What factors might be at play that could influence judicial power? If you're heading into divorce, arm yourself with this knowledge.
Impartiality under the law portrays this idea to most people that they can expect their rights to be afforded equally and fairly before a tribunal within our judicial system—or at least take solace that upon having representation, usually in the form of an attorney, allows for a guarantor to safeguard this notion.
These ideas are the underpinnings of those civil rights and liberties we have come to cherish that are found within the confines of the United States Constitution—but often absent for many parents forced to contend with the many competing interests playing out in family law environments.
The Child Protection Reform Amendment Bill 2017 (the Bill) which was initially introduced into the Queensland House of Assembly on 9 August 2017, by the Hon Shannon Fentiman MP (Member for Waterford), has now received Assent [enacted as the Child Protection Reform Amendment Act 2017, Act No 44 of 2017] with the Act commencing on 10 November 2017.
According to the Bill’s Summary, the objectives will be to:
promote positive long-term outcomes for children in the child protection system through timely decision making and decisive action towards either reunification with family or alternative long-term care;
promote the safe care and connection of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children with their families, communities and cultures;
provide a contemporary information sharing regime for the child protection and family support system, which is focused on children’s safety and well-being; and
support the implementation of other key reforms under the Supporting Families Changing Futures program (the reform program) and address identified legislative issues.
(1) A person (the first person) commits an aggravated offence of domestic trafficking in persons if the first person commits the offence of domestic trafficking in persons in relation to another person (the victim) and any of the following applies:
(a) the first person commits the offence intending that the victim will be exploited, either by the first person or by another, after arrival at the place to which the person has been transported;
(b) the first person, in committing the offence, subjects the victim to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment;
Ms. Barry's suit names attorneys and judges but also appears to be the first real effort to describe to federal courts what is going on in family law cases.
Counties charged with dividing community property and protecting children have been doing anything but. Ms. Barry's suit gives a glimpse into what people are being exposed to as due process is checked at the door when divorce and probate matters are at hand.
Ms, Barry's claims of historic failures to protect the public are not fictional. For the past three decades family court victims have failed to understand how they enter courts of equity and end up losing their children, their property, and their retirement. Parents describe horrific tales of courts using law enforcement to force their children into reunification programs with abusers. Business owners describe incompetent lawyers , CPAs and receivers mismanaging business valuation processes and taking all the money in doing so.
Written by Judge Peter Johnstone - NSW Children’s Court
Children’s Court of New South Wales Community Services Division Legal Conference Darling Harbour:
1. This paper has been prepared for the 2013 Department of Family and Community Services (FaCS) Legal Services Care and Protection Conference on Thursday 1 August 2013. 2. Attendees at the conference will include both public and private legal practitioners representing FaCS in care proceedings in the Children's Court of New South Wales. 3. The paper is presented in four parts: the first part will address model litigant requirements, the code of conduct obligations, and case management in care proceedings. The second part will deal with alternative dispute resolution. The third part will deal with the Children's Court Clinic, and the fourth part will address the way forward for care proceedings. I have added an Appendix dealing with some recent cases of importance.
Judge’s decision to have baby Gammy’s twin Pipah raised by sex offender father ‘appalling’.
Bravehearts founder Hetty Johnston has slammed a judge’s decision to let baby Pipah be raised by a convicted child sex offender.
A JUDGE’S order to have a baby girl raised by a convicted sex offender has been slammed by Australia’s leading child protection campaigner.
In a shocking decision handed down in the Family Court of Western Australia yesterday, Justice Stephen Thackray ordered the twin sister of baby Gammy, the child at the centre of an international surrogacy dispute after being left in Thailand, remain with her sex offender father.
David Farnell, the biological father of the pair, has 22 prior convictions for child sexual abuse.
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.
Most Americans believe that we have a reasonably fair justice system with scholarly judges at the helm. Well, how about a federal judge who suspends the Constitution, confiscates all of a litigant’s assets, orders him not to hire defense counsel, and pronounces his orders enforceable by death?
That’s exactly what federal Judge Royal Furgeson did to Internet pioneer Jeff Baron, in a case that, New York lawyer David Relkin says is “the most outrageous denial of a person’s basic constitutional and human rights in this Country since the abolition of slavery.”
This Stylised "Armorial Bearings of the Commonwealth of Australia" above has absolutely NO authority.
This is a FARCE to have this used of Acts as the proper " Armorial Bearings of the Commonwealth of Australia is used for PUBLIC FUNCTIONARIES Not Law People under this Seal are Personating something there NOT which is a Criminal offence PARLIAMENT of AUSTRALIA AND AUSTRALIA GOVERNMENT ARE FOREIGN TO OUR CONSTITUTION BELOW.
At 10 am this Friday morning 5 October 2012, in Melbourne, a prominent Australian journalist, lawyer and political activist, Mr James Johnson will be sentenced on two charges of “professional misconduct” and faces being banned from practising law for at least 5 years (possibly for life) as payback for blowing the whistle on widespread corruption and misconduct in Australia’s legal system.
