Main Menu

Quick thoughts

What do you think is the biggest issue with Child Protection

The voting for this poll has ended

Validate Your Visit


Dont forget to view the complaints registers and enter your own anonymous complaints about DoCS Workers / Lawyers / Court Experts

Available Downloads by Category

mod_vvisit_countermod_vvisit_countermod_vvisit_countermod_vvisit_countermod_vvisit_countermod_vvisit_counter
mod_vvisit_counterToday7481
mod_vvisit_counterYesterday13528
mod_vvisit_counterThis week108571
mod_vvisit_counterLast week110330
mod_vvisit_counterThis month218901
mod_vvisit_counterLast month0
mod_vvisit_counterAll days218901

We have: 88 guests online
Your IP: : 54.90.188.7
 , 
Today: July 25, 2014



Designed by:

Another young girl commits suicide after being removed by Katherine child protective services in the Northern Territory
Written by Anonymous Report   
Thursday, 17 July 2014 10:41

nohumanrightsLast month a young girl who committed suicide, she was in welfare care. The family want answers. I have some of them. She started self harming two years ago, at first it was a cry for attention. She wanted to be in Katherine with her mother, who was doing her best, her Mum had a stroke, and welfare got involved. Their answer to help was to place her in care, then instead of keeping her in Katherine to be near her mother, said no carer's in Katherine and sent her straight to Darwin. She was a beautiful girl with a heart of gold.

She loved her Mum and wanted to be near her, she lived for her visits. Her mother did NOTHING wrong, no attempt was made to help keep her with her Mum or close to her. She was moved from foster home to foster home. She self placed herself with me, and was happy. She wanted to be normal, to be like every other teen, the truth is, when in care, these teens cannot have sleepovers with friends, go to special events like birthday parties, in short, they are NOT treated as children, they are numbers. They then start to run. They seek out what they want, normalacy, to be in a family.

 
Premier Jay Weatherill to order Royal Commission into child abuse following horrific new case at government-run care facility
Written by Lauren Novak & Sheradyn Holderhead - The Advertiser SA   
Tuesday, 22 July 2014 16:29

Picture Campbell Brodie.  Child Development Minister Jennifer Rankine and Premier Jay Weatherill foreshadow a new R

PREMIER Jay Weatherill says the State Government will order a Royal Commission into the alleged sexual abuse of children at a government-run residential care facility, and a review of child protection protocols would likely prompt “radical changes”.

Mr Weatherill described the latest case of alleged abuse as “unspeakable acts of evil committed against little children”.

He warned the public to prepare “to learn of horrific details as these matters progress through the courts”.

“I don’t think it could be more disgusting and so thinking about it is difficult,” he said.

“As a father and leader of the state I’m horrified, I’m sickened, I’m angry but most of all I’m determined to see that justice is done for these little children.”

Mr Weatherill said every child protection policy and protocol would be up for review following the revelations.

“Nothing can be assumed about the way in which we care for little children,” he said.

“We need to potentially consider some quite radical ideas.”

Child Development Minister Jennifer Rankine and Premier Jay Weatherill foreshadow a new Royal Commission following revelations of more horrific cases of child sexual abuse involving Families SA.

It will be the third major inquiry into child abuse in SA in the past decade — the three-year Mullighan inquiry was established in 2004 to examine the abuse of children in state care, while the Debelle inquiry in 2012-13 examined the mishandling of a sex abuse case at a western suburbs school.

 
Protective parents revolt against family law injustices
Written by Cassandra Loche   
Tuesday, 01 July 2014 19:59

On June 27, 2014, protective parents drew a line in the sand and said “no” to the court-sponsored human sex trafficking of nine year old Lexi Dillon. Parents from four counties stood firm inside and outside Judge Glenn Salter’s Courtroom where they were prepared to battle a secret judicial lynching of Lexi’s protective parent Ruby Dillon.

Custody had previously been awarded to an alleged child molester who is not allowed in the United States, reportedly for national security reasons. The alleged child molester Matathep Srikureja is not an American citizen but rather a Pakistani whose only citizenship is in Thailand. He reportedly has a history of meeting with Jihadist groups in secret, and it is suspected that this and Lexi’s credible claims that he molested her are the reasons the U.S. Government will not allow Srikureja in the country.

