Australia: Child abuse report

PAPA People Assisting Parents Association

© 2007-now
Bookmark and Share
donate button
PAPA logo
notice board blogger icon
New links

Table of Contents
  1. Introduction of The Report
  2. "Bringing Them Home"
  3. A National Tragedy
  4. Modus Operandi in Tackling Child Abuse Scandals and Resistance
  5. Concluding Remarks
  6. References

The Australian Royal Commission Report on Child Abuse

Introduction of The Report

On 12 November 2012, the then Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, announced that a Royal Commission be appointed to inquire allegations of sexual abuse of children in institutional contexts that had been emerging in Australia for many years. Following this announcement, the Terms of Reference that limited the scope of investigation (hence damage to government) were established and six Commissioners were appointed. On 15 December 2017, the Royal Commission presented a 228-page final report (hereinafter "The Report") to the Australian Governor-General.

Since 2012, over 16,000 individuals have contacted the Royal Commission and over 1,000 survivors have provided a written account of their painful experience. 64.3% of the victims in the study were male. More than half of them were first sexually abused between age 10 and 14 years. Female victims generally reported being younger when they were first sexually abused than their male counterparts.

Perpetrators are mostly religious ministers
, teachers and preschool carers who hold positions of trust and authority. Abuse took place in childcare facilities, schools (including religious schools), health and allied services, youth detention, historical residential care (including facilities operated by religious institutions), contemporary out-of-home care and many others.

The Report also made some unrealistic (such as introduction of voluntary celibacy for Catholic clergy in Recommendation 16.18 on page 166) and redundant
Most child protection laws in CPS-infested countries contain provisions to oblige everyone to report suspected child abuse to the authorities, for example, Section 14(1) of CFCSA in British Columbia, Canada.
(such as the duty to report child abuse on page 213) recommendations.

"Bringing Them Home"

At first glance, it appears that the Report is truly written to improve the well being of children. It shrewdly omits how children end up in wrong hands. Finger pointing to certain groups of perpetrators diverts attention from the root cause of abuse. It is important to investigate why children are open to abuse by perpetrators other than their parents.

The inquiry was triggered by allegations of institutional sexual abuse of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in the 1997 report titled "Bringing them home". It provides a clue of how children become available to perpetrators. The first paragraph of page 2 of this report read:
"This report is a tribute to the strength and struggles of many thousands of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people affected by forcible removal. We acknowledge the hardships they endured and the sacrifices they made. We remember and lament all the children who will never come home."

Obviously, victimized children mentioned in the Report came from state-sponsored child removal. Australian laws, policies and practices which separated Indigenous children from their families have contributed directly to the alienation of Indigenous societies. Once vulnerable children were forcibly removed from their parents, they are at risk of abuse at the hands of the authorities or their delegates (the fourth paragraph on page 4). The harm continues in later generations, affecting their children and grandchildren.

A National Tragedy

Since the beginning of time, children have been used as pawns for political purposes. They are the future of a nation. By sabotaging children, a sovereign nation is destroyed. Almost all English-speaking nations evolved from colonial governments during the expansion of colonialism in the 19th century have a history of removing aboriginal children from their families. When white men first set foot on North America and Australia, they all faced the challenge of stealing land and resources from the Aboriginal people in these two continents. Short of exterminating them, a brilliant but despicable scheme of cultural assimilation was devised under the pretext of child protection from their parents. In Canada, this was done by way of the now denounced residential schools, which is a very successful cultural assimilation weapon used on the Aboriginals and completely destroyed them as a sovereign people. In Australia, children of Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent removed by the Australian government agencies and church missions between approximately 1905 and 1969 are known as the "stolen generations". They are the victimized children in this inquiry.

Modus Operandi in Tackling Child Abuse Scandals and Resistance

After generations of oppression and sabotage of Aboriginal children by way of ruthless state-sponsored child removal, Aboriginal people cease to be a threat to the white man regimes. As victimized Aboriginal children went public en mass when they reached adulthood and sued with some success, large-scale open discriminant removal based on ethnic background is formally denounced. This is not to say that governments are truly remorseful of what had transpired. Apology is nothing but a damage control process. Remarkable similarities between residential schools and modern child protection

