Rspca

[espinay2]

Imagine you have an old dog who is perhaps a bit doddery, a bit thin in body or coat (perhaps a thyroid issue which you are medicating for) and not looking in its prime any more (a few people won't have to imagine, but just look at the beloved dog at their feet).

Imagine that someone who doesnt know you sees your well loved and well cared for old dog, and thinks you are horribly disgusting and cruel as the dog is obviously in 'poor condition' and suffering...and then reports you to the RSPCA.

They now have the right to enter your home (in NSW at least) and seize your dog as they can 'beleive' based on this report that your dog is subject to cruelty.

[asal]

From the relevant NSW Act: Note that "land" includes "premises"

PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACT 1979 - SECT 24E

Power to enter land

24E Power to enter land

<b>

(1) An inspector may enter land for the purpose of exercising any

function

under this Division.

(2) Despite subsection (1), an inspector may

exercise

a power under this Division to enter a dwelling only with the consent of the

occupier of the dwelling, the authority of a search warrant

or if the inspector

believes on reasonable grounds that:

(a) an

animal

has suffered significant physical injury, is in imminent danger of suffering

significant physical injury or has a life threatening condition that requires

immediate

veterinary

treatment

, and

(b)

it is necessary to

exercise

the power to prevent further physical injury or to prevent significant physical

injury to the

animal

or to ensure that it is provided with

veterinary

treatment

.

</b>

or if the inspector

believes on reasonable grounds that:

it is necessary to exercise

the power to prevent further physical injury or to prevent significant physical

injury to the animal

or to ensure that it is provided with veterinary

treatment.

Yes and there you have it.

your child can die in your home and it cannot be entered or broken into by Doc's. Remember the case of the little boy stuffed into a suitcase and thrown into a dam by his own mother, Shillingsworth, Doc's had some half dozen calls the child was in danger, maybe the wrong people have been given the wrong piece of legislation?

Yet these people have it all sewn up, when they want to that is.

BUT they all to often can and do, choose to keep "their hands tied" as so many have seen with the "cant do anything, it has water and evidance of food". But let em "form the opinion" and your ass is grass, along with the life and well being of your animals as both those cattle and the koala's owners discovered, then they move faster than the storm troopers.

Why does this happen?

Pretty much many and varied, too many for us to figure, in my friend Marion's case, made the very bad mistakes of thinking she had any 'rights' whatever, worse, offended the Special Constable and ordered him to leave her property. He did along with ten of her 17 horses.

Mine, re String , as the letter I finally received from the Dept of Ag, a fellow breeder, called in my chips to someone willing to "form the opinion".

Edited October 8, 2012 by asal

[asal]

Thanks Steve,

for those who would like to view the letter, I have copied it from the pdf. as for the hansard wonder how long that would take

3rd June 2010

The Honorable Members

General Purpose Standing Committee No.5

Inquiry into the R S P C A raid on the Waterways Wildlife Park

Dear Members,

My full name is Leon Andrew Mills and I have resided in Gunnedah since 1982, I moved to Gunnedah as a result of my applying for the Police Prosecutors position for the Gunnedah Local Court Circuit. I continued in that position until my retirement in 2006. In 2008 I stood in the Local Government elections and was successful in gaining office as a Gunnedah Shire Councillor. I am still in that position today.

The two submission I would like the Honorable Committee to consider are that the compliance section of the RSPCA 9RSPCA Inspectors) be disbanded and that all the duties that they try to perform in relation to the investigation and brief preparation for alleged offences under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1979 (the Act), be given to sworn Constables of the NSW Police Force in particular the Rural Crime Unit.

My second submission is that all prosecutions under the Act by done by Police Prosecutors in the Local Court jurisdiction.

RSPCA Inspectors obtain their powers s a result of being issued an Authority under .section 4D(2) of the Act. In relation to this Inquiry it is clear that Inspectors Prowse and French have no idea of their powers. I say that on this basis, the Act is clear in relation to what an inspector can do and is set out in Division 2 of the Act. On the Friday following the taking of the Koalas a report was broadcast on the 6.30am local A B C News that Officer Prowse said the reason for taking the Koalas was that they were “stressed”. There is no power under the Act to take an animal that is stressed. It alledging distress, as referred to in Section 24H subsection (5) of the Act, there is no evidence at all that any of these animals were suffering debility, exhaustion or significant physical injury.

