“The cops arrived in the middle of the night with my neighbor and his wife. I was shoved into a room and my screaming son was removed from me’: The terror of a mother when police entered her home and abducted her toddler to give to an ex-murder suspect neighbor.
It was a Kafkaesque moment that will forever haunt the young parents. On a cold evening, cops pounced upon their residence, shoved the mother into a room, and removed their two-year-old screaming kid.
The startling picture followed a court session hours earlier that rubber-stamped a private foster ‘arrangement’ without the parents’ knowledge or presence.
Computer programmer Later, a judge determined that Mr. English had spent the preceding two years making anonymous, baseless complaints to social services against the mother.
It was a Kafkaesque moment that will forever haunt the young parents. On a midwinter evening, police pounced upon their home, shoved the mother into a room, and took their two-year-old kid screaming away, handing him over to a’manipulative and dishonest’ former neighbor and his wife.
The terrible picture occurred hours after a court hearing, which the parents had neither been notified of nor attended, and which rubber-stamped a private foster ‘agreement’ containing their fraudulent signatures and handing custody of their toddler to Colin and Yvonne English.
Later, a judge concluded that computer programmer Mr. English had spent the preceding two years making false, anonymous complaints about the mother to social services and removing her letters and documents from her apartment in order to deceive officials into believing the scheme.
In the meantime, the council had not bothered to ask the parents if they approved of or were even aware of the purportedly new child care arrangement.
After a landmark judicial victory in a case brought by The Daily Mail, we can finally reveal the mother’s harrowing narrative of how she lost her youngest child for months due to a malicious campaign and a series of alleged social services errors.
The tragic sight followed a court session hours earlier – which the parents were not notified of and did not attend – that rubber-stamped a private foster ‘agreement’ including their fraudulent signatures handing custody of their kid to Colin (pictured) and Yvonne English.
The disturbing narrative began more than a decade ago when the mother, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, moved into the same apartment building as Mr. English, 62, and his 63-year-old working-with-children wife.
It was a “vulnerable” period in her life, as she had recently ended her relationship and was a working single mother with no support.
Consequently, she was first appreciative when the Englishes, who were older and had grown children, offered to babysit.
They became her children’s “de facto surrogate grandparents” over time. When she met her new partner and future husband, he too viewed Mr. English as a mentor and confided in him about personal issues.
The young couple, who had two more children together, handed Mr. English a key to their apartment, where he frequently watched their younger boy while the parents worked. However, the mother became concerned when “weird things” began to occur, such as her mail being lost or delivered late. She was so concerned that she informed the police and her representative, as well as Mr. English.
In addition, she discovered that East Sussex County Council (ESCC) social services were receiving “malicious” recommendations regarding her parenting and the safety of her children. Later, in a court judgment, it was revealed that Mr. English was the source of these complaints after it was revealed that he had engaged in “snooping” to collect “information that he desired.”
Judge Janet Waddicor ruled that he had taken the letters and stated, “I consider it important that around the time the mail went missing, Mr. English was making a number of claims to children’s services regarding the mother’s treatment of her numerous children.”
Later, a judge concluded that computer programmer Mr. English had spent the preceding two years making false, anonymous complaints about the mother to social services and removing her letters and documents from her apartment in order to deceive officials into believing the plan was legitimate.
Therefore, the more names he had, the easier it would be for him to pursue what ultimately turned out to be unfounded claims. The local authority then “extensively examined” the parents, causing them “stress and sorrow,” the court stated. The mother also realized that her son’s birth certificate and passport were gone, and it was determined that the same person was responsible. Mr. English later claimed that the boy’s mother gave him the documents so that he could enroll the child in a daycare facility and plan a prearranged trip to Florida.
However, the judge decided that the mother was unaware of the nursery plan and that there was no evidence of a journey to the United States.
How Mail uncovered the wrongdoing
The Daily Mail revealed the startling story of how Colin English was granted custody only after a lengthy legal fight.
The original court rulings in the case were confidential, as family court rules prohibited their release.
The child’s mother begged the Mail to bring the details to light to increase “public safety, public accountability, and openness” after attempting for six years to get action taken over her trauma.
