top of page

Trading Children — The Open Market in Australia and the Global Black Market

by Dee McLachlan

We have all heard and read about the reports on “child trafficking” across the globe. They range from children without birth certificates being trafficked across borders; to organ harvesting, adrenochrome, and child sacrifice. And at the end of the article, I include below Clayton Morris’s (Redacted) video about Mel Gibson’s new documentary series exposing Hollywood. That’s the Black Market.

But in this article, I’ll write about the Open Market — in plain sight — of trading children in Australia. It is a huge and profitable business. From my work and investigations over the last few years in child “protection” I produced a report entitled:

“A Report on the Exploitation of Children in Australia”

The objective of the report is to initiate investigations into the business of profiting from the trade or trafficking of children (not those cases where legitimate protection of children is required). This is a concise extract of the report:

It may be difficult to understand how this could be possible in Australia. There were 8,000 victims of institutional abuse [the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses into Child Sexual Abuse] but many believe this report (referring to exploitation) is a greater stain on the country. Some estimate that there could be over fifteen plus thousand children either unlawfully or entirely unwarrantedly taken from their parent/s for financial gain. Advantaging laws of secrecy, this is a brutal reality hidden in plain sight.

Matters on Notice

  1. The trading of children (i.e., Child trafficking) is defined as the wrongful or unlawful “removal” or exploitation of children for financial gain or reward… by the continuing exploitation of their victims.

  2. The Conspiracy to Defeat the Course of Justice to obstruct, prevent, pervert or defeat the course of justice in the Children’s Courts across Australia.

  3. The AFP has primary law enforcement responsibility for investigating serious or complex Fraud and Corruption against the Commonwealth — including unlawful use of material or services, causing a loss, misuse of Commonwealth assets, and cartel conduct.

This Notice details how certain government agencies, public servants, and outside contractors are using the child protection system to facilitate and incentivize the wrongful and unwarranted removal of Australian children from their homes. These children are “processed” through the Children’s courts, and their removal from a loving mother and/or father through secretive and deceptive practices is criminal. These persons conspired, knowingly or unknowingly to defeat the course of justice and harmed children. The consequences of the three aforementioned crimes are that they are harming generations of Australian children and their protective parents and families.

Overview of Harm

The process and consequences of removing a child from a loving relationship and parent is one of the worst forms of psychological abuse to the child. Science demonstrates that it alters the child’s brain and is not only a society disruptor, but it can destroy the family and break the sacred biological bond of motherhood. …these actions can be considered calamitous and catastrophic. …Sir James Munby explained the gravity of family cases or a child subject to care proceedings … and Paediatrics professor at Harvard Medical School, Charles Nelson – on separating a loving parent-child bond – as reported in the Washington Post, said: “The effect is catastrophic… There’s so much research on this that if people paid attention at all to the science, they would never do this”.

Understanding Child Protection in Australia

 “Children and young people in Australia have the right to grow up safe, connected and supported in their family, community and culture. They have the right to grow up in an environment that enables them to reach their full potential.” (Source)

The government mantra is an aspirational endeavour to keep children safe. However, the default solution for “protection” seems to be to “child removals” with presently over 60,000 children in state care – i.e., Out-of-Home-Care (OOHC)… It is also almost impossible to obtain raw factual data on the children in care as the industry and children’s courts operate in SECRET; but anecdotally the protection agencies are in many instances the antithesis of this message. Children taken into government care are more likely to be harmed; their families disrupted and the child’s potential stunted. It’s generational…

Tens of thousands of people benefit financially through the removal of children from unsafe and safe homes… Many people’s livelihoods depend on children being so-called protected (i.e., removed). The more children removed through the courts into OOHC, the larger become the budgets… A natural consequence of behavioural economics…

The impact of the unwarranted removal of children from their rightful homes for financial incentives is corroding the very fabric of society and is resulting in social fracturing. …the impact of their actions on Australian society is momentous, damaging and far-reaching.

Child Abuse and the Business of Child Removals

There is a collective denial about child abuse and this is partly due to ignorance and apathy. It has come to light that the police PROTOCOL is to conceal child sexual abuse evidence — unless impossible to do so. When a protective parent reports sexual abuse of their child, the most likely outcome is that they lose their child.

