Our names are Dave and Margaret. We have been married over 35 years now and are loving,
capable, and dedicated parents for whom our family is top priority. Alarmingly, one day we discovered that adult men were having group sex with our 14-year old daughter, so we asked police to prosecute as significant sexual crimes had been committed (1).
New Zealand Police informed us that they could only prosecute the men under instruction from social services (CYF), so following their advice we reported the matter to social services. Our family had no previous dealings with social services, and were surprised that police would not act directly on our reporting serious child sex crimes.
Initially, social services were very supportive of us as parents – they said we were doing all the right
things under challenging circumstances. We agreed to their suggestion to send our daughter to
counselling as we expected that counsellors would reinforce the message we were giving our
daughter that she was putting herself in a very dangerous position with the child sex gang.
Three men, all employees of St John Ambulance, had embarked on a gang sex crime spree of grooming and underage sex. Police soon discovered that our child was only one of 5 underage victims of the gang. Three adult men, employees of St John Ambulance, were arrested and criminally charged.
Unfortunately for our daughter and for our family, the CYF counsellor took a very surprising position, deciding that our 14-year old child should be removed from our home so that she could continue to explore her sexuality with the adult men, unimpeded from family influence. The counsellors determined that as parents we had no right to protect our child from sex criminals.
1. The CYF Counsellors
CYF arranged for our daughter to be counselled by Dafanie Goldsmith of the Rosa Counselling Trust:
1. The counsellor maintained that the relationship between our 14-year old child and the adult
gang members was “love and romance”. Even though the counsellor and her supervisor knew
that two of the St John Ambulance men had conducted serious sexual crimes on our daughter
including having group sex with her (2). We were flabbergasted when the counsellor coyly
described our child’s group sex activities with adult men in this way.
2. The counsellor refused point blank to discuss the sex crimes with our daughter in any way
because she maintained that they caused no harm to her. The counsellor’s view was that the
only harm to our child was from her parents because we caused a fuss when we found out
about the child sex gang. This viewpoint of the counsellor and her supervisor (and later
supported by CYF) is exactly the same view expressed by well-known paedophile Tom
3. After meeting with our daughter for only 30 minutes, the counsellor and her supervisor took
steps to get social services to remove our child from our home so that she could continue her
sexual relationships with the gang free from any family influence.
4. We attempted to explain to the counsellor the effects of the grooming and the underage
sexual crimes on our daughter, however she was completely closed to our viewpoints and
said: “I don’t need to listen to you – I’ve had 20 years counselling experience and I’ve seen it
5. Years later in 2012, in a UK-televised special debate in the House of Commons, British MP
John Hemming was so outraged at the treatment of our family by counsellor Daphanie
Goldsmith that he labelled her a “bad practitioner” in the Westminster debating chamber.
6. The counsellor and her supervisor have no formal qualifications whatsoever.
1 The legal minimum age of consent is 16 years under New Zealand law.
2 The names of these St John Ambulance men are Karl Berghan and Sam Brens. Google their names for more information.
These two men were presented with their second Queen’s awards in 2012 by New Zealand’s Governor General despite him being fully informed of their crimes. We have recorded our dealings with St John ambulance here: http://bit.ly/1CYSw3w
3 A 60 Minutes interview with well-known paedophile Tom O’Carroll, where he expresses the viewpoint that adults having sex with children causes no harm, the only harm is from police and parents making a fuss:
2. Social Services (CYF)
Social services were initially very supportive of our parental efforts when we contacted them in order
for the police to criminally charge the child sex gang members. However, after meeting with our
daughter only for 30 minutes, the counsellor Daphanie Goldsmith recommended CYF remove our
daughter from our family, and CYF’s behaviour toward us changed dramatically:
1. We twice wrote to CYF detailing our concerns about the counselling, however they did not
reply. CYF ignored our written request for an urgent meeting on the matter.
2. Our view that the CYF counselling was damaging to our child is supported by a huge number of psychologists and qualified counsellors (see section 7).
