 
## Child Kidnapping in the Isle of Man.

## It can happen to Your Kids too!

### A crime against half Russian children by Social Workers in a land where timid politicians shut their eyes to evil.

## Richard Stevenson
This is the story in novel form of three children snatched by the Isle of Man care system due to an undiagnosed rare medical condition of one child. They have been prisoners for 5 years and the IOM Courts condoned this. It can happen to your children, so is the IOM a safe place to bring up children? John and Vera came here for better education but the worst school in the UK would have been safer.

© 2019 Richard Stevenson. This is the nom-de-plume of the author, who cannot be named for legal reasons. This copyright notice is subject to the provision that if attempts are made by the IOM authorities to suppress this book by taking it off the Internet, that he authorises any and all persons with downloaded copies to upload it to the net again. No other rights are conferred by this conditional reload license.

Richard Stevenson reserves all rights over printed editions of this novel. All International filming rights for this novel are retained by Richard Stevenson, although this is purely his nom de plume, in which he relates in novel form the sufferings of John Stevenson, John's Russian wife Vera, and their beloved half-Russian daughters, Olga, Tatiana and Maria.

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely' is a well known axiom. It was true in the Isle of Man in 1662. Students of Manx history will know that the arbitrary and unjust rule of the Stanley family and the judicial murder of Illiam Dhone in 1662 prompted the Stevenson and Christian families to campaign for a limitation of such powers, which was accomplished in the Act of Settlement in 1704. This is often called the Manx Magna Carta. One of the people spearheading that campaign was John Stevenson of Balladoole, and it was said of him that he was "an unflinching champion of popular rights and liberties."

Just as the powers-that-be betrayed Illiam Dhone to death in 1662, so the Island was in need of champions of liberty, so the authorities in the child care trade today act in a brutal and corrupt manner, as they have absolute power, so the name of John Stevenson seemed right and fitting for one of the central characters in this book which I hope may lead to root and branch reform in the Isle of Man. The novel is told through the eyes of Richard Stevenson. This name is also honoured in Manx history. Richard and John Stevenson and the author share a common ancestor, and the author prays he may be worthy of the Stevenson and Christian blood in his veins.

Paradoxically, although John's wife is Russian, her ancestry can only be traced back a century or so, but John's Russian ancestry can be traced back to 862AD. Their real children have Russian names, though not Olga, Tatiana and Maria of the novel. To give their real names would give the authorities an excuse to imprison the author. Students of Russian history can guess why those three names have been selected for the novel. John's daughters are prisoners of a cruel regime, so what better names for their pseudonyms than three beautiful Russian prisoners who died a century ago. They were the Romanov grand duchesses, and John's three girls are his little Grand Duchesses.

Improbable though it may sound, John's 'Grand Duchesses' are descended, as John is, from a true Russian Grand Duchess who was born a thousand years ago. She became Regent of France when France was under threat from William Duke of Normandy, and no French noble had the courage to rule. She saved her adopted land by wisdom and courage, and William turned his attentions elsewhere, as we know from 1066. May the example of Anna Yaroslavna of Rus, guide our family as we too strive for freedom and the freedom of all prisoners of IOM Social Services.

A false account by Nurse S misled the magistrates into granting an emergency order on false accusations of loss of weight, children cowering and failure to cooperate with health professionals. A social worker had produced a string of allegations such as all children were on the verge of closing down, but professional witnesses had now confirmed this was not true, and the 'hired gun' appointed by the Department to bolster up their case was scrupulously fair. He agreed the children were clearly upset by what John had referred to in Court as kidnapping (and had been reprimanded by the judge for doing so, but John feels kidnapping is kidnapping is kidnapping.) If the kidnappers feel offended by being called kidnappers, should they not put themselves in the position of the defendants in the Nuremberg war crimes trials. Most of the acts of the Nazis from 1933 to 1945 were covered by government decrees, legislation and court orders from evil judges, but the excuse that there was a bit of official paper justifying something does not justify a crime against humanity, and was not accepted at Nuremberg.

**

In the Stevenson case, the first guardian, who rubber stamped whatever IOM social services did, churned out the standard platitude that the children, in view of their closeness, should not be separated; the replacement guardian said the same thing, probably truthfully. The judge said it, but within weeks of the court decision, Olga had been torn from her two sisters, and has remained separate from them for two years. The social worker who led the original assault on the family has made great play that the children would not be separated, but like so much of what she said, it was what was convenient at that time. It was a repeat of the claim that neglect had to take place over months or years, and Olga's deterioration happened in two days, and then it was weeks or months. She said whatever seemed expedient at that moment, rather than the truth.

**

At page 21 of his report Dr N said "Olga was expressive in contact and engaged warmly and affectionately with both parents. She was physically affectionate with her father and indeed her mother. There were some other moments when she was seeking for more affection which mother did not respond to. When she did respond these were usually very positive and Olga clearly got a lot from these interactions." John thanked the witness for this comment, suggesting 'that was my sense of her relationship to both of us.' Dr N replied, 'Yes, all three children are affectionate children.'

**

Contact time is NOT 'quality time' as social services pretend, but time when the parents and children have a few precious hours together, but know they are under a microscope. Olga once whispered to John, 'Don't trust any of them, dada.' It showed how good Olga was at summing up trustworthy and untrustworthy people.

**

We now come to one of the most shameful remarks made by Ms Q, In one passage the social worker proclaims, "it is my professional opinion that due to her lifestyle she has had limited access to experience the British way of life." The implication is clear, is it not? 'This stupid foreigner is lucky enough to live in the promised land. She could not possibly prefer her backward ideas to the British Way.' The comment about the British Way is patronizing and racist. There are good things about "The British Way", but the population of the world in 2013 was 7.1 Billion: the population of the UK was 64 million people. The great majority of the world does NOT follow the British Way, so is there something extra good about the British Way?

**

Mr W, who visited the house with social worker Mrs Q on 4 November 2014, and had been a part of the 'care team' who had placed Samantha Barton where she was to be murdered, had a plan for Olga, Tatiana and Maria. Thanks to false evidence from Nurse S, the police and Mrs Q at the EPO hearing on 19 September 2014, and the subsequent extension of that into an Interim Care Order, Social Services knew they were in the driving seat, so there was no need for the plan to be fair or likely to lead to the children being freed.

**

Despite a signed agreement approved by the representative of the Attorney general, by the court, and signed by the parties, Mr W had forced a reference to psychological assessments into his replacement plan. In effect he has torn up the agreement signed by the department, even though the parents had kept to their word not to contest the ICOs.

His principal ground in the blackmail meeting on 9 March, was Vera's hand washing tendencies. When he was challenged to write a letter to Vera that the low hygiene standards of the contact centre, where a deputy manager had said it was OK to eat off the table, were no threat to safety, he instantly refused to do so. In other words it was perfectly in order for Vera to risk Olga's life but if, like the two children in Seattle, Olga paid for these low hygiene standards with her life, he was not going to accept any more blame than he had when Samantha Barton died.

**

John noted, 'They had asked for a ride on the Laxey Mines train, and Olga said she would eat the rest of her biscuits after the train ride. They enjoyed the train, and on their return Olga asked for her biscuit. As she said she was hungry and a second biscuit was within the permitted diet, I took the packet out of my pocket and was instantly told Olga could not have the biscuit as it was too late! I returned it to my pocket. Olga reasonably wanted to know why she could not have a biscuit? Clearly I could not tell her I had been forbidden to give her a biscuit, so I took your [i.e. social worker Q's] instructions and told her to ask you.'

On a previous occasion, Tatiana asked for some money and John gave her a 1p coin, as that could hardly be deemed subversive. To his disgust, the coin was returned to him after the children had left, so a member of staff had actually forced a child to hand over a 1p coin! John managed not to say Scrooge was alive and well in the Contact Centre, but he certainly thought it. He had never heard of an adult snatching a 1p coin from a child!

**

A point John repeatedly made was that six health professionals failed to identify Addison's between March and September 2014, so he and Vera could not reasonably be expected to do so, whilst the list of medical appointments shattered the claims of failure to work with health professionals. Dr Z had said the difference between good and bad treatment would be knowledge of Addison's and prior to an Addisonian crisis, even health professionals often did not spot it. From September 2014 it was known but under departmental care, Olga had another crisis on 28 December almost identical to the previous one, but with the key difference that Addison's was now known and there should have been proper directions to foster carers etc as to what to do. Dr Z had agreed to all of these points. Who does that point the finger of blame to? It has to be Social Worker Q who was the responsible party and who failed to prepare such instructions.

###  Dedication

This book is dedicated to ALL the child victims of Isle of Man Social Services and their parents, but these children cannot, because of the official terror of publicity, be named with one exception, and that is Samantha Barton, who was murdered in care in 2002. Social Services exploited her death to make things worse for other children. I pray this novel may help redress this, so Samantha's death will not be in vain, but other children may live in hope through her and John's kidnapped children. To the children who must be anonymous, I pray for freedom for all of you, and not just for John's three kidnapped children.

Social Services headquarters are in Murray House, which is named after the Dukes of Athol. It was a fitting choice of name for such a building, as the last Murray to hold high office was Bishop Murray who, although comfortably off, sought to increase tithes on the poor of the Island which led to the Potato riots of 1825, in which the bishop had to take shelter from Manxmen outraged at his lack of compassion for the poor. In the end the English government moved him off the Island to defuse the trouble he had stirred up, and he was taken to the boat with an armed escort. With a bishop like that, Murray house is perhaps a fitting name for the headquarters of an organisation as cruel as IOM Social Services!

Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin, and set a keg of gunpowder under slavery. I hope this book sets a (metaphorical) keg of gunpowder under the corrupt and evil child care system of the Isle of Man.

This book is also dedicated to the memory of Illiam Dhone otherwise William Christian, judicially murdered in 1662, and to John Stevenson of Balladoole, that unflinching champion of popular rights and liberties. It is also dedicated to John's wife 'Vera' and her parents Aleks and Valya who live in freedom in Russia. Valya said of the way they had been treated by the IOM 'Care system, that they were fascists. She used the word in a Russian sense meaning cruel and oppressive. She was right.

### Cover Illustration

Much as I would like to show the three child victims of this novel on the cover, that cannot be, so I have included a sombre view of Douglas Head. Why is it sombre? In two world wars, the Island was a vast internment camp, and the great majority of the internees harboured no dark designs against the realm. In the Great War, many were the German spouses of English people, others were waiters, musicians, governesses and people from all walks of life, some of whom had been here for 20 or 30 years, but with paranoid official hysteria, were swept into prison camps.

In the Second World War, many of those who had fled from Hitler, lest they be murdered, were imprisoned through the same paranoid official hysteria. Social workers' fear of another Baby P case has swept thousands of children into similar internment, and bad though England is, the Isle of Man is far worse.

The painting is from the Metropole Hotel on Douglas promenade looking towards Douglas Head and was done by a prisoner. Instead of the usual picture postcard scene, the weather is sombre and the mood is of despair with the barbed wire entanglement along the prom in the foreground.

When John's children were interned by social services, John and his wife became prisoners of a war the state must keep secret from honest people, and over the past few years John has come to understand the psychology of a prisoner. If you know the day of your release, and September 2028 will be the last possible date Maria can remain a prisoner of state, you are glad when each day is dropped into the garbage can of history, as it is one less horrible day till you and your loved ones are free.

In 2018, when it was ten years to the day before the last possible date Maria can remain a prisoner, John celebrated. Now less than nine years and three months of the prison sentence remain and September 2019 will take it below nine years in the prison camp of Mann.

When John can leave what to him is now the Island of Alcatraz for the last time, it will be a joyous day and as the Island vanishes out of sight, it will be a moment to savour. His father when John was a child said how sad the little boy was to leave the Island at the end of a holiday. On freedom day there will be rapture.

If before then, John can through his efforts, free the child prisoners of social services and bring accountability and democracy to the Isle of Man, then it will be good for not only the victims of social services but generations as yet unborn. If he fails, the Island will remain a place where no sane or caring parent would want to hazard their children.

If you wonder as to the timing of this 'novel', the Isle of Man boasts the oldest Parliamentary assembly in the world, although it carefully forgets that until Lord Loch was sent to the Island as Governor in the 1860s with orders to clean up the mess, it was a self elected oligarchy, whose greatest mistake was to jail a fearless newspaper man who exposed their antics. Each year, on 5 July, the Isle of Man celebrates its thousand year old parliament with an open air meeting at Tynwald Hill. In theory, Tynwald is the fount of Freedom. This novel is a challenge for the Members of Tynwald. Do hapless child prisoners of state stir your conscience, or do you prefer to wash your hands of evil, as Pontius Pilate did two thousand years ago.

You, the Members of Tynwald can make the changes, and if you do not, I hope that other better men and women will take up the burden at the next Manx general election. Joseph de Maistre said, 'Toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite' or each country gets the Government it deserves. I do not think the Isle of Man people or the child prisoners deserve the Social Services or Justice system they suffer under, and let us hope our current politicians say 'this must change' or it is up to the people to ask do our children deserve such a regime?

###  Preface

Throughout history, authors have used novels as a vehicle to demand reform. Perhaps best known is Harriet Beecher Stowe's book, Uncle Tom's Cabin, which lit a fire which engulfed the United States and destroyed slavery. Charles Dickens used fiction to campaign for children's rights, education and social reform, all of which were badly needed in his day. He was a great novelist and did much to make the reform of Victorian society possible. If Dickens were alive today, he would be far more adept than I in highlighting the abuse of children and families by Isle of Man Social Services.

William Stead was another great campaigner, though he worked under his own name. In 1885, he published a series of four articles entitled 'The Maiden Tribute of Modern Babylon' to expose Victorian child prostitution. To demonstrate the truth of his astonishing revelations, he arranged the "purchase" of Eliza Armstrong, the 13-year-old daughter of a chimney sweep, though he had no improper intent towards her. His actions made the passage of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 inevitable, but authority was so bitter at the way Stead had exposed their complacency, that he was convicted of abduction and imprisoned for three months on purely technical grounds, for he had no wish to abuse the child. Officialdom and the courts never lack the ability to show their own cruel nature, as we shall see more than one hundred and thirty years later. I wonder if they may decide to jail me? If I can achieve what Harriet Beecher Stowe, Dickens or Stead did for the children of the Isle of Man, it will be an unpleasant but trivial price to pay.

The novel is the story of what happened to John and his children, but lest you think I am biased, in the eyes of the Lord, all men are brothers, so you are my brother or sister, and John is your brother. The poet John Donne put it, "I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

If what happens in the 'novel' is based on true events, why should the reader not know the names of the child victims of IOM Social Services, and the names of the guilty, from the minister down to the most junior social worker? That would be just, but the reader needs to cast his mind back to the Baby P and Victoria Climbié cases in England. In both cases, family members so abused these helpless children that they died horribly. Victoria had suffered numerous injuries in the time she had been in England, and social workers had ample warning of the risks to her, and time to act, but took no action and she died. This was a case where action clearly was needed.

The Home Secretary appointed Lord Laming, a former chief Inspector of the Social Services Inspectorate to conduct a statutory enquiry. This was widely criticised at the time, as Laming had been head of Hertford County Council's Social Services which was condemned for maladministration and injustice during his tenure of office. A social worker was manifestly not the right person to investigate social workers' misconduct, just as a general of the SS would not be the ideal person to investigate the Gestapo impartially.

Social Services, even without the Laming Report, needed to learn lessons, and they assuredly did. The first and crucial lesson was that the media had slammed the failings of the social services departments, rightly saying heads should roll. Social workers took this lesson to heart, and adopted a much more aggressive approach to taking children into care. In rare cases, like Victoria, children should be taken into care, but Social Workers have adopted the approach, 'Better a thousand families should be torn apart, than one social worker should lose their job.' In effect, Laming's report became a blueprint for protecting social workers by seizing children on little or no plausible evidence.

Once a child has been seized in England or the Isle of Man, the 'officialdom can do no wrong' attitude of civil servants comes into play. We are all loathe to admit error but civil servants take this to extremes. To admit a mistake is to cast doubt on officialdom and if the original grounds for seizing a child collapses, as in the infamous 'brittle bones' cases, new grounds must be invented to justify continued detention of the children in care. The novel you are about to read is of a similar rare medical condition, put by a consultant paediatrician at 1 in 100,000. When John was accused of neglect after following medical advice to fast Olga, he blamed the GP. Later he realised the GP had no better chance of knowing the situation than he had. John was not legally bound to apologise to the GP in private, let alone in public. He did so in court, on the basis that the wrong to the GP had been in court documents, so the atonement had to be as public. Social Services showed no such willingness to acknowledge overhasty actions.

In February 2002, the Isle of Man had its own Social services scandal, with the murder of Samantha Barton and George Green at the Leece Lodge Care home, when both these children were in care. Samantha's mother, who had to speak outside the court afterwards so her voice could be heard, rightly blamed Isle of Man social services for failing to look after her daughter, saying, 'They should all be sacked. They should have sent those children home because they couldn't look after them.' There is an old legal maxim, Res Ipsa Loquitur, or 'the thing speaks for itself.' That a child should be in long term 'care' and murdered at the care home certainly does speak for itself. However bad the neglect of Victoria was, her death was when she was in the care of her family; not when she was in the charge of social services as with Samantha. Could Samantha have fared worse if she had been released from the custody of social services as her mother suggested? There was no suggestion her mother would murder her. What could have befallen poor Samantha that could have been worse than murder?

Once again there was a public enquiry, and that makes grim reading, not least when it came out that the IOM social care trade knew this child was regularly having sex in the care home at the age of twelve. If the actual parents of a 12-year-old girl knowingly allowed her to have sex in their home, the child would be rightly taken into care and the parents taken before the court. So far as I can find from the official report there was NO punishment for those involved in Samantha's care. Knowing how evidence over Olga has been swept under the carpet, or fabricated, when I read the Samantha Barton report, most of the witnesses worked for social services in some way, so how true was the evidence put to the enquiry? Was Samantha as bad as she was made out to be? Could it be that a troubled child had her troubles made worse by the way social workers regard their victims' wishes with contempt? Olga is on social services record as refusing to attend a review meeting as no one listens to her! Children tend to become more troublesome in adolescence, so what may befall Olga? Was Samantha neatly stitched up by her captors and her faults maximised to disguise their fault? What has happened to Olga so far suggests this is so.

I have referred to the social care 'trade,' for it is a multi-million pound industry which many people make a comfortable living from. Social workers adopt the view that they must protect their own backs regardless of the damage it does to children. Even worse, many services in the Isle of Man, such as fostering, adoption, supervised contact with children in care, etc, are contracted out to children's charities. In one case, a 'Charity' with a few hundred thousand pounds of donation income, earned millions from commercial services, and with just one paying customer, IOM Social Services, is in the position of any supplier of services to a monopoly customer.

There are suggestions that Samantha's mother was not a good mother but the child was in care long before she was twelve, so the mother is blameless over her murder. There are suggestions Samantha was a troublesome child, but do we really blame the child? Is that acceptable, or are those who had usurped parental authority over her and failed to use it capably to blame? Critics of this book will need to provide a very convincing reason why Samantha is to blame? I certainly cannot. Assuredly she could be foolish, but bad or to blame? No! If you would blame her, ask how much better you would have done in her shoes?

Samantha's mother rightly said, 'They should all be sacked. They should have sent those children home because they couldn't look after them.' I cannot fault that remark. I will make this challenge to the IOM Minister of Health and Social Care, 'Samantha died, so could she have fared worse if she had been allowed to go home?' I do not, of course, expect the Minister to reply. He will duck for cover, as he usually does, but his silence before the supreme court of public scrutiny will be eloquent proof of how right Samantha's mother was.

Far from being sacked as Samantha's mother said should be done, at least one of those in a supervisory role in Samantha's case in the run-up to her death was promoted further up the social services tree by 2014. Would the Minister like to defend that? It would be a mistake to hold your breath.

As with the Laming report over Victoria Climbié, there was an official report which was conducted by Mark Everall QC. Thankfully a senior social worker, who would look after the interests of social workers, was not appointed. Inevitably most of the witnesses were in some way involved in 'the trade' and had much to brush under the carpet. Would an enquiry upon the running of Auschwitz find fault if there were no prisoners to give evidence, only the guards? That was the case here.

Once again, social services exploited a tragedy to enhance their own powers to protect themselves, not least by throwing a lot of the blame onto politicians. Manx politicians now run scared of social service, and one wonders if other agencies are influenced by the same fear? Can Children in the Isle of Man expect fairness from anyone in authority, or are in a worse position than children in any other part of the British Isles, and that is bad enough. Sir James Munby, President of the Family Court in the UK strove to bring fairness to the system, but those reforms do not seem to have reached the shores of Mann.

The reader, if he or she is to begin to understand the surreal and horrific world of child care, needs to enter a horror story version of Alice in Wonderland, where normality is turned on its head. We have been taught to believe about dedicated social workers, foster carers and child care professionals, but this is not as the world really is in the child care trade which so many people make their living out of. Interestingly a retired social worker John knows of is so ashamed of what social services do now, that she describes herself as a retired local government employee.

Would any decent parent make an eight year old child clean up their own vomit? I suggest not, and if social services heard of such child abuse, they should take action. In our story, Olga, as a result of her medical problems, was prone to vomit, and the social worker admitted in court that the foster carer had spoken of making Olga clean up her own vomit. In the story, the IOM Court, in its compassionate wisdom, did not see this as a problem, nor did the head of social services or the minister. The first guardian was willing to disregard it. It was due to the second Guardian that the true facts came out, that it was not just a stupid remark as the social worker implied, but actually took place. If the events related in the novel actually took place, I suggest the Isle of Man has cause to be ashamed of its Justice System, the Fostering Service and above all, a social service regime that does nothing to dismiss such a deplorable foster carer. It is only a novel, so is it so? Again I challenge the minister to deny that a child with Addison's disease was made to clean up her own vomit, or is he the Minister for making children clean up their own vomit? If he is the Minister for making sick children clean up their own vomit, do you desire him as your MHK after the next election?

Social Services claimed the foster parents who had made Olga clean up her own vomit, would not play a part in the children's future. That promise to the court was broken in the novel. Did it really happen, or is it an author using poetic license? The same foster carer had so misled Alder Hey children's hospital that a tonsillectomy was agreed by Alder Hey and it was due to a courageous consultant in the Isle of Man and John's determination that an operation that carried an increased risk, due to her medical condition, was not performed. Within six months Alder Hey said it was not needed. The honest consultant has been replaced, but not the foster carer!

The Island is racist, or to put it in a wider context, discriminatory. From the novel it will be clear how the fictitious mum, Vera, is Russian, and how different cultures have different norms. Americans and Australians are much blunter spoken than the British, and the same is true of Russians. One of John's friends was an officer in the USAF. When they met John thought him the rudest man he had ever met, but soon found it was a different way of speaking by a fine man.

In the trial sequences in this novel, we read how John sought to introduce a 20 page research paper on cultural differences between Russians and Westerners to explain his wife's reactions to some situations. In the novel, the judge says they will not be paying much attention to it. Could this really have happened in a Manx court? Would a Manx judge say relevant evidence would be treated lightly? It sounds like something from the show trials in Moscow in the 1930s which led to many Old Bolsheviks being executed. In those trials, inconvenient evidence was ignored and false confessions were fabricated, and in this novel you will find words being put in the mouth of witnesses by the police, as you would expect in a novel about the USSR. Did it really happen in the Isle of Man? The Russian government after the fall of communism rehabilitated many of the victims of judicial murder in the 1930s. In 1662 the Isle of Man was guilty of the judicial murder of Illiam Dhone, who was rehabilitated by Westminster. Is the story of a judge saying in court that evidence would be disregarded true or dramatic composition? Richard cannot say, as that would cross the line between fiction and non-fiction, so the reader must decide for him or herself.

Is this justice? Would the IOM Minister of Justice like to say if he would approve of such an utterance in a court as are outlined in this novel? On the other hand, if it is behind closed doors in a family court, it could be conveniently swept under the carpet. Discrimination is at the heart of much cruelty in the world, Catholics to Protestants, Muslims to Hindus and Christians, the Nazis to the Jews and Slavs and that is just a snapshot. Ethnic cleansing took place in Bosnia in the 1990s and in Myanmar in 2016, and is the physical expression of racism. Racism survives when it is tolerated as respectable.

In the novel, a social worker wrote it was her professional opinion that Vera had not been sufficiently exposed to the British Way of life. If a social worker writes such words, I suggest this is racism. The Nazis believed Jews, Slavs and other ethnic groups were inferior, untermensch. Should the IOM Court accept the untermensch concept in a social care case, or does a judge have a duty to express outrage at such comments? If a witness said, 'Niggers are lazy' is that acceptable in a Manx Court? I find it embarrassing to even use that phrase as an example, as it is disgusting. I totally dissociate myself from such racist ideas, but does the court not have a far greater duty to say racism will not be tolerated?

Sadly the IOM does not have a good reputation; Illiam Dhone was sentenced to death so that was a judicial murder in 1662. Russia, so often held up as a brutal regime, abandoned the use of the knout, which was a fearsome whip, in 1917. England abandoned birching in 1948, but the Isle of Man persisted in torturing juveniles until 1972, when one of the child victims appealed to the European Court of Human Rights which ruled that birching was degrading and in breach of the convention in 1976. Manx judges were aware that the Island was bound by the European Convention long before that, but did nothing to rule against the unlawful brutality of the magistrates. In 1981, five years after the European Court ruling, and in defiance of the ECHR ruling, which was now the LAW of the land, a Manx magistrate sentenced a 16-year-old boy from Scotland to be birched. The UK had been humiliated by being associated with such sadism in 1972-76, so rather than relying on a Manx judge, the UK insisted a judge was sent over from the UK who would adhere to international law. Inevitably this sadistic local judgment was not upheld. It was 1993 before the Isle of Man formally renounced the torture of children and one of the reasons given in Tynwald was that it was no longer a deterrent, as the families of children tortured in the Isle of Man would make a fortune from the UK media!

There are a few genuine photos of Nazis with whips, but however grotesque it is, probably the best photo of a known uniformed torturer is of an officer of the IOM Constabulary proudly holding the new improved, i.e. more painful, birch he had just invented. Some people created worthwhile things, such as penicillin, microwave stoves, heart pacemakers. The Isle of Man invented an improved instrument of child torture. If the Island is proud of this, maybe the Three Legs should be replaced by the Three Birches of Mann to represent our improvements to torturing technology?

Graham Greene wrote a satirical novel, Our Man in Havana. Perhaps after this novel, 'Child Kidnapping in the Isle of Man', I may try my hand with a novel based on that bizarre scenario!

In normal cases the Court is open to the public, as justice must be seen to be done, and this is true even in trials under the official secrets act, though some evidence can be heard in camera. Child care cases are held in secret and the public are not admitted to such cases. Why? The official explanation is to 'protect the children,' but the real reason is that the majority of the population are decent compassionate people. If 'the people' knew of the extent of the scandal in which children are snatched from their parents to protect social workers, there would be a public outcry and demands for reform. MPs, (or in the Isle of Man MHKs) would be inundated with demands for a fairer system, or they would lose their seats at the next election, and rightly so. With proper political oversight, the dubious way in which social services gather 'evidence' based on hearsay and innuendo which would not be entertained in any normal trial, could not survive, nor could the casual way in which the Manx police carry out their duties endure. The Courts would have to offer more rigorous scrutiny to hearsay and unsupported opinions of social workers. If a police officer offered evidence, 'it's my professional opinion he robbed the bank' with no facts as proof, the case would be laughed out of court, but a social worker can do this. If reform ensues, social services would lose the 'protect our back' cases and only win where there is a justifiable need for a care order as with Baby P or Victoria Climbié, which is as it should be.

Apart from the risk to social workers ability to 'protect their own backs' there would also be risk to the Courts themselves. If the public could see the way in which a social worker's evidence is accepted, even if it is no more than supposition, 'It is my professional opinion....' or that social worker 'facts' which can be proven untrue, are accepted on the nod. 'It is my professional opinion actually means, 'We have no evidence to back up this unsupported guess, so we are disguising it to look as if it is evidence.' Sir James Munby did distinguish between such unsupported allegations and evidence, but this was not apparent in the Isle of Man court.

In this novel, a social worker alleged children were not allowed to play outside the house on the anonymous 'evidence' of a neighbour, but the father produced a photo of the children playing outside the house, so the claim was clearly false. Did it happen in real life? If a Court did not roundly condemn such false evidence, would there not be public outrage if the court were open to the press? This is another reason for secret trials, and why they must be ended.

How does the Court deal with such vague allegations? Does it probe them and reject those without firm evidence? According to the novel, it does not. Does it reject those where there is firm evidence from the family that proves they are untrue? See what happens in the novel. Again is it true or false?

I have spoken of the risk that I might be jailed as a whistle blower, and this is not a risk I can take lightly, after a heart attack and stroke. Somerset Maugham, once the highest paid British novelist, served in M I 6 in World War 1. Like Sir Compton Mackenzie he wrote of his experiences in novel form in Ashendon. Students of intelligence can link many of the incidents in his Ashendon stories with reality, but to make for a good novel, he often tidied up an unsatisfactory reality to a neat story. In this novel, has that happened or has the author told it as it was? He could not comment on this, other than to say how his historical books have been highly commended for their accuracy. In a novel, an author who wrote of an F15 Eagle flying at 5000 mph, would be laughed at, so a good novelist must get his facts right.

I referred to trials under the official secrets act. In such cases, even where high secrets of state are involved, a jury is selected to weigh the evidence, and jury trial is one of the great achievements of the British justice system, but why do we have jury trials? Most jury members do not want to be there, so would gladly avoid jury service, but if selected, must attend. Is a jury selected for its knowledge of the case, for example in a case involving medical error, is a jury of doctors selected? No, a jury is twelve persons selected to bring the independent view of the average reasonable man or woman to the case. Are they especially wise? No, a jury member can have little educational qualifications, so what are they there for?

Over hundreds of years, experience across the world has shown that judges and lawyers cannot be safely entrusted to be impartial or reflect the public concept of justice and fair play. By the start of the 1920s, public revulsion at the sentencing to death of mothers who, in the stress of child birth, had killed their own babies, had prompted juries to refuse to convict, and the offence of infanticide in these horrific situations was put on the statute book, through the refusal of juries to act in an inhumane manner, and through press outcry.

The outcome of the Great War, in which hundreds of soldiers had been executed for cowardice, when they were suffering from severe shell shock had sickened decent people, so the judicial murder of mothers who were temporarily unbalanced, was no longer acceptable. It may not be much consolation for the families of the murdered soldiers, but the execution of their loved ones probably helped create a less brutal justice system.

Juries, far more than judges, have long been the arbiters of fairness and public standards of acceptability, yet in care cases, children are condemned to be torn from their parents with no such scrutiny. The courts and social workers know a jury of reasonable men and women would not condone such an outrage. They hide in terror from juries and public exposure of their misdeeds.

The Romanian orphans scandal which broke as a story in 1990 after the fall of the communist regime showed the power of the media to force the authorities to clean up their act, but Romania was a desperately poor country, so lack of money was a major part of the problem rather than the 'protect my back' situation in the Isle of Man. If the UK media hammer the Island for its cruel abuse of children, maybe the lot of Manx children in care can be transformed as happened in Romania.

'Secret Justice is Not Justice' is true, but these are not just my words, though I wish they were. In 2013, in a case involving terrorism, where protecting sources can be vital, Lord Neuberger, the President of the Supreme Court said that other than in exceptional circumstances, judges should treat requests to hear cases in closed courts with 'distaste and concern'. Lord Neuberger added how hearing evidence behind closed doors was 'against the principles of natural justice.' Lord Hope, deputy president of the Supreme Court, was even more scathing, saying secret justice 'at this level' was not 'really justice at all.'

I agree with these learned judges, that secret justice, is not really justice at all, and that is what this novel accuses the Island of. You the readers are the Jury, so how say you? Is the Island guilty or not guilty as charged?

If the Island is guilty as charged, would any parent in his right mind bring up children in this picture postcard prison camp? Would he even want to visit the place on holiday, and put money into this evil place? Long years ago, people boycotted South Africa for apartheid. Do not the crimes of the Isle of Man against children merit like treatment? Apartheid treated some people as second class citizens due to race, but did not customarily break up families. The crime the Isle of Man stands accused of is breaking up families. Given the choice, would you find it more unpleasant to be treated as a second class citizen under Apartheid, which offends your personal pride, to or have your children kidnapped from you on false evidence?

Unlike the case which attracted Lord Neuberger's wrath, there are no security issues compromising intelligence sources, or possible death threats to witnesses or jurymen. The argument that it protects the identity of the children is facile. Their class mates will have seen them being collected by their parents and then seen a string of foster carers instead, so will know they are in care. Olga has been shunted between at least five foster carers, which is bad for her and is a give-away that she is in care. They only way this could be avoided would be if social services moved the children to a new school as soon as they were taken into care. Not even social services suggest that would be in the interests of their child victims! What happens if a child has five different foster carers over a period? Does the child have to move to a new school each time to preserve this fiction that the foster care is associated with them?

In this novel, more issues will become apparent, but a novel is the only way to tell this story, but is it a successful vehicle to get round official paranoia? One of the best known British authors was Sir Compton Mackenzie who was awarded the OBE and the Legion d'Honneur for his work for British Intelligence in World War 1. In 1932 in Greek Memories, he referred to some aspects of his secret service work, giving the name of the head of M I 6, and revealing he was known as 'C', but who had been dead for a decade. Nothing he said was harmful to security, as a senior foreign office official admitted, but officialdom was outraged. Mackenzie was tried for contravention of the Official Secrets Act in 1933. A nominal fine of £100 was imposed, but his law costs of £1000 and the pulping of the book had damaged him financially. Mackenzie took a brilliant revenge in a novel, _Water on the Brain_ in 1933. As it was fiction, it did not contravene the act, so Mackenzie could not be attacked again. As this book pilloried the absurdities of the secret service, it did real harm to the image of British intelligence, unlike Greek Memories, where Mackenzie had avoided doing so! Whatever is said about a novelist not drawing characters from real life, all novelists draw from the character of people they have encountered, and Mackenzie's characters are recognisably drawn from real M I 6 officers. As he was a known M I 6 officer, his novel had the seal of authenticity. The mandarins couldn't touch him!

Many years later another officer used fiction in the same way. Ian Fleming, the creator of James Bond was P A to Admiral Godfrey, head of Naval Intelligence. His 'M' was a tribute to 'C', and the inventor, M's secretary, and other characters in the original Bond novels were recognisably drawn from real life. Anyone familiar with M I 6 could name the true life prototype of Fleming's characters. Had Fleming not disguised it as fiction, he would have followed Mackenzie into court.

The powers-that-be were unable to prosecute Mackenzie or Fleming, as both used fiction to disguise events and characters they had encountered in real life. Does it stop there? No it does not! Graham Greene and John le Carre followed the same path, disguising real experiences and events as fiction. Greene used his wartime experiences with M I 6, and situations he encountered in real life to ridicule the service with 'Our Man in Havana', commenting, 'my real subject was the absurdity of the British agent.' Greene exposed the willingness of case officers to report dubious evidence rather than do their duty, and the complacency of M I 6 management, who preferred tainted evidence for their political lords and masters to admitting that they had nothing but drivel. It is not purely a British failing. The reason the 'Double Cross' system worked so well against the Abwehr and the Gestapo was that a 'source' shows how good an official is. Readers of this novel, when confronted with an eight year old child being forced to clean up her own vomit, and shameful official complacency, from the minister downwards, may draw their own parallels!

Mackenzie, from Greek Memories, was known as a retired M I 6 officer, yet used his own name in _Water of the Brain_. By contrast, I have cloaked the identity of the children and John and Vera with fictitious names, so I have moved a step further away than was sufficient to protect Mackenzie.

Countless books exist on literary styles. Some novels are written in the first person. Others are written as if the author was a recording angel on high reporting what A, B and C does. All sorts of conventions are touted, such as 'no head hopping!' Many classical novels do head hop with the author shifting from A's thoughts and perspective to B and perhaps back to A. This can be effective in a confrontation between the two characters. There is no right or wrong style, and a few authors can write a novel almost as if it was describing actual events. Frederick Forsythe in 'The Afghan' makes the initial chapters read just as an historical account of a genuine intelligence operation would read, which adds credibility to the novel. I have not slavishly followed any one style, using reportage, the first person, or recording angel approach, as seemed best to me. I apologise to the reader if he dislikes this. Most of my published writing is factual, and largely historical, so the approach used by Forsythe was something I am comfortable with.

If it is argued in court in an attempt to 'get the author' that by giving such precise detail in Child Kidnapping in the Isle of Man, the defence of calling it a novel cannot work, I would refer to the closing pages of Robert Ludlum's 'The Prometheus Deception'. In the novel, the hero accessed a video of a meeting of the 'conspirators' in the plot and the hero recognises them, including

The head of the FBI

The Speaker of the House

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

The head of Britain's M I 6

This is naming instantly identifiable high public officials as being involved in an international conspiracy, and my copy of this novel does not contain the usual disclaimer that any similarity to real individuals, living or dead, is coincidental. It is accepted as fiction despite the naming of recognisable but unnamed public officials with no disclaimer. Within moments, I could confirm the identity of all four actual office holders at the time the story was set, but I have been unable to find any successful libel actions against Ludlum, who at one time was the world's best-selling novelist, so there is a clear precedent for this degree of precision in a novel. Put simply, the trend in fiction is towards precision, so the character no longer fires a gun, but a Kalashnikov AK74, which differs from the AK47, and the novelist must get it right. Here, we have many consultants at Nobles, many social workers, many dieticians and GPs, so this story is less precise than Ludlum's book, with the head of M I 6 etc.

At the outset, I referred to some of the great novels written to right a wrong, such as Uncle Tom's Cabin or the works by Dickens. It is said the pen is mightier than the sword, and given the terror that the courts and social services have of publicity, they surely believe that. I hope they are right and that the sword of truth can slay the social services dragon and free the many children who are held prisoner in the Isle of Man.

I speak of John's three daughters who have been prisoners for almost five years, but he too has been a prisoner, and if public outrage at the fate of their children and all the other innocent victims of social services cannot prevail over evil, Maria will remain a prisoner until 2028, and so will John and Vera, with a sentence that is longer than most murderers serve!

At first, my concern was with John's children, but to their innocent parents, every child is as precious to them as John's children are to him. Are they any less important? How can they be?

How will the authorities react to this exposure of their crimes against children? Anger and embarrassment are guaranteed, but will they try to jail me? Clearly I can have no faith in the Manx justice system, so they may try it, but just as the Island was humiliatingly brought to justice in the Tyrer birching case in 1972-76, I hope that on appeal to England, if they do jail me, that such an outcome will not be allowed by the UK courts. Will they try to have this novel withdrawn? I am publishing via e-publishing as a way to reach a massive audience worldwide to expose the crimes of the Isle of Man internationally. If that harms the reputation of the Isle of Man, Tynwald knows what to do. They reform the abuse, and then in a sequel, I can write the heart warming story of the children, John's, and hopefully many other families, being free. Would that not reflect credit on the Island that good men and women had said enough is enough, and officialdom actually listened? I am selecting an American e-publisher on the basis that they are unlikely to be intimidated by mutterings from an obscure and corrupt rock in the middle of the Irish Sea.

IF THIS BOOK SHOULD VANISH OFF THE E-PUBLISHERS LISTS, it will be because of some form of official threats. If that should happen I hereby relinquish the usual copyright restrictions and ask readers who have acquired a copy to republish it as widely as possible. One person may not be able to stand unaided against an evil system, but if all good people band together, we can and shall prevail.

Another reason for publishing is that because of secrecy each family must fight evil on its own, but if other parents can be forewarned of the corrupt and sadistic nature of the system, they will know better what to expect and how to avoid the traps that are laid for them. As you delve into this book, you will see how devastated John's wife Vera was at the near death of her child and the kidnapping of all three children. When she was allowed to see them in contact, she was so traumatised that the contact staff, whose only customer is social services, could not wait to report how silent, how miserable and how apathetic she was. She was silent; she was miserable, but was she to blame? Is someone who has been beaten up by a criminal to blame for their bruises which may make them slow to walk about? Social services administer a psychological mugging to parents, and when they are distraught, use that against them. Many years ago, I was held up at knife point by four violent thugs. I knew if I panicked them, they might knife me, so I had to 'reassure' them that I was no threat to them. They robbed me and ran off. I was offered victim support, but I was delighted I was still alive. On the other hand I know how traumatic the kidnapping of John's children has been to him, and of its bad effect on 'Vera.' If your children should be kidnapped next week, try not to fall into that trap, as it will be used cynically against you by the supervised contact centre. I know this good advice is easier to give than to apply.

Does John blame Vera? The emotional damage to her, which finally led to a nervous breakdown was not her fault, so do we blame the victim of a crime for their condition after the crime? John wishes Vera had been able to throw off the damage sooner, but he wishes he did not have diabetes, so why blame the victim or the patient, when the fault is not theirs.

I have worried at the length, but a part of my goal is to alert other families at risk to the tactics that will be used against them. The dirty tricks are so widespread that families need to be forewarned. The book is around 184,000 words but Tom Clancy's Red October was 162,690 words and his block buster, Executive Orders was 462,282 words and thankfully we are nowhere near that length! If I can save just one child from remaining a prisoner of social services, that will be a rich reward.

I hope you find this fictional account of the severe risks facing parents and children in the Isle of Man helpful, and it warns you of the risks every child in the Isle of Man is in. If this is all true, is this the kind of society any reasonable person would wish to live in? Is it a good place for responsible parents to wish to bring up their children in, or would they be well advised in the interests of their children to move to England where social service departments are not quite so extreme, and the courts make some effort to protect children? If this novel is an accurate representation of life in the Isle of Man, would a sensible person with young children risk coming here to live? Can the Isle of Man government, which uses spin doctors to put up a glossy image of the Island to attract residents, say this is not the reality of life in the Isle of Kidnappers?

If the story is true, and not fiction, the names of the children have been changed as has my name, John's name and his wife's name, and all other persons involved. If it is true, I can repeat John's words or Vera's words, but if I quoted the words of others verbatim at all times, this could be deemed infringement of copyright, so a prudent novelist would amend remarks so they are not a direct quote, but he would not alter the meaning of what is said.

If the story is true and anyone thinks they can guess the names of people from their pseudonyms, on the basis that Mr Smith would be Mr S, or would not be Mr S, that is not so. The German Enigma coding machine made the mistake that a letter could not be encoded as itself so a cryptanalyst knew V could not be a V. This was a great help to code breakers, as I am well aware. Most people are not given their actual initial, but some are, to make such deductions unreliable. S could be any one of the 26 letters in the alphabet.

As this novel evolved, there was a strange familiarity to it, I realised it had become a court room drama in the mould of Perry Mason, the fictitious American defense lawyer who appeared in over 80 novels by Eric Stanley Gardner who had worked for twenty years as an attorney in California. Better known than the novels were the 271 sixty minute films made for CBS between 1957 and 1966 starring Raymond Burr. In the opening part of the films, the 'victim' appeared along with the other leading characters, one of which was the criminal and an innocent person would be accused of the crime by the bungling authorities. In the court room sequences, Perry Mason exposed the real villain, exonerating his client.

In Child Kidnapping in the Isle of Man, we have the victims, three adorable little girls, the cast which includes plenty of villains, and a team of conscientious and good doctors, and the parents. The parents are unjustly accused of the crime of neglecting their children. Even though newly found medical evidence convinces most of the medical cast that the parents and children deserve to be reunited, the villains persist with the crime and the Court as in any good drama, allows the children to be kidnapped. Soon we see the damage done to the children by social services, but will there be a happy ending? Tom Clancy once said the difference between fiction and real life, is that fiction has to make sense, and in this court room novel, truth and a triumphant freeing of the children to be reunited with their parents has yet to occur.

Court room dramas can sometimes be true, as with the novel and film 'Erin Brokovich,' where a woman fought against the energy giant Pacific Gas & Electric, and forced a $333m settlement for people rendered ill by water contaminated by chromium. The film, directed by Steven Soderberg was acclaimed, and a box office success. Less well known is 'A Civil Action' based on the true story of a court case about environmental pollution in Massachusetts in the 1980s. Court room drama, with the duel between the advocate of truth and a witness can be enthralling, as the novelist slowly develops the case until the truth is exposed. In this story, John probes the grotesque incident where a foster carer misled a hospital into recommending an operation which carried a high risk for his daughter by overstating figures by 500%. However improbably, the cross-examination relentlessly exposes the truth as in the best Perry Mason drama. Again is it true? I could not possibly say.

A true Court case which still raises suspicion was the trial of the Guinness Four, and most notably, of the Chief Executive of Guinness, Ernest Saunders. A convincing case has been made of anti-Semitism as the defendants were Jewish or thought to be Jewish, and non-Jewish members of the establishment, who would have been just as guilty as the Four, were never charged. The UK courts brushed the appeals aside, even though a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights in Saunders v United Kingdom declared that the defendants were denied a fair trial by being compelled to provide potentially self-incriminating information to the Department of Trade and Industry. If the ECHR ruled that the defendants had been denied a fair trial, the conviction must at the very least be suspect. In care cases, social services and the courts seek to force parents to incriminate themselves and exploit 'hired gun' expert witnesses to twist evidence to suit.

As we will discover in this novel, attempts were made to compel Vera to go into the witness box although she was a respondent, which is the legal name for a defendant in a civil trial, and the normal rule of law is that a defendant cannot be compelled to give self-incriminatory evidence. In care cases a precedent does exist stripping this sacred right from parents. A Manx lawyer said she was unaware of this until John actually sent her a copy of the precedent! Does this sound like the 'good old respectable British Way' or does it sound like the Stalinist show trials, or the antics of the Nazi court under Roland Freisler, the President of the People's Court?

Can true stories properly be used as the basis of a novel? Erin Brokovich and A Civil Action reveal that even in court cases they can, and I can list over twenty true stories that have been used by authors as the basis of their novels. Schindler's Ark was the novel on which the smash hit film, Schindler's List was scripted, and was based on the true story of Oskar Schindler. Operation Heartbreak, a novel by Duff Cooper was published in 1950. Cooper, as chairman of the Cabinet Committee on Security, knew much of the true story behind Operation Mincemeat, but could not tell it other than as fiction at the time, so joins Compton Mackenzie, Fleming, Green and Le Carre, as authors who used fiction to get round a ban on telling a true story.

An old Russian question used by Lenin, but which predated Lenin, is 'What is to be done?' The Manx state, in its own way is as corrupt and repressive as the Soviet Union was. It is for the MHKs, who are notionally the guardians of our rights, to redress the balance and strip social services of their repressive and evil powers. Tynwald, through statute, can also reform the courts and the police. The Royal Ulster Constabulary, though containing many outstanding and courageous officers who valiantly fought evil, was tainted by the actions of the B Specials, which had to be disbanded in 1970. Reform of the RUC was essential and reform of the IOM Constabulary is essential too.

If Tynwald fails to act, there is a general election in 2021, and MHKs who have not raised the flag for freedom of our children should be swept out of office by the voters. Then a new house, free of the detritus of the past, can act decisively. Years ago I recall a requisition meeting at which an MHK was asked what he had accomplished? He explained how someone had spoken to him about their drains, and another constituent about their pension and another constituent about their drains, and the audience started laughing. Children in my view are more important than drains.

Social services have damaged John's three children, robbing them of their family, their grandparents and their heritage, but they are alive, but as I say that, I think of Samantha Barton who spent half her short life as a prisoner of social services before her murder in a care home. More years have now passed since her life was snuffed out than she was alive for. Nothing can be done to make amends to Samantha, but other children do not need to suffer. We need action. In passing, perhaps when social services have been reformed, Murray House might be renamed Samantha Barton house as a tribute to this child victim of social services and a reminder that society will not tolerate such misconduct from social workers ever again.

Nelson Mandela was once reviled and imprisoned. Today statues exist to him all over the world. In Prague, a series of statues commemorate the victims of the Communist era from 1948 to 1989. Russia is demonized by the West, but in 2017, President Putin unveiled a memorial to the countless victims of Stalin, saying, how seeing the era clearly would help "prevent it being repeated." A memorial outside a renamed Murray House would help future generations of social workers to see crimes that have been committed clearly.

I cannot resist an old Manx joke which was told to me by a farmer many years ago. He said, 'Athol Street in Douglas is the only street in the world that is shady on both sides.' Athol St, as Manx residents will know, is the centre of the Island's legal profession and faces the court house; indeed the old Court was in Athol Street! Many a true word is spoken in jest is a perceptive comment. If the Island is to hold its head up, there have to be massive changes; if not, it is a place no right thinking person would want to be associated with or live in. I say that as someone with a Manx heritage going back 800 years, of which I was once proud. Now I can only feel disgust, but the fact that there is a bad apple, or several bad apples, do not make the whole barrel bad, unless we choose to allow that to happen. Before I die, I would like to see my pride in the Island rekindled, but reform of Social Services, the police, the courts, and the child kidnap trade is a massive task.

Alone, I shall fail, but with the support of the good people of the Island, who vastly outnumber the bad, and the people of Russia, as these children are half Russian, we can ensure that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth, as President Lincoln said after Gettysburg. Government for the people cannot mean a travesty of fairness as per this novel, any more than the situation recounted in Uncle Tom's Cabin was fair.

Do I hate the Island? A lump of rock cannot be good or evil. It is an inanimate thing. It can be beautiful or grim, as the Rhondda valley was once. People make a place good or bad. We look back with disgust at the Nazi regime in Germany, and there were monsters a-plenty there, but there were good Germans. I have no doubts that the majority of the people on the Island are good, so how could I 'hate' them. If this novel tells a true story there are villains as well. Personally I despise the magistrates who sentenced children to be tortured. What decent person could do that? As I have said, tempting though it would be to apply the birch to their bare buttocks that is to descend to their level. We demean ourselves if we even think like that, let alone do it. By exposing evil, it is certain that I will do harm to the Island in the short term, but when a surgeon cuts out a cancer, he harms the patient to cure him. I hope that I may cut out the cancer that is in the Island, for whilst I cannot respect or love it at present or wish to live here, I would be sad to die knowing it was not a place you could take pride in, as I once did.

If I should be imprisoned as a whistle blower to seek a reform that will benefit every good and decent person in the Isle of Man, then how does that weigh against the good I seek? In two world wars, young Manxmen died for freedom, amongst them my mother's brother. I too fight for freedom, but the worst that may befall me is a prison cell.

## Chapter 1 Gastroenteritis, a collapse and a conscientious doctor

John Stevenson picked up the phone. It was about 9.30am on Monday 15 September.

'It's the school; I'm sorry to tell you Olga has just been sick; can you come and collect her?'

'OK.'

John called out to his wife, 'Vera, Olga's been sick, so we need to collect her from school.'

'I'd better come as well, in case she's sick again on the way home, as you can't look after her and drive.'

'Yes, that's sensible. Will you get Maria ready then?'

'Fine.'

'While you're doing that, I'll ring the surgery as appointments vanish and she needs to see the GP today.'

Maria was four years old, and her nose was slightly out of joint as her two older sisters, Olga who was seven, and Tatiana who was five and a half, were both at school. Maria could not see why she could not be in the same class as Tatiana. She had always been a large child and was just as big as her slightly built middle sister Tatiana, and close to her older sister. Indeed people sometimes asked if they were triplets? As far as Maria was concerned, they were!

It had been a pleasant weekend with Maria's birthday and a cake for her, but now Olga had been sick. John knew dehydration was a problem with vomiting, so after they collected Olga, he made some dilute squash for her. From his mother, who had been a nurse, he knew small portions and to dilute the drink more than usual were vital. Olga wanted a drink, but within thirty seconds had vomited. A second and more dilute drink followed but that came back and all Olga could keep down was small sips of water with a tiny dash of squash to flavour it.

By the afternoon, Olga's vomiting had decreased and at 4.00pm she saw the GP. He examined her and said it was gastroenteritis and there was a lot of it going around, which John already knew from the grandmother of one of Olga's classmates. The GP told John to fast Olga for twenty four hours clear, as feeding her while she was vomiting would merely feed the virus and prolong the illness. It was not the advice he had wanted to hear, but he had expected. The GP prescribed dioralyte for her and on the basis her sisters would be likely to catch the virus too, for them as well, which was considerate of the GP. John read the instructions on the medication, which said it was to be taken after diarrhoea, but nothing about vomiting, but the GP had said she would probably start diarrhoea in 24-48 hours. The GP had warned how Olga might vomit again but it would diminish as the virus had nothing to feed on, and instead of at least four vomits on Monday after she returned home, it was just one small one about 8.30am on Tuesday, so all seemed to be going as forecast.

John decided it was safe to pay a brief business trip off the Island, as Olga was progressing just as the GP predicted. He could be back in a few hours, and would be back before Tatiana or Maria would have had time to pick up the virus, if he went immediately.

In the early hours of Wednesday morning, Olga wanted to go to the toilet, and seemed lucid, but just before 8.00am when she would have had 24 hours clear of a major vomit, she became unresponsive, which had not been hinted at by the GP. Vera rang the ambulance at 7.54am.

'My daughter Olga hasn't been eating for twenty-four hours; she was up in the night and had a bit of water, but she's not responding to me now. She opens her eyes but she can't talk.'

'Is she conscious?'

'She is conscious; she can open her eyes.'

'I can hear talking; is that her?'

'Our other two children.'

'Has she been vomiting all night?'

'No; she wasn't vomiting because she doesn't have anything to vomit out; whenever I offer any food it comes back.'

'Help has been arranged; don't let her have anything to eat or drink as it might make her sick and cause problems for the doctor.'

'Thank you; thank you very much.'

As Olga had begged for food as she was understandably hungry, Vera had offered her small titbits the night before, rather than full meals, but like the water the previous day, they had come back. She been told to leave the front door open and rushed upstairs to Olga and was carrying her downstairs when the ambulance crew arrived three minutes later! She was naturally very distraught with her daughter's lethargic state. She told them of the diarrhoea and the doctor's advice.

The ambulance crew administered glucagen to give Olga a boost, and said they would get her to Nobles right away. They asked Vera if she would come with the child? As John had been away overnight, Vera, who had already rung her husband, who was arranging to get back, said she would look after the other two, but Olga would be in the best place, in hospital. The ambulance crew said they could take the other two children as well, but Vera felt Tatiana would be best at school with her friends and school work to keep her mind occupied, and Maria at home in a familiar environment with her toys. To take them to hospital would emphasise the seriousness of the situation to them, so would not help them. Nor would it help Olga.

The ambulance left, the crew radioing in that the child was unresponsive. At Nobles Hospital, Dr Z, the consultant paediatrician, was standing by, and it was due to the care of Dr Z and his superb team that Olga survived, as Dr Z said she was within half an hour of death when she arrived at Nobles.

In Ramsey, Vera took Tatiana to school, returning home with Maria, who as usual was cheerful and playing with her toys. Vera felt Nobles would need time to assess Olga's condition. She had no idea how many hours that would be, but it would be several hours at the very least. If Nobles wished for information from her, they would ring, but for her to phone them, demanding information would only distract the doctors and nurses from looking after Olga and other sick children.

Her thoughtfulness to others was not to be replicated by IOM Social services. By midday, a social worker was banging on the door and screaming through the letterbox to be let in. If it had been a friend, support might have been helpful, but Vera had no desire to see a complete stranger who would probably have no useful information to give her about Olga, so decided not to let the woman in. When asked about it by the police later on, Vera explained, 'I was a bit scared by the lady that was knocking on my door.'

She had heard the old saying, 'An Englishman's home is his castle.' so assumed she was not obliged to let an unwanted visitor in. The social worker contacted the police, so now Vera had a social worker and a police officer, No 100, banging on the door. It was about 1.25pm or in other words lunch time. Vera wanted to sort out food for Maria and then to leave the house about 2.30pm to go to the school to collect Tatiana. Both of these seemed more important than letting in some screaming woman.

At 1.50pm, a woman police officer, No 200, was also summoned to the house and reported how she met Police officer No 100 and the social worker, and she too shouted through the letterbox. Many children would have been terrified with grown-ups banging on the door and screaming, but the police officers and social worker seemed oblivious to the fear they might be causing to a child. Thankfully, Maria took it all in her stride, playing with her toys in the back room or the hall.

According to his later evidence in court, PC100 forced entry to the house, whilst PC 200 told Vera she was under arrest on suspicion of child neglect and assault, but neither police officer was able to offer any evidence as to the nature of the assault, and Maria was still playing on the floor!

According to PC100, he helped PC200 to take Vera to her van and put her in the cell at the back of the van. After doing so, he returned to the house at 1.25pm and started a scene log. When this came out in court, John pointed out that according to PC 200, she had not arrived until 1.50pm, but according to PC100 he had arrived at 1.25pm, yelled through the door several times, waited till PC200 arrived, to force entry, where PC200 arrested Vera. After all this he returned to the house and opened his scene log and it was still 1.25pm, which was the same time he received the message to go to the house, and 25 minutes before PC200 arrived! It does not add up!

The police are professional witnesses and police evidence should be reliable, but It got even worse, for according to his evidence, PC100 had helped PC200 to take Vera to the police van which could give the impression Vera was struggling, so would help to discredit her. When PC200 was asked her version of events, she was adamant that PC100 had not accompanied her to the van, but had remained in the house. PC200, in her evidence, said she had spoken on the phone to Inspector W who had told her there might be a 4-year old child on the premises who would be at risk from the mother of the child who was in hospital, who had injuries consistent with ABH. Both officers, and a third police officer confirmed that there was no sign of any injuries to Maria who was well fed, content and actually played through this frightening scene, which hardly suggested a timid or injured child. There was no evidence of any bodily harm or neglect to Maria, but the officers apparently had no information from police HQ what the actual 'injuries' to Olga were.

In law, a social worker has no right to force entry to a house, so Vera was entitled not to let the banshee in, nor can a social worker seize a child, but a police officer is entitled to do so, after use of his professional judgement, by invoking a police protection order on a child. PC100 had no evidence of what the injuries to Olga were in hospital. He agreed there were no visible signs of any injuries to Maria, but with the absence of any evidence to go on, other than the demands of a social worker, swore on oath that he invoked a protection order at 1.35pm, although he could not have forced entry until after PC200 had arrived at 1.50pm.

To suggest the police evidence was chaotic and unreliable would be an understatement. It is clear that PC100 invoked a police protection order not on the basis of any evidence he had to go on, but merely on the say-so of a social worker. Is this exercising professional judgment, or surrendering professional judgment to a civilian? What would be the situation if Mr A said to a police officer, 'Arrest that man as I think he committed a crime.' The officer would be under a duty to see if there was any evidence and officers 100, 200 and the social worker had ample opportunity to speak to police HQ and social services to see if there was such evidence, as Maria's physical condition revealed no signs of injury or neglect. From their testimony in court, officers 100 and 200 simply accepted orders from a social worker without any evidence to back it. If Tynwald wishes a social worker to have powers to seize a child, they should say so. Manx law only gives that power to a police officer after he has exercised his professional judgment, but the IOM Police interpret that as obeying an unsupported allegation which flies in the face of the evidence available to the officers concerned. This is a gross infringement of civil liberties.

In a normal trial, where the court is open to the scrutiny of the press, if officers were so slapdash, the judge would be compelled to draw the attention of the jury to the massive and irreconcilable differences in police evidence and their casual interpretation of their duty. When John asked her if she found PC100 a reliable colleague, PC200 declined to comment! None of these differences were commented on by the judge in a 500 page judgement.

In many cases, time is of the essence. If X is seen in a supermarket at 1.25pm, and there is a robbery a mile away at 1.25pm, X can hardly have committed the crime. In this case the incompetence of at least one officer in recording times, hardly matters, but if the police could make errors on such trivial matters, what faith could be put on other evidence? Did it need one or two officers to take Vera to the police van? The only evidence the police offered was that a 4-year old child might be in the house and at risk from a mother with a child in hospital with symptoms similar to neglect and ABH, but Maria was adequately dressed, so she was not cold; she showed no signs of bruising or malnourishment, so the police officer had no evidence to suspect neglect or ABH.

When Tatiana and Maria were examined at the hospital by the consultant paediatrician, he confirmed there were no bruises or cuts and no signs of malnutrition. A criminal who was arrested under such nebulous grounds could expect the judge to condemn the police for exceeding their powers, but in care cases, Manx judges apparently accept that evidence is not required, nor is accuracy needed in a sworn statement by the police. Only the parents are expected to be accurate.

Later on, we will discover how the court used an omission by John from his statement, as to how he met his wife, which was fifteen years earlier, so was not relevant to the case, to suggest John had not been forthcoming, but he had not incompetently misquoted relevant times and events, as the police officers had, which attracted no condemnation. This hardly seems even handed.

John had tried to phone his wife in Liverpool, but by the time he did so, she had, unknown to him, been arrested. He drove off the boat about 10.00pm and rather than going home, had decided to go to Nobles hospital to see how Olga was. He had got less than 100 yards when he was stopped by three police vehicles and a total of six officers, who told him he was under arrest.

'But I need to go to Nobles to see how Olga is.'

'You are under arrest Sir.'

John was taken to Douglas police station. After a heart attack and stroke, caused by type 2 diabetes, John needed several different tablets each day, some taken in the evening, but when he said he would need to take his tablets, this was refused. In the end, he had to demand the police surgeon, who decided John must be sent to Nobles hospital. He was seen in the hospital. The doctor checked the medicine and agreed it was in order, so after a lot of stress, which is bad for a heart patient, John was allowed his delayed medication, but was not permitted to see his daughter.

As with Vera, he spent the night in the police cells. As the doctor at the hospital had approved the medicine, which was in a container for that day, John assumed there would be no problem in receiving his tablets next morning, but until he had again demanded to see the police surgeon, who approved the tablets immediately, he was refused vital heart medication. Ramipril decreases the risk of high blood pressure, causes blood vessels to dilate and reduces the risk of heart attack or stroke. The instructions say, 'take this medicine at the same time of day each day.' By delaying his medication the IOM Police were knowingly putting John at increased risk.

Not everyone who is arrested is in need of medication, but in the case of heart patients, keeping blood pressure and heart rate acceptable is vital. Being arrested is stressful. John made this point in court, but the judge did not see it as of any importance. John would ask 'what if he had a heart attack or a stroke as a result of the pressure he had been subjected to by the police and a lack of medication?'

In America, a mother whose child had been diagnosed with cancer, but who was desperately concerned at the severe side effects the medication was having on him, did not dispense the medication. She was convicted of attempted murder, permitting serious bodily injury to a disabled person, permitting substantial injury to a child and reckless endangerment of a child.

Not permitting a heart patient have access to medicine which is vital to regulate heart rate and blood pressure could be fatal far more rapidly than in the LaBrie cancer case, but it seems that different standards apply. Either the United States is far more conscious of the need for medication than the Isle of Man police are, or perhaps different standards apply if the person denying vital medication is a police officer? If John had died, would any of the police officers have been charged with a disciplinary offence, for causing the death of a prisoner, let alone murder? It seems that it is not the nature of the act, i.e. withholding medicine, but who you are that counts. Is that equal justice for all? John wonders if the Island has cause to be proud of this?

John and Vera were not released until after 9.00pm the following day, Thursday, and were told they could not go to the hospital to see their daughter, as she was under police protection. The police had been unable to produce any evidence of violence, for there had not been any violence, and the consultant paediatrician had reported no injuries or malnutrition on Tatiana or Maria, and only Olga was now in hospital. Again there were no signs of recent injury or violence or old injuries.

As the visit would be in the presence of numerous hospital staff, and as the police could spare six officers to arrest a parent who had suffered a heart attack, so was hardly likely to be able to vanquish one fit officer, let alone two, staff shortages had hardly been a factor on Wednesday evening, so if the police had any fears that the parents would launch a violent assault on hospital staff and their daughter, two or three officers could have been sent along, as the visit would have reassured the child, if she was well enough to see her parents and awake.

Ever since Olga had been born, if she had been ill or fallen over or was distressed for any reason, John or Vera were there for her. Now she was seriously ill and in hospital and when she needed parental love more than ever, it was denied her. As she could not know her parents had been denied permission to see her, it must have seemed to her that now she was seriously ill, her parents could not be bothered with her. What deep psychological damage would this do to a child? Is that in the interests of a child? There is, however, a more sinister explanation as we shall see the harm it did shortly. Was this psychological harm inflicted on a seven year old child intentional, as it was to be ruthlessly exploited by social services to claim weak attachment within the family?

Children can form very strong views when they may not have all the facts. John had been brought up to trust authority, police, teachers and so on. His parents were from different religious backgrounds, Anglican and Catholic, but he could never remember a cross word about religion as they were both tolerant, and if God is love, tolerance should be at the heart of practical Christianity. At the grammar school, as a Catholic boy, John was not allowed to attend morning assembly as an Anglican version of the Lord's Prayer was said. He was not allowed to attend the founder's day service, and recalls how hurt and rejected he felt. It was years later that he found it was not the school which rejected him, but a bigoted Catholic master who objected to Catholic children being contaminated by the Anglican version of the Lord's Prayer!

He was not allowed to attend class divinity lessons, even though they were on biblical history. Instead he was given Catholic books to read in a private study room. One book explained how a Catholic boy should only marry in the faith, and a mixed marriage would be unhappy with constant rows. When he read this, John knew it was untrue and took the book to the Catholic master and said the author was a liar. The master was outraged, but his outrage merely convinced John that he was neither a Christian, nor a good Catholic, but an example of bigotry. It was John's first experience of the evil of discrimination. Has this left a mark on John? Yes it has, but thankfully not the result intended by the Catholic master, of brainwashing a child against another religious faith. Through the wise guidance of his mother, who was Catholic, this brainwashing of intolerance by the teacher was directed into a life-long disgust at intolerance, and a belief that you should respect different beliefs and cultures. Good can come from evil, but what good could come from letting a child think her parents had abandoned her? We will shortly see what damage this evil did to Olga.

Is this in the child's best interests? John was horrified at this official sadism and said so, but the police dismissed it out of hand, just as they had sought to deny him vital medication. They could send six officers to arrest a 'suspect' who had a heart attack, but not one officer to bring some reassurance to a sick child. Is this something the Island should be proud of?

An Emergency Protection Order hearing was set for the following afternoon, Friday. As the couple had been in custody all day Thursday, they had no time to arrange a proper legal consultation, and the best that could be done was less than an hour with an advocate before the hearing. To John's dismay he and Vera could not be represented by the same advocate, and if separate defendants are represented by different advocates, it is a recipe for disaster, as each advocate is interested in their own client. If they can throw the blame on another defendant, that is all to the good, but much to the benefit of the other side. Vera refused to have an advocate. John and Vera had no time to gather much evidence, nor did the advocate have time to prepare a proper defence, so the hearing could hardly be fair.

Even if John and Vera had no chance to prepare a proper defence, the hearing should have been impartial, but the magistrates were keen to hear evidence damaging to the parents, and then grant the order and go home. The Department was represented by one advocate, the children by an advocate appointed by the court, and John by advocate M. The first witness was Dr Z, consultant paediatrician at Nobles Hospital. When asked about Olga's condition Dr Z said her blood sugar was extremely low, her blood pressure was low and sodium levels in her blood were low and she weighed 13.7kg on admission. Dr Z suggested she might have starvation ketosis which is when the body has insufficient food and uses reserves of fat and tissue in the body. Dr Z said that with most children, if they suffer vomiting or diarrhoea, they can survive for a couple of days on stored fat in the body, but Olga did not have that reserve.

Long term starvation followed by normal feeding can lead to refeeding syndrome, so with Olga now stabilised and able to speak normally, they were feeding her cautiously as they did not want to trigger refeeding syndrome. Although it was still very early, and long-standing malnutrition was the obvious explanation, Dr Z said, 'There is a very slight chance which I would put at 1 in 100,000 of an underlying metabolic problem, and we are conducting tests to consider this.'

It was a remarkable tribute to Dr Z that he had taken steps to avoid refeeding syndrome, which has caused other patients to lose their lives, and within two days, was looking at a 1 in 100,000 metabolic explanation, rather than starvation.

He said that Olga had been within perhaps 30 minutes of death when admitted to hospital; when asked about her sister he said, 'Tatiana is the second sibling and there's no sign of any recent injury or illness..... Maria is the third child.... There were no signs of recent illness or injury and she appeared well nourished...'

When asked by John's lawyer if the vomiting could be caused by the possible metabolic condition Olga had, Dr Z said, 'It's a possibility, but it could be that the gastroenteritis was the trigger for the sudden acute deterioration....'

As John knew Olga had not been starved he was willing to help the Court and produced a photo which had been taken two days before she took ill. Dr Z studied the photo and said she looked thin but not seriously unwell.

John's advocate asked, 'If there was malnutrition, should this not have been detected by the GP on Monday when he examined the child?' Dr Z said he did not know if the GP had weighed and measured Olga. John added the GP had not done so. Dr Z was asked what he would have done?

'If I had been involved, one of the first things is to get the nurses to weigh and measure the child, check the heart rate, blood pressure, so I have all this data before me.'

The advocate asked Dr Z how long the ketosis had been going on for, as this was a key to whether the starvation was short-term or long-term, Dr Z said, 'Sorry no. Ketosis can be triggered within a day or two.'

The advocate pointed out the fridge was well stocked with food in date. Dr Z said this did not mean it was necessarily getting into Olga's stomach. The advocate suggested Maria was well nourished and Dr Z agreed on further questioning that Tatiana was also well nourished.

The advocate for the children asked Dr Z to confirm that save for Tatiana's faltering height increments that she and Maria were in broad terms healthy? Dr Z was quite clear, 'Yes, I could not find any trace of recent injury or illness; both seem to be in good health.' The advocate for the children then put the key question,

'If an order is not made by the court that Olga be removed to departmental care, do you think she will, or is likely to, suffer significant harm?'

Dr Z replied, 'It's a hard question. All I can say is there's a likelihood that Olga will suffer if she does not stay in the hospital, and the other two I am not able to say how much risk that is.'

It was a well balanced answer by a doctor who was already looking at a 1 in 100,000 metabolic condition as an explanation but had to weigh the 99,999 chances against the one hundred thousandth.

John wondered if Dr Z would find the red books which record a child's weight, height etc from birth, and the following exchange took place.

John; 'All I want..'

Clerk; 'We don't want to hear from you.'

As John felt the information could be useful to Dr Z, he risked the wrath of the court,

John; 'The Red Book, if that would be of any help to Dr Z.'

Before the court could reprimand John for such effrontery, Dr Z replied, 'It would, we would like to take a copy for the medical records.' The court could hardly then express annoyance at John for offering something Dr Z would like for the records.

John's advocate glanced at the Red Book, 'I've found an entry in the "Red Book" it is a chart, and it appears she's always been underweight. Olga had been just three pounds when born prematurely by caesarean which is half the weight of a normal baby, but had picked up weight well with remarks such as excellent weight gain. It was only when Olga was five and a half that her weight dropped below the 2nd centile.'

## Chapter 2 An Evasive Witness

After Dr Z left the stand, the next witness was the school nurse, whose evidence was highly damaging and although John's advocate discredited her in many respects, the court was disposed to disregard such inconvenient matters. Some months later, it became clear that Nurse S had misled the court over Olga's weight from 2013 to 2014 and in many other ways, not least the damaging character assassination of John himself.

John cross-examined Nurse S in the final hearing in 2015-2016 and it will be clearer to take both hearings together. The first crack in her evidence came in answering John's second question. He said to her of her contacts with the family, ''You suggested it was on three occasions.' Nurse S said she would have to go through her records. John reminded her that from her own evidence she had asked John to attend the entrance assessment at school for Tatiana on 18 October 2013. Nurse S agreed, so John put it to her, 'I therefore cooperated with you as a health professional?' She had no choice but to say yes.

John suggested the second meeting was at the house on 4.04.2014, when she came unannounced at lunch time, but when John had asked if she could come back later, she was unhappy so he let her in. John suggested the third meeting was on 22 May 2014, again unannounced and at lunchtime. As Nurse S knew by this time that John had type 2 diabetes, which needed him to be careful about regular meals, his request for her to come back later was reasonable, but again she objected and was allowed to come in. John felt that to attend a requested assessment, and to twice allow someone in at lunchtime in view of his diabetes, was hardly consistent with someone who was hostile to services.

At the September 2014 emergency hearing, when nurse S had said she took the case over in September 2013, the advocate asked, 'If this was your case from September 2013, if you had concerns why did you not make contact with this family until 4 April 2014.' Nurse S replied, 'I believe the discussions at safeguarding supervision was that we would not exacerbate any situation as we were aware of Mr Stevenson's reluctance to engage with services, so we wanted to go carefully until there was a reason to go in.'

The comment, 'we wanted to go carefully until there was a reason to go in' was sinister, and suggested Nurse S had a purpose other than just safeguarding Olga's health. On 17 September 2013, the dietician had arranged an appointment with Olga, and her letter of ten days later showed how Olga had been reluctant to be weighed, until dada had sat in the chair to show her it was no problem.

Given this sinister comment about safeguarding supervision, John asked Nurse S what records of this meeting existed, but Nurse S was apparently unable to enlighten the court. This was not the first time Nurse S had been unable to enlighten the court, as there had been a bizarre exchange in court in September 2014.

Nurse S – I had spoken to Mr Stevenson before that.

John's advocate \- When?

Nurse S – I spoke to him on 21 October.

Advocate – How did you speak with him?

Nurse S – By phone

Advocate – About what subject?

Nurse S – I phoned him over a dietician appointment to find out when Olga's dietician appointment was, and Mr Stevenson said Olga had been discharged from the dietician, so I requested a letter from the dietician to document this.

Advocate – And did you get such a letter?

Nurse S – Yes I did

Advocate – When did you receive that please?

Nurse S – I filed it on 17 September.

Advocate – Surely that can't be right? You said that you phoned on the 21st of October and at that stage you said you requested a letter. Why would you be requesting a letter on the 21st October if you'd had the letter on the 17th September?

There was no clear explanation from Nurse S! In addition to the confusion over dates John did not say Olga had been discharged from the dietician, as that was not so. The senior dietician had suggested a further dietician appointment in approx two months time to keep an eye on Olga's weight. Records show the letter dated 17-9-2013 had been copied to the School Nurse Service, and Nurse S in her evidence admitted to filing it on 17.09.2013, even though it was not typed until 27.09.2013. This suggests an unreliable witness who files a letter ten days before it is written, and phoned John a month later to ask about when the appointment was! This was the calibre of evidence that the emergency protection hearing accepted from a witness whose evidence is manifestly unreliable. If magistrates accept that a witness asked for a letter long after she received it, and claimed to have filed it ten days before it was written, how reliable is she? Can the court reasonably place any reliance on such testimony?

In October 2015, John cross-examined Nurse S regarding the home visit on 4 April 2014. 'As you say you were unable to contact the family, you made an unannounced visit on 4th April at lunch time, so it was an inconvenient time to call unannounced was it not?' Nurse S alleged she was unable to contact the family by phone on 4 April 2014 or 22 May 2014. From a perusal of the health records and the school concerns log which is kept on all children, Olga and Tatiana were taken ill on occasion at school. On every occasion the school had no difficulty in contacting the parents to take the children home.

John had said to Nurse S that it was lunch time but she said in evidence she did not recall him saying so, but as she had been so insistent that he felt compelled to let her in the house even though it would delay a meal. From her own evidence, requesting a letter from the dietician on 21 October 2013, which was notionally received on 17 September 2013, although not written until 27.09.2013, her evidence is often unreliable.

Nurse S said her visit on 4.04.2014 was in connection with Tatiana's admission to Nobles on 19.03.2014. Medical records state Tatiana was sent home from school and was seen by the practice nurse at the Ramsey Group practice but with a temperature of 40.4 was referred to the GP who in turn asked that she attend Children's Ward at Nobles. John took her straight to children's ward as requested by the GP.

The letter from Nobles about this admission was dated 27 March but not typed until 11 April 2014. It reported a probable viral or parity tract infection with a high temperature and said, 'she is still drinking and eating OK', that cefuroxime antibiotic was prescribed and the final sentence read, 'No further follow up has been arranged for this admission.'

How did this compare with Nurse S' version of events in September 2014? Nurse S said Tatiana was admitted to Children's ward on 19 March 2014 and discharged the following day, adding 'I was following up the history of a low reduced BMI, a dietician clinic letter, and all the other information.'

This is untrue. Olga had been referred to the dietician service and had seen the dieticians in September and December 2013. Tatiana had NOT been referred to the dietician service, so there was no dietician letter. The only reference to Tatiana's weight was after Tatiana had been seen in clinic at Nobles by Dr Y for a parainfectious glomerulonephritis, Dr Y adding 'She is well in herself growing on the 9th centile, appears to be developmentally appropriate and there were no nutrition or growth concerns.' She had a BMI of 15.2. Nurse S's allegation in court in September 2014 of a low BMI and a dietician clinic letter were untrue, but this was part of the evidence used by social services to blacken John and Vera.

John's advocate quickly realised how unreliable Nurse S was at that hearing, and the following exchange took place.

Advocate – 'Who told you there was reduced BMI?

Nurse S – From the records.

Advocate – Who's Records are you referring to?

Nurse S – The dietician records, I'd need to check all of that information to get it exactly correct as I haven't had a lot of time to report.

Advocate – Well it is important you do get it exactly correct, as you've made some quite sweeping and damning statements.'

The advocate though she had only minutes to study the case had got to the nub of the issue, for it is clear Nurse S had no evidence from the dietician records or of a low BMI in the case of Tatiana, but despite the lack of such evidence, her testimony to the court gave such a picture. This created a false impression in the minds of the bench of two children who were malnourished.

As the advocate had exposed the unreliability of the witness, the magistrates should have treated Nurse S' evidence with suspicion. Having misled the court over the reason for her home visit on 4.04.2014, she had said 'I believe the discussions at safeguarding supervision was that we would not exacerbate any situation, as were aware of Mr Stevenson's reluctance to engage with services, so we wanted to go carefully until there was a reason to go in.'

Nurse S seems to have been confused over her contacts with the dietician service in September-October 2013. Her evidence was confused over Tatiana as no dietician letter existed and there was no evidence of low BMI, so what credence can be placed on her comment about a 'believed' discussion at a meeting that allegedly took place on an unknown date?

In October 2015, John put it to Nurse S that although she had done everything possible to make herself unwelcome by arriving unannounced, he had let her in the house and given her permission to weigh the children. He suggested that was cooperation but Nurse S seemed to think that as a 'professional' she had a right to do as she liked when she liked and said John's consent was grudging consent. John had requested her to come back later, after the family had eaten, but when she was insistent, had reluctantly let her in, so to that extent consent was reluctant.

John went through the dietician records on 17.09.2013, 11.12.2013 and 9.04.2014 with Nurse S which showed him working co-operatively with health professionals, and suggested they showed a parent who co-operated fully with health professionals. Her reply was highly significant, 'From these accounts yes, but my experiences were somewhat different.'

To get this far, John had been through the positive contacts with three dieticians over Olga, how he had immediately taken Tatiana to Children's Ward when a GP suggested that in June 2013, and how four Doctors, two being GPs and two consultants, had said he had cooperated with them.

Given this excellent record, John put it to Nurse S, 'I suggest that the allegation that I do not work with health professionals is totally untrue. Some of these records had been submitted to the court in the past, but I made the whole of the red books for the three girls and their medical records as supplied to me by the Ramsey Group Practice available to the court yesterday, as I prefer to be judged on the record rather than on an unwarranted allegation.' Nurse S was evasive in her reply, 'I could debate with you what a parent chooses to do and engages in advice with a professional in a wider sphere.' It was a disjointed reply to an embarrassing question.

The judge asked Nurse S 'Is there evidence the Red books were requested from Mr Stevenson?' Nurse S admitted 'Not for Olga, it's not recorded.'

Nurse S had tried to paint a false picture of malnourished and neglected children, so John felt it was vital to reveal her bias and unreliability. He asked her 'I would like your opinion on how rapidly a child of Olga's age can safely gain weight.' Nurse S could give a figure if she had sufficient knowledge, or claim she did not know. She said she was 'not an expert in that area.' John referred her to the dietician's report on Olga's collapse which said she weighed 13.7kg when admitted to Nobles in Addisonian crisis on 17 September 2014. On 7 October 2014 she weighed 14.5kg which is a gain of 0.8kg in three weeks. Next, he took Nurse S through the recorded weigh figures for Olga from July 2013 of 14.1kg, 14.5 kg in September 2013 and 14.6kg in December 2013.

John reminded Nurse S of how it took Nobles 20 days to build up Olga's weight by 0.8kg in September-October 2014, and directed Nurse S' attention to Olga's weight reading by Nurse S of 13.4kg on 4.04.2014. He asked her, 'If we had made efforts to build up Olga after your disturbing weighing of 13.4kg on 4 April, might we expect to put up her body weight by 0.2kg in five days, if we were as good as Nobles, do you agree?' Nurse S said, 'That would be very nice' but immediately added 'there did not seem to be a desire to do that.' John suggested to the court that the latter comment showed the bias in the witness, as the comment was intended to suggest he and his wife were indifferent to Olga's health.

Having shown that bias, John referred Nurse S to the dietician's record of Olga's weight on 9 April which stated 14.7kg, as against 13.4kg five days previously, according to Nurse S. He challenged her, 'Can you produce any explanation?' Nurse S said 'I can't', but to try to get out of this, added a different person weighing Olga and different scales.

A previous witness, dietician X, had suggested a gain of 0.2kg in a week would be excellent, but if Nurse S' figures and the dietician figures were both accepted, we had a gain of 1.3kg in five days which is six times what a dietician suggested was a plausible gain, except after major dehydration.

The improbability of the figures suggested a deliberately false figure, incompetence or that one set of scales was reading incorrectly. As there was no evidence of deliberate falsehood, John suggested that left incompetence or differences in the scales.

John had assumed when he cross-examined Nurse S that she was unaware of the weighing by the dietician service on 9.04.2014, as she had not mentioned it in her evidence in the emergency court on 19.09.2014, or in ANY of her written depositions. It came as a bombshell when Nurse S admitted in court that on 22.05.2014 she had contacted the dietician regarding the letter about the dietician weighing of 9.04.2014 and had left a message.

By 22 May 2014, Nurse S knew of a massive discrepancy between the two readings. John suggested a competent and unbiased health professional would wish to investigate such a startling difference. If 0.2Kg would be a reasonable weight gain in 5-7 days, a gain of that amount would be reasonable, but a difference of six times as much suggests incompetence or defective equipment. If the scales were defective, they could give false readings for other children, so a conscientious health professional would check her equipment, and if it was found to be accurate, advise the dietician service in case the problem was there. John intended to ask such a question of Nurse S, but the Judge asked her, 'Did you get your scales recalibrated?' She replied 'Not at that point.' The court adjourned after this extraordinary revelation that Nurse S was aware of the discrepancy, but had made no effort to have her scales checked.

When the Court resumed, John felt it would be wise to hold out an olive branch to Nurse S. He said, "In the court proceedings on 19 September [2014], you said. "Mr Stevenson expressed annoyance at being asked to engage with services" I will admit that I was unhappy that someone should come not once but twice unannounced when we were about to have a meal. My "annoyance" as you put it was at the timing rather than working with services. If you took it personally I regret that and I hope you can accept my regrets, and when the girls return home, I hope we may be able to work together for their good.' John hoped that by expressing his regrets that this would facilitate a better relationship in the future. Nurse S responded 'My opinion was that it was not personal to me, but against services.'

Given how John had taken Nurse S through the dietician records, including the telling comment from the senior dietician about his demonstrating to Olga what was required, he had hoped Nurse S would accept he had no animosity to health professionals, and it was merely an unfortunate incident that should be put behind us. Her response sadly spoke volumes.

To bring home to the court the significance of these weight figures, John asked the witness, 'When Olga was admitted to Nobles on 17 September 2014, she weighed 13.7kg but according to dietician X's detailed table, had gone to 14.5kg by 7 October 2014. This was an increase of 0.8kg in twenty days. Do you agree? Nurse S replied, 'According to this table.'

To clarify the improbability of the different figures of 4 and 9 April 2014, John put it to Nurse S, 'If Vera and I were as good as the Nobles team and had the benefits of intravenous drips, dietary supplements and medication, then maybe we could have matched them with a 0.2Kg increase in five days between 4 and 9 April 2014. As Nobles achieved that rate, it is achievable, but I do not suggest we could do it. Would you agree it would be unlikely?' Nurse S realized the danger of agreeing, as it would highlight the impossibility of the massive gain in five days in April 2014, so fudged her reply, 'There are too many variables.'

Within seconds, Nurse S was evasive again. John asked her, 'An obvious line of enquiry is to look at the provenance of all the readings of Olga's weight that we can find. Would you agree?' Nurse S could hardly disagree. John continued, 'Olga was weighed 7 times between 10 January 2013 and 9 April 2014. Taking the readings in order, they were 14.14kg, 13.5 kg, 14.1kg, 14.5kg, 14.6kg, 13.4kg and 14.7kg. Do you agree?' Again she had no choice but to agree. John put it to the witness, 'If they had been from one source the fluctuations and the brief interval between the two April 2014 results would be implausible. Do you agree? If Nurse S had agreed it would have thrown doubt on the 13.4kg reading she had reported, which was wildly out of line with all other results, so she said, 'I can't make a judgment.' The reader will form his own opinion on this.

The judge asked the witness, 'Olga's weight seems to have increased from 13.4 to 14.7kg. As Mr Stevenson says, it is remarkable, is it not?' Nurse S used a different tack to avoid saying yes, 'it is not within my province as a school nurse... there are too many variables in a short time and there could be a difference in the two scales.'

Although a professional dietician had said such results were most unlikely, and Nurse S had made Olga's loss of weight the key to her evidence against the family, she was still not prepared to accept the views of the dietician.

John put it to the witness, 'On Thursday afternoon just before the court recessed, you said that on 22 May 2014, you had left a message with the dietician service over the readings of 9 April 2014, as you had become aware of this marked difference. Is that correct?' Nurse S replied, 'I left a message because of this one discrepancy.' John asked her, 'Can you tell the Court what the outcome of this enquiry was?' As usual Nurse S was unsure, 'I believe I had spoken to the Senior dietician, and she agreed to another dietician appointment.'

As the judge had asked if Nurse S had her scales recalibrated and she had replied 'not at that point,' there was no point in repeating the question, but John felt it was important to establish how seriously she took the duty of any health professional to be accurate. He asked, 'How many days or weeks until you did check?'.... 'I do not know.' Nurse S knew by 22 May 2014 that there were major differences between her scales and the dietician service scales, but had not acted promptly to check the accuracy of her scales.

Local trading standards officers are responsible for ensuring that commercial scales are checked from time to time, and a shop keeper who was so casual over his scales could expect possible prosecution. All that is at stake there is an incorrect weight of a product, not an incorrect weight for a child. It seems that children are less important than a sack of potatoes!

John put it to the witness, 'I feel some diffidence in raising this, but in the Court Proceedings for 19 September 2014, you are recorded as saying: I've seen significant weight loss in Olga over a period of time and became increasingly concerned." Is that correct?'...Nurse S replied, 'Yes.'

John asked her, 'As five of the seven reading between 10 January 2013 and 9 April 2014 show a slow gain, would it not have been more accurate to say that there had been a slow gain OR a significant weight loss, as there was difference between the figure recording a loss and a figure five days later. After all, you were aware of that figure from what you told the court yesterday?' Nurse S replied, 'It could have been said in that way.' As the answer was evasive, John put the question again. Nurse S finally admitted 'Possibly yes.'

He asked the witness, 'In the Court proceedings for 19 September 2014, you state "There was a weight loss of 1kg since December?" Is that correct?' Nurse S agreed so John asked her, 'I take it this is a weight loss between December 2013 at 14.6Kg and your reading of 13.4kg on 4 April 2014?' The witness replied 'I really can't remember. I think this would be right as I got it from my own growth charts.' John put it to Nurse S, 'As you were aware of the different results from the dietician service from what you said to the court, might it not have been more accurate to say that "There was a weight loss of 1Kg since December as recorded on one machine and a slight gain of 0.1kg on another machine five days later." The witness admitted, 'In hindsight yes.'

John asked, 'I believe the oath you swore was to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, was it not?' The witness agreed. John continued, 'In that case, if you were aware of the conflicting results of 4 and 9 April 2014, as you clearly were from your actions on 22 May, was referring to one result without referring to the other result, telling the whole truth, or was it "telling the truth, the partial truth and not the whole truth?" The witness replied, 'I did not think I had done so.'

The judge felt obliged to intervene and asked the witness, 'Mr Stevenson is suggesting you did not tell the whole truth?' The witness replied, 'I hadn't joined up the dots in that way.' For a witness backing social services, the court was quite content to accept that. John asked the witness, 'As you were aware of the discrepancy between the weightings of 4 and 9 April 2014, did you not have a duty to refer to this possible discrepancy in your report to the Court?' The witness replied, 'That discrepancy was not picked up. I was more fixed on the difference in Olga's centile.' Once again the witness sought to excuse not revealing material facts that she was aware of in court on 19 September 2014.

Given the very fair evidence by Dr Z and his comment that the need to take Olga into care was a hard one, the evidence by nurse S of an obstructive father who did not work with health professionals, and allowed a sharp decline in their weight of his daughter, instead of the actual slight gain, could have been conclusive in the minds of the magistrates, If so, the emergency protection order was granted as a result of evidence that was untrue. The court ignored this.

John referred the witness to the report produced by the Community paediatrician on 25 September 2014. This report includes a Girls Growth chart for Olga. John asked Nurse S, 'In the box for 04.04.14, a weight of 13.4kg is given for Olga is it not? Is that a copy of your growth chart?' The witness agreed. John asked her, 'Did the community paediatrician ask you for this?' The witness said, 'It is likely but I can't remember.'

John asked, 'Could the community paediatrician access your records without your knowledge? The witness replied, 'It is unlikely. 'As the witness had admitted it is unlikely the doctor could access her records without her knowledge, her previous answer, 'I can't remember' is unconvincing.

John continued, 'As you were aware of the result of 14.7kg on 9 April 2014, should you not have disclosed this figure to the community paediatrician as he has inadvertently given the court incomplete data, so it is not the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, is it?' Nurse S finally accepted, 'It would appear I had only told part of the truth.'

John put it to Nurse S, that as she knew her weight record of 4 April 2014 was suspect as early as 22 May 2014, 'I suggest this figure which is of dubious accuracy has had an unknown but potentially deleterious effect on the outcome of this case so far. I suggest you told the truth, part of the truth, but not the whole truth. Do you disagree?'

The response was astonishing, as Nurse S said, 'I thought I had drawn it to the attention of the court.' John could find no trace on the court record of either trial that she did so, but had made a desperate attempt to justify herself saying, 'It has not been proven as to which set of scales was wrong.'

Could Nurse S be right and the rest of the world out of step? Olga had been weighed in the UK, by Children's Ward, by the senior dietician at Nobles, and in Ramsey Cottage hospital. All four scales produced a consistent pattern. The only time there were anomalous results was when Olga was weighed by the school nurse service, which was the source of both 13kg readings, but the school nurse took no steps to check the accuracy of her scales, whereas the dietician service scales were tested regularly from evidence given in court.

There was further evidence that Nurse S might have checked from her own records once she knew of a possible discrepancy, and this was Tatiana's recorded weights, 'On 20 March 2014, Tatiana was weighed at Childrens Ward at 14.5 kg, and on 8 April, she was weighed again, at 14.8 Kg, so this shows a modest increase in weight of 0.3kg does it not?' The witness replied 'From these figures, it seems so.'

There was still more damning facts to be exposed, John pointed out that Tatiana, 'when she was weighed by you on 4 April 2014 showed the same pattern. She weighed less when weighed by you than she had at her preceding or subsequent weighing, although these were both a few days away. Can you offer any explanation as to why Olga and Tatiana should weigh less when weighed by you, than when weighed by other health professionals?'

The witness said she had no suggestions. To have two children, who when weighed by the school nurse are significantly lighter than when weighed by any other health professional is significant, when Olga's alleged loss of weight was the crux of the case against the parents.

In the Court hearing on 19 September 2014, Nurse S referred to a phone conversation with John on 8 April 2014, saying, 'So I was in discussion with dad, he knew of the appointment on 16th April, he informed me the family were going on holiday back to their home in the Midlands over the Easter period so he wouldn't be able to keep the appointment and he would reschedule after that' Nurse S agreed this was her evidence.

John pointed out, 'In a schedule prepared by a dietician on 24/09/2014, and included in the evidence a list of dietician appointments is included for Olga. An entry which refers to this phone call on 08/01/2014 states, "Mum phoned Ramsey secretary to change appt from 16/4/14 to 9/4/14 as on holiday that week."

Again, Nurse S tried to stonewall, saying she could only say what is documented in her notes. From past experience John was ready, for this and referred her to the entry in the dietician notes for 8-1-14, changing the appointment. Nurse S, confronted with that, had to agree.

John suggested to nurse S, 'I had no possible reason to tell you that I would reschedule a dietician's appointment for 16/04/2014 to a later date as the family had long since brought it forward by a week to attend the dietician. I told you it had been rescheduled, but I cannot recall if I said to '9th April' or to 'tomorrow' as was likely on 8th April, but the meaning would be the same. You however chose to give a garbled version in court, and one that reflected adversely on me, did you not? Once again, Nurse S retreated to the, 'I can only say what is in my notes.'

As Nurse S has claimed in evidence to have asked the dietician service on 21.10.13 for a letter which she stated was received on 17.09.13 although the letter was not typed until 27.09.13, and as she claimed, 'I thought I had drawn it to the attention of the court' when the court records show no such episode, John suggested to the court that the accuracy and veracity of the witness must be in doubt.

The impartiality of Nurse S was called into question by a further exchange. Olga and Tatiana had been weighed at home on 4 April during the unannounced visit. He asked Nurse S, 'on 8 April you phoned me to remind me about the dietician appointment and you also sought my agreement to weigh Olga in school to monitor her lunch box and to speak to the school?' Reply 'Yes.' John put it to the witness, 'despite an unannounced visit at mealtime I had still cooperated with you?' The witness responded, 'You had agreed with these things but there are differing levels of engagement. Yes we had gained consent but there was not support on all occasions.' Despite an inconvenient visit at mealtime, John had allowed the witness into the house, so he had co-operated. As he had asked the nurse to come back after the meal, but she had refused, she was the one who had declined a reasonable request. When Nurse S phoned to give John incorrect information about a dietician appointment, and then said she wished to weight Olga in school, John had agreed once more. He suggested to the court that he had cooperated on each step. Despite all of these proven facts, the court opted to blame John for being uncooperative with a witness who was evasive.

John cross-examined the witness on her next visit, 'On 22 May 2014, you visited our home once again. Although Olga and Tatiana had both been taken ill at school, and the school had been able to phone us with no problems, you apparently found difficulty in phoning us yet again. Is this correct? reply Yes.

John asked her, 'Do you recall me pointing out to you that it was lunch time again? This was in the faint hope that you might relent, and let the family have their meal in peace this time? Do you have any memory of this?' Although we stood on the doorstep for some time yet again, the witness professed to have no recollections of this.

John returned to the alleged comments at Safeguarding Supervision about not antagonizing any situation within the home. He challenged Nurse S, 'We had a rather aimless exchange about this in which we did not know if there might be written minutes or not, and if such a policy existed or not. Is that not so? Do you know what the policy is Now?' The Witness finally agreed to look up the notes in the folder she had brought with her each day to the court. She referred to a progress note of 11 July 2013 that stated "Mr Stevenson had been angry over a referral of 2 July 2013.' This needs to be read in light of a letter from the Operations manager of the initial Response Team on 17 July 2013. 'No intervention was in fact warranted and there is going to be no further action required and therefore the case is going to be closed to this department.' The letter added, 'I acknowledge that your wife's presentation at the time may well be linked to cultural patterns of behaviour, your wife's family history and the environment in which she was raised and it is therefore understandable that she becomes very anxious when dealing with anybody in authority or professionals. However Mrs Stevenson's presentation did cause the staff at the hospital to be concerned...... The department's assessment was that there were no grounds not to discharge the children if they were medically fit and well.'

This was the first and only time that a senior departmental officer acknowledged that cultural and ethnic differences can have an impact on how someone reacts. John's wife was brought up in a closed city in the Soviet Union, which hosted some of the most secret military installations in the USSR. Closed meant it was not open to foreign citizens, or even Soviet citizens without the necessary special pass. In the block of flats where she spent her formative years, the neighbour across the hall was a KGB officer, and Soviet citizens were brought up to fear the stukach, or informer, who sought to curry official favour by informing on neighbours.

The letter from the head of the Initial Response Unit took all this into account and agreed there was no cause for concern, but from Nurse S' conduct thereafter, it seems certain elements in the department ignored this decision by an operational manager and pursued a different agenda of their own. Finally the sinister expression used by nurse S, 'we were aware of Mr Stevenson's reluctance to engage with services, so we wanted to go carefully until there was a reason to go in.' made sense. John says, after the insensitive way Vera had been, treated which had caused her distress, had complained to the minister, and whilst the head of the official response unit was satisfied, it seems that John's complaint to the minister meant there were scores to settle.

What is also significant is that Nurse S said she took over the family in September 2013, but the note she referred to was dated July 2013, which is some months before she was involved with the family. When did she become involved if she had this note, or did she inherit a hostile assessment from someone who had not agreed with the July 2013 managerial decision. Was she unwittingly prejudiced against the family before she even met them? All these were points the court should have considered. As they would help the family, they were ignored.

The visit by Nurse S on 22 May 2014 was allegedly because Tatiana had been taken ill on 19 May. The school had phoned John to ask him to take Tatiana home as she was not well. This was at lunchtime and Tatiana was drowsy with a high temperature. John immediately phoned the Group Practice. On seeing her, the GP asked John to take her to children's Ward, where a viral or parity tract infection was diagnosed. Tatiana had therefore been seen by numerous health professionals. On 20 May the school phoned re Olga, and said her symptoms were the same as Tatiana's. The school concerns log for 20.05.2014, filled in by her class teacher, notes, 'suspect she has a virus as her sister has had.'....It will be noted that with Tatiana, Children's ward referred to the possibility of a parity tract infection. On 22 May nurse S phoned the surgery to see if John had referred Tatiana to the surgery, and found he had done so. In her evidence in court on 19.09.2014 she claimed one reason for her visit on 22 May was because both children were off school, although she did not mention this was at the specific request of the school, as this would show how John co-operated with education professionals, as well as health professionals.

In the Emergency hearing on 19 September 2014 there was an exchange between John's advocate and nurse S which might have been written for the Goon Show or Monty Python.

Advocate - So what was wrong with her. Was she ill?

Nurse S - I cannot say whether she was ill or not.

Clerk - She's been sent home the day before and when you visited she was at home

Advocate - So did it not occur to you to ask why she was off school?

Nurse S: - Yes I did

Advocate - And what were you told?

Nurse S: - Because she was recovering.

Advocate - Recovering from what?

Nurse S: - He didn't say.

Advocate - Well Nurse S bearing in mind you're a nurse would you not have been interested to know exactly what she was recovering from and what exactly was wrong with her?

Nurse S: - I can't recall, I did ask but I can't recall precisely what dad, what Mr Stevenson replied to the reason why."

The only information John had, which he told Nurse S was that the school had phoned him to say both children were unwell, and he had taken Tatiana to Children's Ward where she was treated for a possible viral or parity tract infection. If John had offered anything more it would have been a lay opinion, rather than from a health professional. A medical paper on such conditions states,

'The epidemiology and bacteriology of urinary tract infection (UTI) varies across the human lifespan, but the reasons for these differences are poorly understood. Using established monomicrobial and polymicrobial murine UTI models caused by uropathogenic Escherichia coli (UPEC) and/or Group B Streptococcus (GBS), we demonstrate age and parity as inter-related factors contributing to UTI susceptibility. Young nulliparous animals exhibited 10–100-fold higher bacterial titers compared to older animals.'

John had found this, but other than that it was a urinary tract illness, and he had heard of streptococcus, he was none the wiser, but as a health professional, Nurse S would presumably understand this. As Nurse S did not seem to recall what John had told her to the extent of his limited information, it would have been pointless, even if he could have cited this complex data accurately!

