From: “Lancaster County, Family”
Date: 19 May 2014 17:08:48 GMT+2
To: “‘phillferreira
Subject: FW: Re:

Dear Mr Ferreira,

This is the option available to you that we can offer, if you want to source your own arrangements then please feel free to do so.

The time of the hearing that we have is 2pm and that is time that was sent out on the hearing notice.

Kind Regards

Sent on behalf of HMCTS

—–Original Message—–
From: phillferreira
Sent: 19 May 2014 14:43
To: Lancaster County, Family
Subject: Re:

You must be joking ! That’s is more than a months salary in South Africa , you also have the times wrong ! So try again Empower your Business with BlackBerry® and Mobile Solutions from Etisalat

—–Original Message—–
From: “Lancaster County, Family”
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 15:28:31
To: ‘phillferreira
Subject:

Mr, Ferreira,

Please see below details of an available videolink for you to book on the 28th May 2014.

The forms that you need to complete are above, and the details (time, address, price etc) are contained in the email below.

The ISDN number for our courtroom is: 44.44.1772885160

The contact number you can put down on the form for us is 01772 2722886.

If there is any more information you require from us please feel free to reply to this email.

Kind Regards

Sent on behalf of HMCTS

—–Original Message—–
From: Alastair Angus [mailto:alastair@globalvi.com]
Sent: 19 May 2014 14:51
To: HMCTS
Subject: RE: PRETORIA

I’m pleased to inform you, the following VC room in Pretoria is available at 3.00pm – 5.00pm (SA Time) = 2.00pm – 4.00pm (UK Time) on Wednesday 28th May 2014:

Part Address
Silverlakes Road, Newmark Estate, Pretoria 0081, Gauteng, South Africa

Costs
VC Room Hire: £145.00 per hour x 2
Scheduling Fee: £ 30.00
All prices are exclusive of VAT and based on an incoming call over IP

If you would like to proceed, please can you complete the attached booking form and return and we would be delighted to make the necessary arrangements for you. In the meantime, if you require further information or assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards

Alastair Angus
Director

Global Virtual Interviews Limited
16 Kennedie Park
Mid Calder
EH53 0RG
United Kingdom
Registration: SC 353821
VAT: GB 866 0478 96
Tel: +44 (0)1506 880 777
Fax: +44 (0)1506 880 779
http://www.globalvi.com
alastair@globalvi.com

DISCLAIMER: Copyright in this message and any attachments remains with us. It is confidential and may be legally privileged. If this message is not intended for you it must not be read, copied or used by you or disclosed to anyone else. Please advise the sender immediately if you have received this message in error. Although this message and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer system into which it is received and opened it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by Global Virtual Interviews Limited for any loss or damage in any way arising from its use.

P be smart, be green, be seen – videoconferencing

—–Original Message—–
From: HMCTS
Sent: 19 May 2014 13:33
To: reservations
Subject: PRETORIA

28th May 2014 2pm for 2 hours, Pretoria to UK

Thank you

I am not authorised to bind the Ministry of Justice contractually, nor to make representations or other statements which may bind the Ministry of Justice in any way via electronic means.

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) This email has been certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) This email has been certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of
the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message
could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in
mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message
by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be
read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not
broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus scanning service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) This email has been certified virus free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.

In the High Court of Justice Family Division ​​Case Number: LA13P00159
Lancaster District Registry ​​​​

Between:-

Jayne Elizabeth Ferreira
​
Applicant
And
Whilhelm Philippus Ferreira
First Respondent
And

Oscar Alexander Ferreira and Oliver James Ferreira
(Children through their r16.4 Guardian Peter Morey)

Second Respondents

Position statement of Children’s Guardian

1. Peter Morey, the Children’s Guardian, has had sight of all the papers and emails to date, and in particular has considered the Statement of Mrs Ferreira dated 8th April 2014 in support of her two applications before the court (see below) and the Statement in response of Mr Ferreira dated 16th April 2014.

