Home Australia Family Court Survey, Part 3: Threats to the Protector for Telling the...

Family Court Survey, Part 3: Threats to the Protector for Telling the Truth

21

by Dee McLachlan

“These orders are barbaric, cruel and wicked, this Judge should go to jail.”

The words from a grandmother. After reading through her answers, and how many people clearly disregarded the law: police, social workers, the ICL (Independent children’s lawyer), court reporters, a psychiatrist —  it looks like many “should go to jail.” (More of that in Part 4.)

Several of the Survey questions will be covered here in Part 3, but it is essentially about how the protective parent is entrapped and punished by the system via “road-blocks” that have been put in place to defy justice — which in the end protects the pedophile.

Some of the road-blocks are:

  • Police inaction — “It’s now a Family Court matter”
  • The accuser “is mentally unstable”
  • The accuser is trying to “alienate” the other parent
  • Child being required to confront the abuser with the allegations
  • No recordings at interviews or in court, allowing reports to be MODIFIED
  • Deliberate falsification of reports and documents
  • Advice from legal counsel: “Don’t report any sexual abuse”
  • THREATS to those who try again to report abuse, and
  • Punishing the accuser by removing CONTACT with the child.

In simple terms, the system turns the “protector” into a perpetrator: calling them the “emotional abuser”.  It is thoroughly dishonest and extremely DEVIOUS.

Police Inaction

Before conducting the survey, I saw a common factor emerging from the phone calls I received.  Namely, the police stopped investigating the alleged perpetrator because the matter was before the courts. And so, the Family Court becomes, by default, a protector of pedophiles.

This goes against our general understanding that if a crime is committed, the police investigate, and then the accused may be prosecuted. I wrote to the AFP Media Unit asking, “At what point will the police investigate a case in front of the family court?” I did not get a reply.

To my Survey question, “Did the police, at any time, REFUSE to investigate abuse claims because the matter was before the Family court?” As I write this, there are 58 responses to this question.

In 47 cases the police REFUSED to investigate claims.

Parents are told, “Don’t Report”

When this was screen-grabbed, there were 58 responses

I asked the question: “Were you told by your legal representative NOT to report abuse — as you could be at risk of losing custody?”

80% said YES.

I guess these responders ignored this advice, at least to the extent that they are answering this Survey — and many have paid a terrible price for wanting justice, and for being “protective.”

The next question asked: “During or after court proceedings, did anyone warn you to NOT REPORT any further abuse?”

The police (to 16 people), CPS (14), ICL (15), the Judge (16) and others (28).

If the police don’t investigate, who does investigate?

The court says it cannot investigate the claim, as it is not equipped to analyse anything forensically. So what happens when the police stop, and allegations are NOT investigated? By default, two things seem to happen:

  1. The mental state of the accuser (the protective parent) is put in question, or
  2. The protective parent is accused of parental alienation — or in modern terminology, “one parent deliberately undermines the relationship between a child and the other parent, causing the breakdown of a previously healthy parent-child relationship.”

There is a general understanding among those representing people in the Family Court: reporting sexual abuse leads down a dark and expensive track for the accuser – presumably because of the two items just mentioned.

“Did you have to undergo MENTAL HEALTH assessments?”

Of 60 responses to this question, 32 said YES.

Isn’t that outrageous! Following through on the Protector’s allegations would in most cases have obviated the need for that.

To, “At any point, was your child removed from you, because you were/are labelled an “ANXIOUS PARENT”?

11 said YES.

In the accounts I had been told, several protective mothers said the court was describing them as “anxious parents”. Firstly, would anyone NOT be anxious if their child was being sexually abused? And secondly, the court’s threat to remove your child and put him or her into foster care would be terrifying.

Blackmailing a Protective Parent

To the next question, “What ‘punishment’ would be put on you, if you did bring forward more accounts or evidence of abuse?”

A sample of the text answers:

To, “SUPERVISED VISITATION: Have you in the past, or are you presently in an arrangement of supervised visitation?”

33 said YES out of 60 responses.

(Imagine it! Imagine it! With your own offspring!)

To the follow-up question, “Were THREATS ever made by supervision personnel that you could lose visitation rights, or your child altogether?”

24 said YES.

It seems most people with supervised visitation are threatened (emotionally blackmailed) in some way. ‘Darlene’ was warned to not be too affectionate with her daughter, otherwise she would not be able to see her again. Even bringing the child a gift or clothing was a no-no.

Actions against the Child

Did the court ever PREVENT you from seeking medical or psychological assistance for your child?”

Of the 60 people who answered this question, 40 (66%) said YES.

