NORTH TYNESIDE SOCIAL SERVICES KIDNAPPED MY CHILDREN

CAFCASS Vanessa Bell

IN THE NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE COURT CASE NO: NE18C00661
BETWEEN
KRISHNA DA COSTA APPLICANT
AND
NORTH TYNESIDE COUNCIL 1ST RESPONDENT
AND
LUCI DA COSTA 2ND RESPONDENT

____________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF KRISHNA'S MOTHER, LUCI DA COSTA

____________________________________________________

1. On 11 January 2019, Friday, I received a letter from Vanessa Bell, Cafcass inviting me to attend an interview on the following Monday.

Five reasons why the services of Vanessa Bell are not needed, or wanted

2. I will not attend the requested meeting. I am legally entitled to do so because my daughter Krishna has clearly stated to the court that she does not want Cafcass be part of the proceedings related to her case. Krishna and I do not wish to have a Cafcass assessment for the following reasons:

a. The previous and current guardians are not forensic psychologist, nor are they detectives. They cannot testify to what Krishna's wishes, or to what her situation was while living with me, or afterwards.

b. They are not independent bodies, but are biased in favour of the Local Authority.

c. In her last report, entitled “Revised PLO Cafcass Case Analysis”, dated 11th May 2016, Vanessa’s statements were based largely on supposition, and feelings (she uses the expression “I feel/I do not feel” eight times). She is entitled to her opinions and feelings, but should these be the basis of such important decisions, with such devastating consequences for Krishna and myself? Instead of allowing her freedom, the LA calls the police every time she runs away, and Cafcass is duty bound to allow this unlawful act to be carried out.

d. Krishna is 17 years old, she can speak for herself and state what she wants. She has her own lawyer who is representing her, thus Cafcass is not necessary.

e. By English law, a person aged 16 can leave foster care and the care of his or her parents. At 16 they are capable of making up their own minds about where they want to live.


My parental approach is for the well-being and happiness of Krishna

. My approach to parenting is holistic – not focusing only, or particularly on educational, but also on emotional aspects. Emotionally a child or adult is happier and more productive if living with their family or loved ones that share the same interest and culture. Therefore a vegetarian child who is Hindu, living with meat eaters whose only interest in caring for her is monetary, is not in Krishna's best interest, neither is it her wish.

4. Krishna's character and abilities were not formed during the short time she was in foster care. On the contrary, she was self-harming and sad for much of that time.

5. Krishna is much happier now that she is in regular contact with me than when the lack of contact drove her to despair and self-harm.

6. Since when removing a child unlawfully from her mother, forcing her to live with strangers, away from her sister and her cats, all of whom she adores, in her best interest?

7. In summary, dozens of false and inaccurate statements have been made against me and Krishna by the LA, and Cafcass officers simply went along with them without verifying whether or not there were even true. Krishna and I have therefore lost trust in them, as we feel they have not represented or assisted us in any way whatsoever.

This is my statement of truth and the facts stated above are true, accurate and testifiable.



14 Jan 2019

To the court, case number NE18C00661


Dec 2018

1. I have been informed by my solicitor that once again, I am to be allocated a Cafcass Officer. I believe I made it clear in my statement that I do not need one, nor do I wish to be allocated one, as I already have a solicitor. Two Cafcass officers have already misled the court in the past, have belittled me and disrespected my wishes, and have also been dishonest. As evidence of this, my mother even obtained an apology from Cafcass guardian Laura Grundy, for wrongly stating "my mother had a conviction for child neglect". The second Cafcass officer was simply nasty.

2. If a cafcass officer attempts to approach me, I will deem that a violation of my own Human Rights and view that as harassment. Should it persist, I will either call the police, or take out legal action for harassment, Under no circumstances is any Cafcass officer to approach, speak for or represent me.

3. My wish and I want the court to respect this, is to return to my mother's care. I am perfectly capable of making such a decision myself and do not need to talk to yet another stranger, who will probably be as fundamentally dishonest about past issues as the previous guardians. These people know nothing about me or my mother, yet seem to write what they want. Therefore, once again I request the court to honour MY Human Rights and not impose on me what it wants, but respect what I want. I hope this time I have made this clear.

4. I will be sending a copy of this letter to Cafcass and to my solicitor, I expect the court, for once to honour my wishes and opinions, which so far Judge Hudson has untimely dismissed. Whilst I respect the court, it is time it took a step back and let me live MY life, with no further interference.

Thank you.

Krishna Da Costa
Dec 2018




Up ▲



































18/05/2019

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989 Section 01
APPLICATION TO DISCHARGE A SGO ORDER

IN THE MATTER OF KALINDI ROBSON DA COSTA, A GIRL BORN 3rd AUGUST 2012

B E T W E E N:
LUCI VIEIRA DA COSTA

and KRISHNA GOURI DA COSTA
Applicants
AND
CAROL ROBSON

Respondent


The Applicant Miss Luci da Costa applies for discharge of the SGO dated 13rd January 2015.