While government officials have an apparent concern about the safety of the public, they appear to have no concern at all for the safety of an American child who says Srikureja repeatedly molested and took lots of naked pictures of her.

 
Jeremy Sammut, the Centre for Independent Studies and the use of tainted data in the creation of reports into child protection
Wednesday, 04 June 2014 22:22

spectator 04eaf"The orthodox theory and practice in these bureaucracies is that the best way to keep vulnerable children safe is to construct a vast social service system to assist dysfunctional parents keep and regain custody of children. The social workers, psychologists and drug counsellors who deliver these services, whether they work for the government or for publicly-funded 'charitable' organisations, have little interest in traditional child protection work but have a vested interest in keeping children with their parents to justify the provision of support services at taxpayers' expense."

The above is a quote from Jeremy Sammut, who is a "research fellow" at the Centre for Independent Studies.  Unfortunately the centre is funded by big corporations, who ultimately decide on the outcomes they will be seeking, making the reports and studies moot and completely biased.

Jeremy Sammut, whilst having degrees in social work, obtains the majority of his data direct from child protection authorities - which is often more compromised than a priest in a church choir.  His well referenced information has not taken into account any compliance regulations of statutory child protection agencies, because if it did he would be coming out with some more realistic answers than what he currently reports.

Jeremy Sammut's research is used to tear families apart, which goes against tonnes of other documented research that proves that children are better off in dysfunctional homes - even slightly abuse - and do much better than a child who has been put into foster care.

Evidence is easily manipulated - even child protection NSW continue to state that "substantiated abuse" can be nothing more than risk of future emotional harm.  Then these apparent abuse substantiations are used to show how pressure the department is under - whilst at the same time Jeremy Sammut continues to purport that they work to keep children with their parents - which is outright rubbish.

 
Corruption Coverups in NSW Child Protection - Issue One: The Ombudsman and Ethical Fatigue
Written by Michael Hart   
Image3 4cb40 As some readers are probably aware we here at Alecomm, along with some others, put in abstracts for the latest national Anti-Corruption conference. See here: http://www.apsac.com.au/ We have recently heard back and unfortunately our abstracts were rejected. As far as we know the other abstracts about corruption in the Child Abuse Industry were also rejected.  Here at Alecomm we want to continue to expose the corruption by DoCS and other agencies involved in Child Abuse even if they fail to be recognised through official channels.
We acknowledge the public's right to know about the corruption and demand that Government address it.  We at Alecomm appear to be the only ones courageous enough to take this on for individuals. 
We note that the NSW Ombudsman has a great big banner over his head which claims "It's time to put the kids first" when he gets his photograph in the paper after the Telegraph reports the DoCS CEO (Annette Gallard) covering up reports of failures in that Department.  However does having your photograph in the paper give the public assurance that he actually investigates the CEO covering up their failures?
 
Children's Commissioner to mandate schools reporting of sexual misconduct of serious physical assault on a child
Tuesday, 03 June 2014 23:23

The Children's Commissioner has taken a good step in mandating that schools notify of sexual misconduct with a child and or serious physical assault - however is it possible to push for schools to notify of any allegations of sexual misconduct.

The reason behind this - is that the whole adult / child power imbalance will no doubtedly find the adult not guilty of sexual misconduct by investigation by schools - as they do not want their reputation tarnished - and will often chose to let the offender "go".

This offender may drift from school to school committing offence after offence, without notice UNLESS the schools are required to notify of any allegations made about the (alleged) offender.

After a period of time, there would no doubt be a trail that could easily identify a perpetrator that schools were chosing to cover up for.

Put simply, imagine how many children would not have been abused by church and clergy if they were made to report under the same guidelines.  Priests wouldn't have been able to move around the country / world abusing children whilst the churches covered up the crimes in order to save face.

If the safety of children is to come first, then we must take all steps to prevent abuse before it happens.  

