Parents relive nightmare of DOCS intrusion

[grace]

THE little girl is not quite two years old, a blue-eyed brunette in pink Winnie-the-Pooh skirt and a ponytail that stands like a palm tree on top of her head.

 

Her brother is just five months old, completely at peace in his timber cot.

 

These are the children at the centre of one of the nation's most disturbing welfare cases. Last September, they were removed from the care of their parents and forced into foster care, despite there being "no evidence whatsoever" that they had ever been abused or neglected.

 

In a judgment delivered on December 19, NSW Supreme Court judge George Palmer described the case as an "abuse of power" and ordered the children be returned to their parents.

 

Ostensibly, the children had to be removed because their parents sometimes smoked cannabis.

 

More likely, the court heard, they were removed after their mother argued with welfare workers from the NSW Department of Community Services.

 

The Australian yesterday tracked the family down to their neat-as-a-pin home on the NSW north coast.

 

"It's heaven, isn't it," said the mother as she came out to greet us under the mango trees.

 

She's a tiny woman with fair skin. Her husband is the same height, with a builder's physique.

 

Their tale is a curious one: the mother is 36, and has four children from a previous relationship. The youngest is eight; the oldest, 16. They live down the road, with their father.

 

She met her second husband a few years ago, and they settled in the Tweed Shire. They don't hide the fact they smoke a bit of pot.

 

The husband says: "It's not uncommon to find people up here who like a bit of a choof."

 

The couple came to the attention of the NSW Department of Community Service two years ago, when the woman was 30 weeks pregnant with their first child.

 

"I'm a builder and the project I was working on went broke," the father said. "I'm still owed about $300,000 that it looks like I won't see. So we've got a baby coming and we're broke and living in a caravan and it was pretty stressful."

 

The mother said they "had a bit of an exchange of views one night". The next day, feeling awful, she checked herself into hospital.

 

"I thought I might go into labour," she said. "They said to me, 'What's bought this on?' I told the nurses: 'I'm having a blue with my partner'."

 

The father cuts in: "The next day, I went up there and I got aggressive. It wasn't her going off at everyone. It was me. The security guards came and said to me, 'Mate, this is a maternity ward, you can't be carrying on like this'."

 

Hospital staff reported the incident to DOCS. According to the mother, there was no further contact with DOCS officers until her baby daughter was born two months later. She arrived at 6.30pm and at 10am the next day, DOCS officers were beside the bed. [Ms Bronwen Rotherham, the delegate of the Director-General who made the decision to remove the children.]

 

"First I thought, oh, they just want to have a chat to me, to see if everything's all right," she said. "But they said: 'No, we've come to take the baby'."

 

"They took (my daughter) for eight weeks," the mother said. "They put a tube down her throat. They said it was in her best interests."

 

Life went on as normal for a year after that, but then the mother again fell pregnant early last year.

 

DOCS wanted the mother to agree to regular urine analysis, to ascertain whether she was taking drugs. They wanted the father to attend anger management classes. The judge said this was pretty "heavy-handed" given that nobody had thought that the children were actually at risk.

 

In October, the mother gave birth to a son. "I took him home and I had him for 37 nights," she said. Then DOCS arrived again, disputing the provision of urine tests.

 

A prickly conversation between the mother and a DOCS official ensued. "You look like you've lost weight," the official said. "You look like you've put on weight," the mother replied.

 

Two hours later, the children were gone. It was 13 weeks before the couple could get them back.

 

Justice Palmer said the DOCS officer over-reacted to the confrontation, and took the children as an "abuse of power".

 

[Ms Bronwen Rotherham, the delegate of the Director-General who made the decision to remove the children]

 

The couple say they've been "kicked to the post financially" by the case, and intend to sue for $230,000 in court costs.

 

"Plus they didn't give us the baby bonus," the father said.

 

"They go: 'You only had him in care for 37 nights, so you get $3600 and not the $5000', so we've got a $1400 debt with Centrelink. We didn't get the Christmas bonus, neither."

 

But it's the shame of having had their children taken away that really stings.

 

"You have to explain to people that DOCS have taken your kids away for no reason," said the mother.

 

"They go: 'Come on, what's really going on'. Finally, I just started saying: 'Why did they take them? Because they can."'

 

Author: Caroline Overington

23 January 2009

Source: The Australian

Copyright: 2009 News Limited

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story...25-2702,00.html

[67Special]

Justice Palmer said the DOCS officer over-reacted to the confrontation, and took the children as an "abuse of power".

It sounds more like blatant kidnapping to me and the cops were accessories

[Chronmasta]

That makes me sad and angry at the same time .........i feel soooooooo sorry for those parents .....not to mention the poor lil kids

 

The fuckwits have got no idea do they

 

 

Scary

 

 

 

Chron

[grace]

It sounds more like blatant kidnapping to me and the cops were accessories

 

Ms Bronwen Rotherham, the delegate of the Director-General was the DOCS worker who made the decision to remove the children.

 

shame shame

 

The Judgment of Palmer J:

 

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/scjudgments/...22?OpenDocument

[MongyMan]

DOCS gets their authority from an act of parliament. It is very precise on what their legal rights and obligations under the act are. From exp. if they go beyond the act. the dept. and any individuals are legally answerable to their actions. They will try to hide behind the act and treat you like an idiot but don't give the bastards an inch if you are in the right. Read the act and hold them too it. An individual who takes any actions that are not legal under the act is responsible for those actions as an individual, they can't hide behind the department. The above article is just one example of where these pricks think they are god. If you are in a position where docs is a problem when they shouldn't be don't be afraid of them, they are only a gov department full of self righteous wankers in my exp who care for little but their personal agenda. Hold them to the act they only think applies to parents and not them.

[grace]

DOCS gets their authority from an act of parliament. It is very precise on what their legal rights and obligations under the act are. From exp. if they go beyond the act. the dept. and any individuals are legally answerable to their actions. They will try to hide behind the act and treat you like an idiot but don't give the bastards an inch if you are in the right. Read the act and hold them too it. An individual who takes any actions that are not legal under the act is responsible for those actions as an individual, they can't hide behind the department. The above article is just one example of where these pricks think they are god. If you are in a position where docs is a problem when they shouldn't be don't be afraid of them, they are only a gov department full of self righteous wankers in my exp who care for little but their personal agenda. Hold them to the act they only think applies to parents and not them.

 

The family should receive an apology from the Minister and the DOCS worker Ms Bronwen Rotherham and adequate compensation.

 

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS (CARE AND PROTECTION) ACT 1998

 

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/con...caypapa1998442/

 

Section 8 What are the objects of this Act?

 

The objects of this Act are to provide:

 

(a) that children and young persons receive such care and protection as is necessary for their safety, welfare and well-being, taking into account the rights, powers and duties of their parents or other persons responsible for them, and

 

B that all institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care and protection of children and young persons provide an environment for them that is free of violence and exploitation and provide services that foster their health, developmental needs, spirituality, self-respect and dignity, and that appropriate assistance is rendered to parents and other persons responsible for children and young persons in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities in order to promote a safe and nurturing environment.

 

Section 9 What principles are to be applied in the administration of this Act?

 

(d) In deciding what action it is necessary to take (whether by legal or administrative process) in order to protect a child or young person from harm, the course to be followed must be the least intrusive intervention in the life of the child or young person and his or her family that is consistent with the paramount concern to protect the child or young person from harm and promote the child’s or young person’s development. [/b]

[Teucer]

I see so many stories about the incompetence of DOCS.

 

Seriously, how much shit are you NSWelshmen going to put up with before you revolt?