Similarities Between Residential Schools & Modern Child Protection

There are compelling reasons to believe that residential schools and modern child protection owe their origin and existence to an oppression of a very hideous nature against a weak and marginalized minority group. Residential school and state-sponsored child removal bear the following similarities:
  1. both are hypocritically done under the pretext of the noble cause of child protection and welfare;
  2. both are empowered by absolute statutory authority;
  3. both involve the use of force should targets ("beneficiaries" as government would like people to believe) dare to resist;
  4. Native Indian children and families are the prime victim in both regimes;
  5. both require fundings from taxpayers to generate business opportunities for some special interests involved in the process;
  6. both require removal of young children from their families to beat their parents into submission;
  7. both show no respect to the dignity and the free will of the subjects whom these regimes are supposed to help and protect;
  8. both are driven by quest of money and power;
  9. non-profit groups are involved to provide support and services in exchange of government funding in both regimes;
  10. both result in harming, at times, killing vulnerable children in government "care";
  11. both regimes are ineffective, cost inefficient and counter productive to serve their alleged intended cause (but very effective to serve their hidden purposes);
  12. both regimes cost taxpayers very dearly on reparation and damages from lawsuits of torts and wrongful deaths;
  13. both are oppressive, inhumane and barbaric;
  14. the true beneficiaries in both regimes are the service providers of the respective industries, not the intended subjects or the recipients of "service";
  15. special interests manipulate legislation and dictate government policies in both regimes;
  16. fear, public ignorance and apathy contribute to the success of both regimes.

These remarkable similarities suggest that modern child protection is a modified extension or a disguised derivative of the oppressive "cultural assimilation" policy expanded to all ethnic groups.
suggest that state-sponsored child removal has gradually transformed to a more damaging and dangerous plague that harms all people in CPS-infested countries
Children protection service infested countries are mostly English-speaking nations that enforce state-sponsored child removal authorized by statutes that empower child removal based on a bureaucratic opinion. They include the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand.
. The child protection industry has turned a pseudo benevolent apparatus designed to achieve political ends into racketeering controlled by a cartel of service providers
Service providers in the industry

The industry provides business and employment opportunities for a wide variety of service providers from different backgrounds inside and outside government. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, they include:
  1. Child protection workers (aka social workers) whose job security depends on the number of state-sponsored child removal.
  2. Lawyers representing child protection agencies and parents.
  3. Foster parents who could earn a very comfortable living by warehousing removed children in their homes.
  4. Supervised visitation workers (those who hired by child protection agencies to oversee parents when seeing their removed children. Approved friends and relatives of parents to act as unpaid supervisors in visitations do not fall in this category.
  5. Psychotherapists paid by child protection agencies (or by parents in some rare occasions) to do counseling and assessment.
  6. Secret agents hired by child protection agencies to mount surveillance on parents.
  7. Court staff and family court judges (the apex service provider in the industry) engaged in child protection litigations.
The aforesaid service providers have one thing in common. They are all paid by tax dollars when rendering their services in child protection related activities. Some derive their income exclusively from state-sponsored child removal. Job security and livelihood of most of these service providers rely on tax dollar funding on child protection activities. Beyond doubt, they are the true beneficiaries of state-sponsored child protection.
. Taxpayers are an indirect victim.

Ironically, democratic nations haunted by scandals of death and abuse on children in government care also ardently speak of human rights, freedom and civil liberty. To minimize the damage of such hideous crimes against their own people and to mislead their citizens to believe in the misconceived merits of state-sponsored child removal, the following modus operandi has served the industry very well.
Risk or Threat to CPS Modus Operandi Example
If oppressed parents disagree or go public CPS often retaliates by removing their children, escalating legal action to seek permanent custody or separating siblings to different foster homes to further traumatize the families. Parent's supporters and sympathizers who have children of their own are often threatened as well.
  1. the Bayne's case (2007 to 2011 British Columbia)
  2. Jessica Laboy case (2006 Florida) in which sympathizers were also threatened
  3. cases identified by WLKY 32 Investigates in Kentucky
  4. CPS took Juliana, a 1-year old granddaughter of Maria Garciad
    CPS retaliates when Maria Garcia grandmother of Serenity Gandara, who was murdered by her foster parents, criticized a social worker for allegedly ignoring reports that Serenity and her brother, 4-year-old Isaiah, were being abused at their foster home. Maria said CPS wrongly took her 1-year old granddaughter Juliana after she accused CPS. Murder arrest warrants have been issued for the foster parents of a 3-year-old girl Serenity found dead at the home of her foster parents, Carla and Alberto Garcia, Bakersfield Police Department Sgt. Mary DeGeare said. She said the death of Serenity Gandara has been ruled a homicide.