These actions go against science. A well-researched paper, by Collin-Vézina, De La Sablonnière-Griffin, Palmer & Milne, 2015 p.123, initiated by the NSW Office of the Children’s Guardian (OCG) presented a study noting Australia, shockingly, as having the highest reported rate for child sexual abuse of girls internationally at 21.5% (Stoltengorgh, van Ijzendoorn, Euser, & Bakersman- Kranenburg, 2011)…

The Australian Legislative Ethics Commission (ALECOMM) … demonstrates that court decisions escalate risk for children… So-called Independent Children’s Lawyers and Family Court Experts often encouraged the courts to send children that had disclosed sexual abuse back to live with their abuser and that contact with the protective parent cease.

It is obvious that some children need to be kept safe from a damaged or dangerous home, but with over 60,000 children in OOHC; the number of these children that fall into this serious at-risk category is unknown. However, many advocates and researchers estimate that maybe 50% of children in OOHC were possibly removed unwarrantedly/ unlawfully.

Understanding the “Trading of Children” Industry in Australia

Of course, there are some children in need of rescuing, but this should have proper civil or criminal judicial oversight – and not through the 1692 Oyer and Terminer-like star-chamber fronts called Children’s and Youth Courts.

The secrecy in Children’s courts is allegedly to protect the privacy of a child, but it is being used to protect the perpetrators and disguise the malicious “business of removals”. There is a culture of secrecy and a culture of concealing child sexual abuse. There are various methods used to sabotage the child-protective parent bond and the vulnerable often through the writing of psychological opinion reports where one sentence can be used to damn a good parent. These “expert’s” opinions are often bought to facilitate court removals. It would be more accurate to say, “The matter is before the star-chamber”. And once these children are removed into state care they become assets (units) or ‘chattel’ for an industry that offers huge financial incentives in the OOHC industry.

Even when criminality by public servants is exposed, the protection agencies and public servants seem unable to reverse “the trade” and right a wrong. The children trafficked by state government agencies have, in effect, a “No Return Policy”.

Understanding Exploitation

The word “child trafficking” conjures up images of African children between the ages of 8 and 14 being forcibly put onto trucks, and driven across the Liberian border to work on the Ivory Coast cocoa plantations.  As an example, the worth of each child is determined by the child’s output in labour over several years – which might be in the region of A$8-10/day. The earnings from trading children are derived from the sale of cocoa. A trafficked child (teen) might be “valued” around A$3,000 each year to the ‘syndicate’…

In contrast… each child brought into the system in Australia, becomes a “unit”, an asset, [and] roughly equates to $90,000 to $150,000 per unit (child) in care annually. Special needs children are said to ‘cost’ (in services) up to $350 – 450,000 annually; this is further supported by the NDIS. The more children under guardianship…  the more (tax) money is required, resulting in ever-increasing salaries and fees, and profits. In Australia, the money that supports those financially benefitting from unlawful removals is sourced through deceit (fraud) on the taxpayer.

Many mechanisms are in place to facilitate unwarranted removals … [and] make no sense – except if one considers these children are mere “assets” to an industry benefitting in obtaining and trading of children – where children have a value and where profits are enhanced by the expanding “traffic” in product… [and] more money is transferred to fund the industry of justice in the children’s and youth court star-chambers. Huge financial gains are earned through judicial processes when these unlawful removals are challenged in the courts. This falls under the Attorney-general’s department and is further fraud on the Commonwealth.

[End of report extract. The report outlines the mechanisms and examples of money spent and exchanged.]

Questions: How much is the Out of Home Care industry worth to Australia? How much money is spent on the family, and then on children’s courts in Australia? One case I cite demonstrates that possibly $2 million dollars was spent and earned just because one female police officer concealed horrific child abuse, writing in her entry notes “nil disclosures”. The child was removed because the officer lied. It’s a national disgrace. And there are hundreds of similar cases.

And now to the black market…

Mel Gibson (on Redacted)


bottom of page