Which Judge? Deceit dressed as profound policy! · 15 May 2006

http://www.jeffschubert.com/index.php?id=22

Napoleon Bonaparte’s first secretary, Bourreinne, later wrote of his master’s deception and hypocrisy dressed as “profound policy”. What follows is an account of laziness, incompetence, deception and hypocrisy in the Family Court of Australia; which some of those involved would surely argue to be “profound policy” because, they would say, it was pursued in the “best interests of the child”. In this case, however, what seems to have been pursued was the “best interests of the Court” and those involved with it.

It is a story of a Court counselor, AB, who through laziness and incompetence made an unbalanced assessment of a 7 year-old child and her family situation, and who, when challenged, engaged in deception. It is a story of Court appointed “child representative” team which went out of its way to exclude evidence that did not support the assessment of the Court counselor; perhaps because one of them, Joanne C, knew that she would soon be an official of the Court. And, it is the story of Judge CD who is either incompetent or dishonest. When another of the “child representative” team, Jane S, was unavoidably faced with the consequences of her own actions, she opinioned that the Judge CD had intentionally allowed the mother to leave Australia with the child in contravention of what he claimed was the intent of his own orders. In the process, he frustrated the appeal process in any way he could. By leaving the country the mother was also able to avoid a perjury charge relating to affidavits that she prepared and signed in the name of someone else – something that the Judge CD was fully aware of.
More