# 8 Did FACS deliberately prevent Sally from attending a significant court hearing?

 Gareth Ward

Minister for Families, Communities 

and Disability Services  &

Michael Coutts-Trotter 

Secretary , Professional Conduct, Ethics and Performance Unit 

Families, Communities 

and Disability Services                                                                                                    10th Dec. 2020

 

Dear Minister and Mr  Coutts-Trotter

 

                                                            re John Smith

 

I have been informed that you have both been briefed on this matter, and that a decision has been made to ignore my correspondence; to not answer any of my journalist questions.

 

Some facts you are aware of, for the record: 

 

(Father # 1) is in breach of Federal Court orders in relation to Sally's daughter, (redacted). You both know this.

 

(Father # 2) is likewise in breach of Children's Court orders. You turn a blind eye.

 

(Father # 2) and his former partner, (redacted) , lied to FACS (via FACS' outsourced assessor) when they presented themselves last month as a couple living in Ingleside. As you both know, but choose to ignore, (Father # 2) will shortly move to (redacted) without (redacted).

 

(Father # 2) has had three AVOs taken out against him by three different women. This is no impediment, in FACS' view, to his fostering of John. Sally's discussing gender issues with her highly intelligent son, John, on the other hand, is cited as one reason why she is unfit to be a mother.

 

You both know these facts.

 

JK, KD, MS and others within FACS copied on this letter, insist that there is no other placement option for John other than (Father # 2). You both know this to be untrue. Three alternatives have been suggested to FACS, one of which is my own home...(redacted)

 

You both allow JK, KD, MS along with Robert McLachlan and Dr Ainsworth, to lie with impunity about the lack of alternatives to (Father # 2).

 

Turning to the Children's Court hearing of 16th Nov, before Magistrate (redacted), commencing at 11 am. The following extracts from the transcript are worthy of comment:

HER HONOUR: Mr You ,no doubt heard. Ms Sally Smith’s phone wasn’t answered. 

Comment: (redacted) Court called Sally once on 16th Nov, leaving a message when she was en route, by public transport, to (redacted) library, to meet John. She had her phone turned off. As has been made clear in previous correspondence, Sally had been informed that the matter had been adjourned. That morning I had written to Frank Ainsworth, Robert Mc Lachlan and other FACS staff copied here, asking if Sally's presence in court was required. This email was ignored. (see correspondence)

HER HONOUR: McLachlan, the Secretary is seeking a finding today? 

Comment: Sally had been informed that 16th Nov was for mention only; that 3 - 4 days would be set aside for a trial in Parramatta Children's Court.

MCLACHLAN: He is and that was a matter that I canvassed with Dr Ainsworth and-...

Comment:  Neither Robert Mc Lachlan nor Dr Ainsworth had 'canvassed' anything with Sally. Dr Ainsworth had spoken not a word with Sally prior to Nov 16th and had ignored her clear instructions, contained in various emails copied to FACS.

HER HONOUR: ... Mr Whelan, the Secretary is seeking-- 

WHELAN: Yes, the Secretary is seeking a finding as to no realistic possibility of restoration to the mother. 

Comment: The Secretary of the New South Wales Department of Communities and Justice is you, Michael Coutts-Trotter. It is you, or others within FACS acting on your behalf, who have recommended to the Court that John be permanently removed from his mother. If you have not been properly briefed about legal actions taken in your name, you need to be.

MCLACHLAN: The guardian supports a finding being made.

Comment: Dr Ainsworth, having never met or spoken with Sally, and in total contravention of her clearly expressed wishes, was acting in the interests of FACS and not of his client, Sally, in breach of his professional obligations as a Guardian ad Litem.

                                                                        ***

HER HONOUR: What’s being relied upon in respect of that?

WHELAN: Your Honour’s recent judgment with respect to not discharge from the guardian, the clinician’s report-- 

HER HONOUR: Just identify the date of the report for me, please? 

WHELAN: Yes, just pardon me for a moment, I apologise. It’s a report of - it doesn’t actually bear a date where (redacted) has signed it. It was released by the Court I think 23 March 2019. 

HER HONOUR: Yes, anything else you’re seeking me to formally read or 15 review? 

WHELAN: Just the current care plan, whilst we need to amend the care plan as to permanency we don’t seek to amend it with respect to realistic possibility and there are some submissions that I’ve prepared in relation to  the guardianship issue which summarises some of that evidence which might be of some assistance. 

