The NEWETT Case has placed Children at certain risk of sexual harm. Please help release them from the Perpetrator. If this case is heard, it will create law to protect ALL CHILDREN in Family Court from ever being placed in a position of sexual harm again, and will help prevent Family Violence from being ignored by Family Court Judges.

Both existing and fresh new evidence proves the Children are most likely being sexually harmed, the Judges knew this, and the Full Court deliberately closed off the Appeal before the fresh evidence could be put before them. For this reason it must be Appealed to the High Court, as the Appeal dismissal was not valid at law.

This matter is to decide whether at least four Judges broke the Federal Criminal Code, and should be prosecuted and jailed for knowingly placing three children at risk of sexual harm until the age of 18, particularly by refusing to admit the evidence into the Hearings, or admitting it then refusing to read it.

The law came into force in 2020, and has never been tested. The Mother is being blocked by every Lawyer, Legal Body, the Attorney-General, Parliament, and is having trouble getting the Registry to hand the evidence to the Judges for determination on the granting of Special Leave.

Where there is ANY evidence of Sexual Harm or Family Violence against a Mother and/or her Children, we want a guarantee that Women and Children will always be absolutely and immediately protected from Male Violence and Coercive Control in all its forms… with full physical, psychological, emotional safety and assistance from ALL Courts and the Government; and complete financial protection over the assets and income of the relationship (freezing it) so it is preserved for the benefit of the Victim and Children in equitable remedy.

The Mother has appealed for Special Leave to High Court - and has to do it all alone with no legal support. The Federal Attorney-General refused to provide assistance and no lawyer would help her save the children.

She needs YOU to sign this petition to have the matter heard, so the High Court can clarify that the Family Law Act and the Criminal Code Act should have prevented this travesty and ALL THE INVOLVED JUDGES broke the law in this case. 

Sexual Abuse of Children approved by Order of the Family Courts

In Australia, we have laws protecting our children from sexual abuse, including incest, and we expect they are to be ENFORCED at all times.

There is no case that is more important than a case of saving children from heinous sexual crimes. We expect mandatory reporting and complete enforcement by State and Federal Police, Child Safety Departments, Children’s Courts, Politicians, Legal Professionals who all have statutory requirements to uphold the law, Medical Practitioners to uphold their Hippocratic Oath, Magistrates, Registrars, and most importantly – the JUDGES in the FAMILY COURT SYSTEM.

We, the people of Australia, expect and demand that in all cases on their docket, upon ANY evidence of such… Family Court Judges MUST IMMEDIATELY remove Children from risk of sexual harm, pursuant to s273B.4 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).

This law broadly states that ALL Commonwealth Officers have a positive obligation to prevent child sexual abuse and must never place or keep a child at risk of sexual harm at all. A Commonwealth Officer with knowledge of such must report the risk to an authorised person, who must remove the children from risk of sexual harm. The only authorised people in the Federal Government who can do that are the Family Court Judges, and the Australian Federal Police. The Attorney General is equally able to intervene to aid enforcement of that law. It is a five-year jail sentence for non-compliance, with absolute liability – ie. no excuses.

We also expect Judges to IMMEDIATELY remove Children completely from all forms of Violence and Abuse that they and their Mothers experience at the hands of violent, abusive, coercively controlling, dominating, cruel, and/or personality disordered Fathers. 

The Newett Case has destroyed that possibility; and is in total conflict with the Legislation and almost every other Case Authority that protects abused Women and Children from toxic male violence and other forms of abuse.

Now that it is PRECEDENT by way of the Judgment of the Full Court, this case will be now be used by all paedophiles, violent offenders, criminals, controllers and abusers to take the Children and all the Assets from already-abused Mothers. The Court Orders will further abuse Children – creating a mental health nightmare for future generations.

We, the Public, require this matter be this heard in the High Court of Australia on Appeal, to ensure the full force of the law is applied against Judges who break the Criminal Code, and prosecute those that committed corruption and malfeasance of public office in this matter.

