.
No. 931018 5049 081
The German
grandparents
Uwe and Ursula Focken, both German
nationals, resident at Bismarckstrasse 96, 26382
Wilhelmshaven, Germany. Both played and active role in the
abduction of the children to Germany, without their help the
abduction could not have taken place..
The abduction and the state assisted
boycott of access that has followed
29.11.1995. On the 29 November
1995 the children John-Michael and Sebastian Hickman were
abducted secretly without the knowledge or the permission of
the applicant, the South African father Michael Hickman, by
their German mother Nicola Hickman, from their place of
permanent residence since birth, at 135 Torquay Avenue, Durban
South Africa and were taken to an unknown destination in
Wilhelmshaven, Germany.
04.12.1995. On the 04
December 1995 the City of Wilhelmshaven altered the place of
residence recorded in the passports of both children from,
Durban, South Africa to new place of residence Wilhelmshaven
(Neuer Wohnort, Wilhelmshaven) cancelling the old place of
residence and applying the date stamp and logo of the City of
Wilhelmshaven without the permission or knowledge of the
foreign parent, photo copies of the altered passports, John-Michael
Hickman KA Nr. C 0430980, Sebastian
Richard Hickman KA Nr. C 6041815, were handed in as
evidence to the file 16 F 931/95 and registered under the
document numbers 3 and 4 respectively.
04.12.1995.
On the 04 December 1995 the City of Wilhelmshaven registered
the abducted Hickman children at the address, Bismarckstrasse
96, Wilhelmshaven , noting the date that they assumed
residence as the 30.11.95, The administrative authority of the
City of Wilhelmshaven entered a remark into the register to
prevent the address of the children being made known, as was
confirmed by the Jugendamt of the City of Wilhelmshaven at a
later stage to the court in the letter dated 12.06.1996
file number 51-22/04, signed Eden-Reske. A copy of the
change of address which was again made without the permission
of, knowledge of, or the signature of the foreign left behind
parent was entered as evidence to the district court of
Wilhelmshaven, where it was entered into the file 16 F 931/95
and registered under the document number 6.
06.12.1995.
On the 06.12.1995 the German parent Nicola Hickman made
application to the district court of Wilhelmshaven for the
granting of an interim order for the district court of
Wilhelmshaven to grant her sole custody of the South
African born and domiciled children, children who had been
abducted to Germany. The application of the German parent
Nicola Hickman (Focken) to the district court of Wilhelmshaven
has the entry stamp of the family court of Wilhelmshaven, of
the 11. December 1995. with the file number 16 F 931/95 and
the document number 1. The left behind South African parent
Michael Hickman was not notified by district court of
Wilhelmshaven of the registered proceedings, the South African
government was not notified of the registered proceedings, the
children were not ordered to be returned to South Africa
although it was apparent that the German parent had taken the
law into her own hands, that she had contravened the German
criminal code § 235 the abduction of minor children, it
was clear to the family court of Wilhelmshaven that children
had been abducted to Germany from South Africa so as to defeat
the ends of justice, it was clear to the court that the
abducting German parent Nicola Hickman had committed a
criminal act. It is clear for all to see that the district
court of Wilhelmshaven assisted the German abducting parent to
legalize the abduction of the children John-Michael and
Sebastian Hickman to Germany
As so called “proof” that
the South African parent had given his explicit permission for
the children to be taken to Germany a fax written and sent by
the foreign parent after the date of the international
abduction to Germany, a letter written in English without the
address, name or signature of the foreign parent without an
official translation, was entered as so called "evidence" and
interpreted by the German parent to mislead the court into
believing that she had relocated to Germany with the explicit
full permission of the left behind foreign parent. This so
called “proof” was accepted without question by the district
court of Wilhelmshaven represented by family judge Fasse and
was entered to the file under case number 16 F 931/95,
document number 8, without any effort being made to
establish its authenticity or it's content by the
court.
The court notified Mrs. Rach of the Jugendamt of
the city of Wilhelmshaven of the court proceedings. As
evidence the reply from Mrs Rach to the court dated 27.12.95
file number 51-20/06 to file 16 F 931/95 document number 10 in
which social worker Rach of the Jugendamt of the city of
Wilhelmshaven records that in the family matter Hickman the
mother has returned to South Africa therefore the matter is
closed. Mrs. Rach. of the city of Wilhelmshaven had made no
effort to contact the foreign left behind parent in South
Africa although his contact details were known.
20.01.1996. The German parent Nicola Hickman
returned to South Africa together with the children and the
children's German grand mother Ursula Focken on the 20 January
1996.
21.01.1996. One day later on the 21. January 1996
the German parent Nicola Hickman together with the German
grandmother of the children Ursula Focken again abducted the
children from South Africa to Germany, after the eldest child
John-Michael had made allegations to his South African parent
Michael Hickman, grandparents Trevor and Stephney Hickman and
his attorney uncle Bruce Hickman that he had been mistreated
and physically abused by his German grandparents Uwe and
Ursula Focken during his residence in Germany in December 1995
following the previous abduction to Germany and that he wanted
a gun to shoot his German grandmother Ursula Focken and wanted
to be hidden from and protected from her. On analysis of the
facts and circumstances surrounding this second abduction the
only logical conclusion that can be reached is that the
children's German mother Nicola Hickman and the children's
German grandmother Ursula Focken fled South Africa in a panic
because of the very real fear of criminal charges being laid
against the German grandmother Ursula Focken for serious child
abuse and as an accomplice to international child abduction
following the revelations of John-Michael and his accusations
of serious child abuse against the German grandmother Ursula
Focken and the possibility that she would be convicted to a
stay in a South African jail.
28.0.1996.
