2nd. Dec 2020
Dear Minister and Mr Coutts-Trotter
re Augustus Farrow-Pryke
Dr. Ainsworth remains, it seems, Sally's Guardian ad Litem, despite his steadfast refusal to abide by the GAL Code of Conduct!
For the record, I would like to respond to the email Dr. Ainsworth wrote to Sally in justification for having had not one conversation with her before recommending to magistrate (redacted) that restoration was not being requested.
Sally
Since being appointed your GAL, I have read all the materials that (redacted) forwarded, all the materials you forwarded, all the DCJ Court documents and the e-mails from JR.
In all I have received or sent 91 e-mail in 21 days about your matter. The result is that I have a sound knowledge of your case.
Such a sound knowledge that Dr Ainsworth did not feel it necessary to communicate with Sally in any way - despite her frequent requests that he do so and in contravention of the Guardian ad Litem Code of conduct.
For the matter to go to a hearing (not a trial) there has to be case that the lawyer (RM) can put with some chance of success.
Is it the role of a Guardian to determine whether or not a case has some chance of success? Or is this the role of a lawyer? In this case, Robert McLachlan.
My conclusion after reviewing all the materials was that the case for restoration was flimsy and the chance of success was zero, which on the day the Magistrate confirmed. Hence my consent to a finding of ‘no possibility of restoration’ to yourself.
Without bothering to speak or meet with his client, indeed refusing to do either, Dr Ainsworth decided that Sally's case was 'flimsy'. In what respect? It could be argued, I suppose, that the case was 'flimsy' if the affidavits Sally wanted presented to magistrate Stubbs were not presented. And if no attempt was to be made to introduce into evidence more up-to-date clinical reports relating to Sally's suffering from depression and not a mental illness.
From the start of this case you choose to be aggressive and attack everyone involve in your case. In doing so you antagonised all parties to the point where they saw you as an impossible person. Exactly the wrong impression you needed to make. Cooperation and persuasion were called for not aggression.
I would like to quote here something written by Dr Ainsworth on this subject:
When child protection caseworkers make first contact with the parents of a child (or children) who is suspected of being at ‘significant risk of harm’ they may encounter a range of hostile, angry and aggressive verbal responses from parents. If this contact results in a child being removed from parental care, it is not unknown for these responses to escalate into attempts at verbal intimidation and loud threats of personal violence. These behaviours then get recorded in case files and in materials submitted to the Children's Court to support the case for permanent removal of a child from parental care; these behaviours being presented as evidence of the parents’ unsuitability and unwillingness to comply with demands for changes in their child rearing practices. But how should child protection caseworkers view these less-than-helpful parental responses, and how should they, in turn, respond? This article explores this issue and offers a number of ways of understanding these behaviours, and canvasses new ways for caseworkers to respond when these behaviours occur.
Despite his own words, Dr Ainsworth believes it to be right that John be effectively alienated from the mother he loves for the next 6 years, on the grounds that Sally writes emails that are not to the liking of those within FACS who have decided that she is not fit to be a mother - based on what they know to be an outdated clinical report.
If my son had been removed from my life when he was 9 years old, I too would probably have behaved in a way that led FACS (and a Guardian ad Litem such as Dr Ainsworth) to brand me an 'impossible person'. I think that this would apply to most parents who dearly love their children and who, feeling cornered, fight back in whatever way they can and with whatever weapons they have at their disposal.
Would this not apply to you both of you also, Gareth and Michael, if your child was removed from your care? On the basis of a clinical report written during a time of mental and emotional turmoil?
Dr Ainsworth continues:
As a GAL appointed by the Court I have a responsibility to see that Court time is not wasted by pursuing cases that have a zero chance of success. Which is what I did.
So, when it comes to an issue as serious as the permanent removal of a child from his mother, Dr Ainsworth is more concerned about wasting the court's time than he is about the emotional well-being of the child? And of the child's mother?
