The little known dirty tricks of DCFS/CPS/DSS that are hidden from view

You will not find this “DIRTY TRICK” section in any DCFS/CPS/DSS manual, but it ought to be. These tricks are well known by all DCFS/CPS/DSS agents and they use them and pass them on as oral tradition. Forget the law and regulations. They do! Their tactics are questionable and they have all the power. They don’t fear the law and DCFS has everyone, even the judges and lawyers, scared of that power. DCFS/CPS/DSS doesn’t seem to know the difference between “actual abuse” and “minor harm.” 

The code of ethics visited upon the foster caretakers is far different than those enforced for biological parents. True…there are those few foster homes that practice abuse to the children they serve and it is agreed that these homes should be closed and the caretakers dealt with severely. But that is NOT the norm with foster caretakers. 

Child protection worker's dirty tricks - what you need to know

This material is an introduction to the operating procedure of the Massachusetts Department of Children and Families (DCF), and most of the state child protection agencies around the country.  You won't find this stuff in the DCF policy manual, but it ought to be there, since most of the social workers use these tactics. I imagine that the social workers pass them on as oral tradition from generation to generation.

Their goal: Take as many children as possible from famlies, because the more children they take, the more federal reimbursement bucks the agency gets, the more power it accrues, and the more people it can hire. The primary interest of all bureaucracies like DCF is to get as much money and power as possible, in an ever upward spiral.

Their method: Dirty tricks.


Forget the law and regulations. Here is the real policy manual for DCF. Their employees do not fear the law or any consequences to themselves personally for harming children, since the law gives them substantial legal immunity, and even judges and lawyers are afraid of their power.

Were your children removed on an Emergency Order?

In NSW the law regarding the removal of children without a warrant and prior to court proceedings has different legal time-frames and requirements in as far as what type of orders can be made and what kind of extension the courts are permitted to grant.

First of all the department has to bring the matter to the court within three days.  Secondly the Emergency Care and Protection Order is valid for only 14 days, of which it may be extended for another fourteen.  At the end of this time the magistrate has to make a decision as to whether the children were in need of care and protection, and this is a final order.  He is not permitted to extend the order, he is not permitted to grant adjournments so that caseworkers can start piling up the paperwork they do that usually confuses the judge and takes his attention from the matters first at hand.

The law says this : If an ECPO is made, it will have a life not exceeding 14 days and may be renewed for a similar or lesser term on one occasion only: s 46(3). A child who is subject to an ECPO is usually placed in the “care responsibility” of the Director-General, but another person may be allocated care responsibility. Unlike an interim care order, an ECPO and an extension of an ECPO are “final” orders. Once it is made, the proceedings are at an end and there can be no question of a further court date. Having made the ECPO, the magistrate is “functus officio”. There is no power to make contact or other orders.  

For further information see : https://www.judcom.nsw.gov.au/publications/benchbks/local/care_and_protection_jurisdiction.html#d5e25825

Have child protection workers threatened you because you have named and shamed them ?"

Do you have representation?   Are you aware of your basic human rights under the international covenants?

IE If DoCS allow their solicitor to even mention something NOT to do with child protection or your matter or your whistleblowing, the solicitor is putting themselves in a very precarious position of which they can lose their job.

"Article 19 states Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20 states (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, and (2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association."

Australian children's courts magistrates using tactics similar to bull fighting when dealing with cases

A devastating, cruel and callous decision by Magistrate Cain (a former intellectual property lawyer), was handed down in less than an hour after all persons involved in the childrens matter had finished giving evidence.  The mother declined to be cross-examined by Victoria's Department of Human Services legal personnel, after successfully cross-examining and proving multiple lies and misinformation by the department, which was used to remove her five month old boy.

NSW Child Protection's new nazi-style tactics deny parents any chance of restoration of their children from the flourishing Foster-Care-Prisons

In recent months, Pru Goward, Minister for Community Service NSW, made announcements that people with vacant rooms in public housing, should move out to smaller units/homes or pay more for their accommodation.  Biggest area's with "vacant" bedrooms were Liverpool and Campbelltown areas in NSW.

What has not been considered, also, is that there are many parents out there, unfairly fighting her Child Protection Caseworkers, where their children have been unlawfully removed by rogue caseworkers who are accountable to nobody, and hence, we have "vacant" rooms.

Many cases are being dragged out for years, because the department has an unlimited war chest when it comes to litigating to take children, and there are no prerequisites for departmental personnel to gain legal representation, as there is with children and parents.

