Magistrate refuses to use intellectual property to protect three year old boy from harm
- Category: Corrupt Magistrates and Judges
- Created: Tuesday, 23 April 2013 06:55
- Written by MoKV
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.
Since being in the care of "child protection", the young boy has suffered multiple black eyes, bruising to most parts of his body, severe nappy rash, and even bleeding on his penis, yet the magistrate ignored concerns by the mother of his treatment since being removed from her care. Only last week the boy suffered a fractured collar bone, but still this is of no concern to either child protection authorities or the magistrate who stuck to his guns in refusing to send the boy home.
Photographs depicted here have been taken on various dates since the child has been in the care of the Victorian Department of Human Services, and shows some of the painful experiences the young child has had to suffer at the hands of the abusive foster carers (also his paternal grandparents). They are also shown as a matter of public interest, as these are evidence that substantiates abuse whilst in the care of the department's chosen carers.
What is of particular interest in this case, is that one not once occasion has the department followed its guidelines and adequately offered the mother any opportunity to address the issues raised regarding the child, to enable him to return to her care. This is a violation of departmental policy, and it is extremely frustrating when judicial authority pretending to adjudicate the matter continues to lie and state that the mother has been afforded such opportunity.
He also went on to state the mother had been provided services - that she failed to use. Those services would include "Tweedle", a service that promotes itself to assist parents, yet child protection workers only seem to send parents there for "assessments", and then claim that it was a support service for parents, and a neuropsychologist whom the mother refused to visit, as child protection workers had no evidence in the first place that the child was indeed in need of care and protection, hence no need for a neuropsychologist, whom cannot possibly be providing any support to a parent - and we all know how their jobs work and who pays their wage.
The "Overwhelming Evidence" stated by Magistrate Cain, is nothing but garbage such as disposition reports, that never adequately followed procedure either, such as including what steps were taken to assist the parents to enable reunification. The matter is now listed for appeal, however the damage is done to not only the parent and child, but the community also, who rely on magistrates to administer justice by way of evidence, not just the personal opinions of people who profit from the destruction of families, and other workers who have been damaged as youth, that merely become child protection workers in order to (subconsciously) punish their own parents by using whatever means, or person that are unfortunate enough to come across their books.