During his early years, Frank - the family's real names have been suppressed by the courts - made hundred of calls and applications to police, welfare organisations, the NSW Department of Community Services, parliamentarians and the Family Court. But it was not until 1984, when the child was four years old, that at least some members of the department appear to have begun taking the accusations seriously.

A report by an independent clinical psychologist gave a graphic account of James attempting to have oral sex with her - behaviour considered to have been acquired from a woman. A departmental psychologist and a child protection worker then interviewed the mother and the child. They concluded that James was an "emotionally deprived little boy who has been sexually abused and has been exposed to adult sexual behaviour".

For almost two years from this date, the father was prevented from seeing his son through Family Court orders, actions by departmental officers and recommendations by Sydney psychiatrist Dr Brent Waters, who had been a favourite of DOCS, the Family Court and Legal Aid over many years.

Waters recommended custody be with the mother and that the father be denied access. The Citizens Commission on Human Rights, which campaigned for the Chelmsford deep sleep inquiry in the 1980s, has helped prepare a number of complaints against Waters in the past year. Waters has declined to comment.

The journal Psychiatry, Psychology and the Law's editor-in-chief Dr Ian Freckleton says there is a long  and disappointing history of bureaucracies responsible for the welfare of child not acknowledging errors.

"A particular difficulty exists in relation to the independence of advise," he says. "Welfare department often utilise services offered by mental health professionals who interlink with the departments in a complex of advisory, consultant and expert roles, all of which can be well paid and career-enhancing."

Repeated attempts by Frank in the early 80s to gain custody failed. In 1986, James was bashed with a cricket bat. Frank Alleges the boy's mother's then de facto husband was responsible. The man was never questioned. A Children's Hospital report from the time reports evidence of a recent severe beating "suggesting he had been held on the face and struck". The report noted "extensive bruising ... blue-black in colour" and records the six-year-old's long association with the hospital for similar problems.

In desperation, the father finally gained full custody of his son by locating the home of the then federal attorney-general Lionel Bowen. Braving dogs, he knocked on the door. Bowen was not at home but his wife answered the door and listened to Frank's story. James has not seen his mother since.

The Ten network;s footage of teh child when he was 11 shows a quiet, well-mannered boy asking: "Why was it me, why was it me that got hurt?" He said his mother "should be put in jail for life, I just hate her".

James, now 20, is on medication and rarely leaves the house. He has consistently maintained for several years that he remembers psychiatrist Waters saying: "Don't tell anyone about the naughty things mummy's doing."

"I was so young," James recalls. "The main things that come across now - I get flashbacks: a smell, and idea can trigger them. It is more a sense of fear. I used to dream a lot, nightmares ... about my mother. I was extremely scared of her. I remember certain episode and events ... when her husband beat me with a cricket bat ... I felt anger, but more than anything, no I feel pity."

The obsessive campaign for justice by Frank has touched many of Australia's best known people and has been mentioned in parliament 14 times. Among the judges who ruled against the father was Elizabeth Evatt, a former chief justice of the Family Court and now a member of the UN Human Rights Committee. Justice John Ellis, now a senior Family Court judge, also ruled against Frank.

The dozens of politicians whom the father approached - unsuccessfully - for help include Paul Keating, Gareth Evans, Neville Wran, NSW Minister for Women Faye Lo Po' and NSW Police Minister Paul Whelan.

DOCS officers in the early 1980s accused the father of being violent and threatening a number of solicitors. None of these accusations was proved.

After press coverage his local member, the then shadow minister for industrial relations John Howard, called for an independent inquiry. In 1992 he told parliament: "I have satisfied myself, from very lengthy interviews with my constituent and from an exhaustive examination of a huge file, that the complaints that he has brought to me about the conduct of officers of the then Youth and Community Services Commission in NSW are justified". Independent Ted Mack also claimed welfare officers showed "prejudice and bias ... against the father when he made efforts to protect his child".

Two decades of discord 1978: "Frank" and his wife marry in Syria, arrive in Australia. 1979: Wife is pregnant, admitted to psychiatric hospital. 1980: "Janes" is born underweight. Eight weeks later, Frank makes his first calls to welfare officers and police. 1980-82: Frank alleges neglect and abuse by his wife, including hitting, burning and throwing the child against a wall. Makes hundreds of phone calls and visits to authorities. 1982: Wife moves to Marrickville Women's Refuge. Residents also allege abuse, including the boy being tied to a cot. Alleged sexual abuse begins. 1983: Child is living with his mother and another alleged female perpetrator. Frank makes repeated application to what was then the Department of Youth and Community Services, the Family court, churches and other organisations for the child to be removed. 1984: Child protection workers and psychologists confirm sexual abuse and neglect. The child provides detailed statement of alleged oral sex. The department, Sydney child psychiatrist Dr Brent Waters and the child's Legal Aid solicitor recommend the child remains with his mother. In May, Frank refuses to return the child. Police on instruction from Family Court return the child to his mother. Frank does not see the child for two years. 1985: Frank constantly makes requests to authorities to remove the child to safety; he approaches the home of the then federal attorney-general Lionel Bowen after 68 trips to Canberra seeking help from politicians. 1986: The child is badly bashed with cricket and becomes a ward of the state. July: Frank gains full custody. 1991-92: The Weekend Australian breaks the story of the child abuse bungle. John Howard calls for an inquiry. 1993: 5000 people sign a petition to parliament demanding an inquiry. The Independent Commission Against Corruption decides not to investigate. Frank begins proceedings in the NSW Supreme Court. 1997: The trial for damages begins in NSW Supreme Court. After three weeks, Frank attempts to sack Alec Shand QC from the case. Instead, Frank is removed as "tutor". 1999: Judgment absolves a string of officers from what is now the Department of Community Services and Waters of wrongdoing, but finds the department in breach of duty of care. The NSW Department of Public Prosecutions charges the mother with physical abuse of the child. 2000: The NSW Supreme Court find that, though DOCS was negligent, the link between negligence and damage to the child cannot be established, therefore compensation is not paid. May 30: Local Court magistrate Hugh Dillon finds the NSW Police Service Performance in the case was "appalling", but grants permanent stay of the case against the mother because of passage of time.