Earlier this month, the Victorian government (in its Victorian Civil Administrative Tribunal) ruled that despite a distinguished two decade career amongst the elite of the legal profession, Mr Johnson’s crime? Making comprehensive whistleblower complaints about corruption and misconduct by a number of Australian barristers, solicitors and judges – complaints that, despite their seriousness and the weight of evidence behind them, the relevant government authorities have not and will not investigate to determine whether they are true or not.
The lord chief justice has sounded an alarm at the presence of ‘far too many’ litigants in person across the justice system. Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, speaking today at his annual press conference, said numbers of unrepresented litigants have continued to grow.
He cited the family courts as the area where the problem is greatest, although he stopped short of calling for the reintroduction of legal aid to support cases involving disputes over children.
Senator Culleton has been sent to the High Court regarding the eligibility of his election to the Senate.
He has decided to make the most out of this turn of events and has put forward some serious questions in his submission to the High Court.
"A correction to the system is coming and if the Senate want to question my eligibility, I will use the opportunity of appearing in the High Court to in turn put forward questions regarding the validity of the Parliament and High Court," he said.
"The judiciary expects everyday people to follow the laws but they must first set an example and do the right thing when they are in positions of leadership."
"People are committing suicide and losing their hard earned property due to our courts. Australians are hurting and it simply is not good enough."
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 No 157 - S51 Duty of Secretary to give information to certain persons
(1) If a child or young person is in the care responsibility of the Secretary under this Part or a warrant issued under section 233, the Secretary:
(a) must, as soon as practicable, cause notice of the fact that the child or young person is in the care responsibility of the Secretary, and the fact that an application may be made to the Secretary for the discharge of the child or young person from the care responsibility of the Secretary and the procedures for making such an application, to be given to:
(i) in the case of a child who is of or above the age of 10 years or a young person—the child or young person, and
Over a month ago now, three children were removed from their loving mummy and daddy's care because an unregistered docs worker signed a piece of paper say the children were at Risk of Serious Harm. Removing children without prior court proceedings and not giving parents to defend the hearsay of caseworkers is one of the most traumatic experiences a child can have. Children who have been removed from their mothers at birth, are still known to suffer major anxiety and fears well into the child's seventh year, and after the child was returned - meaning they should not have been removed at all.
Children are seen suffering injuries in care because supervision is less than adequate, and crying on phone calls to parents and begging to come home is something no child should suffer at all - unless there are extremely serious reasons to do so. Unfortunately child protection rules the roost these days, and the words accountability and transparency have long been lost to a government who spends more money covering it's ass than actually doing the right thing by its people.
So what does happen when children have been removed on Emergency Care and Protection Orders?
Well, the legal requirements firstly are that the department (child protection) must bring the matter to the attention of the courts within three working days. [i] However if you’re a department lawyer or Rob Hosking from Hosking Lawyers in Goulburn[ii], those rules don’t apply to you.
John Paul Meehan, Campbelltown (solicitor currently representing the NSW Department of Community Services in Care Proceedings), is now threatening clients that he is "applying to the court to have costs awarded against" parents of children - whom he participated in the removal of.
So now, when parents ultimately fight to the end to have their children restored - imparticular in cases where the magistrates including former President of the Children's Court (Judge Mark Marien), has continually ordered the return of the children - he (John Meehan) will threaten that "if you do not with draw your case of trying to have your stolen children returned", he will suck up to the magistrate and have them order court costs against you - even if you are in receipt of Legal Aid funding. He also tells parents that the money they owe "will be deducted from their Centrelink payments".
Sydney Magistrate Terrence Murphy has recently handed down a decision in the Supreme Court of NSW, where he has dispicabbly blamed a mother for her daughter being sexually assaulted. He has used this as an excuse to side with the Department of Community Services Campbelltown Office in stating that the newborn baby of this mother belongs in care - because the mother failed to protect her other child.
It is routinely common these days for DoCS caseworkers to blame mothers for being victims of domestic violence and use this as the reason for removing their children. Little do they know that some of these children are turning suicidal because they have been taken away from the only family that they have ever known, and the mother who has loved and protected them their whole lives.
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.
There is no such thing as CONsent Orders. You cannot possibly say anybody voluntarily signs these orders when the department has their children and will not return them until the orders are signed. These are not Consent Orders. This is 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.
We also plan on using the Director General as DOCs legislation and code of conduct and ethics documentation available also shows that any crime committed against these acts MUST be reported to the director general. And as such the director general also has an obligation to report fraud and misconduct to the Attorney General and the Australian Crimes Commission.
We will use the evidence we have to submit to lower level figures about their staff and they are then obligated to submit the complaint (by legislation) to the director general. If they do not do this, they are then setting themselves up for charges also. We will know if this is done because not only will we be submitting this information / complaints this way, but we will also be submitting directly to the director general also, who ALSO is under obligation to send to the Australian Crime Commsision and the Independant Commission Against Corruption.
So, you say ... What do you need to do now ??
You need to gather all your documents and evidence and start splitting hairs and complaints down to division / person and complaint type using the register we are currently creating. You also need to contact me for other complaint types that we are not aware of so that we can include this also.
This may take some time but time is all we have and the more the better.