Nurse S said in court in September 2014, one purpose of her visit on 22 May 2014 was, "To discuss concerns regarding appetite and weight loss" for Olga. John found this incomprehensible. He had taken note of Olga's weightings, progressing from 14.1kg to 14.7kg by 9 April 2014. John assumed Nurse S had these figures, so a conversation about Olga's non-existent weight loss was incomprehensible. Had he known that Nurse S' scales were inaccurate, it might have made more sense, but she had not suggested such an error to him or the dieticians so far as he knew.

Nurse S suggested that as Olga was below average height and had lost weight, although the dietician figures disproved the latter, that she should be referred to the community paediatrician who was a very nice man. John pointed out he was below average height, and so was his mother before him, whilst Vera was of Russian ancestry, and most Russians were below Western European height, Vera's father being for example just 5' 2" tall.

John knew that at 5' 6", which is below average UK height, he would actually have been too tall to serve in Soviet armoured units, had he been born in Russia, not in England. John suggested genetic and ethnic factors be included in a referral to the Community paediatrician, so he could take them into account.

Without offering any reason why they should not be included, Nurse S refused this, repeating the community paediatrician was a very nice man, which hardly seemed relevant. John said he had no objection to a referral but felt the genetic and ethnic factors should be mentioned. Nurse S said, 'I hear what you say but,' which means I am not interested. John felt a referral to a very nice man who did not have all the relevant background before the start of the consultation was absurd, as a competent doctor would want relevant facts, but nurse S repeated her refusal to include such facts.

As Nurse S was adamant that Olga had lost weight, despite the dietician's meticulous records, and was fixed on how nice the community paediatrician was, rather than relevant ethnic and genealogical factors, after the conversation had been repeated six times, John suggested to Nurse S that we were going nowhere, and if she repeated it, he would have to ask her to leave. He hoped this might focus her mind on relevant factors, but she took offence and left in a bad mood. Had she been serious about the appointment with the community paediatrician, she could have said, I will cover your comments about ethnic and genealogical issues to him.

In her report to the community paediatrician and her evidence in court on 19.09.2014, Nurse S alleged John became abusive, swore and shouted at Nurse S, so the children were said to be cowering. John stated on oath in court that he did not become abusive, or swear at Nurse S.

In the absence of any independent witnesses, Nurse S cannot prove John was abusive to her, but John cannot disprove it. All he can do is to use oblique evidence.

To discredit this allegation in September 2014, John referred to Nurse S' written evidence to the court, and to her report on the youngest of the children, Maria Stevenson. He asked Nurse S, 'Under parenting capacity, the penultimate paragraph reads of Maria, "I observed all three children to be cowering in fear." Is that correct? She alleged this was so.

John put to her, 'this suggests a father who is a tyrant and whose children are fearful of him, does it not?' She replied 'At the time that is what I felt.' John asked Nurse S, 'Would I be correct that such behaviour would be likely to have a long term harmful effect on the children? She replied 'Highly likely.'

He referred Nurse S to a report commissioned by the department from Dr N, a registered clinical psychologist, whose duties include "The medico-legal assessment of children and young people for Court Proceedings including post-injury/training assessments, children in care proceedings, and the impact of abusive experiences on children and young people."

In care cases, social services regularly appoint clinical psychologists who earn their living from providing reports to social services, rather than treating illnesses. Many of them are notorious for favouring the social services viewpoint and are known as 'hired guns.'

John put it to Nurse S, 'If you are correct that the children cower in fear from a tyrant such as myself, if anyone can detect symptoms of it, would you agree that a registered clinical psychologist ought to be able to detect signs of such emotional abuse in a child? Nurse S replied, 'I would expect so.'

On page 6 of the report, Dr N stated "Maria appears to have a good relationship with both parents in observation of contact. She is more expressive and interactive with her father and this is largely due to her father's presentation. There is no sign of any fear or anxiety in any of Maria's interactions with either parent."

Dr N's report on Tatiana Stevenson. "She is an expressive girl, and as stated above, the separation from her parents has had a negative impact on her. She does interact also with her mother, but I would suggest that her primary attachment figure is with her father."

Nurse S had agreed that the behaviour she accused John of would be 'highly likely' to have a harmful effect on the children, and when John asked if a clinical psychologist ought to be able to detect signs of such emotional abuse, she said, 'I would expect so.' He had detected no such signs.

A dentist, the head of a child care centre, the consultant paediatrician at Nobles and the consultant at Alder Hey all confirmed the excellent bond between John and the children. As with the evidence from nurse S about the weights of Olga and Tatiana, which was a key part of the social services case seeking removal of the children, her evidence was at direct variance with other senior health professionals, that Maria shows no signs of fear and Tatiana regards her father as her primary attachment figure. This would discredit the notion that John habitually swears and shouts at the children, so they cower from him. John produced numerous photos of the children hugging him and sitting on his lap, but Nurse S dismissed them as just being a moment in time, preferring instead her own word portrait, for which there is no photographic evidence, and which should leave behavioural signs, if there were any truth in it.

In the September 2014 emergency hearing, Nurse S resorted to pure fantasy as it sounded good. She claimed 'I went through the hall, and I saw the children in the hall then I saw them they peeped through the door and were told to get out, and then they were in the entrance to the kitchen behind furniture." It was superb and moving drama, but Nurse S had not considered if it was plausible. Under cross examination in 2015, she confirmed this is what she said, and that she walked at a normal speed. John pointed out that at 1.33 mph which is slow walking, it would take six seconds to transit the hall which is 12' 2" long and in that time the children had to go in single file, due to the table in the hall, past us and he suggested that would take at least 3 seconds which allowed at most three seconds for the children to cower in three places.

Nurse S had stated quite clearly the children were 'in the entrance to the kitchen behind furniture' and John had intended to challenge her evidence that the only furniture she would have seen from the hall was a radiator which was 1.25 ins from the wall. John pointed out to the court that not even a Barbie doll could cower in that space.

Although Nurse S gave this evidence in September 2014, when her visit to the house was no more than four months previously, she completely changed her account in October/November 2015 when the events were 17-18 months away. One of the constables pleaded difficulty in recalling many details, owing to the lapse of time, which is understandable.

By contrast, Nurse S, who, as we have seen often, could not recall things or needed to consult her notes, drastically changed her evidence and appeared to have a much better grasp of the layout of the hall, more than a year after her initial evidence. According to her revised testimony the children were not in the entrance to the kitchen behind furniture, but still in the hall, between the table and the doorway to the kitchen. Instead of cowering behind furniture now as per her testimony, they must have been cowering beside the table in the hall, as it is right up to the wall.

John suggested to the Court that the change in the testimony of the witness was worrying for two reasons. Either the account Nurse S gave under oath in September 2014 was wrong, or the account she gave in 2015 was wrong, as they were incompatible. One might expect a witness to have a good recall of events after four months, but after 17-18 months, it would be surprising if a witness had a better recall of events. If Nurse S' evidence in September 2014 had been correct, but there were discrepancies in her testimony over a year later, one might accept such differences as being similar to the concerns expressed by the police officer, i.e. lapse of time.

In September 2014, John and his wife were both in shock and had no chance to prepare an adequate defence, or gather photographic evidence. A detailed analysis of Nurse S' evidence showed how implausible the evidence given in court had been, and John was ready to challenge Nurse S on her colourful and improbable horror story about the passage through the hall. The moment John challenged her evidence, but before presenting a single fact, which might jog her memory, her recall of events was miraculously transformed, and a story that was impossible became slightly less implausible.

It is not proper for a witness to be prompted in what she says, and in the written submissions John had included a photo of a Barbie doll that was too fat to cower behind the radiator in the kitchen, which was the only place Nurse S could have seen a child cowering in the entrance to the kitchen in her original testimony. As Nurse S had moved the place of cowering from the entrance to the kitchen to the hall, there was no point in challenging the possibility of the children cowering behind the radiator as she had adjusted the location.

John suggested that where a witness changes fundamental elements of her story, and appears to have a much better recall of events after 18 months, than after four months, the veracity and reliability of the witness must be in grave doubt. If that witness had knowingly suppressed material facts, such as the discrepancy in the weights on 4 and 9 April 2014, and her colourful account of children cowering was not supported by a psychologist, two paediatricians, the manager of a nursery and a dentist, little credence can be attached to these comments or to the truthfulness of the witness generally. If the court is to be impartial, such considerations needed to be weighed, and it would be for the judge to report on the results of that exercise in her decision as to whether she could believe the glaring impossibilities in Nurse S' evidence.

In 2014 Nurse S stated, "As I walked past them they were cowering and then during the visit, they were cowering behind the door, the living room door, they opened it to peep in, and when I left I saw them cowering.' In her evidence in Court in 2015, Nurse S produced another picturesque account, that the 'children were running around like a little herd of sheep.' The first and obvious point is that running around like a herd of little sheep and cowering are hardly compatible activities, but the more we dissect this fantasy, the more absurd it becomes.

Nurse S said 'they were cowering behind the door, the living room door, they opened it to peep in.' These words are unequivocal. (a) The children were cowering behind the door, and (b) at some stage they opened the door to peep in. John had intended to challenge the accuracy of this, asking Nurse S was the door a wooden door or glazed? Photos submitted in evidence to the court show a wooden door so Nurse S could not have seen the children cowering the far side of the living room door, unless she could see through solid wood, so the only time she could have seen them cowering was after the children had opened the door, which according to her testimony had been shut at the time they were cowering behind it!

Once again, before John could challenge Nurse S as to whether it was a wooden or glass door, her memory had improved miraculously. Instead of cowering behind a closed wooden door, which the children opened at some stage, so it had to have been shut to start with, the door had now been open all the time, and the children were cowering in an open doorway. If the door was open at all times, the statement that the children had been cowering behind the closed door must have been untrue, so Nurse S misled the court in September 2014.

What is sinister is that before John had asked Nurse S if the door was a wooden door or a glass door, Nurse S was changing her testimony from children hiding behind a door, and then opening it, to the door being open all the time and them cowering in the doorway. In theory, it would be possible for the children to cower in an open doorway the whole time, but when Nurse S gave her original and colourful account, just four months had elapsed yet she envisaged children, who had been running around like a herd of little sheep then cowering behind a door, and then opening it. After eighteen months her memory had improved so remarkably that she produced a plausible account, even if it did not agree with her original evidence.

Once again, we may recall the comment by the police officer as to the difficulty of recalling events so far back. Here, an account which was impossible as no one can see through a wooden door, is transformed to a story that meets the physical constraints of the house.

John felt that when a witness changes her story so two separate episodes now reflect what is possible, rather than what is impossible, this has to raise doubts as to her credibility. After the midday recess, John raised this issue before the court. The advocate for the department accused John of suggesting she had primed the witness, but a study of the transcripts shows John was very precise in his choice of words, viz.

'Your Honour, before the witness is recalled I wish to raise an important point with you. I appreciate that the social worker, when she gives evidence, will have had the opportunity to see all of my evidence, but is a witness allowed to have advance notice of the questions he or she may be asked in cross examination, so they can adjust previous evidence they have given, either on testimony in court or in writing?

When I referred Nurse S to Page 45 of the Court proceedings, "I came through the hallway and I saw the children in the hallway, then I saw them they peeped through the door and were told to get out, and then they were in the entrance to the kitchen behind furniture," before I had asked her a single question, the witness was explaining her remarks to mean something quite different. She explained that the children, "were in the entrance to the kitchen behind furniture' should not be taken to mean in the kitchen at all, but it meant the children were in the hallway near to the kitchen door, which I suggest has a quite different meaning.

John had intended to challenge the witness over how three children could cower behind furniture in a narrow 29 inch passage, as the only item of furniture that can be seen from the hallway is a radiator, and the impossibility of a child hiding there is demonstrated in bundle 89, page 5 by photographic evidence.

As many different questions could be asked about that passage, it seems suspicious that the witness corrected her remarks to put forward a radically different impression before John had asked the question. It was almost as if she had seen the evidence in bundle 89, and was expecting the question.

This is suspicious, but a few moments later, the witness revised her testimony once again before John had asked her the question. On page 45 of bundle 14 at line 9 she stated, "As I walked past them, they were cowering and then during the visit, they were cowering behind the door, the living room door , they opened it to peep in, and when I left I saw them cowering.'

SHE STATED CATEGORICALLY THAT THE CHILDREN WERE COWERING BEHIND THE DOOR, THE LIVING ROOM DOOR. SHE THEN SAYS THEY OPENED IT TO PEEP IN. I REFUTE ANY SUGGESTION THAT the children were cowering from me, and had intended to challenge the witness how she could see children cowering through a wooden door, but before John asked this point which is also covered in his written evidence, that was submitted to the court, the witness had revised her words that the door was ajar, but why would she say cowering behind a door that was ajar? One might say cowering in the doorway, or cowering beside the door, but is it a normal use of English to say cowering behind the door? Is it a normal use of English to say "they opened it to peep in," if they were already peeping in?

John suggested that the only reasonable inference the court can draw from this is that the witness had been in some way primed as to obvious flaws in her evidence, so she was ready to answer them, but foolishly gave the answer before the question had been put to her. John had expected the judge would examine this matter, as priming a witness is improper. The advocate for the Department was outraged at the suggestion that she had done so, but from the text, it is clear John merely said the witness has been in some way primed without suggesting who was involved. The judge was also offended that John had made this suggestion, and rather than investigate a legitimate cause for concern, it was seen as a black mark against John.

There could be many legitimate explanations. For example Nurse S had visited John's home, and there are about ten identical houses in the street. Over the years John has been invited into at least three of the other houses, and knows how similar they are. Could she have visited other parents on duty, and with her mind refreshed, have realized her testimony was impossible. If she had been questioned by the court that might have emerged as a plausible explanation. Someone could have innocently shown her some papers, not realizing it was improper.

As there was no investigation, the suspicion has not been put to rest, and for a witness to drastically change testimony twice before the thrust of the questioning could become apparent remains highly suspicious.

A further instance of Nurse S' inconsistency became apparent from entries in the bundle supplied by the school. John put it to Nurse S of this evidence, 'On 8 September 2014, dinner ladies D1 and D2 reported to Olga's teacher, that "Olga is yellow in colour", adding "hard to tell as she is also tanned." John asked Nurse S, 'A yellow skin colour can indicate an underlying health condition, can it not?'' She said 'YES'.

John asked the witness, 'Under the Comments/Actions section of the concerns log, it states "Discussed with Head Teacher and School Nurse and passed on to Senior Health Advisor, who was to report to Social Services." Do you confirm this is what happened?'

Despite having her memory of visits to the house improve miraculously, Nurse S once again had to refer to her file which she had not needed over cowering behind doors. She said, 'OK I have that now. I contacted the named nurse for safeguarding.'

Nurse S added 'it was ambiguous as to what colour Olga was' and that it had been observed that 'Her colour is a bit tanned, possibly a bit yellow.' Nurse S added. 'It was information that needed to be referred to the safeguarding team to protect the child.'

John asked Nurse S 'if the safeguarding nurse or the GP was the primary care provider?' Nurse S replied the GP. John asked Nurse S if she regarded this as serious enough to share with the safeguarding team, who do not provide medical care for the child, might it not have been sensible for this information to be shared with the primary care provider as well?

John reminded Nurse S that, 'the practice records refer to your phone call on 22 May 2014 to check if I had taken Tatiana to the GP, so if you were happy to do that, which is merely a fishing trip for information, why not alert the GP to a health concern?' Nurse S' response was to say 'I would not normally have contacted the GP to say there was a sick child.'

During this cross-examination, Nurse S made the extraordinary claim that she had no details of the GP, but she had rung the surgery according to Olga's medical notes on 22 May 2014, so must have had such details, and there is just the one GP practice locally.

In cross examining the GP, when John had asked him if the Nurse had phoned the practice, would a report of yellowness have been ignored, he said very firmly, "it would not have been ignored." He suggested the group practice would have phoned John and asked him to bring Olga in for a consultation. Neither the GP nor John could quantify how yellow Olga might have been, as it does to a great extent depend on the ambient light, but he said he would probably have arranged for some blood tests. The GP further said that a yellowness report on 8-09-2014, and vomiting on 15.09.2014, would have rung alarm bells.

The safeguarding nurse was not in a position to take urgent action if there was a problem. If the GP or John had been alerted, there were two immediate routes where the health issues could have been considered, but Nurse S did neither.

In the School evidence, the Head Teacher reported, "School nurse S visited the school on another matter. Whilst visiting, she asked after Olga, of whom she was already aware. On being told that Olga had gone home from school with a vomiting bug she was most concerned that this could be very dangerous, due to Olga's frail state. After discussion with the deputy head and I, Nurse S made a call to her supervisor to inform her of events and to make a referral of concerns."

On 22 May 2014, Nurse S had phoned the GP to see if John had taken Tatiana to the GP, but when there was now a situation, which she assessed as very dangerous, John asked what she had done, for there was no evidence that John had taken Olga to the GP this time. He had done so, but Nurse S admitted she 'did not contact the GP.'

As John had contacted the GP within minutes of the school phoning him that Olga had been sick on 15.09.2014, this was not a lost opportunity, but neglecting a simple precaution in contacting the GP, which had been done in the past, and speaking to the safeguarding nurse instead suggests the witness was more interested in provoking a crisis, than in safeguarding Olga's health.

This has been a long and detailed chapter in the novel, but if the story is based on fact, it shows how evidence is taken out of context or exaggerated to blacken parents in the Isle of Man, and how the courts dislike any challenge by parents. This strikes at the very root of justice, and the concept in British law that justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done.

Dubious though Nurse S' evidence had been, when the community paediatrician Dr CP, gave evidence there were to be more shock disclosures. John asked Dr CP, 'When Nurse S suggested a referral to you, I said that I felt it was important that the short stature on my side of the family and the girls' mixed Anglo-Slav ethnicity ought to be taken into account, as Slav people tend to be not as tall as Western Europeans. Vera's father Dr P is for example 5' 2" tall, the same height as Col Yuri Gagarin, the first man in space. I understand this is termed the mid-parental centile, so does it seem a reasonable request to you?' The community paediatrician said 'Yes.'

In his first answer on this topic the community paediatrician had said the request John had put to Nurse S was reasonable, but she rejected it six times. In his answer to another question, Dr CP said that Nurse S had suggested an appointment with him, as going through the ordinary route could be slow. From his evidence it was clear that he had offered a specific date, He said, 'My recollection is that an appointment had been fixed for 26 June.' John said this was a complete revelation to him as Nurse S had not given him a specific date, or that an appointment had already been made but had asked him if he would agree to a referral. Why would an impartial person arrange an appointment and then ask the parent to agree to a referral in a way that was particularly confrontational by turning down what Dr CP agreed was a reasonable request?

If Nurse S had the well-being of Olga at heart would it not make sense to have said she had managed to get an early appointment, and if John had asked that relevant factors be referred to Dr CP, agree to do so. Instead Nurse S set up a confrontational situation for no reason.

Dr CP said he was surprised that the appointment had been turned down, and from his recollections, it seems clear that a specific day had been offered, but this was not what was put to John by Nurse S.

As this information came 'out of the blue', John was not able to refer the witness to the court proceedings on 19.09.2014, but Nurse S said in evidence, – 'I wanted to refer Olga to the community paediatrician because I was aware that Mr Stevenson did not want to keep taking the girls to the dietician.' The dieticians both agreed John had at no time made any adverse comments about the dieticians, and had at no time refused to attend, nor had he been unhelpful. The only 'refusal' was when the family was off the Island on holiday, and on such occasions they had asked for another appointment,

Nurse S made no suggestion to John that an appointment had been made and there is no suggestion in evidence for 19.09.2014 that she said anything of the sort. Dr CP's evidence is that he had accepted the referral on a specific date. The two accounts are mutually incompatible. Nurse S' comments to John on 22.05.2014 were equally clear that she wanted to make a referral and wished him to agree, but the appointment had already been made, so rather than telling John the true situation she, on her own initiative, had cancelled the appointment.

John suggested to the court that there is a massive difference between being asked to agree to a referral, and to what Dr CP states, that an appointment had been already booked. In the first case, it is reasonable to ask that the referral should take into account relevant ethnic and genetic factors, which was refused six times by Nurse S for no legitimate reason. Had John been told an appointment had been booked, there would be no point in discussing the terms of the referral. But evidence from the dietician records, audiology records etc and the referrals to Childrens Ward over Tatiana's microscopic haematuria show John kept appointments unless they were at a time when the family was off the Island.

From what Dr CP states in evidence, it seems that Nurse S took it upon herself to cancel the appointment, as John could not have cancelled an appointment he was never told of. If she thought an appointment was necessary, it should have been offered to Olga rather than cancelled.

The judge asked, 'Was that a missed opportunity?'

The community paediatrician, – 'I think it was a missed opportunity. I might have missed it because of her tanned complexion.'

Six health professionals had seen Olga between March 2014 and 15 September 2014, and no one had spotted Addison's disease. The Judge and Dr CP are correct that it was a missed opportunity, but Dr CP was eminently fair by saying, 'I might have missed it because of her tanned complexion.'

As the underlying blame for this was Nurse S cancelling the appointment with no evidence that John would not have taken Olga to see Dr CP, the blame must lie with Nurse S who had misled John at the meeting, but the court opted to shift the blame onto the parent's shoulders. It has to be asked if this was fair.

The GP had said a yellowness report would have been looked into, and if he had received a yellowness report on 8.09.2014 and my report of vomiting on 15.09.2014, it would have rung alarm bells for him. John suggested to the court that the events around 22.05.2014 when Nurse S did not tell me an appointment with Dr CP had been made and then later cancelled it, and the events around 8/15 Sept 2014, were BOTH missed opportunities, and that the common link is the acts or omissions of Nurse S. In both cases her conduct was unprofessional.

Harriet Beecher Stowe sought to mobilise popular opinion against a flagrant abuse of human rights and the equally compliant attitude of the American courts. The way the rights of children and parents are abused by IOM Social Services is also an abomination, as is the way the Courts accept social services evidence without proper scrutiny.

Just as Harriet Beecher Stowe sought to end an abomination, so do I. If good people take action, evil can be vanquished, but if good people say, it will never happen to my family, then evil will prevail. As I have said, John Donne, 1572-1631, originated the line, For Whom the Bell tolls. It continues, "I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

## Chapter 3 The Third Witness and Police pressure.

The third witness called at the Emergency Protection Order hearing on 19 September 2014 was the social worker, Mrs Q. She had been assigned to the case the previous day. She opened the proceedings saying that Olga was within 30-60 minutes of death, but did not refer to gastroenteritis, or that the standard treatment for gastroenteritis was to fast a child for 24 hours, so if a child had been vomiting for some hours, the period without food could easily become 48 hours.

Olga had eaten on Sunday evening and would have digested that food. She vomited soon after she arrived at school on Monday, so would have digested little of her breakfast. She vomited another four or five times before she saw the GP on Monday afternoon so if she did not vomit again her fasting would extend into Tuesday evening, and if it was 24 hours clear of vomiting, it would extend to Wednesday morning. Vera had tried her with light titbits she liked on Tuesday evening but it did not settle, so Vera had in mind a light breakfast about 8.00am on Wednesday morning.

Mrs Q omitted to mention that a body can lose a lot of weight through vomiting, so Olga's admission weight at Nobles on 17 September would not be her 'normal' weight prior to the onset of vomiting. I suspect every reader will at some time have suffered gastroenteritis, and will have known how much fluid they can lose in hours and how ill they feel without the complication of a possible metabolic condition.

Within less than 100 words of opening the department's case Mrs Q made her first unsupported guess, wrapped in the guise of professional judgment. She said, 'The concern is that Olga has been diagnosed with severe malnutrition and starvation; that may go to the other children as well and they may become subject to that as well.'

Although it was still very early, and longstanding malnutrition was the obvious explanation, Mrs Q would have heard from Dr Z's evidence in court. He had said, 'There is a very slight chance which I would put at 1 in 100,000 of an underlying metabolic problem, and we are conducting tests to consider this.' Clearly this was most unwelcome news to Social Services as a metabolic condition would eliminate neglect. Mrs Q dismissed it, 'We believe it has arisen over a period of time and the doctor talks about 1 in 100,000 could be anything else, so it has to be about parenting and about her care in the home.' Within seconds, the social worker nailed her colours to the mast by trying to undermine Dr Z's comment that there was a 1 in 100,000 chance, dismissing it with the sweeping comment, 'It has to be about parenting.' Had she said the overwhelming odds are bad parenting, but we cannot yet rule out this longshot, that would have been entirely fair.

Dr Z had been asked, 'If an order is not made by the court that Olga be removed to departmental care, do you think she will or is likely to suffer significant harm?' Dr Z replied, 'It's a hard question. All I can say is there's a likelihood that Olga will suffer if she does not stay in the hospital.' John did not think anyone would disagree from that; Olga manifestly needed to stay in hospital until she was stabilised. Had social services and the bench suggested an agreement by all parties that Olga remain in hospital until her medical situation was satisfactory, that was (a) vital, (b) commonsense and (c) who could reasonably object to that?

Dr Z had said, 'Tatiana is the second sibling and there's no sign of any recent injury or illness..... Maria is the third child.... there were no signs or recent illness or injury and she appeared well nourished...' When asked if the children were at risk if they returned home, Dr Z said 'and the other two I am not able to say how much risk that is.' As a senior consultant paediatrician, Dr Z is an authority on the well-being of children, and in the case of Olga, has said it was a hard question and had limited his opinion to the obvious need for her to remain in hospital. As regards Tatiana and Maria, he had declined to say how much risk there was, but his evidence spoke of children without any recent illness or injury and specifically said Maria was well nourished, and had not suggested Tatiana was undernourished, so there was NO medical support from the consultant for removal of the two younger children.

Dr Z's evidence was of no help in kidnapping the children, if one dismissed the 1 in 100,000 chance in the cavalier manner Mrs Q did. Accordingly, she needed to look elsewhere for support and had found it in the warped and unreliable evidence from Nurse S. Mrs Q said, 'the evidence I'm picking up is that there has been a resistance to working with professionals and taking children to appointments.' From the cross-examination of Nurse S in 2015, it is clear her comments about not working with the dietician service were false. The senior dietician had specifically praised John for demonstrating what she wanted Olga to do and Olga then did as she asked, but John had not had time to gather together the dietician letters to show how well he worked with the dieticians and how false the evidence of nurse S was. When the GPs had suggested he take Olga and Tatiana to Nobles on separate occasions, he had done so immediately. When Nurse S had asked him to come in for the school assessment, he had done so, and although she had twice called at meal times, and as a diabetic he needed to be regular with meals, he had, after asking if she could call back, agreed she could come in. If the family was away on holiday at the time of medical appointments, they had phoned to say so, as with the appointment moved from 16 to 9 April 2014, so there was no evidence of missed appointments. The only issue Mrs Q could legitimately have raised was John's concern about the referral to see the community paediatrician. He was willing to take Olga to the Community Paediatrician, but felt the genetic and ethnic factors should be included in the referral letter. The School nurse had six times refused this reasonable and relevant request, stressing instead that the community paediatrician was a very nice man, which was irrelevant. It turned out later that it was nurse S who had cancelled an appointment without telling John.

One devastating and unexpected blow came in an email read out by Mrs Q that had been sent to Social Services from the police the night before. This read, 'In the police interview with the mother, the mother has said that Olga's responsibility was for her to feed herself, and that she would have to come to her mother and ask for food and then her mother would give her food and if she didn't come and ask for food, she didn't get anything to eat.'

John knew this was untrue. The family had breakfast before the children left for school and at weekends. As the school preferred children to eat at school, rather than returning home, John had gone along with this. Olga was upset at the hurly burly of the school dining room, as the school had reported to John, so she had a lunch box instead, as the lunch box area was peaceful. Weekends were much nicer as there could be a family midday meal. There was a hot evening meal when they returned from school, and at weekends. If the family were out, there would be hot food at the appropriate times.

If John had ever wanted food between meals, his mother, who was a senior nursing sister and had trained in dietetics, would always let him. He remembered this and any time the girls wanted food, they only had to ask, and Vera or John would see what they would like, so the 'ask for food' situation was over and above ordinary and normal meals, and not instead of them, as the police implied.

Tatiana and Maria ate readily, but Olga was what would be termed a picky eater. Therefore both parents encouraged Olga to eat between meals. What matters are the calories, not the time they go into the child's tummy or the setting.

In the police interrogation of Vera on 17 September 2014, she had said of Olga, 'She drinks as much as she can manage. Nobody denied her to drink and nobody denied her to eat.' Elsewhere Vera had said, when asked what Olga would eat, 'What she will eat? She will eat bacon ham sandwiches, lots of things her dad buys all sorts like take-aways, pies and sausage and chips and nuggets. Sometimes she's keen on beans. There are freezer meals, all the breakfast she likes or lasagne. That she like a lot.'

The officer asked how much did she eat of the things Vera gave her: Vera replied, 'Well she ask for them, she usually clear the plate. It's not that she ask and then leaves. She tends to eat when she asks for things.' This was as recorded by the Police, but Vera talks quietly and 'well' was probably 'When.' John's experience was that Olga was more inclined to eat what she asked for than what was just dished out to her.

One officer asked Vera, 'Will days go past when she doesn't eat anything? Vera replied, It's just well these two days. These two days have been like this.'

A police officer asked, do you think she doesn't eat because you don't place in front of her three healthy meals a day?' Vera replied, 'No it's not correct. The fridge is always there for her; she is not stopped from eating, anything like that.'

The officer said, 'it's your job to see she's given enough food to survive.' Vera tried to explain that Olga was a picky eater, 'If I would be stuffing her, she would be saying, No I don't want to.'

After reading through pages of the police report John found the origin of the police email, and it was the police putting words into the mouth of a witness.

DC XX – 'Almost seven so she's six years old. So as a six year old child it's her responsibility to get her meals and whenever she wants to eat out of the fridge herself? it's not yours?'

This was where the phrase 'her responsibility' came from. Vera was so shocked that she was trying to think what to say to this twisted version of what she had been explaining when the officer pressured her again, 'Who is responsible for Olga?'

As Vera had found that Olga ate better if she had chosen something nourishing she replied, 'I believe she should take food when she wants.'

This was in line with John's experience that if Olga was told she had to eat, she would refuse, and it then took a great deal of effort to get her to eat. If she was encouraged to decide what she wanted to eat, it was as Vera said, 'she usually clears the plate.'

Months later, when social services were producing evidence to justify breaking up the family, one report was by the Fostering officer. He reported

10-11-2014 foster carer reported Olga and Tatiana were refusing to eat foods they had previously eaten.

11-11-2014 foster carer noted Olga was refusing to eat breakfast and dinner

13-11-2014 Olga and Tatiana were reported as having refused to eat.

16-11-2014 Olga was refusing to eat certain foods and 'strong willed.'

24-11-2014 foster carer sought advice as she believed Olga was using food as a means to gain some control in her life.

3-12-2014 Social worker Mrs Q convened meeting to discuss Olga's eating.

26-12-2014 Olga had reverted to a complete refusal to eat.

27-12-2014, Olga refused food breakfast, dinner and lunch.

28-12-2014, Olga collapsed shortly after waking and was taken to Nobles in Addisonian crisis. [This is a carbon copy of the events 15-17 September 2014.]

14-01-2015 Olga had not eaten all day.

2-02-2015 Class teacher concerned that Olga was refusing to eat

20-02-2015 Olga reported to have eaten very little in past 24 hours

16-04-2015 Olga reluctant to eat at breakfast and evening mealtime

20-04-2015 Olga reluctant to eat breakfast and declined all that was offered.

The reports from fostering confirmed exactly what John and Vera had found that Olga would refuse food, but there was not much effort to encourage her to eat nourishing food she wanted. Taking the children into care had not accomplished the miracles Mrs Q had predicted. Although this takes us many months ahead of the police interrogation of Vera, it puts the insensitivity of the police questioning in the correct context.

One officer decided to attack Vera over take-away meals, 'How often has Olga eaten a take away meal? How many times a week does she eat a take away meal?'

Vera replied truthfully, 'Very often, very often she eats, sometimes I, sometimes he [dada] comes to her every day.'

John had found Olga was particularly keen on freshly prepared meals in one cafe in Ramsey, and another in Laxey. As she was thinner than John or Vera would like, and John was aware of her slow increase in weight, and wanted to encourage her to eat more, if the weather was good enough to go out after school, he would take all three children for a drive, with one or other of their favourite eating places as the highlight. It was rare that there were not three empty plates afterwards. In the seven days prior to Olga's gastroenteritis, it would be five or six days that the children had hot food when they were out, mostly at table but sometimes take aways.

The officer tried to put words into Vera's mouth, putting forward the officer's opinion as a fact and trying to get Vera to agree to it. This ignored what no one then knew, although Dr Z suspected there was a rare metabolic condition. The officer alleged as a fact, 'Olga is not eating a take away meal every day. If Olga was eating a take away meal every day, she wouldn't be lying in hospital now, half her body weight, half her body weight. Your little girl is very very very poorly because you as her mother have not provided her with an adequate amount of food.'

The second officer pressured Vera into agreeing with her colleague, 'Do you understand that? Do you agree with that?'

Courageously and truthfully Vera said, 'I disagree.'

The next challenge was 'You think you should starve a child to prompt her to eat?'

Vera had never suggested anything of the sort and replied, 'I'm not starving her.'

'So do you, do you not give her food, so that she gets hungry?'

'No it's not true.'

'If she comes home and tells you she's hungry, what happens?'

'Well she says do this then; make this warm, and I will do that..... 'Well she tends to do that at the moment.'

John knew how Olga would suddenly demand specific food outside mealtimes, and the more she did so, the happier he was, as it was all calories, which is what she needed. Later on, the senior dietician who had complimented John for demonstrating to Olga what was wanted, said the theme was calories, calories, calories.

The police repeatedly pressured Vera into saying it was Olga's responsibility to feed herself, suggesting she tried to starve Olga to force her to eat, that she was not given food if she did not ask for it and trying to lead Vera into agreeing to these comments. Sometimes in explanation to the classic, 'Have you stopped beating your wife yet' type of question, there was no answer that could be given that was not harmful, so Vera said a number of things that could be exploited against her, such as 'I disagree that they need to stuff child and prompt her to eat, because she will stop eating.'

John had found that by encouraging Olga to consider what she wanted to eat, she would, as Vera had put it, clear the plate, but if you pressured Olga, she would dig her heels in, and you had gone several steps backwards. At times, Vera had not put things as well as she could, but given how distraught she was over Olga's illness and that English was her second language, that is hardly surprising. One example was, 'When she comes home, if she's hungry she will eat. If she's not hungry nobody will prompt her to do that.' With the 'When she comes home' remark, It would have been more accurate if Vera had said, 'When she comes home, if she's hungry she will eat. If she's not hungry, trying to force her to eat will make her dig her heels in, so you need to encourage her to want to eat.' That was what John and Vera both did, as it was the best way to get food into Olga. With hindsight, It is easy to see this, but when two officers ruthlessly seek to put convenient words in the mouth of the witness it is not so easy.

As the officers relentlessly hammered Vera into distinguishing between Olga and the other children, she was under immense pressure.

'Do you prefer your other children?'

'But did the difficult birth make you like her less as a child?'

Vera was robust enough not to succumb, 'No I don't like her less for that reason, and I don't like her less because she's sometimes stubborn.'

One vicious trap was two questions hurled at Vera in quick succession.

'Do you love Olga?'

'Yes of course I love her.'

'Do you like her?'

'Well loving and liking is all the same.'

'Not necessarily. You could love somebody but not particularly like them.'

Vera was astonished; she replied 'That's just too? Sorry.'

When John read this, he was astonished. You can like someone, but not love them. He likes his friends, and he cannot imagine a real friend he did not like, but does not love them, but the notion of loving someone but not liking them is beyond his comprehension.

Although John had trained in law, and English was his first language, he had opted to have an advocate present at his interview and the advocate did stop the police officers on several occasions when they went beyond reasonable bounds, so the advocate's presence is helpful in restraining officers from putting words into the mouth of a witness. Vera would have been wiser to accept an advocate, but did not imagine the peril she was in.

In books on interrogation techniques, John was aware of the use of two interrogators in a quick fire session to overawe and intimidate, and to try to get the subject to agree to words put forward by the interrogator and the classic, 'do you agree with my colleague' ploy. Always disagreeing makes the victim of this tactic feel he is unreasonable, which is part of the technique of breaking down someone under interrogation. He had thought British police interviews were conducted in a more reputable manner, and his own interviews, where the officers were inhibited by the presence of an advocate, were probably just about acceptable.

Interestingly, when staying with Vera's parents, he and Vera had been taking photos on a long footbridge over a busy railway yard, when a security man approached them and insisted they come to the station security office. The Soviet era KGB had been split into a foreign intelligence service and an internal security service, so KGB was no longer the actual title, but old habits die hard, so John was apprehensive of a difficult interrogation. In the event the officer spoke mainly to Vera, as they could converse in fluent Russian. It was clear to John that there was no harassment and after an interview the officer shook their hands and wished them a pleasant visit. He apologized for his subordinate who was rather wedded to Cold War ideas.

John finds it sad that a Manx police interview was conducted with less regard to fair play than an interview with an officer who had once worked for the dreaded KGB. He had not imagined he or Vera would be arrested for anything, so he had not thought to warn her of the more dubious interrogation techniques, such as putting words in the subject's mouth.

One possible explanation is that in common with UK police forces, figures are published each year of reported offences, arrests and successful convictions. John and Vera had been arrested and it was clear the officers were keen to prosecute Vera for child neglect and ABH, and John for complicity. If they secured the necessary admissions, by putting damning words into Vera's mouth, it would make their figures look better. If, after arrest, the case had to be dropped, it made the figures worse, so the statistics obsession of government has prompted a 'we need good figures, so we need to get you' approach. One of John's friends is a retired police officer from a large UK force, and he said how he was glad to get out, due to the pressure on officers to achieve good statistics, rather than worry about justice.

From this interrogation, it is clear the officers did try to put words in Vera's mouth. What was even more disgraceful was that the police email to social services took separate sentences from her answers to build up into something very damaging. The email read, 'In the police interview with the mother, the mother has said that Olga's responsibility was for her to feed herself, and that she would have to come to her mother and ask for food and then her mother would give her food and if she didn't come and ask for food, she didn't get anything to eat.'

Vera had said she encouraged Olga to be responsible and to select food for herself as she then tended to clear the plate, but the police removed the parts that were not going to help social services. She encouraged Olga to ask for food, but had emphatically said that was in addition to regular meals. When accused of saying if she didn't come and ask for food, she didn't get any, Vera had firmly rejected that. The police transcript also makes the provenance of the 'Olga's responsibility to feed herself' remark transparent. One officer had said, 'So as a six year old child it's her responsibility to get her meals and whenever she wants to eat out of the fridge herself?' That is where the word 'responsibility' originated from, i.e. WITH THE POLICE OFFICER. Vera had not rejected it with sufficient force, so it was twisted into being her words.

The email was sent within minutes of the end of Vera's interview, so the officers had hastily cobbled together separate sentences from their prompts or Vera's replies to produce a damaging email. Had they wished to produce an impartial portrait, rather than one that would be useful to social services, they could have quoted, ''She drinks as much as she can manage. Nobody denied her to drink and nobody denied her to eat. She will eat bacon ham sandwiches, lots of things her dad buys all sorts like take-aways, pies and sausage and chips and nuggets. Sometimes she's keen on beans. There are freezer meals, all the breakfast she likes or lasagne That she like a lot. Well she ask for them, she usually clear the plate. It's not that she ask and then leaves. She tends to eat when she asks for things." All of those words were what Vera had really said.

In the interrogation of Vera, and also of John, the officers suggested Olga was half the weight she ought to be. John had been asked this question too. He said he thought that if Olga was twice the weight she would be in danger of being overweight.

Using the NHS BMI calculator on line, John fed in Olga's height at her last recorded weighing prior to her collapse by the dietician service with a height of 104cm on 9 April 2014. Her weight recorded by the dietician was 14.7kg, and the calculator also required her date of birth, 17-10-2007, her sex and the date of weighing, 9-4-2014. It produced the results set out below and any reader is welcome to try the same calculation.

7th Centile, Your child's height and weight suggest they are a healthy weight

Age 6; height 104cm,weight 14.7 kg

In this very sophisticated BMI calculator, the NHS take into account the height of the child as well as the weight, which dieticians seldom do, as a tall child should weigh more than a child of small stature, so instead of the 0.2 centile spoken about if Olga's diminutive stature is ignored, when material facts are taken into account, she falls in the 7th centile. John, on the data the dietician had supplied him with had carried out this calculation.

In trying to get a good 'sound bite' to nail Vera, the police officers had glanced at the standard red book and failed to understand that it shows centiles from 0.4th to 99.6th centile, so had seemingly assumed that the bigger the better. If they could convince a jury that Olga was half the weight she ought to be, then it was a damning 'fact' that was easy to remember and nail the mother, so it would improve police statistics, as well as help social services. It was win win for them.

John decided to input the twice the weight calculation as he felt Olga would be overweight. Again the reader is invited to do the calculations on the NHS on-line calculator, putting in 104cm height, a weight of 29.4kg, which was twice Olga's last official weighing prior to her collapse, as the officers said would be good for her, and her birth date and the weighing date. This is the result.

99th Centile

Your child's height and weight suggest they are very overweight.

Age 6 height 104 cm, weight 29.4kg

Obesity, which is a serious medical problem in children, is defined as above the 95th centile, so the police were suggesting Vera ought to have stuffed her daughter to the state of not just being obese but being four centile points above obese.

This information was not put to the Emergency hearing on 19 September 2014, but it was put to the definitive hearing in 2015-16, with full citation of sources and figures so the court could do the calculations for themselves, as John has invited any reader to do. There was no likelihood of being able to make Olga clinically obese, but the fact that the police were willing to suggest this, reveals woeful ignorance or dishonesty based on a desire to nail a mother, to improve their statistics. This is dishonest and should be a matter of concern for the chief constable and Tynwald.

The reader must make what he or she will of the court's disregard for the way in which dubious evidence which would have led to a seriously obese child was proffered by the police and social services. Should that disregard be something the Island can be proud of, or does it suggest there is need for a radical review of the police, social services and the court, if they complacently accept evidence which is untrue?

As it was clear to John that the police were desperate to nail Vera, which could be to help social services, or to help their own statistics, and because Vera was hardly able to challenge the police effectively herself, John drafted a 36 page rebuttal of the allegations which Vera had told him of, and which had largely been thrown at him too, so he had some idea of what she had gone through.

When the couple were called for a further police interview, he suggested to his advocate that he submit a similar copy tailored to his own case to the police and the advocate recommended against it. By that time Vera, had been taken away by police officers, so there was no way any reconsideration could be given to what she should do with her copy of the memorandum. The second interviews followed the same pattern as the first interviews, with the police desperate to put words in Vera's mouth, but less free with John.

A short while later the police indicated they would not be pursuing the case against Vera. It is possible they had realized that the devastating weight of evidence John had produced on Olga's dietician appointments, her BMI and the embarrassment of it coming out in court of their trying to get a witness to agree a child should be clinically very obese had convinced them a jury trial would be an unmitigated disaster.

No trial meant they could not add a conviction to their statistics, but losing a case was worse than no case, and a trial before a jury, who would apply the standards of a reasonable man or woman, would be a disaster for social services, who instead can use secret family courts with no reasonable and impartial jury to weigh up the evidence.

With hindsight it might have been beneficial to have lured the police into such a trial for the damage it would do to the case against John and Vera and the pressure it would place on Tynwald to consider if the Manx police do act impartially and fairly. If there should be a further attack on John, he may well decide to adopt that tactic, as such misconduct by the police needs to be stamped out.

Even with an advocate present for John's interviews, there were many attempts to put words in his mouth, and how widespread is this? Is it only in child neglect cases where the police resort to this tactic, or is it general across the board. Are attempts made to put words in the mouth of the accused in other cases? William Blackstone [1723-1780] in his 'Commentaries of the Laws of England' wrote, 'It is better that ten guilty escape than one innocent suffer.' That became the foundation of English justice, but with misconduct as revealed in this chapter, is it recognized in Manx law and police conduct? How many people convicted in the Isle of Man have been convicted on words put into their mouths by police officers keen to improve their statistics? Until John knew what really went on, he would have dismissed that as fanciful.

In the memorandum submitted in defence of Vera, she stated, 'When my husband was interviewed by the Police he was told his wife had said this and invited to comment. He said the police had either taken a passage from his wife's interview, without giving the full context, or that she was so flustered and confused that she had spoken nonsense. As he was not present and had not been shown the full transcript, he could not give a definite answer.'

Vera continued, 'I explained myself badly. Regular meals were provided at breakfast time, midday and when the girls returned home from school. In addition to that they were offered snacks from time to time, but rather than nag them, if they did not want an additional snack, I did not try to force the issue. They were often taken for treats out, in Ramsey, Laxey etc, as this encouraged them to eat. Finally whenever any of the girls asked for food, my husband or I dropped whatever we were doing to meet their wishes.'

Mrs Q, as well as advancing the false claims of nurse S over a drop of weight in the case of Olga, went on to say, 'we've heard today that Tatiana may be dropping in weight and height...' Once again this was Nurse S' dubious measurements, but where the drop in height for either child came from is hard to say, as it is not supported by any reliable evidence in 20 ring binders, but Mrs Q was never concerned about accuracy, as on different occasions she got John's place of birth wrong, and similarly the places of birth of Vera and all three children.

She suggested John was a recluse, overlooking that he had represented conservationists at a public enquiry in the UK, had been an officer of three student societies in university days, had been an officer of a conservation society for over forty years, and was currently the chairman of one company registered under the laws of England and Wales and chairman of a separate charity. He had given hundreds of talks on subjects he was an authority on, and had been interviewed live on radio and had been the 'voice over' on more than a dozen videos and DVDs. Ignoring facts was never a problem for Mrs Q as she continued to produce the loss of weight for Olga long after Nurse S' evidence had been totally discredited.

The acting advocate for the Department had spotted something in the records that concerned her in the chronology Mrs Q had put together. Mrs Q had noted for 28 August 2014, 'the service manager said she'd now completed her review of the case, and there was a decision the case would not proceed as the threshold was not met for section 46.' The acting advocate for the department was clearly trying to be fair, and asked, 'Given we are now only 18th September, what about that?'

Mrs Q produced the usual excuse of lack of information, and added, 'the Service Manager has written to other professionals and has explained that and has asked some who disagreed with that to have an overview of the strategy meeting.' It was clear that despite a decision by the service manager that the family did not meet a Section 46 review, that a minority of participants were keen to overturn that decision. John, even with names altered of all participants in this shameful miscarriage of justice, does not feel able to suggest who might be implicated, though he has some ideas. The acting advocate felt it was important to see why there had been this attempt to undermine the previous decision.

Mrs Q sought to discredit the decision of 28 August, 'I don't know why the decision was that, and that will be looked into by senior managers of my department.'

Mrs Q quickly adopted a new tack, suggesting there was a lack of toys, very little clothes for the children and a lack of toothbrushes. The police had searched the property and reported the lack of toothbrushes and asked Vera about that, as it would clearly be useful evidence to blacken her character. From the police transcripts, she replied they were in the airing cupboard on the second shelf and hidden under some linen. When asked why, she explained that the children were fascinated with them and they would end up on the floor if they could readily get at them. Was that hygenic? Although the police had passed the alleged 'lack of toothbrushes' to social services and the late report about Olga being responsible for her own food, which was not what Vera had said, they did not pass on her reasonable explanation about toothbrushes, so this was not carelessness by Mrs Q, as was so common, but because the police chose not to pass on something that would benefit the family. The police were not even handed.

When John was preparing the evidence on which this chapter is based, he asked Olga for the children's red books so he could make sure he got every detail correct. She instantly went to a cupboard and handed them to him, so her recall of where toothbrushes were and red books were was precise. Had John been asked, he would not have been able to do as well!

The clerk of the court asked if the lack of clothes toys and toothbrushes was being put forward as grounds for an EPO. The acting advocate for the department said obviously not and Mrs Q had no choice but to agree. The claims about a lack of toys and a lack of clothes were as groundless as the toothbrush claim, and John subsequently produced over 20 photos to the court showing the children well dressed in a variety of clothing suitable to the weather in the month prior to Olga's collapse. When those photos were shown to unbiased health professionals including the GP, two consultants at Nobles and a consultant at Alder Hey, all saw no cause for concern. As John would be arrested if he revealed the identity of the children, he cannot include those photos in this book. As John has few photos showing the children playing with toys, the best he could do was to gather up the toys which filled ten large cardboard boxes and photograph that.

The acting advocate for the department again tried to be fair, saying, 'Can I ask you why your view is the children cannot go home for the period of the eight days which would be the length of the emergency protection order?'

This was remarkable and showed that she, at least, was trying to be fair, but Mrs Q had a glib answer, 'The concern is that a child of seven has been so malnourished that she collapsed and almost died. We have no way of knowing if the other children are at risk of something similar happening. Her status deteriorated within two days, at least that's what's believed. We need to get to know more about the family.'

Obviously with Olga in hospital, no one would suggest she leave hospital, but Mrs Q already showed the evasiveness of social services. If Olga had deteriorated in two days, then all things being equal, which they were not, Tatiana or Maria could be brought to a serious state in two days rather than the eight the advocate suggested they came home for.

Earlier in her evidence, Mrs Q had found it convenient to claim the neglect and malnourishment of Olga must have been going on for a long period. Now the deterioration was within two days. The magistrates, had they paid attention, ought to have picked up this inconsistency and wondered how reliable Mrs Q was? Olga, from the evidence was at the bottom end of the centiles, below the 0.2 centile on the casual way of testing, but on at least the 4th centile if her height was taken into account. Tatiana and Maria had been examined by Dr Z who reported no injuries and no signs of malnourishment, so an EPO returning the two well children to the family but with daily visits by social workers would have been quite safe. That was not what Mrs Q wanted, as the case might slip away from her fingers.

John's advocate asked Mrs Q about her criticism of Vera not going in the ambulance with Olga. pointing out she had the smallest child to look after and wanted to take Tatiana to school. Mrs Q claimed not to know that. The advocate said that after two days with tests outstanding it was very early. Mrs Q dismissed it, 'We've heard the evidence of two outstanding tests, but the medical evidence from the doctor suggests that is from severe malnutrition.' Predictably Mrs Q did not mention the rider of a possible metabolic condition, as that would help the parents. John's advocate correctly replied that her understanding was that the diagnosis could not be made until the tests were back. The clerk of the court pointed out it was a 1 in 100,000 possibility of there being another reason.

The advocate pointed out that Mrs Q had spoken of reluctance by parents to attend appointments, adding, 'what specific examples can you give of that?' Mrs Q replied, 'The health visitor has talked about appointments with the dietician.' Mrs Q made it plural, but the advocate reminded the court it was one appointment and was to be rearranged. In fact it had been rearranged months previously. The advocate then challenged Mrs Q, 'Is there evidence of appointments being missed for the children?' The best Mrs Q could say was, 'Not at the present time.'

At this stage the department was keen to ban any contact between the parents and the children, however distressing this would be to the children, but John's advocate pressed this matter.

The advocate for the children pointed out that the concerns about Olga's health and malnourishment, did not apply to the other children and wanted to know why the same concerns should apply to them in very different circumstances. Having fobbed off the acting advocate for the department, saying of Olga, 'Her status deteriorated within two days, at least that's what's believed.', there was now a totally different excuse, 'For Olga it was a prolonged period of time and the other concern is what Mrs Stevenson said to the police that Olga would ask for food and if you didn't ask, you didn't get fed.'

We had now gone from a long period of bad parenting, to two days, and back to a long period, so it should have been clear to the court that Mrs Q adapted her evidence to whatever was expedient. This should have been picked up by John's advocate and also by the magistrates, as a witness who alters her testimony to suit the circumstances lacks credibility. The second point as we have now seen was the warped way the IOM Police had reported the interrogation of Vera.

The Advocate for the children asked, 'your chronology set out a strategy meeting following which there was a decision not to progress an investigation.... As a result of this Mrs Q admitted there was a provision under section 17 to work with the parents on a voluntary basis, but Mrs Q showed no willingness to go down this road, saying instead that other than an Emergency Protection Order there was just an Interim Protection Order. The advocate for the children again asked if the younger two children could be returned home after a short investigation, but Mrs Q said she could not predict the actions of management.

The magistrates wanted to ask why there was a bag of Calpol in the house. Vera was asked if she wished to give evidence and offered to explain the calpol, which was that there were three children and they regularly suffered from ear ache and the medicine could go very quickly with three of them, as the infection tended to spread rapidly.

As Vera had offered to give evidence, the acting advocate for the department said she had to ask some questions,

Advocate; 'The Police have told Social Services that you said that because of Olga's age she's old enough to tell you when she's hungry and when she tells you that she's hungry that's when you will find some food for her, is that what you told the Police?'

Vera: 'When she tells me that she's hungry I will find her food and I think generally as we grow up we tend to eat when we like when we feel hunger, so I can't be said that it's 100'% of the time it was treatment like that, we sometimes, not sometimes quite often we don't try to starve the child but we do ask and we can't say it's a regular thing would you like to eat, would you like to eat, but we do pop up the question every now and then would you like to have something.'

Vera had said Olga was given regular meals and also whenever she asked for it, and the police email that she was only given food when she asked for it as the police alleged was untrue, but she was clearly distraught and her answer was chaotic. It is so confused that it is hard to make any coherent sense of it, and although social services regularly sought to blacken Vera, this was so meaningless than they did not make much use of it, or suggest Vera had admitted this in court. John studied legal construction and interpretation as a part of his law degree, and has applied the rules of construction to decide what it means. One could devote pages to it with all the different possibilities. After that, no more questions were asked of Vera.

John's advocate had whispered that the magistrates did not want to hear any more evidence, and the clerk made this apparent, 'Summing up; No more evidence.'

The acting advocate for the department asked did Mr Stevenson want to give evidence, but the clerk hastily interrupted, 'No No' and then felt he had to ask John. Given the warning and discouragement by his advocate that asking to give evidence would not go down well, John felt the furthest he could go was to say 'If it would help the Court,' as the desire of the magistrates to go home was only too clear.

With largely false evidence from Nurse S, though this was not apparent at the time, and Mrs Q relying on nurse S' evidence, as Dr Z's comments were of no help to her, the case against the parents was totally unfair, but John was not in a position to demolish the falsehoods which took him many weeks of patient effort to demolish. As no proper defence would have been practicable in the time available, it probably did not matter whether John spoke or not. As a result the case was decided on largely false information from Nurse S, the magistrates deciding to grant an Emergency Protection Order for seven days.

## Chapter 4 The 100,000 to 1 longshot comes up.

John and Vera had hoped the magistrates would see the absurdity of kidnapping three children who were much loved and close to their parents. Sadly one could not be confident of this even before the start of the hearing, for had not IOM magistrates sentenced a child to be handed over for torture even after the birch had been outlawed in 1976? It is perhaps descending to the level of these child torturers to say that if anyone deserved the application of a whip to their bare buttocks, the magistrates responsible for that act of would-be sadism did. Sadly that is to descend to the same level as such people, so a civilized person cannot really wish that. It is to apply the Old Testament values of an eye for an eye, rather than a humane and decent approach.

The hearing had opened well with the scrupulously fair evidence of Dr Z. The biased and malicious evidence of Nurse S came as a bombshell, and whilst John knew much of it to be untrue, how did he prove he had not sworn or shouted at Nurse S, though she could not prove he had. Sadly mud sticks, and John was too much of a realist not to know that false mud is as harmful as truth, unless you can disprove it. Trying to disprove the comments about Olga's fictitious loss of weight might be possible and after the case, John started to gather together the paperwork to prove Nurse S had misled the court. The social worker, who appeared reasonable and good-natured at first sight, had suppressed anything which might benefit the family and emphasized anything detrimental put up by Nurse S. This one-sided approach was a worry. At the time, she could not know the falsity of much of that evidence, so one had to give her the benefit of the doubt that when she discovered the truth, she would realize the injustice she had been responsible for.

The first development came within days of the emergency hearing, when on 24 September 2014, Dr Z produced a supplementary report. The 100,000 to 1 longshot had come up, but it could hardly be said to be good news. In his report, Dr Z explained Olga was suffering from Addison's disease, which is found in approximately 1 in 10,000 adults. Most victims are women over thirty. Its appearance in a child of seven is in the order of 100,000 to 1, so it was now clear that Dr Z had realized almost in minutes that things just did not add up.

That John and Vera had not starved or neglected Olga was what they had always said and therefore good news, but what would be the effect on Olga of Addison's disease? Was it treatable? Would she live, or was it like some of the more malignant cancers, where months or years were all that could be expected. Twenty years previously, John had seen a tiny white coffin lowered into the ground of a child with a rare illness. It had been horrible for him, but what must it have been like for the mother of that child? John was only a friend of the family but had shed tears.

Dr Z had provided a very useful fact sheet with his diagnosis. Dr Thomas Addison identified the condition in the mid nineteenth century at which time it was fatal within a few years. He found that the Adrenal glands, which produce adrenalin, which is vital to life, and are on top of the kidneys, had been damaged or destroyed. Like cancer, where the body is attacked by rogue cells, the usual cause of Addison's was that the body's immune system attacked the adrenal glands, so the disease was inevitably fatal until the 1930s, when extracts from animal adrenal glands kept patients alive. Sufferers from Addison's who were successfully treated with hydrocortisone, included President Kennedy.

In the fact sheet Dr Z sent out, it explained that even today it is often unclear what causes someone to develop Addison's. Known causes include severe injury to the kidneys as a result of an accident or use of illicit drugs, but neither applied with Olga.

The illness is not curable at present, so the sufferer must take hydrocortisone for the rest of their life. In the case of illness, injury or an operation, the body's need for adrenalin rockets up due to the stress, so the dose must be increased accordingly and very quickly. An under-medicated patient may become drowsy and unable to communicate properly; dizziness, headaches, stomach aches, weakness are all common, and in the worst case, loss of consciousness. Lack of food can precipitate an Adrenal crisis within 48 hours, and this was the key to what had happened on 15-17 September 2014. Olga had vomited on the 15th and on medical advice had been fasted on 16 Sept, so by 17 Sept had been 48 hours without food, so Dr Z was correct when he said in court how the gastroenteritis had triggered the sudden collapse.

Unfortunately Addison's disease, as it develops, also causes the body to break down its own fat reserves, which are intended by nature to provide a buffer if someone goes without food for a few days. Although Olga was eating a reasonable amount, her body was disposing of glucose at an excessive rate. The trap is even worse as it can make Addisonians less inclined to eat and more argumentative, so a child who is already strong willed will become more combative, less inclined to take in calories, and will get rid of food inefficiently and too fast, so a quite minor illness, such as gastroenteritis, can provoke a crisis in a matter of 48 hours.

John was initially inclined to blame the GP for negligence. After all, he had examined Olga on the afternoon of 15 September and prescribed fasting. Why had he not spotted her condition? As John dug further, he discovered medical authorities were unanimous that Addison's was hard to detect, and many Addisonians were only detected when they went into their first crisis.

What were the symptoms? A bronzed or yellow skin was one, but all three children had been out in the sun a great deal during the fine summer weather in late August 2014. They were sun tanned, as were John and Vera. Looking at photos, Olga was slightly more tanned than her sisters, but it was of degree, and not a great degree at that. Arguably John was at least as tanned as Olga, and people do differ. His late mother had gone to an almost 'Indian sub-continent brown', but his father went to a blotchy pink.

The school dinner ladies had reported Olga being yellow but different artificial light sources can radically alter colour tones, as moving from traditional tungsten light, to fluorescent light to halogen light reveals. The cleaning ladies had added that Olga was tanned so it was hard to tell, but when John asked the GP if a yellow skin tone report would have been taken seriously he was adamant it would have been. Why had John not detected this or the GP? The probable explanation is lighting sources, but had Nurse S reported this to John or to the GP, it would have been investigated, and might have alerted health professionals to this, prior to Olga's Addisonian crisis.

Apart from a yellow skin what other symptoms were there? Loss of weight was one, and nurse S had claimed a loss of weight so despite her negligence in not reporting the yellowness to the GP, she was now trumpeting I told you so. In reality the 'loss of weight' was because her machine or her weighing techniques so differed from every other health professional that they produced a difference of well over a kg gain in a matter of five days in April 2014. Taking reliable measurements, Olga had increased slowly from 14.5 kg in September 2013 to 14.7 Kg in April 2014, and the dieticians had not sounded alarm bells, as she was slowly gaining in weight.

As a standard symptom of Addison's is significant weight loss, rather than slow gain, it suggests John and Vera, in the way they encouraged Olga to eat had transformed a likely rapid weight loss into a slow gain. Even so, John asked himself repeatedly, 'should he have spotted something sooner?' He had now met the Community paediatrician who was at the meetings over Olga and when he spoke over this anxiety, the community paediatrician said health professionals often missed Addison's until a patient went into crisis, so he should not blame himself.

Vera was, if anything, even more inclined to blame herself, saying it must be her fault as one day when Olga had been suffering from Otitis media – ear ache – she had been very stubborn over taking her antibiotic, and it had been an hour late. A missed dose of antibiotic can seriously affect the potency of the medicine against the infection, but the delay needs to be more than a couple of hours, and it was less than an hour before Vera had asked John to get Olga to take her medicine. There is some evidence that with many antibiotics, reducing to three instead of four tablets a day, will cause no problems. The delay with Olga was not therefore going to affect the potency of the antibiotic. Even with a greater delay, it could not cause Addison's disease, which develops over months or years, so Vera's fears were groundless. Alas, Vera had spoken of her 'guilt' to the Supervised Contact Staff, whose sole customers are social services. Such guilt feelings could be reported to social services, and with suitable editing to maximise the potential damage, be exploited to show the mother was irresponsible. INEVITABLY, it was.

At this point, a word of caution to other parents whose children are kidnapped may be timely. Supervised contact staff directly or indirectly earn their pay from their only customer, social services, so owe total loyalty to their paymasters. Any information which can blacken parents will be reported. If a parent turns up in old clothes or stained clothes from work, it will be reported. On one occasion, John carried one of the children up the steep footpath from the playground at the Mooragh park. It was a hot day, and he perspired freely, so body odour was enthusiastically jotted down by a contact worker who was carrying nothing. Vera had been devastated by the collapse of Olga and the kidnapping of her children, and was very unhappy. This sadly spilled over into contact where she would often sit silently saying little and doing little, so this was reported as low attachment.

If your child is kidnapped by social services, you cannot come straight from work to contact in stained work clothes; you cannot sweat carrying a child up a steep hill in blazing sunshine; if you are a lady, you cannot dress unfashionably, and no matter how devastated you are, you cannot let it show. They are 'own goals' so do not do any of them!

John and Vera both felt guilt, 'should I have spotted something' and the Community paediatrician reassured John that health professionals commonly missed it until there was an Addisonian crisis. John at first did blame the GP, as he was a health professional, and said so in some of his early written evidence to the court. Later on, as he learned more of Addison's, he realized the GP had seen a suntanned child and an equally suntanned father. Olga was thin, but she had slowly gained in weight, rather than rapidly lose weight as is typical in Addison's, so was it fair to blame the GP? In a later written deposition, John had said,

'My initial reaction was that the diagnosis of Olga had been negligent, and I said so in my initial depositions. As I discovered more about Addison's, I concluded that although the GP's advice had triggered Olga's collapse on 17.09.2014, he had no reason to suspect Addison's on 15.09.2014 and I owed him an apology.'

When John had the opportunity to cross-examine the GP, he felt a formal apology before the court was called for as the initial accusation had been on the court record, he said, "I have looked back and asked myself was I negligent in not detecting Addison's? I asked the same question of your medical advice, was it negligent? Unless I could, hand-on-heart, say I thought you had been negligent, could I blame you? I do not think you had grounds to suspect Addison's, so I unreservedly withdraw any suggestions to that effect. I hope you can accept that apology Sir." The GP very graciously accepted this apology.

This is perhaps a good point to cover the cross-examination of the GP as it reveals much that Social Services would desire to keep hidden!

In the interval between Olga returning home from school and seeing the GP, she vomited several times and John gave her frequent small amounts of very dilute squash as she tolerated that better than larger drinks. John asked the GP if this made sense, He agreed, "frequent small amounts of fluid" were acceptable.

As Olga's temperature had reached 38C, she was given Calpol and at the surgery the GP checked and her temperature was 37C. John asked if there was anything more we ought to have done. He said, "No everything was reasonable."

The social worker had blamed the parents for not giving the dioralyte hydrating solution which the GP had prescribed for Olga. Whilst the packet and NHS Choices specify this is for use with diarrhoea, and do not refer to vomiting, this GP used it for the vomiting stage as well. When he knew of this, John thought it a very wise policy, but by an unfortunate chance, this did not become apparent at the time. This was used to suggest negligence. John asked the GP if it would have had any effect in combating Addison's. He replied "No, it would have made no difference."

John took the GP through the school concerns log over the entry on 8.09.2014 that Olga was yellow in colour. He agreed colour perception varies from one individual to another and although he was not an expert, from common experience that it varied due to different lighting. John asked the GP if a yellowness report by the school or himself for Olga on 8.09.2014 had been passed to the surgery would it have been ignored. He said emphatically it would not have been ignored. John asked the GP what action would have been taken? He said if he had received a yellowness report on 8.09.2014 he would have asked for bloods to be taken the following day.

John asked if a history of yellowness on 8.09.2014, followed by vomiting on 15.09.2014 would have any effect and the GP said alarm bells would have rung. If the school nurse had spoken to the GP or the parents, rather than just try to stir up trouble at Safeguarding, Olga might have been spared an Addisonian crisis. This looks highly suspicious.

Vera had been admitted to hospital in the UK on three occasions with a blockage of the intestine and an operation to remove a short length had been offered, but she was told she might be able to control it with careful diet. John asked if that seemed logical advice. The GP said they seemed reasonable options. The reason this had been spoken of by social services was to suggest that as a family we habitually ignored medical advice. John asked if she had two and a half years of successful control through careful diet if the refusal of an operation could be discounted. The GP agreed this was so if there had been no problems in that time.

John asked the GP, "Do you feel that when you saw Olga you should have said Addison's without any reasonable grounds to do so?" the GP replied, "No it is a very rare disease." John put the matter as bluntly as he could, "Can you, hand on heart, say you believed you carried out your duties as a GP in a competent and responsible manner? He replied "Yes."

John asked if a child who is suffering from gastroenteritis, and for whom fasting is recommended, routinely collapses within a few hours? – the GP said NO. John asked "As parents did we act responsibly in following your advice?" – "Yes."

The GP had set out a test in his evidence that parents or carers must "seek the necessary treatment in a timely fashion"?

John asked if the usual fasting treatment for gastroenteritis would be appropriate for a child who was known to have Addison's disease? The GP said most emphatically that it was not. A child who was suspected to have Addison's should have been sent to childrens ward right away.

John asked if the different treatments were based on the information reasonably available to the GP, so what was right in one case would be wrong in different circumstances. The GP agreed.

The social worker had criticized Vera for not phoning round to find a friend to look after the children so she could go with Olga to hospital, although this would delay the ambulance. John asked the GP, "Shortly before 8.00am on 17 September Olga lost the use of her legs and became confused. Vera phoned the ambulance at 7.53am and it arrived at 7.57am. Rather than delay it while she phoned round to see if someone could look after Tatiana and Maria so she could go with Olga to hospital, her concern was to get Olga to hospital as quickly as possible. Was this responsible parenting and had Vera "sought the necessary treatment in a timely fashion"? He replied Yes.

John asked the GP if he felt on 15 September 2014, when he arranged an appointment for Olga to see him if John had "sought the necessary treatment in a timely fashion." He replied Yes.

John asked the GP to study the photos taken in August-September 2014 and whether the girls were smart well dressed and wearing clean clothing. the GP said he was not a fashion expert but the clothes were clean and appropriate to the weather conditions.

The Department had suggested that John and Vera could not look after Olga without needing support. John said to the GP that 'of course we needed support and the people we would look to were himself as our GP, the relevant consultants and the rest of the medical team. He concluded "Do I really need to ask if you will give us that support?" the GP replied, "Of course we will. I will give you the support of a GP at the primary care level."

It is not common that questions from the advocate representing Social Services are advanced in support of the case for the parents, but in her re-examination to try to dent the favourable impression given by the GP, the advocate for the Department asked the GP about Olga. He replied she was "a slim child but she did not strike me as being exceptionally thin at the time." This was the opinion of the GP less than 48 hours prior to an Addisonian crisis!

The judge asked the GP his opinion as to what steps might be necessary if the children were returned to the parents. He suggested education as to the severity of Addison's disease, being taught how to administer blood sugar tests and perhaps some support from social services. John wholeheartedly agrees. He had studied what he could on Addison's, but more knowledge cannot harm.

John has given this cross-examination at length as it shows the good rapport between him and the GP as the primary care provider.

Nurse S had sought to portray John as uncooperative with services, bullying and failing to attend appointments, The Senior dietician had been unwell so another senior dietician, 'S2' had been asked to prepare a detailed report from the records of the Dietician service. Allegations had been made by the Social Worker of missed appointments. The first appointment made for Olga was on 20.08.13 but the appointment letter was received when the family was off the Island. John asked Ms S2 if families with children of school age did holiday at this time of year. She replied "Yes, people go off the Island."

A new appointment was made for 17.09.2013 and Ms S2 confirmed John and Olga had attended that appointment. The Senior Dietician's letter of 27.09.2013 about this appointment said of Olga, "She appeared to be a very shy child and was reluctant to get weighed and measured until her father actually demonstrated what we required her to do and then she allowed me to weigh and height her." Ms S2 agreed John had actively encouraged Olga to do as The Senior Dietician requested.

John asked if there was any suggestion in The Senior Dietician's letter re 17.09.2013 that Olga was emaciated or malnourished. Ms S2 said there was not. To leave no doubt John put it to Ms S2 "I suggest the actions on 17.09.2013 are consistent with the dietician wishing to keep a close eye on Olga, as she was at the low end of the weight and height charts, but they do not suggest any concerns re malnutrition, or any underlying medical problems? Do you agree?" She replied "I agree." The next entry was on 11.12.2013 and covered a report by two other dieticians, John asked if she was a band 6 qualified and experienced dietician. Ms S2 said "She is."

In cross examination, Ms S2 agreed Olga's weight had increased slightly to 14.6kg. John asked Ms S2 if the notes or the letter gave the least reason to believe he had been in any way obstructive? She replied "No they do not." John asked Ms S2 to confirm that he had reported a family history of low weight and she concurred.

John asked Ms S2, "The band six dietician does not suggest Olga is malnourished or neglected in her letter and there is no such mention in your notes either. As the two dieticians said they would review Olga in clinic in 3 months' time, is it reasonable to assume that neither of them saw any cause for urgent intervention at this time?" she replied, 'Yes reasonable."

The next entry was on 9.04.2014 and Ms S2 confirmed Olga's weight had increased slightly to 14.7kg, but as Olga's weight had dropped off the second centile, the dietician said she would review Olga in two months time rather than three months. The difference between the BMI centile which includes HEIGHT is noteworthy from the 7th to 0.2 centiles, but John was quite prepared to accept the more stringent figures, even though it ignored the key element of height.

John suggested to Ms S2 that this showed a careful watch was being kept on Olga which seemed entirely reasonable to him. He asked if she agreed. She replied "I would agree." John asked if there was any evidence to suggest he was unhappy with this. Ms S2 said there was nothing in the notes to suggest this.

John asked Ms S2 "If either of the dieticians had entertained any significant concerns about Olga, do you feel they would have suggested an appointment in two months, or would they have flagged a concern in their report and sought earlier action?" She replied if they had been concerned there would have been an appointment sooner than two months, or maybe a referral back to Nobles.

John asked, "When the Senior Dietician had offered appointments in Ramsey at our meeting on 17 September 2013, I had been very appreciative, as I had missed a lot of school though otitis media when I was Olga's age, and my education had suffered. If appointments could be in Ramsey after school, it avoided losing a half day at the very least of schooling. Does this seem to you to be a parent doing his best for his daughter's education?" Ms S2 replied "It seems reasonable & not an unusual request."

John asked Ms S2, "between 17 September 2013 and 11 December 2013, Olga increased in weight by just 0.1kg. There was an identical increase from 11 December 2013 to 9 April 2014 of 0.1kg. Is that correct?" Ms S2 replied "Correct."... John referred her to the table of weights she had prepared on page 23 of the dietician report, and suggested "There seems to me to be only one period where there is a dramatic and sudden weight gain for Olga, and that is between her Addisonian crisis on 17 September and the weight you record of 13.7 kg for 18 September 2014, and 29 September 2014 when she weighed 14.8kg. Is that correct?" She confirmed this was so.

One of the countless false allegations made by the Social worker was that Olga had lost weight prior to her Addisonian crisis on 17.09.2014, although there is no plausible evidence of this from the dietician records. John asked Ms S2, "would I be correct that when someone vomits repeatedly, as in an Addisonian crisis, they can lose weight very rapidly through dehydration?" – She replied "That's Correct."....."After an Addisonian stops vomiting, and is stable, can the weight gain, as they become rehydrated, be quite rapid?" She responded 'yes being re-hydration.'

This was exactly the point John had repeatedly made to Social Services. John pointed out how Olga gained 1.1kg in the eleven days from 18 September 2014 to 29 September 2014 saying this was a convenient round sum of 0.1kg per day. He suggested that "If we were to project such a weight through to 30 December 2014, which is 92 days, Olga would have put on 9.2 Kg",... and suggested "This would neither be likely nor I suggest desirable. Would you concur?" Ms S2 responded "I agree." John asked "Would a weight gain as rapid as that of late September 2014 be likely other than after a calamitous event as had happened on 17 September 2014 with Olga's Addisonian crisis?" Ms S2 said a gain such as this which was due to re-hydration was possible, but not otherwise.

To confirm there was no likely risk of error in the weightings of the dietician service, John asked Ms S2 "According to your records, Olga was weighed by The Senior Dietician at 14.5k on 17.09.2013, by the Band Six dietician at 14.6kg on 11 December and by the same dietician at 14.7 kg on 9 April 2014. Do you have any reason to doubt the competence of these colleagues or their results?" She said "No."

John asked Ms S2 about the sort of weight might Olga have been likely to put on in the last five days preceding her being weighed on 9 April 2014. Could she, for example put on 0.5kg. She said it was unlikely. John asked, "What if I said she had put on a whole Kg in five days, from 4 to 9 April 2014? Does this make any sense?" She said "Even more unlikely." John asked, "How about a 1.3kg difference in five days." – She replied "very unlikely."

John referred Ms S2 to the alleged weight given by the School Nurse of 13.4kg on 4 April 2014, yet a weight of "14.7kg by 9 April 2014, when weighed by the dietician service. As there is no suggestion of an Addisonian Crisis in April 2014, to allow for a rapid gain in weight, does this difference sound remotely likely to you?" Ms S2 suggested it could be accounted for by different scales.

Ms S2 had introduced a figure of a reasonable weight gain for a child of Olga's age of up to 200gm/week. In the discussion on weights, Ms S2 said the dietician scales were kept in a fixed location and subject to regular calibration. She assumed the school nurse scales were moved about in the car, and had no idea how often they were calibrated. It became clear the only way a gain of 1.3kg in five days could be accounted for was a difference in the scales, and Ms S2 had already stated that the dietician scales were likely to be accurate.

This seems a good point to mention the improbable weights used by social services for Tatiana at this period. In trying to come to terms with this unlikely weight gain of 1.3kg for Olga between 4 and 9 April 2014, John had occasion to look at Tatiana's known weightings. From her medical records, Tatiana was weighed at Children's Ward on 20 March 2014 and on 8 April 2014, at 14.5kg and 14.8kg. Tatiana was weighed by the school nurse on 4 April 2014, on the same occasion that Olga was alleged to weigh 13.4kg. Tatiana's weight had also dropped, but to a lesser extent, from 14.5kg to 14.2kg before climbing to 14.8kg by 9 April 2014. This 600 gm increase in five days is more than three times the likely gain in a child's weight as suggested by Ms S2 in the absence of any sudden re-hydration, and there had been no dehydration in the case of Tatiana.

What is even more dubious is that whilst the theoretical weight gain by Tatiana between 4.04.14 and 9.04.14 if the school nurse figures are to be believed was 0.6kg, the gain for Olga was 1.3kg or twice as much, so there is not even a consistent discrepancy in the figures produced by the school nurse.

The school nurse and social worker had attacked the family on 'Parenting Capacity.' John referred Ms S2 to The Senior Dietician's statement of 20 January 2015 on PARENTING CAPACITY. 'There are no concerns noted in the dietetic records regarding parenting capacity, from my personal contact with the parents their behaviour has always been appropriate around Olga.' Can you confirm this please?" She responded "Yes."

John referred to a meeting on 20 November 2014, "according to your report, with The Senior Dietician, Dr Z, the foster carer, John, Vera and Olga. According to the notes, the foster carer said Olga's appetite had decreased since leaving hospital and she was starting to refuse foods she had previously eaten. The foster carer added "Olga is a very determined child." Would you confirm this?' – "Yes."

'You reported from the notes "Plan was that parents would provide a packed lunch type meal at contact rather than just snacks to alleviate the problem of Olga being too tired to eat when she arrives at the foster carers. Plan was that extra calories advised will ensure requirements are met." Do you agree?" Ms S2 said yes. John referred her to the entry of 20.11.14, and "Cals or Calories appear five times in that specific entry, so would you agree that the theme of the meeting was the need to get extra calories into Olga, and that we, as parents, were seen as having a role to play?" Ms S2 confirmed this was so.

John referred Ms S2 to an entry of 5 December 2014, 'The Senior Dietician attended a ward round with Drs Z and Y, according to your report. It was noted that Olga was often vomiting after medication. Dr Y "thought this may be due to travel sickness as occurring after a 40 minute journey to school." It is also noted that the Senior Dietician phoned the foster carer who reported vomiting could be prior to school and how Olga was becoming difficult to feed and was declining previously tolerated foods. Is that a fair summary?' Ms S2 said yes.

The fostering reports show that with Olga's regular car sickness, Nobles had referred to car sickness and anxiety as possible triggers to Olga's vomiting as early as 13 October. Dr Y spoke of this on 5 December, so it is suggested little doubt can exist as to a prolific cause for Olga's vomiting. John suggested to Ms S2, "It seems to me that the senior dietician, and Drs Y and Z made diligent efforts to consider Olga's best interests. It also suggests to me that the foster carer, although excellent, was finding problems in getting Olga to eat. Would you agree? The dietician agreed, "Yes that's what the notes said."

Criticism is made from certain witnesses employed by Social Care or the Contact Centre of the failure of John and his wife to get Olga to eat satisfactorily. After the children had been kidnapped, the parents had minutes, or at most a few hours, to accomplish this. From the fostering and dietician records, it is manifest that an experienced foster carer, who was under no time pressure, so had a far easier task, faced serious difficulties. Failures within the system were not of course seen as being of any consequence, whilst perceived failures of the parents would be ruthlessly exploited.

John drew Ms S2's attention to a report of 13 February 2015, 'you refer to a "meeting held to discuss Olga's ongoing dietary needs when she returned home to parents, which is noted as being planned from 30.03.15." It was attended by the senior dietician, the social worker, my wife and myself, Olga's teacher, and the foster carer. Is that correct?' She said "Yes."

The reference to returning home required clarification. Earlier John mentioned how a clinical psychologist, or 'hired gun' had been appointed by the Department to provide a report on the children which would damn the parents. The report had been an unmitigated disaster for social services, as it highlighted the harm their kidnapping had done. Within days of that report, John had instructed his advocate to commence an application to end the interim care order.

The Department, faced with the N Report, as we will call it, feared a humiliating defeat, so to head off a law case proposed a return to the parents. They would be required to show competence in the house and other things, but as the plan evolved, it became clear to John that it was actually a poisoned chalice, as the home visits by the children were stage managed in such a way that the parents were bound to fail.

John continued, 'The key seem to be the "need to maximise Olga's growth." "Olga appeared to have some behavioural aspects to her eating and refusal of food." ..."The foster carer had concerns that eating carbohydrate food would lead to low blood sugars which the senior dietician explained was not the case." Ms S2 agreed this was a fair summary. John suggested, "The report for 13 February 2015 continues that the senior dietician encouraged the use of high fat foods, such as butter and mayonnaise. The teacher and both parents queried if there was a limit to this. They were told no, so long as Olga was also eating Carbohydrate and protein. Again is that a fair summary?" Ms S2 agreed.

John suggested "This meeting emphasised in my mind the need for calories, that carbohydrate products that were going to give Olga plenty of sugar, and the need to boost milk products. RDAs, for example over fat and salt, should be a low priority. Would I be correct in that assessment?" Ms S2 explained it was "A catching up approach. You have to encourage the use of fatty foods which you would not do in a healthy child." The impression John gained from The Senior Dietician was that we were still trying to build Olga up which was difficult due to the complications of Addison's and her fear of food brought about by frequent vomiting, and Ms S2's evidence confirmed this impression.

Ms S2 had by herself introduced some points John had not considered asking about. The most significant was about the meeting with The Senior Dietician on 17.09.2013. Ms S2 explained, "Olga's weight was not actually a concern at this point. The senior dietician made an appointment in three months time....some children will grow happily on the 0.4 centile."

The words some children will grow happily on the 0.4 centile were from an experienced dietician and were the first time a highly respected health professional had said the 0.4 centile was not something to feel ashamed of. That in itself shredded the testimony of Nurse S and the social worker Mrs Q, still further, but in common with most of the evidence from the GP and Ms S2, both of whom were experienced health professionals, was largely disregarded by the court!

At the time of the dietician appointments in September 2013, December 2013 and April 2014, Addison's was not suspected. The Addison's Disease Self Help Group website refers to how insidious the disease is and how there is a loss of appetite and weight loss. With the exception of the school nurse weight of 13.4kg on 4.04.2014, which the court had been forced to accept as highly unlikely, there was no trace of Olga's weight having dropped from July 2013 to the onset of her Addisonian crisis on 17.09.2014. One of the key symptoms of Addison's, an actual recorded loss of weight by competent health professionals was completely lacking.

The dieticians had not in September 2013, December 2013 or April 2014 suggested there was a crisis situation. John had faith in them, and from her evidence it is clear Ms S2 had faith in her colleagues. John believed that if they had any concerns they would have said so.

Olga, as the community paediatrician had stated in his Acute Health Care Plan was a small child through prematurity and genetic factors. John was aware of this and felt that the dietician service WOULD have taken action if they had any concerns. If they were content to monitor her, John felt reassured that there was no risk, but no health professional or John had suspected Addison's disease. Whenever John asked if the actions would have been different had Addison's disease been suspected, the answer was unequivocal.

The social worker had criticized the parents for missing appointments. Following the 9 April 2014 appointment, a new appointment was set for 2 July 2014. John put it to Ms S2. "In your notes, you refer to the clinical appointment for 2 July 2014 being cancelled by the hospital due to staff sickness. I think we would all agree this was unfortunate, but I suggest staff sickness does not equate to negligence, so casts no shadow on the dietician service does it?" She agreed with my suggestion. A replacement appointment was offered for 6 August 2014. By that time, a family holiday had been booked, so the girls could see their Russian grandparents. John suggested many families with school age children are on holiday at this time of year and put it to Ms S2, "I suggest that just as no shadow rests on the dietician service for the lost appointment on 2 July, no stain rests on the family over 6 August 2014. Would you agree?" She said "Yes."

With the benefit of hindsight, it is unfortunate the appointment offered in July had to be cancelled through staff illness, as it would have given us a weight in July 2014. Olga could have remained the same weight, gone up very slightly, or gone down very slightly, but we would have had that evidence to go on. Had she lost weight, it would have been something to review. Hindsight is of course wonderful, and with it, the GP would not have recommended fasting Olga on 15.09.2014 as he made crystal clear.

It will be clear to the reader that the medical witnesses had been highly supportive of the family, but the most unexpected blow to social services was to be delivered by the clinical psychologist the Department hired, who specializes in preparing court reports on children for care cases. Such expert witnesses work exclusively for social services departments and their evidence is notorious for supporting the social services view point, so much so that they are known as hired guns. In reading Dr N's report it is important to bear this in mind. Social Services had wished him to be a joint agreed expert witness, which would limit John's ability to subject the witness to a potentially hostile cross examination, so John refused to accept this, so he was the department's witness.

John asked Dr N in Court on 25 November 2015,'Do you agree that some behaviour can be put down to mental health issues or the physical or emotional treatment a child has encountered in life?' he replied 'true.'

John asked, 'Would you agree there are certain physical conditions that affect behavioural and mental processes?' He replied 'true.'

John asked, 'Have you, in your career as a Clinical Psychologist, encountered any other seven or eight year old girls who have been diagnosed as suffering from Addison's Disease?' He replied 'I have not as it is very rare to my knowledge.'.....I asked. 'If you will go to Bundle 75 in ring binder 5 please, and to page 4 from the Addison's Disease Self Help Group, and if you go to page 5, there are seven bullet points listing signs and symptoms of Addison's, do you agree? Dr N said, 'Yes I do.

John put it to the witness, 'It states "there are often emotional changes, particularly irritability and depression", which I suggest have direct relevance in the case of Olga. Would you accept that?' He agreed, 'yes it may.'' John referred the witness to ring binder 2 Appendix 21 on Addison's. He asked the witness, After the six pages numbered 1 to 6 there are unnumbered pages and if you will go to the second page there is a heading SIGNS & SYMPTOMS, 'These include fatigue, weakness, vomiting, all of which Olga has suffered from. It also refers changes in mood and personality. Do you agree we have references to irritability, depression, and changes in mood and personality?' The witness said, 'Seems to be the case.'

John referred the witness to the community paediatrician's acute health care plan, 'If you would go to the "traffic lights" pages do you see warning signs of dark circles around her eyes, vomiting and "Becomes stubborn and unwilling to cooperate" Would you agree that the plan indicates the classic changes in mood and personality of an Addisonian patient have been detected in Olga's case?' Dr N replied, 'To the best of my knowledge I can confirm what the plan says.' As we will find later, many witnesses for social services totally ignored the impact on Olga's character of Addison's, it is clear how Dr N was being an exemplary professional witness in this answer. He is a psychologist rather than a physician, but had informed himself on Addison's, so was giving a professional opinion as a psychologist on the psychological implications of the disease, and such an answer merits the greatest respect.

There were, in all, three different versions of the Community Paediatrician's Acute Health care plan revised in light of increasing knowledge of Olga. John took Dr N through the three and asked him if whole of the Selective Eaters Clinic report, with the, "You have no choice as I am saying that you have to eat it" type commands which had been in the first version had later been omitted? He replied 'Yes, it seems to have.'

John referred Dr N to bundle 102, which is the third version of the Acute Health Care Plan with a September 2015 date on the front. He said, 'At page 2, there is a new instruction, "Parents and foster carers report that Olga can be extremely strong willed and recommended that through calm discussion and an explanation as to WHY she needs to do something, she will usually cooperate." John put it to Dr N, 'the three versions of the community paediatrician's plan have gone from "I am saying that you have to eat it" to "calm discussion and an explanation." He replied 'That seems to be the case.'

John suggested to the witness. 'One is an abrasive comment. The other is negotiation. Please feel free to look at the plans, as it would be unfair to pressure you into an answer, but would you accept that I have accurately described the tenor of the changes?' He replied, 'Yes that does appear to be the case.'

John asked Dr N, 'Would you agree that if we know that a child's behaviour is affected by a medical condition, as seems to be the case with Olga, it is important for us to adjust the way we interface with the child, in order to achieve the optimum results?' He replied, 'Yes that would be a fair comment.'

When the abortive return home plan was put forward, the family received the "assistance" of a 'family support worker,' whose written report to the court did not refer to Addison's disease once, or the emotional problems it might cause to Olga, and who tailored her orders to the family as if Olga was not an Addisonian. John informed the court that he repeatedly said to Ms F S that we needed to do this, and Ms F S was insisted upon the Solihull approach to parenting, such as Planned ignoring. She was indifferent to John's suggestion that we needed to adjust the way we interfaced with Olga, which as Dr N said above is a fair comment. John suggested to the court that as a clinical psychologist, Dr N, who was the department's own witness, was a better judge of what is appropriate treatment for a child whose behaviour was probably affected by a medical condition than Ms F S, who had no psychological training. The court ignored this.

John put it to Dr N, 'Within days of your report of 20 January 2015, the Department of Social Care offered a written agreement to reunite the family in late March. Part of this was that we would consult with the dietician which we did on 13 February 2015. Those present at the meeting included the dietician, foster carer, my wife and myself plus the social worker, Mrs Q. This report commences "Meeting held to discuss Olga's ongoing dietary needs when Olga returned home to her parents, which is noted as being planned from 30.3.15. Also to answer some questions which had been asked by Mr Stevenson. I suggest the purpose of this meeting is in line with your suggestion at para 2.2.4 of your report, "Olga has a serious condition which requires close monitoring and support" and your, "I believe it will be vital to establish a routine of mealtimes which is maintained to assist in the management of these difficulties." Would you agree? Dr N replied, 'it refers to dietary needs. They note she has behavioural aspects. I think it is probably similar to what I was suggesting.'

It is significant that Dr N, a 'hired gun; in colloquial terminology, felt the distress to the children was so acute that the parents should receive guidance for when the children returned home, as he confirmed above.

John said to Dr N, 'Can we move on to the character of the three children now. In your evidence, you said at Page 10, "The children, in my opinion, clearly enjoy contact with their parents... Tatiana and Olga in particular seek high levels of affection which benefit them greatly when delivered. In contact observation, Mr Stevenson is very expressive in his play and he is often found to be on his knees playing with the children. He lets them lead the play. He is able to divert attention between the children. He does on occasion use very grown up language with them. However I do not see this as a significant concern." It is my belief that each of the three children was affected differently when they were torn away from their parents. Although they are sisters, and the foster carer described them as a tight little unit to you, would you agree they each have quite different characters and respond differently?' Dr N replied the children were 'similar in some ways but have differences.'

John asked, 'At page 6 you said "Maria Stevenson appears to be developmentally appropriate in terms of her speech ability and social functioning..... Maria appears to have a good relationship with both parents in observations of contact... There is no sign of any fear or anxiety in any of Maria's interactions with either parent." He confirmed this was so. This is quite different to the false claims by Nurse S of children cowering in fear. Later on, we will discover the social worker claiming Maria was on the verge of closing down emotionally. There was no evidence for this allegation, but it sounded good, and so long as the court did not require facts from a social worker to back her allegations, it would be helpful.

John referred Dr N to the Report by the manager of a Day Nursery in Ramsey. Maria was removed from her parents on 19 September 2014 after Olga suffered an Addisonian Crisis, and commenced with a Nursery on 3 November 2014. "Maria settled in very quickly and built a strong bond with her key worker in nursery." Would this suggest to you that apart from having no fear or anxiety in her interactions with my wife and myself as parents, as your observed, that Maria was a well-balanced child without any apparent fear of adults?' Dr N replied, 'That's what I found in my assessment yes.'

'At the start of page 2 of the report from the day nursery the manager speaks of the one time we were allowed to collect Maria from the nursery in July 2015, "On arrival at nursery to collect Maria, dad introduced himself to the staff. Maria appeared pleased to see him and ran to him calling papa. He hugged her. Would this happy reaction from Maria tie in with your observations at contact?' Dr N replied, 'It does very much.'

The manager says "During Maria's time with us we had no concerns about her development. Maria always engaged in solitary play or parallel with her peers. Maria was more than happy to share and take turns with her friends." With the comments about Maria settling in very quickly, the nursery having no concerns about her development and that she was more than happy to share and take turns with her friends, would this suggest to you an open child who makes friends easily?' Dr N responded, 'Does appear to.'

The conclusions say, "Maria had a good relationship with the staff team, particularly her key worker. Maria was always happy arriving at Nursery and would often go straight off to play. In our care, Maria was a happy bright fun little girl with a good knowledge and very resilient personality." Dr N commented, 'It does.'

John had referred Dr N to this evidence for two reasons. One was to provide him with additional evidence on Maria's behaviour to broaden the evidence he had to go on. The second reason was to see if Dr N, as a clinical psychologist assessed the evidence in the same way as the manager of the day nursery and he did. John put it to Dr N, 'On this occasion, the manager has spoken of a good relationship with the staff team. Her earlier remark specifically referred to the key worker but here, she refers to the staff team, so would you accept we are seeing a bright child with no apparent signs of closing down emotionally?' Dr N replied, 'There is no evidence of that in my report or here from what I can see.'

John had asked the manager of the Day nursery if there was any evidence of Maria closing down emotionally and she said no. He asked Dr N the same questions and he said there was 'no evidence'. One of the excuses offered by the social worker for seizing the children was that they were ALL in danger of closing down emotionally. Once again, Mrs Q throws allegations about even thought they are not supported by the observations of professionals. One wonders what the minister feels about the 'anything damaging will do; it need not be the truth' approach of his social workers?

At the time of the social worker's report, Olga had suffered a medical emergency and when she most needed her parents, they were kept away from her by the decision of social services, so distress was likely. Tatiana has spoken of her fear when she was seized from school by a police officer, so any symptoms of closing down with the older two children were probably the result of the Department's cruel actions with them, but there was NO evidence of Maria closing down.

John asked Dr N, 'If you go to the Community Paediatrician's supplementary report of 29 October 2014, he says of Maria "She presents as a bright, cheerful engaging 4 ½ year old with a very good vocabulary and came to task very easily." Would you agree these reports from the Special Care Dentist and a Consultant Paediatrician and Designated Doctor Safeguarding & Child Protection, paint a similar picture to your account of Maria?' Dr N replied 'Yes.'

'In all of these reports about Maria, do you see any trace of fear towards adults in general, or towards any specific adult?' Dr N replied 'No does not seem to be.' In light of these reports, John asked Dr N if he thought it likely that Maria had any fear of him? Dr N replied that from his observations 'She was not afraid of Mr Stevenson.' The only witness to allege the children were afraid of John was Nurse S. John suggested to the court the way nurse S changed her testimony between the hearing in 2014 and 2015, with a much better recollection of the house in 2015 than in 2014, casts doubts on her veracity, as does her failure to tell the whole truth about Olga's weight in September 2014.

The supervised contact centre regularly complained John spoke in too adult a way for the children, as this would please their only client, social services. John asked Dr N, 'In her report, the manager of the Day Nursery said Maria was a bright fun little girl with a good knowledge, whilst the Designated Doctor Safeguarding & Child Protection referred to "a very good vocabulary". Do you recall those two references or would you like to refresh your memory of them?' Dr N said he recalled them. In his own report he said, "He does on occasion use very grown up language with them. However I do not see this as a significant concern." John continued, 'In Court on 20 November, I asked the Consultant Psychiatrist and Clinical Lead of CAMHS about this, saying that in talking to the children, I tried to take them to the limit of their abilities on the basis that if they absorb only 10% of it, it is better than absorbing nothing. He said he did not see any problems in this. Do you agree that the head of CAMHS's view largely reinforced your own observations?' Dr N agreed.

So we have the manager of a Day Care Centre, two senior consultants in the Isle of Man and the Departments own expert witness saying it was no problem that John sought to lead the children to better achievements. The only voices to the contrary are the Contact Centre staff, whose qualifications, if any, are unknown, and who have a vested interest in pleasing their paymasters.

John asked Dr N, 'If we move on to Tatiana next please. At page 6 of your report you said Tatiana plays well with her sisters.' Dr N said, 'yes yes.'

You said, 'Tatiana has found the separation from her parents very difficult and understandably this may well have had a negative impact on her presentation..... The foster carer also states that she is concerned about Tatiana's presentation when she tends to zone out during interpersonal interactions..... it is very difficult at this moment to ascertain the cause of this.' He replied, 'That's true'

John suggested to Dr N 'Prior to her being taken into care, I found Tatiana to be a sensitive child who needed to receive attention from myself or she could become upset. Would you agree she is probably the most sensitive of the three children in this respect?' he responded that Tatiana was sensitive but manageable.

John referred to references on pages 6, 7 and 9 of Dr N's report,

'Tatiana reports experiencing frequent nightmares which wake her.'

'[Tatiana] is an expressive girl and, as stated above, the separation from her parents has had a negative impact on her.

Tatiana has found the separation from her parents extremely difficult and that is understandable of a child of her age.... Tatiana presents at times as a very anxious girl who seeks reassurance a lot of the time by means of physical proximity.'

Dr N confirmed all three points. John put it to Dr N, 'I have quoted extensively from your report as I believe these remarks show Tatiana is very different in character from Maria. I would characterize Maria as a confident independent lively child with an outgoing nature who is happy to react with other children and adults but can exist happily independently. Would you care to amplify or correct that summation of Maria?' Dr N replied, 'Yes there does seem to be a difference.'

John suggested, 'Tatiana, I suggest is a more sensitive child, and after the initial period when Olga was probably the most traumatized by being taken into care, I suggest Olga recovered to some extent, but as you observed at page 6 and page 9, Tatiana has found the separation from her parents extremely difficult. Would you agree that a sensitive child, and I suggest Tatiana is sensitive, is likely to find separation particularly hard?' Dr N said 'Yes'

John asked the witness, 'Would you agree that in the early weeks of being placed in care, children from a close and devoted home are likely to be upset?' Dr N replied that being taken into care is upsetting, and added, 'but Tatiana found separation very difficult.' John had intended to ask Dr N if Tatiana had been particularly upset as a result of being taken from her family, but Dr N had answered this point without prompting, which was even more devastating to the department.

John asked, 'Is it likely that as the children become used to or are resigned to being fostered that the level of distress may tend to diminish?' Dr N replied 'It varies, it depends on the situation the family are in.'

John referred Dr N to the Fostering Report, 'Will you turn to 19 September 2014 and para 2.2.5 "Foster carer advised that Tatiana and Maria expressed a wish to go home. In addition both Tatiana and Maria asked for dada on numerous occasions. Foster carer reported that both Tatiana and Maria were waking at night distressed and asking for their dada." Would you agree the children were clearly upset but I take it this is common when children are seized by social services?' Dr N replied. 'Sadly yes.'

We are now coming to the nub of this case. A manifestly false account by Nurse S had misled the magistrates into granting an emergency order and then an interim care order on false accusations of loss of weight, children cowering and failure to cooperate with health professionals. A social worker had produced a string of allegations such as all children were on the verge of closing down but professional witnesses had now confirmed this was not true, and the 'hired gun' appointed by the Department to bolster up their case had proved to be scrupulously fair. He had agreed the children were clearly upset by what John had referred to in Court as kidnapping (and had been reprimanded by the judge for doing so but John feels kidnapping is kidnapping is kidnapping.) If the kidnappers feel offended by being called kidnappers, should they not put themselves in the position of the defendants in the Nuremberg war crimes trials in 1946. Most of the acts of the Nazis from 1933 to 1945 were covered by government decrees, legislation and court orders from evil judges, but the excuse that there was a bit of official paper justifying something does not justify a crime against humanity, and was not accepted at Nuremberg. Why should it be accepted in the IOM?

During the war, the Nazis kidnapped some 200,000 Polish children, and the experiences of one mother may be cited. Malgorzata Twardecki received an order to bring her five year old son to the local town offices by 6.00am the next morning, as he was to be sent on holiday for his health. When she did not turn up, police arrived to seize blue eyed fair faired Alojzy who was taken by SS officers to the station put on a train and vanished out of her life.

Malgorzata said, 'You can't imagine what it is like to have a child stolen. We didn't give them our children. They stole them....... Nobody has ever done anything as terrible as this.'

Alojzy was kidnapped as a part of state policy on children of suitable Aryan characteristics to Germanize them. That the child was kidnapped by a state order did not make it any the less a kidnapping, and every parent whose child has been kidnapped by the IOM SS, can imagine what Malgorzata felt like. If the Isle of Man child kidnap trade and those who facilitate their crimes feel hurt by being called kidnappers, they should get a decent job. No one forces them to do this evil.

John asked Dr N, 'Would you agree that a proportion of children are frightened of the dark?' He said, 'Yes.' I asked 'Is that a reason why many parents leave a night light on in the bedroom, or perhaps leave the landing light on?' He replied, 'Yes, I believe so.' He referred Dr N to the Fostering Report for 11 November 2014, "The foster carer also recorded that Olga and Tatiana found it difficult to settle because they were frightened of the dark." John put it to him, 'When they were at home, the children had low lighting in the bedroom or the landing light on to alleviate any fears of the dark. There is no reference to a night light or something similar to reassure them when they were in fostering. Given the traumatic changes to their lives, do you think this might have been kinder for them?' Dr N responded, 'in general if children are afraid of the dark, some light is helpful.'