3. CYF expected us to turn a blind eye to our child’s sexual exploits, they wanted us to allow her to continue to be a victim of statutory rape and statutory gang rape.
4. A formal CYF enquiry would later find that we have acted in the best interests of our daughter at all times. Our parenting skills and dedication to our family has been commended by a large number of professionals in NZ and around the world (see sec 7).
5. We contacted members of parliament to get CYF away from our family – it took the help of 4
MPs for CYF to eventually agree to leave our family alone.
6. Our daughter has told us on numerous occasions that all contacts she had with CYF focussed
entirely on what they told her were her “bad parents”. Together with the counsellor, the CYF
social worker alienated our child against her family.
7. However, CYF was not happy that we wanted to hold them accountable for their actions.
Realising they had no legal grounds to remove our daughter they secretly encouraged her to
leave home on her own, promising her that when she was 16 the State would provide for all
her needs on condition that she has no further contact with her family.
8. As soon as she turned 16 our daughter left home. She did not want to live in our home under
the rules and restrictions commonly found in most good homes. The State financed her to live
independently. We were even prevented from paying her school fees. Our daughter moved in
with school teacher/church pastor David Hayden, who met with us only once then told us he
would do everything in his power to prevent our daughter ever having a relationship with her
family ever again. David Hayden enabled our child to live without any rules and restrictions,
and it resulted in a dramatic deterioration in her behaviour. It is over a decade since these
events, and we have had extremely limited contact with her since she left home at 16.
3. The isolation of our vulnerable child from the protection of her loving family
Our daughter, who attended Westlake Girls High school, left home days after her 16th birthday. She
moved in with David Hayden the Science teacher at Westlake Boys High school and pastor at Albany
Christian Centre (now Inspire Church). The church had encouraged her to leave home. We had never
before met or spoken with Mr Hayden. His wife, Madeleine Hayden was an employee of Kristin
David Hayden enabled our school child to live without any of the rules or restrictions normally
associated with good parenting. She lived in a room away from the main house, able to come and go
whenever she pleased. The deterioration in her behaviour at the Haydens was sudden and
Our child was absent from school for a great deal of the two years she lived at the Haydens –
far more days absent than the maximum absenteeism set by the Ministry of Education for a
child to remain at the school.
Her academic performance plummeted from the 88% average for all subjects which she
achieved when she lived at our home, down to 42% at the Haydens.
We saw photographic evidence on the internet of a lifestyle which would horrify any good
parent – such as the day she spent as the “hired entertainment” for a men’s stag party aboard
a launch on Auckland’s Hauraki Gulf – sitting on the laps of strange men in her bikini.
While at the Haydens and still at school, our child began an affair with a 33-year old strip-club and night-club owner, continuing even after the man became engaged to be betrothed. She
would spend nights in a hotel with him (preferably with private jaccuzi), and had sex with him
in his strip-club, in his car and in his parent’s house. She later sold the sordid details of this
affair to Womans Day magazine who printed it as their cover story.
For the whole time our child lived with David Hayden, her family
were unable to have any contact with her. David Hayden cut off
all contact with our child, and told us that he would do everything
in his “power to ensure she never has any contact with her family
ever again”. David Hayden even prevented our daughter
attending sex abuse counselling with Dr Christine MacKay,
because he said he wanted to stop even indirect communication
between our child and her family.
One week after the Haydens cut off all contact with our family,
our daughter and David Hayden filed papers in the Family court
to “divorce” her parents. The court case is a gagging application
to silence us and prevent us speaking about anything relating to
our daughter. There were no allegations of inappropriate
parenting or any wrongdoings on our part (4).
A whole year went by with our daughter having absolutely no
contact with any member of her family – not one single word.