We demand a Judicial Inquiry or Royal Commission into the overall matter of judges abusing their power to break the law in favour of criminals, and we demand the AFP prosecute the offenders. If that does not happen, and long sentences are not applied, the behaviour will continue – the Separation of Powers will be used as a source of Crime and Dictatorship - more children will be stolen, raped and abused; and women will be murdered both psychologically and physically.

--------------------------------------------------------------

For the full story, read on… it is quite long...

The Newett Case – “we knew the outcome before it even began”.

*This matter has been published in compliance with the requirements of s121 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and uses pseudonyms approved by the Court to publish the details of the case.

In the case of *Newett v Newett, the Mother knew the outcome before the case began. She knew if he left, he would take the Children from her completely, take or sell all the assets from under her, and would hide all of the money so she would be completely decimated.

She did not know he had been planning it for years, siphoning money, and she did not know he was a likely-paedophile and would begin grooming and sexualising the Children immediately.

She knew that the Dark Side of the Father’s personality would be unrestrained without her there to help regulate and supervise his dark behaviours. She knew he would allow his criminal mindset to take over. She knew he would partake in vicious post-separation violence by stalking, tracking and monitoring her every move. She knew he would try to kill her again and make it seem like an accident or suicide. She knew his covert methods and IT expertise would be used against her. He would set her up to fail, make her seem crazy, discredit her, and would “manipulate” authorities into believing him, so like sheep, they would follow his every instruction. He would “pay off” those with the ultimate power to guarantee the outcome, and that was how he would play the game – which he declared on Facebook on 1 January 2018 in a meme: “the best is yet to come”.

She knew all of this, but despite her best efforts, she also knew she could not stop it no matter how hard she tried, and life would now be a living hell for her and the Children forever if he gets his way.

He got his way. He wiped the Mother out of their lives.

The Judge’s Job: Cutting one Parent out of the Children’s Lives

The judge had to choose which parent would not see the Children again; as they could not co-parent, and now live at a distance. 

Here is the wording from the judgment about the choice he had to make and why...

126. ".... In the first family report, the Expert opined at paragraph 187 that:

• When reflecting on this matter as a whole, it seems to me obvious that the parents, moving forward, are not going to be able to co-parent co-operatively or effectively with one another. This will either be because Mr NEWETT will continue to disempower and dominate the mother, or Ms NEWETT will continue to disparage the father. Regardless, it is important the scope for either scenario to occur be limited, namely to protect the children from being exposed to such.

before recommending that if the Court determines the mother poses an unacceptable risk to the welfare and wellbeing of the children, then the children should live with the father and spend time supervised or no time at all with the mother. Further, if the Court determines the father poses an unacceptable risk to the children, then they should live with the mother and spend supervised or no time at all with the father.

This judgment shows a Family Court Report Writer recommending; and a Judge choosing; to allow a "disempowering, dominating" Father to take three young girls from their abused Mother, because she was speaking out against his violence, and speaking out about the courts and police who refused to protect her and the children from that serious violence and coercive control. The Court calls this “disparaging”.

The ONLY two reasons her children were removed were: (1) the Mother has a negative view of the Father, and (2) she has a negative views of Courts and Authorities – which “might pass onto the Children”.

This was speculative at best; complete conjecture all fabricated by the Father’s barrister. There was absolutely no evidence she had ever spoken ill of him towards the Children, and plenty of evidence to the contrary. This was written in judgment, she had never actually done this – so there was no “disparaging” at all that would ever impact the Children. She was punished for something that may possibly happen in the future, but was not likely because she had not ever done it in the past.

What does the NEWETT Judgment communicate to us as a Society?

The judgment tells a Woman she must put up with disempowering and dominating behaviour by a Man, and if she DARE speaks out to anyone about it, including Police or Courts, her Children will be taken away by the Family Court in punishment.

