DoCs … A regime oit of control with no respect for its own Policies. Procedures. Charters on childrens right etc etc etc .

Kevins sorry means nothing to the abused children in the DoCs regime today.

Under his watch kids had been sexually, physically and emotionally abused and treated as rural slaves. This last was why the physical and emotional abuse was systematised, including sever beatings even for four year olds. Like the Stolen Gen kids, separation of all contact between parent and child was ruthlessly enforced and even after the kids had left, they weren’t told why there had been no contact. They actually had written instructions to eject kids from education at the minimum leaving age. Bizarre also, that amongst the sexual abusers was one William Slim, former governor-general who did it on an official visit. Hmmm

The victims of this horror and all the stolen and displaced children deserve our deepest compassion. Perhaps this day will bring them a modicum of comfort. One hopes so.

I am a former child migrant, sent from England to Australia in 1953 – I was 8 years of age.

I suffered really badly (chamber of horrors) for many years as a result of abuse, deprivation etc.

Fortunately (through the grace of God) after many years of counselling, I made a complete recovery.

Sadly many former child migrants (from my experience) don’t really come to terms with their history

God bless you
Michael

and the judge/magistrate would take into account the costs and benefits of removal.

Not so, THR,that has nothing to do with it at all— it’s all a question of quantifying risk, ie future risk based on proving abuse in the past on the balance of probabilities, the Briginshaw standard. What is never conceded by DOCS (and the regime)is of course the psychological damage done to kids being shunted from carer to carer.

Jo re:

Children are only removed when there has been sustained and on going abuse and neglect,…

Then why are there three times more children in care in NSW than Victoria, per capita?

A one-off “beating” of a 10 year old reported by the school or neighbour would not result in that or any other child being removed.

It has.

The new born baby is only removed after the court has upheld the original decision to remove other children, and of course this after the family has been directed to services over and over again and as per all of the above.

Not so. Court does not “uphold” the original decision. s106A in NSW applies, kids in care creates a rebuttable presumption that the new born is in need of care and protection even though parents might be successfully completing programs to get the other children back. In NSW, it’s grab the kid(s), often as a first resort rather than a last resort. (NSW 3X Victoria again.)

If a court has found sustained neglect and/or abuse of children over a long period, why would you subject a newborn baby to the same?

The court may not necessarily have found neglect due to the fact that an establishment hearing may not have taken place. It may have established some risk justifying removal and made interim orders but the abuse or neglect may not have been proven at the time the new born was removed.

I’m taking about a minority of cases where the exercise of power by DOCS in NSW is abused–the majority may well be justified. I’m all for the human rights of children but ripping them away from their mothers at birth in dubious circumstances of abuse such as one alleged beating is simply wrong. And it has happened.

Another time and place would have been entirely appropriate, just not yesterday…..and not by drawing so much publicity away from the intended recipients of this apology.

Peter Kemp, you are misrepresenting how children are removed, which takes an absolutely huge effort from Docs. Children are only removed when there has been sustained and on going abuse and neglect, or otoh a major very violent presentation at hospital etc or like the story in today’s papers for instance, where both parents were found guilt of sexually abusing their 9 year old and posting the abuse online and…. then upheld in court.

A one-off “beating” of a 10 year old reported by the school or neighbour would not result in that or any other child being removed. Children are more often left in dangerous situations by Docs than the opposite.

A family may have 30, 40, 50 reports & assessments made and opportunities to change before a child or the children are removed.

The new born baby is only removed after the court has upheld the original decision to remove other children, and of course this after the family has been directed to services over and over again and as per all of the above.

In the case of drug addicts, weaning a new born baby off narcotics using phenobarbitone and other drugs is the first priority. And only drug addicts who are neglecting and abusing their children have new borns removed. If the children of just relatively functional addicts were removed as a matter of course, there there wouldn’t be enough places by factors (!!) to accomodate them.

I am not sure why you think a new born baby doesn’t deserve the same protection as their older siblings? If a court has found sustained neglect and/or abuse of children over a long period, why would you subject a newborn baby to the same?

Helen: How about an apology from overprivileged young tossers who would presume to muscle in and use the decades-long hurt, abuse and neglect of young children to further their agenda.

Turnbull isn’t that young, Helen.

(I might defend him from the claim of being an opportunistic tosser if the events in the Indian Ocean hadn’t shown him to be an opportunistic tosser.)

Firstly I’m very glad that these people feel better for the apology, and secondly I’m glad that both Rudd and Turnbull gave sincere, credible performances in their respective apologies.