 
Deborah-Lee Furness a disgrace to Forgotten Australians, Forced Adoptions and Stolen Generations worldwide
Saturday, 19 April 2014 12:39

Debra Furness Not Your Child sml 3bcc2Deborah-Lee Furnesss and her husband Hugh Jackman took advantage of a young desperate mother.  A mother who was promised an Open Adoption.  If this couple wanted to do something nice for all they money they are worth, they would have put that child's needs in front of their own wants, and they would have helped that mother.  It's not like she needed a hand out - she just needed a hand up.

Yet Furness and Jackman held out both hands and took her straight from her womb.  And the papers lied and said the young mother's children were all in care - but truth is when she was pregnant with the child that they stole - she had a 14 mth baby still with her.   Trying to demonise the childless mother is just another low tactic by the baby snatchers, and is extremely common.  And what mother does not suffer depression when their child is ripped from their arms, or in this case, their placenta?

Fancy making out that they helped that little boy!  If they truly wanted to help, they would have ensured that the boy could have stayed with his mother and it doesn't take a genius to know what children want and need.  Growing up rich may have it's benefits - but not knowing who you are does not.

 
Australia government says NO to children having the right to seek assistance from the United Nations for human rights violations

In December 2011, the United Nations introduced the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on a communications procedure.  Three years down the track Australia is still refusing to sign the protocol.

What this means to thousands of young children, is that whilst Australia agrees that children have rights under international law such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the government is not allowing these children to go direct to the United Nations with their complaint of human rights violation when the government is the perpetrator.

Furthermore, the Australian Human Rights Commission has completely refused to acknowledge the childs right not be taken away from their parents against their wishes - by not even acknowleding this in their Children's Rights posters.  So the Australian government is chosing to only tell children what they want them to hear.  Well it reinforces the fact that they are still refusing to allow our Australian victims of the child protection racket any opportunity to take their grievances to the UN now doesn't it.

 
Forced adoptions to continue with support from Labour and Liberal
Written by Kaye MacDonald - Adoption Information   
Friday, 04 April 2014 16:40

It is with a very heavy and shattered heart that I have heard that the NSW Government quietly passed their amendments to their adoption laws, affectively bringing back forced adoption after apologising to the mothers, fathers and their now adult children for forced adoptions of the past. It is a bridge too far for me to continue to respect those responsible..

This is the beginning, in my opinion, of opening thousands of women and their children in this country to the exploitation of their most fundamental human right to stay together at the most vulnerable time for both - pregnancy and confinement..

With all the volumes of current research that proves that a mother and her baby should not be separated because of the physical, mental and emotional damage caused to both, I am in shock and despair.

It is the beginning, of the insane adoption driven market of the 1920's to 1980's again and in my opinion opens the door to exploitation and corruption.

 
Impossible to beat the corruption in NSW government
Wednesday, 19 March 2014 17:43

human trafficking b5905With the upcoming legislative assembly vote that is extremely crucial to the welfare of our children, it is horrifying to find that the Liberal party have pulled blackmail out of their pocket, in order to support Pru Goward and the proposed amendments to the NSW Children and Young Persons Care and Protection Act.

So much for democracy, as Pru Goward got together with Barry O'Farrell and they have called for a "Down the Line" Vote.

This means that if anybody in their party goes against Pru's proposed horrendous legislation, it could mean the end of their political career as they know it.

Sad thing here is that we are aware of quite a few decent ministerial staff who are already all too aware of the corruption within the department, and had high aspirations that they would object to the bill - giving it brings back forced adoptions and encourages places like Barnardo's to go on their kidnapping rampage that started almost a century ago.

 
Concerns regarding adoption provisions in the Child Protection Legislation Amendment Bill
Written by David Mallard   
Thursday, 13 March 2014 00:00

The Child Protection Legislation Amendment Bill 2013 introduces a set of permanent placement principles (proposed section 10A) which would see adoption considered whenever a child or young person (other than children and young persons identified as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders) cannot realistically be restored to his or her parents or placed in the guardianship of a relative, kin or suitable other.

Also, a proposed change to section 83(4) would require that the Director-General must consider whether adoption is appropriate any time it has been determined that restoration to the child’s parents is not realistic.