• This judgment says WOMEN SHOULD BE SILENCED.
• It says MEN ARE DOMINANT. They can act however they want to women and children without consequence.
• It tells Male Perpetrators of Abuse and Sexual Crimes that they have a Safe Place in the Family Court and can use the system to escape investigation and prosecution. It screams “The Judges will help you achieve immunity – all you need to do is sexually abuse your children and you will get to take everything”.
• This judgment tells Women they should TAKE THE ABUSE AND SHUT UP; and that a Man always has the right to dominate and disempower her.
• The Children are his "property", and they too must never hold a negative opinion about his domination and disempowering behaviours. If they do, it is the fault of the Mother.
• The Children, being three little girls, certainly must never learn to defend themselves from family violence and toxic masculinity.

THE FACTS OF THE CASE

Family Violence

ALL OF THE EVIDENCE, approximately 15,000 pages of it, more than met the balance of probabilities, and was beyond reasonable doubt family violence; where the Court even had full confessions made by the Father in sworn documents and oral testimony. An admission turns an allegation into a fact. The Court refused to refer the Police to charge him with any crime whatsoever, and Police refused to do so of their own volition.

The Mother spoke out about the Father's strangulation of her in 2017 causing her a near death experience. At Trial he was cross examined on this and not only directly contradicted what he said in the Domestic Violence Trial, but admitted he did not know what happened at the end of the hallway when he turned to face her while angry (just before he attempted to strangle her and almost completely cut off her breath). He gave three different answers. This should have made it a finding he was not credible; and the Mother was credible; as she described it in detail and it corroborated with all other evidence including her photos and medical records. She did not break under cross examination at all.

The Mother spoke out about his fraud, where nearly $700,000 was found in an "Other Expenses" category and he was charging rent to the business where he and three children lived in the premises and occupied the whole of it. He was charging a rental fee to the business on a car he owned, but not declaring the rental income as personal income.

He was siphoning money elsewhere - $410,000 of the Mother's contract earnings in the business went into the "Mortgage Offset Account" bringing the value of the mortgage down to only approx. $200,000. Yet at Trial the mortgage was $790,000, so he had taken the equity out of the property and moved it somewhere. And before leaving, he diverted the Company Income into his own personal account and conspired to defraud her by stealing of her only business client so she would have no future income. He essentially siphoned all money ever made in the marriage by both Parties to some other account, stopped all future income, and left the Mother with only $29 to feed the Children.

She complained about his physical assault on her in front of the Children - which caused the separation - all admitted to and confirmed in police report. In cross examination he said she dug her fingernails into his skin. That could not have occurred unless he had walked over to her first and put his arm toward her (as she explained, to hit her). The fingernail went in when he brought his arm down over her head to king-hit her in the skull within 1 metre of the eldest daughter. The eldest daughter told the psychologist, and it was on record. All three children told the Family Report Writer and it was in her report. Yet nothing was mentioned in judgment.

She complained of many more things he did, fully supported by evidence; as stated in the judgment...

"139 Before moving to the concerns I hold about the mother, I record that, at paragraph 8 of her affidavit filed 30 August 2021, she deposed that:

• 8. I note that I maintain the Father is the cause of the various assaults against my physical and mental wellbeing, as deposed before the Court; including:
  a. Strangulation on 19 November 2017 in presence of the Children
  b. Assault on 29 January 2018 in presence of (and direct witness) by the Children
  c. Fraud from 20 November 2017 to 28 January 2018, and then escalating in post-separation to steal the business, income and livelihood from the Mother
  d. Abduction and detention of the Children by the Father, where they were named persons on a Protection Order against the Father protecting the Mother
  e. Criminal cyberstalking admitted in affidavit
  f. Theft of the Mother's motor vehicle
  g. Coercive control of the Mother from her home and from the State of Queensland
  h. Physical stalking, threats, intimidation and harassment
  i. Threats to harm or kill with a vehicle on at least five occasions
  j. Threats to burn, by particular damage to the house gas fittings, fire alarms etc.
  k. Other property damage to the family home, pool and security gates
  l. Gaslighting and emotional abuse of the Mother
  m. Collusion and corruption of court officers, such as ICL Damien Carter
  n. Subornation of witnesses, such as Dr V, Dr A, Dr K.
  (As per the original)
  140 For reasons already given, I do not accept the father is a risk as the mother asserts. I am not satisfied, as the mother and maternal grandmother assert, that the father has been stalking the mother and/or the maternal grandmother, either physically or electronically. The mother had an evidentiary onus to establish her fears were actually true and, on the balance of probabilities, she has failed to do so."

