Judgement Day

The High Court case had consumed all my being for the last 2 months. Everything else around me; kids, family, friends and work had been put on hold whilst I dedicated myself, night and day, preparing for the biggest battle of my life. Climbing mount Everest would have been a stroll in comparison.

I'd been summoned to court for the abduction of my children under the Hague Convention. The plaintiff was the father, who sought the return of the children to Spain. Proofing one's innocence is not as easy as you would expect.

Under the guidance of my legal counsels KC ( solicitor) and TG ( barrister), I began the mammoth task of listing events in chronological order , gathering documents and people who can support me in my case. The most vital document I possessed was a 3 page signed agreement for the relocation between myself and the father.

The timing of events were clear as it merely involved recalling memories. Rattling my head as who the potential witnesses could be was somewhat more difficult. Other time was spent reading everything about the Hague Convention, fighting to get legal aid, reading affidavits and making notes for my legal counsels.

A month into the preparation of my affidavit, I just could not see the wood from the trees. At one point, I had truly believed that I had kidnapped the girls. It would have been easy then  just to say " Ok, I did it", just so that the mental torments and stresses would go away.

My public legal aid was suspended 3 times. Even at the first final hearing on 10th March, I was without legal representation and had no choice but to turn up to court alone. I pleaded for an adjournment and presented the judge the correctly sworn exhibit (the signed Spanish agreement), which had been incorrectly served! The original agreement contained 3 signed pages however my solicitor had made a mistake by only serving the 1st page of the Spanish agreement and the three English translation pages.

The opposing counsel panicked and called for a hand writing expert to examine and establish whether the signatures were that of my ex. I had pointed out that the father had already made admissions (in five points of his first affidavit) that he had signed 1 page  of the agreement. So the judge, came to my defence, and ordered that the expert witness will establish whether the other 2 signatures on the other 2 pages matched that of the 1st page. The opposing side were to instruct and pay for the hand writing expert. That weekend was spent reading everything I could find about graphology, signature forgeries and disguises.

The original questioned documents were sent to an ex-hippy, Ruth Myers, who you could say was non-scientific. I still had no legal counsel at that time, so the opposing counsels took full advantage by mis-instructing the hand writing expert. I received a copy of the letter of instruction to Ms Myers on the same day her report was submitted. As I had suspected, she had not examined whether the 3 signatures were the same. Lawyers never break the law, but bends it to their maxinium capability. The better the law firm, the greater the degree of bendness. Dawson Cornwell (DC) is a highly respectable family law firm, probably the best in the UK. Foul-play, yet they had not broken the law! Deploying signature vertification and then mis-instructing the expert  is  vindicative proof  that there was something to hide.  Ruth Myers's result was inconclusive! but suggested that a possible disguise signature had been adopted. In a telephone conversation I had with her she revealed who  my ex is merely from his signature. His signature is illegible, contains numerous flourishes and scrolls surrounded by a circular whirl, which  indicates a conniving, deceitful, secretive person who hides a himself behind a wall! Jeez, why couldn't she just tell the judge this and save us all time and energy.

The new final hearing was set for the 23th March. The day before, I served my third affidavit at 10am. It was not substantive, merely to clarify some fundamental points. My ex, at 4pm submitted another affidavit, where he retracts ever signing any pages of the agreement  as he had declared in his previous affidavit and admits an email (*)  between my solicitor KC and the Spanish lawyer who had drafted the agreement. KC panicked and phoned me immediately. I rested her assure that the exhibited email was actually in my favour.

We arrived at court on Tuesday 23rd, with no judge yet assigned to the case. There were 2 judges floating so TG presuaded the opposing counsel that we should all go home for the day and secured Justice Bodey ( one of the floating judges) for a definite hearing the next day. They agreed! TG is labelled the 'Cat's Whiskers' for a reason. Justice Bodey was the judge who had ordered the probihition of  Nuria's operation in  January. He's "like an old woman" said TG. He was the perfect judge for us!

The first day hearing on 24th, the judge needed 3 hours to read the 600 page bundle and so we were sent away until 2pm. After lunch, the child pyschologist went in the dock first. Her pyschological assessment (back in late February) of the children was in favour of a non-return to Spain. DC had strongly opposed the children from seeking legal representation for themselves and from seeing the judge. The opposing barrister (ED) was silly as to get up the psychologist's nose in his cross examination and so had inadvertedly opened doors for the judge to see the girls, contrary to what they had so strongly opposed. So it was ordered that the psychologist interviews the girls again to establish whether their general feelings and wishes were still the same and the judge said that he would like 2 minutes with the girls, just to say 'Hi'.

My cross examination lasted 3 hours. ED was irriated by the fact he could not trip me up or corner me. Actually, some of his questions were quite stupid. One example ( whereby father had said that it was agreed that the relocation was suppose to be temporary for 1 or 2 years only).

" Wasn't it agreed  that the children take a course in England for one or two years?"

" No, I would have never agreed to such thing. No responsible parent would do that! To suggest that a child should move to another country and under-take a course in a different language temporarily would be insane. Perhaps if they were diplomats or for other work reasons then this would be feasible, in which case the children would be enrolled in a school that taught in the same language"

And so the relentless questioning went on. At one stage, I really pissed him off by asking him if the last sentence he'd said was a question, affirmation or statement. No matter how much he tried to put me under duress, I kept calm. To one question, whereby he pushed me to give him an answer, I said " can I just finish reading !"( the statement in the bundle). My solicitor said that I did super well and liked the fact that I didn't allow ED to bully me.

