The character of Alan Rawlinson is summarised in his actions during attendance at Chester family court.
An original CAFCASS report showed clearly how the children had been abused by mum and her boyfriend - based on interviews and evidence. This was written at the same time as Vivian Saunders of Cheshire West and Chester was writing a false report about everything being good at mum's house. So, Cheshire West were angry and had the original CAFCASS gaurdian replaced. They brought in a hit man. An evil person who was more than willing to put children into abuse to please his paymasters.
It got worse.
Alan Rawlinson of CAFCASS said under oath in Chester family court that it was not rape when a penis is forced into a child's mouth.
In that court, the mum, Cheshire West and Chester social workers, the children's lawyer, the barristers and judge Barnett all let it stand.
Why was child rape allowed as acceptable in Chester family court ?
Why were subsequent sexual child abuses acceptable in Chester family court ?
They all required to defend their position of previously forcing the children into being captives with the abusers. If they admitted rape, they would have been admitting they got it all wrong and put the children into abuse.
It's a spiral of lying and spiraling criminality.
The social worker was Helen Jones from Civic Way in Ellesmere Port.
All of them had seen the North Wales police report confirming what had happened (penis in mouth etc).
Helen Jones history of the case was about 40 perjuring statements alone; it said no historical sexual abuse ever happened.
Her report was so blatant as perjury that judge Barnett had it removed from the bundle to protect himself.
Not social workers - Helen Jones and Judith Griffiths ,
Not children's lawyer ( Mr Gary Hogan, who worked in parallel with Alan Rawlinson) ,
Not Jeanette Fitzgerald - barrister for the local authority,
Not Steve Robinson - who authorised all this
Not Gerald Meehan - who authorised all this.
Not Alice's mum,
Not Alice's mum's barrister
Not judge Barnett
Not one of them
commented on the blatant 40 perjuring statements supplied by Cheshire West and Chester ,
or the clear lies about the child rape or child sexual abuses,
even though they each had it months before court appearances.
Even when Barnett finally asked for it to be removed from the court bundle, not one of the above removed any of the similar points in their own submissions.
When I showed photographs of marks on the children made by their mum hitting them, nobody disagreed it was mum who abused the children. Children's gaurdian Rawlinson looked away and said nothing. Cheshire West's barrister Jeanette Fitzgerald did however say nothing about her abuses, and pervertedly turned it round saying that i was abusing mum and the children by photographing the marks on the children left by mum.
Gaurdian Rawlinson and all the others, nodded in agreement that i was the abuser for protecting the children and photographing the evidence .
When I let them hear recordings of mum abusing our toddler while changing, again, they said I was the abuser because I recorded it.
It seems that in Chester family court in front of judge Barnett, that all evidence, all reports, everything, anything - is somehow supporting the social workers. As judge Barnett retired shortly after this case, I have requested financial details from the local authority - as there can be no other rational reason for judge Barnett allowing swathes of perjury, and indeed, perjuring his own court.
This family court, social workers and Rawlinson, all put children put into ABUSE to protect the criminals in authority.
That's the reality of Chester family court with all it's bowing and standing up for the judge.
When I complained to CAFCASS, they would not reply. This is CAFCASS top boss Anthony Douglas.