When we tried to contact the senior pastor at Hayden’s church,
he conspired with Hayden to attempt to entrap us into
contravening an interim gagging order the courts had imposed while the gagging case was in progress. Hayden then applied to the courts to have us imprisoned for contacting his church (see
After more than a year of no contact with our child, one Sunday, we stood outside their church with
placards. We were desperate, concerned for our child - we had to do something. We cleared our
placard action with the NZ police beforehand. Inside the church, David Hayden addressed his
congregation misleading them into believing that we had sexually abused our daughter and that the
matter was before the courts. He knew this was a lie, designed to shift focus from his deplorable
actions of isolating our child – he was at the time attempting to take gagging orders against us in the
courts which comprised no allegations of wrongdoing by us. Members of Hayden’s church
congregation subsequently shouted abuse at us (such as: “Kiddy ******s!”, “Leave your daughter
alone and go **** your other children!”) indicating they believed the slanderous lies of David Hayden. Not to mention their vulgar mouths. This was supposed to be a 'Christian' church?
It is known that predators target young, vulnerable sex crime victims, and that their strategy is (1) to
isolate their victims from the protection of family, (2) to alienate the child against their family, (3) to
ensure the child is dependent upon them, and then (4) to ensure their actions are kept secret. David
Hayden’s predatory actions with our child are extreme in all these criteria.
A large number of professionals have spoken out very strongly against the predatory actions of David
Hayden. For example, Auckland psychologist Sara Chatwin described Hayden’s actions against our
family during a 2012 interview broadcast on TVNZ’s Close Up programme as follows: “all power and all control of their child has been taken away, particularly by people with an agenda, people who want to exploit children”. A copy of the TV programme is here:
Part 1 (8 minutes): http://bit.ly/TVNZ-StJohnPaedophile-1
Part 2 (7 minutes): http://bit.ly/TVNZ-StJohnPaedophile-2
4 Westlake Girls High School counsellor Alison Horspool had taken our daughter to YouthLaw to commence these gagging proceedings against her parents and brothers.
4. The gagging court cases to shut us up
In the witness box, our daughter refused to give evidence against the St John Ambulance child sex
gang resulting in the collapse of the criminal case against the three adult men. She smiled at the
accused men in the dock, and completely ignored her family in the public gallery.
Top psychologists believe that our daughter has been so alienated against her family that she is a
victim of Stockholm Syndrome – a condition where the victim turns on those who have her best
interests at heart, and protects those who are harming her. The condition occurs infrequently with
kidnapping victims as well as under-age victims of sexual crimes.
What followed within days after the collapse of the criminal trial against the St John Ambulance child sex gang members, was a chilling series of events. David Hayden and our daughter applied to the courts to have us gagged. Their court action was financed by the State. These gagging orders
involved an attempt to set historical legal precedent in New Zealand because it required that she had
to legally “divorce” her family in order to gag her family. As part of her legal case to gag her parents,
our daughter testified to the family court that she was victim of sexual crimes by the St John
Ambulance men she had refused to testify against in the criminal court mere days earlier.
More details can be read in this cover story of a national magazine:
A total of 4 separate gagging proceedings were applied for over the next 2 years. We very quickly
amassed $50,000 on lawyers fees, and soon ran out of money, thereafter conducting our own legal
defence for the bulk of the period. In contrast, the opposing lawyers, solicitor John Hancock and
barrister Barry MacLean, had an unlimited pool of public funds with which to harass our family in the courts. None of the legal cases taken out against us was ever successful.
In the courts, there were never any allegations of inappropriate parenting – our case was simply an
application to silence our family. By tying us up in the courts, David Hayden could continue his
isolation of our child from the protection of her loving family. The secret Family court made it very
clear that they were quite prepared to send an innocent family to prison in order to keep us quiet at all
costs. We were told we needed to be “re-educated”. The lies and shenanigans we had earlier
received during NZ’s complaint-handling process were to be dwarfed by those directed against us in
the secret court. Here are some details of our horrifying court experiences:
1. At the initial interim court hearing, the opposing barrister Barry MacLean, launched into a
tirade of lies to discredit the mother, Margaret. It comprised vicious vitriol - a 20-minute
stream of baseless fabrications. At the end of his tirade, Justice Ryan called a recess for
morning tea. When the court re-assembled after the recess, the court was surprised to see
that Barry MacLean had left the building with no intention of returning. Having told his lies, he simply left, abandoning the court proceedings. As the opposing barrister was not present, we
and our lawyer were now not permitted to address the court. We were thus denied an
opportunity to refute Barry MacLean’s tirade of lies besmirching Margaret’s character. Rather
than postponing the hearing or cancelling the hearing as would be required by the rule of law,
Justice Ryan closed proceedings and retired to consider his verdict. Needless to say, the
verdict was to impose an interim gagging order on us until a full hearing could be scheduled
two years later, allowing David Hayden to isolate our child from the protection of loving family.
