by Dee McLachlan
The way protective mothers are treated today is disturbingly close to the 1692 Court of Oyer and Terminer — the tribunal that powered the Salem witch trials. Back then, an accusation was enough. “Spectral evidence” — dreams, rumours, anxieties, a neighbour’s whisper, a magistrate’s hunch — counted as proof. Women were not judged by what they did, but by what others feared they might be. And once branded a witch, every instinctive act of self-defence was interpreted through that stain. The trial was never a search for truth; it was a ceremony to confirm a verdict already chosen.
Three centuries later, a protective mother labelled by a child-protection department as “emotionally reactive,” “enmeshed,” or “unstable” steps into the same machinery. Or she could be accused of possibly having an “episode” — a smear without history, without definition, and without substance. In 1692, women lost their freedom or life; in 2025, mothers lose their children. The noose or drown-test has been replaced by removal orders or placement orders — but the modus operandi, the blindness of the system and the cruelty remain eerily unchanged.
You might want to read my 2 January 2019 article — entitled Statistical Evidence: Gumshoe’s Family Court Survey. To the question “Who DID believe your child [about their abuse disclosures]?” only 2 judges in 71 cases did — which meant the children were sent back to the abuser. These are truly shocking statistics, and I have seen this played out over and over again — as in this Missing Justice case of the two sisters. Magistrates delivered Intervention Orders (IVOs) against the protecting parent — thus exposing the children to further harm.
This often leads to desperate people escaping “court orders.”
I was saddened by this account sent to me yesterday: Queensland Police requesting public help to locate a five-year-old “missing” child who is, in fact, with his mother. His name and photo were widely circulated across Facebook and LinkedIn — with the post stating he “is believed to be in the company of his mother, [name]… He was last seen on 29 August 2025 during a court-ordered visit. [Their] current location is unknown.”
On a shared Facebook post, Tracy Jagger wrote: “…who is responsible for the trauma caused to this family when it finally gets withdrawn and struck out? Anyone thinking that a court order means the mum did something wrong, is a moron… More sovereign citizen bullshit…”
I pray for the children when they are so young — when they have no standing in a courtroom, no voice. A few years ago, PJ’s four-year-old son was torn screaming from her arms and vanished into the system. South Australia’s department then marched her to a hospital and retrospectively — ex post facto — branded her delusional and schizophrenic in less than twenty minutes to legitimise the abduction.
But the Missing Justice sisters in this series are different; their courageous actions might echo across Western nations where the child-protection industry moves in lockstep. Will they be the ones who finally lift the blindfold from the eyes of those who work with children — and compel them to recognize what they have been enabling all along?
I’ll continue with tale of the two sisters.
Forced Return
As outlined in Part Two, after months in secure welfare, the young girl was forcibly returned to her father’s home. This was despite her telling the specialist in secure care that life with her mother was “idyllic,” stable, and nurturing — and that she feared her father. In fact, her father was responsible for her being detained in the first place — as a form of punishment. Fortunately her older sister — who had always protected her — was at her fathers (unwillingly). The younger sister recalls her father telling her when she arrived that she would “never see [her] mother again.”
I find it difficult to imagine conduct from a parent more egregious or dishonourable than using the court to deliberately sever the most loving bond in a child’s life.
Harvard paediatrics professor Charles Nelson told The Washington Post that forced separation inflicts “catastrophic” psychological and neurological damage. He was referring to children detained at the U.S. border — but the same science applies here.
Trying To Be Heard
Both the young lass and her mum had raised the alarm again and again, over months and years, begging social workers and police for help. Yet no one listened.
The systems were never designed for listening. In large agencies, the priority is to follow prescribed procedure, tick boxes; it seems workers are trained to trust the file, case-note history, and “professional judgement” over the child’s own voice. And often the expert report writer depends on Department for work so is often swayed to their bidding. The system is also designed for compliance, and risk-management; I would suggest not child-risk, but job-risk.
Listening takes time, nuance, curiosity, and moral courage — attributes rarely rewarded. So in this case, no one questioned the validity of the (defective) Intervention orders (IVO) that conflicted with past orders and conflicted with the pleas of the child. As it was obtained without her consent, and I wonder how police and the courts could act with such recklessness?
Maybe the cries of a child in distress is like listening to a fire alarm: the reflex is to shut it off as fast as possible, because if anyone actually investigated the smoke, they might have to take responsibility.
The Great Escape
The young lass found herself separated from her mum and stripped of safety. Her older sister later described how the often shared a room just so she could sleep without fear as her father, she says, had threatened her life on occasions.
And what did the specialist in detention say after interviewing her; that if she were placed back with her father, she would run away.
It took just over a month.
The older sister had an altercation with her father, and told her to get out. The younger sister was so fearful of the possibility of being left alone, the girls made a plan. The older sibling created a diversion, telling her sister to carry her stuff — and an electric scooter — downstairs. She then said, “Don’t worry about me — stick to the plan and hide. I’ll catch up … love you.”
That was at the beginning of this year when they bust out of there.
They then forced their mum into hiding — so she could protect her youngest daughter from danger which she is lawfully and morally obligated to do. And they remained in hiding — in concealed detention — for over eight months. And although the young lass was restricted from accessing the community, she was happy and felt safe.
In February, the older sister began calling the police station regularly — every week — for some time, asking how they could solve their predicament. The authorities never offered a solution; never seemed keen to listen. After a few months, the older sister told me. “I called the officer again, and pleaded with her that we were not missing, that we just wanted to tell our story and be left alone.” She said, the officer replied, “Yeah, come into the station and we can talk… we’ll sort this out so you never go missing again.” She said it felt threatening, and imagined their destiny was detention — so she never called them again.
Behavioural Evidence
In child protection and policing, the most reliable evidence is not necessarily what a child writes or says — it’s what they do. Behavioural evidence has long been recognised in law, including under the Evidence Act 2008 (Vic) as a far more truthful indicator of a child’s felt safety than any statement. When a child repeatedly runs away, hides for months, or risks severe punishment rather than return to a particular environment, that conduct becomes a spontaneous, unfiltered disclosure of danger.
Yet despite this, police and child-protection systems consistently treat absconding as misbehaviour or defiance instead of the red flag it so clearly is. Once bureaucracy settles on a narrative, the child must conform — no matter how illogical, no matter how extreme the child’s self-rescue actions are.
This repeated deafness is not just neglect. It may well be unlawful.
The actions of these two girls is so unambiguous, so consistent, that it demands the system and the courts lift the blindfold and confront the obvious reality. And ironically, it reveals something else: their mother seems to have done well raising two resilient, independent, grounded, savvy daughters — girls who refuse to be silenced or misrepresented. I have no doubt that they will have an impact on the world in breaching the bureaucratic blindfold. I have been inspired by their fortitude.
Yet, for the moment, bureaucracy continues to keep mum and the young lass apart while “paperwork” catches up. She is still being harmed by this separation — and one can only hope this is resolved quickly before more damage is done.
TO BE CONTINUED…
Please keep comments on topic.
Indeed,
I am waiting for a comment from the honourable Minister responsible for the relevant department that keeps children safe and the Honourable Police Minister responsible for the conduct of ALL THE POLICE INVOLVED. Perhaps they are the same lot that went around mandating Dan’s masking dictates and the 6 ft rule which has other suitable uses.
Then how about someone from the ABC or our corporate mass media?. …. Right, just not a story for the public to be informed of, someone might be called before a camera to ‘PLEASE EXPLAIN’.
Oh dear, no politician or journalist reads gumshoe, do they? Because to know might prick a lost conscience.
497
Should be 407!
After reading the third instalment of all of Dee’s devoted work, I had to walk around the block to settle down.
I resist the desire to let some arsholes know what I think of Victoria.
So to be positive, some readers from Victoria might able to assist.
Name and provide details of the
following ministers and layabouts.
The Premier,
The Minister for Police.
Who ever the Minister is that runs some child protection agency.
The departmental heads of each of the entities referred to above, including whoever is the Commissioner of police
Whoever is the opposition leader and the opposition members in parliament allegedly keeping the government ministers accountable to the electorate.
All the other members in the Victorian Parliament not behoven to the major parties.
437
When the above responsible people are recorded, then readers can let them know about their possible: complicity, failures incompetence and remind them how many we are, how few they are and who THEY SERVE.
507
MVGA!
Sorry Dee, your article reminded me of so many injustices that I just scanned through it. Same old shit, different day.
Get in touch with me, I’ll send you some money for your operation.
For the others reading this – Protect yourself, nobody else will…
same story from me Dee -get in touch direct -much strength and love
Thanks Ned. I suggest people send this link to MSM. Better to send via form, but here some emails.
Try
https://www.abc.net.au/news/contact
investigations.contact@theguardian.com.
7ndtips@seven.com.au for direct communication
newstips@9news.com
tips@networkten.com.au
https://www.sbsmedia.com.au/contact-us/
news@theage.com.au
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/help/storytips
https://www.crikey.com.au/contact-us/
Thanks Emily.
A few ‘tears’ ago I canvassed the following concept.
INTRODUCTION.
Knowing that we peasants are thick, disorganised, distracted and busy and whilst messaging local members and news outlets (or ringing talkback) with bloody no response or receiving the usual garbage sent by a staffer.
I suggested the following.
A site that files all correspondence to ALL LOCAL politicians, media etc. presented.
Of course the system would be voluntary and if desired, provisions provided for such, eg: a pin code. But registered for example at GS.
Such a system would be based on NO CENSORSHIP. Questions in Parliament should not be censored,,,,, as they are now filtered by combined interests… have to love Dorothy Dix💁🤷♂️
If such correspondence is logged, then it is up to our parliamentary rep to reply, ignore or put up BS that cane be challenged etc; promoting a discussion.
So let us test? How many have written and or messaged your local members and received a reply or just one that accords to their policy without answering the inquiry?
Well, let us start!
627
Then start, send an edited copy to those who should be up to their briefs on. Dee’s THREE PART REPORT?
And log it here.
Then we await their answer., rather than sending in stuff that they will ignore on this relevant article … and others of concern.
The mass media will not put them on camera, so dispense with that lot and put them up here if they have a answer.
637
Be reserved, polite and respectful.
Remember, you are probably addressing a self promoting defensive arsehole who could not give a stuff about you or your opinion, if it is contrary to the globalist’s agendas.
647
Thanks Terry
Thanks from me as well Terry,
Its counter something but you will cover us, asleep, weak or distracted. *
Dee please make this correction (actually, addition) to your article. I am copying it from your 2018 survey. In today’s article you said only 2% of judges believe the child but look how many other folks believe the child:
7. Who DID believe your child? Did someone (even one person) from the categories below believe your child? [71] [MC]
Members of my family (58)
Anyone in the police, detective etc (21)
Child Protective Service Officers (15)
Social workers, supervised visit personnel (12)
A doctor, nurse, medical personnel (29)
Court reporters, supervision services (3)
ICL, independent child lawyer (2)
Your psychologist/psychiatrist (41)
Court appointed experts (6)
Court appointed psychiatrist (3)
The judge (the court) (2)
Other (20)