The Mother experienced serious coercively controlling violence, stalking and unlawful surveillance by the Father, known to the judge and admitted at Trial by the Father and many, many witnesses in sworn affidavit.

None of that evidence was contested by the Father by cross examining witnesses to discredit their affidavit testimony. The Judge had more than balance of probability evidence: he had Briginshaw (very high confidence) level evidence of the Father's stalking at the Contact Centre - including his seeking of her vehicle (likely to add a tracking device); threatening behaviour by using Police to press false charges against her frequently; intimidation in the Court Carpark and at a Cafe near the Courthouse in front of witnesses; and illegal electronic surveillance by recording the Mother's conversations in the presence of the Children which was admitted on the witness stand by the Father. That should have invoked an automatic Contravention of Judicial Orders against him with monetary or jail time penalty, and a Criminal referral to the AFP for prosecution.

The reason the Judge refused to make findings on Family Violence, stalking and surveillance is that in the Psychiatric Report of his favourite witness, it stated: 

• "As to the father's personality, I note the mother's description of the father as having narcissistic and antisocial traits. If the court were to find that the father had indeed engaged in domestic violence with the mother over a significant period of time and was also continuing to stalk the mother through electronic and other means, this would suggest personality vulnerabilities in the cluster B range which would include narcissistic and anti-social traits. In the absence of such findings of the court, it would not be my view that the father be seen to be displaying personality vulnerabilities of the nature that would be of concern to the court."
• "As for the father, unless the court were to find that the father was indeed demonstrating psychopathic/antisocial or narcissistic traits by continuing to harass or stalk the mother suggesting a profound inability to prioritise the needs of the children ahead of his own, or if the court were to find the children were at sexual risk in the care of the father,! would have no concerns that the children be at risk of significant harm in the care of the father on either, a supervised or unsupervised basis."

The Judge therefore fabricated his findings to make sure he did not have to take the Children from the Father, despite the quantum of evidence.

Below is the wording in the Transcript to show the Judge would not deal with it...

"MS ADLAM: What’s – the problem with that, your Honour, is the children were named on that order.
HIS HONOUR: Yes. Yes. Okay.
MS NEWETT: And he breached it.
HIS HONOUR: I’m not here dealing with domestic violence.
MS NEWETT: Yes, you are. Section 4AB of the Act requires you to.
HIS HONOUR: No. Dear me. No. I am not. I’m not exercising jurisdiction under the domestic violence legislation. I’m exercising jurisdiction under the Family Law Act. Thank you, Mrs Adlam."... 

Child Abuse – Regular Physical and Psychological Assault

The Family Report Writer in 2020 documented the children stating they were abused by their Father, being "smacked everywhere but the head", "wake up wanting to die", "locked outside on a [5th floor] balcony" as punishment. They all stated separately in private interviews that "Daddy hit Mummy". The report shows the middle child hiding behind furniture afraid of her Father and him having to coax her out to spend time with him.

It shows the Father making up stories of "alienation by the crazy mother", which was delusional thought pattern he had during the case. It was written in judgment that she never said anything bad about him to the Children. Yet, he told the children "Mummy is mad" and said negative things against her, but the judge didn't see that as a problem at all. "Alienation" is only a problem if a Mother does that to the Father, not the other way around.

Evidence of Child Risk of Sexual Harm

The judge knew the children were at very high risk of sexual harm from 12 May 2020. 

He ordered the Mother on 29 May 2020 to provide the direct evidence to him, and she did which was to be considered in hearing on 8 June 2020 in hearing.

The evidence included photographic evidence of genital injuries on all three girls constantly on return from the Father's house, video evidence of the children talking of sore genitals and asking their mum for help, and other evidence of a witness who saw sexualised conversations initiated by the children involving them to believe they had a tongue, lips and a mouth in their genital area.

Despite this THE JUDGE REFUSED TO ADMIT THE SEXUAL RISK OF HARM EVIDENCE TO TRIAL. He wouldn't let it be tested or played in Court.