I had many accounts of how the protective parent was prevented from seeking medical assistance — claiming the “emotional abuser” was further harming the child. Just utterly extraordinary. In no other circumstances would this ever be acceptable.

Then, “Was your child asked to reveal their disclosures in an interview — with their abuser present?”

Of 54 responses, 24 said YES.

I recalled Dr Rikard Bell’s account of how children might act when faced with questions in front of the abuser: “if abuse has occurred, generally, there is an awkwardness… if there is no substantial sign of abuse… there will be a good rapport…” I have been a film director for decades, and as part of my craft, I study the variations of how people react in hostile or situations or adversity — and his answers dangerously naive.

It is mostly likely that some children in that situation would “pretend” all is fine — as a defensive safeguard. As Rachel Vaughan describes of her years of abuse as a child: Max, her father, threatened to harm or kill her if she spoke out.

“Did your child undergo ‘therapy’ ordered by the Judge to ‘make them understand that the abuse NEVER happened’?”

12 responded YES — they were ordered to therapy. I wonder what kind of therapy? 14 chose Other.

To, “Did the ICL (Independent Children’s lawyer) speak with the child they were representing or rely on information given to them”?

Only 9 responders said YES, and 28 said NO.

How can anyone adequate represent someone without speaking with them?

The Father Alienating the Mother

I will have to condense this account dramatically (I will write it up in more detail later), but it demonstrates the culture of the Family Court perfectly — that it prescribes the the “alienation” theory, by DEFAULT.

A father (I don’t know if he is a Survey responder) contacted me a few days ago with his account of how the court accused him of “alienating” his children from their mother. He was in a 50/50 shared arrangement and then lost custody altogether after bringing up claims of abuse. His ex-wife had moved in with, and then married, another younger man, a refugee. The children started to refuse to return to their mother’s house. The father went to DHHS with the children’s allegations of abuse. The result: the father lost custody, (and I think all contact).

Constant Threats 

To the question, “Anything to add for advice and threats”?

A small sample of some of the text answers:

“Treated me like a criminal.”

“I was told to redirect conversation if kids spoke of abuse… or I’d not get any more visits”

“refused visitation… never saw my children for 6 years whilst I proceeded through the court [won appeals]”

“they LIED when my daughter was bashed there… did not call police or ambulance and destroyed the CCTV footage.”

“ICL told me I was going to lose my daughter continuously if I didn’t do what I was told.”

“I was put on a good behaviour bond for 12 months because my children [ages redacted] we’re refusing to go with their father, and running away from him.”

“…my daughter was dragged crying and pleading.” [A very common note.]

“If you continue or contest the finding of Dr X you will lose her.”

[Grandson arrived injured.] “The only way to gag my grandson was to extinguish all contact for my son.”

“I was told by a new lawyer that I should never had reported CSA (after the final orders) and that was the reason I lost custody.”

“I was threatened by the judge and my ex’s legal team that my daughter (12-years-old), who did not want to stay with father, would be handcuffed and taken to father with no contact.”

“You will lose all contact.”

We love our children. They are everything to us. How dare those representing authority, law and order, and the judicial system behave so disgracefully — using emotional BLACKMAIL, instead of the law. Many officials threaten to remove all contact from one’s child — and for most this is the worse thing that could happen in one’s life. And then they have the audacity to say the parent is now “anxious” — forcing some to undergo some form of “corrective” treatment.

Do you remember the film, Sophie’s Choice?  I didn’t want to use a WW2 concentration camp example, but I can’t think of a better demonstration of a child being torn from a parent. The film uses the public’s hatred to underscore the brutality of the Nazis.

But this scene in the film reminds me of an almost IDENTICAL one described to me by Darlene (here in Australia). It took not one, but two burly officers to physically subdue the 8-year-old kicking and screaming child, and drag her away from her mother. You see, the court has deviously deemed Darlene to be an “emotional abuser” — so now she has the “privilege” of seeing her daughter for one hour a week, SUPERVISED. And if she transgresses in any way, they have threatened to place the kid in foster care. All her kid wants is to come home.

It is truly disgraceful, and I have no words to describe the disgust I feel.

–There still more Parts to the analysis of this Survey to come.

SHARE

21 COMMENTS

  1. “I was threatened by the judge and my ex’s legal team that my daughter (12-years-old), who did not want to stay with father, would be handcuffed and taken to father with no contact.”

    Wow, am I dying to learn the name of the judge and the legal team.

    And also to find out if handcuffs really have been used. I surely doubt it, but if anyone knows of a case, please tell Gumshoe.

    And thanks to all the responders so far and it’s not Game Over yet so if you know of a Protective parent (even going back 2 decades) please ask them to fill out the survey questionnaire.

