They created the conditions in which the conviction became possible and contact became impossible.
The system convicted me solely on the testimony of a vulnerable child, without understanding their neurodiversity, history of trauma, communication difficulties or adoption trauma.
I do not blame my child. I blame the professionals around my child who failed to use professional curiosity to understand my child, their needs, or whether there were alternative explanations for my child‘s perception, including the influence of a third party who benefited financially from our separation.
Professional reports existed documenting my child‘s communication difficulties, emotional regulation and behaviours. They were ignored because they did not suit the narrative.
“Professionals” walked away congratulating themselves on a job well done.
Years of advocacy for my child were wiped out by one allegation. Professionals who had previously worked with me and supported my advocacy for my child turned on me and failed to provide crucial safeguarding records that would have shown my child’s history.
My child is now on their own, with no therapeutic support, left to decide whether they want contact. I know they want contact, but it is overwhelming for them. I am an adult, and I am overwhelmed.
“‘Voice of the child.’ ‘You have a conviction and they are scared of you,’” they quoted when I tried to have contact with my child. They created the conditions in which the conviction became possible and contact became impossible.
There are safeguarding risks if my child and I have contact, but my child is the risk to me.
Opinions became fact, then evidence. The narrative, contaminated by a third party, contaminated everything it touched—doctors, schools and volunteer work.
They relied on “my child’s rights” to justify withholding information. They stated that my child appeared to understand, but I have evidence that my child did not.
Years without seeing my child. Is this really in my child’s best interests?
When did opinion become evidence? When did lies become accepted and unchallenged? How can one individual manipulate professionals, yet they fail to see it?
How can a loving parent be separated from her child and convicted on the testimony of a child who had been unlawfully taken by someone who was not their parent?
How could that same person then be used as a witness without their motives being properly examined? Why was the evidence of those motives ignored?
I was not convicted of the assault my child alleged, but of a lesser offence. It is difficult to ignore the question of whether they recognised they could not prove my child’s account, yet still achieved the outcome that prevented him from returning home.
So many questions. So many challenges.
The trauma continues. My family remains destroyed. And no one is accountable.