# 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

 

# 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