John recalled his own childhood fears of the dark had been assuaged by his parents leaving the landing light on, so when Olga and Tatiana shared that fear, it was natural to consider their feelings. The officer from fostering had said the reports were regularly sent to social services, but there was NO indication of the social worker advising a night light or some other low intensity light to settle the children. As Dr N had said 'in general if children are afraid of the dark, some light is helpful' there was no psychological objections to what John's parents had done to reassure him, or what he had done to reassure the girls.

John referred to the fostering report for 10 December 2014, "Tatiana was reported to be restless during the night and was heard by the foster carer stating that she wanted to go home and missed mama." Would you agree that the passages from fostering that we have already seen substantiate you remarks on pages 6 and 9 of your report "Tatiana has found the separation from her parents very difficult"? He agreed.

John asked, 'Are frequent bad dreams or nightmares likely if a child is unhappy with their life and what is being done to them?' Dr N said children could have nightmares as a result of a traumatic event, using a car accident as an example. John had not thought to put this to Dr N, but Tatiana had said to him in contact how frightened she was being taken away from school by a strange policeman instead of mama. She had seldom suggested being afraid of anything before she was kidnapped, but given Dr N's testimony her frequent nightmares could be connected with the way she had been snatched from her parents by social services.

John put it to Dr N, 'There have been several reports of bad dreams or nightmares for Tatiana already in the reports, but if you go to 18 December, "Tatiana had a restless night due to bad dreams." 19 December, "Tatiana woke up around midnight and reported having a bad dream." and 26 December, "Tatiana was reported to have woken up three times during the night having had a bad dream." Dr N said he could not assess the significance of this, adding, 'It is clearly disturbing her sleep.'

John referred Dr N to 24 March 2015, 'Tatiana stated to the foster carer that she missed her mama and dada and asked when she would be going home?" You met the girls at the start of January 2015, and said "Tatiana has found the separation from her parents very difficult." I suggest the remarks on 11 and 24 March show how right you were? Would you agree that Tatiana still seems to be very upset even though six months have elapsed?' Dr N replied. 'Yes, she clearly....wants to go home.' Why would social services heed the words of their own expert witness if he said what displeased them? Why would the court heed such words?

John referred Dr N to his summary of events from April-June 2015, and to page 5 which is was summary of Contact on 4 April 2015 in Douglas. John asked him, 'Do you confirm that the third paragraph from the bottom on page 5 reads 'Tatiana asked "when are we coming home" and said at the end of contact "you are the best mama and dada in the whole world". John made a formal demand to the contact staff that this be recorded but had a suspicion that remarks that would be unwelcome to social services were selectively omitted, but remarks that could be used to denigrate the parents were always reported. You keep in with your paymaster!

As the contact centre sheets for Saturday 4 April 2015 were missing, John referred Dr N to a summary of the contact sheets by the manager of the contact centre which shows a contact did take place on that day. Although the report was missing from the files submitted in evidence, John referred Dr N to page 5, "All the children were given bounces on departure. Mr & Mrs Stevenson said "bye I love you." I asked him if any reference has been made to the remarks by Tatiana at the end of contact "when are we coming home" and "you are the best mama and dada in the whole world." John had felt they were significant, and as he suspected the contact centre staff were highly 'selective' in what they reported, he had jotted them down in the car immediately after he left the contact centre, so I would not forget them. Dr N said 'not that I can see.'

John referred Dr N to the fostering report for 14 May 2015, "Tatiana returned from contact with her father's telephone number written on a piece of paper. Tatiana stated that she wanted to call her father." John asked Dr N 'Does this sound like a child that had settled in care, or does it suggest a child who longs to be allowed to speak to her father outside of contact hours?' Dr N replied, 'It doesn't surprise me.'

Here we have the professional judgment of an experienced clinical psychologist that it did not surprise him that a child wanted to be allowed to speak to her father. This emphasizes the distress which was knowingly being inflicted on the child by Social Services.

It transpired that the new foster carer was hostile to this idea and John cited his email of 17 May 2015 to the social worker, saying 'one of the girls, probably Tatiana, asked ------- if they could ring home to speak to mama and dada. John's impression from what the contact centre manager said was that the foster carer was embarrassed to say no. The manager asked John to 'fudge' the issue if it arose again.' John put it to Dr N, 'I suggest that before the girls were taken, we were following official advice and being responsible parents teaching the girls their family name, address and phone number in case they got lost. Would you accept that if we had suddenly become evasive at contact and declined to tell them what they had already been told, it could have had an unsettling effect on the children?' Dr N replied, 'Children would find that difficult.'

Tatiana's simple request that she be allowed to phone dada had kicked open a box of worms. John had referred this to the social worker and it transpired that the foster carer, indifferent to the distress it would cause to Tatiana who was already having nightmares, objected but did not want to take the blame in Tatiana's mind for rejecting her plea. Instead John was put under pressure to 'fudge' the issue as the manager of the contact centre said. If a child who had been kidnapped from home and begged to return home asked for her dada's phone number, and she was refused what psychological harm would this do to the child? Would it not make the child feel she was no longer wanted by her parents? Was the emotional cruelty of the foster carer, the social worker and the contact centre manager just indifference, or was it with the hope of creating such a wedge between the parents and a sensitive child. This is something which ought to be put to the Minister to find if he approves of needless cruelty being inflicted on his child prisoners in the hope it will damage a child-parent bond? If Members of Tynwald care about children, or just the good name of the Isle of Man, they will do so. If they do not, I hope the voters at the next election will say the famous admonition to parliament, **'You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!'**

When Dr N had carried out his assessment of the three girls in January 2015, he said "Tatiana has found the separation from her parents very difficult and understandably this may well have had a negative impact on her presentation." If John and Vera did something to distress one of their children in contact, this would be avidly reported, so the social worker could treat it as evidence of parental indifference and a justification for not returning the children to 'abusive' parents, but what was the attitude of social workers to such abuse by the system on children, if indeed they acknowledged it at all.

Bundle 34 of the court papers of 25 August 2015 was the social workers report to the court. It contained a chilling statement revealing the indifference of social services to the distress they cause to children who fall into their hands. John has customarily altered remarks by social workers to avoid claims of infringement of copyright, but this remark is so blatant, he feels the reader needs to see it as written. The social worker said, "it has to be said that all children who live away from their parents suffer some form of emotional harm even those that have been abused by their parents." By this time, it was clear in evidence that Olga's Addison's condition, rather than abuse, explained her collapse in September 2014. Tatiana and Maria had been reported as free of any bruises, injury or neglect and well fed, so again there was no abuse, so the abuse remark was a smokescreen to excuse the callous, 'some form of emotional harm' line.

John asked Dr N, 'Would you agree that the fostering reports show that far from Tatiana settling away from her parents, that the emotional damage to her continues at a high level.', 'Yes, very similar to my own statement.' It will be recalled that Dr N had said separation from her parents had a bad effect on Tatiana.

John pointed Dr N to a later report to the court of 7-09-2015. 'At page 17, the Social worker states, "all three children have been clearly emotionally affected by being away from their parents." Would you concur with that remark?' Dr N said, 'Yes.' To suggest that social workers and the court which received and read these evil and complacent comments were unaware of the damage long term kidnapping of the children was doing to them is facile. **THEY KNEW AND THEY COULD NOT CARE LESS.**

John asked Dr N, 'You reported that the foster carer had said "The girls are a tight little unit." As they are close, is it likely that distress to Tatiana might have a bad effect on Olga?' Dr N replied, 'Yes, I think that's possible.'

As an Addisonian, stress to Olga was especially bad for her. The social worker was present in court when Dr N agreed that the stress to Tatiana might have a bad effect on Olga; she was indifferent to this.

John referred Dr N to bundle 128, which was a handwritten note from Nobles hospital dated 12-11-2015. Towards the bottom it says "Olga also was refusing food and was seen by the clinical lead of CAMHS." He had given an update to his written evidence in court on 20 November 2015. He said Olga was distressed and not eating or drinking for much of her visit to hospital.

John continued, 'The clinical lead of CAMHS recorded that during the whole of her admission, Olga held her arm over her face, which is clearly a sign of distress. Would you concur with his professional opinion that this is a possible sign of distress?' Dr N replied, 'Seems an entirely sensible suggestion to me.'

'The Clinical Lead of CAMHS in his evidence suggested there needed to be a more active involvement of CAMHS. He suggested there were no changes in Olga's medical condition, so we needed a detailed look at any potential triggers to her behaviour. Would you accept this seems logical?' Dr N responded, 'It seems eminently sensible.'

The worries that childrens' ward had were Olga's refusal of food, which was catastrophic for an Addisonian, and that she was holding her hand over her face continuously. It was now 14 months since the children had been kidnapped and Olga was showing deep emotional distress and disturbed eating patterns, but social workers, instead of saying, 'we got it wrong', knew of the distress they had caused a sick child, but felt they could not show compassion and release their prisoner. That would suggest they had got it wrong and would be humiliating.

Samantha Barton when she was sixteen had begged to be allowed to go free; Social workers had refused and soon after that she was murdered in the care home. Samantha, with her regular sex with other child prisoners of social services, with shop lifting, as she had no money, and with drug taking, was a troubled child, but was she to blame for her own foolish behaviour, or was the heartlessness of social services more to blame? They would not release Samantha so she died in care. How much more damage will they do to Olga?

The court adjourned after the previous question and resumed on 26 November. John asked Dr N, 'Would you accept that Sibling rivalry is a feature of life, but it is up to the parents to see that it does not turn into harmful jealousy and strife?' Dr N replied, 'Yes I think that is a fair statement.'

John asked, 'Would you agree some parents make the mistake of treating one of their children as a favourite?' - The witness said 'YES'.......John put it to the witness, 'I suggest this has several harmful effects. It will undermine the child who sees their sibling as preferred to them, and will be likely to create a rift between siblings. Would you agree with that?'....'Both these are entirely possible, yes.'.....John suggested, 'I suspect favouritism may harm the preferred child as well, if that child is conscious of its special status which is highly likely. Would you agree.' Dr N agreed, 'I think this is also possible, yes.'

John put it to Dr N, 'I was conscious of this as I knew two brothers one of whom was the favourite, and it left a rift that has endured for sixty years. Because of that I decided we could not have a favourite. Do you agree it is important not to make one child a favourite? '– Dr N responded, 'Yes.'..... John asked, 'From your observations of our girls would you accept that there is no sign of the sort of rift that is caused through parents making one child a favourite?' Dr N replied, 'From my observations there were no signs of significant sibling rift or rivalry.'

The social worker had made claims that at different times John treated Olga or Tatiana as the favourite, though she could not seem to make up her mind which child was the favourite, so adopted her usual approach of saying whatever seemed expedient. The social worker had no medical training. Dr N, a clinical psychologist who will have had a long training to detect such stresses in a family, said, 'From my observations there were no signs of significant sibling rift or rivalry.' Once again the social worker's evidence is at variance with reality as it was over Maria showing signs of closing down emotionally!

John suggested, 'You rightly said yesterday that the girls have quite different characters, so even without the complication of Addison's, would you agree that their emotional needs and wants will vary in light with their own natures?' The witness said, 'Yes.'

John said, 'Although we have to avoid favouritism, does this mean that we need to treat the three children identically as if they were three cars off an assembly line, or do we need to tailor our approach to them as individuals to meet their personal needs?' Dr N responded, 'I think you must....... tailor your approach to the needs of the child.'

John put it to him, 'I have spoken in an almost theoretical way so far, but to move to specifics, if we contrast Olga, Tatiana and Maria, would you accept that Olga is, even without the complication of Addison's disease, a strong willed child?' Dr N said, 'Does seem to be the case yes.' John suggested that Olga, 'decides what she want and then sets out to achieve it. To use a basic analogy. Olga is the bulldozer of the three girls, and goes for what she wants.' John had sought to convey the impression of a child who can be forceful. Dr N had a smile at the expression of bulldozer, but managed a tactful answer, 'I think she can be strong-willed, yes.'

In case the advocate for the department tried to score points by suggesting John did not care for Olga as she was a bulldozer, even though the social worker sometimes said she was the favourite, John said that from a mass of family evidence, his mother, Elaine, was what he had termed a bulldozer, and Olga thinks as she did. Conversely John's grandmother, and in particular, his great grandmother, Mary-Ann, were charmers. He said his first concern was to avoid a rift through favouritism, and it was his belief he had done so. The witness agreed this was the case and was important. It was a difficult point to get across but avoiding favouritism did not mean treating the children identically as John believe they need to be treated according to their individual needs. Dr N accepted that also.

John suggested that whilst Tatiana is a charmer, she is sensitive, and in contrast, 'Maria is full of ebullient good humour, and she will achieve what she wants by winning over others through her extrovert good nature. I am not sure if I have explained myself well, but do you perceive the different characters I am trying to delineate?' Dr N's detailed response suggested Maria appears a little more [confident], quite outgoing, Maria is more independent.'

John suggested, 'About Maria Stevenson you say "she gets on well with her siblings and in observation and plays with her sisters." Would this suggest to you that the three girls are emotionally close to one another?' Dr N replied, 'I believe so.'.....John asked, 'Looking at the three girls, in Maria's presentation is there any sign of a rift with her sisters through parental favouritism?' – The witness replied, 'In my observation, there wasn't.'

Because Olga and Tatiana had both been deeply traumatized by their kidnap, but Maria with her extrovert nature, had coped better, John had given more attention to the two girls who showed the most damage. This was avidly reported on by the Contact Centre staff to their paymasters and used by the social worker to suggest favouritism. Ideally John would have given Maria as much attention as her sisters, but as the damage to them had been greater, their need of love and attention was greater. Whilst this was obvious in their conduct at Contact, as with the selective omission of remarks referred to earlier, the reason for differing levels of attention was carefully omitted from the contact reports. John felt that given how scrupulously fair Dr N had been, he could ask Dr N if there was any sign of damage to Maria. From discussions about sibling rivalry this can be triggered by favouritism and Dr N made it clear 'In my observation, there wasn't.'

Apart from showing to the court the biased and shallow nature of the Contact Centre reports, and of the social worker's evidence, John had a further reason for asking these questions of Dr N. When confronted with two children who were emotionally badly damaged, he had to cope with a situation, 'on the hoof,' and apart from Vera, who had been devastated herself, so was not thinking as she would normally, he had no one to turn to for advice. Had he got it right, or did he need to adjust the balance? The comment, 'In my observation, there wasn't,' was very reassuring.

John referred to para 2.2.1 of the report, you say of Maria, "she is more expressive and interactive with her father and this is largely down to her father's presentation." Would that mean that I am more outgoing and responsive than my wife?' Dr N said 'Yes, I believe so.'

John asked Dr N, 'To take this a little further, when they are seeking parental support, will children tend to gravitate to the parent who from their experience is the more reactive?' Dr N responded, 'I think it is the reactivity of the parent and who they think will meet their needs at that time.'

'Would you agree that some people are by nature more outgoing than others?' Dr N replied, 'Yes.'

'From the evidence submitted to you, I assume you have read that I was an officer of three student societies and have held elected office in various conservation bodies for over forty years.' Dr N said, 'I can recall that.'..... 'Would you accept that some parents are by contrast shy and timid people, and that is their nature?' Dr N responded, 'Absolutely'..... John asked, 'Is a timid or shy parent necessarily a bad parent.' Dr N said NO.

John asked, 'Would you accept that a mother who loves her children would find it hard to cope if they are taken away from her?' Dr N replied, 'I have no doubt that would be the case for any couple.'...... 'I believe you suggested that parents, in the difficult environment of contact, need to do their best for the children?' Dr N replied 'Yes.'

The judge, during these exchanges asked some questions.

Judge - 'Olga needs more attention than a healthy child?'

Dr N - 'Yes.'

Dr N - 'Olga spends frequent periods in hospital ....I think Olga's needs for physical affection will rise.'

Judge - 'When you say physical affection, what do you mean?'

Dr N - 'Hugs. Children use physical affection'

Perhaps the key answer given by Dr N was, 'Mrs Stevenson's presentation... being shy is not necessarily a problem, and that is not a problem in being a parent.'

John asked Dr N, 'From your observation, do you agree I gave the physical affection needed.' The witness replied, 'Yes.'

John felt it was important to establish that a clinical psychologist accepted that some people are more outgoing than others and that a shy person is not necessarily a bad parent. He also wished to establish that the contact environment is a difficult one. This, if there was any inherent fairness about the child 'care' system, would be taken into account. Instead it is ruthlessly exploited by contact staff to suggest low attachment and emotional abuse if one parent is so devastated that they cannot act in a normal relaxed manner with their children. The emotional abuse is not by a mother who has been devastated, but by social workers who have caused the problem to begin with.

Would, for example we say that a woman who had been mugged was responsible for her condition, so should she be blamed, or should we accept that the criminals who mugged her were to blame for her condition. If that meant her reaction to other people was not as one would desire, is the woman to blame or the criminal. In care cases, the 'muggers' from social services use the damage they have caused to the woman, or the man, if he is affected, to benefit themselves by implying the parent is not normal, after they have inflicted the damage,

In what other branch of law, does the court accept that the criminal, having injured their victim, is permitted to benefit from their crime by alleging that the victim is not functioning properly? It is to the disgrace of the legal profession that judges in the UK and the IOM accept this twisted conduct which is only possible because of the secrecy of care cases.

It is John's hope that by exposing this vicious and warped conduct and the way judges allow the criminal to blame the victim, which is what it amounts to, that public outrage will sweep away this injustice.

Child abuse is wrong, and there are occasional instances of this happening at the hands of parents. Sadly there is evidence of massive levels of child abuse in orphanages. This used to be something that was swept under the carpet, but after sufficient publicity by the media of such crimes, the state has had to investigate. At the time of writing this novel in May/June 2019, the Nazareth House orphanages in Scotland were the subject of an official enquiry by Lady Smith, who said: "The Nazareth Houses in Scotland were, for many children, places of fear, hostility and confusion, places where children were physically abused and emotionally degraded with impunity. ...There was sexual abuse of children which, in some instances, reached levels of the utmost depravity. Children in need of kind, warm, loving care and comfort did not find it. Children were deprived of compassion, dignity, care and comfort." Lady Smith also rejected the convenient suggestions that witnesses had colluded on "fictitious accounts" about their time in care.

The Scottish Child Abuse Enquiry highlights how the nuns' vow of obedience meant they did not question existing practices. Most of the sisters who gave evidence denied having seen abuse taking place, let alone inflicting it. The report concludes that they now find it hard to face up to the reality but "that does not mean that the abuse did not happen". The Sisters of Nazareth charity, which no longer runs any residential services for children in the UK, said it was grateful to Lady Smith for her report.

One victim of abuse welcomed the fact that Lady Smith had believed her evidence to the inquiry saying, "It is almost as if she reached beyond me as an adult and spoke to the child inside, and said to that child: 'This wasn't your fault. This shouldn't have happened. What happened was wrong.'

Some evidence to emerge in the enquiry showed that children were routinely separated from their siblings and punished if they tried to make contact with them. In the Stevenson case, the first guardian, who saw her role as rubber stamping whatever IOM social services did, churned out the standard platitude that the children, in view of their closeness should not be separated; the replacement guardian said the same thing, probably truthfully. The judge said it, but within weeks of the court decision, Olga had been torn from her two sisters, and has remained separate from them for two years. The social worker guilty of driving the original assault on the family had made great play that the children would not be separated, but like so much of what she said, it was what was convenient at that time. It was a repeat of the claim that neglect had to take place over months or years, and Olga's deterioration happened in two days and then it was weeks or months.

So, in the Stevenson case, we have siblings being separated; we have siblings wanting to phone their parents, as these children are not orphans so do have parents they love. What is the result; they are refused such comfort. This is as per Nazareth House.

The Nazareth House case reveals that at the lowest level, nuns were conditioned by their vows of obedience to tolerate and keep quiet on what was going on, and although these cases took place before 1984, they are still evasive about the crimes they would have known of. The rot extended through the hierarchy in the homes, and up to the bishop himself. Cruelty was swept under the carpet.

John has made many challenges about the cruelty and misconduct of individual social workers, members of contact staff and foster carers, including the foster carer, Mrs V, who forced Olga to clean up her own vomit. Without exception these complaints have been ignored or a whitewash reply sent to John. He has complained to the minister, who might consider changing his name by deed poll to Pontius Pilate. The latter at least had, according to the bible, the 'decency' to call for a bowl of water to wash his hands in public of any involvement.

At the moment, with the exception of a bizarre incident when Maria commented that one of the children of the foster carer, who was a much older girl, had sucked her toe, John has no evidence of sexual abuse of his children when in care. Sadly the toe sucking incident led to the usual whitewash. John wonders what might have been the outcome if the allegation had been made that he had sucked the toe of his four year old daughter? Probably it would be used to suggest sexual misconduct and lead to his arrest and a warped interrogation by the police as devoid of honesty as the one Vera was subjected to when the police tried to get her to agree that she should have force fed Olga to the point that she was obese.

John has said he has no firm evidence of sexual abuse by the child 'care' trade of the Isle of Man to his daughters. On the other hand, did Samantha Barton's mother have any evidence that her daughter was having promiscuous sex in the care home? When this emerged in the Samantha Barton enquiry, it transpired that those making a living in the child 'care' trade knew of this child abuse, but it had been swept under the carpet.

At the end of this novel, I shall call for a public enquiry not just on behalf of John's children, but of all child victims of social services. It should be chaired by someone not in any way associated with the Isle of Man, the child care 'trade' or the legal profession, as the Manx legal industry has tamely acquiesced in the practices of IOM Social Services, as they produce hundreds of thousands of pounds in legal fees to Manx lawyers every year.

Earlier on, I said I had drafted the story of the kidnapping of John's children as a novel, using the same mechanism Sir Compton Mackenzie, Ian Fleming, Duff Cooper and Graham Greene had employed to avoid prosecution, which would have ensued, had they said it was a true story. John wonders how widespread is the mistreatment of children in Social care; how wide is the cover-up which is facilitated by the 'go to jail' policy, if a parent breathes a word of these crimes to his children to the public.

If the Manx authorities decide to take their revenge on me by imprisoning me, could there be any better cause to be jailed for?

The Scottish Child Abuse enquiry which has exposed the crimes in the Nazareth homes, has its counterpart in Ireland where there is massive evidence of child abuse in care, and of staff sweeping everything under the carpet. In the case of the Isle of Man, there is the largely forgotten Samantha Barton enquiry which revealed child abuse, but which social services have been able to bury with the passage of time. The care trade in the British Isles and other countries is, it has to be said, rotten to the core, and social workers are at the heart of these crimes against children.

Why is something not done about it? The inhuman conduct of the Nazis in Germany from 1933 to 1945 is a 'respectable' target to complain about, and although any perpetrators would now have to be in their nineties, so are hardly likely to be punished, it still has 'mileage' as a disgrace. In 1945 the Red Army on its drive to Berlin raped hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of German women from six or seven years upwards. The Red Army suffered much in the cause of freedom, but that did not mean that German woman should have been expected to pay for the crimes of Hitler by being gang raped.

The Russian government was keen to ignore this abuse; Purely to 'keep in' with Uncle Joe, the British and American governments did not protest or seek to protect German women, and German post-war governments, conscious of the bad image of Germany after Hitler, looked the other way. It was as if everyone said Hitler and the SS were so evil that German women should pay reparations to the victors with their bodies. Most of the women who underwent gang rape reparations are now dead, but it is still a crime.

Child abuse by well known public figures, such as Jimmy Savile, was ignored for decades, but is now a popular topic, as is the exposure of the deeds in orphanages in Ireland and Scotland, but we need to move from a 'good story to run' approach to an 'evil to be set right' approach.

The Isle of Man is a small place, but the way in which it was only the European Court that outlawed torture punishment of juveniles in 1976 was a disgrace and an even bigger disgrace was that a group of depraved magistrates sentenced another child to torture even though the practice had been outlawed, is perhaps just the tip of a sordid iceberg. Add to that the crimes against Samantha Barton and the 'Stevenson' girls, and how much more is hidden? In Hamlet, a famous line is 'There is something rotten in the State of Denmark.' Assuredly there is a great deal that is rotten in the Isle of Man.

I felt this was the proper place to set out the cruelties to children which were highlighted in Dr N's testimony, so we will now return to the story of this 'hired gun' who turned out to be an scrupulously honest man who did not slant his testimony to suit his clients.

John felt that Olga's needs varied from day to day, and over time, and he suggested to the court that in the early days she was traumatized by what she saw as rejection by her parents, and sought to block out the world with her arm over her face. It was his belief she needed to regain her trust in us, after they had, as she would imagine it, not bothered to visit her in hospital. To force this would be harmful. John felt it was wiser to rebuild her confidence at her own pace. By the time Dr N saw her, that policy had largely worked, but months later, Olga would at one contact spend most of it sitting on John's lap, and at the next contact, might eschew any physical attention. The selective way in which contact staff reported this to their paymasters was cynical, but in line with what John had come to expect.

John asked Dr N if he felt he [John] had given Olga the physical affection she needed and Dr N replied yes. In his report, Dr N had said "Of the three children, Maria is the one who will play on her own at times and she will construct various activities. However she will seek involvement from her parents, mainly her father, during contact." He confirmed this observation. John spoke to him, 'I would agree with these observations, and suggest Maria has a liking for hands-on activities such as jigsaws, creating things and so on. Would that be your impression from your visit to the Island and what was said by the manager of the Nursery?' Dr N replied, 'Maria plays very well, imaginatively and she seems to enjoy a variety of play.'

John suggested to the Court that the manager of the Nursery put it that Maria is happy to play on her own or with adults and she got on well with children and adults. The community paediatrician said she came to task well. Dr N observed that she plays very well and imaginatively. Maria's character as a self-assured imaginative child is repeated across the board. John suggested that far from the warped reports of contact centre staff keen to curry favour with their paymasters, the picture is not of parental neglect of Maria, but that Maria is a resilient and independent child.

John referred Dr N to bundle 87 explaining it was the first page in Tatiana's new diary, 'It was Maria's birthday in September, and at birthdays, all the girls get presents, so Tatiana was given a diary. She decided she wanted to write in it right away at contact and showed me what she had written. Would you agree that a child, or an adult, often puts their most precious thoughts into a diary?' The witness replied, 'It's very dependent on the child and the situation?'

John had posed the question as 'often puts,' so he was not suggesting it was an inevitable rule, and Dr N emphasized that qualified assessment, 'It's very dependent on the child and the situation?'

John quoted Tatiana's words to Dr N, "I wish we could go back home to mam and dad and stay together again." Dr N replied 'That would not surprise me.'

John said to the witness, 'When I saw those words I told her how lovely they were. To my surprise, Tatiana instantly tore the page out of her diary and told me to give it to mama. I suggest this demonstrates a lovely and sensitive character. Would you agree with that?' Dr N replied, 'Umm, yes.'

John referred Dr N to page 7 of his report, where he said of Tatiana, 'As with Maria, her main interactions are with her father and Tatiana seems particularly close to her father. Reports in contact previously state that Tatiana took up a lot of her father's attention during the contact sessions. She is an expressive girl and, as stated above, the separation from her parents has had a negative impact on her. She does interact also with her mother but I would suggest that her primary attachment figure is with her father." Dr N confirmed this.

'Hired Guns' usually report what the Social Services departments who are their customers want to hear to bolster their case in court. Dr N, by contrast has reported the truth and the most damning remark was 'the separation from her parents has had a negative impact on her.'

John referred Dr N to para 2.2.3 of his report, "Olga had made significant improvements since entering the care of the local authority. However it must also be noted that this is the same time at which her condition has been diagnosed and therefore a treatment regime has been started." He confirmed this remark.

John suggested to the court that Dr N had repeatedly produced highly significant comments, which other witnesses had either overlooked or opted not to comment upon. He suggested that from the evidence available to him in January 2015, that Olga had made significant improvements since entering the care of the local authority was more important than perhaps he knew, though he may have suspected something, but that must be surmise. Dr N, as an expert witness could expect his client to be honest and forthcoming in revealing all relevant evidence, so he could make a balanced judgment. Suppressing of inconvenient evidence would necessarily impact on his ability to produce a balanced report.

John had a suspicion that the Department had not made copies of the regular reports from Fostering of the distress to the children available to him and Dr N confirmed that. In an ideal world Dr N would have been given the full report in court and time to read it, but John doubted if the court would go along with that.

John suggested to the court that Dr N has made a crucial contribution to the case here. Addison's is often not diagnosed until there is some crisis, as was the case with Olga. Dr Z had suggested her case was complex, and the consultant at Alder Hey agreed this was so. Nobles Hospital had worked hard to stabilize Olga, but John suggest her case was massively complicated by the emotional distress caused to her by being torn from her parents, as revealed in the fostering reports.

Olga took a good deal of time to recover from her feelings of abandonment, as there is no evidence that Social Services ever admitted to her that they were to blame for breaking up the family, or stopping her parents visiting her in hospital. Her needless car journeys to and from school were harmful to a child who was often carsick. John felt her condition had been impeded rather than helped by social service, and that the improvements were essentially due to her medical treatment. He put it to the witness, 'The evidence is that Olga was actually more shy in early October than she had been prior to being taken into care on 17 September. On 20 November 2014, Dr Z, stated "She appeared alert, well and active, however she was very shy and reluctant to be examined by me." John put it to Dr N, 'Dr Z is a senior paediatrician. I submit that Olga had on the written evidence of a senior health professional not undergone a remarkable transformation as you had been led to believe. Dr N agreed that is what Dr Z states.

John referred the witness to a report by the special care dentist. Of his three daughters, the dentist stated that Maria and Tatiana were happy to sit on the dental chair, and to allow a dental examination. She says of Olga, 'Very reluctant to sit on the dental chair and it took a lot of persuasion and reassurance for her to allow me to examine her teeth. She was not keen to try anything..." I put it to Dr N, 'Does she seem confident and relaxed.' He said 'NO.'

In his report Dr N had said, "Tatiana has also presented with zoning out type behaviour as reported by the foster carer. It is possible that this is an anxiety based reaction. However it has been difficult for me to quantify this during this assessment. For this reason and to assist with some of her anxieties in relation to nightmares and enuresis, it may be beneficial to refer Tatiana to the local CAMHS service." He confirmed this was so. John asked Dr N, 'First of all you mention zoning out but go on to say it is possible that this is an anxiety based reaction. I only see Tatiana at contact and from your report I do not think you saw any zoning out with Tatiana when she was with us in contact did you?' Dr N said 'No.'

John suggested to the court that this is significant. The first foster carer was a conscientious and kindly person, and if she observed zoning out, John did not question this. 'Zoning out' means when a person becomes detached from their surroundings and loses attention, and Dr N confirmed this was his understanding of what the foster carer meant. Tatiana had never suffered from this zoning out prior to being seized by the police at school and separated from her parents.

The second foster carer, Mrs V, who had forced Olga to clean up her own vomit, and permitted her daughter to suck Maria's toe, repeatedly complained that Tatiana and Maria had short term memory problems and lack of attention. When John asked Dr N if he had observed Tatiana zoning out when she was with him in contact it will be recalled he said NO. John did not find she zoned out.

As to significant memory problems, Tatiana and Maria were been particularly keen to learn Russian phrases for their mama, and at the end of contact by mid-2016 would say Russian phrases that he was to repeat to mama who had suffered a nervous breakdown and had been in hospital. John did not prompt them to do so, but they got the phrases right week after week.

Tatiana enjoyed Russian pop music which John had downloaded on a computer to take to contact. Far from memory problems, Tatiana could sing along to specific numbers performed in Russian by the Tolmachevy twins and Katya Ryabova, who were young Russian pop stars. Although she could not speak Russian, the words she had memorized were recognizably Russian, pronounced with a good accent, as she had learned them from listening Russian pop stars.

The second guardian, when she attended contact, was amazed to hear Tatiana singing the anthem of Russia beautifully, fluently and in tune, and reported so to the court. The full anthem of Russia runs for over three minutes, and whilst Tatiana did not sing every sentence, she sang a great deal of it. This is hardly consistent with zoning out or memory problems, so suggests that when with her father, she does not suffer such problems.

The inference is that the problems reported by the foster carers and observed by Dr N are a part of the damage done to this sensitive child by the way she had been kidnapped by social services. The court ignored this damage to Tatiana in the decisions section, though it is central.

John referred Dr N to page 10, "There were some moments during the contact which were clearly reciprocated from Mrs Stevenson to Olga and in my opinion Olga took a great deal of comfort from these." John asked Dr N, 'Would you accept that this remark captures the affection of Olga towards her mother and vice versa?' He replied 'Yes.'

At page 11 of his report, Dr N referred to video recording of contact, which is something John had no fears about but Vera, who was brought up in the USSR, was terrified of. John suggested that perhaps this fear which he admitted was illogical, might give him some idea of how deeply traumatized she felt by what had happened to the family. Dr N very reasonably said it was not for him to speculate on or the reason for her difficulties.

Whilst social workers and others with no psychological training had speculated that John was a recluse or alternatively eccentric, and his wife might be expected to have low attachment in vitro to Olga due to the premature birth, it is noteworthy that a clinical psychologist said it was not for him to speculate on far less complex issues, as he did not have sufficient data.

John referred Dr N to page 14 of his report, "In the observed contact. Maria interacted well with both parents. However the bulk of her interactions were with her father. Maria does play well with the other children and she interacts well with her mother when her mother initiates interaction." John continued, 'Once again I thank you for this perceptive comment. Because I can project better in a difficult environment I was able to meet Maria's needs better than Vera, but would you accept that if Maria interacted well with her mama, that this is suggestive of a close bond between mama and daughter prior to Maria being taken into care?' Dr N replied, 'Umm, Maria – she clearly loved her mother and I believe she misses her mother.' Dr N added, 'there is a relationship between Maria and her mother, there is no doubt of that.'

We may contrast that with the social worker evidence of a lack of attachment, but the social worker simply said anything that would further the kidnapping on the basis that the court would not bother to investigate too seriously anything she alleged.

John took Dr N to page 16 of his report, 'you asked Tatiana where she would like to live forever and she said, "At mama and dada's" Later you asked Tatiana if she would like Olga and Maria to live with her and she said "Yes they miss mama and dada, so they want to go home." In your report you mention me as the primary attachment figure. John pointed out, 'on pages 15 and 16, mama is mentioned in the same sentence as dada so would this not suggest that Vera is also a central figure in Tatiana's life, but sadly one who does not project very well in the rather searing atmosphere of contact'? Dr N replied, 'I'm certain her father is an important figure in Tatiana's life, but have no doubt that her mother is an important person in her life.'

Once again an experienced clinical psychologist's findings were totally different to the contact staff who were not medically trained, and were keen to please their eventual paymaster.

The judge asked \- 'Is that true of all the children?'

Dr N – 'Yes.'

Judge – 'So mother is an important person to all the children?'

Dr N – 'Yes.'

John had highlighted the unreliability of the contact sheets, and here there is independent support from what John said. The court needed to give this especial attention in decisions. It did not.

John put it to the witness, 'I would suggest from reading that it is clear that mama is an important attachment figure and Tatiana shows affection to her, but has worked out that in the very difficult atmosphere of contact, mama finds it difficult to respond to her fully, so she tends to gravitate to me.' John continued, 'If we accept that as reasonable, then given Tatiana's obvious devotion to her mama, would it not seem likely in a normal family setting without the intrusive presence of contact staff, that a more normal mother daughter bond might be expected?' Dr N replied, 'I aware contact is a very difficult situation....I can readily accept it is a stressful situation particularly for parents.'

John referred Dr N to page 21 of his report, which is an assessment on Olga. Part way through the first para he noted, "Foster carer has been told that the calories are the most important so she buys a wide variety of food to try and help Olga with this. She is very changeable with her preferences, one day she will like a food and the next day she will not." John continued, 'Once again, I suggest you have encapsulated Olga's needs and nature in a few words. From my visits to the dietician, the impression I gained was calories, calories, calories, as I think she put it, and from what you say it seems the foster carer has the same impression does she not?' The witness replied how the foster carer replied calories are the most important.'

This answer is significant. Dr N is an experienced expert witness, used to assessing situations. His evidence is that the foster carer replied calories are the most important. It will be noted from my evidence and my cross examination of Ms F S, that my impression from what dietician had said was on the need to get more calories into Olga. This was not at the expense of protein, carbohydrates, vitamins, etc but that calories were the bottom line. When we come to her highly dubious evidence this family support worker sought to discredit this, but from Dr N's report, it is clear the foster carer and John took what the dietician said in the same way and both were calorie orientated in light of professional medical advice. Later on, we will see how Ms F S was contemptuous of Tesco value soup, but in John's written response to Ms F S's statement he provided evidence on the calorific value of different soups and also the sugar content which was of importance as well. This was also downplayed by the court. John feels that the report of a clinical psychologist is hardly an expected place to find corroboration that he and the foster carer were both following medical advice which discredited the advice of the family 'support' worker, but except in care cases, facts are important.

Dr N also confirms another point. John put it to the witness, 'You mention that Olga "is very changeable with her preferences, one day she will like a food and the next day she will not." I found this to be the case in the immediate prelude to Olga's first Addisonian crisis on 17 September that her tastes literally changes from day to day, which would confirm what the foster carer was saying to you.' Dr N replied, 'Yes.'

John referred Dr N to page 20 of his report, which is about Olga, where he said 'I asked Olga what dada was like as I had not met him, and she said, "He's helping and I like him helping too and I like to help him." John continued, 'I was deeply touched when I read that as Olga would often come to me and ask me to help her in some task, doing a jigsaw or craft work or reading, but she would also ask if she could help dada in what he was doing. Would this suggest anything to you?' The witness replied, 'it suggests an extremely pleasant little girl whose father is important to her.'

In this case, we have regularly heard how Olga is a strong willed child who cannot be made to do something if she digs her heels in, to make her appear troublesome, just as attempts were made to denigrate Samantha Barton. There are horrific similarities between the 'trash the child' approach of social workers with Olga and Samantha, and we know what happened with Samantha as her behaviour worsened. Even before Addison's took grip on her, Olga was a strong willed child, and John adjusted his approach to her to win her support for something rather than to force her to do something.

He used what he subsequently discovered was identical to the win-win approach of the NCAC, the National Childcare Accreditation Council of Australia in which the positive is accentuated in a win win approach rather than negative thinking as with Planned Ignoring or the Naughty Step. John knew his mother was a strong willed child who responded to that; John himself was a strong willed child and expected to have things explained to him. He continued

'Some evidence has overplayed Olga's stubbornness, but not her intelligence of that she expects and has the right to have things explained to her. Dr N put everything in perspective in a way no other witness has when he said, 'it suggests an extremely pleasant little girl whose father is important to her.'

John asked Dr N, 'If Olga asked for help I would join in, but as you observed in contact I tried to let her lead the play, so if it was a jigsaw I would suggest she looked for a bit with sky or grass on it to fit the other bits with sky or grass, but get her to make the actual choice. Would this seem to you to be the right way with Olga, to point her in the direction she needed to go, but to get her to take the necessary step?' He agreed. John continued, 'As I worked in the video, photographic and kit manufacturing fields, these were precision tasks that a seven year old was not perhaps able to do, but I would usually try to find some simple task for her to do so she did not feel unwanted. Would this seem a logical approach to you?' Dr N replied, 'I think involving a child in what you are doing, so long as it is appropriate, is a positive thing to do.'

John's professional career has included training in law and accountancy, after which he worked in publishing, film and video fields all being interlinked. One movie clip the girls had enjoyed watching on computer was a musical number from an early talkie film. It was shot about 1929 but in 1975 early in John's career, the same technology was still in use, so John's career spanned the transfer from film to analogue and digital video and DVD. He could tell the girls he had worked with such equipment and they often wanted to know more. He could show the girls how films were actually made, and they want to know that. In June 2019, Tatiana selected an English pop number to play as she enjoyed a trick film sequence. To her delight, dada told her how it was done and on their equipment in the UK home, he could show it to her!

Assume a child is intelligent, and they often will be. Dumb down, which was the contact centre approach, and you get dumb children.

On page 20 of his report, Dr N said, "Olga went on to say "if dada goes away we get upset. I asked her what she meant and she said "When he goes to work and he brings back toys." John put it to the witness, 'As I mentioned to you we relocated to the IOM in March 2013 to get better schooling for Olga and that meant a major job in moving house, so about once a month I took a brief trip to our old home. My father had to go up to London regularly, and he would often bring me something when he got back. I adopted the same with the girls..... would that seem a good way to make the trips less upsetting for them?' Dr N replied, 'Yes.'

At page 21 of his report Dr N said "Olga was expressive in contact and engaged warmly and affectionately with both parents. She was physically affectionate with her father and indeed her mother. There were some other moments when she was seeking for more affection which mother did not respond to. When she did respond these were usually very positive and Olga clearly got a lot from these interactions." John thanked the witness for this comment, suggesting 'that was my sense of her relationship to both of us.' Dr N replied, 'Yes, all three children are affectionate children.'

John asked, 'Should adults chose the play topics or let the children decide?' Dr N replied, 'If the children can decide appropriate topics that is great, .... ideally you would let the children to lead.'

John will show readers how in the novel, that the diametrically opposite advice was tendered by Ms F S, the Family 'Support' Worker who complained John did not lay down play themes at the home contact, so used that to sabotage the return home plan. Part of John's reason for letting the children decide was that due to Addison's, Olga is inclined to be challenging, and it was in John's opinion foolish to have needless rows. Dr N. said ideally you would let the children lead. Ms F S was scathing when John suggested this and exploited it to wreck the return home plan, if it had ever been intended honestly by Social Services. Should the court decision have paid heed to Ms F S who is not a health professional, or a clinical psychologist who is on the register of expert witnesses? We will see later whose evidence they preferred!

During these exchanges, the judge asked Dr N if Mrs Stevenson's reaction to the children might have been different in a home environment. Understandably Dr N did not feel able to answer in depth, as it would be speculation. The judge also asked if Dr N had been able to interview Mrs Stevenson. Dr N only met us at contact so only saw us with the children and did not have that opportunity. Dr N made the point, 'Even though the situation of contact is not ideal for the children or the parents, it is what it is, and the parents have to do the best for the children.' Once again, Dr N was correct. His remark is what John has repeatedly said. Contact time is NOT 'quality time' as social services pretend, but time when the parents and children have a few precious hours together, but know they are under a microscope. Olga once whispered to John, 'Don't trust any of them, dada.' It showed how good Olga was at summing up trustworthy and untrustworthy people.

John put it to Dr N, 'It is often said that my wife and I imposed no boundaries on the girls, but you said, "She engaged well with her sisters, followed directions and instructions from both parents." He replied 'yes'.....John suggested, 'Olga has always been a strong willed child, and I found at a very early stage that she responded best to calm discussion and explanation, which I am sure you will recall is what the community paediatrician put in his latest care plan....This was the way I was brought up as well. I imagine you will be aware that children will sometimes challenge an adult, "Why should I do X?" Dr N said yes he was.

John referred the witness to bundle 93, "Guiding Children's behaviour in positive ways issued by the NCAC on behalf of the Government of Australia. He said there were several passages he could cherry pick for Dr N, but felt it would be fairer and more beneficial to ask you to read the full brochure."

Dr N did so. John asked, 'Can I ask your professional opinion as a psychologist on the advice offered by the NCAC?' He replied, 'It seems appropriate.'..... John referred Dr N to the passage on page 1 of the NCAC advice, "Behaviour Guidance is different to punishment. Punishment is doing something negative to a child when they have done something you do not approve of. Punishment does not help children learn to guide their own behaviour and teaches children that if you are the person with the most power, you can use that over others. Punishment is often disrespectful to the child. Guiding behaviour on the other hand, although it required firmness at times, is always respectful of the child."....Dr N replied, 'It seems reasonable that punishment is not helpful. Positive action Is far better than negative.'

It will be seen later how social services witnesses often refused to consider these foreign ideas, as they were not part of the way they had been ordered to respond. Dr N, by contrast was open minded. The reader would not be allowed to read the judgment of a secret court. If he or she should do so, it would be seen that this key point was ignored in the decisions section.

John took Dr N to p24 of his report, You do a Family Relations test for Olga in which mum and dad tie for members of the family from whom Olga receives positive feelings and Vera and I are also joint the main object of love and main source of love..... As I have said before, you can only go on what you observed but when Vera and I tie on every issue in Olga's test, would that not suggest that Olga sees her mama as a central figure in her life?' Dr N replied 'Yes'

The social worker Mrs Q had said there was low attachment on both sides, so who does an unbiased person believe, a social worker who is trying to justify seizing the children, or a clinical psychologist? The judgment did not cover this important point.

'If Olga sees her mama as a central figure, as I suggest is the case, do you accept that separating Olga from her mother has...........contributed to the Very complex life experience the consultant at Alder Hey Children's hospital refers to in her letter?' Dr N said. 'It is a significant life experience. ..... It was a significant life experience.'

The Judge – 'Is that the same for all the children?

Dr N, - 'Yes.'

Legal custom is that where a witness is called to support one side, the advocate for the party does not challenge the evidence of their own witness. As John had hardly expected Dr N to be such an impartial and honest witness, given the dreadful reputation of expert hired gun witnesses, he had refused to agree to make Dr N a jointly agreed witness, so he could cross-examine properly.

With John's cross-examination of the witness ended, it was open for the advocate for the department to re-examine to try to undo some of the harm, but she made no serious effort to do so.

The only serious examination came for the advocate for the guardian, GA, as Dr N was not technically her witness.

GA asked - if there were concerns about Mr Stevenson's interaction with the children.

Dr N - 'Mr Stevenson had interacted and responded very well with the children.'

Dr N - 'Maria engages well and feels safe.....not fearful of either parent..... Maria interacts with both parents,....affectionate with both parents.'

Dr N - All children engage warmly with Mr Stevenson, but Mrs Stevenson is a little bit more inconsistent. My concern was that Mrs Stevenson continued to miss these approaches... it had no impact on the children...they did not appear significantly distressed.'

Dr N -I think Olga seeks out her mother more than the other two...

John might be expected to ask questions where there could be a positive answer. As the first guardian acted as a rubber stamp to social services, that could not be expected here, but John welcomed all these questions and answers as they re-enforced his case!

GA referred to the contact report of 18 April 2015, as this might harm Vera.

In his reply, Dr N referred to John's 'best efforts to make good of a difficult situation,' and suggested it was, 'an isolated incident but I do not wish to say Olga will live with it for the rest of her life.'

Later on, so that John does not adopt the one-sided approach of the social worker or Nurse S, suppressing inconvenient evidence, the events of 18 April 2015 will be covered. This is only fair to the reader.

In response to GA and the hints of Mrs Stevenson's alleged inadequate skills, Dr N said 'Mrs Stevenson can see when she does it well. She can do it. I have seen it, so I cannot say why it is consistently inconsistent.'

At first sight Dr N's expression 'consistently inconsistent' is puzzling, but John believes it was a very shrewd remark. He said, 'She can do it.' meaning Vera can comfort the children successfully. Earlier he had said, 'I am aware contact is a very difficult situation....I can readily accept it is a stressful situation particularly for parents.' When John looks back on his own notes on contact and the biased reports from the contact staff, Vera was devastated in the early weeks, and even after six months was inconsistent, sometimes managing well; sometimes giving contact staff valuable ammunition to pass on to their paymasters. She was inconsistent as Dr N said, but Olga and Tatiana both said independently how mama was not well, and when you are not well, it is hard to think. As the children had this amazing insight into the pressures on mama, that perhaps explains why they were not upset if mama was less reactive than ideal. They knew how wonderful she was to them before they were kidnapped, and one of the children said, 'Thank you dada for marrying mama.' That suggests the level of attachment to mama, and was a key point. It was ignored in decisions.

John had suggested that Dr N's report was a devastating indictment of the department, but he had never suggested Dr N was biased in favour of the parents, or the department. The advocate for the Guardian questioned his impartiality. Dr N said with dignity, 'I am not on the side of anyone... I believe I have done that professionally.'

The judge had seen other witnesses who clearly suppressed evidence and were biased, but did not ask if they were impartial or telling the whole truth. However, the judge asked Dr N.

Judge - 'Do you understand your duty to be impartial?'

Dr N - 'Yes absolutely.'

John has given Dr N's evidence in depth to the Court as it largely discredits the evidence of social workers and contact staff. It is outstanding legal drama, where an expert witness for one side is so scrupulously honest that his evidence is a stunning vindication of the other side.

When an expert witness is appointed by one side and provides testimony highly supportive for the other side, it is a tribute to his integrity, but in a balanced trial, becomes a devastating blow against the side calling him. Social workers virtually ignored Dr Ns evidence in the mass of statements they produced, and one can see why. This was a point the court should have picked up in the judgment. If the authorities were not scared of public reaction, so the people could read the decisions section, the way this crucial moment was ignored would be glaringly obvious. This is why secret trials must end, for as Lord Hope said they are not justice.

## Chapter 5 After Addison's, how CAN we destroy the family?

At the Emergency Protection Order hearing on 19 September 2014, the social worker had contemptuously dismissed the possibility of a metabolic explanation for Olga's condition offered by Dr Z. After all, in real life a 1 in 100,000 longshot did not turn up. After the Samantha Barton case, when an MHK had complained on behalf of neighbours about the drunken sex parties held at a Foster Home in Derby Square where Samantha had been held, Samantha had been moved to the remote Leece Lodge facility where she met her death. Social Service, although to blame for negligent supervision at both care homes, managed to throw the mud at the MHK for putting them under pressure.

If the MHK hadn't complained they claimed, Samantha would not have been moved from one care home with negligent supervision to another care home, so her death was really the fault of the MHK, wasn't it? As a result, MHKs are now wary of tangling with social services, and a custom has grown up that MHKs would not raise any item in Tynwald over the actions of social services. It meant that alone of all government departments, the civil servants in social care did not need to fear an MHK raising their misconduct in Tynwald. It also meant that parents and children had no protection from an MHK over arbitrary and unreasonable conduct by social workers, but so long as the lid was kept on that, how would the public know? The secrecy provisions over care cases, which were notionally to protect children, had turned from a shield to a sword in the hands of social workers to strike down any protest.

If MHKs were running scared, it was sensible for magistrates to keep their heads down. As a 1 in 100,000 chance was lottery odds, and if anything went wrong and the parents were guilty, the blame would be neatly transferred to the magistrate's shoulders, as Social Services had achieved in the Samantha Barton case with the MHK. Was it wise for a magistrate run that risk? No!

It was therefore easy to see why social services had won the EPO hearing given the false allegations by Nurse S and the astronomical odds against a respectable explanation. With Dr Z coming up with the inconvenient proof of the 1 in 100,000 explanation, the bottom was knocked out of the social services case, so what did social services do? If they were fair minded, they would release the children, but even at the EPO hearing the social worker, like Nurse S, had suppressed inconvenient information, aided and abetted by the police, who had used words introduced into the interrogation of Vera Stevenson to attribute them to Vera. Her own performance when cross-examined in court was confused. Instead of denying the way the police had twisted what she said into Olga not getting any food unless she demanded it, Vera had said, 'When she tells me that she's hungry I will find her food and I think generally as we grow up we tend to eat when we like when we feel hunger, so I can't be said that it's 100'% of the time it was treatment like that, we sometimes, not sometimes quite often we don't try to starve the child but we do ask and we can't say it's a regular thing would you like to eat, would you like to eat, but we do pop up the question every now and then would you like to have something.' What does it mean?

Social Services, although the jewel in the crown of starvation had been tarnished, had Nurse S's evidence of a father whose children cowered in fear, false allegations of missed appointments and failure to co-operate with health professionals. Add to that the way police had massaged Vera's words when she was interrogated and her lack of denial and the meaningless answer she gave and there was already the basis of a good case to shift to. In a normal law case with the safeguard of jury trial and publicity no prosecutor would go along with such shaky evidence, but such safeguards did not exist in care cases.

The social worker started to draw up a new case to justify hanging on to the children, but after the 'unfortunate' confirmation of Addison's, the social worker and a senior line manager visited the Stevensons at their home. Neither John nor Vera had realized that in this branch of the law, the 'prosecution' could arrest the victim on one ground, but when that failed, they could say 'OK we lost that one, but we have invented a new ground.'

At the meeting, John had pointed out the finding of Addison's to the supervisor, Mr W. The latter accepted Addison's was a factor, but said they would have to look into Addison's and see if it had been caused through the negligence of the parents. John, from his study into Addison's, knew the only way they could have caused Addison's in Olga was if she had been given illicit drugs or there had been a bad accident injuring Olga, but medical examination would rule out either. With the way Mr W was so keen to prove John and Vera had caused Addison's in their daughter even though he had no evidence, and there would and could never be any, his attitude revealed that social services were determined to hold onto the children they had seized.

Samantha Barton's mum had rightly said the social workers responsible for Samantha's death should be sacked. At the time, John did not know that Mr W had been in a position of power over Samantha, but had managed to avoid personal blame in the public enquiry.

By 17 November 2014, Mrs Q, the social worker, had invented a complete new justification which appeared in a lengthy core assessment, This 'evidence' was repeated time and time again, and with one embarrassing exception, when conclusive evidence revealed it was untrue, and the social worker felt it showed her up to be a fool, the social worker resolutely continued to defend it, much as the Holocaust is denied by a handful of fanatics to this day.

At para 4.7 of her report Mrs Q said a contact on 10 October 2014 at the hospital where Olga was a patient 'was very difficult, as Olga refused to see her parents, and spent the whole time trying to leave the room or going into the toilet to be away from them.'

It was a distressing contact. At early contacts, Olga had refused to enter the room or held her arm over her face. Except for this visit on 10 October, John had invariably reassured her within minutes. On 10 October, Olga sat in the corridor but with the risk of secondary infection, this was unsafe. John persuaded her to sit in the bathroom if he and his wife sat in the corridor. Ms Q attended this contact and asked John if he understood her behaviour. He was still trying to work it out, so offered no opinion.

Gradually it dawned on him that no contact was allowed for a week after Olga collapsed, even though there was no risk, as she was in hospital. How must this have looked to her? It must have seemed as if her parents had abandoned her. John's mother lost both her parents before she was nine years old, and she heard an aunt say to her elder brother that Elaine should be put in an orphanage. That betrayal, as she saw it, meant she loathed that aunt forever more. Thankfully her brother had said that while there was a roof over his head, there would be a roof over his sister's head. Social services would not have admitted to Olga that they had prohibited visits, so the world was a horrible place and she wanted to shut it out. They inflicted emotional cruelty on Olga, but as the grounds for protection collapsed with the finding of Addison's Disease, Ms Q used 4.7 to imply a dysfunctional family.

At 4.13, "The contact records show that the parents focus on Tatiana and Olga, and Mr Stevenson has offered the opinion that it is these two children that require more reassurance as Maria is very resilient. This means Maria often engages in solitary play for much of the contact at times." In the cross examination of Dr N, he had said how resilient Maria was, as had the Nursery manager and the Community paediatrician. The nursery manager said how Maria played on her own or with other children. Dr N had also said how badly affected Tatiana had been, confirming John's assessment. By the time Dr N saw Olga, John's careful attention to her had drawn her a long way out of her shell, but at first, her conduct was as seen in para 4.3. Later on, John got his wife to take dozens of photos of Olga hugging him, whilst he took photos of her hugging mama. Olga, from the evidence by Mrs Q in 4.7, which was intended to show a dysfunctional family, had been the worst affected. Tatiana had been slightly less affected, but repeatedly begs per the fostering records to come home. Once she had whispered to her father that she wanted him to rescue her after dark. Maria has been the most resilient of the children, as the community paediatrician and Dr N testified. John was to question the medical experts at length on this in later months, and not one of them criticized John.

Like an army triage nurse, who assesses the order in which patients should be treated after a battle, knowing a high priority for one patient meant a lower priority for another, John had assessed the damage caused by the Department to his daughters. He devoted most attention to Olga at first, not out of favouritism, but because of her need was greatest. As she slowly recovered, he gave more attention to Tatiana.

At para 4.16, Mrs Q painted a glowing picture of how much better the children were now. The social worker was as selective as ever in her evidence, omitting the horrific level of vomiting suffered by Olga since she face a 40 mile round trip to and from school five days a week. Mrs Q knew of, but did not mention the bad dreams and nightmares. She admitted how Olga had problems with how she looks. This is new. On 15 November, Olga had repeatedly cried "I'm useless! I'm useless!" Mrs Q gloated over how Olga was talking and chatting with other children at school, but ignored her piteous cry, "I'm useless".

In Para 4.17, Mrs Q explained, "Concerns exist that the children had experienced emotionally harmful care that was leading to them closing down emotionally and withdrawing from socializing with their peers." Olga had been seized to protect the backs of social workers who were not interested in a 100,000 to 1 alternative explanation postulated by a brilliant consultant within two days. Tatiana and Maria were seized on the theory that if the parents had starved one child, they might starve her well-fed sisters. The diagnosis of Addison's eliminated starvation, or any threat to Olga, Tatiana or Maria. Having acted in haste, civil servants could not now be seen to have made a mistake. Mrs Q said the children were closing down emotionally. Dr N and the community paediatrician saw no evidence of this. Since her kidnap, Olga was saying "I'm useless," and holding her hands over her eyes, and hiding behind her hood. She did none of this before her kidnap.

At para 4.18 Mrs Q alleged with no evidence to back this up, "Mr Stevenson does not allow Mrs Stevenson to engage in any one-to-one sessions for the parenting assessment. Whilst an agreement had been made for Mr Stevenson to attend but not be actively involved, he has not done this by answering on behalf of Mrs Stevenson and offering non-verbal clues which have been seen as very influential."

John had never forbidden Vera to attend a session on her own. From the evidence on the parenting assessment file, which Mrs Q ignored, Vera had repeatedly asked that her husband be present. When she gave evidence in court on 19 September 2014, it was a heart-wrenching to see a slightly built and timid woman from Russia produce an unintelligible answer to a question that had been put to her gently by the acting advocate for the department, who was one of only a handful of Manx advocates to come out of this sordid case with any honour. Vera had said to her husband she would not attend the assessment on her own, perhaps influenced by the way the IOM Police had put harmful words in her mouth and emailed that to the court when it in no way represented what she had sought to explain. Mrs Q ignored the stress Vera was under.

For an interview to be helpful, standard advice is that the interviewer needs some knowledge of the subject. Mrs I, the interviewer repeatedly displayed her ignorance of the USSR. She asked about bedtime when Vera was small. There was an acute shortage of housing in the USSR, and whilst Vera's father was a senior academic, the family lived in a flat with a single bed/sitting room, but Mrs I had British living conditions fixed in her mind. The dates when children start primary school and university were different to the UK. Mrs I's Parenting Assessment reflected this ignorance. John was sitting beside, but slightly back from his wife. Mrs I was opposite her, Vera would have needed "eyes in the back of her head" to see her husband's facial expression. John hoped Mrs I might see from his expression that she had not understood Soviet society, and might be persuaded to ask, as he studied the USSR for over thirty years. She did not do so.

Her questions on schooling, university, marriage customs for girls etc in the USSR showed a complete lack of understanding of the culture and what was normal. Had John been compelled to undergo a similar assessment on Peru or Bolivia, his answers would not make sense to anyone who was familiar with either country, neither of which he has visited.

If all care cases in the Isle of Man and in the UK which involve parents from ethnic minorities are conducted by interviewers with so little knowledge of the culture they are asking about, parents from different cultures can expect to be grossly misrepresented in the evidence submitted in care cases. This is racism, and may help explain the disproportionate number of children kidnapped who come from ethnic minorities. Should not the Race Relations Board review this?

At para 4.19, "Mrs Stevenson continued to be low in mood.... Mrs Stevenson implied her low mood was because her children were not with her. She said her mood will lift when the children are back in her care." The abuse of mental health in the USSR is well known. Many people who lived in the USSR have a horror of mental health professionals. Mrs Stevenson's children were snatched from her. That would account for a low mood. In the evidence submitted by Mr & Mrs Stevenson photographs showed a radiantly happy mother before she was bombarded with demands that she undergo what every Soviet citizen feared the most.

4.21 alleged, "Contact records show that all three children are dismissive of Mrs Stevenson." In early contact sessions, Olga and Tatiana, were visibly upset by their kidnapping. Mr Stevenson told them they had to be brave. Olga felt betrayed by her parents, as they could not be bothered to be with her, as she saw it. Instead of six hours a week, they needed 7 days a week to undo the harm the Department did keeping the children in foster care after the diagnosis of Addison's Disease. Vera was devastated so was not her usual self, but is a mugger entitled to claim the damage he did to his victim should be extrapolated back to before she was mugged?

At 4.23, "Contact records show Mr Stevenson has fallen asleep during contact. He appears to have limited energy to engage with three very lively children." Ms Q knew Mr Stevenson has re-carpeted five rooms since 17 September, erected shelving, replaced a first floor window sill, and clad a new conservatory. This was all planned in 2013, prior to a severe fall with a back injury, a broken clavicle and 14 stitches in his head. To do this tiring physical work after severe injury is painful. With hundreds pages of baseless allegations, he had been working a 16-18 hours a day for two months. Groundless allegations take seconds to write; finding the facts to disprove them can take hours of research.

At 6.2, "It is recommended that Olga, Tatiana and Maria be made subject to Interim Care Orders for the department to conduct assessments as per the documents attached." Olga had suffered an "ostrich" spell after she was kidnapped by putting her arm in front of her face, and Ms Q admits she worries about her appearance now. Tatiana begged her father to rescue her in the night. At contact, she holds her hands wide to show how much she loves her parents. John is criticized for conciliating, rather than laying down boundaries. His policy if the children argue is to get them to find the common ground, and accept what is reasonable about their sister's position. An omnipotent God-on-High can lay down rules and obedience is compulsory. Surely it is better if they resolve difference because they see it as right?

Mr Stevenson took Olga to the GP on 15 September, and accepted the advice he was given. Olga collapsed on 17 September. The initial medical diagnosis was neglect by starvation. Dr Z said the odds were 1 in 100,000 of anything else! Tatiana and Maria were grabbed by "association". Addison's was found a week later.

John realized that the Department was biased against the family by incidents which had no basis in fact, so had seized a heaven-sent opportunity to grab the three children. Why should they become biased? Vera is of Slav nationality. Small things can cause delight or misery to a Slav woman. On 3 July 2013, after all three daughters had been ill and suffered a relapse, and when her own father was seriously ill, and her husband had suffered a near-fatal fall, Vera was overwrought when she accompanied Maria to A+E, when John was already with Tatiana in Childrens Ward. Within hours, Children's ward observed the excellent bond between John, who remained at the hospital, and the children. They had no qualms about releasing them to the family.

Social Services sent a social worker, J, to see the family. John had phoned her in advance to say how people from the USSR feared mental health services due to the way this had been used to imprison dissidents. Mrs J suggested a referral of Vera to Adult Mental Health Services to her face, which intensified her terror. John was outraged at this insensitivity when he had asked her to be careful. He had the nerve to complain to Mrs J's superiors, and received a letter of apology. Elephants and the handful of dishonest civil servants never forget. In the Core Assessment, the social worker is enraged that John protested against a colleague. Later the school nurse recorded weights which were out of line with those of four other health professionals. Because of that, the Department wrote to Mr Stevenson in 2014. On the return of the family from holiday, he contacted the operations manager. She phoned back a few minutes later to say she was closing the case as everything was nebulous.

A few weeks later, Olga collapsed due to undiagnosed Addison's disease, so those in the Department who had resented the case being closed had their revenge. A week later the case fell apart again, due to Addison's disease, so new grounds had to be invented. John and Vera are accused of not having lots of friends, although they only moved to Ramsey in March 2013. They wear baggy clothes, but John lost 3-4 stone early in 2014. Vera's waist line had increased after three pregnancies. Would their weights stay the same, or alter? Their children are brought up in a Russian way. Vera has low mood, but would any caring mother be dancing around with happiness at such a time? As Olga's collapse had been due to Addison's disease, new excuses were needed.

It is sinister to see how the main weapon Ms Q deployed against Vera was mental health. John had repeatedly said that if you apply the pressure someone most fears to them, the results could be catastrophic. If a woman is afraid of mice, what sort of person would drop a mouse down the back of their dress. It is the act of a contemptible sadist. Social worker J did that, and social worker Q did even more harm. This is evil.

At 6.4 "Should Olga, Tatiana and Maria return to the care of the parents there would be significant concern for their welfare and we believe the threshold for an Interim Care Order to be met. There is evidence of concern documented. Mr and Mrs Stevenson's parenting capacity is limited, and much remains unknown." Once again, Ms Q resorted to opinion, innuendo and a lack of facts. She was careful to omit that Addison's Disease requires constant vigilance. Twice on the long journey to school that Olga had to make, as the Foster carer lived in Ballasalla, Olga had vomited. This required rapid access to Children's ward. On one occasion, it was two and a half hours; on the other occasion about one and a half hours. How can it take two and a half hours to get from near Ramsey to Nobles Hospital? If Olga had been sick on the half mile journey to school from the family home, it would not have taken him an hour for John to get her to Nobles. For grossly inadequate skills, Ms Q should have written in 'social services!'

Olga had always been a 'picky' eater and the foster carer complained how slow the girls were to eat, but Olga rapidly ate whatever food her parents brought to contact, but that did not suit, so they were banned from bringing food, although the senior dietician recommended this.

At 6.4 Mrs Q wrote of "Mr Stevenson's control and at times aggressive tone towards Mrs Stevenson in front of the children, their limited parenting skills, attachment concerns, Mr & Mrs Stevenson's belief system of not always accessing medical help, the children's social isolation, and disengagement from services prior to being in foster care remain an ongoing concern." It was the usual mixture of lies and half truths. Vera did things in a Russian way, and as there are far more Russian people than British people, it must work. John realized the social worker was racist, so tried out of contact to steer Vera away from Russian ways of doing things as he guessed the contact centre would avidly report them as black marks. Sometimes, he had to ask Vera to stop doing things in that way in contact, so he was controlling. Had he done nothing, he would have not protected the children from Vera's Russian ways, of course! It was Catch-22! The evidence from Dr Z and the dietician showed the claim about not accessing medical help was a lie, and John has no hesitation in calling a lie a lie. Initially Ms Q only had Nurse S' account to go on, but by November she had been bombarded with the real facts by John in the hope that she would start to record the truth. John had discussed his parenting approach with Dr N, the clinical psychologist and with Dr Z the GP. They had agreed with virtually everything he had suggested, as had the dietician. If Ms Q had said 'we advanced the following claims, but we now know them to be groundless, she would have been truthful.' That is hardly to be expected!

We now come to one of the most shameful remarks made by Ms Q, In one passage the social worker proclaims "it is my professional opinion that due to her lifestyle she has had limited access to experience the British way of life." The implication is clear, is it not? 'This stupid foreigner is lucky enough to live in the promised land. She could not possibly prefer her backward ideas to "the British Way." The comment about the British Way is patronizing and racist. There are good things about "The British Way", but the population of the world in 2013 was 7.1 Billion: the population of the UK was 64 million people. The great majority of the world does NOT follow the British Way, so is there something extra good about the British Way?

Infant Mortality Rates are a key indicator of health and social care. How does the "British Way' perform? The UN has the UK being in 30th place, after most of Western Europe, Singapore, Japan, the Czech Republic and Slovenia, the latter two countries both being Slav. According to the CIA world Factbook for 2013, it is in 36th place! after the Czech Republic and Belarus! Ms Q praises the 30-36th country in the world in a key indicator of child health. It would be tiresome to take further indicators, but the British Way is well down the world rankings. As John said earlier, when his wife followed Russian ways at contact, he felt the manifest racism of many contact staff members would result in adverse reports on Vera for Ms Q to use against her, and the above passage shows he was right. He suggested she stopped, but she got a black mark for being an ignorant foreigner, and he got a black mark for being aggressive.

If you look at the UK figures for children in care, ethnic minorities are vastly over represented. Are these ghastly foreigners bad parents, or are they different and discriminated against. The Isle of Man has no proper Race Relations Board, to its eternal shame, but the UK Race Relations Board ought to investigate this, rather than political correctness issues which do not result in children being torn from their ethnic roots. Do we really say black parents are bad parents? If you cut John with a knife the blood is the same colour as a black man, an Indian, a Chinese, or an Eskimo. If Race relations means anything, it means respecting the right of everyone, and not looking down on these disgusting foreigners.

In para 6.7, there was a vicious threat "The Department will continue to provide Mr and Mrs Stevenson with supervised contact so long as it is assessed in the best interests of the children. It is hoped that with progression of assessments and evidence of significant change that contact can also be progressed so long as it is felt appropriate and safe to do so." The Department holds a pistol to the heads of the parents, to obey everything they say, no matter how harsh, or they will deem contact not to be appropriate, so are the children to be punished for the parent's preference for something other than "The British Way", and John's protest against overbearing conduct by contact staff and social workers. It is said 'power corrupts'; absolute power corrupts absolutely.' Contact staff had absolute power over parents who were not even allowed to say why they wished to do something differently.

Ms Q provided a Reason for Core Assessment section. This is summarized with Allegations in Bold and the true situation given in normal type.

" **Mrs Stevenson declined to travel with Olga to hospital and did not get there by herself**."

Vera knew Olga would be well cared for at Nobles, but did not want Tatiana to miss school. She took Tatiana to school and returned home. Had she travelled with Olga, there would have been a delay in getting the other girls ready to travel. Dr Z said Olga was within half an hour of death, so every minute of delay to the ambulance was bad. Scoring cheap brownie points is what mattered to Mrs Q, and if Olga had died as a result of the delay she demanded so what?

**The kitchen fridge was full of fresh food that was in date..."** This shows that Mr & Mrs Stevenson regularly bought fresh food.

" **The Hallway was cluttered with stacked boxes, plastic and cardboard."**

The family was moving from the UK to the IOM. When travelling, spare space in the car was used to convey items the family may require. When they returned from holiday in the UK, John needed to erect shelving in the back bedroom, which was better done after the carpet had been replaced. With the excellent weather in late August 2014, he took the children to a variety of places.

" **In the bathroom... There were no toothbrushes, a small bathroom cabinet did not produce any toothbrushes either."**

Vera explained to the police where the toothbrushes were, as children can see any item as a toy. What if they played with the toothbrushes on the floor? The police passed on an email of words they had planted in Vera's mouth, but omitted to send her correction re toothbrushes, as that would not help Social Services,

" **The next room to the bathroom was a large bedroom...this room was very cluttered. In the wardrobe were female items of clothing that one would normally associate with an elderly lady. In the top of the wardrobe was a white statue of Jesus facing towards the back of the wardrobe so the face could not be seen."** The garment and statue were kept for sentimental reasons by John's mother, as it was from the lady who brought her up when her mother died. Is the statue a problem? We might expect a comment like that in Stalinist Russia!

" **The next room to this was another large bedroom with a single mattress on the floor that was clean, but no bedding in evidence. To the side of this mattress was a large double bed with a sheet on it, and in front of the window to the side of the double bed was a cot with no mattress in it. Another single bed with only a sheet covering the mattress was at the bottom of the larger bed."** The children wanted to share a room, so there were sufficient beds, cots etc for this with a spare mattress if one of them wetted the bed in the night. Bed clothing had been washed regularly by Vera and was drying for use that night.

The bedding in the front bedroom was as the girls preferred, and in no way harmful. Bedding was stripped regularly. It was washed and stored downstairs, for when it was required. The police forced entry into the house before lunch, and before the beds had been made.

" **The next room was a box room that has a lock on the door. Inside the room was no floor space and floor to ceiling boxes evident."**

This room had been offered to Olga as her bedroom but she was upset at being separated from her sisters. The parents could have said their daughter's wishes were unimportant. If there was a serious safety issue, parents have a duty to act. If there was no safety issue, John and Vera felt no need to upset them. The small bedroom was being used as a storage room, until Mr & Mrs Stevenson had re-carpeted the whole of the first floor, repainted the upstairs rooms and erected shelving in the back bedroom. All of this was done by November 2014.

Page 5 **"Maria was in the property and was made subject to a Police Protection Order, as was Tatiana when she was picked up from school...they were not suffering from any illnesses."** There was no sign of any neglect of Tatiana and Maria so they should have been returned to their parents. As Olga needed to stay in hospital, there was no question of her returning home, so there was no need for any care orders at all. Mr and Mrs Stevenson readily agreed to her remaining in hospital.

12 July 2014 **"From this referral an assessment of the family was undertaken by Social worker J. The Social worker suggested making a referral on behalf of Mrs Stevenson to Adult Mental Health Services."**

John suspected pressure might be applied to his wife, so he went to a phone box to speak to J prior to the visit and explained how mental health was used in the USSR to deal with dissidents. Vera was brought up in the USSR in this climate of fear. He asked her to be sensitive but she was not. The closure of the case was already known to Mrs Q but would be unhelpful to the kidnapping plot.

Between July 2013 and June 2014 - **"Concerns about... poor nourishment, missed appointments, presentation of parents as being unkempt,"**

The school had asked that Olga be removed from the dining room as she was distressed, so if she was to eat in school as preferred, this meant a lunch box. This usually contained a bottle of water, a small carton of fruit juice, a packet of 'Dunkers' a yogurt, a fresh made sandwich, a slice of wrapped cheese, two or three buttered crackers, a packet of crisps, plus some biscuits. Missed appointments was one of the lies by Nurse S had has been dealt with as the social worker was well aware, but repeated the lie.

John felt he needed to get a clear pattern as to Olga's weight, and extracted the following weight/height figures from official sources.

Date weight ht Source of data

10/01/13 14.14 "red book"

20/05/13 13.5 \----- letter, school entry assessment

04/07/13 14.1 \----- discharge Nobles

17/09/13 14.5 102.5cm letter, Senior dietician Nobles

(27/09/13 14.5 102.5cm chart "date of letter, not of the appointment."

11/12/13 14.6 NM dietician RAMSEY typed letter

04/04/14 13.4 105.5cm chart 0.4 centile per Nurse S

09/04/14 14.7 104.0cm dietician RAMSEY typed letter

17/09/14 13.7 Dr Z Letter

08/10/14 15.2 107.5cm Core Assessment Q

20/11/14 15.6 review by Dr Z

NM =Not measured

No one was sure how long Addison's takes to develop, but the 13.5kg weight stood out as different, but was on the school nurse equipment, so was it reliable? If so it would suggest Addisonian problems as early as January to May 2013, but making in six weeks a 600gm gain, which would with a normal child take not less than three weeks. Over the next eight weeks she put on 400gms, so was gaining weight, despite Addison's developing.

According to Nurse S, Olga's weight had dropped sharply to 13.4Kg by 4-4-2014. This ought to have triggered immediate action by Nurse S, but she did nothing. On 9 April, the dietician at Ramsey cottage hospital weighed Olga, and there were two remarkable results. From 4 April 2014 when Nurse S recorded her height as 105.5cm, Olga had shrunk to 104.0cm, so she had lost 1.5cm in five days! With such a sharp decline in her height, it would suggest her weight would have dropped as well. The dietician recorded her as 14.7Kg. Olga Stevenson had gained 1.3Kg in five days, whilst shrinking by 1.5cm in height! Olga only weighed less if she was weighed by the School Nurse, but she was taller! As the dietician service have proper height measuring devices fixed to the wall their figure is likely to be more accurate than a tape measure.

The figures from the dieticians show a slow increase in weight, but were mostly ignored by the Social Worker as they did not support the kidnapping plan. The accurate figures on 9 April were ignored by the social worker, as inconvenient facts should not be mentioned.

Compared to the weight issue, "presentation of parents as being unkempt," is trivia. John worked for some years in a professional office, and wore a smartly pressed suit and waistcoat every day. It did not make him a better accountant or office manager. Many mothers neglect their children to attend to their own beauty. Mrs Stevenson neglects herself to look after her children. Do the Department prefer trivia to substance?

June 2014. " **In a professionals meeting the concerns were as follows."**

" **Mr Stevenson's Physical health issues"**

Between mid September and mid November 2014, John had re-carpeted the whole of the first floor at the house, i.e. three bedrooms and the landing. He has replaced the lino/carpet in the downstairs living room, He has clad the interface between the old house wall and the new conservatory, replaced a rotten first floor window sill with new wood, and erected two large sets of steel shelving. He had read hundreds of pages of Assessments, Core reports, etc, and prepared a comprehensive Response. He was working 16-18 hours a day for two months without a break. How many teenagers could work at that pace for two months?

" **Parents disengagement from involvement with agencies."**

There is so much evidence exposing this lie that it would be boring to repeat it.

" **On 28 August 2014 Mr Stevenson contacted the Service manager, ST and a plan was made for her to visit the family after her holiday but before this could take place Olga became ill."**

Selected facts are presented to distort the truth. After his return to the Island with the family, he phoned ST. She reviewed the case and phoned back on 28 August to say everything was so nebulous that she was not happy about sending a Social Worker to the family. No actual visit had been arranged, but Mr Stevenson said he would be delighted to see her.

" **Mr Stevenson suggested he felt harassed by professionals in the UK and this was a contributing factor in the family's move to the IOM."**

Untrue; he said nothing of the sort. With the deplorable primary school offered to Olga which had been subject to a special OFSTED inspection and the head dismissed, the County Home Education officer was satisfied with Mr Stevenson's plans for home education and had a visit scheduled for 11 April 2013. This lady had resisted every attempt by a Health Visitor whose only legitimate patient was Maria, to have her support his personal vendetta against home education. When the Health Visitor found the Home Education Officer was not to be intimidated, he enrolled a Social Worker to apply pressure on Mr Stevenson.

Home Education is a right under the UK Education Acts, but rightly must meet certain standards. The County Home Education officer had backed Mr Stevenson subject to the visit by her inspector on 11 April. Her position was entirely reasonable. The health visitor was ignoring the parent's statutory rights and the senior-most officer in the Education Dept. Mr Stevenson realised that if the family relocated to Ramsey, they had a home where there was a good school which might be better than home schooling. That was the reason for moving. Other than that, John had no wish to leave their home in the UK with their friends nearby and so much to do.

Page 7 **"Tatiana presents as Healthy with no major concerns around her development...... Tatiana is a slow eater – The school are also supporting Tatiana by taking her out of class early so she can start her lunch with a plan to finish it when the other children are finishing theirs."** If the school had suggested taking Tatiana out of class to start her lunch early, John would have welcomed such an idea. A 'reward sticker' plan was adopted for Olga, but no coherent measure was suggested for Tatiana until after Olga had collapsed.

" **On 17 September 2014 Olga had collapsed at her home and was admitted to Nobles Hospital. Medical information suggested Olga was malnourished and Starved. This is now attributed to her diagnosis of Addison's disease."**

The grounds on which the couple were arrested had been overtaken by fresh medical evidence. The Department needs to accept this and the care orders can no longer be justified on any grounds. The Department plays down how Tatiana begs to come home virtually every time she sees her father. Tatiana was so desperate to be free, that she even suggested her father come at night to rescue her. In her little mind, she was like Rapunzel, Ariel or Gretl, the heroines of folk tales that generations of little girls have identified with. If they were rescued, why not her? She looked to her protector to do so. John faced an agonising dilemma. If he said no, her trust and hopes would be shattered. If he did as she asked, he would be a criminal. Instead he told her that things had to be done the right way, and it would take a little time. He could have said no, and destroyed her hopes. Instead he answered wisely. His faith in the Isle of Man Courts of 'Justice' was alas totally misplaced.

Olga's Health **\- "When living with her parents Olga was expected to say if she was hungry and then would be given food – Mrs Stevenson had stated that Olga was old enough to make these decisions for herself."**

From the evidence of the police transcripts the POLICE put words in Vera's mouth and took remarks out of context. Is this standard with IOM Police procedures; If so how many innocent people have been found guilty? The police tried to get John to incriminate his wife. When he rejected it as words taken out of context, this line of questioning ended suspiciously fast.

Olga's Health **"During the social work visit to the home on 17th September 2014 there was no evidence of bedding such as blankets or duvets on the children's beds but only one sheet."**

On page 4 of the Core Assessment it now states of the box room, **'The next room was the box room that had a lock on the door. Inside the room was no floor space and floor to ceiling boxes evident."** In bundle 2, Chronology of Significant events, of 23/09/2014, it is put slightly differently on pages 15/16. _'The next room was the box room directly above the front door. This room was locked with a little latch lock you just flicked up to unlock the room. In this room there was no floor space and floor to ceiling boxes of items (unknown)._ ' The trend in the Core assessment is to give ever more detail, but the word "(unknown)" was deleted between 23/09/2014 and 17/11/2014. The word makes it clear how the search was random, so was purely to find evidence to condemn the parents, rather than to see if there was adequate bedding. Why had a word that shows the search was casual disappeared? Could it be that John had pointed out that there were some ninety items of bedding in the house, and an admission that the search had been so incomplete would wreck any claim that Mr Stevenson was lying?

Olga Health **"Information from health records in the chronology suggests a number of missed appointments for Olga. There were at least two missed/failed appointments with the dietician."** Joseph Goebbels said, "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.'

" **Mr Stevenson did produce a diet sheet showing three nourishing meals a day that the family were supposed to be partaking of. Medical opinion is that this is not felt to have been an accurate reflection of the family diet."**

The diet sheet was produced before Olga's Addisonian crisis. The allegation that it could not be accurate fails to take into account the effect of Addison's disease.

" **The school nurse was showing great concerns about Olga's loss of weight... she requested Mr Stevenson to allow her to refer Olga for an urgent appointment with the community paediatrician. Mr Stevenson declined this request."**

John agreed to the referral if it included an appropriate reference to Olga's diminutive height and genetic and ethnic factors. The school nurse refused.

" **Olga used to bring a packed lunch to school that only consisted of either 'chicken and beans, or cornflakes with chocolate bits carried in an empty margarine tub."**

False. There would be a bottle of water, a 200ml cardboard carton of blackcurrant or orange juice (depending on which she preferred) with cartoon characters on it, as this encourages children to drink. There would be a packet of Dairylea "dunkers" which are tube biscuits with cream cheese, a pre-wrapped slice of cheese, crackers or Ritz biscuits, the former with butter and wrapped in cling film. Often there was a yogurt of some sort with a plastic spoon. Children usually respond better to reward than being forced. A couple of wrapped sweets of some sort, e.g. a chocolate, might be included, but this was not every day. There might be a bourbon biscuit, or a Club or other biscuit.

" **The school are also suggesting to the carer that lunch times are proving difficult as both Olga and her sisters are very slow eaters... they have a plan in place to take the girls from class earlier than other pupils to start their lunch earlier."**

Given the enthusiasm of the girls to eat what their parents bring to Contact, John and Vera can offer no explanation for this. Had the school suggested such an idea to Mr & Mrs Stevenson before 17 September 2014, they would have readily agreed. If Olga is enthusiastic to eat what her parents bring to contact, it suggests she is either more willing to eat from her parents than third parties, which is understandable. Maybe she prefers the food offered by her parents. On two consecutive Saturday's at Contact, when a lunch box was provided by the carer, Tatiana declined to eat her sandwiches, saying she did not like them. On Saturday 15 November, Mr Stevenson made strenuous efforts to persuade her to do so, but to no avail.

" **Maria is believed to be in good health and no causes for concern for her physical well being. All Maria's immunisations are up to date."** This reflects well upon Mr & Mrs Stevenson.

Tatiana Education **"There had been concern from school around poor presentation and the presentation of Tatiana's parents at school."**

When Tatiana started at school, the merger of the two schools had just begun, so Tatiana required red uniform instead of blue uniform. New tops were bought for both girls. They are washed daily by Mrs Stevenson. Tatiana has an ample selection of 4-5 year old blouses, trousers, skirts, red chequer pattern dresses etc, and changes into new uniform every day.

" **Tatiana is achieving in all areas of her education. She is well able to read books."**

The Department had not then had the time to have any impact on her reading ability or educational progress. This confirms her parents were doing a good job in supporting the school in these key areas. Younger siblings often seek to emulate an older sibling and this is the case with Tatiana.

" **Within the foster home Tatiana has a vast range of play materials to encourage her creativity."** The police and Social worker speak about one box of old and broken toys in the house. But prior to strategic revisions, the report added, **"In this room there was no floor space and floor to ceiling boxes of items (unknown)."** For this room the search is admitted to be casual. It was equally casual elsewhere. There are at least ten boxes of toys, and in the store room downstairs are two large boxes of play materials, inc pencils, pens, coloured chalks (2 boxes x 80 chalks each, one about a half used), small, medium and large brushes, two water colour sets which had not even been opened, one almost new water colour set (and two used sets elsewhere in the house).

Education Olga **"Mr Stevenson said Olga had some reluctance to attend school even before she was accommodated. He stated Olga had at times clung to him and the teacher has had to intervene to get Olga away from her father and into the classroom. Whilst there are still some issues at the start of school Olga is now engaging better with pupils and staff."** Of many grossly inaccurate assessments, this is one of the worst. During her first term at school, from April to July 2013, Olga was clingy for about a month, but it was a new experience. By the end of the first term, she would hold dada's hand for a few seconds, but would go into class without protest, as she liked her teacher. For a week or two at the start of the September 2013 term, she was again clingy, as she had a new teacher, but not once she got to like her. If there are any issues at the start of school now, John cannot comment, but if there are, it is due to being torn from a close family relationship. It is another reason why she should be returned to her parents forthwith.

" **Since becoming a Child Looked After, Olga is now doing a great deal better in school but has been covering her face as soon as she gets out of the car to enter the school gates. The teaching staff have to cajole her daily to take down her hood that she tries to cover her face with and enter school...Most days after this faltering start Olga has had a very good day in school."**

Even during her first term at school in April 2013, Olga did not cover her face or it would have been noted in the schools concerns register which refers to many trivial things. Olga was travelling on a train one day in Leicestershire, and talked her way into the driver's compartment and then returned for her sisters and dada. A photo was included in evidence. This hardly suggests shyness. On 20 November, John and Vera attended an appointment with the dietician and Dr Z. Olga was brought to the appointment by the foster carer. Olga had her face obscured by her hood, and had to be physically dragged into the waiting area. As her parents could not be present at the start of school, they had not been able to see this new behavioural trait before, but the events of 20 November confirm that since she was "looked after", Olga does hide her face in this way.

" **Olga has previously not been achieving to her full potential.... Academically Olga is a bright child but her reading ability is starting to drop off..."**

The Assessment says Olga was not achieving her full potential when she was with her parents, but her reading ability is dropping off NOW she is looked after! It is a classic non sequitur. Ms Q says whatever looks damaging to the parents. Dada read to her regularly and she read to dada. Thanks to the Department and her placement 20 miles away from school, the foster carer says she is often too tired to eat without assistance in the evening, so what does that imply for her reading ability and education? Her reading ability is declining because of the Department, but the social worker cannot admit this.

Emotional & behavioural Development Tatiana **"Whilst Mr Stevenson says he has no favourites in his children but loves them all the same, Tatiana is often treated as a favourite. She gets her own way and can ensure she gets undivided attention from her father in contact."** \- Any allegation no matter how untrue in the contact reports is used to denigrate the parents. A summary of one contact report on 6 October 2014 is helpful

" _When Olga, Tatiana and Maria arrived Olga refused to enter the room.... A staff member brought Olga into the room. After a few minutes Olga was ready to play. Tatiana received no welcome from either Mr or Mrs Stevenson, Maria received only a verbal hello and smiles. Mr Stevenson focused all his attention onto Olga, asking if she wanted to play shop. Olga came round and...played shop with Mr Stevenson for the majority of the contact."_

John's use of triage to assess priorities has been referred to. As Olga was the most distressed, she was prioritized in early contact for that reason.

" _Mr Stevenson had his back to both Tatiana and Maria and focused on Olga."_

later

" _[Tatiana]went straight over to Mr Stevenson and sat on his knee, he asked "what's the matter Tatiana?'_ Mrs Stevenson sat next to the game of shop with Mrs Stevenson, Olga and Tatiana."

The contact report notes.

" _After a few minutes Mr Stevenson tried to move from the shop game saying "I'm going to go and see Maria, do you want to sell something to mama?"_ Olga responded with "I want to play with you" Olga managed to keep Mr Stevenson's attention and he did not move over to see Maria."

This shows John was conscious of the desirability to include Maria, and tried to do so, but was tactful enough to seek Olga's support. Usually the girls are willing to give such support, but Olga had not settled down enough yet to agree. As Maria was calm, and leaving Olga risked undoing all the progress he had made with her, John remained with her. Had the children not been prisoners, he could have devoted as much time as need be to them.

Tatiana **"Mrs Stevenson's presentation of closed emotions and low mood will have affected Tatiana in various ways. Tatiana has suggested to the foster carer that Mr Stevenson has told her that her mother is 'deranged' and also has suggested that her mother 'has mental problems'. This could be a reason for her poor relationship with her mother."**

Vera's low mood is the fault of the Department. The photos of Mrs Stevenson show a mother who is happy and gets on well with her children. This is the real world of a family that has been torn apart by the Department. If the children are unhappy or Mrs Stevenson is unhappy, is it any wonder? Mrs Stevenson had believed that the West was democratic and tolerant. She could not believe Social Workers would call her a bad mother, if the home was warm by UK standards, or the family changed into old clothes in the home.

John realized such trivia were used to denigrate the victims of social services. He has no problem with his wife's approach, but suggested to his wife that the house had to be colder and old clothes had to be thrown out, to humour the Department. Vera could not believe such fantastic nonsense. He explained it was so. Sadly the conversation became heated. John is ashamed of saying to his wife that she must be deranged if she cannot see that old clothes or a 'hot' home would be "own goals" given the warped and biased people they were mixed up with. John's caution was justified; His motives were good, but his choice of words were wrong. Regrettably Tatiana overheard him. Despite the way she has been hounded by the Department, Vera was not deranged. If Vera were Asian, African, or Muslim, the Department would be obliged to respect her ethnicity. The racism is manifest at the start of the Core Assessment where Olga, Tatiana and Maria are shown as White British, rather than Anglo-Slav or indeed Slav as they are marginally over 50% Russian, as John has distant Russian ancestry.

" **Olga was a premature baby and was an emergency birth to her mother who had not believed she was pregnant due to no signs of pregnancy. This meant that her parents were not prepared for a birth and her mother was not able to form an attachment with her in vitro. This may have to be a consideration as Olga does not appear to have a close bond with her mother when observed in contact."** Pure guesswork by someone without medical training. Dr N with relevant medical training refused to speculate, as did other doctors. It was only the police, without medical training, or a social worker that spoke on a complex medical matter. Twenty-two photographs massively outweigh one unpleasant guess by someone with no relevant training.

" **Olga does not appear to have a close bond with her mother when observed in contact"** John would refer the reader back to the remarks by Dr N, a clinical psychologist,

Dr N -I think Olga seeks out her mother more than the other two...

John refers to page 24 of Dr N's report, ' You do a Family Relations test for Olga in which mum and dad tie for members of the family from whom Olga receives positive feelings and Vera and I are also joint the main object of love and main source of love..... As I have said before, you can only go on what you observed but when Vera and I tie on every issue in Olga's test, would that not suggest that Olga sees her mama as a central figure in her life?' Dr N replied 'Yes'

Does the reader prefer a social worker who changed her tack to whatever suits her and offers 'evidence' where she is unqualified to do so, or does the reader prefer a scrupulously fair doctor?

**Olga emotional & behavioural development This paragraph repeated almost verbatim the remarks about contact on 10 October 2014, with the only addition being 'Olga can be strong minded and cannot be made to do something she does not wish to do, if she digs her heels in.'** Olga is strong willed, but will usually listen to dada and if she is convinced do as he suggests. No one else seems to have that ability with her. John suggests it is by using the win win formula of the NCAC, treating Olga with respect. She knows that so listens.

" **Maria is a delightful child who loves hugs and cuddles."**

" **Maria is able to play on her own."**

These two comments are a reflection on Maria's delightful character and reflect credit on her, but had her parents not guided her wisely, would she have developed this way?

" **In Contact Maria engages in play with her sisters and her parents, but there is evidence in the contact records that Maria has engaged in solitary play to keep herself occupied during the contact time."**

Joseph Goebbels said, _"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent.'_ This seems to be the mantra of the Department of Social Care, which is why a book telling the truth, albeit in novel form, is needed.

Page 11,

" **Tatiana... is aware she is a valued member of her family."**

" **When Tatiana resided with her parents, it has been suggested she wore poor quality attire that was often dirty."**

Changing into older clothes indoors does no harm to a balanced child. Over 20 photos which cannot be included in this novel show how smart Tatiana was in Aug/Sept 2014. Do you believe a social worker who says what is expedient, or hard photo evidence?

" **Children were never seen playing outside the family home"**

Poor Mrs Q did not know John had taken several photos of the children playing outside the house to send to their maternal grandparents, so in this instance she was exposed as a liar, and let us be clear, it was a lie.

Page 11 Identity Olga **"In recent weeks Olga has changed and is now forming friendships in school presents with a sense of self worth and developing levels of good self esteem."**

Another big lie? Contact on 15 November records Olga repeatedly said "I'm useless." Ms Q says Olga now has issues with her appearance, (Olga at times presents as having issues with how she looks) Before she fell into the hands of the Department she never said she was useless. Maybe the Core Assessment should be corrected to read.

' _Thanks to social Workers, Olga is developing a feeling that she is useless.'_

" **Tatiana has no knowledge of having relatives on the Island and does not appear to have met them."** The two relatives of Mr Stevenson are distant cousins several times removed. The common ancestor goes back in one case to 1848, and in the other case to 1864.

Page 12 **"Olga is often reticent to join in contact with her parents and siblings but once she has been coaxed to do so she will readily play...Olga appears to lack empathy towards her parents as she has witnessed them upset at her decision not to engage in contact but continued with her decision."** Repeat the big lie, already covered.

Page 12, **"Tatiana has very good manners and is a kind child who will share with others when necessary."** Kindness is important. Sharing is important. Good manners are a reflection of social etiquette and a willingness to consider the feelings of others. Tatiana's character is a glowing tribute to her own lovable nature, but indicates that her parents got the essentials right prior to her being kidnapped.

Page 12, **"Olga is not an easy child to engage in conversation at times. She can be very chatty and next time when she is in contact she will cover her face and not engage. Olga's moods fluctuate and it is not easy to fathom out why this is. When Olga does engage in conversation she is very good and can hold a really intelligent dialogue with adults."**

Olga felt abandoned by her parents. The Department had made her world hideous, by keeping her parents from her, but she did not know who were the guilty parties, so her moods are variable. She has been able to hold an intelligent conversation with adults for years.

Page 12 Self care Skills Tatiana - **"In the home the police and social worker have recorded that there were no toothbrushes and toothpaste for the children's teeth. Tatiana has had to learn how to use a toothbrush since she was in foster care."** The Goebbels approach; repeat the big lie. IOM Social Services staff could have found jobs with Dr Goebbels.

" **Tatiana had irregular meal times and there did not appear to be a bedtime routine. Tatiana had a great deal of autonomy in decision making when she ate and when she went to bed or where she slept. Children of such a young age require order and routines in their lives to support them in developing self regulation."**

Tatiana is alleged to have never seen her grandparents. She would have said nothing of the sort. These fabrications can be disproved by photographic evidence. Others are not so easy to disprove. The day started about 6.00am, when Vera woke the girls who would visit the bathroom. They put on freshly cleaned school uniform. Breakfast would depend on what the girls wanted. It could be cooked bacon, corned beef or ham sandwiches or rolls, cornflakes, noodles, toast, crackers and butter, Ritz biscuits, soup, yogurts, jellies, fruit juice, tea. Fruit would usually be available, apples, pears, etc. As Olga was a 'picky' eater if she wanted meatballs, ham, a ready meal Kebab, lasagne, or sausage casserole, it was available. It would have caused jealousy if Olga had been specially favoured, and allowed more choice than her sisters, so they all had the same choice. They would go to school in the car shortly before 8.30am. They were never late, so there had to be a functioning routine. Maria would play on the child computer or watch a DVD or play with a wide range of toys (some 10 boxes of toys). Vera would fill the washing machine with the daily wash, and prepare a mid-day hot meal.

About 3.00pm, John, Vera and Maria would collect Olga and Tatiana from school. Children enjoy eating out, and to encourage Olga to eat, there would often be a treat after school. Olga adores fresh cooked sausage and chips. Whether there was a trip or not would depend on the weather, so on a wet day, there might be sausage and chips from the Market Place. If the family returned straight home, they would be in the house by 4.00pm. The aim was to be home before 6.00pm if they went out, to allow for an evening meal. Often there would be a treat, eg blueberries, strawberries, raspberries, or in September, wild blackberries, which the girls had picked.

After the meal, John and Vera would encourage Olga and Tatiana to do any homework, or read to them. Social Services say that fixed routines are necessary. By giving the girls some freedom, but subject to limits, they avoided the usual scenes in many families that 'time for bed' provokes.

Page 14 Parenting Capacity

" **The bedroom and sleeping arrangements were of concern as there appeared to be little bedding for the children"**

The Big Lie again, but with the added twist that the remark about the search of the box room being perfunctory being deleted. Johns wonders why? The search was patchy. John has counted five mattresses, eleven pillows, twenty-six pillow cases, twenty-one sheets, fourteen blankets, five or six duvets or eiderdowns, and several bedspreads. With up to 8 items per bed in winter, there is enough bedding to cover eleven beds.

" **Information from the children is that Mrs Stevenson sleeps downstairs or on the landing. Mrs Stevenson suggests she slept in the same room as the children at times as they wished her to be there."**

If the children wished to sleep downstairs, Mrs Stevenson saw no problem in meeting their wishes. Children do sleep downstairs in a bungalow, and do not appear to suffer harm. Mrs Stevenson as a child slept in the same room as her parents and did not suffer any harm. Generations of Russian children were brought up in this way, and it has not produced any problems. To suggest that the 'British Way" is the only way is racist. It fails to respect Mrs Stevenson's ethnic rights.

" **Mrs Stevenson stated she would only give Olga food if she asked for it."**

Dr Goebbels would be at home with the Big Lie here as the remark was twisted by the police from prompts made by police officers.

" **This practice appeared to be used despite Olga losing weight and professionals suggesting high levels of concern about her weight loss and presentation"**

The Big Lie, as there was No weight loss for Olga, just fiction from Nurse S. Weight loss is entirely separate from 'presentation". One is fundamental as it related to food. The other is cosmetic. One might just as well say a racehorse is slow and dappled.

Page 18 Parenting capacity

" **The family appears to have a dependence on taking the right diet, as Mr Stevenson suggests Mrs Stevenson manages her intestinal problems by way of diet."**

Mrs Stevenson controlled her bowel problem by careful diet from January 2013 to late October 2014. When she did fall ill, it was crawling about cleaning in an awkward place, as she was terrified the Department would find something new to criticise. Mrs Stevenson was discharged the next day. Far from recommending an operation, her next appointment was for 11 May 2015. Olga, with Addison's disease, had special dietary needs. John has diabetes, but is Ms Q saying the children of diabetics must be kidnapped? Under Hitler, a policy of disposing of mentally disabled was pursued, and to say the children of a couple who actually did have dietary problems is comparable. If the Minister thinks this is right, would it be an idea to change the Manx flag from three to four legs on a white circle on a red ground. It would emphasise the new order.

" **The family seems to have been isolated in both homes. Mrs Stevenson has not made friends with other women locally. This is evident in that she had no one to turn to for help and support when Olga took ill. Mr Stevenson refutes the suggestion I had made in a previous report suggesting he was a recluse."**

The family spent the Easter 2014 break in Rugby, with a maximum of eleven guests present on 18 April. If Vera had asked a friend to look after Tatiana and Maria, as Ms Q suggests, it would have taken15/20 minutes by the time anybody could have arrived to look after them. This would have delayed the ambulance. Dr Z suggested Olga might have died given another thirty minutes. Vera, in seconds, reached a sound decision which health professionals accepted was sound rather than cosmetically good. The social worker put up a shallow cosmetic plan that might have killed Olga. Who would the reader prefer as a mother?

On page 13 of the core assessment of 3 November, Ms Q wrote. **"Mr Stevenson refutes the suggestion that he is a recluse, but agrees that he does present as a person with some eccentric behaviour."**

In other words, you throw one wild allegation at the victim, and if that fails, think of something else. A recluse sounds bad, so use that, but if it does not work, try something else. This cynical approach characterises the conduct of Ms Q. If you throw enough mud, some should stick.

John's hobby was railways. He ended up by making it his career, producing photos, videos, DVD and kits in a business that has been successful for over 40 years. He loves his work which has supported him for so many years. He does not have to commute or fear the sack from a boss. If Ms Q says that is eccentric, then so be it!