    Maria said Juliana was safe at home with her uncle and several children. But after Maria criticized the worker for Serenity´s death, the CPS employee took Juliana, and told Maria it was because she left the toddler at home, albeit with family. "Why you take away my baby she is fine?" Maria said she asked the CPS employee. Hours after 17 News called CPS Monday, and asked a spokeswoman why they took Juliana, the little girl was returned, with no explanation from authorities. The CPS spokeswoman told us they are not legally allowed to comment on the case.
    , the maternal grandmother of a murdered foster child in Bakersfiel
If lawyers and supporters of oppressed parents appear to be an inconvenience CPS threatens and removes their children or apply in court to have parent's legal counsel disqualified
  1. Bob and Jennifer Bishop of Louisville, Kentucky who represented Vanessa Shanks in a child protection case had their own child removed by CPS and threatened to co-operate
  2. Jessica Laboy case (2006 Florida) in which sympathizers were threatened by CPS
  3. Director of Child Family and Community Service and T.T., 2008 BCPC 114 (Docket: 13020, Registry: Port Coquitlam) in which the Director of Ministry of Children and Family Development applied to court to remove the legal counsel Stanley Foo of the parents in a supervision order hearing citing that Counsel's behaviour was seen as exacerbating the relationship with the Ministry
When questioned by the media of CPS-created atrocities Ministers in charge often cite privacy protection and recite bureaucratic statements such as cannot comment on any individual case, social workers take steps to remove children lightly, children are removed for safety reason in front of TV camera
  1. Former B.C. Minister of Children & Families Tom Christensen response to the media surrounding the Baynes in 2009
  2. 4-month old infant Delonna Sullivan died after 6 days in foster care in Edmonton, Alberta
  3. TV interview of BC Children and Family Development Minister Stephanie Cadieux
    In 2015, BC Children and Family Development Minister Stephanie Cadieux said, "All of the policies in place in the Ministry are there for the very purpose of protecting children, that's why it is absolutely important that they be followed."
    after the atrocity of Alex Gervais occurred on 18 September 2015
When public confidence is lost due to CPS scandals Create pseudo watchdog with legislative duty to write reports on child protection agencies and often beat the same drum of seeking more public funding whenever CPS-created atrocities embarrass the child protection industry.
  1. Representative for Children and Youth (RCY) created in 2006 after the death of Sherry Charlie in 2002 that triggered the Hughes report
  2. Legal Representation for Children and Youth (LRCY) in Alberta after the media aired unreported Deaths of Albertan Foster Children in November 2013
When a major CPS-created atrocity attracts a spree in the media Use pseudo watchdog to divert the media and the public away from the real issues and seize the opportunity to seek more funding. Death of Alex Gervais in Abbotsford, British Columbia while in government care on 18 September 2015
When parents win a court case against CPS that may become a precedent to limit the power of CPS or to leave a black mark At huge public expense, appeal the decision aggressively in higher courts and hire a senior bureaucrat or a retired judge to write reports to divert public attention and whitewash the case if the appeal fails.
  1. J.P. v. British Columbia (Children and Family Development), 2015 BCSC 1216
  2. Plecas Review Part 1: Decision Time
When a major scandal is uncovered that affects the collective interests of service providers in the child protection industry Politician, bureaucrats and service providers lock arms and call press conference to defend the child protection industry and to cover up the lack of accountability and the abuse of power. Using circular logic
For example, Alberta's foster parent association representative Katherine Jones said in the 2013 news footage, "We have the best (foster care) system in Canada here in Alberta. Our foster parents just want me to say give us some positives."
and twisted logic
For example, former Alberta Human Services Minister Dave Hancock said in 2013, "Child intervention system is stereotyped as one of despair. The reality is: it is one of hope." A foster system with such a high fatality rate is misconstrued as a system of hope.
, they vigorously fight against criticism, inflate their worthless services and undermine their harm to society and children.
The 2013 damage control speech
In his 2013 damage control speech with service providers, former Alberta Human Services Minister Dave Hancock said: Child intervention system is stereotyped as one of despair. The reality is: it is one of hope.
with service providers, former Alberta Human Services Minister Dave Hancock (since December 2017 Mr. Hancock was appointed a judge in the Edmonton family and youth court, Alberta, a handsome payoff of loyalty)
When non-profit organizations publish corruption in the child protection industry and assist parents to go public Use the police to intimidate and/or infiltrate the non-profit societies and turn them into pro-CPS mouthpiece
  1. Police warning e-mail to PAPA dated 8 November 2011 after publishing Alleged Insanity of Ms. A of Salmon Arm, British Columbia on 4 June 2011
  2. Family Crisis Intervention Service (formerly PANIC) in New Zealand
When court awards victims who suffered from state-sponsored child removal and apology becomes inevitable A top dog of government (often the prime minister) openly apologizes and sheds some crocodile tears in front of TV camera. Be mindful that they will apologize if and only if such political show will score brownie points to win the next election and the politicians or parties in question cannot be held accountable or punished.
  1. On 13 February 2008, former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivered an apology to the stolen generations
    On 13 February 2008, Australian Prime Minister apologized to indigenous Australians. After the announcement of apology from government to the Australian Aboriginals for removing their children in the past, lawsuits are being considered by the victims to seek compensation from the government for committing such inhumane act against its own people. This is one of the worst nightmare to government. Those who committed the crime are not punished, taxpayers are.