Comment: Whelan, Ainsworth and Mc Lachlan knew full well that there was much else that Sally wished Magistrate (redacted) to read; affidavits she wished to submit to Magistrate (redacted). 

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that these three men did not want Sally to be in court that day, wasting the court's time, to put it as Dr Ainsworth would subsequently express this to Sally. That Whelan, Ainsworth and Mc Lachlan knew of the affidavits Sally wished to submit to the court is well documented in letters to yourselves, Michael and Gareth. Again, if you have not been properly briefed by your staff, you need to be.

                                                                        ***

HER HONOUR: Yes, are you going to email that document in? 

WHELAN: It has already been filed but I can do it now just so it’s easily available. 

HER HONOUR: No, it’s all right..(not transcribable)..just identify what the document is for me, please?  

WHELAN: it’s the updated case management document of the Secretary and that was submitted to the Court on 16 April 2020 

HER HONOUR: Thank you, I was looking for something more recent but yes I’m familiar with that. I want to review that material before I proceed to the finding because I want that material clearly on the record. I’ll just stand the matter down in the list and I’ll return to it as soon as I’ve had an opportunity to do that. 

Comments: (1) As of 11 am, 16th November, Magistrate (redacted) had not read any of the material she needed to read in order to make a judgement as serious and significant as the permanent removal of his mother from John's life. (2) Whelan, for FACS was submitting a 7 month old document, which he knew to be out of date. (3) Neither Ainsworth nor McLachlan had any objection to this out-of-date document being presented to Magistrate (redacted)s. (4) Magistrate (redacted) was correct in her wish that she had something more recent to help her make her judgement.

MATTER STOOD IN LIST 

Comment: The time when this matter was stood in the list and proceedings re-commenced is relevant here. Given that Magistrate (redacted) had read no documents at all by 11 am, the length of time she spent out of the courtroom is the amount of time she devoted to reading the documents presented to her.

                                                                        ***

HER HONOUR: Yes, I return to the matter of John Smith. I just note for the record that the registry staff had communicated with Ms Smith by email confirming for her that the matter was listed  before the Court today. The attempts to telephone her when the matter was earlier before me today failed and the matter went to voice mail and I am instructed that my court officer has attempted to contact her twice without success by telephone from that period until now. Was there anything before I deliver a judgment in respect of the questionof no realistic possibility of restoration?

WHELAN: Only for me to apologise for my lateness. 

Comments: (1) Questions relating to Woy Woy court's alleged attempts to contact Sally in relation to 16th Nov have been canvassed in some detail in previous correspondence, and need not be revisited here in any detail. It is worth pointing out again, however, that all recipients of the emailed letter I sent to Dr Ainsworth on the morning of 16th, two hours before the hearing commenced, knew that Sally was living in my house, and knew my telephone number. If her presence was required in court, I could have been alerted to the fact and, if necessary, have driven to (redacted) library to inform Sally. All the evidence suggests that not only was no attempt made to contact Sally, but that some effort was put into guaranteeing she not appear in court. (2) When Magistrate (redacted) asked if there was "anything before I deliver a judgment in respect of the question of no realistic possibility of restoration?" Whelan, McLachlan and Ainsworth knew full well that there was much else that Sally wished to present to the court. (This is all well documented). There are sins of commission and sins of omission, and Whelan, McLachlan and Ainsworth are guilty of the latter. They deliberately and, I suggest, with malice aforethought, withheld from Magistrate (redacted) documents relevant to the hearing. (3) Whelan's apology to Magistrate (redacted) for the late delivery of the FACS affidavit (Friday 13th) highlights the fact that no apology from Whelan, Ainsworth or McLachlan has been forthcoming to Sally. The evidence suggests that Whelan deliberately delivered the FACS affidavit to the court at the last minute in order to deprive Sally the opportunity to read it, absorb it, think about it and instruct her Guardian who, in turn, could have instructed McLachlan. Some investigation needs to be carried out within FACS regarding this. The question you both need to ask, and demand an answer to that passes the pub test is: When was the affidavit completed? If it was completed well in advance of 13th Nov, who within FACS made the decision to wait until the 13th to deliver it to the court and McLachlan?

If Whelan deliberately withheld the affidavit until 13th November, he should be sacked for behaving in a malicious manner towards Sally. The same should apply to whoever, within FACS, instructed Whelan to wait until 13th Nov before submission.

