Tuesday, August 23, 2011
False allegations hurt good dads everywhere.
False allegations hurt a decent father, but the New Zealand Family Court enjoys destroying innocent dads like myself. This country owes me big time. My story is sad and built around false allegations of child sexual abuse. Unlike the NZ High Court at least the British High Court gets it right.How come we don't come down hard on lying women? Maybe a High Court judge or our silly Justice Minister could answer my question? Yeah right -they don't care!
A top racehorse trainer 'coached' her young daughter to say her father had
sexually abused her, the High Court heard today.
Twisted Victoria Haigh manufactured sex abuse allegations about ex-partner
David Tune then encouraged her daughter, now seven, to repeat them.
Ms Haigh, who was locked in a custody battle with Mr Tune, hired a private
investigator and together they spread the malicious accusations via e-mail
and over the internet.
But Sir Nicholas Wall, President of the Family Division of the High Court,
said the claims were untrue and Ms Haigh's actions had been 'wholly
contrary' to her daughter's interests.
He said he had decided to sit in open court so that the public could be told
that Mr Tune was 'not a paedophile' and made an order that Ms Haigh could
not make any application in relation to her daughter without his permission
for two years.
Sir Nicholas ruled that Ms Haigh and Mr Tune could be identified, but he
said the little girl - referred to as 'x' in court - should not be named.
He told the court: 'Allegations of sexual abuse were first made by the
mother and not by x.
'These were false and the mother knew them to be false.'
He added: 'X was coached by the mother to make allegations of sexual abuse
against the father.'
Sir Nicholas said two judges examined the case at previous High Court
hearings and both found that Mr Tune was not a paedophile and had not
sexually abused his daughter.
'The first judge found that allegations of sexual abuse made against the
father of a young child were not just untrue but manufactured by the child's
mother, who then caused her daughter to repeat them,' said Sir Nicholas.'
'Because the mother was wholly incapable of fostering a relationship between
her daughter and the child's father, refused to accept the judge's findings
and continued to assert that the father was a paedophile, a second judge
found that her mother had caused the child significant harm.'
The little girl, now living with her father, was subject to a care plan
organised by a local authority in, Doncaster, South Yorkshire, the hearing
in London was told.
Judges have previously heard evidence about the case at private hearings.
He added: 'The child's mother is wholly unable to accept the court's verdict
and, with the misguided assistance of Elizabeth Watson has unlawfully and in
breach of court orders put into the public domain via email and the internet
a series of unwarranted and scandalous allegations about the father and
'She has repeated the untruth that the father is a paedophile and - without
a scintilla of evidence - has attacked the good faith of all the
professionals who had had any contact with the case.
'I have read all the papers in the case carefully. The father of the child,
who may be named, is not a paedophile and he has not sexually abused his
daughter. Two judges have so found.'
He added: 'I have come to the conclusion that ... I should ... give a public
judgment in which I explain, having read all the papers in the case, that I
have reached the same conclusion as the two previous judges.'
Sir Nicholas went on: 'These proceedings have had a serious effect on the
life of the father and have threatened the stability of the child. Her
mother's actions are wholly contrary to her interests.
'The father is entitled to tell the world, and the world is entitled to
know, that he is not a paedophile, that he has not sexually abused his
daughter and that the allegations made against him are false.'