2. Our two sons were gagged “ex-parte” (without notice) by Justice Clarkson5 – our sons were
not permitted to be present in court and were not permitted to offer any defence, or even
know there was a secret legal case against them. No evidence at all was led against our elder
son – he was gagged simply because he was our son. Only partial evidence was presented
against our other son. The judge imposed an ex parte gagging order knowing it was without
full disclosure, making it illegal. These secret gagging orders unjustly silencing our sons are
still in existence today, over a decade later.
3. The court kept us waiting for 2 years until they gave us a final hearing – a long time in the life of a teenager isolated from all contact with her family. At one point we were offered a deal – if we voluntarily accept permanent gagging, they would return our daughter to us for three
months. We refused. For State-sponsored lawyers to attempt to trade time with our beloved
child in return for our silence about State atrocities, is the most heinous form of blackmail.
4. We asked if we could have a cup of coffee with our daughter. The counsel to assist the court,
barrister Emma Parsons (who is supposed to be impartial), replied that she would not put this
proposition for a cup of coffee to our daughter because her school exams were coming up,
and thereafter it was Christmas. Ms Parsons declared we would have to wait 5 months until
she would ask our daughter whether she wanted to have a cup of coffee with her parents (6). In
our family, Christmas is a special time for family, however according to the court, Christmas
was the reason given to continue the isolation of our child from the protection of family.
5. An application was made by David Hayden and our daughter to imprison us (her parents) for allegedly breaking the interim gagging order. As described in the previous section, after our
child had been totally isolated from her family for over a year, we were trying to make contact
with her or those enabling her to be harboured at the Hayden’s house. As the father Dave
was out of town on business, so Margaret attended the court hearing. Our eldest son
accompanied his mother, but he was not a defendant. Justice Clarkson opened the hearing
by stating that she had not yet had time to read our affidavit submitted in defence of the
imprisonment application. However this did not stop the frenzied judge threatening Margaret
with immediate imprisonment, her first words to Margaret were: “Give me one reason why I
should not send you to jail right now!” When the opposing lawyer Barry MacLean spotted our
son in the courtroom, he urged the judge to also threaten our son with immediate
imprisonment in the same way. Justice Clarkson eagerly complied, ordering our son to the
stand, shrieking at him that he too would likely be imprisoned immediately. Our terrified son
was not even a defendant in the proceedings. At no time was our son accused of doing
anything wrong. He was simply the victim of vicious State bullying in order to frighten him into
never disclosing to anyone what had been done to his family.
From that day onward we felt unsafe in New Zealand. The message from the Family court
was loud and clear – they would go to any lengths to silence us and cover up atrocities
against our family, they demonstrated that they would not be constrained in these efforts by
the law or the rule of law. We were innocent yet terrified, and decided that day to flee NZ as
soon as the court cases were cleared up. Fearing imprisonment from a court that seemed out
of control, we hired a lawyer - she concluded that we would “never get a fair trial in New
Zealand”. We had not contravened the interim gagging order, but our lawyer advised that in
order to stay out of prison, we should accept a deal on offer – we had to swear that we would
never publish a book in NZ about State atrocities against our family, and we had to pay the
opposing crooked lawyer Barry MacLean a pile of money. We were innocent, but as we had
zero confidence in the integrity of the court, we accepted the deal because prison would
seriously affect Dave’s international business where most of his customers are in the USA.