To support what I am submitting, the Honorable Committee would note that the Officers examined the Koalas at about 10.30-11am. They gave no treatment to these Koalas from that time until after 4.30pm, why? There was nothing wrong with them, and of course we are talking about Officers that would be expected to take immediate action if an animal was suffering debility, exhaustion or significant physical injury. These two Officers had to do something and they illegally removed these Koala for the sole purpose of the T V show R S P C A Animal Rescue. To further support this submission the head of the R S P C A Mr Steve Coleman said no proceedings would be taken against Nancy Small as a result of community outrage.

I completely reject this statement. As a former Police Prosecutor of 28 years both in the city and country on rare occasions there is community outrage when some proceedings are taken. I have never before heard of proceedings for a criminal matter being abandoned or not brought because of community outrage. The reason there were no proceedings brought was that there was nothing wrong with these animals.

Offences under the act are Criminal. Officers French and Prowse were supposed to be “investigating” this matter. It is interesting to note the quality of this so called investigation. No interview with Nancy Small or any other carers of these Koalas. No exhibits such as, stool samples, feed provided in the Koala enclosure, photos for identifications of each Koala, no tagging for identification.

When one looks at the R S P C A Seizure Notice re this matter S N 010 16 the Officers have not even identified the Koalas to the extent of their sex. This so called investigation is absolutely pathetic and shows the quality of how RSPCA inspectors carry out their duties.

The N S W police have a branch now called the Rural Crime Unit these branches operated both in the city and country. They are staffed by sworn Police who have been fully trained in investigation techniques. Many of these Officers are fully trained Detectives. It would be my respectful submission that these officers should take over the compliance section of the R S P C A. Of course it would require extra staff and resources. It would be my suggestion that appropriate funding could be transferred from the funding the State Government gives to the R S P C A to the Police Budget.

Another benefit of a transfer to Police is that all Police investigations are subject to review by independent authorities such as the Ombudsman or I C A C. This is not the case with R S P C A inspectors, they answer to no one other than themselves. On the 18th of February last I attended the local branch meeting of the R S P C A as the head of the organization Mr Steve Coleman was attending. During the course of the meeting he answered a number of questions re the Waterways incident. Mrs. Dodd asked him a question being, “who can I complain to”, Mr Coleman’s response was “the Chief Inspector of the RS S P C A”. From a community point of view in this day and age it is totally unacceptable that we have an organization such as this that when a complaint comes in they investigate themselves.

The subject Koalas were living in a happy well cared for environment when they were illegally removed by Inspectors French and Prowse. One of the females had a baby Koala in her pouch that Mrs Small was aware of. I have been told that the R S P C A Inspectors became aware of this fact over the 48 hours following their removal. One of the other Koalas was an elderly female that Mrs Small has described as the “Old Lady”. Mrs Small has never denied that this Koala was elderly and whilst ever in good health could live out her days in the Koala Enclosure. Both these Koalas that were supposed to being cared for by Inspectors French and Prowse are now dead so I ask this question what investigation has the RSPCA done in relation to the deaths of these Koala or am I correct in assuming that when an animal dies because of the ignorance or lack of care by that inspector no investigation takes place. This is another example as to why the Police should take over these responsibilities so that when this type of incident occurs it can be properly investigated or reviewed by an appropriate authority.

I referred earlier in this document to the fact that prior to my retirement I was the police Prosecutor for the Gunnedah Court Circuit. During the 1980’s and 1990’s and in some cases still to this day besides representing Police informants in Court Police prosecutors represent many other entities, for example, Probation and Parole, National Parks and Wildlife, D O C S, Roads and Traffic Authority and the RSPCA. Over the years until about 2000, every so often I would receive a brief from an RSPCA Inspector who would be the informant usually in more than one information. If the matter was a “not guilty” plea I would present the case on behalf of the informant. If the offence or offences were proved some costs would be sought by the Informant that would usually be for witness expenses and any fodder that may have been required to give to the animals in question. No Legal professional costs were ever sought. In addition a fact I feel is relevant is that Police Prosecutors DPP Prosecutors and Crown Prosecutors have a duty to place all the evidence before the Court. Each carries a custodial penalty of 2 years imprisonment. True there is a difference in the monetary penalty but goal is the most severe penalty for a Criminal Offence. A common assault is one where the victim suffers no serious injury. For some reason the Parliament does not view aggravated cruelty as a serious offence at law.

