Allegations that Vicky Haigh’s ex partner was banned by UK Athletics from coaching children after he sexually groomed a child have been published on a US campaign site for women going through child contact proceedings with their children.
In 2010 Ms Haigh alleged that her partner had sexually abused their daughter. The family court took the view that the allegation was a lie and removed all contact between her and her daughter.
Vicky Haigh’s case drew media-wide attention when a court sentenced her to prison for breaching a non-molestation order, after she saw her daughter at a petrol station. Ms Haigh told the family court that the meeting had been a chance encounter.
Vicky was sentenced to three years in prison for breaching the order, which was reduced to nine months by the Court of Appeal. The sentence was re-instated in full after Ms Haigh gave an interview to a newspaper, shortly before she was due to be released.
The article which features the allegations against Ms Haigh’s ex partner was published by the Women’s Coalition on 29th June, and says:
“Vicky Haigh recently discovered that UK Athletics had banned her ex in 2015 from coaching children, after he sexually groomed and stalked a child, a criminal offence which often leads to sexual assault… Vicky found out about the ban when Doncaster Council filed a motion to discharge their care orders on her daughter.
Vicky’s ex-husband was found guilty of sexual misconduct with a minor by UK Athletics, resulting in a ban from coaching children…In failing to publicly report the ban, UK Athletics, Doncaster Council and Family Court have caused children in the community to be left at risk, including Vicky’s daughter.”
The article does not offer any source for the information it shares, but if there is a UK Athletics ban in place for Ms Haigh’s ex partner it is now in the public interest to know why it was set aside during child contact proceedings in the Haighs’ case.
Thank you to Charles Pragnell for alerting us to this development.
Researching Reform 
(Family law) Kangaroo courts “oh well he said he didn’t do it” no investigation (unbelievable)
LikeLike
Court orders forbidding contact between law abiding parents and their children are usually wicked acts of spite made against parents who have dared to criticise or oppose the system.
Really wicked and criminal parents ingratiate themselves with social workers are of course given contact with no problems at all.
Proof?? Well baby P’s criminal mother was given contact with her surviving children when in prison ! Vicky who was a respected racehorse trainer who had never harmed anybody was sentenced to 3 years prison when her ex husband and daughter by chance drove into the petrol station to fill up when a pregnant Vicky was shopping there; She greeted her daughter and was sent to prison!
Her daughter (not Vicky herself ) had alleged sex abuse by her dad and all Vicky did was support her but that resulted in jail….
Now that the dad has been exposed as an alleged sex abuser in the USA and has NOT denied the facts surely the case should be reopened and Vicky compensated.
LikeLike
Indeed it is in the public interest to know why this was set aside. Personally, I find Vicky a rather abrasive person but no wonder, given what she (and her child) have gone through. Although money will never compensate Vicky for the loss of her child, I hope, in the end, she will be able to claim a lot of money for this miscarriage of justice.
As for the ‘non-molestation order’ when Vicky saw her daughter at a petrol station, I believe her. A friend of mine was put inside for the same breach of order when the child’s mother deliberately drove his children down a road where she knew they’d see each other. The children waved at him, and he of course waved back. The judge who sentenced him to a prison term for waving to his children was Sir James Munby.
LikeLike
Unfortunately, authority representatives across police, social services, NHS and legal system seem to collude to ‘brush under the carpet’ allegations of incestous child sexual abuse. I find particularly disconcerting how psychiatrists and psychologists with casual ease claim that a protective parent supposedly suffers from Delusional / Paranoid Personality Disorder.
It is difficult to investigate such offences properly. It is too easy however to find a ‘tame’ Court Appointed Expert who is willing to act as a ‘Hired Gun’. Prof Jane Ireland published 2012 a damning report stating that 2/3 of psychological assessment reports in family courts were ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’. New guidelines have been published since – but they seem rather unsatisfactory.
The dysfunctional family court and Forced Adoption system does not only cover up incest but is seemingly used as a ‘gaming’ vehicle by abusers who want to detroy the reputation of a protective parent and by doing so gain access and in deed control over children. In a particularly chilling case that I have been investigating since 2012 three adults in their prime of life were found dead before a stalking campaign commenced that reportedly culminated in a toddler rape – seemingly enacted to trigger a Forced Adoption ruling by a tainted judge with the assistance of a psychiatrist who made self-incriminating remarks. I covered this Child Smuggling case in a keynote at a 2018 psychology conference in Portugal – slides and a YouTube recording can be found here:
https://psychassessmentblog.wordpress.com/2018/10/07/dr-rainer-hermann-kurz-conference-keynote-slides-youtube-recording-applying-occupational-psychology-to-complex-trauma-lessons-for-professional-practice/
LikeLike
I’m confused Natasha.
Are Vicky Haigh’s “ex-partner” and her “ex-husband” the same person or are there two individuals here?
When you write on such sensitive issues you should re-read your post thoroughly before more misinformation issues from your pen.
LikeLike
Well said Ian. Vicky is a true and honest person who was the victim of irrationality.
LikeLike