2. There are a number of applications before the Court currently, specifically:-

a. The Mother’s application for the exercise of parental responsibility by the father and the need or not for any orders defining or restricting this pursuant to Section 8 of the Children Act 1989
b. The Mother has also applied to the court whether it is in the best interests of the children that she be permitted to use a surname other than Ferreira to protect them from the impact of the publications by the Father of private material and material from these proceedings
c. Whether the court should consider any further orders or proceedings should be prompted by the Father’s ongoing publication of private material and material from these proceedings.
d. The father has recently sent an email to the court stating he wishes to make further applications to the court which are: 1. Full residence order in favour of WP Ferreira 2. Removal of Oliver and Oscar Ferreira from the Jurisdiction to South Africa as place of permanent residence 2. Application for appeal and full contest hearing for the order made on 28 Feb 2014 3. Application to join Social Services Lancaster and West Cheshire to these proceedings 4. Application to join Lancaster and Western Cheshire police to these proceedings 5. Application to join Dalvinder Kaur Kelly to these proceedings 6. Application to join Cafcass to these proceedings.7. Application to Join Core Assets to these proceedings 8. Application to join UK Home Office and boarder Agency to these proceedings 9. Application to join independent international Social worker to these proceedings 10. Application to join independent Parental alienation expert to these proceedings 11. Application to join independent international physiologist to these proceedings from cross examination of Peter Morey and Mrs Kaur Kelly 12. Application for joining Mr Simon McClure to these proceedings 13. Application to join Miss Lauren McClure to these proceedings 14. Application to join Miss Catherine McClure to these proceedings 15. Application for joining Miss Suzanne Willy to these proceedings 16. No contact order for Miss Jayne McClure 17. Non molestation order against Mr Steve McClure 18. Non molestation order against Miss Jayne McClure to protect me and Oliver and Oscar Ferreira Estimated time for this will be 10 full courts days.19. Joining off the LAA to these proceedings.
e. It is unclear at this point whether the Father has made any formal applications to the court on any of the above and in light of that the Children’s Guardian will give due consideration to these applications once it is known whether the court intends to deal with these matters, be it at the hearing on the 28.05.2014 or any subsequent hearing.

3. The leading case in relation to change of surname remains the decision of the House of Lords in Dawson v Wearmouth [1999] 1 FLR 1167. The Applicant must demonstrate having regard to the individual facts of the case that the proposed change is in the welfare interests of the children. In the case of Re W, Re A, Re B (Change of Name) [1999] 2 FLR 930 the relevant factors to be weighed into the balance when the Court considers the welfare of the children are summarised below:

a. Veiled abduction threats from the father which have been accompanied at the very least by him obtaining South African passports for the children. While South Africa is a signatory to the Hague Convention, the damage to the children from an abduction by their father should not be underestimated and is a factor that can be taken into account regarding change of surname (please see Re F [2008] 1 FLR 1163):

b. The information that the father places on his daily blog concerning the children. This is very arguably damaging to them if they or their peers were to access it. It contains extremely derogatory comments about the children’s mother and her family, details of the proceedings in relation to the children, the revelation that the children are not the biological children of Mrs and Mrs Ferreira and, in the case of Oliver, sensitive information about a medical condition that he has suffered from which could constitute a breach of his privacy:

c. The father has apparently been able to trace the mother’s address and he definitely identified the nursery that the children were attending. The father’s attempt to visit the nursery earlier this year and his behaviour in terms of requiring sight of the qualifications and CRB checks of the staff led, it is contended by the mother, to the children having to be withdrawn. The mother also asserts that she and the children have had to move home to a different area. The children’s surnames are unusual. If they are retained the father has the capacity to cause further disruption for the children in the future.

d. The importance of the retention of a family surname from an identity point of view and the fact that some limited supervised contact may end up being able to be arranged for the father where the new surname may be disclosed.

