I Luci Viera Da Costa of 48 Vicarage Street, North Shields , NE29 6SJ make this statement knowing its content to be true and that it will be used in evidence in this court.

1. I make this statement in support of my application to recuse Her Honour Judge Hudson from my case and for increased contact with my daughter Kalindi and pursuant to the order of 26.09.2016. Although I have been refused permission to appeal the Order of HHJ Hudson of 3rd June 2016 I am intending to appeal further to the Supreme Court.

2. The reasons I state that Her Honour Judge Hudson should recuse herself are as follows:

3. At the outset of proceedings in relation to my children in May 2014 The Local Authority applied for Section 34 orders which were declined by Judge Loombha but Her Honour Judge Hudson went on to ignore the reasons for Judge Loombha’s decisions.

4. I was religiously discriminated against whilst the case was presided over by Her Honour Judge Hudson and it was only Judge Wood that stopped this from continuing and Krishna was finally allowed to go to the Hare Krishna temple and it was ordered that my sister should be assessed.

5. The Failure by Her Honour Judge Hudson’s ability to address and/or dismiss, inaccuracies in the evidence where it has been proven that either false or malicious statements have been made in court by the Local Authority. Ignoring both contempt of court and perjurious statements made by the Local Authority all of which resulted in the removal of the children from my care.

6. Her Honour Judge Hudson accepted the evidence of a parental assessment of myself whilst I had not even been interviewed once in relation to that assessment.

7. I believe Her Honour Judge Hudson acted in a biased and prejudicial manner against myself the applicant and in favour of the Local Authority. Effectively perverting the course of justice through abuse of due process; e.g. using court procedure to deny myself the right to disprove and challenge evidence and statements made by the Local Authority, thus denying myself the applicant my right to a fair and equitable hearing. 

8. Refusing all reasonable requests made by myself, in order to assist the Local Authority with their case.

9. Failing to sum up and evaluate the evidence in a fair, appropriate and balanced manner, whilst using judicial position to hide and conceal relevant case evidence in the public judgement.

10. Ignoring positive evidence submitted by one social worker and two health visitors, who have supported myself throughout this extremely difficult period and have had nothing but praise for my parenting under these very difficult circumstances. These reports directly contradicted the negative reports of Alison Dodds who had only known me for one month prior to removing my children, having met me on a few occasions only.

11. The refusal to allow the assessment of my sister by an international social worker during the care proceedings.

12. The failure to appropriately censure the Local authority’s barrister when they were mocking both myself and my counsel in the recent hearing.

13. There have been numerous requests made by myself which have all been refused without failure which I believe all amount to bias and these are as follows:

14. Refusal to drug test the father even though he is a known, and convicted, drug abuser and is, in fact, still allowed unsupervised and more regular access to my daughter Kalindi than myself the applicant. 

15. Refusal to allow an independent social worker to assess my parenting capacity.

16. Refusing to allow my witnesses to be called into court, which, once again, negated my case and allowed the evidence of the Local Authority to remain unchallenged. 5 sets of social workers were called during proceedings whilst two health visitors who had produced positive reports for me were not allowed to be summonsed to court along with my other supporting witnesses, the martial arts coach and Principal of the Theatre school who also declined attendance at court.

17. Refusal to remove the first Guardian ad Litem Laura Grundy and strike the evidence from proceedings, despite the fact she was proven not to be independent and had submitted false information into court. Only after extensive efforts and the conclusion of the care proceedings was it accepted by by Her Honour Judge Hudson that she was not fit and, therefore, could no longer remain as Guardian Ad Litem.

18. The second Guardian ad Litem, Vanessa Bell, has also submitted an inaccurate statement, yet, once again Judge Hudson has predictably, refused to acknowledge this, and, again, refused to dismiss the evidence and remove the Guardian from the case. A complete lack of impartiality is observable, in both instances, along with a failure to ensure that a fair hearing is taking place, and that both myself and, my daughter's, best interests are being served.

19. Despite there being obvious grounds and, indeed, evidence, of bias throughout the case, Her Honour Judge Hudson has refused to recuse herself in both 2014 and again in 2016. It is clear, therefore, that I will never get a fair hearing whilst Her Honour Judge Hudson remains the presiding judge in this case.

20. The absolute refusal of the psychological assessment of Krishna after allegations were made against myself is obvious bias.