Concerns about this proposed approach to including adoption, which permanently severs the legal relationship between parents and child, include that:

Evidence does not establish that adoption produces better outcomes – instead, stability and quality of placements are important, which needs to be addressed by improving the management and resourcing of foster care placements:

 
Reform for better child protection
Sunday, 09 March 2014 12:43

AlecommLogoSML 1458aGiven that Australia has ratified and signed the International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights; and that Article 3 states “The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant”[1], we hereby state request the following changes in the protection of our most vulnerable assets, our children. Let us see the government show us that children are important to them, and that accountability when it comes to child protection is at the forefront of all their decision making.

The only real remedy for the abuses of the child protection system is its abolition. No one should have the power to take children from their parents by force of arms, and the upkeep of children should not be paid with appropriated funds. Once the child protection behemoth is dead, private charity can easily handle the small load of orphaned children, as it responded to the much larger number of homeless children a century ago before the creation of the welfare state.

Since the political will to eliminate the child protection system is nowhere near to realisation, we have here a list of lesser reforms that may alleviate the hardships in the current system, and lead toward more comprehensive reforms.i

 
Barnardos not waiting for forced adoption legislation, are instead kidnapping newborns direct from hospitals
Tuesday, 11 February 2014 14:54

It has recently been alleged that  Barnardos, (NOT DOCS) have crossed state borders and stolen newborn babies from a private hospital - on a Section 44.

Section 44's are only valid for 3 days and this order expired some two weeks ago.

The mother went into premature labour whilst on holidays with her husband, and it apperas that there was absolutely NO serious risk of harm at all to the babies.

The parents have not seen their babies since.  No Section 45 has been applied for either, nor any paperwork served - which must be done within 5 working days of assumption of care of the babies.

So now Barnardos themselves have stolen two newborn babies without lawful authority.  They have then hidden these babies illegally - as at this point in time, and from all accounts it appears they have been kidnapped.

If you thought Louise Voigt and her company had stopped their destructive and unlawful ways a few decades ago, think again ... they're not even bothered to wait for the new legalised kidnapping legislation to come into place, and jumping at any chance to sell a newborn baby for the profit of their so-called not for profit organisation that is designed to assist those in need.

 
Karina Vodden - seeking probono representation for Victorian supreme court appeal due to caseworker / magistrate / DHS lawyer continued maladministration and violation of legislation pertaining to Court Disposition Reports
Saturday, 18 January 2014 09:31

KV-CV-BlankEyes 9412aThe Australian Legislative Ethics Commission is a registered not-for-profit charity.

One of our major roles is the representation and support of members of the community whom are having difficulty dealing with government agencies - particularly those agencies whom are failing to adequately follow the legislation and policies etc when dealing with clients.  Our main area of work is currently within the child protection field.  We charge no fees to our clients, and we work with them long-term - some clients have been with us over seven years now.

We have a client who has just self-represented in County Court against Vic DHS and unfortunately been unsuccessful.  Our interest in the case is that from the moment DHS intervened into their lives and removed her six week old baby, not one disposition report submitted to the courts have fulfilled their obligatory requirements – that being the provision of opportunities for the mother to address the concerns of the department in order for her to obtain restoration of her son.

Her son is now three years old.  He was removed without following procedure and the mother was never given any opportunity to address DHS concerns - we have documented evidence of this.  We also have letters from DHS acknowledging this also.  This is a massive breach of the rights of the child and the mother.  Massive.

The boy was in the care of his mother and maternal grandmother when he was removed.  He was placed in a few foster placements which he was shuffled from home to home due to abuse, and eventually DHS placed him with his grandfather and his wife.   The grandfather has an extensive criminal history, which DHS are aware of and made note of, and since being in their care he has suffered much abuse and neglect, the most recent being a broken collar bone – the fathers violence being the reason the maternal grandmother left him many years prior.  Karina has been our client for over twelve months and I have only ever seen her act in the best interest of her son.

 
When is the Australian Human Rights Commission not a Human Rights Commission?
Wednesday, 04 June 2014 17:44

AHRC Conciliations 88075Answer : When it refuses to investigate breaches of human rights.

The Australian Human Rights Commission states "We investigate and resolve complaints of discrimination and breaches of human rights. You can make a complaint no matter where you live in Australia. Our service is free, impartial and informal."