The RSPCA since about 2000, to my knowledge, have been engaging private solicitors to conduct their prosecutions and one might ask why did they move to this system.

It is my submission that this practice should cease and that Police Prosecutors should conduct the prosecutions for the RSPCA. I say that on this basis. By engaging private Solicitors or barristers there is no obligation on them to place before the Court evidence that may disadvantage their case. Legal and Professional Costs come into play. If their prosecution is successful they would ask for these costs. It seems unbelievable that recently in one of their prosecutions at Narrabri an amount in excess of a quarter of a million dollars was sought for costs in a matter heard in the Local Court, and as I said before, an offence not serious at law.

In conclusion it is my humble opinion that inspectors French and Prowse have no knowledge in respect to their obligations under the Act and it is clear they see their careers more in the field of TV and to add insult to injury when asked a question by myself about the TV show RSPCA Animal Rescue and their role in this incident when he attended Gunnedah on the 18th February last, Mr Coleman’s explanation was and I quote, “the Officers had been on another job with them and when they said they were going to Gunnedah the crew said we might just tag along” end quote. I informed him that I did not accept that explanation at all. It’s a sad situation when the head of such an organization is trying to assist the coverup.

Yours faithfully

Leon Mills

Councilor

Gunnedah Shire Council

even makes mention of the lady whose cattle were killed and may or has lost her home to the RSPCA Chairman's law firm at the time.

Edited October 9, 2012 by asal

[WreckitWhippet]

Imagine you have an old dog who is perhaps a bit doddery, a bit thin in body or coat (perhaps a thyroid issue which you are medicating for) and not looking in its prime any more (a few people won't have to imagine, but just look at the beloved dog at their feet).

Imagine that someone who doesnt know you sees your well loved and well cared for old dog, and thinks you are horribly disgusting and cruel as the dog is obviously in 'poor condition' and suffering...and then reports you to the RSPCA.

They now have the right to enter your home (in NSW at least) and seize your dog as they can 'beleive' based on this report that your dog is subject to cruelty.

They potnetially terrorise the dog trying to catch and seize it. Transport it potentially 100's of km's away and subject it to whatever testing and checks they want and then put it in kennels. There's the potential for the dog to contract diseases, not to mention the stress the dog is put through being caged in an unfamiliar environment.

The dog is missing it's regualr meal times, toilet breaks and routine.

There is a sudden change of diet.

How is any of that fair on a dog ? It's not but the RSPA can and will do it, just because they can.

It's not just old dogs at risk, but any dog that does not look 100% or any dog at all.

[Dame Aussie]

Thing that gets to me is they ignore valid complaints and emergencies and focus on this BS

[mixeduppup]

Thing that gets to me is they ignore valid complaints and emergencies and focus on this BS

True. I've heard some horrible stories about reports being ignored.

[Steve]

This from Leon Mills - though the rest is pretty damning

Quote

Another benefit of a transfer to Police is that all Police investigations are subject to review by independent authorities such as the Ombudsman or I C A C. This is not the case with R S P C A inspectors, they answer to no one other than themselves. On the 18th of February last I attended the local branch meeting of the R S P C A as the head of the organization Mr Steve Coleman was attending. During the course of the meeting he answered a number of questions re the Waterways incident. Mrs. Dodd asked him a question being, “who can I complain to”, Mr Coleman’s response was “the Chief Inspector of the RS S P C A”. From a community point of view in this day and age it is totally unacceptable that we have an organization such as this that when a complaint comes in they investigate themselves.

and this

Quote

The RSPCA since about 2000, to my knowledge, have been engaging private solicitors to conduct their prosecutions and one might ask why did they move to this system.<br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252); ">It is my submission that this practice should cease and that Police Prosecutors should conduct the prosecutions for the RSPCA. I say that on this basis. By engaging private Solicitors or barristers there is no obligation on them to place before the Court evidence that may disadvantage their case. Legal and Professional Costs come into play. If their prosecution is successful they would ask for these costs. It seems unbelievable that recently in one of their prosecutions at Narrabri an amount in excess of a quarter of a million dollars was sought for costs in a matter heard in the Local Court, and as I said before, an offence not serious at law.

