?
Robyn's mother, Mrs Doreen Brown was murdered on 20 October 1997 at Nerang in Queensland.
Her husband, Les Brown has been charged with the offence. He was previously convicted of murdering his first wife, and Doreen Brown had been to the Gold Coast Corrective Services Department saying she felt her life was in danger, prior to her death.
Corrective Services stated an investigation into the department's handling of her fears was to follow once an independent head could be appointed. To date, family members have not received any information on the investigation or its outcome.
Doreen and Les Brown had an eighteen-month-old daughter Robyn. Doreen had two adult sons from her first marriage, Terry and Danny, and four other minor children. Danny's half sister , Robyn, was taken into foster care, under a care and protection order from the Family, Youth and Community Services in Queensland.
Danny, who lives in Perth, Western Australia, in asking about Robyn's care, was advised that her natural father had pleaded not guilty to the offence, and he retained legal guardianship. He was advised it was Les Brown's decision to have Robyn brought up by his adult daughter from his first marriage. Danny was also advised that Robyn would not be able to leave the state at this time, until the court case was heard.
Danny made numerous calls to family members in Queensland to find out Robyn's whereabouts and was told she was fostered by a staff member of the Government department who were monitoring what was to happen in the long term.
He was in the intermediate period following his mother's death, kept informed of Robyn's welfare by his older brother Terry and younger brother Chris, who maintained they kept in regular contact with her and her carers, included supervised visits.
As happens in such cases Danny and Terry, Robyn's only two adult siblings on her mothers side, fell out over Terry's handling of the situation and the care of the younger children, who returned to their natural father's care. Terry ceased any contact with Danny. During this period, Terry lead such a transient lifestyle follow up became impossible.
In the last few months he has been unable to find out any information other than the 15-year old Chris, stating he kept in touch with Robyn and all was okay. Danny was not told by anyone of a change in circumstances.
On the 26th August 1998, Danny contacted the authorities, and finally spoke to the Department of Family, Youth and Community Care, Mermaid Beach, and spoke with Robyn's caseworker. He apparently was told as no member of the family expressed any interest in the child she had been adopted in April 1998, just 4 months earlier, outside the family, and it had been finalised and there was nothing he could do. That Robyn's identity had been changed. He was informed that with the consent of, and only with her adoptive parents consent, he could write a letter to the child and it would be given to her at age eighteen.
Danny received no contact whatsoever in regard to this adoption.
Danny and his wife wanted to provide a home for Robyn and every approach
was thwarted. He has always been able to offer a loving family home.
Danny with his family
Danny is happily married and they are parents of three young sons. They are financially stable and we would welcome his half sister into their home permanently, with the full support of their extended family.
Danny with his mum, Doreen (Dee)
It is imperative that Robyn returns to her natural family. A stable home always was and is available and Robyn is entitled to know her mother through the eyes of a caring and loving brother, and to grow and be loved by her own family.
Danny with his sons
Robyn's case worker further stated 'there was never an approach made by Danny', which we amended 'to her directly', but in fact Danny had contacted family members, the Police and Public Trustee, but was given little information. He was told his elder sibling Terry was handling the matters. The case worker further stated ' it isn't her job to find the family, they should have come to her'.
It is hoped that the onus would fall on the case worker, relevant department or courts to ensure that both immediate family members was not suitable, not the word of a the person charged with the child's mothers murder.
The Caseworker recently stated that 'Les didn't have a bad word to say about Dee, and only wanted the best for Robyn', for her to dare to voice those words after Les had wound a telephone chord around Dee's neck until she died taking her from her daughter and other children, is beyond all reason.
Les Brown was a parolee, previously convicted of murder, stabbing his first wife numerous times.
The case worker stated "that every measure was made to contact the extended family", yet readily agreed that no effort at all was made to contact Danny, and no explanation offered, other than 'it's not my job'.
Yet in fact Doreen only had two adult siblings that would need to be considered. Terry and Danny. Terry had Danny's contact numbers and address as did every member of his mother's side of the family.
Danny served 5 years in the Army and could be found through their records, or the Army Reserve in which he continues to serve, or through the Public Trustee who is handling his mother's affairs or through Doreen Brown's own address book, or phone bills (as Doreen rang Danny on numerous occasions) or the Electoral Roll. Many easy options apparently ignored.
The case worker stated on her many visits to Les Brown in custody, she and he worked together to do what was best for Robyn. One of the hardest part of this to accept, is that Les Brown, a double murderer should have forfeited all rights to Robyn’s welfare the day he strangled her mother with a phone cord, and the family were told that the day of Doreen's funeral, but months later, Les, apparently has the right to sign Robyn away for adoption to strangers, a man that has this history can not possibly be relied on to decide Robyn's future without any input from her mother's caring son.