In the Children Act 1989 - section 14D (5),
it states that in order to successful dismiss the SGO, it is necessary to show a "significant change in circumstances since the making of the special guardianship order."

1. On the judgment of 2014 paragraph 159, judge Hudson wrote:


"(...) as well as her mother’s volatile and aggressive behaviour".

a) Where is the evidence of me being aggressive?

b) Why was not I charged for abuse in the criminal court?
c) Why did a social worker and 2 Health visitors, visiting us during 3 month, never report such thing?
d) Alison said before she kidnap my children, wrote on CHILD

PROTECTION INITIAL CONFERENCE 07/11/13 page 17.
"Throughout my involvement Luci and Craig both have worked well with me and other professionals and have made themselves available for all arrangements with them and maintained regular telephone contact. Daily visit have continued to see the family throughout my involvement and Luci has responded generally in a positive manner to this."

2. In paragraph 164 of the same judgment, Judge Hudson talked about Craig Robson:

" (...) There is, in my judgment, a high risk in terms of his Cannabis use and cultivation, particularly in the more medium and long term, despite his current stance. (...)"

a) How come his criminal conviction for endangering life is forgotten, or overlooked, yet the fiction that I am aggressive is readily accepted?
b) How is it that a man with a proven history of violence and aggression, a drug dealer and drug user, is allowed to see his daughter unsupervised? And I always have been seeing Kalindi supervised?
3. In paragraph 166 of the same judgement, Judge Hudson said:.


"(...) It would also result in B losing all meaningful relationships with her father and paternal family. (...)

a) And about my 'meaningful relationship' with my daughter? I am allowed to see her just 6 times per year, this has led to parental alienation. In Brazil, PA is a criminal offense. Do you understand how painful PA is?
That is clearly a breach to Human Right article 8 Right to respect for private and family life.

"Other figures show FIVE people in nine days have taken their own lives because of Parental Alienation." (1)

b) And her maternal family? Why is Kalindi not allowed to meet and visit her extended maternal family in Brazil?

4. In the judgment of 2015, paragraph 141, Judge Hudson stated:

(...) 1 found there to be a singular failure on her part to accept responsibility not only for her behaviour but, much more importantly, the negative impact of it on her children. This was the case whether it related to events before or after their removal from her care.(...)

a) Judge Hudson, please show me evidence that my behaviour is such or was such that it was detrimental to my children.
b) Why do you ignore the evidence of the first 3 professionals and accept Alison Dodd’s web of lies?

page 6. Kalindi presents as having a loving bond and attachment with her mother and older sister. (...)
page 7. (...) There are no concerns regarding the presentation of either child. Both were wearing clean and tidy clothing. (...) There do not appear to be any concerns with regard to Luci abilities to promote an appropriate sense of identity.
page 7. Kalindi is a baby who will need all of her basic care needs to be met by her mother. There are no concerns with regards to Luci's ability to do this and meet her needs.
(...) There are no concerns with regard to Luci abilities to meet the needs of the children in this area of assessment.
(3b) page 4. (...) The interaction that I witnessed between Luci and her baby were appropriate and positive. (3)

5. In paragraph 142 of the same judgment, Judge Hudson continues:

"M has said throughout that she has been unable to contain her behaviour towards Social Care professionals. The chronology of events records extreme outbursts, many of which have taken place in the presence of the children, and threats to social work professionals both at those and other times (by way of example the text messages sent to Alison Dodds). I found it striking that M was able to sit through an eight day hearing and give evidence at some length with barely a murmur of dissent throughout, even when she was challenged in cross-examination and when she heard evidence against her from the local authority witnesses, paternal family and children's guardian. She was, it appeared, very well able to control her emotions and behaviour. She told me she has not taken any medication for months now. Dr Hill was unable to shed any light on the issue. I was driven to conclude that, when she chooses to, M is well able to regulate her emotions and her behaviour."

a) Why would I choose to control my emotions in one place but not in the other?
Am I not a mother? Do the professionals fail to understand the pain of being apart from your baby? Are you aware that social services never ever arranged a proper time for Kalindi to visit me? They only changed the time when it was suggested by Pat H from Family in Care, who witnessed the abuse to my baby, seeing her distressed and crying every time she came to visit me, instead of be allowed to sleep.
6. In paragraph 143, Judge Hudson continues:

"1 concluded that the difficulty in all of these relationships arises when M is challenged. I do not accept her evidence that she will work with the local authority in the future. I also concluded - on M's own evidence and otherwise - that she will not rest if the children are placed away from her except, possibly, if B were placed with MA. M has, in my judgment, the potential to cause significant disruption in my judgment."

a) Judge Hudson, would you work with lairs who stole your children?
b) Does my incapacity to work with lairs make me an unfit mother?
c) Where is my Right to a fair trial? Article 6 of the Human Rights Act? By denying me the right to call my witnesses or for the judge to recuse yourself from the case, I was denied this right.
7. Concluding from the judgement of 2014 and 2015, the change of circumstances required from me is that I have a Lobotomy, so that I do not react like a normal human would:

"Following the operation, spontaneity, responsiveness, self-awareness and self-control were reduced. Activity was replaced by inertia, and people were left emotionally blunted and restricted in their intellectual range.[14]"(2)

a) With a Lobotomy, my children and I could be severely emotionally abused by social workers and yet I would not react in any way, shape or form.