[Brookestar]

Thing that gets to me is they ignore valid complaints and emergencies and focus on this BS

True. I've heard some horrible stories about reports being ignored.

It is really about what is in the reports that are made. Child protection is the same. People can and do report, but they give so little information that they do not have enough to go on. Child protection is based on reasonable belief, police warrants are based on reasonable belief. The police cannot prove you committed a crime without finger prints, DNA or the like and these cannot be taken without you being arrested first. They are simply required to have reasonable belief. Child protection cannot prove a child is being harmed without seeing the child. In order to see the child they have to have reasonable belief. Are there children who slip through absolutely, are there children who are taken who should not be, absolutely, and way too many. I can assure you there are websites of parents who seriously have done nothing more than the average parent and the kids were taken away, often at 3 am by the police, and put in some institutional setting with total strangers, kids are not placed in foster care at 3 am that is left until the following day. Don't think that traumatises a child??

All of these things are based on reasonable beliefs. If the caller gives bare minimum information then little is done. IF the caller says a whole lot fo bullshit, then something very different is done. And it is the same for all of it. The RSPCA does have to provide proof, via photo's and the like in court in order to prove what was going on.

I did watch RSPCA rescue and while I remember a docked tail, I do not remember the dog being seized. I do remember the owner being given the third degree over it, but the dog was not removed. The only time I rember them breaking into a property and removing a dog was when there was no one there, and neighbours, many of them all said no one had been to the property in days.

Whatever one might think of dail docking it is illegal in ALL states of Australia. The RSPCA cannot just do as they like, they are required to get court orders to keep any animal in their care. They can enter to investigate, just like child protection and the police.

[asal]

Thing that gets to me is they ignore valid complaints and emergencies and focus on this BS

The RSPCA cannot just do as they like, they are required to get court orders to keep any animal in their care. They can enter to investigate, just like child protection and the police.

I wish that were true, but I know first hand it certainly is not.

I was NEVERtold the nature of the complaint, I was NEVERtold a thing by the inspector except "you will receive a letter after I have reported to my superior". I NEVERreceived a letter of any kind, I asked Alan Candlish of Dogs NSW to ask for the nature of the complaint on my behalf and if anything concerned the inspector, he too NEVERreceived a reply of any kind. In fact he was so dismayed by his treatment he made comment at the time "Ive never been treated so rudly in my life".

my dog was taken 1pm on a Sunday and kept for 13 days.

There were no court orders, there were not even any correspondance replied to despite I had sent two registered letters. The then Minister for Agriculture had the hide to explain to me the Whole series was the result of lack of communication on BOTH SIDES

up and until the inspector decided to phone me and tell me I could pick him up. AFTER I had paid their invoice. He would not even allow me to see my dog until I refused to pay before I had seen for myself he was still alive.

I suggest you read VERY CAREFULLY Leon Mills Letter again if you havent already done so.

Edited October 9, 2012 by asal

[melzawelza]

I watched RSPCA rescue where there had been a report of a dog with a docked tail located around Bankstown. I watched while the inspector knocked on the door got no response so she got a ladder and climbed up to the second floor - open window - went in and seized the dog. Left the owner a note to get in touch with them. The dog was about 6 months old and did have a docked tail which had been done some 6 months earlier. So based on that I guess the answer is they can and do. owner said the dog was docked when she got it and her ex boyfriend had purchased it for her so she didn't know who the breeder was and the ex was travelling overseas and she had no idea how to contact him to ask him. So they returned the dog to her.

You missed the worst part of that story.

They took the dog to their vet hospital, put it under a general anaesthetic and x-rayed it all without the owner's permission or knowledge to ascertain whether the dog was a natural bob or had been docked.

I was so horrified. The owner had no idea their dog had been taken and it was a brachy breed to top it off. Unnecessary GA and the dog could have died while under and who would be responsible?! Not the RSPCA!!

[Crisovar]

If they manage to lose(as in escapes) an animal that they have seized they don't accept responsibility for that either.