21. An assessment would have enabled me to completely refute the spurious evidence submitted by the Local Authority. As the presiding judge, it is Judge Hudson’s legal duty to ensure that any case is heard fairly, indiscriminately and impartially. Unless you are also a qualified child psychologist and, therefore, able to determine if any emotional abuse has taken place, i.e. the allegation made by the Local Authority that Krishna had been unduly influenced by myself, her mother then an independent child psychologist must be brought in to correctly assess the situation. In refusing this very reasonable and normal request Her Honour Judge Hudson has effectively denied me a just and fair hearing, by denying my legal team the opportunity to challenge the evidence submitted by the Local Authority. The alleged assessment produced by the Local Authority should also be called into question as no verification of their 'experts' was requested, or provided. 

22. Failure to address the obvious, and illegal, misuse and abuse of section 20 by the Local Authority at the outset of this case once again exemplifies the bias Judge Hudson has demonstrated throughout this case. The Local Authority clearly failed to implement section 20 in a manner which was in keeping with lawful use, as previously laid out in my letter.

23. In a statement made to myself by Judge Hudson, she indicated she was no longer going to allow past issues to be brought into the court. This, coincidentally, was after it was found that the Local Authority had abused and misused section 20. However, most of the Local Authority’s case and indeed the statement of the Guardian was based on "past issues". Also, as there have already been so many abuses of the legal system with regard to this case, it would be impossible to both try it AND hear it in a fair and reasonable manner if past issues are NOT addressed.

24. It is my belief that Her Honour Judge Hudson has pro-actively entertained and engaged in both favouring and supporting the Local Authority persistently throughout this case. Not only that but I am of the view that she has used her judicial position to dismiss any and every request made by myself, which, in effect, has undermined my defence, and denied me my legal rights to a fair hearing, cited under Article 6 of the Human Rights Act, thereby denying her justice.

25. I believe there has been a fundamental failure, by Her Honour Judge Hanson to approach this case in an impartial and fair manner and it is for this reason I am requesting that Judge Hudson recuse herself forthwith.

26. It should be noted that, had I not followed the law and reported the crime taking place in my place of residence, without my knowledge or consent, I would never have been placed in this position of losing my two children whom are most dear to me. Instead of receiving praise and assistance for my actions, however, I have been punished by the legal system of this country in the most cruel and underhand way.

27. I am also of the full belief that Her Honour Judge Hudson has actively used court proceedings to undermine my defence, that she has approached the different cases, not only in a biased and discriminatory manner, but has also attempted to undermine my defence, by means of refusing reasonable requests which would have enabled me to counter the many and various, unfounded, accusations made against me by the local authority. 

28. In summary I pose the following Questions:

29. Is it ever acceptable practice, or even legal, for social workers to lie in court effectively engaging in "social engineering" by fabricating statements?

30. How is it acceptable for so called 'hearsay' to be used in the Family Court when it is clearly unacceptable as a form of evidence in any other court due to its unreliability? The social workers used this latitude to create erroneous, unfounded allegations, many of which were tantamount to perjury.

31. Should any further malicious, unfounded or inaccurate statements, be made against myself by social workers or CAFCASS, they will be dealt with via legal action for defamation of character and libel. The use of fabricated evidence has infringed my statutory legal rights. These legal rights, include:

32. The right to a balanced and fair hearing.

33. The right not to be subjected to racial or religious discrimination, with regard to statements made by the Local Authority.

34. The right to call witnesses and challenge any evidence produced against myself.

35. The right not to have non-factual statements made about me, particularly those which demean my character and impune my abilities as a parent.

36. The right to a fair hearing, as defined by Article 6 of the Human Rights Act. It is impossible to have a fair hearing, if the judge allows false and malicious evidence to be submitted, whilst using her judicial position to constantly crush reasonable requests made by myself particularly in relation to the disturbing and unfounded allegations made by the Local Authority that I am somehow influencing my daughter Krishna even though they can be proven to be completely false if I am allowed to use the due process of the law correctly.

37. It is for the above reasons that I request Her Honour Judge Hudson to recuse herself from this case and I believe it can be proven that evidence in this case has been fabricated.