  2. As said often particularly to the Chinese, democracy has rule of law, leaving out of the equasion if you can afford it and who you know.

  3. PLEASE tell me the results of this survey are being sent to the Politicians. The timing would be perfect as Hetty Johnston is meeting with them today to push for a Royal Commission. She needs backup with this.

      • A Royal Commission? Surely not. Please no. Why are we worshipping authority. Come on already. This child-stealinfg business is sheer criminality. And the children are in immediate danger and can’t wait for that kind of falderal.

        • That’s correct Mary. Emeritus Professor Freda Briggs (world child protection expert & author of 20 books) said that she didn’t thing that a RC would be of much use. RIP Freda. She knew how others had been conducted & recommendations ignored or with the Mullighan Inquiry in her state of South Australia, had the names of the 922 paedophiles suppressed for 80 years! This is criminal behaviour that is being conducted by lawyers, ICL’s, social workers, psychologists, police & of course Judges! The length of time that a RC would take is not protecting the children that are in the system NOW.

  4. Due to the complexity of human nature I prefer not to make judgements about marital breakdowns, however, as this series mirrors my own experience of the j system re a range of other contractual disputes in just about every respect it doesn’t strike me as being at all far fetched. The denial of, and collusion with criminal conduct, the falsification of records, the violation of rule after rule after rule; you could witness a Black Mass and come away less shaken.

    One idea: tell Mr. Porter that you intend to set up a mock case that will be duly displayed on U Tube for all the world to see. As he and his breed don’t aspire to anything more than accommodating the biggest perceived fear in the room a few Heads might just get pulled in.

    • “I have long time holden my peace; I have been still, and refrained myself: now will I cry like a travailing woman; I will destroy and devour at once.”
      ISAIAH 42:14

      • Berry, this is not on a par with the Bible but I hope Darlene sees it. I bought some candy that has messages in the wrapper like a fotune-cookie message.

        These two just turned up:

        “Everything will be okay in the end
        if it’s not okay it’s not the end.”

        and

        “Dare to cross the line.”

        Berry, thanks for your invaluable insights, ongoing.

    • The bit about a mock case probably needs some explaining: What I mean is scaring the “authorities” into believing that they’re going to be put on trial via a range of fictional civil disputes that will be duly published. So long as the system’s treated as though it’s sacrosanct nothing’s going to change

  5. Great work keep it up love the way you tell it like it is no whitewashing, no softening the words for delicate ears….well done!

    • Thank you — but it is only possible as this site is supported by some of the best minds, and most honest minds in Australia and elsewhere — They encourage this all through support and comments.

  6. Wow – 66% of protective parents surveyed were prevented by the family law system from seeking medical, therapy or treatment.

    What I am reading about the Family Court System of Australia is absolutely horrific, all those poor children. Removing or threatening to remove a child from a protective parent criminal. It also means if any of these threats lead to parents being pushed into signing “consent orders” they would be “coerced orders” and legally not valid. Denying a child health treatment is total breach of human rights – it also goes against the United Nations Convention of the Rights for a Child, which Australia agreed to honour. (Yet clearly this massive FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ORGANISATION/INSTITUTION that deals with children daily is denying basis human rights to helpless child victims and issuing criminal like sanctions to protective parents)

    Article 3 – All organisations concerned with children should work towards what is best for each child.

    Article 6 – Children have the right to live a full life. Governments should ensure that children survive and develop healthily.

    Article 12 – Children have the right to say what they think should happen when adults are making decisions that affect them and to have their opinions taken into account.

    Article 19 – Governments should ensure that children 19 are properly cared for and protect them from violence, abuse and neglect by their parents, or anyone else who looks after them.

    Article 24- Children have the right to good quality health care, clean water, nutritious food and a clean environment so that they will stay healthy. Richer countries should help poorer countries achieve this.

    Article 34 – Governments should protect children from sexual abuse.

    Article 36 – Children should be protected from any activities that could harm their development.

    Not only is the Australian family court not following the law, ignoring/disregarding important evidence, cherry picking information in their discretion but as a government operated money making corporation, not even following the UNCROC that was ratified in Australia in 1990. Shame, Shame, Shame…..

  7. Thank you Dee, your survey is succinct and showing who the real criminals are (it’s NOT the protective parent)!!!

    Criminal behaviour belongs in a Criminal Court!!!

    Let’s hold these bastards accountable!!! We could start by filming all interactions, this will make them be accountable for their actions, after all according to the Surveillance Act, anyone is able to record without consent to protect their legal rights!!!

C'mon Leave a Reply, Debate and Add to the Discussion

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.