                                                                        ***

HER HONOUR: I did wish to read that affidavit material to refresh my recollection from my judgment and to reread the clinician’s report. The Court has held concerns in relation to the mother’s mental health and the extent to which it has negatively impacted upon her ability to adequately conduct these proceedings to the extent that the Court directed the appointment of a guardian ad litem and (redacted) (?) was appointed. 

Comment: Magistrate (redacted) did not have before her, when she made this observation, copious up-to-date documents relating to Sally's mental health. FACS has had on file for quite some time up-to-date reports from clinicians stating that Sally is suffering not from mental illness but from depression brought on by the trauma of losing her children. These documents were deliberately withheld from (redacted) by Ainsworth, McLachlan and Whelan.

                                                                        ***

HER HONOUR: The Court notes its view that Ms Sally Smith is a highly intelligent person and there is no doubt that she loves her son John dearly and in this Court’s view has, if her mental health issues are adequately dealt with the capacity to be an excellent parent. 

Comment: At the risk of belabouring the point, Ainsworth, McLachlan and Whelan deliberately withheld from Magistrate (redacted) evidence that Sally's alleged "mental health issues" have been and continue to be "adequately dealt with". Whether this is simple professional incompetence or a deliberate attempt to mislead the court is a question you must both grapple with, Michael and Gareth, and require answers to that pass the pub test.

                                                                        ***

HER HONOUR: The Court particularly notes (redacted) conclusions at para 134 that being that, whilst Sally had previously been given a range of mental health diagnoses by both adult mental health staff and (redacted) during the Family Court proceedings, this does not automatically mean that Sally is unable to parent her child.  However it is Sally’s behaviour toward John , her lack of insight into the 50 impact her mental health concerns have on her parenting, her unwillingness to  engage in services that raised serious concerns for the safety and well-being of John...(redacted)  concluded that Sally has been unable to unwilling to engage in the therapeutic work necessary to ensure she is able to parent John in a safe and emotionally nurturing way. In addition Sally appears isolated from her family or other social supports who would be able to assist her to care for John when she is unwell. Instead, it would seem she has relied upon people to look after John whom she does not know well and that would remove John from his school and home environments.

Comments: (1) That men and women who suffer from mental illness can also be good parents is a truism. In Sally's case, if she did suffer from mental illness when she had her breakdown, it was of a temporary nature. It is, as we all know now, quite common for people whom we consider to be 'sane', to experience an episode of mental illness in their lives. They are no longer punished for this (other than in the case of FACS, that is) but simply get on with their lives when they are well again. (2) That Sally has been unable or unwilling to engage in therapeutic work is quite simply incorrect, as FACS knows. (See copious correspondence relating to this) (3) Why is Sally's isolation from her family relevant? (4) The notion that Sally has no other 'social supports' is wrong, as FACS knows. (See copious correspondence). Three people, one of them myself, have put up their hands to help Sally if and when she needs it. As with all else that contradicts JK's belief that Sally is a bad mother, Magistrate (redacted)) has been misled as regards Sally's social supports.

You will both be familiar with 'confirmation bias'. This matter is a text book example of it. JK decided that Sally was a bad mother and for months now FACS, at every level up to and including yourselves, has ignored any and everything that contradicts JK's bias and cherry-picked documents, no matter how out of date they are, which confirm that bias.

Constraints on my time necessitate that I end this letter here, though I have not finished making my comments. 

I trust, Gareth and Michael, that there is sufficient here for you to ask the questions you really do need to ask. There are many. And there are more to come from me, wearing my journalists hat, regardless of whether you choose to answer them or not.

I believe (and suggest) that you should call Sally today and invite her to come into your offices to discuss her case with you in person. You will discover that she is more than capable of advocating on her own behalf, that she will not be deterred by spin doctors lower down in the FACS food chain, that she loves her children dearly and never needed a Guardian - especially not one who refused to represent her but who, instead, fell into the confirmation bias trap.

yours sincerely

James Ricketson

# 7 FACS will discuss Care plan with Sally only after it is completed

 Gareth Ward

Minister for Families, Communities 

and Disability Services  &

Michael Coutts-Trotter 

Secretary , Professional Conduct, Ethics and Performance Unit 

Families, Communities 

and Disability Services                                                                                                    9th Dec. 2020

 

Dear Minister and Mr  Coutts-Trotter

 

                                                            re John Smith

 

As you will be aware by now, (father # 2's) partner, (redacted),  has left him. FACS was informed that this would be the case many weeks ago. (father # 2)  will shortly move to (redacted). There will be no female in his house, no partner at home when John and Julie return home from school. No-one to care for them on those nights when (father # 2)  is playing music. No female to get the knots out of Julie's hair or to provide her with the daily help and advice that only a mother or close female relative can provide a girl on the cusp of puberty.