If he had done so, he knew he would have to make judgment the Father could never see the Children again: due to the advice in the Psychiatrist Report, the requirements of the Family Law Act, and the lines of authority in Russell v Close.

Here are his words when prompted by the Mother at Trial to test that evidence...

"... HIS HONOUR: I’m not having any recordings before me.
MS NEWETT: You’re not listening. You’re not listening. Please just listen to the end of my sentences. So I need to just express to you that these were the things that you required by order for me to file with you for the hearing of 8 June 2020.
HIS HONOUR: Well, they may have been, but this is not a hearing of 8 June 2020. This is a hearing on 30 September 2021. If that was relevant, you should have put it
before me. It’s not before me. That’s the end of the - - -
MS NEWETT: It is.
HIS HONOUR: That is the end of the discussion.
MS NEWETT: Are you saying that the child sexual abuse stuff is out?

HIS HONOUR: That is the end of the discussion. I’ve made my ruling. I’m not further discussing it.
MS NEWETT: That’s appellable.
HIS HONOUR: Now, is there any other reason why the mother shouldn’t be put in the witness box?
COUNSEL FOR THE FATHER: No, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Good.
MS NEWETT: Excuse me, can I just get Ms O’s – Ms O yesterday asked me for that reference, so clearly it was in.
HIS HONOUR: No, stop. Madam – Madam, there’s nothing to be said. There’s nothing - - -
MS NEWETT: So you’re leaving the child sexual abuse evidence out, are you?
HIS HONOUR: Sorry?
MS NEWETT: Is that what you’re doing?
HIS HONOUR: Now, Madam - - -
MS NEWETT: Are you leaving the child sexual abuse evidence out?
HIS HONOUR: No, Madam. Madam, are you ready to be sworn or affirmed; what would you prefer?
MS NEWETT: I just want a confirmation - - -
HIS HONOUR: No, no, Madam.
MS NEWETT: - - - are you leaving the child sexual abuse evidence out of the proceeding?
HIS HONOUR: I’ve asked you a question. Affirm the witness. Madam, I am not going through this trial continuing - - -
MS NEWETT: Interesting.
HIS HONOUR: I am going to ignore your provocative comments which suggest, as you have done before, that I’m corrupt and I’m this or that. I’m not even going to - - -

In relation to the Father's unlawful removal of the Children from the Mother in Criminal Breach of his QLD Domestic Violence Order, and in contravention of TWO Federal Judges Orders...

"MS ADLAM: Do you believe that you psychologically and emotionally abused your own children and Ms Newett by taking the children from her? ---No. 

MS. ADLAM: She’s quite fine here, your Honour.
If an abusive man takes three young children aged three, four and six away from their primary parent attachment and locks them in an apartment then calls her crazy, would you expect that the woman would react in a pretty big way, Mr Newett? [Mr Newett gave no response.]

"HIS HONOUR: Yes. Okay. He says he expected that she would be upset because she’s their mother and there’s your answer.
MS ADLAM: Thank you. I don’t think you really are. Didn’t you then, after taking the children and saying she was crazy, didn’t you then try to get her to breach court orders by refusing to bring the children downstairs and refusing to tell anyone that the children were safe?---No.
MS ADLAM: I remember her trying to find out if your children were safe and nobody would go
and check.
HIS HONOUR: Were you there, madam?
MS ADLAM: I was on the phone constantly, your Honour."

"HIS HONOUR: Sir, not withstanding what the order provided, and noting that the children’s birthday is a special day in their life, did you, if it didn’t hit the day that the order had, did you contemplate the children communicating with their mother on their birthday?---Contemplated, yes.
HIS HONOUR: And seemingly you rejected that?---Yes.

All decisions about Evidence, Findings and Orders are supposed to be made in the "best interests of the Child". This Judge CLEARLY only was working in the Best Interest of the Father.

