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])

DoCS aren't damned if they do or damned if they don't remove children

*** ADOPTION CHILDREN ... WHERE DO THEY REALLY COME FROM? FIRSTLY, DoCS aren't damned if they do or damned if they don't remove children. They just prefer to take #kids from #parents who are easy targets - usually the ones who would rely on state funded #LegalAid to TRY and keep their kids.

They routinely choose to ignore kids who are being abused - even placing kids with #paedophiles - in order to perpetuate that myth that only the really abused kids are taken. And mostly it works. And yes, 80%. This is based on many years auditing casefiles for #compliance with #law - to ensure that only children who are being #abused or #neglected are removed. Alecomm hasn't audited one single case yet where #docs workers haven't broken the law. Not one in over a decade.

Foster Care corruption still being ignored

The Department of Community Services/Child Protection NSW totally ignores all complaints concerning the Corruption / Victimisation / Bullying / Theft / Trafficking and Abuses of Children in Care / OOHC NSW by Parents / Grandparents / Family Members / Siblings and any other interested party of Children in [apparent] care of Community Services / Child Protection NSW.

So far hundreds upon hundreds of these complaints have been redirected back to the abusive Case Workers / Case Managers / Client Services Managers whom the serious complaints refer to, this has been done by a substandard letter from the DoCS past CEO Annette Gallard etc without any investigation whatsoever re: THE UNTOUCHABLES...meanwhile thousands of our children are suffering under the care of the state, due to their refusal to investigate or address these serious complaints.

"The four options available to anyone unfortunate enough to be tagged by the "Department of Child Abduction""

Option 1: If you can get access to a lot of dollars, get a decent QC. The earlier in the game, the better. But, even then, it depends on what has already been said and done by the child slavers, as this tends to create a problem, even for a seasoned lawyer. The child slavers have a beaut knack for dragging things on, if they really desire your child, to break the emotional connection between parent and child, to control the child, and indirectly, you... and this to you, means lengthy heartache and a lot more money. So, to keep it short, with a QC, you'd be looking at anywhere from $50,000 to $1,000,000 to wasted money and still no children home.. until they 18 and totally stuffed physically and psychologically.

"Why is Blackmail so common by state child protection caseworkers?"

The answer is quite simple .. Because nobody keeps check of them.  And they know it. 

A recent call to the states Independent Commission Against Corruption, to ask how they would handle a matter whereby caseworkers are blackmailing both the immediate and extended family, has shown to be a pointless effort as the ICAC could not promise to give the family protection after they made the disclosure of Blackmail.

It (appears) that Public Officials are protected, but the people who's lives are being affected by these criminals are not, and those committing the crimes are completely protected - all the way to the top.

Parents are being told that if they "do not sign Care Plans that relinquish care of the children to the department, until the children reach 18 years of age", that they will never see their kids again.

DOCs for Dummies

Click here to view our draft version of legislation relevant to a vast majority of Department of Community Services cases for NSW. 

We are in the process of collating the legislation for other states.  This is provided to help you identify which actual offences are being committed by your friendly DOCs worker, so you can file the Official DOCs Complaint which we will then file in bulk to the Australian Crime Commission.

This publication is going to be the base evidence collector for us to produce a mass class action for those of us who have been treated like criminals and had endless crimes committed against them by the various departments involved in 'supposed' child care and protection.

Legislative Change Requests

Legislative Change Requests

The Children's Court is reading legislationinterested to know of any problems you have encountered in working with The Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Regulation 2000 and the Children's Court Rule 2000 that could be overcome by legislative change. If you have any proposals or you have made or will be making submissions in relation to legislative change then the Children's Court is interested in hearing from you.

Please send submissions/proposals in writing to:

Tracy Sheedy
The Children's Court of New South Wales
Level 2, St James Centre
111 Elizabeth Street,
Sydney, NSW 2001

Fax: 9231 9144

DOCS Most Common Areas for Breach of Code of Conduct & Ethics

DOCs Most Common Areas for Breach of Code of Conduct and Ethics

2.3 Duty of care

You have a general legal duty to take reasonable care to avoid causing harm to another person. You are required to exercise the degree of care that could reasonably be expected from a person in that job.