Having decided to play prosecutor, judge and jury, Dr Ainsworth decides in advance that the case has 'zero chance of success.' It should not be necessary, here, to explain how this approach to his job is in abrogation of his Guardian ad Litem obligations.
In addition, in my view, you would have been further traumatized by a hearing where you would have to listen to a reiteration of all the faults DCJ say you manifest. In that respect my decision is protective of your interests.
Dr Ainsworth acknowledges here that Sally is 'traumatized'. Why? Because FACS has made it clear that it will do whatever it takes to prevent John from having any contact with his mother for the next six years other than 2 hour supervised visits, during which unqualified supervisors will be taking noters.
Instead of seeking, with the assistance of Sally and FACS, to find a step-by-step pathway to restoration, Dr Ainsworth decided, on Sally's behalf, without consultation with her, that he did not want her to be 'further traumatised'. I wonder if the Ad Litem Panel will accept this line of self-justification? Do you, Gareth and Michael, buy this?
Imagine if a lawyer, representing a rape victim, decided not to represent his client in court, as she has instructed him, on the grounds that the court experience might 'further traumatize' her? An argument might be made along these lines, but the hypothetical lawyer would be in abrogation of his professional responsibilities if he did not discuss this option with his client beforehand. This is the key problem here - Dr Ainsworth's refusal to discuss anything with Sally; to make unilateral decisions.
In a case of this kind if you were represented by your own layer or self-represented DCJ would be in a position to ask the Court to award costs against you. A rare event but nevertheless possible. Consenting to the finding of ‘no possibility’ safeguards against that eventuality.
I find it extraordinary that Dr Ainsworth can offer, in justification for his refusal to take instructions from his client, the excuse that he was trying to protect Sally from having costs awarded against her.
Finally, the email messages from JR to the Minister and the Secretary and others which have become increasingly defamatory and abuse did you case harm, not good.
Leaving aside the proposition that my letters have been 'defamatory' and 'abusive', (evidence please, Dr Ainsworth?), is Sally's Guardian seriously suggesting that John's permanent removal from his mother could be influenced, within FACS, by letters critical of FACS; letters in which legitimate questions are asked?
An appeal to senior people to get them to intervene in a case will not succeed if you call into question people’s integrity and competence which is what you both did.
All working within FACS are public servants, accountable to the public. As such their integrity and competence can and should be questioned when the evidence suggests that this is appropriate. I believe, in this case, that many questions can and should be raised not just about Sally's case but about FACS in general. And that questions of integrity and competence should be asked, by both FACS and the Ad Litem Panel, about Dr. Ainsworth's integrity and competence.
It is time to move on possibly via a S90 application or appeal. I doubt however that either will be successful.
From now on you need to stop and rethink your position.
Frank
Another quote of Dr Ainsworth's:
Finally, can it be true that Australian parents are increasingly likely to abuse or neglect their children? We think not. It is much more likely that the increased notifications that mandatory reporting systems generate are an artefact of the way these systems are progressively incorporating into the child protection surveillance net well meaning but imperfect parents. This leads to the question as to whether or not some parent–child interactions are unwisely, unkindly and unnecessarily being labelled as ‘suspected abuse or neglect’ situations. The over 70% false-notifications figure supports this proposition. It is time, actually way past time, to step back and have a hard look at the way the current approach to child protection is working and how mandatory reporting systems are beginning to victimize some parents. Such victimization can hardly be the most beneficial or effective way of protecting children, can it?
Is Sally a perfect parent? No. Are you, Gareth and Michael? Perfect parents? I suspect not.
What does Sally not being 'perfect' have to do with her being a bad parent? What does this have to do with removing John from her life for the next six years? I have met, over the years, many 'impossible parents' who have brought up healthy and well-adjusted kids. Or is it that kids are resilient and can bring themselves up, despite 'impossible parents'? Impossible parents that love them? Many a flawed mum and dad has been a good parent. And even a deeply flawed mum and dad can give her or his child what is far more important that a decent home, as defined by FACS - namely, love.
yours sincerely
James Ricketson
No comments:
Post a Comment