ALECOMM

Idiot of the Week Award Goes To ...

Details

Category: Uncategorised

Created: Thursday, 08 September 2011 15:42

Written by Alecomm

Attn :  Human Rights Commission, and

Legal Aid Appeals, and

Minister for Community Services

Good Morning,

RE : Ms M vs DOCS COWRA – VIOLATION OF BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS – ARTICLE 14 of the COVENANT OF CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS – ALL PERSONS TO BE EQUAL BEFORE THE COURTS

I HEREBY APPLY FOR A REINSTATEMENT OF LEGAL AID UNDER SECTION 56 OF THE LEGAL AID COMMISSION ACT, and seek to minimise violations of this mothers basic human rights.

"(d) To be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it;"

1. I am writing on behalf of my client Ms M who has been denied the use of Legal Aid to assist her case against DoCS who have taken her child on false and misleading information.

2. The case as it stands is due to go to court on the 7th and unless Ms M comes up with the $4000 required by her solicitor she will not even have representation to assist a matter that was initiated by the Department of Community Services Cowra.

3. Ms M has been denied Legal Aid which constitutes a violation of her basic human rights that Australia has signed and is a part of.

4. Ms M could not even obtain the services of a Legal Practitioner on her home town and has had to travel to Orange.

5. Ms M could not obtain services of a legal Practitioner in Cowra because DoCS have a monopoly on solicitors and legal firms in that area, which is common practise in rural areas. I have seen many mothers have to travel from rural areas, to Sydney and Newcastle to obtain representation because it is common practise for DoCS to use all the local resources in order to push the parents / opposition out of contention for local representation.

6. If Ms M is to stand before the courts without Legal Representation this will inevitably lead to discrimination on the grounds that the Department was given Legal Aid and that Ms M was not.

7. The Departments case is based on false and misleading information which was put in a warrant and used to remove the 5 month old from the mothers care.

We believe this matter will also need to be followed up under the Criminal Code Crimes Act 1900 - 93Q Conveying false information that a person or property is in danger (or similar) **1

8. Reports used to remove the baby (amongst 85 other pages of waffle aimed at confusing the magistrate) do not show ANY ABUSE OR NEGECT OF THE CHILD – and were made by a minor agency and not by health nurses that seen the mother and baby on almost a daily basis. See attached B – which does not indicate any such abuse or harm. This indicates that the department is bringing about nothing more than frivolous proceedings and for the Legal Aid Commission to deny assistance and to allow such governmental interference could also be constituted as another violation of the mother and babies basic human rights.

9. We also believe that the child's basic human rights are being denied under the Convention of Rights of the Child, Article 37 which States Parties shall ensure that:

a.No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Neither capital punishment nor life imprisonment without possibility of release shall be imposed for offences committed by persons below eighteen years of age;

b. No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily. The arrest, detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time;

c. Every child deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person, and in a manner which takes into account the needs of persons of his or her age. In particular, every child deprived of liberty shall be separated from adults unless it is considered in the child's best interest not to do so and shall have the right to maintain contact with his or her family through correspondence and visits, save in exceptional circumstances;

d.  Every child deprived of his or her liberty shall have the right to prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance, as well as the right to challenge the legality of the deprivation of his or her liberty before a court or other competent, independent and impartial authority, and to a prompt decision on any such action.

This being that the child has been taken from his mother and put into incarceration after him nor his mother have done no wrong.

10. The fact that the department are now only relying on the mothers history further shows that they really have no reason / action for removing the child and I believe it is the responsibility of both the Human Rights Commission and the Legal Aid Commission to address this matter IMMEDIATELY as this case is due before the court on the 15th of next month. To say that there is not enough time to address the matter is not good enough as actions need to be taken immediately to prevent any further injustice.

11. The department go on to further state that the child may be at risk of harm and that the mother HAS NO INSIGHT into the breaching of the safety plan – how this could possibly be construed being abused or neglected is beyond myself, and though the safety plan is required to be followed the breaches that are referred to are frivolous at best.

12. The department states that Ms M has breached in regards to Department of Housing Assistance, yet nowhere do I see the that DoCS have provided suitable accommodation for the mother either

13. This matter needs to be addressed immediately as the discriminatory sides of the case not to mention the violation of the mothers basic human rights are paramount, as is the best interest of this child, and that is his immediate restoration to his mother, with the assistance of the agencies designated to do these jobs.

14. I would like to further point out that other statements written by the docs officers imply that Ms M has failed a urine test, however another false and misleading statement designed to confuse the courts, which is constitutes another criminal offence, is that they fail to also state that the very minimal amount of pseudoephedrine in her system is from a basic tablet given to cold and flu. And all other drug tests (and there are a lot) have always been negative to drugs.

15. The department seems to have made it its opening case that other children have been removed from the care of Ms M, and no doubt to remove this child saying other children have been removed, will lead to another child being removed just because this child has been. These statements no way show that the mother has abused or neglected this child, nor does the previous removal of other children because the removal of one child to DoCS causes a domino effect. Basic human rights say that people are to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, but not with DoCS. Ms M has done no wrong, not with any of her children, as she initially engaged the services who did nothing more than remove one child after the next, stating the reason for removal was for their removal of a previous child. How is this not another violation of Ms M's basic human rights?

16. Nothing in the whole case and affidavit shows any abuse or neglect to her child, yet more so controlling and egotistic docs workers keen to remove another child from another mother ...

Ms M's phone numbers is *******

Regards,

M. MacDonald

Care Worker / Analyst

Australian Legislative Ethics Commission