Children of the State: Stolen for Profit

State of the Nation

2018 Family and Child-Protection Scorecard

On any given day, an estimated 830,000 Australian children are deprived of the protection of their biological family.

On any given day, an estimated 352,000 Australian mothers and fathers are prevented from meeting their legal obligation to protect their biological children from harm.

On any given day, 1,000 suppression orders keep the electorate in the dark and provide legitimacy to Government cover-ups.

Since 1975, an estimated 65,000 Australians have taken their own lives following relationship breakdown and the subsequent distressing consequences of failed child and family protection policies.

In 2018, Australian taxpayers will unwittingly fund an estimated $53-billion-dollar industry that wages war against their fellow citizens.

Since 1975, the supreme guardianship powers of the State have prevented more than 6 million Australian men, women and children from either providing or receiving the protection of their biological family.

* * *

Preface

THE FAILURE of child and family protection policies, compounded across decades, has spread the impact of dysfunctional policies into every home.

Despite far-reaching consequences, that child protection has not gained traction in the public debate comes down to one thing: We have failed to imagine what it would be like if it happened to us.

Every child is at risk today because of our collective indifference. Consent is covertly manufactured, allowing unsuspecting families to lose control over their own children. This is not a race, gender, colour, political, secular or religious issue. It belongs to no particular group, yet reaches deep into every community. No one escapes.

Children of the State articulates an investigative journey that coincided with the 40th anniversary of the introduction of contemporary global family and child protection laws and practices. What we discovered will shock even the most hardened child-removal sceptics among us.

We attempt to throw light on why governments have failed to prevent the large-scale removal of children from the protection of their biological families, and why these practices continue to this day.

This book draws attention to the state’s supreme power of authority over the nation’s children, and how this power has been used to create an industry engaged in the contemporary redistribution of stolen children for profit.

Children left in the care of maladjusted guardians to fend for themselves, many of whom experience years of emotional and physical abuse at the hands of their legal protectors, have no respect for the authorities who created their nightmare and ignored their safety. In many cases radicalised and induced to hate their own biological family, they have no qualms about turning such hatred against those who caused their pain. They feel most directly the exposure to defective policies and practices. Our jails are full.

The horror stories are everywhere and could fill many books. This book attempts to articulate the root cause and provide a foundation for change.

The world is born anew every day. In a sense, the degraded level of discourse on child protection and family policies and the rapid reversion to propaganda and ideology by defensive institutions is why this book was born.

Relegated to the too-hard basket by policymakers, for politicians, child protection is a zero-sum game.

News stories are invariably bad.

Many activists are driven into the debate from personal experience, and the small band of supporters who created the Family Briefing¹ site developed an intellectual curiosity, driven in part by outrage. How could this happen?

Restrictive freedom of information laws and suppression orders prevent journalists from covering family and children’s courts in the way they would in other jurisdictions. Ostensibly to protect the privacy of children, this secrecy conceals the extent of government complicity in the destructive conduct and consequences of unprincipled court decisions and child protection malpractices.

Here is a preview from Family Briefing on the social and economic costs:

Every 48 hours, an additional 820 Australians will lose the protection of their family, while nine will end their life and hundreds more will commence their journey into drug and alcohol addiction or succumb to an induced mental health disorder, crippled by the utter despair at being disempowered and dispossessed of their families by the state; the annual cost to taxpayers – *$53 billion dollars! ²

That traditional media are reluctant to raise these issues for fear of legal challenges should be of great concern to us all. Children of the State reflects the right of the public to know, that the 40-year total of the estimated casualties for every 48 hours as revealed above, has accumulated to now having a direct impact on more than 25 per cent of the civilian population.

At the same time, the unsuspecting taxpayers of most countries are paying more for their own maltreatment than they spend on their entire annual defence budgets. In other words, we spend more on waging war against ourselves than we spend on defence against external threats.

The police state powers that governments use to remove children from the protection of their biological families and the legislation designed to protect institutions from journalistic scrutiny make it almost impossible for whistle-blowers to come forward.

A forcibly abandoned generation has been created on our watch, for which we cannot deny responsibility. When in the years to come its victims begin to speak out, the reason for our hard-heartedness and lack of empathy is sure to be questioned.

Official government statistics demonstrate that 80 per cent of the children of separated parents are cut off from the protection of important biological family members, including mothers, fathers and grandparents.

Who then encourages, supports or defends a legal system that can only manage a 20 per cent success rate for those it is supposed to protect? Conversely, who are the main beneficiaries of a legal system that presides over a combined 80 per cent failure rate for the children it claims to protect?

Child protection is an industry. Professor Stephen Baskerville wrote in his book Taken into Custody of the massive and largely hidden governmental and quasi-governmental machine consisting of judges, lawyers, psychologists and psychiatrists, social workers, child protection services, child support enforcement agents, mediators and counsellors …, plus an extensive host of economic interests, such as divorce planners, forensic accountants, real estate appraisers and others.

