More Family Court horror

My Letter to Senator Dan Sullivan MLC
(Leschenault)Western Australia

Dear Dan,

This terrible case is one of many where the practitioners and social workers gang up on a father because he criticized their brutal handling of matters.
This has happened to me and thousands of others.

Section 121 of the FL Act is allowing officials, practitioners, lawyers, barristers and judges to bully fathers who complain about the terrible brutality and incompetence of people who have been entrusted to protect our precious children.

This is the one reason why barrister representation can be so important - any criticism of the incompetence and brutality of the system usually results in a child's access to that parent being frustrated or denied. Decisions are handed down every day citing uncooperative behaviour as justification for supervised or denied "Contact" between child and their father.

Power corrupts - absolute power without accountability corrupts absolutely.

Its alway been the case and always will be. Officials with power and no accountability will alway brutalise people who are critical of them.
In other words anybody that complains about the brutality incurs the wrath of officials that are untouchable in a system without accountability.
In contentious emotional situations where parents face having their children's live damaged and their Contact with them denied by an incompetent misguided judiciary, they will alway punish the person that complains about the injustice he of his children are suffering.

What ever gave anybody the idea that it would be any different?.

The solution is outlawing summary parent exclusion to protect children's best interest and security, and insisting on full accountability.
The fact that there may be rare occasions when parents are abusive to their own children is no grounds for inflicting the damage of parent removal on thousands and thousands of children as is now happening.

In my case the child rep was on a campaign to prevent me from seeing my daughter. It should be no surprise to anybody who knows about the FC and how it operates that he was successful. He even lied to the court - a fact that is documented on transcript. He claimed I had no evidence for an application - when I had a letter form DHS (our DOCS) closing their investigation of the mother's alligations. He didn't want me to get contact. The Judge therefore refused to read my affidavit and told me to be quite.

I wish you all the best in your efforts to relieve the suffering of these children and their fathers but ask you not to forget the daily carnage that the FC inflict and all the other children it has contact with.

The best way to hurt a man is to hurt his children - something defensive courts and their advisers do every day. This case is just one of thousands.
They get away with it because the Courts are secret. The media won't touch anything to do with the Family Court - for good reason. They get punished with fines and even jail.

The screams of suffering men and children do not get heard. This is the ultimate humiliation of the torturer.
Accusations get denied. Even when some of the more outrageous cases get aired the secrecy prevents investigation. The FC is in effect a torture chamber where the game is appeasement because there is one thing they don't like and that is criticism.. They punish parents and children brutally in the face of criticism of their incompetence and mutually exclusive winner / loser approach to custody following separation.

My child might as well be in Switzerland. She lives in the same town. She has been banned from having any face to face or telephone Contact with me.


Regards,
Simon
Phone: +61 (0)3 5973 6933
Mobile: 0414 415 693
vascopajama@dodo.com.au
http://mumsdadsandkidsagainstsolecust.blogspot.com/
http://thefamilycourtphenomenon.blogspot.com/


RUSSELL WOOD-MAYA WOOD-HOSIG - CHILD CUSTODY
Grievance

MR D.F. BARRON-SULLIVAN (Leschenault) [10.00 am]: My grievance is to
the Minister for Community Development and is on the behalf of the
two children of Mr Russell Wood and Mrs Maya Wood-Hosig. Both their
10-year- old-daughter and eight-year-old son are Australian citizens.
Both were born in Western Australia.

Mr Wood and his wife split up, and the custody of their children
became a matter for the Family Court of Western Australia. At the
time both parents lived in Western Australia, and both had access to
the children.

A few years ago, Mrs Wood abducted the children, and, using false
passports, took the children to Switzerland. That was her second
attempt to abduct the children. After applications were made to The
Hague, the children were located in April 2003. However, the mother
then hid the children from the Swiss authorities. After the mother
refused to cooperate and return to Australia, the Wood children were
eventually detained by the Swiss authorities and placed in an
institutionalised home in Switzerland's for a year until they could
be returned to Australia.

