by Kieran Le Plastrier, MBBS (Hons), MP, PhD
[Editor’s Note: One of the Mums in our study of Family Court has sought an opinion from Dr Le Plastrier. Both she and the doctor permit us to publish his letter with ALL identifying features removed. Names of family members and one social worker (Smith) are pseudonyms. Initials are used for the name of a psychiatrist and a psychologist. It’s a great relief to find a doctor who has a keen eye for law and professional ethics.]
Dear Brenda [Ella’s mother],
Please understand that I am not offering this as an opinion regarding the facts of the various allegations. Instead, my primary concerns arise from what I see are dangerous consequences of decision-making based on inappropriate application of principles of law and the professional requirements to act in a child’s best interests. If even a sliver of what has been alleged is found to be likely beyond a reasonable doubt then a travesty of miscarriage of justice has occurred. I hold significant concerns about a series of major issues with the quality, timing, and underlying professional reasoning that is used throughout the case. I wanted to note some of these for you.
1 – The most cogent and reliable departmental correspondence in all the information we have shared is, ironically, the [Departmental] document dated 2016 and addressed to Barry [the father]. In reviewing all the documents it is the most contemporaneous with the initial allegations and investigations and therefore should be heavily relied upon for its direct and unequivocal summation of the grounds for Ella’s removal from her father for ‘sexual acts and exploitation’. I note there is reference to Brenda [you, the mother] having been assessed by a psychiatrist at the time and to be found without mental health issues.
2 – The timeline of investigations and professional reviews is also critical. In respect of whether or not allegations of ‘coaching’ were made out, I note that Dr JB an independent forensic psychiatrist appears to have addressed this directly and found no basis for the allegation. The full report from this assessment would be useful to review. I see also that a second competent psychologist came to the same conclusion around the same time. This appears to be part of the initial 2016 investigation so its proximity to the original disclosures is important as a matter of law and to the question of fact.
Your summary suggests the Protective Services had not formed a view of psychological risk of abuse by you towards Ella and it was only after the father alleged a Notice of Risk. This notification would have required a very high level of scrutiny as it is a standard defense ploy for any person charged with sexual abuse or other abuse of a child to allege that the child’s other care givers are deliberately fabricating a story of abuse. This counter-notification is made in order to introduce the element of doubt at a future trial of the alleged perpetrator’s own charges.
I remain alarmed by the failure to investigate the new cut to Ella’s limb in 2018 when I have heard firsthand that Ella alleged her father inflicted the wound with a knife. This is professional misconduct of the highest order given the 2016 and 2017 allegations and would easily reach the threshold for professional misconduct requiring urgent Ministerial investigation. Anything less than a Ministerial complaint and formal response would be a gross dereliction of ministerial duties under the relevant child protection Act given that Ella was an active client of Protective Services at the time, and hence ultimately the responsibility of the Minister at the time.
Hiding behind a procedural issue of delegated responsibility to a CEO or other entity cannot satisfy the prima facie responsibility of a Minister of the Crown to ensure their portfolio and responsibilities are enacted with due regard to the lives of the people whom they serve, especially when the allegations are of such a profound criminal threshold — aggravated assault occasioning grievous bodily harm.
3 – I am concerned by the cursory and incomplete annotations of interactions between the psychologist SN and Ella in which the person writing the report (Ms Smith) makes contradictory and non sequitur statements. Specifically, she reports that Ella has ‘not retracted’ (p 26) her earlier allegations and without any substantive statements (in the notes and reports I have seen) the psychologist appears to continue therapeutic interventions under the assumption that said allegations are false or coached.
4 – I am alarmed that the psychologist appears to be acting on the instruction of the department when her professional and ethical duty can ONLY be to the child. Page 24 of the report you showed me has in it in the last paragraph a statement that ‘the department’ holds grave concerns for Ella’s safety in the care of her father given the historical allegations of abuse “which are believed to be false”. False according to whom? False according to which professional assessments and contemporaneous investigatory notes? False according to which inconsistent and implausible statements by the child?
But wait, in the same report Smith states “Ella has shared many highly detailed accounts of being abused. Irrespective of inconsistencies regarding timelines, specific events etc. the department cannot discount the possibility that Ella could have experienced sexual physical harm and be at risk of experiencing this in the future with in the care of Barry.”
SN goes on to report that Ella “denied that her mother had ever encouraged her to say things that were not true”. This last statement was made in 2019. This indicates that departmental personnel have concluded that a witness, a child of 6, 7, 8 and 9 years of age over all that time, has been lying for three years. It is profoundly unprofessional to continue to allege such perjury and not bring charges against the child and mother for the myriad ‘false’ statements they must have made under oath in that time, if the department has proof that the allegations are false and coached. As such, I am highly suspicious that the reason such charges have not been laid is that this would entail a test of the truthfulness and veracity of any evidence upon which the department is basing its own allegations of perjury.
5 – I would like to know why a criminal investigation has not apparently been conducted into the allegations of sexual abuse and alleged grievous bodily harm in a criminal court. Is this the case? As such, the department relying on a family court judge for the finding of facts regarding allegations of abuse of this highly serious and criminal nature, and with such obviously credible witnesses, is also a matter of grave concern. Smith points to a Family Court judgment as the Department’s justification for sustaining a belief (not a fact) that the abuse is unsubstantiated.
This is grossly negligent should it be the case. Instead, if the DPP or some other independent authority of law had deduced that there was insufficient evidence to charge Barry there might be grounds for a position of uncertainty — although I would point out that to deny the allegations is to suggest a 6-year-old child is a liar and perjurer over three years.
Unless I am wholly misled about the nature of justice in [your State], these allegations require an appropriate test as potential criminal acts and it would most certainly not be the purview of a child protection department to determine the facts of such serious allegations. In a breathtaking contradiction in the 3rd paragraph of p24 of the Smith report, the author states that despite having evidently concluded the ‘facts’ of the case without appropriate jurisprudence – i.e., that the abuse was “unlikely” – “the department cannot discount the possibility that Ella may have been exploited or abused at some point by Barry”.
6 – In a final comment on the report signed by Smith, to conclude that family repatriation with the alleged paternal abuser, when the alleged abuse is obviously of an extreme nature, without the satisfaction of an appropriate jurisprudence determination of facts, and flying in the face of three years of consistent reporting by a child, who also clearly says she does not want contact with Barry, is the grossest level of negligence by a government department I have ever had the misfortune of bearing witness to in any child related matter.It beggars belief that the authors of this report could conclude that a repatriation or family contact process is anything less than a perpetuation of abuse — an abuse they are paid and allegedly supposedly trained to protect children from.
7 – With respect to some notes I have reviewed regarding the work of the psychologist SN, I think she may have previously published in the area of child sexual abuse, though I cannot be 100% sure that it is the one and same person. I draw your attention to a paper she may have co-authored that concludes it is natural for a child to have some confusion about details.
It appears that some of the serious errors by the department are based on a false conclusion that a child who reports some inconsistencies with respect to dates and actions of abuse should be considered to be lying. It seems highly unusual that a professional who has published peer-reviewed work on such a specific issue would then apparently view that a child who consistently reports abuse and is believed by investigators, but who after three years may have reported some ‘inconsistencies’, is to be considered a liar.
I am deeply concerned that in the report dated 2019, SN states that Ella “agreed that her mother worried a lot about her getting hurt,” which is then conjuncted with a comment from herself that Ella’s mother thought Ella was deliberately hurt when it was an accident. This conjunction is highly misleading in that it artificially interpolates a suggestion from the therapist into a statement from the child. This is sloppy recording of facts and calls into question the reliability of any other statements in these reports as to whether or not they are the actual words of the patient or interpretations, leading statements, or misdirections by the therapist.
— End of Letter from Dr Kieran Le Plastrier
Zheesh! What a welcome article/letter!
And there is a part of the law that allows a parent to DISOBEY a Family Court order if the safety of the child so requires. Number 4 is the biggie:
“FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 – SECT 70NAE
Meaning of reasonable excuse for contravening an order
(1) The circumstances in which a person may be taken to have had … a reasonable excuse for contravening an order under this Act affecting children include, but are not limited to, the circumstances set out in subsections (2), (4), (5), (6) ….
