"Corruption Coverups in NSW Child Protection - Issue Three: The NSW Ombudsman Considers The Protection of Children Not Relevant to Child Protection Investigations."
- Details
- Category: NSW Ombudsman
- Created: Tuesday, 17 January 2012 16:50
- Written by Michael Hart
Child Protection should be thining about the Welfare and Protection of Children, instead of thinking about their power to Pretend they are Judges
At Alecomm we have provided two examples of how the Ombudsman allows corruption to continue in NSW Child Protection due to his "ethical fatigue". We apologise for not producing more articles over recent months. In this article we will refer to a recent New Scientist article on why corruption occurs around the world. This article was written by world experts in corruption and in a well known and well respected public journal. The article suggests that corruption is normal unless there are adequate safeguards: (Source : http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21228372.200-the-underhand-ape-why-corruption-is-normal.html ).
We sure know that is the case for DoCS don't we? Well why aren't their adequate safeguards against corruption given the amount of oversight we have. Both the NSW ICAC and NSW Ombudsman have the responsibilities to investigate potential corruption. The only answer is these oversight agencies are morally corrupt themselves.
The oversight agencies lie to the public when they say children should come first. It appears they would rather support corrupt conduct by JIRTs than fix it. In this issue of Corruption Coverups we will provide Alecomm readers of an example where the NSW Ombudsman thinks that what the police want to focus on, namely the courts and offenders are more important than the children. Before we start we will point out the NSW Child Protection legislation makes it quite clear what the police, DoCS, and any other agency is supposed to focus on the welfare and development of the children as their primary concern during any child abuse investigations.
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 No 157- S8 - What are the objects of this Act?
The objects of this Act are to provide:
(a) that children and young persons receive such care and protection as is necessary for their safety, welfare and well-being, having regard to the capacity of their parents or other persons responsible for them, and
(b) that all institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care and protection of children and young persons provide an environment for them that is free of violence and exploitation and provide services that foster their health, developmental needs, spirituality, self-respect and dignity, and
(c) that appropriate assistance is rendered to parents and other persons responsible for children and young persons in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities in order to promote a safe and nurturing environment.
S9 Principles for administration of Act
(1) This Act is to be administered under the principle that, in any action or decision concerning a particular child or young person, the safety, welfare and well-being of the child or young person are paramount.
(2) (b) In all actions and decisions made under this Act (whether by legal or administrative process) that significantly affect a child or young person, account must be taken of the culture, disability, language, religion and sexuality of the child or young person and, if relevant, those with parental responsibility for the child or young person.
(c) In deciding what action it is necessary to take (whether by legal or administrative process) in order to protect a child or young person from harm, the course to be followed must be the least intrusive intervention in the life of the child or young person and his or her family that is consistent with the paramount concern to protect the child or young person from harm and promote the child’s or young person’s development.
Even the NSW Ombudsman himself publicly states “It's time to put the kids first” when he wants to get his face in the newspaper. However, referring again to the case in Issue #1 of Corruption Coverups where false information was generated by DoCS to cover their arse during a child abuse investigation the NSW Ombudsman, in his role of overseeing the child protection industry, believes it is OK for JIRTs to cover up their false reports during child abuse investigations by stonewalling parents about the protective services they claimed were in place to prevent harm and improve the welfare of the children. That’s right folks. Direct from the Ombudsman’s office. Even with his signature. He claims child protection police do not need to follow the child protections laws. He claims they are not there to protect children from harm but rather only to focus on the prosecution of the designated offender.
As you can see even the NSW Ombudsman believes it is Okely Dokely at child protection interviews (which includes both police AND DoCS) to ignore the protection of children.
With so little concern for the protection of the children, even from the NSW Ombudsman, it is no wonder they are allowed to stonewall parents and fabricate evidence to cover up their malfeasance as seen in Issue #1 of Corruption Coverups.
We at Alecomm believe that in any child protection matter the welfare, protection and development of the children should always be the priority no matter what agency is involved. Our views are consistent with NSW Child Protection Laws and Article 3 of the UNICEF Convention on the Rights of the Child. The NSW Ombudsman makes public claims that he also supports the concept that the protection of children is the priority but when it comes to him actually making decisions he sees the police, courts and offenders as a greater priority and the protection of the children as “not really relevant or central” to child abuse investigations.
As the New Scientist Article states on page 45: “A lot of dishonesty is about being dishonest while telling yourself a story about why this is OK.” So we can answer our readers we would like to ask the Ombudsman who are you lying to? Are you lying to the NSW public when you claim that child protection workers should put kids first, or are you lying to cover up DoCS by saying discussions about the children’s protection is not relevant to child abuse investigations? Are the NSW Ombudsman’s views on the importance of children dependent on getting his face in the paper?
We would like to hear the comments of our readers on what they think if the integrity of the Ombudsman’s office.