38. I am making the current application for increased and unsupervised contact with my daughter Kalindi. I am not a danger to my child and never have been. This has been confirmed by the Psychologist, Stephanie Hill, by Joanna Person and Debbie Smith her two health visitors, and Joanna Dean, a social worker. All three are professionals that knew me and visited myself and my children every week for three months. Alison Dodds was the second social worker, who came to the case later on. It was she who removed my children, even though she had only met me a few times. In various reports, Alison Dodds wrote eighty-five lies, attempting to justify her actions. I believe that Her Honour Judge Hudson was fully aware of this and yet ignored it.

39. I am currently only allowed to see my daughter Kalindi six times per year. This is causing Kalindi to become alienated from me. On the other hand the father, who has a conviction for drugs and violence is permitted to see Kalindi every week, unsupervised. I am dismayed that Her Honour Judge Hudson refused to order the father to take a drugs test despite my belief that the father is still taking drugs.

40. I wish to claim equal rights to that of the father. I would like to have at least the same amount of contact as the father.

41. Apart from one contact visit on 27th May 2015, when Kalindi became hysterical when she was taken away from me by force, all other contacts have gone very well, without incident. Kalindi loves the toys I have given her, and she shows them to her grandmother, who always interacts with us in a positive manner.

42. The contact between myself, Kalindi, and Carol the grandmother has never been disruptive. The grandfather, John, always sits away from us and interacts very little with the three of us.

43. I would refer the court to the following contacts:

44. On 27th May 2015 Kalindi cried a lot, saying : "Mum, come to Nan, mum come to Nan"

45. On 16th march 2016 she again seemed confused, looking at me, while being taking away by Carol asking "why I have to go?"

46. I believe that to separate a child from her mother who loves her and has never hurt her is enormously cruel.

47. I would like my contact increased to the same frequency as that of the father, which on the face of it is weekly contact.


48. I wish to be given input into whom should represent my daughter and also which Guardian is chosen for her. If this is granted to me I believe my daughter would be better represented by her own legal team.

Statement of Truth

The contents of this statement are true.



Up ▲

beautiful child


Up ▲
0044 (0) 7746579713
Luci Vieira da Costa - mother
Krishna Gouri da Costa - daughter 31/12/2001
Kalindi da Costa - daughter 03/08/2012

In Nov 2013, My girls were kidnapped by

North Tyneside Social Services.

Social workers:

Alison Kellie Dodds | Registered SW45812 | North Tyneside

Alison K Dodds

Victoria Emma Manser | Registered SW82444 | Wallsend
Joseph Andrew Robson |Registered SW33774 | Newcastle Upon Tyne
Rebbeca Anderson social worker, Susan Reed...


family court

Protest in Newcastle


- INTERIM CARE ORDER, 21 november 2013, by Victoria Manser,

my papers 28. D11. KALINDI was placed in Local Authority foster care on 13/11/13 under a voluntrary arrangement,