If Ms Q had honestly wished to withdraw the allegation, she should have done so completely, or she should have stated that Mr Stevenson had adduced comprehensive evidence that he was not a recluse. To try to restore the Recluse image, Ms Q, has another go at the family.

" **Mr Stevenson refutes the suggestion I made in a previous report suggesting he was a recluse. This may not be so for him but as a family they live in a socially isolated lifestyle."**

The girls attended parties with their school friends. Most of our friends are near our mainland home, and Olga says she misses them. John was keen to encourage school friends for the girls, but rather than seeking new friends for himself kept to those he knew locally on the Island.

Reference is made to the photos in Vera's Response. Ms Q said elsewhere that the girls had never met their Russian grandparents – Vera's Response included photos of the girls with their Russian grandparents, The Big Lie again from Ms Q!

" **In June 2014 the school nurse request to allow a referral to be made for the children to see the Consultant Community Paediatrician. This was declined by Mr Stevenson. It has to now be an opinion that at this time Olga was developing Addison's disease and so if she had been to see the consultant her condition may have been diagnosed sooner, and so prevented her near death experience."** Already covered and the Big Lie again. John agreed to a referral so long as the ethnic and genetic factors were included. Nurse S ignored this six times. Why did John feel ethnicity mattered? A suggestion had been advanced in the UK that Olga might require HGH, or Human Growth Hormone at some time in the future, as she was below average height. HGH can have serious side effects. Olga saw six different Health Professionals from March to September 2014. No-one detected any signs of Addison's Disease.

The Addison's Disease Self-Help Group states. _Addison's disease is not usually apparent until over 90% of the adrenal cortex has been destroyed, so that very little adrenal capacity is left. This can take months to years and is known as primary adrenal insufficiency. Symptoms of the disease, once advanced, can include severe fatigue and weakness, loss of weight, increased pigmentation of the skin, faintness and low blood pressure, nausea, vomiting, salt cravings and painful muscles and joints. Because of the rather non-specific nature of these symptoms and their slow progression, they are often missed or ignored until, for example, a relatively minor infection leads to an abnormally long convalescence which prompts an investigation. Frequently, it is not until a crisis is precipitated that attention is turned to the adrenals._

" **Mrs Stevenson's culture will be different from the UK. She has been residing in the UK for about sixteen years, but it is my professional opinion that due to her lifestyle she has had limited access to experience the British way of life."** Repetitious, patronising and racist. It implies that anyone who has experienced the 'British Way of Life' could not possibly want to adhere to the inferior way of life of their old country. There is a massive Asian community in Leicester which clings to their social customs, dress habits, religion and eating habits. Any attempt to say they should not do so is racist.

" **Concerns have been highlighted that Mrs Stevenson did not go with Olga to the hospital something that most parents would have done, nor did she contact the hospital to find out how she was."** Repetitious, already answered. Health professionals do not agree.

" **Mr Stevenson did not call the hospital either, even though his wife had made him aware of [Olga's] condition"**

Vera phoned about 8.00am. John rang the IOMSPCo to arrange a fresh booking. It is several hours drive to Liverpool or Heysham at the best, and the M6 is heavily congested in the morning. He was travelling and wanted to avoid missing the boat.

" **It is usually Mr Stevenson who attends appointments for the children and meets professionals."** There is nothing sinister or wrong about that, so it should be disregarded.

" **Mr Stevenson says that in Russia clothing was often scarce and so old clothes were worn in the home to save newer clothes for going out. Mr Stevenson said he saw this as a bizarre ritual.** " Clothing was a 'deficit' item i.e. in short supply in the USSR. If you have lived most of your life in a certain way, people are apt to continue, long after any need has vanished. John never said he saw it as a bizarre ritual. He might have said that bigoted people with no knowledge of the USSR might see it in that way, but it is practical common sense.

" **Another cause for concern has been a report from the police and social worker who visited the family home in September 2014, which suggested they could not find additional clothing for the children other than school uniform. Mr Stevenson refutes this suggestion."**

Repetitious and the Big Lie. The wording of the Chronology of Events before it was altered shows the search to have been perfunctory, so it was valueless as evidence.

" **There does not appear to be any evidence that Mr & Mrs Stevenson were aware of the need for their children to be well presented in public"**

Photos were submitted of smart well dressed and happy children.

" **Mrs Stevenson concentrated on the children hand washing to an extreme. She suggests toys, table tops are germ laden and may possibly make the children ill if they touch these items and then eat food without washing their hands."**

Mrs Stevenson's response referred to the reports from the US government CDC on Hand washing, which says exactly that. She followed reputable medical advice to the letter, when the deputy manager of the contact centre said it was OK to eat off the table! The social worker ignored what health agencies say is ideal practice, but most of us are too lazy to follow good advice

" **Seeing the family in contact, there are concerns around the attachment of the children to their parents. Mrs Stevenson appears to be less warm towards the children than her husband"**

Contact is a bizarre and inhibiting environment. The photographic evidence provided incontrovertible evidence of a warm attachment.

" **Mr Stevenson can play with the children at an appropriate level . There are times he wishes to give long explanations... the children lose interest."**

John plays with the children in an appropriate way. His parents sought to encourage his curiosity and develop his mind like this, and the children are increasingly asking for stories. If the children lose interest, he cuts short what he is saying. Ms Q states Olga can speak intelligently with adults. That is because Mr Stevenson has spoken to her as if she was an intelligent human being.

" **On occasions Mrs Stevenson has been tearful. On these occasions Mr Stevenson does not offer any comfort to her, irrespective of the children being present or not."**

What mother would not be in tears if her children were torn from her? Vera needed hope that the family would be soon be reunited, but that would require Court action and parents are threatened against discussing that before the children.

" **I have tried to give consideration to Mrs Stevenson's cultural differences which may differ to the British way. Mr Stevenson has come into parenting at a later age than most fathers so there may be limitations in his understanding of what children require in the present day"** This is racist and ageist, and supposition. Consideration is allegedly given to Mrs Stevenson's cultural differences, but it implies the British way is best. The fundamentals of caring for a child, love, support, understanding, affection, guidance, are timeless, It is ageist to criticise an older father,

" **Social Isolation of the children & family as a whole."** Repetitious, Olga and Tatiana have friends at school and were invited to numerous parties. John and Vera have friends in the IOM.

" **Children's poor attire and presentation"** repetitious and the Big Lie yet again.

" **Medical Needs not being met consistently"** Repetitious and the Big Lie

" **Poor Home conditions that are better only due to the intervention of Social care."**

Untrue. The house had been a summer home for over 20 years. By May 2013, central heating had been installed and new electrics followed. John had acquired most of the carpeting lino and paint to refurbish the house, but had a bad fall, with a broken clavicle etc. His back was painful until after Christmas 2013. By the summer of 2014 he could do heavy work, but gave priority to taking the girls out in the summer.

" **Issues around poor attachment of children to parents & vice versa"**

Repetitious. See the photos in Mrs Stevenson's Response.

" **Mrs Stevenson's low presentation and refusal to access support from health"**

Repetitious. You might as well say, "You are afraid of mice: here's a mouse for you!"

" **Couples relationship and its impact on the children"**

Mr Stevenson suggested to his wife that they had to abandon many Russian ways of child raising, simply because of institutional racism in the IOM. Mrs Stevenson could not believe this. Mr Stevenson was rude to her. His motives were justified by what has happened; his method was wrong, but when you see a trusting person oblivious of such twisted logic, what do you do?

" **Lack of Routines in the home"**

Repetitious; Routines did exist. A light rein, in which children are encouraged to self-discipline themselves often works better than obtrusive regulation. As per NCAC advice.

" **Mr Stevenson's failure to engage with professionals"**

Repetitious and untrue. Mr Stevenson has always worked with competent professionals.

" **Control issues in the home"**

Repetitious

" **Mrs Stevenson's parenting styles"**

According to the Department, only "the British Way' is permissible. There are 7 billion people in the world, and 64m people in the UK. Seemingly 6.9 billion people are out of step.

" **Mrs Stevenson's understanding of dietary requirements"**

Mr & Mrs Stevenson followed the advice of the senior dietician but this was disguised by Addison's disease.

" **Mrs Stevenson's ability to care for children in absence of Mr Stevenson."** In view of the diagnosis of Addison's disease John feels it would now be wrong to leave Vera to cope with the increased workload and risk

" **Mrs and Mr Stevenson and the children moved back to reside in the Isle of Man in March 2013. This appeared to be after the involvement of Warwickshire Children's Services."**

Repetitious and untrue. It was to secure a good primary school for Olga. Other than that John had no desire whatsoever to leave the better facilities of the UK for the IOM.

" **When I met with Mr and Mrs Stevenson on the 18th September 2013 they presented as dishevelled and unkempt in their appearance. Mrs Stevenson's demeanour was withdrawn and she was uncomfortable in engaging in any form of communication."**

Vera had phoned the ambulance when her daughter collapsed on 17 September. She had been arrested by the police later that day and held in a cell overnight. Even on 19 September, Vera was distraught. John got to their UK home after midnight on 17 September. At 8.00am he was told Olga had collapsed, so returned without even stopping to shave. He was arrested when he reached Douglas and found it so cold in the police cell that he slept in his overcoat. It is hardly surprising he was tired and dishevelled

" **Suggestions have been made that [Mrs Stevenson] could be suffering from Mental health issues."** Repetitious. see photos in Mrs Stevenson's Response. Sadly the pressure on Vera did lead to a nervous breakdown later.

" **Mr Stevenson refutes the suggestion he is a recluse**

Repetitious and untrue

Page 17 Wider Family.

" **The Children are aware of having grandparents in Russia, but have not met with them as yet."**

Repetitious and untrue. On her first visit to the family home, John showed Ms Q a photo of Olga in the arms of her grandmother. So one can add carelessness by Ms Q to the Big Lie

Page 18 Housing

" **Previously there have been concerns about the internal presentation of the home as being chaotic and unclean. There have been a lot of changes and now the home is presented as clean and tidy.."**

Repetitious;

" **but I would suggest there have been few changes made to the house since it belonged to grandparents."**

Repetitious and the Big Lie – new central heating, new electrics, and a new Conservatory are major changes. Appendix 14 shows the new conservatory being built.

John has given this Core Assessment in considerable depth but it is not possible to include every claim as the full document is repetitious in the extreme, saying the same thing over and over again, but this is informative, as it exposes the conduct of social workers to the reader. Their most obvious tool is the Big Lie as referred to by Joseph Goebbels, who said "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent.'

Throughout this book, we have seen the impact on the children in the novel of the Big Lie policy as expounded by Dr Goebbels and as implemented by IOM Social Services. It is not just one practitioner of the lie within social services but many of them.

Goebbels comment was shrewd and he kept most of the German people solidly behind Hitler from 1933 to 1945 and final ruin. Stalin and his successors also believed in the Big Lie, and Isle of Man Social Services embrace the same creed. It particularly holds dear the comment, 'It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent.'

An American colleague once sent me a photo of an inscription on the wall of a building he worked at. It read

### "And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free."

John VIII-XXXII

It is my devout wish that the child prisoners of IOM Social Services shall be made free. Not just Olga, Tatiana and Maria, but every child who is held prisoner unjustly by IOM Social Services.

## Chapter 6 Tearing up Agreements by Social Workers

Mr W, who visited the house with social worker Mrs Q on 4 November 2014, and had been a part of the 'care team' who had placed Samantha Barton where she was to be murdered, had a plan for Olga, Tatiana and Maria.

Thanks to false evidence from Nurse S, the police and Mrs Q at the EPO hearing on 19 September 2014, and the subsequent extension of that into an Interim Care Order, Social Services knew they were in the driving seat, so there was no need for the plan to be fair or likely to lead to the children being freed.

I am covering this step, so other parents of kidnapped children will be forewarned of the way social services moves to discredit parents in order to kidnap their children permanently. If John and Vera had known in advance of this web of deceit by social services, it would have made the fight to free their children less of a jungle to them, and in early 2015, with the shattering evidence from Dr N, they might have won freedom for the children.

Social services, through a gullible and complacent court, had granted the Emergency Protection Order on mistaken or untrue evidence as we have seen, so social services now had powers to order psychological assessments of the children, but not of the parents.

The W plan was in the form of an 'agreement' in which the parents had no more say or choice in, than the prisoners in one of the Nazi concentration camps had. This is the first part of a process which leads to corruption of the entire system. The saying, 'Power corrupts; Absolute power corrupts absolutely' is very old, but all too true.

It is sadly well known that in Victorian times, maids and other female domestics were employed to provide cleaning and similar legitimate services, but senior members of the 'domestic' staff had great power over junior maids, and inevitably some of them used their power to pressure young maids into providing sexual services to them. The 'master' or owner of the house had far more power. To say all masters exploited their domestic staff sexually would be an exaggeration, but there is evidence that many did. Senior staff and the master had absolute power, so exploited it.

At the time of writing, the Scottish enquiry into the misdeeds in the Nazareth Homes was reporting. Lady Smith, who was leading the enquiry reported, "The Nazareth Houses in Scotland were, for many children, places of fear, hostility and confusion, places where children were physically abused and emotionally degraded with impunity. ...There was sexual abuse of children which, in some instances, reached levels of the utmost depravity.' The management and staff of the homes would not all be bad, but some were, and exploited their power to abuse the children. Other members of staff who knew what was going on were intimidated into keeping silent as they were in a junior capacity. This was another instance of absolute power.

The Nazi concentration camps were an extreme example, and there are many cases of Jewish and non-Jewish women being forced to offer sexual favours to senior or even quite junior staff, and of compulsory prostitution. Again this is absolute power at work.

It is vital that in ANY organisation with power that there is some appeal process to an agency outside the controlling body. Social Services have a notionally Independent Review body, but staff move in and out of this, contaminating any independence the Review body might have otherwise had. A review body where the reviewing officer is employed by the main agency is in danger of itself being corrupted as management will not welcome too scathing a probe into the misconduct of line staff. It has been John's experience of social services that complaints are not seen as something to learn from and redress, but as a nuisance which needs to be swept under the carpet. The proven accusation that foster carer Mrs V forced Olga to clean up her own vomit was whitewashed. Mrs V misled Alder Hey on medical evidence by claiming five times the number of admissions to hospital for tonsillitis that John's records suggested, and Dr Z of Nobles confirmed John's figures were accurate. John and Vera were falsely accused of misinforming health professionals, which was used as a ground to remove the children. Mrs V, from social services records, misinformed Alder Hey massively, but that is acceptable.

It is our hope that this novel will force Tynwald to set up a genuine independent review, such as the Lady Smith report, into the misdeeds of IOM Social Services, and that review will recommend a genuine independent review agency. As the Isle of Man is a small place, and what happens is often determined by who knows who, and who is owed favours, rather than the facts or any integrity, the Review officers should come from outside the Island.

When Manx Magistrates sentenced a child to be tortured in 1981, although the use of the birch had been outlawed in 1976, the UK government, which had been embarrassed at being taken before the European Court on a justifiable human rights case, brought pressure to bear, so a UK-based appeal judge was appointed to hear the appeal against the barbaric and irresponsible antics of the magistrates. After all, just a few years previously, the Manx 'Appeal' court had ruled in favour of birching ,despite the European Convention.

Under the W Plan and agreement, the parents 'agreed' in much the same way that a Victorian maid agreed to the sexual demands of her master.

' _Psychological Assessments of the two parents to be carried out. These will include Attachment Assessments of the three children. This work has been commissioned but there will be a two month timescale.'_

In an official report on the misconduct of IOM Social Services, the terms could be given verbatim but I have to avoid infringement of copyright, so the words which social services attempted to force on John and Vera have been paraphrased.

The Core Assessment in November 2014 spoke regularly of low attachment, but to assess the truth of this we need only look at the evidence of the department's own 'hired gun' Dr N, who, unusually for a hired clinical expert witness, was completely honest and impartial. We need to refer to page 24 of Dr N's report to page 24 **'You do a Family Relations test for Olga in which mum and dad tie for members of the family from whom Olga receives positive feelings and Vera and I are also joint the main object of love and main source of love..... As I have said before, you can only go on what you observed but when Vera and I tie on every issue in Olga's test, would that not suggest that Olga sees her mama as a central figure in her life?'** Dr N replied 'Yes'

The social worker, Mrs Q, did not of course see it that way, as this would harm the plan to kidnap the children, so continued to claim there was low attachment on both sides. Indeed she made next to no reference to this most unwelcome report in the plethora of bundles she produced. John already had a hunch that any attachment assessments on evidence from the contact centre and the social worker would be massaged to produce a fraudulent picture, but this was what the 'agreement' laid down. What he could not know, and thankfully the department did not anticipate, was that the child psychologist was truly independent, which is so rare as to be almost unheard of.

The next part of the 'agreement' was **'Parenting Assessments; Children's Centre have already commenced work on this through Ms A and Ms I. This is to be a full assessment, but will include material from Contact Reports.'** Once again, I have paraphrased what was to be done to John and Vera without altering the meaning to defeat copyright infringement claims.

A detailed review of the report by Ms I on Vera Stevenson is included in Chapter 5. Ms I showed little or no understanding of conditions in the USSR, with her assumptions that life would be the same as in England. Instead of most families living in two story houses, most families in the USSR lived in small flats, which could often have a single bed-sit room for a family with two children. Instead of the UK routine of going from the living room to the bedroom, the parents had a convertible sofa/bed for adults and convertible armchair/beds for small children. Ms I's questions on bedtime routine and her understanding of Vera's answers were minimal.

John could, from his analysis work on the USSR, provide an accurate report on many aspects of the Soviet military-industrial complex, but if he were asked to report on the military-industrial complex of the Pinochet regime in Chile, he could not do so without informing himself of conditions there, so a different analyst, with knowledge of that country, would do a far superior job. John is aware of HIS limitations in a field of which he knows little, but Ms I was seemingly unaware of the fundamental differences, and when John offered to provide her with independent authoritative source references, so she did not need to rely on his advice, she showed no interest. In reading her report, it is clear that whilst she sought to denigrate John for trying to give her some idea of conditions in the USSR, she made no effort to utilize independent sources which might have permitted her to produce an accurate report.

If, when a few comments from John over living conditions in one room bed-sit flats, school starting age, university starting age and marriage customs in the USSR had highlighted the massive differences, Ms I made no effort to inform herself from independent sources, it suggests accuracy was not seen as very important in her report. Was her job to produce an accurate report, or one that would meet the wishes of Social Services who were the paymasters of the Children's Centre?

This emphasises a factor John had already sensed, but which the establishment is keen to suppress. In the old days, childrens' charities, such as Dr Barnardo's Homes, did a vital job in looking after children without parents. In a way they were a product of the nauseating prejudices of Victorian society which endured into the 1950s. In Victorian times most children were born within marriage, but a proportion were not, and we have seen a reason for some of that in the disproportionate power of masters over maids, where a young domestic often had little choice but to offer sexual services to her employer. In an age before contraceptives, these hapless girls ran the risk of pregnancy every time the master took his pleasure with her. As girls could be employed in service long before they were sixteen, there were many pregnancies of girls as young as twelve. Abortion was illegal, but there were backstreet abortionists and some girls had undergone multiple abortions before they were 21. For a girl who delivered a baby, a young domestic with a baby would be sacked, so her choice was to move from being a maid to prostitution, or to get rid of the baby. Babies were often left as foundlings, hence the massive need for child orphanages in Victorian days.

This was a scandal, and far from looking on these girls as loose women, we need to blame the conditions in society that permitted this to happen. Apart from domestics as a prolific source of orphans, the same existed across society, covering mill girls, and indeed any girl who was poor. Girls from wealthier families were less likely to fall victim to an illegitimate pregnancy, but if they did, there could be parental pressure to get rid of the embarrassment.

The glut of foundlings persisted throughout Victorian times, and without homes such as Barnardo's, the fate of these innocent children would have been worse than it was. Sadly illegitimacy was seen as a badge of shame for the mother even in the 1950s, and far worse for the child. The advent of the contraceptive pill made a dramatic change and changing social attitudes no longer saw an illegitimate child as a thing. A very fine manager I met once said firmly, 'If you want to call someone a bastard, first make certain they are not one.' He was sensitive enough to appreciate the agony to a child who was illegitimate of being taunted with their illegitimacy.

In the last thirty years of the twentieth century, the number of foundlings or illegitimate children who entered orphanages decreased dramatically due to the pill and changing social attitudes. A proportion of this glut of children had been adopted from Victorian times onwards, and who better to manage this work than the children's charities, many of whom ran orphanages. This, in the best circumstances, provided a loving home for a child, which would be better than an orphanage, but it was open to abuse if the adoptive parents were not as one might wish. There was a need for adequate checks, and who better to do much of this work than the children's charities.

Adoption, as well as providing hopefully good homes for orphans, catered to society's need for a supply of children to meet the 'complete family' needs of couples who were unable to have a child of their own. Gradually as the supply or orphans diminished and the demand for children to adopt did not decline, the system moved from a shortage of adoptive parents to a shortage of adoptable children. In part this was met by children from poor countries, and John is aware of a Thai girl who was adopted by a delightful English couple, and is a lively well adjusted and delightful person herself. The other increasing source of adoptable children was children taken from genuinely abusive parents by social services, but this was inevitably small, so children snatched from parents who were not abusive were a useful substitute.

In the early days, before checking standards were too onerous, the costs of these adoptions were met by the prospective adoptive parents, but as the state became increasingly concerned about abuses, and the agencies became increasingly keen to protect their own backs, costs rose to a point where most prospective adoptive couples would feel it was too expensive a luxury. If kidnapped children were to be marketed successfully, the costs had to be kept down to prospective adopters, so Social Services became the main provider of funds.

A monopoly, where there is one supplier to whom all would-be buyers must go is well known, but the alternative is where a business has a single customer. The classic example of that is with supermarkets and own brand products, but an early example was the St Michael brand of the retail giant Marks & Spencer, which was introduced in 1928. If a small producer obtained a contract to supply own brand goods to a retail giant, it could transform its production levels from thousands of items to millions, but made the supplier dependent on a sole customer. What if Supermarket A said to supplier K that they were thinking of shifting to supplier L unless K reduced its prices? K had no choice but to comply, so free market forces had been overtaken by a readily coercive customer supplier relationship.

This may be bad in commercial life, but when it moves into childcare it is corrosive, and that is what happened, and in the IOM it can be seen starkly. In 2013/2014, the Children's Centre in the Isle of Man had an income of £6.4m, but of this no more than £670,000 related to charitable giving, so almost 90% of the income to the Children's Centre came from non-charitable services, which were the Supported Child Contact Centre, Fostering First, and Adoption Services. The 2014 review of the Children's Centre reveals that the budgeted costs for 2014/2015 allocated 78% to staff and training costs, even though five children's residential homes had closed in the previous year, which had been funded by social services. Unlike the UK, where it is easy to find our details of salaries of officials etc, it is much harder to access this information in the Isle of Man.

The 2014 review of the Children's Centre, which then ran the Supervised Contact Centres on behalf of their only customer revealed that almost 90% of the income of the children's Centre came from social services, and whilst there have been no whistle blowers to admit how Contact Centre reports were slanted to provide the evidence social services wanted, and suppress evidence they would not welcome, where a business is dependent to 90% on a solitary customer, even if there is not an official policy to do so, staff will be aware that their paychecks are funded from the one customer, so they are under pressure to provide the product the customer wants.

At its peak, the childrens centre employed 160 people and with an annual charitable income of around £670,000, the role of commercial services in financing such a massive staff is manifest. Since 2014, the Children's Centre has lost Supervised Contact, and in October 2018, lost fostering and adoption services and the staff had dropped to 95 with substantial further drops expected. In January 2018, the chief executive admitted, 'In our 150th year, The Children's Centre is taking active steps to refocus its activities back to its core services to ensure it remains relevant and able to operate sustainably in a challenging environment.'

As noted above, several of the Children's Centre homes had closed and a report to Tynwald in October 2018 revealed abuse went on at Knottfield House comparable to the Nazareth Homes in Scotland. The report notes that further disclosures of historical child abuse in the Isle of Man 'are likely'.

Shocking evidence to the Tynwald inquiry by former residents revealed how children were systematically abused by those who should have been caring for them. They spoke of a regime characterised by violence, with a clear sexual dimension to the emotional and physical abuse with the 'chosen few' children moved into an attic bedroom where they would be abused regularly. One witness could not remember a day when they weren't abused. Victims said how they would lie in bed awake at night dreading the creak outside their bedroom door. Sexual abuse was routinely carried out in the bathroom with children being caned after being told to strip naked. Girls as well as boys were assaulted by staff members and were rewarded with gifts of chocolate bars.

One employee was convicted of 13 sexual offences against children in 1992, but the report believes these were only a tiny fraction of the number of offences actually committed and successfully covered up. A woman member of staff told how a stranger arrived in a car wanting to take out boys aged 10 and 14. They returned quiet and subdued. When she took this up with the manager, he accused her of being 'over-imaginative'.

This is in line with the evidence that it was known how Samantha Barton was regularly having sex at the age of twelve, but no mention of this was to be found in official records as part of the cover-up. Evidence appeared that child-on-child abuse at Knottfield was also tolerated and exploited, and arrangements were made for the children to meet other abusers during their trips off the island.

Needless to say children were prevented from reporting abuse. On one occasion, someone who was prepared to make a statement to the police was taken into a room by the manager and told that if he did so he should say that he didn't see or hear anything. Some 375 children were admitted to Knottfield between 1973 and 1983, when the home closed. The report admitted abuse had a devastating and long-lasting impact on the children, in terms of their education and their future life outside the home. 'The experience of living at Knottfield ruined many lives,' notes the report. In passing Samantha was sent to Knottfield twice.

As the Knottfield home had closed and one man was sentenced for child abuse in 1992, IOM Social Services were aware of the dubious conduct tolerated there. Should they have been using the Children's Centre twenty years later to act as snoopers on parent-children relationships? The SS in Nazi Germany included many different branches, and not just the concentration camps or the Gestapo. Would be welcome a former Gestapo officer as a reliable and trustworthy assistant, so should we welcome anyone from an organisation that was tainted?

Should the IOM Family Court, which must have been aware of abuse of children in care from the Samantha Barton report and 1992 case about Knottfield, have been so casual in accepting the word of social workers, when John had proved on the balance of probabilities that Nurse S had failed to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth at the 2014 hearing, that the social worker Ms Q had repeatedly made claims that at the kindest interpretation were inaccurate, and where there was clear evidence of child abuse by the foster carer who was then looking after Olga, Tatiana and Maria?

As to the children's centre, there is more evidence of what pressure can do. In the 2014 report it says on the adoption page, 'The years also saw challenges – a judgment in the English courts has led to a decrease in adoption orders being granted in England and, because children from the UK and the Island can be adopted here on the Isle of Man, this has led to fewer children being available for adoption during 2014.' The reduction in adoption orders in the UK was because of the reforms by Sir James Munby in seeking better standards of evidence before taking the step of tearing children from their parents forever. The contact centre call the reduced supply of children a challenge, as if they were talking about the production of motor cars or cans of beans.

The Child Care trade provides thousands of jobs for the people working in it and if the supply of children goes down, the need for staff may go down, but children should not be a commodity to fund charities and pay their employees. If that is how the Children's Centre thinks, should the motto be 'Children, Young People and Families First' or should it be 'Turnover, Paying staff wages, and Social Services first?' As the adoption service has now been removed, this problem is now ended, so long as the new service supplier does not see children as a commodity.

These are questions which have to be answered by Tynwald.

We have already seen how one limb of the Parenting Assessment, viz the Report on Vera Stevenson was rendered valueless due to the complete ignorance of the assessor on what she was reporting about. Mrs I had no understanding of Russian conditions so nothing she said of Vera's life before she came to England was likely to be accurate or informative. Surely even a criminal is entitled to an impartial and competent investigation?

Mr W noted in his report, 'Both parents are currently on bail to 6 November, and the police are currently considering extending this.'

A 'suspect' can be help in police custody for a limited number of hours and then must either be charged, released or put on bail, which means they can be called in again for further questioning. Sometimes individuals are bailed for weeks or months whilst the police desperately search for evidence to justify charging them. The incestuous relationship between social services and the police is apparent in this sentence. As we have seen earlier, the police summoned John and Vera back for a further interrogation, and whilst John, who had now done a vast amount of research and could keep complex figures and data in his head was confident he could discredit their case against himself, Vera had provided enough ammunition, which when suitably edited, to give them a chance to score brownie points with her. As already noted, he and Vera worked on a 36 page memo which step by step destroyed the credibility of the loss of weight allegations from Nurse S, but the most embarrassing item for the police would be how an officer had pressured both John and Vera into agreeing that they should have fed Olga to the point where she would be on the 99th centile, which is clinically very obese and would set alarm bells ringing. Whether this was sheer ignorance or a desire for a simple and damaging sound bite is unknown, but should the police feed suggestions to a witness for them to agree to that would have led to clinical obesity if acted upon?

The W Plan concluded, _'If there is no legal agreement on On-Going ICOs the children will have to go back to the parents. Some of the work would have to be done in a different setting calling for high levels of monitoring and supervision. The decision and the necessary work would need to bear in mind there was a level of unexplored risk which allowing for the events relating to Olga would have to be considered as extremely high.'_

The plan at the outset talking of permanent removal or return to the parents and if the parents were to have any faith in the impartiality of the department, it needed to be open minded. There was now no doubt that Olga has suffered an Addisonian crisis, which even a superficial reading of the brochure sent by Dr Z indicated how it mimicked starvation as it caused severe weight loss, so the balance of probabilities had shifted massively away from neglect. In November Mr W had said they wanted to consider if the parents could have caused Addison's. Again a read of the brochure would have answered that, but if Mr W wanted to adopt a belt and braces approach, as it was a child protection issue, he had ample time to learn this was not tenable, so his fall-back excuse, 'maybe you caused the Addison's' was not available either. Had the report been intended to be honest, it could have said _'Some of the work would have to be done in a different setting calling for high levels of monitoring and supervision and the parents' consent to this should be sought. The necessary work would need to bear in mind there was a level of unexplored risk which in view of the finding of Addison's disease with Olga cannot be measured accurately but careful supervision should manage this issue, and the parents would be expected if the children return home, to agree to such supervision which would include the right to unannounced surprise inspections.''_

That would have provided 100% security to the department, and also to the children, but as protecting the backs of civil servants was actually the name of the game, I have put that first.

The plan, as written, suggested that the untrue comments by the social worker Mrs Q, e.g. all the girls were closing down, loss of weight, starvation, emotionally abusive care would, now Addison's had demolished neglect, be turned out as alternative weapons.

John discussed this with his lawyer, advocate Mrs M. She said it was imperative to go along with it as the department would not return the children if John and Vera did not agree. She said it would be essential to agree to the parenting assessments from the Childrens Centre for both parents. As neither John nor Vera had anything to fear from an impartial hearing, they agreed, although John already had grave doubts as to whether the Childrens Centre would act impartially.

John's view was that the key paragraph was at the end, that the children would have to be returned if there was no agreement over continuing ICOs. He felt that the parents should agree to at most one more uncontested ICO hearing, and then oppose.

As few readers will understand what these ICO hearing mean, an Interim Care Order lasts for 28 days, and if the parents do not contest it, a magistrate grants an extension automatically without bothering about any evidence. If the parent contests it, an ICO hearing has to be heard promptly to investigate the facts of the case. With the finding of Addison's, the 1 in 100,000 longshot had come up, which disproved on-going starvation. John had gathered enough evidence to discredit Nurse S and her weight figures. He could discredit her colourful account of where the children were cowering, as not even a Barbie doll could go there. Her equally colourful account of the walk through the hall was just as vulnerable, and the social worker, Ms Q has produced false claims about the children not playing outside which he had photos to discredit. He had photos of them well dressed when outdoors, and there was the spurious evidence about a lack of clothes which the content unknown remark about boxes demonstrated was unproven. John felt another month of delay was the most he could agree to. His advocate demurred, not wishing to challenge the ICO. With hindsight John feels this was a mistake. In war, and a law case is a ritualised form of war, you apply as much pressure as possible to the enemy. The department would have to return the children if they lost the ICO, and they were currently nowhere near ready to go for a permanent care order. Reluctantly, he went along with the bad advice from his advocate, therefore reducing the pressure on the enemy.

John had read on many websites how social workers used clinical psychologists to provide reports trashing parents. Ask someone enough questions, and you can always find something to criticise, and the clinical psychologists, who worked exclusively for social services, so need to provide good reports for their clients, as they were in competition with other psychologists, were universally known as hired guns. This was an analogy to the Old West where rich cattle barons would hire professional gunslingers to cut down their poorer opponents. Before agreeing to such a potentially one sided 'deal' he needed to consider if it was wise, although his advocate was saying he had no choice.

As John studied the information on line, it turned out that the psychometric test would include answering a variety of questions, but all that would be given to the Court was the psychologist's opinions on what the answers told him of the mental state of the interviewee. It seemed that the basic questions would not be disclosed to the court, so John or his advocate would be unable to cross-examine the expert witness on the evidence from which his conclusions had been drawn. In a court case, a policeman is expected to cite the evidence on which he relies, e.g. 'I saw X climbing out of the window and carrying a bag with him. When I stopped him, he said he had left the bag when he had visited the house earlier. I asked him to open it and he ran off, so I ran after him.' There then comes the examination of the goods in the bag, and if X can prove they are his, he is not a thief. If the prosecution proves they belong to Y, there is physical evidence and the circumstances around the arrest. If the police officer were able to say 'I asked him 75 questions and in light of his answers he committed this burglary and four murders,' and had no need to submit those questions to cross-examination, it would ensure the police always convicted whomsoever they arrested, as there would be no way to challenge the evidence.

John did not trust a witness who earned his living from social services departments to necessarily provide a balanced or fair assessment of answers, but to challenge the fairness of the assessment, he would need a copy of the questions.

On 4 December 2014, he emailed his advocate to this effect that he would not consent to the test other than under these terms. His advocate replied at 14.39hrs, saying she had spoken to the advocate for the Department Miss AG who said she thinks it will be OK and she had no objection.

John prefers important issues to be in writing, and prepared the following to hand to the psychometric tester on the Morning of 8 December 2014.

### The Psychometric Tester

### [C/o place of test]

Ramsey, IOM 8 December 2014

Dear Sir/Madam,

Psychometric Testing

I have, at the request of the Department of Social Care, agreed to undergo psychometric testing, although I have had no recorded history of mental problems at any time in my life, subject to provision of a copy of the test paper and my results, and a copy of any conversation that may take place between us.

I raised this matter with my advocate, Mrs M and she contacted the IOM Attorney-General. Miss AG responded on behalf of the Attorney General. Mrs M stated in the below email.

Subject: [No Subject]

From: Advocate M

To: John Stevenson

Date: Thursday, 4 December 2014, 14:39

Dear Mr Stevenson, Miss AG shall speak with the Psychologist she thinks it will be OK for you to have copies of the questionnaires and your answers. she has no objection. She is checking.

Kind regards

M

From the date and time of the message, i.e.14.39 on Thursday 4 December, the Attorney-General's department will have had adequate time to notify you of my qualified consent to be tested, and should any objection have been made by yourself to disclosure, to notify me, accordingly.

As I have received no notification that there has been any objection whatsoever to my receiving a full copy of the test, the results, and any discussions before or thereafter, I am prepared to undergo psychometric testing, although I have no record of any mental illnesses at any time in my life.

Please advise me when and in what form (which may be paper or electronic), that the raw data obtained from the test today will be supplied to me. As I have not been notified of any objections to this procedure, I am attending this test in good faith, but do reserve the right to reconsider my position, should the prior conditions I notified via my Advocate to the Attorney-General's office not be met, and the Attorney-General's office not so advise me through Mrs M.

Yours faithfully

John Stevenson LL.B.

\----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

### Declaration by the Psychometric Tester

I..................................., being appointed to carry out a psychometric test on Mr John Stevenson, confirm that a full and unabridged copy of the electronic or printed test paper and his answers will be/will not be supplied (cross out which is relevant), along with a written transcript of any discussions that shall take place before or after the test to Mr Stevenson, and to his advocate, Mrs M, on or before........................., so that Mr Stevenson, acting through his Advocate, will be able to challenge the validity of any evidence offered as a result of the said tests in Court. I understand that Mr Stevenson reserves all rights in the event of my declining to supply a copy of the said materials, and withdraws consent to any records of any assessment (if same should take place) being disclosed to third parties, failing such agreement.

Given this.....................Day of December 2014.

Signed............................................................

Print name.........................................................

The psychometric tester said she had not been notified of this, so could not sign, and said Mr Stevenson would need to speak to her employer Dr P. As Dr P was unavailable when she phoned him, she asked if Mr Stevenson would commence the test, so it could be completed before she left the Island, on condition that the test would not leave the room IF no agreement was reached. Mr Stevenson felt this was a reasonable request, as no one had apparently spoken to her about the safeguards that had been discussed with Miss AG on 4 December.

He commenced the test. The first element was a requirement to pronounce some 40 quite difficult words in English. As Mr Stevenson has eight O levels, four A levels in Arts and Science subjects, an Honours degree, professional qualifications and has written 26 published books, he had no difficulties with this, but was concerned at the implications. Success in any 'test' is in part influenced by confidence. If someone who had left school at 15 with few exam successes, or was of foreign extraction, was faced with such a list, they might make a mess of it. Knowing that, they would be emotionally upset for the rest of the test. Mr Stevenson was not in the least upset, but was concerned at the implications for others and not just Vera.

He was then asked to give true or false answers to 175 questions. Some were simple to answer, e.g. "I have a drinking problem." Mr Stevenson has never been drunk in his life so could say false. Perhaps a third of the questions were two part questions, "I do believe A, because of B." In most cases one part of the question could be answered positively but the other part had to be negative, and he said he would have to answer the question in that way. The tester said he could only give one a true or false answer. This meant that part of the answer to one-third of the questions would be incorrect or unreasonable. Such answers could be taken out of context to allege mental problems. If Mr Stevenson was unable to show the unreasonable nature of the question to the Court, a warped character assessment could be delivered that could not be challenged.

By 2.00pm, Mr Stevenson had completed the assessment, but no agreement had been reached with Dr P on the lines discussed with Miss AG. Rather than see the papers destroyed, Mr Stevenson suggested, on his advocates advice, that a copy of the test be lodged in his advocates safe, and that he be allowed access to it, but not be given copies of it, so he could challenge the questions through his advocate, but not take away written copies of them. The advocate is technically an officer of the court, so should be a person to be trusted. Dr P, having ignored the agreement between Miss AG and advocate M, rejected this also. As the tester had to leave at 5.00pm to catch her plane, Mr Stevenson spoke to the manager of the place where the test took place. Rather than have the papers shredded, the manager agreed to keep the test papers in a sealed envelope, while the matter was discussed between Miss AG and Advocate M. Dr P became very heated and spoke so loudly over the phone to the tester that Mr Stevenson heard the instruction "Shred it." The papers were placed in the sealed shred bin in the presence of the tester, Mr Stevenson, and the manager of the site. The tester at all times conducted herself reasonably and professionally. Only Dr P lost his temper.

Vera, despite her fear of mental health services occasioned by her Soviet upbringing, had sufficient faith in her husband to commence a test on the same safeguards as her husband. This was a remarkable display of faith in her husband and the tester. When Dr P ordered the tester to shred Mr Stevenson's papers, Mrs Stevenson's papers were shredded as well.

In an email of 9 January 2015 from Miss AG, the following passage appears. "We propose a further psychological assessment be commissioned from an alternative adult psychologist and proposals agreed regarding any psychometric testing etc. It is suggested that Mrs M and myself and Ms GA, advocate for the Guardian discuss a way forward which can be put to any psychologist. It is hoped that the psychological assessment could then be progressed and the outcome received as soon as possible."

It was to be regretted that Dr P felt unable to comply with the reasonable terms notified to him by Miss AG, who is a senior law officer. If he had decided to ignore her email of 4-12-2014, there was no sense in wasting the tester's time or the Manx taxpayer's money in her flying to the Island. John had found three fair and reasonable ways to avoid the papers being shredded whilst the advocates worked out a solution, so he had bent over backwards to assist Dr P. Advocates AG and M had been reasonable as had the tester and John and Vera. Only Dr P had been obdurate.

With the finding of Addison's disease, and the way John had been able to discredit the Core Assessment, the parenting assessment and large numbers of photographs disproving wild allegations, such as the children not playing outside the house, and of them well dressed, the department's case was now badly weakened, and Dr N's report was still an unknown quantity, but the Contact Centre would have had to report how well the contact attended by Dr N had gone with parents and children. John felt it was time to stop passive acceptance of the ICOs, and five days of court time were finally set aside for a contested hearing. This concentrated minds and as the pressures mounted on social services, the advocate for the Department emailed John's Advocate to outline a rehabilitation plan.

In relation to this matter we discussed planning the rehabilitation of the children with Mr and Mrs Stevenson. Therefore we have considered a proposed outline plan (although some areas await outcomes or other assessments) with an outline timetable although this would depend upon both the positive engagement of Mr and Mrs Stevenson and of course any ongoing issues/delays/further work recommended in accordance with the areas set out. This plan may form the basis of an agreed way forward if that is possible, or alternatively will be the plan put before the court as our proposed way forward in any event.

From the date of the beginning of the plan i.e. agreement for going forward:-

The parenting assessment be recommenced - it is anticipated this could be completed within two to three weeks. Alongside the parenting assessment work to take place around Olga's illness, and practical arrangements including diet etc arrangements that may be necessary should she fall ill and discussions about any support that is necessary to take place.

We propose a further psychological assessment be commissioned from an alternative adult psychologist and proposals agreed regarding any psychometric testing etc and it is suggested that Mrs M and myself and Ms GA perhaps discuss a potential way forward which can then be put forward to any psychologist. It is hoped that the psychological assessment could then be progressed and the outcomes from it received as soon as possible.

The parenting assessment and Dr N's assessment are likely to lead to some recommendations and although the timescale for such recommendations around parenting work etc are at the minute very much an estimate, it is hoped these works could be completed within 6 weeks to 2 months provided that all sides engage with an intensive package.

Should progress be positive regarding the work, changes to be made to contact including unsupervised contact within the contact centre and/or in the community together with reintroducing food into the contact.

If the above is successful and recommendations from professional reports do not extend this timetable then it would then be anticipated that a short rehabilitation plan could be put in place which would take place over a period of two weeks, in the timescale set out above this would be with a view to rehabilitation taking place at or around the Easter holidays.

I would be grateful if you would consider the above plan and we would listen to any positive suggestions and would intend to continue with interim care orders during the period of the plan and rehabilitation. An agreed way forward would of course avoid the need for an extensive and fully contested interim care order hearing.

AG

Advocate M passed this to John, and he pointed out it had already been overtaken by events, Advocate M replied to Advocate AG.

My client agrees to your proposals in principle. At the meeting on 8th January 2015 between our client, a senior social worker and Mrs Q, the Department stated that rather than Parenting Assessment, which will take longer than 2-3 weeks, the Department will put in place Parenting Education which they now feel is more appropriate. The manager indicated to Mr Stevenson that the Department basically know all they need to know and are satisfied that Parenting Education rather than Parenting Assessments are more appropriate. Our client is in agreement with this helpful suggestion .

In regard to Olga's illness, our client would like a meeting with Dr Z, the community paediatrician and the Paediatric Dietician, to ensure that he and his wife are in the best position possible to care for Olga. We understand this was also the position of the social workers, so seems to be agreed in principle. We understand that Olga is to visit Alder Hey Hospital in Liverpool on Tuesday to see the Consultant, Dr D, to progress the understanding of her condition. Dr D asked that the parents be present and this will be the case. We understand the Department have proposed a meeting this week between yourself, myself, and Mr and Mrs Stevenson to discuss the Care Plan going forward.

In relation to the proposed Psychological Assessments of Mr and Mrs Stevenson, so long as a complete copy of the questions and answers at all stages of the Assessment are provided to Mr Stevenson and his wife at the conclusion of each stage of the assessment, our Client has no objections in principle for himself, but suggests that the details be settled at the meeting next week. Our client wants us to make it clear the Psychologist is not a Joint agreed expert. He/she is the Department's expert and we reserve the right to challenge his findings in court if we feel this is appropriate.

If this can be agreed at the meeting this week, the forthcoming 5 day Hearing can be dealt with hopefully by agreement within half a day and the Interim Care Order can continue until the proposed outstanding assessments of Mr and Mrs Stevenson and the Parenting Education work is completed and the Children have been rehabilitated before Easter.

I therefore look forward to hearing from you. My client is grateful for the progress finally being made and the collaborated approach for the benefit of the children.

Yours faithfully

As all of the points in Advocate M's email had been already agreed or suggested by social workers, agreement seemed to be a formality. The next encouraging development was Dr N's report on the children of 20 January 2015, and, as we have seen from the cross examination, it was a devastating blow to the hopes of the Department.

The meeting of the advocates for the guardian, the department and John, the guardian herself, the social worker Ms Q, John, Vera, and most unfortunately Mr W, took place on 23 January. Whilst the three advocates, John, the Guardian and Ms Q were all happy at the way things were going, Mr W was bitterly hostile, being upset by the way the original assessment had fallen apart, although terms had been agreed between John's advocate and the department's advocate. He blamed John for expecting those terms to be honoured and said that in his view an assessment was mandatory. The meeting did not therefore make as much progress as hoped for, and Vera, having seen the way things were going, and Mr W's demands for a psychological assessment, with no safeguards was understandably distrustful. In fairness to the other people present at the meeting on 23 January 2015, the only person who stressed the need for psychological reports was Mr W who was clearly resentful of what had happened in December 2014. This caused great distress to Vera who had been born in the USSR at a time when mental health services were used by the state to incarcerate and 'treat' dissidents in preference to sentencing them to the Gulag. The effect on Western public opinion was shocking, but with thousands of sane people incarcerated in mental hospitals, Mental Health services became feared and mistrusted throughout the USSR. Such scars can endure for decades. Although Vera had submitted to a test in December, as she trusted John that the safeguards were adequate she saw a man who had tried to 'pin' Addison's on her now trying to get her 'locked up' as she saw it. She began making various objections as she was so distraught. In some ways this was playing into W's hands.

John's advocate sensed that the department had seen what a mess it was if we went for a contested hearing and they wanted out. She was critical of Vera overlooking the pressure she was under. She felt we needed to get round the problems caused by Mr W and to consider how we coped with Vera.

On 26 January, John emailed his advocate re a new plan put forward by the department. He said he could have signed the original agreement of 22 January, but not the new plan as the proposed new safeguards were laughable. He said to his advocate, 'What was sinister was that weeks ago, Mr W made it clear when he saw us on 4 Nov 2014, that he was praying for some way to 'pin' Addison's on us. Clearly he had not bothered to study Addison's as I had, so I knew he did not have a hope of doing so.... Whilst I have some confidence in Ms Q, I do not trust Mr W for a moment, ...On Friday the department's advocate AG, did not think the psychologist was too important, but Mr W made it quite clear that his hopes were now based on them finding something to nail us with, and under the new safeguard, all that happens is that a copy of the psychometric tests go to the 'enemy' advocate. Hired guns, like Dr P sell themselves to social service departments and produce stitch-ups to order. Mr W can, and I am sure, will pick a really vicious one under the new plan. I have produced a letter to cover these points. If Miss AG agrees all well and good. If not I suggest we go to court on Wednesday with a signed copy by me of the Mk 1 agreement, and of my alternative Plan A and Plan B. Miss AG can hardly argue against signing her own agreement.'

The parties met in court on 28 January with the three advocates, two social workers, John and Vera, but thankfully not Mr W. The court was told that the parties were hoping to reach agreement, and thanks to the good offices of the clerk of the court, an agreement acceptable to all parties was thrashed out. It was submitted to the court, pleasure being expressed at a negotiated settlement and the agreement approved in court. It would be too long to include the verbatim agreement but a summary is given

This agreement sets out the general terms for the work over the next six weeks. It will require the active engagement of all parties.

1 commencement 2nd February 2015 with regular reviews

2 Provided the outcome from parts 4[i] to 4[viii] are positive rehabilitation to take place over the Easter holidays

3 During this period and in the initial stages of rehabilitation ICOs will remain in force.

4 i parenting education for six weeks inc work around Olga's illnesses

4 ii A family Supporting Team Worker will be included

4 iii the recommendation of Dr N of video recording of contact will take place unless Mrs Stevenson does not agree

4 iv A therapeutic play specialist will assess the needs of the children

4 v A Family Supporting team worker to meet children weekly

4 vi A medical meeting to be arranged so Mr & Mrs Stevenson are cognisant with Olga's medical needs,

4 vii The dietician will meet with parents to discuss Olga's food needs

4 viii changes to contact will be reviewed with reduced supervision, introducing food into contact and unsupported contact

5 Professionals and parents to work co-operatively

6 If the plan should be delayed or not proceed, this to be discussed with parents

Separate agreements were entered into with John and Vera. John's agreement was;

7 It is intended that alongside the above work that a psychological assessment of Mr and Mrs Stevenson will be commissioned and this written agreement acknowledges the willingness of Mr & Mrs Stevenson to engage in principle. It is agreed that copies of all questions and answers at each and every stage of the assessment shall be copied at the time of completion and the said copies shall be retained at the offices of the advocate to the guardian. If they are required for further assessment they will be forwarded to a psychologist approved by the court. This suggestion is dependent on it being agreeable to the psychologist identified to carry out the work. It is acknowledged that the email of 19 January 2015 from advocate M to advocate AG at para 4 sets out the position of Mr Stevenson on relation to copying psychometric testing administered as part of the assessment.

Vera's agreement was much shorter,

' **It is the wish of the Department that alongside the above work a psychological assessment of Mr and Mrs Stevenson will be commissioned. However Mrs Stevenson does not agree to undergoing a psychological assessment.'**

The agreements were both signed by the two social workers and by the respective parent. The reason that both parent's name were included in the two agreements was so the department could protect their back by making their desire for an assessment of both parents clear in both documents, but John could not sign for his wife, or commit her to an assessment, nor could she sign for him. Vera's consent would only be if she personally agreed to it and her signed agreement made it clear she did not need to do so. The advocates and the clerk to the court all felt this protected the back of the department and did not commit Vera.

The Agreements were submitted to the Court which expressed pleasure that an agreed way forward had been found. It will be noted that Para 2 was quite specific, 2 Provided the outcome from parts 4[i] to 4[viii] are positive rehabilitation is intended to take place over the Easter holidays. _Para 2 did not refer to the Psychological assessments even having to take place, as no one was sure if they could be arranged in time. The agreement by definition was not conditional on the findings of the psychological assessment._

*****

Visit of Olga to Dr D, consultant, Alder Hey, 20 January 2015

Rather than interrupt the narrative of the agreement I have left a significant element out. On 20 January 2015, at the request of the consultant at Alder Hey Childrens hospital in Liverpool he saw Olga and had specifically asked that Vera and John be present. Social worker Ms Q also attended. Olga was weighed in front of John, at 16.0 kg on 20-01-2015 which means her weight has gone up by 0.4Kg since 20-11-2014, i.e. two months, but if you compare her weight with the 0.4 centile excluding the bizarre results by the school nurse service, she was still as far off the 0.4 centile the way the hospital measure it as it had been with us.

John provided Dr D with around 70 views of Olga from 2010 to 2014 as he requested. He asked if when Olga came home from school in July-Sept, had she seemed exhausted? John said no, and that he had often taken her and her sisters out for a treat, as per the photos, Dr D said that Addison's disease is notorious for creeping up on parents and health professionals unexpectedly. He said in front of Ms Q that in his view negligence could be ruled out on our part, or on the part of health professionals. **Dr D said that he found himself uneasy about what had happened to Olga and ourselves since 17-09-2014, which suggests that he is not happy about the way she was taken into care**. Ms Q, faced with this, said the parents had been working with the department which was now planning to return the three children to them and had a meeting scheduled for later this week. Dr D said that made him feel a lot easier.

Ms Q had not made any attempt to back up Mr W at the meeting on 23 January three days after the visit to Alder Hey when W tried to sabotage the return home plan. It is possible she was worried at Dr D appearing as a witness if it went to court. It would have increased the pressure on the department at the meeting in Court a few days later when an agreement was signed.

At this point, John's impression was that however determined W was to wreck the agreement, that Ms Q had realized the risks to Social Services if the parents took them to court. In light of these signed agreements John and Vera agreed to forgo their right to an ICO hearing on the five days from 28 January, and to the continuation of the ICO up to Easter. They faithfully kept to that agreement. Given what later happened, confrontation would have been wiser but John's advocate was keen on reconciliation. The Department had already said they would put plan 1 forward if there was a contested ICO hearing, so that was a fallback position, and by pressing for an end to the ICO, it would put them under more pressure to be reasonable. Combat tactics say you never reduce pressure on the enemy when you are negotiating an armistice, or they will use it to regroup.

Parenting education took place with Ms A of the Children's Centre, and from what she said the couple scored well on some of the Solihull tests as these were essentially common sense, and was what they did already.

Because of Olga's medical condition, especial care is needed in her case, and para 4 vi of the plan called for a medical meeting. Far from being passive, John took a pro-active role within hours of the agreement being signed. He emailed Ms Q on 31 Jan 2015 as follows, 'I have been looking at possible issues where we need firm guidelines, and one I think could be important is if Olga is late eating or taking her medication. We all know she can be quite strong willed, and it is my impression from seeing her. e.g. at Alder Hey, that since being taken into care, that she is LESS amenable to being talked around.

At Alder Hey we did not manage to get her to agree to bloods being taken, and in the past, I seldom failed to get her agreement, even if it took me 15-20 minutes. So what happens if, as was the case with the foster carer, that she would not eat for a day on 27 Dec, and was found slumped on the stairs on 28 Dec? We need clear guidelines. John listed seven detailed points on food and vomiting which showed how seriously he was taking the issue. Sadly, four years later he had still not received an adequate reply, such is the negligence of IOM Social Services despite there being an Addisonian Crisis on 'their watch' on 28 December 2014, which Ms Q knew would be a part of his case for ending the ICO. This email sent three days after the plan had been agreed, listed the medical issues John sought guidance on. John had expressed concern about the long gap in medication which was addressed some months later by Health Professionals with an 8-8-8 hour split.

John felt sure these important questions would already have been asked by the department, so it was just a matter of copying him in on the answers as every scenario was predictable and if he was caring for Olga, he would want clear emergency procedures to follow. **This too was unanswered so the social worker, Ms Q, had been negligent in her duty of care to a sick girl in care.**

John felt a plan was needed to cover the daily routine when the girls returned home at Easter. He sent a 3 page memo to Ms Q outlining a proposed timetable. **Once again there was no useful response.**

Blackmailed on 9 March 2015 by Mr W

Over the next few weeks John felt there had been good progress, so was shocked to get a letter from Mr W on 5 March 2015.

' _I would like to invite you both to a meeting with myself and Ms Q at Murray House on Monday 9th March. We would like to address some concerns round the progress of the plan for the children and discuss the possibility of these concerns causing a delay in progress.'_

This set alarm bells ringing, as it suggested that having failed to nail the parents with causing Addison's in November 2014, as that was not possible, and having failed to disrupt the planned agreement on 23 January 2015, Mr W had come up with a new scheme to sabotage the return agreement of 28 January. John and Vera attended the meeting and John summarized the outcome to his advocate Mrs M.

'The meeting with Mr W went as well as could be expected. There were three main issues. First Mr W complained at Vera re hand washing being excessive at the Contact Centre. This was to put pressure on her. I have told Vera repeatedly that whilst I accept her concerns, that the Contact Centre did not, and how the odds of a child becoming ill were low, if we only had to apply low hygiene standards for 2-3 weeks, as the contact centre demanded. Vera said that she would bear in mind what Mr W said and be less insistent on good standards. Officially this pleased him, for he had no other choice, but I suspect it did not in reality.

He then pressured her several times to agree to see a psychologist FOR her benefit, as it would help her, and that if there were 20 recommendations and they only agreed 2, it would be fine. I would be more inclined to trust the invitation of the spider to the fly!

He had a go at me, saying they had got a psychologist lined up and then had your email and were finding it difficult to get one to agree the terms. I pointed out we had a signed agreement, and I was happy to go ahead on the terms agreed. He suggested it would benefit me etc, and wanted me to ameliorate the conditions (i.e. abandon them).

His argument was that excessive cleanliness precautions were unnecessary. I pointed out that two children at a day care centre in Seattle had died in 1995 due to an e-coli infection passed on from a child who had contracted the bug at a Jack-in-the-box fast food outlet, and it had passed on thru some contact via unwashed hands, e.g., a door handle, toy or table top. This seemed new to him, which suggests he has not bothered to read the file, as it is all in there! Mr W argued it was 'over the top' so I suggested he formally write to Vera to say that the department, even in the light of the deaths in Seattle in 1995, did not regard her level of care, as necessary. **Hardly surprisingly, he instantly said no he would not write such a letter!**

The next argument was mixed messages over hygiene going to the kids at the centre, and at school etc. I said I had no say over what went on at school, so had to trust them, but where we did have a say, we wanted to avoid unnecessary risks. I pointed out that the precautions one needed to adopt in a public place frequented by many children, where any child might not wash its hands, were different to your own home, where you did not have unknown children present and could control conditions. Vera said the same.

Mr W suggested they might arrange some contact sessions with food here at the house in Ramsey, so they could see if things were 'normal' as he sees it here, compared to the CC. This was agreed. It may be genuine: it may be a catch-22. If we are scrupulously clean, it is excessive, and if not, we are slapdash, so we need to adopt a balance they cannot reasonably find fault with.'

This was a sinister development. The terms of the agreement had been thrashed out at inordinate length at the meeting on 23 January and in court on 28 January. The signed agreement with Vera included a statement that the Department wished to conduct a psychological assessment, which was to protect the back of the Department, but went on that Mrs Stevenson did not agree to such assessment. That clause had been discussed at great length in the court on 28 January. If the Department was not prepared to abide by it, they should not have signed it and the 5 day ICO hearing would then have gone ahead, which the department did not want, in light of the Dr N Report.

The signed agreement between the Department and Mr Stevenson is more complicated as it included a long clause re depositing material with the Guardian's advocate, but more importantly incorporated para 4 of Advocate M's e-mail of 19 January 2015 to Miss AG in the agreement. This reads as follows:-In relation to the proposed Psychological Assessments of Mr and Mrs Stevenson, so long as a complete copy of the questions and answers at all stages of the Assessment are provided to Mr Stevenson and his wife at the conclusion of each stage of the assessment, our Client has no objections in principle, but suggests that the details be settled at the meeting proposed by the social workers for next week. Our client wants us to make it clear the Psychologist is not a Joint agreed expert, he/she is the Department's expert and we reserve the right to challenge his findings in court if we feel this is appropriate.

These were the terms agreed and signed between the Department and Mr Stevenson on 28 January 2015 and submitted to the court for its approval. If the Department did not wish to agree to them on 28 January they should have refused to sign at that stage. If Mr Stevenson could not agree, he should have refused. **The parties signed. Mr Stevenson suggests it was improper for a government officer to put pressure on one of the contracting parties to vary an agreement because he did not, at a later stage, like it.**

If a government official in department X finds he does not like a term in a contract his department has signed, and he can unilaterally change it, then what faith can any business or individual place in the worth of a contract with the Isle of Man Government. Put quite simply, if the government reneges on its contracts, who can trust them? That is the bottom line; the Isle of Man Government reneged on its signed agreements.

Mr W said it was hard to find a psychologist to agree to the terms. Given the dubious nature of the psychometric testing phase, where the linguistic questions would be hard on someone from an ethnic minority, or who was born overseas, there is a clear issue of racism. Many of the following 175 questions contained two-parts, and to be answered fairly would call for a two part answer. Given how dubious racism and catch-22 trick questions look, John can understand the unwillingness of some psychiatrists to let such issues be discussed in court, but secrecy has never been a valid defence to racism etc. Mr Stevenson had explained these points, so it is not open to the Department or the Attorney-general's office to claim ignorance.

The only other issue Mr W raised was hand washing, which was clearly a smoke screen. Because of Addison's disease, Olga's health is precarious. Mrs Stevenson is anxious to run no needless risks with her daughter's health. This may be inconvenient, but a live daughter is preferable to a more convenient lifestyle. The Contact Centre in Douglas opted for exceptionally low hygiene standards, the deputy manager at one time saying the children could eat off the table!

Would any MHK, who wishes to support the Department, tell his constituents that they eat off the table surface rather than bother with plates, please! Their constituents might well laugh!

Vera was cautious; John sensed danger, so this had been a source of regular friction between Mr & Mrs Stevenson and contact staff, as follows

Page 7 re 8 October 2014

Page 10 re 13 October 2014

Page 11 re 13 October 2014 and safe to eat food off tables

Page 11 re 14 October 2014

Page 12 re 15 October 2014

Page 13 re 15 October 2014

Vera was alleged to display obsessive tendencies re hand washing, but reference is made in this section to the CDC Report that over 2 million children die a year from diarrhoea and pneumonia related diseased and adequate hand washing could save MANY lives. Mrs Stevenson would prefer inconvenience and a live daughter. That is being a responsible and caring mother.

John referred to Bundle 16, pages 39-40 Seattle Times re deaths of two small children through inadequate hand washing.

Bundle 19, Appendix 204, Hand washing: clean hands saves lives; source CDC, Centres for Disease Control & Prevention, Atlanta, Ga. The opinions of the CDC, which is one of the foremost disease control agencies in the world, must rank higher than the opinions of a member of contact staff whose qualifications are unknown.

At the meeting on 9 March 2015, Mr W used hand washing as a prop to his attempts to pressure Mr & Mrs Stevenson into abandoning parts of the agreement on 28 January that he found inconvenient. John challenged Mr W on the hand washing issue. If he genuinely believed Mrs Stevenson's precautions were over the top, and there was NO RISK to Olga from adopting lower standards, he would be able to write formally to Vera Stevenson to that effect. As Mr Stevenson noted in his memo to his advocate, Mr W instantly said he would not write such a letter! If there was no risk, why not? That is hypocrisy. The court failed to recognise this hypocrisy. Tolerating hypocrisy is to be a hypocrite too.

This suggests Mr W must have accepted that there was a risk, and whilst he was quite prepared to put pressure on Mrs Vera Stevenson to run such a risk, which could potentially harm the health of her daughter, he was not prepared to share a part of that risk. As Mr W had part of the care team in the Samantha Barton case, where a child died, his new found caution was perhaps understandable. The meeting ended with no agreement by Mr & Mrs Stevenson to abandon the terms agreed with the Department on 28 January 2015. With hindsight, John should have opposed the continuation of the ICO at the next opportunity as an officer of the department had brought improper pressure to bear on him and his wife to abandon safeguards agreed before the Court under threat of delaying the return of the children. Hindsight is a wonderful tool, and at the time, he hoped the department would still behave honourably. If Mr W, who was a senior officer had made three attempts to 'nail' the parents, was there any likelihood of fair play in future?

A new Plan was drawn up by Mr W, headed Aim.

This plan reads in conjunction with the written agreements of 28 January 2015. The timescale of the written agreements will be extended and reviewed on 10 April 2015.

The plan is changed due to the concerns of the department around the lack of change and commitment of Mr and Mrs Stevenson to the work outlined in the original plan. These concerns are due to Mr & Mrs Stevenson's relationship and inability to work as a team. This includes Mrs Stevenson's compromising conduct, including excessive hand washing, not acting on advice given and contradictory behaviour to Mr Stevenson's efforts to parent. Mrs Stevenson views the advice and support of the professionals working with the family as dictating which she will not accept. The plan will include observation of the parents' care for the girls in different settings and ensure they set boundaries, role model good parenting and display appropriate child management. This includes managing food and hygiene appropriately without compromising normality or safety. Advice and guidance will be given, but the parents will be expected to care for the children and provide for all their needs including Olga's medicines, during the times of contact.

The parents will take the lead in caring for the children and making their own decisions rather than requiring guidance and prompting. This is to assist the department in understanding the parents' ability to manage the children at home.

It is the department's view that the parents will be able to overcome these difficulties if psychological assessments are undertaken. However if these do not progress, the department will be reliant on observations of contact to make a professional judgment to inform decision making.

On 10 April the department will evaluate progress in order to make decisions regarding the children.

...............

Despite a signed agreement approved by the representative of the Attorney general, by the court, and signed by the parties, Mr W had forced a reference to psychological assessments into his replacement plan. In effect he has torn up the agreement signed by the department, even though the parents had kept to their word not to contest the ICOs.

His principal ground in the blackmail meeting on 9 March, was Vera's hand washing tendencies. When he was challenged to write a letter to Vera that the low hygiene standards of the contact centre, where a deputy manager had said it was OK to eat off the table, were no threat to safety, he instantly refused to do so. _In other words it was perfectly in order for Vera to risk Olga's life but if, like the two children in Seattle, Olga paid for these low hygiene standards with her life, he was not going to accept any more blame than he had when Samantha Barton died_.

That is the bottom line.

The agreement contained a string of cunning traps, one of the first being, 'This includes being able to manage food and hygiene appropriately without compromising normality or safety.' In the ideal world of advice from the NHS, CDC and other bodies, parents are conscious of all risks, and they are warned that toys, table tops, carpets, door handles etc can all harbour germs. This is scientific fact, and if we do not accept that, there is a chance that a deadly germ can be transferred from a child who has not washed his hands properly to a toy, and to the hand of a vulnerable child who then sickens. The little girl who died in Seattle had a particular vulnerability, just as Olga did.

Most of us pay lip service to these standards, and say it'll be OK, so we ignore the 'ideal situation' advice of health professionals. As we do that 'normality' is therefore taking a chance, so we do compromise safety. Most of the time we get away with it. Celina Shribbs just happened to be unlucky. Other people had taken the normality road and she paid the price.

If most people take a chance then a judge can claim normality means taking a chance so if Olga is punctilious in her actions it is not normal. But normality, as most of us do gamble that we will get away with it, does compromise safety.

One of the accusations was that Vera opened door handles using a tissue, or her sleeve, and that is not normal. Indeed it is most unusual, but what does the NHS recommend. Health & Social Services in the IOM are run by one department. John took a photo of a notice in one of the public toilets in one of the hospitals and found dozens more identical notices. It lists a dozen steps in hand washing. John has seen health professionals follow this routine to the letter, but how often have any of us see non health professional apply such rigorous standards? John would point to step 10 which is to use the single use towel to turn off the faucet. Vera had done this and had used the same technique to open doors, as health professionals say they can harbour Germs.

Mr W had, either through ignorance or deliberately, provided a perfect Catch 22 situation. If Vera used the standards recommended in IOM hospitals over hand washing, she would not be normal. If she used the low standards of the contact centre she would be normal, but compromising safety.

Mr W alleged, 'These concerns are due to Mr & Mrs Stevenson's relationship and inability to work as a team.' The most obvious problem was that John had correctly assessed the way scrupulous adherence to recommended hygiene standards would be exploited against Vera as such conscientiousness is not 'normal.' He did not recommend the 'eat of the table surface' of the deputy manager of the contact centre, as that was too gross to consider, given Olga's health needs.

Instead he sought to strike a middle ground between following the advice of health professionals and the unsafe advice of social workers and contact staff. This would compromise safety to some extent, but for the few weeks of the plan, the risk was probably acceptable, as adhering to high standards would be used to destroy any chance of a return home.

Notice as displayed at Ramsey Cottage Hospital, Nobles and elsewhere, and adopted by the WHO. NHS, the CDC and responsible health agencies, but exploited by Mr W as not normal.

The new terms contained a massive non sequitur, which may be carelessness or intentional, to hide the real purpose. Mr W says 'It is the department's view that the parents will be able to overcome these difficulties if psychological assessments are undertaken.' An assessment is an assessment and nothing more. It is akin to saying that the plumbing of the house will be modernized if you obtain a quote from a plumber. The quote is an assessment, not the actual pipes and fittings. A quote does not equate to pipes with water in them in the house.

Likewise a psychological assessment is merely the opinion of a hired gun, and not all hired guns are as honest as Dr N. By saying the assessment would enable the parents to cope this is a devious way to justify an assessment, but once the assessment was delivered, it would be used to suggest that weeks, months or years of psychological counselling were needed.

John, from the evidence of the psychometric test with a large proportion of the questions being 2-part questions which had been cleverly constructed to force a yes answer to one part and a no answer to the other part, so the victim is bound to score badly, had demanded a copy of everything so it could be challenged in court. Mr W suggested he ameliorate the conditions, but that was merely a smokescreen for abandon them.

The new W plan referred to 'a lack of overall commitment', but this was false. It fails to mention how John submitted a medical questionnaire on 31 January 2015, to which he is still awaiting answers in 2019, so the lack of commitment was on the part of the Department. In that paper, John had noted how Olga's medication was spread unevenly through the day and that this might have an impact on Olga. John is not a health professional, but some months AFTER he pointed this out, health professionals moved Olga's hydrocortisone to a 8-8-8 hour pattern.

John now bitterly regretted following his advocates' advice not to bring matters to a head with a contested ICO hearing as the department was vulnerable from Dr N's report, the findings of Addison's, and if John called Dr D as a witness, that as well.

An impartial reader studying the contact sessions in depth, would not accept Mr W's claims. John condemned the way Vera had been pressured to adopt low hygiene standards at the Contact Centre, but she had taken John's advice to apply lower standards, as the notes from social worker Mrs Q for 17 March 2015 stated, "It was not evident to me that Vera was hand washing, so well done for being discrete about this." As Mrs Q admits, Vera made hand washing as unobtrusive as possible, which is a bizarre achievement to applaud, but shows Vera had taken cognizance of an irrational demand and John's advice to bow to such irrational demands without severe risks. That is team work.

In the contact report for 17 March 2015, it alleges the parents argued in front of the children. This omits material facts. Children can say unfortunate things. Olga said at contact on 17 March that she had buried her sister Maria. There is no way Olga could have understood the macabre meaning of what she said, but it was important to deal with a comment immediately, as it could be devastating to Maria, if she understood its meaning. Vera spoke to Olga who was querulous. John feeling it would generate a black mark against his wife, asked her to stop. The couple disagreed. Vera rightly felt it was serious, but John rightly assessed it would be held against her. Naturally this difference was exploited to suggest they do not work as a team. After contact, it was admitted Olga had been in a querulous mood all day, and the foster carer and school had noted this. At the end of the contact, Olga said in a contrite manner of Maria that "She did not do anything", so Olga's response to what was said to her by her mama was positive, and Maria would also be reassured.

Olga was admitted to Nobles on the morning of 18 March, and there is evidence from the community paediatrician's care plan how Olga can be argumentative as her condition deteriorates. This may well have been the cause of a remark which was totally out of character.

Social worker Q arranged contact from 12.30 to 4.00pm at the hospital. By then, Olga was in a happy contented mood, and it was an idyllic contact. From her closing words on 17th, there was no damage, and her contented and placid state of mind on 18th is further confirmation that the Contact Centre reacted in a clumsy and inappropriate manner.

When we see how the contact centre and social workers omitted salient facts, that Olga was querulous and was admitted to Nobles within hours, we see how easy it must have been to demonize Samantha Barton. Who was there to defend her before the enquiry? No one who knew the facts was not involved with social services with a need to brush evidence under the carpet.

Criticism was made in the report of 17 March that there was too much variety of food, so children grazing all afternoon and children had cold mince meat from a tin put into their dishes. This is unfair. The children arrived at 3.00pm, and after a few minutes play, were encouraged to have a snack (Para 3 of the plan for 17 March states "Children to have a snack after school when arrive at contact. Meal to be either prepared or consider a buffet style meal for all family. Plan to eat at 5.00pm." The parents encouraged the children to have the snack as laid down in the plan, so on the very first day of the new plan set out by the Department without reference to the parents, the parents complied with the snack requirement, although they had severe doubts as to its impact on a meal two hours later. Olga ate enthusiastically at the snack with 7 crackers with butter and cheese, as did Tatiana. That is some 'grazing!'

The senior dietician had said repeatedly that getting calories into both girls was crucial, and the usual guidelines about balance, e.g. not too much salt for Olga were not as important as food intake. The dietician had supported snacking/grazing at three meetings with the parents. As Olga was willing to snack, were the parents to refuse her food, which was the opposite of what the dietician recommended, or had the snack gone well? It appeared that Contact Staff were unaware of what the dietician said, so preferred their own opinions to a senior health professional. Trying to discuss such issues with contact staff is not on. As this chapter was being revised in June 2019, John gave details of a more absurd comments from contact staff the previous week, with the predictable 'we never listen to common sense, so that will be enough' response!

After the snack, Vera cleared up in the kitchen whilst John was with the children in the crèche. This was more teamwork. Olga, as noted, was in a bad mood and wished to play in the corridor rather than the railed crèche area. John saw no problems, and on other occasions the children were allowed to play there with no trouble, but this time the Contact Centre staff objected, so John needed to persuade Olga to return to the crèche. She did so and wanted to play with dinosaurs. As she had been in a bad mood, John felt this was wise to encourage.

The parents had agreed John would prepare the evening meal, as Vera is accused of not having a warm relationship with the children, so play time for Vera is desirable to obviate criticisms. In the event, John felt Olga needed to settle down as she had been angry at leaving the corridor under the orders of the contact staff. Vera, without the couple needing to liaise, assessed the new situation, so prepared the food. Once again teamwork! The meal started at 5.00pm as per the timetable laid down. This was cottage pie, mixed veg, beans, sweet corn, peas, and carrots. Olga saw a can of mince which had been brought as a top-up, and wanted mince and had at least four handfuls of mince before the start of the meal. Vera felt calorie intake was important as per the advice from the dietician.

Most medication was to be started AFTER food had started, and the parents did so. John willingly agrees medication was slow that day, but there were several precise doses to measure out. He wished to read the medication list and give the medicines one by one, so he knew if Olga had resisted taking a specific medicine. The food pattern was as per the plan, i.e. a snack and then meal. One parent prepared the food whilst the other was with the children, as per the plan. One sat at the table when food was eaten, as per the plan. Olga and Tatiana both ate more at snack than expected, but as Olga has put on hardly any weight in the past three months in contact, and Tatiana had lost weight since being kidnapped. The dietician had endorsed grazing, snacking and disregarding the standard RDA figures as more calories came first.

Feedback from observation of contact on 19th March 2015 from CC member, her remarks italic, John's reply non-italic

Olga in Hospital only Tatiana and Maria present

The Good Bits

The girls were provided with a smaller snack (still not just biscuit and juice) and a fairly nutritional tea

The contact was calmer

Time management was better

No arguing in front of children

Good interaction during the first half of contact

Noticeable that Mrs Stevenson was smiling and interacting well with the children on lots of occasions.

Concerns

_Girls allowed climbing over or standing on chairs:_ This was so _._

_Maria falling over settee and parents not noticing._ On the two previous contacts Tatiana had arrived with stickers "I bumped my head" from school, but this is omitted. Children do fall over.

_John extremely tired as the contact progressed and seemed to fall asleep on 2 occasions_. The advocate had requested a response from Mr Stevenson re the sinister implications of the revised plan. Mr Stevenson had worked until 5.00am on that. He hoped to sleep in the morning, but was told the family could see Olga in hospital, so had at most an hour's sleep in 36 hours. He closed his eyes for a few seconds a couple of times.

_Vera cleaning the contact room when the children wanted her to play._ Vera is a considerate person and likes to leave the CC tidy. It sets a good example to children.

_On 2 occasions M was coughing and choking on food._ One occasion was acted upon by Vera. There was no choking. Maria coughed/spluttered, that is all.

_Advice given Vera does not need to clean the room as contract cleaner's clean everyday - this will allow more time for parent child play and interaction._ On many occasions, Contact reports complain that the parents did not get the girls to start clearing up, taking away play time. See events of 24 Aug when pressure was put on John and the children re tidying in a shortened contact time, In effect, whatever the parents do is the wrong choice.

_Safety of the girls –no climbing etc_. As Tatiana has returned from school with 'I banged my head' stickers on at least six occasions, what is being done to demand a similar safety regime at school? Children tend to be silly if they are usually allowed to do such things, and 95% of the time, they are not with the parents, so what do the foster carers do to discourage this habit?

_We advise to only bring biscuit and drink for children after school. Olga is the one to get additional foods as she is the one the dietician was talking about eating anything._ WRONG – The dietician pointed out Tatiana lost weight from Nov 2014 to February 2015, so also needs as much food as possible. John had repeatedly told the CC this, but such information is ignored if it suits the Contact Centre to do so.

_Maria has to be encouraged to sit and eat properly as she has a tendency to take a mouthful of food then lay on the chair with her head dangling over the edge (choking hazard)_ Vera was criticised by the contact centre over speaking about choking in 2014. John was nervous about speaking to Maria in case it provided ammunition for more adverse feedback.

\-------------------------------

Feedback from Observation of contact on 23rd March 2015 to parents from childrens centre worker in italics, Johns comments normal type

The good bits

The children enjoyed the food provided

Beginning and end of contact was more positive

John did all the medication

_Less hand washing by Mrs Stevenson._ Lower Hygiene standards are praised!!

Concerns

_Parents left the room to have a heated discussion about the medication. Which left the 3 girls alone to play._ John shared his wife's concern that we had no data on what the school has done on the check list. This is a sloppy system. John, from work in other fields, is aware that proper check lists ensure ALL parties know what everyone else has done. The school does some medication depending on circumstances, so what had been done? He realised his wife's anxieties, so went outside with her to explain they needed to accept a slipshod system to avoid black marks. The contact staff were in the room, so children were safe.

_Children still allowed to eat food away from the table._ The dietician says Olga and Tatiana are NOT eating enough in care. The food has the same calorific value wherever they eat.

_Maria putting too much food in her mouth so she chokes_. – Agreed we need to get her off this habit, BUT SO DOES EVERYONE ELSE. We feed her a few times a week. Most of the time she is in "care" so the 95% of the risk is when she is in care. What is being done about the 95% of the time when she is in the hands of the department?

_No dessert offered –as no snack had been given it would have been an ideal time to have a dessert._ Foster carer says how a meal often takes 60-90 mins. The children had a reasonable amount of food. A dessert would probably have caused a late departure, so more bad marks. It is Catch-22, which is the aim of the plan.

_Vera spent at least 45mins looking at the medication sheet and was prompted on numerous occasions by John to play with the children_. This was excessive, but Vera was worried and upset. She is not very good at disguising her anxieties when forced to accept a bad situation where there is an unquantifiable risk. The check list situation is sloppy. It could lead to possibly fatal errors.

_When the medication was provided both parents focused on Olga and the other 2 girls were ignored._ If we get Olga's medication wrong, it could be fatal. Good hospital routine is for a student nurse to be supervised. Mr Stevenson is in the first few days of medicating Olga, so is in the position of a student nurse. It is prudent that he is scrutinised by his wife in the early days. Later it will not be needed.

Advice given

_Better organisation of the medications- for instance to prepare the syringes of medication before the contact and put in the fridge._ John, by checking off the medicine one at a time, knows what Olga has taken. If a set of syringes are put in a bag, and Olga refuses to take one, we cannot force feed her, so we are one medicine down, despite the ruling she MUST have all her medication, but which one?

_Timing of the end of contact had to be prompted as this resulted in the girls leaving late._ A snack, play time, medication and a meal cause excessive time pressures.

Good Practice

_Children to help tidy up 15 minutes before the end of contact. They need to leave promptly at 6.30._ Foster carer says how the evening meal often takes well over an hour. She does not have to get the children ready to go. See complaint on previous day re excess tidying up!

Observations by John

A typically one-sided report to damn the parents. It refers to a 'heated discussion outside the room by the parents but omits to praise the parents for speaking away from the children as is demanded on other occasions. The cause of the disagreement was a casual and unsafe routine whereby a check list is only partially filled in. The list is therefore incomplete. The warmth by the girls towards their parents is omitted, as that reflects credit on the family. When Vera played with the children it was warm, high-spirited and enjoyed by all, as she carried them around on her shoulders to their delight. Tatiana's closing comments 'I love you, mama and dada; You're the best mama and dada in the whole world' shows how much she misses her parents. That remark is carefully omitted.

\----------------------------

Feedback from Observation of contact on 26th, 30th, 31st March 2015 to parents from observer in italics, John in normal

The good bits

The children enjoyed the food provided

Beginning and end of contact was more positive

Mr Stevenson did all the medication

Less hand washing by Mrs Stevenson

Less arguing in front of the children

Concerns

_The food provided is either tinned or frozen and does not provide the girls with a nutritionally balanced meal. There needs to be more fruit / veg and home cooked food._ – In the short period of contact, fresh food would either need to be pre-heated before the parents left home, so is no longer fresh, or one parent would have to give up contact altogether.

_Too many conversations where dying is the topic. These conversations need to be stopped or deflected._ In the UK we wrap children in cotton wool and screen them from the real world. Other countries are more realistic. The cotton wool approach is not helpful. John's mother lost both parents as a child. When John was small she told him of this as no one can know when tragedy will strike. It was to give him an ability to cope with such a crisis if his mother had passed away suddenly. He has done the same for Olga, Tatiana and Maria, and part of the reason they have coped as well as they have is they know adversity can strike and you need to overcome it, not fall apart. He couples that with Ronald Reagan's dictum, "The glass is not half empty; it is half full." This armours the children against fate.

_Tatiana and Maria still climb on chairs at meal times and have to be told frequently to sit down._ The children are small and lively and the parents see them for less than 5% of the week. A fair report would recognise that 95% of the time, it is for the Department and its agents to deal with such behaviour. The parents can merely reinforce what the Department does. The criticism is in fact an indictment of neglect by the Department.

_Too many occasions where parents are not engaged with the girls and the staff are entertaining them._ The positives are ignored or downplayed in contact. John is keen to avoid brownie points against the parents. Vera is LESS aware of this, as she is more trusting, so John has to explain it to her away from the children. She usually agrees

_Parents need to work as a team –John frequently having to ask Vera to play, help with girls, get tea ready etc._ Vera is still emotionally shocked by what has been done to her. The Russian temperament is more fatalistic than the Western character. John deplores what has been done to his wife, and feels he needs to encourage her to be more pro-active.

_Advice given Better organisation of the medications, especially Tatiana's as she will try to get out of taking all hers if she can._ The giving of medication has been getting smoother as John gets used to what the girls need and their likely reactions. No evidence of the extent if any that Tatiana did not take her medicines. As that would be a high rating black mark, the absence of such comments shows it did not happen.

_Interest in the girls' day is needed._ The Children are in a confused world wrenched from their parents. It is important for them to say what they want to talk about. If they wish to talk about their day, John pays attention. If they want to talk about something else, it is wise to let them.

_Good Practice Children to help tidy up 15 minutes before the end of contact. They need to leave promptly at 6-30._ Foster carer says meals can take 60-90 mins and she is an experienced foster carer, so her words are not to be taken lightly. The contact plan was that the meal was to start at 5.00pm, and it is desirable that the children have some play time afterwards. If the meal takes 70 minutes, which is less than foster carer often needs, that leaves 20 mins. Getting coats on often takes 5 mins, so there is no play time. Contact is supposed to be pleasant for the children. Is play time or tidying going to bring more pleasure to the children?

\------------------------------------------

An authoritative View on Hand washing, and by contrast, the risks of sloppy behaviour as recommended by the Contact Staff and Mr W.

The CDC, Atlanta Georgia, is the foremost disease control agency in the world. The key advice reads:- **Not washing hands harms children around the world. About 2.2 million children under the age of 5 die each year from diarrheal diseases and pneumonia, the top two killers of young children around the world. Hand washing with soap could protect about 1 out of every 3 young children who get sick with diarrhoea and almost 1 out of 6 young children with respiratory infections like pneumonia. Although people around the world clean their hands with water, very few use soap to wash their hands. Washing hands with soap removes germs much more effectively. Hand washing education and access to soap in schools can help improve attendance. Good hand washing early in life may help improve child development in some settings.**

This advice and the pictograms posted on the walls in IOM hospitals was what guided Vera, but the CDC points out, 'Not washing hands harms children.' If you have washed your hands and then touched an object which might be contaminated then you might as well have not bothered in the first place. That may well be how Celina Shribbs died.

\----------------------------------

John has covered the warped contact sheets in detail so a balanced picture of the lack of evidence of any serious concerns will be available to the reader. Mr W exploited the evidence we have just seen to tear up the 28 January 2015 plan as it suited his wishes.

The reader may care to reflect on the morality of a government department where a signed agreement that has been approved by the court is torn up by a senior official who had months previously wanted to find evidence that the parents had caused Addison's in Olga, but this was not a possibility. When the department were in deep trouble after Dr N's report, he sought to undermine a proposed agreement at the meeting on 23 January 2015, though not supports by Miss AG or social worker Q. When agreement was reached five days later, he used groundless excuses to undermine it in March.

If Tynwald members feel such disreputable conduct is what the Island should descend to, they should say so. If not they should institute reform. If they do not implement reform and have reviews into not just Olga, Tatiana and Maria, but all the children kidnapped by Social Workers in the IOM, the Manx electorate need to say as Oliver Cromwell said.

'You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!'

## Chapter 7 The Poisoned Chalice

We have seen how Mr W visited the parents of Olga on 4 November and accepted that Addison's had been found, but was keen to pin it on the parents, even though that was not a possibility. When the Department case was in tatters after Dr N's report, social workers were keen for an agreed ending, rather than a devastating ICO hearing, where even a Manx Court would have little option but to free the children. A workable agreement had been drafted by 23 January 2015, but Mr W set out to destroy it. The evidence from Dr D that no blame attached to the parents was another devastating blow, and Ms Q and her immediate boss agreed to a deal which was vetted by a representative from the attorney general's office on 28-1-2015. John was prepared to believe this was honest, but with the way Ms Q later sided with Mr W to destroy the plan, makes one wonder.

By 9 March 2015, Mr W had a new scheme to pressure the parents into throwing away all the safeguards of the signed agreement, as he was confident that without such safeguards he could find a compliant hired gun to invent mental problems for the parents. When the parents did not cave in, he just tore up a signed agreement approved by the court and produced the second plan outlined in the previous chapter, using evidence that was as warped and fraudulent as anything Nurse S had produced, as we have just shown.

Given the poison chalice plan Mr W now forced on the family, did the parents have any chance of saving their three daughters. In this chapter we will see how the deck was stacked even more against a fair outcome. It was clear to John that this was so, but the details did not become apparent until the main court case, when the misleading nature of the evidence could be exposed.

The plans included the grafting of a family support worker, Ms FS, onto the process. The Cambridge English Dictionary defines support as to agree with and give encouragement to someone or something because you want him, her, or it, to succeed

In this chapter we will study the evidence of the support worker to see how much she supported and how much she sabotaged. In considering the witness, Ms FS, we have a series of paradoxes. Although termed a 'Support' Worker, who gives encouragement, FS saw her role to dictating to the family and usually ignoring the advice of medical witnesses such as the dieticians. She often tried to force the parents to go against the advice of the dieticians, and the plan prepared by the Community paediatrician, the central element of which was Olga's Addisonian condition. This has physical elements, as the destruction of her adrenal glands, so her cortisol levels are inadequate, and she is much more vulnerable to quite minor stresses that would be trivial to a non-Addisonian.

The Addison's Disease Self Help Group lists other symptoms, 'There are often emotional changes, particularly irritability and depression.' The Community Paediatrician said that as Olga's physical condition deteriorates, she becomes stubborn and unwilling to cooperate. The medical witnesses have, through their medical knowledge, accepted and adjusted to this and the Acute Health Care Plan produced by the community paediatrician dropped the draconian instructions from the Selective Eaters Clinic in favour of a cooperative "Parents and foster carers report that Olga can be extremely strong willed and recommended that through calm discussion and an explanation as to WHY she needs to do something, she will usually cooperate."

The doctor who originated the draconian comments explained in court that information on Addison's is limited and these instructions were intended for Anorexics. In cross examination she said they had not been helpful. A shallow comment would be that she had got it wrong and had to make a U-turn. In reality, she was confronted with a difficult situation and went on the best data available at the time, but when more facts became apparent, she revised her opinions, which is the hallmark of a true professional.

The effects on Olga's behaviour due to Addison's are as central to the case as the physical effects, but in her written evidence, FS makes no reference to the behavioural implications of Addison's. When John challenged her in cross-examination, FS alleged she had made a study of the literature on file on Addison's at the outset, but if this was so, it should have been apparent in the way she drafted her report and in her instructions to the parents. By not referring to Addison's, FS produced a report that was misleading, but from the words in her report, she does not appear to have taken on board the behavioural problems caused by Addison's, so her advice was frequently as unhelpful as the advice for Anexorics had been. Whilst that doctor was professional enough to accept this, FS never did so. How does this impact on Olga? Olga was a strong-willed child from birth, but Addison's has, in John's opinion, made her more stubborn on occasion. Many Victorian parents believed in a highly regimented childhood. Whilst this can produce obedient well trained children, if carried to extremes, it can crush a child's spirit, or lead to a sudden and destructive rebellion. Psychological studies accept that both manifestations are harmful. The reverse approach is to impose no constraints on a child, and this can lead to anti-social behaviour, indiscipline and the child developing no sense of right or wrong. This is equally harmful. The need is for a balance between these extremes. Each époque is confident that its predecessors were wrong and we are right. I have no doubts that early 21st century child rearing will be roundly condemned in fifty years time, just as we condemn Victorian ideas today. A parent needs to balance sound principles with the accepted social norms of the era.

FS, because she is employed by the Department of Social Care, and had been educated in dealing with normal children, follows the concepts of dealing with normal healthy children, and even if she did read up on Addison's, did not make any effort to adjust her advice to allow for the impact of Addison's on Olga or her sisters. From the comments by the ADSHG and the community paediatrician, John felt it was crucial to avoid unnecessary confrontations with Olga, as Olga is not yet old enough to work out how to disengage from an unnecessary confrontation.

John consciously avoided unnecessary stressful situations, and had he obeyed FS's advice (or in reality orders) at all times there would have been numerous altercations with Olga. These could have impacted on Olga's mood when she returned to the foster carer. The community paediatrician says there are recognisable symptoms as Olga's health declines. John spotted this at one contact. So the parents devoted attention to Olga, and were criticized later by FS who had not spotted any problems. Olga was admitted to hospital later that day. FS also disregarded a remark by Maria that she had tummy ache. John will deal with these in the individual paragraphs of evidence, but the unhelpful advice from FS confirms she made no effort to consider the behavioural issues.

Olga is one of three children, and whilst Tatiana and Maria do not need the same careful handling as Olga, and could be treated as normal children, it is important that they should not feel that Olga has favourite status, or it will trigger sibling jealousy and make them resentful. This does not mean they need to be treated identically [see evidence of Dr N] but they need to be treated so they feel they are equally valued. As per social services evidence, what Olga likes one week she will not eat a week later. FS was rigid on the need for a menu for a week in advance, although John explained the need for flexibility for Olga. Often the reason Olga ate was because John was flexible. If Olga is allowed choice and Tatiana and Maria are denied choice, they may feel second class. John tried to explain this to FS. It was ignored.

John suggested that Australian methods of child raising as outlined in the NCAC literature were better suited to Olga, but did not mention the NCAC by name, as he had lost the reference at the time. This spoke of avoiding confrontation, of negotiation and seeking a win-win situation. In court, after John had found the NCAC advice again, FS was very dismissive of any way other than her confrontational approach.

John asked FS, 'Have you seen the evidence from Fostering First? FS replied 'No' but claimed Mrs Q had talked about any issues around the children and that she had spoken to the current foster carers.' This was the first 'alarm bell' as FS had only joined the Department on 1 June 2015, and received the assignment on 11 June. Ms Q in her numerous reports to the court has virtually ignored the findings of Dr N and the serious issues raised in the Fostering First reports, as these do not reflect well on the department. Indeed it is fair to say that much of this information came as a shock to me. If Ms Q ignored much of information from Dr N and Fostering, and Fostering said the information would have regularly been shared with the social worker, it cannot be alleged that the data was not on the social worker's files. If Ms Q was so selective in what she admitted to the court, how much did she pass to FS? That is something the court should have considered.

As it appeared that she might not have been adequately informed John referred her to Para 2.45 of the fostering report for 24 November 2014, 'Foster carer contacted supervisor because she believed that Olga was using food as a means to gain some control in her life.'

John pointed out paras 2.65.2 and 2.66.1 for 26/27 December 2014 reported an Addisonian crisis caused by a refusal to eat. This was a small selection of the numerous entries reporting problems with getting Olga to eat, but John hoped it might alert FS to the nature of the problem.

John asked FS 'At para 2.1 of your report, you state that the basic parenting program to be offered to the family would focus around meal planning, cooking and boundaries for the children." Do you agree?' FS said 'That's right.' John continued, 'As Fostering said regular updates were made from Fostering to the Social Worker, Olga's stubbornness over food was well documented before the end of 2014, and as your instructions were to focus on meal planning, what discussions had taken place with Ms Q about this issue?' FS replied, 'I was aware Olga had some issues with food ....Mrs Q gave information from picky eaters what foods the girls liked.' This is so devoid of specifics as to be valueless.

The key element from the picky eaters report was the comment that Olga's likes can change from one week to another, but FS did not seem to see the impact of this on her demand for a menu for a week in advance. Indeed as her answer continued, it showed her insensitivity. She stated, 'I also spoke to Mrs Stevenson who said she was unsure about what foods to provide for the children as they were not in her full-time care.'

This is not the first time Vera's honesty had been used to harm her. FS said John and Vera had been provided with detailed lists of what food the children liked, so any doubts showed how inadequate Vera was as a mother. The parents had both read the selective eaters report and the comment on how Olga's tastes could change from one week to another. If you are aware that the goal posts move, the only way you can hope to have any idea is if you have the children full time in your care, and even then it may not be possible. Vera said exactly what John felt, that lists of what the children liked were useful, but that did not mean Olga would like X on a specific day. It was a perceptive remark on the nature of the problem, but was exploited by FS to suggest a poor mother.

John took FS through the fostering first reports for 20.02.2015, and for 16.05.2015, to confirm the problems the foster carers were having in getting Olga to eat. He put to her the comments in the Selective eater's report, "I know you do not want to eat it but you have no choice as I (the doctors/nurses) am saying that you have to eat it." and "I am not prepared to get into any discussion with you about the food – I am telling you to eat it." John told FS, 'This advice was from the Selective Eaters Clinic, so do you accept it is an approach where a child is stubborn about eating?' Given FS's authoritarian attitude, John had no doubts as to her answer, which was an emphatic 'yes.'

John next asked FS, 'Do you accept that a key element in responding in a meaningful way to anyone is an awareness of the character of the person you are dealing with?' FS replied 'Yes Indeed.' As FS had agreed that crucial point mattered, John put it to her, 'I discuss issues with Olga, if a difference had arisen, treating her as an intelligent human being and asking her to consider an alternative viewpoint. Is that not an equally valid approach to the idea of "You have no choice"?'....If her response that responding in a meaningful way to anyone is an awareness of the character of the person you are dealing with had any validity, this is a valid response.

Her reply was in character, 'What you did at times was to beg Olga to eat.' John admits he did encourage Olga to eat, putting to her a different viewpoint to the one she had adopted of not eating. As his approach was based on the NCAC advice, he referred FS to the NCAC advice asking her, 'Under the heading, Try to Avoid Power Struggles on page 3, it states "Even in situations where there are strong feelings and direct conflict, act in ways that let the child know that you are on their side. Try to come up with win-win situations. This may require some negotiation with the child and you may need to make some concessions." Do you accept that?' FS' response was 'I could not comment on NCAC guidelines. I have to follow Solihull and Triple P.' By contrast, Dr N, the department's expert witness, had said the NCAC advice all made sense to him.

This encapsulates FS's attitude. She had allegedly considered the impact of Addison's on Olga, and John had referred her to the Selective Eaters report regarding Olga's changing tastes. John had drawn her attention to the difficulty foster carers had in getting Olga to eat, and FS had even paid lip service to John's question, 'Do you accept that a key element in responding in a meaningful way to anyone is an awareness of the character of the person you are dealing with?

Collectively this suggests a need to motivate Olga, and FS was aware of Ms Q's comment, but dismissed John seeking to convince Olga to eat as begging her, and when he pointed out the NCAC advice which is to let the child know you are on their side, and come up with win-win situations, and which entails negotiation and perhaps some concessions, her response was 'I could not comment on NCAC guidelines. I have to follow Solihull and Triple P.'

John had hoped FS might have conceded that the NCAC approach was as valid as other approaches. He had previously referred her to the draft version of the Acute Health Care Plan prepared by the community paediatrician and had drawn her attention to the draconian commands – you have no choice' etc. over eating, which she welcomed. John referred FS to the revision to the plan in early August in which the advice in the Selective Eaters report had been removed, and to version of 23 September 2015, where it stated, "Parents and foster carers report that Olga can be extremely strong willed and recommended that through calm discussion and an explanation as to WHY she needs to do something she will usually cooperate." The community paediatrician was now saying the opposite to the advice FS so relished.

FS met Olga on six occasions and admitted as regards eating, 'for four times out of the six times, Olga did quite well.' John suggests this was a significant admission that his use of the NCAC guidelines rather than the Solihull regime had worked well on four times out of six.

John pointed out that the second day of home contact under her supervision had been on 23.06.2015, and she noted at para 3.9 of her report, 'Olga monopolised the majority of the session causing both parents at times to run around her, meaning there was little interaction between the younger children." John referred her to the Acute Health Care Plan, 'that symptoms of impeding problems with Olga include that she "becomes stubborn and unwilling to cooperate." Do you remember that?' FS replied I do indeed. John put it to Ms FS that 'Vera and I sensed Olga was less co-operative than usual, as with her uncharacteristic refusal of tuna sandwiches when she adores tuna. The schedule of hospital admissions which accompany Ms Q's bundle reveal that Olga was admitted to Nobles later on 23 June 2015, and remained there until 28 June. The foster carers have noted that there are tell tale signs and Vera and I picked them up, but you portrayed it as Olga monopolising the majority of the session when it was a side effect of Addison's.'

Readers may reflect that of the six sessions supervised by Ms FS, she admitted 'Olga did quite well' on four of those sessions, and on one sessions she was clearly deteriorating, and whilst Vera and John spotted this and acted appropriately, FS did not refer to it in her report and put their conduct down to running around after her. This shows how little attention FS paid to the known side effects of Addison's disease. If a 'support' worker offers 'support' without taking into account the special issues with the child's health, the support will not necessarily be helpful.

John put it to FS, 'There is no section referring to Addison's disease and how this will impact on Olga in your report, and I do not think Addison's Disease is even mentioned. Can you point to anything on Addison's in your report?' Rather than admitting this was so FS replied that her report had been directed on 'how she had given guidance to you and Mrs Stevenson.'

FS also produced the excuse, 'No I didn't put a comment about Addison's, as there are three children.' FS is correct that there are three children, but to omit a reference to a fundamental medical issue is inherently unsound. If one child in a family was blind or had lost a limb, would it be appropriate to ignore such a disability in a report? John suggests not.

John referred FS to the comment by Ms Q "What Olga will eat one week is what she will say she does not like the following week. This makes it difficult to get her to eat a nutritional diet to support her medical needs.' He also referred her to the Selective eaters report, 'We heard from the foster carer that Olga had definite likes and dislikes, but these can change on a weekly basis." FS agreed she had seen these comments and that we had a discussion on it. She added, 'but you did not stick to the meal plan.'

From the records it is clear how Olga adores Tuna, but we have noted a rare incident where Olga refused Tuna, which is one of her favourite meals. This epitomises FS's attitude. The Social worker had said what Olga will eat one week she says she does not like the following week, and this makes it difficult to get her to eat a nutritional diet. Selective eaters had made a similar comment. A meal plan for a week in advance would be convenient, as it makes shopping and food preparation easier, but if Olga says on day one that she would like tuna, but on day five, when you have prepared tuna, has changed her mind, one option is to use the selective eaters advice, of 'you have no choice' which the doctor proposing it now agreed was unhelpful. Social worker Ms Q said Olga cannot be forced to do something, if she digs her heels in. If we rule out force feeding, the alternatives are giving in to Olga, and that will make further defiance inevitable, as she finds she can regain control of her life, negotiation, or avoiding a conflict to begin with.

In reply to John's question, FS, who had rejected the NCAC approach of negotiation and the community paediatrician's similar approach of 'calm discussion', made it clear that we were at fault if we did not stick to a meal plan, even if Olga's tastes had changed since the plan was drawn up.