 

Is it a matter of any concern to FACS that (father # 2)  and (redacted) misled the agency assessing both them and their home in (redacted)  last month?

 

Is it customary for FACS to outsource such assessments of potential foster-carers to non government organisations?

 

I ask these questions wearing my journalist's hat.

 

Apropos NS's email to Sally of 8th Dec, 2020, some observations are  in order.

 

NS writes: 

 

Through our past conversations I have heard your thoughts on what you want for John in terms of family time and placement, but I would also like to hear your thoughts on the other areas of John’s life for the next 12 months. 

 

How can Sally provide you with her thoughts if FACS does not provide her with what its thoughts are?

 

I will send you the meeting minutes from the case plan conference that occurred on 18 November once the case plan has been finalised. 

 

Is it customary for FACS to ask for a parent's thoughts "on other areas" of their son and daughter's life, after  "the case plan has been finalised."? 

 

Why not during the preparation of the case plan?

 

I ask these questions as a journalist.

 

NS writes: 

 

I look forward to hearing your views on what you would like to see for John in the next 12 months as a part of his case plan. 

 

Sally has informed FACS many times what she "would like to see for John" in the next 12 months - a realistic pathway to restoration that recognises John's right to have his own mother as his primary carer; John's right to spend as much time as practicable with his mother under the prevailing circumstances.

 

NS writes: 

 

In regards to the court process and legal documentation, I suggest you speak with your Guardian Ad Litem and legal representatives.

 

This is disingenuous. Nikki knows, all copied on this letter know, that Sally's Guardian ad Litem, Frank Ainsworth, and legal representative, Robert Mc Lachlan, refuse to communicate with her; that they refused to communicate with her before making representations to Magistrate (redacted)that they knew were contrary to Sally's clearly stated wishes; that they refused to submit to the court affidavits Sally had made it clear she wished to be submitted.

 

NS writes: 

 

The on 1 December you told me that you wanted visits on Saturday and Sunday for 2-4 hours. To make any changes to the family time schedule I need to speak with the relevant people involved including my manager, the supervising agency, John’s carer and most importantly John. 

 

It has been many months that Sally has been requesting changes to the so called "family time" schedule. My own offer to help facilitate such changes was made three months ago now. And ignored.

 

NS writes: 

 

John let me know that he would not be able to do weekend visits as this was the time that he liked to chill out and hang out with his friends. 

 

This is understandable. What (redacted) year old boy wants to spend 2 hours in a library on the weekend, with a note-taking stranger, when he could be at the beach, playing games, hanging out with friends etc.? (redacted) year old boys whose movements are not controlled by FACS can spend 2 hours on a weekend with their mums and dads and hang out with their friends, and play games etc. They are not confronted by an either/or choice. And nor should John be.

 

During the three months since I first made my offer, John could have hung out with his mum at my house, (redacted). He could have integrated his life-with-mum, with his life-with-friends. In other words, real family time as it occurs in the real world.

 

 

NS writes: 

 

John said that he likes family time being on a weekday because he likes filling you in on what he did over the weekend and the week prior.  

 

There would be no need for John to fill his mum in on what he did on the weekend if he had spent part of it with her. As for his other news, as happens in the real world, he could be filling his mum in as they engage in shared activities - be they at the beach, playing chess, cooking a meal, or any of the other activities that constitute normal family time for most kids.

 

 

NS writes: 

 

John said that he still really wanted to spend weekly family time with you, but would rather they be 1.5 hours as he felt 2 hours was a little too long for him. 

 

Two hours is too long for any a (redacted) year old with a rich and enjoyable social life. How many 12 year old boys want to be forced, in accordance with a schedule made up by FACS strangers and an NGO, to spend 1.5 or 2 hours with their mum in a library, with a stranger taking notes? Especially in summer when he could be at the beach? With his mum or his friends. FAC's forcing John to choose between (1) Hanging out with mum and a minder in the library and (2) Hanging out with friends, is yet another petty bureaucratic form of torment for him. And his mother. Emotional torture.

