Consular assistance, Julian Assange?

 24th June 2022

 

Foreign Minister Penny Wong 

Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles

Parliament House, Canberra

 

Dear Ms Wong and Mr. Marles

 

You claim that Julian Assange is receiving 'consular assistance'. Could you please explain to the Australian media and public just what 'consular assistance' means, in terms of services delivered to Australian citizens in jails overseas? 

 

In my own case, when jailed in Cambodia for fifteen months on charges of spying, 'consular assistance' amounted to the provision of (1) a toothbrush and a paperback book, (2) Weeks and months old local Cambodian newspapers, and (3) Mail from Australia. That's it. 

 

Despite the Australian embassy in Cambodia declaring in public that it was 'monitoring' my case, Embassy staff did not turn up to my court appearances to 'monitor' the numerous ways in which both Cambodian and international law were being breached. If the Ambassador had asked just one question, "Was there a warrant for Mr Ricketson's arrest?'  the Court would have had to say 'no' and I would have had to be released almost immediately.

 

Whilst in Pre Sar prison, a fellow Australian, Giuseppe Nicolosi (Zippy) became very ill, just months before he was due to be released, having almost completed his sentence. There was no more evidence that Zippy was guilty of a crime than there was  in my own case.  As Zippy's health deteriorated , I and other prisoners asked the Australian Embassy to advocate Zippy's early release (by only a few months) so that he could receive the treatment he required in an intensive care ward in Australia. The Australian embassy, providing Zippy with 'consular assistance', monitoring his health, declined to intervene. Zippy died.

This is how much DFAT cares about Australian citizens in trouble overseas - unless, of course, the media has taken an interest in them and, as a consequence, the public places the government under pressure to act.

 

As for the proposition that Australia can't intervene in the case of Julian Assange, this is simply not true, and you both know it. The Australian government intervenes all the time, when it feels inclined to do so. It did with Peter Greste, Kylie Moore-Gilbert and myself - all three of us in jail on clearly false espionage charges. Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull's email to a friend of mine speaks for itself:

 

wentworthelectorateoffice@gmail.com

Date: 25 September 2018 at 9:02:09 am AEST, xxx@hotmail.com, Subject: Re: In Response to Your Letter, Thank you xxx for your letter, I guess you know now that at the ASEAN Australia Summit in Sydney earlier this year I secured a commitment from the Cambodian PM to pardon James once his trial was concluded. So thats why he is home. 

Regards, malcolm”, 

 

The many thousands of us who voted for Labor, believing Anthony Albanese to be a man of his word, hope that you are, in fact, hard at work behind the scenes, doing all you can to secure Julian's release. You will be aware, of course, if you do not succeed with 'quiet diplomacy', and if you do not then publicly demand Julian's release, that you will be complicit in his inevitable death in a prison in the United States.

Regardless of whatever a Labor government might achieve in its first term, Julian's death will hang like an albatross around your necks. You will have lost the respect, and earned the enmity, of hundreds of thousands of Australians who are under no illusions about your being able to pick up the phone and stop this travesty of justice.

 

yours sincerely

 

James Ricketson

 

Letter to new PM, Anthony Albanese, 2nd June 2022 re Julian Assange

 2nd June 2022

 

Dear Prime Minister

 

We know that you know that Julian Assange should not be in jail.

 

We know and understand  that all foreign affairs is not best done with a loud hailer.

 

We know that the chances are very high that Julian will die during your six year tenure as Prime Minister if he is extradited to the US; that he will die for exposing crimes and misdemeanours of the kind your proposed national integrity commission is being set up to expose.

 

We know that you are a man of integrity.  So is Julian.

 

We know it will break your heart, along with ours, and Julian's family, if, at the end of your Prime Ministership, no matter how successful it has been, you are held responsible by history for not picking up the phone, and being complicit in his death.

 

We know that you and Penny Wong can pick up the phone and, with no loud hailer, let Boris Johnson and Joe Biden know that enough is enough; that you want Julian back in Australia. The Australian government intervened in the case of Peter Greste, myself, Kylie Moore-Gilbert and others. It can do so in Julian’s case also.

 

We know that you know that we know this; that no amount of political spin can justify Julian's continued incarceration.

