Were your children removed on an Emergency Order?

In NSW the law regarding the removal of children without a warrant and prior to court proceedings has different legal time-frames and requirements in as far as what type of orders can be made and what kind of extension the courts are permitted to grant.

First of all the department has to bring the matter to the court within three days.  Secondly the Emergency Care and Protection Order is valid for only 14 days, of which it may be extended for another fourteen.  At the end of this time the magistrate has to make a decision as to whether the children were in need of care and protection, and this is a final order.  He is not permitted to extend the order, he is not permitted to grant adjournments so that caseworkers can start piling up the paperwork they do that usually confuses the judge and takes his attention from the matters first at hand.

The law says this : If an ECPO is made, it will have a life not exceeding 14 days and may be renewed for a similar or lesser term on one occasion only: s 46(3). A child who is subject to an ECPO is usually placed in the “care responsibility” of the Director-General, but another person may be allocated care responsibility. Unlike an interim care order, an ECPO and an extension of an ECPO are “final” orders. Once it is made, the proceedings are at an end and there can be no question of a further court date. Having made the ECPO, the magistrate is “functus officio”. There is no power to make contact or other orders.  

For further information see : https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/local/care_and_protection_jurisdiction.html#d5e25825

An incomplete list of reasons given by the child protection services (CPS) of the Nordic countries for depriving children of their parents

The list below was initiated on the 14 March 2012 and new points are added as time allows.

The list contains arguments all of which have been used by the Nordic child protection service (CPS) and/or allied professions and people in actual cases, such as in case reports and in court when the CPS argues for the necessity of taking children away from their parents and placing them in foster homes or institutions. They bring up the same kind of arguments to prevent foster children being allowed to return home in cases in which both parents and children say clearly that they want to be reunited. A couple of standard arguments are then added: The foster child 'has now developed attachment to its foster parents' (even when the child says no) and 'the child must have routines and stability and not be moved' (even when the CPS has moved the foster child many times).

DoCS cruel tactics sending parents over the edge

With so much hoohaa over domestic violence at present, we thought it wise to show the link between it and removal of children from mothers.

Six years ago a beautiful young mother had her four children removed - after she left their violent father and seeked assistance from a state funded women's domestic violence shelter.  The reason for the removal of the children, according to court documents submitted by the caseworker, was that the mother breached parenting orders, forcing her to remove the children.

So what was it in this breach, that was so bad that the children including a young baby, had to be so harshly intervened with and separated for life? 

The mother had been beaten up by another woman at the refuge and after not being provided any assistance, left, as any mother would who was trying to protect her children from violence.

Ludicrous reasons why good and fit mothers have lost custody

Iif you have a guardian ad litem (GAL) or child custody evaluator assigned or appointed to your case that is unscrupulous, ill-trained, incompetent or biased either toward a father or a form of custody, there is virtually no way for a mother to truly "prepare" for a child custody evaluator. If you have been unfortunate enough to have this type of evaluator, be very prepared to find other documentation, evidence, witnesses, and experts with superior credentials to refute the report and offer alternate views to the court. You can not let these sorts of evaluations stand. Here are some of the more ludicrous documented reasons given by evaluators or judges in numerous cases where good and fit mothers lost custody:

  • Breastfeeding--the mothers either wanted to and it was determined an alienating behavior, or they did not choose to breastfeed and it was termed child neglect or indifference
  • Children got head lice during a period of mother's care.
  • Too many people (all relatives) living in one home (i.e. mom had to return home to family to gain economic and emotional support)
  • Father remarried and married family deemed superior to single motherhood
  • Father's job and education deemed superior--sometimes even though mom sacrificed her goals and dreams so father could obtain same.
  • Not desiring 50/50 custody or other joint custodial arrangements
  • Not desiring to give up the marital home
  • Leaving the marital home while fleeing from abuse, especially if she left the children behind.
  • Going to church
  • Going to church too often
  • Not going to church

"I'm being blackmailed by child protection caseworkers, can I report this "Corruption" to ICAC?"

When to report ?

According to ICAC, "Corrupt conduct is deliberate or intentional wrongdoing, not negligence or a mistake.