Fraud, Bribery and Corruption in earlier Property Trial

Note that in the earlier Property trial in 2020, the judge refused to allow cross examination of the Father or adjourn proceedings until the Mother had a solicitor cross examine him. There was $700,000 of unexplained money in the business accounts labelled "Other Expenses" - for a work-from-home IT Support person with no true business expenses, tax law prohibited him from being treated as a business, he was actually an employee under a Labour-Hire firm giving him no tax-deductibility for many expenses at all.

Nobody knows where this $700,000 went, or the Mothers $410,000 in contract earnings which disappeared from the mortgage accounts he was supposed to be managing for the family. 

The judge allowed the hiding of so much money; and refused to allow the Mother to test it on cross examination, so this indicates that a bribe may have taken place. It certainly allows any normal person to perceive serious systemic corruption.

The mother left the Courthouse in severe traumatic distress over that decision to continue with the Property Trial and not put him on the Witness Stand, and they continued with the sham Trial anyway. 

At the end of that trial, his barrister was seen walking out from Chambers with a red suitcase with a squeaky wheel by several witnesses. The father was also overheard telling his girlfriend "three months" when walking out of the Court building.

It was that same day the Father drove his car up to hers in the carpark, threatened the Mother and her family in the carpark, caused a severe trauma reaction, proceeded to film her, which forced her to flee, and scared her so much she moved out of the family home and moved interstate taking the Children with her for their protection. He had become so brazen, severely and publicly psychopathic in the games he was now playing to mentally attack her.

The Judge within only two days ordered the children back to the Father, despite the abuse against the Children written in the Family Report, and the father's actions in the carpark. The Judge ordered No Contact with the Children at all for the Mother for 4 months.

Yet, when the Father did this to the Mother in 2019, he was rewarded with full custody.

(Note: Women are expected to wait in some cases over a year for the recovery of their Children - see Darley v Darley where the Mother hasn't seen her eldest child for 18 months and youngest for 7 months, and the Father is in contravention of Orders admitting the mother is no risk to the Children. Yet in Newett, the Father had his Children returned in only two days, again indicating corruption at the heart of the matter, as he had skipped a very long queue).

Police Interference and Corruption 

The Queensland Police, for the whole five years, refused to investigate the Family violence of the Father or the child sexual abuse issues.

When they did question one child on one occasion in 2018 before the major genital injuries occurred - the Police didn't ask the right questions of the child and waited so long she had forgotten the original incident, being only 4 years old. They did not question the adult witness of the child's conversation at all to confirm what was actually said.

The Police set about attacking the Mother. To this day, there is a false arrest warrant placed on her so she can't go back to Queensland – which he used to have the bank sell the family home out from under her. There are no actual charges under that arrest warrant, as confirmed by Police Prosecutions. It is illegal to place someone under arrest with no actual charges - (see Robinson v NSW, HCA, 4 Dec 2019)

Previously, the Police charged her for sending a Happy Anniversary text message to him and two other nice messages, where he even thanked her for one of them! The Order he was under made his “thankyou” message a breach, but the order she was under at the time did not include those communications, and the Police made false charges against her. They sent FOUR police to her house to intimidate, coerce and force her into admission for a crime she had not committed, and threatened her arrest otherwise.

They did that to allow him to obtain a permanent order against her - so he could take the Children from her in Family Law proceedings. He kept committing direct threatening violence against her and then recording her reactions to use in Court and with Police as evidence, to say she is crazy, then lying to them about what he did to make her so traumatised. 

The Results

The more the girls disclosed abuse to the Mother, the more he sought orders for absolutely no contact with the Mother. 

And that's what he got. The disempowering, dominating Father got exactly what he wanted. He wiped the Mother out of their lives. He had admitted to telling the Mother she was a “useless waste of existence”, and now he had successfully turned her into that, by Order of the Court.

The judge protected the Father by giving him the Children, because if the Children disclose to anyone, the Father will have to be prosecuted. Keeping them away from the Mother and maternal family as much as possible makes that disclosure almost impossible for the Children, and he can now drug and rape them whenever he wants.

If the Judge makes a finding that sexual abuse is not likely, as he did in this case despite Authorities stating he should not be drawn into making findings of whether abuse did or did not happen; it gives the Police a difficult task to successfully prosecute the Crime when the Children do disclose, as they must first prove conspiracy and crimes were committed to cover it all up.