Ludicrous reasons why good and fit mothers have lost custody

Iif you have a guardian ad litem (GAL) or child custody evaluator assigned or appointed to your case that is unscrupulous, ill-trained, incompetent or biased either toward a father or a form of custody, there is virtually no way for a mother to truly "prepare" for a child custody evaluator. If you have been unfortunate enough to have this type of evaluator, be very prepared to find other documentation, evidence, witnesses, and experts with superior credentials to refute the report and offer alternate views to the court. You can not let these sorts of evaluations stand. Here are some of the more ludicrous documented reasons given by evaluators or judges in numerous cases where good and fit mothers lost custody:

  • Breastfeeding--the mothers either wanted to and it was determined an alienating behavior, or they did not choose to breastfeed and it was termed child neglect or indifference
  • Children got head lice during a period of mother's care.
  • Too many people (all relatives) living in one home (i.e. mom had to return home to family to gain economic and emotional support)
  • Father remarried and married family deemed superior to single motherhood
  • Father's job and education deemed superior--sometimes even though mom sacrificed her goals and dreams so father could obtain same.
  • Not desiring 50/50 custody or other joint custodial arrangements
  • Not desiring to give up the marital home
  • Leaving the marital home while fleeing from abuse, especially if she left the children behind.
  • Going to church
  • Going to church too often
  • Not going to church

DoCS cruel tactics sending parents over the edge

With so much hoohaa over domestic violence at present, we thought it wise to show the link between it and removal of children from mothers.

Six years ago a beautiful young mother had her four children removed - after she left their violent father and seeked assistance from a state funded women's domestic violence shelter.  The reason for the removal of the children, according to court documents submitted by the caseworker, was that the mother breached parenting orders, forcing her to remove the children.

So what was it in this breach, that was so bad that the children including a young baby, had to be so harshly intervened with and separated for life? 

The mother had been beaten up by another woman at the refuge and after not being provided any assistance, left, as any mother would who was trying to protect her children from violence.

"STOP the DOCS Friday afternoon swoop and scoops. STOP Goward's new laws. Support and opportunity for families NOT child removal.

The removal of Aboriginal children from families across NSW and Australia is at crisis point. A higher number of Aboriginal children are currently in "out of home care" than were removed from their families at any time in the twentieth century.

The Bringing them Home report in 1997 argued that the paternalism and discrimination of the Stolen Generations era remained alive in many of the practices of child protection agencies. It showed that the majority of children were being removed for "neglect", a consequence of the social inequality suffered by Aboriginal people.

Bringing them Home's recommendations for reform were ignored and the number of Aboriginal children in "out of home care" has increased more than five times since 1997. In NSW, approximately one in ten Aboriginal children is currently in care. The pain in communities is immense and many are taking about "a new stolen generation".

New amendments to Child Protection legislation have been introduced by Community Services Minister Pru Goward and are currently before the NSW Parliament. These laws will make it even harder for families who have lost children to DOCS removals to be reunited. Adoption will become possible once a child has been in care for just six months if they are under two year old, or twelve months if older than two. "Guardianship" orders are also being introduced which would similarly strip families of rights to reunification.

"Is the system so stacked against parents, that even the innocent ones do not stand a chance of having their children returned ?"

Too many fingers in the pie eb2caIs it Collusion?  Or is it actually "Bad Parenting" ? Which is what Ms Pru Goward, NSW Minister for Community Services continues to tell the media each time she is interviewed.  Well let's look at the stats obtained over the past four years, anonymously, and without bias or assistance, for the purpose of just that.

Multitudes of parents tell the same story, time and time again.  And a quick view of the Preliminary DoCS Complaints Registers seem to back this up - with over five hundred complaints now listed against Child Protection workers in almost every state in Australia.  Most parents also believe that the Independent Children's Lawyer colludes with child protection also - as does the Court Reporter's who get up to and over fifteen thousand dollars for writing reports that suit the agenda of the department. 

"Examples of how rules of evidence have been discarded in the family and children's courts when granting care orders."

  1. Statements from the local authority are shown to the judge but rarely to parents.  Family and friends of parents are routinely excluded from the court but groups of social workers are allowed to stay in the court to listen to their colleague's testimony whether they are witnesses or not.
  2. Parents representing themselves are denied the opportunity to cross examine witnesses appearing against them.  Judgements, reports from experts, and position statements are either withheld or given to parents at the last minute (too late to read and analyse them properly).

"I'm being blackmailed by child protection caseworkers, can I report this "Corruption" to ICAC?"

When to report ?

According to ICAC, "Corrupt conduct is deliberate or intentional wrongdoing, not negligence or a mistake.

While it can take many forms, corrupt conduct occurs when:

  • a public official uses, or tries to use, the knowledge, power or resources of their position for personal gain or the advantage of others

  • a public official acts dishonestly or unfairly, or breaches public trust

  • a member of the public influences, or tries to influence, a public official to use his or her position in a way that is dishonest, biased or breaches public trust."*

What about blackmail ?