6. Three days before the final hearing, the opposing barrister Barry MacLean presented yet
another affidavit to the court – it comprised yet another pack of lies. In response, we
presented an affidavit to the court providing evidence that MacLean’s 3-page affidavit
contained 12 blatant lies, 9 statements of innuendo, and 2 incorrect facts. That’s a lot of
perjury packed into 3 pages. Justice Ryan did nothing at all about this, and made no
reference to the lies, or any other aspect of the lawyer’s conduct in his summation.
7. At the final hearing, we were specifically barred from bringing any witnesses for crossexamination.
In contrast, the opposing lawyers were allowed witnesses for cross-examination.
8. Our final hearing lasted a whole court day. We were provided only 20 minutes at the very end of the day to present our legal argument. The whole of the rest of the day was allocated to the opposing legal team to present their argument.
9. During the final hearing, before we had the opportunity to present our case, Justice Ryan
advised our daughter that if her present gagging application was unsuccessful, she should
consider applying for a protection order to gag her parents. The judge, the counsel to assist
the court, and our daughter’s solicitor and barrister, then openly discussed whether a
protection order would be an appropriate tool to gag us, the parents. Counsel to assist the
court (who is supposed to be impartial) told us that a protection order would be appropriate to
gag us because she said we needed to be “re-educated” (presumably this meant we needed
to be educated on the benefits of one’s under age child having gang sex). A protection order
has provision for compulsory “education sessions”. A protection order would also mean that if
our severely alienated teenage daughter ever wanted her family imprisoned, all she needed
to do was simply enter the same building as us (such as our home or workplace) - police
would then be obliged to immediately imprison us without a trial. Our daughter’s gagging
application was unsuccessful, and she did thereafter apply for a protection order to gag her
parents, however thankfully, this too was unsuccessful.
10. In affidavits to the court, we provided a huge body of evidence of actions severely alienating
our daughter against her family – alienating actions by the St John sexual predators, CYF, the
CYF counsellors, the school, David and Madeleine Hayden, and our daughter’s State-funded
lawyers. Our evidence of alienation was backed up by strong, clear opinions from top
psychologists. NZ case precedence (7) requires a judge to act swiftly and decisively to evidence
of alienation of children from parents. However, throughout the two-year period, all our pleas
to Justice Ryan to deal with the alienation were totally ignored, even though at one point in
proceedings the judge remarked to the opposing barrister: “I’m sure you will agree that there
has been significant alienation in this case”. Why did the judge not act if he agreed there was
severe alienation? We can only surmise that the Judge Ryan views the alienation of children
against their parents as acceptable if it contributes to isolating a young sex crime victim from
the protection of her loving family.
11. After two years we won the case and obtained our freedom of speech back. Our vulnerable
child had been isolated from the protection of her family for two years by David Hayden,
during which time we had not been permitted to speak about it. Even though we won the
case, by delaying judgement, the judges had enabled the actions of a predator.
In only 3 court appearances, 6 out of the 8 principles comprising the rule of law, as identified by Lord
Tom Bingham (8), had been seriously violated. One could expect these standards of justice in countries such as Somalia or perhaps Zimbabwe. The St John Ambulance men who had committed sexual crimes on our daughter had got off free, but in order to cover up their atrocities, and in order to isolate a vulnerable child from the protection of her family, two lawyers had used State money to bully us into silence.
5 The actions of this judge are so horrific that we have drawn up a detailed affidavit on it here: http://bit.ly/Judge_Clarkson
6 It took about a year for that offer of a cup of coffee to be put to our daughter, however her lawyers insisted that we sign a confidentiality agreement covering the cup of coffee. They wanted to ensure that anything we learned from our child during that cup of coffee remain a secret. We refused to sign, so never actually had the cup of coffee with our child. We still wonder to this day, what were they hiding? What does our daughter know that her lawyers were so desperate for us not to find out?
7 See for example Jones v Skelton .
8 Tom Bingham, The Rule of Law, 2011. ISBN: 978-0-141-03453-9
5. Outcomes for our family
a) Outcomes for our daughter
Clearly a 2-year protracted court case against all members of her family, would alienate a young
teenage sex crime victim even further against her family.