 

 

NS writes: 

 

John said that for future family time he was excited to be able to do different things to you and go to different places, not just visit the library which I know is something that you have raised in our past conversations as well.

 

This is a step in the right direction.  This is what Sally has wanted for a long time, as FACS knows, but has ignored.

 

 

NS writes: 

 

I am happy to create a new family time schedule so that you and John can resume spending time with each other, however I will need to prioritise what John has told me and what he wants family time to look like.

 

Slipping back into journalist mode: Is it FACS policy to leave it up to (redacted) year old boys (or girls) to determine what 'family time' will comprise? In the real world, as opposed to the one FACS seems to inhabit, what constitutes family time for (redacted) year olds is worked out collaboratively, within a family. Parents and their (redacted)  year old sons and daughters do not always agree on what 'family time' should look like. Negotiation is necessary. Parents and (redacted)  year olds often want quite different things. Arguments ensue. I can think of no family I have ever known in which the transition from childhood to young adulthood has been friction free.

 

The important point here is that NSis, yet again, cutting Sally out of the picture. She gets very limited say in what constitutes  'family time'. John gets to call the tune.

 

 

NS writes: 

 

What does your availability during the week look like? Do Monday’s still work for you? 

 

Whilst FACS expects Sally to acquire full time employment, which normally requires working Monday to Friday, NS is offering a weekday as the only option. If Sally is able to get a full time job, and if John gets the final say on how he spends his weekends, when does FACS think John and his mum will get to spend 'family time' together?

 

 

NS writes: 

 

I’m open to discussing new venues for family visits to occur at, rather than resuming family time at the library. These visits will continue to be supervised by a professional agency.

 

Taking off my journalist's hat, putting on my friend to Sally's hat, why can't these visits take place in my house? I am more highly qualified and experienced than any of FACS's outsourced supervisors and have, as FACS is aware, working with children accreditation. If FACS wants to send along one of its own supervisors to supervise my supervision, that's fine by me. He or she can come to the beach with us or be involved in whatever activities we engage in. And they can make their notes - assessing not only their view of the appropriateness or otherwise of what John and his mum do or say, but also my skills, or lack thereof, as a supervisor.

 

At the risk of belabouring the point, FACS has never provided any credible evidence that Sally's time spent with John requires supervision. Has Sally ever physically, mentally or emotionally abused John? No. FACS knows this, having asked John.  

 

It has been pointed out to me that I have mistakenly attributed the appointment of a Guardian ad Litem to FACS, when it was the Woy Woy court that did so. My apologies for this error. Please feel free to point out to me any other factual errors I make. I will correct them. I will look further into the question of why the court felt it to be necessary to appoint a GAL, given Sally's experience in representing herself in court.

 

In relation to my last blog entry re FACS making it impossible to file an appeal, (http://jamesricketson.blogspot.com/2020/12/6-facs-makes-it-impossible-for-sally.html) a transcript of court proceedings from 16th Nov was sent to Sally yesterday. A response to this will be forthcoming in the next 24 hours.

 

yours sincerely

 

James Ricketson

# 6 FACS makes it impossible for Sally Smith* to file an appeal

 Gareth Ward

Minister for Families, Communities 

and Disability Services  &

Michael Coutts-Trotter 

Secretary , Professional Conduct, Ethics and Performance Unit 

Families, Communities 

and Disability Services                                                                                                   8th. Dec 2020

 

Dear Minister and Mr  Coutts-Trotter

 

                                                            re Sally Smith

 

Eight days away from her deadline to appeal the decision handed down by magistrate (redacted) on 16th Nov, Sally still does not have a copy of the transcript of what was said in court that day by Robert McLachlan, Frank Ainsworth and (redacted). How can Sally appeal the judgement if she does not know what she is appealing against? The (redacted) court tells her that there will be no transcript available until January 2021, when it will be too late for her to appeal.

 

Is this just bureaucratic incompetence, or is FACS, in conjunction with (redacted) court, determined to make it impossible for Sally to lodge an appeal? I have little time for run of the mill conspiracy theories but it is certainly beginning to seem as though, from the Minister down, FACS has decided to tough this out; to circle the wagons around its (redacted)  branch and hope that the incompetence on display here never makes it into the public domain.