However a little further down the page it gives a very clear description of what you can complain about, and that is :

What can I complain about?

The Australian Human Rights Commission can investigate and resolve complaints of discrimination, harassment and bullying based on a person’s:

  • sex, including pregnancy, marital or relationship status (including same-sex de facto couples) status, breastfeeding, family responsibilities, sexual harassment, gender identity,  intersex status and sexual orientation
  • disability, including temporary and permanent disabilities; physical, intellectual, sensory, psychiatric disabilities, diseases or illnesses; medical conditions; work related injuries; past, present and future disabilities; and association with a person with a disability
  • race, including colour, descent, national or ethnic origin, immigrant status and racial hatred
  • age, covering young people and older people
  • sexual preference, criminal record, trade union activity, political opinion, religion or social origin (in employment only)

And way down the bottom they say they "can" investigate human rights breaches.  Though we are yet to see this happen at all - and the case of Emily Brown - the young girl kidnapped by the NSW Government and kept in residential facilities for profit is a perfect example.

Another perfect example would be the fact that thconciliation register has not one mention of any conciliations between parties of alleged human rights breaches.  This should give you a good idea just how much the Australian Human Rights Commission cares about human rights.

On a final note, whilst the services of the Australian Human Rights Commission are free, impartial and informal - don't expect to get any real issues sorted out that relate to human rights violations by the state.  And for those of you interested (and obviously abused) we do have a system where you can file complaints direct to the United Nations - just click here.  In the coming months we will also be expanding our UN System to incorporate the child's right to complain about human rights violations - which Australia is current refusing to ratify.

 
Wodonga Copper Kylie Clarkson's predatory behaviour needs to be put on a leash
Tuesday, 27 May 2014 14:22

Kylie Clarkson vs Vodden f4bf5Dear Wodonga Court Registrar

Could you please clarify some information with regards to the abovementioned listing.

It is my understanding that matters pertaining to the prosecution of Ms Vodden, including false charges of assault of one DHS officer Heather Podesta, and another false charge of breach publication order on a website that Ms Vodden does not own or administer, have been dropped.

I notice that the matter is not listed in a particular court room, so does this mean that police officer Clarkson is trying to once again raise charges which have either been dropped or found to have no substance?

If so, is this predatory behaviour acceptable of an officer who is allowed to keep bullying and harassing a mother who has all evidence that she neither assaulted the alleged victim Heather Podesta and it was in fact the other way around – with multiple witnesses; a mother who had her child removed without child protection authorities or any magistrates of legal personnel involved abiding by the law or following their procedures and guidelines; a mother who did not breach a publication order as she has no control over the website of the person who she seeked support from?

There is acknowledged evidence by investigatory authorities that DHS Victoria have never provided Ms Vodden with one single opportunity to address the alleged concerns that were raised by the department that were used to remove her son when he was just six weeks old.

How long is the bullying and denial of justice for a mother and family going to go on? Does the mother first have to commit suicide before somebody has the decency to acknowledge that what is happening is down right disgusting, and for every authority to support and deny this complete systemic corruption is so atrocious that most of the public find it impossible to believe.

 
DHS decides privacy breaches are not privacy breaches
Tuesday, 22 April 2014 18:49

no expectation of privacy f07f4The Australian Legislative Ethics Commission received correspondence from the Privacy Manager for the NSW Department of Community Services today.  The correspondence is regarding the matter of a Wagga Wagga DHS Caseworker, Amanda Credlin, who copied and pasted over two hundred pages of personal information from peoples facebook pages, and support sites for victims of child protection, and then supplied that information to the NSW Children's Courts.

Many of the people whose privacy was violated, have been told that because the department were investigating another person, that it was okay for their personal inforamtion to be supplied to the NSW Children's Courts because DoCS says so.  What it inevitably means, is that yet again, DoCS are unaccountable for any violation of legislation and policy, and that regardless of all the purported laws out there, the don't have to abide by a single one of them.

