Vicky Haigh Update: Banned from Contact with Daughter for Three Years

March 24, 2014 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

In the case of Vicky Haigh, it’s more of the same. Here’s my first post on the infamous Ms. Haigh. And here’s the latest article (Daily Mail, 3/20/14). Basically, Haigh is no longer in prison, but she’s once again under a court order to stay away from her daughter, this time for three years and to cease filing claims in family court for the same period of time.

To put it mildly, Haigh is a piece o’ work. Given the secrecy in which British family courts operate, it’s hard to know just how extreme her behavior has been, but all indications are that she’s well beyond the pale and has been for 11 years.

The basic facts are that Haigh and husband David Tune had a daughter who’s simply referred to by courts as “X.” They started divorce proceedings in 2003 and the court immediately handed temporary custody to the girl’s father. Now, that alone tells us there was something seriously amiss with Haigh. Fathers in the U.K. basically don’t get primary custody, so the fact that Tune did strongly indicates major personality problems on Haigh’s part.

And sure enough, Haigh dragged the matter on for years, attempting to wrest custody from her ex, but all to no avail. Then, in 2010, she had a brainwave. She began claiming that Tune was sexually molesting his daughter. But the Doncaster Council’s child protective workers investigated the situation and found Tune to be innocent of the charges and a perfectly fit father.

Needless to say, that didn’t suit Haigh. So she coached X into backing up her claims, but that ruse too fell through. It seems that neither the social workers nor the judge bought what Haigh was selling. The fact that she’d first leveled the charges that proved to be false and then – like magic – the child came forward with the same charges may have smelled a bit fishy.

Astonishingly, two sets of false claims of sexual abuse plus coaching the child to believe her father to be an abuser didn’t impress the judge as anything particularly amiss. Of course they should have. They were clear evidence of an abusive and alienating parent, but in typical fashion it was passed over.

So, having received no punishment for her perjury and parental alienation, Haigh felt free to up the ante once again. This time she went too far, and that definition of “too far” is interesting.

She hired the services of one Elizabeth Watson whom she termed an “investigator,” but Watson’s “investigation” was nothing of the sort. Watson’s approach to the situation was to take to the Internet and publish multiple libels, slander and defamation against Tune. Essentially, she disseminated broadly the lie that he was a pedophile whose own daughter was his victim.

That too might have been given a pass, but Watson named names. Specifically, she called the social workers for the Doncaster Council by name, saying they were abetting Tune’s supposed abuse. She also named the judge in the case. And that, my friends, is the definition of “going too far.” Lies and slander for the purpose of alienating a child from her loving father and wasting huge amounts of court time in the process are all perfectly acceptable. But naming names? Aye, there’s the rub. The British like their family court matters hidden from public view, and Watson had violated that cardinal principle. She was sentenced to nine months in prison for her “investigation.”

Soon enough, a no-contact order was issued against Haigh and, soon enough, she violated it, and not for the first time. She followed Tune and the child to a service station, approached the car, opened the door and talked to X. For her consistent violations of court orders, she was sentenced to three years in prison.

She only served about 10 months, but again violated the orders and went back inside.

Haigh’s behavior was so bad the senior judge in the entire family court system, Sir Nicholas Wall, chimed in.

Sir Nicholas said: ‘The child”s mother is wholly unable to accept the court”s verdict and, with the misguided assistance of Elizabeth Watson has unlawfully and in breach of court orders, put into the public domain via email and the internet a series of unwarranted and scandalous allegations about the father and others. ‘She has repeated the untruth that the father is a paedophile and – without a scintilla of evidence – has attacked the good faith of all the professionals who had had any contact with the case.

‘These proceedings have had a serious effect on the life of the father and have threatened the stability of the child. Her mother”s actions are wholly contrary to her interests.”

He called her allegations “scandalous” and “a pack of lies.”

We’ve now entered the 11th year of Haigh’s assaults on Tune’s peace of mind and their daughter’s well-being, and she’s not done yet.

A former jockey and racehorse trainer has been banned from going near her daughter for three years – and cannot challenge the ruling until 2017, a High Court judge ruled…

Today, Family Division judge Mrs Justice Hogg set up a ‘no go zone’ around the child identified only as ‘X’.

Ruling the measures were a means of ‘protecting’ the little girl, she also banned Ms Haigh from making any more court applications for three years.

She said further litigation was ‘not conducive to peaceful existence. Litigation is anxiety making.’

She added: ‘It is not good for a child to be the subject of litigation, and after eight years it really has to come to an end for X’s sake.’

It’s an extreme measure made necessary by the extremes to which Haigh has gone to abuse a little girl, the child’s father and the British legal system. This person is clearly a danger to many people, otherwise the courts wouldn’t have taken such remarkable steps to keep her out of her daughter’s life and off the court’s docket.

Meanwhile, X has lived exclusively with Tune since 2003 and is unquestionably happy with the arrangement.

The judge said X had been spoken to by a social worker for her views, and offered birthday cards and gifts from her mother, half sister, and maternal grandmother. But she said she did not want them.

She told the social worker the best thing in her life was ‘living with Daddy’.

She said: ‘That is awesome, she was happy and wished for things to stay the same.’

They will, at least for the time. But what Vicky Haigh has proven time and again is that she cares not a whit for court orders or her daughter’s welfare. We’ll be hearing from her again. I just hope David Tune, X and the Doncaster social workers are alright when we do.

National Parents Organization is a Shared Parenting Organization

National Parents Organization is a non-profit that educates the public, families, educators, and legislators about the importance of shared parenting and how it can reduce conflict in children, parents, and extended families. Along with Shared Parenting we advocate for fair Child Support and Alimony Legislation. Want to get involved?  Here’s how:

Together, we can drive home the family, child development, social and national benefits of shared parenting, and fair child support and alimony. Thank you for your activism.


#VickyHaigh, #DavidTune, #SirNicholasWall, #parentalalienation, #restrainingorders, #ElizabethWatson, #UK

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *