by Mary W Maxwell, LLB
The editor of Gumshoe — Dee McLachlan — and myself had little acquaintance with the problem of child-snatching by government, until this year. Then we needed to learn about it quickly, as we were approached by mums-in-trouble.
Today I have some good news – namely, that the law itself is not written in as Snatcher-friendly way as I had suggested. The black-letter law supports the child — not the cops, not the bureaucrats, not your MP, and not, of course, the seemingly ubiquitous pedophiles or their way-high-up bosses, the pedo-rings.
Isn’t that nice?
The title of this article, “Darlene, find your spine,” refers to a South Australian mother who — in an apparently standardized way — had her kid taken from her on the trumped-up grounds that she is a mental case. She has truly lost her little girl and many people broke the law in regard to that awful action. But now we can show her how she can turn the tables on them.
I mean, in standardized Maxwell manner, that we can hand her the law to use. By “Find your spine” I mean Lookie here, Darlene, you are in control. The law will see to it that you get “Ellen” back. (Granted, I’m omitting the fact that permanent damage has probably been done to poor, innocent, 9-year-old Ellen.)
The Family Law Act and Custody
It is a principle of Australia’s 1975 Family Law Act that decisions about children should be made in the best interests of the child. Cases that do not involve pedophiles, and do not include child-snatching-by-government, routinely invoke the principle of “best-interest-of-the-child.”
Here is a simple example. A child who was a student at Seymour College, one of Adelaide’s expensive private schools, was living in a family that was not her biological family. She was born in Israel and her natural parents there had decided, for financial reasons, to ask a friend to care for her. Later the friend brought the girl to Adelaide.
After some years, the mother wanted the kid back. The 12-year-old did not want to go, and the “adopting mum” (not an official adopter) wanted to keep her. Long story short, the judge interviewed the girl and determined that it was “in the best interests of the child” for her to remain in Adelaide. And so she stayed in Australia with her non-biological mum.
The law worked well for the Seymour girl, although not for her mother in Israel. Note that a different judge could have wielded the same law differently. He might have said “A child’s affection for its biological parents should be cultivated and so it is in her best interest to go back to them, even though it means leaving the pleasures of Australia and the caring of the adoptive Mum.”
Disambiguation
Let’s call the Seymour case “a plain custody case.” No medical records of bruising, no mum being hauled off for mental assessment, etc.
But that is not the kind of case Gumshoe has been worrying about. So let me try to put a bit of order into chaos here.
In this article I will entirely, or almost entirely, ignore the allegation that whole governments are run by pedophiles. Sure, that issue does have importance in Darlene’s case. We think her husband was provided by Insiders with the phone number of the ACIS assessment team. He had it “at the ready,” probably as a means of covering up crimes related to sex-with-children.
But never mind that. Today I am presenting the case of Darlene trying to get help for her abused child, whether physically abused, psychologically abused, or sexually abused. Ellen seems to have met all three of those criteria, but any one of them suffices to elicit the help of the law.
For simplicity’s sake we can limit Ellen’s case to merely the physical abuse criterion. Her mother has presented photo of leg injury acquired when Ellen was at the home of the father. (Darlene’s now ex-husband.)
And at this point let me also disambiguate Darlene’s case from Gumshoe’s coverage of the Adelaide tunnels and of the child killings allegedly done by Max McIntyre. Those subjects were interwoven in some of our articles.
Gumshoe will continue to pursue that stuff in the context of crimes (especially murder and torture). Today we aren’t talking about the criminals but about the children and what the law can do for them.
SAPOL (South Australian Police)
So forget, please, that I have accused SAPOL of utterly ignoring the serious crimes reported to them by Rachel Vaughan (e.g., the Beaumont children). That did happen (she has documentation of it) but it’s outside the scope of this article.
But do recall, please, that I claimed that mums or dads who try to show their child’s injuries to police are turned away on the legal basis that police can’t get involved in a case that is already “before The Family Court.”
I WAS WRONG. There is no legal basis for such a thing. I apologize for indicating that police were prevented from helping. They are not prevented from helping. Quite the opposite: it is their duty to help.
Whew! Isn’t that a great relief?