8. I was told by your honour Judge Hudson in 2016 and my barrister in 2019, that the judge can't be against their own ruling. But I find no law to support this.
According to this rule, I have no hope of getting Kalindi back from this biased and cruel court. Whatever I do is disregarded, even if it is in Kalindi’s best interests.
Even if I was married to Bill Gates it would make no difference.
9. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 Article 3, para 1 states:

‘in all actions concerning children whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be the primary consideration.’

10. It is not the best interest for a child to be subjected to emotional abuse; to be ripped away from her mother while still a nursing infant – the only person she feels loved and secure with, and to be separated from her older sister, and never allowed to see her. I became a visitor instead of a mother to my child. Regarding to the grandparents
11. The grandparents live separately, though they presented a “united front” and pretended to be living together in order to secure Kalindi. It is the grandmother,
Carol Robson, who cares for the child by herself, takes her to and from school, etc.
Carol stated in a report that she sometimes finds it difficult to wash the dishes due to problems with her hands. At 70 years of age, and suffering from health problems, it must be a struggle for her to look after a 7-year old child, and it is likely that she would be unable to fully meet all the child’s needs.
12. Carol has already raised her son to become a violent thug and a drug dealer and user from the age of 16, with two criminal convictions, and another son who was fined for DUI. Craig was sexually abused at the age of 10. Evidently Carol failed to protect him from this. He described his childhood as a home filled with shouting and arguments. This is not the type of household I feel is a suitable environment for Kalindi, or indeed any child.

Two sisters who have been separated since December 2014 13. Two sisters have been forcibly apart since Dec 2013. This is a clear breach
of Article 8 of the UNCRC, which states that:

1. Parties undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognized by law without unlawful interference.

14. On May 2018, I showed Kalindi a picture of her family in Brazil. She didn't show any interest, as she has never met them, but when I showed her a photograph of her older sister, she sucked her thumb and showed visible sadness and insecurity - she clearly misses her sister, and is grieving for the family she has lost. 15. The law states that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding.
16. The relationship between siblings is just as important as any other relationship, but they are the ones who will be there for each other, long after grandparents and parents have died.

Parental Plan

17. I have drawn up the following Parenting Plan to assist us in providing a loving, stable, caring and safe environment for Kalindi.
18. Krishna will live permanently with mother from December 2019. She will be 18. She was brought up to be independent and responsible. She could cook and do all kinds of household chores from an early age. Krishna has said she would be more than willing to help look after Kalindi if necessary, teaching her art and music, cooking, taking her out and about, etc.
19. Mother is living in a 3 bedroom house in Gateshead, which is close to a primary school for Kalindi and close to Krishna's college.
20. I recognise Kalindi’s rights to emotional and physical safety, stability and security:

a) She would have this if she is removed from the family of drug dealing criminals that she has lived with since 2015.
b) She would be assured of the love of her mother and sister, and would be able to visit Brazil and meet her extended family there.

21. As a mother and sister, we would accept responsibility for Kalindi's physical care, health and safety:
a) Kalindi would no longer suffer from malnutrition and iron deficiency, as mother would prepare a healthy vegetarian diet, which Krishna grew up on, and she was always very healthy.
22. Kalindi’s emotional stability: a) Kalindi would no longer be sad, and grieving and afraid. She would be happy and at peace, being reunited with her mother and sister.
23. Living and childcare arrangements: a) Kalindi would live with her mother and sister in Gateshead, 5 minutes walking distance from Saltwell Park.
b) Kalindi would be cared for by myself, sometimes with Krishna’s assistance. We also have a network of reliable friends who could help out, give lifts, etc. in case of any emergency.
24. Financial Support

a) I am a self-employed Interpreter and Web Designer, I can provide for my children.
b) Craig should pay child maintenance. He should take responsibility for his child.

25. Education

a) Kalindi would probably study at Kelvin Grove school, a short walking distance from our home. b) She would learn from me, how to draw and paint, also Web Design and Portuguese language, depending, of course, on her natural abilities and preferences. c) She would learn to play musical instruments, the flute and piano. d) Like her sister, she would take Kung fu classes if she wanted to, to give confidence and protection from school bullies.

Conclusion Kalindi would be happier and better care for by me, her mother, and her sister who is an adult now, and is responsible and caring.

(1) Parental Alienation
(2) Lobotomy
3) INITIAL ASSESSMENT, my papers 13. by Joanna Dean, 28 August/13
3a) INTERIM CARE PLAN, 21 Nov

The facts in this statement are true.

LUCI VIEIRA DA COSTA

18/05/2019



family court

CHILDREN SUFFERING


social services steal children for profit

CHILDREN SUFFERING


CHILDREN SUFFERING




Up ▲