11/11/2017
Currently seeking any information on Justice Stewart Austin.
In just a matter of minutes, it is easy to find that Justice Austin has a strong history of not only allowing child abuse, but dismissing it.
A brief history of Justice Austin:
In 2011, Justice Austin ordered sole custody to a father who was at the time on an AVO. He claimed that the father being unemployed was a benefit to the child, as opposed to the part-time working mother. In 2014, he ordered no contact between the child and mother.
Also in 2011, Justice Austin ruled that a father have no contact with his children after the mother ran a smear campaign, alienating him from his children. She had gone above and beyond to destroy the children's relationship with the father, which resulted in Justice Austin ruling in favour of the mother.
In 2012, while not directly linking to child abuse, but speaking to his character, Justice Austin forced a divorced man to dig up his parents ashes and handed his property to his former wife. The man was forced to remove headstones, dig up his parents ashes and hand the property over.
In 2014, Justice Austin allowed supervised contact for a father
who had tied his child to a chair and swung a samurai sword at them. When he heard evidence that the father had perpetrated substantial violence against the mother, he stated that ”The father’s decision to publicly admit his past violent behaviour changed nothing about the history of the parties’ relationship. His pleas of guilty were only a vindication of the mother’s allegations of past domestic violence.”
In 2015, he failed to notify relevant government bodies of abuse and ordered shared custody of a 3 year old child. The 3 year old repeatedly made s*xualised statements, had been given bourbon and child psychologists suggested that the child behaviour was indicative of abuse.
In 2016, Justice Austin allowed contact between a father and his son, after the father had hit the child with a bat. He labelled the children "troublesome", clearly overlooking the correlation between child abuse and child behavioural issues.
In 2017, Justice Austin ruled against a child psychologist and the JIRT team, who had already implemented no contact between a father and his daughters, after he was found to be s*xually abusing them. Justice Austin placed these children into the care of the father, despite his history of alcoholism, s*xual abuse against the children and many other concerns.
These are just some of the cases in which Justice Austin has ruled in favour of child abuse. In the quest for truth and disciplinary action, we seek all those who have had dealings similar to these by Justice Stewart Austin.