 

Pick up the phone, Albo. We don't need to know how you do it, but bring Julian home. You will win the respect of the vast majority of Australians and be making it clear, at the same time, that you are committed to freedom of speech; freedom of the press.

 

I wish you well for the next six years as our Prime Minister.

 

cheers

 

James Ricketson

JULIAN ASSANGE - letter to Peter Greste

AN OPEN LETTER TO PETER GRESTE

3.07.19

 

Dear Peter, 

 

Do you still stand by your assertion, made in a Sydney Morning Herald opinion piece last April, that Julian Assange  “is not a journalist, and WikiLeaks is not a news organisation”? 

 

Assange has been a member of MEAA for the past 10 years, was awarded a Walkley for the ‘Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism’ in 2011, amongst many other journalism awards. In November 2011 the UK Hight Court described Assange as “…a journalist, well known through his operation of Wikileaks” and the US Army’s Counterintelligence Centre described WikiLeaks as a ‘news organisation’ and Assange as a ‘writer’ and ‘journalist’.

 

Even if it is still your contention that Assange is not a journalist, do you believe, on the basis of evidence available to you, that Assange, an Australian citizen, should be extradited to the United States to face espionage charges?  

 

When I was imprisoned in Cambodia, also charged with espionage, you showed your compassion and used your influence as a journalist, who had likewise been charged with espionage and spent 400 days in an Egyptian prison, to alert the Australian public to my plight. You told Fran Kelly:

 

“You really can’t conceive of that length of time in prison until you actually have to confront it in all its stark reality… The Australian Government insists that it’s a defender of the basic democratic principles in the region, including the rule of law, due process, basic human rights. And if it wants to be taken seriously and with respect then it needs to forcefully stand by those values in cases like James’. I think the Government clearly needs to do more.”

 

You also said: 

 

“In Egypt’s case, Australia had very few levers that it could pull. It’s got far more levers…in Cambodia’s case – diplomatic levers, economic levers and so on.”

 

When I was found guilty of espionage you wrote on twitter:

 

“Australian film-maker James Ricketson sentenced to six years jail in Cambodia. Outrageous affront to due process, freedom of the press and the rule of law.”

 

Along with Phillip Adams, Elizabeth Farrelly, John Pilger, Piers Akerman and other journalists who wrote or broadcast in relation to my case, you played an important role in generating public support for me. This, in turn, placed pressure on the Australian government to use all the diplomatic tools available to it to extricate me from prison. The government did eventually step up to the plate and, behind the scenes, make significant diplomatic efforts to help me. Three weeks after I received a 6 year jail sentence I was on a plane back to Australia.

 

Do you believe that Citizen Julian Assange is any less deserving of intervention on the part of the Morrison government than I was?

 

Do you believe that the Australian government is doing enough to protect Citizen Julian Assange’s basic human rights?

 

Do you believe that, as an Australian citizen, he is deserving of a 175 year jail sentence for doing nothing more, on the basis of the evidence available to us all in July 2019, than what a good investigative journalist/publisher does all the time?

 

Julian Assange turns 48 today. He has been locked up in an Embassy for 7 years – five times longer than you were locked up in Egypt and I in Cambodia Cambodia. We have both experienced what you refer to as the ‘stark reality’ of incarceration. I would not wish the experience on anyone ,and particularly not on a fellow journalist.

 

Again, Peter, thank you for the journalistic help you provided me in my time of extreme need. Please do the same for Julian Assange –  as both an Australian citizen andas a journalist. Please join with the growing number of journalists worldwide who fear the ramifications, if Assange is extradited, for freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the health of democracies such as Australia’s, at a time when President Donald Trump has declared we journalists to be enemies of the people.

 

cheers

 

James

 

2nd letter to Peter Greste

18.07.19

 

Dear Peter

 

Following on from my ‘open letter’ to you of 2^ndJuly.

 

 ‘New Matilda’ recently published the following comment in relation to the Global Conference for Media Freedom held in London last week, which you attended:

 

Peter Greste backtracked on former denunciations of Julian Assange, noting that the Wikileaks founder is part of an ecosystem of “whistleblowing, accountability and publishing of journalism”, which “we need to be protecting as a whole”. 