I would like to point out that Section 20 uses the word accommodation, not the words foster care or adoption and unless this is a deliberate attempt by the law to be deceptive, then no agreement was ever made or reached for foster care or adoption.
The only agreement which was made was for a temporary proivision of accommodation. It was to a "temporary accomodation" which I agreed, nothing more, nothing less.
Nowhere in section 20 does it use the words foster care, or that in signing this form, that either of my children would have been subject to foster care, if it had done I would not have signed or agreed to the statement.
The wording used above D11 is not the same wording as used in section 20, I refer to the act itself, nor was the wording fostering or adoption used in anything which I signed.
Section 20 of the Chidren Act States
20 Provision of accommodation for children: general.
"(1)Every local authority shall provide accommodation for any child in need within their area who appears to them to require accommodation as a result of—
(a)there being no person who has parental responsibility for him;
(b)his being lost or having been abandoned; or
(c)the person who has been caring for him being prevented (whether or not permanently, and for whatever reason) from providing him with suitable accommodation or care. "
In terms of the agreement I made, it was in reference to the clear terminology of Section and the interpretation of Law's use of the word "accommodation" which is laid out in section 20. At no time did I ever give any agreement to, or was ever informed that, section 20 related or pertained to the fostering or adoption of either of my children. Nor does it state anywhere in section 20 that this is the case. To say otherwise is completely misleading and may well amount to misrepresentation of the law itself.
If it is the case that section 20 misrepresents the law, then Section 20 has been used against me in terms of either a clear and wilfull abuse and deliberate misinterpretation of the terminology laid out in section 20, by the Social Workers concerned.
Or it is that the law is written in a terminology which has the, clear, deliberate and wilful intent to mislead or misinform, as regards the contractual" basis of any agreement I undertook, which was based on section 20 subsection 9.
I reiterate once again that nowhere does it mention either fostering or adoption, merely "accommodation". Therefore it can only be speculative at best, or a deliberate lie at worst to say that I agreed for KALINDI to be placed in foster care, by a voluntary arrangement. I did not.
For my part, I have never once agreed to the first statement, in terms of its definition or its use in relation to fostering and adoption. If this is the case, then again my signature was again obtained by eliberate intent to deceive and mislead me in order to procreate a false statement for the Authority and with wilful intent to conceal the words fostering, or adoption. Once again I again reiterate, these words are not contained in the Act. If this is the case, any contractual obligation on my part is null and void, as this was not what I signed for or agreed to.
I, Luci Da Costa, have therefore been deliberately subjected to disinformation, which was misleading by intent, without my legal rights being recognised or acknowledged and without recourse to a Solicitor. I never once gave any consent to the local authority for either adoption or fostering of my children and to say that I have is libel, with intent to cause significant emotional harm and stress. Added to which this statement has clearly been submitted with intent to pervert the course of justice, in terms of my original understanding of the agreement. The intention here is to mislead the court into believing I signed an agreement for something which I did not. That is a perversion of the course of justice.
Brief definition of libel...
libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person ...
D11. KALINDI was placed in Local Authority foster care on 13/11/13 under a voluntrary arrangement, (...)
The untruth which was published in D11 was to say that a voluntary arrangement had been made to place KALINDI and KRISHNA into foster care. That statement is untrue, therefore libel - What I agreed to was accomodation.

I Luci Da Costa, therefore have been deliberately subjected to disinformation and a wilfully misleading statement without my legal rights being recognised or acknowledged and without recourse to a Solicitor. I never once gave any consent to the local authority for either adoption or fostering. To say that I have is libel and this statement has clearly been submitted with intent to wilfully pervert the course of justice, in terms of my original agreement.


D11. There are no concerns regarding KALINDI's health or cognitive development. KALINDI verbal communication is developing in line with her age and stage of development and she is spooken to by her mother in both English and portuguese. KA is observed to be a stong willed, sociable and inquisitive littel girl who will go to adults with whom she is not familiar.

There are no concerns and there have been no concerns about KALINDI, other than factious and fictitious statements made by the Local Authority, who have systemically and systematically acted against the best interests of my child.

The only incident where my child which has been subject to scrutiny, is the incident where I left KALINDI with my then 12 year old daughter KRISHNA to supervise for half an hour, whilst I went to desperately find a new house, in order to remove myself from an abusive, and violent relationship one where my ex partner also used illegal substances.

At this time I should have had assistance, rather than being subject to a plethora of lies, false reports, disinformation, racism and religious persecution as regards me and my children from my Local Authority.

Alison K. Dodds, the social worker sent by Victoria Manser, to remove my children.

Brazil TV Record


Help me




My baby KALINDI at 4 year old


Kalindi 1
Kalindi 3-4

Up ▲


In every city and town, the Social Services are out of control. They are taking children from loving, caring parents based on

false accusations,

aided and abetted by the

barristers and


Because adoption and fostering is big business and the family court is a massive industry, feeding the pockets of all the above.

Why do the courts conduct themselves in secret?

Because if they were open up to media and public scrutiny the whole scandal of the secret courts would be exposed. Those who conduct themselves in secret fear exposure. So why do the media ignore all this and refuse to report on the injustices that occur daily in every family court? There are only a handful of brave and courageous journalists who report on this. The rest simply turn a blind eye.

A defendant in a criminal court has more rights and access to justice than parents in a family court. Criminals finish their sentences and are released and allowed back home to their families. Even offenders who have been convicted of violent offences. Parents in family courts are rarely charged with any offences due to lack of evidence.

However the family court accuse us of significant harm, if it so significant, why are they not charged and put before a criminal court. The answer is simple, because the evidence against them would not stand up in a criminal court.
In family courts the evidence is merely hearsay at best, at worst, it is

damn right lies, fabrication and perjury.

Someone needs to listen to the plight of families and give them a voice. Will it be you?

Up ▲

My children are prisioners of the Estate!

I plea for help.

Please help to free my children.