These officials and professionals invariably profess to be motivated by concern for the best interest of other people’s children. Yet their services are activated only with the dissolution of families and the removal of parents. Whatever pieties they may proclaim therefore, the hard reality is that they have a concrete interest in encouraging family break-up.³

Today the legal net is cast ever wider. Powerful new institutions and agencies, including the burgeoning domestic violence sector and child-hungry adoption and foster-care agencies, have gained in power and influence. Each comes complete with their own entourage of professional elites, whose livelihood depends on a steady stream of vulnerable children.

Nothing strikes deeper into the human heart than the loss of a biological child; embedded within our DNA is an inherent motivation to protect our offspring from harm at all cost.

It is not unreasonable therefore to assume that, first and foremost, every minor child would have an inherent, presumptive legal right from birth to be protected by those closest to them biologically, such as each of their willing, able and safe biological parents and extended families.

But nothing could be further from the reality.

A booming government funded bureaucracy now exercises complete control over lives and futures.

Any child born today, irrespective of the relationship status of their parents, faces the real prospect of ending up the target of any number of government-funded agencies and institutions. Their mission is to first create and subsequently service, the vulnerable. In so doing, they wield absolute power over many perfectly sound and caring biological parents and extended families.

As a result, the intrusive power of the state is now a threat to the health and well-being of the whole of our society. Unless these issues are resolutely resolved in a principled and timely manner, future generations will be damaged by our failure to act. Apologies will be made for our collective ignorance.

It is a fundamental question: how has the state managed to gather so much power over the lives of individuals, particularly children?

The answer, lost in the public debate, is found in the widespread global abuse of a little known, but extremely harmful 16th Century doctrine, which is used by nation states to remove millions of 21st Century children from the protection of their biological families.

Parens patriae (Latin for Parent of the Nation, or literally, parent of the fatherland), in law refers to the power of the state to intervene against an allegedly abusive or negligent parent, legal guardian or informal caretaker, and to act as the parent of any child or individual who is claimed to be in need of protection. In contemporary discourse, every time you hear the word vulnerable it is an excuse for the state to step in and remove children.

That in many cases the interference of the state in the private lives of individuals has disastrous outcomes is lost in the welter of history. Over the course of 400 years, nation states have progressively increased the reach of the power over children that the parens patriae doctrine provides. However, against every movement comes a backlash, and resistance is growing.

Parens patriae is now operating unfettered by any constraints related to its mythological historical origin. A purely judicial construct, state interest can apparently now be anything courts deem worth protecting. Never the less the false historical trappings continue to be invoked to infer legitimacy to the concept, even when they lack any meaningful connection to it. Against this tide, there has been a stream of resistance to this common law expansion of parens patriae authority.⁴

This book is part of that resistance.

One

How It All Began

In the Summer oF 2007, I found myself in London recording interviews for a Sydney radio station. The specific program I was working for focussed on the malfeasance of child protection agencies and the dire consequences for parents and children. The show’s personnel, while originally motivated by what was happening in our own country, became intrigued by the fate of the children of broken relationships in other parts of the world. We soon discovered that there was a universality of experience; that the consequences of misguided child protection policies were common across the Western world.

The journey had already taken me to various parts of Britain, Ireland, France and the Netherlands and I spoke to and recorded conversations with a number of leaders of groups and individuals in those countries. One such person was Joep Zander, a leading advocate for shared parenting in Holland at that time, and recorded interviews with representatives of the British Second Wives Club, as well as meeting and speaking with leaders of AMEN, an Irish support organisation concerned with the abuse of men in contemporary Irish society.

I was also made aware of an underground railroad operating in France, which was similar to the underground railroad used during the days of slavery that had allowed many thousands of African American slaves to escape across the US border into Canada. That railroad was neither underground nor a railroad. It got its name because its activities had to be carried out in secret, using darkness or disguise, and because railway terms were used by those involved with the system to describe how it worked. Various routes were referred to as lines, stopping places were called stations, those who aided along the way were conductors and their charges were known as packages or freight. The network of routes extended through 14 Northern states to the promised land of Canada. Those who most actively assisted slaves to escape by way of the railroad were members of the free black community.

It took 300 years to realise how morally decadent the slave trade was.

The contemporary persecution of disempowered minorities within our own communities is strikingly similar and is again driving large groups of people to extreme lengths in order to escape.

Before I left for Europe, I spoke over the phone with a contact in France who had created a contemporary railroad network that allowed thousands of people from across the world to escape the often unintended consequences of government-supported global family and child-protection systems.