John referred FS to para 3.2. of her report, of the importance of providing suitable mealtimes. She also suggested that the children were known to be thriving since they had established structure and routines and therefore it would be advisable that this happen in the home.

In her reply she alleged the children 'are settled in the placement.' This reply was telling. The Fostering Report stated categorically that Fostering First regularly reported to the social worker by email, and therefore the social worker would be aware of the gist of the report later made by Fostering. When John put some of the fostering reports to one paediatrician re Tatiana, the following exchange took place, 'Does the information from fostering suggest a child who is emotionally happy to you?. She replied 'NO.' We have to ask should the Court have believed a support worker who ignored Addison's and a Social worker who ignored the fostering report, or the words of a consultant paediatrician?

From April 2015 to the late summer, at a time when the children had been moved to the foster carer, Mrs V, who made Olga clean up her own vomit, twenty reports refer to distress. These reports were all in the period when FS claimed the children were settled in the placement. The social worker must have been aware of much of this. If she expected FS to carry out her duty properly, she had a duty to pass this information on. Either FS ignored evidence she had been given, or she was let down by social worker W not giving her the data she needed.

John referred FS to Para 3.2 of her report, "Mr Stevenson discussed his concern about enforcement of rules, structures and routines, he was told the plan was merely a suggestion of how to plan quality effective time with the children.' It will be noted that FS stated the plan was merely a suggestion of how to plan quality effective time with the children.' A suggestion is a suggestion, not rigid orders, and FS confirmed her comment that the plan WAS a suggestion.

John felt from the outset that the meal plan for a week in advance disregarded ALL the evidence that Olga's tastes could change overnight, so was likely to fail and the blame for following an unworkable plan would be attributed to the parents, and if they did not obey it, that would be wrong. It was a classic Catch 22. From the evidence, Addison's made a child more irritable, so it was important to avoid unnecessary confrontations, as the NCAC recommends with healthy children. John was happy to adhere to the plan where it seemed to be working, but felt that flexibility was vital, as for example on 23.06.2015.

John put it to FS 'I said how strong-willed Olga could be, as had been observed by social worker and the community paediatrician, and that she was a picky eater. I was concerned that your weekly meal plan would not work. Ms Q says "What Olga will eat one week is what she will say she does not like the following week. This makes it difficult to get her to eat a nutritional diet to support her medical needs.' As I said before, the goal posts move, do they not?' She said 'They do.' When confronted with this question, FS can find no way to avoid admitting that the goal posts do move, but fails to accept that the key need is to avoid triggering such situations, and if one arises, to negotiate a way out of the impasse.

One of FS's demands was that rather than allow the children to decide what toys they wanted to play with, that John select the toys in advance. He asked, 'You said you wanted me to lay down dolls or crafts or whatever we thought of. What if Olga refuses the play we had ordered.' Ms FS' answer was that it made better use of the time, but when pressed on what happened if Olga refused to play as directed, she eventually conceded that some other activity had to be agree. This is not effective use of time, so the reasoning is flawed on a very simple level, but it is far worse than that. If John is told to say, 'you will play at X,' and Olga refused, it would trigger an unnecessary conflict, where giving way would be the only logical option. This would encourage Olga to demand her own way in other areas where it might be vital that she acted responsibly. FS paid lip service to the behavioural aspects of Addison's, and even the need to bear this in mind, but over the meals for a week in advance plan and the 'you will play as I say' idea, made unnecessary conflict likely.

When FS asked about home activities, the list was almost endless. The children might wish to play with dolls, play on their bikes, play with a dolls house, watch a DVD, look at photos on the computer, do artwork, dress up, play on their mini-computer, listen to a story or play with dozens of toys. Olga might wish to do X but her sisters might prefer Y. John believed his role was to meet their reasonable wishes. At contact, Tatiana once asked him to tell a story that was NEW, without suggesting any specific theme. On another occasion she wanted a story that was NEW on a specific theme. The girls will often ask for a specific story they know.

John asked FS, 'on page 4 of your report for 22 June 2015, you complained of safety issues.' He pointed out the flawless safety record of the parents since the children were born. With the close delivery dates for Olga, Tatiana and Maria, the family had regular health visitor inspections from 2007 to 2013 and he submitted the Red Books in evidence and the medical records, so he suggested it was unlikely they could have concealed anything. John put it to the witness, 'do children enjoy mimicking the actions of their parents.' She agreed, 'Yes, they do like role modelling.' John asked her, 'Sooner or later they will go into the kitchen and mime routines. Is that not a risk?' The witness replied, 'They might well do, which is why you must discourage them from going into the kitchen.'

FS suggested you must 'discourage' them from going into the kitchen. Any adult who has any experience of children can confirm that what is prohibited can become irresistible because it is prohibited. If mama and dada work in the kitchen without any injury, it is obviously safe in their eyes, so why should they not do so? John suggested a significant proportion of kitchen accidents occur when children go into the kitchen despite having been 'discouraged' as FS suggested is appropriate, and mimicking kitchen routines unsupervised.

John suggested FS's safety advice was grossly inadequate, and with three children, if he was doing some shopping, and Maria needed help in the toilet, Vera could not be certain Tatiana or Olga had not gone into the kitchen. A kitchen accident only takes moments, but the results can last a lifetime. John learned that from an aunt who put her finger in a mincing machine as a child. The damage was still visible in her eighties. It was a salutary lesson to him. Rather than ban something with no way to enforce the ban, John and Vera had put a safety catch on the door out of reach of the children, so if one parent was shopping and one attending to a toilet visit, there was no risk.

John explained that his mother was a casualty nurse in civilian life and was sickened by the number of children admitted with scalds to the heads, faces and chests. She always turned pan handles away from the front of the stove and explained the risks to John. Not once has John suffered a kitchen accident needing medical treatment. FS complained that the children were allowed to stand on chairs. He asked her if she had visited a playground and had seen climbing frames, which are a lot higher than a chair. FS replied, 'They are, which is why children need a lot of supervision when they are there.' Children do need supervision in a playground, but nursery school groups visit playgrounds without one to one supervision, so there is a risk. John pointed out that there will be chairs in most rooms at home or at fostering, so what happens if one parent is shopping and another parent is attending to Maria in the toilet? The children could go into the kitchen and stand on chairs. FS spoke of kitchen safety but suggested 'discouraging' the children from going into the kitchen was sufficient. John placed a cabin hook high on the door so the children could only go in the kitchen under supervision, so the parents supervised all activities in the kitchen.

FS was hypocritical in two respects over playgrounds. An object accelerates due to gravity at 32 ft per second per second, so a fall from 2 feet is quite minor but a fall from 10 feet is a lot worse. A climbing frame can be two to three times the height of a chair, so the damage is much greater, so a playground accident can be potentially far more serious than a fall from a chair in the home. John would also refer to the evidence of the community paediatrician, who suggested that training in the kitchen, even with knives was proper and desirable.

At Para 3.5 FS stated, "Mr Stevenson set up a role play activity using guns, Mrs Stevenson immediately stopped this activity and spent a lot of time talking to the girls about guns being killers." Vera did seek to stop this play. Someone had given the children a harmless, bang bang gun. John put it to FS that, 'Parental attitudes to toy guns are polarised. Some parents will not tolerate toy guns in the house, saying it desensitizes children. Other say they played with toy guns as a child and did not resort to firearms as grown-ups.' FS accepted this was so. John respects both attitudes, but Vera was brought up in the USSR where children were taught to fire real firearms in school at the age of 14. Vera did not like firearms and wanted to discourage the children from playing with toy guns. FS had worked for the Children's Centre for 11 years and the policy at the contact centre is to oppose the use of toy guns, so Vera was doing what the Contact Centre does, but FS objected to this in the home!

FS stated, " A lot of toys in the home were in need of replacement due to them being not age appropriate or broken." John asked FS if children became attached to favourite toys, and she accepted this. He said, 'I recall a favourite toy of mine that WAS thrown away. I was devastated until my mother retrieved it from the bin and showed me how it had broken, leaving a jagged edge so I could be hurt. When John saw it, he said "Put it back in the bin mummy, I don't want to be hurt." He asked if FS thought that was a good way for a parent to deal with a loved but now dangerous toy?' She agreed it was the right answer. John asked her if in a photo she saw Maria playing with a small yellow house with a red roof? He said it was a birthday present, and he had to repair most of the hinges, but it is her dolls house, garage, engine shed, wardrobe, boat and many other things! She played with it regularly, so should he throw it away?' John had referred to the small house in the photo so it would be easy for FS to envisage, but to his amazement she claimed, 'She had no recollection of Maria playing with this house, only the big dolls house.' John found this astonishing as Maria seized the house excitedly the moment she saw it, and said it was her birthday present, wasn't it? Maria was overjoyed to play with the small house, and John has had to repair it many times because she would be heartbroken if it was thrown away. It would be a lot less work to buy a new one, but it would distress her.

The girls have a Barbie doll called Maria which is weaker than other Barbie dolls, and John had to replace both shoulder joints, both hip joints, repair a broken neck and a crushed toe as Olga would have been devastated if Maria doll had been thrown away. Olga wanted a photo with Maria doll, and is thrilled when she sees the view. When the children returned for home contact, their first thought was to find their favourite toys. If the contact sheets are a true record, they will show how the girls often ask about items of clothing they remember wearing in photos John shows them, and want to know if we have kept them, even though they would not fit now. John and Vera have kept them as parents are sentimental about such things.

The witness showed how evasive she was repeatedly. Para 3.7 of her report said, "Parents were encouraged not to communicate to the children as if they were little adults and a conversation was held regarding age appropriate stimulation, safety and play." John asked her, 'Do you accept there is abundant evidence that children from a poor background where the parents were underachievers tend to be underachievers themselves?'' Sadly, there is substantial evidence of this, but FS did not wish to be drawn and replied, 'I wouldn't comment on that at all.'

John referred FS to Dr N's assessment, 'Mr Stevenson is very expressive in his play and he is often found to be on his knees playing with the children. He lets them lead the play. He is able to divert attention between the children. He does on occasion use very grown up language with them. However I do not see this as a significant concern.'

John referred the witness to another senior mental health consultant, 'In Court on 20 November I asked the clinical lead of CAMHS about this, saying that in talking to them I tried to take the children to the limit of their abilities on the basis that if they absorb only 10% of it, it is better than absorbing nothing. He said he did not see any problems in this. Again do you accept what the head of CAMHS says? The witness responded, 'I do,' as any other answer would discredit her.

John put it to FS, 'One can "Dumb down" or one can treat a child as intelligent. Not everything will be absorbed, but as I said to the lead of CAMHS, if 10% is assimilated, I suggest it is a benefit over a child who is offered no stimulation so gets no benefit. Would you accept that?' The witness replied 'Yes... OK to teach children in a way that is age appropriate.' To undermine this admission the witness added it was not appropriate to expect a child to look up a dictionary as a child of that age could not read a dictionary.

Until a child does look up a dictionary, they 'cannot' do so, but intelligence and ability are stimulated by trying. When Olga says she cannot do something, John suggests she tries it, and often she find she can do it. To give an example, Tatiana and Olga used to say they could not colour in accurately. John referred the Court to the Soviet Naval ensigns coloured by the children. Both girls followed the complex shape of the hammer and sickle carefully, as John had shown them how to do so, and they wanted to do a good job for mama.

FS criticized the second day of home contact on 23 June 2015, stating, "The meal prepared was value soup and sandwiches which were not to the children's liking." John pointed out, 'You had laid down that food had to be prepared beforehand, and the choice was sandwiches, so a variety of sandwiches, including wafer thin ham, cheese and tuna were prepared with the crusts cut away. In a report that is so comprehensive how did you not notice the crusts had been cut away as the children like?' The witness avoided responding to the comment that John had prepared the sandwiches as the children liked with the crusts cut away, and denied she had laid down that sandwiches were to be prepared. The witness had not specified on which day sandwiches were to be prepared, but had strongly suggested that sandwiches be offered to them early on. John felt this was sound for two reasons. It gave variety, as he could prepare ham, cheese and tuna, so he was offering the girls choice in a meal which was potentially likely to appeal to them. From the records of Olga's visits to Nobles she often wanted to eat tuna, so tuna was particularly useful and has a particularly high food value. Ms FS had strongly recommended sandwiches, and John felt we were seeking to meet her wishes where they were reasonable. FS's denial that she had suggested sandwiches is misleading as she suggested sandwiches at an early date.

Ms FS said of the contact on 23 June, "there was no interaction between parents and Maria, so you suggest I did not pay enough attention to Maria at that time?" The witness replied that 'the majority of your time was spent with Olga or Tatiana.' John asked Ms FS, 'Is there anything else you feel should be added re Maria on 23 June?' The witness replied 'no.'

John put it to her, 'You omit something in your report, which is covered in Bundle 80, April-June 2015, "What is perhaps relevant is that Maria complained of tummy upset on Tuesday, but you dismissed it as due to excitement and eating a lot quickly, so I had no real chance to investigate given that we have to do as we are told. I would not have been so cavalier in dismissing the tummy pain if I had a free hand."

He asked her, 'Your report for 23 June 2015 omits ANY reference to Olga's subsequent stay in Nobles or that Maria was taken ill. As Olga's deteriorating mood affected the whole session and Maria's tummy ache affected her willingness to eat, you omitted salient facts. Why?' The witness said, 'I could have added that, but I was trying to create a concise report on what I had observed.' IS OMITTING MATERIAL FACTS ACCEPTABLE TO TYNWALD or does it display the underlying dishonesty of the Social Services system where material facts are omitted if they reflect well on the parents?

According to FS, 'Olga monopolised the majority of the session causing both parents at times to run around her, meaning there was little interaction with the younger children." The schedule of hospital admissions reveal that Olga was admitted to Nobles later on 23 June 2015 and remained there until 28 June. Despite worries with Olga, John was observant, listening when Maria spoke of a tummy ache, but FS was dismissive. John recognized the signs that Olga was not well but was sufficiently attentive to Maria that he responded to her concerns. FS, by contrast, did not notice any problems with Olga and dismissed Maria's tummy ache out of hand. The children were off their food, as FS alleges, but if one was on the verge of a hospital admission and the other with a tummy ache, it is not surprising. Whilst FS was unobservant on the day, her report was written some time later and the deteriorating health of the two children was relevant, if her report was to be a fair and impartial report. With Olga in hospital and Maria with a tummy bug, only Tatiana was present at contact on 25 June 2015, so Ms FS knew by 25 June of the health issues of 23 June. She had ample opportunity to make such a reference in her final report, but conspicuously failed to do so, and the omission of material facts and the deteriorating health of the two girls on 23 June calls into question the impartiality of her report.

The next contact was on 25 June, and, as noted, only Tatiana was well enough to attend.

FS alleged, Mrs Stevenson ignored Tatiana's pleas for support and laughed when she got upset about having a fish bone stuck in her gum, telling her this was not possible." The fishbone Tatiana was upset about was from a can of tuna or salmon. Such bones are very small and soft. Tatiana was worried, so Vera tried to calm a nervous child by reassuring Tatiana it was tiny. Vera is usually criticised for making warnings about health too worrying. In this case, she rightly assessed the bone was no serious risk and Tatiana would respond to that,

Of this contact FS alleged, Mr Stevenson presented as "wobbly on his feet." With a break-in attempt at the UK home we had made a quick trip across, as John had told FS. He had repaired three windows, packed the car and done a 300 mile drive in eighty hours. He ask FS if she would like to drive over 300 miles, repair three windows and pack and unpack the car in 80 hours? She said 'no.' John suggested, 'If you wanted to make an observation that I was "wobbly" might it not have been fairer to say why, or would that reveal to the court just what powers of endurance I have. I suggest it is a plus point is it not, that I was on my feet after such an ordeal?'

FS who had justified omitting the reference to the children's illness on 23.06.2015 on the grounds of making a concise report, explained this remark was 'not documented as a concern .... [merely] as a statement.' It seems of little moment compared to the illness of two of the girls on 23 June. In the absence of the true background it can suggest inability to look after the children.

As John and Vera had got off the boat at 6.00am and took Maria to a familiarisation day at school, they had little time to prepare a meal, but the choice of meal on 29 June was wafer thin ham which the girls like, grated cheese, sliced fresh cucumber, fresh lettuce, and potatoes with milk and butter. The judge asked Ms FS 'Do you think Mr Stevenson did the right thing?' The witness said 'Yes he did.'

Alas when FS arrived she wanted an alternative meal and noted, "Mr Stevenson was not willing to take on board the suggestion and said that there was no time to produce a different meal." FS argued 'We had 45 minutes so you could have microwaved a baked potato.' FS had been critical of the use of the microwave, and whilst a potato can be microwaved, a baked potato suggests baking! John cannot recall FS suggesting we microwaved a potato, and suggest roast or baked potatoes are best done in the oven, which the children would prefer.

FS complained, 'Mrs Stevenson went into the kitchen and found a tin of value rice pudding which she said she could give to the children as an alternative meal.' Vera did not suggest rice pudding as an alternative meal, but as a dessert. Tesco value rice pudding contains 90 kcals per 100 gms and 9.8gms of sugar. By comparison, stewed steak offers 117 kcals but only 0.3gms sugar per 100 gms. The dietician in her advice stressed the importance of boosting Olga's calorie and sugar intake, so we had prepared a meal rich in protein, calories and dairy products. When FS objected, Vera offered rice pudding which is rich in carbohydrates, which are important for energy, and contains amino acids which are good for muscle building. It was a good supplement to a meal. Vera normally uses fresh rice, as she did in the USSR, but that would take too long, so a rice pudding was a quick alternative. If Jam had been added to the rice pudding, the calorie intake could easily have been doubled.

FS objected, 'this was discouraged by Mr Stevenson and FS.' The reader may query why John would criticize a logical suggestion? He had realized FS was prejudiced against Tesco products. The rice pudding was a Tesco product, so he feared if Vera provided a Tesco product, there would be a black mark. John sought to discourage Vera from doing something that would be exploited to discredit her.

FS alleged, "it was evident that Mrs Stevenson displayed limited skills with creating foods that were not from a tin." John asked FS 'Is that was pure surmise?' FS responded 'No through my observations.' The judge suggested that if he disputed what the witness said, it was for John to say so in his evidence. Before John met Vera, a previous lady friend had limited culinary skills, so he did most of the cooking, but Vera had learned traditional Russian cooking from her mama, and with the limited range of consumer gadgets in the USSR, these were time consuming. When she moved to the UK, John put on weight faster than was desirable.

John had not been happy with the way his advocate had failed to challenge the glaring defects in the evidence, so had undertaken his own defence, so the cross-examination of witnesses in the main hearing and the shock revelations it produces was as a result of his probing. John had submitted many written statements of evidence, which he would be asked to swear to when in the witness box. Had he been represented by an advocate, the advocate could ask him if he disputed what FS said, but as his own advocate, he was not able to ask himself such a question.

John had asked some friends to provide references, one being a video producer from Leicester, who included a photo with his written statement, "We have attended many dinners at John and Vera's home in the UK and confirm that these have always been very pleasant occasions with food beautifully prepared by Vera in both traditional Russian as well as English style dishes and we can personally vouch that she is an excellent hostess and a very good cook."

FS had decreed food had to be cooked prior to the arrival of the children and reheated after their arrival, so preparation of fresh food, which takes time, was done prior to FS's arrival, so she had little option to see Vera prepare fresh food due to her own orders. If the children did not like the pre-ordained meal, we had a stand-by plan which, of necessity had to be from a can or the freezer.

At para 3.21, FS implied Vera sabotaged John's attempts to follow the recommended structure, "such as suggesting to the children that they do not need to sit at the table for meals, or go to the bathroom to wash their hands." John pointed out that given Vera's commitment to hand washing this was nonsense. FS responded that Vera had said 'the girls could wash their hands in the kitchen sink.' FS's objection to this was that to do so the girls would need to stand on a chair, forgetting that Maria was still sufficiently small that she had to stand on a stool or chair to wash her hands whether it was in the kitchen or in the bathroom. FS avoided one imaginary risk by substituting another actual risk of standing on the bathroom stool unsupervised.

At para 3.22, FS's report was garbled. She stated "FS asked parents about managing Olga's illness and meeting the other children's needs if they were to return home. Mr Stevenson commented that this is an area that the family would need a lot of support with, and due to them being under a 'gagging order" had not been able to talk about this to the children's school friends." John pointed out that FS did not take any notes at the time and said it would be absurd for him to talk to the children's school friends about medical support. What he had said was that he would like to talk to some of the parents in the girls' classes about backup. He suggested to FS that speaking to other children would be absurd, but speaking to the parents would make sense. FS produced the explanation 'I wrote my notes when I got back to the office.' If FS had accepted that John had said the parents of the children's school friends' she would have been accurate and it would have enhanced her credibility, as to persist with the notion of speaking to children to ask the parents for help is ludicrous.

John put it to FS, 'I cannot go to the school at prese **n** t, lest Olga Tatiana or Maria see me. Even if I did, the 'gagging order' prevents me discussing the situation with other parents, I cannot 'guarantee' that other parents will help, but one or two have guessed what has happened and offered to help when the children are free. I think they will help, as the Island is a friendly place, but can I guarantee that?' FS had asked how the parents would manage Olga's illness and the other children if they returned home, and John had outlined one practical way, but when he put it FS, she felt she could not comment, although she had raised the issue to begin with.

Any normal person would regard seeking help from the children's class mates as being irrational, yet FS did not say in her evidence that she had said such an idea was impractical at the time, which suggests she regarded what I was saying as logical, which is further support that John referred to the parents, and it was either forgetfulness or carelessness that caused her to omit a crucial word from her report.

At para 3.24, FS alleged _"Olga when going into the kitchen to help prepare the meal was informed by Mrs Stevenson that professionals would not allow her to prepare the food, which Olga took on board however, this is an indication again to FS that Mrs Stevenson did not agree with the advice that had been given to her."_ John suggested to FS that Olga went into the kitchen to help mama prepare food, as she enjoys doing. Vera told her she would not be allowed to. Olga asked why. If Vera said "mama did not want her help" it would have hurt her feelings. To give no reason would be insulting to the child, so Vera told her the truth, and why should she not be truthful to a child? FS admitted Olga took this on board, so she accepted an unwelcome decision from her mama, which shows her faith in her mama.

The comment by FS "this is an indication again to Ms FS that Mrs Stevenson did not agree with the advice that had been given to her." must be pure supposition by the witness. Vera may not have agreed with the advice, but despite a proven 100% safety record in the kitchen, she was prepared to apply such advice, irrespective of her personal feelings.

The judge asked the witness, 'why is it wrong to say they won't let us.' JS replied 'It creates a barrier between the practitioner and the parents.' Any barrier between the practitioner and the parents is in the mind of the practitioner if the practitioner objects to the parents being truthful to the children.

At para 3.22 about asking the girls' school friends for help, JS wrote nonsense; at para 3.24, she produced another garbled report, but there is independent evidence of her inaccuracy. FS alleged, _"Mrs Stevenson again conversed with the children at a level that was too adult for them to understand and this was evident when the children said they loved and wanted to marry their father..."_ In his response to the written allegation John referred to this, and the harmful advice that was given after contact. The allegation by the social worker was _"When Tatiana told her father she loved him and wanted to marry him, Mrs Stevenson told Tatiana that she could not marry her father and that if she did it would be incest and she would have deformed babies (Tatiana is six years old)."_

FS said, "the children said they wanted to marry their father." Ms Q said it was Tatiana, which tallied with John's recollection, so he asked the witness 'please tell the court if you are wrong or Ms Q is wrong?' The witness evaded the question by claiming 'I could not comment on another report.' This leaves the issue open as to whether the witness is wrong or Ms Q is wrong, but one must be wrong.

Parents need to lead their children away from such commonly held fantasies, but the correct response is a subject of heated debate. Feedback was given that Vera should have said dada was married to mama so he could not marry Tatiana. John suggested to the witness 'If that had been suggested, Tatiana would see mama as a rival to what she wanted, to marry dada. It would harm the mother-daughter bond. For social services such harm helps them kidnap children, but in a fair world is it to be tolerated?' If this is the world MHKs accept then all the propaganda promoting the Island should carry a warning like a packet of cigarettes, moving to the Island can see your family broken up by social services!

Having produced a garbled allegation that differed from the evidence offered by the social worker, FS felt unable to comment on the potential harm that the feedback that was given to us might have caused, claiming, 'I could not comment on that since I am not a psychiatrist.' FS has no psychiatric qualifications, but advice was given that the correct answer would have been for Vera to say dada was married to mama, so he could not marry Tatiana. The Oedipus complex is well known and the witness evaded offering any comment on advice that was potentially harmful to the mother daughter bond, but JS did offer a behavioural analysis 'that Mrs Stevenson did not agree with the advice that had been given to her' so might not adhere to advice in the future, which is pure supposition and inconsistent. Like Ms Q, the witness adjusts her position to suit her needs.

FS again said if play activities are set up, it prevents chaos." FS admitted she had not seen the children much at that time, so she failed to understand the joy they got from finding their favourite toys and there was NO unnecessary conflict with Olga because of Addison's disease. It is essential Olga takes her medicine, but it does not usually matter what she plays at, so a disagreement over something of no importance is unhelpful. On 20 November in court, John asked the clinical lead of CAMHS "Did he feel it was sensible to let the children lead the play. He replied "Yes a sensible policy." FS is therefore putting forward the opposite policy to what the head of CAMHS says is sensible. Dr N also spoke approvingly of the way John let the children lead the play.

FS misrepresented what John had said, claiming "Mr Stevenson once again commented that he believed in freedom and not structured routines for children, he used play as an example." John believes in routines where they are needed, for example the morning routine to get the children to school which was 100% successful. He was conscious of the need to avoid unnecessary conflict. John put it to the witness 'I believe in freedom, and giving children choice in how they play, so long as it is not harmful. For example we live in a semi-detached house, and if our elderly neighbour was unwell, I would ask the children to play quietly. Would that be bad?' FS reluctantly conceded, 'Yes I suppose so.' It was shocking that a Supporting Families worker should use the phrase, 'I suppose so' over encouraging children to think of the elderly, as consideration for others should be a goal in bringing up children.

At para 3.8, FS said, "Mrs Stevenson informed her daughter than looks and clothing are not important." John put it to the witness, 'We have tried to stress the character of the person inside is what matters.' FS conceded, 'It is.' Since being taken into care, Olga is much more self-conscious, which has caused her distress at times as noted earlier. The policy of placing looks first can make a child self conscious. As a native English speaker, John can put such ideas better than his wife, but before they were kidnapped, he told the girls they should not suggest someone is fat, ugly, black, poorly dressed etc. Would anyone say such taunts are right?

At para 3.36, FS was inaccurate yet again saying _, 'Mr & Mrs Stevenson were very negative in their conversations with the girls in relation to staff members, an example of this was when Maria asked to go to the park and both parents informed them that "they won't allow it.'_ This refers to Maria protesting at not being allowed to go to the Mooragh on 13 July 2013, but in the Contact Centre report for 13 July 2013, it states that the girls _"demanded that they all go to the park for a play. Mr Stevenson checked out with FS (Social Work Assistant), whom agreed that it was OK to do so."_ The two accounts are mutually incompatible. The deputy manager of the contact centre said John asked FS if the girls could go to the park, as they wanted. She agreed so it would make no sense for him to say to Maria "they won't allow it' as it had been agreed. As with the accounts of whether it was Tatiana who said she wanted to marry dada, or the girls who said they wanted to marry dada, FS's account differed from another witness. As we went to the park, the inference must be that the Contact Centre report was correct.

This was not the only factual error by FS on that day. She said, _"The evening meal was chicken dippers with vegetables and mashed potatoes, FS reminded Mr Stevenson of the menu plan and commented that this was the third time this sort of meal had been prepared for the children."_ Chicken Dippers had been on the list of meals which were to be offered to the girls. They are chicken dipped in batter and the girls enjoyed them. The second occasion they had them was at their request, and if we had a meal that all three girls ate enthusiastically, it was helping Olga put on weight.

They asked for chicken dippers again, but John felt if he met their wishes, this would be commented on adversely. He thought the girls might like chicken nuggets. When we returned to the house, he said he would need to put the chicken nuggets on. FS immediately accused him of saying to her earlier that they had already been cooked. He pointed out to her that the instructions on the packet were not to reheat. FS, who was allegedly a supporting families worker and was to focus around meal planning and cooking, should know that. The IOM Police pressured Vera into agreeing Olga should be obese as they thought, presumably through ignorance, as it would be a damning sound bite. FS wanted to get the parents to do what the instructions say is not to be done. Had she not bothered to read the packet?

If there was no independent evidence it would be John's word against FS, but the deputy manager of the Contact centre noted in his report that Mr Stevenson pointed out they were ready to go straight in the cooker and chicken nuggets cannot be re-cooked and she should know that. John put it to FS, 'You claimed at para 3.34 "The evening meal was chicken dippers" The deputy manager specifically referred to chicken nuggets. Who is right?' The witness replied 'I _cannot recall chicken nuggets."_ Anyone can make a mistake, the evidence is overwhelming that JS would never accept fact where she was proven wrong by other witnesses.

Prior to the start of the next contact session, Ms FS wanted to talk of Tatiana's tantrum. John asked the witness, _'A tantrum is usually described as "an emotional outbreak, usually associated with children or those in emotional distress, typically characterized by stubbornness, crying, screaming, defiance, angry ranting, a resistance to attempts at pacification and, in some cases, hitting." Was Tatiana violent?'_ She admitted 'No but she was angry.' Tatiana was angry, and commented "You keep doing this to me." She was referring to how we often have to say no to what she and her sisters want at contact. FS suggested _'Tatiana may be learning that to be the main focus of attention she needed to get upset and therefore is also sending Maria the message that this is what she needs to do.' FS suggested that parents use the behavioural modification strategy of "the start stop routine". FS talked through the behaviour and Mr Stevenson asked what would happen if she carried on? FS suggested "Planned Ignoring"_...

'John reminded FS in court of what Ms Q had said, "Olga can be strong minded and cannot be made to do something she does not wish to do, if she digs her heels in." and the NCAC guidelines which say, "Even in situations where there are strong feelings and direct conflict, act in ways that let the child know that you are on their side. Try to come up with win-win situations. This may require some negotiation with the child and you may need to make some concessions." From the evidence of the case social worker, Olga can dig her feels in. Planned ignoring MIGHT work with Tatiana or Maria, but is diametrically opposite to the principle of convincing the child you are on their side, and to find a win win solution. The witness alleged the two methods were 'Not Dissimilar.' **This extraordinary remark is significant, as the NCAC win-win approach does not suggest planned ignoring as an aspect of behaviour guidance. It suggests that the carer needs to convince the child they are on the child's side and it is a matter of discussion and negotiation, rather than ignoring the child. Ignoring is not discussion whatever FS pretends.**

At Para 3.45 the witness claimed, "Olga was not her usual self during the session this was picked up by both parents and Mr Stevenson in particular expressed concerns regarding his daughter's well-being. He spent a lot of time offering her emotional support and attempting to encourage her to eat.'

JS accepted John had been an observant parent, but at 3.46 listed an extraordinary 'concern.' She stated _'Olga asked Mrs Stevenson if she had the phone number for the previous foster family, however when Mrs Stevenson asked her what she had said, she changed this question to asking about a telephone number for her maternal grandparents.'_

In cross-examination, John pointed out that we are not permitted to know the number of the foster carer, so the parents tried to deflect Olga by not understanding her question, at which stage she asked about the phone number for babushka and dedushka in Russia. As she had successfully been deflected from a question that was not permitted, he could not see how this could be a concern. FS replied **. 'I just found it was concerning that Olga had so quickly changed her mind. I felt it was concerning she would not ask that question of me.'**

The parents successfully used a distraction technique to deflect Olga from a prohibited question. It should therefore be listed under 'positives.' The suggestion 'I felt it was concerning she would not ask that question of me' is bizarre. FS says she met Olga on six occasions, so was a relative stranger to Olga, so why would Olga ask her about the previous foster carer's number? More to the point, Olga had not met FS until after the children had been moved away from the first foster carer so why would Olga think FS would know the number?

At Para 5.2 FS alleged, 'The home conditions appeared to be to an acceptable standard, however there is limited room at times for the girls to play'. John and Vera had moved to the Island from a much larger house because the girls would have had to attend a failing school in the UK and John felt a smaller house was an acceptable price to pay for good schooling. The judge asked the witness, 'The size of the house is not an issue?' The witness replied 'No.'

Para 5.3 of the report stated that 'the girls bedroom and small spare room 'does have some pink walls and a few child friendly stickers.' John put it to the witness, 'The Court could assume from the reference to some pink walls that there was a hasty touch up of a couple of walls.' The witness excused the remark, 'I was not stating that.' There were 20 child friendly stickers in the children's bedroom and play room, and John planned on asking the girls what stickers they would like. In the last few months, at contact they have selected a variety of stickers and Tatiana regularly asks him how many stickers have been put up since she was taken away, and the answer on 22.02.2016 was a further 129 stickers. The witness simply threw an allegation about without evidence.

Section 5.5 relates to safety and opened, "there were a number of safety issues relating to burns and scalds". John pointed out this was misleading as there had been no burns or scalds. The witness was unable to offer any evidence that there had been. John pointed out that although half a million children are admitted to A+E every year for household accidents, there was no evidence that our three children have ever needed to go to A+E with a single burn, scald, swallowing of a noxious substance, fall from a height, or other household accident of any sort in the UK or the IOM.

The witness made a safety allegation about bare wiring that was said to have been raised by the contact centre on 30 June 2015. Later it transpired that the deputy manager of the contact centre had guessed that a house of this age would not have modern wiring. The witness claimed the 'cooker had some exposed wiring.' The cooker was wired in by a qualified electrician and the safety certificate of 2013 was included in evidence. The house complied with the latest electrical safety directives. It is usual to provide some free cable at the back of a cooker, so it can be pulled out for cleaning etc. Sometimes the cable is within a cosmetic plastic trunk to below the back plate of the cooker, but this reduces the free cable and increases the sharpness of bends when the cooker is pulled out for cleaning. Although the witness made a groundless allegation about electrical safety, when John asked if she had considered fire safety, she admitted 'I think I have seen fire extinguishers.' There were upstairs and downstairs fire extinguishers.

The witness made another safety allegation, _"There are numerous framed pictures all over the homes which are to floor level. They do not appear to be covered with toughened safety glass and Maria nearly tripped on the carpet and almost went head first into one of the pictures; therefore these would also be perceived as a risk."_ John cross-examined the witness, 'There are five large framed items at child head height which would pose a risk if a child fell against them, if they were glass. I would ask you to turn to the photographs in Bundle 15 Appendix 14, and to pages 4, 5, 9, 10, 12. These show the large frames do they not? John asked the witness 'Did you press your finger against the item on page 5 or the item on page 12?' If she had done so she would have found it deforms as it as a soft Perspex. If a child hit her head against it, it would be softer than hitting the wall. This indicates that the witness offers 'perceived risks' without making any attempt to see if her allegations are true or false. When this is the standard of reliability of social services evidence, should the court not take cognisance of this? Are members of Tynwald happy that children are seized upon untrue allegations? The electorate and fresh candidates for Tynwald will hopefully ask those question at the general election.

At para 5.5, the witness stated, "the beds are of a vintage nature and therefore extremely high. One bed was too high for FS to climb on to." John put it to her, 'When the room was redecorated, my back was still weak, and a spare mattress was put on top of the bed until my back was better. Maria said the bed was too high. That was an oversight but did you not notice the mattress was removed, bringing the bed to an easy height for Maria? The witness replied 'That's fine.' The witness was correct. The bed was too high, but when John re-carpeted the room and moved the furniture to do so, his back was still recovering, and he put the spare mattress on the bed and overlooked it. It was a sensible criticism, and as soon as John was aware of it, he dealt with the matter. This shows his positive approach to good ideas from whatever the source.

FS added, 'One bed, (which Maria has said was hers), was positioned near a radiator and if the children were to have an overnight stay, would need to be changed due to the risk of potential harm.' FS visited the house in summer when the radiators in the girls' bedroom were off. This was summer so there was no risk and it seems to have been said to ruin any chance of an overnight stay. John asked FS to go to bundle 15, appendix 14 page 10, where the thermostat setting control is visible. 5 is uncomfortable; 4 is a little hot for a child, 3 is sufficiently cool to offer no risks. When he put that to FS, she admitted, 'If it has a correct thermostat, I would say that is appropriate.' All she needed to do was to look to see if the radiators had thermostats or to ask, but that would not blacken the parents reputation.

FS complained _"the children were also encouraged to go upstairs and go to the toilet on their own."_ The primary school encourages parents to train children to use the toilet on their own before they enter reception (age 4-5). By June 2015, Maria was 4yrs 9 months which is an age when many children would have started at school and be expected to go to the toilet on their own and use stairs on their own. To show how social services always allege the parents are wrong, FS had complained that the children were encouraged to go to the toilet on their own, but in an email of 17 November 2015 from the Social worker, "I have received information from contact centre staff relating to direct support and supervision given to the children when they use the toilet. Contact Centre staff have queried whether the children should have this level of support when using the toilet. I agree completely that the children are at an age and level of development when this type of support is unnecessary... it is clear that this practice should cease with immediate effect."

As that toilet was designed for adults, Tatiana and Maria both found it difficult to reach the toilet tissue, but were otherwise able to look after themselves. FS's complaints about the children using the stairs is directly contrary to what Bunscoill Rhumsaa encourages with children of Maria's age. It appears that FS complains about the children being encouraged to go to the toilet on their own, when the social worker bans giving them assistance if they ask for it. This is inconsistent and resulted in a male contact worker having to go into the toilet to hand them toilet tissue. This is demeaning to their dignity.

Unless a stair guard is provided, children will go up and downstairs. At the primary school where there are four year olds, there are no stair guards. Reception year children are sent daily from the classroom to the secretary with the attendance log, so could access the stairs. If FS suggests the lack of a stair guard is unsafe, the IOM Department of Education does not provide a safe environment for children. Would the Minister of Education like to explain this?

The advice given by FS is contrary to the practice of the Schools on the Island and is diametrically opposite to the orders given by social services. FS admitted at para 5.6, 'Mr Stevenson did take on board some of the advice given even though I would question whether this would continue if the children were to be returned to parents care, as often he comments that suggestions are ludicrous rules that he has to obey.'

The advice over stair gates from FS was not in line with practice in the Island's schools; her qualms about the children (and not just Maria) going to the toilet on their own is the opposite to the orders given by the social worker; her advice of defining what toys the children would play with was liable to cause needless friction; her plan of meals for a week in advance was undermined by the comments that what Olga will eat one week she will not eat the next week.

As FS seems to have made NO serious effort to understand the behavioural issues of Addison's, a lot of her advice was unhelpful and contrary to advice from dieticians and other health professionals. John sought to have a serious dialogue with her in feedback, e.g. re behavioural issues over Addison's and the need from what the dietician said to look for a high calorie high sugar high salt diet. These comments were ignored. Ms FS said repeatedly she was giving advice rather than orders, but with the bed, where she was right, it was altered that evening.

John did not install stair gates as they were contrary to school policy and did not adopt the advice over laying down what play activities the children would engage in as it would merely provoke disagreement with Olga, and was against advice from medical experts. John did not think the advice that Olga should not join in food preparation was helpful, but Vera agreed she would adopt FS's policy, even if it offers no benefit. The community paediatrician had said it was appropriate for children to learn the use of knives!

At Para 5.9 the witness admitted, 'the children are eating more in the home,' but said she would question whether parents would be able to maintain a suitable meal time routine as well as provide a healthy well-balanced diet that would meet all of the children's needs.' Out of ten 'meal' sessions, one was affected by two girls feeling unwell: One session was attended by just Tatiana, and we only found out at the last minute, having had to plan in case the other girls arrived with sensitive tummies. One session was disrupted by a late minute change of plan by the Department, and one session by the children being delivered almost an hour late. Despite 40% of the sessions being disrupted by major problems not of the parents making, they maintained suitable meal times and FS admitted the children were eating more in the home.

At para 5.13, FS complained that **'Parents are of a generational mind set .. there has been conflict between Mr & Mrs Stevenson about age appropriate activities, for example Mrs Stevenson wanting to give Tatiana a sewing needle to sew on hair to an old doll.'** There is an age gap between John and Vera, but if there is conflict, it is by no means clear who FS accuses of belonging to the older mind set.

The actual 'conflict' is that John had correctly predicted the sort of things social services would exploit to portray us as inadequate parents. Vera was far more trusting, and often seeks to do things in a Russian way, which is different to 'The British Way.' Ms FS had said 'I could not comment on NCAC guidelines. I have to follow Solihull and Triple P.' If she cannot open her mind to a reputable document produced by an agency associated with the Australian government, is she likely to be receptive to the ideas of a Russian mother, even though discrimination legislation now makes this mandatory? Is the man in the street not allowed to be racist, but social workers can be?

FS uses the older generational mind set claim to disguise her prejudices that the way she has been instructed in is the only possible way, but that does not turn discrimination into something reputable. Is her example over sewing rational? When John was at primary school, so he would have been about six, children were given patterns to make a felt mouse. They cut out the felt and sewed the pieces together using a needle and thread. He was very proud of it. John wondered at what age children are taught to sew nowadays? He found dozens of referenced for sewing classes for girls from five to eight. This indicates that sewing classes are routine for children from the age of five onward. Tatiana was six in April 2015. FS's opinion was unfounded.

Needless to say, FS had to criticise speaking to children in mature language which ran contrary to the observations of Dr N, the Community Paediatrician and the head of CAMHS. John had read "How to get your kids to speak more intelligently." At step two this suggests "Model intelligent speaking. Speak to your child the way you want her to speak. Use strong descriptive and intelligent words. If you suspect your child does not know the meaning of the words you use, define the word. Speak politely using "please and thank you as appropriate, and avoid using slang terms, which can overtake your child's vocabulary if you introduce them."

The social worker, Ms Q said "Overall Olga is a beautiful child who demonstrates a maturity beyond her years. Ms Q said 'Tatiana is an intelligent child who loves to play and uses her imagination when framing her play and when engaging in a range of craft activities. She said "Maria is an inquisitive child who asks a great deal of questions and requires a lot of answers to help her understand.' If a social worker, who is trying to abduct the children, has to refer to maturity beyond her years, an intelligent child and an inquisitive child, it suggest three little girls who have all benefitted from being treated as if they were intelligent human beings. John suggests that is good parenting.

On 8 June 2019 at contact, John responded to Tatiana' question why he liked trains by showing her a model train of a loco that was at the Festival of Britain in 1951. She immediately noticed the engine at the festival did not have the large Golden Arrows on the side, but that engine had been used after the Festival on the famed Golden Arrow Pullman train with appropriate insignia. This suggests a highly observant child, able to study a photograph and physical evidence before her.

When confronted with, "How to get your kids to speak more intelligently" and step 4 "Enhance your child's existing vocabulary" - Do you agree with that as a concept?" –The witness replied, 'I would indeed.'

John asked the witness, 'At para 5.24 of your report, you stated of the children, "they appeared to enjoy it when he focussed on each of them directly as well as enjoying when he recalled stories from childhood." Is that correct?' The witness replied, 'YES'. John further questioned the witness, 'At present the children are denied association with their roots, their traditions and culture as they are "looked after children", so photo sessions, family stories etc, are the things that unite a family are denied them. Is that good for them?' The only answer the witness felt able to give was 'Umm, I couldn't comment on that.'

FS had criticised Vera over not getting a 7 year old child a drink when they were sitting at table eating a meal. Over inadequate care to children when they were ill, John asked the witness, 'What would be your verdict if a woman had said that instead of getting some drink she was of the opinion that the child ought to clean up her own vomit when she is sick. Would that be a cause for concern to you or to the Department of Social Care?' The witness replied, 'Well I don't think I can comment on that.'

As that incident by foster carer Mrs V was well known within Social Care, the witness was very careful not to offer a comment about child cruelty in social care, even though she could comment about a mother trying to teach a child not to take advantage of others, be it their own sister or anyone else.

John put it to the witness, 'The fostering supervisor when I asked him about this report, stated on oath that the information shared with him from safeguarding nurse had been that Mrs V had suggested that Olga should have to clean up her own vomit? Do you think that is appropriate or not?' The witness had little choice but to say 'Umm no.' I think it only fair to the Fostering Supervisor who was an exceptionally honest witness to say that when he was asked if it was in accordance with policy, he was emphatic it was not.

John continued, 'If the Safeguarding Nurse expressed concerns about this issue on 18 June 2015, and the Department was aware of this abusive and cruel attitude to a child, do you not think this needs to be considered by the Department of Social Care as to the desirability of such a placement continuing?' The witness said it would be a cause for discussion.

The advocate for the guardian sought to rehabilitate the witness asking re the parents' cooking skills. The witness replied, 'I saw reheated vegetables.' Pre-heating vegetables is not a risk, and FS had demanded that all food was prepared before the girls arrived and warmed in the microwave or on the cooker. Therefore, by her own directive she was precluded from seeing cooking and then used the ambush she had set up against the parents as evidence of a lack of skills.

FS, although she claimed to have read literature on Addison's disease, ignored the behavioural issues and treated Olga as an ordinary child. Olga's behavioural issues may be linked with Addison's as the community paediatrician comments, so it is essential to adjust the way we handle Olga to avoid unnecessary conflict. John hoped FS might understand this, but she did not do so during her visits or when preparing her written evidence. As her advice was unhelpful, given Olga's medical condition, he suggested it would have been harmful to apply it. If someone with no apparent knowledge of Addison's produces advice that goes against medical advice from at least half a dozen experienced health professionals, should John and Vera follow the guidance of health professionals or someone who knew little of Addison's?

This was typical of the standard of evidence that was gathered during the Poisoned Chalice plan prepared by Mr W. The Social worker and the contact Centre offered evidence which was almost as unreliable. John would have no qualms in citing it, BUT, the reader might groan at the thought of two virtual clones.

One reason John has given as much detail is so that other families on the Island or elsewhere who are victims of such behaviour will be forewarned as to what to expect. This may help them fight for their childrens' interests more effectively. From FS' report it is obvious how she uses the social services tactic of using the same dubious claim again and again, on the basis that if you say something untrue enough times, people will believe it, as Joseph Goebbels and Hitler demonstrated.

As I have said before,

'ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.'

## Chapter 8 The state takes a 1p coin from a child!

Emotional State of Olga 2015

Although Olga had made a considerable recovery from the damage done to her by being abducted and denied her parents when she needed them, the fostering reports show the stress she was under, so I will just select a few. The fostering reports show Olga had eaten very little food on 2 Feb 2015 and on 7 March 2015. On 17 March 2015 fostering records report her as saying she 'wanted to kill herself.' On 23 June 2015, a fostering support worker, AH noted 'that Olga had been coughing and trying to make herself sick at breakfast time during the past few weeks.' This is significant as the girls had then been transferred much against their will from the first kindly foster carer to a Mr and Mrs V, but the fostering reports complied from notes by Mrs V do not refer to not eating as observed by AH. This puts doubt on the integrity of the department records.

In November 2015, the clinical lead of CAMHS observed Olga holding her hand over her face and said this was indicative of distress rather than a normal symptom of Addison's. Dozens of further incidents could be added but this is a long story already. Putting it quite simply, it would be tidy to list every murder committed in Auschwitz, as every victim was a precious human being equal before the Lord, but to prove this was a murder factory it is enough to prove a number of crimes against humanity, but an indictment which tried to list the 1 million plus victims would be self defeating.

In this long and detailed novel, if it relates a true story, the misdeeds listed are ample to show the moral bankruptcy of the Isle of Man Care Trade.

\-----

Distress caused by contact staff to Olga. Saturday 4 April 2015

John checked if the girls wanted to go to the Manx Museum, or to play in the park, as it was a sunny day. Two wished to go to the park, Tatiana preferring the museum, but this was resolved amicably, and the girls went with their parents and two CC staff to Woodbourne Square, where they all took part in various activities. As Tatiana had agreed to do what her sisters preferred, rather than the museum, she was allowed an early choice of what games to play. Olga felt her wishes were being set aside, but Vera spoke to her and she soon joined in, and Tatiana and Maria agreed to play as Olga wished. All three girls showed give-and-take. The park visit took about an hour, much of which was spent playing hide and seek in the bushes to one side of the park.

On return to the Contact Centre, John asked if the girls were to have a snack or a full meal, as the parents had come prepared for anything. They were told a snack, so Vera went to the kitchen to heat a quiche, which two of the girls said they wanted. She returned to say that the microwave had been removed. As the parents had expected adequate heating facilities for food, one member of staff finally agreed to heat the quiche in the staff kitchen. With this delay, the children had played with toys after they had washed their hands. It is not ideal they should eat food after playing with communal toys due to the risk of infection, but with the low hygiene standards of the CC – eat off the table – the parents had to balance the certainty of an adverse contact report, which would be used by the Department to not return the children, against low hygiene and the possibility of gastro-enteritis. It is wrong this should be the case. Olga ate some Quiche as did Maria, but Tatiana preferred some pre-cooked bacon. Because of the absence of a microwave, this had to be served cold. Maria also had some bacon. After she had eaten Quiche, Olga said she was still hungry and wanted more food. Since she has been taken into care, very slow weight gain, slow eating, and reluctance to eat have been recurrent themes. The dieticians have said getting calories into Olga is what matters not when. Vera had some canned meatballs and some canned steak in case a full meal was in order, which could be heated up easily. Olga had spotted these in one of the food bags and asked for some. John asked contact staff if this was in order, but the response was that the girls were to have no more than a snack, and contact worker AH told Olga that she would be eating food when she returned to fostering. Olga persisted in her request for food, and repeatedly asked her father why she could not have it. In the end she accused him of denying her food. This is a part of the process to get the child to blame the parent for the cruelty of others.

John was happy to let her have food, but knew this would lead to an adverse contact report, but why should Olga believe her father would deny her food. He said to her that until the girls returned home, we were not allowed to do as 'we', i.e. the parents, or the girls, wanted. AH said it was "advice", but John pointed out that failure to obey such 'advice', even if it distressed the girls, would generate an adverse contact report which would be used by the Department to delay a return home. AH objected to this self-evident truth. Vera decided Olga was so upset that she opened the meatballs and Olga ate a couple, which seemed to satisfy her, and she was restored to a good mood as Vera had disregarded advice that was distressing her daughter. During the meal and afterwards, Olga repeatedly said she was sick of not being allowed home and being forced to do what she did not want. John, to cheer her up, asked her to be positive. You could be negative and say "the glass was half empty" or you could be positive, and say 'the glass was half full', and as the implications sank in, Olga beamed. Tatiana asked "when are we coming home" and said at the end of contact "you are the best mama and dada in the whole world".

To sum up, the quiche was served hot, but the bacon and meatballs had to be cold. Contact staff were indifferent to the distress caused to Olga when she felt her father was denying her food, but when he pointed out that whilst the children were in care, the parents did not have the right to act normally, this was objected to. Why should a father pretend to his daughter that HE would deny her food, when the decision rests with someone else? The child should not be left with a false impression of where blame lies. The 'advice' from the contact staff was at variance with competent medical advice from the dieticians, but parents who obey dieticians and defy contact staff go in peril.

\-----

Contact on Tuesday 7 April 2015

The girls had dental appointments at Douglas at 2.30pm, although the time was erroneously given to the parents as 1.30pm, so the parents turned up early and had to wait. When the children arrived, they asked dada to read a book, which was about wishing on a star. Each character did so, and the book asked the reader what they wished for. Tatiana immediately said, "I wish to come home to mama and dada." After the dental appointment, the parents had to return to Ramsey in their car, and the fostering support worker transported the children to Ramsey in a separate vehicle, although the children had said how they wanted to go with mama and dada. Olga was, for the second day in a row, violently sick in the car, so with the dental appointment being not at the time stated to the parents, but an hour later, and the delay whilst Olga was sick, the children were delivered to home contact very late. On the previous day, Olga, despite being sick, had been lively, but on this occasion, was lethargic. A trip to the Mooragh would be too much for her in her lethargic state so she sat in the front room whilst Tatiana played outside, John ensuring she did not go on the road. Olga came out briefly on her bike, but said it was too much for her. The children had asked for bacon cooked as mama and dada cook it, and rice with butter the previous day, and Vera prepared this. Olga had asked for some soup which John had prepared, but she was very quiet, lethargic and sleepy and fell asleep before the start of tea. John divided his time between the girls. The Supervisor agreed Olga was in such a deep sleep that she would be allowed to rest rather than the parents be compelled to force her to wake up and eat. John had checked up how long her medications could be delayed, and with the exception of the hydrocortisone, the other meds could be up to 3 hours late. Vera brought Olga's Procal and persuaded the sleepy child to take and drink soup. With that start, John encouraged her to take all her meds, save for Abidec.

Tatiana and Maria were bathed and readied to go to the foster carer. John was concerned at how much worse Olga was than the previous day, and when she wished to go to the toilet, found her to be mildly feverish. He spoke to the supervisor who after pressure from John eventually phoned Children's Ward, who agreed Olga be taken to CW. From a phone call to staff at CW on Wednesday morning, Olga had a peaceful night, and CW would assess her condition during the day. This shows how fragile Olga's health was and how well John assessed the situation, contrary to what was claimed. **The court paid no attention to this although the evidence was not challenged**.

\-----

The Laxey Wheel Incident 18-4-2015

Earlier on, I promised to discuss the Laxey wheel incident on 18 April 2015, as this was exploited by social workers and the court to demonize Vera and suggest emotional abuse to the children. To omit this event would be to use the approach social workers adopt of suppressing anything inconvenient. If this novel is based on true events, and seeks reform as Harriet Beecher Stowe, Steed or Dickens demanded reform, it would not be fair to the reader to omit it, as the author would be as dishonest as the Manx authorities are.

The Laxey wheel incident is important as it was seen as the jewel in the crown of the attack on Olga and when John used the IOM 'appeal' process, was one of the documents demanded by the Department to damage Vera. It was a trip to Laxey wheel on a Saturday. The contact staff admitted there were hugs and smiles at the start of contact with the children happy to be there. Tatiana asked dada to take a photo as he so often had taken photos of her. This played into the hands of the contact staff and was recorded, 'He replied, "You will have to ask Ms Q" in a sighing tone.' This was of course dreadful as it was placing the blame where it belonged, rather than accepting the blame for the cruelty of others. Eventually, after he had threatened to seek a court order under the European Convention, this disgraceful ban was dropped. John told the children about the history of the Laxey wheel which interested them, and when the children were on the viewing platform at the top of the wheel, Vera stood by the spiral staircase, so the children could not fall down the steps.

The party travelled on the mines railway and the girls naturally wanted to have a look at the shop. Vera knew that when one of the girls had asked for some money at an earlier contact and John had given her 1p, this had been extorted from the child at the end of contact and returned to John, so it was uncertain how far the parents could go other than on a birthday. Vera speaks quietly, as is evident throughout the case, and one of the CC staff ordered her to speak up. Olga was a little querulous and snapped, 'I'm not silly' when Vera had suggested it was silly to buy things you did not need, but she had not called Olga silly. There is a very big difference but Vera was not allowed to explain that difference to Olga, so she remained annoyed. John realised this would be exploited to denigrate Vera, and suggested she stop in a low voice rather than shout at her.

The contact staff did everything they could to magnify this incident, though they showed how shrewd Olga was, with her comment, 'I'm not going anywhere else; I'm just going back to the foster carers and I'm going to be there for a long time.' With the way the 28 January 2015 plan with its return for Easter 2015 had been unilaterally torn up by the department, Olga was seemingly cynical of the chance of freedom. She was perceptive enough to feel mama should be more aware of what the contact staff would use against her. Olga and Vera cuddled together and Olga said to mama, 'Sorry and I'm sorry for shouting.' Vera said she was OK with this, but felt she needed to convince Vera that it was not sensible to ask for things given the situation the family was in. This was a mistake as it displeased Olga, so could be exploited by contact staff. Olga made her fear of what would be done to her clear by saying, 'I will have to go and live in a house with strangers that I don't like.'

Vera was overwrought, so did not respond as wisely or as positively to Olga's olive branch as she should have done. In a normal situation without informers waiting to find things to damage the family, there would have been no pressure and no incident, and Dr N was later to say contact was a difficult situation for parents and children.

On the steep climb back to the wheel, Olga wanted to be carried but Vera felt she was the oldest so if any of the girls should be carried it was Maria. This was logical, but in Olga's distressed state, Vera should have done as Olga wanted. Instead, she carried Maria who the parents were often accused of ignoring as she was less affected by being kidnapped than her older sisters. John understood Olga's needs and tried to carry Olga. He did so briefly but it was a very steep slope and he had a very bad fall in 2014 with a broken clavicle, severe back pain for months, and needed 14 stitches, so could only manage briefly. The contact staff were happy to record how he had to set Olga down again! They omitted to say that Olga asked how dada's back was, as she knew of his fall. The incident reflected the close bond between father and daughter so was positive.

Vera was overwrought, as her hopes had been dashed by the ruthless way the 28 January 2015 plan had been torn up by the department. This was a bad start point, but however distressed a mother is, contact staff exploit that to denigrate her. **A mother cannot safely allow her distress to affect what she says or does.**

It was admitted by the CC staff that John set out safety boundaries throughout the contact. Before the girls were kidnapped, he would use a polite 'stop' to treat them with respect, and they would usually obey; if not there would be a firm 'stop' a moment later. The girls knew this routine and had always complied, even saying the firm stop was to protect them. Contact staff repeatedly intervened between the first polite stop and the second firm stop, so it became an enjoyable game of chicken for the children, but protest by parents is never tolerated. Tatiana and Maria had three biscuits at 11.00am but Olga only had one, asking dada to keep her biscuits for later. About 12.00, Olga asked for her remaining two small biscuits, but this was forbidden by contact staff. The girls left about 12.30 and would have to get back to Ballasalla, so would have at least a 30 minute drive before a meal so two biscuits would not have caused any problems at least an hour before a meal, but John has to say 'no' which was recorded as in a sighing tone. As Olga now wanted to eat, which was the advice received from the dietician, John did not feel it was going to please her, so it was hardly appropriate for her sake if he appeared pleased at having to deny her food.

In an attempt to secure the maximum benefit from this contact one of the advocates asked Dr N, the 'hired gun' appointed by the department, to read this report in full as the department saw it as harmful to the family. Had there been something worse no doubt that would have been preferred! Dr N was asked as an expert witness as to the potential damage to Olga? The question backfired badly, as Dr N referred to John's 'best efforts to make good of a difficult situation' and added even more tellingly it was 'an isolated incident, but I do not wish to say Olga will live with it for the rest of her life.'

As usual the contact staff suppressed salient facts and overplayed others. After contact on Sat 11 April when John had been ordered not to take a photo of his own children by CC staff, he had spoken to social worker Q on 16 April, and she had advised him he was to tell the girls to ask her. His reply, "You will have to ask Ms Q." was exactly what he had been told to say. The dietician had said that getting calories into Olga was what mattered not when or how. She was at least 75 mins from having any food when John had offered her the two biscuits at about 12.00pm. The family had been told the CC would provide the biscuits, which were Crawfords Digestive biscuits, which the girls do not like. Tatiana and Maria did eat their biscuits with a lot of coaxing, but Olga only ate one biscuit. The girls said how they disliked these biscuits, which was also omitted. John knew this and it was hard to encourage them to eat at all. The parents cannot reasonably be blamed if the CC though ignorance provided biscuits the girls dislike. John and Vera could have selected biscuits the girls like, had it been allowed.

Contact had been compromised by a fifteen minute late delivery to begin with, which had upset the girls, followed by an unreasonable refusal to let their photo be taken as they wanted. This alone would have made Olga irritable. The Community Physician put in his Care Plan how Olga would become increasingly irritable as her health deteriorated, and in April 2015, she had five separate admissions to hospital, entailing some ten days in total in hospital.

John noted, 'They had asked for a ride on the Laxey Mines train, and Olga said she would eat the rest of her biscuits after the train ride. They enjoyed the train trip, and on their return Olga asked for her biscuit. As she said she was hungry and a second biscuit was within the permitted diet, I took the packet out of my pocket and was instantly told Olga could not have the biscuit as it was too late! I returned it to my pocket. Olga reasonably wanted to know why she could not have a biscuit? Clearly I could not tell her I had been forbidden to give her a biscuit, so I took your [i.e. social worker Q's] instructions and told her to ask you.'

On a previous occasion, Tatiana asked for some money and John gave her a 1p coin, as that could hardly be deemed subversive. To his disgust, the coin was returned to him after the children had left, so a member of staff had actually forced a child to hand over a 1p coin! John managed not to say Scrooge was alive and well in the Contact Centre, but he certainly thought it. He had never heard of an adult snatching a 1p coin from a child!

When Tatiana asked for a booklet, he was worried in case such a request was exploited by the CC staff, and Vera shared that worry and also a concern that children should not be too demanding. One sees some children throwing a tantrum in a shop, the well known pester power, if they do not get everything they want, so it is something to avoid. Vera explained that to Tatiana, but John suggested we say no more, as the contact centre objects to any realistic explanation.

Vera was anxious to bring up well behaved children who do not demand all the time. She speaks with less 'tact' than an English girl might, as guardian GA was later to confirm, but in England we are renowned for wrapping things up so 'foreigners' often fail to understand us. In Russia, people speak bluntly, as do Americans. There are 142 million Russians and 318 million Americans, or 460m people. There are 64 million people in the UK, or about one seventh as many. If 7 out of 8 people do X, and we do the exact opposite, do we say only we are right, or are we broadminded enough to accept that the majority might have a reasonable approach? John finds no problems with these foreign ideas, but social workers are wedded to the racist British Way.

\-----

Hearing Appointment missed through negligence of Social Services 27-04-2015

Social services produced imaginary claims of missed medical appointments to imply careless parenting. On 27-04-2015, Tatiana and Maria were scheduled for a hearing Appointment at the Audiology Suite at Westmorland Rd, Douglas, (Old Nobles). The parents arrived at 9.45am. |Social worker Q arrived about 9.55am to say that owing to a misunderstanding the appointment had been lost. Olga had been admitted to Nobles Hospital on the evening of Thur 26 April and the decision had been taken to keep her in for tests required by Alder Hey. The Foster carer stopped with Olga overnight at Nobles, so Tatiana and Maria were put to alternative placement as this was a sole carer. No one in Fostering or social services had bothered to inform the alternate carer so she took the girls to school/nursery in Ramsey. The social worker had not thought to ask what was happening until 9.30am which was far too late to sort out this mess. Had the parents been as incompetent, it would have been avidly seized upon by the court. Naturally it was ignored.

\-----

Contact Staff emotional abuse to Olga Saturday 11 July 2015

John reported, 'I had specified the Mooragh and the car park very clearly, so there could be no risk of confusion. I do not blame the driver, as no one had bothered to tell him. He took the girls to the Cottage Hospital and this caused needless distress to Olga who said to me that she had told him that Contact was to be at the Mooragh, and she was frightened it would be cancelled or shortened due to the misunderstanding. The children arrived about 10 mins late at contact. Olga was needlessly upset when she KNEW what was arranged and was ignored. With her medication, Olga is becoming highly responsible and is also an intelligent child and resents the way she is not allowed to return home. She clearly resented the way that when she KNEW what the arrangements were that the usual, "Big Brother knows best" attitude prevailed. She is too young to have read 1984, but when she does so, she will be able to relate to the horror of "Big Brother" in a way that is quite wrong for a seven-year old to suffer. As it was intermittent sun with 'cloudy bright' spells, I did not feel they had been over-exposed to the sun, but had planned to suggest a walk to the far end of the park where the café is still open, unlike the café at the playground end which is being refurbished. The girls dressed and we walked to the far end of the park where the footbridge crosses the lake. [After pressure, John's right to take photos had been resentfully conceded.] I told them to stand on the bridge and I would take their photo. Olga and Tatiana both want to emulate dada with the camera, and asked to take photos, so getting over the bridge was slow, as all three girls had to be shown how to use the camera and to take photos of dada and dada/mama. At the café, Tatiana and Maria opted for ice lollies but Olga preferred sweets. It took a little time for them to sort out what they wanted and led to the most unpleasant incident of the contact. Vera had said something trivial to Olga who had responded, "Stop it mama." Olga was not distressed, nor was she in my opinion rude. She simply asked mama not to say anymore, and Vera was not offended. Contact worker UN however was outraged and told Olga sharply she had been very rude to her mama. Olga was absolutely shattered and crouched down hiding her face. Vera and I had to comfort her, and Maria spoke to Olga to try to cheer her up as well, but Olga said distinctly about being upset. "It was not mama." In fairness, Olga did NOT specify who had upset her, but the only person to have spoken abrasively to her was the domineering UN, so it is quite clear that she was deeply distressed by UN intervening between her and her mother. It was tactless and inappropriate from an allegedly professional person. On occasion if Vera says something that I feel will cause black marks against her from the CC staff, and I have tried to 'head her off', Olga has taken her mama's side and said "don't dada" even though I am, in effect, supporting her! Olga can be very protective to her mama. The Contact Centre staff have enthusiastically reported the alleged cruelty to Olga by her mama, and how it has reduced Olga to tears. Here we had a non-incident that was blown up into fifteen minutes of tears and distress by the insensitive conduct of the Contact Centre staff. I wish to formally protest about this, to draw it to your attention, and when this memorandum is submitted to court, to draw to the attention of the court the cruelty to Olga caused by the acts and omissions of the Department and its Agents. Vera and I had to spend some minutes calming Olga and this had an inadvertent side effect. The ice lolly Tatiana had selected started to melt and half of it fell on the ground. Had I not been distracted from keeping a proper eye on her, I would have encouraged her to eat the lolly before it melted. Instead 50% of it was lost and because she is a sensitive child, there were tears from her now. Maria, who has a lovely nature, offered her one of her sweets, as she had a bag of sweets, and a few moments later offered Olga a sweet. I would like to pay tribute to Maria, as this was a key moment in restoring Olga's mood. Tatiana asked if she could have a bag of sweets too, and I realized this was central to mending the harm done by the Contact Centre staff. We were just a few yards from the café, so I said we would get bags of sweets for her and for Olga, who immediately cheered up at the thought. Although it was clear the sweets WOULD mend the problem caused by UN, AH protested we would be late getting back to the car park. Given that I needed to calm both girls, Olga, through UN's thoughtlessness, and Tatiana, because I had not been able to get her to eat her lolly in time, I ignored him and took the girls to the café where they quickly selected bags of sweets. Olga, Tatiana and Maria walked promptly along the seaward side of the lake to the car park with little waste of time and we met the driver who took the girls to the car and belted them in. When we have been at home, we have taken them to the car, and I have often fitted Olga's belt, which she likes, but AH would have objected to this, so I stayed 20 feet from the car. The girls waved and Olga called out, "The glass is FULL, dada" which is a change to the despairing "The glass is empty" caused a few days earlier by the intransigence of the Department to her needs and wishes to return home. She also raised all ten fingers in the now conventional "thumbs up" gesture. Rather than go too close to the car, although this would have cheered the girls, I remained some twenty feet away, as I felt any closer approach would lead to brownie points being awarded against me. Although AH must have been able to hear the girls calling out and see them waving, he thoughtlessly suggested as the driver got into the car, that we might go away for feedback. I responded that when the girls were at home, we took them to the car and they liked this, and they would gain more pleasure from me waving them off than my walking away to chat to someone else. AH was displeased at this, but I waved to the girls until they were out of sight, receiving waves back.

A) Through negligence, the delivery arrangements were not notified to the driver. This was not HIS fault, but caused needless distress to Olga.

B) Contrary to what had been discussed, swimwear was NOT provided by the Foster Carer, so it was a good thing Vera, who the Department tries to portray as a bad mother, had attended to this.

C) Biscuits provided by the contact centre were seldom what the girls wanted, and in Ramsey have been unreliable, so we came prepared.

D) UN's tactless reprimand to Olga caused her serious distress and was Cruelty. I intend to bring this before the court. Readers will know what the result would be!

E) Due to the need to calm Olga down, Vera and I were not able to encourage Tatiana to eat her lolly before it melted, so half of it fell on the floor, causing distress to her.

F) AH must have seen how the suggestion of a bag of sweets had undone the damage UN had caused, but argued there was not time. To have heeded such foolish advice, after having offered a treat to make up to the girls, would have been devastating to them. With children, YOU MUST KEEP YOUR WORD.

G) AH must have seen how the girls were calling and waving in the car, but wanted me to walk away from them, which would have caused them distress. This was cruel and tactless.

The department and the court were avid to hammer Vera for the alleged damage to Olga at the Laxey wheel, but that did not reduce Olga to tears for twenty minutes as this cruelty did. **The court opted not to refer to it in the decisions or see departmental cruelty as an element in the balancing exercise. This was not even handed. Is the Island proud of this; If so they should say so and face the contempt of civilized people across the world.**

\-----

Vera gives up contact 20 July 2015

Vera's decision to give up contact with the children came nine days after the vicious way Olga was reduced to tears at the Mooragh and after a string of further disgraceful incidents. It was clear to John that Vera had lost hope of fair treatment by social services, and whilst John, at that stage said the court, at least, would be impartial, Vera did not believe this.

From the cruelty to Olga at the Mooragh on 11 July Vera felt that dragging out the process so social workers and contact staff could inflict more cruelty on the children was not in their interest. Like the mother in the Solomon case, it was better to stand back, however unjust.

John did not agree with her, although he understood her feelings and motives, and whilst you may not agree with someone, you can respect such feelings and defend them. John felt the children wanted contact with mama as well as him, and Vera's idea that we had to let them go, to end the torture to them was mistaken. He was also certain that her decision to step back would be exploited to show a bad mother.

Because of the secrecy of child kidnap cases by social services, it is not safe for parents to get together to find out what sort of 'dirty tricks' are used against other families, and one reason for this novel is so that other parents will be forewarned if this is a true story.

As John has repeatedly warned, if your child is kidnapped, you do not have the luxury of being overwrought as Vera was. John had one advantage over Vera in this respect. His father was a GP and his mother ended her professional career as the Night Superintendent of a 1200 bed hospital. Both were dedicated health professionals and had commented to John that the greatest horror for a doctor or nurse was when you knew the patient was not going to make it.

You were a human being and you saw someone who did not deserve to die inching away. Would it help the patient or the family if you broke down? No it would not. You had a duty not to break down in front of your patients. You had to be positive for them. Duty to others came before your own anguish.

How many parents have been taught this by dedicated health professionals? Probably very few. John tried to apply this.

Vera is Russian and had not been taught this and Russian women tend to be moved to great joy by small things and anguish by small things. John does not blame Vera for the way her distress was manifest. Tatiana even said that when you are sad you do not think well.

It was ruthlessly exploited by social services, the contact staff and the court.

John feels this is one of the most important lessons of this novel. As parents your duty is to your child. Although your heart is breaking, you are in the same position as a doctor or a nurse with a patient. You cannot show your distress for the sake of the patient.

In the medical situation we are talking of a patient who will die. If you fight well enough you child will not inevitably be lost. Social services will use every dirty trick they can, but if you can avoid this trap, it is one weapon they will not be able to exploit against your children.

## Chapter 9 How to cause a nervous breakdown!

This chapter is a particularly difficult one to write, as it involves the attempts by Social Services and its Fellow Travellers to exploit the vulnerabilities of a precious human being, John's wife, Vera. If someone has a broken leg, a heart attack or diabetes, it is 'respectable', but if someone has mental problems, the lingering traces of 19th century prejudice and thinking about 'Loonie Bins' still exists.

A little background is needed if the reader is to get up to speed. Vera was born in the USSR in the 1970s, at a time when the authorities were moving from incarcerating people in the gulags, or prison camps, to saying they had mental problems, so needed treating in a mental home, as this would sound more respectable to the West. Sluggish schizophrenia was created as a Soviet diagnostic tool to permit the incarceration of dissidents, and the 'illness' serves several ends. It was used to deceive the West that the 'sufferers' had mental problems, so were being treated, rather than punished. It also provided a balm to psychiatrists to sooth their consciences when doctors acted as a means of oppression for the political system. According to the Global Initiative on Psychiatry chief executive Robert van Voren, the use of "sluggish schizophrenia" as a mental illness in the USSR was facilitated by the idea that people who opposed the Soviet regime must be mentally sick, since there was no other logical explanation.

The West was deceived for a while, but soon realised the truth, and as pressure grow, the Soviet Union had no choice but to withdraw from world mental health organisations, due to flagrant abuse of 'mental health.' That was the effect on the West, but in the USSR, as news spread of what was happening, ordinary citizens began to fear 'mental health services' as a particularly evil form of repression. People who lived through the Soviet era from the late 1960s to the 1980s had this fear burned into them.

Vera lived through that time, and although not having any genuine or 'dissident' experience of Soviet mental health services, shared the widespread Russian distrust of psychiatrists. If readers should find this improbable, a search on the internet for political abuse of psychiatry in the USSR will reveal the sordid story.

John had spent many years in analysis of the USSR, and knew this. He was also aware that the Slav character is very different from the Western European character. In the West, Russians are often seen as stolid and unimaginative, a facet of Cold War thinking. In reality, Russians, and particularly women, are easily moved to great happiness by small things, and to great distress by other things which would be unlikely to have much impact on a Western woman.

John had realised the court accepted unproven allegations by social workers without the need for evidence, but often eschewed evidence contrary to social services wishes, so the massive supporting evidence from Dr Z, Dr SA, Dr N, Dr D, or from the dietician service was regarded lightly. As a non-professional in the health field, although John had a deep knowledge of the USSR, he could expect that to be discounted, so he sourced an important academic treatise on this subject and submitted that as a part of the case for the defence.

This was a paper in _the International Journal of Psychology and Psychological Therapy 2010, 10, 1, pages 55-75 entitled A Cross-cultural Evaluation of Temperament: Japan, USA, Poland and Russia, by Maria A. Gartstein, Washington State University, USA, Vera R. Slobodskaya, State Research Inst. of Physiology, Siberian Branch Russian Academy of Medical Sciences, Russia, Piotr Olaf Żylicz and Dorota Gosztyła, Warsaw School of Social Psychology, Poland, and Atsuko Nakagawa, Nagoya City University, Japan._ With such reputed authors it could be regarded as authoritative.

An Abstract explained, _'The present study represents an attempt to investigate early development of temperament across four cultures: Japan, United States of America (U.S), Poland, and Russia, through a cross-sectional design. Selection of these countries presented an opportunity to conduct comparisons between cultures that vary on the individualistic/collectivistic value systems. Parents responded to the Infant Behavior Questionnaire-Revised, with U.S. and Polish infants received the highest ratings for a number of Positive Affectivity/Surgency dimensions: Smiling and Laughter, High Intensity Pleasure, Perceptual Sensitivity, Approach, and Vocal Reactivity. Japanese and Russian infants were characterized as demonstrating the highest and the second highest levels of fearfulness, respectively, with U.S. and Polish infants receiving relatively lower ratings from their caregivers. Age and gender differences were observed across all four cultures. Significant gender differences emerged for High Intensity Pleasure and Approach, with males receiving higher scores than females. Older infants were perceived by their caregivers as exhibiting higher levels of Distress to Limitations and Fear compared to the younger age group.'_

It is perhaps not coincidental that Soviet society was strictly regulated and the stukach, or informer, was feared by parents and children alike. Lest it be seen as all bad, Vera's upbringing inculcated a belief in the interests of the group or society as a whole, rather than the more materialistic me me me of the West. Of the three girls, Tatiana shows the greatest devotion to the group, and this is characterised by social services camp followers as bad, but not by health professionals!

Characteristics observed in early life often continue through life and the study showed Russian infants having high levels of fearfulness from extraneous pressures, i.e. the stukach effect. Vera, as we shall see, can be easily distressed by hostile acts, so the study has direct relevance to what happened to her.

When this evidence was submitted to the court by John, the judge commented that little attention would be paid to it. John was shocked, as failing to take into account the sensitivities of a Muslim woman would be seen as racist. Just because Vera is white, although of Slav race, should not give her any less rights than a Muslim woman, a Bantu from Africa or a Chinese woman. Alas, it seems that agencies of the Isle of Man government are wittingly or unwittingly racist. In passing, whilst there is a Race Relations Act in the IOM, there is no proper Race Relations Board to protect ethnic minorities. As minorities lack such protection, social services can be much more indifferent to their rights than in the UK.

The case was influenced by these two key factors, the fear many Russians had of mental health services due to Soviet misuse of psychiatry, which explains Vera's refusal to consider a psychiatric assessment, and a radically different temperament. The effects of high fearfulness and Russian women being strongly influenced first surfaced during the 2013 visit to Nobles hospital. To save the reader looking back, all three girls had suffered otitis media and had received antibiotics, but Olga had a relapse, followed by Tatiana. John was invited to take Tatiana to childrens ward and did so. That very night Maria had a relapse. Vera quite rightly phoned the ambulance, and she, Olga and Maria were taken to Nobles. Vera's father was also ill, and John had a near fatal fall a few weeks previously, requiring 14 stitches to his scalp. By the time Vera reached hospital, she was distressed.

With the need to visit childrens ward, John has the highest respect for the health professionals at Nobles, but was summoned from childrens ward, where he was with Tatiana, to A+E due to the overwrought state of Vera. There is no doubt Vera was highly distressed, but the Charge Nurse John spoke to was intimidating and if he had been like that to Vera, it is not surprising she was upset. The children were kept in overnight, but Childrens Ward had no qualms in letting them go home, but social services were now involved and sent a social worker, J, to the home. As a result of Vera's experience in hospital, she was nervous and John rang the social worker prior to her visit, to outline the fear Russian women had of 'mental health services' and asked J to be tactful. Social worker J's account of this shows how contemptuous she was of this request for compassion, **"He went on at length about the Russian and Soviet Union culture and that Vera is scared of officials."** Saying 'he went on at length' is revealing, and when she arrived, instead of tact, J spoke in front of Vera and the children of referring Vera to mental health services which added to Vera's fears. Would a compassionate person taunt someone who she knew was afraid of mice with a mouse? Reality tells us a mouse will not hurt us, but Vera knew how people were incarcerated in the USSR by psychiatrists, even though they were not mentally ill, It was also unsettling to the children. As we have seen, John complained, and Social Services agreed there was no risk to the children, and apologised for causing distress to Vera.

This should have been an end of it, but the events from July 2013 to Sept 2014 suggest lingering resentment and a determination to 'get' Vera and John for daring to complain. When Olga collapsed and nearly died, although the parents were following medical advice to fast her, the obtrusive visit by another social worker to the house, who was screaming through the letter box to be let in, terrified Vera, as was clear from the police interview. When we look back to J's visit which was the previous time Vera had met a social worker in the IOM, and who wanted to send her to mental health services, Vera's refusal to let a screaming banshee in the house is understandable. John made this point to the court but it was not seen as of any importance. Vera's subsequent arrest and the kidnapping of the three children added to the pressures on her.

When John and Vera were allowed to see the children, Vera was still traumatised. In an ideal world, she would put all this aside and be as lively as normal, but in the real world, when someone has been through a shock, they may not act ideally. If the social services reports were to have been fair, they would have recognised this. As Addison's had destroyed the grounds for kidnapping Olga, new excuses had to be invented, and if Vera sat unhappily on the floor at contact, hardly saying a word, it showed low attachment.

The couple had been open with the social worker, explaining Olga's premature birth so the social worker, on no evidence, invented low attachment in vitro. Later on, health professionals refused to speculate on this sort of guesswork. Vera, on learning of Addison's and that gastroenteritis was a serious risk to Olga, adopted the hygiene standards of the WHO, which most of us pay lip service to. Contrariwise, how many of us adopt the low standards of the deputy manager of the contact centre, who advocated eating off a tabletop! In passing, do any restaurants in the IOM serve food on the tabletop rather than on a plate? Vera was rightly disgusted, but as we will see time and again, no matter how absurd their position, contact staff must be obeyed. This is a classic case of the premise, 'absolute power corrupts absolutely,' and had an echo as this book was being completed, when a contact worker said a 12 volt 2 amp electric source was hazardous. When John tried to explain the technical issued afterwards he was told 'that will be enough' Galileo was threatened with death for saying the earth went round the sun in 1633.

The Mooragh incident on 11 July 2015 has been mentioned but to recap, after play we walked to the cafe by the footbridge. Vera had said something trivial to Olga who had responded "Stop it mama." Olga was not distressed, nor was she in John's opinion rude. She simply asked mama not to say anymore, and Vera was not offended. A contact worker UN was offended and told Olga off abruptly, that she had been very rude to her mama. Olga was shattered and crouched down hiding her face. Vera and John had to comfort her, and Maria spoke to Olga to try to cheer her up as well, but Olga said distinctly about her being upset. "It was not mama." As the only person to have spoken abrasively to her was UN it is clear that she was deeply distressed by this person. A large part of contact was wasted and Olga distressed.

Vera had done nothing to upset Olga, as with the 'it was not mama' comment, but afterwards blamed herself for the way contact staff often utilised things she said to damage the family. John said she had nothing to reproach herself for this event and he would complain about the cruelty to Olga by UN. On 14 July the girls were delivered over an hour late, so contact was damaged and on 16 July, the contact staff sabotaged that contact by refusing to attend home contact.

Olga had been reduced to tears by contact worker UN on 11 July, and there were the subsequent dubious incidents. At 1.00pm on 20 July Vera felt she could no longer face contact because of the risk that Olga would again be upset as had been the case when UN spoke to her sharply. John had to go to contact on his own and explain to contact staff the distress caused to his wife. He knows that any disagreement with contact staff in front of the children will be punished by stopping contact, but as the children had not arrived, he assumed he could say how distraught his wife was and how outraged he was at how she had been treated. He did not physically threaten the staff.

The contact staff said they would go to meet the children. John would have liked to join them, but knows how much they resent that. He calmly settled down to sorting art materials, which shows how well in control of his feelings he was. Within minutes they had returned and it became clear that the alleged 'meeting the children' was a smokescreen for cancelling contact. That heartless act to the children was on a par with UN's bullying of Olga, as the children would be in the car looking forward to contact. At a later contact session, Maria spoke of her disappointment at contact being cancelled.

On 22 July, John decided it was wrong to allow the ICO to continue unopposed given such misconduct, the decision being triggered by this series of sadistic acts. John wrote to the social worker, 'I will do what I can regarding Vera, but she is terrified that anything she says will be exploited to harm the family, and I am sure she is right. On the other hand, not attending will distress the children, but she thinks the risk of malicious misinterpretation outweighs that. I say to her that non-attendance will allow a different trashing argument to be advanced, so it serves no purpose.'

Vera's belief was that contact staff would always focus on her, as she was a soft target, and more incidents like 11 July would be harmful to Olga. She was correct, but non attendance would also hurt the children, and would be exploited in a different way. Tatiana later put it correctly that when one is sad one does not think well.

In September 2015, a new Social worker, QM twice made attempts to pressure John into seeking a referral for Vera on the grounds of mental health as she did not wish to speak to him, or to engage with Social Services any more. This approach was made before Ms Q in the hearing of Vera. It suggests the Department would have then found sectioning of Vera expedient. As we shall see later when far greater concerns existed on 27 October 2015, the Crisis Team declined to take action, so it is doubtful if valid grounds for sectioning existed in September 2015, It is speculation but how much did the actions of social workers J, 'the banshee' in September 2014, or QM's pressure in September 2015 increase the stress on Vera? As she had seen a social worker try to persuade her husband to 'turn against her' it is quite plausible. John suspected Vera's refusal to see QM would be exploited against her, so had encouraged her to meet him, evil though he was. This again could have distressed Vera.

The Court case, after numerous delays began in the autumn of 2015. By then Vera had lost any lingering faith in the fairness of the Care system, or the Manx courts, feeling they would be no better than the courts in Soviet days, though she had never had any problems in her own land. When the hearing opened, John was in the delicate position of explaining his wife's understandable lack of faith in the system. The judge was not pleased and insisted John say to Vera that she should attend court, and announced this would be said every day until she did, and Mr Stevenson needed to put this to Vera.

John did for the first few days, but felt it was adding pressure to his wife, so reduced this demand that she attended every day to once a week so he could comply with the judge's demand without doing too much harm to Vera.

The advocate for the department and the judge spoke of how they could force Vera to give evidence in court. In any normal trial, the defendant cannot be compelled to testify, though it is explained to them that failure to do so will be taken into account. Uniquely in care cases, a UK precedent stripped this right from defendants when a mother relied on this centuries old right not to testify, and was jailed for 18 months for contempt. John was told he had to explain this to Vera.

Given the emotional state she was in, he was horrified at the damage this would do to her, but had no choice but to speak to her, as he could not let her face the threat of jail unknowingly. Vera put her fingers in her ears. John pulled her fingers out of her ears, which technically is an assault. With more pressure in court to intimidate Vera into attending, John felt compelled to speak to her again as it seemed clear to him that the Department's advocate would seek compulsion to force Vera to testify and that the court would jail her if she did not.

Once again she put her fingers in her ears. As she was sitting on the floor John had to stoop, and lost his balance, upsetting her more. As he was deeply concerned at the real threat which was looming of Vera being imprisoned, and Vera would not listen to him due to the state she was in, John was rude to her, saying she had to pay attention, or she would go to jail, which was true. With hindsight, John is deeply ashamed that he was angry with her, but if she did not obey the dictat of the court she would go to jail, which would be bad for her.

Later, when discussing this with a UK police officer he admitted this assault on his wife, but explained the motives. The sergeant said he understood, and whilst John could physically force Vera to hear what he said, could he make her 'listen' to him? It was a perceptive remark, and John wished he had thought of it at the time. He had no choice but to tell Vera, but in the manner of trying to get her to understand the risks to herself, he became annoyed, due to the risk of jail. He was under a duty to be calm to her, even if she did not listen, so he failed her in her hour of need.

There are three grounds for a compulsory referral, the risk of self-harm, (b) the risk to others and (c) depression. At the time social worker QM was pressuring John to seek a referral for Vera, she had shown no signs of any wish to self-harm. John did not believe she posed a threat to others. Depression is a clinical term. Whilst Vera was unhappy, the abduction of the children and the relentless onslaught on her for months by the Department would make any normal mother unhappy. John felt he had no legal or moral right to take such a step.

Events in late October 2015 were extremely worrying and John wrote to the GP on 25 October 2015. 'I desperately need your advice as I am now seriously concerned about the impact that the current actions of the Department of Social Care are having on my wife Vera.'

John summarized the misuse of mental health in the USSR which eventually forced the USSR to resign from World Psychiatric bodies rather than face expulsion. He explained how ordinary people feared and hated Soviet mental health services, as thousands of sane people were compulsorily treated. Since Olga was seized, the Department had accused her of mental health problems, low mood and demanded she see a psychiatrist. In September 2015, the Social worker twice pressured John to refer Vera on mental health grounds. John agreed she was very unhappy, but felt it did not constitute grounds for sectioning under the Mental Health Acts.

By October 2015, she was increasingly withdrawn and would not go out shopping, answer the door or telephone, but there was no evidence that she constituted a threat to herself or to anyone else. John said to the GP that he did not think that limb of the test for a referral was met.

He continued, 'Over the last few days I have had to revise my opinion. I do most of the shopping for the family, and recently, she asked me to obtain various items, bread, butter, meat, washing powder and caustic soda. She had used caustic soda on occasion when we lived in the UK to clean the toilet, drain etc, and when used safely, it can be effective. Vera was brought up in the USSR where modern alternatives we take for granted were unknown, and she tends to think in terms of her Soviet upbringing. I did not buy the caustic soda as I wanted to find out what she wanted it for, and use some less hazardous alternative, as she did on one occasion get a drop of caustic soda on the back of her hand. A few days later she asked for it again in a shopping list, without saying what she wanted it for. Last week she twice asked me to get caustic soda, but not in the context of other shopping, the latest occasion being on Friday afternoon when I needed to go shopping. I said casually, "What do you want that nasty stuff for. Can't we use something else? I had considered asking her this before but was anxious not to put any ideas in her head, or to suggest I had doubts about her. She replied "it could be useful."

John continued, 'It is possible I am seeing too much in this situation, but I am worried that she may see caustic soda as a possible solution if she is placed under more pressure, and on Friday 23rd Oct the advocate for the department served an email on her, repeated by a hand delivered print copy today saying that if she did not appear at Court, the Department would seek an order that evidence against her was deemed proven. It was a few minutes after we received this frightening email that she made her latest request for caustic soda, with the explanation that "it could be useful". I am now seriously worried.... I do not see any prospect of persuading Ms AG to reduce the pressure on Vera, as she seems to think she is playing a winning hand.'

On Monday 26 October, John had contact with the girls so would be out of the house from about 3.00pm to 5.30pm. This would have given Vera time to go into town to buy caustic soda unknown to him. On Tuesday 27, a directions order had been sought from the court by Miss AG, and with the threat to seek a court order against her John was worried as to the effect this could have on Vera. It placed him in a horrific position. He said to the GP, 'I do not fear for myself, but with the pressure that is relentlessly applied to her, I am worried and whilst I suspect she will not forgive me or understand my motives, so it may finish our marriage, I feel that I cannot shut my eyes to a potential risk. I feel I have to alert you to this matter.'

The email John referred to was as follows, _'Please find herewith a case (Re O (Care Proceedings: Evidence) [2003] EWHC 2011 (Fam)) which was circulated at Court at which, of course, you were not present. In accordance with this case we will be seeking the Court to find that allegations against you are made out if you do not attend Court to defend the allegations.'_

Despite a busy workload, the GP paid a home visit. John had not wanted to ask Vera if she was 'suicidal' as it would damage an already damaged relationship, but when the GP asked her that question she said, 'I'd prefer not to discuss it' or similar phrases to many questions. Afterwards the GP said to John how hard it was to engage in a dialogue with her, but he had succeeded far more than anyone lately, including John. In a subsequent letter to the GP John noted, 'You said to me afterwards that most people when asked such a question would deny it firmly, and her lack of denial was a worry.' Later Vera thanked John ironically for the way the GP had forced his way into the house. In the letter of 27 October, John added something he had overlooked, 'Ms Q and the new case worker, QM told me they wanted to see us. We would be portrayed in a bad light if I refused. Vera disagreed. In the end I saw the two SWs in the back room and Vera sat in the front room where she could hear what was said. They placed pressure on me to get her to agree to see them and on three or four times, I went to the room where she was to ask her to see them. She refused and afterwards accused me of working with the social workers. In effect it was a 'Shoot the messenger' situation, and I had been worried that this would be so...... a few days later QM demanded another meeting. Vera objected but I felt we had no choice. Once again she declined to see them and the meeting was a carbon copy of the previous meeting as I had suggested was likely. The only result was to intensify Vera's opinion that I was in league with the Social Workers.'

The merciless pressure on Vera from the court intensified. Although a defendant is entitled to decline to give evidence in a case, the court had found an authority, in which the Court of Appeal upheld an 18-month custodial sentence in respect of a parent who refused to give evidence in care proceedings. This was emailed to Vera, but John did not get a chance to see it until he returned from contact. It put him in a nightmare predicament. Vera will not read anything from the court, but if she refused to obey court instructions, she could be punished for contempt. The Deemster asked John every day if his wife had agreed to attend, and he had to reply that he had made his best endeavours, but she had refused.

John wrote to the GP 'Given Vera's potentially suicidal nature, after what has been done to her, the last thing she requires is the threat of a prison sentence, but if I do not tell her, she could be arrested, brought before the court and committed which I think would be even worse. I decided I had to tell her something, softening it so far as I could, that they had emailed her that if she did not attend she would be taken to the court and if she still refused, sent to prison.'

The GP was clearly concerned and said that if someone did not have self-harm ideas, that the normal response was a vigorous denial, and for her to say she did not want to talk about it was not a normal reaction, and was concerning. He said he would prefer a referral to Mental Health Services to taking no action, and asked John his views. John said that for many months, he did not believe Vera was a threat to herself, or anyone else, but with the relentless battering from Q, QM, and Ms AG and in particular Ms AG's letters/emails, he believed there was a foreseeable risk. If he did nothing it might blow over, but if he was wrong, he could have had Vera's death on his conscience. The main culprits would be Q QM and AG, but Vera does not matter to them. John would not 'like it' if she wished to commit suicide in a 'comfortable' manner, but caustic soda is a revolting death. The GP said if Vera was unwilling or unfit mentally to give consent to a referral, that John, as nearest relative would have to consider doing so. John said he would much rather not do so, as (a) It would be betraying her to the hands of people she fears (b) He suspected it would finish their marriage off, if the person she should be able to trust above all others, hands her to such people as she will see it. John considered saying he would not oppose a referral, but felt this was passing the buck to someone else. His father had been an army officer and a GP and said you must take responsibility, not duck for cover. John agreed to seek a referral.

By this time, John had the email from the court that Vera could be compelled to give evidence and jailed for contempt if she refused. As she now refused to have anything to do with the proceedings, John had to read anything addressed to her, and to do his best to bring it to her attention. Given the serious risk of self-harm, he thought seriously about whether he should increase the pressure on her, but felt he had a duty to Vera to warn her of the potential risks.

When he did so, Vera was sitting on the floor in the front room. She put her fingers in her ears and asked him to leave the room. He had become used to this behaviour in the past two to three weeks, so there was no point in persisting. He repeated his warning later in the kitchen, and she treated the possibility of jail for contempt of court as not having the slightest relevance to her. She said she just wished people would leave her alone, and told John to go out of the room. The next morning John had a phone call from Mental Health services, asking to talk to Vera, She refused. Subsequently the Group Practice phoned John that a lady GP would visit the house. The lady GP spoke to Vera who went into the other room. She asked the lady GP not to follow her, so the doctor remained in the hall and explained she needed to make an assessment of Vera. The GP explained she had a legal duty, as there were concerns about Vera's health, and that if Vera declined to speak to her, she would have to contact the mental health service by law. Vera declined. After the GP left, Vera said John was scum for having involved them. John feared it would drive an irreparable wedge between the couple, but the threat to her life meant he could not shut his eyes to it. John feared that Ms Q, QM and Ms AG had wrecked his marriage, but he had to consider Vera's well-being and the impact suicide would have on the children. His own concerns as to the future of their marriage had to take third place.

At about 5.00pm the lady GP, a consultant psychologist with the Crisis Team, and a Social worker, visited and asked to speak to Vera. She was reluctant to answer questions, saying she would prefer not to discuss things. Vera was less forthcoming with them than with the GP the previous day. When she was asked if she had self-harm intentions she said she did not want to discuss it, and asked them to leave the room.

The visiting team had a detailed discussion with John and spoke to Vera again. They said they would return to the surgery to discuss the case and arrive at a decision. The Social worker and consultant psychologist returned later and said it had been a difficult case. The key problem was that whilst Vera had repeatedly asked for caustic soda, she had not specifically stated it was with the intention of self-harm. When they had asked her if she had any self-harm intentions, she had said she did not wish to discuss things, so they had no firm statement from her that she intended to harm herself. The team had asked John if Vera seemed to be eating, drinking and sleeping normally and to the best of his belief this was so. John said Vera now sees him as hostile, claiming he is on the side of the social workers trying to take her children away. The consultant psychologist said Vera was clearly unhappy and under stress but with the pressures she had been under for over a year as a result of the children having been taken away, this was quite understandable. She said she could understand John's concerns about Vera, but because Vera was functioning on a day to day basis, had not specifically said the caustic soda was with a view to suicide, and had refused voluntarily to be admitted for observations, there was nothing the Crisis Team could do. They asked John to keep a careful watch on Vera, but in practical terms he has to go shopping, attend contact with the girls, and attend court. He can manage on 4 hours sleep a night, but cannot go for 24 hours a day for weeks on end without any sleep.

The following day, John visited Olga in hospital so was out of the house for some three hours. Shortly after he returned, the consultant psychologist phoned. She asked if John had any reason to believe Vera had done anything whilst he was out? He had no evidence to say yes, but no evidence to suggest that she had not bought a noxious substance in town, for she would have had ample time to do so. John pointed out that as he had type 2 diabetes he takes blood sugar tablets, including four metformin tablets a day. A 56 day supply of metformin is 224 tablets. If Vera was to take an overdose it could put her into a coma.

All of this was submitted to the court on 4 November 2015. Given the potential risk of suicide, John asked if Vera could be discharged from the case. **He was criticised for not respecting Vera's rights. His concern had been her life and the right to be imprisoned for contempt was probably a right most people would willingly forego!** One does not expect a loved one to seek to hand you to the people you fear the most, so Vera can be excused for her bitterness to John as she had seen him refuse to do that in early September, but then in October betray her as she saw it. The old adage of 'do not shoot the messenger' is only too valid, and John had to take the blame for Ms AG's threat that Vera would be liable to go to jail for contempt. Is it any wonder she was bitter?

As I have drafted this section from John's contemporary reports to the court, I have asked myself is this the Isle of Man, the Island 'so free and so fair' or a story from the worst days of Soviet psychiatric abuse in the 1970s. Vera never suffered psychiatric abuse at the hands of the Soviet authorities, and in the West we love to pour manure over the USSR and post-Soviet Russia, but this story of sadism piled upon sadism would fit perfectly in the files of the 5th Chief Directorate of the KGB.

If MHKs can be bothered to read this novel with its exposure of a system which is worthy of the KGB or the Gestapo, will they make efforts to find if this is based on true events, and if so, take steps to end a system which would fit a totalitarian state such as Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, or will they duck for cover?

We have taken the story of the Manx 5th Chief Directorate and its persecution of Vera to the end of November, so what happened next? Did Vera commit suicide? Were there more crises? Did the legal process show any signs of humanity? Did Vera survive and if so, how is she now?

Despite the sadism by Q and QM on their two visits to the home in early September 2015 there was a glimmer of hope. Maria's birthday was in the middle of September, and Vera helped select, wrap and label presents for Maria, and it was clear how thrilled Maria was.

John hoped that with Christmas, Vera would feel such a need to participate in preparing presents, that he might persuade her to take part in the Christmas present ceremony at contact in the role of the Sneguruchka, who, in Russian folklore, is a beautiful girl assistant to Father Christmas or Papa Frost. John had been working to this end. Vera, although distrustful of a husband who had sought to hand her to her enemies, as she saw it, was frightened of how the contact staff would exploit any remark she might make, and even trigger incidents, as in July 2015 at the Mooragh, where a contact worker reduced Olga to tears. Whether John could have succeeded is uncertain, but social services had a sadistic new blow to deliver.

John had informed the court of the damage to Vera, so Social Services were aware of how they had potentially driven a mother to the verge of suicide. A decent normal human being would not seek to put more pressure on a potential suicide, so what did social services do? On 4 December 2015, social worker QM had his own Christmas present for Vera. It was a letter of nine sentences, the most significant of which read, "I must inform you that you are no longer permitted to attend any planned contact sessions at this time." That in effect destroyed any chance of the return for Christmas that John was working towards. Crocodile tears were spilled by QM 'that any new interactions with the children would need to be carefully considered.' In reality, the children asked when they would see mama again, so her return would have been a thrill to them. When Vera showed John this cruel letter, his vision of a Sneguruchka and Papa Frost Christmas for the girls collapsed.

This cruel Christmas present from Social Worker QM plunged Vera into deep distress, and from 4 December onwards, we were not in the festive mood, but on the road to hell. Vera's anguish mounted day by day, but as the response team had been unable to help when he had begged them for help in early November, when she had repeatedly asked for caustic soda, John felt there was no way he could seek mental health support for her. John wondered if some time in our UK home, where she had happy memories and friends who would know the falsity of the charges against her, would help, or a trip to see her parents in Russia would be good. Vera would only do so if John accompanied her, but with contact with the children, he could not do this.

On 30 December, at 9.00am, Vera said she wanted to leave the Island and return to our UK home. As this had happy memories of good people and the Island had horrific memories of the cruel people she is now mixed up with, this is understandable. John had once loved the Island, and devoted time and money to promoting Manx tourism. Now, he will be glad when he can leave it forever.

John arranged a booking for her on 31 December 2015 to fly from Ronaldsway to Birmingham, where we had taken the children each year to a major train show they adored, and then on to our UK home. John would have liked to be with Vera for the New Year, but had two duties, to our children in contact, and to fight for their freedom and happiness in court. Vera was alone for the New Year.

John had shared the information he had with the Court. In a later statement, he suggested the pressure on her had been too much for her to cope with and hoped that Vera could be discharged from the case, and that the authorities needed to back off, if her health was not to be jeopardised.

