The Pedophile Racket, Part 3: The “Beautiful Trick”

Updated: Oct 24, 2019

by Dee McLachlan

It is written that when Jesus was nailed to the cross he called out to God, “Why have You forsaken Me?” After learning about the torture of a particular child in South Australia, I wondered if she thought “Why is everyone forsaking me?” Indeed, society has forsaken her. Australia, it seems, has bought in to a system that has been carefully designed to do the worst for any children who have been abused within the family.

I have seen now firsthand how an elaborate system of the court, police, and Department for Child Protection (known as the DCP in South Australia) work in concert, and are able to make family life become a living hell.

And thereafter, if a protective parent seeks help for her (or his) child caught up in guardianship, no person in authority dares to intervene against this system. No one.

I found that leaders uniformly abdicate their responsibility to protect children. Maybe they become indoctrinated in the deflection of liability — but each leader, commissioner, minister and even the prime minister dutifully responds with “it is not under my jurisdiction” or “portfolio”, and the problem is passed on.

In 2018, partly in conjunction with my running a Family Court survey at GumshoeNews, I became involved in the saga of a family in South Australia. I initially thought the government must have had a misunderstanding or a miscommunication as to the facts. But by early 2019 I began to see that everything was deliberate, and I learned how the courts became part of a “beautiful trick” (to cover evidence of sexual abuse) — and how this can result in one losing one’s child to the State.

The departments charged with protecting children are all powerful, and because society has now become paranoid about “safety” and “protection,” this mindset has provided authorities with an unquestioned immunity to act as they so wish. And act they do.

Investigations, hearings, and court cases are also often dragged out to “burn off” the protective parent, and as US protective parent Don Rufty wrote (in a fictitious judge’s announcement) “Your child will be kept away from you for a long time and that is good because it gets you used to being without your child….”

And so, Round 1 in this saga is how the courts are used as an excuse to drop or repress any investigation of the crimes involved in the child abuse. It is truly a beautiful trick.

Deceptive Use of the Courts

If serious accusations against a pedophile parent arise, the offender often applies — usually within three weeks — for custody in the Family Court (Federal). As part of that application, the offender can put in a “Notice of Risk”, falsely identifying the protective parent as the danger. The protective parent usually does not realize the battle is already half lost, before they begin.

The first deception comes into play when the matter is before the Family Court. The police and other agencies put their hands up and declare that that they are unable to investigate the sexual abuse as the matter is “before the court.” The investigation grinds to a halt, and the court is then not fully informed of any abuses. (Are you with me?)

In fact, in the SA case to which I refer, the DCP did not investigate numerous historic notifications (for nearly a year) leading up to the trial in the Family Court, and SAPOL did not report what the child had revealed at an interview with a policewoman. (In fact that officer deliberately repressed those disclosures.) The excuse: they were waiting for the court to decide.

Yes, we have both sides, police and courts, claiming to be “left out” of the procedure – in a way that paralyzes the whole works. It took me some time to grasp the reality of what was happening. Surely it can’t be!

Since the Family Court judge I am describing was not informed of those major disclosures, he made the assumption that the abuse probably never happened.

It is quite extraordinary really. The DCP social workers and a SAPOL officer were all privy to the most egregious abuse disclosures by this child — but they never informed the court. And considering that abuse had already been substantiated two years prior, the DCP and SAPOL should have been all over it. But they just let it ride.

Then these same social workers later claim the judge has ruled — and this to justify their position that abuse most likely never happened!!! A very cruel twist to discredit a child and the abuse suffered.

Moreover, when they say “if abuse never happened,” this points to the mental clarity of the protective mother — declaring her delusional and a “coacher.” She ends up the “dangerous” one.

Clearly all these people abandoned the child.

In many cases in the GumshoeNews survey it was game over for those protective parents. However, in this SA case, the mother put up a good fight, and even though the Family Court judge was highly critical of her, he awarded her sole parental responsibility in 2017. The father got visitation rights.

A Twisted Logic 

The Adelaide mother had survived Round 1 — even though it cost her about $200,000. But little did she know she had been set up to fail Round 2.

After the second visitation with Dad (in 2018), the young lass returned with a significant wound. After a few days and making three different excuses, she finally broke down and said her father had cut her deliberately, and threatened her that he’d kill her mother if she spoke out.

The mother reported this assault.

Considering that abuse had previously been substantiated in 2016, the DCP and SAPOL (SA police) should have acted immediately. But records now show that the DCP, CPS (Child Protective Services) and SAPOL halted their investigation. The DCP’s excuse: “it’s a matter for Family Court.” (Please note: that’s not true. It is not a judge’s job to investigate a criminal complaint.)

For nearly a month the agencies dallied — waiting for the wound to mostly heal. In fact the officer says on the phone, “ The issue we have now is that the bruises aren’t there…” (they were cuts).

And then the DCP swooped in with a court order. Having deliberate halted an investigation, the DCP then persuaded a Youth Court judge that they needed to “do an investigation” — and to do so they must remove the child from the mother’s care. You see, after the reporting of the assault, a number of people (which must have included a police person) called in, or wrote in with fake accusations of the mother suffering psychosis and delusions. But fortunately, recordings reveal the criminal deception unfolding.

The child’s greatest fear was to be taken from her mother, and so now the psychological abuse of the child begins.

I have listened to the child’s account, and I one hundred percent believe her. So I wondered, why would her father deliberately inflict such an injury right after the court awarded him visitation? (Because of previous abuse substantiation he had had only supervised visit until now.) It is my serious guess that the infliction of a wound was done in order to pull the DCP into the equation. Round 1 had failed, but Round 2 would involve the DCP and a new court — the State’s Youth Court.

As you will see, the wound, followed by the supposed “investigation” became the basis for mum-child separation (which the court has now ruled will be permanent).

This “beautiful trick” of allows for the so-called investigation to be no longer on the assault — it gets focused on the mother.

Link to full article

18 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All