To this day these systems continue to persecute dispossessed men, women and children long after they have lost their families, children, property and savings and then threaten them with jail. With their backs to the wall and with nothing left to lose, his clients were numerous and they came from far-flung corners of the globe.

He explained to me in detail how he would advise his clients to borrow enough money to pay any outstanding debts, obtain a passport with a tourist visa for France, and that once in France they would be supplied with a new identity and provided with temporary accommodation in a caravan on a rural property, prior to commencing a new life in Europe.

I had been eagerly looking forward to meeting him and we agreed to do so in the south of France. But when I got there and contacted him, he told me that for security reasons he had been forced to move to a different location a long way from where I was and that he would meet me there if possible.

Even to have pursued that story, among the many thousands of intriguing and disturbing stories that surround this field, was an incredible experience since it revealed another of the many hidden but damaging effects of inhumane systems.

These are the stories of once loving parents who, driven to despair at the hands of their country’s persecutory policies and actions, have been forced to assume a new identity and disappear. Denied their family and stripped of their possessions, they faced years of being condemned as deadbeats and victimised, often leading to jail terms, irrespective of what action they took. Choosing flight over fight, just as numerous slaves had done so many years before, they saw the only way to survive their persecution was to escape to a less hostile environment.

For me, this quest of discovery has offered multiple light-bulb moments. One of the earliest and most delightful was through an encounter with Tony Coe in London. Tony, who famously appeared with Sir Bob Geldof in British Channel 4 TV series Geldof on Fathers, at the time of our meeting was the president of the British Equal Parenting Council. He turned out to be one of nature’s true gentlemen and presented as the perfect host. Following the interview, we had a great chat that in hindsight would prove to be the catalyst for this book.

Tony was well informed on the issues and was equally interested to find out as much as he could about the situation for separated families and children in Australia. He asked if I was aware of any legal parenting rights that parents might have to parent their own biological children. He mentioned that he and his organisation had sought this information from the British Parliament but had been ignored. In particular, he felt very strongly there was a missing link somewhere that just had yet to be unearthed, but that once found, would completely change the way we approached this sensitive subject. In the end that reference to a possible missing link proved to be the game-changer for me and started my own journey into a decade-long search to find the answers.

In the history of current progressive social policies there has been remarkably little statistical analysis of the consequences of family breakdown and the empowerment of the State over children’s lives. You find what you fund for, and governments have no interest in exposing the negative consequences of their own institutional processes, particularly not when they relate to the holy grail of vulnerable children.

Other reasons for this lack of analysis, including ideological bias, can be found. But, whatever the excuse, the failure to do so has proved to be very damaging to the health and well-being of families, children and the broader society. The dreadful consequences continue to weaken the cohesive fabric of the civilian population. If ever a Royal Commission was needed to uncover wrongdoing, then surely one that could expose the appalling state-supported cruelty inflicted upon the children and families of contemporary nation states would be the first to qualify.

Correct solutions only follow correctly identified problems. Sadly, the traditional media, caught in a progressive bind, remains reluctant to even consider new child protection information or to enter this ideologically charged arena. As a result, governments feel no pressure to change. Despite readily available evidence and a massive wellspring of discontent, no action is taken.

The facts we present in this book clearly illustrate how, for the past 40 years, the community and those elected to represent them, with some notable exceptions, have shown themselves to be either blissfully unaware or wilfully blind to the scale and brutal impacts of child-removal policies. The hope is, that good will eventually triumph over evil. The impact of legally sanctioned child removals, either through divorce and separation or through arbitrarily imposed child protection proceedings, is often referred to as the biggest sleeper issue of our time. Yet there is no impetus for change, only paralysis and inertia.

Upon returning home from Europe, I began what would turn out to be a mammoth task to find the missing answers to a great many unanswered questions. Over time, it became clear that Government-supported child removals didn’t end in 1975. Instead, they have continued under a different banner, which has provided an ongoing legitimacy to the practice and eventually allowed it to spread to the successful targeting of the whole of the civilian population.

That things have gone very badly awry was evident from the very first examination of the data. More than 80 per cent of all children whose parents separate virtually never or very rarely see their non-custodial absent parent, normally the father, ever again. Some re-establish relationships after they turn 18. Many do not, their mind permanently captured and poisoned to turn against one of their own parents. This is a vital child-protection issue, since the radicalisation of children into denying the existence of and their subsequent refusal to maintain any effective contact with their own biological parents and extended family, is the first step in the insidious process of indoctrination used by cults and other extreme antisocial organisations in their mission to control every aspect of the lives of their followers.

* * *

The first indication that the situation may not be quite as it appears was discovered in 2011, as a result of the detailed scrutiny of the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Family Characteristics Survey of 2009 -10.⁵ It is fair to say that was the first light-bulb moment. It was noted how unsystematically and chaotically the number of nights per year that minor children from broken relationships spent with