Upon arrival in Australia, the Wood children were not returned to
their father and their father's extended local family, as one might
have thought, but were placed in the care of the Department for
Community Development.

This arrangement, which was supposed to be temporary, was due to the
children's perceived problems with the English language. I am
informed that the Swiss judge who personally escorted the children to
the aeroplane expected that the children would be returned to their
father after a short while. However, it soon became clear that the
Department for Community Development did not agree with the court and
would not support the return of the children to their father. The
department did not develop a reunification plan for the family, and
nor did it develop a schedule for handover to the father, who has
been allowed only four hours a week of strictly supervised access
since April 2005, although more recently a more liberal overnight
contact arrangement has been calculated.

In the first week of July amendments were made to the federal Family
Law Act. Those amendments were made just days after the family court
judgment in this case. Amazingly, just days before the amended
federal law came into effect, Justice Penny of the Family Court of
Western Australia ordered that the children be returned to their
mother in Switzerland. It seems that decision was made on that date
quite deliberately to ensure that Mr wood could not benefit from the
new shared parenting, or father-friendly, components of the amended
Family Law Act. Although there are a number of serious concerns about
the court's decision, I am focusing today on the department's role in
this matter.

Throughout all that time, Judge Penny never met and interviewed the
Wood children herself.

This makes it all the more important to know the role of the officers
of the Department for Community Development in this matter, what
advice they gave the judge, and how they influenced the judge's
decision.

Justice Penny set a deadline for the children deportation of 1
September. That is less than one week away. That means the Wood
children will not even be able to spend Father's Day with their
father here in Western Australia.

The Shared Parenting Council of Australia advises that there is firm
evidence that at least one, if not two, employees or consultants of
the Department for Community Development, among the string of some 23
employees or consultants who have been involved in this case, have
committed serious breaches of procedure. Concerns have been raised
that these officers conducted a seemingly personal vendetta of
revenge for allegations made about the department by Mr Wood in his
mountain of affidavits.

If the minister's department had evidence that Mr Wood had harmed his
children, or posed a risk to them, this would be a valid reason to
keep him at arm's length from his children, or allow him only
strictly supervised access. However, despite allegations from Mrs
Wood-Hosig, the Family Court judge has repeatedly determined that Mr
Wood has committed no offence.

An officer from the Department for Community Development, Ms Gurner,
told the court that the department's actions were because, as she put
it, "Where there is smoke there is fire." This appears to have been
sole reason given by the Department for Community Development for its
extraordinary actions in this matter.

Minister, was this really the basis for keeping the Wood children
away from their parent for 19 months? Was this really the reason for
depriving the Wood children of direct contact with their father,
except under strict supervision for just four hours a week? Was this
why the Wood children were shuffled between six foster homes rather
than allowed to enjoy the love and comfort of their natural parents?
Why did the Department for Community Development, or the judge, never
explore the option of bringing the mother back to Australia so that
the children could be brought up in a shared parenting environment,
with ongoing and direct access to both parents?

I understand that the department placed the children in foster care
largely because it believed they did not have an adequate command of
the English language. I have in my hands a DVD of the daughter's
recent birthday party. It shows clearly both children thoroughly
enjoying themselves, with lots of friends and extended family
members, and - guess what - they both speak fluent English!

The first priority in matters such as this must always be to protect
the children. If there is indisputable evidence that a parent has
harmed a child or poses a risk to a child, or if there is another
overriding, serious and proved concern for a child's safety or
welfare, every caution must be taken. Conversely, in the absence of
such evidence or any reasonable explanation, and considering the
court's rejection of such allegations, there can only be one
conclusion. That is that officers from the Department for Community
Development deliberately contrived to try to prevent Mr Wood from
developing a normal relationship and strong parental bonds with his
children in order to jeopardise his chances of gaining fair access to
his children through the Family Court.

In so doing, the actions of these departmental officers have caused
two children, both Australian-born citizens, to be taken to another
country, far from their father, most likely never to see him again in
person during the remainder of their childhood years.

