Child abuse industry deaths in Canada

Do the claims of good intentions really outweigh the bodies of the children dying in Ontario's child protection system every year?

Do you trust a corporate agency that refuses to register with the College of Social Work, that refuses to cooperate with Ombudsman and the Privacy Commissioner unless the law in Ontario specifically says they have to?

How did 92 children in care die between 2008/2012 according to the Ontario PDRC report? The PDRC say it's a complete mystery and no further investigation is required. Between 2008/2012 natural causes was listed as the least likely way for a child in care to die at 7% of the total deaths reviewed while "undetermined cause" was listed as the leading cause of death of children in Ontario's child protection system at 43% of the total deaths reviewed.

Changing parental responsibility following final orders in the NSW children's court

This article is mainly about s90(2A)(c) of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW), which provides that before granting leave to vary or rescind a Care Order, the Children's Court must take into account the length of time for which the child or young person has been in the care of his or her present carer.

In this context, a Care Order usually means a Final Order allocating parental responsibility, but may also mean an Interim Order made under s69 or s70 of the Act.  The scheme of the Act favours permanency, which is demonstrated by the requirement in s83 that the Director-General prepare a "permanency plan" before the court makes a Final Order.

How would a child make an application to the children’s court?

"Firstly this would depend on the child’s age. For example a child who is 12 years of age or older is assumed to have the capacity to instruct their legal representative to make an application to the Children’s Court. If the child is under 12 years of age, it may be considered that the child does not have the capacity to direct their legal representative and therefore the legal representative would not be bound by the child’s instructions.

 There are different pathways that might lead to a child making a section 90 application on their own behalf, these might include but are not limited to:

  1. Where a Section 82 report has been ordered by the Children’s Court and the child’s legal representative is not satisfied that proper arrangements have been made for the care and protection of the child; the child’s legal representative may consult with the child and seek instructions as to whether the child wishes to file an application to withdraw or vary the current care orders.

So you want your kids back - and you're thinking about a Section 90 application

Losing your right to fight ... It was also a government directive to save money to STOP leave being granted to proceed to a Section 90 Hearing, as explained in the matter of Troy vs DoCS, for a start - as too many parents want their children back.  In making that judgement, it is extremely difficult now to even granted leave to apply for a Section 90.

Also every Leave Hearing is a two hour in total "hearing by submission" which is disgusting. As solicitors from the bar table NOT under Oath talk crap for their half an hour - no evidence is considered and the Magistrate says NO. The legal process is denied because they are making them submission Hearings.

So DoCS legal representatives can spend their half an hour telling lies, for which they are not held accountable as they are NOT under oath - or subject to cross examination - which then results in the Magistrate making his decision based upon their lies.

Reform for better child protection

Given that Australia has ratified and signed the International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights; and that Article 3 states “The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant”[1], we hereby state request the following changes in the protection of our most vulnerable assets, our children. Let us see the government show us that children are important to them, and that accountability when it comes to child protection is at the forefront of all their decision making.

The only real remedy for the abuses of the child protection system is its abolition. No one should have the power to take children from their parents by force of arms, and the upkeep of children should not be paid with appropriated funds. Once the child protection behemoth is dead, private charity can easily handle the small load of orphaned children, as it responded to the much larger number of homeless children a century ago before the creation of the welfare state.

Since the political will to eliminate the child protection system is nowhere near to realisation, we have here a list of lesser reforms that may alleviate the hardships in the current system, and lead toward more comprehensive reforms.

Concerns regarding adoption provisions in the 2013 NSW child protection legislation amendment bill

The Child Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 introduces a set of permanent placement principles (proposed section 10A) which would see adoption considered whenever a child or young person (other than children and young persons identified as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders) cannot realistically be restored to his or her parents or placed in the guardianship of a relative, kin or suitable other.

Also, a proposed change to section 83(4) would require that the Director-General must consider whether adoption is appropriate any time it has been determined that restoration to the child’s parents is not realistic.

Concerns about this proposed approach to including adoption, which permanently severs the legal relationship between parents and child, include that:

Evidence does not establish that adoption produces better outcomes – instead, stability and quality of placements are important, which needs to be addressed by improving the management and resourcing of foster care placements:

Is our children’s welfare important enough to be an election issue?

With only six weeks until the next state election it is about time for the public to determine what the NSW State Government should be focusing on getting right over the next three year term.

What we at Alecomm have found interesting in this, and past, elections is all the ho-ha about economic and lifestyle issues for the middle and upper class population but very little for those that suffer at the hands of the Human [non] “Services”.

Is it the case that just because children don’t get to vote their needs are ignored by the public? Alecomm would like to point out to readers how history tells us that the needs of those without a say in Government are ignored.

Whats more important, welfare or retribution?

Hello Australia, do you see the similarity between this and other children? - Click here to view the YouTube Video in Reference.

The problem is the response on facebook is focused on retribution towards the perpetrator, rather than the welfare, safety and development of the young boy.

Responses to child abuse should be focused on the welfare and development of the child. What was done for this child to ensure this wouldn't happen again? Autistic and developmentally delayed children that have "challenging behaviours" will always be at risk of harm until the behaviours are addressed. That is what 'challenging behaviours' is defined as. There are many people that cannot handle people of all ages with challenging behaviours including parents, carers, hospital staff (e.g. the recent death of a difficult patient in WA) and even police.

While it is important to highlight the situation it is even more important that focus remains on the victim's human rights and those rights include both the minimisation of future harm and maximization of welfare and development.

NSW children's court - important case law

The following cases have been included in this Resource Handbook:

  • Interim orders — Re Jayden [2007] NSWCA 35 (see [4-0110]), Re Timothy [2010] NSWSC 524 (see [4-0120])
  • Standard of proof, sexual abuse — Re Sophie (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 89 (see [4-0130])
  • Basis of finding does not limit facts considered regarding placement — Re Alistair [2006] NSWSC 411 (see [4-0140])
  • Least intrusive intervention, UN CROC — Re Tracey [2011] NSWCA 43 (see [4-0150])
  • Realistic possibility of restoration — Re Tracey [2011] NSWCA 43 (see [4-0150])

NSW children's court - important case law

The following cases have been included in this Resource Handbook:

  • Interim orders — Re Jayden [2007] NSWCA 35 (see [4-0110]), Re Timothy [2010] NSWSC 524 (see [4-0120])
  • Standard of proof, sexual abuse — Re Sophie (No 2) [2009] NSWCA 89 (see [4-0130])
  • Basis of finding does not limit facts considered regarding placement — Re Alistair [2006] NSWSC 411 (see [4-0140])
  • Least intrusive intervention, UN CROC — Re Tracey [2011] NSWCA 43 (see [4-0150])
  • Realistic possibility of restoration — Re Tracey [2011] NSWCA 43 (see [4-0150])

Rescission or variation of Children's Court orders: A study of Section 90 applications in NSW

Abstract: This article reports on a study of Children's Court files relating to completed applications for variation of care orders (section 90 applications) in three specialised Children's Courts in New South Wales. All files that could be located for completed applications were reviewed and nonidentifying data was recorded. The study attempted to examine the type of applications, the characteristics of applicants and the outcomes of the applications. One hundred and seventeen applications were reviewed: almost half of these were made by the then Department of Community Services (DoCS), and about the same proportion of applications were made by parents. After the section 90 applications were determined there was an increase in care orders allocating parental responsibility to the Minister for Community Services with 73% of the children placed under the care of the minister to age 18.

Source : http://researchbank.acu.edu.au/fea_pub/1096/

Rescission or variation of Children's Court orders: A study of Section 90's

Abstract: This article reports on a study of Children's Court files relating to completed applications for variation of care orders (section 90 applications) in three specialised Children's Courts in New South Wales. All files that could be located for completed applications were reviewed and nonidentifying data was recorded. The study attempted to examine the type of applications, the characteristics of applicants and the outcomes of the applications. One hundred and seventeen applications were reviewed: almost half of these were made by the then Department of Community Services (DoCS), and about the same proportion of applications were made by parents. After the section 90 applications were determined there was an increase in care orders allocating parental responsibility to the Minister for Community Services with 73% of the children placed under the care of the minister to age 18.

Source : http://researchbank.acu.edu.au/fea_pub/1096/

The adoption system is failing children and foster carers

You could have blinked and missed it but, according to the website of the Department of Family and Community Services and the Australian Institute for Family Studies, the past week has been National Child Protection Week. This year’s theme is “Protecting children is everyone’s business … All Australians are encouraged to play their part in protecting children”.

Nice idea, complete with a pretty picture of jumping children.  But for children in long-term foster care — the most abused and vulnerable of all children — we are not doing enough. It is a long-term crisis, almost wearyingly so.  No wonder people turn off.

This week, senator Zed Seselja launched a report by the organisation Adopt Change.

Intimidation, bullying and threats from rogue DHS child protection caseworkers

DHS Workers currently in court today have been using the peoples fundamental rights to freedom of speech and to associate with and impart ideas, in an effort to trash mothers whom have had their children removed unlawfully.  

Seven DHS Workers including Sally Twycross are currently sitting in court proceedings wasting thousands of hard earned tax payers money because they do not like the fact that they have been named and shamed on various websites across the internet.  There is nothing illegal about this, in fact, it's the mothers fundamental rights to take such actions considering the amount of abuse her now three year old son has suffered since being taken by DHS when he was just five months of age.

The dynamics of shame in interactions between child protective services and families falsely accused of child abuse

ABSTRACT: The concept of a shame-based family system in which parents shame their children was applied to the relationship between Child Protective Services (CPS) and families accused of child abuse. Twenty families who reported that they had been wrongly accused of child abuse completed a questionnaire. Content analysis of the questionnaires supported the hypothesis that the elements of a shame-based family system are present in the relationship between CPS and the families they investigate. The respondents indicated feelings of powerlessness, self- doubt, depression, and isolation, and perceived the CPS as omnipotent, abandoning them, quickly accusing them, and acting in emotionally harmful ways towards them.

The assassination of heroic Senator Nancy Schaefer to Coverup worldwide government child trafficking


CALLING EVERYONE:   Fmr Georgia Sen Nancy Schaefer's MURDER:  Let it be the CATALYST for us to FINALLY UNITE & OVERCOME THE INTERMINABLE HELL OF CHILD THEFT, ABUSE AND MURDER.

We take it we're all familiar with this amazing warrior for our cause.  That she was the highest profile person and politician no less, to speak out against these crimes.  How her scathing report tabled in her state of Georgia "The Corrupt Business of Child Protective Services" detailed and condemned the horrors that our children and their families suffer (including shocking examples of CPS dumping/leaving kids with abusers).  You may even know that this cost her her job.

 You may have seen her authoritative voice on YouTube.  That this lady made the connection between how many countries, especially the english speaking world over, modelled these insane systems on the US'.  A psychopathic money/power grab that feeds on the souls of tender children and those that actually protect them.

 We''ve copied the biblical quotation from her report below:

"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and the needy" Proverbs 31:8-9 

Regardless of whether you follow religion or not, we know the immorality of these crimes is not sustainable.  That they're not just desecrating our precious children and their lives, ours and familial cohesion, but they're also destroying society.  Btw, am not a fan of watering heinous actions/inactions down with the term: amoral; it's the shift in values pegging responsibility that's part of the problem.

Fact sheet: Troubling proposals in new child protection legislation

Have you heard about the Child Protection Legislation Amendment Bill?

The NSW Government has introduced proposed changes to the child protection system that the Premier himself labelled as “radical”. These changes were initially outlined in a discussion paper released in late 2012 and have caused concern among many stakeholders.

Read the Bill

What are the key changes in the Bill?

  • New agreements and court orders for early interventions that aim to improve parenting capacity in at-risk families, including before a child is born. [Sections 38A-38E]
  • Fixed timeframes to make a decision about whether children who have been removed from their family have a realistic chance of being restored. [Section 83]
  • A hierarchy of preferred ‘permanency’ options which considers adoption whenever a non-Aboriginal child cannot be in the care of a family member. [Section 10A and related sections]

Where have the rights of parents gone in this country?

Today it has become crystal clear how much influence the medical establishment has in Australia. The medical establishment showed it true reach into our society.  Where are the rights of the parents gone in this country, when parents are not allowed to medically treat their child in a way they see fit. A way that involves a plant, which has proven all over the world to work with their child’s conditions.

These parents have seen the improvements their little boy went through after he started using medicinal marijuana. Anyone can see the improvements Chase has shown over the last 6 months. There is no denying.

The death of a child by arrogance and ignorance ....

There are no statistics that will ever help you understand what it feels like to be a child abused by the child protection system. No one really watches out for these children they are all lost within a world ruled by narcissist, pedophiles and do-gooders. 
A child removed from a home of poverty [aka neglect], is thrown into a broken system where true abuse becomes a life they can not escape.  Even when the child is allowed visits from parents and family who can witness the physical marks of abuse - it is still ignored by arrogant workers who believe the parents are incompetent and their reports are retaliation.

FACS deliberately forge evidence to remove Chase

Court was AGAIN adjourned at Broadmeadow Children's Court in Newcastle. If you are able, please front up and stand in peaceful solidarity for this broken family who are crying out for their baby.

There has not been a single finding supporting FACS' ridiculous claims of malnourishment presented to the courts or Marc and Cini. In the 3 weeks since Chase vanished from his mothers sight without a trace, there has only been adjournment after adjournment.

Subcategories