On the 28 January 1996 the German parent Nicola Hickman
(Focken) again contacted the family court of the district
court of Wilhelmshaven in an application made on a scrap of
paper, made in the hand writing of Frau Rach of the
Jugendamt Wilhelmshaven, which was entered to file 16 F 931/95
as document Nr.11, in which the German parent states that she
has returned to Germany and that she renews her application
for sole custody of the binational children.
31.01.1996.
Three days after the second application was made to the
district court of Wilhelmshaven by the German abducting
parent, the district court of Wilhelmshaven, the family judge
Fasse makes his decision this time again without informing
the foreign parent, this time without requesting the
participation of the Jugendamt. This time the German parent
Nicola Hickman (focken) enters no evidence in defence of her
second application for sole custody, the letter dated 2
December 1995, which supposedly gave permission to take the
children to Germany, written after the act on the 29 November
1995 can no longer apply as she had since that date returned
to South Africa of her own free will with the abducted
children. In the deliberations of the German judge no thought
was given to the fact that the German parent had previously
deliberately and openly attempted to mislead the court in that
the German parent had stated that the foreign parent had given
her permission to take the children to Germany, why then did
the German parent on the 04 December two days after the
supposed permission was given in the letter dated the 2
December 1995, entered into the records of the City of
Wilhelmshaven that the foreign left behind parent should not
know the whereabouts of the children. The German judge Fasse
did not consider to question the strangeness of the fact that
that the German mother travelled a third the way around the
world back to South Africa only staying there only 24 hours
before returning to Germany.
The district court of
Wilhelmshaven under judge Fasse once again knowingly
deliberately violates the right of the foreign left behind
parent Michael Hickman to the right to a fair trial, in that
he once again did not inform the foreign parent or the South
African Government of the court proceedings to decided interim
sole custody of the children, children who had for a second
time gone through the trauma of an international child
abduction. The family judge Fasse of the district court of
Wilhelmshaven did not attempt to give the foreign parent the
right to a hearing, the family court judge Fasse violated the
foreign parent’s right to appeal. The German judge Fasse
showed bias towards the German abducting parent and racial
prejudice against the foreign South African parent.
The decision of the district court of Wilhelmshaven
dated 31.01.1996 file number 16 F 931/95 made by judge Fasse,
awarded sole custody to the German parent, without making any
effort to contact the foreign parent, or of giving him the
right to be represented or to be heard thereby deliberately
violating his right to a fair trial and his right to a
hearing.
The
decision of family judge Fasse of the district court of
Wilhelmshaven records the following important facts in his
decision dated the 31. January 1996 file number 16 F 931/95
which clearly prove his racial bias as well as the violation
of the right to a fair trial and the right to be heard:
The address of the German parent is recorded as
being Bismarkstrasse 96, c/o Uwe Focken, 26382 Wilhelmshaven,
the address of the foreign father is clearly recorded as being
135 Torquay Are, 4052 Bluff Durban, Südafrika. The German
family court judge Fasse of the family court of Wilhelmshaven
gives as his reasoning to award sole custody to the German
parent as “ the father lives in South Africa therefore he is
not in the position to exercise custody”. Furthermore the
German family judge Fasse of the district court of
Wilhelmshaven records in his decision that a copy of the
judgement must be sent to the following persons; the
applicant, in this case the German parent of the children, to
the opposing party in this instance the foreign parent, the
father Michael Hickman who was not informed of the court
hearing, included was the condition that the foreign parent
Michael Hickman is to be notified by regular post. (Note
regular post to South African takes between six and eight
weeks to be delivered), this was deliberately done by the
German family judge Fasse of the district court of
Wilhelmshaven, this clearly shows bias towards the German
National, in this instance the German abducting parent Nicola
Hickman (Focken) who has committed a criminal act and to
purposely and deliberately violate the right of the foreign
parent to have the opportunity to give evidence or to oppose
the decision of the judge Fasse of the district court of
Wilhelmshaven within the normal legal delay of two weeks,
before the next instance, in this case the higher regional
court of Oldenburg. Again the family court judge Fasse has
violated the right of the foreign parent and his children
John-Michael and Sebastian Hickman to a fair trail and the
right to be heard and has shown his bias in favour of the
German abducting national Nicola Hickman (Focken).
The
decision of judge Fasse of the 31.01.1996 deliberately
violated the rights of the foreign parent and the foreign
children to the right to a fair trail and violated their right
to a hearing, the decision of the German family court judge
Fasse of the district court of Wilhelmshaven, clearly and
deliberately legalizeda known international child
abduction to Germany, in this instance the German family court
judge Fasse has clearly and deliberately committed the crime
of assistance in child abduction in accordance with the German
criminal code §235.
Using the authority that the
granting of sole custody to the German parent in the decision
of the district court of Wilhelmshaven dated 31.01.1996 file
number 16 F 931/95, the German parent and the German Jugendamt
prevented the foreign parent all contact to his children who
had been abducted to Germany.
The social services
department of the city of Wilhelmshaven
(Algemeinesozialdienst), here the child welfare office
(Jugendamt) made no effort whatsoever to contact the foreign
parent, the child welfare office (Jugendamt) records in it’s
letters to the court that it met met frequently with and
assisted the German abducting
parent.