At 9.00pm on the evening of Monday 4 January 2016, John had a call from the Warwickshire Police that his wife was in a confused state. 95% of the discussion was him giving them information so at the time of his report to the court he had little to say, but it was his belief that she was at the Police station. John told the officer re the caustic soda incident in October 2014 and the officer said he was concerned for her mental health and proposed to contact mental health services, as he did not feel she was safe to be on her own. This would be at about 9.55pm. As the officer seemed to think there was a potential self-harm risk, John advised him of the current care situation and court case and the pressure on Vera. The officer said in his opinion she should be taken to a secure unit to safeguard her. John spoke to Warwickshire police on the morning of 5 January, and an officer said Vera had been taken to Walsgrave hospital for observation.

At 5.10pm on 5 January 2016, PC B phoned John. Vera came into the police station on 4 Jan 2016 and was seen by PC B. He found it very difficult to get any information from her other than her name, the UK address, that she was married, and a DOB which was incorrect. She was reluctant to answer any questions, or make eye contact, but said she wanted the police to find her somewhere to live. He explained the police did not have a duty to provide a home for her as she had two homes, one here and one in the IOM, so he must have been able to ascertain that, despite her reluctance to speak.

As the officer could not meet her request to be found somewhere to live, she said she wanted to go. PC B felt he did not have reasonable grounds to detain her, so allowed her to go. She returned to the police station about 8.00pm after he had booked off duty. The officer who saw her studied the notes by PC B. He said she was unwilling to answer any questions, but an officer had got John's name and phone number in the IOM, hence the phone call about 9.00pm on the evening of 4 January 2016.

The officers decided Vera was distressed, and probably not mentally capable. An ambulance was called and it was decided to take Vera to Walsgrave, where she would have been screened at A+E, and later admitted to Ward 12 Observations. It was PC B's understanding that there would be a mental health assessment carried out, and whilst he could not predict an outcome, he felt it was probable that given her response to him at the police station, to the officer at the later visit, and to the paramedic, that she would be sent to a local mental health hospital. The officer was perceptive enough to say that he felt he was not seeing Vera in her 'normal' state. John said she was shy and corrected the erroneous birth date. PC B said he had been unable to ascertain any reason why she had wanted the police to find her somewhere to live, as she was not homeless. He asked if there were any triggers John could think of. John explained Olga had collapsed as a result of fasting for gastroenteritis on the advice of the GP, and this had been treated as starvation and neglect. He said he knew there was a child care issue, so appreciated that John had openly told him this. John explained of the 1 in 100,000 metabolic explanation and a week later this was diagnosed as Addison's disease. John told him of the letter of 4-12-2015 banning Vera from contact and PC B asked what had been the effect on her mental state. John said it had deteriorated rapidly, and that she had repeatedly asked for caustic soda in October 2015. John had contacted the GP and there had been a referral, but it was decided she did not 'qualify', but after the letter from the social worker banning contact for her in December, her mental state deteriorated rapidly. PC B said the police regularly had to deal with people who were mentally distressed, and Vera showed many of the symptoms and that her life experience over the past 15 months could well explain it, and it was helpful to know. He mentioned there were many signs in her behaviour of a recent mental collapse, and as a police officer one became used to spotting them.

John phoned Observation Ward 12 and they confirmed Olga was there and would be reviewed later that day. Dr S of Walsgrave phoned. She asked as to Vera's mental state prior to the children being taken into care. John said she was shy and quiet but happy. She asked if there was any depression with the other children? There was joy not distress. She said Vera would not speak to anyone, and asked what John's position was re mental health sectioning. He said he did not like the idea, but if it was felt it was in her best interests he would support it. She asked if Vera was discharged was there anyone she could go to? John explained her parents were in Russia and her sister was in the USA, so there was no one locally she could go to. The only information that seems clear is that Vera was not in agreement with voluntary admission or sectioning.

It was only many weeks later when the consultant at St Michael's hospital in Warwick gave evidence that John was able to find out what happened. Dr J, consultant psychiatrist of St Michael's Hospital, Warwick confirmed that an assessment was requested by John on 27-10-2015, with the conclusion that she was not detainable under the Mental Health Act. It will be noted that this was almost two months after Social worker QM, acting in the interests of social services, had tried to pressure John into seeking a mental health review on his wife, and when her condition had deteriorated sharply due to the threats emerging towards her in court of possible arrest and imprisonment. Social worker Q, with her false allegations of low attachment in vitro was also present, so these two social workers were, as usual, not reflecting what health professionals felt was appropriate.

John had done his best on data available to him, but Vera had been admitted to Walsgrave at 00.11hrs on 5 January 2016. Vera had alleged domestic abuse from her husband, i.e. John. When in Walsgrave she had declined all interventions and was intent on going to the Ukrainian Embassy to arrange to return to her parents in Crimea.

At this stage, an important point needs to be made. Crimea was handed to Ukraine Republic of the USSR by Khrushchev in 1954 in return for political favours, although over 60% of the population was Russian, and it had never been a part of Ukraine. From the breakup of the USSR in 1991, the Crimea sought to return to the Russian motherland, but this was refused. Ukrainian president Yanukovich was deposed in February 2014 in a coup to the dismay of Crimea, and demands for independence intensified. In March 2014, Crimea resolved to leave Ukraine and a referendum backed this by a massive majority. Ukraine retaliated by prohibiting cross border movements between Ukraine and Crimea. Vera was aware of this, as her parents live in Sevastopol, but a measure of the emotional stress she was under was that throughout her stay in hospital she kept wanting to go to the Ukraine embassy. Had she gone to Ukraine, she would have been arrested and imprisoned if she had tried to cross to Crimea. Vera was subject to three assessments in Walsgrave, the first two of which decided she was not detainable, but social worker QM, who she had twice refused to see in September, was allowed to speak to her on the phone, and after that conversation, Vera's state was such that it was decided she needed to be detained under s2 of the Mental Health Act.

Vera had told the hospital that the three children were held by IOM Social Services but said they would be fine, 'so long as they were not subjected to the same as her.' She wanted financial help to go to the Ukrainian embassy, but later said she had access to a joint account. John had made sure this account always had over £10,000 in it, so she would never need to feel short of money or ask for money.

When asked if the hospital could contact the police over the domestic abuse allegation, she agreed. In the report by Dr J, there were regular comments about wanting to go back to Ukraine, rather than Russia as was the actual situation. As Vera did not have Russian citizenship, apart from being arrested if she tried to cross the Ukraine-Crimea border she would not be allowed into Russian territory without a visa.

In terms of social isolation, Vera said she was a private person that keeps to herself. She was diagnosed as suffering from adjustment disorder and depression of minor degree. She did not express any suicidal tendencies.

A police interview took place with Vera, and this was passed to the IOM police to investigate as John was at the other family home in Ramsey. John answered all questions fully, the interview running to four tapes. John admitted twice pulling Vera's fingers out of her ears, which was technically an assault but it was to tell her of the threat of being imprisoned for contempt of court. On one occasion John lost his balance as she was on the floor and he fell on top of her. He had been rude to her more than once as he was desperate to get her to understand the risks to herself. With his request for medical intervention in October 2015, Vera felt betrayed by John and her witness statement revealed this. John could understand this only too well. The police did not feel there was evidence justifying charging John with assault, and there was no signs of any injury.

From 5 January 2016, John was of the impression that Vera was in the Caledon mental health unit at Walsgrave. John had assumed she was warm, cared for and in a secure unit, but with patient confidentiality had not been told any details. As the advocate for the department spoke on 1st/4th March of Vera being at St Michaels hospital, this was the first time he became aware of this location. He wrote a letter to Vera saying 'the children and I sent our love' and posted it to St Michaels on 1 March 2016. Eventually this came back marked 'Return to Sender – Not at this Address' with a post office sticker of 16.3.2016. By this time John had found out a great deal more.

On 10 March he received a tip-off that Vera was sleeping rough, and in light of Ms AG's comments of 1-4 March, assumed she had been discharged on or after 5 March. Even so it was worrying she had been sleeping rough for five days. From evidence now to hand, Vera was discharged from St Michael's on 16.02.2016. Having declined temporary council accommodation, she said she would return to the family home. She was discharged from St Michaels at this point although this was unknown to John at the time. If she was in the house, warm and safe, it would have been fine, but Vera had mislaid her keys, so rather than return to St Michaels to see if her keys were there [which they were] she slept rough in the garden, even though it was mid February and very cold. Had John known this, he would have gone to their UK home to rescue her, as she apparently slept in the garden of the UK property from that time. During this time her physical and mental health suffered and she was at risk of assault at night.

John could hardly speak to the police given the lack of information he had, so he phoned a key holder of the property who visited the house on 11 March 2016. Compared to his previous visit, there was a card wallet in the porch with Vera's credit cards/some ten pound notes. When he called out, there was no answer, but knowing how private she is, he did not check upstairs. He left a bag of shopping in case she was short of food and hungry. John hoped she was in the House, as the loss of her keys was then unknown. The key holder returned on Fri 12/03/2016 and nothing had changed, not even the bag of shopping in the hall. John rang Warwickshire police control and gave information about the January events. The officer checked records and said that as a result of a phone call from a sister at St Michaels, who said she was worried about Vera's state of mind, that officers had visited the Midlands house on 4 March but felt they could take no action, but returned on 5 March 2016. At that time, Vera was cleaning the space between paving slabs in the street with a toothpick, and as a result of that visit, Vera had been taken by ambulance. She said that from the records she was unable to say where Vera had been taken. She suggested John ring the house, Walsgrave, and the two mental health units and if there was no trace of Vera, John could report her as a Missing Person.

John contacted the police again and spoke to officer M. He took the officer through events from 04.01.2016 and how she was sectioned. He had a tip she was sleeping rough. The officer opened missing person log 420 of 11.03.2016.

Situation re Vera as at 4.30pm Sat 12/03/2016

Sgt PF of Warwickshire police phoned John about 4.00pm. He requested a photo of Vera, so John sent two good views. From information received Vera was observed by an officer cleaning the gaps between paving slabs with a toothpick on 5.3.16 He felt this was sufficiently strange to justify intervention, as she was in a public place, and she was taken by ambulance to Walsgrave, and remained on Observation ward until 10 or 11 March. Vera has told the Police that St Michaels took her keys from her, but St Michaels say they did not, so this reinforces the impression she may have been sleeping rough. Sgt PF said police visited the house at 2.50am on 12.03.2016 in case she was sleeping indoors and later in daylight, but she was not found on either occasion. John suggested to the officer who phoned him that he could come over if it would help, but he said the police had a better chance of finding her, which is clearly the case.

On 12.03.2016, the keyholder emailed John, about the police borrowing the keys twice, and the constable saying, 'If you don't give Vera exactly what she wants, she's not interested.' This is completely out of character as Vera is a shy sensitive and polite person, and not demanding or bossy.

Wednesday 16 March 2016

John rang police control on 16 March. Alison of the control room said Vera had been taken under s136 to a place of safety, i.e. Walsgrave and then to Caledon. She was assessed as being mentally capable and discharged from Caledon on 12 March. The Bed Manager at Caledon said Vera came to the attention of the police on 12.03.2016, following a report by her husband that she was missing and was reported to be living in the garden. She was taken to Caledon but judged to be mentally capable and left Caledon on foot. After John sent the photos to Sgt PF, Vera was spotted about 5.00pm on foot in Church Lawford village on 12.03.16. She had apparently slept the night in Binley Woods outside Coventry. The police were concerned about her physical condition and possible starvation so an ambulance was called and she was taken to a place of safety, i.e. Walsgrave, where her blood sugar etc was checked. Sgt PF said they had done what they could to get her immediate care, as she seemed to be run down. Caledon decided she was mentally capable and she was discharged at 11.55pm so would be wandering around Coventry late at night on 12 March. Sgt PF said they were worried about her, but if Caledon keep discharging her, there was little they can do.

The Police were happy for John to visit. He decided to cross to the mainland on the evening of Tues 22 March on the 19.45 boat, and return on the 02.15am sailing on Saturday 26 March which will get him to the IOM in time for contact so the only missing contact is Thursday. He notified the police station, 'This means I could call in to see you on Wednesday 23, Thursday 24 or the early part of Fri 25th.'

John received a phone call from PC RR at Warwickshire Police on Friday 18 March asking for some jpgs of Vera as they were worried about her. On the evening of Fri18/Sat 19 March John had several phone calls. The first was that search teams were combing Brandon Woods and Binley Woods and had obtained the key for the house from the key holder and had searched the house.

At 10.41am on Sunday, 20 March 2016, John received the proposed draft of a police missing persons enquiry, 'Police are growing increasingly concerned for the whereabouts of a missing woman from xxxxx. Vera Stevenson, aged 39, was last seen leaving University Hospital Coventry at around 11.55pm on 12 March 2016. She is described as a white woman, around 5ft 5ins tall and of a slight build, with blue eyes and light brown hair, tied back. She was last seen wearing trousers, a weathered black leather jacket and worn looking flat black shoes, she is also known to carry a light coloured small holdall and several plastic water bottles. Vera is shy in nature and does not like to speak to strangers. Vera lives in the town centre but police believe she may have travelled to the Binley Woods area, near Coventry and may try to make her way back to xxxx on foot. She has also recently spoken of travelling to London. If you have seen Vera or have any information which could help please call police quoting reference 384

John cannot praise the Warwickshire Police too highly for their efforts.

Wednesday 23 March 2016

John travelled on the night steamer on 22 March, arriving home about 6.00am after a 150 mile drive. He was understandably tired but planned to ring the Warwickshire police about 10.00am. They had sent him an email, 'When you arrive are you are able to either attend the front office at xxxxx Police Station? failing that if you call 101 for Warwickshire Police and then ask to be put through to the Duty Sergeant we will make arrangements to see you.' At 9.20am he had a phone call from Sgt H who asked him to call in at the police station as Vera had been found. This was wonderful news.

When John arrived at the police station, Sgt H said he was new to the case, so could John go through events with him. John summarised the care case including the starvation allegations re Olga, the finding of Addison's, the evidence by Dr Z and that Vera was a good mother. He outlined the emotional impact on her by social services in Sept 2014, and the trigger that caused her to stop attending contact in July 2015, the harm to their relationship by the social workers demanding to visit the house in September 2015 despite Vera's opposition, the caustic soda episode, and her rapid decline in Dec 2015. He was aware of the Rugby events thereafter.

Sgt H said Vera had been found locally, and taken to Walsgrave and he had an officer there, and had impressed on Walsgrave that Vera should not be discharged, if the hospital reached such an opinion, until the police had time to implement some other plan, or she would go missing again.

This was wonderful news as John had said this repeatedly, and now a police officer was looking to solve the problem. John asked if he was aware of the assault allegations. He was and asked if John had been interviewed which was at Ramsey on 7 March 2016, which was the first time John had heard of this. Sgt H asked if any action had been taken. John said PC L was reporting back, but the impression John gained was that the police did not feel there was a case to answer. John admitted pulling Vera's fingers out of her ears which is an assault but his conduct was to try to get her to understand the severity of the threat to her. Sgt H made the wise point that you could get someone to hear, but not necessarily to listen, so was it useful? He was of course right. It was not useful. John stressed that he believed much of Vera's actions since December and the cruel letter from QM banning contact, was because Vera felt the whole world was against her. Some of her conduct was illogical, as with the repeated references to Ukraine, when she knew it was now Russia. John's duty, as she saw it, was to protect her, and if her husband ever 'agreed' with the enemy, even if it was in her overall interest, then he was her enemy too. John was adamant to Sgt H that Vera was not a demanding person, nor was she trying to mislead the police. It was the nightmare she had been pitch forked into.

John agreed that pulling her fingers out of her ears had served no purpose, and was an assault, but it was done for her own good, in the way a police officer might grab a potential suicide about to jump off a bridge. Sgt H asked John for impressions of the interview? He said Pc L seemed to think Vera was confused over dates and the curious assault which was 'triggered' by the photo of Vera on her 21st birthday. John repeated that PC L implied that no action was likely. From his response, Sgt H seemingly shared this view.

Sgt H asked If John wanted to be reunited with Vera. He said 'very much so'. Vera's sister Zhenya was coming over from the USA to help. He knew that Vera's parents were happy for her to go to Crimea if that will help her recuperate. John said a friendly place with her parents would in his opinion be beneficial for her.

Sgt H's original plan was to arrange a phone call between John in Rugby and Vera at Walsgrave, but she preferred to meet her husband at Rugby Police station. John asked Sgt H what did he suggest if Vera raised the assault allegations again? He said he did not wish to put words in John's mouth but in his view, John needed to reassure Vera that the little ones and John cared for her. He said he would try to keep both parties on track looking to the future. John promised to follow his lead.

An officer bought Vera to the police station, and the couple met in a police interview room with this officer and Sgt H. Vera spoke very quietly and looked down most of the time, seldom looking at John or the officers. Vera returned to the assault claims, but Sgt H tried to divert her to the future. At one stage Vera said she would not go to the house on her own, but only with John, which seemed promising. Sgt H sought to confirm she would go to the house with her husband, but she then said no. John asked if an officer accompanied us, would she go to the house. She said no. John said he needed to collect his medication bag from the hall, but he could put that in the garage pro tem, and if he left the house, would she stay there? She said no.

To reassure Vera, Sgt H said John would be arrested if there were any grounds, such as hitting her. Vera said John wanted to kill her, which he had never suggested. During the meeting she picked at one hand, and the flesh was raw and bleeding in two places. John recalled this is a symptom of emotional stress. Vera looked haggard, undernourished and dirty as one might expect.

John asked if she had her keys and she claimed St Michael's had taken her keys. John said he had a spare house key which she could use, and if she wished he would hand his house key to her, or to Sgt H, so he would have no access to the house. She rejected this. Sgt H said they could find her temporary accommodation, so would she accept that? She said she preferred to sleep on the street, which he said was a risk. Sgt H asked if John could give her any money to help her. He had about eighty pounds on him, and offered this to her, but she refused it.

After a long discussion, Sgt H asked to speak to John separately. He said because of the state she was in she had turned down everything we had spoken of before she arrived and other things, for example John surrendering his keys. He said if John went home for a rest he would try to get her to a place of safety.

24 March 2016

John phoned Sgt H the following morning. He said after a long discussion Vera had agreed to him booking three nights B+B for her, but as soon as he had done so she changed her mind, saying she wished to sleep rough again. As Vera had been discharged from Caledon, he said he did not have legal grounds to detain her. Rather than let her walk out the door and be 'lost' an officer had returned her to the place she had been found and already officers had visited her in the morning and she was still there and 'all right.' This was unconventional but brilliant. John did not ask where Vera was as he felt Sgt H should not tell him, and If he went there on his own initiative, it might make Vera bolt. Sgt H said it was getting beyond being a police matter, as all they could do was to take her to Walsgrave, and if she was discharged they had no further powers. He felt the last hope was probably her sister Zhenya. At about 1.00pm John went to have a meal and when he returned Zhenya was on the doorstep! John took her through the situation re Vera, including the emotional harm from the social workers, how Vera had stopped attending contact, and the fingers in ears episode.

John phoned Sgt H and took Zhenya to the police station. Sgt H saw her and they agreed one of his officers would take Zhenya to where Vera was. He suggested John return to the house. About two hours later, Zhenya and Vera came to the house. We had a meal together as it seemed her food intake the whole day had been a Snickers bar. She seemed to be very hungry.

This chapter opened with the relentless pressure by social services on Vera and her steady emotional collapse which played into their hands, but is a victim to blame when that happens? John was in a catch 22 position. If he always supported Vera, even when she was wrong, it would be exploited by contact staff to curry favour with their masters. If he criticised her, the parents were arguing, which is why such situations are set up to trap parents.

By seeming to side with 'the enemy', this made Vera distrustful, and intensified her isolation. The sadistic actions in court with threats she would be forcibly taken to court and compelled to testify, which goes against every principle of law in every civilised country, had a bad effect. John had no doubts of the brutality of the system, and Vera would be imprisoned if she did not comply, which he felt would be a disaster for her, given her emotional state. He had tried to put this to the court, but with no success. To save her from prison, he had assaulted her. As Sgt H said, you can force someone to hear but not to listen to you. It served no purpose. The evil letter banning Vera from contact, which the department claimed was 'taken out of context,' though readers have seen the clear wording, led to a rapid decline. She was sectioned and discharged, but without her keys, slept rough. The Warwickshire police had once intervened to protect her on 5 March 2016 but she was discharged.

A better outcome was possible through her sister, Zhenya and Sgt H of the Warwickshire Police. John cannot praise these outstanding people highly enough.

After the meal when Vera returned home, John put forward several options. [a] He had to return to IOM on 25-03-16 for contact and the court, and Vera and Zhenya could come with him to the IOM. [b] He would return to the IOM but Vera and Zhenya would remain in Rugby, and John could return to Rugby later or not, as Vera wished. [c] Mam and Pap had suggested a trip to Crimea might help her recover, and John was happy to pay for this. There was a fourth option, that she return to the forest, but John did not suggest this to her. Although Vera had repeatedly said she wanted to return to Crimea per the medical report, she declined the idea of going to Crimea, although Zhenya and John suggested it might help her. She spoke of returning to the forest, but her preference was for her and Zhenya to accompany John to the IOM on 25/26 March.

Zhenya made the logical suggestion it would help the children if Vera saw them in contact on 26 March. This is certain, and Zhenya's presence at contact would help the children and Vera. In light of QM's letter on 4.12.2015, banning Vera from contact, John had to tell Zhenya this would not be allowed. Understandably, Zhenya found it hard to believe that such evil existed in an allegedly democratic country that pours mud on Russia for civil rights abuses. She did not accept it until he showed her the copy on his laptop. It showed the IOM to be as evil and repressive as the USSR at its worst, when a mother is not allowed to see her own children. Zhenya said the place must be run by fascists. John could not find any grounds to disagree with her.

John put all of this to the court to show how a sister's love and a wise police officer had saved Vera from the peril social services had put her in. He suggested to the court that there can be no possible harm to the children if Vera and Zhenya are allowed to attend contact, and humbly begged the court to make a direction that if Vera and Zhenya come to the Island that they be given the same rights of access to the children as John had. This would have been a confidence building measure. The plea fell on stony ground and was ignored by the court. Do MHKs feel this reflects well on the Island or the court, or was Zhenya right that the place is run by fascists, as she uses the word.

If Vera had any substantial fears of her husband, would she have returned to the house with her sister Zhenya if John was present? John had said to Zhenya in front of Sgt H that if Vera expressed any such fears he was quite willing to leave the house so it was just Vera and Zhenya present. Vera and Zhenya were tired on the night of 24 March.

The following day, the plan was for the three of them to cross to the IOM. Vera wanted to consider what we took to the Island as she thought we would never return to the UK home. John repeatedly said we would return to our UK home and told her how his original plans to sell the house sometime in the future were ended as (a) Olga had strongly begged him not to, and (b) if she opted to live away, then UK home would be logical and he would finance it for her. Just before 4.00pm, John contacted the IOMSPCo and paid the fares for Vera and Zhenya. Later Vera decided not to come to the Island. Zhenya tried to persuade her to do so to no avail, and this remained the position when he left at 6.00pm to catch the boat.

After his return to the IOM, John attended contact. He phoned Vera and Zhenya answered the phone and said Vera wanted him to return as soon as possible to the UK. This had to fit in with contact and court so took a few days. This was with a view to her returning to the IOM, but on this later visit, the return again fell through.

John visited Vera regularly in their UK home, and she had recovered sufficiently to do quite a lot of painting of windows. On at least three occasions she agreed to return to the Island, but then decided not to after tickets had been purchased by John. In 2017, Vera's parents visited from Sevastopol and Vera and her parents spent most of the visit in the IOM. Following the visit she agreed to return to the Island and from the late summer of 2017 have been living with John in their IOM home.

When Vera returned to the IOM, a psychiatrist and a nurse were appointed to see her. The nurse made valiant efforts to see what objections social services had to more contact between mother and daughters. These were ignored. At first, visits by Vera to the nurse were every two weeks, but as she got to know Vera better, and observed improvement, they dropped to every four weeks and in June 2019, Vera was discharged from such supervision.

A novel where the children remain prisoners, is an unfinished work, but this chapter at least is a glowing tribute to the Warwickshire police, Vera's sister, her parents, and her IOM psychiatric nurse. There are good people as well as bad people. John would like to pay tribute to Vera. She is uncompromisingly honest, even though this is used to discredit her. As we have seen she can be stubborn, but it is not evil stubbornness, born of guilt and arrogance, as with social services. When John had a heart attack and a stroke, the doctors saved his life with their medical treatment. Vera led him back to an active life, and three years after his heart attack, he climbed to the top of North Barrule with Vera at his side.

This beneficial result was possible through the compassion and wisdom, first of Sgt H of the Warwickshire police, who went far beyond the call of duty to look after Vera. When Sgt H and John were unable to persuade her to come back to the UK home, Zhenya prevailed. Zhenya and John failed to persuade Vera to come to the IOM, but her parents did so. **Social Services in 2019 repaid this wonderful couple through their apparatchiks by forcing Aleks and Valya to sit outside the contact centre for three hours as they were denied permission to attend contact with their grandchildren.**

Valya, who was a retired senior school teacher said they were fascist in the Russian sense of using the word, which means dictatorial and cruel. No reasonable person could argue that denying contact to grandparents who live over 1000 miles away and can seldom see their grandchildren is dictatorial and cruel. John said to his mother in law that he agreed with what she said.

He was brought up to love and revere the Isle of Man. Once he would have been horrified if someone had called the IOM a fascist state, but what other word accurately defines a state where the government permits a government agency to drive a woman to a nervous breakdown and to refuse grandparents a rare chance to see their grandchildren?

This chapter could have been written about Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945, or the Soviet Union during the era of psychiatric punishment of dissidents. It seems out of place in the picture postcard Isle of Man. Are members of Tynwald proud to be part of the Fascist State of Mann?

John can at best be a whistle blower, revealing the evil behind closed doors, and whilst he has used anonymity and a novel to sooth official fear of exposure of an identifiable case, will officialdom be so enraged that they seek revenge?

Nobel prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu said, 'If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.'

The Manx Elephant of oppression may stamp on John, but what better cause to be stamped on that the freedom of children, not just John and Vera's children, but ALL the child victims of a cruel regime. John climbed a real mountain with Vera at his side in 2007; Twelve years later he says to the good people of the Isle of Man, 'We can climb the mountain of oppression and slay the dragon, but it will take every good man and woman on the Island to overcome the self interest and arrogance of the guilty and the cowardice of those who keep silent or look the other way.'

## Chapter 10 Social Services Cruelty to Children 2016

2016 progressed much as 2015 had done, with social services fabricating evidence of low attachment between the parents and the children, whilst the children produced vast numbers of cards and letters, especially to their mama who they had not seen since July 2015. The output of one single contact session was twenty cards, letters and drawings **. Although this was first hand evidence of the falsity of the low attachment claims, and was submitted to the court, so they had real evidence of deep attachment, the Court paid little heed to it. When the children knew mama was in hospital in the UK, where she was well treated, their wish to comfort her and reassure her mushroomed.**

Social Services and their fellow travellers in the Contact Centre committed endless cruelties on the children, causing them real distress, and John regularly complained. The complaint's procedure is intended to whitewash any complaint, not to investigate impartially or reprimand wrongdoing, so using the complaints procedure is a waste of time so far as righting a wrong is concerned. Why do it? There were several reasons. John had hoped the IOM Court would pay attention to such misconduct, so it was important that it was all documented with the wriggling by social services to explain it away. Secondly it might be sensible at some time to appeal beyond the IOM 'justice' system to the UK court or the European Court of Human Rights. At that time, John was unaware that although the ECHR had ruled that a fair trial had been prejudiced in Saunders v UK, he was not aware that this had not resulted in the convictions being regarded as unsafe. Thirdly when the children are free, it was important they should have a record of the crimes against humanity perpetrated against them by the IOM authorities and know that their parents had not abandoned them to their oppressors. As it happened there was a fourth reason, but that had not occurred to anyone at the time.

What happened to John's children is a travesty of justice. How could this be? During the early 1990s, a series of high-profile cases in the UK turned out to be miscarriages of justice. Many resulted from police fabricating evidence to convict people they thought were guilty, or simply to get a high conviction rate. It led to disbandment of The West Midlands Serious Crime Squad in 1989, as it had become notorious for such corrupt practices. In this case we have seen how police officers sought to put words in Vera Stevenson's mouth and to get her husband to confirm Olga should have been at a weight that would have made her seriously obese. Richard Foster, the Chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), reported in October 2018 that the single biggest cause of miscarriage of justice was the failure to disclose vital evidence.

The conduct of the IOM police is dubious from this case, but the police are hampered in fabricating of evidence by rules on taping interviews, which enabled John to expose much that was suspect here. Cases are heard in public and before a jury. Families attacked by Social Services have no such safeguards. They are heard in secret with no jury, so safeguards that have been adopted throughout the civilised world are denied children who have been kidnapped. If the chairman of the CCRC could refer to failure to disclose vital evidence as the biggest single cause of a miscarriage of justice, how much more likely is that with social services, where there are no safeguards of any sort?

The reason for this novel is to expose the risk to every family with children or grandchildren in the Isle of Man. With the secrecy orders which prohibit anyone from revealing the identity of kidnapped children, I have followed Sir Compton Mackenzie's lead with a novel based on someone's experiences. If the Manx public believe it is based on a true story, and if they care about children, they have the power to force MHKs to listen or lose their seats to better men and women. The public can sweep away this evil system, hence the need to document it, and to expose the sustained cruelty to the children in this novel. Were 'John's' children subject to unusual cruelty, or have other kidnapped children been similarly maltreated?

The abuse of children in Ireland in church orphanages, and of children in Scotland is well documented now, and the Island has been unable to conceal the abuse of children in care at Knottfield. I suspect it is but a hint of the cruelties inflicted on children in the IOM. If the distress caused to Olga, Tatiana and Maria is to serve any positive purpose, then through this novel, if we can sweep away this evil system, some good will have come of it. Uncle Tom's Cabin precipitated such a backlash against slavery that change became inevitable. If my story of John's children can set off a similar 'bomb' under the wrongdoers, and see the Manx 'Justice' system reformed so 'Justice' is appropriate in the title, it will have been a worthwhile task.

Without making this novel too long, I cannot cover every incident in full depth, so all I can do is to give a flavour of official cruelty to children, so we will cover incidents in 2016 as the court case was progressing and as the court studiously ignored the mounting evidence of wrongdoing.

Contact Thur 21 April 2016

All three children made a beeline for the new clothes John had bought for them prior to leaving the UK in 2013. He told them the clothes had been found by mama. They adore these new dressing up clothes which include black school dresses similar to the school dress Vera is wearing in the photo John takes to contact of mama's first day of school. He had brought a red painted box of the Grand Kremlin palace, which Olga was thrilled at and she again watched the film shot inside the Georgievskiy Hall. Her most significant remark, and this is at least the third occasion she has said this, was, 'Please keep the [UK] House dada – We can go there from time to time.' John had planned to sell the Rugby house, but Olga is so devoted to it that he promised her that he had no intention of selling their UK home. Tatiana played on the floor sticking 'jewels' on floral shapes, some for mama, and others for John. She said John was the best dada in the whole world, and mama was the best mama in the whole world. She said she was going to tell Social worker QM that she wanted to come to the house. With the Russian music on, the contact worker did not hear what was said, as he asked, 'Had the social worker said she could go to the house?' Being closer to her, John explained she had told the social worker she wanted to go to the house.

Tatiana said the social workers did not want them ever to return home, and this was the first time in months John had seen her starting to crack and lose hope. Whether this was something the social worker said to Tatiana, or the foster carer said, is not something he can determine. Given how distressed she was, John told her that one thing you never do is to give up. At a later contact she said proudly, 'I'll never give up dada.' This shows the distress caused by social services to the girls and their devotion to mama and their Russian heritage. If the Russian people knew of the heroism of the three half Russian girls they would be proud of them. To John's mind, he has Three Gold Star Heroines of Russia. It is unlikely they will be able to read these words, other than surreptitiously, whilst they remain prisoners, but hopefully they will read them eventually.

Saturday 23 April 2016 contact

The girls played with pretend paper money including a £5620 'note'. Tatiana said to a contact worker that if she was allowed to go home to mama and dada she would owe them 'that much' pointing to the £5620 note. She repeated to him that the social workers do not want her to come home, but she wanted to come home to mama and dada as she loved us. She asked if dada knew why she said she would owe the contact the staff the money, explaining it was because she loved her parents and wanted to return home. She said she had asked to see 'ES' as she wanted to tell her how much she wanted to come home. This could suggest that Tatiana recalls the way ES had attempted to brainwash her that Vera and John had not cared for Olga properly, and she wanted ES to know how much she wished to come home. It would have been wrong for John to tell her how ES had put in her report that she was writing in support of the department, which even embarrassed the court, as it showed she was in no way impartial.

John said nothing about how ES had 'interpreted' her duty as being to follow the party line. At this stage, as Tatiana thought how ES had brought pressure on her she was very sad, so John told her she had to 'look on the bright side.' She replied 'she would never give up hope.' Olga was nearby and added that 'We will all never give up hope, dada.' It is interesting that Olga felt she needed to reassure Tatiana that giving up was not an option, as she sensed Tatiana needed cheering up. Tatiana rallied and said she loved dada and whilst she missed him when he went to court she knew it was so important, as she knew the social workers did not want her to come home.

Even social workers admit the girls are intelligent, but the remarks by Olga and Tatiana show how perceptive children can work out how social workers are plotting to break up a family. The Minister for Child Kidnapping, may like to excuse the distress this will cause to children, as he is responsible under the doctrine of ministerial responsibility for the emotional abuse his staff inflict on children.

Contact xx-04-2016 Tatiana's Birthday.

Contact took place on xx April 2016, the latter being the day before Tatiana's birthday, hence the date is concealed, and she had been saying for almost a month how thrilled she was that she would have contact on her birthday. When John arrived at the Cottage Hospital, the usual booking sheet DID NOT include the bookings and he spoke to the hospital Secretary and she said the last booking had been for two days previously, and no further booking had been made. It seems the Department had hoped they would have abducted the children by that date. The Hospital staff found a small interview room which was cramped, even though Maria had been taken home ill from school, so it was just Olga and Tatiana who were present. Despite the limited space, the family enjoyed contact. When John returned to the house around 6.00pm, John had an email from social worker QM saying he planned to attend contact the following day. As it would be Tatiana's birthday and she knows QM wants to break up the family, this was cruel. John emailed QM re the lack of bookings and asked him to defer his visit to some less important day. QM ignored the request which was a dampener on the birthday.

Contact day xx1 and xx2 2016 Nobles hospital

The pressure by social worker Ms Q had finally led to a tonsillectomy for Tatiana and Maria. On xx1 in hospital, the girls did not mention anything about the operations, so to what extent they had been told of the operation was unclear, so the meeting in the two bed side ward at Nobles was unreal in many ways. Maria thought the bed in the hospital was wonderful and said she never wanted to leave it, which hardly suggests any great affection for the foster home! Tatiana, when Maria said she did not want to leave the bed, announced she wanted to leave the bed to go home to mama and dada. This was in the hearing of QM and John thinks was aimed primarily at QM, as Tatiana is aware of his wish to break up the family. She hugged John when it was time to leave.

On xx2, the day after their tonsillectomies, John brought the girls a mermaid doll and a pendant. Maria was receiving Calpol for pain relief and was lively. Tatiana had a nose bleed and light spotting of blood from her mouth, and was very 'low' when John arrived. Tatiana wanted to sit on the bed and Maria initially sat on the floor so John moved between the two girls. After a while, a staff nurse removed the canula from Tatiana's foot, and put a plaster on, but Tatiana felt another plaster would help as part of the wound could still be seen and was upsetting her. Medically the plaster was unnecessary but emotionally it would help her. As Maria was now sitting on John's lap and Tatiana was hugging him, John asked QM if he could speak to the staff nurse. He came over to have a look and made a long explanation as to how air would help the wound heal. This did not help Tatiana emotionally, but had he looked properly, he would have seen the transparent surround of the band aid was in contact with the wound, so no air was getting to the wound as he was suggesting. In the end he resentfully agreed to speak to the staff nurse. When she came, John said there was no medical need, as she could see, but emotionally he felt it would reassure Tatiana. She made a careful study of the wound to reassure Tatiana and agreed a plaster would help. The contrast between the kindness of medical staff and social services staff is marked.

Dubious Medical Conduct of Social Services

A letter was received on 17 May 2016 suggesting a change of consultant for Olga. This was contrary to good medical practice, so John immediately protested.

'I read your letter regarding the proposed transfer of Olga from the care of Dr Z to Dr SA with deep concern. Whilst I do not criticise Dr SA, Dr Z was involved with Olga from her first admission to Nobles on 17-09-2014. He has an unrivalled knowledge of Olga and had monitored her closely and I am sure you will agree that this first-hand experience should not be lightly discarded. Dr Z has an excellent manner with children and has won Olga's trust and that in a patient/doctor relationship is important, especially with a child with a life threatening condition. The medical grounds for such a transfer would seem dubious, and with the care case imminent, it is a difficult time for her, which is another reason to question such a move

If the medical grounds are open to doubt, one has to look at events since the summer of 2015. The then social worker Ms Q made repeated efforts to have Olga transferred from Dr Z and did so in front of Dr Z, who was, as ever, most conciliatory. There would seem to have been no sound medical reason for this, other than that Dr Z seems to have treated Olga's best interests as paramount, rather than accepting what the social worker, who is not medically qualified, demanded.

On 25 September 2015 there was an unpleasant attack from Crookall House on Dr Z, and he replied in his letter of 29 September **, 'I do agree that Olga's case is a complex one, however as I have made my views abundantly clear, I sincerely believe Olga is a child in need and she really needs to be reunited with her family.'**

I can appreciate that this statement of Olga's needs can hardly be welcome to Social Care, nor would the statement by Dr Z in evidence in the current hearing that had the diagnosis of Addison's disease been before him on 19-09-2014, his evidence would have been very different.

I suggest that the gravest doubts must exist over this attempt to remove a dedicated paediatrician from the care of my daughter and shatter the patient-doctor bond.

If, as I hope I am successful in securing the freedom of Olga, Tatiana and Maria, there can be no call for Dr Z to be removed as I have confidence in him and so does Olga. If the case drags on, I suppose you can do as you like.

Naturally no reply was received to this letter. Paradoxically it weakened the case of Ms Q over tonsillitis, which was why she wanted to get rid of Dr Z, as Dr SA considered the medical issues and in conjunction with Alder Hey agreed there was no case to risk Olga's health just to pander to a social worker.

Contact 19 May 2016

One touching moment was that John decided to award Tatiana and Maria a Gold Star and put a Gold Star on their tops. Tatiana immediately seized the Gold Star stickers, and decorated John's lapel with sixteen Gold and Silver stars in the way she knows Soviet officers wore their decorations. John suspects she would have decorated his other lapel if he had not explained that Soviet officers only wore decorations down one side of their chest.

The girls opted to watch Masha cartoons for most of the contact, both of them sitting on dada's knee without any squabbling. Tatiana had brought a small folder with pockets she had made, which included a treasure map which ran from Mrs V's house to 'our home. Dada' and it turned out that the treasure was the family home. It was a lovable concept, but heartbreaking to see the emotional abuse that the department has inflicted on such a sensitive child. John told Tatiana that she and her sisters were his treasure.

Tatiana's devotion to her Russian Heritage and to her Dada is manifest. Not just their dada, but the people of Russia have cause to be proud of these three half Russian girls and the UK and the IOM have cause to hang their heads in abject shame. If the Russian people knew of this abuse of children with a Russian mother, would they not be outraged at a fascist island that tortured children into the 1970s?

Contact Sat 28 May 2016

Contact staff see their job as providing evidence to social services, who are their paymasters, to break up families, but a few show limited kindness. AH was customarily insensitive and unkind. Contact on 28 May was a Tatiana/Maria contact showing the angelic nature of both children and a typical 'AH' contact showing emotional abuse to the children.

The contact opened with Tatiana, Olga and Maria rushing down the side corridor, Maria saying Olga might not be present for the whole contact as she had been sick. Olga clearly wanted to be at contact, but if Nobles felt she should be seen, that was a priority so for the short time she was in contact John encouraged her to understand that and she responded positively. The original and kindly foster carer said Nobles felt she should come in, so John walked her to the end of the side corridor and she was brave and lively. Social Worker QM had objected to the framed photo of Vera on her first day of school being on the table at contact, although this was to reassure and please the girls. John said he did not think it was right to remove it entirely and QM resentfully accepted it would have to be there on occasion. On Tuesday John did not have Vera's photo on display to comply with QM's dictat, and on Thursday brought a framed photo of himself. Tatiana looked at it with great pleasure, but went to the wheeled case John brings to contact and went through it until she found Vera's photo and placed it beside dada's photo on the table. She then took both photos to show them to the contact staff. QM's motives were to damage the bond with Vera, but his plan backfired as Tatiana went to the case to find the photo of mama, so it emphasizes the close bond. If John had removed the photo of Vera from the suitcase, it would have worried Tatiana, who might interpret it in many disturbing ways.

When John returned to the contact room, Maria came up to him and said, 'We will do a present for Olga, dada.' This is typical of her sweet nature and Tatiana immediately agreed. John asked what did they want to give Olga, as everything he had brought to contact was familiar to Olga. They were not sure, so he suggested that if the contact staff agreed, he could go back to our house and get something. Maria took the lead in saying she wanted this. The contact staff had little option but to agree so John was away for perhaps five minutes, if that.

Olga's favourite colour is blue and we had a Russian Boyarishnya doll in a sky blue outfit, so it seemed logical. The moment Maria saw the doll she said, 'That's a good present dada' and hugged me. Maria wanted to wrap the present so John gave her some bubble wrap and then she wrapped the doll in orange paper. Tatiana made an envelope from paper and a card the message saying, 'We Miss You Olga. Get Well Soon, Love Tatiana Maria, Dada.' John asked if Maria wanted to sign the card but she was working on her own card. It should be noted that the girls had worked together with no squabbling and neither of them had suggested that if Olga had a present, as she was ill, they should also have presents, so there was no selfishness. Later, Maria said it was her idea and felt the 'from Tatiana Maria Dada' message on the envelope did not reflect that. John suggested adding a message 'Maria thought of the present.' This satisfied her, and to reassure Tatiana, John suggested 'Tatiana said Good Idea.' Both children accepted this. At the end of contact, Maria wanted to take the present for Olga to the car, and Tatiana also wanted to do so. This was an 'I love my sister so I should do it' difference. John encouraged both of them to hold the present although Maria was still 'weepy.' He walked down the side corridor with them and peace had been restored. At the end of this side corridor, Maria asked, 'Would dada walk to the end of the main corridor.' Knowing what AH is like, John said he would have to ask. AH said John had been allowed to walk down the side corridor, and if he was allowed to walk along the main corridor, next time it would be something more. John pointed out that Maria was distressed, but it had no effect on AH. Maria refused to leave dada's side and was distressed. To pressure the children into going, the contact staff walked some way down the corridor but Maria refused to leave and clung to dada. As AH was upsetting Maria and we were making no progress, John suggested the foster carer was being delayed in getting back to Olga and that if AH had shown some sensitivity we would have long since been at the end of the corridor. John got the same inflexible and insensitive response. He realized that with someone as indifferent to the distress to Maria as AH is, it was up to John to find a solution that met his dictat but did not distress Maria. The one thing he could rely on was Maria's love for her sister, so he explained that AH would not let dada walk down the corridor, but we needed to think of Olga who was in hospital so would Maria go to the foster carer. Maria and Tatiana both accepted this. It reflects immense credit on Maria and also Tatiana, and shows how insensitive AH is. John drew this to the attention of the court but to no avail. Social worker Ms Q suggests John told the children about bad officials. People like AH, who reduced their mama to tears in front of them as with J, or upset the children as with AH, do leave bad memories. J or AH did this; it was not John who told them AH was bad! Hopefully AH's cruelty will not matter too much, but one never knows, and children who are taught by overbearing officials that officials ARE cruel may grow up to believe all officials are bad. The good are tarred with the same brush as the rotten apples.

Contact on Saturday 4 June 2016

An outside contact had been agreed, but John had not told the girls until they arrived that they were going to the Mooragh. The girls put on dressing up clothes and walked happily from the hospital to the Mooragh. John instructed them about being careful when passing parked vehicles on drives in case someone backed out. At the Mooragh, they played happily at the children's playground. Prior to leaving the hospital John asked AH if it was OK to buy them something at the cafe? He agreed but said the snacks from the foster carer could be left in the hospital. As contact staff prioritise food from fostering over what parents provide John assumed they would have this when they returned. After a while, the second contact worker suggested we go to the cafe. John realised the girls were not allowed a proper meal, so took them past the hot food area. There was a cake stand but he felt cakes would be banned, so he edged them to a soft drink cabinet including fruit shoot. There were other healthier options, but it was clear they would not be allowed. Tatiana was not happy but it was the best John could do for her.

Maria tucked into three mallows. Tatiana was less enthusiastic but John persuaded her to eat two mallows, and a part of the shortbread. She said she was hungry and wanted something else and asked for some sweets. As John has no say in anything he had to refer this to Mr AH, who said no. Tatiana asked for an ice and John has noticed how AH resents it if the girls see he is the one to say no. The answer was no, although there were very small packets of sweets and if John had eaten some as well as Maria, it would have been a negligible amount. Tatiana was hurt that whatever she wanted she could not have, but John persuaded her to eat a couple of tiny pieces of shortbread, but she said she was hungry, and asked for a packet of sweets but John had to say no again. Other parents need to be aware that creating potential conflict between children and their parents is a normal tactic at contact.

AH had reduced Tatiana to tears by now, so it took John a good deal effort to get her to return to the playground. She repeatedly said she was hungry. As she had eaten next to nothing, it is understandable. To calm her, John said she could have the crisps provided by the foster carer when we returned to the hospital. AH was adamant that she could not have the crisps! Tatiana repeatedly begged for crisps and raised the matter several times. As the family was now on the sloping path to the exit and John needed to divert her, he pointed out the roof of the building to see how far we had already climbed and suggested a cartoon when we got to the hospital. Tatiana said she wanted something to eat. AH ordered John to stop the conversation even though Tatiana was the one who was saying she was hungry. The family sat on a seat half way up the slope as one of the girls said it was a steep climb. Tatiana said she wanted the crisps yet again. AH instantly called John away and said he had to stop the conversation, or AH would end the contact. John pointed out it was Tatiana who had said she was hungry but he was adamant John had to stop it. How does one humanely stop a child protesting she is hungry? John had to do his best to alleviate Tatiana's distress though she remained tearful until reaching the hospital when John started the computer. Initially she was disinterested but soon sat on dada's knee and soon cheered up looking at some Barbie cartoons.

Since the girls were abducted by the Department, this abuse of power by AH was one of the worst, but on another occasion AH reduced Maria to tears, and she is the most resilient of the three girls. As Tatiana had hardly anything to eat, John could have got her something else at the cafe, but it seemed certain AH would have vetoed anything she wanted. If he was not prepared to allow her to have something she wanted at the cafe, it was emotional abuse to leave her hungry and deny her the crisps at the hospital. John referred to this disgraceful episode in his evidence but it was ignored. It is more damaging that Vera's alleged abuse at Laxey on 18 April 2015 as it left a child hungry

\-------------------------

The contact centre is keen to prevent parents taking photos of their own children, although it may be their only way of having memories of their little ones, or keeping grandparents in touch. John had fought this pointing out it infringed the European Convention so from time to time filming was allowed, but if the contact centre thought they could 'get away with it', they banned photography. When John demanded to see the statutory powers to infringe on the right to family life when not on contact centre property, the manager ignored it, as they have no such powers. If an agreement extorted from parents under duress sought to ban such legal rights, it would not be valid in law. If this were not so, a party with bargaining power, such as an employer could force employees to consent to racial, religious or sexual discrimination, and say that convention rights do not apply as they had been surrendered.

Contact 6 June 2016

When the first contact worker arrived on 6 June, John raised two matters with her, a visit to the nearby St Olaves church and that John had taken photos of the girls at the Mooragh the previous year. A visit to St Olaves was permissible but contact Centre policy at the time prohibited photos by parents of their children and apparently this even extended to a public place. This is infringing the rights under the convention but that is never of any importance. John had the camera bag in the hope of humane conduct and Maria saw it. Tatiana and Maria wanted dada to take their photos. He had to tell them it was not allowed. The contact worker said the contact staff could bring their camera, but Tatiana said 'I want photos on dada's camera.' Tatiana was distressed by this unlawful policy, and asked 'Can you bring your camera to contact tomorrow in case they change their minds, dada?' This suggests that Tatiana wants the photos on dada's camera, and is hopeful that if he raises it with the contact staff they may be humane.

When the family went back to the hospital, they played pass the parcel. As it was TT fortnight, the girls were sometimes delivered late as on this day, but near the end of contact Tatiana, who had already been distressed, was told there was not time for her parcel, It would have taken three or four minutes, and there was some time left in contact, but by the cruelty to Tatiana she was reduced to tears, and eventually left three minutes late, whereas opening the parcel might have overrun by a minute or two. There is not space to report every abusive incident, but so John does not suppress relevant facts, it is fair to say that this cruel intransigence should be contrasted with the reaction of a different staff member at the next contact who was practical and sensible.

Nobles Hospital 8 June 2016

John was asked to visit Nobles hospital on 8 June 2016 and met Dr F at Children's Ward. He said that after a spell when Olga had few visits to hospital, she had gone through a spell of frequent vomiting and admissions and they wanted to send her to Alder Hey for Dr G to probe the problems. He asked John's views and he said he was in favour. Dr F said he understood contact had been arranged after the meeting but explained that the support worker had spoken to Olga, and claimed Olga did not want contact. Dr F twice emphasized that the ward staff had not spoken to Olga, so it was only the word of the support worker. Given how support worker FS and employee ES regularly misrepresent facts to the children, one has no idea if Olga really said this or if her words were manipulated.

Olga had gone into hospital about 31 May 2016 and the department made no efforts to arrange parental visits to a sick child though any caring parent would wish to bring comfort to a little one, so the Department, if it had Olga's best interests at heart, would want to facilitate such contact. It was only when John protested, and said he would treat this as emotional abuse and contrary to the convention that a visit was resentfully agreed. A support worker, rather than a member of hospital staff who could be trusted, had spoken to Olga, with a result which was then totally out of character. Contact between social services staff takes place without any independent verification of the way in which a subject is broached can affect a decision. For example a child could be prompted 'You have to travel to Liverpool, so I expect you're tired.' A Child might then say 'Yes I am.' which could be deemed to be a rejection of a visit.

Readers need to be aware of this technique. In one bundle social worker QM reports of a telephone conversation with Vera Stevenson after her mental breakdown in the UK, 'Mrs Stevenson appeared to accept the proposal.' One has to question the legitimacy of this in light of a passage where Mrs Stevenson is recorded as saying to a hospital worker that she did not see any reason for seeing QM on his visit to St Michaels. QM persisted, contrary to Vera's expressed wish to a health professional, so if an expressed wish of an adult to a health worker is treated as a deemed acceptance, what faith can the court safely place in Olga's decision to refuse a visit as being her true wishes when it is so out of character.

Contact Sat 18 June 2016

Tatiana and Maria arrived at the usual rush; shortly after Tatiana arrived the following dialogue ensued.

Dada mama was very pleased over the name of Vera doll.

Tatiana I wanted to cheer mama up. When you're sad you do not think as well as when you're happy, so I want to cheer her up.'

Dada You are a very clever girl.

Tatiana You are a very clever boy dada.

For a child to work out how an adult may not think well when she is distressed is a remarkable tribute to her intelligence and her compassion.

Contact Monday 20 June 2016

All three girls arrived, Olga coming last as she had visited the toilet. For Olga it was her first contact in weeks. She spent most of the time close to dada, which casts more doubt on her alleged refusal of a contact visit. Contact staff would portray this to their lords and masters as the father neglecting the other children, but Olga very clearly needed reassurance.

The contact centre had brought chicken dippers for the girls to eat and this was perfectly all right. If reference is made to the home visits, Vera and John provided the identical dippers for the children, but warmed, but this was later forbidden which reveals the bias of the care system.

The girls recalled dada used to get Dippers for them.

Olga I adore Dippers dada; I've not had them for ages.

Dada Yes, I used to get Dippers for you.

Olga I remember, but we are not living with you now, but when we come home will you buy them for us.

Dada From time to time, yes of course.

This shows that the girls still hoped for a fair outcome to the court hearing.

Contact Mon 11 & Tues 12 July 2016

Maria came briefly to contact, but was then taken away. There has been no plausible evidence to suggest this was at her wish. Tatiana spent much of the contact doing envelopes for the 'I love you so mush' [sic] folder she made for a previous contact. The girls played S Novym Godom Russian music at the start and end of contact, with Lady and the Tramp requested by Tatiana and agreed to by Olga, but as it happened Tatiana spent most time working on cards.

In Lady and the Tramp an early scene is where the puppy is left alone and night and Olga asked why she was sad? Dada said she was lonely and when Olga and her sisters were small, they wanted to be with mama and dada. Olga immediately said, 'I still like to be with you.'

As a result of Tatiana's comments at contact on Monday 12 July about the school concert, John made a formal complaint against QM.

' _Tatiana said she would be appearing in a school concert before the end of term and said she wanted me to attend, but you had said you would try to see what could be arranged. I am well aware that the school has NEVER made any objections to my attending such events when the children were free or after they were abducted by the Department. I therefore expect tickets for ANY concerts or school sports days for Tatiana, Olga and Maria, and am notifying you that I shall treat any failure on the part of the department to provide such tickets as emotional abuse In June, Miss AG and I agreed a proposed form of wording that I could discuss with people who might be willing to help with a support network for the children for myself. Regrettably she said it would need to be discussed with yourself. A month has now been wasted, during which I could have started to develop a support network. You had the opportunity to sort this matter out and I am formally complaining of this ..... I note that Maria was brought briefly to contact on Monday but was again taken away, although she did not say to me she wished to go. She had said at a previous contact in the hearing of the deputy manager of the contact centre that she wished to attend every contact. As there is no reliable evidence that she has ever suggested she does not wish to attend contact, I am drawing this to the attention of the court as an infringement of Art 6 which is the right to a decision by the court in a reasonable time. To abduct children from their parents for 2 years is not reasonable, and a court hearing with 30 days in a whole year is manifestly a breach of article 6. .....I would point out that as you knowingly sat by whilst the foster carer misinformed Alder Hey as to the incidence of tonsillitis, which was 3 or 4 incidents (7.5-10%) and not the 50% she alleged, I can place no faith in anything you may say. As the evidence of ES shows Tatiana was subject to misleading and unproven brainwashing by a member of the department, I cannot accept any alleged comments from any other member of the department or persons associated with the department.'_

Social worker QM finally agreed I could attend the concert on Thursday 14 July, but it was clear that whilst Tatiana was thrilled that I would be attending the concert on 14 July, she was distressed that no one had turned up at her first concert on 12 July. This distress to a child is further evidence of the indifference of the foster carer AND by the social worker. It is clear abuse of a child, but typical of IOM Social Services.

\----------------------------

Medical Meeting 25/08/2016

John reported, 'Contact was moved from Thursday to Saturday for a medical meeting. As soon as I arrived, Olga wanted to sit on dada's lap in the waiting area and did so until the party went to see the doctors, Dr G from Alder Hey and Dr SA from Nobles. Olga wanted to sit on dada's lap in the consultation room, but foster carer Mrs V ordered her to sit on Mrs Vs lap, so she had no choice. There was no need for such cruelty. The doctors asked many questions and Dr SA said tonsillitis was an issue they had needed to consider, but Olga's hearing had improved and that had been one reason for a tonsillectomy, which was no longer needed. She had not vomited for weeks, and even the level of disturbed sleep she had would not be sufficient given the risks. He felt they needed to continue to monitor the situation. Neither Social Worker QM nor Mrs V commented, but Mrs V did complain that they had not always had the right medical help when they needed it. The doctors both felt Olga looked better, and asked John's views. He said that Dr Z had needed to treat her in an emergency, and had gradually to refine her treatment, but from my late father who was a GP in civil life and a consultant in the army, I understood that treating a complex case took time. Dr G agreed this was so. John suggested that with the help of Alder Hey, this had been achieved and this was what had made the difference. Dr G said that Addison's is an insidious disease often not detected until an Addisonian crisis. During that time the body's glycogen levels, which are the sugar reserve, are depleted and other defence mechanisms are weakened. The doctors said that the long spell without vomiting had helped Olga restore her reserves. Both doctors agreed it was an exceptionally complicated case. Mrs V stressed how much better Olga was now, as if this was due to their care, rather than fine tuning of her medication. **Interestingly she made one significant and damning admission, that the last time Olga was unconscious was in October 2015. This was after that date of the fostering report by fostering and unconsciousness or semi unconsciousness was linked with low blood sugar levels in Dec 2014 and Aug 2015, but this episode has been kept secret by the department from me and the court until mentioned by Mrs V on 25-08-2016 to reflect credit on herself. Utter trivia has been reported by the department to denigrate the parents, but there is no record of this important episode being covered. This indicates how selective the department is in reporting facts that reflect its own negligence, and how unreliable its evidence is.** The only reason I became aware of it was that it was mentioned in passing by Mrs V to reflect credit on herself that Olga had not fallen unconscious since October 2015. As the foster carer does not receive the court bundles, it is to be presumed that she did not realise the significance of such an admission as it shows how the department which she works for indirectly has concealed material facts from me as parent and from the court. The doctors agreed vomiting was a significant problem but were relieved that the level of vomiting had declined. From what Dr SA stated, this reduced the case for a tonsillectomy given the risks to Olga. Dr G was adamant that Olga's cortisol levels were now excellent and low cortisol levels were NOT a trigger for her vomiting, but it was very complex. As in her letter, which I introduced as evidence to the court, she said Olga had a complex life style. I would have liked to take this up with her, but I believe Olga has always received excellent medical treatment, but I am mindful of the way the Department moved to eliminate Dr Z from the case as he did not agree with the Department's opinions. I therefore felt it might not be in Olga's interest to take the complex life issue up with Dr G. If she said anything that supported me, it might be used as an excuse to remove her from Olga's medical team.'

On 24 August 2016, Olga weighed 22.3 Kg and was 116.2cm tall. The social worker, Ms Q bragged in her report of 15-04-2016 at para 2.3 that Olga 'now weighs around 25.4kg and her height is 113.4cm when she was seen by medical staff about a month ago.'

Ms Q carefully omitted to mention that Dr G had commented that excessive doses of hydrocortisone often made someone feel well, but could cause them to put on excessive weight, and might have long term detrimental effects. Dr G and Dr SA returned to both themes on 24-08-16 and were happy with Olga' weight of 22.3kg, which is a loss of no less than three kg.

Readers will recall that a purely fictitious weight loss of around 1 kg was a part of the department's case for the alleged neglect by John and his wife from December 2013 to April 2014, but Olga has, on the real figures from Nobles lost between two and three times that weight between April 2016 and August 2016. Putting the two figures into context, there was an alleged but fictitious weight loss of 1.3kg when Olga was in her parents' care which was used as a justification for removing her from her parents and a definite weight loss of 3.1kg over a comparable period in 2016 when in the 'care' of the department. If John were as selective in presenting warped facts as the department is, it could imply the negligence of the department. In reality it suggests that the excessive weight gain when the steroid dose was high has now been lost which is to Olga's benefit.

In her report for 15-04-2016, Ms Q alleged 'Whilst fully understanding the risks involved in this procedure for Olga, there are differing medical opinions as to the need for this operation. Although John had pointed out that Alder Hey had been given incorrect data by the foster carer, with the knowledge of social worker QM, which could well have caused the difference of opinion between Dr Z and Alder Hey, social worker Ms Q suppressed this important fact from her report.

John had said in December 2015, that he would be in favour of an operation IF professional opinion was unanimous based on accurate data. He did not think an operation was justified on inaccurate data, merely to please a social worker. At the meeting on 24 August 2016, Dr SA pointed out that several of the plus factors for an operation had diminished or disappeared and with the correct data before her on the actual incidence of tonsillitis, Dr G did not disagree with the 'wait and see' approach that John had advocated, and that Dr Z had proposed. Had John not resolutely opposed an operation based on flawed data which was negligently presented by the foster carer with the knowledge of QM, Olga might have been subjected to a hazardous operation which is currently no longer seen as urgently necessary. There are no longer any differing medical opinions, as Alder Hey and Nobles are now conversant with the true facts. That is thanks to the steps John took. **It is in no way due to the social worker or foster carer who jointly misled Alder Hey.**

John's report sets out this new revelation about a third collapse when Olga was a prisoner. John feels it is vital in the interests of every child who is potentially at risk of falling in the clutches of IOM Social Services that MHKs are aware of this shameful episode, and know that the electorate is also aware of it. Hopefully the electorate will not desert the children of the Island if MHKs fail to act.

It is also important that the Manx Public know that the IOM Family Court regarded this as of no great importance, when a child could have been subjected to a risky operation given the medical complications because a foster carer misled Alder Hey hospital with the knowledge of Social workers. Social Services management also turned a blind eye. The Island has much to be ashamed of.

Ms Q makes another adverse comment on John, that Olga has been assessed as in need of hearing aids. She postulated 'It is believed that this is due to not being able to have grommets fitted.' As John had objected to a potentially unnecessary operation where this would be a further procedure, the attack on him is manifest. It was reported in the medical meeting on 25 August 2016 that Olga's hearing has improved. It appears that Ms Q's remarks as recently as April 2015 are as unreliable as anything she has put to the court in the past! John drew this to the attention of the court **. It was not seen as of importance.**

Contact Wednesday 24 August 2016

As it was a nice day, John felt the family might go out, but the contact staff had brought DVDs, one of which was PG parental guidance. John was surprised at such a choice as the BBFC states, 'A PG film should not unsettle a child aged around eight or older. Unaccompanied children of any age may watch, but parents are advised to consider whether the content may upset younger, or more sensitive children. As Maria was not six, and Tatiana is only seven and is sensitive, and the contact staff had brought a DVD to an earlier contact that had scared Tatiana, John was not happy and objected to the PG film.

Given the way the contact staff exploited Vera's remarks, which did not distress the children other than in the minds of the CC staff, it is a further indication of the biased and hypocritical nature of the contact system.

Maria again looked at the portraits of Anna Yaroslavna, and without John having said so referred to her as Anna Yaroslavna, so she remembered the identity from the previous day. This contrasts with remarks from foster carers of their experiences of the girls having memory problems. If there are such problems it suggests it is a result of stress when held prisoner.

The girls have continued to produce cards etc for mama and an aide memoire slip to dada for what the girls want for their victory party when they come home, which says songs, food, party day and a heart. This hardly suggests they are willing prisoners. All these matters were put to the court. None were seen as having any significance.

Contact Sat 27 August 2016

This contact was attended by manager of the contact centre and the new guardian, GL. On arrival the girls rushed along the side corridor to be hugged, Olga leading the race closely followed by Tatiana with Maria last. John said to Olga, 'A long time ago you said you wanted a swivel chair.

Olga – 'How did you remember dada?'

Dada – 'Because I remember what you say.' I showed Olga a photo and she said 'It is my favourite colour.' ...'This was why I selected a blue chair.'

The girls had asked John to write a childrens' story so had started a story for them which was about an ancestor he had not told them of before. This was Anna of Byzantium, and he had found a painting of her.

Olga 'She is very beautiful dada'

Dada 'She was said to be the prettiest girl in the whole world'

Olga – 'really?'

The girls wanted Russian music and Tatiana and Olga sang along Blestyashchie numbers with great gusto including the Moi Desantnik airborne number where the 4 pop girls appear in VDV airborne uniform. It was shot at the assault course at Tula as it shows 'Anya' of the group firing a Kalashnikov. John mentioned that Mama had at age 14 being required to fire a real Kalashnikov, but Olga said (correctly), 'but mama doesn't like guns, dada'. Significantly Tatiana showed how mature and intelligent she is by saying, 'That's why Olga'.

The family listened to you-tube with children singing the Russian anthem, and Olga and Tatiana singing along clearly in Russian, Tatiana often anticipating the words. After the Anastasia cartoon film, John played the band of the C-in-C Northern fleet in a pure instrumental version as he wanted the Guardian to hear how Tatiana could sing without prompting, which she did. As the girls were about to leave Tatiana pointed to an Ikon, 'Play that one dada.' John confirmed that was her choice, 'Do that one? ... 'That one.' Her choice was the Russian anthem at the inauguration of President Putin in the Georgievskiy Hall of the Kremlin.

Contact Tuesday 30 Aug. 16

John reported,

"All three girls played games on the computer and Russian music. Tatiana and Olga sang the anthem of Russia, and Maria also joined in. During contact the girls spotted a spider near the sink. Both Olga and Tatiana stated that [Mrs V] had told them how she had pulled the legs off a spider when she was a child and thrown the body of the insect away. As a child I was taught never to torture any animal or insects. I am disgusted that Mrs V should tell such a sordid tale to the children. If she was trying to tell them not to torture animals, it could have been expressed differently, but when the fostering supervisor explained the concern over Ms V's proposed response to Olga's vomiting, he stated she had said Olga should be made to clear up her own vomit. One has to bear in mind two dubious incidents with a difference provenance. Olga and Tatiana both spoke of this incident and Maria did not demur.

John contacted the social worker. Countless groundless allegations have been made against Vera, but she never spoke of gratuitous sadism, and that unless social workers accept Mrs V is guilty of serious emotional abuse, this proves the corrupt nature of the regime. The Supervisor said Mr QM would investigate. As QM did nothing when Mrs V misled the doctors at Alder Hey over the frequency of tonsillitis and on 8-12-2015 did nothing when Mrs V repeated the false allegation of 50% admissions due to tonsillitis, QM is not impartial."

Contact 31 August 2016

John reported,

"Tatiana led on this occasion with Maria second, so there is no obvious sign of any girl being reluctant to attend or habitually last. Tatiana enjoys singing the anthem of Russia and although she was looking at an album of photos of dada when he was born, which she had not seen before, she sang the anthem of Russia. Olga asked about the musical boxes AND about the jewellery boxes. Maria asked for the train box which was in the car so John got that, but this included the jewellery boxes, so the girls spend a good deal of time looking at the jewellery boxes with Russian badges including Komsomol. Olga when she saw her jewellery box said, 'Yes my jewellery is here'. She went on to say, 'Yea, thank you dada for not saying yes and disappointing me, but you would never disappoint me...'

I told Olga that my father's CO had told him he was an officer and a gentleman so 'what you promise you must do, be careful in what you promise but be sure you do it.' Olga asked what if you could not do it, and I explained a promise is something you must keep. Olga sat on my lap and hugged me saying I was more favourite than a hundred thousand things. Maria came and sat beside me several times and wanted to dress Maria doll. I spoke of how Olga and Tatiana had named Maria doll as that was before Maria was born. Social worker QM had bitterly objected to my placing the framed photo of Vera on the table. To demonstrate how shallow his understanding of the girls is, I have not put up the photo of Vera, but I have on occasion put up a framed photo of myself as a child. Tatiana regularly puts up the photo of mama and Maria has done so on occasion and if I have left the Russian flags in the case, one or other girl often gets them out to display them. Today I left both photos and the Russian flags in the suitcase. At an early stage in contract one of the girls got out both flags and put the photos of myself and Vera in front of the contact staff. As with so many vindictive steps by QM, all he has done is to emphasise how devoted the girls are to mama and their Russianness. Ms Q said that Russianness was not apparent early in contact, but the emotional stress to Olga and Tatiana was so severe that I concentrated on undoing the harm the department had done. Their ethnicity had to be a low priority, but the social worker had never seen how I had worked to project their Russianness before they had been abducted. They have dual British and Slav ethnicity and both are equally important. As it happens I too have Russian ancestry, of which I am proud. The girls are aware of this duality and QM's spite merely kindles their determination to express their Russianness."

1-9-2016 Contact

John Reported,

"Part way through contact, I saw Maria go to the suitcase and get out the photos of mama and myself and put them up and get out the two Russian flags. It used to be Tatiana who put up the photo of mama, but Maria is increasingly keen to put up both our photos. The way Maria puts up the photos is a decisive rejection of Ms Q's unpleasant allegations. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT I HAVE AT NO TIME SUGGESTED TO THE GIRLS THAT THEY DO THIS.

Religion cannot legally be used to discriminate against parents, and if one parent is a believer and one is not, that is NOT acceptable grounds for kidnapping. Only if there were repeated rows between parents could that be a legitimate cause for concern. John was brought up to respect other faiths, or no faith. Vera was brought up under the state atheism of the USSR, but does not seek to force that on anyone. In twenty years, the subject of religion has never caused a single row between the couple. The children asked did Russians believe in God? Until the demise of the USSR, the theoretical answer was no, but when General Secretary Brezhnev was buried in 1982, his wife Viktoria publicly made the sign of the cross over him before the open coffin was closed. Orthodox Christianity has revived in post-Soviet Russia, and I felt the reply to the girls was to play the anthem which the girls sing, the opening line of which is 'Rossiya svyashchennaya nasha derzhava' or 'Russia, Our Holy Nation' with a later reference 'protected by God.' It was the first time I had translated to them the opening line of the anthem they sing."

Contact Tuesday 6-9-2016

John Reported,

"Shortly after the start of contact, Olga reported that social worker QM had said it was not realistic for the girls to return home, and Tatiana confirmed he had said this. One of the excuses he offered was that mama was not in the house. It would be better if mama was in the house, but there is NO legal bar to a single parent family, and social services does not have a legal right to abduct children from a single parent family because there is only one carer. I told the girls this was untrue. Olga repeated the word not realistic several times, and was clearly distressed by this. It seems beyond doubt that this would be the word that had been improperly used by the social worker, and that he caused emotional abuse to Olga as a result. Olga also stated that QM said I had to prove in court that they could return home. I said this was untrue as the legal situation is that the department has to prove there is a risk of significant harm to the girls if they return home. It is clear that QM massively misled them as to the legal situation causing emotional abuse to the girls. As the social worker had lied to the girls, I told them that legally the department has to prove there will be significant harm to them if they return home. It is for the department to prove a case.

It would only be if QM was aware that the Manx courts customarily interpret the statutory provisions that the Department must prove a risk of significant harm by saying it is the duty of the parent to prove there is not harm, which transfers the burden of proof from the aggressor to the defendant that this could be true. QM might well believe this, but he should know the legal duty on the department to prove a significant risk of harm.

John raised this issue with the Minister and with QM's superior, as it was improper for QM to attempt to pre-empt the court decision by suggesting to the girls that it is unrealistic for them to return home. Olga, in the course of contact said she 'only had one home – your home dada.' She repeated this twice.

Olga, as is clear from many contact reports, loved the Blestyashchie airborne number with the four girls wearing the VDV airborne blue berets. Some weeks back she had said when she grew up she wanted to join the Russian airborne, but John had to tell her with Addison's, her adrenal response was inadequate. On 6 Sept, John told her the Blestyashchie number was shot at Central Park, Moscow, and Tula, the home of 106 airborne. **He handed her a 106 airborne blue beret.**

She was thrilled and wore it for the rest of the contact, although she allowed Tatiana and Maria to do so briefly. Tatiana asked if she would be eligible to join 106 airborne, and as Vera is Russian there is no reason why she could not apply, as girls have been admitted to the VDV since 2008. Olga said she wished she was like Tatiana. **She danced in her airborne beret and looked at the Blestyashchie number. She noticed the girls had a different cap badge to hers, which is the red star with oak leaves, but I suggested she look at the colonel in the film and she was thrilled to find her badge was identical to his. She is thrilled that hers is not a child's replica blue beret but a genuine airborne forces beret and I doubt if any present has meant as much to her.**

After his email to the minister, John received an email from Mr QM acquitting himself and Mrs V of any wrong doing re the spider etc, and it is clear he interrogated the girls at Mrs V's. When Olga spoke about being unhappy about things she suddenly asked the contact staff, 'Please don't tell [Mrs V] what I said.' This is more fearful than any remark she had made before and the contact staff heard it. We must wonder what cruelties are inflicted on this child by evildoers?"

Mr QM's self acquittal by email of 6-9-16 :-

Following my visit yesterday afternoon, and discussion with my manager this morning,

I do not think this need formal investigation based on my findings. The girls seem to have no recollection of any incident and even after prompting did not express awareness of the issue. I do not feel that the children are displaying any signs of upset over this matter. The foster carer volunteered information, stating she had told the children that she had harmed a spider as a child. Ms V said she did this in response to Olga having killed a spider and Tatiana being upset by the incident. The focus on the foster carer's testimony was to let the girls know that Olga's actions are not unusual in children's responses to spiders or insects and to minimise any upset that Tatiana was feeling. The fostering service are also aware of the need to ensure that foster carers are mindful of any comments that could potentially cause distress.

Observations

The inconsistencies are manifest. If the children had not told John of the incident how would he know of it? Had the children or John made it up, Mrs V would have denied it. She produced an excuse to avoid the challenge, but the version relaid by QM was not compatible with what the children said, 'Both Olga and Tatiana stated that [Mrs V] had told them how she had pulled the legs off a spider when she was a child and thrown the body of the insect away.' We also have the evidence of Olga begging contact staff not to tell Mrs V what she had said. In an atmosphere like that, the children could be expected to 'forget' misconduct the foster carer would not wish to be examined. By admitting a different version of the story she confirmed something happened. It is also significant that QM in **'investigating this disgraceful episode, decided to question the children in front of Mrs V, so they would be likely to be intimidated into not recalling anything unwanted.**

The investigations into Knottfield in the IOM and the Scottish care homes, show how child victims and junior staff were pressured into silence. There is also evidence in these cases how corruption extended to the very top of the management tree, and an impartial manager hearing of this incident, would have ensured the children were allowed to speak freely away from Mrs V, with a promise of being removed, given the plethora of incidents relating to this carer.

It is pertinent to note that Ms V misled Alder Hey in front of QM and sought to do the same at a meeting at Murray House, and when John challenged it, the glaring extent of her inaccuracy became apparent. Later on, the guardian was to find a conflict of evidence between Mrs V and the fostering link worker over the clean up your own vomit incident. The department, with an implausible whitewash, did nothing and the court treated it as of no importance, unlike Vera's comments on 18 April 2015 when she was under great emotional stress.

Contact Wed 7 Sept 2016

John reported,

"On arrival at the Cottage Hospital, the contact was not noted on any of the three rooms and the receptionist and secretary said it had not been booked. As ever they were most helpful, and made the library available. I told the lady what the new times were but she said it was for the contact centre/social worker to make the bookings.

The three girls ran into the library. Olga was thrilled to see her airborne beret and wore it for the whole contact. Olga and Tatiana played a game on the computer with bears and Maria ate her snack on my lap. The girls said they loved the bears turning up. I said I loved my three Russian bears. Tatiana said she loved her dada bear and her mama bear and hugged me. Maria said dada was her special bear and mama was her special bear. I asked Olga if she would like me to bring her airborne beret on Friday, as she would be in a plane, and she was very excited with the idea. She asked if I would hold her hand, and I said of course I would hold her hand as we could sit next to one another. Olga said Mrs V has said she had been told she had to sit next to her. It will be noted that Mrs V ordered Olga to sit on her lap during the August medical consultation although Olga had been going to sit on my lap. I have noted how Olga had begged contact staff not to tell Mrs V what she had said on 06-9-16, which seems to be fear generated as a result of QM's dubious visit to exonerate Mrs V over the spider incident, and a tale that in no way ties in with what the girls' said before the contact staff.

After telling me that she was not to be allowed to sit with me in the plane, Olga said, 'I love you ' and I replied I love you too. Maria wished to look at the wedding photos, and asked if I could bring the wedding bear over from Rugby. I said I would do so, but I had brought the porcelain couple that were on the cake to Ramsey and Maria wanted me to bring that to contact as did Olga. QM had objected to the framed photo of mama being on the table. I had therefore not put it up after this spiteful demand, but within days, Tatiana was going into the suitcase to find the photo of mama. At first it was Tatiana who did this, but this time Maria got the framed photos of mama and dada out of the case and showed them to the contact staff. Tatiana has named her large bridal doll after mama, and said 'Shall I take mama out of the box?' She put the doll on the table and wanted to compare mama's dress in the photos with the doll's dress. The doll has auburn hair and I said it was a bit like Mama's hair and I would show her a photo at Sevastopol on Thursday.

Olga had been thrilled with her 106 Airborne beret and to discover the key role 106 airborne played in defeating the 1991 coup, so I brought a photo of General Alexander Lebed with me on Wednesday. Olga was very proud that 'her' airborne forces had played a key role in stopping the bad Cheka, which she had heard of in the Anastasia cartoon. She wrote 'To mama' on the photo of General Lebed, and said the photo was to go up in the girls' playroom for when they returned home.

General Lebed is wearing over 30 decorations, including the Order of the Red Star, order of the Red Banner, Order of Lenin and 2nd and 3rd class Orders of Service to the Rodina, the Gvardia and airborne insignia etc. Tatiana looked at the photo and decided dada needed as many decorations as General Lebed, which was touching, although embarrassing. She arranged them Russian style on my telnyashka. On leaving the contact room, Olga told me to wear the 106 airborne blue beret, which is again touching but also embarrassing. Tatiana and Olga watched three or four Masha cartoons and sang the Anthem of Russia in Russian, and I believe Maria joined in as well."

Contact Mon 12 Sept 2016

John noted,

"As soon as she arrived Olga put on her airborne beret. As she adores the Alexander Buinov VDV music with the airborne training scenes I put this on for her. Maria wanted me to read a school book which I started. Tatiana and Maria took the wedding statuette out of the protective box and both hugged it. They adore it but it is delicate and they will be devastated if it is broken, so I need to be careful for their sakes. Olga knows that at the head of the stairs we have school photos of Tatiana and Maria but she was off school so there is no matching photo of her. She wanted me to print off a photo of her in her VDV beret, and I brought it in a frame to show her. If it had not been for the contact centre ban on photos at contact sessions, it would have been a wonderful moment to capture forever, but I could not do so is one more vicious attack on Olga's human rights by the child abuse system of the Island. Olga is conscious how we have to exist under these draconian rules and wanted to whisper to me so she explained to contact staff it was about Maria's birthday.

Tatiana got the large Vera wedding doll out and the small Russian dolls. She then looked through the wedding photos to select her favourites and prop them against the dolls. By now, Maria wanted all the Masha dolls out. Towards the end of contact, Tatiana wanted to play music including Blestyashchie numbers, and she wanted the four children singing the Anthem in Russian, which she sang along to, Olga accompanying her for a while. Before leaving, Olga asked if she could have a large costume doll like Tatiana and Maria for her birthday? I told her I had brought her doll from Rugby and she hugged and kissed me. Maria knew her birthday was the following day and confirmed there would be contact that day and was thrilled it would be so. Of late, Maria has asked to be carried like a baby down the side corridor, but Olga asked first, so I carried her part way and then carried Maria. At the end of the side corridor, all three girls repeatedly hugged and kissed me. They would step aside and then return for another hug and kiss, and when they were leaving, repeatedly returned. Thankfully contact staff member AH was not present, or there would have been orders to go immediately, distressing the girls. As she was leaving, Olga put the airborne beret on my head and checked she had the angle right."

Maria's Birthday contact xx Sept 2016

John noted,

"The three girls rushed into training room 2 where I had laid out the normal contact materials, the large costume dolls, the smaller Russian dolls, jewellery boxes, Masha dolls, computer for music and films, plus a birthday banner and the double headed eagle flag which the girls now adore. Olga and Tatiana arrived simultaneously with Maria a few seconds later. She asked 'Can I open my presents, dada.' When the girls were tiny I had taught them to open their cards first and despite two years of custody, Maria still did so and was thrilled with the picture on the envelope and inside, which was of her wrapped in my big anorak when the weather suddenly turned cold. This was on our last day out together before she was abducted and is a precious moment to her.

Olga handed Maria the envelope which had Olga's written message, 'To Maria, Happy Birthday'. On the previous contact Olga had suggested I give Maria six coins as she was six. They could be 1p coins or toy money but she thought it would be nice. I put six £1 coins in an envelope and put Olga's message on the outside as it was her lovely idea. Maria was thrilled as was Olga."

John added, 'As it was a very special day, I thought the girls would like photos of their birthday party but at that time photos on contact centre property were not permitted, but we were on hospital property. As I had no confidence in the compassion of contact centre staff, I took a photo of the birthday display before the staff and girls arrived. When the staff arrived I asked as it was a special day, were photos OK, but that did not matter. With my foresight in photographing the display beforehand, the girls can have a memento of this day in years to come. NOTE – As a result of relentless protests that it was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, the contact centre did relent later on and allow photos which are a convention right.'

17-9-2016 Contact Centre irresponsibility over computers

John commented

'Responsible parents need to ensure their children are computer literate, and internet safe. Olga now needs little help with computer games, which shows how rapidly she has developed her skills on computer in the short time she has with dada in contact. What is surprising is how limited her skills had been when she started the computer games, and one has to wonder what help has been given to her in the foster carer's home to hone her computer skills.

The downloaded version of one game lacked some on line options so Olga wanted to go on line and succeeded. As she can go on line by herself, I felt it was important to tell her of phishing sites pretending to be genuine and using genuine material. To my surprise, although internet safety is an important aspect of child education, and Olga will be nine in a month, she was almost totally ignorant. John explained how his Kodak printer needed a software update and he went on line to obtain this, and found the Kodak site was not genuine, but criminals trying to get your data.

Olga is able to go on line by herself, and not to have taught her such basic safety issues is gross negligence. Olga wished to know what a virus was, so this needed an explanation of real viruses and computer viruses. Again I felt the broad outlines were sufficient for day one. The details of how to recognize such criminal acts were better left to a later session.

The contact staff were repeatedly intrusive, demanding Olga go off line and she stop playing a game she enjoyed. After the end of contact, a contact worker laid down her orders that Olga was not to be allowed to go on line again as she might find something unsuitable. A child can find things unsuitable, and John tried to point out that Olga had the ability to go on line but not the knowledge of internet safety, so Olga needed safety training. Instead of accepting what is manifest logic, that if a child has the ability to physically do something they WILL do it, so they need safety training, an 'it is not agreed' head-in-the-sand attitude ensued. In the end I said that if Olga wished to go on line again, I would have no choice but to tell her the contact centre prohibited it. In speaking to Olga on internet safety, the discussion was logical and intelligent. In speaking with contact staff, they seemed incapable of understanding how safety training promotes safety although she admitted my safety explanations had been excellent!'

Contact Monday 19-Sept 2016

Olga immediately put on her blue airborne beret. The three girls like 'The Yellow Submarine' as Olga had seen the yellow submarine at Speke airport. John told her she had seen a real submarine which surprised her. When he checked back, it was April 2011 when HMS Astute visited Southampton. Olga was excited she had seen a real submarine which shows the variety of life prior to becoming a prisoner. John had shown the girls the replica of the 1879 submarine Resurgam at Birkenhead Woodside when Tatiana was just over two years old. To his amazement she said, 'I remember that dada.' This was before he showed Tatiana a photo of her and Olga next to Resurgam.

Olga wished to go on line. John had to say contact staff had banned this. He had written to the manager who was at this contact, and hoped she might be more sensible. She confirmed the girls were not to go on line on the ridiculous ground that it would be a better contact if they did not. If they play a game which is in the computer or on line, the end result is identical, so there is no logic in this position, other than that once an absurd idea has been adopted, it cannot be abandoned without loss of face. This is not putting children and families first, and how a bad idea, once it has been promulgated, will be defended. Ability and safety awareness must go hand-in-hand. As the Department and Foster carer have been negligent, John sought to attend to this, and the contact centre is placing Olga at risk.

Contact Centre Economical with the Truth on 20 September 2016

The manager of the contact centre emailed John on 20 Sept as follows, _Contact on Saturday 24th September will take place in Warwick House in Douglas. This is due to Ramsey Cottage Hospital being unable to offer us a room. All parties have been informed. Times remain unchanged 10-12.30pm_ John was surprised at this explanation, as the hospital has on at least three occasions, when the department/contact centre has not bothered to make bookings, sorted out a room at short notice. Even so, there will be a limit to what they can do, so no blame can be attached to the hospital. _When John looked at the notice board at the hospital to find which room they were in for Wednesday 21 Sept, he found the notice for the week commencing 19 Sept in the hospital. It states 'DHSC Please Use Physio Room' for Saturday 24 Sept, so a room had been allocated for Sat 24 Sept contrary to the email from the contact centre._ John had challenged the previous manager of the contact centre on the impartiality and reliability of contact records in cross examination. He had pointed out how the 'advice' given by contact staff on hand washing was the exact opposite to the recommendations of the WHO, CDC etc, and that the WHO advice, which is why Vera acted as she did, and is found in properties run by the DHSC! Proof that it was the contact centre, who was not complying with recommended practice, was very badly received by the department and the contact centre, and ignored by the court. This casts grave doubts on the integrity of the Island child care industry across the board.

Although the contact centre had claimed the hospital was unable to offer them a room, there was photographic evidence that Ramsey Cottage Hospital had offered facilities to the DHSC. Given that the girls had expressed a wish for a baking class, and that had to take place in Douglas, there is no plausible reason why a true explanation that the girls would like a baking session could not have been provided. Instead, either the DHSC or the contact centre were economical with the truth. There could be no possible reason for the Ramsey Cottage Hospital to mislead the contact centre and put false data on the notice board.

Although Vera was afraid of video recording, John felt a video record would be more reliable than the biased contact centre reports, and had demanded this, but with no response as he had suggested there be two copies of each tape, one for each party to preclude tampering by either side, this suggests some fear by the contact centre over the possibility of an independent audio record calling into question their reports, and the manager's email must cast doubts on the integrity of the Contact Centre if the manager states something that is not in accordance with proven facts

.

13 September 2016 Whitewash from top to bottom

Based on the overwhelming evidence supplied by John, I have suggested that there is no impartial or fair review system in social services to protect parents, and whilst the letter from the Head of Statutory Social Work Services is slightly out of date order, it makes a damning conclusion to this summary of departmental and contact centre misconduct for a six month period in 2016. The reply takes the five principal points of John's letter and rejects them. As the writer used John's text verbatim, I can repeat that but the excuses have to be paraphrased as I have explained elsewhere.

Ms HSS explained, 'This discussion took place during a visit to Olga at the foster placement on 5 September 2016. Olga asked QM, social worker, why he thought Olga and her sisters would be better in foster care than living at home. She felt the department was not giving you a chance to prove you could care for them, and that the Court may not agree to her returning home because of this.'

That Olga was shrewd enough to challenge QM on his reasons why he thought the girls would be better in care than with her dada was perceptive, but for her to work out that the department was denying John the chance to prove how he could look after the children in the absence of Vera was a brilliant deduction on her part. It was also correct as a few days of home life would have shown the falsity of the allegations raised during the Poison Chalice Plan.

Ms HSS said in response. 'QM explained to Olga that it is useful that she shares her wishes and feelings but also important that she understands how the Court considers all aspects of the case and listens to all parties before making a decision....' This is hypocritical for many reasons. QM said it was useful Olga shares her wishes, but the department habitually ignore her clearly expressed wishes on the grounds that social workers know her wishes better than she does.

It destroys the fiction presented by social workers Q and QM that Olga depends on adults to represent her true feelings, namely social workers, when it is admitted in a letter. 'Olga felt that the Department were not giving you a chance to prove you could care for them and as such the Court may not agree to her returning home because of this.' It also corroborated a remark made by Olga to John when she felt we were out of hearing of the contact staff, 'Dada be careful, you can't trust anybody.' To tell her that she should trust anybody might lead her to trust a paedophile, so John said there are good and bad people without suggesting who the bad people were. Olga had her own ideas, adding, 'Don't trust the contact people dada.'

In just over thirty words, the Department has proven that Olga has no faith in them, as HSS shows Olga suspects the Department, by not acting fairly will not give dada a proper chance for her to return home. There could be no clearer demonstration of the falseness of the claim that Olga depends on Social Workers to explain her true feelings than the excuses of HSS.

John had petitioned the court that Olga and Tatiana be allowed to give evidence in court in line with recent UK rulings in care cases so children do have a voice in their fate, but the advocate for the department had argued against this as she knew the children would demand to return home. The court had ignored the changes in UK law and accepted that listening to all parties was not desirable if the parties were the child victims of social services and who would not sing from the hymn sheet the department wanted. I would draw the attention of readers to a point John made, 'Attention of the court is directed to remarks by counsel in the case of Child Q, namely the court held she was competent'... 'The question in each case is whether the individual witness, or as in this case, the individual child, is competent to give evidence in the particular trial. The question is entirely witness or child specific.'

Part of the justification by the department's advocate for denying the children the right to give evidence was. 'Comparison of a 14½ year old who denies allegations not made by her, but effectively made on her behalf, of sexual abuse wishing to give evidence to the contrary and thereby potentially feeling a justifiable sense of grievance, to Olga and Tatiana who are 6 and 7 not giving evidence at Court is a very great stretch.'

Olga would have been NINE on the day the Court resumed and not 6 or 7 as Ms AG claimed. The maturity of a nine year old, compared to a 6 or 7 year old is marked. Olga proved her maturity with the analysis that by denying dada the opportunity to prove he could look after them, 'the Court may not agree to her returning home because of this.' She had identified the risk to herself of dada not being able to prove something and potential effect. Allegations of neglect were made by social workers, and Olga and Tatiana have never concurred in these largely discredited guesses by the social workers. Nor has the medical evidence supported these guesses.

Ms AG had spoken of a potentially justifiable sense of grievance for a child of 14½, and Olga has displayed that grievance in the remarks reported by Ms HSS. Her comments about not trusting social workers and specifically the contact staff also reveals entirely justifiable grievances which the IOM court opted to ignore.

Instead of referring to the complaint that the phrase unrealistic to return home was stressful and improper, Ms HSS instead said Olga had asked QM why he thought Olga and her sisters would be better in foster care than at home. QM must have given Olga some reason to believe this from his comments about home, so the letter reveals a negative approach towards a return home without saying what QM said, but it is unlikely that an eight year old would report a discussion using the phrase, 'it is unrealistic to return home' if QM had not used such a phrase. Ms HSS evaded referring to the words at the heart of the complaint, so her 'defence' is non-existent.

The second part of the sentence, 'as such the Court may not agree to her returning home because of this', shows a sense of foreboding that, if dada was not given a chance to prove he can care for them, it poses a risk that the court may not arrive at a sound and fair decision. Miss AG in court spoke of a justifiable sense of grievance in another child care case, but from Olga's own words she felt a justifiable sense of grievance before the court has delivered its verdict. Had the family been allowed to show how well they worked together could the Court have justified such a dubious verdict?

Ms AG had referred to this justifiable sense of grievance but the issues are far wider than she spoke of. Whilst Samantha Barton was a troubled child even before she was taken into care, there is no evidence of sexual activity, drug taking or theft prior to being taken into care. The official report suggests Samantha was not comfortable in care and may have felt a sense of grievance, and a sense of grievance is one recognized trigger for rebelliousness. Olga had displayed a sense of grievance already, so denying her the chance to speak will have added to her justifiable grievance, and confirm her comment to me, 'Dada be careful, you can't trust anybody.'

A further remark by Olga could potentially enrage the sense of dignity of the court, but she asked John if she could trust the judge or social services? John did not wish to be drawn into a discussion on this, so said the judge had to consider all the evidence. John did not wish to worry Olga by referring to the long list of trials overturned as a result of judicial errors or misconduct by the authorities. One instance which can be cited was the jailing of the Cardiff Three in 1990 for the murder of prostitute Lynette White in Cardiff in 1988, and later cleared on appeal due to DNA evidence. In 2003, Jeffrey Gafoor was jailed for life for the murder. Subsequently, in 2005, 12 police officers were arrested and questioned for false imprisonment, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and misconduct.

When the court decided against Olga giving evidence the judge only had John's evidence as to Olga's competence to understand complex issues. This shows her ability to pose relevant and penetrating questions, to challenge assumptions and to draw sound conclusions from a set of facts. It suggests Olga meets the test in Child Q, so denying her the right to give evidence was a miscarriage of justice.

**In the penultimate paragraph of this section, HSS reveals muddled thinking again. According to her QM, 'reassured Olga that should the Court decide that she and her sisters will return home dada would have every opportunity to demonstrate his ability to care for them.' From the account by HSS Olga felt the Department were not giving you a chance to prove you could care for them and as such the Court may not agree to her returning home because of this.' The circumstances are totally different so QM tried to palm Olga off with an 'if they returned home' comment.** **Olga's fear was logical and chronological that a hoped for event B will not occur because of prior misconduct A. Predictably HSS ended For these reasons I do not uphold this part of your complaint.'...The complaint was re the phrase 'unrealistic to return home' and except for mentioning what it was, HSS makes no further reference to it. Inadvertently, she sets out Olga's perceptive concern.**

Point 2 in her letter re my complaint referred as follows, 'It is uncertain whether Vera will be in the house or not, but there is NO legal framework to abduct children from a single parent family, so that is not unrealistic. The first foster carer was a single carer, so she was alone in the house with the children so the department cannot claim not to accept single carers for a sick child. At that stage the medication for Olga was in the early stages and she was suffering acutely from the emotional abuse inflicted on her by being abducted, so the foster carer had a demanding challenge and limited backup. The department may claim a foster carer can have any backup she wants from support workers, but John never said he would decline such back-up if Vera was not present. He said he would welcome it. If the department declines to offer such help other than to a foster carer it shows how biased they are.

In her excuses over point 2 Ms HSS stated 'Olga expressed her wish to return home to both Mama and Dada.' This undermines the numerous references made by Ms Q that Olga has low attachment to her mama, or does not see her as an important figure in her life. The reader should note that Ms Q said 'both Mama and Dada' placing mama first. This evidence from Ms HSS was in line with the FRT Family Relationship Test work reported on by Dr N. Ms Q was particularly contemptuous of the strength of Olga's attachment to her mama. The next sentence in Ms HSS's letter shows how issues are taken out of context. 'Given that mama has not lived in the family home for some time or had contact things may not work out as Olga might want them to (Mama living in the house) if the Court supported a return home.'

At the time, no one could know if Vera would feel able to return or whether the Court would agree to her return, regardless of the wishes of the children, but there is NO evidence to suggest that the children would not prefer a return to John as sole carer to a prolongation of being with Mrs V, even if Vera was not present. They regularly spoke of when they return home, and since January 2016, have been aware of some of the problems re their mama, sending her get well messages and saying that when you are sad you do not think well. Predictably at the end of a largely irrelevant 'defence' HSS rejected the complaint.

In point 3, Olga was upset by the report from that John 'had to prove a case. That is not so. The department has to prove there is a risk of significant harm. It is for them to prove a case. He misled the girls.' We can go back to what Olga said to John in contact on 6 September, 'Olga also stated that QM said I had to prove in court that they could return home. I said this was untrue as the legal situation is that the department has to prove there is a risk of significant harm to the girls if they return home.' John had no evidence to suggest Olga was not telling the truth and her sisters did not demur from it, so even if QM did not plan to give that impression, that was the impression that he conveyed to the girls.

HSS replied, 'Social workers update children on plans, and answer any questions they have appropriately, openly and in accordance with the child's age. This is good practice. On reviewing the issues you refer to, I cannot find any evidence that QM is misleading the girls.'

The answer is notable for what it does not say. Olga said John had to prove they could return home. That is untrue, but Olga believed it and her sisters did not disagree. Either Olga and the girls were not being truthful, or this was the impression they had gained from QM. Would children of this age be sufficiently aware of the legal process to invent and then be distressed by a fiction that dada had to prove they could return home?

HSS did not suggest the girls were being untruthful or John misrepresented what they had said. If she could have safely claimed that the girls were not being truthful, it would be logical to say so. Another line open to her would be to suggest that the girls had somehow misunderstood what he said, as there was no way he could have said something manifestly incorrect. It could therefore be put down to a misunderstanding, in which the girls had misunderstood a complex issue of burden of proof. John questions if this was the case, but placing the blame on the girls for misunderstanding a complex issue is at least plausible, and by shifting the blame to the girls provides an excuse for the social worker.

There are some significant omissions from HSS's answer. She says plans are updated appropriately, openly and in accordance with the child's age. She does not say that accuracy, honesty, or ensuring the child has a clear understanding of what has just been explained to them matter. The impression gained by the girls, that dada had to prove they could return home, however it was reached in the girls' minds was wrong in law. If the girls got that impression, whether through a misleading explanation or their own fault, QM was under a duty to correct it. He did not do so. QM should have ensured the girls have a correct impression, and if they do not, he is under a duty to correct any misimpressions they have. He did not do so.

Given the many highly perceptive remarks by all three girls, for example Tatiana how when one is sad one does not think well, it would be surprising if all three girls had gained a wildly wrong impression, and there was no dissent amongst them when John was told what had been said.

In section 3, Ms HSS again evades the point at issue, as she does not refer to the dada has to prove it, other than in the question. From what Olga said, QM said it was up to me to prove that I was a good enough parent and from HSS's account 'Olga felt that the Department were not giving you a chance to prove you could care for them and as such the Court may not agree to her returning home because of this.' Given the refusal of the department to give me that chance in Olga's opinion and the impression she gained from Mr QM that it was up to me to prove I was a good enough parent, this caused her stress and was emotional abuse. This was not in Olga's best interests.

John's response was a simple statement of the law; if the department are to seize the children they have to prove there is a risk of significant harm. It is for them to prove a case. Sir James Munby in Re A at para 4 puts the matter clearly, 'It is for the local authority to prove, on a balance of probabilities, the facts on which it seeks to rely.' Sir James cites the decision of Strassbourg in Y v United Kingdom (2012) 55 EHRR 33, [2012] 2 FLR 332 para 134, 'everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, where appropriate, to "rebuild" the family. _It is not enough to show that a child could be placed in a more beneficial environment for his upbringing.'_

This wise Strassbourg ruling is by the Treaty signed by the UK and which the IOM is a party to is Manx law whether or not the Island likes it or not. By sentencing a child to be birched some years after the 1976 decision outlawing torture punishment, the IOM courts were defying the law. In reading the judgment in the Stevenson case, it is difficult to conclude that the court did not ignore this firm requirement. As the Strassbourg decision took six years, the child who was to be tortured had the fear hanging over him for six years, but no more than that. If a decision for Olga, Tatiana and Maria took six years they would not be free, but prisoners from early 2017 to 2023. John hoped an alternative strategy might end their incarceration sooner. Perhaps he should have followed both paths.

With point 4, this was dismissed in a similar cavalier manner. In Section 4, Ms HSS refers to John's complaint, 'Mr QM caused emotional abuse; he misled the girls and attempted to pre-empt the court decision.' John said in reply, I would draw the attention of the court to the last para of page 2 of Ms XXXX's letter, **'It is acknowledges that care proceedings and living away from home is an emotional time for children and parents.'**

If, of course, QM believed that there was no serious need for the department to prove its evidence in court, as the court would take little cognisance of the massive errors and indeed untruths by Nurse S, family support worker FS, social worker Q etc, then in his own mind, he may have felt that it was only if the parents could prove that a return was safe that the kidnapping would be thwarted. If that was in his mind, his remarks become intelligible. They would then be true, even though they do not reflect what the law states, but they way it's interpretation has been twisted.

The manner in which this serious issue was disregarded, if the story in this novel is based on true events, needs to be investigated. Once again, it is to be hoped that Tynwald, with such a massive weight of evidence of wrongdoing by Social Services will institute an independent enquiry. If they do not, it is to be hoped that candidates at the next general election will be more robust about protecting the Island's children.

### Chapter 11 The Key Witness

The key witness in the case should have been the consultant paediatrician who saved Olga and when social workers Q and QM, aided by inaccurate figures from Ms V had persuaded Alder Hey of the need for a tonsillectomy once again stood firm to protect his patient. Dr Z is one of the finest people John as ever met, and this chapter will allow you the reader to see why. Dr Z was examined quite early in the case so why does his evidence appear late in this book? A novel should develop in a logical pattern, whereas real life is untidy. A novel should move to the dramatic crux, so in a court room drama, the key witness has to appear last. Eric Gardner did this in the Perry Mason novels. Dorothy L Sayers did the same in _Clouds of Witnesses_ where amateur sleuth Lord Peter Wimsey had a death defying 1920s flight across the Atlantic to bring crucial evidence to the court.

John asked the witness, 'Can I ask you to turn to Bundle 14 please, which is the record of the court proceedings on 19.09.2014. At page 6 and at line 9 of the evidence you stated "There's a tiny possibility one in I would say 100,000 possibilities that there may be an underlying metabolic problem" Is that correct?' Dr Z replied, 'That is correct.'

John asked Dr Z, 'On 15 September 2014, I received a phone call from the school that Olga had vomited asking me to take her home. Before I left the house I had phoned the Surgery to seek an appointment with our GP. Would you agree this was reasonable and responsible? The witness replied 'Yes.'

John asked the witness,' I collected Olga and as I know fluid is important in the case of vomiting, gave Olga a small glass of squash. She drank it but vomited within moments. I let her settle down and gave her a smaller amount of more dilute squash. This came back so I offered her sips of very dilute squash and she was able to tolerate this. Would you say that this was reasonable and responsible?' The witness said he had not seen Olga at the time, but 'It is perfectly acceptable.'

John asked Dr Z, 'Olga had a slight temperature, about 38 and my wife gave her calpol which she kept down. In the afternoon the GP suggested it was gastroenteritis and told me, as I had feared, that to feed Olga would prolong her vomiting, and she needed to be fasted for a 24 hour period.'

In fairness to readers, John will record the reply by Dr Z. 'It is not something we would recommend...' From what John has been able to ascertain the traditional and still common treatment for gastroenteritis is fasting, but recent opinion is that light food may not be harmful. John had taken Olga to the GP as soon as he could, and had followed his advice to fast her. He is not a health professional, and if he had ignored clear medical advice, it would have been seen as putting his own opinions ahead of the GP. John was aware of the advice over 'fasting' a child over gastroenteritis so was not surprised at the advice and did not find it exceptional. He did not 'like' it as he did not want to fast Olga, but believed it to be sound and normal advice and other medical witnesses have accepted it is normal treatment, so John had followed medical advice. Had he entertained any doubts, the proper course would have been to seek a second opinion, but he did not entertain such doubts, unwelcome though the advice was.

In case there was reason to believe the GPs advice was grossly negligent, John asked Dr Z, 'Thanks to your good self we now know that she had suffered an Addisonian crisis, but from the evidence available to the GP on 15 September 2014, would you say his advice was reasonable and in accordance with the symptoms that could have been reasonably apparent to him at that time?' Dr Z gave a measured reply, 'It is very hard to comment on another doctor's actions...' Even though Dr Z did not necessarily agree with fasting a child with gastroenteritis, he did not suggest that the GP had been in any way negligent. John could hardly be negligent in following the advice of a doctor who had not been found to be negligent.

John asked, 'My wife Vera had stated in evidence that during the night of 16/17 September 2014, Olga was lucid, and even wanted to change her clothes. Shortly before 8.00am on 17 September, Olga's condition quickly deteriorated. From being a normal lucid mobile child, she was unable to stand, or to respond to her mama. At 7.54am, Vera phoned the Ambulance which arrived at 07.57am. It is suggested by the Department that Vera does not respond well in an emergency. Was her prompt telephoning for an ambulance, as soon as Olga's condition deteriorated, the correct action to take in a crisis?' Dr Z replied, 'Calling the ambulance is appropriate action for a collapsed child yes.'

John asked 'You suggested in evidence that Olga was within perhaps thirty minutes of death when admitted to Nobles hospital on 17 September 2014. Had Vera delayed phoning or delayed the ambulance by even twenty minutes, might this have posed a risk to Olga?' Dr Z replied, 'Yes that is a certain likelihood.'

John asked the witness, 'Would you accept that Vera had been suddenly confronted with the nightmare scenario for any mother, of a child becoming suddenly unresponsive?' Dr Z replied, 'Certainly sounds like a very serious shock... any child collapsing in front of a parent.'

John asked Dr Z, 'It has been suggested by Ms Q, the Social Worker that Vera ought to have phoned a friend to look after the other children, so she could accompany Olga to hospital. Given how rapidly the ambulance arrived, if Vera could have found a friend at short notice, it might have meant a fifteen or twenty minute wait till the friend arrived. Would such a delay have been beneficial to Olga?' Dr Z replied, 'unlikely.'

Although the department have suggested Vera is not at her best in a crisis, in this instance she acted impeccably. She phoned the ambulance promptly even though it was a shock for her as Dr Z agreed. Ms Q, the social worker, sitting in the comfort of her office, came up with the idea of ringing round to find a friend, although this would inevitably delay the ambulance. Dr Z agreed a 20 minute delay whilst Vera found some friend would have posed a risk for Olga, and when I asked him, Would such a delay have been beneficial to Olga?' he said, 'unlikely.' **The court disregarded this key difference between a responsible mother and a social worker who persisted in her ring round to find a friend plan even after Dr Z's evidence.**

John suggested to the court that the Social worker produced an irresponsible solution to the problem when she was under no pressure. Vera was under pressure but was clear thinking. That is now proven beyond doubt. Had Vera followed Ms Q's plan, Olga could have died. The court seemingly disregarded this. If where a supposedly professional witness advances an idea that a consultant says would be unlikely to benefit the child, is it acceptable that the consultant's evidence should be ignored by the Court?

Olga's sisters were later brought to Noble's, and Dr Z examined both of them. In his evidence, he reported no recent injury or illness with Tatiana or Maria, so there were no signs of actual bodily harm or of starvation to either child. John asked, 'Would I be right in saying you were treating one child who apparently showed signs of starvation, but no physical injuries, and two children who had no signs of starvation, or recent injury or illness?' Dr Z replied, 'Yes that was my report.'

John put it to the witness 'When the GP saw Olga on 15.09.2014, there had been no diagnosis of Addison's, so I do not think any blame attaches to him for not diagnosing Addison's... could you agree that if a doctor proceeds on the evidence that is available that is reasonable?' Dr Z replied, 'Yes.' John asked, 'If Addison's had been diagnosed, or if Olga had been wearing a Medalert bracelet on 15 September 2014, as she does now, saying she suffered from Addison's disease, would his advice to have fasted her for 24 hours still have been sound?' Dr Z gave an emphatic answer, 'Certainly Not.'

John asked the witness, 'So the difference between what seemed on the facts available at the time to the GP to be responsible medical advice, and something that would not be sound advice, as it could trigger an Addisonian crisis, is down to the knowledge that the patient was an Addisonian, is it not?' The witness replied, 'That would be a very crucial factor yes.' It will be recalled that the GP said exactly the same.

John asked Dr Z, 'Please correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that Addison's disease develops slowly and almost imperceptibly over a long period and the first sign of Addison's is often an Addisonian collapse triggered by some other event?' He replied 'That's usually the case.'........, 'I believe I am correct in saying that Addison's often catches experienced health professionals unexpectedly.' Dr Z replied, 'Yes on first presentation.'

John put it to Dr Z. 'This suggests that Addison's disease would have been developing for some time. Would this seem likely to you?' Dr Z replied, 'Possibly but it hard to say the exact time frame for a particular child.'....... 'So we could not say, 3, 6, 9 months?' Dr Z replied, 'Not precisely for an individual child. We believe it develops over months, but not weeks or years, but one cannot say with any accuracy how long in a particular child.'

John referred the witness to the medical records of all three girls which showed Olga was seen by Health Professionals seven times during the six months prior to her Addisonian Crisis, as follows.

27/03/2014 Dr B, Ramsey Group Practice

04/04/2014 School Nurse S

09/04/2014 Dieticians in Ramsey.

22/05/2014 School Nurse S

12/06/2014 Dr...., Paediatric Audiology Clinic

18/07/2014 MEDS doctor at Douglas, – Amoxicillin prescribed.

15/09/2014 Her GP at Ramsey, for gastroenteritis.

John asked the witness, 'In your opinion were any or all of them negligent in not identifying Addison's disease at some time in that six month period?' Dr Z replied, 'Not if she did not present in a state of collapse.'

John asked 'If Olga was seen by no fewer than eight different health professionals on seven occasions between March and September 2014, and no one suggested Addison's, do you feel my wife or I were negligent in not diagnosing Addison's disease?' Dr Z replied, 'I do not believe so, if I could not expect a medical professional to diagnose Addison's.'

John asked Dr Z, 'It has been suggested that if Olga had been given dioralyte as the GP had apparently intended to use this medication, that an Addisonian crisis would not have occurred. I have studied the Addison's Disease Self Help Group site, other sources on Addison's disease and have not found any suggestion that Dioralyte is recommended to stave off an Addisonian Crisis. I asked the GP 'Is it your professional opinion that two sachets of Dioralyte spread over twelve hours, rather than a number of sips of water and later fruit juice, might have staved off an Addisonian Crisis?' He replied 'No effect.' Is it your professional opinion that Olga's Addisonian crisis would have been avoided had we administered dioralyte after Olga vomited on the morning of 16 September 2015?' The witness replied it would not have stopped an Addisonian Crisis.

John: 'In court on 19 September 2014, you suggested Olga had not taken any solid foods for a 48 hour period, so your estimate, which was based on her condition, coincides with the two day period of vomiting and fasting on medical advice, does it not? Dr Z replied 'Yes.'

John: 'When you mentioned a 100,000 to 1 metabolic possibility in Court on 19 September, my advocate asked you, "My client is making the point that could the vomiting be caused by the possible condition she has rather than the gastroenteritis." You responded, "It is possible but it's also possible that the gastroenteritis was the trigger which caused the acute deterioration that she had." Do you have any reason to modify those views today? Dr Z replied NO, adding 'gastroenteritis is a common trigger to an Addisonian Crisis.'

A discussion took place on refeeding syndrome, John asked Dr Z 'In Court, on 19 September 2014, on page 7, you reported "She became well enough yesterday morning when I did my morning round that I transferred her to the Children's Ward from the Intensive Care Unit. She still remains critical but she is definitely more stable now and is beginning to eat. She's not allowed to eat a lot because she's at high risk of what is called refeeding syndrome. Children who have not been eating well for a very long time if you give them a lot of calories too rapidly the body cannot process that." The witness replied, 'That's correct yes.'

John, 'I understand that Guidelines on refeeding syndrome were published by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) in 2006, but an article in the BMJ says that because clinicians are often not aware of the problem, refeeding syndrome still occurs. Clearly this was not the case with your team, Would that be correct?' Dr Z replied yes and that it was good clinical practice.

John, 'I understand with Refeeding Syndrome, the "Identification of high risk patients is crucial. Any patient with negligible food intake for more than five days is at risk of developing refeeding problems." Is this a fair summation?' Dr Z said yes this would be something they use to assess the risk of patients at high risk of refeeding syndrome.

John referred to the passage from the BMJ, "Any patient with negligible food intake for more than five days is at risk of developing refeeding problems." The court will recall he asked Dr Z, 'From these meticulous case records, it seems to me that refeeding was properly guarded against, until it could safely be discounted. Is that correct?' The witness replied, 'That's correct.'

John, 'If Ketosis can be induced within a day or two and Olga was vomiting from breakfast time on Monday 15 September, and fasted with the GP's advice, on 16th September, the two days would, from the answer you have just given, be sufficient to trigger ketosis, even in a healthy child, would it not?' Dr Z replied 'Yes' adding starvation is a term the medical profession uses, explaining, 'It can be due to vomiting or diarrhoea... medical starvation is not actual starvation.' That 'starvation', can in medical terms, mean lack of food due to vomiting/diarrhoea, and is an important point, that does not seem to have been considered by the court on 19.09.2014 or by social services.

John, 'In your evidence to the court on pages 17/18 you were asked about the risk significant harm coming to Olga, Tatiana and Maria. You stated "It's a hard one, but all I can say is there is a likelihood that, or there's a very high likelihood, that Olga will suffer if she is not, what's the word I'm looking for, safeguarded and stay in hospital, and the other two there is a likelihood but I'm not able to say how much of the likelihood that is based on the information I am in possession of.' Is that correct?' The witness replied 'That is correct' adding that in the opinion of his team and himself 'starvation and neglect was a very high probability for Olga's presentation.' Dr Z had put the odds of a metabolic explanation as 100,000 to 1, so one has to accept starvation and neglect did appear to be a high probability at the time.

John asked, 'At page 4 of his statement of 23 August 2015, Dr D states, "There are concerns regarding her low height and weight and the recurrent admissions to hospital" Would you concur in that statement?' The witness replied, 'Yes.'.......

John; 'I did however wonder about certain aspects of her care. In the Fostering report, it is noted for 26 December 2014, the foster carer recorded that Olga reverted to 'complete refusal to eat.' For 27 December 2014, she reported that Olga refused food, breakfast dinner and lunch and vomited prior to taking her medication at dinner time. .... Dr N in his report states of 27 December 2014, it was reported that Olga would not eat at the Foster carer's. He adds, "that she got worse at night and in the morning she was found slouched on the stairs, and she had to be taken into hospital." For 28 December, the foster carer reported that Olga collapsed shortly after waking. Olga was observed by her to present as limp, lethargic, eyes rolling, unable to stand on her own. This resembled her collapse on 17 September 2014, does it not? – Dr Z replied, 'From the description it seems very similar.'

John, 'The foster carer reported that Olga was immediately rushed to the Children's Ward at Nobles hospital, where the doctor expressed his opinion to her that Olga's body, "was shutting down". Does this emphasise the seriousness of her condition?' The witness said, 'It may have been an attempt in layman's terms to [explain] an Addisonian Crisis.'

John; 'What is to me of significance is that Olga vomited on 15.09.14 and was fasted on 16.09.14 on medical advice when Addison's was not suspected and collapsed in the early morning of the third day. On 26 and 27 December she went without food for two days and collapsed in the early morning of the third day. There seems to be a striking parallel. Would you agree?' The witness replied, 'There is certainly a similarity in the presentation.

John, 'When a child is taken into care, does Social Care in effect assume the responsibilities and role of the parents in providing safe and adequate care for the child?' Dr Z replied, 'yes'.

John, 'In the case of a child who is subject to a special risk, as for example with Addison's disease, should Social Care inform themselves of those risks and take steps to ensure that foster carers, support workers and the school know what to do?' The witness replied 'Yes.'

A point John repeatedly made was that six health professionals failed to identify Addison's between March and September 2014, so he and Vera could not reasonably be expected to do so, whilst the list of medical appointments shattered the claims of failure to work with health professionals. Dr Z had said the difference between good and bad treatment would be knowledge of Addison's and prior to an Addisonian crisis, even health professionals often did not spot it. From September 2014 it was known, but under departmental care, Olga had another crisis on 28 December almost identical to the previous one, but with the key difference that Addison's was now known and there should have been proper directions to foster carers as to what to do. Dr Z had agreed to all of these points.

Who does that point the finger of blame to? It has to be Social Worker Q who was the responsible party, and who failed to prepare such instructions. John continued, 'I suggest that a proper contingency plan should have been prepared by the Social worker when Olga was discharged from Nobles in October 2014, drawing attention to the risks if she went without food for a couple of days. Would this have been a sensible precaution in your opinion?' The witness agreed.

John referred to observable symptoms of Addison's, "Moodiness, irritability or depression. Would you agree this is well known in the case of Addison's?' Dr Z replied, 'Yes, very well known symptoms,'

John, 'The case social worker, Ms Q said of Olga, in November 2014 (See Bundle 11) that, "Olga can be strong minded and cannot be made to do something she does not wish to do, if she digs her heels in." From your first-hand experience of Olga would you concur in that assessment?' Dr Z replied, 'Yes, she certainly comes across as a very strong willed child, but if we work hard to earn her trust, she does listen but it takes time.'

John suggested to the court that these answers were central to the case. Miss AG tries to make the point that anything about Olga's mood is surmise. Up to a point every comment by every witness on mood is hypothesis, so Miss AG in her remarks discredits the comments of some of the witnesses she relies on, but Dr Z has probably had more contact with Olga than any other senior health professional on the Island. His view on the symptoms of Addison's and that 'if we work hard to earn her trust, she does listen' carries great weight. The rider, 'but it takes time' is crucial. In the poison chalice plan John needed to take the time Dr Z spoke of to get Olga to eat, and did so. This use of time was exploited against him by social services, although it was what Dr Z had said was needed **. The Court had a duty to pick this up and failed to do so.**

The great majority of impartial witnesses, e.g. Dr N, Dr Z, Dr D, Dr Kurien, the manager of the nursery, etc who have seen John interacting with the children have spoken of his close bond with all three children. That bond is dependent on trust. Other people have to work hard, as Dr Z puts it, to earn Olga's trust. When Olga was seized by the department in September 2014, she did not know Vera and John were not permitted to see her for days on end when she was ill. The Department had shattered her trust in John, so he had to rebuild it. It took weeks to do so, but the result is clear. Olga gives dada that trust again. John put it to the court, 'If she is condemned to live with someone else and contact is reduced, as the Social Worker desires, the result will be catastrophic for Olga.' We have seen how Samantha Barton rebelled as a teen, so this is a worry, but social services and the court seem indifferent to it.

John asked the witness, 'Do you feel that Addison's should be "centre stage", as it is a life threatening condition?' Dr Z replied, 'Yes it needs to be a very important consideration.'

John, 'In the Fostering Report for 17 March 2015, Olga is reported as saying " that she 'wanted to kill herself and did not want to be alive anymore." Is this a cause of concern to you? Dr Z replied 'Yes.'

Ms A G was fond of the phrase cherry picking, to suggest John only took favourable evidence, as social workers do routinely. So he could not be accused of cherry picking, he told the witness, 'It is only fair to say that Olga must have been very disturbed at this time, as she added that "that dada calls me a bad girl." If she has been foolish, for example waving a pair of scissors in someone's face, I will tell her it is a bad thing to do, as she could hurt herself or someone else, but it is important not to damage her self esteem by making her feel she is bad. Her remarks suggest she inhabits a bleak world at the moment. Would you concur?' Dr Z replied, 'Yes.'

John, 'The fostering report gives me other causes for concern as to the emotional harm that is being done to Olga and the impact this could have on her medical condition. For 23 June 2015, it is alleged that Olga has been trying to make herself cough and be sick at breakfast time [with Mrs V]. There is no evidence to suggest this was the case when Olga was fostered with the original carer, and it suggests the emotional strain Olga is now under. Does this concern you, as needless vomiting would exacerbate an already serious issue would it not?' Dr Z replied, 'Yes, although I have to point out I would be seeking advice from the CAMHS.'

Once again, Dr Z had made an important point. He saw the serious risk and felt something needed to be done, but as the problem had not been reported to him, he was unaware of it so could not take the necessary action.

John: 'At 2.205 of the fostering report, Olga is said to have refused to leave hospital. It is possible that she is so unhappy in her current placement that being sick and in hospital is a welcome relief to a placement she fears and hates. Has Olga's reluctance to leave hospital or trying to make herself sick, been referred to you as her Consultant Paediatrician? Dr Z replied 'I would wish to find out more and ask the nursing staff to find out more and ask CAMHS professionals to come and assess the child.'

From these comments, it sounds as if Social Services were very selective about what they revealed to Dr Z when he was her consultant.

John: 'If an Addisonian is mature, might one hope that the natural instinct for self-preservation may encourage sensible conduct from them?' Dr Z replied 'That is correct.'

John asked the witness, 'Comment has been made about my wife's low mood. I would like to refer you to bundle 16 and page 12. My learned friends may claim a photo is nothing more than a snapshot in time, but an unsupported allegation of low mood is even less substantive, as it is a subjective opinion of a moment in time. The four views on page 12 were all taken when Olga was less than a year old, and I do not think they suggest low mood, do you?' The witness replied 'They do not, but I am not an expert in that area.'

Dr Z's careful answer spoke volumes. Ms Q, with no medical qualifications and no photographic evidence to go on, pontificated about low attachment in vitro. Dr Z, a senior consultant who is used to assessing children and mothers, said the evidence did not suggest low moon, but qualified it by saying he was not an expert in that area **. It would only be if the Department had offered an expert witness who had studied the many photos or better still had seen Vera that any meaningful evidence of low mood before 2014 would be tenable. The department had no such evidence, so offered supposition from a social worker, but the Court was prepared to attach weight to such unsupported opinions. Does that reflect well on the justice system on the Isle of Man?**

John, 'If you go over the page 13-15 are all during the summer of 2014 before Olga's first Addisonian Crisis. Is there any sign of low mood?' Dr Z replied, 'No.'

Judge 'With the same caveat?' Dr Z said yes.

No comparable caveat was sought by the court from social workers asking were they an expert in psychology! John accepts that Dr Z is a paediatrician, rather than a psychologist, but as an experienced paediatric doctor, he will have had extensive medical experience of mothers and young children, so his opinion must carry more weight than someone with no health qualifications such as Ms Q, QM, Ms FS etc.

The judge did not confirm that social services witnesses who threw about allegations of low mood were not qualified psychologists.

John referred the witness to the senior dietician's letter regarding a dietary appointment on 17 September 2013. She wrote of Olga, "she appeared to be a very shy child and was reluctant to get weighed and measured until her father actually demonstrated what we required her to do and then she allowed me to weight and height her." I asked Dr Z if the letter suggested I was 'a parent who works pro-actively with health professionals.. He said, 'Yes.'

John, 'On 19 July 2015, the night staff had spoken to me at Nobles, "They said that on Saturday, after I left she had been in a deep sleep and very reluctant to take her 11.00pm medication. They asked if I would speak to her and Olga said she would do so if I stayed with her till her meds. The hospital were agreeable and when they came with her hydrocortisone and her antibiotic, she took both syringes and her procal drink without the least trouble. As I took the procal glass out to them two of the night staff were discussing it. One said it was very different from the previous night, as I had spoken to Olga, and the other one said "I told you it would go just like that!" Do you feel this further reinforces the impression that I work with health professionals and that Olga does pay heed to me?' The witness said 'Yes.'

John, 'On 21 September 2015 and your consultation with Olga, I am sure you will recall how Olga refused to allow you to examine her tongue? I spoke to her and she agreed to do so, if everyone else in the room looked away. Do you recall that?' Dr Z recalled the incident clearly and replied 'Yes.' John had referred to this incident, but there was no independent proof until he put it to Dr Z, so the answer verifies John's accounts of it. **Evidence from a social worker is accepted by the family court without the need for proof, but similar evidence from parents is ignored if there is no proof. This secured the proof.**

John, 'In the time you have known our family have you personally known me not to work actively with yourself?' the witness replied, 'No,'

John, 'I imagine you will have discussed Olga's case with the staff on children's ward on many occasions. Have they ever commented adversely about my relationship with Olga or her siblings, or have they suggested I am uncooperative?' The witness replied, 'No.'

Nurse S had thrown many damaging allegations around, but here we have a witness confirming that to the best of his knowledge John was always co-operative with health professionals. In every case we see a health professional acting professionally and John reciprocating. It is only with nurse S whose weight figures were wildly different to any other figures, who when she found out about it did not bother to have her scales checked, and who suppressed inconvenient evidence in court, and who claimed she had seen children cowering where a Barbie doll could not cower that there are any problems. We even find out what the problems were. Nurse S wanted a referral to a very nice man; John wanted the referral to include relevant issues and nurse S refused six times.

A balanced judgment would weigh up the evidence on both sides. Should not the Manx people be entitled to that?

John 'I might refer you back to the consultation on 21.09.2015 when I persuaded Olga to let you examine her tongue, or the incident with Sarah Surgeon, where I showed her what Sarah wanted. Those incidents cover a two year period so it seems I have a proven good working relationship with Olga.' The witness said 'Yes.' I put it to him, 'In that respect I suggest I am a useful "resource" but I would put it to you that if a child is influenced positively by some resource, be it a favourite toy, a sticker for good behaviour, or the encouragement of the dada she trusts, would it be in Olga's medical interests to make use of?' The witness replied, 'Yes.'

It will be noted that the social worker said, "Olga can be strong minded and cannot be made to do something she does not wish to do, if she digs her heels in." Dr Z agreed John had an ability to persuade a stubborn child to do what was desirable in her own interests. That was down to trust between Olga and her dada and Dr Z agreed that was a valuable medical resource to make use of. The fostering report for 26/27 Dec and the Addisonian collapse on 28 Dec show the risks of not doing so.

In terms of the negative impact of care on Olga, we may leave Dr Z's evidence for a moment to refer to the evidence by the clinical lead for therapeutic services. In her cross examination of this witness by the advocate for the guardian, both parties indulged in so much speculation that John challenged this line of questioning and the court was obliged to rule it was speculation by the witness. Most of it was of no evidentiary value, but there were small nuggets to be found. The witness made reference to something for which there is supporting evidence, namely that children who may apparently settle down when in care in pre-teen years, may become seriously disturbed in adolescence. From what John has been able to ascertain this is so, but it is not possible to say beyond doubt in advance that child A is at risk and child B is not at risk. If the witness suggests child A will suffer, that is pure speculation and valueless. To say there is a global statistical probability is correct, but that is all. There is overwhelming evidence from witnesses for the department that Olga is a strong willed child and that there is a probability that such a child is at significantly higher risk of this problem. Although the witnesses' response to this questioning was speculation, John submitted to the court that she was a witness for the department, and as such drew attention to this higher risk, it would not be proper for the department at this stage to seek to challenge the evidence of their own witness. John does not challenge the speculation that there may be a higher risk of Olga becoming more disturbed in adolescence. Whether it is so or not, this makes Dr Z, and his acceptance of John's unique ability to work with Olga of great significance.

Returning to Dr Z, John referred the witness to his letter of 29 September 2015 responding to an accusation from the department that Health was not providing proper Care Planning for Olga, he said, "I do agree that Olga's case is a complex one, however, as I have made my views abundantly clear, I sincerely believe that Olga is a child in need and she really needs to be reunited with her family." The witness acknowledged the comment.

The Court had evidence that the consultant responsible for Olga was saying that 'Olga needs to be reunited with her family.' This is not speculation by a witness who made many assumptions which could be disproven, such as social worker Q, but the written opinion of a senior consultant, and if the court were to weigh the evidence adequately, the judgment needed to say why such weighty evidence was ignored from a witness who at no time was proven to have been erroneous in his evidence, unlike Ms Q.

John; 'If you will go to the report from Alder Hey hospital of 22 October 2015 by Dr G, which is a detailed summary of Olga's Addisonian state. The report confirms Addison's disease and at para 3 of page 2 states "the most pressing problem at present related to recurrent episodes of vomiting. These are particularly dangerous in a little girl with Addison's disease as she may vomit her hydrocortisone medication and rapidly become hypoglycaemic." Would you agree with Dr G's comments?' The witness replied 'Yes.'

John, 'Dr G adds "These episodes of vomiting are not associated with a clear precipitating factor." Would this tie in with your experiences of no clear precipitating factor?' The witness said, 'That's correct except on certain occasions it has been associated with car travel.'

Dr Z volunteered the information that the only clear precipitating factor on some occasions is car travel. John had repeatedly said to the social workers that from his knowledge of Olga and from the evidence we were seeing in fostering reports, that car travel was probably a precipitating factor for some of her vomiting. John had additionally suggested that fear of car travel after breakfast was harmful to Olga's emotional well-being. This was reflected in the comment in the fostering report for 13.10.2014, 'Olga was seen by medical staff who were of the opinion that Olga's vomiting may be linked to Anxiety or stress.' It would seem not unreasonable to suggest that if a child regularly vomits during car trips, anxiety will build up which will make vomiting more likely.

This information was available at latest by 13 October 2014, but thanks to the gross inadequacies of the fostering services on the Island, the only carer who would take the three children lived in Ballasalla, twenty miles from Olga's school. Because she had been kidnapped, Olga now faced 200 miles of travel to school a week, if she managed a week without vomiting. When she was at home it was a round trip of a mile, or 5 miles a week. Social services were aware of her vulnerability to car sickness and the seriousness of car sickness to an Addisonian, but to avoid admitting a mistake and releasing the child they were willing to risk her health by forcing a 40-fold increase in the risks of car sickness, and the social worker suppressed reference to this in her reports. The court was silent on this. As Dr Z gave his evidence the level of institutional sadism by social services mounted steadily.

John had suggested this; health professionals had suggested it and now the consultant paediatrician agreed this was relevant.

Can MHKs really ignore this sadism by their civil servants. If they can, do the electorate really want any of these people as their representatives after the next general election. The current minister can hold up his hands and say he was not involved, but he is involved now, so is he going to say enough is enough, or do we need a general election to install a new house to clean up social services?

Is it of any importance? John asked Dr Z about Dr G's report, 'She explains near the foot of page 2, "Our plan during her hospital admission was to explore the symptoms of nausea, if they coincided with times when cortisol levels were very high or very low, and to look at other causes of vomiting." Would I be correct that seeking the reasons for Olga's vomiting is important for her health?' Dr Z replied, 'Yes'

John asked the witness, 'The bottom of page 2 and start of page 3 summarise the results and midway through page 3, Dr G suggests, 'Despite the cortisol levels not being entirely desirable, which is very often the case for children who are treated with hydrocortisone, I do not think this is the likely cause of Olga's vomiting." From your experiences with Olga would you concur with this view? Dr Z said yes.

John: 'A review by Gastroenterologists was invited but this seemingly produced no clear reasons.' Dr Z explained, 'That is the most recent information.'

John, 'It seems to me that the key passage in Dr G's letter is on page 4, "In summary, although Olga's cortisol profiles are not ideal, I doubt very much that is the cause of her vomiting. I appreciate the review of my colleagues in Gastroenterology to look for any GI causes of this, and I think the very complex life experience that Olga has had to date, and continues to experience must also be an important factor which needs to be considered as a trigger." Would you agree with that?' Dr Z replied, 'Yes, we have looked very hard for other causes, with a barium scan and barium swallow.'

John, 'From the evidence you have seen so far is there any evidence to suggest she had a complex life experience before her Addisonian crisis on 17.09.2014, or does her clear devotion to her parents and the strong bond with her siblings suggest a happy life?' The witness replied, 'I see nothing to suggest a non happy life before...I had not seen her before Addison's, so I would be speculating.'

An unequivocal answer is always welcome, but an answer that points out the limitations of the answer can be even more convincing as Dr Z suggests there is no evidence of a non happy life and it is significant to note that none of the department's witnesses have any better knowledge than Dr Z, so have to be speculating, but with less to go on. Much of this hostile speculation to prop up the kidnapping case is by social workers without medical training. The court heard this evidence, but in the decisions section did not refer to it.

John asked Dr Z, 'You have seen extracts from the fostering reports with Olga saying she wanted to kill herself, evidence that she has tried to make herself sick at breakfast time, and the plethora of cards expressing how she wants to come home and loves mama and dada. Would you accept that her life experience since 17.09.2014 has been very complex?' The witness said, 'Yes.'

John: 'In your letter of 29.09.2015, you said "I do agree that Olga's case is a complex one, however, as I have made my views abundantly clear, I sincerely believe that Olga is a child in need and she really needs to be reunited with her family." Dr G says "I think the very complex life experience that Olga has had to date, and continues to experience must also be an important factor which needs to be considered as a trigger."Do you concur that both comments point to a child who currently has problems and difficulties.' Dr Z replied, 'Yes.' Here we have evidence from TWO consultants suggesting reasons for Olga's problems which are caused by social services.

John, 'Am I correct that there are many different types of stress. For example can stress be mental as well as physical?' The witness replied 'Yes.'

John, 'It is my understanding that in an ordinary case where the parents are responsible for the everyday health and welfare of their children, and in the event of a problem arising that requires professional guidance, they seek such guidance. Would you agree that this is correct?' The witness replied, 'Yes.'

John, 'If Olga had been returned to our care, as I think would have been proper, responsibility for her day to day care would have returned to us, but we would have needed to inform ourselves of a totally new and far more demanding role as parents given her life threatening illness. Would you agree with that?' The witness replied 'Yes.'

John, 'As responsible parents what should we do? I suggest our duty would be to seek the advice of health professionals such as yourself, and to draw up a contingency plan. What for example, would be my duty if Olga vomited during the day. If it was five minutes after her food and medication, we could assume Olga had gained no benefit. If it was five hours later, she would probably have absorbed her medication and food, but rather than relying on my guesswork, such a plan for our guidance as parents should be scrutinised by health professionals, such as yourself. Does this seem prudent and sensible to you, Sir?' The witness replied, 'Yes.'

John, 'With a plan to return the children to the family signed on 28 January 2015, I had drafted an outline plan and submitted it to Ms Q on 31 January 2015, assuming by this time that the department would have its own contingency plan, and I would get a reply by return, so I could take the good parts of their plan and of mine. Does this seem a logical step to you, Sir?' The witness replied, 'Yes.'

The reader will recall that the first sign of any plan for the guidance of carers appeared on 29 July 2015, when the community paediatrician drafted an acute health care plan. John put it to the witness, 'My only concern was that it combines elements of parental responsibility, with instructions to carers, and guidelines to health professionals, so was it a Social Care document or was it a Health Document. Do you have any opinions on this?' Dr Z replied that it was his opinion that the plan prepared by the community paediatrician covered medical and non-medical aspects of Olga's care.

There seems to be no evidence that even after Olga's collapse due to an entirely avoidable Addisonian Crisis on 28.12.2014 and my questionnaire of 31.01.2015, of the Department having a coherent document for the guidance of foster carers, relief carers, support workers, and contact staff prior to the Acute Health Care plan of 29.07.2015. In her letter of 25.09.2015, although Ms xxx attempts to place the blame on Health she makes a damning admission. 'Overall Health has failed to work in a collaborative manner with multi-agency colleagues and within our own organisation. As you will be aware this creates a significant risk for Olga and we are not meeting our accountabilities in relation to corporate parenting.' In reality Social Care had failed to work with Health, not as Ms xxx claimed.

John would suggest that the letter from Dr Z set out on pages 4/5 of bundle 101 exonerates Health from such claims. There are two issues. Ms xxx states as a fact, creates a significant risk for Olga, but the letter by Dr Z reveals that a handwritten care plan existed on children's ward and was regularly updated, so no risk existed when Olga was in hospital, so the claim is unsound when Olga was in the charge of 'Health.'

Where Ms xxx is correct is that if no adequate care plan existed until the Acute Health Care Plan of 29.07.2015 was drawn up, there was a serious risk when Olga was in the charge of the Social Care side of the Department. This means that the Department, from when Olga was discharged from hospital on 4.10.2014, to the issue of the Acute Health Care plan on 29.07.2015, was negligently running a risk for Olga when she was in the charge of Social Care. It should be noted as practical proof of this how during this time, Olga suffered a foreseeable and avoidable Addisonian crisis on 28.12.2014. John had summarised the issues to be addressed on 31.01.2015, so there can be no excuse that this was not a foreseeable risk. Ms xxx is correct about the department in saying, 'we are not meeting our accountabilities in relation to corporate parenting.'

John asked Dr Z; 'From the summer of 2015 the then social worker, Ms Q expressed her dissatisfaction to me with Nobles in general and in particular with yourself as you did not seem to agree with her diagnosis that a tonsillectomy would solve Olga's health problems. I suspect this dissatisfaction was passed on to her successor, Mr QM. I did point out to the social workers that to the best of my belief about half of Olga's admissions to Nobles were associated with vomiting at breakfast time or on the way to school. Would a tonsillectomy have had any effect on this recurrent problem?' The witness replied, 'unlikely.'

John, 'In the autumn Olga visited Alder Hey in company with the foster carer, Mrs V and I was placed under pressure to consent to a tonsillectomy for Olga. I felt I did not have sufficient data to make an informed decision and a telephone conference was set up for 8 December 2015 between Dr G and the Social Worker, QM, his manager, Mr & Mrs V and myself. You were unavailable but when I saw you on 30 December 2015 at Nobles, I checked if you had been given a copy of the minutes of the meeting but found you had not. I therefore handed you my copy as I could print another one off. Might it not have been helpful if your had been given a copy of the minutes of the meeting as it related to Olga's treatment?' Dr Z replied 'Yes', adding that 'one of his colleagues was leading a project to improve communication between Health and Social Care.'

It should be noted that the document referred to, namely the minutes of the meeting of 8.12.2015, was a Social Care document, so the lack of communication was wholly on the part of Social Care, as Health had no reason to know such a document even existed. John explained to Dr Z, one reason he was concerned was a comment by Dr G in her otherwise meticulously researched letter, which read, "Olga's Foster Carer advised me that she has frequent episodes of tonsillitis and we have therefore requested an ENT opinion. She was found to have significant tonsillar hypertrophy and a recommendation for tonsillectomy was made.'

John put it to Dr Z in Court, 'If Dr G had been told of frequent episodes of tonsillitis, this was a reasonable step to take. Would you agree that whilst surgical intervention may be highly desirable if something happens frequently, it may not be wise if it is rare or infrequent?' Dr Z replied, 'Yes.'

John asked Dr Z, 'Would this suggest that there is a need for accurate information?' He replied, 'Yes.'

John put it to the witness, 'The minutes of the telephone conference are set out in bundle 133 at pages 17 onwards. At the top of page 18 the report states Dr G's opinion, and that of her colleagues, is that the negative effects on Olga's health, due to recurring ENT related issues leads her to the opinion that there is a high threshold which endorses the procedures......., 'The phrase recurrent ENT related issues again suggests frequent, does it not, as per Dr G's letter. Would you agree with that?' Dr Z said, 'Yes.'

John continued, 'I do not for a moment criticize these statements by Dr G as it seems they were based on information that she had received in good faith, but would you agree this suggests that Dr G was of the opinion that these episodes were regular, or OFTEN as she put here?' He replied, 'Yes she has not put a number to it, but she gives the impression that it is fairly frequent.'

John, 'Under actions taken on page 21, it is reported From September 2014 Mr Stevenson would like the information passed to Alderhey and himself how many tonsillitis episodes had been recorded. Would you agree that this was a reasonable and responsible request in light of the serious doubts that had to exist over the foster carer's estimate of 50% of admissions being related to tonsillitis?' The witness replied 'Yes'

John referred Dr Z to the email on page 23 of the bundle referred to, which states Olga was admitted 41 times during this period and as far as the doctor concerned could see the documented episodes of tonsillitis are 3 to 4. Dr Z confirmed the author of the report was 'One of my specialist doctors in paediatrics.'

John asked Dr Z, 'This states 3 to 4 episodes of tonsillitis out of 41 admissions, which is less than 10% rather than the 50% cited by Mrs V. Do you confirm that is the case?' Dr Z replied, 'Yes.'

John referred the witness to page 25, and a letter from Dr B of Alder Hey, which states, "This young lady has been having problems with recurrent tonsillitis and every time she has this, it exacerbated her endocrine problems." John asked him, 'This time we have the word recurrent to add to often and frequent, but if Alder Hey had been told 50% of Olga's admissions were related to tonsillitis. I suggest they had every right to assume the information as correct.' The witness replied, 'Yes.' John asked him, 'Would you agree that no criticism of Alder Hey is appropriate if they were misinformed to this extent by Social Care and or the foster carer?' Dr Z replied, 'Yes they appear to have acted on the information they had been given.'

John put it to the witness, 'On 30 December I was asked to meet you at Nobles to discuss Olga's situation. Can you confirm that I was of the opinion that whether Olga has her tonsils removed is a matter for the consultants at Nobles and Alder Hey?' Dr Z replied, 'Yes.'

John, 'I do NOT presume to tell them what the proper threshold is. What I think I had every right to demand is that proper information is given to Alder Hey and Nobles so they make an informed decision on reliable data?' Dr Z replied, 'Yes.'

Readers will recall that an aspect of the Department's case was that John did not work with or listen to professionals. Before Dr Z had expressed his professional opinion, John made it clear that the decision needed to be based on the expert opinion of the professionals based on reliable data. In doing so, John had in effect committed himself to accept whatever opinion Dr Z suggested, on the basis that it was a decision to be taken by a competent professional based on accurate data.

John, 'Can you confirm that I said to you that for me to say what the threshold would be when I was speaking to a consultant would be absurd and that as I had complete confidence in your good self that I would accept whatever you recommended?' Dr Z said 'Yes.'

John, 'Can you confirm you said it was quite right for me to have made such enquiries as to the frequency of tonsillitis?' Dr Z said 'Yes.'

John, 'I suggest to you that this is a clear instance of how I have followed competent advice from health professionals without question, but where facts were incorrect, as with Olga's admissions to Nobles for tonsillitis, I have sought correct facts so an informed decision can be made?' The witness replied, 'Yes.'

John, 'Do you feel any fault can be found with this approach?' The witness replied, 'No.'

Dr Z repeated the number of three definite admissions and one possible admission due to tonsillitis at the meeting on 30-12-2015. He said that in view of Olga's Addisonian status there was an increased risk due to an operation and that in view of the low number of episodes, which was 3 or 4 and not 50 % of 41 admissions that he would recommend allowing three months to assess Olga's situation.

Dr Z wrote a letter to the Department to this effect immediately following the meeting. It should be noted that because of incorrect information given by the foster carer to Alder Hey, and not corrected by Social Worker QM that Olga was within fourteen days of an operation at the end of December 2015 which posed a significant risk to her. Risks have to be balanced, but in this case the social worker and foster carer had negligently misinformed Alder Hey, and it was only due to John's persistence that the correct information became apparent.

No evidence has come to John's attention showing who was responsible for Mrs V misinforming Alder Hey by a factor of 500%, but as a health professional herself, she should be aware of the need for accuracy. The social worker is not a health professional, but he was a silent witness to these events, and was present at most of them. He had access to all the data John had access to, and if an operation was being proposed by social workers to Alder Hey, he had a duty of care to Olga to satisfy himself that the data was accurate.

After gross negligence such as this, one might expect the social worker to behave in a more circumspect manner. An appointment had been arranged for Olga for 26.01.2016 at Alder Hey, and what happened is covered in bundle 134 pages 8-10. John requested permission to attend the meeting but was told by Mr QM's supervisor at 9.26am on 26.01.2016 that this would not be allowed. I refer the court to bundle 134 where the email refusing attendance appears. "QM explained that this is routine visit to the medical staff at Alder hey and the foster carer and QM are in the position to provide the medical team with how Olga is functioning on a daily basis."

John asked Dr Z, 'Olga was seen at Alder Hey by Dr G on 26 January 2016, in the company of Mrs V who had misinformed the medical staff at Alder Hey over the frequency of admissions that were related to tonsillitis, and of the social worker Mr QM who had an opportunity to correct her erroneous figure at the meeting on 8.12.2015, but failed to do so. Given that the foster carer had misinformed Alder Hey and the social worker had done nothing to correct that, do you think it might have been appropriate if I had been invited to attend the meeting with Dr G as well?' The witness replied 'Yes as long as you hold parallel responsibility, I think that is correct.'

It should be noted that in front of health professionals the department has asked John to sign the consent forms, but explained that if he did not, they would override any objection, therefore the Department clearly accepts there is a parallel responsibility but one where they reserve the right to overrule a parent. If the Social worker had not made any effort to correct Mrs V's wild claims on 8.12.2015 or at Alder Hey, can any reasonable person can place any faith in either of them, but the social worker decided not to permit me to attend this consultation on 26.01.2016. When John formally objected in sufficient time to have such a decision quashed, his manager produced a totally implausible explanation as noted above. The Court did not refer to this in the decisions,

John drew this to the attention of the court in bundle 134 of 29.01.2016 so this information is in the hands of the department. One could perhaps dismiss the incident on 26.01.2016 as a knee-jerk reaction of a social worker who had been vexed that his demand for a tonsillectomy had been overridden by a consultant paediatrician, but John has to draw the attention of the court to the sequel, on 25 February 2016. On this occasion I was not even notified of the appointment until late in the afternoon of 25.02.2016. It would strain credulity to accept that this failure to notify John in advance was forgetfulness. It has the appearance of a move to obviate any chance of independent scrutiny.

Dr G's letter re the consultation on 25.01.2015 states of Olga, 'It was great to hear that she has been out of hospital for 36 days, and the longest she has been out of hospital for some months... she has got less early morning vomiting.... consideration was given to a tonsillectomy given the symptoms of obstructed upper airways and the recurrent episodes of tonsillitis, but this is under review for now.' This comment by Dr G of reduced vomiting and that a tonsillectomy due to recurrent episodes of tonsillitis is under review is significant. The reason it is under review is that John was concerned at inaccurate information offered by the foster carer and/or social worker to Alder Hey, and that Dr Z arranged for accurate data to be provided and recommended a delay to consider the situation in light of the true facts. It now appears that due to the improved effect of the medication that the incidence of Olga's vomiting has declined.

John covered this in depth in Court as Social workers accuse him of not working with health professionals, but this shows he was willing to accept whatever advice was given on the basis of correct data, but when he knew the data was untrue, protested. The Social worker had the ability to find out if the data was correct or not, and failed Olga. It will be seen that Alder Hey reversed their opinion when they knew the truth.

In a novel, which as a famous author says, has to make sense, this would be the moment when a totally flawed case based on assumptions, guesswork and outright lies would be dismissed. In the real world of the Isle of Man, where social workers reign supreme, with no political oversight nor seemingly control by the courts, these devastating admissions were effectively ignored by the authorities. One is reminded of the thug magistrate who sentenced a child to be tortured six years after the ECHR ruling outlawed this. Was this magistrate ignorant of the law, or did the magistrate wilfully ignore it? And what is the situation here?

Does Tynwald feel that because a social worker gets an idea in her head that a tonsillectomy will be beneficial, although the senior paediatrician does not think it likely, that it is proper for a foster carer and another social worker to massively mislead a leading hospital? That is what happened here. The medical team at Alder Hey accepted there was a greater risk to an Addisonian than to an ordinary child of such an operation, but had been deceived by inaccurate information. When they knew the truth, they revised their opinion. That change was due to John, who was later criticized by the court as an inadequate father, and Dr Z, who the social worker Q had been trying to get rid of in the summer of 2015 as he put evidence before her non professional guesses. During his evidence before the court, Dr Z made a number of significant points, He stated, 'I hold accordingly a responsibility for all the actions in my division.' It is all too common for senior officers to seek to 'pass the buck' but Dr Z firmly does the exact opposite, which adds credibility to all his comments. He added, 'We work as a team. I have an active caseload of 1800 children ... the doctors at speciality level have delegated authority.'

Dr Z was asked did he have any up to date information? He replied, 'The number of admissions has significantly diminished in the past month....I am hoping this is due to the higher doses of hydrocortisone and slower release.' This shows that it is the opinion of a senior health professional who holds responsibility for Olga, but who works with colleagues from Alder Hey and his own team that it is his view that the progressive refinement of Olga's medical treatment has led to the improvements in her presentation.

Dr Z was asked re the GP's statement where he said it was his normal practice to advise to fast children for 24 hours in the case of gastroenteritis. Dr Z replied, 'This is NOT my practice, but it is not entirely unreasonable.' As on other occasions, Dr Z commented, ' to be fair to the GP he said 'it was his practice and it was not an unusual practice,'

John would remind readers that for decades in the NHS, the policy of fasting has been common on the grounds that feeding merely prompts more vomiting. When the GP gave this advice, John did not 'like it' but knew it was a common policy. He felt his duty to Olga was to carry out that advice, unless he felt it was so incompetent that he had a duty to seek a second opinion. Did he have grounds to believe it was incompetent? Dr Z did not suggest it was incompetent.

The Department had found an incident where John had differed from an audiologist in 2010. John had told audiologist A that Olga was a strong willed child and he would need to engage with her. He rejected that idea and expected her to engage with him. She would not do as he wanted, so the audiology test was a failure. He suggested a repeat test by him, or at Walsgrave. John suggested Woodloes at Warwick, as Olga had been tested with a clear result there previously and got on well with the staff. A few weeks later there was a successful test. With Mr A, whose test failed on the grounds John had suggested might happen, John had reason to challenge what had been done as incompetent. With the GP, his advice, although unwelcome was not unexpected or unusual. Dr Z said the treatment was not unusual.

Dr Z stated, 'I have had several opportunities to observe Olga and yourself and good reports back.... the general impression I get is she seems to be more confident. Dr Z also stated, 'I'm going by my observations and.... information about Olga and Mr Stevenson and what is reported by staff... **I believe Olga will be better placed with her father with adequate support and supervision put in but this is not an area of expertise for me.'** Unlike the Department of Social Care, which, when they took the decision to tear up the agreement of 28.01.2015, effectively painted everyone into a corner, Dr Z has put forward a rational answer based on his observations of Olga's interactions with her father, her medical and emotional state, and John's proven abilities to work with Olga and health professionals. The Court disregarded this.

The devastating evidence from Dr Z presented the court, the department and the original Guardian, who had rubber stamped whatever social workers wanted with difficulties. Only the advocate for the guardian made any serious effort to respond. A promising line of attack was, of course, Vera. If Dr Z had found Vera to be unreasonable, it would undermine his praise for her at the time Olga collapsed. The advocate asked if Dr Z had much contact with Mrs Stevenson? He said no. The advocate tried again, asking if ordinarily Dr Z would have expected to have done so? He replied no. She asked was there any reason why not? Dr Z said there was no special reason. The advocate tried yet again, asking if he had any cause to visit the family home? Dr Z replied 'No as an acute paediatrician, I do not normally do so.'

John believes the most significant remark by Dr Z related to his evidence at the EPO hearing on 19.09.2014, 'My original evidence was when I did not have a diagnosis for the condition of Olga... In my mind it was highly probable this was a child starved over several days or more.... Had I known the diagnosis my statement would have been very different, although the possibility of Addison's was considered." John asked consultant Dr D of Alder Hey, 'Do you think this is a significant remark, Sir?' Dr D replied 'A very significant remark and I think it is a very laudable remark.' The evidence of health professionals seems only to be treated with respect by the court or the department if it agrees with the kidnap approach.

## Chapter 12 Inconvenient evidence will be Ignored

Social Services thinking is guided to a large extent by certain rigid principles, the first of which is fear of another Baby P case in which social workers will be pilloried by the press for letting a baby die. All of us are to some degree influenced by the 'protect my own back' instinct which is a part of our survival instincts. A cave man needed to hunt, but had to make sure he did not end up as the meal. In the work environment, what we do is often based on not running a risk of criticism from others. It is understandable but can be carried too far. No one wants another Baby P tragedy, as a child died, but the fear of exposure for incompetence has ensured social workers see parents as the enemy. Breaking up a family, instead of that being a last resort, is a preferred option. Social workers deny this but this case is horrific proof of that trend.

I have referred to the old but wise saying, 'Power Corrupts, Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely' as it is a horrific fact of life. Kings and Emperors often suffer from this problem, with the murderous and debauched Caligula, emperor of Rome being perhaps the foremost example, but King John, who murdered his own nephew, was not much better. Social workers in the Isle of Man have been able to overawe politicians and insist on secrecy, so they are in no way trammelled by fear of public exposure or being called to order. This absolute power which permeates the system can lead to horrific abuses of justice or slapstick comedy, and the closing sequence in this book is an example of the latter in which disregard of simple facts made a contact worker behave in a ridiculous manner as she was 'corrupted' by absolute power. The incident in itself was trivial, but when such reckless disregard of common sense is applied across the board, the consequences are harmful. The reason we have checks and balances is to prevent the notion of absolute power going to our heads, and when that does not exist, the consequences are grim.

The male dominated thinking of most religions has much to answer for, with the 'wives obey your husbands concept.' For hundreds of years, wives were little more than chattels. One expression of this odious concept reads 'Why does a husband have legitimate authority over his wife? Why aren't husband and wife equals or peers like the feminists and egalitarians claim? The main reason why the husband has authority over the wife is because the husband financially supports the wife; in other words the husband invests in and gives to and supports the wife while the wife receives the husband's support and investment.'

This is obnoxious drivel. When Vera came to England, even before she married John, she worked to improve her English which would enable her to play her weight better in marriage and in life generally, and be good for children when the couple had them. Although an educated Russian, with a university degree, much of her education did not fit in with Western thinking, and an 'outsider' faces problems in society, as many immigrants rightly complain. John was the 'provider' but understood the imbalance this created. By opening joint accounts and starting with £5000, which Vera was free to use without any reference to him, John sought to give her financial independence. Over the years it built up to ten times that amount to which Vera also contributed meaningfully. John wanted to eliminate the power that money confers for his own sake as well as for Vera's. Vera did go to their UK home when she was under vicious pressure from social services, and because she felt John was her enemy, as he 'sided' with social services against her. John saw how her failure to follow 'The British Way', as a racist social worker put it, was used to demonize her, and tried to warn her of this. Vera tries to respect the rights of others, and found it hard to understand this discrimination, so John's criticism made her feel isolated. Despite a good intention, John erred by putting too much pressure on her to conform to The British Way. It could have destroyed their marriage, and John is grateful to Vera for not letting this happen. Power, and not just Absolute Power can be harmful, but social workers and contact staff seem oblivious to this.

Sadly, many people enjoy the exercise of power. John's father led a team of people in a joint venture from when he was in his teens to his seventies, some of the team members being active for half a century. John 'inherited' that role, and as this book was being written, 'three team members' worked with John. All three of them having been involved for decades. Lifelong teamwork is the product of mutual respect, rather than power. The vicious infighting in Nazi Germany shows how flawed the absolute power idea is!

Another corrupting influence is an inability to accept you could be wrong. John initially blamed the GP as his advice led to Olga's collapse, but as John discovered the impossible position the GP had been in, he knew he had been unjust. It was right to apologise. When the family support worker said Maria's bed was too high, it was a legacy of his back injury, and he attended to it as soon as the children had left. Good advice should be followed, but when the family support worker ignored the sound advice of the dietician and the community paediatrician, John backed their professional views and was pilloried for it. Would the court say a dietician and the community paediatrician should carry more weight than a social worker, or should social services views prevail? In this chapter, we shall see what the court decision was, and it pitchforks us into a sad paradox.

Mark Twain seems to be the author of the saying, "The only difference between reality and fiction is that fiction needs to be credible." Tom Clancy said much the same thing, but to extend the simile further, what is the difference between life in the Isle of Man and fiction? Fiction still needs to be credible, but life in the Isle of Man assuredly does not meet the credibility test.

To give a few examples, an MHK raised the idea of a tunnel from the UK to the IOM, inspired by the Channel tunnel, but totally lacking economic sanity. Another MHK said a reason to abolish the birch was that it was no longer a deterrent, as families would sell their stories to the media! The real reason the Island had to abandon the birch was the ECHR ruling. It was also barbaric, but the Isle of Man did invent a new improved torture instrument, when other places developed penicillin or radio or pacemakers, so is barbarism important? The reader may have his own views when he reaches the end of this chapter!

A £420,000 diesel locomotive was built for the IOM railway in 2013 and failed on its trials. After £250,000 on repairs and hardly any revenue trips to its name it lay out of use by 2015. In 2016, £473,000 was spent on resurfacing the Sloc road, and since that time, the racing quality of a minor road has permitted very high speeds by bikers during TT fortnight, with two deaths in 2019 alone, as visiting bikers deserted the TT course with a police presence they found obtrusive for somewhere else to race. This was an entirely predictable result, except to those in power.

The IOM Courier for June 2019 revealed that the IOM government had brought in recyclable containers for its offices but they were sent to be incinerated. If the government opts to incinerate plastics, why not use cheaper non recyclable containers? The minister for the Department of Infrastructure said he agreed with the MHK who raised the issue that outcomes needed to be considered when a policy was formulated.

When John was trying to defend his children from social services, Dr Z's evidence in court had been devastating, and should have been the death knell of any kidnap attempt, but the court paid little attention to the opinions of Dr Z, or of the department's own 'hired gun' Dr N, who had turned out to be an honest man. How could these witnesses be largely ignored in the decisions of the court? The evidence of the consultants at Alder Hey was disregarded and the court found little to interest it in the revelations that the department had whitewashed the clean your own vomit abuse of Olga, or the way Alder Hey was grossly misinformed over the frequency of tonsillitis, so an unnecessary operation was very nearly performed on a child who was vulnerable to such procedures.

What did the court do where allegations by social workers had been discredited, for example, that the children did not play outside, or Ms Q's bizarre idea that Vera should have delayed the ambulance so she could find someone to look after Tatiana and Maria while she went to the hospital with Olga. The GP and the consultant had both rejected this, but the court did not find it necessary to say anything critical in the decisions.

John had asked that Olga and Tatiana be allowed to give evidence but despite the judgment by Sir James Munby that there was no longer a presumption against children giving evidence in care cases, when the department objected, they were not allowed to have their say, although the court was supposed to be looking to their best interests. If the department were not scared of the children, why object?

John had submitted a great deal of evidence shredding the suppositions and inventions of the social services witnesses, and knew he would be subjected to a long cross-examination and the advocate for the department suggested four days!

From January 2015, Vera had been living in England, and had been admitted to St Michaels under s2 within days of arriving in the UK and had a further breakdown a year later. As she had horrific memories of the Isle of Man, and felt her husband had sided with social workers against her, as in September 2015, and then in October 2015, with the caustic soda nightmare, when he had sought a mental referral, she was understandably bitter towards him. John had no idea if the damage to their marriage had been fatal, but the love of the children for mama was unquenched. So far as John was concerned, if Vera could recover, when Sgt H asked him If him wanted to be reunited with Vera, he said 'very much so'.

Long before Vera's breakdown, it was clear the principal direction of attack was on Vera, with the added benefit that she had now suffered a nervous breakdown, requiring sectioning. The state muggers had put their victim into a mental hospital, but there was no way social services would accept they were primarily to blame. John, by contrast, admits that by putting pressure on Vera to conform to their prejudices, he added to the pressure on her, so in part at least he is also guilty.

After her breakdown in England, John had a horrific choice. Vera had left the Island, so in practical terms, John needed to seek the return of the children to himself as sole carer. If Vera returned, the children would be thrilled, but would social services allow her to have contact with the children, if they had been returned to John's sole care?

John offered himself as a sole carer, and to meet such objections undertook to advise social services or the police if Vera turned up unexpectedly at the house, so she could not pose a fictitious threat to the children, as social services alleged. John was betraying Vera in doing so, but if the choice was the children remaining prisoners until they were eighteen, or being returned to his sole care, on condition that he took immediate steps to prevent Vera having access to them if she turned up unexpectedly, he felt his duty as a father was firstly to the children, and after that to Vera.

Putting the boot on the other foot, he had told Vera on several occasions that her duty as a mother was to place the children first and if there was a conflict of interests between John's needs and the children, his needs must always come last. To make it clear beyond doubt, he told her that if there was a car crash and he was injured, Vera got the children to safety before she considered him, and if that meant he died, then so be it. His duty was to come last. Her duty was to place him at the end of the queue.

John could see how Ms AG was gunning for Vera, even before her breakdown, so if 90% of the fictitious evidence was against Vera, what was best for the children given the question mark about her returning to the Island? Sickening though it was, if John was true to the 'children first' principle, and the price of their freedom was to exclude Vera, that had to be the choice. In time of war, how many parents placed their children's safety before their own, no matter what the risks to the parents? Did John give priority to Vera's rights to be with her children, or prioritise saving them from being kidnapped?

In cross-examination on this issue, John offered to change the lock on the door to the IOM home, so Vera could not gain access, however distressing that would be to her if she did turn up. He offered to phone social services or the police if that happened, so had provided ample safeguards although there was no actual risk. Some of these points were made in answer to questions from the judge, as with changing the lock and this was criticised as thinking on the hoof. John had guessed that Vera would be demonized in court, and he had to be prepared to 'protect' the children from her, but how does one guess the lines of a baseless attack on a mother? Changing the lock against a loving spouse and mother is sickening and evil, but if that was the price Social Services would demand, the 'children first' principle made it inevitable.

The court ignored most of John's evidence but on this occasion, said it showed a ruthless streak! Had John offered no plan to 'protect' the children from a fictitious threat, he would have been accused of being irresponsible. John was horrified at having to put such cruel ideas to the court, and conceded each demand reluctantly, as they could only distress Vera, but as he had said to Vera, parents must come last. Had the court made it a condition that the children could only return if John had divorced Vera, would that be the right thing to do? On the 'children first' principle, the answer must be yes. Such a price would be the height of sadism, but if John truly believes 'children first' and has the choice of sacrificing Vera or the children, what would be the correct answer. In the car accident simile, he had emphasised he did not matter.

If, in different circumstances, the children could have been returned to Vera on the condition she did not allow John to have access to them, he would have accepted that cruel dictat, just as he would have accepted a ban on Vera if the Court had followed that path.

John hoped the court would place the medical evidence which was professional and showed no signs of bias and the social worker evidence in the scales of justice, and balance the two, as the medical evidence could not be ignored in any impartial assessment.

John had relentlessly exposed the assumptions, guesses and falsehoods of social workers, and in two cases where he had made errors in his witness statements, he had disclosed these to the court, one being his early criticisms of the GP, and the other being where he had got the calorific value of a can of soup wrong in responding to the allegations of the 'family support' worker. To suppose that in hundreds of pages of evidence written under time pressure, there were no other errors would be fanciful, but instead of a grilling on his errors, the cross examination focussed on three main areas.

Although Vera was in the UK and might not return to the IOM, and John had offered a 'No Vera' package, fifty per cent of the cross-examination of John related to Vera's inadequacies. The Court had ruled that John could not speak for, or defend Vera in his evidence, as only she could defend herself, but the judge was quite happy for John to be cross-examined on Vera's acts or omissions. If she did not return to the family it was irrelevant. As his attempts to defend Vera from unjust claims were discounted, cross-examining him on her alleged failings was not even handed.

The second main theme was to discredit the return to a single carer. Early on, as we have seen there was an absurd comment about John wanting to speak to Olga's classmates about help, when he actually said he would like to speak to their parents, but as care cases were shrouded in secrecy, he had to obtain permission. After weeks of delay this, was agreed subject to a referral to the social worker, and months later there had been no progress, so John's ability to speak to parents had been eroded. The lack of progress was exploited by the court, but the delays caused by the social worker were not referred to. It was blame the victim.

He had managed to find friends who might be able to look after Tatiana and Maria if he had to take Olga to hospital for a few hours and had obtained provisional 8.00am-6.00pm cover from a nursery in Ramsey, and at a later date, spoke to a reputed IOM health care provider who provided qualified nurses on a 24-hour call out basis, primarily for the elderly, but would do so for the children.

John had provided summaries of child care routines in the house as far back as January 2015, although these could not be filled in in depth until the children did come home, as tastes, wishes and needs change, and Olga's medication had regularly been refined so pages on how to dispense medications in April 2015 would be out of date by December 2015, let alone the following year.

John had taken great care to get his written depositions correct but knew of two errors, as noted. He wondered if he had made any other errors, and was attacked on two issues. Nurse S, who had seen the children 'cowering' behind a radiator had produced an early statement. John knew it was not true, and had been disgusted by such a false claim. Foolishly he had in his response to her untruths, said in his own evidence that if they were cowering it was from her. Later he realised it was a sarcastic retort, which might be acceptable from the other side, but not from a parent and regretted it. He was questioned at length on this, on the 'so they were cowering' line, and admitted he had said it in anger, rather than on calm reflection. He was asked if it was said in pique, and agreed this was so.

John wishes he had NOT said it, but a lie that alleged your children cower from you is deeply offensive, and the evidence of the community paediatrician and the honest 'hired gun' showed for fraudulent it was. It hardly suggests dishonesty; at most it suggests an isolated moment of justifiable disgust. The court used it to call John a liar. We have seen social services liars, but John said something cynical, and that was all.

Another issue was exploited to damage John's credibility. John had been involved with analysis of the USSR for many years and had a deep interest in Russia. He knew the stereotype of Russians was nonsense, and when by chance the opportunity to contact a lady in Russia came up, he took it. He found Vera a charming person to write to, and then visited her in Sevastopol, which was a city he already knew a great deal about, as it was the fleet HQ of the Black Sea Fleet.

Vera's sister Zhenya had a little girl and they visited Yevpatoria, but on the way back Zhenya was tired so Vera took over. She had been working long hours at work to have off time for John's visit, and she was exhausted. John promised to look after her niece. Only when Vera was sure she could trust him, did she relax. To John, that showed what an outstanding person she was, and he felt privileged by her trust. He has told Olga, Tatiana and Maria that was the moment he fell in love with 'mama' and what better trigger could there be to adore such a fine person? Eight months later John and Vera married, with Zhenya and her daughter present to represent her family.

Because they had met through an introduction magazine, and whilst there are respectable penpal and contact magazines, some are dubious, Vera was embarrassed at letting people know how they met. John felt he should respect her wishes, so when he was questioned by the police, he did not mention it was through an introduction magazine. After all, this was in 1997-98 and Olga was not born until 2007, so it was hardly relevant. Neither John nor Vera had lied to the police and there were hundreds of other facts which were more relevant to family life. For example, John had a stroke and a heart attack in 2004 and whilst the medication saved his life, Vera nursed him back to health and climbed to the summit of North Barrule with him in 2007. That reflects on her character; how he and Vera met was irrelevant.

In passing, when John had agreed to undertake a psychological assessment under agreed conditions, a significant part of the questioning was on previous girlfriends/partners. Unless there was evidence of violence to previous partners, this was insulting to them, and how would the judge or social worker like to be questioned on their previous partners who they might not have seen for twenty years. If there was violence, it would be on a criminal record and there was no such record. John had never even had a parking ticket, let alone anything worse! That perfect record was, of course, ignored by the court!

When we come to truthfulness or the lack of it, Mrs V had said Olga had 50% of her admissions to hospital due to Tonsillitis when the true figure was 7.5 to 10%. Social Worker Q had said the children did not play outside when there was photographic evidence they did. Nurse S had suppressed the evidence which discredited her weight figures, so had suppressed material facts to the court in September 2014. The only way Olga's third collapse became known was a remark by Mrs V attempting to show how clever she was. The social worker had omitted all mention of a third collapse when in the 'care' of the department, so suppressed material facts.

These were ALL significant and relevant matters that were misrepresented, not a matter of no relevance that took place a decade before Olga had been born.

In a court case, advocates will jot down points made by a witness under cross examination, so they can try to undo the damage during their re-examination. John acted as his own advocate, so had spoken to the judge that he would need to jot down anything like that, and this had been accepted. In one case, he knew there were facts that he could cite to reveal the truth in his own re-examination and needed to jot down the question. This was used at the time to suggest he was trying to evade answering. It meant he had to carry in his mind a couple of hours of questioning and jot down any points later. How many people can accurately recall two hours of questioning without some notes, so is this fair?

John's father was a doctor, and that is a profession where careful diagnosis and careful actions and replies were vital. John's professional training was in a career where precision is almost as important. His work as an author included 26 books in print which were praised for their accuracy. His analysis work needed care, so he was accustomed to be accurate in what he said. Had there been numerous factual errors in his written submissions, it is likely these would have been seized on to discredit him, as he had exposed the hundreds of errors in the social services case, so showing he was careless would damage his credibility.

His accuracy was not questioned, but he was criticised for wanting to note down a question he had been asked to respond to in the judgment! Nurse S, who had misled the court over Olga's different weights, children cowering behind a radiator, and over having booked an appointment with Dr CP and then cancelled it without telling John, was let off very lightly, as a timid person. Very often, when Nurse S was asked a question, she took refuge behind her folder, and had to look up the answer. John, by contrast tried to answer openly without taking time to look up convenient facts.

The judgment of the court was that the children should remain in custody, despite the overwhelming medical evidence, the harm that Dr N had revealed had been done to them, and the suspect nature of much of the evidence from social services. The evidence from the medical witnesses was virtually ignored in the decision, which was the crucial part of the judgment, unless it supported the department. If this novel is based on a true story, then just as the names of the parties must be disguised and the words of third parties paraphrased, paragraph numbers would need to be adjusted.

Quite early on in the decision section, the flavour was apparent, with para 3443 and the visit by the social worker in July 2013. The judge 'found' Vera crouched on the floor, although she actually sat or knelt on the floor to play with the children and parents do kneel on the floor to play with children. Vera regarded the children as more important than the social worker, who was obviously offended by a mother prioritising her children. The judge mentions there was a suggestion that Vera was playing with the children, but does not find that as a fact, but does find as a fact that Vera was crouched on the floor. Both depend on the word of one witness only. The judge does not find that the children were outside playing in the sunshine when the social worker arrived, or had to be taken inside, so they needed something to cheer them up. That had been stated in evidence. The judge finds Vera's behaviour was unusual, but refrains from mentioning that the head of the social services section agreed there were no safeguarding concerns and the case should be closed. To fail to refer to the decision by a senior social worker that the case would be closed after giving the adverse views of a less senior social worker is not striking a balance.

At para 3460 the judge had to admit Nurse S had been 'careless and less than thorough in her report to the court' but that is all. The nurse failed to disclose material facts to the court. John was accused of lying to the police when he did not cover every detail of the way he met Vera, which was in no way relevant to the case.

At para 3466/67, the incident of Nurse S not telling John that an actual appointment had been made to see Dr CP is covered and is dismissed as no more than carelessness, but the judge suggests it is not duplicitous, even though it was once again a failure to disclose material information.

At para 3473 when the school nurse had failed to report a bronzed skin tone to the parents the judge says John was critical adding 'I take his point,' but goes on to say John misses the point as he had the opportunity to see this bronzed skin tone. The judge made this a finding of fact, but did not make it a finding of fact that nurse S could have alerted the GP. The judge also fails to consider the effect of different lighting sources or that the GP did not spot it either, and Dr Z did not find a contemporary photo of Olga a worry.

Para 3835 refers to John's phone call of 28 August 2014 to social services and finds John was not accommodating to a department wish to carry out a CIN assessment, without referring to a phone call from the head of the section a few minutes later saying it was nebulous and the issue would be closed. Both are facts, but only one is referred to as a finding of fact by the judge. It is of course the damaging one.

Para 3749 accepted that Mrs V would cease to be foster carer, but added that foster carers were specially trained. The judgment claimed the chances of neglectful care were thin at best. 'It added I can hear Mr Stevenson at this point shouting, "What about Mrs V making Olga clear up her vomit' or 'What about Mrs V giving wrong information about Olga's tonsillitis.." This single phrase speaks volumes. The judge had to praise John for his courteous and proper conduct in the court over many months. He had never once shouted, even in the face of untruths, so the use of 'shout' is emotive and derogatory. A more balanced remark might have been, 'I can hear Mr Stevenson pointing out...' Given the seriousness of the risk to Olga that would be appropriate. The minutes of the meeting in December 2015, when John challenged these figures from Mrs V do not suggest he shouted even then, when he knew wrong information was being given. No further criticism is offered in para 3749 as to the incorrect information being given by the foster carer to Alder Hey, which could have led to an unnecessary operation and a threat to Olga's life. As it was not a finding it became a mere passing remark, although it put Olga's life at risk.

By contrast we can go to para 3485 for 17 September 2014 where the judge said, 'Mr Stevenson failed to disclose the extent of Olga's thinness to the GP when he saw him.' The GP examined Olga. John said what had happened to Olga earlier in the day, which the GP could not know about without being told, as is noted in para 3479. John did not think it appropriate to tell the doctor what would be apparent from his examination. When the advocate for the department queried Olga's weight to undermine the favourable impression from the GP's evidence the GP replied she was "a slim child but she did not strike me as being exceptionally thin at the time." John has accepted Olga was thin, but the GP put it as slim. Being slim is seen as preferable to being obese. The judge also had to be aware of the comment by Dr Z when he saw a photo which had been taken two days before Olga took ill. Dr Z said she looked thin, but not seriously unwell. The judge by contrast stated, 'I find that Olga was painfully thin,' although this flies in the face of two medical witnesses, and would seem to be influenced by police photos after her Addisonian crisis, when she had dropped a great deal of weight and was painfully thin.

No 'finding' was made that misleading a hospital by a foster carer and a social worker was negligent, but John was criticised for not saying Olga was thin, when the child was in front of the GP. Had it been a phone consultation, then the information would have been reasonable to add. John gave information the GP could not know, i.e. the vomiting, but did not proffer his opinions, e.g. "I think she has gastroenteritis" or tell the GP what was obvious, that she was on the low weight side, which he could see.

At para 3487, the judge referred to a worryingly thin child in April to September 2014, but the GP had said slim, whilst Dr Z said she looked thin but not seriously unwell. John had specifically asked if the dieticians who had seen Olga in April would have set up an appointment in a few months had they been worried, and received a categorical assurance in court by a senior dietician that they would have acted. The judgment ignored ALL this clear medical evidence.

At para 3485, the judge attacked John on Olga's bronzed skin, but if that is so, the GP should have seen it and Dr Z should have pointed out the bronzed skin in photo taken three days before Olga's collapse. The only person acquitted of blame by the judge is Nurse S who opted not to pass her concern on to John or to the GP. A further significant point is the judge comments, 'the GP had some [information]... but only Mr Stevenson had it all save for the bronzed skin.' Colour perception is dependent on the light source, so it may be that it was more apparent in the school than elsewhere, but if there was a sufficient concern to contact safeguarding, then there was reason to alert the GP and the parents. The court glossed over this serious failing by the school nurse. Why, as the GP had said such a report would have been acted upon?

Para 3494 related to Vera's decision not to go to hospital with Olga on 17 September. The judge accepted Vera was in a difficult situation with a need to look after the other children but then resorted to sheer speculation, 'I take the view it is not the sole reason Mrs Stevenson did not go in the ambulance with Olga.' This 'view' is based on no evidence of any sort. Should a court judgment include a 'view' by a judge that is based on no stated facts? The only evidence is Vera's comments to the police that she needed to take Tatiana to school. No praise is given to Vera for not delaying the ambulance for twenty minutes by following the social workers demand that she ring round to find a friend, as the evidence of Dr Z and the GP would make any such remark legally unsound. It seems that inaccurate information by a foster carer or a dangerous idea by a social worker, either of which could have led to Olga's death, do not merit condemnation, though the judge did mildly criticise nurse S for her conduct in places.

Para 3495 said it was unacceptable behaviour for Vera to hear a social worker calling through the letter box for nearly an hour. The judge had heard how the previous social worker to visit the house in July 2013 had wanted to refer Vera to mental health services, so with a child seriously ill, what mother would see a banshee screaming through her letterbox as welcome? The judge found that by not letting the social worker in, this was 'emotional abuse' to Maria. As it happened, the police photographer took a photo of Maria still happily playing in the hall after the police had broken in. The police break in and arrest of her mama was potentially far more likely to distress Maria, but she was still placidly playing! The judge had to be aware of this police photo, so there is evidence to show no obvious distress.

The judgment always tried to find fault. At para 3502, ' Mr Stevenson's explanation was that there was effectively three weeks worth of food and deliberately so, to cater for the possibility of him falling ill. This is telling.' Indeed it is telling; it suggests a father who realised that if he was ill, how a heavier burden would fall on Vera so he thought ahead to obviate it as much as he could. If he was ill, Vera needed to take the children to school, so the last thing she needed was unnecessary work to distract her from Maria, who was not of school age. It was a positive point, but was twisted to suggest John did not think Vera would go shopping if he was ill.

At para 3525, the judge accused the parents of exposing the children to harm in the kitchen. This ignored the inconvenient facts that with the 18 month intervals between the children, health visitors had visited regularly from 2007 to 2013 and had always seen all children, so there would have been no chance to hide scalds burns or falls. The medical records showed no accidents or falls needing attention of the GP or A+E, so the parents had a 100% safety record, because of the care they took, but despite all the evidence which was pointed out, the court claimed, 'It was likely, very likely, to cause the children significant physical harm.' Readers may recall how the Family Support worker said telling the children not to go into the kitchen was ample, but what happens if John was shopping and Vera attending to one child in the toilet? The other two could go into the kitchen and experiment, hence the cabin hook for safety. This high regard for safety was not referred to here, let alone treated as a finding. John and Vera had a 100% safety record.

At Para 3526, the judge said the social worker Ms Q believed Mr Stevenson should have got help for Mrs Stevenson a long time ago. The judge does not specify when a 'long time ago' might be. When there had been comments about caustic soda, and John did seek medical intervention, in case she was suicidal, it was decided by the crisis team that she was not sectionable in October 2015. Social worker Q wanted to force a tonsillectomy on Olga which was not needed, and wanted John to force medical intervention on Vera, but if medical intervention had been refused in October 2015, was there any earlier time when it would have been appropriate or approved? There is no evidence that it would have been agreed earlier.

Later in the para it is argued that by December 2015, John did not want Vera to be sectioned. As she had not self-harmed from late October to late December, had John overreacted in October 2015? She had not done as he had feared, so he felt it right to give her the benefit of the doubt.

John had loved the Island from when he was a child. He now found it a horrific place with his children kidnapped. Vera had no family association with the Island, so has no ancestral love of the place. Is a place you find horrible helpful to your mental state? If Vera wished to go to the UK home, where there were so many happy memories, might that be better for her? The judge ignored all these points which had been advanced. The judge suggests, without offering any supporting evidence that John should have let Vera try to make her own travel arrangements. Would that not intensify her feelings of isolation? What, if instead of going into town to try to make arrangements, she had been so distraught by her husband's refusal to help her that on impulse when she was going into town to make travel arrangements, she had walked along one of the stone piers and thrown herself over the side, feeling no one cared for her?

One thing which astonished John is the way the decisions virtually ignored the medical evidence from Dr N, Dr Z, the GP, Dr D, etc. When Olga's medical condition is at the centre of the case, how can a balanced and impartial judgment not refer to medical issues?

I would like to cover another hundred or a thousand passages in the judgment where the balance is hardly even, but I am already concerned at the length of this book. It would have reflected well on the IOM Justice system if there were passages in the decisions section that highlighted the support of health professionals and the repeated comments that no blame could be attached to John or Vera. The decisions section, if it was to be balanced, should have reviewed the harm done to the children by the department, as the court is supposed to carry out a balancing exercise, measuring good and bad of a return home with remaining in care, but the decisions section is lacking in such balance. Indeed, the greatest concern must be the way that medical evidence other than selected passages harmful to the family are virtually absent from the decisions section.

The children were condemned to remain in care much to their dismay and that of John and Vera. The judge had taken departmental claims that the children were settled in contact, despite the massive evidence to the contrary with regular nightmares, Olga's regular refusal to eat, her statements that she wanted to kill herself, and evidence of how she held her hand over her face at Nobles hospital. None of this is consistent with contented or happy children.

If this novel is based on a true story, and it were not a care case, but a normal case with a jury, would the jury feel convinced by a summing up which largely ignored the medical evidence and instead concentrated on evidence from witnesses with an axe to grind? One social services witness had even prefaced her evidence that it was in support of the department, but this bias was not referred to in the decisions section.

Again if the novel is based on a true story, would an account of such a case in the newspaper inspire confidence in the justice system of the Island? Does it suggest the court acts in an even handed way, or is evidence from health professionals given scant attention? These are issues Tynwald should look at, and if they fail to, is this what the people expect or want of their MHKs?

Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin to focus public attention on a scandal in pre Civil War America. Slavery was in-excusable. Sadly tens of thousands of young men on both sides died as opinions became polarised. The South claimed, quite rightly, that the North was trying to take away State rights enshrined in the constitution, and many southerners fought not to defend slavery but to defend the constitution. The North said, equally rightly, that slavery was an abomination.

Social workers could with justice point to Baby P and say they serve a vital function, and in such cases that is assuredly so, but human nature does make protect my own back a key motivator, and children are sometimes seized hastily. Protect my Back and fear of admitting a mistake then creates a new tragedy. In England, the courts have become fairer thanks to Sir James Munby, but in the Isle of Man, Social Services, politicians and the courts exist in the bizarre aftermath of the Samantha Barton case, where the good parts of the report were overwhelmed by the Protect our Backs desire of civil servants and MHKs were intimidated into not protecting their constituents.

The tragedy of the Stevenson case is that a system that is supposed to protect children has harmed children. The evil of slavery could have been ended by compromise between the North and the South. The Stevenson case could have ended in compromise, and the most astonishing document in the case was an idea put forward by Olga at contact. It was so wise and logical that John promised her he would put it to the court. This is what he wrote based on Olga's proposal.

The Olga plan of 29.02.2016

1.1 On 29.02.2016 at contact, I had to tell the girls I would miss contact on Tuesday and Thursday due to the Court hearings.

1.2 Olga said 'Why don't they let us stay at your house dada, so they know you can look after my medications.' She added 'you can look after everything else.'

1.3 I said I would put Olga's suggestion to the court.

1.4 I therefore formally put Olga's suggestion before the court. I would remind the court that Dr Z had said in writing on 29.09.2015 that Olga needed to be reunited with her family. Dr D said he would have been disappointed after Addison's was known, if Olga had an Addisonian crisis. She had one definite Addisonian crisis on 28.12.2014 and another probable crisis in August 2015. Dr N, Dr Kurien, Dr Z have all expressed confidence in me, and in my relationship with the children

1.5 I suggest to the Court that the strange events of 28.01.2015 when the department signed an agreement that the children were to be returned home, and that my wife would not be subject to a psychological test and agreed my conditions for a test, but on 9 March tore that agreement up, on the grounds that my wife and I would not agree to abandon those terms, suggest disingenuous behaviour.

1.6 I suggest that if the Department does have the good of the children at heart, although I do not believe this is the case, Olga's suggestion is a way forward. I therefore endorse this wise suggestion which suggests remarkable maturity for an eight year old child, and put it to the court myself.

1.7 I would suggest that the initial return should be for a period of seven days, with the department having the right to visit the house at any time between 8.00am and 8.00pm without notice.

The Olga plan was trashed by the department and by the Court. The only original element by John was to offer a short time scale that the department could reasonably accept and to offer no notice inspections. The only reason John suggested an 8.00am to 8.00pm limit was to avoid distress to the children had there been a 3.00am inspection, but if that had been demanded John would have accepted it.

This plan shows the maturity of Olga and should have been accepted by all parties. Had John failed the girls, then they should be taken away from him. Social services, the courts and the Island could have all emerged with honour.

Instead I have called the Isle of Man the Isle of Kidnappers, as that is fact. In 1976 the Island was shamed before Europe as the Isle of Child Torture, and a few years later the British government had to insist on a non Manx judge when a magistrate wilfully ignored what was the law of the land in ordering a child to be tortured. It speaks volumes for the doubts in Westminster that a non Manx judge had to be sent. Were the Island judges that unreliable? Seemingly Westminster thought so.

If this novel, Child Kidnapping in the Isle of Man, exposes the Island to international disgust, then those who are guilty of ignoring the Olga plan must accept the guilt. A parent is supposed to love his children. John says, rightly, 'when a child is as Mature as Olga and shows wisdom superior to ever other party in this deplorable human rights abuse, one must admire her wisdom. Her sisters have also shown their maturity and wisdom, and are equally to admired.'

## Chapter 13 'Don't Believe anything he tells you dada.'

As the case drew to a close, there were significant developments. The new guardian Ms GA produced a report, and the truth about several incidents emerged. She said the DHSC records contained a report by social worker QM how he visited Mrs Stevenson by appointment on 2 August 2016 at 11.30am. QM alleged Warwickshire social worker 'SL had already knocked at the property and had not received a response. I [QM] knocked at the door and called through the letterbox to inform Mrs Stevenson that I had arrived from the Isle of Man. Mrs Stevenson answered the door. I asked to use her toilet as I had driven from Liverpool. Mrs Stevenson said I could not.'

If QM and SL had met up outside the Warwickshire home at 11.30am, they must have had some arrangement to do so, but Vera is adamant she had not agreed to see QM. We have a conflict of evidence, so who is likely to be telling the truth? In September 2015, when QM called at the IOM house, Vera went into the other room, rather than see him so John acted as shuttle diplomat. Vera emphatically refused to see QM. When she was at Caledon, Vera again refused to see him, but he had taken it as a deemed consent. As there is no evidence that Vera had agreed to see QM in Aug 2016, his claim of an appointment is suspect. Vera's refusal to let him use the toilet implies a lack of trust and the discussion took place on the doorstep. QM attempted to give Vera two letters he had written to her. She refused to accept them and said to give them to her husband. QM refused. Social workers habitually accused John of not allowing Vera to speak for herself. She was living in the family home, but John was in the IOM, so could not be accused of not allowing her to make up her own mind. Vera had refused to allow QM in the house and had refused to accept two letters from him. Is it likely she had agreed to see him by appointment?

QM asked if Vera would attend court. She declined to answer, adding her husband will speak on her behalf, Vera said she felt QM was trying to get her to contradict or go against her husband. Vera was in no way under the control of John financially, as he had made sure she had access to many thousands of pounds. John had no idea of this meeting beforehand, so had not suggested what to say.

Was QM's visit wise, given her known emotional state? In October 2015, she wanted caustic soda for an unknown purpose, but was not said to be sectionable. After QM's letter banning her from contact, she was deeply distressed and wanted to go to Warwickshire. When QM found out, he badgered her at Walsgrave, and it was after that call that she was so disturbed that she was sectioned. QM forced his way into her room at St Michaels; Now he was trying to force his way into her home. What might her mental state have been after he left? A report from September 2016 that she was voluntarily admitted to hospital as she was confused is a worry. John gave the name of the police officer involved and GA said I have no reason to believe that Mr Stevenson is being other than scrupulously honest. Was it wise or humane to badger a vulnerable woman in this way three times? The reader may have his own opinions. In could easily have pushed her over the edge.

GA researched into social attitudes in the former USSR, 'people from the Ukraine and Russia are very blunt as described by Mr Stevenson and do not go in for social pleasantries in public.' This was confirmed by the cultural analysis the judge had said would not be given any serious weight. The guardian also reported people from Vera's background 'tend to be more reserved and quietly spoken.' as John had said, so a quiet person who was reserved with those she perceived as hostile was likely. Are all American or Russian children emotionally damaged as their parents are bluntly spoken? That is nonsense and racist.

GA 'raised the toe-sucking' incident when Maria's toe was sucked by a much older girl in front of Mrs V, who excused it as a foot accidentally going into the older girl's mouth. How often has the reader accidentally put their foot in another person's mouth? Given Mrs V's presence, Maria would be intimidated from saying anything else, and we have no idea what pressure had been put on her to follow the party line, but there must be a suspicion of pressure on her to say what was required.

GA said that Olga had been forced to clean up her own vomit in contrast to the 'silly idea' excuse from social worker Q. Mrs V claimed she had spoken to the link worker at Fostering First and she had recommended this action, but the link worker denied this. The explanations of the link worker and Mrs V are mutually incompatible. One is not truthful. Either a fostering official gave abusive advice or she did not. If she gave irresponsible advice, which no health professional said was proper, should nor Mrs V as health professional herself have sought further advice. If the link worker did not give such extraordinary advice it was a blatant attempt to pass the buck.

The spider incident was blamed on Olga who had killed a spider and was upset, so Mrs V had explained she had caught a daddy longlegs and thrown it out, accidentally pulling off one of its legs. The story had no similarities with the story told by the girls. It was the sort of incident contact staff would be keen to report, but no evidence contrary to John's version of what the girls said was offered.

GA said Mr and Mrs V had recently informed fostering that they would not be able to care for Olga, Tatiana and Maria in the long term. One of the alleged grounds was the amount of contact, but the social worker had promised to reduce that to once a fortnight when the department won its case, so that was nebulous. Lavish support had been given to Mrs V by Fostering First, and there were proposals to cut this to normal levels, and GA stated, 'this has crystallized the decision for them.'

In the next para, GA spoke of the deplorable state of the IOM care trade, adding, 'This leaves the position of the girls uncertain, if they do not return home, **as it will be important for the girls to remain together, and I am very aware of the dearth of carers available to provide for a sibling group of three let alone manage Olga's medical needs** .... a proper match is required as this would be a long term placement until the girls reach eighteen. **Separation of the girls must not be considered. .... the overarching requirement in selecting a suitable alternative family for them must be the ability to care for all three girls together and into adulthood. It is essential that whatever move these girls make, if it is not to be home, it should be their last**.'

The guardian is a notionally independent person appointed to consider the interests of the girls, not the interests of parents or social workers. Guardians have been criticized by Sir James Munby for being less than diligent and John said the same of the first guardian. Here the guardian is specific. Separation of the girls must not be considered. .... the overarching requirement etc.

The guardian also points out the dearth of carers in the Island available to look after three siblings. The Court was aware of both factors, and that Mrs V was planning to stop caring for the girls if she did not get a level of support which was out of line with normality, **so it was a part of the balancing exercise which was ignored, calling the judgment into question.**

John was criticised for introducing relevant evidence late, but in the last week of the hearing, Ms AG announced the department had two potential carers who would look after all three girls. Given how the department habitually broke its promises, readers may not be surprised to hear that nothing more was heard of these two carers after the hearings ended.

Readers may ask why I have covered the Guardian's evidence AFTER the judgment, as her statement predated the judgment? Although the Guardian had emphasised, **Separation of the girls must not be considered** , the girls had been separated within weeks of the judgment which paid but token attention to the warning that separation was wrong.

Two separate excuses were offered for the department ignoring what the guardian had said. One was that Mrs V's health had declined, so she could not look after her own three children and three children for which she received £500 a week, tax free and without insurance stamp contributions. The alternative reason was that Olga's health was so fragile that she needed one on one care, although the evidence throughout 2016 was that Olga's health was steadily improving. It was suspicious that two separate excuses should be offered within days for the decision to split the children up in direct contravention of what the guardian had said was not acceptable.

In the event, Maria offered a far more likely explanation. She said at two contact sessions that [Mrs V] had got sick of Olga as she was always challenging her and did not want her anymore. Is a six year old child likely to invent a story like that, or is she old enough to perceive the truth and to express it. Readers may ask is Maria's version more plausible than the official stories? Let us look at the facts. Olga had forty admissions to hospital up to December 2016 though the number was sharply falling off. She had to take complex medication, and from the guardian's report a reason why Mrs V wanted to drop all three children was 'in relation to Olga's medical needs.'

If Mrs V dropped all three girls, an income of £500 a week would end, but Tatiana and Maria had minimal medical needs, so dropping Olga would drastically reduce the work load and lose no more than £133 a week. The social worker said Olga could dig her heels in and could not be made to budge. Maria whispered that Ms V hated Olga, and whilst that may be a child putting things bluntly, John had seen how dictatorial Mrs V was to Olga, and how Olga did challenge her, as Maria claimed. No facts undermined Maria's explanation.

We have Mrs V's failing heath, a more normal level of support for Mrs V, or how Olga now needed one on one care, although her admissions to hospital were steadily declining. We have Maria's explanation, delivered with the frankness of a child, but any of these explanations goes against the explicit comment by the guardian, **Separation of the girls must not be considered**. Readers will have to make their own minds up as to which story is the most likely if this novel is based on true events.

On 5 June 2017, John was invited to a meeting at Murray House at which the Group Manager Care Management Service attempted to justify the plan to separate Olga from her sisters, although this had been stated by the Guardian to be wrong, and Olga had said she did not wish to be separated from her sisters. An implausible comment was made that Olga's sisters wished to be separate from her. As social workers have habitually misrepresented what the girls have said and there was no independent evidence that this was so, John could not accept it.

On 5 October 2017, a new social worker phoned John to ask how he felt about the girls being separated, with Olga at one foster carer and Tatiana and Maria separate. He said it was 'criminal', as the Guardian in her final report was adamant that the girls should not be separated.

At first Olga had used refusal to eat to challenge the foster carers but after Vera spoke to her, which was labelled as emotional abuse, she switched to arguing her case which did not risk an Addisonian crisis. Until the trial ended, the department respected the comment by the Guardian that the children should NOT be split up, but Olga was then moved. In response to the evasions of October 2017, John suggested it was hardly likely that six year old would invent a story that Mrs V was sick of Olga, if it were not true. Unlike the excuses by social workers, it has the ring of truth and fitted all the known facts. John was repeatedly pressed to ameliorate the description over separation from criminal to something else. The separation defied the advice of the Guardian. As Mrs V was allegedly stepping down, the court could avoid considering Ms V's misconduct over vomiting and misleading Alder Hey. This was negligent, but the court had assurances that Mrs V was not going to be involved in the future, so was not relevant to long term issues.

9 Sept 2017, a revealing plea

Olga as she was being pressured to end contact, turned to John and said how she 'wanted contact with you, dada, every day.' She turned to Vera and said she wanted contact with mama every day. As Social worker Q had misled the court saying the girls had 'endured' a lot of contact. John had suggested endured should read enjoyed, but that did not stop this sadist planning to cut contact to once a fortnight to help break up the family bond. John demanded that contact staff include this heartfelt plea in their report and asked for a copy but this was not done.

7 October 2017 I steal candies from babies for the Minister

On Sat 7 October 2017, the contact centre established a new low in behaviour, reducing Olga to tears. Her birthday is on xx October, so 7 October was the contact prior to her birthday. As Tatiana had an ear infection, which was frequent after grommets were inserted as a result of pressure from social worker Q, Tatiana and Maria arrived at contact late. As we give some presents to all girls when one has a birthday, John told Olga there were presents for her and her sisters. Olga said the one present she wanted was to see mama and dada on her birthday and would he speak to the social worker. John said he would. Olga said xx October would be a Tuesday, so prior to Mrs Q cutting contact from Mon/Tues/Thur/Sat each week, Olga could have enjoyed a contact on her birthday, as she said. She was insistent that dada seek a birthday contact for her. John said he would do so. The plea from a sick child was treated with contempt.

Children often cannot wait to rip their presents open, but Olga said she would wait until Tatiana and Maria arrived and then made a comment that shows her remarkable wisdom. _She said she was like a jigsaw, and was incomplete without her sisters, as they were pieces of the jigsaw, and mama and dada were pieces of the jigsaw and she could not imagine being complete without us all._

Olga is now ten years old and she said ALL her friends at school had mobile phones. Social worker Q, to denigrate the family, said the house with rare antiques differed from most homes, so might be harmful to the girls emotionally. If Q was right anyone brought up with antiques would be harmed, so had to backpedal in court. As most ten year old children had mobile phones, Vera and John bought one. Olga was thrilled she now had a mobile phone, as most of her friends do, and clearly her sisters should receive mobile phones in due course. It had an 'Emergency assistance' button on the back so a child could unobtrusively press the emergency button, which John showed to Olga. To avoid nonsense from social services, John chose a phone which did not connect to the internet or have photo facilities so Olga could not reveal her plight on the worldwide web. These precautions would satisfy a reasonable person, but the contact worker confiscated the phone from Olga. She was devastated at how a grown up wanted to steal her present, but the contact worker did steal candies from a 'baby' on this occasion!' Olga was in tears and wanted to speak to the social worker and wanted dada to protect her, so he said he would speak to the Minister. Olga immediately cheered up for whilst she has no confidence in social workers, she hoped the minister would show compassion.

If social worker Q's remark that a child should not be treated differently to their peer group was truthful, by buying Olga a mobile phone, John had done exactly as she suggested and by selecting one without camera or internet, he had protected the department from the risk of exposure by a child victim.

The then social worker dragged her heels over Olga's phone, but Olga's life was to suffer more stress. When she had been separated from her sisters against the advice of the guardian, the blow had been softened by moving her back to the original foster carer who had been kind, unlike Mrs V. As this foster carer had a new grandchild in November 2017, she no longer wanted to a paid for child so a new couple were found for Olga. On 29 November John pointed out, 'from your email the new couple have dropped out within five days of the supposed start date, and as the original fosterer now has a grandchild, she understandably no longer wants Olga. That you are looking for yet another stopgap shows the degeneracy of the social care system, and does not meet standards set by the guardian. It was to be one final move, if not to the family, and since the start of 2017 Olga had FOUR foster carers as well as being separated from her sisters.

John continued in his email of 29-11-17, 'The more immediate concern is Olga's admission to Nobles. I was told that I would be promptly informed of any such events, but from your email it is clear that this was a 'social services promise' i.e. floated before the court but ignored once there was no need to honour it. If you speak to the staff at Children's ward, you will find how much it cheered Olga when I visited her when she was in hospital, and I therefore demand access for Vera and myself sometime between now and Friday.

1-12-17 Undisclosed medical complications for Olga

Vera and John visited Olga at Nobles and were shocked to find she had a nasal feeding tube in place, which the social worker had not admitted to. The visit was for an hour and Olga was unaware of any discharge date. The contact worker knew it would only be Tatiana and Maria at contact on Saturday. Olga was distressed the visit was for only an hour, and asked would Vera and dada come to see her on Saturday after they had seen her sisters. The contact worker said this was for dada to discuss with the social worker.

John contacted the social worker as Olga had asked, saying she was in a distressed state, so cutting her contact to just one hour was emotional abuse. He demanded the other two hours of the contact AFTER Vera and he saw Tatiana and Maria on Saturday (and not in lieu of time with Tatiana or Maria) or in the alternative a contact with Olga for not less than two hours on Monday.

Contact was not arranged to alleviate Olga's distress on the Saturday, and it was not until the Tuesday that an hour was grudgingly permitted.

6 December 2017 email

'Vera and I saw Olga on Tuesday 5 Dec for one hour. I felt that rather than her learn with just 10 mins to go from a contact worker that it was another short visit, I needed to break the news to her a bit earlier so she could plan her time better. She was NOT pleased that it was only for an hour, and she clearly expects the remaining hour she is owed to be made up in the next day or two. Please let me know when this will be. I would point out that in your email reading, 'Originally, the doctors questioned if Olga had a urinary tract infection, however, the results came back clear. Olga still feels poorly so will remain in hospital until she is better. I am attending a meeting, alongside my manager, Ms JM this afternoon at hospital to discuss discharge date and arrangements.' you carefully omitted the significant fact that Olga was not eating and had been fitted with a nasal feeding tube. I asked at the hospital on Friday how she was and was told by the medical staff there was no medical reason for her not eating, but that she was a sad little girl on account of all that had happened to her. In your first email of 4 Dec, you, as usual painted the picture your employers like to pretend is true, 'Olga is making good progress', but when I asked at Nobles how she was progressing, the answer was that 'she was making small steps' with a strong inference that there were good periods and bad periods. Whilst I can have no confidence in what you say, from repeated past experiences, I believe in the integrity of the medical staff on childrens ward, that Olga is a sad little girl and is making small steps. That would certainly confirm my impressions and she still has her feeding tube, which would be removed if she had been making the good progress you allege, as non-eating is the central issue.'

Olga was clearly reluctant to eat, and visits by mama and dada cheered her up, despite the hell the court and social services had inflicted on an innocent child. Does any compassionate person think this category of abuse inflicted on a sick child reflects well on the Isle of Man, or does it sound like something from a ruthless dictatorship?

A Humane Supervisor appears and disappears

Instead of the usual evasive and cruel response, on 6 December 2017 John and Vera received a reply from the supervisor JM. 'Dear Mr Stevenson, Thank you for your email I am in the process of arranging further contact for you and Mrs Stevenson however I need confirmation from the contact supervisors as to when they may be available before we can make a firm arrangement. I do not disagree with the comments you raise and indeed Olga is currently feeling sad. I will keep you updated regarding a proposed arrangement for contact'

That a supervisor said she would not disagree from the points made in John's email, instead of the usual evasiveness, and accepted Olga was feeling sad, was a breath of fresh air. Could John and Vera have found a compassionate social worker who cared about Olga? On 7-12-17 JM was true to her word, 'As I agreed yesterday I have arranged contact for you and Mrs Stevenson to see Olga tomorrow between 1 – 2.30pm on the Children's ward. I am pleased to tell you that Olga is improving day by day and when I saw her yesterday she was eating bread and drinking soup. Olga still has the feeding tube in situ but we are hoping that this will not be for much longer and that she will be able to manage without it. I will keep you updated of her progress and we will of course arrange contact again next week should Olga remain in hospital.'

The next day this thoughtful supervisor emailed to ask, 'Due to the adverse weather conditions which I believe are due to worsen later I am wondering whether you will be able to travel to contact.' John replied, 'Vera and I started much earlier for Nobles owing to the bad weather, and were 90 mins on the road. When we got there, the contact worker said Olga was thrilled that we were hoping to come, and when we went to the ward she hugged us, and although she had seen snow avalanches from the roof by the ward, she said she was sure we would come. I felt I could not let her down if the road was passable. In the course of the contact, she asked how long it would be, and when I said an hour and a half, she said, 'it was better than before as it was half as much more.' She said she had met you and knew you were SWL's boss, and I said you had arranged for the longer visit. I think the visits are helping her, so we need to consider what to do for this week, so if you could give that some thought.' John continued, 'One issue arose in contact that does need to be addressed. The original Social worker, Ms Q was racist and put in an early report that 'Mrs Stevenson had not been exposed sufficiently to the British Way of life", which is racism as it implied that the British way is superior to some inferior foreign way, be it Russian, Japanese or Indian etc. If Vera had been Asian or black, I suggest this remark would have been seen as disgraceful, but as she is white, the Manx court, to its disgrace, evaded the issue.

