The Appeal Court Decision is outrageously unjust, totally biased and massively scandalous. If anybody is in any doubt that this process is a sham and a mockery of the EU Human Rights Charter, please keep reading.
One of the top divorce lawyers in Austria submitted my appeal: 60 pages of concrete evidence of gross misconduct by the judge Susanne Gottlicher and Social Services in the father’s district.
- for custody,
- for better visitation rights,
- to fine the father for cancelling so many of my visits
- and the chance to hold more hearings and reconsider the case,
were ALL DENIED
The Appeal Court have dismissed every single one of the following arguments included in my appeal:
- There was no chance to present evidence (Appeal Court decision states it’s irrelevant how the mother would have proposed to raise the children, it only matters whether the father is a good enough parent)
- Witnesses were seen behind closed doors in secret courts without my knowledge so neither I nor my lawyer could cross-examine them (Appeal Court decision states it wouldn’t have made any difference to the custody decision if I had been able to be there and question the witnesses)
- There was no assessment of the father or children (Appeal Court decision states that it’s irrelevant that the custody decision was based on a now discredited psychological assessment of children which is 3 years out of date. The children were 14 months old when they were last examined. They are now 4.5!!!
- Many witnesses were not called to give evidence (Appeal Court decision states this is irrelevant because any testimony from these witnesses wouldn’t have changed the outcome. Even though one of the witnesses had observed the shocking state of the children during a visit and wanted to describe to the judge their severely disturbed and worrying symptoms. The judge ignored my application and never called her to court to present this evidence. Appeal Court decision states this is not evidence of misconduct!)
- Reports from Chabad kindergarten about children self harming as well as anonymous danger reports from neighbours in father’s building about the children screaming hysterically for hours has all been ignored
- No investigations into why father had children’s teeth removed
- The Social Services have never spoken to me (they submitted a totally one-sided report recommending the father for full custody after ‘intensive discussions’ with him alone)
- There has not been a single custody hearing
- Children in nappies and not speaking at 4 years old ignored
- Children held back a year in kindergarten because of their delayed development ignored
- All signs of severe trauma and psychological disturbance by children ignored
- All evidence pointing to father’s personality disorders ignored and no assessment done on him
- Plus, the mystery of the ‘vanishing documents’ – a whole host of damning evidence in my favour which has ‘disappeared’ from the court files ignored.
- Father’s eviction order by the police,
- His restraining order
- A series of social worker reports recommending me for full custody and strong insistence on ONLY fully supervised visits for the father with the children because of his violent nature
- Court testimony of senior psychiatrist, colleague and friend of father in the Vienna Jewish community, Dr Paul Foldes, who supported my ex husband in trying to falsely commit me to a mental hospital despite admitting he had never even met me or spoken to me! In court hearing Foldes denied falsely diagnosing me with ‘paranoid schizophrenia’ and claimed there had been a ‘misunderstanding’ that day
- Testimony of the gynaecologist, Dr Ambros Huber, who confirmed in court there was NO POST NATAL DEPRESSION. Yet Gottlicher stated ‘it could not be ruled out’ in her grounds for final custody decision.
- Visiting Centre reports of the children screaming when they saw they father at the beginning of his visits
The Appeal Court ruling states, ‘the fact documents were not serialized and/or are missing from the file is ‘irrelevant‘ to the case.
Not only that, the decision includes blatant lies, including the statement ‘the mother didn’t take the children for a hearing test’ after I submitted the hospital reports clearly showing that I had taken the children for hearing tests on 3 occasions!
The ruling includes nonsensical and outrageous statements such as:
- ‘The argument that a young mother didn’t know how to use suppositories (immediately after the circumcision) because they are not used in the UK is no excuse for her inability to use them.’ (all letters of UK doctors I submitted as evidence totally disregarded)
- ‘It is now proven beyond all doubt that the mother does NOT and has NEVER suffered from mental illness but this has no direct correlation to child-raising abilities’
- ‘The main question is not the failures of the process in the past but who is the better parent to look after the children in the future.’
- The 2011 Danger Report which states the father ‘showed no recognition of the children’s needs and oversteps boundaries’ is irrelevant now because it doesn’t say anything about the adequacy and competency of his parenting skills today
- ‘It’s irrelevant whether the mother is capable of child raising or not, the only relevant concern is whether the father is a good enough parent’
- It’s irrelevant whether the mother recognised the development delays too late or not. The only concern is whether the father is a good enough parent.
- ‘Even if one of the parents didn’t act in the best interests of the children in the past (I submitted pages of evidence about the father’s dangerous and violent actions), this is irrelevant to a custody decision now.’
- ‘It’s irrelevant that the mother fled to a refuge for battered women and the circumstances and reasons for the father’s eviction from the family home are also irrelevant.’
- ‘It’s unclear to us what relevance it is that the father brought the police with him to take the children away from the mother’ (even though Austria ruled it illegal to remove such young children by the police)
The decision also shows clear bias: It includes a submission by the father – a report by the private Chabad kindergarten – to support claims that the children are ‘well developed’ with their father.
On Visitation Rights:
- ‘The fact that the father doesn’t grant the mother regular contact to the children when she wants it is understandable.’
- ‘A ruling on visitation rights must take into account the needs of the children.’ The decision acknowledges that the psychologist recommended regular access to both parents and recommended that both play a critical role in raising the children but states ‘because of the therapy the children need, they should not see their mother more often.’ ‘The age of the children makes longer intervals between visits easier for them.’
I can only see the children on Tuesdays (11am-5pm) and every second Sunday (9am-5pm) No overnights and no weekends. I have to continue to pay 44 Euros per visit.
Dr Kriegler, the lawyer who submitted my appeal, said he was ‘shocked’ by this decision.
Justice must not only be done it must also be seen to be done. In this case no attempt has been made to even appear just and fair.
SAMUEL & BENJAMIN DESERVE JUSTICE