While it can take many forms, corrupt conduct occurs when:

  • a public official uses, or tries to use, the knowledge, power or resources of their position for personal gain or the advantage of others

  • a public official acts dishonestly or unfairly, or breaches public trust

  • a member of the public influences, or tries to influence, a public official to use his or her position in a way that is dishonest, biased or breaches public trust."*

What about blackmail ?

"STOP the DOCS Friday afternoon swoop and scoops. STOP Goward's new laws. Support and opportunity for families NOT child removal.

The removal of Aboriginal children from families across NSW and Australia is at crisis point. A higher number of Aboriginal children are currently in "out of home care" than were removed from their families at any time in the twentieth century.

The Bringing them Home report in 1997 argued that the paternalism and discrimination of the Stolen Generations era remained alive in many of the practices of child protection agencies. It showed that the majority of children were being removed for "neglect", a consequence of the social inequality suffered by Aboriginal people.

Bringing them Home's recommendations for reform were ignored and the number of Aboriginal children in "out of home care" has increased more than five times since 1997. In NSW, approximately one in ten Aboriginal children is currently in care. The pain in communities is immense and many are taking about "a new stolen generation".

New amendments to Child Protection legislation have been introduced by Community Services Minister Pru Goward and are currently before the NSW Parliament. These laws will make it even harder for families who have lost children to DOCS removals to be reunited. Adoption will become possible once a child has been in care for just six months if they are under two year old, or twelve months if older than two. "Guardianship" orders are also being introduced which would similarly strip families of rights to reunification.

"Examples of how rules of evidence have been discarded in the family and children's courts when granting care orders."

  1. Statements from the local authority are shown to the judge but rarely to parents.  Family and friends of parents are routinely excluded from the court but groups of social workers are allowed to stay in the court to listen to their colleague's testimony whether they are witnesses or not.
  2. Parents representing themselves are denied the opportunity to cross examine witnesses appearing against them.  Judgements, reports from experts, and position statements are either withheld or given to parents at the last minute (too late to read and analyse them properly).

NSW Child Protection's new nazi-style tactics deny parents any chance of restoration of their children from the flourishing Foster-Care-Prisons

In recent months, Pru Goward, Minister for Community Service NSW, made announcements that people with vacant rooms in public housing, should move out to smaller units/homes or pay more for their accommodation.  Biggest area's with "vacant" bedrooms were Liverpool and Campbelltown areas in NSW.

What has not been considered, also, is that there are many parents out there, unfairly fighting her Child Protection Caseworkers, where their children have been unlawfully removed by rogue caseworkers who are accountable to nobody, and hence, we have "vacant" rooms.

Many cases are being dragged out for years, because the department has an unlimited war chest when it comes to litigating to take children, and there are no prerequisites for departmental personnel to gain legal representation, as there is with children and parents.

"Is the system so stacked against parents, that even the innocent ones do not stand a chance of having their children returned ?"

Too many fingers in the pie eb2caIs it Collusion?  Or is it actually "Bad Parenting" ? Which is what Ms Pru Goward, NSW Minister for Community Services continues to tell the media each time she is interviewed.  Well let's look at the stats obtained over the past four years, anonymously, and without bias or assistance, for the purpose of just that.

Multitudes of parents tell the same story, time and time again.  And a quick view of the Preliminary DoCS Complaints Registers seem to back this up - with over five hundred complaints now listed against Child Protection workers in almost every state in Australia.  Most parents also believe that the Independent Children's Lawyer colludes with child protection also - as does the Court Reporter's who get up to and over fifteen thousand dollars for writing reports that suit the agenda of the department. 

Australian children's courts magistrates using tactics similar to bull fighting when dealing with cases

A devastating, cruel and callous decision by Magistrate Cain (a former intellectual property lawyer), was handed down in less than an hour after all persons involved in the childrens matter had finished giving evidence.  The mother declined to be cross-examined by Victoria's Department of Human Services legal personnel, after successfully cross-examining and proving multiple lies and misinformation by the department, which was used to remove her five month old boy.