 

Is this statement an accurate description of your current view of Julian Assange’s status as a journalist, editor and publisher? If so, will you, in a follow-up Opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald, be amplifying your belief that, as part of the ‘whistleblowing ecosystem’, Assange is in need of ‘protection’?

 

Your status as a journalist jailed in Egypt, as a Professor of Journalism, as spokesperson for ‘Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom and as writer of Opinion pieces such as “Julian Assange is no journalist” (12^thApril 2019) give you enormous power to shape Australian public opinion. Indeed, you have already done so. Over the past few months I have had several conversations with friends who read  your “Julian Assange is no journalist” piece and formed their opinions accordingly. My own experiences have made it possible for me to mount a powerful argument as to why Assange is a journalist but I cannot, as you can, reach a large readership with my counter-arguments.

 

A public declaration from yourself that Assange is a journalist  and Wikileaks a publisher will help demolish one of the arguments presented by those in the media who present his ‘non-journalist’ status to justify their refusal to support him. Only when the bulk of Australian journalists focus on Assange’s status as a journalist, facing the very real possibility of dying in a US jail, and leave aside questions relating to his character and personality, (including refraining from snide “Putin’s bitch” references) will Australian public opinion swing behind Julian. 

 

Until there is a change in public opinion, the Australian government – both sides of the political spectrum – will sit on the fence, unwilling to upset our ally, the United States. Only with a change in public opinion will Scott Morrison and Anthony Albanese pluck up the courage to say to the UK government, “We request, in the most forceful manner, that you respect Julian Assange’s human and legal rights, the free speech rights that accrue to him as a journalist and publisher, and refuse to extradite him to the United States.”

 

I look forward to reading your next Opinion piece, Peter.

 

cheers

 

James

 

3rd letter to Peter Greste

 

Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom

 

Dear Peter

 

Following on from my previous letters to you regarding Julian Assange.

 

Do you, in October 2019, stand by your assertion that Julian Assange is not a journalist?

 

This remains the official position of the Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom, of which you are Spokesperson. 

 

Comments you have made this past few months suggest that you may be having second thoughts regarding Assange’s status as a journalist.

 

On 19^th August, Phillip Adams asked you the following question: 

 

“Do you think the extradition of an Australian publisher from anywhere in the world to the United States for publishing 100 per cent facts—not fake news—sets a dangerous precedent for all Australians, not just journalists but people on the web, social media?”

 

You responded with:

 

“I have wrestled with this a lot. What you are referring to, I guess, is a piece I wrote some time ago that suggested I do not consider Julian to be a journalist. I am very concerned about the implications of Julian Assange’s arrest and the extradition on a number of levels. I think there are issues and questions of due process. It is very difficult to imagine how Julian Assange under the current circumstances can get a fair trial, a fair hearing. I am very concerned about the implications of the way that the law is being used for journalism…Yes, I think there are some troubling concerns and I think we do need to be more actively engaged in understanding what those are and supporting Julian in that regard.”

 

In conversations with friends and others, in the months since your Sydney Morning Herald opinion piece was published, your declaration that Assange is not a journalist inevitably crops up. “Peter Greste says that Assange is not a journalist,”  they say. Given your high profile status as a journalist, your opinion carries weight with the public.  

 

When will you stop wrestling with the question of whether or not Assange is a journalist? Is the Alliance for Journalist’s Freedom also ‘wrestling’ with this question?

 

Some clarity on this will assist the Australian public in deciding to either support Assange or turn a blind eye to his fate. As you will be aware, and intimated in response to Phillip Adams’ question, Assange will not, if extradited to the United States, receive a fair trial. An almost certain ‘guilty’ verdict will result in his death in a US prison. 

 

The stakes are high and the time has come for yourself, the Alliance for Journalists’ Freedom, all Australian journalists and the public to place pressure on the Australian government, which assisted both you and I when we were imprisoned on bogus espionage charges, to likewise assist Julian Assange, whose only crime is that of being a journalist committed to speaking truth to power; of revealing the truth about US war crimes in Iraq.

