ALECOMM

Mother seeks probono representation for Victorian supreme court appeal due to caseworker / magistrate / DHS lawyer continued maladministration and violation of legislation pertaining to Court Disposition Reports"

Details

Category: Pro Bono Work

Created: Saturday, 18 January 2014 09:01

Written by Alecomm2

The Australian Legislative Ethics Commission is a registered not-for-profit charity.

One of our major roles is the representation and support of members of the community whom are having difficulty dealing with government agencies - particularly those agencies whom are failing to adequately follow the legislation and policies etc when dealing with clients.  Our main area of work is currently within the child protection field.  We charge no fees to our clients, and we work with them long-term - some clients have been with us over seven years now.

We have a client who has just self-represented in County Court against Vic DHS and unfortunately been unsuccessful.  Our interest in the case is that from the moment DHS intervened into their lives and removed her six week old baby, not one disposition report submitted to the courts have fulfilled their obligatory requirements – that being the provision of opportunities for the mother to address the concerns of the department in order for her to obtain restoration of her son.

Her son is now three years old.  He was removed without following procedure and the mother was never given any opportunity to address DHS concerns - we have documented evidence of this.  We also have letters from DHS acknowledging this also.  This is a massive breach of the rights of the child and the mother.  Massive.

The boy was in the care of his mother and maternal grandmother when he was removed.  He was placed in a few foster placements which he was shuffled from home to home due to abuse, and eventually DHS placed him with his grandfather and his wife.   The grandfather has an extensive criminal history, which DHS are aware of and made note of, and since being in their care he has suffered much abuse and neglect, the most recent being a broken collar bone – the fathers violence being the reason the maternal grandmother left him many years prior.  Karina has been our client for over twelve months and I have only ever seen her act in the best interest of her son.

Regardless, no matter what she did, DHS workers found fault with everything her and her mother did during contact sessions.  This is also quite usual for parents who are trying to have their children restored to their care.  And now that NGOs have responsiblity for most access visits - things are only going to worsen, as they do not want positive contact reports about kids they get $40,000 per year to keep away from their parents.

Anyway the original reasons for removal were flimsy at least – and no options were given to address the departments original concerns prior to removal. 

Unfortunately for Karina and her son, no solicitor had ever questioned these issues regarding to the legislative requirements of the department.  Not one.  And neither did any magistrate see that these legislative requirements were abided by, nor did the government paid solicitors representing the department.

When the whole system is stacked against you, it’s easy to see how so many children are in the foster care and why there are so many parents screaming out to be heard of their injustices.

After taking on Karina as our client and learning Victoria child protection legislation, we submitted what we believed to be a somewhat extensive list of the legislation / policies that were not complied with throughout the removal of the baby, and since the removal.  Almost two hundred allegations.  Unfortunately it seems that DHS investigators also get paid to look the other way, and when they were not stating “reports can always be improved ”, when it came to the departments failure to abide by the legislative requirements for disposition reports to ensure the mother has opportunities to go for restoration, they were stating that other complaints should have been addressed in previous court hearings.

Something that is a little difficult when you do not know the law.  Other times the reviewer stated the department engaged Karina, but she refused to engage them, or the department offered services to Karina but she refused them also – when there was no paperwork to backup these statements. 

After waiting almost twelve months – and pending the County Court action – the reviewer dropped a very inaccurate and sloppy report direct to the magistrate about the complaints and it was used against my client.  Just prior to this I filed the complaint with the Corporate Integrity Unit – and their response was that they supported the reviewers report. 

So we now have evidence from the DHS that they acknowledge that they have not given any opportunity for my client to have her child restored after they took the child.  Something I believe could be used in an civil suit against the department for a substantial amount of money.  And something which we will be following up shortly. 

To get back to the reason I have contacted you Sue, I am seeking assistance, to have the appeal lodged in Supreme Court on behalf of my client, with all the professional requirements and wording, that our organisation does not have as we are not lawyers, and I am also seeking ProBono representation of my client who had her baby removed, has watched his abuse for three years now and not been able to anything about – with magistrates lying and stating that the boy is doing well in care – although he basically doesn’t speak and is going to get tested for autism and has speech therapy. 

All children deserve to have both parties acting on equal grounds when it comes to their best interest.  Afterall it is an international civil obligation that all parties are equal before the courts.  And what has happened here has been the exact opposite.

I know that you are probably an extremely busy woman due to the field you do work in, however my client has shown extreme dedication towards her son and not been given any opportunity to ever appease the department and have him returned – even though I believe he shouldn’t have been taken in the first place.

We are currently seeking DGR status to enable us to apply for funding, as our current status (everything but DGR status) does not truly enable us to seek appropriate funding for our clients and the government is not interested in funding an organisation that exists purely to assist clients who suffer distress due to their inability to ensure that government employees abide by the legislation when it comes to such serious matters as the removal of a child or newborn baby.

We have placed the majority of our clients files in cloudfiles for easy access for you.

If there is anything you can do to assist us in this matter, we would be forever grateful.