Gareth Ward
Minister for Families, Communities
and Disability Services &
Michael Coutts-Trotter
Secretary , Professional Conduct, Ethics and Performance Unit
Families, Communities
and Disability Services 13th. Dec 2020
Dear Minister and Mr Coutts-Trotter
re John Smith
Context:
MS writes, to Sally, on 11th Dec:
"I understand that you are deeply unhappy with the Children's Court decision of no realistic possibility of restoration of John. I know that this is an extremely stressful and difficult time for you."
MS writes:
"As you are aware, the Children's Court has determined that a Guardian ad Litem is required to support you with the court process."
Comment: This is disingenuous. MS knows full well that Dr Ainsworth, as Guardian ad Litem, has done nothing to support Sally. He refused to communicate with her before 16th Nov, lied to her about the 16th Nov hearing being adjourned, deliberately failed to advocate on her behalf in court as Sally had requested and screamed at her on the telephone when she called him to ask why he had informed Magistrate (redacted) , through Robert Mc Lachlan, that he was not requesting, on Sally's behalf, the eventual restoration of John to her.
MS writes:
"The Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) did not make this decision, but does support it."
Comment: From a legal point of view, the decision to permanently remove Sally from John's life has been made by you, Michael Coutts-Trotter, with the blessing of you, Gareth Ward.
My most recent letter to Simone, speaks to this point:
http://jamesricketson.blogspot.com/2020/12/9-facs-refuses-to-answer-any-journalist.html
MS writes:
"If you wish to dispute the court findings, or the decision to have a Guardian ad Litem in place, I would encourage you to seek independent legal counsel."
Comment: MS's suggestion that an out-of-work (redacted) year old woman, unable to get legal aid because she owns a house, should pay $15,000 to acquire such legal counsel is further evidence of how out of sync with reality FACS is. How can any poor mother or father, living on welfare payments, afford the kind of legal counsel MS is referring to here?
MS writes:
"We are very keen for you to be part of John's life and to spend as much time with him as is reasonable."
Comment: MS has framed this question in the wrong way. The focus should be on how much time John should be allowed to spend with his mother, whom FACS acknowledges he loves. Why does FACS wish to punish John in this way?
If MS is a mother, she will know that what she is writing here is cold-blooded cruel to both John and his mother. How would she, or anyone else copied on this letter, like to be told, by government bureaucrats, that s/he may only spend brief periods of time with his or her son or daughter, with a conga line of note-taking strangers present?
MS writes:
"While you do not agree with the decisions of DCJ or the Children's Court, I want to assure you that we are acting in John's best interests and will seek to ensure his ongoing safety and well-being."
Comments: (1) Is John's 'well-being' served by his being taken away, permanently, from the mother he loves? (2) What evidence does FACS have that Sally has ever placed John in an unsafe situation? (3) Will John be 'safe'; in the home of a man who has had three AVOs taken out against him? (4) Will John be 'safe' when left alone at night, with Julie, as he goes off to play music? (5) In what way will John be safer with (father # 2) in (redacted) than with Sally in any of the three homes available for her to live in with John?
It is your refusal to answer such questions that leads Sally to writes lots of emails, in the hope that someone within FACS will answer them - up to and including both of you, Gareth and Michael. It is the reason why I continue to write also. FACS continues to refuse to answer legitimate questions; continues to act as though due process is being followed here. It is not. The evidence is irrefutable. And it is on record. And it is on my blog. And it will, if need be, be in the public domain in a way that FACS will be forced to answer questions and be accountable.
MS writes:
"The Minister for Families, Communities and Disability Services, the Hon Gareth Ward and the Executive District Director, Hunter & Central Coast are unable to meet with you. Both support my recommendation that communication with the casework team will be the most effective avenue for you to discuss issues of concern about John and contribute to case planning and decision making for him."
Clearly, FACS has no functioning complaints system. Complains such as Sally's, about decisions made by MS, are dealt with by MS. And questions from journalists such as myself, regarding accountability, transparency and the honesty of FACS staff, are ignored. FACS is a law unto itself, accountable to no-one. A Royal Commission is required to shine much needed light on a government body that is, through its systemic failures, damaging children like John and placing mothers and fathers in situations of unbelievable emotional distress.
yours sincerely
James Ricketson
No comments:
Post a Comment