Dear Big Nana,

I worked for the Department of Community Services
Library years ago here in Melbourne. The Child
Protection Unit was on the same floor as the
Library and we did a great deal of research for
them.

The shortage of staff that existed in that
department at that time was dreadful - they had more
case files than they could handle. The staff were
over worked and over stressed. And of course there
were quite a few famous cases of children dying
while under their supposed protection.

I remember
one famous case of a two year old little boy who
was bashed to death by his mother's boyfriend.
It was a gut-wrenching case where the Child Protection
Unit had 100s of pages of reports on this child
being mistreated and nothing had been done to try to
save him. The out cry came only after the child died.
A case of too little too late.

You're absolutely spot on. Children need far more protection
than they're given. We're kinder to animals.

that animals seem to get more protection
Big Nana,
Yes and, not only the cuddly ones, the human animals too !

Big Nana,
I notice that you did not mention the many other cases of child neglect aas you could have. For instance: child sexual abuse as highlighted by the Tennant Creek situation. Or this situation shown below.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/child-rape-sentence-pathetic/news-story/279589a380757e6c0597cb3461158461

I know of your concern as I recall you mentioning the fact that medicos were howled down when they suggested to test the children for STD when testing for other things during the NT 'Intervention'.

I do not know how we can better protect children at present but perhaps in future, when we can turn female fertility on and off, females will have to show they can adequately care for a child before they are able to become pregnant. At present anyone with a womb can have a baby irrespective of their ability or circumstances.

The increasing world population may force humans to make such decisions.

Dear Foxy,

«This is a heartbreaking tragedy.»

For whom?

For you it may seem so, but which would you prefer: being raised by a narcomaniac mother, on a path to a life of crime, on a path to be institutionalised in Australia's notorious hell-holes for juvenile delinquents - or drowning once, suffering physically for a couple of minutes, but then passing on from a cold body of water into a new body of warm water, within the womb of a new mother with renewed chances for a good and fruitful life?

Where from is this assumption as if living is always better than dying? It is simply not true! Perhaps these two boys were only sentenced by their karma for 3 and 5 years respectively, or perhaps they received an early pardon and can now look forward towards a brighter future.

Alcohol has a lot to answer for, and not just among people identifying as aboriginal. This popular drug should be enough to put anyone completely against the very idea of legalising other drugs. It has been said many times that alcohol would not be permitted now, on modern guidelines and legalities.

The old fire water could well have been the cause of the death of two children according to Big Nana's last post. In the meantime, we have to wait for the courts to decide the facts. It is hard to believe that the mother would not be suffering terribly, no matter if she was culpable or not.

I have read many comments on social media, as well as here, about how the mother must have loved those children, regardless of her neglect.
I hate to disagree, but if you love someone you do your best for them, especially helpless children. Addicts love their addictions more than their children. Many mothers love their boyfriends more than their children.
Maternal love is supposed to mean sacrificing yourself for your children. Too late to claim love when they are dead.