The Children were ordered never to see or talk freely to their Mother, Grandmother, aunt and cousins, and most heartbreakingly - their terminally ill Grandfather with Motor Neurone Disease, who cannot ever travel to see them. 

The Mother and Grandmother were given two hours in a Contact Centre, eight hours away from their home at a cost of $1000 per trip, and $3500 in Carer fees for the Grandfather while they travel. Each trip takes 3 days for a 2hr visit, and this is 8 times a year at a cost of $34,000 per annum.

The disability discrimination in this case is very serious. Yet, the Father drives past the Grandfather’s house at least twice a year on route to his Mother’s house, and refuses to stop by and let the Children see him at all. 

THE APPEAL

The judgment was Appealed to the Full Court. There were 50 Grounds of Appeal.

Despite the obvious errors of palpably misusing his advantage in abuse of power by not properly exercising discretion to adduce / admit the sexual abuse evidence at Trial against the intention and purpose of the Act; failing to test and make his own judgment on family violence matters where he has evidence to apply the Family Law Act 2012 amendments for family violence matters; and breaking many other mandatory requirements... he used the repealed Friendly Parent Provision to remove the children from the Mother, and abused the new Cross Examination legislation designed to protect victims, not to further victimise them. He used it to protect the perpetrator from having findings of family violence and sexual abuse be formally made against him.

Furthermore, he committed direct Disability Discrimination against the Mother (for her PTSD caused by the Court system, which he admitted at [99] in his judgment); and towards the Grandfather who suffers Motor Neurone Disease, where the Judge called him “dribbling and incoherent” so decided he was not worthy of any relationship with his Grandchildren at all.

Despite all of the above, on 13 March 2023, the Full Court dismissed the Appeal.

It seems their only concern was to save face for the Judge and the Court itself.

Why did they dismiss the Appeal?

On 4 March 2023, the Mother found fresh evidence of the child sexual abuse which made it an almost definite occurrence.

The dates matched up to the hospital visits and the worst of the genital injuries, as well as the date of a very large tantrum from one daughter saying she wanted to kill herself and "didn't want to go to Dads". She was inconsolable and in a foetal position on the floor in serious trauma of the thought of going to his apartment.

The evidence was sent to the local MP who refused to assist, so was sent to Katy Gallagher in her role as Minister for Women.

On 10 March 2023, Katy Gallagher referred the matter to the Attorney-General and to the AFP.

The AFP very likely tipped off the Family Court who were supposed to be investigated by the AFP as to why they had not removed the children from sexual harm under s273B.4 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) when they KNEW there was evidence of likely sexual harm on the children... corroborative evidence, over a long period of time. 

The AFP also passed the matter to Queensland Police who were also supposed to be investigated for corruption and perversion of the course of justice in this matter... to aid and abet the Father in committing crimes against the Mother, and helped him win a Family Court case. There was $700,000 missing in the accounts so did some of that go to the Police?

The Queensland Police tried to make the fresh evidence disappear. They tried to make it go missing in the postal system, and it seems may have instructed NSW Police to pretend they had handed it back to the Mother.

Queensland Police then said they would interview the child, after receiving all the corroborative evidence including the matching of the dates, then later stated they had never said that. The Mother advised them they were out of luck and had been caught in a lie, as she records all off the calls.

It emerged, as advised by an officer, the Police had made no record on file of the matter at all, including the fact the new and old evidence had been loaded into their system by the Mother. No QPRIME record was created, and no QI number was created. 

Every conversation was caught on Audio Recording by the Mother of the police Corruption, and their DIRECT COVER UP of likely paedophilia by the Father.

The child still has not been interviewed about the new evidence. She and her sisters still live with the Perpetrator.

Queensland Police Ethics Command have not done anything about it in over two months despite the Minister sending 45 emails to them including recordings to them to investigate that corrupt conduct of their officers.