Interagency Code of Practice
I refer now to a document, published in 2016, whose purpose is to enable good communication and coordination among the various agencies of South Australia’s government that touch on the issue of child abuse. It is called the Interagency Code of Practice.
The publication says:
“This edition of the ICP was developed by a committee representing the following agencies: Families SA; Attorney-General’s Department; Department for Communities and Social Inclusion; South Australia Police; Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, [etc.]”
In regard to a bruise that a parent sees on a child, note this quote:
“It is important that the Families SA social worker or SAPOL officer attending [the] family determines whether any injury referenced in the notification or any other injury(ies) of concern is present or not. …”
The Interagency Code of practice also says, under the heading “Responsibility to Inform”:
“A number of authorities and persons will need to be informed about suspected abuse and neglect in order to: assist in the identification of possible victims…;
safeguard other children exposed to an alleged offender; [and] meet various legislative requirements, such as notifying the Guardian for Children and Young People if the child is in state care.” [Emphasis added]
Interviewing the Child
The Code of Practice sets out guidelines for the initial interview with a child:
“The aims … may include some or all of the following actions:
talking to the child about how safe they are feeling;
determining whether they have any immediate needs;
… ascertaining the developmental status/emotional wellbeing of the child, and informally assessing whether the child might be capable of participating in a forensic interview.”
Importantly, the ICP says: “It is important to ask general open-ended questions to encourage narrative responses from the child….”
Your Duty As a Citizen
Turning now to a different law in South Australia, The Children’s and Young People’s Safety Act, 2017, we see in its Section 5(a):
“[It] is the duty of every person in the State to safeguard and promote the outcomes set out in section 4(2)…
The section referred to, section 4 is “The Charter of Rights for Children in Care.”
What Darlene-with-Spine Can Do
It is clear that a mother in South Australia can legally take her case to the police. She can show them that the child is already injured and describe the likelihood that the child will be injured again.
She can do this without the child being present. She can deliver recordings and photographs, or bring witnesses with her. Note that she is not there in the context of filing a criminal complaint. She is there to get help for the child.
She won’t be invoking her own parental right to have custody of the child. That is not a matter for police to sort out. The issue is the child’s protection of Ellen from a person who may injure her.
Gag Order?
Ah, but what about sec 121 of the Family Law Act? Is she not under a gag order? I believe that she is only gagged to a specific extent. Please see the letter of this law. Note that it does NOT say “You must be hush hush about your child’s plight.” It says:
“A Person who published in a newspaper…. or otherwise disseminates to the public or to a section of the public by any means, any account of any proceedings… under this Act that identifies:
a party to the proceedings
a person who is associated with a party to the proceedings or [is] in any other way concerned in the matter to which the proceedings relate
is guilty of an offence punishable upon conviction by imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year.
If Darlene identifies her husband to police as the likely injurer of the child she is not “identifying him as a party to [Family Court] proceedings” as she is not talking about proceedings. (At least that is how I read the law).
Presumably the police will ask “Is this a Family Court case?” She can say “No comment.” (Or how about “None of your frickin’ business.”)
Also, if she is speaking publicly and uses pseudonyms for herself, the child, the husband, etc, she is not identifying anyone – in my opinion.
The Exchange of Correspondence with SA’s Attorney General
I wrote an email to Ms Vicki Chapman, the Attorney General of South Australia. (It is also published at GumshoeNews as an open letter.) I told her that past murders of children in South Australia need urgent attention. Ms Chapman replied to me saying I should instead turn to the Minister for Police Corey Wingard, MP. (Tel. 08 8463 6641)
I considered that a cop-out as I was clearly reporting criminality and wanted her to start the relevant prosecutions. However, on learning about the Interagency code of practice, as described above, which disabused me of the belief that police can’t listen to a mother, I’ll take up Vicki’s suggestion.
That is to say, the police need to be leaned on by the person in Parliament who holds the policing portfolio.
In addition to that exchange, Dee McLachlan wrote to the Attorneys General of every state, including South Australia. She alerted to them to the trick of “parent alienation syndrome” and she asked for a hotline to be established.
So far she has got only one reply – it arrived October 4, 2018. That came from the Office Manager of Vicki Chapman in SA. It advises Dee to look to the state’s Minister for Child Protection, Rachel Sanderson, MP. (Tel. 08 8303 2926).
