Remove the Expiry Date for Child Rights in Family Court
My child is now 18, therefore, the injustices perpetrated against him in the South Carolina family court and the catastrophic results these had are surely his own. Recently and for the first time, I have had access (independently and hard won by me), to advice from South Carolina attorneys – nothing can or will be done to mitigate the injustice perpetrated against my son who is now residing in the UK. The last attorney advised that the only recourse was to try to make the story public.
This regards a child that was abandoned by a USAID branch director, Nicholas Jenks, in Africa under very vulnerable circumstances. The original case was between the claimant then resident in Zimbabwe and the father who the federal paternity finder placed in Washington dc. The child is now resident in the UK. As we could not afford the combined visa fees I applied for a humanitarian visa for us and we have waited for a response to this for the last 22 months. In the middle of this, child support was cut off. We have never been able to apply for child benefits from any country.
Ask me if I believe that the family courts in the US support child rights and my answer will be a resounding NO! To quote Martin Luther KIng: "The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict." Those who remained neutral in my case were those I had every right to appeal to - the ones who claim to uphold child rights - the ones we will forever remember as those who stood for the violation of my son's. Office of Child Support Enforcement, a letter was sent to Scott Lekan who was then the director of this organization, the US ambassador to the UK was approached by my local MP to name a few. Over the course of six years I have approached everyone imaginable but they were silent about an injustice which directly led to severe and unnecessary jeopardy of my son's welfare and future.
We never had any real legal representation. It was required of the US under REMO protocol to provide this and have due regard to the best interests of the child. Both of the former were so minimal as to be non-existent. Despite it being general world knowledge (which would certainly have been known to a former USAID Africa branch director) that Zimbabwe was in a state of severe socio- political- economic chaos there were several delays permitted in the hearing of the case in Washington dc which translated as months wherein a vulnerable child went without support. None of this has ever been considered in subsequent legal hearings. Then, it was said that the vulnerable child from Zimbabwe had ‘sued through the wrong state’ and the case should be transferred to South Carolina. At this time we moved to the UK and the case commenced between the UK and South Carolina.
The father was/is the chief global strategist at Yorkville Capital Management, New York (according to sec.gov reports and a page cached from the company’s own website – although they were quick to remove that information). That these documents referred to this man was irrefutably deduced from accompanying biographic details - unless USAID is in the habit of employing two people of the same name at the same time in the same position. According to prior Washington dc transcript the defendant did freelance work for the World Bank, owned a farm in South Carolina, business interests in the West Indies. The income statement that he submitted to the South Carolina court read that he earned $4,351 per month. No assets listed. No support given for many years of abandonment in Africa and no support given for unnecessarily protracted legal battle. A colleague of his agreed that these figures are grossly inaccurate. A friend with financial experience said they did not believe the GP/USD exchange rate had been factored into the calculation of support which was grossly inadequate.Repeated questions posed by the UK family court led to Yorkville Capital Management, New York being asked three times if the defendant worked there. On the third ask they admitted that he did but support was never updated to reflect such earnings. Recent conversations with legal people have uncovered that this hedge fund manager from New York probably handpicked one of the poorest courts in South Carolina in order to be able to falsify his income and other details so he had to pay a piteously inadequate amount for the child that he abandoned in vulnerable circumstances in Africa. Another UK mother who had had to go through US courts described the settlement as ‘disgusting’.
I have not been silent about this hugely discriminatory and damaging behaviour, which when one looks at the documents submitted is glaringly illustrated. But it appears that the South Carolina family court is entitled to cling tightly to its dishonor and dishonesty. There is an expiry date on justice in the family court – once the child has reached the age of majority injustices perpetrated against them are no longer considered by the courts. Regardless of whether that child is still dependent on the other parent and in need of support or not. Regardless of whether the courts callous disregard of that child's rights and welfare have shattered the child's foundations or not,
This regards a child that was abandoned by a USAID branch director, Nicholas Jenks, in Africa under very vulnerable circumstances. The original case was between the claimant then resident in Zimbabwe and the father who the federal paternity finder placed in Washington dc. The child is now resident in the UK. As we could not afford the combined visa fees I applied for a humanitarian visa for us and we have waited for a response to this for the last 22 months. In the middle of this, child support was cut off. We have never been able to apply for child benefits from any country.
Ask me if I believe that the family courts in the US support child rights and my answer will be a resounding NO! To quote Martin Luther KIng: "The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict." Those who remained neutral in my case were those I had every right to appeal to - the ones who claim to uphold child rights - the ones we will forever remember as those who stood for the violation of my son's. Office of Child Support Enforcement, a letter was sent to Scott Lekan who was then the director of this organization, the US ambassador to the UK was approached by my local MP to name a few. Over the course of six years I have approached everyone imaginable but they were silent about an injustice which directly led to severe and unnecessary jeopardy of my son's welfare and future.
We never had any real legal representation. It was required of the US under REMO protocol to provide this and have due regard to the best interests of the child. Both of the former were so minimal as to be non-existent. Despite it being general world knowledge (which would certainly have been known to a former USAID Africa branch director) that Zimbabwe was in a state of severe socio- political- economic chaos there were several delays permitted in the hearing of the case in Washington dc which translated as months wherein a vulnerable child went without support. None of this has ever been considered in subsequent legal hearings. Then, it was said that the vulnerable child from Zimbabwe had ‘sued through the wrong state’ and the case should be transferred to South Carolina. At this time we moved to the UK and the case commenced between the UK and South Carolina.
The father was/is the chief global strategist at Yorkville Capital Management, New York (according to sec.gov reports and a page cached from the company’s own website – although they were quick to remove that information). That these documents referred to this man was irrefutably deduced from accompanying biographic details - unless USAID is in the habit of employing two people of the same name at the same time in the same position. According to prior Washington dc transcript the defendant did freelance work for the World Bank, owned a farm in South Carolina, business interests in the West Indies. The income statement that he submitted to the South Carolina court read that he earned $4,351 per month. No assets listed. No support given for many years of abandonment in Africa and no support given for unnecessarily protracted legal battle. A colleague of his agreed that these figures are grossly inaccurate. A friend with financial experience said they did not believe the GP/USD exchange rate had been factored into the calculation of support which was grossly inadequate.Repeated questions posed by the UK family court led to Yorkville Capital Management, New York being asked three times if the defendant worked there. On the third ask they admitted that he did but support was never updated to reflect such earnings. Recent conversations with legal people have uncovered that this hedge fund manager from New York probably handpicked one of the poorest courts in South Carolina in order to be able to falsify his income and other details so he had to pay a piteously inadequate amount for the child that he abandoned in vulnerable circumstances in Africa. Another UK mother who had had to go through US courts described the settlement as ‘disgusting’.
I have not been silent about this hugely discriminatory and damaging behaviour, which when one looks at the documents submitted is glaringly illustrated. But it appears that the South Carolina family court is entitled to cling tightly to its dishonor and dishonesty. There is an expiry date on justice in the family court – once the child has reached the age of majority injustices perpetrated against them are no longer considered by the courts. Regardless of whether that child is still dependent on the other parent and in need of support or not. Regardless of whether the courts callous disregard of that child's rights and welfare have shattered the child's foundations or not,
View Comments