You should avoid negligent conduct by giving sufficient attention to your actions and decisions, and by obtaining the direction and advice of your supervisor or other appropriate Departmental officer if you are unsure how to proceed.

 

2.4 Providing advice and making decisions

Procedural fairness should be applied whenever you exercise official powers in situations where there may be an adverse impact on a person (see 4.1 Procedural fairness). Any advice you provide to managers,

co-workers and clients should be honest, frank, based on an accurate and balanced representation of all the known relevant facts and should, if necessary, identify the consequences of all known options realistically available. You should ensure you have taken reasonable steps to obtain necessary material to  take a decision and be reasonably satisfied that the material is factually correct and relevant. You should record and file the basis for your decision.

3.4 Privacy and confidentiality

Where it is necessary to record personal information, you should make every effort to ensure that there is a legitimate legal need to record the information, that the recording is factual and that information of a  confidential nature is kept secure and not discussed with anyone who does not have a legitimate right to know. The Privacy and Personal Information Act 1989 provides for the protection of personal information and for the protection of the privacy of individuals generally.

 

3.5 Workplace health and safety

You are expected to comply with the Occupational Health & Safety Act 2000, the Occupational Health & Safety Regulation 2001 and Departmental instructions on workplace health and safety. You also have an obligation not to wilfully place at risk or injure yourself and others in the workplace.

 4.1 Procedural fairness - (‘natural justice’)

Procedural fairness (or ‘natural justice’) is the principle concerned with ensuring that a fair decision is reached by an objective decisionmaker. When making a decision or recommending a course of action that could adversely affect a person’s rights or interests, you should follow the rules of natural justice.

This means that you should ensure that:

• the person concerned is informed about the matter under consideration, and is given an opportunity to present their case

• you have no personal interest in the matter to be decided or bias as to the outcome, and that you act in good faith (see 5 - Conflict of interest).

You should document and be able to justify any decisions that affect staff or members of the public.

When making decisions or taking action, you should ensure that proper consideration is given to any adverse effects any person or group may suffer from the decision/action. This should then be balanced against the intended purpose of the decision. When exercising a discretionary power you should ensure that the power is being used properly, impartially, equitably and consistently with relevant guidelines

or delegations. Decisions and actions should be made in a timely fashion, so that persons affected by

the decision are not disadvantaged by undue delay.

 

When applying procedural fairness in coming to decisions that affect staff, eg. deferral of increments, leave requests, etc you should consider:

• access to information - before the decision or action is taken, the person affected by the decision should be informed of all relevant factors, given the opportunity to put forward his/her case, including

commenting on information provided by others, and referred to support

• fact finding - all reasonable steps should be taken to find out the facts which are important and relevant to the decision

• assistance in representation - the person may be assisted or represented in the procedure except where it is specifically prohibited by legislation

• reasons for decision - the person concerned should be informed of the reasons for the decision within a reasonable time

• indication of remedies - the notification of the decision or action should indicate any  rights of appeal or normal remedies as well as the relevant time limits.

ETHICS

6.3 Misuse of information

You must not misuse information gained in your official capacity. Section 8(1) of the Independent ommission Against Corruption Act 1988 includes in the definition of corrupt conduct, “any conduct of a public official or former public official that involves the misuse of information or material acquired in the course of his or her official functions, whether or not for his or her benefit or for the benefit of any other person”. Section 309 of the Crimes Act 1900 also makes misuse of information a criminal offence.

Misuse includes:

• speculation in shares on the basis of  confidential information about the affairs of a business or of  proposed government actions

• seeking to take advantage for personal reasons of another person on the basis of information about that person held in official recordss

• inappropriately disclosing confidential  information held in official records.