Your Spine
Recall that it is your duty to take steps to aid Children in Care. You can at least write to the two ministers in your state – Minister for Policing and Minister for Child Protection.
Of course, the mums themselves can team up to increase their power. Recall the photo of children wearing grape-color hats, in connection with a rally for “Safety First.” I wrote at Gumshoe that the hats looked nice. A commenter named eyeswideopen replied:
“Hats are good but the t-shirts even better!!! We travelled to Sydney to film for The Project a few years ago organised by the National Children’s Protection Alliance. We had to cover our heads with a veil so as not to be identified. I’m glad these protective mothers were brave enough to show their faces! How dare they try to silence us!!!”
See? And another Gumshoe Commenter, Helen, wrote:
“…the Australian Family Court is major enabler and promoter of child abuse within families. Because of … the restrictions on publication of details of Family Court cases, only those involved with the Family Court are able to know what goes on.
“Perverse and intentional Family Court decisions are the cause of many of today’s social problems including youth mental illness, suicide, criminal activity and failure at school and in life.”
Like wow, man.
We really can lick this. And when we do, Certain Persons are going to start to have second thought about their whole lives….
— Mary W Maxwell is the author of Deliverance! (2018)
Being careful cause of not having the facts(as always in family law). The Israeli girl does not seem to be great outcome, almost state sanctioned kidnapping.
Most, I would think 95 percent of cases do not reach court, as such. The courts will try control by other means. Financial, is a big stick. They can cut anyone they want but usually the families accounts are transferred to others. This makes them more exposed to the system. Final orders of financial do not have to viewed with any capacity to make them. This can cause the law aware to be hurt should they start making the law appliers look foolish over the long run.
The police are bound to the interim orders but do as they wish, hiding behind bureaucratic excuses. This is a big problem, the more extreme affidavits should of course be reviewed by the Police for action. There are big penalties for false statements that waste Police resources.
The nice language about the rights of children is just part of operation family breakup. The children can be listened to or the opposite.
Quote to me from a ex family court Judge. ” If you go into that courtroom, there is no way to know the outcome ”
But I have done my homework, my due diligence, the accusations are laughable as I can prove, the experts either wasted as my due diligence either concurred or I wish to put on the stand. They have not supplied me with any documentation, just a pack of lies.
” If you go into that courtroom, there is no way to know the outcome ”
If you have an injured child, you seek medical help. Two reasons, first one obvious and the second is a verifiable event has been established. If you can find a good Copper then, they can do a surprise welfare check. Straws I know, its a terrible place to be. Commentator Helen is right.
So what, exactly, is Gumshoe calling for here?
Less Government control ?
or MORE
I guess the answer lies in the fact that the so-called “family court” is the preserve of Government-interference groupies
Less.
Gumshoe doesn’t have an opinion — each contributor / editor does though. The views between contributors can be conflicted too.
“Such shameless Bards we have; and yet ’tis true,
There are as mad, abandon’d Criticks too.
The Bookful Blockhead, ignorantly read,
With Loads of Learned Lumber in his Head,
With his own Tongue still edifies his Ears,
And always List’ning to Himself appears.
All Books he reads, and all he reads assails,
From Dryden’s Fables down to Durfey’s Tales.
With him, most Authors steal their Works, or buy;
Garth did not write his own Dispensary.
Name a new Play, and he’s the Poet’s Friend,
Nay show’d his Faults – but when wou’d Poets mend?
No Place so Sacred from such Fops is barr’d,
Nor is Paul’s Church more safe than Paul’s Church-yard:
Nay, fly to Altars; there they’ll talk you dead;
For Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread.”
“AN ESSAY ON CRITCISM” Alexander Pope, 1709
Berry, you can say I am a fool for treading on this particular ground but the Mums have no choice but tread on it.
So I’m just going in shoulder-to-shoulder, and de’il take the sidemost.
Couples need to be reminded that their kids are the consequence of a consensual relationship and that everything they hate about each other was there at the onset.
Anyone who winds up in the “family court” is well beyond help
ANYONE can wind up in family court, its a very flexible “provider”. No contract, no problem. It looks like a model to be taken up for the coming Federal Circuit Court integration.(2030 style push-families matter).
