Gumshoe News

by Dee McLachlan

I have just returned from Adelaide after three days filming. It was a privilege to meet Rachel Vaughan, and her elder half-sibling Andrew McIntyre. I am in awe of their capacity to keep composed and tell their story — against all odds.

Sunday was a thrilling start — filming Rachel, and taking her back to a site in Edwardstown that she had not visited for twenty years. She described to me in detail how she had emerged from the tunnels, in her youth, and precisely where. We went searching and found exactly what she described. It was a rewarding start for what was to be three exhausting days of filming.

To produce The Jammed, my film about sex trafficking in Melbourne, I had researched accounts of violent abuse. I had listened to the International Tribunal for Natural Justice testimony given by Rachel Vaughan, and earlier by Fiona Barnett with astonishing references to cruelty and murder. Thus, in regard to these last few days, I was expecting to be taken to the edge of the cliff, and peer down into the darkness. But I was not prepared for other things that took place on my trip.

On learning about a nine-year-old girl who has recently been abused by her pedophile father, and then further abused by the system, by being removed from her mother — I felt I was peering into the darkest corners of humanity.

As soon as I can, I will publish some videos with Andrew and Rachel describing the horrors of their youth, but for now I must write with urgency about that other young girl.

An Urgent Matter

I was introduced to the mother. I will call the mother “Darlene” and her daughter “Ellen.” There is a need for anonymity for legal reasons — or so I’m told — and I want to be sure not to increase the danger that both mother and daughter are in. Apparently, all Family Courts in Australia routinely issue a ‘gag order’ to prevent parties from publishing anything about their case. But consider how this affects a parent who is trying to exercise his or her right to cry for help on a criminal matter.

This article relates to a criminal matter — of serious child abuse — NOT being investigated. Darlene has experienced blockage by the court and the police in her attempts to take action. The focus has been on her mental health, and now the child, Ellen, has for some time been removed from both parents.

My Gumshoe colleague Mary Maxwell is always telling me that must be illegal for “the law” to attempt to prevent a citizen from the reporting of a crime. So how can it be right to gag-order a parent with a kid who has been clearly abused, and is now being further damaged by being separated? Darlene fears that if she disobeys, she could end up in prison for contempt of court — or worse, being barred from ever seeing her child! This is truly absurd. Madness.

I spoke to this mother (and another parent) at great length — and then offered to video-record her making a plea, as it were, to “the Members of the High Court of Australia, the Attorney General, and the Director of Public Prosecutions.”

Of course it is understandable for a court to silence members of a couple who are in a marital dispute, so they can’t ruin each other’s reputation. And I’m sure there are cases where the court has to deal with revengeful and drugged parents — but in this article I am discussing a clear case of PEDOPHILIA and CORRUPTION.

I think pedophilic thinking and all its machinations somehow controlling our institutions.

“Darlene’s” Story

Three years ago, Darlene came home from town early and caught her husband looking very suspicious, apparently having interfered sexually with their daughter. Darlene confronted him as little Ellen was absolutely beside herself — describing things that no child should describe.

What do you think happened next? It seems that there’s a system in place whereby a perpetrator, caught in flagrante delicto, phones a certain number and reports that the other person is in mental difficulty. This man had the number right there in his cell phone“at the ready.” It is the number of a government-owned “mental health service” (ACIS).

So this was my surprise — learning of what must be a clever pedo trick! Darlene says that the people her husband phoned arrived very quickly. And, yes, her mental health was immediately put into question — and she was taken off for a mental health assessment. This then became the focus, entirely taking the spotlight off the man or the plight of the child, even though five/six-year-old Ellen had described ‘someone’ putting a penis in her face.

The couple separated, and the daughter was in high distress when the court awarded custody to the father for a period. In fact, Ellen was so hysterical about being sent off to her father, that at the police station, two large men had to overpower this young child to force her into the car, per order of the Family Court.

After living for a time with her abuser, the girl gave the mother a clearer account. She had been penetrated, filmed, hogtied, cut, and bruised. My account here won’t go into detail — but I can assure the reader, the full story is appalling. I have seen some photographs of the cuts, and I suspect the child was a subject of kiddie porn. The reporting of various accounts resulted in the father being “red flagged,” but it seems that was not enough. The authorities wanted the child to be removed from the mother to foster care.

I can tell you Darlene is intelligent, educated, sane, caring and balanced. She used to run a business. Yet over these past few years she has been forced to go through countless mental health assessments (which she passed). And this is ongoing; even for the “privilege” of her weekly one-hour SUPERVISED visits with her beloved child.