Dr Joe Carver, Clinical Psychologist, a world-renown expert on Stockholm syndrome, wrote to us: “In your situation, you have almost all the high-risk components (of Stockholm Syndrome) with the
exception of life-threatening (hostage, prisoner, death threats, etc.). The support of the pastor is
especially distressing as that family is using their position as supposedly moral, honest people to
provide credibility and approval to your daughter's situation.”
b) Outcome for our eldest son
Our eldest son, a quiet, reserved, sensitive boy, was dealt to with particular harshness and hostility
during the secret Family court gagging procedures. He endured a vicious attack by the judge and
lawyer during one court day, simply because he was our son. He was not a defendant in the court that
day, he was simply an observer who accompanied his mother. However, a frenzied judge saw fit to
order him to the stand so that she could terrorise him by threatening to imprison him immediately,
even though he was never ever accused of doing anything wrong. They savagely bullied a
defenceless, innocent, frightened young man to ensure his silence, so that he would never dare tell of
what has been done to his family, and so he would say nothing of the isolation of his young,
vulnerable sister by the Haydens.
Shortly after the court cases our son killed himself.
c) Outcome for us as parents
We have been married now for over 35 years and regard ourselves as decent, well-respected,
honest, devoted, law-abiding parents. Our surviving son is a fine, well-balanced, respectable young
man. Encouraged by David Hayden, our daughter has sadly shunned her parents and brothers, and
all extended family, ever since she left home at 16 – well over a decade ago. Our experience has
been an absolute parent’s nightmare. Every society has bad people who commit sexual crimes,
however our research indicates that the brutally abusive way we were treated by NZ State authorities
and by David Hayden, is probably unprecedented anywhere in the world in recent history. The
appalling, unprecedented pressure on a young teenager to end all relationships with a good, loving
family should not be tolerated. There should be consequences for the guilty.
In effect, we lost two children – one dead and one severely alienated. To date, no one has yet been
held to account.
Our multiple secret court appearances left us frightened and afraid, and concluding that it is too
dangerous to live in a country where one has no protection from the law – the family courts are NZ’s
Guantanamo Bay where, cloaked in secrecy, the State does it’s dirty deeds beyond the constraints of
the law and the rule of law. It is absolutely terrifying to realise that a judge will ignore and law and the rule of law, and was quite prepared to lock us up for no reason whatsoever, with no accusation and no evidence of any wrongdoing. We had endured two years of secret court terror, at the hands of a Stockholm Syndrome teenage victim and a sinister church pastor. Even though we eventually won the court cases, the total disregard for proper procedures and disrespect for the rule of law inside the secret court fills us with fear. The very day we won the last court case we began packing our bags –we uprooted our high-tech business, and we fled the country, going to London. We had previously notified the courts of our departure together with the reasons. The business now employs Londoners instead of Aucklanders and creates high-tech products for some of the largest companies in the world. Our company is a fine example of what happens when businessmen lose confidence in courts that have no appetite for upholding the rule of law. The economic consequences for NZ as a direct result of our ordeal are obvious (9).
A few months after escaping to London, we had the traumatic experience of having to fly back to NZ
to bury our eldest son. Perhaps some breathed a sigh of relief – a brilliant, innocent, gentle, decent
young man, who has never been accused of doing anything wrong, but was targeted purely because
he was our son, would no longer be a threat in exposing the truth about NZ State atrocities and about
a sinister predator.
Our daughter is now a qualified lawyer in NZ. However the only court cases she has been involved in
are the five gagging cases against her own family. Despite being qualified in law, she steadfastly
clings to the belief that adult men having sex with under age children is quite acceptable, even though
NZ law clearly makes it a crime. Her false belief is supported by NZAC counsellors, CYF, David
Hayden, as well as their team of lawyers who harassed our family. In contrast, we the parents believe
in upholding the law, we believe that it is a parents’ obligation to protect their children from child sex
criminals, and we believe that adult men having sex with an under age child is a serious crime. For
our beliefs we have been harassed to the extent that we had to flee the country, our son killed himself
after being illegally bullied, and we have lost all contact with our daughter for many years. We seek
justice for these consequences.
d) The future
Through our court cases, YouthLaw had attempted to create a child rights utopia in NZ, a society
where children could divorce their parents, where children could shut their parents up, and where
parents could be prevented from protecting their children from sex gangs. YouthLaw were defeated in
their aims because our family stood up to them and fought back despite huge imbalances in
resources. NZ society would be very different had they won.