We hoped that the department would concede that what they did was wrong, and that they would make undertakings that they would not do such unlawful actions again.  They did not.  They continue to allow caseworkers to spend money and time playing on facebook to see if somebody doesn't like them, and then they use solicitors to submit the matters into court and then they use the courts time and expenses to run down the parents because the parents don't like them.

 
DHS Privacy Manager, Jann Rowe still not complying with legislation and policy

faxed 98cbf15 April 2014

Manager Privacy - Department of Family and Community Services

Ph:         (02) 6623-4962
Fax:        (02) 6623 4999
Email:    This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

Dear Ms Rowe

It is my understanding that under PPIA act there are no required format for submitting a a complaint. You really do seem to have some control issues.

Mr Morris and any other persons are free to format their complaints exactly how they wish and have the results of that complaint addressed to the location that they have requested. In this case it is via our organisation – just as any other organisation advocates on behalf of people. We are also a registered charity and I am a NSW Justice of the Peace.

If you refuse to process his complaint, the matter may be forwarded to the appropriate Public Interest Disclosure officer in your division – as you are doing nothing but whiteanting.

Maybe you could explain why it is over twelve months now and you still have refused to investigate the previous complaints forwarded your office.

Please be advised that the (almost) thirty other complainants – whom you have previously refused to investigate their complaints – will still be filing regardless of you deliberately running the time limit over twelve months – and it is you who has refused to provide an adequate time frame for the investigation of these complaints – not anybody else.

I don’t give two shits if you do not like the fact that you are investigating your work colleagues. If you continue to refuse to do this, I will be forced to take the matter to the Independent Commission Against Corruption and you can explain to them why it is that you feel you are above the law and policy like most other dirty caseworkers and continue to carry on in the corrupt and incompetent matter which you currently are.

You certainly belong in this department.

No response required.

Attachments:
Download this file (Email from Jann Rowe re not filing complaints - 15 April 2014.pdf)Email from DHS Privacy Manager Jann Rowe - 15 April 2014[DHS non-compliance with PPIA Act]
 
Quick and easy Forced adoptions will now be the first priority of the NSW Government for all children in Care to save money.
Thursday, 27 March 2014 09:28

words fastest growing industry 300b6Tonight Pru Goward and the NSW Government passed the most dangerous legislation against vulnerable children and families since Federation.

These Laws are NOT reforms to Child Protection they are Human Rights violations.

Children in Care can now be given any unapproved drug or treatment the agency wants no matter how inhumane or dangerous. Significantly high numbers of Children in Care are already on dangerous drugs because of the trauma of their forced removal from their families so foster parents can better manage them as Zombies. This is a Law that will DAMAGE children for life, which should be criminal not legal.

This legislation does not have any provision to ensure early intervention or better supports for vulnerable children and families at all. There is not enough services to support vulnerable children and families due to lack of government funding now, so parents will not be able to comply with parenting agreements, their children will just be forcibly removed and adopted as that is cheapest option for the NSW Government.

 
Fact sheet: Troubling proposals in new child protection legislation
Written by David Mallard   
Wednesday, 18 December 2013 00:00

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]
 
Barnardos have a different vision for the children they kidnap
Wednesday, 12 March 2014 13:04

turnbll twins sml ad2c7"Barnardos' Vision All children and young people will have caring families, in which they can grow safely and fulfill their potential." Baaaaahaaaaaa.

Not for these kids ... Well they envision then growing up - but in an entirely different family they have chosen for these babies.

At 3pm yesterday, a Coffs Harbour magistrate issued an arrest warrant for the retrieval of two kidnapped babies believed to be in the care of Barnardos.

The babies were illegally taken from a private hospital outside of Brisbane, and nobody has seen them since.

The magistrate previously issued orders that the babies be returned by 3pm yesterday afternoon - or failing that he would issue an arrest warrant.

Barnardos failed to hand over the kidnapped children to their parents, and at 4pm the magistrate issued the warrant, which was delivered to Barnardos shortly thereafter.

 
Patricia Hansen deliberately screwing former clients cases [again]
Friday, 07 March 2014 13:48

arsehole b1f40Social worker turned lawyer, Patricia Hansen is at it again. 

Some time ago we reported that she was refusing to return clients files, unless they signed off on legal aid entitlements that she was not entitled to.