The Effects of the Court’s Policies

The court system seems to be designed to entrap the caring parent. One hiccup, and the child is removed — resulting in the child being forced to suffer more damage. I believe no child can ever fully recover from such an experience. And it all looks quite deliberate.

The mother is however in constant fear with the threat that one misstep will result in the end of the one-hour supervised weekly visits, and the complete removal of her child. (She was warned once that she and her daughter were being too affectionate.)

What affected me so deeply is that the child is dissociating — and the once loving bond between daughter and mother (I saw the letters) is slowly being broken. The system is abusing and destroying the child. Because Ellen cannot understand why her mother doesn’t help her, after a few more months, she will probably disassociate from her mother.

Wait! I have just received a call – the kid did indeed attend the Mom’s supervised visit this week changed.

I used to hear accounts of the Child Protection Services doing exactly the opposite of what they should be doing. There is a rumor — a “dirty little secret” — that in Adelaide it’s “standard” for some public servants who work in the child-help area to be involved in protecting the harmful parent and destroying the protective parent.  Maybe that’s the case in all our cities.

After listening to the mother’s account, I could only come to one conclusion: there are elements in the Family Court system, Child Protection Services, South Australian Police, and Mental Health departments that have been infiltrated by powerful pedophiles or their lackeys. Moreover, if that’s not shocking enough, it is most likely that these children become “fodder” for the dark side.

Summary – Twelve Features of the Set-up

In sum, I list some indicators of corruption in this case. These may well apply to all cases (of caring fathers and mothers) if I am correct that there is a sinister plot involved:

1. The focus seems to be on trying to prove that one parent (in the above case, the mother) has a mental health problem.

2. There is an effort to break the bond between the caring parent(s) and child.

3. The mother is not allowed to discuss the abuse, and help her child emotionally — as this would be seen as coaching.

4. During the supervised visits, the court’s employee prevents the Mom from asking questions. (Perhaps that is why the visit are “supervised”?)

5. The child’s testimony is NOT recorded on video (or audio). Rather, an official interviewer transcribes the accounts, and in this instance left crucial facts out. (With no true record of, say, the child’s account, how can any case of abuse be prosecuted?)

6. The judge seems unwilling to look at the photographic evidence of injury, supplied by the mother.

7. The evidence of bloody clothing gets tampered with by the police. In this case, one important bloody item was returned washed.

8. The orders cause extreme distress for the child who, naturally, wants to be near the caring parent.

9. The court disregards the child’s wishes.

10. The authorities steadfastly fail to investigate the abuse. (Recall Rachel Vaughan’s list of attempts in her own case; she contacted everyone you could think of.)

11. There is an eagerness to put the child into foster care, and the authorities seem to overlook the law’s requirement that members of the extended family be first considered for that job.

12. The whole process is impoverishing. (Darlene lost her house.)

Finally we ask: What happens when a good barrister tries to act for the child?  Here is the pièce de résistance:  According to what I’ve heard in South Australia, the good barrister gets banned from the Family Court.

GumshoeNews will write to the Law Society of South Australia, the state’s professional body for barristers and solicitors, to ask if they have had complaints of this nature and what they have done about it. And I will be glad to hear from persons in any of the states regarding similar issues.

Note: I used the phrase “sinister plot” above.  What I have in mind is that the famous but always-elusive pedophile rings could be the force behind this unfathomable anti-family behavior. There seem to me no other reason for a judge to turn a deaf ear to a mother, or to preside over the wrong protocol — and systematically HARM THE CHILD.

Unfortunately, I am well aware that if I’m right about the “pedo factor” it will be hard to deal with. As parliamentary leader Peter Lewis said, people get “bumped off” for shedding light on that subject.

When I heard Darlene’s story, the bit that really stuck out was the husband’s cell phone. On being confronted, he immediately called the mental health organisation (ACIS). They arrive exceptionally fast, try prevent her from using her phone, then threaten her — forcing her to be taken off for a mental health examination. Would he not take her to their GP, or confer with her family?

This smells of pedophile intervention. I suggest the police investigate all the cases where ACIS were the first to arrive — and then to question those ACIS officials. With there being so many thousands of cases of child abuse in institutions that were supposed to be caring of children, I ask the question: Why did the Royal Commission not investigate those government bodies (e.g., Child Protection Services) that deal with the well-being of children  — to flush out the pedophiles, and those protecting them.

However, in any case we must deal with this spectacle of cruelty in the Family Court system.

— Dee McLachlan is the founder and editor of, published from Melbourne, Australia.