(2) A person … did not, at the time of the contravention, understand the obligations imposed by the order [the judge has to aapprove the excuse] ...(4) A person is taken to have had a reasonable excuse for contravening a parenting order to the extent to which it deals with whom a child is to live … if:
(a) the respondent believed on reasonable grounds that the actions constituting the contravention were necessary to protect the health or safety of a person (including the respondent or the child); and
(b) the period during which, because of the contravention, the child did not live with the person in whose favour the order was made was not longer than was necessary to protect the health or safety of the person ...
(5) … (a) the respondent believed on reasonable grounds that not allowing the child and the person to spend time together was necessary to protect the health or safety of a person ….
(6) A person (the respondent) is taken to have had a reasonable excuse for contravening a parenting order to the extent to which it deals with whom a child is to communicate with in a way that resulted in a person and a child not having the communication provided for under the order if: (a) the respondent believed on reasonable grounds that not allowing the child and the person to communicate together was necessary to protect the health or safety of a person (including the respondent or the child); …"
[Retrieved an hour ago from austlii.edu.au — presumably still good law!]
My note: Item 6 does not say the Protector can force communication, in the way 4 says he or she can force a residence change (temporarily). It says the Protector can BLOCK communication with the harmful parent. Thus it is like Item 5 which says he or she can block the court-ordered residence.
This letter from a medical professional highlights the corruption in a horrific case I have been following. Dee and Mary, thank you both for fighting so diligently. Dr Le Plastrier is a legend. The fight continues to force the DCP to return this child to her mother.
The doctor presumably, inferred from the opinion, examined a historical chronology and relevant reports.
Here is another separate ‘follow up’ opinion: (relying upon the doctor’s ‘independent’ assessment and report)
It would be brave RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT MINISTER TO IGNORE IT AND NOT SEEK A EXTENSIVE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION OF ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES.AND A FULL, REPORT FROM A OUT OF STATE RETIRED JUSTICE AND FUND, THE MOTHER’S LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND FOR THE CHILD’S INDEPENDENT REPRESENTATION.
Then again, maybe the minister is incompetent or stupid or…….?
The same observation may well apply to the INFORMED responsible shadow opposition ‘minister’ if that person does not raise this matter with a insightful question in the SA Parliament.
The buck stops upon the, SA Premier’s desk!
Good-o, Nedski. What you said makes me cry for joy, it does.
And may I point out that bright young lawyers today should have their eye on the main chance. There’s bound to be a few rushed resignations from the bench pretty soon.
It is little known that Justice John Paul Stevens of the US Supreme Court (retired) got an early boost to his career when he “showed to the door” several corrupt judges in Chicago. Yes he did and lived to tell it. In fact he turned 99 this year.
The problem we have here is there is GROSS misfeasance and malfeasance by the powers that be and there is NO accountability . All of this needs to be attended to by the Premier and Prime Minister and not behind closed doors ! Accountability needs to be held in public and the miscreants dealt with . One wonders why , in spite of the Prime Minister’s public apology to the children who were sexually abused in institutions , he has not instigated a Royal Commission into the Family Court ? What is he hiding and who is he protecting ? If the answer is nothing and no one then it appears to me to be common sense that justice prevails . What do you say Mr. Prime Minister ?
Wait! I’m here to speak up for America. We can’t have Australia taking all the credit for child-stealing. A blog called jonislaoom.wordpress.com carries the following message, dated 2013, and also lists the particulars as to how the mums can file a class action (or individual action) law suit:
“INSURANCE COMPANIES AND THE STATE ARE BEING DEFRAUDED BY MEDICAL AND MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS WHO ARE ROUTINELY REWARDED HANDSOMELY FOR SUBMITTING FALSE CLAIMS THAT MISDIAGNOSE FIT AND LOVING MOTHERS AND THEIR CHILDREN WITH MENTAL DISORDERS THEY DO NOT HAVE;
“THEY ARE ALSO PROVIDING DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT PLANS THAT ARE CONSIDERED ILLEGITIMATE BY THE AMA AND APA. MEANWHILE, THE SAME PROFESSIONALS JUSTIFY THEIR BILLING BY DELIBERATELY RECOMMENDING TO JUDGES THE PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN IN THE CARE OF VIOLENT FATHERS, EVEN RAPISTS, AND BY SHIELDING THESE OFFENDERS FROM CRIMINAL PROSECUTION THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE KEEP CHILDREN SAFE.”
Yes, hooray for the red, white, and blue. Go, Seppos!
Not to be disloyal to Adelaide. Here is an exciting report of an indecent assault on Rundle Mall, for which Crimestoppers SA asks YOUR help in tracking down the bad man:
.
https://www.facebook.com/SouthAustraliaPolice/videos/699430677139732/?v=699430677139732
Chicken Whipping (from Smh.com.au):
“Despite the caseworker’s report saying the baby girl had been the subject of the October ROSH report, in the same paragraph the document said the infant came to the attention of FACS due to police trying to find the family following the December raid.
“The enforcer was last month sentenced in the NSW District Court to at least 4½ years in prison for assaulting the mother and another woman, as well for animal cruelty, including one incident in which he whipped chickens to death.”
Well it’s all happening in Italy as well, not that you’d know it from the MSM. You have to read the Stormer to find out:
https://dailystormer.name/italian-pizzagate-confirms-that-politicians-engage-in-pedo-activity-worldwide/
Holy God, Richard, that is amazing. But it’s got a twist in it that does not match up to the american or australian experience. In Italy the kids are forced to believe that a parent DID abuse them (as opposed to the CIA tactic of forcing a child to deltee memories of abuse). Let me quote your Stormer item:
“Italian police have arrested 18 people including a mayor, doctors and social workers for allegedly brainwashing vulnerable children into thinking their parents had abused them so they could then be sold to foster parents.
“Police in the northern city of Reggio Emilia made the arrests after an investigation started in 2018 revealed an alleged network of carers who used methods including electroshock to make the children believe they had been sexually abused.”
TOLEDO, OHIO: misprision of felony!!!!! Lady failed to report exploitation of child. From DoJ.gov:
A Toledo woman was sentenced to nearly two years in prison for making false statements as part of investigation into the sex trafficking of minors. Laura Lloyd-Jenkins, 44, was sentenced to 21 months in federal prison.
“’This defendant held a position of trust in the community. Instead of reporting the exploitation of children to the police when she learned about it, she kept the information to herself and then lied when asked about it,’ U.S. Attorney Justin Herdman said.
“‘We are pleased with the sentence Ms. Lloyd-Jenkins has received for the untruths she told to law enforcement and for the efforts she engaged in to cover up abuses of an under-aged female being trafficked for sex,’ said FBI Special Agent in Charge Eric B. Smith.”
CHECK IT OUT! A US ATTORNEY AND AN FBI AGENT DOING THE RIGHT THING!
Thank you very much Dr Kieran Le Plastrier
I reckon canonization should be on the menu. “St. Kieran” sound good.
Agreed Mary – Dr Kieran is a legend. What peeves me is the politicians who are PAID to sort out these situations are remaining silent. If it wasn’t for yourself, Dee and the St(!) Kieran’s of the world people would remain oblivious to what is happening in the family court and DCP in SA.
Rachel dear, I am furious with everybody who refuses to grapple with what is gloing on. I have just been reading about a family of 5 kids who were all taken away for no reason. Well, I mean there must have been a reason — to torture the parents.
Orwell’s man in Room 101 rightly said “The purpose of torture is torture.”
(Ten dollars says the next comment will be from Diane DeVere who may know a thing or two about it….)
Rachel, Rachel, I’ve got it. My eureka moment, inspired by your remark:
THE PURPOSE OF THE DCP IS TORTURE.
Breaking a mother child bond can lead to serious problems. “This can lead to difficulty maintaining relationships in adulthood. It can also lead to unhealthy relationships” If one is not believed this can lead to feelings of being “worthless.” Sexual abuse survivors, generally are saddled with the stigma and shame surrounding the abuse, often struggle with a feeling of being damaged because no one believes them. “Abused children cannot express emotions safely. As a result, the emotions get stuffed down, coming out in unexpected ways. Adult survivors of child abuse can struggle with unexplained anxiety, depression, or anger.” Abusive behavior comes in many forms, whether the abuse is a slap, assault, sexual abuse, abusive comments, harsh comments, and result is a child that feels unsafe.
Not being listened to is emotional abuse.
If everyone stopped feeling worthless the entire governmental system would collapse