The weekend Australian concluded in the early 90s that documents unearthed under freedom-of-information legislation showed government officers had made false claims that the father was an arsonist.

The Ethnic Affairs Commission also expressed concerns.

During the past eight years, Frank has sought compensation via the NSW Supreme Court. Last year, after 64 days in court and a transcript stretching to 3000 pages and 330 exhibits, the court handed down a judgment absolving a string of DOCS officers of bias and negligence.

'I believe every
child should be
given every right to
live without abuse
and pain'

However, the court did find the department I'm "in breach of its duty of care owed to the plaintiff" in failing to fully investigate affidavits that alleged abuse of the child, filed by a women who had lived at the refuge where James and his mother were staying.

The court also found the department failed to attend promptly on notification of a child at risk to provide material and give clear written instructions to Waters.

Psychiatric reports link the son's present problems with his early sexual abuse. However, in a subsequent ruling last April, the NSW Supreme Court found there was
absent an essential link in the chain of causation" between breaches of duty of care by DOCS ann conditions now suffered by the son. Justice Timothy Studdert was unable to conclude that due investigation "would have led in the exercise of reasonable care to the avoidance of ... exposure to sexual abuse".

Frank believes his son needs treatment and the ruling leaves him without vital help. His main focus now is his outrage at the way the NSW Supreme Court dealt with the case.

He originally acted as "tutor" or guardian, for his son, the plaintiff. Well known Sydney silk Alec Shand QC took on the case. In the end, the father was removed from the case after allegations that his emotional involvement went against his son's best interests.

Frank may very well not have helped his case through the years by calling everyone who would not help him, including judges, politicians and police, "evil, disgusting, protectors of paedophilia" and so on. Transcripts from the Supreme Court show much legal huffing and puffing over the man's "scurrilous" attacks.

Frank alleged in a complaint to the Legal Services Commission that Shand, once granted legal aid "hijacked" the case. He alleges that Shand deliberately concealed evidence from the court and failed to cross examine witnesses. The commission found no wrongdoings on the part of Shand.

Frank believes that the system, including the judiciary and politicians generally, has acted to protect the interconnecting webs of Legal Aid, DOCS and the Family Court. He says that his case is not just a failure of the system" "I am saying the whole system is immoral, inhuman.

"The abuse of my son was known to the authorities from when my son was weeks old to when he was 6^1/2. Instead of the system protecting my son from horror abuse, they left my son in a dangerous situation and then proceeded to protect the people who were abusing him.

"I believe one thing" every child should be given the right to live without abuse and pain and suffering."

Although Frank has been dismissed by members of the legal profession as "paranoid" and "unpleasant", his is not that uncommon a view. Whistleblowers Australia's national president Dr Jean Lennane says DOCS, Legal Aid and the Family court "have very close connection - incestuous you might say".

"What tends to happen is that the aggrieved party, the whistleblower or litigant early on gets labelled as a troublemaker and mentally unbalanced, unofficially or with the help of a hired-gun psychiatrist or psychologist," says Lennane.

"Once that has happened, nobody in any part of the bureaucracy is usually willing to examine the facts of the original complaint. You find it constantly. The main point is the waste of public money.

The scars of what happened to the family in the early 80s are still visible. James after struggling to concentrate at school, is at a turning point, not sure where his life will lead.

His mother has remarried and has two other children.

Frank, a pensioner, is fearful that he will be hit with a cost order for millions of dollars for his Supreme Court Action. His hope that his case would help stop other children being abused and provide a comfortable future for his son is in ashes.

He believes there are other fathers doing, as he did, everything they can to protect their children and being frustrated in the process. "There is no doubt it is still happening today," he says.

Statistical risks Although there has been little Australian research, international studies indicate that children are most at risk of abuse from their mothers. US The US Government's 1997 report Child Maltreatment found 62.3 per cent of perpetrators were women. The Heritage Foundation Study, The Child Abuse Crisis, found that of the approximately 2000 children killed each year, 55 per cent were killed by mothers, 25.7 per cent by live-in boyfriends, 12.5 per cent by stepfathers, and 6.8 per cent by biological fathers. The 1995 report US National Incidence of Child Abuse and Neglect found that where maltreatment led to death, 78 per cent of perpetrators were female. Boys were four times more likely to be fatally abused and 24 per cent more likely to be seriously abused than girls. UK The book Broken Homes and Battered Children reports that the child of a biological mother cohabiting with a man other than the natural father is 33 times more likely to suffer serious abuse that a child with married natural parents. Australia Although there is a contention over what constitutes a substantiation, the latest statistics from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, based on an amalgam of data from some states, suggests 31 per cent of child abuse cases occur in natural families, 20 per cent in step or blended families, 40 per cent in single-mother households and 5 per cent in single-father households.

Return to Child Abuse Intro Page