|
|
|
|
IMPORTANT UPDATEAmy Hughes seems quite nervous over the abuse pictures of her children on this web page. In a recent posting on one of the many message boards (e groups) where Amy tells her sad story of how her children were ripped from her and she just can't understand why, she gives an explanation for the bruises and marks on her children's bodies. I, Harriett and Sarah Hughes' grandmother took the abuse pictures as soon as my grandchildren came to my home on Sunday at about 5:15pm after a weekend of unsupervised visitation with their mother (my son picked Harriett and Sarah up at 5pm). My camera takes date-stamped pictures. Amy Hughes was only allowed visitation on the 1st, 3rd, and 4th weekends of the month and no visitation during vacations. My camera stamped the date which was always on the 1st, 3rd, or 4th Sunday of the month. I cropped the abuse pictures I have on this web page to cut down on space but no picture's content was altered. The bruises were fresh, the blood was fresh, the swollen lip was still puffed, the urine soaked pair of pants was fresh, the cuts were fresh......and both Harriett and Sarah told of the beatings, hair-pulling, punching, name-calling, hitting, belt thrashings, arm grabbing, threatening, being locked in a room, etc. that happened to them over the weekend. My grandchildren had no reason to tell these things to their father and to me if they weren't true and the physical evidence was certainly there. Amy just did not care because as she told her children, "You can tell whoever you want because no one will believe you- I have an excellent lawyer." I believe Harriett and Sarah and that is a reason for this web page- to get people to listen to the cries of my grandchildren.
This is a picture (with an inset) that I took of my granddaughter Harriett Hughes on Sunday, 1 24 99, as is shown by the camera stamp-date in the lower right corner. My son had picked up his children from Amy Hughes at 5pm. When Harriett came in my house about 5:15pm, she was feverish, sick, and crying. Harriett told me that her back hurt really bad and that she didn't feel good. My son said that because Harriett had the chicken pox, had missed school, and was sick, he had called Amy on Friday, 1 22 99 and asked Amy if Harriett could miss the weekend visitation so she could stay home in bed. Amy abruptly said, "No, this is MY weekend- have her ready." I took hundreds of pictures of my grandchildren and they are camera stamp-dated as are all of the abuse pictures I took. Harriett's sore and blistered back and any of the abuse pictures I took were not made with any "black water based magic marker and purple sidewalk chalk " as Amy Hughes is now trying to suggest. Amy Hughes must think that the people who read this web page are absolute idiots. Documentation which includes letters from my granddaughter, a child abuse report, and pictures of physical abuse do not lie. Since 1 24 99 was the 4th weekend of the month, I did not anticipate seeing my grandchildren again until the 1st weekend of February which would be February 7. As you know if you read this web page, on February 4th and again on February 5th, Amy Hughes threatened my son and oldest granddaughter with a shotgun and David took Harriett and Sarah and fled. I did not see my grandchildren again until February 2000. It has been a long and difficult year. Hopefully, someone who reads this web page can and will help protect my grandchildren from being abused again by Amy Hughes. |
| Following are court orders which removed Harriett and Sarah Hughes from Amy Wheeler Hughes' care and custody. As in the previous pages, these have been typed in and appropriate signatures were scanned and placed onto the page. |
COURT ORDER - MARCH 6, 1995At a Term of the Family Court in and for the County of Chemung at Elmira New York on March 6, 1995FAMILY COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF CHEMUNG _________________________________________ In the matter of a proceeding of Custody and Visitation under Article Six of the Family Court Act, DAVID R. HUGHES, Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. Docket No. 94-1628 AMY HUGHES, Respondent. V-3122-3123-91 _________________________________________ Upon the Affidavit of David R. Hughes, the Petitioner in the above matter, and upon the Affidavit of Betty D. Friedlander, Attorney for the petitioner, let the Respondent Show Cause on this 7th Davy of March 1995 at 9:30 a.m. why an Order should not be made granting the petitioner temporary custody of Sarah and Harriett, and an order directed to the Chemung County Department of Social Services pursuant to Section 1034 0f the Family Court Act, to investigate whether or not the children above named are neglected or abused with in the meaning of Article Ten of the Family Court Act, and an order of evaluation of the children with regard to allegations of abuse and/or neglect pursuant to Section 251 of the Family Court Act. Sufficient reason appearing therefore, it is ORDERED that the temporary placement of the children shall be with the Petitioner, until further order of the Court; it is further ORDERED that the Chemung County Department of Social Services shall make an immediately investigation pursuant to Section 1034 of the Family Court Act to determine whether or not the children are being abused or neglected within the meaning of Article 10 of the Family Court Act, and it is further ORDERED, that pursuant to Section 251 of the Family Court Act, the children shall be evaluated by a professional in the field of sexual, physical abuse and neglect who shall report to the Court regarding his/her findings. Let service upon he respondent by personal service upon her attorney by March 7, 1995 be deemed sufficient notice of this Order to Show Cause. DATED: 6th March, 1995 ENTER |
JUDGE CASTELLINO'S ORDER - 08/29/95It is the judgment of the Court that the best interests of the children require that physical and legal custody be placed with the Petitioner, with the Respondent to enjoy continued and extended reasonable visitation, with the caveat that Sarah and Harriett are to have no contact whatsoever with Marcus Coppola and/or Ricky Coppola. Counseling is to continue for the children, and jointly with the natural parents as may be indicated and recommended by the psychologist, and that the law guardian will continue to be involved in monitoring the situation to insure that the best interests of the children are being furthered and protected.DATED: August 29, 1995. 
|
|
Following is an excerpt to David Hughes from Southern Tier Pediatrics detailing the doctor's diagnosis of Harriett and Sarah's condition as a result of the abuse by Amy Hughes: Enclosed is the information you requested in your letter dated January 1. Any questions feel free to contact me. 03/07/95 Harriett DX.Child Maltreatment Syndrome. 03/07/95 Sarah DX.Child Maltreatment Syndrome |
CHILD ABUSE DECISION OF MAY 10, 1995Please click on picture to view full size.
|
LETTER FROM DR. PIETER KORS - 9/12/95This is a letter from Dr. Pieter Kors of the Behavioral Science Unit at St. Joseph's Hospital stating that Amy Hughes was given a leave of absence from work for one year and that Amy Hughes would not be able to resume her work with small children. Please note: Dr. Rachel Bryant and/or Chemung County Law Guardian, Sara Zurenda, determined within weeks after Amy Wheeler Hughes lost all custody of her children that Amy should be allowed to have unsupervised visitation of Harriett and Sarah Hughes in this year (1995/1996) even though Amy had been a patient in a psychiatric unit and with Dr. Kors' report that Amy Wheeler Hughes should not work with "small children."September 12, 1995 To Whom it May Concern: RE: Amy Hughes (D.O.B. 1/20/66) Ms. Hughes at this time will not be able to resume her work with small children. A leave of absence is advised for one year.
|
JUDGE BARRETT'S ORDER - 08/12/98Following is Judge Barrett's last custody order before David Hughes fled with his children, dismissing Amy Hughes' petition with prejudice with respect to a consideration of custody for Amy Hughes:STATE OF NEW YORK FAMILY COURT : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ===================================== AMY WHEELER HUGHES, Petitioner, vs. DAVID R. HUGHES, Respondent, ===================================== DECISION AND ORDER DOCKET NO.: V-689-97 The respondent, acting pro se, has brought a motion, filed July 10, 1998, to dismiss the petition brought by the petitioner. The petitioner has filed an affidavit in opposition to the motion, and the respondent has filed a rebuttal to that opposition. After a review of the motion papers and the response thereto, the Court finds that with respect to the portion of the petition requesting change of custody, the petition is essentially the same as the one dismissed by this Court by Order dated September 29, 1997. Because no change of circumstances has been delineated in the modification petition, the petition is hereby dismissed with prejudice with respect to a reconsideration of custody. With respect to the portion of the petition that requests a modification of visitation, the petition is not dismissed. SO ORDERED: File order. Signed: August 12, 1998
cc:
Petitioner |
|
Albert Wheeler is Amy Wheeler Hughes' oldest brother. Alcohol and drugs are a part of the Wheeler family history and Harriett and Sarah Hughes are exposed to this environment through their mother. This appeared in the Elmira, NY Star-Gazette on November 13, 2000.
|