The two judges, Ryan and Clarkson, cannot dismiss their frequent and significant disregard for the
rule of law by claiming ineptitude - gross judicial corruption is the only reasonable explanation.
David Hayden continues to exert influence over our daughter over a decade later. Clearly he is still
committed to his goal to ensure our daughter “never has any contact with her family ever again”. We
are concerned that when our daughter has children, Hayden will poison the next generation as well.
Paedophiles who do their research will conclude that not only because of our experiences, but also
because of others such as the Roast Buster gang victims10, NZ is reluctant to punish child sex gangs.
NZ remains very committed to covering-up child sex and state wrongdoings against innocent families.
John Saks, Founder and Chairman of the For the Sake of our Children Foundation in NZ, wrote: “(In
your case, you) have state sponsored alienation of a family……Your daughter is considerably more
fortunate than most in her circumstance as evidenced by the tremendous effort you have put into
‘righting the wrong’. Your efforts should be applauded, and I am very thankful that at least one
daughter in our nation has parents hugely committed to her….It is my hope that your suffering/agony
has not been in vain – and that many other sons and daughters of our nation and other nations may
be better off because you ‘stood tall’ for them also”.
Paul Adams, Member of the NZ Parliament wrote to us: “My heart goes out to you. This is an
absolutely absurd situation…. No wonder we have problems with our children in this country when we try to stop parents being parents, especially good ones, like you obviously are, trying to do what is
right for your daughter caught up in a tragic situation....You have done very well and I think you need
to be commended for your actions”.
The world needs to learn about the dangers to a good, decent family that exist in New Zealand.
9 British Trade Minister Lord Jones announced the relocation of our firm to London in a dedicated press article in the Mail on Sunday. Whilst those hiding child sex gang abuse, corruption in NZ, and predator actions, no doubt celebrated our departure, the British government department of Trade and Industry were delighted at their gain.
6. Outcome of our official complaints
Our experiences with the NZ Police and Ministry of Education, as well as the outcomes of complaints
we filed to the New Zealand Association of Counsellors (NZAC), social services, the Ombudsman and the NZ Teachers Council, can be found here. Not one of the “independent” complaint authorities
found any merit in any of our complaints or component thereof. Yet so many experts in NZ and
around the world are so adamant that serious wrong doings were committed against our family. The
only conclusion we can draw is that NZ’s complaint handling authorities exist for the prime purpose of covering-up wrongdoings. NZ should learn the lessons of the Hillsborough Enquiry.
7. What others have said about our ordeal
Comments from around 100 people, including Members of Parliament in NZ and the UK, from
professionals such as university Professors, Psychologists, Counsellors, concerned members of the
public, as well as family friends, can be viewed here.
8. Media Coverage
The Close Up programme broadcast on New Zealand’s TV1 on 30 May, 2012:
Part 1 (8 minutes): http://bit.ly/TVNZ-StJohnPaedophile-1
Part 2 (7 minutes): http://bit.ly/TVNZ-StJohnPaedophile-2
Recordings from the 6 hours coverage this issue received on 31 May 2012 on NewsTalkZB,
NZ’s most popular radio station, can be obtained by writing to email@example.com
Investigate magazine October 2005, cover story, The girl who wants to divorce her parents:
In the subsequent 3 issues, the magazine printed a total of 8 pages of letters to the editor
from concerned readers.
TVNZ One News on 30 May 2012, Shock after counsellor approves underage relationship:
Sunday Star Times on 8 January 2012, Alleged teen sex groomer in line for top award:
Press release published in Investigate magazine on 22 January 2012, St John’s Ambulance
promotes award for alleged child sex offender:
The parents, Dave and Margaret, can be contacted at their pseudonym email address: