Het zál vaders een zorg zijn dossier Zander-Nederland; klik hier voor index

Second round: reactions to the "pleadings" of the Dutch Government

Main page Zander-Netherlands

- Ombudsman:

There was an investigation of the Dutch ombudsman in my case. This led to 4 awarded complaints. That's a lot compared to the other decisions of the ombudsman in such cases.

In a written discussion afterwards with the ombudsman himself and 2 of the three heads of department of his bureau, it was stated that some complaints couldn't be justified because the question of whether a CPS report is made carefully is the jurisdiction of the involved judge and they can't interfere with that. The substitute ombudsman Ms. De Bruin herself who was in charge in this case is judge herself and so not independent in her ombudsman-judgement in this case

- The later proceedings:

We ask again to be given more possibilities to give evidence on or remarks about the proceedings that took place after 1995, if the court wishes to take them into account in a decision on the present case.

We can state two things about those proceedings:

  1. The mother turned out not to have done anything at all that she had been requested, as can be seen clearly in the report of the CPS December 1995. Even when asked by the district court, again she simply didn't do anything.
  2. The proceedings were heavily influenced by what Ms Kodjoe stated as growing hostility at every level between the state and me (my child).

The courts stopped all of my coping mechanisms. I was capable of dealing with the mother by limiting her strange and ridiculous behaviour between the lines of the agreements. I escaped from aggressive confrontations, sometimes by even going away from my own house, so Rosa wouldn't be confronted with a mother that was aggressive at father's door at times when she shouldn't be there and so on.

The mother escaped the limits of reasonable behaviour ( as in keeping to the arrangement ) by returning to the judge who was always very willing to just fit the arrangement to her "needs" regardless of the question of whether I was able to handle that. So it is right to say those judges that created a limitless changeability of the arrangement and the information and consultation conditions.

So after the mother trespassed into my house; I was expecting that she was to be dealt with on this matter again by the judges and I did put the question twice to the District Court of Deventer that I was more or less unable to take responsibility for Rosa if it was to be permitted for the Mother to use all the means she did use.

I still wanted access to Rosa but in a arrangement that could guaranty stability. Judges created instability. I had several arrangements that were all broken. I set my own limits for this. The judges didn't and perhaps couldn't because they were always different, different courts.

The Judge in the first Court after the trouble arose said I could come back to him personally if the mother wouldn't stick to the arrangement ( he seemed to expect this somehow, because the mother couldn't even stick to the arrangement just immediately before agreeded by her with the CPS.) This judge ended the shared custody and was gone with the wind later on when I needed him because the new maneuvers of the mother. The manager from the CPS Zutphen who started to know the case was discharged.

I had to take only the legal actions which did least harm, because the courts were acting irresponsibly some proceedings which I could have initiated would have made the emotional harm worse.


Such ploys as repeating allegations of violence are being used simply to divert the attention of the court from the questions before it.



tegenvoetsporen mail mij zoek op deze site vaders en zorg ik vader klik hier voor dossier publikaties Joep Zander internetkunstdossier van Joep Zanderhomepage Joep Zander
klik hier! >>
Last Updated http://joepzander.nl/2ronde.htm : zie ook de andere pagina's Logo Beeldrecht