04.03.1996. On the 04.03.96 the
German legal representation of the foreign parent Attorney
Helmet Stumm wrote to the district court of Wilhelmshaven file
number st–bo 96/0157 to request inspection of the court file
16 F 931/95.
The German legal representation of the
foreign parent attorney Helmut Stumm made application to the
district court of Wilhelmshaven to regulate access to the
children abducted from South Africa to Germany in the letter
dated 07.05.96 file number St-jo 96/0157 as the abducting
parent had to date refused all attempts made by the legal
representation of the foreign parent to allow access between
the children and the himself. The district court of
Wilhelmshaven court registered proceedings under the file
number 16 F 321/96 to regulate access to the children abducted
to Germany. The German attorney Helmut Stumm having inspected
the court file of the district court of Wilhelmshaven would
without any shadow of doubt have seen that incorrect
procedures had been followed, he would have clearly seen that
he was dealing with an international kidnaping he would have
surely known that the abducting parent and here family were
guilty of committing an offence §235 of the German criminal
code, he would have clearly seen that the rights of his
foreign client had been badly violated, yet he made no mention
of these facts to his foreign client, neither did he do
anything to rectify the matter. All written requests for
assistance to the child welfare office of the city of
Wilhelmshaven ( Jugendamt) went unanswered, the foreign parent
got no assistance whatsoever from the child welfare office of
Wilhelmshaven to restore contact to the children abducted to
Germany. The child welfare office showed it’s total bias
towards the German abducting parent by giving considerable
assistance to the German abducting parent as documented in
numerous reports to the district court of
Wilhelmshaven.
12.06.1996. A report was made by
the child welfare office of the city of Wilhelmshaven on the
12.06.96 file number 51-22/04 at the request of the district
court of Wilhelmshaven in the case 16 F 321/96 to regulate
access to the children abducted to Germany from South Africa
in November 1995 and again in January 1996. The social worker
involved, Mrs. Rita Eden-Reske reported that the children that
were brought to Germany in November last year have settled in
well. The children obviously feel well here in Germany, they
have taken the change in their environment well. The mother
Nicola Hickman (Focken) has done all in her power to get all
the help possible to settle the children into their new
environment, contact to the father is very problematic. The
mother Nicola Hickman (Focken) has huge fears that the foreign
parent will kidnap the children and take them to South Africa.
The German mother Nicola Hickman (Focken) had placed a
restriction on information being given to the foreign parent
of both the children’s address as well as their telephone
number. The social worker Eden-Reske of the child welfare
office of the city of Wilhelmshaven (Jugendamt) without ever
having made the effort to contact the foreign parent, without
ever having interviewed the foreign parent records that the
foreign parent has made unreasonable demands in wanting to
have contact to his children, then Mrs Eden-Reske of the child
welfare office of the city of Wilhelmshaven recommended that
the children only be allowed contact to the foreign parent
during his visit to Germany under supervision. As regards the
foreign parent’s announcement that he would visit the children
during the Christmas period of the year 1996, Mrs. Eden-Reske
rejected the request with the reasoning that during Christmas
the children require rest and that they must celebrate in
their familiar environment without disturbance. The fact that
six months previously the foreign parent Nicola Hickman
(Focken) had abducted the children to Germany at Christmas
time, which the children welfare office supported, yet they do
not recommend contact to the foreign parent because it will
upset the children abducted to Germany once again this shows
the extreme racial and gender bias on the part of the child
welfare office of the city of Wilhelmshaven (Jugendamt)
towards the German abducting parent Nicola Hickman (Focken).
(see: Lebensborn, CRC-Watchdog report to the United Nations)
The letter did not have the address of the German abducting
parent in it’s place was the remark “ the address of the
German parent is known to the court) again the Mrs. Eden-Reske
has shown her German national bias and support of the
abduction of the children to Germany again she has shown her
support to prevent access between the children and their
foreign parent by keeping their address a secret from the
foreign parent.
30.07.1996. Court hearing
at the district court of Wilhelmshaven on 30 July 1996
in the case file number 16 F 321/96 to regulate access and
case 16 F 298/96 to regulate
custody.
30.07.1996. Decision of the District
court Wilhelmshaven dated the 30 July 1996 file number 16 F
321/96 made by family judge Lindeke. In the case 16 F 289/96
no decision was made as to the regulation of custody. The
children welfare office of the city of Wilhelmshaven
represented by Mrs. Rach recommended that the foreign parent
only have supervised contact to the children because is could
not be guaranteed that the foreign parent would not kidnap the
children and take them to South Africa. The following is
recorded in the decision of the district court of
Wilhelmshaven made by the family judge Lindeke; After argument
and after the successful presentation of Mrs. Rach of the
child welfare office of the city of Wilhelmshaven (Jugendamt),
it is agreed: the children’s foreign parent is granted the
right to during his presence in Germany until the 18.08.1996,
to see the children three times per week in the rooms of the
clinic for child and youth psychiatry of the
Reinhard-Nieter-Hospital under the personal supervision of
both Dr. Epstein and Mr. Volkmann. The foreign parent is
entitled to phone his children once per week on Sundays. The
granting of a more generous access between the children and
their foreign parent could not be granted due to the
recommendations made in the report to the court by the child
Welfare office of the city of Wilhelmshaven.
The first
of the supervised contacts was made adding the personal
inhuman characteristic German interpretation of the child
welfare office of the city of Wilhelmshaven which clearly
violated the rights of both parties concerned, had been added
to the terms of the court decision. When the foreign parent
arrived at the office of the clinic for child and youth
psychiatry of the Reinhard-Nieter-Hospital he was taken to a
small upstairs room with a floor area of about fifteen square
metres. The foreign parent was locked in the room with two
social workers to guard him, for a period of about fifteen
minutes before the children arrived. The door was unlocked and
the children were allowed to enter the room guarded by an
additional two individuals, the door was again locked, neither
the children nor the foreign parent were free to talk to one
another out of fear of saying the wrong thing, in fear of the
two guards who had remained to supervise every move made and
overheard ever word said. One hour later the children were
taken out of the room while the foreign parent was again
locked in like a criminal under constant supervision. Fifteen
minutes later the door was unlocked and he was allowed to
leave. Under German criminal law what occurred, the robbing of
ones freedom was a criminal offence committed against the
foreign parent in the name of the German 1933 understanding of
human rights and of “ the well being of the
child”.
After the first session further access to the
children was boycotted by the German parent, with the
assistance Mrs. Rach of the child welfare office (Jugendamt)
of the city of Wilhelmshaven. Only after the personal
intervention of the foreign parent directly to the family
court judge Lindeke were another three sessions with the
children possible before his return to South Africa. Neither
the district court of Wilhelmshaven, who had been instructed
to do so, nor the welfare office (Jugendamt) of the city of
Wilhelmshaven took any punitive measures against the German
parent who had boycotted the court ordered
access.
After the foreign parent returned to South
Africa a few telephone contacts occurred between the foreign
parent and the children who had been abducted to Germany,
thereafter all contact to the children was boycotted by the
German parent with the full knowledge of the Jugendamt and the
court.
29.08.1996. On the 29.08.1996, file
number 51-22/05, a report was made by the welfare office
of the city of Wilhelmshaven (Jugendamt) by Mrs. Rach in the
case 16 F 298/96 to regulate custody. Mrs Rach explained in
her report; that the mother has her own dwelling, that there
is a strong emotional tie between the children and their
mother. She goes on to report that she does not recommend that
the foreign parent be granted joint custody of the children as
requested by him. She also recommends to the court to exclude
access between the foreign left behind parent and his children
who had were victims of international child abduction to
Germany.
The matter was again referred to the district
court of Wilhelmshaven to regulate telephonic contact between
the children and their foreign parent and to ensure access
between the children abducted to Germany and their foreign
left behind parent over the Christmas period
December1996.
03.12.1996. Court hearing of the
03 December 1996 in the case, file number 16 F 321/96 at the
district court of Wilhelmshaven with family court judge Fasse.
Mrs. Rach representing the child welfare office (Jugendamt) of
the city of Wilhelmshaven had the following to say: I can not
deny that a emotional relationship exists between the children
and their foreign Father. I can not agree with the application
of the foreign parent as it can not be excluded that he would
take the children to South Africa. The German parent declared
that it is to be reckoned with that the foreign parent will
kidnap the children as he has obtained South African passports
for the children.
10.12.1996. The decision of
the court of the 10 December 1996 case file number 16F 321/96
the family court judge Fasse of the district court of
Wilhelmshaven, repeats the untested, unfounded allegations of
both the German abducting parent “The foreign father has made
known both my mouth and in written form that he intends to
kidnap the children to South Africa” and the German
representative of the child welfare office (Jugendamt) of the
city of Wilhelmshaven, Mrs Rach in his judgement, therefore
violating the right of the foreign parent to a fair trail.
Instead of enforcing the court ordered access between the
foreign parent and the victim children and ordering sanctions
against the uncooperative German abducting parent, Judge Fasse
of the district court of Wilhelmshaven adds insult to injury.
Judge Fasse who had legalized the abduction of the children to
Germany in the first instance, decided the following; The
foreign left behind parent will have no further telephonic
access to his children. The foreign left behind parent will
not be granted the right to access to his children abducted to
Germany as requested over the Christmas period, between the
20.12.96 and the 05.01.97, as there exists the danger that
foreign parent will misuse his right to access to kidnap his
children to South Africa, as recorded in his letter dated the
20.03.96.
12.08.1997. The foreign parent and the
German parent were divorced at the district court of
Wilhelmshaven. The foreign parent was represented by his
German attorney. Sole custody of the children was given to the
German abducting parent. No arrangement was made for access
between the abducted South African children and their South
African parent.
13.10.1999. On the 13 October
1999 the foreign parent again travelled to Germany in an
attempt to gain access to his children.
15.10.1999. On the 15 October 1999 an urgent
application was made to the district court of Wilhelmshaven to
grant access to the foreign parent to his children by means of
an interim order. Under the direction of the German family
judge Ms. Blohm the case was registered under the file number
16 F 1432/99 to regulate by urgent interdict the interim
access between the foreign left behind parent and his two sons
being held hostage in Germany. Although the foreign parent was
there for two weeks the court made no effort to terminate for
a hearing to allow him to see his children. During the stay of
the foreign parent in Wilhelmshaven Germany, the foreign
parent was approached on behalf of the German child welfare
office (Jugendamt) under the direction of Mrs. Rita Eden-Reske
by the German police inspector Dieter Has who presented
himself as being on official duty for the child protection
unit of the German police in Wilhelmshaven. The German police
inspector Dieter Has made contact to the foreign parent on
four occasions, on each and every occasion the foreign parent
was threatened and intimidated by the German police inspector
Dieter Has, the German police inspector Has acting on behalf
of and together with the German child welfare office, directed
by Mrs. Rita Eden-Reske went out of his way to intimidate and
to terrify the foreign parent, so that he would forget about
his children and not ever return to Germany. On the third
occasion his contact to the foreign parent was supervised at
the child and family psychiatric department of the hospital of
the city of Wilhelmshaven (Reinhard-Nieter-Krankenhaus, Klinik
für Kinder und Jugendpsychiatrie und Psychotherapie,
Friedrich-Paffrathstrasse 100, 26389 Wilhelmshaven) under the
supervision of the German psychologist Frau Renate Terlinden.
Mrs Terlinden was acting together with and on behalf of the
German child welfare office (Jugendamt) under the direction of
Mrs. Rita Eden-Reske. The German abducting parent was also
present. During the session of interrogation, intimidation and
coercion the German police Inspector Has went out of his way
to intimidate the foreign victim parent and to make the
foreign parent as fearful as possible. On the 26 October 1999
the German attorney representing the foreign father was
contacted by the German family judge Ms. Blohm, as documented
by the German family court herself. Judge Ms. Blohm
herself entered a remark into the file 16 F 1432/99,
written in her own handwriting, where she documents a phone
conversation with the German attorney of the foreign parent, a
phone call in which she convinced the German attorney of the
foreign parent to withdraw the application for an urgent
interdict to regulate in an interim order the access between
the foreign parent and his children who had been kidnapped to
Germany. The application was withdrawn on the advice of and in
collaboration with the German family judge Ms. Blohm, without
the German attorney having informed her foreign client of the
fact. The foreign parent had travelled to Germany to attend a
court case to give him the possibility to see his children.