Parental squabbles are a healthy human way. Because of the dependance the government has been able to achieve with its ridiculous family tax system(not ridiculous for control), many functioning families are disabled along with “the vilified” types.
The nefarious are naturally all over a squabble in this setting. I can not see you being confused between the two, Berry.
The only good thing about the “family court” is that it brings the real purpose of the entire justice system into sharp focus. It’s good to be reminded that the only form of constructive engagement is that of telling the respective henchmen, ever so politely, that you are not be-fooled.
It’s a pity that the real and pressing issue of nefarious CPS personnel had to be confused with the issue of parental squabbles. There are a number of U Tube clips that record responsible parents cutting the former down to size. That’s the sort of help that’s really needed
Why is Gumshoe looking into CPS? We learned of a well-coordinated enterprise that steals children. We ask why this practice takes place. In Dr Day’s scheme it could be to break up families, in Fiona Barnett’s interpretation it is to put kids on the market for sex slavery. In the view of critics of CIA it has to do with turning leaders into pedos as a way of compromising them. We have even heard it is related to harvesting of organs.
The present article is aimed at strengthening the chutzpah of protective parents. But yes, Berry, they will need the whole village to go after the monsters who are engaged in this.
Confronting a physically stronger opponent head-on has never been known to work
But a Gideon-style “attack’ might make some headway
CPS DOCS FACS whatever name you want to use take children for various reasons.In some cases it is because the child really is abused.In most cases it is for financial reasons,paedophilia or simply because caseworkers are bullies with an ego..When they take a child they destroy the bonds and in all cases if they get the child young enough they stop them from forming bonds.This turns children sociopathic.Where do you think Hitler got the SS from? In NSW now they are offering $75000pa to look after TROUBLED CHILDREN full time.They have created sociopaths and do not know how to deal with them.The prison system,foster care system and employment system are all privatised and feed of the destruction of families.
Parents turn to drugs/alcohol to cope with losing their children and the prisons/employment agencies prosper on that.the foster care industry prospers until the children are thrown out at age 18 and then they too finance the prison /employment agencies .
In my life I have heard many many people say they are prepared to kill and die for their kids.In truth most are not prepared to do that and simply allow an out of control govt and their minions to kidnap their children while they stay silent and subservient.
A parent has an obligation to protect their child.They would not allow a stranger to walk off with the child but al,low a stranger with a badge or warrant to do just that.Until all parents act like a lion or gorilla protecting their cubs nothing will change.Humans are the only animal that doesnt fight to protect their cubs.Until that changes nothing will change.
Having just listened to one hour of Family Court specialist Dr Rikard-Bell (2000 cases)…. Darlene has a problem. The problem is the thinking of the court and their specialists — that is: If the “anxious” parent continues her “belief” that or insistence that the child is in danger — then the court must remove the child — sever contact — from the “anxious caring parent”. I.e. The anxious parent is doing more harm to the child than the alleged abuser. The severing of contact will then train the parent to become less anxious. “Houston we have a problem”.
That person, “Doctor” Rickard Bell, need to be arrested forthwith. Two thousand children he has ruined? Quite a statistic!
For the most part the “law” is a slimy smudge of goo, created by lawyers (almost all high ranking pollies and the judiciary are lawyers) so that it can be manipulated (interpreted) to advantage their clandestine comrades and disadvantage anyone not favoured.
Poor Darlene is very likely not much amused to be told “find your spine” and put both hands in the fire even though she has a pretty good idea of the outcome. She’s already got her hands in the fire by the sounds of it anyway.
Years ago, my adopted daughter (early pre teen) tried to blackmail me into allowing (and supporting) her to engage in activities (that she would not describe or define) that I considered to be very likely antisocial and harmful to her, by telling me that I was engaging in child abuse!
I responded “All right, I’ll take you down to the Police Station and they can arrange for you to be put in a home or foster family who don’t care much what you get up to… etc.) Fortunately she thought better of it. But! if in a fit of vengeance she decided to go with it she could have made my life a very expensive trauma and ruined her own life in the process. All sorts of people (including spouses and children) can be goaded or enticed by promises of indulgence, wealth and privilege to do some pretty reprehensible things if the law permits.