The Police Commissioner HAS DONE NOTHING. She was reprimanded about this in November 2022 findings of the Qld Police Responses to Domestic and Family Violence Inquiry and almost lost her job. She should be sacked.

The Mother privately prosecuted her in 2020 for breach of s200 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) for failure to perform public duty and other things the Commissioner did to cover up the evidence of corruption by her Police Officers in the NEWETT matter. The Queensland Courts and Government suppressed the Court Records and silenced the mass Media. They promoted the Barrister to a Judge after she had the case summarily dismissed (where the Mother was not afforded due process, and the Barrister used incorrect law only applicable in other States to try and argue her case).

The Queensland Premier, Attorney-General, Police Minister and Child Safety Minister ALL HAVE THE EVIDENCE AND HAVE DONE NOTHING.

The Federal Attorney-General has been vicious in his refusal to intervene in proceedings; despite his knowledge of the legal corruption and child sexual abuse evidence. He has a direct copy, and refuses to make Ministerial Orders on the AFP to remove the children from harm and investigate all the Public Officers and other people that covered it up. 

Katy Gallagher then mimicked his words. She did the same as she did to Brittany Higgins... she knew of the abuse and SAID NOTHING TO PARLIAMENT. She refuses to intervene under her role as Minister for Women and Minister for Public Service, despite having just been reprimanded for same. 

So, how did the Father get the Children in the first place if he was on a Domestic Violence Order protecting the Mother and Children from his abuse?

The Father broke Court Orders and abducted the Children from her on one of his unsupervised visitations.

The Father then employed two fake witnesses to write perjurious affidavits - a sacked Nanny and her angry mother, the local “Nail Nazi” - to convince the Court to let him keep the children "because the mother is crazy". The witnesses suddenly went from having large financial problems to having no financial problems.

The Father told everyone the Mother was crazy, and procured a fake untested psychiatric report about the Mother so he could convince Authorities, Police and Courts he was a victim of her supposed mental illness. That Psychiatrist gave evidence that at Trial proving he had committed perjury in that report and it had NO CLINICAL BASIS AT ALL, but the judge refused to state that in the judgment, likely because the psychiatrist makes loads of money by writing invalid fraudulent reports for the Court. No psychiatrist can diagnose anyone within 2hrs with any mental illness – it takes many months of consecutive appointments. He implied the Mother had up to 54 conditions, many of which were not possible to co-exist in a person.

The psychiatrist covered up the Fathers very large undiagnosed unmanaged brain injury, and his epilepsy which were both definite risks to the children, and he "left out" the Domestic Violence evidence and the Fathers psychopathic handwritten notes provided to him by the Mother. He did not send the Father for updated brain scans in relation to the very large white mass in his brain taking up a large portion of the left hemisphere and FLAIR signal in the right hemisphere.

The psychiatrist omitted the Mothers Evidence from the Report on advice of the Independent Children's Lawyer, who had also unlawfully filed the Fathers affidavit to give to the psychiatrist to defame the Mother only days before the interview. The ICL is supposed to be independent and not meet personally with or advocate for any Party, influence witnesses or fabricate evidence to support one Party. 

This was all strategically and tactically planned by the Lawyers to cover up the Fathers abuse of the Children, so he could get the Children alone and unsupervised, abuse them in private, and coach them not to tell anyone. That is a paedophile’s heaven.

Call to Action

Please help stop this from happening to other abused Mothers and Children. 

The Mother has appealed for Special Leave to High Court - and has to do it all alone with no legal support. The Federal Attorney-General refused to provide assistance and no lawyer would help her save the children.

She needs YOU to sign this petition to have the matter heard, so the High Court can clarify that the Family Law Act and the Criminal Code Act should have prevented this travesty and ALL THE INVOLVED JUDGES broke the law in this case. 

Where there is ANY evidence of Sexual Harm or Family Violence against a Mother and/or her Children, we want a guarantee that Women and Children will always be absolutely and immediately protected from Male Violence and Coercive Control in all its forms… with full physical, psychological, emotional safety and assistance from the Court and Government; and complete financial protection over the assets and income of the relationship so it is preserved for the benefit of the Victim and Children in equitable remedy.