The foreign father returned to South Africa on the following
day without the issue being attended to. On the very same day
the 26 October 1999 the German attorney representing the
foreign parent entered a new application to regulate custody.
The German family judge Ms. Blohm had effectively prevented
the foreign father the right to a fair trail and the right to
be heard. The foreign parent returned to Germany one month
later on the 26.11.1999 to attend the hearing that was to be
terminated during his next visit in November/December 1999,
only to find out that behind his back the matter had been
finalized between the German Family judge Blohm and the German
attorney representing the foreign father without his
participation that he had demanded.
22.07.2000.
On 22 July 2000 the foreign parent Michael Hickman travelled
to Wilhelmshaven Germany to attend a court hearing in the case
16 F 605/00.
22.07.2000. The foreign parent
Michael Hickman once again made application to the district
court of Wilhelmshaven for a hearing to determine contact to
and access with his children during his proposed two week stay
in Germany. A date was set for the hearing, the German parent
was ordered to appear personally together with the children
before court. The foreign parent travelled to Wilhelmshaven
for the court hearing only to find in the court room that the
German parent had been given permission by the judge
presiding, judge Ms. Blohm to go on holiday with the children
for the entire duration of the foreign parent’s stay in
Germany. A more blatant abuse of the foreign parent’s rights
could not possibly have occurred. Judge Ms. Blohm was well
aware that the foreign parent was coming from South African to
see his children, the German judge Ms. Blohm also was well
aware that she could not rule for the foreign parent to see
his children who she herself had sent on holiday away from
Wilhelmshaven. This was a blatant deliberate act to defeat the
ends of justice and to deny legal remedy to the foreign parent
and the foreign abducted children by both the German judge Ms.
Blohm as well as the attorney defending the German parent, Dr
Uwe Biester a politician for the Christian Democrat Union, in
both the City council as well as the State government, where
he has a seat on the judicial review commission. The foreign
parent returned to South Africa once again without seeing his
children, once again without being denied the right to a fair
trial and justice.
December 2000 16 F 605/00 UG the
foreign parent made application to the court for a court
ruling in regards to access to his children over the Christmas
period.
The foreign parent notified the court that
he would be in Germany from the 22.12.2000 to the 10.01.2001
so that he could see his children over the Christmas period.
Furthermore he requested that the court make a ruling to
prevent the children from being absent on his arrival in
Germany. Two days before the planned departure from South
Africa the German family court judge Ms. Blohm notified the
foreign father that the matter had to go to court and that she
had set aside the 08.01.01 two days before the planned return
to South Africa, as the date for a court hearing excluding in
advance the possibility to see the children over the Christmas
period.
The foreign father rebooked his flight at the last
moment for the period 05.01.01 to the 16.01.01, which incurred
financial penalties, to allow some time to be with his
children following a favourable court decision. On the
03.01.2001 two days before the planned departure date a fax
arrived in South Africa from the German family court judge Ms.
Blohm cancelling the court hearing set for the 08.01.01,
stating that the foreign parent should remain in South Africa
and await a further date for a court hearing. Again with a
considerable financial loss to the foreign parent following
the cancelling of the flight to Germany.
Although
many letters were written and many phone calls were made no
termination for a further court hearing was
made.
13.07.2001. In desperation the foreign
parent travelled to Germany arriving on the 13 July 2001 where
he entered into a hunger strike in Berlin with a number of
other foreign parents for three weeks. The group of hunger
strikers were finally met by a delegation of German
politicians and members of the German Ministry of
Justice.
Following the hunger strike in Berlin together
with the other foreign parents, the foreign father was granted
a hearing in the district court of Wilhelmshaven under the
German family judge Dr. Sven Bessel. Dr. Bessel was the same
judge who had a few months earlier convicted the foreign
parent on bogus charges of insult laid against him by the
Jugendamt of the city of Wilhelmshaven in connection with the
letter of complaint to the South African Government in regards
to the intimidation on behalf of the Jugendamt in 1999 that
was experienced by the foreign parent, a court process that
was conducted without the knowledge or legal representation on
the part of the accused, the foreign South African
parent.
15.08.2001. In the court hearing of the
15 August 2001 Dr Bessel granted the foreign parent three
hours of supervised contact to his children before he was due
to return to South Africa. This access to the children was
boycotted by Ms. Rita Eden-Reske of the Jugendamt of the city
of Wilhelmshaven, the German judge Dr. Bessel although the
foreign father approached him immediately and directly,
refused to ensure that the meeting took place. Dr Bessel
refused to enforce his own decision even although he knew that
the father was to return to South Africa the following
day.
31.10.2001. At great financial loss and
damage to his business the father lengthened his stay in
Germany. On the 31.10.01 the foreign father was again heard in
the case16 F 867/01 regarding the failure to enforce the court
ordered access to the abducted South African children.
Although the German mother stated very clearly that she was
not prepared to allow contact between the children and their
foreign father thus openly defying the German judge Dr. Sven
Bessel, the German judge Dr. Bessel refused to apply sanctions
against the German parents who openly defied his authority in
and out of court. The German mother was supported in her
actions by the Jugendamt of the city of
Wilhelmshaven.
20.08.2002. In a letter form
Hans-Dieter Siehl of the city of Wilhelmshaven, the foreign
parent was threatened with criminal proceedings by the city of
Wilhelmshaven after making an official complaint in regards to
bias towards the German abducting parent and to the inactivity
of the officials of the Jugendamt of the city of Wilhelmshaven
to the supervising authority.
03.09.2002. Arte
Television broadcast a program on international child
abductions to Germany and the injustice that the victim
foreign parents and their foreign children face. The foreign
father was interviewed on
television.
04.09.2002. Hearing to decide access
and custody of the foreign children abducted to Germany in the
case 16 F 605/00 a case in which the final decision had been
delayed for more than two years.
The representative of the
German Jugendamt recommended the exclusion of access without
reason to the children who had been denied meaningful access
to their foreign parent since their abduction to Germany.
04.10.2002. The German judge Staubwasser in his
judgement excluded access to the children for a period of six
months, to children where court ordered access had been
boycotted for a period of over one year with the full help of
the judges of the family court of Wilhelmshaven, the social
workers of the Jugendamt of the city of Wilhelmshaven and the
Verfahrenspfleger, Claudia Markworth. The main reason for the
exclusion of access to the children unlawfully taken to
Germany was that the foreign father had made the injustices
against his victim children public in particular via the
medium of the internet.
22.11.2002.
A grievance application was made to the Higher Regional Court
of Oldenburg in respect to the exclusion of access to the
South African children abducted to Germany in 1996 for a
period of six months in the decision of the district court of
Wilhelmshaven of the 04.10.2002
.
03.02.2003. The German judges Dr. Bartels, Dr.
Schubert and judge Kuhlmann (see 26.08.2004) of the Higher
court of Oldenburg rejected the grievance application of the
22.11.2002 case number 14 UF 186/02.
11.03.2003.
A grievance application was made to the German Federal
Constitutional Court in regards to the decision of the Higher
Regional Court of Oldenburg.
26.03.2003. The
German Federal Constitutional Court rejected my grievance
application;
1. The decision of the 3 February 2003 in
the case 14 UF 186/02 at the Higher Regional court
Oldenburg.
2. The decision of the 12 August 1997 in the
case 16 F 298/02 of the District Court of Wilhelmshaven.
03.04.2003.
an application was made to the District Court of Wilhelmshaven
to regulate access between the children abducted from South
Africa in 1996, and their foreign father by the means of an
interim court decision, so as to minimize the harmful effects
of parental alienation on the victim children. The application
was given the case number 16 F 229/03 UG.
21.05.2003. an interim court hearing was held
in which the German family judge Staubwasser rejected the
application outright without consideration of any of the facts
presented. Judge Staubwasser ordered a psychological
investigation of the applicant father. The wording of the
brief to the psychiatrist was in no uncertain terms designed
to prevent the father all access to his children and to lay
the ground work to have him deported from Germany so as to
once and for all times settle the problem in the only too well
known, centuries old German way, which was tried tested
and perfected by German officials and judges between 1933 and
1945.
03.06.2003 the decision of the German
judge Staubwasser used as it’s main ground for the rejection
of access between the foreign children and their foreign
father, the fact that the father had continued to report on
the German family courts and the scandalous working methods
and decisions of these courts in the international media in
particular via the medium of the
internet.
10.08.2003. Grievance procedures were
instituted at the higher regional court of
Oldenburg.
01.09.2003. The German
judges Dr. Bartels, Dr. Schubert and judge Kuhlmann (see
26.08.2004) of the Higher court of Oldenburg rejected the
grievance application of the 10.08.2003 case number 14 UF
126/03.
26.09.2003. Grievance application to the
Federal Constitutional court
11.11.2003.
application to the German Federal Constitutional Court case
number 1 BvR 2176/03 was unanimously rejected by the German
judges, Judge President Papier, judge Steiner and judge
Ms. Hohmann-Dennhardt.
This second matter was unfortunately
not taken up with the European Court of Human Rights in
Strasbourg because the legal delay was missed due to the
pressure of other cases pending, threats on behalf of the
German authorities, lack of financial means and psychological
and physical stress caused by the enormous injustices being
experienced.
23.07.2004. The matter again when
to court in Wilhelmshaven on the 23 July 2004, a court hearing
attended by representatives of the South African Government
and foreign observers, a court hearing that was a complete and
utter fiasco, a hearing that was complete perversion of the
law. Legal proceedings to decide access to prevent further
parental alienation of the victim children case file number 16
F 229/03 was deliberately delayed for period of one year by
the German judge Staubwasser in an attempt to deny justice to
the victim children and their foreign father amongst other
reasons. The hearing was prematurely terminated by the foreign
parent after he had rejected the German family judge
Staubwasser on the grounds of his openly bias attitude towards
the German abducting and boycotting of access German parent
and unacceptable dealings of the judge Staubwasser in
particular his refusal to enter into the official transcript
of the hearing the questions put to him for inclusion and his
refusal to enter into the official transcript of the hearing
other important information in particular his refusal to
record exactly what he and the other responsible authorities
had done to ensure the well being of the children, to mediate
between the parents and to help reduce the conflict between
the opposing parties.
26.07.2004. The German
judge Staubwasser who had been rejected in the hearing of the
23 July 2004 on the grounds of bias when ahead and made his
judgement regardless of where he granted the foreign victim a
fair trial or not. The German judge Staubwasser arbitrarily
imposed the exclusion of access between the victim foreign
children and their foreign parent until the year 2008.
02.08.2004. A grievance was entered at the
Higher Regional Court of Oldenburg.
26.08.2004.
The grievance entered at the Higher Regional Court of
Oldenburg was rejected by the German judges Dr. Schubert, Dr.
Bartels and judge Kuhlmann on the 26 August without
considering the application entered on the 15 August.
Please note: The German judges Dr. Schubert,
Dr. Bartels and judge Kuhlmann concerned had
previously repeatedly been rejected due to bias.