It is well known and documented, the detrimental effects of being adopted and always searching for your family, imagine doing the search and coming up with the fact that your mother was murdered by your father and that not one person in your own blood family could have taken you as a two year old, Robyn has the right to grow up with her family. A decision has been made to say she no longer has the right to know of her mother as she grows up, or grow with her sibling, and his children. Her father stole all this from her, with the help of mismanagement of this by the case worker.
Queensland's Adoption of Children Act 1964 s15 states: 15. The director, before making an order for the adoption of a child, may give notice of the director's intention to make the order -
(a) any person (not being a person whose consent to the adoption of the child is required under section 19) with whom the child resides or has the care and custody of the child; and
where it appears to the director to be desirable to do so - to any other person.
Why was Danny, Robyn's brother not told of the intention to adopt??????
Queensland's Adoption of Children Act 1964 s16. (1) states:
The director may apply to the Supreme Court for an order discharging an order for the adoption of a child made under this Act or under the repealed Acts, and the court may make such an order if it is satisfied that-
(a) the child has not attained the age of 18 years: and
(b) the adoption order, or any consent for the purposes of the adoption order, was obtained by fraud, duress or other improper means, or that there is some other exceptional reason why, subject to the welfare and interests of the child, the adoption order should be discharged.
Why are they not doing this now this error has been brought to the director's notice????
Precedents have been set in a similar case S {1969} VR 490., where a Caseworker based the welfare report on ‘incorrect assumptions’, and the Court found a ‘serious mistake’ had been made and discharged the Adoption Application AD 58/1984 (1987) L.R. 578.
The UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD (1989) states:
UNCROC Reference Number 7 (1) and Number 9 and the Hague Preamble Number 4:
UNCROC Reference Article 5 and 7 (1) and Hague Preamble Number 4:
UNCROC Number 18 Hague Preamble:
AUSTRALIA IS A PARTY TO THIS AGREEMENT
Most importantly, all they want is to have Robyn with them, safe and loved, where she belongs. Danny and his family will do what ever is necessary to get this Adoption discharged.
We have received support from many too numerous to list
- our thanks for your assistance and to all those that
have advised and listened through these difficult times!
The State Ombudsman for Queensland has replied and says he will look into our claims, on completion of the Children's Commissioner Report.
The Children's Commissioner is investigating the adoption also, and we await that report before we move onto the next step.
The Minister, Anna Bligh, at first replied appreciating our anxiety, and that all possible options were to be explored, and she considered the matter a high priority yet in fact another seven weeks and the elections have passed and although she has failed to reply formally we had a call from the department on her behalf, to say no action will be taken to help us.
Perhaps now the elections have finished there is no need to appear to care????
It is horrific the case worker for whom Anna Bligh MP is ultimately responsible did not do her job, but unbelievable they will not act now.
Our response has been that the only option is to have Robyn with her natural family, and still, we are not being considered an option, there has not been a home visit, interview or report by a Government Agency or Representative on our family circumstances.
On 2nd October, 1998, the Minister, Anna Bligh and the Director General of Family Services met and reviewed a report prepared by the Department, in response to our request to have the adoption discharged in these exceptional circumstances.
On the 5th October, 1998, on instruction from Ken Smith,
Director General of Family Services,
Margaret Allison (Director) advised us by phone that no options in fact were to be offered to Danny.
The adoption is considered valid and
there is no basis for revocation. This is their final comment to us.
She stated there is no more we can do and that the adoptive parents were not to be
told of this situation.
They are speaking for them? As they did by ignoring Danny? Without their knowledge? Surely if her adoptive parents knew of this terrible wrong, and truly love and care about Robyn and her future, they would let her return to her family. We can only imagine there loss if they did, we live with our murdered mother's and sister, Robyn's every single minute.
How can we be told their is no option, Robyn cannot be returned to us, it is within their guidelines.
The Adoption Act 1964 Act allows for this adoption to be discharged by the director's application to the Supreme Court, why do they continue to cover this up? What more are they hiding? Who has really adopted Robyn????
While we continue our fight, this terrible situation will continue and Robyn will remain outside the family in the short term, increasing the suffering of all concerned.
While the Department continue to hide the truth, we will take the required legal action to apply for custody of Robyn.
Anna Bligh ALP Minister of Family Services in Queensland
and demand she have the Director apply to the Supreme Court to
have this adoption discharged immediately! It is within the law and morally,
ethically the only solution.
?
Please help us find Robyn by to us
or just send some words of support!
Please pass this page on to your family and friends - someone must know something!
Robyn we love you!!!