 

It is not just incompetence that should be a matter of concern to you, Gareth and Michael, but that both Dr Ainsworth and Robert Mc Lachlan (along with all FACS staff copied here) clearly lack empathy or compassion for either John or Sally. Neither Frank nor Robert has met or spoken with John. He is a stranger to them. The plight of this sensitive 11 year old boy is of no concern to them. As Guardian and lawyer, both supposedly representing Sally, they see their jobs merely as putting ticks in boxes for FACS. And that is all FACS expects of them, and pays them to do. How this tick-in-a-box approach to the human drama unfolding here impacts on John  is of no consequence. If this breaks his heart, if he experiences this brutal separation from his mother as a lifelong trauma, this is not a problem that Ainsworth, McLachlan and most copied here will ever have to deal with, having never met either John or his mother. Out of sight, out of mind. It is hard to imagine a more alienated or alienating way of resolving complex emotional issues than the system that you both, Gareth and Michael, have in place. It is a disgrace. And you are both, jointly, responsible for it.

 

yours sincerely

 

James Ricketson

# 5 Dr Ainsworth under no FACS obligation to be be transparent, accountable or honest

 Gareth Ward

Minister for Families, Communities 

and Disability Services  &

Michael Coutts-Trotter 

Secretary , Professional Conduct, Ethics and Performance Unit 

Families, Communities 

and Disability Services                                                                                                    4th Dec. 2020

 

Dear Minister and Mr  Coutts-Trotter

 

                                                            re John Smith

It is to be hoped, as you read through Sally's email to you yesterday, that you can no longer maintain the illusion that she is unable to instruct a lawyer. As you will be aware, Sally has represented herself in court and could do so again, were it not for magistrate (redacted) deciding that she is incapable of doing so. Why (redacted) arrived at this conclusion is one of many questions that need to be answered. And why did FACS go along with this clearly flawed legal decision when all in the (redacted) branch knew full well that Sally was capable of instructing her own lawyer? As did (redacted)!

 

I will venture the suggestion that it is because the (redacted)  FACS staff had decided Sally was not a fit mother and needed to do all in their power not to allow any evidence to be presented to the court that would undermine or discredit their decision, including allowing Sally to instruct her own lawyer.  After all, if a mother is able to represent herself ably in court, this would raise legitimate doubts as to her incapacity to be a good mother. And if there are clinical reports suggesting the mother is depressed and not mentally ill, especially if these reports implicate FACS in her depression, these too must be suppressed - which is what has happened. And if an advocate such as myself appears on the scene, he too must be ignored, or denigrated as Dr Ainsworth has. And if John wishes to be with his mother, this too must be suppressed.

 

What has happened here is that FACS has made a decision, a clearly wrong decision, and must now defend it by excluding evidence of its bad decision, and including as justification only that which presents Sally in the worst possible light when it comes to her capacity to be a loving mother to John.

 

If Sally had been able to do instruct him, Robert Mc Lachlan would have been left with no choice but to submit documents to the court that Sally wished to be submitted but which her Guardian, Dr Ainsworth, did not. As in the case with FACS,  Dr. Ainsworth decided that restoration should not occur and has built a flimsy house-of-cards justification for his decision - not wanting to waste the courts time, saving Sally money etc

 

Why did Dr Ainsworth not want these documents submitted? I will refrain from conjecture, for the time being, but suggest, Gareth and Michael, that you ask some questions of Dr Ainsworth, and insist on answers that will pass the pub test. His current explanations do not. The same applies for all at (redacted)  FACS (and those copied here) who have, with their silence, given the green light to what is clearly an abrogation of the natural justice that should apply to both John and his mother.

 

You have both been aware of the miscarriage of justice that is occurring here for many months now - not just from emails sent to you by Sally, but from letters written by myself also. You have chosen to turn a blind eye, hoping, I suspect, that the problem would simply go away. This is the 21st C bureaucrat's preferred solution to any initiative from the general public in which honesty, transparency and accountability are required. Only when the media takes an interest, the 21st C public servant exposed as corrupt or incompetent, does the senior 21st C bureaucrat take any action. This is usually, first up, to bring on the spin doctors to make a pig's ear seem like a silk purse. If this does not have the desired effect of making the problem go away, one of two things happens: (1) The complainant is denigrated, demeaned, made to seem unreasonable ("an impossible person") and (2) Someone low on in the hierarchy has to fall on their sword in order to protect the Minister in charge of the portfolio.

 

This problem is your problem, Gareth and Michael. You have chosen not to deal with it. So be it. 

 

yours sincerely

 

James Ricketson

# 4 Dr Ainsworth's own words speak eloquently of his capacity as a Guardian ad Litem

 

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