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.
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.
Former lawyer Stella Struthridge has been a magistrate in the Victorian Courts for some three years now. Common sense tells us that no lawyer is trustworthy, hence they would make an even more dishonest judge, but common government continues to promote these people regardless.
Today in court, Struthridge reached an all new low, when for the second time, she dismissed an application for Personal Violence Intervention Order, after a DHS worker, Heather Podesta, of Albury / Wodonga DHS assaulted a client in front of multiple witnesses.
The second application by the victim has come with witnesses to the assault - yet Struthridge has refused to even hear the application before setting aside a verdict.
Former Intellectual Property Lawyer, come Children's Court Lawyer, Darrin Craig Cain, has recently handed down a decision whereby he has sentenced a three year old boy to a further fifteen years confinement with his abusers. The magistrate was presented with irrefutable evidence that he was and always had been safe in his mothers care, however turning a blind eye, even to photographic evidence and sided, yet again, with the Department of Human Services, whom he once represented in proceedings.
The magistrate could not substantiate any fact or allegation the department put forward, regarding concerns of the mothers ability to care for the child, but handed down an order giving the mother only quarterly access with her young son.
Six weeks after DoCS took baby "Doc" into "care", they're still breaking every law possible and getting away with it. Isn't it wonderful to have a judge in your pocket.
Magistrate Carney seems only too happy to adjourn this newborns life another three months and into the new year to allow DoCS to entertain the court some more with their shenanigans.
Magistrate Carney may have transpired from the Roads and Traffic Committee, but one would think that before she be allowed to make decisions regarding the life of children, imparticular newborns, that she be knowledgeable on time limits imposed in matters relating to Children's Courts.
Whether she knows or just doesn't care is irrelevant, because the damage being done to newborn children, whom she happily boasts about "taking three babies per week", is not only unforgivable, it is unlawful.
Magistrate Jarret from the Brisbane Federal Magistrate Courts, has hit our headlines again with yet another matter, where he is refusing to produce the Reasons for Judgement - in a case where he was severely biased toward a mother and young boy. It appeared that the Magistrate worked with the father and the Independent Children's Lawyer to remove the child from his mother, after repeatedly refusing to hear the boys evidence on what his wishes were. This is contrary to all legislation and the fundamental rights of the child.
By Magistrate Jarret refusing to produce the Reasons for Judgement, he is covering his own butt from being dragged across the coals for such an atrocious decision and placement on the boy, but he is also preventing the mother and boy from appealing his decision in a higher court. To appeal the decision the appellants need the Reasons for Removal.
This is not only biased but a clear denial of the mother and child's fundamental human rights and this is the perfect example why Judicial Immunity should never be allowed in our court system.
Written by Michaela Whitbourn Legal Affairs and Investigations Reporter with Matthew Knott and Nicole Hasham - SMH NSW
The NSW ICAC has lost its bid to investigate Crown prosecutor Margaret Cunneen which may have implications for past corruption inquiries like those involving Eddie Obeid, reports Michaela Whitbourn.
A landmark High Court ruling on the powers of the NSW Independent Commission Against Corruption has "destroyed" a major part of the watchdog's jurisdiction and could lead to corruption findings against previous targets of inquiries being overturned, a former judge and ICAC commissioner has warned.
David Ipp, QC, who presided over historic corruption inquiries into Labor figures including Eddie Obeid and Ian Macdonald, said Parliament should intervene to give the commission back its powers "but whether it will is open to question".
The High Court ruled on Wednesday the ICAC had no power to investigate Crown prosecutor Margaret Cunneen, SC, over allegations she perverted the course of justice. The decision, which gave a narrow interpretation to one of the definitions of "corrupt conduct" in the ICAC Act, has far-reaching implications for past and future corruption inquiries.
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.
Brian Wightman, a gentleman, with his whole life in front of him, is now in the HOT SEAT due to incidents in the Court of Petty Sessions at Devonport on Friday the 9th of December, 2011 when Constable Steven Andrew Jones tried to prosecute Mark Elvin Sharman for "Assaulting Stephen Craig Karpeles a Public Officer in the execution of his duty by hitting him in the chest and shoulder area with his chest", under section 34B of the Police Offences Act 1935 that carries "a penalty not exceeding 25 penalty units or (-) imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months" ... something which Mr Elvin strongly denies.
.. So if we start petitioning a decent councillor to put forward the motion on a couple of crappy judges with some good hard evidence, and there is a lot of it floating around, we may just be able to get the Parliamentarians to "pray" for such removal. What I am wondering though is why in bloody hell do they have to "pray" and not just stand up and say "I" or something. Can you imagine the whole of parliament really sitting there praying, i mean seriously. And what about the islamic parliamentarians, will we have to provide blankets so they can get down on their hands and knees to do it also?