Our formidable legal team argued there was a compelling public interest in making the original ruling public and allowing the mother’s tale to be told. Their arguments prevailed, and today we can finally reveal the case’s troubling contents.
She ruled that Mr. English removed the documents without either parent’s knowledge or consent.
The court stated that he intended to “bolster his case that he and his wife were caring for [the child]” in order to establish a private foster care arrangement.
The mother, who was unaware of this at the time, grew apprehensive and began to rely on Mr. English and his wife even more. In February 2016, however, she discovered that her neighbor had been accused of murder in the 1990s and had spent 18 months in jail awaiting trial before being exonerated.
The computer programmer was accused of murdering his ex-lover Therese Clare Terry, who disappeared in Ireland in January 1990.
The case was dubbed the “Riddler” or “Chess Board Mystery” due to a series of apparent puzzles written by Mr. English in police custody. The mother deduced through online newspaper articles that the handwriting on the riddle matched that on some of her missing letters that had been returned to her. She believed that Mr. English had tampered with her mail, so she took her children to an address miles away from their home.
During their absence, however, Mr. English produced a private fostering agreement with the parents’ faked signatures during a Brighton Family Court session.
The judge ultimately determined that the neighbor had manufactured the papers months earlier to make it look that the real parents had signed away custody of their son. The mother stated, “No one from social services attempted to verify Colin English’s stories with me.”
According to my knowledge, social services assumed I was my son’s parent. I am profoundly disappointed by social services.
“On the evening of the hearing, Colin and Yvonne English appeared… accompanied by two law enforcement officials and a court official.” My son was taken from me while I was being shoved into a room. He was wailing.’ The couple did not regain custody of their small kid until July 2016, when they scraped together enough funds to petition the family court for a second hearing.
In her judgement, Judge Waddicor expressed her “great worry” for Mr. English, describing him as “duplicitous, deceptive, and manipulative.”
The computer programmer was accused of murdering his ex-lover Therese Clare Terry (above), who disappeared in Ireland in January 1990.
She called some of his testimony ‘fanciful, ridiculous, and ludicrous’ and ‘insulting to everyone’s intelligence’ in court.
She also portrayed Mrs. English, who did not testify, as a “very enigmatic figure” in the preparations. Due to the ‘unequivocal’ proof of their outrageous behavior, the judge ordered the couple to pay the parents £3,000 plus VAT in court costs.
The judge’s assessment of East Sussex County Council was likewise severe. She stated that no one from the council ever met with the toddler’s parents to hear their side of the story.
The judge continued, “This is especially concerning given that… the health visitor expressed concern that the mother may have been targeted by Mr. English.”
The court heard about a series of meetings in which Mr. English stated that the mother was recalcitrant and that he would thus “take charge.” The court said, “Why on earth didn’t [the social worker], her supervisor, or anyone else verify this with the mother?” The court ordered that a copy of her ruling be provided to the council’s director of children’s services in order to address concerns over private fostering arrangements.
However, even after the couple’s son was restored, a terrible legacy of the event lingers.
In the meantime, the council had not bothered to ask the parents if they approved of or were even aware of the purportedly new child care arrangement. East Sussex County Council is pictured.
Their legal bills rendered the couple financially unstable, and they were forced to sell their home and downsize. The mother stated, “I have post-traumatic stress disorder.” I suffer from recurring nightmares and anxiety.
Sometimes the mental anguish is so severe that it has an effect on my family and daily life. She also claims that despite repeated complaints, the council, police, and social services have done little to address issues of “public safety, public accountability, and transparency.”
She stated, “I feel as though I’ve been disregarded.” I hope that telling my story would assist to expose all of the misconduct of the local government and Colin English.’ The Englishes denied any improper conduct.
ESCC stated that it conducted “adequate evaluations” and “legally needed background checks.”
After “extensive reviews,” it was determined that “procedures were followed.” “The parent’s decision to limit their interaction with us led to the difficulties in this situation,” the council stated. The Sussex Police stated that no criminal investigations were conducted in relation to the incident.