 

9.1 Corrupt conduct and the Department’s duty of care to clients

The role and functions of the Department require that staff must exercise the highest standards of professionalism and integrity in order to meet the duties of care and responsibility the Department owes to its clients, many of whom are vulnerable and/or in crisis. Any matters that have the potential to bring

the professional integrity of a staff member, and therefore the reputation of the Department, into disrepute are considered most serious. This includes allegations of corrupt conduct.

 

9.2 The Director-General’s obligation to disclose corrupt conduct

Under the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988, the Director-General has a responsibility to report certain forms of corrupt conduct to the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC).

Corrupt conduct involves the misuse of public office, for example:

• dishonesty

• partiality (ie. bias)

• breach of trust (ie. misuse of one’s position), or

• misuse of government information where such conduct could amount to a  criminal offence, a disciplinary offence or give reasonable grounds for dismissal of a staff member.

You are encouraged to disclose any suspected corrupt conduct that you are aware of to your supervisor, a more senior officer, or Corporate HR. You can also report any conduct that breaches the standards contained in this Code of Conduct and Ethics. You can make a protected disclosure within the Department to Corporate HR or to ICAC directly. The Department is also required to report any allegations against staff relating to the abuse of children to the Ombudsman and the Commission for Children and Young People.

If you are aware of, or have information about, misconduct within your work group, you can report this to your manager. If the information concerns another work group, you can report it to the manager of that work group, to a more senior officer or to Corporate HR. For example you can report:

• any abuse or neglect of a client by a staff member 

• stealing money or property belonging to a client or the Department 

• claims for reimbursement of expenses which have not been incurred

• use of Departmental property or funds for improper or unauthorised purposes 

• evidence of staff members' private interests improperly influencing the awarding of contracts, consultancies, appointments, grants, funding, licences, etc 

• misuse of confidential information 

• fraudulent recording, alteration or destruction of official documents 

• discrimination, harassment or intimidation by a staff member against another staff member or a client. 

Division 2 - Fraud and related offences

192E Fraud

(1) A person who, by any deception, dishonestly:

(a) obtains property belonging to another, or

(b) obtains any financial advantage or causes any financial disadvantage,

is guilty of the offence of fraud.

Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 10 years.

Source:http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/docswr/_assets/main/documents/codeconductethics_pol.pdf

 

Jurassic Park Syndrome

What is Jurassic Park Syndrome (JPS) ?

Jurassic Park Syndrome is where the reader of a document, no matter how ridiculous it is, is completely overwhelmed by its contents and actually starts to believe it.  You have to remember that nothing is too ridiculous for the family courts, or the children's courts for that matter, and the fact that the authorities make the common mistake of being lazy and not reading fully all information supplied contributes substantially to JPS.

When the authorities only skim through the documents that they then rely upon to make their 'informed decisions' they often find themselves lost in what is written and not how it is written or what was not.  This completely derails their ability to investigate the matter at hand and come back with a reasonable judgement.

People actually believe that they are doing the right thing when they 'jump to a conclusion' based on what evidence they have read when in actual fact if they asked a few questions and maybe listened to the people concerned when they are trying to give simple explanations for particular statements they would find they would quite often come to an entirely different  answer.

Jurassic Park Syndrome (JPS) is a form of Munchausen-by-Proxy, in that these people are fabricating events and abusing children in the process in order to gain the attention off either their supervisor or the court system and to make out that they are actually saving the child, when in actual fact all they have done is abuse the child.  This is MBP, there is no denying it, and it is just a matter of time before it will be recognised within our systems and those perpetrating the crimes upon our children whilst they are suffering JPS will be held accountable.

What Legislation Do We Intend on Using ??

We intend on using almost one dozen different legislation / acts. Below are a few that we feel would have the most impact for class action causes and or entry to Australian Crime Commission help.  What we need to be able to utilise the legislations is more than one person claiming the same type of offence, and by different departments and different areas.  This can show mass conspiracies so to speak which would then be covered by the National Crime Act.