An
appeal to the Federal Constitutional Court is at the moment in
preparation. (if rejected by the Federal Constitutional Court
this will be the basis of a further application to the
European court of human Rights)
Dr. Uwe Biester CDU und Uwe
Focken CDU dirigieren das AG Wilhelmshaven
13.05.04. Nearly one year after the German
psychiatrist Dr. Heinz Wintersched was tasked with the task of
declaring the foreign parent Michael Hickman mentally unstable
so as to prevent him all further access to his children, he
finally delivered his so called
"psychiatric report". He made his report after never
having met the foreign father neither had he ever spoken to
the foreign parent over the telephone. His entire report
consisted of four pages, a report that took a year to
complete. He determined that the foreign parent was suffering
from paranoia and was therefore a danger to his children. He
recommended that the foreign father not have access to the
children untill they are adults.
29.06.04
a critical appraisal of the made by the psychologist and
family law specialist Horst Schmeil, which very
thoughoughly analysed the so called "psychiatirc report"
made by Dr. Heinz Winterscheid declaring it as being
unproffesional and fake was entered at the district court of
Wilhelmshaven.
23.07.2004. On the friday yet another
court hearing under the direction of the totally biased German
family judge Staubwasser, a total fiasco from beginning to
end. The foreign father rejected judge Staubnwasser on the
grounds of bias after he refused to enter specific important
items into the court transcript. When asked whether he was
prepared to grant the foreign parent a fair trial he refused
to answer. When he was asked to gauranteed the foreign parent
a fair trial, judge Staubwasser refused to answer the question
although it was repeated three times. Judge Staubwasser
accepted the motion to reject him on the grounds of being
biased, he got up and left the court room ahead of the foreign
parent, Michael Hickman.
26.07.2004. On the
Monday the German Judge Staubwasser although he accepted his
rejection and had terminated the court proceedings and having
left ahead of the foreign parent, he went ahead and made his
judgement. He
made the judgement that the foreign father was to be forbidden
all contact until they are adult to his children who were
unlawfully abdcuted to Germany nine years previously, children
who he has not officially had contact to for nine years, since
their abduction.
13.08.04. Beschluß des
AG-Wilhelmshaven Es hat mich auch in Erstaunen versetzt, daß
der Kollege Winterscheid die Unverfrorenheit besitzt, an der
Verhandlung teilzunehmen. Ganz offensichtlich will er um jeden
Preis seine Paranoia Theorie an den Mann bringen, und dazu muß
er Sie gesehen haben. Ein international anerkannter Kollege,
den ich hier in der Mail nicht nennen möchte, ist bereit, sie
neutral und wissenschaftlich fundiert zu untersuchen und dabei
wird mit Sicherheit kein gerichtsgefälliges Gutachten
herauskommen.
21.08.04. Sehr geehrter Herr
Hickman, es war nicht besonders Klug, die psychiatrische
Erkrankung ihrer Frau N den Gericht zu verschweigen. Diese
Form von Rücksicht dient Niemanden, am wenigsten Ihren
Kindern. Sie können Ihre Kinder nicht in der Obhut einer
schwerkranken erziehungsunfägen Mutter zurücklassen. Jetzt ist
das Gericht gefordert, den Sachverhalt aufzuklären, wenn es
sich nicht den Vorwurf gefallen lassen will, Kindesmissbrauch
billigend in Kauf zu nehmen. Handeln Sie Herr Hickman, bevor
Ihre Kinder einen dauerhaften Schaden erleiden. Ich hoffe,
dass dem inkompetenten (oder vielleicht auch nur
geschäftstüchtigen) Kollegen Winterscheid langsam die Einsicht
kommen wird, wer hier in Wirklichkeit krank
ist.
02.09.04. Antrag auf einstweilige Anordnung
im Eilverfahren
Es wird beantragt:
1) Isolierter
Antrag auf Sorgerechtsänderung wegen Kindeswohlgefährdung im
Wege einstweiliger Anordnung im Eilverfahren zu
regeln;
2) Beantragt wird,wegen Kindeswohlgefährdung
durch die Kindesmutter und ihrer psychischen Labilität die
Übertragung der Sorge auf den Kindesvater und eine
psychiatrische Untersuchung der Kindesmutter und Kinder im
Sinne des § 1666 BGB,um das Ausmaß der Schädigung
festzustellen;.
3) Antrag auf eine lückenlose
Aufklärung und Anhörung aller hier genannten Zeugen;
4)
Mit einem kinderpsychologisches Gutachten einen
wissenschaftlich anerkannten Gutachter zu beauftragen,der die
Interaktion zwischen Vater-Kind- und den Beeinflussungsgrad
der Kinder (PAS) untersucht;
5) Ich gebe zu bedenken,
daß sich Herr Richter Staubwasser und der Psychiater Dr. med.
Winterscheid sich selbst aus freien Stücken für befangen
erklären sollten, um sich weitere Peinlichkeiten zu
ersparen,
14.09.04. zu den Antrag auf einstweilige
Anordnung im Eilverfahren von 02.09.04
Es ist mittlerweile
zwei Wochen vergangen seit Eingang meines Antrages auf
einstweilige Anordnung im Eilverfahren wegen
Kindeswohlgefährdung ohne dass jedoch das Amtsgericht
Wilhelmshaven in dieser Angelegenheit tätig geworden
ist.
Anbei sind im Anhang zwei Briefe der
Staatsanwaltschaft Oldenburg zur Sache der
Ermittlungsverfahren gegen den Großvater Uwe Focken wegen
mangelnde Selbstbeherrschung und die Gewalttätigkeit und die
Gewalttätigkeit an Herrn N und der Antragsteller Michael
Hickman, die unter anderem Auskunft über gewalttätigen
Charakter des deutschen Großvater Uwe F geben.
