User:Louise Fielden/sandbox

Samuel Charles Fielden. Born 31st October 2014 on All Saints Day. Samuel was born through a process of IVF with a Dutch anonymous sperm donor who is within the top 10% of the population academically.

As a British born subject Samuel was the subject of "Wardship Proceedings" within the UK Family High Courts having been subjected to US Family Court Proceedings involving a LGTB activist who made representations to Adopt him during the process involving his parent, where the parent placed the child in a cot and when the child was asleep, was separated for no more than 30 minutes from the child whilst sterilizing a water beaker on only one occasion which was confirmed by CCTV. Judge Richardson applied illogical assumptions by stating that feeding a child five times in one day, was a course of conduct where the child was separated on each occasion. This was illogical as to feed a child requires the child and the parent to be together in each others company. No further oral testimony was provided by the parent, and Judge Richardson then applied presumption that a water beaker was cleaned five times in one day without the child being in the company of the parent. This was factually incorrect as the child was with the parent on each of these other occasions of cleaning a water beaker and that there was more than one water beaker. As a result Judge Richardson falsely arrived at a finding of Neglect. Due to the UK High Court intervention and Wardship proceedings no appeal in the USA Supreme Court was permitted, and no recourse was available to Appeal the finding, and no Final Disposition was made.

The parent having researched current child safety practice globally, provided evidence based oral Testimony that placing a child in a place of safety in a cot was by far safer than carrying the child down 3 flights of stairs in a baby carry holder and then clean a water beaker with scolding hot water whilst holding the child due to the child being at risk of perminant injury through scolds and burns.

New York Foundling completed poor child safety questioning and security checks allowing Mrs Susan A Sena a LGTB activist who participated in "XXX Porn Bingo", and appears along side material provided by a gay pornographic actor called Mr Will Clarke and Mr Vincent Lambert to Foster and Adopt the child. This was in sharp juxtaposition of the parents Church of England and Conservative upbringing.

UK Family Court proceedings where due to cease in January 2018, however the child sustained an injury where a child protection investigation was commenced. The parents contention was that the child sustained an accidential injury through play by removing a toy container from the toy storage box, emptied the contents, moved the empty toy container to the safety gate. The child stood on the up turned toy box and leant against the safety gate without a Nappy on and sustained a graze and bruise to a sensitive area and reddening to his upper thigh and lower abdomen.

Upon examination at The Haven clinic Dr Bailey reported a Non Accidential Injury, which procedurally led the carer to be investigated by Police as a matter of course. Upon further investigation by the parents legal team, a gap analysis provided insight into the systemic irregularities in the report regularly observed in the UK Family Court in order to perminatly remove the child from a parent, from falsely documenting observations from horizontal to vertical, over exaggerated the number of bruises, the depth of the alleged contusion, thus arriving at a Non Accidential Injury. However missing a relavent injury that by Dr Bailey own Medical Report would have arrived at an Accidential Injury and ignored other factors involved in the height difference which is mitigared by the child standing on a toy box. The intention of Dr Bailey was made out by taking photographic evidence of the child's bottom which demonstrated no nappy rash, however providing a Medical Report that states the child suffered significant nappy rash requiring medical treament in order to arrive at a course of Neglect.

In summary, the Medical report by Dr Bailey arrived at Non Accidential Injury which can led to Assault related charges was falsied, and over exaggerated in order to arrive at that contention, and missing injuries that would have arrived at an Accidential injury, whilst lying about matter in order to arrive at Neglect.

QC Recorder Samuel relied upon independent medical evidence from Dr Rose which was illogically thought out, and subject to criticism from a leading Forensic Medical Doctor due to the following reasons. Dr Rose was not an expert in Accidential injury, nor an expect in child safety gate led injuries.

Dr Rose further incorrectly and illogocially applied an incorrect scenario whilst dealing with plausibility issues. Dr Rose provided the opinion that a child would repeat a motion on two occasions, however the pain would act as a deteriant on 3 or more repeated motions foreward. However, Dr Rose failed to take into account that one motion caused all the bruising, that Dr Bailey's report was inaccurate in the number of bruises, and that whilst in the care of Wandsworth LB the child suffered a greater and more significant injury where the Foster Parent provided email correspondence that the child did not present any signs of distress or pain and hence the child pain threshold was higher than that assumed by Dr Rose.

Dr Rose opined that the child's cognitive and intelligence was not sufficiently developed enough to allow the child to perform the tasks presented by the parent. However, Dr Rose did not consider the 2 years old ASQ development report, or review the video recording of the child playing using similiar logically sequences and speaking in sentences.

Dr Rose stated that the pressure applied by leaning against the safety gate was not sufficent to cause the injury. However Dr Rose did not consider the photographic evidence provided by the parent that if a cotton sock left a reddened pressure mark around the childs ankle, then leaning against a hard surface which in this case is a wooden safety gate would cause reddening to the upper thighs and lower abdomon. Nor did Dr Rose consider that if two track marks left on the childs check caused by a flat wooden floor board when the child was playing by collapsing when learning to crawl then leaning against a curved 90% angle hard surface would leave two linear greater significant injuries consistent with the Parents photographs.

The UK Family Court, via QC Samuel Recorder reduced the scope of the child investigation by refusing to allow any areas of the parents contention to be investigated as follows - refused to allow the child to be interviewed using a method of Achieving Best Evidence (ABE), or provide assistance to corrobating the parents contention that Dr Bailey's report was malicious by refusing a Production  Order of all the non disclosed material and photographic evidence, and the refusal by Wandsworth LB to take the childs measurements for a Forensic Medical Doctor to analyze the height of the toy box, safety gate, the child feet and heal to injury site, even with a Court Order.