fbpx

Is our children’s welfare important enough to be an election issue?

With only six weeks until the next state election it is about time for the public to determine what the NSW State Government should be focusing on getting right over the next three year term.

What we at Alecomm have found interesting in this, and past, elections is all the ho-ha about economic and lifestyle issues for the middle and upper class population but very little for those that suffer at the hands of the Human [non] “Services”.

Is it the case that just because children don’t get to vote their needs are ignored by the public? Alecomm would like to point out to readers how history tells us that the needs of those without a say in Government are ignored.

Whats more important, welfare or retribution?

Hello Australia, do you see the similarity between this and other children? - Click here to view the YouTube Video in Reference.

The problem is the response on facebook is focused on retribution towards the perpetrator, rather than the welfare, safety and development of the young boy.

Responses to child abuse should be focused on the welfare and development of the child. What was done for this child to ensure this wouldn't happen again? Autistic and developmentally delayed children that have "challenging behaviours" will always be at risk of harm until the behaviours are addressed. That is what 'challenging behaviours' is defined as. There are many people that cannot handle people of all ages with challenging behaviours including parents, carers, hospital staff (e.g. the recent death of a difficult patient in WA) and even police.

While it is important to highlight the situation it is even more important that focus remains on the victim's human rights and those rights include both the minimisation of future harm and maximization of welfare and development.

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])

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])

Rescission or variation of Children's Court orders: A study of Section 90 applications in NSW

Abstract: This article reports on a study of Children's Court files relating to completed applications for variation of care orders (section 90 applications) in three specialised Children's Courts in New South Wales. All files that could be located for completed applications were reviewed and nonidentifying data was recorded. The study attempted to examine the type of applications, the characteristics of applicants and the outcomes of the applications. One hundred and seventeen applications were reviewed: almost half of these were made by the then Department of Community Services (DoCS), and about the same proportion of applications were made by parents. After the section 90 applications were determined there was an increase in care orders allocating parental responsibility to the Minister for Community Services with 73% of the children placed under the care of the minister to age 18.

Source : http://researchbank.acu.edu.au/fea_pub/1096/

Rescission or variation of Children's Court orders: A study of Section 90's

Abstract: This article reports on a study of Children's Court files relating to completed applications for variation of care orders (section 90 applications) in three specialised Children's Courts in New South Wales. All files that could be located for completed applications were reviewed and nonidentifying data was recorded. The study attempted to examine the type of applications, the characteristics of applicants and the outcomes of the applications. One hundred and seventeen applications were reviewed: almost half of these were made by the then Department of Community Services (DoCS), and about the same proportion of applications were made by parents. After the section 90 applications were determined there was an increase in care orders allocating parental responsibility to the Minister for Community Services with 73% of the children placed under the care of the minister to age 18.

Source : http://researchbank.acu.edu.au/fea_pub/1096/

The adoption system is failing children and foster carers

You could have blinked and missed it but, according to the website of the Department of Family and Community Services and the Australian Institute for Family Studies, the past week has been National Child Protection Week. This year’s theme is “Protecting children is everyone’s business … All Australians are encouraged to play their part in protecting children”.

Nice idea, complete with a pretty picture of jumping children.  But for children in long-term foster care — the most abused and vulnerable of all children — we are not doing enough. It is a long-term crisis, almost wearyingly so.  No wonder people turn off.

This week, senator Zed Seselja launched a report by the organisation Adopt Change.

Intimidation, bullying and threats from rogue DHS child protection caseworkers

DHS Workers currently in court today have been using the peoples fundamental rights to freedom of speech and to associate with and impart ideas, in an effort to trash mothers whom have had their children removed unlawfully.  

Seven DHS Workers including Sally Twycross are currently sitting in court proceedings wasting thousands of hard earned tax payers money because they do not like the fact that they have been named and shamed on various websites across the internet.  There is nothing illegal about this, in fact, it's the mothers fundamental rights to take such actions considering the amount of abuse her now three year old son has suffered since being taken by DHS when he was just five months of age.

The dynamics of shame in interactions between child protective services and families falsely accused of child abuse

ABSTRACT: The concept of a shame-based family system in which parents shame their children was applied to the relationship between Child Protective Services (CPS) and families accused of child abuse. Twenty families who reported that they had been wrongly accused of child abuse completed a questionnaire. Content analysis of the questionnaires supported the hypothesis that the elements of a shame-based family system are present in the relationship between CPS and the families they investigate. The respondents indicated feelings of powerlessness, self- doubt, depression, and isolation, and perceived the CPS as omnipotent, abandoning them, quickly accusing them, and acting in emotionally harmful ways towards them.

Fact sheet: Troubling proposals in new child protection legislation

Have you heard about the Child Protection Legislation Amendment Bill?

The NSW Government has introduced proposed changes to the child protection system that the Premier himself labelled as “radical”. These changes were initially outlined in a discussion paper released in late 2012 and have caused concern among many stakeholders.

Read the Bill

What are the key changes in the Bill?

  • New agreements and court orders for early interventions that aim to improve parenting capacity in at-risk families, including before a child is born. [Sections 38A-38E]
  • Fixed timeframes to make a decision about whether children who have been removed from their family have a realistic chance of being restored. [Section 83]
  • A hierarchy of preferred ‘permanency’ options which considers adoption whenever a non-Aboriginal child cannot be in the care of a family member. [Section 10A and related sections]

Where have the rights of parents gone in this country?

Today it has become crystal clear how much influence the medical establishment has in Australia. The medical establishment showed it true reach into our society.  Where are the rights of the parents gone in this country, when parents are not allowed to medically treat their child in a way they see fit. A way that involves a plant, which has proven all over the world to work with their child’s conditions.

These parents have seen the improvements their little boy went through after he started using medicinal marijuana. Anyone can see the improvements Chase has shown over the last 6 months. There is no denying.

The death of a child by arrogance and ignorance ....

There are no statistics that will ever help you understand what it feels like to be a child abused by the child protection system. No one really watches out for these children they are all lost within a world ruled by narcissist, pedophiles and do-gooders. 
A child removed from a home of poverty [aka neglect], is thrown into a broken system where true abuse becomes a life they can not escape.  Even when the child is allowed visits from parents and family who can witness the physical marks of abuse - it is still ignored by arrogant workers who believe the parents are incompetent and their reports are retaliation.

Subcategories