We also plan to use Crimes (Hostages) Act 1900 as this act allows for persons being held hostage (ie our children) until we agree to submit to persons to what they ask.  This is keeping a hostage, and by DOCs taking your children and not returning them until you have signed undertakings is not only hostage taking but blackmail.

When crimes total to over 3 years imprisonment which we can make an easy jump to, they are then also available to go to the National Crimes Act.

Accessing and Amending Your DOCs File

foi3Members of the public can seek access to departmental records via an FOI request. Requests must be in writing along with a $30 application fee ($15 concession rate).

Applications to amend or notate DoCS records, for which there is no fee, can also be made to the FOI Unit.

Click here for the PDF Format Request for Information or Click here for the Word Format Request for Information

 

Contact details:

Freedom of Information Unit
NSW Department of Community Services
Locked Bag 4028
Ashfield NSW 2131

Phone: (02) 9716 2662

Applications can be mailed to the above address or lodged at any DoCS community services centre.

Source : http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/docswr/_assets/annual_report/documents/build_capacity.pdf

How Can We Fix the Child Protection System ?

Fixing the system is quite simple.  And it doesn't involve another enquiry or another research expedition wasting another few hundred million dollars.  And it certainly doesn't need more statistics.  This is where the government seems to keep getting stuck.  Publishing a document and paying somebody to research it doesn't fix it.  The legislation is quite fine so long as it is being applied equally and with natural justice.  And for those who don't abide by it, well they must get their natural justice also. 

For each and every complaint listed, there is an offence applicable for that person.  Now just as Parking Fines are administered via the SETONS system (self enforcing ticketable offence notice systems - for those of you not in Queensland), ie the car has been parked in the designated area too long therefore the officer writes up a ticket, well there should be fines and automatic sacking for those whom breach their codes of conduct, provide false and misleading information in court affidavits, omit relevant information showing clear bias to a particular party (usually the parents) etc.

Read How "NSW State Plans" Clearly Show Evidence of Preimptive Child Trafficking Expansion Plans

Improvements to the child protection system

  • In 2007–08, 644 applicants accepted an offer of appointment to a caseworker position, leaving approximately 55 caseworkers to be recruited, to achieve a net increase of 1025 as approved under the 2002 $1.2 billion reform package. 
  • Funding for OOHC for children and young people who cannot safely live at home, has been increased. $617m has been committed over five years to develop the OOHC system. Contract negotiations and funding roll-out have commenced.
  • Expanding the Brighter Futures program to prevent the emergence and/or escalation of child protection issues. The Brighter Futures program provides tailored support for vulnerable families with young children (under 9 years). There are currently 62 DoCS Early Intervention Teams in operation.  (Ref P45+46)

Summarising these figures we can easily assume the following:

They have employed 1000 caseworkers and spending another $600+m to traffick more helpless children, vs only 62 Early Intervention Teams working to stop the trafficking.  I wonder what the end result is going to be ???

Source : http://more.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/pdfs/stateplan/DPC11064%20State%20Plan%201105%20F.pdf

Still not convinced?  Read where your caseworkers hours are allocated to by viewing the pdf attached.  You will find they spend hours and hours and hours more time preparing for court proceedings then actually viewing your case and you and your children.   Now with these figures you cannot deny the underlying agenda here.

Review of the Ability of Children in Out-Of-Home Care to Donate their Organs for Transplantation

In 2007-2008 Annette Gallard, Deputy Director-General led a review of the ability of children in out-of-home care to donate their organs for transplantation.  The public would like to know what this review entailed and what the outcomes and reports are of such a review, because I can tell you, this worlding scares the absolute bejeezur's off me!  I was sent this appendix, attached. 

To people associated with DOCs the words "carving up family" and "harvesting them out" have an extremely true meaning with what DOCs actually do to the children of these poor families, but until we see the associated documents that go with the abovementioned statements, we've just been given another new and horrifying one. 

I's sure theres a perfectly good explanation on this article, so where is it!  :-)

Source : http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/docswr/_assets/annual_report/documents/appendices.pdf