Olga, and all the girls adore the laptops which I have bought for them, and which have English language and Russian music on them, English language and Russian cartoons and various computer games. Early in 2017, Ms Q banned me from taking the laptops to contact as they had Russian music and Russian cartoons on them, as she clearly was terrified of the girls growing interest in their Russian heritage. I fought this issue and in the summer SWL reluctantly accepted I could bring the computer once more. Sadly she showed her complete lack of understanding of the girls by saying they had told her they wanted English music and English cartoons. In the old days, before Q's racist action in banning the laptop, I would put music on for when they arrived, and unless there was a disagreement, let them select what they wanted thereafter, and the their choice was heavily Russian. In July 2017, when I was able to take the laptop again, the girls were overjoyed, but to avoid the contact centre trying to cause trouble, I usually did not select anything before they arrived. On the first day of the laptop, except for one English tune they had learned to dance to at school, the music was 100% Russian. The second time was similar, and on the third occasion when Olga was present, she watched the Masha cartoons. These are Russian cartoons about a little girl and SWL had singled them out as being something the girls did not want to watch. Before the laptop was banned, they would watch Barbie cartoons, Lady and the Tramp, Snow White etc, so there was a wide choice of English cartoons as well. We can keep Maria happy with a Russian tune which is the Russian version of her name. On Friday 8th Dec, I took Maria's computer, as this is the most up to date with cartoons and films, as it has the biggest memory capacity. All three computers have the girls as 'wallpaper' pictures, Maria's computer having her wearing Olga's blue beret. Olga looked at the wallpaper and asked where her blue beret was, and I said it was at home. I did not feel it would be popular to say that Ms Q/SWL had objected to my bringing it, but Olga said 'Please bring my beret next time'

I feel it would be upsetting to her not to do so. The background is complex. The girls adore Russian music, and all three can sing several Russian pieces of music in Russian, and Olga has said she wants to learn Russian properly. Their favourite pop artists are the Tolmachevy twins, Katya Ryabova and the Blestyaschie group. In one Blestyaschie number the four girls are sitting in Central Park Moscow eating ices when four lads in Airborne uniform walk by, and return and they all go on rides in the park. It becomes a dream sequence in which the four girls are in airborne uniform and on the assault course. Olga adored this and said that when she grows up she wants to join the Russian Airborne Forces. I had to explain that with Addison's, this would not be possible, but I contacted 106 Airborne, explained she was of Anglo-Russian parentage and was then nine and the problems and how it would prevent her wish to join the Russian airborne, and asked if it would be possible to obtain an airborne beret. One came, complete with Airborne badge and Olga was over the moon. Thankfully she let her sisters wear it, but I quickly realised that we needed something more, and I could not reasonably ask 106 airborne for more berets.

I had already bought the girls Snow White, Little Red Riding Hood, Witch and other outfits, so I found a girl soldier uniform, so they could now share the tunic, skirt, forage cap and the genuine blue beret. Olga and Tatiana are both highly observant and had noticed from other films that Russian officers have masses of medals, and Tatiana has on occasion decorated my cardigan with a row of diagonal gold stars, arranged in Russian style. One of them asked why there were no medals, so I pulled a few strings, and there are now a number of genuine Russian medals. They adored wearing the blue beret, tunic etc, but Q banned it for racist reasons, and SWL has not seen fit to agree to them having it again. As Olga has asked specifically for the blue beret, I propose to bring that to the next contact with her, and I suggest it would be hurtful to her sisters if they were not allowed similar rights, and I suggest it is their right. I personally do not like pirate costumes, as real pirates were murderers, thieves and rapists, but there is so much pirate stuff for children, that one has no real option but to let them play act people like this. I feel that any ban on the airborne beret, etc would be outright racism. I would be glad to have your support on this, as SWL seems invariably to get the wrong end of the stick, as with the continued ban on the blue beret and her absurd comments re music and cartoons.

For information, the items Olga selected on 8 Dec, were four different Masha cartoons, a Katya Ryabova number, the runaway train (in English), a lyric from the Anastasia movie, the Alexander Buinov, Hullo from the sky VDV airborne number, Katusha by the Tolmachevy girls, two more Masha cartoons, the Blestachie girls with them in the airborne dream sequence. This is a perfectly normal mix, although they have numerous Western pop singers to select from, and at least half a dozen Disney films and the Peter Rabbit films. Olga sang to Katusha, the Rybova number and the hullo from the sky number. Sadly I have made a rod for my own back here as she wants to know if the Buinov number is at Tula or Ryasan bases.

Supervisor JM could not have been more helpful, 'Please accept my sincere apologies for not responding earlier. ... I have been at the hospital for a meeting and I was able to pop in and see Olga. I took the opportunity to talk with Olga about the blue beret and she was keen for you to bring it for her to wear at contact. I really do not have any objections to this as it makes Olga happy; I believe that children need to understand their own cultural history as it offers a sense of identity. Olga has been telling me today that you educated her at home during her early years and she was able to share with me what she had been taught, clearly she is a very bright articulate little girl. We have been trying to arrange contact for you to see Olga this week although tomorrow may be just a little difficult....I was thinking perhaps Wednesday with Olga perhaps joining the family contact on Saturday. Please let me know your thoughts.'

No one could fault this, and for the first time, a supervisor had said she believed children need to understand their own cultural history as it offers a sense of identity. She put it very well, and had not objected to the comments re social worker SWL's insensitivity. John replied,

'Friday was the first time Olga had a Masha session with mama, and I think they both enjoyed it. It is very reassuring how you say that children need to understand their own cultural identity, as that is exactly my feeling, and I was unable to get that through to Mrs Q, who was fixated on 'The British Way' concept. I have had to be somewhat evasive over the blue beret, as the contact centre would object if I said to the girls that Q or SWL had banned it. I am sure Olga will be thrilled that she can have her blue beret again, and I will take the camera with me, as she will probably want a photo of her. You said she was a very bright articulate little girl, and that was apparent when she was tiny, and also her formidable will power, which is why she got on so badly with Mrs V, and why in the end they wanted to be rid of her. In the Buinov VDV number a guy singer is wearing the legendary blue beret. There are three or four different cap badges, but Olga spotted that the badge on his beret is identical to hers and was thrilled. Many airborne troopers add a flash with the current Russian flag, red, blue and white, to the left of the beret, and shortly before it was banned by Q, I got hold of one and added it to Olga's beret in the hole that is specifically provided for the purpose. I did not tell her I had done so, but she instantly spotted it and remembered seeing it. We will try to fit in with whatever is convenient, our only 'must' commitment being Maria's concert tomorrow.

John to JM, 'We will be present for both visits. thank you. Maria was thrilled to see us in the audience and spent most of the show waving to Vera and myself. If one of the other children got in her line of sight she would move to one side or lean over if it was at all possible.'

Thanks to supervisor JM, social worker SWL had to email John on 12 December that contacts with Olga had been set up in hospital for Wednesday 13 and Thursday 14 December. John had sorted out her blue beret which JM had approved. As Tatiana and Maria would not be present at hospital they would not feel Olga was being favoured. As the contact was later postponed to Saturday John suggested to JM, 'I am sure you will agree that where there are several children in a family, it is vital not to make one child feel second class. ... Our three girls have a close bond. Tatiana and Maria accepted the beret from 106 airborne was a special gift to a sick little girl, but wanted to wear it. Happily this was resolved amicably, but I needed to find a way to avoid any problems. The solution as I outlined in my earlier email to you was a child's girl soldier uniform which you can buy as well as Snow White, Rapunzel, Witch etc costumes. Tatiana looked at the tunic when I first brought it and said it was not right as it did not have the proper medals and stars. So she would not feel 'second class' I was able to secure a number of Soviet/Russian medals, and these were added to the uniform as she had seen on films of Russia. For racist reasons, Ms Q banned the Russian beret and the tunic, much to the girls' dismay, and I needed to 'hedge' to avoid saying Ms Q had done this to them, as the truth is not permissible if it reflects badly on a social worker. After Ms Q had thankfully left the island, SWL agreed to the laptop, but objected to the beret and tunic. As you have agreed to the beret, I propose to bring that on Saturday, but if Tatiana and Maria see Olga is specially favoured and they are not allowed to share the tunic, skirt etc, I think this will be hurtful to them.

Once again JM acted reasonably, and it was a pleasure to have a supervisor who understood cultural needs and was keen to cheer Olga up after years of indifference and racism. As JM had shown sensitivity John felt it might be in Olga's interest to raise the mobile phone again. He pointed out, 'Many mobile phones have email and camera facilities and clearly the way children are torn from their homes by social workers would cause an outcry if the public knew of it, hence the general secrecy. If a child were to put on the internet details of how she was held against her will, even social services would not dare to imprison her. .... As I was conscious of that risk to social services, I bought a mobile phone which did NOT have an internet capability and explained that to the contact worker, but it did not affect his 'I steal candies from babies' approach. He could have read the instruction leaflet to see how there would be no chance of a juvenile whistle blower. I suggest that Christmas would be a good time to show a little compassion to Olga over her phone. It would now be too late for me to buy mobiles for Tatiana and Maria for Xmas, as I had intended to do, but if we can put this disgraceful episode behind us, when I had been assured of an answer within a fortnight (in early October), it would be to the good.'

After contact on 16 Dec 2017, John emailed JM, 'I have been critical of social workers where I feel they have been unfeeling and frankly sadistic to our three daughters, but by the same token, it is only right to say thank you when someone does act with compassion, as you have done. It is important to speak out against evil, but even more important to recognise a good action.'

As JM has mentioned how Olga had confirmed she wanted the Blue Beret, John felt it was right to let her know some of Olga's other wishes as he suspected her social worker was less than forthcoming, 'In hospital Olga asked me to download the popular Anastasia cartoon, and to bring her white bridesmaid dress again. She put on the white dress which still JUST fitted and begged me never to throw it away. She changed into the 'Arna' costume from Frozen. Ms Q complained about my concentrating on the girls Russianness, but did not admit that when Olga and Tatiana said how much they loved Frozen, I had told them they have Norwegian ancestors, and the background to Frozen is Norway, so Olga knows her ancestors would have worn clothing similar to Arna. It is not simply a pretty outfit now, but something with a distant family connection.

Olga was thrilled to know she could wear her blue beret again. As I said to you that I felt it would be unfair if Olga was allowed the beret and her sisters were not allowed the girl soldier uniform, so Vera and I took the beret, the Anastasia film (on DVD) and costumes we had bought for the girls, which included several Disney characters and Arna from Frozen, so there were about 6 different outfits to wear. We left the choice of what they wore to them and Tatiana initially put on the 'witch' outfit, which she likes, as the Russian Blestyaschie girls do a witch. Though she likes the witch outfit which was at the top of one of the bags, when she found the uniform, Tatiana put on the skirt, brown leather belt and the tunic and asked Olga if she could wear the beret. Olga took great care to see Tatiana was properly turned out, adjusting the beret and asking me at the end if it was correct. Tatiana and Olga then danced together to Russian music with the Soviet flag. It was on Maria's computer but I do not know which of the girls selected the music which was 'Margolev's Falcons' which was sung on Airborne Forces Day by Tatiyana Bulanova. The girls danced well together, and I told Olga the story of the airborne beret, that I had pulled strings with the Airborne forces to get a genuine beret for her. She asked me to thank airborne. The officer I spoke with was so impressed with the courage of a little Anglo Russian girl with Addison's, who longed to be a Russian desantnik, that whilst said no one other than General Margolev could ever be Desantnik Udeen, to tell Olga that with her courage, she deserved to be Desantnik Dva. I suggested she asked mama what Desantnik Dva meant, and Vera explained it was Paratrooper Two.

Margolev Falcons was played at least three times and the girls finished off with the Airborne Forces march. With the exception of one tune I played briefly as a computer sound test, all the music was selected by the girls. We watched the Anastasia cartoon and the girls wanted to know more about Czar Nicholas, the Empress and the Grand Duchesses. Part way through the session, Maria asked if she could wear the uniform and beret, so Tatiana handed everything to her, so I ended up with the smallest of our desantniks in the uniform of an airborne polkovnik on my lap. I had taken half a dozen different costumes with us that the girls adore, but apart from Olga in the white dress and then the Arna outfit and Tatiana as a witch before she found the uniform, Tatiana and Maria homed on the airborne uniform, and their interest astonished me. I had been able to obtain the correct Russian/Soviet shoulder stars for a polkovnik, and Tatiana announced that her favourite items were the shoulder boards with their stars. Maria, when she was in uniform, decided to tell me her favourite medal, which was the Defence of Sevastopol medal 1941-1942. Inevitably she wanted to know what they were for, and was thrilled, when I said the Defence of Sevastopol medal was for the defence of her mama's home town.

I had expected Olga would be thrilled to be reunited with her blue beret, after the cruel dictat by Ms Q, banning it, but I had not anticipated that Tatiana or Maria would so firmly opt for the uniform despite so many other choices to change in and out of; that they would select airborne music, where the background visuals show the blue berets, and start quizzing me about shoulder boards and what specific rank badges and medals related to. Thankfully I had done the shoulder boards exactly as they should be and I was able to answer everything save for pulling a discrete veil over Rasputin. As I said, I will complain when there is cruelty, as with Ms Q and her racism, but I would like to thank you for redressing that unpleasantness, and bringing them great pleasure in contact.

Contact for 30 December had been moved forward to 23 December for the convenience of the contact staff, but it gave the girls the closest they have had to a proper Christmas in four years. When the girls arrived, all three of them wanted hugs. Olga had specifically asked for RUSSIAN language Christmas music and I had managed to find a number of Russian Xmas numbers. I told them we had presents from babushka and dedushka and Auntie Zhenya, and suggested they open them first. I had needed to pull strings to obtain Olga's original airborne forces beret, but their grandparents had managed to obtain three airborne berets, so Olga now has a second beret, and her sisters have their first berets. They were over the moon. One of the girls pointed out that Maria's cap badge is identical to Olga's. Tatiana has a slightly different badge and Olga has a third variant on her beret. Zhenya had found three large animal heads for the girls to dress up in. Predictably Maria selected the tiger, and Olga opted for the zaitchek or rabbit. Amusingly when I told Zhenya on Skype of how thrilled they were with the heads, she correctly predicted which heads Maria and Olga would have chosen. Olga announced that she wanted to learn all about Russia, she wants to learn to speak Russian, learn about Russian history, cookery, what Russian people eat, what they do and everything about Russia. Q, who was racist, was bitter at the way the girls were keen to know about Russia, so soon after the end of the court case, banned me taking the laptop, as it had Russian music on it; banned costumes (which included Snow White, Frozen etc and the Russian child's girl soldier outfit. In fact she effectively banned everything as Maria wanted to know something and I said I would bring a book to show her, and one of the more oppressive contact staff demanded to see it before I showed it to Maria, and she said we were prohibited from bringing anything Russian to contact.

The children regularly asked for the laptop and I had to fight to get that permitted, and even then the new social worker claimed the girls wanted English pop music and thought the Masha cartoons were too childish. On the first three contacts after the laptop was admitted, on two of them the music was over 80% Russian selected by the girls, and on the last occasion Masha cartoons predominated. It shows how the social worker adjusts what the girls said to suit her wishes.

When we were buying Xmas presents for the girls, Vera and I had visited a toy shop obtained three 'Scrapbook kits' for the girls, so much of the contact was spent working on their scrapbooks, which require lots of photos, and Vera had suggested we needed to look after that. As they were united at contact, Olga and Tatiana wanted to dance together for us, and when I saw how close they are, it emphasised the sadism of Q in deciding to split them up. Olga said at the end, she thought it would be a very sad Christmas, though she did not say why, in case the contact staff decided to end it early. She said that instead of that it had been a good Christmas, so I feel that thanks to you our three girls had a good Christmas.

On 13 January, John took up the mobile phone issue again with JM, saying 'If a child was a whistle blower, the court would hardly dare to imprison the child. I can therefore understand the fear social workers have if a child had a mobile phone which can connect to the internet. I had realised this and had obtained a phone for Olga that DID NOT HAVE that capability, not even a photo capability. It was a phone and nothing more, and as Olga said, all the children in her class have one, so Ms Q's crocodile tears about the children being odd ones out because of the parents is hypocritical. I had said in December that two months had elapsed; it is now three months that the department has dragged its feet over the mobile phone for Olga.

What other risk exists? I suppose I could in theory ring Olga, but I am certain that if I did so, there would be joy in the department at my doing something so remiss, so I can assure you I have NO intention of doing so, simply to fall into the hands of evildoers. I am quite prepared to give a written undertaking that I will not ring Olga. Could Olga ring me? With a mobile phone, Olga could ring anyone, BUT, as she has pocket money, she could use a public phone to ring someone. The most likely people for her to ring would be her school friends, so she will be a part of the 'circuit' and not an outsider as she clearly feels at present, thanks to the steal candies from babies action. As she can speak to her school friends at school, if she wants to be a whistle blower to her school friends she can do it face to face as easily as on the phone, so it is not a measurable risk.'

JM had been busy over Christmas break, so her delay was not surprising, but her reply was astonishing. She referred to a letter allegedly sent to John on 9 November 2017 which stated,

'As per SCC policy, all presents such as phones, ipods and ipads must be agreed with the social worker prior to passing them to the children. This is to ensure that a plan is made for the telephone contact between children and parents; this of course needs to be supervised by the foster carer, and the frequency of such contact needs to be discussed with the social worker ...... the social worker has since spoken with Olga regarding the mobile phone and an agreement has been reached as to how this will be used and managed safely.'

JM could only go on what the records said, but there are several disturbing aspects.

[a] John had not received this alleged letter of 9 November 2017. If he had, rather than pressing for the phone to be given to Olga, he would have asked what phone contacts had been agreed.

[b] when he spoke to Olga, she said the social worker had not spoken to her and that if she could not have her phone she wanted it returned to dada so he could use it.

[c] One has to ask what statutory authority the SCC supervised contact centre was relying on to confiscate a present from a child.

As John's concluding remark in his email had been, 'I therefore suggest the department agrees after three months that Olga can have her phone' is so incompatible with the tenor of the letter of 9 November 2017 that it should have caused questions to be asked of the social worker, 'How is the father asking this when you have spoken to Olga and agreed terms? It does not make sense.' JM replied to John's email of 13-1-2018, 'I will look into the issue of the mobile phone and I will ask the social worker to talk to Olga and see what can be progressed.'

On 19-1-2018, John replied to JM, 'I have your email of 18 Jan 2018, and am deeply concerned at the phrase, 'I will ask the social worker to talk to Olga and see what can be progressed'. If SWL is still the social worker, she would seem to be at the heart of the problem so it is a matter of the guilty party being invited to look into her own wrong doing, which would not fill any fair minded person with confidence. I would refer you to an email of social worker SWL, 'I will be visiting Olga tomorrow afternoon so I will ascertain her views, wishes and feelings.' This was just days after the stealing candies from babies situation was triggered. SWL was therefore a part of the investigation and as now been tasked to investigate herself. This is not convincing as a fundamental principle of justice as enshrined in the European Convention is that the wrongdoer does not investigate themselves.

On a couple of occasions Olga has said to dada that if she cannot have the phone she wants it to be returned to him. This suggests that Olga did not get any sense that the visit in early October was about letting her have her phone, but from so much else we have to accept SWL's wish is only to hear what suits her, as with her email when John pressed the department to respect the girls Russian heritage with the use of the laptop at contact. SWL alleged that the girls wanted English pop music and regarded the Russian masha cartoons as too childish. What has happened was that on the first two contacts with the laptop, they chose Russian music except for one English number that they had practised dancing to at school. On the third occasion Tatiana and Maria were away so Olga opted almost 100% for Masha cartoons. In hospital she opted for Masha cartoons, and amongst the English language material was the Anastasia movie.

JM replied on19-01-2017, _Dear Mr Stevenson, The reason I suggested that the Social Worker should talk to Olga about the mobile phone is because we do not know what the issues are. It is my understanding that Olga has access to her phone although there will be times when clearly it is not appropriate for her to have it, for example at school or at bedtime. If you could be more precise in relation to what the restrictions are, then I will ask for the situation to be looked into further.'_

If the supervisor did not know what the issues were and proposed to send the same social worker to repeat a visit that had taken place in October 2017 and could say, 'It is my understanding that Olga has access to her phone,' this suggests that someone in the department had been less than forthcoming with JM although she was the team manager.

John replied to JM the same day, pointing out,

A] I contacted the department in December 2017, the letter of 9 November then been on file a reply should have been sent in Dec 2017 referring to it and enclosing a copy at the time, as social services might see it as a solution to the case. This was not done.

B I wrote again on 13 January 2018, and the same should have happen as ought to have happened in December. This was not done.

C The letter of 9-11-17 gives a two line suggestion that SWL has spoken to Olga about use of the phone. On one occasion I asked Olga if she had been given her phone and she said she had not; on another occasion as she was going from contact, she said she would try to have the phone returned to me if she was not allowed to have it. Olga has not at any time said she has been given her mobile phone

D) You say in your email of today's date, ' _The reason I suggested that the Social Worker should talk to Olga about the mobile phone is because we do not know what the issues are etc.'_ I would suggest that if the social worker HAD REALLY spoken to Olga, the restrictions on the use of the phone will be known to social services as they will have set out those restrictions as they would presumably be need to be conveyed to Olga, so I find it hard to see how I can 'be more precise into what the restrictions are' when I have never been told of any restrictions or had any evidence that Olga has her phone indeed under any restrictions.

You say it is your understanding that Olga has access to her phone, but there will be times that are not appropriate, for example at school. Before the children were kidnapped, when I was in the playground waiting to collect the girls, I saw children with mobile phones. Olga told me all her class have mobile phones, but how would she know this if children were not allowed to have their mobile phones at school?

Rather than go on general principles I spoke to the secretary at Bunscoill Rhumsaa. Olga is now in Junior school, and the secretary says the school permits mobile phones but they have to be left in the Junior school office and they collect them at the end of the day. This seems entirely reasonable and better than leaving them in a coat pocket in the cloakroom where they could be stolen. The school rules are practical and sensible.

The contact centre allege the reason to ban a mobile phone is so a plan is made for phone contact between children and parents. I am sure Olga would be over the moon if such a plan had been discussed with her, and I would suggest she would have been so thrilled at the thought she could ring us that she would not have been able to wait to say so at the very next contact.

Therefore, if we assume this letter got beyond draft stage, that should have been discussed with Olga in November and logically with Vera and I, so a plan could be drawn up for telephone contact between Olga and her parents. I suggest we need to look into this over the next seven days, so a belated plan can be arranged. I suggest Olga is given permission to take her phone to school leaving it in the Junior school office as per Bunscoill rules, and if we deal with these issues the department will taken three months to do what should have taken less than a week. Finally I wish to escalate the issue to stage 2 unless we can resolve things over the next week or so.

In my email of 19 January, I expressed some doubts about this as Olga so clearly wanted her phone that I felt it was inconceivable she would not tell me that agreement had been reached about how she could use it. I asked Olga at contact on Saturday 20th Jan if she had been given her mobile phone and she said she had NOT been given her phone, so it would seem that you had been misinformed.

On 22 January, JM emailed John, 'This morning I have advised the Social Worker that Olga must be given her phone although as I explained to you previously this will be monitored in conjunction with Olga's foster carer' You may notice that I have copied TMC into the correspondence; she is the new manager of the team, given that I have now moved into a different service area.'

The email was encouraging and horrifying. JM, who had at all times been fair and scrupulously honest had finally worked out the web of deceit and had given a firm command, Olga must be given her phone. No one could object to appropriate monitoring. The down side was that if the social worker had wriggled on the issue from 9 October to 21 January, if JM was moving, would she do as she had been ordered, or hope that a new team manager would let the matter drop or back her hostility to the phone.

In the event Olga never got her phone, and it was returned to John in April 2018

Don't Believe a Word the Social Worker Says, Dada, Saturday 15 Dec 2018

John wrote this horrific report on harassment of Olga

'We had contact with the girls on Sat 15 December 2018 and the behaviour by the Social worker, DL who had forced his presence on us at contact was disgraceful. DL is the latest person in a long line of social workers, and from his overbearing manner, I can understand why Olga acted as she did, and subsequent events of the afternoon of 20 Dec make it even more apparent why Olga does not trust this person.

Olga was full of fun on Sat 15th at contact, as were her sisters, and opened her Xmas presents. She started writing down something to give to me, aiming to hide it as best she could from DL with her body. It seemed she was scared that if he realised what she was doing he would try to stop it. It was worrying seeing the fear DL had instilled in Olga. I was sitting almost opposite to her and she said very quietly that she was writing a note to me. That may have been a mistake, but years ago I did learn how to read a document that was upside down, but it is no help if someone is writing it at the time with their hand over it. Even so, given her anxiety I felt I needed to try to get the gist of it immediately, in case there was some genuine reason for her fear.

It was to the sense that 'DL is going to speak to you after contact, but you were not to believe what he said.' It could have said 'anything he said' or merely 'what' he said but I could not testify to which precise words were used. I was horrified that Olga was so suspicious of her social worker's honesty, that she felt she needed to pass such a message on to me without him or the contact staff knowing what she was doing.

Olga has bitter memories of the 'I steal candies from babies' episode when a contact centre worker browbeat her into handing over the mobile phone I had bought for her 10th birthday in Oct 2017, even though it was a pure phone and not a 'smart phone' with internet or camera capabilities. Seemingly DL had aroused even greater fear in her.

If she despises someone like that and learns not to trust them, it could be a useful life lesson, as we discover such people as we go through life, and an ability to recognise such people can be valuable. On the other hand, she is too young to discover the need to protect herself from such people at eleven. I was shocked that Olga should display such mistrust and indeed fear.

It could be called a lesson in realism, and if she learns to fear and distrust someone like DL, it could be to her long term benefit, but if fear becomes too widespread, it can be harmful. As I child John was taught to see the police as the defenders and champions of those in trouble and you could go to a policeman if you were frightened. On one occasion in contact, Tatiana said how afraid she was of the policeman when he, rather than mama or dada, took her away from school and that was the start of them being taken away from us. The police, in Tatiana's mind, far from being defenders, were oppressors. Will that filter through in adult life to a distrust and fear of the police? I do not know but it is a worry.

This is a complaint about DL, but I am not so naive as to expect IOM Social Services to take action, so the main purpose to get it precise is as evidence to expose the brutality of social services. Hopefully public exposure will cause such revulsion that action will be unavoidable.

As it happened, Olga's fear of DL was well founded. Before she had finished the note to hand to me, he had realised what she was doing and had instantly said she was not allowed to pass notes and had come over to confiscate it. As he came over and Olga screwed up the note, I was concerned at this bullying of a child. He demanded to see it, and it would be difficult for her no matter how resolute, to refuse such bullying. To her credit, Olga after refusing, said she would talk to him outside the room. They did so and returned later. Olga said it was all right. It could be that DL had reassured her she would not be punished, or possibly she realised I had been able to read her desperate message, so if she could not physically give it to me, she had got her fears across to me.

After contact ended, DL started off with the suggestion that the girls had serious concerns about contact and we needed to ask more about their life away from us; I said I believed the important thing was to let them lead the conversation in the areas they wished. That a child should be given such autonomy seems to be anathema to social services and was discounted. DL alleged Olga was unhappy about the level of Russian activity at contact. I said I could not seriously believe him about the Russian claim, and he tried the outraged 'did I not believe him' line. This is often a smoke screen when someone is aware of how dubious they sound. Most people will be too embarrassed to say, 'No I do not believe you', so it allows something dubious to be forced home as if it were truth.

I said Olga had on a previous occasion said verbally ' Dada you can't trust any of them, the contact staff or the social workers; be careful' and the note she had tried to give me had been similar. As DL must have realised from this that I must have seen the note before he confiscated it, he admitted she had written 'I was not to believe what he said.'

This shows an appalling lack of trust by one of the child victims of social services towards their social worker, and DL only admitted it fully after he knew I had seen the gist of the message. I was not 100% sure if Olga had said trust, as in the early verbal message, or believe in the written version, but DL let slip believe, and that would be in line with my recollection. In my complaint to the Minister, I insisted that it has not already been destroyed, which would be convenient for the department, although highly suspicious, that this paperwork must be preserved and call upon the minister and the head of social services to do so, so it can be produced in court or for any public enquiry.

I said that as far as his question 'did I not believe him', for Olga to oppose Russian heritage in contact was totally out of character, both as to words and deeds, at which point he alleged it was that Olga was concerned about my not being hurt. This is a convenient alibi, as Olga is a caring girl so it would be natural, but it came too glibly, as if it had been rehearsed as an answer to a question he feared. Olga had not in the note said that she did not want me to feel hurt by what DL said, but specifically, I was not to believe DL, which is very different.

It is significant that Olga knew DL was going to speak to me after contact, so he must have said something to her. As it caused her to write a note to give to me, whatever he told her he was going to say made her feel she needed to warn me not to believe him. It suggests she was anxious that he would say something that she would not want dada to think was true. Unfortunately DL was so quickly on the scene that she was not able to elaborate. However it caused her anxiety and this per se is emotional abuse by DL to Olga. What could she be concerned about? Logically she feared DL would say something to me that would either hurt Vera or myself, or drive a wedge between us, or she realised he was not going to be truthful, or a combination of such factors.

As he confiscated the note from Olga he must know what it said, so I submit it was questionable for him to proceed with his discussion with me after contact was over, as Olga's note had specifically warned me not to believe him. I asked him, 'was he suggesting I believed him or my daughter; that was the choice.' He blustered about 'my attitude' but clearly was offended that I should take Olga's word as more plausible than his comments, which were totally out of keeping with what the girls say and do in contact. I have always found Olga to be truthful and that is assuredly not the case with social workers. In the end, I think DL worked out that when I challenged him, 'did I believe him or Olga' that such a line would not be productive.

He also alleged the girls asked about why mama did not speak much. This is possible, but the girls do know Vera is a quiet person, but there is no law against that. They know I am far more talkative, and they show touching affection to Vera. Have they said this, or was it a phrase planted in their mouths as the police sought to plant words in Vera's mouth. If an adult asks a child, 'mama doesn't speak much', what is a child to say? If the child agrees it can be twisted to the child saying mama doesn't speak much.

We have seen how the Department has made repeated attempts to undermine the girls' Russian heritage, from Ms Qs racist banning of anything 'Russian' at contact, and of their computer, to SWL's allegations when the computer was admitted to contact again that the girls wanted English pop music, not Russian, and did not want Masha cartoons. To remove allegations that they have no choice, they have Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Beauty and the Beast, Lady and the Tramp, the Peter Rabbit cartoon, Barbie and the dream house, so the length of English language cartoons greatly exceeds the Russian Masha cartoons.

As the girls devotion to their Russian heritage is a unifying factor, I can understand how weakening the girls' Russian heritage, as Q sought to do, and SWL tried to do even less successfully, would benefit the department by harming the family bond. DL persistently tried to claim the girls and Olga in particular did not welcome the Russian heritage in contact, and this could be one of the things Olga had picked up that he was planning on saying, and why I should not believe anything he said. If she had been concerned at my being hurt as DL persisted in alleging, it is likely she would have emphasised that, 'You should not be hurt dada, if DL say X'

The fear DL had of the girls' Russian heritage was manifest from the way he persisted in trying to pressure me into sidelining it, as contact would be better for the girls without their Russian heritage according to him. This overlooked that the girls had played some music at that very contact on the computer and it was 100% Russian music. I had not played one item when they were present, so the Russian content was entirely theirs. Most of the contact was presents, working on presents, and the meal, but much of non meal and present activity was led by the girls and was Russian related. DL seems to have felt it expedient not to notice this.

Given that his remarks were at variance with the girls activities and comments at contact, I would have had doubts about DL's allegations as to the girls' wishes at contact, as it flew in the face of first hand observations, but with Olga's explicit comment not to believe what he said, it made it difficult to place any credence on him. He seemed unable to accept this reality as it flew in the face of his own wishes. This is sadly in line with the behaviour of other social workers who 'interpret' the girls wishes in light of the department's preferences.

It is far more plausible that if Olga was concerned, as she clearly was, that her fear was that DL would twist what she or her sisters had said to suit himself, and that was why she had used the telling phrase, not to believe him. I could not ask Olga what had been agreed out of the room between Olga and DL as I would not have been allowed to do so, and I could not place any faith in DL's version of what was said.

I said to DL I could understand why social workers were terrified of me passing a note to the girls, in case I tried to turn them against social workers, foster carers etc, but as the contact staff and social workers worked so hard to turn the girls against themselves, why would I need to? I did not bother to add that 'words speak louder than deeds', and a social worker had banned their computer, another one said the girls wanted English music not Russian and did not want Masha cartoons, and had banned Olga travelling in a motor boat with dada. The average age when children now have a smart phone with internet and camera is 10.5 and I gave Olga a simple phone only phone for her 10the birthday. The deputy manager of the contact centre had adopted the 'I steal candies from babies' idea and taken it from her reducing her to tears. What would this do other than to anger her? I complained and one reasonable supervisor agreed it was wrong but the social worker knew she was being moved in days, so dragged her heels and got the replacement to rubber stamp the 'no' policy even though phone did not have a camera or internet.

I pointed out to DL that it was important that children should be able to pass on their concerns to outsiders, and Olga has been recorded in a LAC review saying no one listens to her. I reminded him of the Samantha Barton case in the IOM where a 12 year old girl was having SEX in the care home. This was known but not officially recorded in departmental records. I did not know much about the girl, but if she had feared that no one listened to her, which seemed to be the case, then she needed to speak to an outsider. Instead she was finally murdered in the care home. DL's response was 'I know nothing about this,' and treating it as of no relevance. This was evasive, as any upright person would say, 'I know nothing of this, but if what you say is true, it is inexcusable.' Apart from being the reaction of an honest person, it would tend to reassure one that this was someone who would act responsibly. DL's actions were the exact opposite, evasive and suggestive of a pattern of misconduct.

In the Samantha Barton case, the girl clearly had the same fear as Olga does that no one listens to her. She was having sex by she was 12, and she was murdered whilst in care. DL rather than being willing to discuss these serious issues and the right of a child to be a whistle blower, was adamant that I needed to change my attitude to make contact better. I again suggested to him, 'Did I believe him, or my daughter, who said not to believe him.' I pointed out he had been clearly terrified of what she might have said, and had appropriated the note before I could fully read it.

If he had nothing to hide, one way to give me some confidence in his integrity, would be to let me see the note, or to give it to me, as it was addressed to me, or at least to give me a photocopy. That would be a good way to suggest he was trustworthy. Instead he opted for the evasive approach which supports Olga's contention not to believe him.

In the formal complaint in December 2018, I wrote I now formally demand the note as it is the intellectual property of the family not DL. This was of course ignored.

Had I been in his shoes and 'detected' by the perspicacity of an 11 year old child, who tried to pass a note to her dada to warn him of what was afoot, I would have decided there was nothing to gain by evasiveness, as the cat was out of the bag, so openness was more likely to build up confidence. DL seemingly hoped he could dissemble but to no avail as I had read most of the note.

Later on there were two further unpleasant incidents. One of the girls wrote a note, 'I love you dada' and gave it to me. The contact supervisor demanded to see it and was told it said 'I love you dada', but the supervisor demanded to see it. I said this doubting of the word of one of their child victims was outrageous and hurtful, as it showed a lack of trust in the child. The note was shown to this person. It said exactly what she had said. Will this incline a child favourably to the care system?

We had gone to the kitchen prior to this incident. Olga likes to work in this pseudo kitchen which has no cooker, so we cannot bake there, but has a microwave. She wanted to make a surprise and asked me to leave the room, but I reminded her how the deputy manager had said it was not allowed, as mama or I had to supervise them. Olga said it had only been him who had said it, and he had only said it once and there was a contact supervisor there, so she could supervise. The supervisor said mama or I had to. Olga argued with her, as the supervisor's dictat made no sense, but I knew that trying to convince the contact staff of common sense is not tolerated as with the mobile phone. To avoid an escalation, as Olga can be forceful, I told Olga we had no choice, so mama would stay and I would go back to her sisters who had gone out of the room.

No novelist would dare to use such a device but all three girls gained great amusement from the stick-it notes pinned on a 'have your say' board in the kitchen. One said 'a named person has a big head' and another was to the sense ' Yes he does' or I agree! The girls pointed to that and read it out loud to much mirth. After allowing them to let off steam, I suggested that even if you dislike someone, it is not desirable to be rude about them in a public environment.

A part of my reason for suggesting the girls should be more discrete was good manners, but spite does motivate the child care trade on the Island, so discretion on their part is wise.

A good example of the unbalanced nature of the child care trade was that I was handed a summary of the contact after the girls left by the CC supervisor which noted as concerns, 'Note Passing - Communications to be open and verbal.' If this was to be fair it would have said it was the child who passed the note, and it was warning the father of the untruthful nature of the social worker. Before signing this form, I added, 'The note was by OLGA and said not to trust/believe what the social worker said. This was omitted from the summary.

It is significant who passes the note to whom, and by omitting this it could be made to appear to a court that it was the parent passing a note to the child to discredit the parent. Instead it is a child who has said no one listens to her passing a note to her dada that he should not believe what a social worker was going to tell him. Equally, it could have been a child like Samantha Barton who was being assaulted, and sexual intercourse with a 12 Year old girl is assault, saying no one would listen to her and begging for help, but like Olga, knew the Island child trade does not heed its victims.

If a lesson is to be learned from this odious episode it is that children NEED some way to pass confidential information about what is happening to them to people outside the system, or there could be more Samantha Bartons. Indeed I suggest this is a human right under the UN Charter and the European Convention, not that these seem to matter on the Island.

21-12-18

The above was written on the evening of Sat 15 Dec, but I decided to allow time for mature reflection. For example, was my lack of faith in DL based on Olga's note, or on other things as well? Clearly the note was significant, but his overbearing approach to her when he detected what she was trying to let me know was so suspicious that it tended to confirm her fears. Had her fears been groundless, a more open response at the time with Olga would have defused the situation and openness in the talk afterwards would have again been beneficial. Instead DL did everything he could to corroborate Olga's warning.

DL phoned me twice on Thursday 20th. The first call opened with the bizarre question was I aware there was a contact on Sat 22, as there had been contact on Sat 8 and Sat 15 Dec. I pointed out that the contact on Sat 15th was to re-instate one of the fortnightly contacts laid down by the court. If DL asked me if I was aware there was a contact on 22 Dec, this could be interpreted, if one wished to be favourable, that he wanted to be sure we knew. I said I did know, and he expressed surprise that we had celebrated Xmas on 15 Dec. I said Olga had missed so many contacts due to alleged health problems that I opted for 15th in case reason was found to cancel the 22nd, as I could no longer trust social workers. DL said he did not wish to get into the grounds of his honesty again and I agreed that was perhaps understandable. At this conversation, there was no suggestion that contact on 22 would be cancelled. About an hour later DL phoned me again to say contact had been cancelled.

The alleged grounds were that all three girls had said they did not want contact. If this was the case, why did DL not mention this during the first pointless phone call? Also it has to be said that it is totally contrary to the evidence of the contact on 15 Dec. The girls were given diaries and the title could be written with a glitter pen, but Tatiana's glitter writing had been smudged. To make up to her, I said I could do a title card on the computer and laminate it, which she was looking forward to having on 22 Dec. Maria also wanted one. Therefore two of the girls had something to look forward to receiving, so it would be out of keeping for all three to decide not to come.

I pointed this out to DL that it was merely his word, which Olga had told me not to believe, but contact was cancelled, as the girls allegedly did not want it.

What makes it even more suspicious is that there was 60-90 minutes between the two phone calls. If DL was phoning from Douglas, but the call has a 'it cannot be returned as there is no record of the last number which called you message', at around 2.30pm, the girls would be in school, so he would not be seeing them then. If he had driven to Sulby or the Jurby coast road, there would be insufficient time to see both foster carers and try to pressure the girls into not attending contact. It seems to be another instance where Olga's admonition, 'DO not believe what he says' is supported.

The timing of the two calls and the peculiar nature of the first one about 'was I aware there was contact on Saturday' when I had promised all three girls we would bring things they wanted, is suspicious. Even without Olga's warning, can anyone place any trust in anything like this, and if a daughter warns me not to believe what he says, it is worrying.

I must ask 'what has DL done that Olga was so concerned that she was prepared to risk being browbeaten over, that she felt she had to write such a warning. If a social worker has so alienated a child that the child writes such a message, is the relationship not so poisoned by the social worker that he should be replaced in the interests of the child?

This was copied to the Minister, as it must be rare for a child to write a note warning an adult not to trust anything a civil servant says. Sadly my experience of the Minister is that he ignores everything, no matter how disturbing.

Racism towards Grandparents visit to the IOM and the refusal to allow the girls to learn Russian as they had repeatedly asked in 2017/2018

Article 14 of the European Convention in Human Rights, which is binding on the Isle of Man contains a prohibition on discrimination. This prohibition is broad in some ways and narrow in others. It is broad in that it prohibits discrimination under a potentially unlimited number of grounds. While the article specifically prohibits discrimination based on "sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status", the last of these allows the court to extend to Article 14 protection to other grounds not specifically mentioned such as has been done regarding discrimination based on a person's sexual orientation.

This aspect of racist abuse to the girls commenced as far back as 27 November 2018, when John notified social services and the minister that the children's Grandparents, would be visiting the Isle of Man from Russia from approx 11 to 24 March 2019. John reasonably expected contact between the grandparents and the children. In his email John formally complained about the gross misconduct by the Care management Group Manager [CMGM]. In his email to the minister John pointed out 'The girls are of Anglo-Russian ethnicity, and are entitled to have their Russian heritage respected. Some months back I said that as the girls have been kidnapped by Social Services so their mother is unable to start to teach them Russian, that I required the department to commence Russian lessons for them. I would remind you that there is a case in Wales involving a Polish child in Care, where a local social services department sought to wriggle out of this and was ordered by the court to provide Polish lessons to respect the child's ethnicity. The CMGM, in an evasive reply, said he would speak to the girls to find out their wishes. At Contact on Saturday Olga was absent but Tatiana and Maria confirmed no one from social services had spoken to them about this issue. The CMGM therefore did not personally or through one of his staff, ascertain this matter, so he did NOT do as he had undertaken to do in his email to me. He therefore failed to meet his commitment made in his email to me. That is dishonest. It would be unacceptable if a junior social worker made a commitment and then did not carry it out. For a manager to fail in such a matter means he is hardly fit to be a manager. I therefore demand a full investigation into the CMGM's misconduct, and as failure to do as he said he would do discredits the integrity of the department.'

John points out that he had never suggested the girls should be made to learn Russian every day, but a reasonable provision which might be once a week would be appropriate.

That the grandparents from Russia had a right to see their children on a visit to the Island specifically to reunite the family is again a part of their rights under the convention and that should have been agreed within a few days. Both issues are reasonable, so what happened?

From the overwhelming evidence in this novel. If it is based on true events, the department and the court were both guilty of institutional racism. At the outset, the comment that Vera had not been exposed sufficiently to the British Way was racist. Should a Muslim woman or a Filipina woman be subject to such pressure. That is what the race relations act in the UK is for. In the UK a disproportionate number of children in care are from ethnic minorities. Is this because these 'stupid' foreigners are bad? To think that IS racist and unjust. Different countries have different cultures, but social workers are rigidly locked into the British Way approach, and poured scorn on the excellent Australian NCAC advice as we have seen. In the decisions section of the judgment, the court did not condemn 'the British Way' assault on Vera, and when John produced a relevant research paper on the difference between the Western and Russian character, the judge said it would not receive much attention.

With such official complacency, social workers could afford to be racist. If we do not stamp out this racism, then we too are guilty of discrimination. John's parents were from mixed religious backgrounds but there was never a cross word on religion. John is British; Vera is Russian, but cut either of them with a knife and the blood is the same colour. Why should we argue about race, nationality, religion? Is John superior to a black man or an Asian? No he is not. The message John and Vera put across to their daughters was to respect people from different ethnic groups. The 'British Way' message of social worker Q was the embodiment of racism and disrespect for other groups.

Every family needs a cement to hold it together. The main cement is love, but shared experiences are a part of it. Maria was with dada one day when the weather turned cold. She did not have her top coat with her, but dada had his anorak and wrapped her in it. She recalled that moment and will put the anorak on to recall a happy day. A shared culture and traditions matter. Tatiana knows dada has done much research into the family tree going back over 1000 years. She knows there are many good people there, but in June 2019, she asked do we have any bad people? John had to tell her we did, but asked if a good ancestor made her better than other people or was someone to admire and emulate. She answered wisely, so he asked her if a bad person made her bad, or was an example not to copy? She said not to copy. A family's traditions and culture are part of the cement.

In the early days of care cases, families are often allowed considerable contact, and contact workers are waiting to jot down anything which can be exploited against them. When a care order is granted against the family contact is slashed to help break up the family bond as that is a way to impose ties between well paid foster carers and the children. In the Stevenson case, the children remained devoted to their parents, begging the court to free them. Part of the cement was the Russian culture of the family for John also had Russian ancestors. The Russian Way needed to be eroded if the children were to be weaned away from their parents.

The way in which the racist social worker Q banned Russian materials and even a laptop from contact soon after the court case was over was a part of this plan as Ms Q seems to have seen Russianness as a cement holding the family together, just as QM saw Vera's photo at contact which the girls adored as a threat. Social worker SWL when she reluctantly accepted the laptop in contact again claimed the girls did not want Russian music or Masha cartoons, but they chose Russian material and Russian material was popular at contacts in June 2019 just before this book was finished.

Olga and Tatiana had both said they wanted to learn Russian, and all three girls had demanded dada prepare Russian/English word sheets for them. If they were living at home, Vera, as a native Russian speaker could have taught them Russian to primary school level. As Anglo-Russian children it is desirable that they should learn of their dual heritage to speak to their grandparents. It also makes sound cultural and even economic sense for when they grow up. At the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the economy went into freefall, and this persisted for a decade. Inflation peaked at over 800% per annum. In 1994, the Russian GDP in USD was $9563; In 2017 it stood at $27,834. This is not equal to the UK GDP but the Russian GDP almost trebled in this period whilst the UK GDP roughly doubled. Russia had immense reserves of oil, coal, timber, natural gas whereas the UK has limited natural reserves. Recovering from the communist era has taken over thirty years but with their Anglo-Russian background, the girls could work in the UK or in Russia, and if they are fluent in English and Russian their potential for a good job in Russia is well above what an average Russian or British citizen can hope for

John has never said they MUST learn Russian if they do not want to, as that is a good way to build resistance, but he said they must be given a chance to learn Russian, and so long as they remain prisoners of social care, that responsibility falls upon Social care, as with the recent UK decision compelling a local authority in Wales to fund Polish Lessons for a child of Polish ethnicity in the UK.

John was looking to the girls' cultural and future economic well being, but social workers with their racism and fear that Russianness might strengthen the family bond sought to ban anything Russian from contact, and the current social worker DL used John's demand that the department fund Russian language lessons to produce a disinformation campaign to turn the girls against their Russian roots and their parents, which seems to have had a disturbing effect on Olga. What is the evidence for this? We start with a letter from DL of 8 February 2019 which is two months after the note Olga wanted to give to dada at contact warning him not to believe a word DL said.

'Dear Mr & Mrs Stevenson, Following your requests for the Russian language lessons for your daughters and requests for contact with their maternal grandparents, I have visited your daughters in placement to gain their wishes and feelings. I would like to invite you both to Murray House on 13 February 2019 to discuss the matter further'

As meetings at Murray House were not reported verbatim so it would be the word of a social worker against the parents, it was safer for all concerned for it to be in writing. He wrote to DL 'you do not pay any attention to the grave incident on 15 Dec 2018 when you forced your presence on us at contact, and Olga was so deeply concerned that she wrote me a note. I saw this note as she was writing it, and it read to the effect, 'DL is going to speak to you after contact. DO not believe [either 'anything' or 'a word'] he says.'

'When you realised Olga was trying to alert me to her total lack of trust in your integrity, you subjected her to a shameful browbeating, which she withstood for a while, and then she suggested she speak to you outside the room. You did force her to hand over her note warning me not to believe either 'anything' or 'a word' you said.'

'After contact you did speak to us and seemed intent on proving how right she was to distrust you. You said the girls wanted a reduced Russian element to contact. There is massive evidence how the girls select Russian music and cartoons for contact, for I largely leave the choice of what they do to them. The most recent contact, on 2 Feb 2019, is confirmation of that. The contact worker prior to the start of contact admitted that the social worker had phoned on Friday afternoon alleging that Olga did not want to attend contact. There is of course no independent confirmation from a source outside social services of any such wish on her part, and on the last occasion we did see Olga SHE said I should not believe anything you said, so she must have been seriously worried. You alleged we do not give the children choice as to what they do. As Olga had not been allowed to attend contact and Tatiana was seemingly ill, which I would be prepared to believe, only Maria attended. Early on having hugged mama and I and sat on my knee, I asked her what she would like to do at contact, and the possibility of jigsaws came up. I asked her about school, and did she do 'problems' but she said very little and I did not feel it appropriate to interrogate her.'

Readers will recall how the girls were questioned in front of Mrs V over the spider incident, so were under pressure to toe the party line as advanced by Mrs V, and despite clear and unanimous recall when they had spoken to John in contact, took refuge in not recalling the incident when interrogated. The suppression of inconvenient incidents reached its shameful nadir in the abuse of children in care at Knottfield House and with Samantha Barton.

John recalls how the children often chatted about school before they were seized but now seem reluctant to say what happens at school or at the foster carers. Such reticence is disturbing but from the past record social services will merely disturb the children in the way they are interrogated, he feels inhibited from asking questions. If the answers are worrying, does he raise them with a discredited agency that failed the children at Knottfield House and Samantha, knowing how they will them be interrogated in front of the wrongdoers, or is it best only to take action if they beg him to do so.

In the reply to DL. John said, 'To avoid suggestions that I tried to push Russianness down their throats, I switched the computer on but did not select any music leaving the choice to her, After some Russian music, Maria wanted cartoons. She knows we have Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Lady & the Tramp, Barbie and the Dream House, Beatrice Potter, as she has looked at and enjoyed all of them, but she specifically asked me to find the Russian Masha cartoons. I did so for her. Some of the Masha cartoons have been translated into English but approx 80% are only in Russian and she selected and watched FIVE Russian language Masha cartoons, which Vera provided a translation to. Maria then selected another couple of cartoons so she watched some seven RUSSIAN cartoons with great pleasure. Although she could have selected Barbie, Snow White etc, her choice was Russian cartoons. I did not seek to influence her in any way. I recall that one of your predecessors, SWL said the girls wanted English music and did not want Masha cartoons. On the first contact AFTER those foolish comments the girls listened to nine pieces of music, one being an English number they had learned to dance to at school and wanted to demonstrate but the rest were Russian. At the following contact it was again a 1:8 ratio and at the third contact, where only Olga was present she selected Masha cartoons exclusively. Therefore do we believe the words of a social worker who say X but the girls do the exact opposite, or accept that her words have little connection with the truth. At that time, we did not have a clear warning from one of the girls NOT TO BELIEVE ANYTHING the social worker says. All we had was what the social worker said and what the girls actually did. Now we have a clear warning and even though you knew Olga had got her warning across to me, you persisted in the 'don't want Russian' line which Maria conclusively disproved on 2 Feb. We therefore have a warning from Olga that we should not believe anything you say and further evidence that your remarks made in knowledge of that warning bore no similarities to Maria's actions at contact. Given the overwhelming doubts which must exist as to the veracity of anything you may say, my wife and I could hardly be expected to believe any account you might give of what the girls wish so I can see no point in the meeting. I do however demand to know the position re the visit by the girls' grandparents in March. There is massive evidence available from the previous visit how much they wanted to see their grandparents, and enjoyed the very limited time they were given with them.'

A written report was finally received that DL had visited Olga in placement and from the distress caused to her it is clear the social worker massively mislead her as the idea that dada was insisting on Russian lessons every day was advanced. Readers will probably recall their own childhood and how play was a lot more fun than lessons! When studying for his O levels, John knew he needed a foreign language to be accepted in university, so had two additional French lessons a week, but he did not 'enjoy' them but he knew how important they were to his future. To suggest to a ten year old that dada was pressing her to have Russian lessons every day would be distressing for her a social services report said Olga was distressed and ran out of the room.

The social worker managed to drive a wedge between John and Olga by misrepresenting what John had said, which was at that stage perhaps one lesson a week, and it could even have been a part of the contact process making it a family experience.

As a result of her horrific experiences on 15 December 2018 when Olga tried to give dada a note warning him not to believe a word DL said, and the pressure by DL over daily Russian lessons, Olga was so overwrought that she decided not to attend contact. Tatiana and Maria were subject to similar pressure which put them off Russian lessons, even at a reasonable level, but did not deter them from contact, nor did it erode their desire for Russian music and Masha cartoons.

What happened over the Grandparents' visit which had been raised four months in advance. What would a reasonable caring parent do for his in-laws? John had ensured that during their two or three week visits, they had every possible opportunity to be with the children, playing with them, feeding them, talking with them in a mixture of English and Russian. During these visits he stepped aside as far as he could to maximise the time between children and grandparents. Is that not what any decent son-in-law would do for his wife's grandparents when they were kind good people?

Despite seeking additional contacts during the brief visit by the Grandparents who had flown almost 4000Km to visit their grandchildren, it was not until 5 March that the Department replied 'I understand that the children's maternal grandparents will be on the Island from 11 to 24 March; there is a prearranged family contact on 16 March. In addition to this, we have arranged an additional contact on 23 March for two hours starting at 10.00am.'

The wording is quite clear, there is a prearranged family contact on 16 MARCH, and the grandparents are a part of the family, and there is no suggestion that they were to be denied contact with their grandchildren on 16 March. INDEED, the letter refers to an ADDITIONAL CONTACT on 23 MARCH, and if this had been the only contact the grandparents were allowed with the children, it was not an additional contact for them, but their ONLY CONTACT, so the letter should have said they will be allowed to see the children on 23 March only.

John took this letter at its natural meaning, i.e. the grandparents as part of the larger family would be entitled to attend on contact on 16th and would have an additional contact on 23 March. 'We arrived at the contact centre on 16 March and I showed Dr and Mrs P in, but the deputy manager asked to speak to me separately and said they would not be permitted to attend that contact. He cited as his 'authority' for this an email from DL on THURSDAY 14 that the only contact permitted for the grandparents would be 23 March. He was obviously expecting them to be present on 16th, so had a glib rehearsed 'very sorry' speech, and without my asking, explained the contact centre had to carry out the instructions of the social worker and DL's email of 14 March had to be complied with. I had to explain this inhuman dictat to Vera's parents and take them back to the car, so they had to sit outside the contact centre in Hill St for three hours just a few yards from their granddaughter. The grandmother, who is a retired senior teacher, was disgusted and using the word in its Russian meaning, said they were fascists, Russians using 'fascist' to mean dictatorial and unreasonable. I explained her meaning of the word to the contact deputy manager, who had been guilty of the stealing candies from babies episode, and told babushka I entirely agreed with her and she was quite right. The contact staff were keen to 'pass the buck' that they were not responsible and put DL's email on his computer and showed it to me, but before I could even ask for a printed copy gave the glib explanation that if I wanted a copy I would need to speak to social services. I do formally demand a copy of this email. NOTE – Readers will hardly need to be told what the response was!

Tatiana was allegedly ill so only Maria attended contact on 16 March, but I had told the girls at contact on 2 March how babushka and dedushka would be present on 16 March and 23 March, so I had to break the bad news to her that babushka and dedushka had been banned from that contact. Maria wanted to know who had done so. I told her that it was DL, which from the evidence available was the case. She was not pleased. I was able to soften this bitter pill with some good news, that babushka and dedushka had brought over 5000 USD with them for the girls which would work out at £1200 to go into each of their child trust funds. Maria wanted to know how much she had, so I told her it would be well over £14,000. She wanted to know where it had come from, so I said mama and I put in £1200 each year to her account so when she is 18 she should have well over £36,000. Maria wanted to eat early and the food we had brought included two packets of raspberries that her grandparents had bought when shopping on Thursday. She shared them out between her mama, myself and herself. I said how we had done a homemade fruit pie for babushka and dedushka, Maria wanted to know why we did not bake pies any more at contact as she enjoyed it. I have protested about this. The alleged reason contact was moved from Ramsey Cottage Hospital to Derby Sq was so the girls COULD bake, as there was a proper kitchen there. When contact moved to Hill St there was no cooker, and whilst I did try at home to see if a pie could be baked in a microwave, it was not practical. I complained but naturally the contact centre was too scrooge minded to do anything and social workers were indifferent. Maria wanted a photo of all three girls to put in a mini frame from her arts and crafts box to give to babushka and dedushka with a suitable inscription on the back. I have given this to them.

John protested that the clear terms of the letter of 5 March, 'I understand that the children's maternal grandparents will be on the Island from 11 to 24 March; there is a prearranged family contact on 16 March. In addition to this, we have arranged an additional contact on 23 March for two hours starting at 10.00am.' had not been complied with, and demanded a replacement for the prearranged family contact on 16 March. The Head of Statutory Social Work Services [HSS] produced her usual evasive reply, 'I apologise if the letter sent from Ms ---- caused confusion in respect of the children's contact arrangements with their grandparents. This was not the intention though I accept it could have been clearer as you note. I apologise if this resulted in the children's grandparents attended the contact centre when they were unable to be part of contact. The children had indicated language difficulties as they do not speak Russian and their grandparents do not speak English, as a result you will see from the letter that arrangements had been made for assistance from an interpreter on the 23rd March during contact and Ms ----- also requested that Mrs Stevenson be present. I understand the children were consulted in respect of contact with their grandparents and in line with their wishes a contact was arranged for the 23rd March. We will not therefore, replace with an additional contact as there was only one contact scheduled for the 23rd March and this was in line with their wishes.'

John had told the children on 2 March that babushka and dedushka would be present on 16 March. They knew that mama would be present and she could translate fluently both ways. The comment about language difficulties is a smokescreen. In John's report of the meeting which was written before he had the evasive reply from HSS saying the lack of contact was at the children's wish, he noted, 'so I had to break the bad news to her [Maria] that babushka and dedushka had been banned from that contact. Maria wanted to know who had done so. I told her that it was DL, which from the evidence available was the case. She was not pleased.'

If Maria was not upset at the banning of babushka and dedushka, why would she want to know who had done so? If she did not want to see her grandparents and had given such indications to a social worker, she would be unlikely to ask. The inescapable conclusion is that in drafting her evasive reply HSS had not bothered to study the complaint or work out how implausible it sounded in light of Maria's who had done so comment!

As police officers or intelligence officers will tell you, the problem with telling a lie is to do so consistently and not to trip up over the details. HSS and DL did exactly that!

So babushka and dedushka had been told of a family contact on 16 March and an additional contact on 23 March, but had been banned from the 16 March contact apparently as a result of the email from DL the previous day. The additional contact was an only contact. The word additional cannot by any twist of language apply.

What happened on 23 March? Tatiana and Maria were overjoyed in see their grandparents, sitting on their laps, hugging and kissing them. Even the contact centre whose reports seek to damn with faint praise had to admit, grandparents provided nice gifts, skipping ropes, colouring books, chocolate medals [chocolate coins in fact, but accuracy was no more a feature of the contact centre reports than fairness!] Professor P took over 40 photos of the grandchildren and John took over 20, so these provide a good record of what really happened. Professor P gave the children a postcard-calendar of the staff of his department and himself at Sevastopol University and took several views of both girls sitting with/on the lap of his wife and daughter and on John's lap. The girls both studied the colouring books with interest pointing out different features. The girls have a dozen small costume dolls and Tatiana had decided to put name stickers on them, which included her mama, her sisters, her aunt and babushka V. She found the doll with a smart red costume and handed it to babushka who was touched by the way her granddaughter had named a doll after her, and dedushka got a photo of babushka and 'her' doll. At a shopping trip, the grandparents had bought raspberries for the girls which they adored and a chocolate cake and the contact centre did admit, 'nice time eating together as a family.' A family group photo showed Maria sitting on babushka's knee as Tatiana sat on dedushka's knees, both wreathed in smiles. The photos also showed the radiant happiness of the girls at their one and only meal with their grandparents. Before they were kidnapped, when babushka and dedushka came for a fortnight it would be over 40 meals together in a visit, so the Isle of Man Child Kidnap Agency has cut such events to on fortieth of what they had been.

The letter from social services referred to a translator. She sat by the two contact staff members and translated for them what the grandparents were saying rather than being of any value to the family. As the children have few words of Russian, Vera did all translations for the family. Valya was a retired senior teacher and wanted to encourage the children at school. This was twisted into a 'concern' as Valya said IN RUSSIAN that if the children did not go to university they would be sweeping the streets like stupid people do.' The contact staff with mama like daughter speaking in a blunt Russian manner, which would given them brownie points. Clearly the translator, who never translated a word for the family supplied this, and John asked Vera afterwards if that is what Valya had said. For it to be a genuine concern, the children would have needed to know what was said. The translator never translated anything to them. John recalled how Vera translating this remark and she never said anything about sweeping the streets. She now knew how a Russian way of phrasing things would be exploited, so had softened it to that the children needed to study well to go to university. There was no mention of stupid people or sweeping the streets.

Vera had finally recognised the corrupt system of contact. Had she translated babushka's words as the translator did, the contact staff would have had brownie points, nailing grandmother and mother in one blow. Instead their alleged concern showed that babushka spoke in a blunt Russian manner, but Vera had softened it, so this should have been a glowing testimonial to Vera.

If the Contact Centre could hear Valya, they could also hear Vera's translation, so what they did was to prove beyond doubt how they select what will appeal to their Lords and Masters, rather than offer a balanced and impartial account.

In another desperate attempt to score points the CC said there had been 'little conversation about how the girls are doing at school or social life.' As John has said elsewhere, with the way they are browbeaten not to tell on the foster carers by being interrogated by social workers in front of the foster carers, they have become cautious about what they do say, and as Olga has not attended contact since her desperate message to dada in December 2018, is that a surprise? When John asked Maria about school one day, she clearly did not want to speak. That is a general point, but the contact was just two hours. The meal took just as long as a full length contact; there were presents to open, and hugs and photos, and these were more important than trying to quiz the girls on things they are now reluctant to mention due to the knowledge that they cannot be whistle blowers without being punished.

This section shows the rampant racism of the child kidnap system, its cruelty in allowing just two hours to 70-year-old grandparents who had come 4000km. Russian readers may think back to the days of the USSR and how much people feared the stukach in those days. Parents and children who fall into the clutches of the 'care' trade in the IOM also have to fear the stukach!

Does any Russian reader think Aleks and Valya deserved to be treated like this. Russian readers will also know that when the Crimea decided by a massive vote to return to the Russian motherland, the British government punished the residents of Crimea by refusing to issue visas to them, and as Valya and Alek's ten year visas have now expired they cannot visit the UK.

Aleks and Valya are fine people, and they and their grandchildren deserve every effort by the Russian Government and the Russian people to secure the freedom of the children so they can visit their grandparents despite British human rights abuses. I am British, but I am bitterly ashamed of Britain and the Isle of Man and its obscene human rights abuse.

Britain likes to spew manure over Russia over alleged human rights abuses. This is a British human rights crime, as in the end Britain is responsible in international affairs for the Isle of Man. If the children and their grandparents are denied the right to see one another, this is a Human Rights abuse, and these children, let us remember are half Russian. Tatiana, and to a lesser extent Maria as she is younger, can sing the Anthem of Russia. Russia can be proud of these children and I long for the day when my three daughters can visit their Russian motherland.

\-----

The summary of events from the start of 2017 to the middle of 2019 is no more than a drop in the ocean of the cruelties inflicted on the family by social workers and the contact staff, but it gives sufficient flavour of the corrupt nature of the Social Care system in the Isle of Man. Manx nationalists may bridle at a criticism of the IOM, but if they truly care about the Island, they should want it to be a good place to bring up children. As it stands, no parent in his right mind would wish to risk their child in this corrupt atmosphere. Anyone who cares for the good government of the Island will back John's call for reform, and if the present MHKs do not deliver, will vote for better men and women in 2021.

Contact Centre 'Absolute Power corrupts Absolutely' style event, 8 June 2019

John emailed the Minister as this book was being written to report a further farcical instance of power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, as it displayed the unthinking use of absolute power, a refusal to face facts and lamentable ignorance.

One of the girls had asked why dada liked trains, so I thought I could explain by demonstrating a model train to the girls and set up two metres of track, a 12/24v model engine and a modern Bachmann 12v train controller. This has a thermal cut out and if it runs for some time near full load it becomes warm but not hot as such systems work on temperature. One of the girls mentioned this so the contact employee rushed over and said the girls were handling wires which was dangerous and must stop. These comments by the contact staff employee show a degree of ignorance which would be unbelievable if it were not that such conduct is routine at contact. Electrical power output is measured by multiplying voltage x amperage, so a domestic power supply at 240v fused to 13a delivers 240v x 13a or 3120w. A mains shock can be fatal which is why model trains in the early 1900s adopted 12v DC. The contact worker might have heard how you can get a shock from a car battery which works at 12v, but car batteries deliver currents for a number of hours, for example 1A for 48 hours or 48A for 1 hour. If this were discharged suddenly in a 'short' situation, a large vehicle battery can momentarily deliver up to 1000A. Model railway equipment is quite different. Older units may deliver up to 10a, but modern units deliver no more than 12v/2a, the primary reason not being user safety, as 12v 10a would not constitute a threat to life, but because modern high performance electric motors need so little current that a 2a supply is ample. The 10a supply could burn out a modern toy train motor. The power unit I was using is a modern Bachmann Spectrum unit. Bachmann Trains operates in the USA where lawyers constantly seek liability cases to sue manufacturers, taking a slice of the damages award. If Bachmann power units represented a threat to human life, liability lawyers would be like bees at a honey pot. When the contact worker prohibited the children from being near the dangerous wires, I tried to reason with her briefly but came up with the inevitable, 'I have spoken so I must be right, so you may not put forward the facts in front of the children' attitude.

I explained how the mains was 240v and this was 12v 2a, but contact staff are never susceptible to facts. If a dog touches a low voltage low amperage source with a wet nose, it will back off, as fluid is a good electric conductor and the wet nose is in contact with the internal body fluids. For a human being to suffer a similar low voltage non harmful shock the child would need to put the wires in its mouth, or as one writer suggested give a wet kiss to the rails! As I was next to the girls I would have stopped such a bizarre act if they had got the wires near to their mouths.

After contact, the staff member gave me the usual feedback and comments about the danger. She was pontificating about something she had no understanding of. So she would not make a fool of herself in front of other people and of you as the minister, I tried to explain these elementary facts to her. She was outraged saying I was to say no more, as did her supervisor. I sought to explain to the supervisor that I was only trying in their interest not to allow her to make a fool of herself in front of other people, but that was quite unacceptable. Can you, as the Minister imagine how damaging to the reputation of the contact centre and indeed you as the minister would be if something like this becomes public? #

I have regularly said that contact staff are like this, but I suppose someone with little knowledge may fear being exposed in front of children, but should responsible adults not consider facts afterwards. If you doubt me, you can perform the simple electrical calculations yourself or speak to an electrician. Let me reiterate, a 12v car battery can in certain situations be hazardous due to a sudden high current discharge. A modern 12v model train power supply is rated at 2A not the 48-100 amp hours supply of a car battery. Our house distribution board has RCD circuit breakers which can trip if a domestic light bulb shorts. I carried out a test deliberately shorting the terminals of the power unit. The Bachmann power unit circuit breaker instantly tripped, but the mains RCD did not. It would have done so long before there was a safety risk, so my unit is safer than a modern mains distribution board! Maybe we should not expect technical knowledge of contact staff, but dogmatic folly afterwards only reflects on those involved, and if you cannot be bothered to accept this, on you as well. So you are not made to look foolish by the antics of contact staff I strongly suggest you do, for once, take action as the 'infallibility of the contact centre staff doctrine' is harmful to the department. I hope I may hear from you to this effect.

With the constant changes in department staff I really do not know who the current supervisor is but I would be glad if you would pass this on to them. I have no personal interest in stopping the department making fools of themselves and you, but I can see no reason why lamentable ignorance should be used as a weapon against parents, for the family court seems indifferent to such folly in care cases.

\-----

John had an out of office 'I will respond upon my return' acknowledgment so the minister received the email. There was no response as promised up to 25 June, but this was in line with the Minister's usual conduct. Does the Island wish to endorse such folly and arrogance. If the Minister and Tynwald do not act, then it is up to the Manx People to say enough is enough. As the children are half Russian I suggest the Russian people also have a legitimate interest in the rights of three little girls.

#It will be noted that John gave the minister and the contact staff an opportunity not to make fools of themselves, as this is such a simple issue where there is no grey area. As that opportunity was disregarded it is right that this glaring example of incompetence should conclude this book. Had the minister for '12 volts 2 amps is dangerous' responded John would have been happy to say how the minister did take his responsibilities seriously to have his staff behave intelligently. If they get something as simple as this wrong, what faith can any reasonable person place in their conduct across the board? That is why a trivial matter is important. The minister did not bother, so it is up to the present MHKs or those who replace them in the next Tynwald to sort out the mess.

## Chapter 14 Social Services move in for the 'kill.'

Any novelist will tell you that the climax of the story should come at the very end of the story. Anything after the climax will be anti-climax and is only there to tie up loose ends which the reader may not have grasped. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle used Dr Watson to explain the brilliant deductions of Sherlock Holmes to his readers throughout his stories. In the Hound of the Baskervilles, Holmes used Dr Mortimer's stick to deduce much about his visitor at the start. There are many dramatic moments as with the fate of the convict, but after the murderer finally meets his just desserts, the story ends.

If the spy is unveiled on page 94 and the novel were to continue for another 50 pages, the reader will have lost interest, so the spy who is unveiled on page 94 will be an incidental dramatic episode, like the death of the convict. The real climax will happen later.

The same rule can be seen in any courtroom drama. Perry Mason unmasks the true murderer as the finale of the story. When a novelist has complete control of his story, this is the rule, but what if the novel is based on a true story? Fiction must make sense, as Tom Clancy said. It must also have some reasonableness to it, but that is not so in real life. Does history always have a good outcome? If Hitler had not triumphed in 1933, it would have saved millions of lives, so real life may provide a dreadful result. If a story is based on a true event, could we tell the Erin Brokovich or Schindler's List stories before the finale, but what if the novelist is writing, as Harriet Beecher Stowe was, to alert the public to a wrong and to demand reform? By definition, a campaigning book, be it fiction or fact, is written to further the campaign for good, so relates to an ongoing abuse when it was written. William Stead's 'purchase' of 13 year old Eliza Armstrong in 1885 was to demonstrate the evils of child prostitution, even though he had no improper intent to the child. A corrupt legal system sentenced him to prison, even though he had no 'mens rea' or guilty mind, as lawyers call it.

If this were a conventional novel, not based on a true story, chapter 12, the court room scenes, should be the climax as the real villains are exposed and the innocent children go free. All that should follow is to tie up loose ends, and as campaigning authors have done throughout history, conclude with a heartfelt cry to stop some ongoing abomination. Instead Chapter 13 in this novel covers dramatic incidents but not fundamentals. Why? A novel based on a true story must follow events, unless the author is to mislead the readers.

When this book was ready to go live and was in the process of being uploaded on line, that was the situation, but where a novelist had real villains to contend with, the villains may well have an ending in mind that no good person could want. By a bizarre coincidence, as the author put the finishing touches to the novel on Friday 28 June, for uploading the next day, the villains were writing their hoped-for ending to the script on that very day, Friday 28 June 2019.

Had Joseph Goebbels been writing his ideal book on the Nazi story, it would not have ended with Hitler's death in the bunker, but with the successful deployment of the Vergeltungswaffen or Vengeance weapons. The Western Allies would have been crushed, as would the Red Army, and the Thousand Year Reich would have been triumphant over civilisation.

Social Services had their own Vergeltungswaffen or Vengeance weapons to deploy, as this chapter reveals. Olga was a particular target, for she had said in contact on 15 September 2018, 'Our family, we have to stick together like glue and paper.' On 15 December 2018, she had warned dada not to believe a word the social worker said. Those remarks merit vengeance of the child kidnap trade, and we have seen how Olga was led to believe that dada was trying to force her to have Russian lessons every day. Despite her wisdom in warning dada, she fell victim to such lies, but the history of dictatorial regimes is that deception plans work with adults, so is in surprising a child can be deceived? We have no idea what else may have been put to Olga, but from what social services admitted, she was deeply disturbed. John had reported the misconduct of social workers, foster carers and contact staff, so Vergeltungswaffen weapons were to be used against John, as he had dared to challenge social services.

On 28 June 2019, the Department proposed to the court, **'The Department applies for a NO CONTACT order between the children and their parents John and Vera Stevenson.'** As I have said before, in a campaigning novel based on true events, the author needs to paraphrase the words of the evildoers to avoid copyright and other issues. I would have no fear in letting readers see the how faithfully the novel recaptures real events, but were I to do so, I might be jailed. To suppose the authorities would willingly let the public see all they had done is facile. It will only be if an independent enquiry is set up that the full extent of the crimes committed against the Stevenson and other children in the Isle of Man will become fully exposed. The plan is in bold and _John's comments in italics_ :-

The Department sought this plan on a variety of grounds.

' **The judgment approved a plan for contact for a period of three hours once a fortnight'**

The Department now applies for NO contact between the parents and all three children. Olga has not attended contact since December 2018, but does not offer a clear consistent reason. Tatiana has refused to attend contact from time to time saying she is too ill. This has increased since Olga stopped attending. On 22 December 2018 all three children refused to attend contact, but since then, Maria has attended all contacts.

_Comment – It is true Olga did not attend after 22 December, but she had been enthusiastic to attend contact on that day, and had written her whistle blower email, which resulted in her being browbeaten by social worker DL. There is a report that he visited Olga and she was of the impression that dada was forcing her to have Russian lessons every day. She would not have got such an impression from John, as that would be far too intensive, and if she retained that impression, it is clear that social worker DL failed to correct a serious misconception_ _he had planted in her mind_ _. John has NEVER suggested daily Russian lessons, and whilst he has said that the department it under a duty to provide Russian lessons whilst the children remain prisoners, if they want Russian lessons, it has to be if they want such lessons._

Tatiana missed very few contacts prior to Olga ceasing to attend, nor did she miss many contacts in the early part of the year. By March 2019 excuses were being made by contact staff that Tatiana was unwell, but the only sources of these were social worker DL and foster carer Mrs V.

Olga had said that dada should not believe a word the social worker DL said in her whistle blower note on 15-12-2018, so what reliance can John, or the public, place on a social worker who had lost the trust of his daughter. From Chapter 13 we can see other instances where DL's comments did not meet with events as they happened, as for example too much Russian element, On the day this evil plan was handed to John, Maria had asked for an additional Russian badge for her Airborne blue beret, and with the exception of one English number, probably selected by Vera to confirm the sound system worked, had played Russian music in contact.

As far as foster carer Mrs V is concerned, there is, in the court evidence, a direct contrast between her account that a fostering link worker recommended the evil plan of Olga cleaning up her own vomit, and the link worker denying this. There is no evidence of who told the truth, but Mrs V told Alder Hey that 50% of Olga's admissions to hospital were related to tonsillitis whereas it was 7.5% to 10%. She massively misled health professionals. There are only two possible explanations, negligence or intent. Can we therefore place any credence on the sources that Tatiana has refused contact, claiming she is unwell. Possible she is unwell; possibly it is an excuse, but can this be regarded as reliable evidence? It is correct that Maria attended every contact except for 22 December 2018, but that omission in itself is suspicious. John had promised to do some labels for the girl's new presents, and they were keenly looking forward to them when they left contact on 15 December.

_Olga had on one occasion begged contact staff not to reveal to Mrs V what she had said in contact about Mrs V, which suggests fear, and Tatiana and Maria could be subject to the same pressures. Olga is on social services record as refusing to attend a meeting as no one listens to her, so what faith can be placed in the words of the social worker or foster carers. There is also the disturbing incident of the legs being pulled off the daddy longlegs or spider. No challenges have been made that John misrepresented what the children said to him, but the social worker, instead of seeing the children on their own, questioned them in front of Mrs V. It would take an exceptionally courageous child to whistle blow an adult with power over them in front of that adult._ _Clear rules exist about how children should be questioned and these do not provide for the questioning to be in front of the potentially guilty party._

' **Contact is seen as positive on occasion and in some respects, but predominantly as poor contact, often damaging especially in allowing the children to settle in the foster placement.'**

John has only met the husband of the new foster carer for Olga on two occasions, once by chance on Tynwald Day 2018, when Olga ran across and hugged him, and once at Onchan Park. Other than that, he knows little about this couple and Olga has given next to no information about them. There is nothing he can say about them; if Olga wishes to talk about them, he will listen, but he has not offered any opinions as to their suitability or otherwise. He has not suggested any of the children should disobey the foster carer, or should demand to return home. He has not invited Olga to whistle blow on her foster carer, and the only whistle blowing incident since late 2018 was the 'dada do not believe anything he says' note she wanted to hand to her dada which did was about the social worker.

Tatiana and Maria have not spoken much about the foster carers, and as they were questioned over the spider/daddy longlegs incident in front of the foster carer, Mrs V, it is possible they were intimidated into not speaking, and have remembered that if they make any complaint, they are liable to be suffer for it, so it is safer to keep silent, in the same way children were intimidated at Knottfield to keep silent. There is a clear culture of intimidation towards children in care cases.

As the children are so silent about what happens in care, although John is naturally concerned, he feels it would distress them to ask questions, so it is only if they say anything that there is any discussion over the placement.

_The girls will sometimes speak nostalgically of the days before they were taken by social services and John will respond on this. At Contact on Saturday 6_ th _July 2019, there was a discussion about making pies and kitchen safety which was praised by contact staff. This included a light hearted comment about 'grape pies' which had originated as a leg pull between John and his mother, and were very tasty. He had made a grape pie for the girls, and Maria suggested it was on her birthday, which as she was only four, was remarkable recall._

There was a further discussion on electrical safety, which the contact staff reported on in positive terms. John has on different occasions spoken about bathroom safety as a proportion of accidents are occasioned by a child or adult falling in the bath. John was always told to keep three of four limbs in contact when getting in or out of the bath, which is the same as advice about climbing ladders etc. It is sound common sense, and John was told this by his parents when he was six or seven. The girls do not seem to have that benefit, and a fall in a bath can lead to a broken limb.

Electrical safety lessons seem lacking too, and also cooking safety. On Saturday 6 July, John was saying not to put a saucepan handle over a hot plate and Maria remembered he had told her that, but asked where she should put it? He explained it should not project into the room as it could be caught and spill over you, so you needed to place the handle to the side of the stove.

Maria asked about cooking utensils behind the cooker. John said this was not wise, and she would remember that neither in the UK home nor the IOM had we done this for safety reasons, as someone would reach across the stove and could set their sleeve on fire. Again this is basic common sense, but Maria then said how Mrs V has utensils behind the stove. Clearly this is unsafe, so it is not a practice to copy. John suggests that the children are being taught dangerous ideas here. He refrained from saying Mrs V was irresponsible, which she clearly is, so did not offer endorsement or condemnation of such carelessness by Mrs V.

He said you do not lean over a stove, as long hair, a tie or a necklace could catch fire. He said that because of the careful safety training by his mother he had not suffered a burn or scald in the kitchen in his life requiring medical treatment. Maria announced that one of the foster carer's own children had suffered a painful burn as he did lean over a stove. John said this should be a lesson to Maria not to do something like that. He would point out that social services made much play about dangers of the kitchen before the children were kidnapped, but John had never suffered a burn or scald in his life, and when the children were with their parents, they never suffered any accidents. From information volunteered by Maria, Mrs V had kitchen implements at the back of the stove which is a potential risk and her son has been injured by leaning over a stove. John as a 100% safe record; Mrs V does not have a 100% safe record. John was careful not to try to turn Maria against Mrs V, despite these clear and ever present dangers in the kitchen where she now at risk. If maria should suffer injury as a result of the negligence of Mrs V and the department in an unsatisfactory placement, John will hold them responsible, but that will not be much consolation to an injured child.

At some, but not all contacts, a traffic light sheet is given to the parents of good things, things to be improved on and concerns. To put the misleading comment about contact being predominantly poor in context, John has been through the feedback sheets from 16 March to 6 July 2019. Sheets are not provided on every occasion.

_6-7-2019_ _Concerns nil recorded; To Improve on - nil_

Good - Good talks on kitchen and electrical safety positive comments emotional warmth.

_22-6-2019_ _Concern - No interest shown in Tatiana's or Maria's week_ _– The girls seem reluctant to speak, which may be due to fear of punishment for whistle blowing. If they wish to speak, we do not stop them._

_To improve on –more child directed conversations that allow girls to speak about their lives_ _– in effect a repeat of the above, and the response is the same. If the girls are nervous of being punished as whistle blowers, it is better not to press them._

Good really nice time at park pleasant time eating together, sharing conversation lots of laughter.

_8-6-2019 – Concerns_ _The absurd comment referred to in chapter 13 for this date on 12v 2a with a fast acting safety cut-out posing an electrical risk. John built on electrical safety on 6-7-2019 by saying you do not bring any electric item close to your mouth. John is a thinking safety-conscious parent. In the Ramsey house as built, the on/off switch for the cooker was immediately above the cooker. John had it moved to the side, so in the event of a pan fire it could be switched off without risk of injury. By contrast Mrs V created a hazard to her own and commercial children._

_Improve on – 'Tatiana wanted an exciting job nice to explore further'_ _Response - the first thing is to do well at school to get a good job. Job security matters etc, but one cannot do too much with young children, so John took key issues first._

_Good Mr S good descriptions, use of praise to both girls. Mr S asked about their weeks_ _– the report does not say girls were not forthcoming but this is usual_ _; lots of love and affection._

_25-5-2019 TT period_ _so cancelled & replacement cancelled; no replacement so far._

_11-5-2019 concerns – not to mention the girls being 'taken' in front of them._ _The official phrase is_ _taken into care_ _, so that could be used, but is long winded and the discussion was about something in their past. John did not say 'kidnapped' although that is the reality. Maria, in particular, often speaks about the past._

_Take an interest in the girls lives -_ _as before, they seem reluctant to speak perhaps due to fear of being punished as whistle blowers as at Knottfield House_

Nice interactions, emotional warmth and praise.

27-4-2019 concerns nil

_Improve on - more interest in Maria's life outside contact, more effort to engage Vera_ _As before, girls seem nervous to speak about life in care, as with Knottfield victims. After this contact John spoke to Vera about speaking more and there are no further complaints in the later reports listed above re this._

**13-4-2019** Tatiana and Maria taken off Island for school holidays no contact

30-3-2019 concerns Nil

_To improve on did_ _not ask about school etc_ _– when John has asked the girls are usually reticent to speak._

_GOOD_ _asked Maria what she wants to do in contact, followed her lead, affection._

_23-3-2019_ _This was the contact for grandparents already covered in detail in chapter 13 with the misleading 'concern' when Vera softened what babushka said in Russian which the children would not have understood as the tranlator only translated for contact staff, not the family. Vera conscious of racism, adjusted a normal Russian way of speaking to something else, so this merited PRAISE. This was referred to social services, so they are aware of how Vera handled this situation flawlessly_

_16-3-2016 already covered in Chapter 13_ _with distress caused to Maria by babushka and dedushka not being allowed to attend. Emotional abuse by department to child_

_Those are the reports on all contacts from 16 March to 6 July, almost a three month period._ _They do not bear out the comment, 'predominantly poor contact.'_ _Indeed they suggest the exact opposite. Three reports do not refer to any concerns at all, and one has a totally unbalanced remark about 12v 2a being unsafe. One says no interest in their week, which is because they seem nervous to speak, and one objects to girls being 'taken; when the official phrase is taken into care._ _The social worker made a sweeping condemnation to justify his policy to sabotage contact, but the contact sheets do not support it. It might help his credibility if his claims had been written in light of the evidence he must be aware of. It does nothing to enhance the reputation for honesty when the evidence from the contact sheets does not support the allegations._

THE EVIL plan continued, 'there will not necessarily be no contact at all, but presently Olga dose not attend any contact, Tatiana presence is sporadic so an order is sought from the court.

As usual, the document is economical with the truth, omitting that Maria has attended all but one contact and has clearly gained great joy from them, and that Tatiana will have attended at least 50% of the contacts and gained pleasure. We do not know what disinformation was fed to Olga to cause her to back away from contact, but the whole of the Stevenson case shows systematic abuse of trust by the department and its associates.

If Olga is, for the moment, misinformed, why should Maria, who enjoys contact, be punished by being deprived of contact? The case over Tatiana is not proven.

Additionally, the pattern has been that the children reduce attendance at contact as they grow older so it may be the Tatiana or Maria do not want to attend contact at all, so an order is sought that the department will not make the children attend against their wishes.

This is hypocritical. It may well be that as the length of removal from parents increases, that family bonds are weakened and this does seem to be the hope and intention of the department, but is this a general finding or one specific to a given family and even in one family is it across the board or does it vary from child to child?

So far the department has been successful in persuading Olga not to attend contact by a disinformatsia plan. Tatiana has had several absences on medical grounds. These could be genuine medical grounds; it could be that pressure has been brought to bear on Tatiana that she is unwell so should not attend, or it could be an excuse. Any of these are possible. So far, the department has only persuaded Maria not to attend one contact, which was the first time the breaking up of contact plan was implemented on 22 December 2018. She has not missed a contact since then, and in a seven month period, one could have expected there to be one or more parties from school friends, so Maria's determination to attend contact is noteworthy.

The hypocrisy is apparent in another way. The department has ignored Olga to the point that she said she did not wish to attend a looked after children review as no one listens to her, but whilst the department consistently ignores the children's wishes to return home, if it can allege that they do not wish to attend contact, it will adhere to those wishes.

The department seeks an assessment in respect of the perspective of the children as they are now in separate placements

The separation of the children was opposed by both guardians and the court did pay lip service to it, but within weeks of the order, the children had been split up and Maria had said it was because Mrs V did not want Olga anymore, as she was always arguing with her. This would seem likely.

Does this last paragraph mean the review is to see what comments can be extracted from the children to suggest they do not wish to attend contact with the parents, or with the sinister comment re different placements, does it mean it is to try to reduce contact between the children themselves to damage the sibling bond?

_At one contact Tatiana said sadly how she only saw Olga at school and at sleep overs. John could not question her on this or it would have been stopped,_ _but frequent contact between the children had been promised as a part of the separation plan_ _. Was this another broken promise, as the sleep overs did not seem to be frequent, from the way Tatiana had spoken._

At present Olga is still at the primary school, but will shortly be moving to Ramsey Grammar School, so even school contact will end. It is suggested that this entire document is a cynical exercise in punishing the children for their loyalty to one another and to their parents, and the way they have defied attempts to break up family bonds for so long. The document also seeks to punish the parents for their devotion to their children.

The question has to be asked will this evil proposal be rubber stamped in the Isle of Child Kidnappers? Can the family expect fair treatment, or is the Isle of Child Kidnappers devoid of integrity? Do the members of Tynwald accept this is right, or do they propose to take action to investigate this sadistic and evil organisation, or must this be left to the Manx people to be rid of MHKs who are content to disgrace the Island before the world? One has to recall how the Island was shamed before Europe due to court sanctioned child torture in the 1970s.

John has enriched the LEGAL profession to the tune of £60,000 already and in defence of the children, feels he has to fight this Manx crime against humanity, but is everything already rubber stamped? Can any family residing in the Isle of Man feel safe, or are their children at risk of the state kidnappers? Does it make sense for any family to remain in this evil place?

John had originally been concerned about a deplorable primary school in Warwickshire which the girls would have been compelled to attend and while he was considering what to do, had opted for home schooling for Olga. One option was to send all three children to the private school John had been sent to by his parents, but the fees would have been in excess of £120,000 for the three girls. John could have afforded this, but it would then make it difficult to support all three girls at university so they did not leave university with a large debt. It is well known that a proportion of girl students attending university solve their debt problem by escort work, stripping or prostitution. John feels outrage that the state places such pressure on any girl student. He wanted to avoid such pressures on his daughters, Olga, Tatiana and Maria.

Foolishly he had retained the house in the IOM bequeathed to him when his mother had died as a summer home. It was in Ramsey and the Ramsey primary school had a good reputation, so however great the wrench in leaving their Warwickshire home, John felt this would be in the best interests of the children. Had he known of the brutal child kidnap trade of the Isle of Man, he would have willingly sold the Isle of Man home to fund primary school education.

Bringing the IOM home up from a summer home to full home status, has cost well over £40,000, so with lost income, when he had to devote attention to refurbishing the Ramsey home as well, the family will be well over £120,000 out of pocket, which would have paid for private primary school education.

Parents of children in the Isle of Kidnappers need to think if the alleged financial benefits of living in a tax haven make such risks worthwhile. John was not influenced by the tax haven 'enticements' but purely the educational benefits.

## Chapter 15 Chto Nuzhno Sdelat'? What is to be Done?

Vladimir Lenin used this title 'What is to be done' in a pamphlet published in 1902 calling for the establishment of a dedicated revolutionary party. He had lifted the title from the writings of Nikolai Chernyshevsky. It is used in Russia to this day to call attention to a serious situation. When Vera was sleeping rough after her discharge from St Michael's hospital, and John discovered this, he immediately contacted her parents as they had a right to know.

They rightly posed the question, 'What is to be done?' and suggested John go to the Midlands to look for her. He had already put this to the Warwickshire Police who said they had better facilities to find her than he did, and he would be better reassuring the children. A few days later, when the police agreed it would be helpful, he came over and with the help of a truly outstanding police officer, Sgt H, and Vera's sister, she was rescued, which was the first step on the long battle to rebuild this truly special wife and mother.

John now asks Manx politicians, the Manx Electorate, the people of England and the people of Russia, as the kidnapped children are half Russian, What is to be done? Chto Nuzhno Sdelat'?

We have seen how the Olga plan was regarded with contempt by the department and by the Court, just as the children's right under modern British law was denied, as children must not be allowed a voice in their future. Olga later refused to attend a Looked After Children's review as she had protested no one ever listened to her. The only original element by John was to offer a short time-scale that the department could not reasonably reject and to offer 'no notice' inspections. The only reason John suggested an 8.00am to 8.00pm limit was to avoid distress to the children had there been a surprise 3.00am inspection, but if that had been demanded John would have accepted it.

This plan shows the maturity of Olga, and should have been accepted by all parties. Had John failed the girls, then they should be taken away from him. The rejection of the plan shows that neither the department nor the Manx court values the rights of children, as enshrined in the European Convention or looks to their best interests.

With a judgment against the children, they were doomed to remain in a care system, which had negligently allowed for the murder of Samantha Barton, until they were eighteen so the family members would remain prisoners of state for longer than a murderer is often incarcerated. To imprison even the most vicious murderer, the state must hold a trial which is open to the media and the public and where guilt or innocence is determined by a jury.

Even with such safeguards there is a long list of convictions in England which were not merely regarded as unsafe but manifestly so, as with the The Cardiff Three, jailed in 1990 but freed on DNA evidence, and where police officers were later accused of perverting the course of justice. Edie Gilfoyle was imprisoned for murder after police officers wilfully withheld evidence which would have cleared him. Both cases have echoes in the way IOM Police officers put words in the mouth of Vera Stevenson and supplied selected 'juicy titbits' of evidence to the emergency hearing, but suppressed equally significant facts. Sally Clark, Donna Anthony, Sion Jenkins and Angela Cannings were all convicted of child murders on the evidence of a widely criticised 'expert' witness. In the Stevenson case, the expert witness, Dr N was scrupulously honest, so was largely ignored by the department and the court, but the Clark and other cases show how even a jury can, with suitable encouragement from the bench, take questionable evidence on its face value. One of the women, Sally Clark, who had been convicted of murder, was so shattered that although freed, she never recovered from the mental trauma and died of alcoholism. What is nauseating about this case is that the lawyer campaigning for Clark's release obtained new evidence from Macclesfield Hospital, showing that a second expert witness had failed to disclose medical tests which showed that Sally's second child had died from the bacterial infection Staphylococcus aureus, and not from smothering, as the prosecution had claimed. This is suppressing key evidence to make good figures, and if we look back in the Stevenson case what do we find? Two expert witnesses had suppressed or manipulated evidence in the Clark case to get the result the authorities wanted. As we have seen here, nurse S suppressed evidence; social workers Q and QM suppressed evidence, and foster carer V gave misleading information to Alder Hey hospital. That by my reckoning is more than two!

As we have seen in this novel, John was relentlessly battered by social workers to try to have Vera committed to a mental hospital, and until she spoke of wanting caustic soda, he resisted. Although 'betrayal' by a loved one is likely to cause bitterness, he felt he could not disregard the risk to Vera, so he had to do what she would see as a betrayal. It could have destroyed their marriage, but had he not done so, might she have taken catastrophic action? Poor Sally Clark, devastated by the loss of her child and an unjust conviction, took to drink and died. Do we blame her, or do we blame the 'criminals' and that is what they are, who drove her to that tragic end.

Vera, although trashed by social workers and by the court, survived. She was helped by mental health professionals at St Michaels and Caledon in the Midlands, although the court surmised that John should have had her committed in the Isle of Man. Given the corrupt nature of the IOM system, would Vera have trusted Manx mental health workers? Who knows, but it would be unlikely to have been a plus factor.

With the encouragement of her parents she visited John in their company in 2017, returning to live with him a few weeks later. By 2017 she had made a good recovery and was fortunate with an outstanding mental health nurse in the IOM. It is through Vera's courage and strength that the couple have rebuilt their marriage and when mama returned to contact, Olga threw herself in mama's arms.

If this novel is based on a true story, a photo of such an emotive moment would be wonderful for the reader to see, and a telling rejection of the social worker lies, but such a photo, if published would ensure the arrest of the author! The author could not safely confirm or deny the existence of such a photo. All he will say is that John with the encouragement of his father was a keen photographer from when he was less than ten years old, and at contact on 22 June 2019, one of the contact staff mentioned how keen a photographer Maria was, as John had hammered away to get photography permitted at contact, and when the children asked to use his camera, let them do so. John has encouraged his daughters to take photographs.

Vera after her return to the Isle of Man came under the care of an outstanding mental health nurse as noted, who saw her fortnightly, then monthly and in June 2019 discharged her from care. Whatever readers may conclude about the social workers the Island has, it has some superb health professionals.

This string of UK cases reveals that even with a jury trial, official witnesses, keen to 'get the right result' cannot be trusted. How much more likely is it that official witnesses who do not have public exposure to fear or independent scrutiny by a jury, will work for the required result rather than an impartial result. If Judges can so misconduct a trial that these miscarriages of justice took place when there was a jury and public scrutiny, what faith can the people of the Island place in the Stevenson trial? As a distinguished UK judge said secret justice is no justice.

There was no firm evidence that John lied on any material fact. The worst that could be said was that he did not give every detail of something that was irrelevant and which took place a decade before Olga was born, but he was accused of being a liar in black and white. There was no independent evidence he had shouted at nurse S, but John proved beyond reasonable doubt that nurse S had knowingly withheld crucial evidence at the first hearing. She had twice changed testimony between the hearings from something that was totally impossible, AND DID SO SUSPICIOUSLY QUICKLY before the nature of the challenge to her evidence would be apparent. John cannot prove she was primed by any specific individual and did not make that challenge but suggested in court it needed to be considered. The court was outraged at his making such a technical challenge to the legal system, so no such review was launched. Without it, doubts must remain. John was 'found' to be a liar on an unsupported allegation of a witness who had initially claimed three children cowered behind a radiator where Barbie will not fit, who was herself a liar.

This book has gone into great depth. The author cannot say it is fact or he would be thrown in jail, so it is fiction. If it were to be fact, can the Manx people regard the kidnapping of these three children by social services complacently. As the children are half Russian, can the Russian government or the Russian people regard this racist attack on a half Russian family with equanimity? Can any civilised person anywhere feel comfortable with this crime against humanity?

John demands an official review. After the shameful 1982 decision to birch a child, despite the 1976 ECHR ruling outlawing the birch, the UK government insisted on a non-Manx judge being appointed. Given that the Manx 'appeal court' which is not even dignified with the title, 'Court of Appeal' but is called the 'Staff of Government Division', had acquiesced in the Tyrer decision, that was probably prudent. John demands action by Tynwald to set up an Independent Review in which the Isle of Man authorities should have the right to give evidence, but should not be in any way involved, just as an independent judge was sent to the Island over the 1982 birching decision scandal.

Given the dubious state of the evidence, John feels it is wrong that the imprisonment of the children should endure any longer and calls for their release. He calls for the dismissal of foster carer V. If she could make a child clean up her own vomit and mislead a hospital to the extent she did, she should not be entrusted with other people's children. If any member of Tynwald thinks that is proper, John challenged him or her to say so now, so the public can make up their own mind.

Social worker Q and QM were both short term workers on the Island, and have long since left, so cannot be held to account for their misconduct. Nurse S should be reviewed.

The review should look at the way the Family Court accepts unsubstantiated evidence by social workers and it is only if the parent can challenge it that the court does not exploit it. John had evidence of the children playing outside so this claim could not be used to denigrate the family.

The court failed to consider the misconduct of nurse S and foster carer V, and the strange way nurse S changed her evidence before the line of questioning on two issues could become apparent to her. Here she had perfect recall at a later date before the challenge was obvious. Usually her memory was such that she had to refer to her notes. John did not accuse a specific individual of priming the witness, but there was a prima facie case to look at. As noted, this was not done. Why?

If the Manx government does not institute immediate reforms, John calls on the Manx people to take decisive action at the 2021 Manx general election as the good government of the Island is in jeopardy.

John calls on the UK government to bring pressure to bear on the IOM government to act responsibly.

John begs the Russian people and the Russian government to take up this human rights abuse of a wonderful Russian woman, who he has the good fortune to be married to and to stand up for the right of three little girls, who could sing the anthem of Russia before they could speak Russian. From the disgraceful episodes in 2019, it will be seen how social workers are trying to harm the girl's Russian heritage, as they see it as a cement holding the family together.

One day, and he hopes it is soon, John will take his wife and their three wonderful daughters to Moscow and to the home of their grandparents in Sevastopol. Russian readers will recognise the words, Ot yuzhnykh morey do polyarnovo kraya - from the Southern Seas to the Polar lands. Sevastopol is bathed by the Southern seas, and with his wife and her parents, John has swum in the Southern seas, which to Westerners are known as the Black Sea.

If readers should say the author has made John the central figure in this novel, this it is not to downplay Vera, but for a very different reason. By exposing this human rights abuse even in novel form, the authorities in the Isle of Man will be livid with the author. The author hopes that using the novel as a vehicle, any attempt to imprison him will boomerang against the Manx government, but they jailed James Brown in 1864. The popularly elected Douglas Commissioners sought powers from Tynwald, and Brown's newspaper editorial included the offensive remark by one MHK that the Commissioners were only fit to control the donkeys on the beach; Brown pointed out that this comment 'elicited marks of approval from the donkeys around him', before accusing the Keys of being 'despotic rulers'. When dragged before the self-appointed Tynwald, Brown refused to apologise, so was sentenced to six months' imprisonment in Castle Rushen. An English court ruled this was wrong and Brown was later awarded damages and the governor of the Island, later Lord Loch, was told to clean up Dodge City. Will this happen to the author and he will be arrested? Who knows? He can run that risk for himself, but it is important to ensure that vengeance cannot fall on Vera, either by trying to imprison her or to block contact between her and the children. If contact between John and the children is blocked, it will further reveal the evil nature of the Manx Care trade.

If the author is jailed, he will be in good company with James Brown in the Isle of Man and Martin Luther King in the USA, who was arrested 29 times in the pursuit of justice and freedom and is now seen as one of the greatest men of the twentieth century. King, in his last sermon in Memphis on 31 March 1968, just days before he was assassinated, recited the beautiful words,

'We shall overcome. We shall overcome. Deep in my heart I do believe we shall overcome. And I believe it because somehow the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice. We shall overcome because Carlyle is right; "no lie can live forever".'

No Lie can Live forever. With the backing of good people, the truth shall make Olga, Tatiana and Maria free, but all children unjustly seized by social workers should be free. All are equally important. My neighbour's children must be as important in the cosmic scale as John's children.

