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! :-)
We're constantly amazed at how many people easily state that all the organisations, not just DOCs, is understaffed and massively overloaded, and that that's the reason for so many deaths and incidents etc, and can quite honestly say, that from an end-user point of view, that this is a total load of crap. 90% of the problem is lazy-arsed power tripping staff who answer to nobody, and when issues do arise, they're quickly covered up and backed up by the next superior officer in charge.
There is no accountability process for the end user to follow, though they do exist. If you have a law degree and can read and perceive all available legislation, then maybe you have a chance to have your grievance heard, which in turn could result in a positive change for the system, however without such experience your complaints will fall on deaf and lazy ears.
Many organisations used to employ the services of a 'Mystery Shopper' ... and one would have thought this would have overflowed into the public sector, however it did not. Wouldn't it have been great to see some of the customer service officers whose mightier than thou' attitude in Centrelink, for example, get a good kick up the arse for allowing over 20 people flowing into the centre to have to wait some hour and a half to be served just because they're on the dole and don't deserve the same respect and service as an employed person ??
Now we don't exactly need a mystery shopper for DOCs and other children's services organisations, but we do need some sort of recourse to ensure that constantly failing officers with whom hold such power over the lives of others ARE kept in line with promise of consequences if they should abuse that power. There seems to be far too many complaints of a similar nature regarding children's services for them to all be a myth and the imagination of some bad parents whom don't deserve to have their kids anyway.
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.
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.
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:
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
(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.
A landmark DoCS case has DoCS NSW holding it's head in shame, and officially apologising to a mother who had all her children stolen by them illegally just a few years ago. DoCS are also issuing a formal apology and the magistrate has ordered the matter be sent to the Administrative Tribunal for punitive damages.
The mother was a former ward of the state who also suffered horrific abuse at the hands of her abusers.
As this case now proves that DoCS yet again use any excuse to steal children, we no doubt will see the DoCS barrister running for a gag order to supress the matter in the best interest of DoCS - not the children or family who are overwhelmed with joy.
It will be an illegal move on the part of DoCS and we're hoping that this time the magistrates will not illegally issue this order because no names have been disclosed, nor the identities of the children or family. Laws allow for gag orders only for these reasons, or matters of national security, not to protect the corrupt lawyers, barristers or DoCS workers from the shameful knowledge the public gets to hear about them.
The magistrate also tore the DoCS barrister a new one for committing perjury in court, and the public now want to see the barrister charged as he bloody well should be. This would set an example for other unscrupulous DoCS lawyers who continually lie and mislead the courts on behalf of their clients, and whom have caused the removal of thousands of other children from innocent parents.
Have you ever seen the official Risk of Harm Report that the authorities use to file reports about you and your children? As far as reporters are known they're anonymity is safe, however it is only protected as far as what they are reporting is not false. Once they make a false or misleading disclosure they are no longer protected by such acts and are liable for prosecution. Any documents you have that can prove this type of offence, make sure you register on our Report DOCs Breach.
Would you know what to do if this happened to you?
1) TAKE THE ACCUSATION SERIOUSLY.
Parents are routinely accused of ridiculous things: trying to sell their children to relatives for drug money; molesting a child in the living room during a family party; beating a child with a baseball bat – without leaving bruises. Yes, those were real calls to CPS – all taken as true by investigators. I don’ t care how absurd or unbelievable the caseworker sounds. Understand that SHE is serious, and likely presumes – no, likely “KNOWS” that you are guilty as accused. Even if she doesn’ t flat out say that she’ s there to take the children, she is quite possibly intent on doing just that.
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 over three years imprisonment, which be proven quite easilyo, they are then also available to go to the National Crimes Act.
*** 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.
The Director-General or a party to proceedings in which an order accepting an undertaking was made may notify the Children’s Court of an alleged breach of an undertaking.
The Children’s Court, on being notified of an alleged breach of an undertaking:
(a) must give the parties an opportunity to be heard concerning the allegation, and
(b) is to determine whether the undertaking has been breached, and
(c) if it finds that the undertaking has been breached, make such orders as it considers appropriate in all the circumstances.
An application for further orders under this section is not a variation application under section 90 (Rescission and variation of care orders) and the Children’s Court may make any orders that it could have made when the order for undertakings was made. (Source : http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fullhtml/inforce/act+157+1998+FIRST+0+N#ch.5-pt.2-sec.61a)
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 similar to 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.
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.