 

If you, in your role as journalist, had been given access in 2010 to the Collateral Murder documents  published by Wikileaks, what would you have done with them? Publish and be dammed? I certainly would have. And so would many (most) of my friends and colleagues working in the 4^th Estate. You, I and many others could be in the position Assange is in now if we had made public the Collateral Murder materials. You and I and our colleagues could, in the future,  be facing death in a US prison, for doing nothing more than carrying out our professional responsibilities by speaking truth to power.

 

Please stop wrestling, Peter, and lend your voice to the growing band of Australians calling on the Australian government to do all in its power to prevent Assange’s extradition to the United States.

 

cheers

 

James Ricketson

# 11 Court refuses to provide transcripts to defendant

Ms (redacted)

Magistrate (redacted) Local Court

 

17th December 2020

 

Dear Magistrate (redacted)

 

                                                re John Smith

 

Further to my letter to you of 20th Nov.

 

Ms SS tells me that (redacted) court will not provide her with access to transcripts of court proceedings, on the grounds that she has shared them with me and that I have quoted from them in my letter to the Minister, Gareth Ward, and Secretary, Mr Coutts- Trotter on 10th Dec. If this is true, questions arise:

 

(1) Has Ms SS broken any law in providing me with a copy of court transcripts? If so, which law?

 

(2) Have I broken any law in quoting from these transcripts in letters to the Minister and Secretary? If so, which law?

 

(3) If I have broken any law in publishing extracts from these transcripts, in redacted form, on my blog, please let me know what law. I will comply with any legal directions given to me.

 

(4) Given that Ms SS needs the transcripts for legal reasons, would it not be possible to provide her with them on the understanding that she does not show them to me?

 

Let me remind you of the following facts, of which you cannot fail to be aware of by now:

 

- On the morning of 16th November, a little before 9am, I sent an email to Dr Ainsworth, Robert Mc Lachlan and half a dozen FACS employees, making a very specific reference to Sally's presence in court that morning. (see email below) Was it required or not? My email included the following:

 

Sally was provided with (redacted) FACS' voluminous affidavit to the court less than three days before today's hearing.

 

- Sally has been too emotionally distressed to read through the report over the weekend and respond to the points made in it.

 

- Sally has not been informed whether or not she is expected to attend court today. She presumes, rightly or wrongly, that the answer is 'no', given that she, as a grieving mother, has been erased by FACS.

 

Both JK and NS knew, several hours before court proceedings commenced on 16th Nov, that Sally did not know if her presence in court was required. Neither made any effort to make contact with Sally.

 

- The day beforehand,  15th Nov, Sally was informed by Dr Ainsworth that the 16th Nov hearing was to be adjourned until 2nd December.

 

Consequently, Sally had no reason to believe her presence in court was required. She had an appointment to meet her son at (redacted) Library at 3 pm and did not have her mobile phone switched on whilst in transit to the library by public transport.

 

- Dr Ainsworth, Robert Mc Lachlan, along with JK and NS, knew that Sally was living in my house and could have, had they chosen to do so, called me and requested that I get a message to Sally, which I would have been able to do.

 

I will leave it to you to decide, Magistrate (redacted), if this behaviour on the part of Dr Ainsworth, Robert Mc Lachlan , JK and NS resulted from incompetence, or if none of them really wanted Sally in court, presenting affidavits to you in response to  inaccuracies in FACS' own 13th Nov affidavit.

 

- The FACS affidavit was presented to the court on 13th Nov. Sally was sent a copy of it on 15th Nov, leaving her no time to  read it, absorb it and  talk it through with her Guardian. 

 

Do you, as a Magistrate, make a habit of allowing a case to proceed when the Defence has had no time to read and respond to affidavits?

 

- Prior to 16th Nov, Dr Ainsworth had not once spoken to Ms SS. He was, however, well aware of her desire to hand up to yourself affidavits relating to her mental health. He chose not to do so, having had no consultation with his client and despite her clear instructions. 

 

Is this the kind of lack of legal professionalism you tolerate in your court?

 

- Mark Whelan lied to you in court (see letter of 10th Nov to Minister Gareth Ward and Secretary Coutts-Trotter)). Are you accustomed to having lawyers lie to you in court? And allowing them to do so with impunity?

