Keep whistleblower mum out of jail
Donation protected
A mother of three ends her marriage after the father is suspected of sexual abuse of his young boys. She now faces jail for speaking out.
The Family Court of Australia allowed father to see the children. Mum’s two preschool age eldest children return from a visit to dad attempting fellatio on each other and inviting anal penetration saying ‘daddy does this’. The behaviour is captured on a safety camera. Mum is a qualified social worker mandated to report. She does so. Child protection say they investigated and found no evidence of abuse. In the Family Court the judge supports that finding. Mum’s appeals are dismissed. She is assessed psychiatrically on four different occasions by court order, without any findings of psychiatric illness. Despite this, the children are required to live with their father and mum has supervised limited contact. An independent inquiry into child protection later finds the department had actually closed the file without active investigation due to lack of resources. Mum has complained publicly and repeatedly about the actions of police, child protection and family courts, naming her husband. She is charged with breaching s121 of the Family Law Act which prohibits public identification of family law litigants and case content.
The question at law is her constitutional collective right as a mandated reporter to complain about alleged failures by public agencies, versus the individual silencing under s121. Mum is on a disability pension and not able to get legal aid. She needs quality legal representation which would cost up to $20k. Can you help? This situation affects many families whose children have been left to abusers by the Family Law system.
The Family Court of Australia allowed father to see the children. Mum’s two preschool age eldest children return from a visit to dad attempting fellatio on each other and inviting anal penetration saying ‘daddy does this’. The behaviour is captured on a safety camera. Mum is a qualified social worker mandated to report. She does so. Child protection say they investigated and found no evidence of abuse. In the Family Court the judge supports that finding. Mum’s appeals are dismissed. She is assessed psychiatrically on four different occasions by court order, without any findings of psychiatric illness. Despite this, the children are required to live with their father and mum has supervised limited contact. An independent inquiry into child protection later finds the department had actually closed the file without active investigation due to lack of resources. Mum has complained publicly and repeatedly about the actions of police, child protection and family courts, naming her husband. She is charged with breaching s121 of the Family Law Act which prohibits public identification of family law litigants and case content.
The question at law is her constitutional collective right as a mandated reporter to complain about alleged failures by public agencies, versus the individual silencing under s121. Mum is on a disability pension and not able to get legal aid. She needs quality legal representation which would cost up to $20k. Can you help? This situation affects many families whose children have been left to abusers by the Family Law system.
Organiser
Elspeth Mcinnes
Organiser
Magill, SA