fbpx

Lawyer uncovers “alarming trend” as children taken without warrants

A federal class action lawsuit filed out of Southern California states that the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services has kidnapped “thousands” of children without warrant or reason.

According to the suit, which makes mention of several social workers and investigators, Riverside’s operation “makes a habit” of kidnapping young children.

Speaking with the Courthouse News Service, the Plaintiffs’ attorney, Shawn McMillan, said that he “uncovered an alarming trend” when investigating similar cases in the area the year prior.

“County child welfare agencies regularly subvert the constitutional rights of parents and children by seizing children from their parents when there is no danger to the child, and in fact no need to seize the child at all,” McMillan told Courthouse News. “The class action is designed to address a procedural problem. They [Riverside County social workers] as a matter of course don’t get warrants before seizing kids.”

Ontario Families United describes global child protection perfectly.

It's not the system that lacks ethics and morals and its not the system that allows between 90 and 120 children in care to die every year in Ontario. It wasn't the system that refused to register with College of Social Work avoiding ethical oversight for 18 years or to refuse to cooperate with the Ombudsman and the Privacy Commissioner unless forced to by law, or to completely disregard fundamental justice, it took all the people entrusted to oversee the system to do that.

Child Protection in Canada hasn't earned it's dark reputation by doing good work and helping children and families or by serving the best interest of the community.

They've earned their terrible reputation by pitting parent against parent and pitting, doctors, teachers, police, daycare workers and anonymous informants against poor families in secret courts.

Source : https://www.facebook.com/FamiliesUnitedOntario/photos/a.421920498017720.1073741828.421903944686042/683548835188217/?type=3

Inside child removal in Australia

IT seems like the government can be damned if they do, and damned if they don't when it comes to removing children from their homes.

No one really knows what goes on behind closed doors. But when it comes to protecting Australian kids at risk of neglect and abuse, our state and territory-based child protection agencies are expected to not only find out what's happening but to act when a serious threat of harm threatens the health, safety and wellbeing of our youngest and most vulnerable citizens.

Confessions of a caseworker: We remove kids to protect ourselves

It’s hard to imagine many jobs more difficult than that of a caseworker for a child protective services agency. The hours are long, the pay is low, the stress is high and the stakes can be, literally, life and death. Most workers have the best of intentions.

But one of the things caseworkers often say is just not true. Caseworkers often claim they are “damned if we do and we’re damned if we don’t.” But when it comes to taking away children, caseworkers are only damned if they don’t. It’s one of the reasons so many children are needlessly consigned to the chaos of foster care.

In the best interest of the child and human rights: Alecomm legislation amendments submission

RECOMMENDATION 1 : Statutes of limitations be changed or amended under the child protection act. With no time limit. This would only apply from the date this has been passed. This in turn will hold the perpetrator accountable for their actions. Thinking before acting. Putting the right people in the job. Relieving the system (State government) of further litigations, hence freeing up funds.

 RECOMMENDATION 2 :  Those that are found to be making false and miss leading allegation to be held accountable where by a fine or jail time is imposed.  This includes healthworkers, caseworkers, casemanagers, etc.

Child abuse industry deaths in Canada

Do the claims of good intentions really outweigh the bodies of the children dying in Ontario's child protection system every year?

Do you trust a corporate agency that refuses to register with the College of Social Work, that refuses to cooperate with Ombudsman and the Privacy Commissioner unless the law in Ontario specifically says they have to?

How did 92 children in care die between 2008/2012 according to the Ontario PDRC report? The PDRC say it's a complete mystery and no further investigation is required. Between 2008/2012 natural causes was listed as the least likely way for a child in care to die at 7% of the total deaths reviewed while "undetermined cause" was listed as the leading cause of death of children in Ontario's child protection system at 43% of the total deaths reviewed.

Changing parental responsibility following final orders in the NSW children's court

This article is mainly about s90(2A)(c) of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW), which provides that before granting leave to vary or rescind a Care Order, the Children's Court must take into account the length of time for which the child or young person has been in the care of his or her present carer.

In this context, a Care Order usually means a Final Order allocating parental responsibility, but may also mean an Interim Order made under s69 or s70 of the Act.  The scheme of the Act favours permanency, which is demonstrated by the requirement in s83 that the Director-General prepare a "permanency plan" before the court makes a Final Order.

How would a child make an application to the children’s court?

"Firstly this would depend on the child’s age. For example a child who is 12 years of age or older is assumed to have the capacity to instruct their legal representative to make an application to the Children’s Court. If the child is under 12 years of age, it may be considered that the child does not have the capacity to direct their legal representative and therefore the legal representative would not be bound by the child’s instructions.

 There are different pathways that might lead to a child making a section 90 application on their own behalf, these might include but are not limited to:

  1. Where a Section 82 report has been ordered by the Children’s Court and the child’s legal representative is not satisfied that proper arrangements have been made for the care and protection of the child; the child’s legal representative may consult with the child and seek instructions as to whether the child wishes to file an application to withdraw or vary the current care orders.

So you want your kids back - and you're thinking about a Section 90 application

Losing your right to fight ... It was also a government directive to save money to STOP leave being granted to proceed to a Section 90 Hearing, as explained in the matter of Troy vs DoCS, for a start - as too many parents want their children back.  In making that judgement, it is extremely difficult now to even granted leave to apply for a Section 90.

Also every Leave Hearing is a two hour in total "hearing by submission" which is disgusting. As solicitors from the bar table NOT under Oath talk crap for their half an hour - no evidence is considered and the Magistrate says NO. The legal process is denied because they are making them submission Hearings.

So DoCS legal representatives can spend their half an hour telling lies, for which they are not held accountable as they are NOT under oath - or subject to cross examination - which then results in the Magistrate making his decision based upon their lies.

Reform for better child protection

Given 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.

Concerns regarding adoption provisions in the 2013 NSW child protection legislation amendment bill

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:

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.

Subcategories