If you are lucky enough, and female, to get Judge Jarret - don't bother going to court! Just run. Pack up the family at the first sign of issues or court paperwork, and get the hell out of there.
This magistrate a few years ago sent a beautiful young girl to live with her father - after she disclosed to her mother what her daddy had been doing --- dont think this is a case of mother punishing father by lying - the mother and father had already split and the mother already gave the father liberal contact.
After taking the matter to the police and reporting it, the young girl - was taken to Bravehearts for counselling - in which she did disclose and is now documented, her sexual abuse by her father. The young girl was said to be doing well. She had not seen her father in over twelve months, the nightmares were stopping, though the police still hadn't investigated the matter enough to file charges.
Written by Alecomm. Case Ref - Trigg : 25-11-14 File : 21432611 NT
Alice Springs Magistrate (Daynor) Trigg recently told applicants to an appeal in civil court that the laws handed down by parliament do not apply to him. The legislation pertaining to the matter was brought to his attention during the proceedings by the applicant.
Then he gave an Order which did not contain any reasons for judgement or decision - not surprising though given his lack of purporting to enforce the laws which he took oath to uphold. How could he anyway, given his blatant disregard for them ... Replies to requests for Reasons for Order were "There are no written reasons provided which is not unusual in the Magistrates Jurisdiction. Reasons were stated by the Magistrate orally (this is standard practice)." However a search on judgements by Trigg showed every case had Reasons for Judgement provided. View
" The Children’s Court must admit in proceedings before it any evidence" : This is part of the Child and Young Persons (Care and Protection) act 1988, and some very well known magistrates find this part of the legislation irrelevant when hearing cases. To explain further ... We all know that DoCS don't believe that anybody except them should have a say in what happens to children they steal, but funny enough legislation says we should. I find it quite interesting though how many clients Alecomm has that are continually denied having their affidavits read into evidence because certain magistrates rule them out on technicalities.
A lot of these cases are now sitting in district and supreme court where it is more than obvious to the most stupid docs worker that the children should have been restored immediately to the parents / carers / grandparents from whom they were stolen some 1-2 years earlier, however the actions of the magistrates have prevented this and, of course, cost us tax payers millions upon millions of dollars.
Not only that, once the children's cases are finalised, as many of the children have been abused in care, of which docs have conveniently covered up and failed to notify any parties of, including children's clinicians, court clinicians, and the Ombudsman and Police, they are well and truly open from some massive forthcoming lawsuits - and rightfully so. Smart magistrates would prevent this type of abuse occurring so frequently as they are responsible for the ongoing matters - not the solicitors. After all they are supposed to know the law aren't they.
Recentley a Final Judgement was handed down in the Family Law Court of Australia Magistrate Cohen to remove two children from their Aboriginal mother and placing with their non Aboriginal father. The following statements were made in his reasoning for the removal of the two children from the Aboriginal mother and placing with the non Aboriginal father:
It stated the following " As i have said, B.... is emotionally and intellectually immature for his age. H..... is probably unexceptional in these respects. The boy's are Aboriginal for the purposes of the Family Law Act because they come within the definition of that word in it.. They are decendents for the Aboriginal people of Australia.
But they are also decendants of the white settlers, and are to a great degree of that heritage. However, their identity has been developed by the maternal side of the family, where the mother, her father and J..... (their brother) are also decendents of Aboriginal People, Although the mothers mother is not.
The boy's regard themselves as being Black. To undermine their identity could well cause them emotional harm. Nevertheless, denial of the reality that they are also european or Anglo celtic background, especially since their apperance conforms to the steryotype for such a background,could also cause them emotional problems in the long term. They should in my opinion, be strongly encouraged to embrace both strands of their make up and be proud of them and who they are. To do that they must be exposed to both cultures and to people who share one or other with them.
If the Family Law system via the Federal Magistrates Court can apply extensive understanding, compassion and opportunities for natural justice and appeal to its employees (e.g. Magistrate Joe Harman) – why can’t its clients be given the same allowances?
Justice for Children is particularly concerned about the belittling, bullying and plain inhumane treatment parents (mothers, mainly) and children often experience in the Family Court system.
Mothers who try to protect their children are labelled ‘mad’, ‘delusional’, ‘too clever’, over-anxious, depressed too loud, too emotional, too calm and variations on all these - and worse - insults.
All of this opinion may be generated by a court-appointed ‘expert’ who has spent, perhaps, one hour with the mother in question.
Or it may be home-grown bias from the judge’s personal store.
There is absolutely no accountability in Family Law – judges who are suffering from dementia and other ailments continue to wreak havoc on children and even if there’s nothing clinically wrong with them, their inability to listen or understand and their ingrained prejudices make them a danger to justice.