(Altnews) CHILD SAFETY ENCOURAGE CHILDREN TO ABUSE PARENTS

Submitted by Editor on Mon, 09/01/2006 - 00:16

Recent newspaper articles about raising children in today's society have highlighted the need for parents to responsibly 'take control' and exercise their right to train their children with love and firm boundaries.

From: "rights4_parents"
rights4_parents@yahoo.com.au
To: "Editor"
editor@altnews.com.au

Tue, 3 Jan 2006

However, there is another side to the story... .If Mum and Dad won't do as a child wants, the child may decide to retaliate and complain to DOCS, who remove the child and give them 'foster parents' who will!

DOCS actively encourage and empower children to use the department as a tool to bully and abuse parents, whilst denying parents' rights. Children and young people can LIE and claim 'abuse' to DOCS without the truthfulness and motivations of their claims being questioned.

Parents are treated as guilty unless they can somehow disprove a child's 'allegations', (which is next to impossible in most cases).

Children learn how to manipulate case workers and 'the system', and coach each other in what works. They know the words that'll get reactions in their favour, like "If you try to send me home, I'll run away and go on the street OR I'll kill myself."

Some children in foster care have been heard to tell other youngsters, "life is better in foster care, because you get all the things your Mum and Dad can't pay for, like new clothes and designer shoes, whatever you like."

Children coach each other in what to say to DOCS and the psychologist."Tell them you're afraid of what Mum or Dad might do when you go home. DOCS will fix them....You can do anything you want, get anything you want, and your Mum and Dad can't do anything about it!"

And of course the child gets lots of attention and praise from case workers for "being so good and telling on Mum or Dad". Some young people and children learn how to manipulate the department to jump to attention and to indulge them in anything they want, especially if they threaten to go live on the street, or sulk and suggest they might do harm to themselves unless they get their own way.

It is not in the best interests of a child, to give in and indulge them with everything they want. That does them a lot of harm, teaching them selfishness, irresponsibility, and disrespect for others, and sets them up for a life of anti-social behaviour.

And it gets worse when other family members and outsiders decide to gang up on the parents, because Johnny or Mary aren't happy about Mum and Dad. Must be the parents fault...after all children wouldn't lie...would they???

OUR EXPERIENCE

We have a 10 member family, with children aged from early 20's down to a baby.

Earlier this year, our 14 year old daughter was enticed away from us and abducted by an older married couple.

For a period of about 6 months, prior to taking our daughter, they secretly worked like Internet predators to undermine her security with us and gain her confidence. They then enticed her to go with them and removed her from our care and protection.

We immediately called the police but they referred the matter to Department of Child Safety. (Police officers have indicated that they are afraid that a child may lay assault charges against them if police attempt to remove them.)

In an effort to protect her from her abductors, we voluntarily placed her in temporary foster care and requested mediation, hoping that our daughter would then be returned to us.

As a result of the negative influence of her abductors, she made false allegations of 'abuse' in retaliation against us for placing her in foster care. They hoped that the allegations would cause DOCS to intimidate us and release our daughter to them.

We appealed to DOCS immediately to facilitate contact between us and our daughter, with a pro-family mediator present who could help us to talk with her and hopefully resolve the situation, but DOCS refused.

Counsellors advised us that it was paramount for parents and child to be brought together with a mediator within the first 48 hours, if re-unification was to be successful, and that the situation becomes extremely difficult if they are separated any longer.

Again and again, we requested DOCS facilitate mediation, but they refused.

DOCS claimed that our daughter would receive appropriate counseling when a specialist psychologist from Brisbane was engaged to make a social assessment of our family. However, after 7 weeks delay, they said the specialist psychologist was going to cost too much, and a local psychologist was engaged at short notice to produce the social assessment.

DOCS briefed the psychologist with their list of 'concerns' they expected him to verify in his 'social assessment'. When he interviewed us and our young children, he seemed very anxious that if he returned a report that did not 'verify' the DOCS' list of concerns, he would be in danger of being held legally responsible for any consequences later. So the assessment was fabricated to match the concerns, using inappropriate questionaires, omitting important details and altering information to 'make the assessment fit the concerns'.

During this period our daughter's condition deteriorated further, as we had virtually no contact and no appropriate pro-family counselling was undertaken.

DOCS originally stated that no contact would be condoned between the abductors and our daughter, but when a new case worker was appointed, HE acted independently of his team leader, secretly reversed the decision without consulting us, and allowed the people to take her home on weekends without our prior knowledge or consent.