4. It is the opinion of the Children’s Guardian that having given careful consideration to the above there are reasons why the welfare of Oscar and Oliver requires them to be permitted to bear a new surname.

5. The Mother indicates her in most recent statement that she still seeks to discharge the father’s parental responsibility for the children. This application was dismissed at the last court hearing on 28/2/14 as there is no statutory framework for the same given that the father and mother were married at the time of the children’s birth (section 4 CA 1989).

6. It would appear from the mother’s most recent statement that she seeks the courts permission to amend the children’s birth certificates presumably in order to discharge the father’s parental responsibility by this route. To do so she would have to seek a declaration of non-parentage first (section 55A Family Law Act 1986). If the application were successful she would then have to embark upon the complicated process of applying to the Registrar for amendment of the children’s birth certificates.

7. It is the opinion of the Children’s Guardian that irrespective of whether it is legally possible to discharge the father’s parental responsibility for the children that this is to draconian a step to be ordered by the court. The Children’s Guardian is aware of previous children’s cases where this course of action has been considered and in fact has been involved in two cases of his own (although in all of those cases the parents were not married) and while he does believe the father has acted unreasonably he does not feel that his actions are serious enough to warrant the removal of his parental responsibility for his children.

8. The Father’s behaviour since the court hearing on the 5th December 2013 has breached the terms of the undertaking given to the Court. It continues to be the view of the Children’s Guardian that the Father’s behaviour since the 5th December has been, at best, provocative in his use of social media, in particular his ‘blog’ on which he posts messages which are derogatory to the Mother, her family, and professionals involved with his family. The concern is that whilst the boys are currently oblivious to information posted on line this will not remain the case indefinitely, and has the potential to undermine and destabilise the placement of the children with their Mother in the fullness of time. The impact of the Father’s behaviour upon the Mother must also be weighed in the balance, given that she is the primary carer for the boys.

9. The content of the father’s blog also includes publication of documents filed and served in the proceedings and is, therefore, a contempt of court. The Children’s Guardian has considered his position in accordance with recording 11 of the Order dated 28th February 2014. It is considered that the difficulties of bringing contempt proceedings, at this stage, weighed against the likely outcome of provoking further breaches, would make such an application contrary to the best interests of the children. However the Children’s Guardian believes the continued ongoing publication of private material pertaining to the children personal details cannot continue to be ignored and this has led him to decide that should the Children’s Solicitor become aware that the father intends to attend the next hearing in person she should have the committal application together with an application for the time for service on the father to be abridged ready to be issued in the hope that the Court may entertain the application on 28/5/14.

BSG Solicitors
18.05.2014

Hello Little Men !

Hope you monkeys are doing great and that you are having a nice relaxing Sunday …

I was busy with work stuff this morning and then went out to Gloria Jeans for a large Mocha and a toastie for lunch , when I got back I thought I would watch a little telly but I fell asleep , something I don’t do during the day normally , so just woke up about a half hour ago and I see the guys from the office wants to meet me at 8 30 to go for dinner again so I need to get ready in a little bit …

Can’t believe we are 2 sleeps away from your big day , the little cake I wanted seems to have turned into a not so little project here so if it’s not sorted by tomorrow afternoon it might have to be some yummy cup cakes from the bakery here in the hotel …but hey I am sure you both will still love them and seeing that I have to eat it all by myself this might not be a bad back up plan 🙂

I hope you both will have a fantastic week , with a fun build- up to your big day….

Not sure what time I will be back at the hotel tomorrow night as I am trying wrap things up here , but will write you once I am in my room !

So Little Men …. I will see you both a little later under our big old green tree in dreamland , looking forward to my dream bear cuddles and smiles ….

Night , night Champs …. Happy new week dreams full of fun ….

Love you both THHhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiSSSSSS much and miss you so much more …

Love you Little Men ….always …

Dad xx

http://www.iklaas.com