 

The court transcript I have been informed I am not allowed to quote from includes the following words of yours:

 

Magistrate (redacted) : There is in this Court’s view little doubt that with proper engagement with her mental health issues by the mother, contextualised into decision making that adequately prioritises and recognises John’s needs, Ms SS could be a very good parent. She clearly loves John and he her. He displays  a significant level of insight and concern for his mother’s mental health issues....John’s views have been considered and taken into account, noting that he is aware of his mother’s psychological issues, is very concerned about her and  wishes to reside with her and to provide care for her. 

 

There are two aspects of this declaration of yours worthy of comment:

 

(1) You have now been provided with several documents relating to Ms SS's mental health that contradict Ms (redacted) clinical report. You must ask yourself, "Why did FACS not allow these documents to be passed up to me? Why were the only documents presented to me of 16th Nov. ones that created the impression that Ms SS was, in late 2020, mentally ill and not merely depressed?"

 

Is it legally responsible of you, Ms (redacted), to make final orders in this matter when you know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that FACS and Dr Ainsworth have deliberately withheld from the court documents pertinent to the question of Sally's mental health?

 

(2) Working on the presumption that Ms SS suffers from a mental illness (a fact about which there is considerable disagreement) is it your legal opinion, your personal position as regards parenting,  that a son who loves his mother and wishes to care for her, is to be denied the opportunity, for the next six years, as a result of his mother's illness? This is the third decade of the 21st C, (redacted), not the 19th Century. John should be commended for his empathy, his compassion, his love and not be punished for having these admirable human qualities.

 

A gross miscarriage of natural justice is taking place in your court. A day will come when you are held both morally and legally responsible for your decision. (redacted)

 

The same  legal and moral day of reckoning applies to all within FACS who have been complicit in the complete removal of his mother from John's life.

 

yours sincerely

 

James Ricketson

# 10 DCJ/FACS has no functioning complaints system. Royal Commission required into FACS failures

 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

# 9 FACS refuses to answer any journalist questions

 Simone Czech

Deputy Secretary

Child Protection and Permanency,

Districts and Youth Justice Services

Department of  Justice

 

11th Dec. 2020

 

Dear Minister and Mr  Coutts-Trotter

 

                                                            re John Smith

 

Dear Simone

 

Your undated letter to me arrived in the mail today. My response:

 

I have not asked DCJ to share information, "as the matter is before the court".  Wearing my journalist's hat, I have asked questions. The Minister and Secretary have declined to answer any of them and, as you make clear in your letter, have no intention of answering any of them.

 

As for the court process, it is deeply flawed. The evidence in support of this statement is plain to see for anyone within FACS interested in looking. It seems that neither the Minister nor the Secretary are. As I pointed out to the Minister and Secretary yesterday, FACS's own lawyer, Mr Whelan, deliberately misleading Magistrate (redacted) on 16th Nov. So did Dr Ainsworth and Robert Mc Lachlan; all three withholding from Magistrate (redacted) documents pertinent to the case. 

 

As a journalist who believes government bureaucrats should be transparent and accountable, a journalist whose job it to get as close as possible to the truth, my questions are valid one, bearing in mind, of course, that the identities of the family members involved are not revealed..

 

Your reference to my letter of 16th Nov regarding Sally's request that I not advocate for her anymore is worthy of comment: 

 

(1) There is a tacit acknowledgement in your letter that I had, prior to 16th Nov, been advocating  on Sally's behalf - despite DCJ/FACS' refusal to treat me as an advocate. My multiple requests to be informed as to how I could, within the DCJ/FACS framework, advocate, were ignored by DCJ/FACS. The only answer I was able to get was that Sally had a Guardian to advocate on her behalf. As you now know, this was a lie. Not only did Dr Ainsworth NOT advocate on Sally's behalf, he acted as a de facto advocate for DCJ/FACS, recommending to Magistrate (redacted) a course of action that he knew to be contrary to Sally wishes and express instructions.

 

(2) At the time I sought permission to advocate on Sally's behalf, she was at a low ebb, depressed, and not in a position to effectively argue her case. Having only got involved, in the first place, with an offer to supervise visits, I could see she needed help and offered it. It was accepted and she wrote to DCJ/FACS to inform (redacted) FACS of this.

