ALECOMM

DOCs Worker Breaks Five Year Old Boys' Neck

Details

Category: Uncategorised

Created: Saturday, 27 February 2010 16:07

Written by Alecomm

An extremely young St Marys DOCs worker transporting three young children the other day has been responsible for an accident in which all children have been seriously injured, one boy with a broken neck.  DOCs are refusing to supply the parents with all relevant information about the accident as they do not believe they have any obligation to, not only that DOCs never even informed the parents that the children were in serious condition in hospital.  The parents only found out as the grandmother whom has been taking care of the children informed her daughter of the incident.

So apart from the obvious disgusting way that St Marys DOCs are treating this family who spend quite a fair amount of time together, the question remaining is should the DOCs worker driving the children have her children taken off her?  Why you ask?  Well the answer is simple.  Due to DOCs guidelines, or basically the way DOCs runs its organisation these days, the victim in circumstances, particularly domestic violence situations always seems to have their children removed with the DOCs workers stating that they should have taken better care of their children and forseen the circumstances of the incident that caused the children to be removed before it arose.

I certainly hope that the NSW Police put in all the correct risk of harm reports, as obviously this person isn't capable of caring for children (even in extremely short circumstances), as they didn't provide a safe and nurturing environment for these children.  And remember, it doesn't matter if it was not her fault, because that is not the way DOCs works anymore.  The victim IS the perpetrator.

To the family of the children whom have been injured and are still in hospital, Alecomm certainly hopes that the hospital staff including those social workesr who insisted on claiming the mother is a "SELF PROFESSED SCATTY" and the husband "EXTREMELY SWEATY", and DOCs workers involved with you start treating you with a little more respect and dignity, and stop preventing you from doing the job you are there to do and that is to care for your children. 

Maybe, on day three, when the child asked the mother (whom hadn't had very much sleep at all as any normal human being could understand), "mummy whats the matter you look tired", the mother should have instead just stated to her beautiful boy who is only in hospital with a broken neck for the next three months as a result of negligent St Marys DOCs workers, "I'm sorry if i look tired honey, but i just haven't been getting much sleep since the DOCs worker broke your neck with her negligent driving, i haven't been offered any sort of counselling and not only that nobody is paying for accommodation for me to keep staying here and being by your side, the DOCs workers won't release the details of the accident because they are too scared of what the drug and alcohol test will reveal, and all the time we're having off work is really putting a financial strain on the family, not to mention that dear, but now DOCs at St Marys are going against the fact that the judge ordered complete restoration and the DOCs workers yet again are not abiding by the restoration orders and are now dragging us back into court.  Too make it worse I am not allowed any form of legal assistance to pay for the matter and this financial abuse is not going to be addressed by the magistrate nor is he going to make the DOCs worker accountable for the once again massive waste of government money and cause and loss of finances that he is about to bestow upon our family again which is an offence under the 1900 Crimes Act" ...

Is that what the mother should have said to the boy ??? Because it seems that stating she was feeling a little scatty, and then for the social worker to put this in a report given all that the family is going through due to yet another DOCs blunder, what was written seems to be so over the top that the only thing we can put it down to is still either Munchausen's on the part of the social worker, or complete misleading information / omitting evidence, and taking advantage of persons in a vulnerable situation, all of which are offences under relevant government legislation.