Blog

The meeting with Melanie Onn MP did take place today, and it amounted to another nail in the coffin of hope. The two-year anniversary of the predatory removal of Lizzie is in sight. I cannot express the depths of grief and trauma that Jane and I have endured. Our daughter, our only child, was ripped from the tapestry of our lives, leaving a jagged and irreparable hole. The manner of Lizzie’s removal was malicious, and Lizzie’s continued isolation from everyone she knows and loves amounts to criminal coercive control, based on all the evidence we have accumulated. Not only was it ‘predatory removal’, but the report from the Linkage investigation leads me to broaden that to ‘coordinated predatory removal’. What we are dealing with, therefore, is coordinated predatory removal followed by criminal coercive control and exploitation of a vulnerable young person with acute special needs caused by lifelong, irreversible brain damage. Does that sound astonishing? Yes! I would be the first to acknowledge that it sounds utterly incredible and even preposterous … because surely, surely, the official agencies would respond and react in such a way as to resolve this and carry out thorough reviews of evidence, ask formal questions and follow due process in a rigorous way, wouldn’t they?

And yet they have not. Each agency, be that Focus Adult Social Care, Humberside Police or Linkage College, have simply pointed to each other and said, “Well, they say this and that, so what can we do? Take it up with them.”

“Are you really saying that Focus, the police and Linkage College have all failed to follow procedures, that they have all failed in their duty of care?” Melanie asked, or words to that effect. She may even have worded it as, “Are you saying they are all incompetent?”

To which, my answer was, “Yes.” Without a shred of doubt, without a hint of reservation, “Yes!” In each case, for each agency, I remain convinced, on the basis of hard, verifiable evidence that, yes, they have acted in ways that support the deliberate isolation of Lizzie and they have absolutely failed to safeguard a vulnerable individual.

“Well, that sounds preposterous,” Melanie said dismissively with a slight smile.

There appeared to be no room at all in her thinking, certainly in the way she expressed it, that she was willing to countenance that I had grounds to make such a bold claim. The very notion that such public bodies would do anything untoward! The thought of it!

I am sure people thought exactly the same about the Post Office.

I intend to report Linkage College to the Charity Commission, given Linkage’s own investigation finding that a member of staff at Linkage was actively involved in the plot, giving the Wilson-Clark family the green light to remove Lizzie.

Melanie Onn cautioned against that, saying I should go through their Appeal process instead. That would involve yet another month of waiting for yet another report which would probably be yet another whitewash.

As far as Adult Social Care are concerned, Melanie said I would need to go through the Ombudsman route.

Based on the experience of others, I replied I had no intention of wasting my own time and squandering my dwindling emotional reserves to endure such a process that would only serve to crush me and, ultimately, uphold the institutional status quo.

Melanie dismissed that.

“Others have been down that route,” I persisted. “They had chapter-and-verse evidence that they had extracted from Adult Social Care through a Subject Access Request. They had the black-and-white evidence of negligence and obfuscation, and the Ombudsman dismissed them and supported the agency. With us, Focus and Humberside Police have actually refused to comply with the Subject Access Request in the first place, giving no information whatsoever, in spite of the fact this puts them in clear breach of their legal obligation. So, there would be no point attempting to go to the Ombudsman.”

Melanie found it unbelievable that the agencies would not have complied with the Subject Access Request … by which I mean she gave the impression she did not believe me.

I said that I was running out of will, running out of hope, that if I was to go down that route, that it was more likely that someone would be fishing my body out of the Humber. I am absolutely certain that the Ombudsman route is a time-wasting, hope-crushing snare to extinguish any remaining spirit in those who have the audacity to say that public bodies are acting in dangerous ways that amount to gross negligence and collusion.

“I personally think it would be more effective if there was a media campaign,” I said. “Would you support me if I were to go to the media, to raise awareness of this?”

“No, I wouldn’t support that at all,” Melanie said very swiftly. “Not until you have exhausted all other routes.”

However long that might take; whatever cost it incurred; however much damage was done to Lizzie in the meantime.

And that, pretty much, was that. My time was up.

And so, I fear, was any help I might expect to get from Melanie Onn.

I did not sense support, understanding, awareness or compassion.

She is not with me on this. She appears unwilling to consider the notion that the agencies might be at fault. And, if she did have any doubts or concerns, she did not give any hint as to that in today’s somewhat cold meeting. And if I did need to pursue the battle through the Ombudsman, then I was on my own – I did not get the impression she was offering her support in that, or suggesting that she would stand with me. To do so would be indicate that she believed what I was saying … and I don’t think she does.

I thanked her for her time and left the room utterly, utterly crestfallen, my spirit numb.

Where do I go from here? Inching towards full-on campaigning mode, to try to overturn the tables of institutional indifference. I had hoped that Melanie Onn would recognise my point and empathise with my anguish.

It appears I was mistaken.

————————–

Thank you for reading. If you have any insights, comments or advice, please feel free to add them below.