Yesterday I gave the minister six questions about this matter. The
minister's answers will enable us to determine whether the department
acted properly, or whether its officers acted in a biased,
destructive and vindictive way. If the latter is the case, I strongly
suggest that the minister has no option but to suspend the officers
and psychologists concerned and instigate a thorough and independent
investigation of his department's handling of this case.

I would ask that the minister answer the six questions, and then
provide further advice as he sees fit with regard to this matter.

I have a letter from Senator David Johnson to the federal Minister
for Justice and Customs calling for action to be taken in relation to
the passport fraud. A lot of people hope that ultimately that will
lead to extradition proceedings. I seek leave to lay that letter on
the table for the remainder of this day's sitting.

[The paper was tabled for the information of members.]

MR D.A. TEMPLEMAN (Mandurah - Minister for Community Development)
[10.07 am]: I thank the member for Leschenault for raising this
grievance with me. The member has highlighted a number of issues and
concerns. I am a little concerned that the member has also identified
certain people by name. I need to highlight at this point that, as
the member mentioned in his grievance, a decision had been made by
the Family Court of Western Australia that the children be returned
to their mother in Switzerland. This decision has been appealed by
the father's legal representatives. Accordingly, my advice is that I
cannot go into too much specific detail about the complexities of the
case - this is a complex case, as I am sure the member appreciates -
because that appeal is still before the court. My advice is that the
judge has made it very clear that until she makes her final decision,
the issue that she is considering should not be a matter for public
discussion.

I acknowledge the seriousness of this case, so I am not trying to -

Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: I am well aware of what Justice Penny has
said. She has said that she does not want this matter to go to the
media. She is obviously hoping the whole thing is kept quiet before
the kids are taken off to Switzerland. However, no court proceeding
is under way at the moment, so that does not prevent this Parliament
from discussing this matter.
<008> P/1

Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: I am very mindful that I do not want to prejudice
any decision that may be made by the Family Court in this matter,
particularly as it has now been appealed.

This case is an example of the complexities that occur when, for
whatever reason, relationships break down. This is a particularly
difficult case because, when this relationship broke down, one of the
parents decided to go to another country. Conflicts that arise
between parents muddy the situation, and the animosity between
partners can cause a great deal of grief for not only their
relationship but also, of course, the most important people in this
case, the children.

The new Children and Community Services Act emphasises that decisions
about children must be made in their best interests, and sometimes
the desires and aspirations of the parents conflict with the needs of
the children. The new legislation also makes it clear - I need to
highlight this to the member and others in this place - that the
voices of the children should be heard when decisions are being made
about their lives. The legislation contains provisions that ensure
that that happens.

Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Can I point out that that is an incredibly
important point, yet the justice of the Family Court never met or
interviewed these children. That is why it is so important to
understand the actions of your department, because those actions
influence this case like nothing else. Had the judge spoken to the
children, we may have seen a different situation.

Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: That is true, but it is not my responsibility nor
the responsibility of the department to direct the judge's
determination. The member is aware that under our legal system it is
the judge's determination and direction that has to be carried out
under the law.

I understand the member's point that the judge - in his view and the
view of others - should have attempted to discuss the specific issues
of this case with the parents. I do not have a great problem with
that point of view. However, in the context of this case, the
department could not have directed the judge. When this matter comes
to appeal recommendations will be made.

Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: We are running out of time. There is one key
question: does your department have evidence that Mr Wood posed a
risk to the children or that he has harmed them? That is crucial.

Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: When I received the member's question yesterday, I
sought advice. Because of the complexities of this matter and
because, to be honest, a number of issues have been highlighted to
me, particularly in regard to the children and their responses, this
is a very serious case. I take very seriously what I need to do for
the member to ensure that the member's questions are answered. I will
organise an immediate briefing on this case as a matter of priority.

I will make sure that one of my staff attends that briefing so that
that person can respond to me directly. I will ensure that a senior
manager of the department also attends that briefing. The member has
highlighted the father's concerns specifically, and he must have his
interests heard. I will organise that briefing for the member as soon
as possible.

Mr D.F. Barron-Sullivan: Thank you, minister; that is much
appreciated.

>>>>END Transcript HAMSARD