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
No comments:
Post a Comment