1. Brief
der Staatsanwaltschaft Oldenburg vom 13. Jan. 2003 NZS 333 Js
2224/03
2. Brief der Staatsanwaltschaft Oldenburg vom
26. Jun. 2002 NZS 333 Js 31137/02
16.10.04. Es wird beantragt:Eine halbe
Sekunde begleiteten Umgang mit meinen Kindern John-Michael
Hickman und Sebastian Richard Hickman um mich zu
verabschieden.
Gründe:Der Antragsteller wird
Wilhelmshaven für immer am 21 Oktober 2004 verlassen.
No answer to date.Kein Antwort bis
Heute
03.11.04. A thorough independant
psychiatric investigation was made of the foreign father
Michael Hickman by the very experienced psychiatrist Dr.
Klempel, a psychiatrist with extensive experience as a
psychiatrist in South Africa and Australia. (NEUROPSYCHIATRISCHES
GUTACHTEN über Herrn Michael HICKMAN). The
psychiatric report made makes it very clear that there is no
evidence whatsoever of any trace of psychiatric dosorder to be
found. It severely criticises the so called "psychiatric
report" made by Dr. Winterscheid saying that it is totally
unproffesional and of no value at all, it goes on to say that
the report made by Dr. Heinz WInterscheid was clearly done as
a favour for the district court judge Staubwasser of the
district court of Wilhelmshaven to find grounds to prevent
access between the foreign father Michael Hickman and his sons
John-Michael and Sebastian Hickman.
05.11.04. An
renewed application was made to the family court of
Wilhelmshaven to review the decision of judge Stuabwasser in
denying me access to my children in view of the psychiatric
report done by Dr. Klempel.
26.11.05 Criminal charges
have been laid against the family court judge for in
connection with the criminal collusion between him and Dr. Uwe
Biester. 26 November 2005. The charges being deception in
legal proceedings, defeating the ends of justice, misuse of
office. (Strafanzeige gegen den deutschen Familienrichter
Staubwasser vom Amtsgericht Wilhelmshaven auf Grund von
Prozessbetrug, Rechtsbeugung und Amtsmissbrauch unter
Korruption durch den Rechtsanwalt Dr. Uwe
Biester.)
28:11.05 To date the district court of
Wilhelmshaven has refused to process my application of the
05.11.04
Of very serious concern to the
foreign father Michael
Hickman
01.11.2002. At the
request of the foreign parent a meeting was held at the German
Federal Ministry of Justice in Berlin. Present together with
the foreign parent Michael Hickman were Mr. Peter
Weideman the South African Minister of Consular and
Administration of the South African Embassy in Berlin, Mrs.
Dagma Ham of the South African Embassy in Berlin, representing
Germany Dr. Horst Heitland and judge Eberhard Carl of
the Federal Ministry of Justice. At the meeting judge Carl
clearly made known that if the South African father did not
stop making public, in particular via the medium of the
internet, what he perceived as being unjust actions towards
the him by German judges, the foreign father would greatly
reduce his chances of ever gaining access to his children.
10.11.2002. Judge Eberhard Carl of the
German Federal Ministry of Justice in Berlin, tasked to deal
with international child abductions, threatened the foreign
father over the telephone in a conversation that was overheard
by a witness who is willing to be named if required. Judge
Eberhard Carl said in very clear terms that if the foreign
father continued his legal battle for what he believed were
his rights, if he did not stop reporting the details of the
alleged injustices that he claimed, in particular via the
medium of the internet then he (judge Eberhard Carl) would
personally see to it that the foreign parent would never gain
access to his children.
12.12.2003.Judge
Eberhard Carl of the German Federal Ministry of Justice in
Berlin again threatened the foreign parent in front of
witnesses (both of whom would be prepared to makes statements
if required) at the French Embassy in Berlin in regards to
making his previous threats of the 10.11.2002 public knowledge
and reminded him that he would not ever gain access to his
children because the foreign father had disregarded his
warning not to continue to make the matter public knowledge in
particular not via the medium of the
internet.
23.07.2004. The German Judge Fiedelak
of the Higher Regional Court of Oldenburg temporarily based at
the District court of Wilhelmshaven, made the following
statement to an international observer at the court hearing of
the 23 July 2004 from the Netherlands, Dr. Peter Tromp, “a
parent who dares to call a German judge a nazi or to criticize
a German judge has no right to access to his children”. An
allegation that is in the first instance untrue.
The
views of these two senior German judges sums up very concisely
how German justice and the German way is applied to foreign
victim parents
Conclusion
Every
conceivable dirty filthy trick in the book has been used to
prevent the foreign parent Michael Hickman and his English
speaking family from having contact to the abducted victim
children.
Every thing possible has been done by all
concerned in Germany to culturally alienate and to brainwash
(Germanise/nazify) the foreign children abducted to Germany
nine years ago.
Everything possible has been done by
all concerned in Germany to bring about parental alienation
PAS between the children John-Michael and Sebastian Hickman
and their father as well as the entire extended family
members.
Not one single thing has been done in nine
years on the part of the district court of Wilhelmshaven, the
Jugendamt of the City of Wilhelmshaven or any other official
or politician in Germany to help in any way possible to help
find a civilized solution to the problem faced or to help
bring about contact between the children and their foreign
family.
What we see here is a very clear classical case
of Nazi ideology and present day German Nationalism being put
into practice.
For more information see;
Lebensborn
Lebensborn: from Inception to the New
Millennium Germanization of Abducted Children Alienation &
Estrangement
Joe
Howard's report to the UN-CRC
Michael
Hickman
Auckland
New
Zealand
20.01.2005
This documentation of the case is
by no means complete and will be continued at a later
date.
|