It goes to say, that when one tells the truth, it's easy to recall facts.

Now it was my ex's turn to go in the dock. Being the sly person he is, he re-entered the court room before anyone else, made his way to the dock with his own bundle. Luckily TG's under-study spotted him switching the court room's bundle. It was pointed out to him by his own solicitor "in England, you're not allowed to have your bundle, you have to use the court's bundle"

My ex's cross examination by TG was also about 3 hours long. He, of course had an interpreter who was brilliant and mimicked every single audible and inaudible sound my ex made. For the first 15 minutes, it was quite easy, really just affirming some factual details, addresses,  what he did and what mother did with kids during the summer holiday etc. TG then extended his cat claws to twang his whiskers. My ex was white with fear. He babbled, stumbled,  obviously confused and blatantly lost in the sea of lies whilst being fried in the hot oil. It was actually painful to see him in the dock. It was like watching a cat playing with a mouse before killing it.

My ex never expected this. He was very familiar to being in lower courts in Spain but now finds himself in the British High Court, being cross examined by a High Court barrister. TG's cross examination notes consisted of a spider web with important points circled at very line. He'd explained to me his cross examination techniques afterwards. Basically, not to follow one line of questioning but to have interlinking lines which was dependant on the answers given. ie. basically boxing the witness to a desired conclusion or fact. TG was brilliant! He had used my ex's affirmed facts and his own exhibits to corner him; Three personal emails of his and his girl friend to the girls. One email to me before the agreement was signed. And most devastating  (*) email, in which the Barcelona lawyer had stated " Mr E. would only accept the agreement if the flat owned by Ms L. was sold and the debit for which Mr E was responsible for was eliminated". The flat was in deed, sold!

ED ( his barrister) attempted to salvage a minor point, by asking my ex a question, to which the answer should have been a yes. But he said NO! At that point, ED just gave up.
On the fouth and last day of the hearing, the psychologist (after having interviewed the girls again) gave more evidence in the dock and swore that she's 100% confident in saying that Nuria does not want to be returned to Spain. It also came to light that my ex had bought his Spanish lawyer to London and during his over-night contact time he had with the girls, introduced the lawyer as the half-sister of his girl-friend. Nuria said  the Spanish lawyer / half-sister had  asked her many pertinent  questions. Everyone in the court room gasped in horror.

Then came the two barristers' final submissions. ED had nothing against me, so reverted to past judgements. He attempted his excuse his client's poor cross examination performance by comparing the two parents; the mother being a businesswoman, articulate and sophisticated whereas father was obviously less sophisticated and with other limitations ie. she had the mental ability to premediate the abduction and the father was completely innocent due to his humble education!

We had a three and half  hours lunch break whilst the judge deliberated and wrote his judgement. TG invited us to lunch in a private members club off the Strand. A sanctuary, a place far from the madding crowd. I ordered baked hake and lemon tart which appeased my empty stomach.

Back in court by 4.20 pm whereby the judge commenced reading his judgement. I'd been warned that Justice Bodey is a considerate judge and would not leave his ruling until the last sentence as he appreciates the enormous anxiety that the plaintiff and defendant would be under. After about an hour, his rationale was that the mother's logical time line and consistency was preferred and therefore mother had established Consent Defence under Hague Convention Article 13(a). Tears ran down my face. The next ruling was that he was satisfied that Nuria had reached  an age of maturity and had accepted her well grounded objections to being returned to Spain and thereby Objection Defence Article 13(b) had been established. He further went to exercise his discretion  that Nuria views had not been influenced by mother. Maxine, though is ambivalent as where she lives, had stated in February that she wanted the judge to know that "if he puts me somewhere I don't want to be, I'll be a bad girl" . It had been established that she is a good girl and happy in England.  He also states that the return to Spain for the mother would have seriously affect her mental well-being and consequently have adverse affect on the children.  Even our cats, Sam and Tinky got mentioned in the judgement. The judge finished reading at 6pm! Application dimissed!

Winning a Hague Convention under Article 13, means that my ex can still apply to the Spanish courts  for them to decide where the children live (Brussels II revised Convention of 2005). However, it would be difficult for the Spanish courts to over ride or quash the rationale made by Justice Bodey. Therefore any application  the father makes will be furtile. 

I think only the judge, the two legal teams and  I know what  the true rationale was. Meanwhile, the father is probably still figuring  out how he got caught out!

This blog entry is exactly two months since  the served originating summons. It is  an end to an end.

I would like to dedicate my gratitude and thanks to the people who had contributed to winning this case:-

-  Dong & Hung for having been there when I needed them, especially picking up the phone to hear me rant.
- Stephanie, Miguel, Rodri, Joan Marcos, Marina, Sonia and Richard for their support and testamonies.
- Curtis, my mentor who guided me through the finer points logic and reasoning.
- KC, TG and Janet who went that extra mile.

Glorious Britain.......NOT!

Britain is spiralling down the convenience! I'm comtemplating of voting Conservative in the next general election. In hindsight, the Thatcherite years were glorious. Jesus Crist! how has my political views shifted?