Well it seems that even when she returns files, she makes a habit of not returning them all.  This time she has keep exculpatory evidence that is damning to the department, and refusing to give it to her former client until after the final hearing.

She has stated that the documents are in storage [where the other files are] and that she has "no intention" of providing the client with those documents until after the clients final orders. 

Patricia Hansen is one extremely nasty solicitor, not only does she do all the hard yards for the department, she then continues to screw her former clients by refusing to hand back their legal paperwork.

It's about time NSW Legal Aid pulled it's finger out of its arse and started sacking those solicitors who deliberately damage clients cases because of thier malicious intent.  We'd like to say that it is the job of the NSW Office of Legal Services, but they are funded by these lawyers and have absolutely no intention of holding them to account - and neither does the NSW Law Society.

Regardless of the fact that any solicitor working for Legal Aid or for the NSW Department of Community Services, is classified as employed by the government, and has many legal and ethical obligations - no party wants to upset their buddies by enforcing these laws, or any other ones that people like this woman continue to flagrantly break each and everyday they are receiving their millions of dollars of government slush fund money that is supposed to be being spent on keeping families together, and protecting children.

 
Corruption in the High court of Australia revealed
Friday, 07 February 2014 10:15

High Court Chief Justice French2 81b3eFor the first time in Australian history, corruption has been revealed in the High Court.

Australians’ direct access to review by the High Court is guaranteed by our Constitution and it is being refused.

This week Australian Deputy Prime Minister Truss asked High Court Chief Justice French to file a case against corrupt judges, some of them in the High Court itself (letter attached).

Earlier, High Court judges Keifel, Bell and Crennan each defied the Australian Constitution to refuse three applicants their right to justice under section 75 (v). This is corruption at the highest level, according to legal definition of the term.

The case has implications for all Australians, many of whom are unaware that this section in the Constitution was deliberately placed there to provide protection against corrupt Federal government officers, such as Family Court judges.

For 15 years the legal and judicial fraternity has covered up injustices and corruption in the secretive Family Court. Only the High Court has power to review the Family Court. Judges can only be sacked by Parliament.

Legally trained whistleblower Bruce Bell is on the run because of his information about corrupt officials in the Family Court who benefit from drug dealing and paedophilia.

Mr Bell said thousands of families were being affected by corrupt decisions in the Family Court, which had resulted in children being knowingly placed in the ‘care’ of abusers.

“Filing against corrupt Federal public officials under s 75 (v) is a crucial Constitutional right of all Australians,” he said.

“The High Court is refusing to take action where the Constitution says it must.

 
UNACKNOWLEDGED as at September 2013 : Michael-Coutts Trotter and NSW Child Protection Corruption & Prevention
Wednesday, 26 February 2014 05:56

w1200 h678 fcrop 749e1We note that in an introductory conversation with the Daily Telegraph recently, you stated that the department is doing "amazing work"...

Well the ignorant-uninformed public possibly believes this, as nobody wants to truly believe this department is rotten to the core, but truth is, it really is "rotten to the core". And from past experience, we can say "ignorance really is bliss".

Fortunately however, the department has millions of dollars to spend on advertising campaigns, to purport itself completely different.

Unfortunately however, there is growing concern – to those of us whom have experienced the departments' ineptness – that the deep-stemmed corruption in the system, is driven by the dollar sign that each and every individual playing a role in the system, obtains, by keeping his or her mouth shut, and keeping the department happy.

As for the departments' personnel, I can only imagine that their corrupt practices are born from an extreme desire to ultimately control anybody and anything that they get their dirty little paws into, or maybe the majority of them have had some traumatic childhood event, with which they desire to play out through other family's circumstances.

Maybe we sound a little harsh? Please don't think my frustration is directed at you, as it's not. It's more directed at the previous list of departmental personnel and ministers that continue to ignore the systemic corruption, in order to continue their merry way through parliament, and their lucrative careers.

 
More Articles...

Did You Know?


... that 90 percent of all funds given for "child protection" DO NOT go to help children ?

Australian Legislative Ethics Commission, Powered by Joomla! and designed by SiteGround Joomla Templates
.