    (see the full transcript of his speech below.)
    of Australian Aborigines
  2. On 11 June 2008, ex Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper followed suit and made similar apology to the First Nation in the House of Common
  3. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau apologized to hundreds of Newfoundland and Labrador indigenous residential school students in Happy Valley-Goose Bay on 24 November 2017
When a credible threat, especially from the political arena, surfaces that could seriously harm the interests of the child protection industry Foster a scenario in which the threat conveniently disappears and CPS is not implicated in the process. the sudden murder–suicide of former Georgia state senator (2004 to 2008) Nancy Schaefer
Nancy Schaefer was known best for being an international hero to those who had their children stolen by corrupt family courts and unethical adoption agencies and practices, and those that had their children stolen through corrupt practices of the CPS.
on 26 March 2010 at her home in Habersham County, Turnerville, Georgia
The aforesaid modi operandi indicate how powerful the child protection industry is, how sophisticated their ruses are, how vigorous service providers will fight back and how serious the corruption created by state-sponsored child removal.

Concluding Remarks

The Report adds to the mountain of empirical evidence that state-sponsored child removal harms children with devastating results that could last for many more generations. Notwithstanding the existence of abusive parents, the Report confirms that children are generally more vulnerable when they leave the care of their own parents.

Child removal authority has been abused for political reasons at its inception. When state-sponsored child removal transformed to modern child protection, this power primarily serves the financial interests of service providers. Such authority could be used against any individual or groups of people and is a very powerful weapon that could bend the will of the toughest mind. The future of a people is effectively destroyed by sabotaging their offsprings. While open massacre and ethnic cleansing are not viable options in those so-called free and democratic nations, oppression to achieve a political end done in a more subtle but equally effective manner. Sugar coating state-sponsored child removal by a noble protection cause carries many advantages
  1. Avoid local and international criticism of tyranny.
  2. Garner support from the populace who is largely unaware of the hidden motives and truly believe in the alleged cause.
  3. Minimize resistance from target victims as some of them may naively believe in the alleged "good" intent.
  4. Create employment and business opportunities to those who do research and implement the policies, hence guaranteeing support from a die hard core group as their livelihood depends on such activities.
  5. Laud such policies and actions as good deeds to build political assets, supported by extolling from special interests and the media.
. It also raises many questions and casts doubts
  1. Why most English-speaking nations, especially those with a colonial background, have "child protection" law which gives government agents ("child protection" social workers as they are called) near absolute authority to remove children from families?
  2. Why the Natives draw so much attention from child protection agencies?
  3. Why, after receiving so much "help" from various levels of government, Natives are still a marginalized group?
  4. Where does the money from various government spent on "child protection" go?
  5. Who are the true beneficiaries of the huge amount of tax dollars spent under the pretext of "helping" the Natives?
  6. Why parents, an irrefutable major stakeholder, have little or no representation in "child protection" legislation and policy making?
The above questions are good food for thought.
on the real purposes and merits of child protection in modern era.

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor. It must be demanded by the oppressed. Child removal does not equal child protection. Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they are ratified into law. Absolute power to remove children is seldom needed in real child protection. Such power is open to abuse not only by government and service providers to squander tax dollars but also by other parties such as estranged spouses, hostile in-laws and malicious informants for reasons other than child protection.

At the macro level, child removal will inevitably involves assimilation. Hence, the authority to remove children could be used as a weapon for political purposes. Canadian residential schools and Australian Stolen Generations are example of the foregoing. Repeated political shows of apology to victims of state-sponsored child removal without revoking child removal authority are hypocritical, meaningless and futile. Child removal authority is oppressive, redundant and counterproductive. As long as government retains child removal authority, our safety and freedom are in jeopardy.


[This page was conceptualized on 19 Dec 2017, added on 25 Dec 2017, last revised 31 Dec 2017.]