 

After a couple of months Sally feared that my advocating might be damaging her chances of getting John returned to her care. Indeed, this is what both FACS and Dr Ainsworth informed Sally. I then took my 'advocate hat' off and put on my journalists hat, as I could see that the problems Sally was confronting were systemic.

 

(3) As I think will be apparent from the correspondence DCJ/FACS is receiving from Sally now, she has regained her fighting spirit, realising that the FACS wagons have circled around JK, and that Michael Coutts-Trotter is not going to intervene. 

 

Given that Michael has recommended to Magistrate (redacted) that restoration of John to his mother should not happen, he has intervened in a most profound way. As Secretary, knowing full well that Magistrate (redacted) will follow his advice, he is in the process of denying a (redacted) year old boy the right to grow through adolescence and into young adulthood with his mother. Michael has given his stamp of approval to the fostering of a (redacted) year old boy to a man who has had three AVOs taken out against him and who has lied to DCJ/FACS about his relationship status and where he intends John to live.

 

It did not have to be this way. At any point in the past three months, Michael CT could have instructed (redacted) FACS to explore alternative placements for John. He did not. 

 

Did Michael ever ask (redacted) FACS to present him with alternative placements for John?

 

Magistrate (redacted) has decreed that restoration is not possible but not where John should reside when he leaves his current foster home. She awaits advice from DCJ/FACS.

 

As Michael has known for three months now (or should have known, if he was properly briefed) there are three alternative placements to (Father # 2)  (redacted) FACS has chosen to ignore these three alternatives. It is within Michael's power now, and will be up until 20th December, to insist that these three alternatives be properly explored.

 

Your assertion that there is nothing Michael can do is quite simply incorrect. He can take this matter out of the hands of (redacted) FACS today and place it in the hands of competent and experienced FACS staff who have not been infected with confirmation bias, who do not have an axe to grind, who do not need to persist with the fiction that Sally poses some threat to John, but are able to begin with a clean slate. Competent FACS staff need to talk with Sally and John separately and together, and to spend time with them in a non-note-taking context that approximates the real world. They need to be perceptive enough to pick up clues as to the nature and quality of Sally's and John's relationship and not concern themselves with the content of the conversation between mother and son. If Sally wants to talk with John about gender issues, this is no business of FACS. And if Sally and John disagree about how they wish to spend their time together, what of it? Anyone who has been a 12 year old boy, or parent to a 12 year old boy, knows that such disagreements, arguments even, are part and parcel of growing from childhood into adolescence.

 

To assess Sally and John afresh will require that the 21st. Dec court date be vacated. A new date could be set in January.

 

As for (Father # 2's)  3 AVOs, I would like to point out that I have had no AVOs taken out against me, and yet FACS will not allow me to join Sally and John in a cafe to drink a hot chocolate because I might pose some threat to the boy? Really, Simone. What nonsense. Regardless of my experience (extensive) and my working with children accreditation, DCJ/FACS could have, at any point in the past three months, come to my home and talked with me in person to see if I would be a suitable person to supervise visits or, as I have offered, to foster John. Why have these two options not been explored? Why has the option presented by (redacted) not been explored? Or the offer made by Sally's friend, (redacted), in (redacted)?

 

Michael can instruct FACS staff today to explore them. And he should.

 

Finally, the notion that DCJ is working with Sally to maintain and encourage her relationship with John is Orwellian doublespeak.  Are you a mother, Simone? Would you consider 2 hours a fortnight spent with your son or daughter, in a library, with a stranger present taking notes, to be 'family time'? And, if you were to cry when you kissed your child goodbye, how would you feel if this was seen as evidence, by a totally unqualified stranger you have never met before, of your emotional dysregulation, how would you feel? I find it unbelievable, in 2020, that such a Kafkaesque scenario exists within DCJ/FACS; unbelievable that those working inside the DCJ/FACS bubble cannot even recognise how inhuman and damaging such a scenario is. DCJ/FACS is in need of radical change.

 

Michael needs to fix this mess before 21st Dec, one way or another. Blaming the Children's Court is not going to pass the pub test.

 

yours sincerely

 

James Ricketson