However, I am puzzled that people feel better if someone else, not the perpetrator, apologises. What is the point, if the apology has no connection to the “crime”? It doesn’t change anything.

I had an absolute bastard of a boss once, a really abusive mongrel. It cost me ill health, a burn-out and breakdown. It would be nice to get a sincere apology for that horrible treatment. However, there is no way that the mongrel in question would ever arrive at such an empathetic insight. Nor his mates in executive management at the time. And an apology after the fact, with no further obligations, by a subsequent CEO unconnected with the events, would be utterly meaningless. What difference would it make…???

I don’t get why these people think that Rudd’s apologies have any meaning either. Obviously they do see some sort of meaning in it – you can see it in their faces and their tears.

But how on Earth do his words change anything? Is it just that they need an authority figure, ANY authority figure, to empathise in order for them to heal themselves?

Theoretical case 2: Mother is drug addict and has several kids in care. New born arrives and, before any court hearing DOCS removes child (s106A again) after birth before mother can bond/breastfeed. If that’s not a human rights abuse, what is?

Neither case is a ‘human rights abuse’. The relevant authorities can only remove the child based on evidence that is provided to a court. The parents would have their say, as would the child (if old enough), and the judge/magistrate would take into account the costs and benefits of removal. The law allows the authorities to act in terms of future risk – if the drug using parent has multiple kids already in care, and nothing has changed in the meantime, then yes, the authorities may have a case for removal.
This shouldn’t fool us into thinking that removed children are not treated abominably. It’s one thing to coorectly identify a parent as useless or dangerous, another to find a superior alternative for the child. DOCS and co can sometimes do the former, but seldom the latter.

The fact is babies don’t get taken away immediately unless a serious problem has already been identified.

Sorry, but you’re wrong Chinda63, look at s106A of the NSW care and protection act:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/caypapa1998442/s106a.html

(1) The Children’s Court must admit in proceedings before it any evidence adduced that a parent or primary care-giver of a child or young person the subject of a care application:
(a) is a person:
(i) from whose care and protection a child or young person was previously removed by a court under this Act or the Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987 , or by a court of another jurisdiction under an Act of that jurisdiction, and
(ii) to whose care and protection the child or young person has not been restored, or…
(2) Evidence adduced under subsection (1) is prima facie evidence that the child or young person the subject of the care application is in need of care and protection.

ie A parent beats a child 10 years of age which becomes the critical incident for removal of all the children. New baby is born and 106A applies. Baby is removed before any court action. Court ratifies DOCS removing baby. Inference: parent will beat new born baby, which is crap.

Theoretical case 2: Mother is drug addict and has several kids in care. New born arrives and, before any court hearing DOCS removes child (s106A again) after birth before mother can bond/breastfeed. If that’s not a human rights abuse, what is?

Yes, I did read that in Nabokov’s post but I wasn’t sure which putative trolls he(?) was pre-empting.

The point about the ANZACs was certainly apt, read in this light.

Why are are our elected representatives apologising on our behalf for crimes we personally had nothing to do with?

Because there is no-one else to account for the wrongs of previous officialdom and the current officialdom is its successor at several removes. The legitimacy of the current regime derives in part from what went before. Our current regime wil also author future regimes. That’s how sovereignty works.

Poor old DOCS; damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

If they had left the baby there and something when horribly wrong, everyone would be asking why he/she wasn’t taken away and placed with a family who could take care of him/her.

The fact is babies don’t get taken away immediately unless a serious problem has already been identified. In this case, I’m sure removal was in the best interests of the child, and if they found a long-term foster care placement then the child would immediately start to bond with the people who would become their ongoing caregivers.

I’m not sure what you mean when you refer to human rights abuses. Arguably it might apply to the mother, but it hardly applies to the child.

There’s someone else prominent & elected I would cast the same stone at Helen, but it wasn’t a day for that kind of stuff and should never be. I’ll let people draw their own conclusions.

we’re still a very long way from adequately protecting all children in the care of the state.

Hear hear. In a child care and protection case a colleague made submissions beginning:

Your Honour, these children are in great need of care and protection—from DOCS

The human rights abuses are ongoing. Babies are being removed from hospitals on the basis that other siblings are already in care. One case I know of, the child was removed before the mother had a chance to bond ie breastfeed.

Legal practitioners generally have to keep quiet because it is an offence to go public, it risks identifying the child! a far more heinous “crime” apparently than revealing DOCS perfidy.