We have called DOCS central complaints line many times, explained why the abductors should not be allowed any contact with our daughter, requested reviews of decisions made by DOCS, and expressed our vital concern over psychological damage being caused every time they allow contact with the abductors.

The department seems so anxious to get our daughter's case off the books that they have attempted to get the abductors approved as foster carers and place her in their custody BEFORE the Court Ordered Conference and Court hearing next month. *(She has been placed with her abductors since we wrote this.)

Our young children are at risk of being abducted because the abductors think that they are indemnified when it appears that police are not willing to apply the child stealing laws.

DOCS have threatened to remove our young children because their older sister's vexatious statements, which are designed to make it appear as if we were 'abusive' parents.

Using the 'parents guilty unless proven innocent' approach, DOCS appear to be encouraging other family members who bear grudges to gang up with our daughter and the abductors.

DOCS continue to refuse to listen to us or read the documents we given them One case worker has been bullying us, trying to get us to 'confess' to our daughter's statements.

The Team Leader on our daughter's case admitted that she has not taken the time to read letters and documents we have supplied, warning of the cult-like behavior of the abductors, expressing our concerns and requesting mediation.

We have repeatedly appealed to DOCS, the Minister for Child Safety and the Minister for Police, but our letters and phone calls appear to be disregarded.

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
MAJOR OBSTACLES TO THE RE-UNIFICATION PROCESS

1.Information about parent's rights withheld from us. Police did not advise that we could go to retrieve our daughter, with a police officer present if we requested.

2.A lot of grief and major disruption to our family might have been averted if we had been properly informed by police of this option at the time.

3.Taxpayers could have been spared thousands of dollars expended on extensive investigations and foster care if we had been properly informed, and pro-family mediation provided to assist in early re-unification.

4.Our daughter was coached in what to say to keep from being sent home, such as 'afraid, will go live on the street if told to go home, home life too strict, too isolated'.

5.Whilst DOCS said they supported re-unification, it appears no real effort was made to facilitate necessary counselling/mediation during the weeks following our daughters abduction.

GRIEF AND DESPAIR

Most people have no idea of the grief and despair suffered by parents who have lost a child or children to DOCS or have false allegations made against them.

One ex-DOCS officer told me, that there are two kinds of child safety officers:

Some are compassionate Child Safety Officers who genuinely care about families and want to assist them in resolving problems, BUT they are restricted from doing much good by compassion-less laws and anti-family policies.

The other type are calloused control freaks! The incredible power given them by the Act goes to their heads and they use it destructively to oppress, control and condemn parents and families.

The stress on families is enormous! Emotional and psychological damage, children de-destabilized, months of separation, the threat that other children in the family may also be taken, all take their toll on the parents.... and children. It is like an ominous, dark cloud overshadowing you every day.

We are talking about families being torn apart, child-parent relationships being destroyed, marriages being stressed to breaking point resulting in separation or divorce. Some parents, who don't have the compassionate support of caring friends and family, could be driven to suicide as a direct result of the soul-destroying treatment their family has been subjected to by DOCS.

Just how many lives, marriages and families are secretly being destroyed as a direct result of DOCS mis-handling of families is difficult to estimate.

The grief extends to relatives and close friends, who suffer alongside the parents in what appears to be a hopeless battle to have their loved ones restored to them.

Our daughter is a victim also, because her need for pro-family mediation and counselling has been denied, and she will carry the scars of emotional/psychological damage as a result. Contrary to outward appearance of 'maturity', she is too young to be without her parents positive input, love and support. She is caught in a system, that doesn't really care, just so long as the CSO's are 'seen to be doing their job'.

DOCS officers have tried to make our younger children answer questions against the child's will, and then accused us of teaching our children to be afraid of them.

Our young children are happy to be with us and do not agree with their sister's behaviour.

Why are DOCS so quick to accept lies from children without question, but refuse to accept the truth from a child who says they are happy at home and all is well with them?

POWER, SECRECY AND INDEMNITY... A RECIPE FOR CORRUPTION

Under the guise of protecting children, and hiding behind the indemnity afforded by the current Child Safety Act, some Child Safety Officers abuse the 'powers' granted them, solving all their 'problems' by removing children, and intimidating and bullying parents.

The attitude of DOCS is children don't lie, parents are guilty until proven innocent, DOCS are indemnified for their actions, no recourse for parents, no rights for parents, the CSO's can write fictitious statements or hear-say 'evidence' against the parents as 'fact'. The ficticious statements are recorded on DOCS data base for all other case workers to believe, but the parent cannot access what is written because of the Child Safety Act, and has absolutely no way to defend themselves.

Anyone can phone DOCS and report ficticious 'abuse' without the parents ever knowing a report has been made, or what is alleged. Children can be interviewed at school or another location, and held by DOCS for hours without parents being present or notified.

Granted, this secrecy is supposed to protect the child from a parent who might 'retaliate' against a child for disclosing genuine abuse. However, in cases where a child's safety is not at risk, the parents are denied the right to protect their children from unwarranted questioning and interference from some officers who mis-use the powers given them, to impose merciless stress and intimidation on children and their parents.

Parents beware, if you phone DOCS to obtain advice or help with a difficult child, it is likely that your call will be turned into a report against yourself. How do we know? It happened to us!

If parents attempt to access records about themselves and their family through the Freedom of Information Act, they have to wait for months AFTER the case is 'closed', (if it ever is). When they finally get to see copies of the distorted reports, with large chunks edited out to hide the identity of children and informants, there is no way to correct false records or refute false allegations or bring corrupt CSO's to account.

It appears DOCS powers are even greater than that of police. Parents are treated as if they were terrorists! Children and other people are encouraged to act as 'informants' and indemnified, so that any one with a grudge can make secret, vexatious, false reports whilst the parents hands are tied behind their back

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LARGER FAMILIES

In larger families such as ours, children's ages might range from 20's down to a baby.

Several CSO' s have acknowledged that most case workers are young graduates who have little or no experience with children and do not understand the dynamics of larger families, (such as ours). Their lack of experience and prejudices then cause them to mis-interpret the dynamics of a 'normal large family' because they don't fit the 2-3 child family model.

SURELY KIDNAPPERS CAN'T STEAL YOUR CHILDREN AND GET AWAY WITH IT

It appears they can!

You can love your children, endeavour to raise them in a loving way with firm guidelines for their protection and training for life, but the moment someone else offers them enticements to leave you, there's no protection from child stealer's with their secret agendas unless police become willing to enforce the law.

If a child appears content to be with an abductor, police will not enforce the law, even though ,,,,,,,,,,Section 363A(3) states "It is immaterial that the child was taken with the consent of or at the suggestion of the child."

The Criminal Code Act of Queensland, Sections 363 Child Stealing and Sections 363A Abduction of a child under 16 state that these crimes are punishable with 7 years imprisonment.

If someone came to your home, tied your hands behind your back and stole your valuables, you could call the police and expect them to apply the law. BUT if they steal your children, body and soul??? you are told to forget it!

Police avoid prosecuting, stating the people have 'acted in good faith' and pass the case to DOCS. However, the 'good faith' clause of the law only applies to a person who genuinely believes that the child is their own child and does not indemnify child-stealers.

In our case, we discovered too late that the kidnappers had been undermining our daughter's trust in us for approximately 6 months before stealing her. They criticised every aspect of our lifestyle and family, secretly destroying her trust in family and friends who loved and cared for her, causing her to become extremely vulnerable to their suggestions, whilst enticing her with their psychological candy. "You don't want to listen to your Mum and Dad. It's your life, they can't tell you what to do. You're looking unhappy, things aren't going too well at home are they. When you've had enough just phone us and we'll come get you, anytime, anywhere. We'll help you do anything you want, not like your Mum and Dad." If our daughter considers any thoughts of returning to us, the attitude from these people is "Oooooh, so you're going back to your mother?... after all we've done for you!"

The people who stole our daughter never intended to contact police or DOCS, but expected we would be intimidated to do nothing.

DOCS most recent statements confirm that our daughter has been totally stripped of all other supports, and now depends on the abductors for all her emotional needs and direction.

Why won't they listen to us?

It appears that DOCS are so desperate for foster carers, that they will use anyone. They will even use those who have committed crimes of child-stealing, by indemnifying them, employing them as paid 'foster carers' and rewarding them with custody of their prey?

Is it right for DOCS to allow children to decide the verdict of 'who is guilty of what?' or where the child is 'safe', or encourage them to use DOCS to tyrannize parents and younger siblings?

Of course not! ...and yet they do.

OBSERVATIONS CONCERNING PREDATORY BEHAVIOR

In our opinion, the behaviour patterns of the people who stole our child
could be likened to that of Internet predators and cults. Firstly predators make overly friendly contact and create a 'secret relationship with the child. They plant seeds of doubt and fear in the child's mind about the child's relationship with their parents, and promise that at any time the child thinks they have a problem they'll be around to 'rescue' the child.

They offer the child 'pleasant enticements' of a life full of fun, freedom to do whatever they like with no boundaries, no accountability to parents.

The message to the child is, "It's your life, your parents don't have the right to tell you what you can and can't do". Predators then wait for the 'inevitable conflict' to arise as a result of the 'seeds' they have planted taking root and growing in the child's mind. When the opportune moment arises, they whisk the 'willing' child away and the child has no idea of the danger they are in. Predators effectively remove from a child the protection of their parents, the normal supports, boundaries and discussion that would sound the alarm for the child. The secrecy locks the parent out and hides what is going on. It causes the child to to become insecure in their relationship with their parents, and to shift their trust from their parents to the predator. In the child's mind their parents and the values and safeguards they represent, become the child's 'enemy'.

Any other family or friends who might stand in support of the parents values and protections, or stand between the child and their 'secret friend', are also perceived as the child's 'enemies'. The child's doubts and fears cause them to become overly critical of their parents. The pressure builds as they perceive the parents through a 'translator' that twists everything around in the child's mind and the 'inevitable conflict' erupts. Every attempt by the parent to offer care and protection is rejected as 'unreasonable' or 'controlling' or 'denial of the child's rights'. The conflict within the child's mind now causes them to desire to be 'liberated' from the enemy of their secret relationship and life, their parents.

The parents hands are in effect tied as the child becomes 'ripe' to be plucked from their care. The child is now ready to be exploited and is prepared to go willingly to the predator, with their normal inhibitions disarmed, placing total trust in the predator and their suggestions or requirements. The subtle allurement of the 'secret relationship' will cause the child to lie, hide their activities, and do anything else to protect their 'trusted, special friend'. If the child cannot see the dangers of the secret relationship at that time, they will be unwilling and even afraid to return to their parent's genuine care and protection.

Having programmed the child to reject anyone who will challenge the child's mis-placed 'trust' and 'faith' in the predator, the child is convinced that their 'special friend' only wants the best for them and is protecting them from their 'bad' parents. The predator subtly brainwashes the child into believing that the consequences of returning home will threaten the child's safety and the secret relationship that they now cling to for security. The child loses all sense of conscience of what is right and wrong, and of who are truly their friends and family.

Whilst it is common for predatory behaviour to involve pornography and sexual exploitation, there can be other destructive motivations as seen in cults and ego-driven behavior. Predators do not always work alone. Sometimes they work in partnership with others over whom they have developed strong influence for various reasons, or with whom they have a common 'goal'.

­QUESTIONS RAISED BY OUR EXPERIENCE

Are the Department of Child Safety and Queensland Police Juvenile Aid Bureau:

1.Condoning predatory behaviour of persons upon children, providing sexual exploitation is not immediately evident?

2.Of the opinion that predatory behaviour only occurs via the Internet and mobile phones?

3.Actively discouraging parents from pursuing legal rights detailed in Criminal Code Act of Queensland Sections 363 and 363A when they believe their child has been abducted?

4. Mis-representing those sections of the law to parents with the view to removing the parents rights and ability to exercise their responsibilities?

5.Systematically excluding the parents and following the path of least resistance to suit their departments and other departments or 'interested parties'?

6.Refusing to implement the Criminal Code Act of Queensland Sections 363 Child Stealing and Sections 363A Abduction of a child under 16? Note that Section 363A(3) states "It is immaterial that the child was taken with the consent of or at the suggestion of the child."

7.Perpetrating the idea that anyone can steal a child from the parents' care on the pretext that the abductor is acting "in good faith" whilst disregarding the protocols set in place by Child Protection Act? Note that the Section 363(3) "in good faith" defence is not applicable in this case.

8.Creating a new 'stolen generation' by not implementing the laws against the removal of children from their families by anyone who wants to take a child or prey upon a child or entice a child?

9.Contributing to another 'stolen generation' by delaying the return of children to their parents after an abduction?

10.Rewarding removal of children by allowing abductors to have custody of the child or children that they stole?

11.Systematically excluding parents from exercising their rights and responsibilities for their children whenever the child makes a frivolous or vexatious or malicious complaint?

12.Sending a message to children that their parents do not have the right to set reasonable rules and teach their children how to act responsibly in home life and family relationships?

13.Creating a climate of fear and suspicion around families who don't fit the common 'models' of today's society?

14.Promoting division rather than unification of families by encouraging and rewarding people who want to divide teenagers or younger children from their parents and entice them away?

15.Supporting the view that children can leave home for any trivial reason and expect the government to spend taxpayers' money and departmental resources on them unnecessarily because these government departments are instructed not to send them home?

16.Supporting the view that if pro-active parents have a lifestyle that a son or daughter doesn't like, then the State is willing to pay the bill for the child to make a lifestyle change?

17.Afraid that they would be seen as incompetent if there were fewer 'cases', or lose their budget and positions or jobs as a result of fewer cases?

18.Discriminating against parents of large families when their family doesn't fit the 'norms' of small families?

19.Viewing parents of large families as incompetent because the departments are unaware of the dynamics of a large family with a wide range of ages between children?

20.Discriminating against parents who choose progressive forms of education for their families, such as various styles of home-based education, independent learning programmes such as homeschooling or distance education?

21.Suggesting that children in rural areas are in some way deprived or at greater risk of harm than in highly populated areas?

22.Basing their assessments on false and mis-leading reports entered on Child Safety and Juvenile Aid Bureau data-bases?

23.Ready to make it clear that the government takes vexatious complaints seriously and will not tolerate unnecessary cases which tie up government resources whilst genuine cases are not being taken care of?

24.Taking the path of least resistance rather than upholding rights of parents to protect and guide their children responsibly?

25.Willing to become pro-active and reassure young people that home is the best place to resolve differences and youth issues with their parents?

26.Aware that the fruit of breaking down respect for parents rights and creating division in families produces a social climate of self-indulgence, disrespect and irresponsibility amongst young people?

CHILDREN'S RIGHTS ARE DENIED WHEN THEIR PARENT'S RIGHTS ARE DENIED.

There is a universal principle: Responsibility can only be exercised when authority and empowerment to exercise that responsibility is given.

It appears that what is really under the microscope here is our rights and responsibilities as parents, not abuse and other exaggerated claims.

What is the government doing to ensure that parents are able to exercise their rights and responsibilities in caring for their children?

Why are parents being systematically dis-empowered and denied the right to fully act upon their responsibilities in caring for their children?

By dis-empowering parents, the children's rights are in fact being denied.

Children have a right to feel secure with their parents and need to be taught respect for parents and other adults, it doesn't come naturally. If we do not support respect for parents then we deny children the security and character building qualities of relationships that require respect, and thus destroy the opportunity for children to learn from good role models in preparation for life and for when they become parents themselves. Good social habits are developed in the home when children are young. If we wait until they're old enough to understand, it is too late. The anti-social habits are already ingrained and why would they want to change then?

Should the state and it's employees become defacto parents of our children?

Many of the people who are making decisions regarding families are young university graduates and are not experienced parents themselves. DOCS have admitted that they are perplexed by the dynamics of larger families and do not have funding to cover the expense of engaging a specialist psychologist to make proper assessments of larger families.

We hear so much about the children's rights and we agree that children's needs should be met in a loving and caring way. However, when parents' hands are tied by the current laws and application of those laws, their efforts to fulfill those responsibilities to the best of their ability are frustrated and nullified.

How can parents provide a safe environment for their children when people think they can disregard the parents rights and interfere with the parent-child relationship in any way they like, short of molesting the child, and the government appears to give silent assent?

Why is it permissible for someone to entice and abduct a child from their parent's care and claim that they removed the child "in good faith" and be indemnified from all recourse of the parents and law for the damage that has been done to the child and the parents themselves and to their parent-child relationships. Why should we and the children in our home have to live in fear because the government is permitting and encouraging such criminal activity against children and their parents to go unchecked?

What is being done to prevent the grief, extensive disruption to family life and children's security, as direct result of distressing investigations which often continue for months after unwarranted reports to DOCS?

The rights of the parents to provide a happy and secure home environment for their children are being negated by the current climate of suspicion and fear being generated by lack of support for those rights. The children are being denied the right to enjoy the security of healthy parent-child relationships, without unwarranted interference and attempts to undermine the trust factor in the parent-child relationship.

Each and every one of our children know that we love them deeply and always will love them, even if we don't agree with everything they do. However, we are unable to prevent the damage caused by people who think they have the right to sow suspicion and fear into our children's minds behind our backs, and to criticise us and our decisions for our family directly to our children.

There seems to be a lot of ego-driven power plays going on because parents have been rendered defenceless against the secret agenda being projected into our children's minds by others.

If our children were not encouraged divisively to turn against us, but had been encouraged to work any youth/parent differences out in a reasonable and constructive way with their parents, and sensitive pro-family mediators, then we believe our family would be re-united, with healthy outcomes, instead of what has eventuated.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

docs are a joke

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 30/03/2007 - 20:51.

docs are bloody stupid...my 2 year old neice jumped on my 8 month old nephew so my brother took him to the hospital and the doctors blamed my brother for the accident and took my nephew away from him and placed him in other family members care. This absolutley ridiculous my brother is the best father anyone could ask for docs go to hell and do something constructive with ure time rather than make false allegations and tear families apart

DOCS

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 25/10/2006 - 11:55.

I'm just wondering has anyone ever spotted any men in the dept of child safety because we have only noticed female case workers and most are over 30 years old and don't have wedding rings on their fingers. I have to agree with the above DOCS is the biggest one eyed destroyer of families that I've ever seen or read on the internet and when they get it wrong do you think they ever apologise?, you bet not, they only have arrogance and itimidation as their tactics. I'm just wondering in the future if there will be a MASSIVE law suit against the Government for the new stolen generation of children that were removed or hassled just because of a rumour that was sent to DOCS.

reply

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 14/11/2006 - 16:26.

there are a few men but most are in middle management or they leave after the first contract (two years ) is up

wake up

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 11/10/2006 - 20:39.

Has anyone heard how many suicides there are due to involement with DOCS?

CHILD SAFETY ENCOURAGE CHILDREN TO ABUSE PARENTS

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 20/06/2006 - 23:26.

I remember reading your case file ''rights4_parents'' (not your traceable email address - of course); there were good reasons to remove your children. Your children would have been seriously harmed in your care. Your adolescent children, if only the state had intervened earlier, would have had a chance at life. Now your teenagers, they will be like you. I bet you wish you had some DOCS worker knocking on your home's door when you were a little kid and your mum/dad were beating/starving/sexually abusing/verbally abusing you. Maybye then your own kids would have turned out OK.

re the above docs worker CHILDSAFETY ENCOURAGE

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 16/01/2007 - 21:42.

Who the hell do you think you are? Maggots like you destroy peoples lives and any chance of happiness. Without any interference from scum like you normal people work it out quite fine, your so called case files are as real as Star Wars or Alice in Wonderland, you fucking loser get your own life and stay out of other peoples. WHAT WAS THE NATURE OF YOUR ABUSE VIGILANTE.

idiot

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 13/06/2006 - 15:25.

I wholly disagree!
Children are shaped by daycares, schools, other people they know,media and life experience. Do you work for Docs? If not we're sure you would find a career in such an (de)organisation satisfying.
Did you run away and lie about your parents as ateenager too?
Or is this the daughter of the first writers'? come to cause yet more problems for her poor forgiving parents.

siblings lack of contact because of DOCS

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 26/04/2006 - 21:44.

Many children do not see each other for years after DOCS involvement.
No-one cares less.Not DOCS or Children's Court or Family Court or
Legal Aid QLD or ATSWAlIS or Aboriginal Women's Legal Service or
Women's Legal Service or Bravehearts or Mission Australia or Lifeline
They do not care what the best interests of the children are, if I hear that ridiculous crap again I will repeadedly vomit.
Don't stop fighting! Get every file on your children through FOI or suppoenas and go to the Courier Mail or some such paper or maybe insight. I'm sick of hearing about rights of children from people who wouldn't care if those children dropped dead,DOCS are pathetic!!!! I have had veiled threats directly from the Minister of DOCS himself. The Commissioner for Children and Young people is a joke.So is the Child Guardian and worse still is the Community Visitor Scheme who don't visit the children as they claim. It doesn't matter how many times they (DOCS)rename and regroup they will still be the bigest bunch of lying child abusers in the country.
And the biggest joke of the year award goes to the Complaints Department(The initial fob of , pass the buck department)

Advertising

 


Advertise here!

All content and comments posted are owned and © by the Author and/or Poster.
Web site Copyright © 1995 - 2007 Clemens Vermeulen, Cairns - All Rights Reserved
Drupal design and maintenance by Clemens Vermeulen Drupal theme by Kiwi Themes.