[asal]

I watched RSPCA rescue where there had been a report of a dog with a docked tail located around Bankstown. I watched while the inspector knocked on the door got no response so she got a ladder and climbed up to the second floor - open window - went in and seized the dog. Left the owner a note to get in touch with them. The dog was about 6 months old and did have a docked tail which had been done some 6 months earlier. So based on that I guess the answer is they can and do. owner said the dog was docked when she got it and her ex boyfriend had purchased it for her so she didn't know who the breeder was and the ex was travelling overseas and she had no idea how to contact him to ask him. So they returned the dog to her.

You missed the worst part of that story.

They took the dog to their vet hospital, put it under a general anaesthetic and x-rayed it all without the owner's permission or knowledge to ascertain whether the dog was a natural bob or had been docked.

I was so horrified. The owner had no idea their dog had been taken and it was a brachy breed to top it off. Unnecessary GA and the dog could have died while under and who would be responsible?! Not the RSPCA!!

Thats exactly what they did to my dog, exceept while under he had plugs of skin cut out and stitched when even a child could tell the removed skin had no sign of the "mange" they thought he might have.

since when was mange and hypathoroydism in breech of the code of practice for breeders? forget theother tests but nope not listed either, since when was invisible mange (proven non existant as well by the skin plugs taken) a life threatening condition?

[Scarlet]

In comparison statutory child protection workers would not be able to enter a house without the police even if they could see an injured child inside an open window. Nor would they be able to do more than knock on the front door and leave a card without the police - no wandering around the house and yard for evidence gathering. Obviously lots of pets are kept in backyards so maybe that is ok but to have more powers than child protection workers to enter a house without the police seems very wrong to me.

This would be a point of discussion.

Child protection workers are authorised officers and can take action without the police - not that they would necessarily want to.

The use of powers under the Child Protection Act 1999, section 16(1) can be exercised if all of the following apply:

an authorised officer or police officer is investigating an allegation of harm or risk of harm to a child

the officer has been denied contact with the child or cannot reasonably gain entry to the place where the officer reasonably believes the child is

the officer reasonably suspects that the child is at immediate risk of harm, or is likely to be taken from a place and suffer harm if the officer does not take immediate action.

Use of reasonable help and force in exercising section 16

Powers under the Child Protection Act 1999, section 16, are able to be exercised with help and the use of force deemed reasonable in the circumstances. ‘Reasonable’ is what an ‘average’ person would consider necessary and appropriate in the presenting circumstances. Any force used should not be excessive, that is, no more than absolutely necessary to ensure the safety of the child and the CSO.

‘Help’ refers to assistance that may be required. A CSO may request whatever ‘help’ is considered necessary in the circumstances. The help will generally come from the QPS and support workers, but it may also be requested of family members, or other people who are at the scene at the time. ‘Force’ can involve different types of actions, such as entering without consent or breaking a window or door.

[Steve]

Thing that gets to me is they ignore valid complaints and emergencies and focus on this BS

True. I've heard some horrible stories about reports being ignored.

It is really about what is in the reports that are made. Child protection is the same. People can and do report, but they give so little information that they do not have enough to go on. Child protection is based on reasonable belief, police warrants are based on reasonable belief. The police cannot prove you committed a crime without finger prints, DNA or the like and these cannot be taken without you being arrested first. They are simply required to have reasonable belief. Child protection cannot prove a child is being harmed without seeing the child. In order to see the child they have to have reasonable belief. Are there children who slip through absolutely, are there children who are taken who should not be, absolutely, and way too many. I can assure you there are websites of parents who seriously have done nothing more than the average parent and the kids were taken away, often at 3 am by the police, and put in some institutional setting with total strangers, kids are not placed in foster care at 3 am that is left until the following day. Don't think that traumatises a child??

All of these things are based on reasonable beliefs. If the caller gives bare minimum information then little is done. IF the caller says a whole lot fo bullshit, then something very different is done. And it is the same for all of it. The RSPCA does have to provide proof, via photo's and the like in court in order to prove what was going on.

I did watch RSPCA rescue and while I remember a docked tail, I do not remember the dog being seized. I do remember the owner being given the third degree over it, but the dog was not removed. The only time I rember them breaking into a property and removing a dog was when there was no one there, and neighbours, many of them all said no one had been to the property in days.

Whatever one might think of dail docking it is illegal in ALL states of Australia. The RSPCA cannot just do as they like, they are required to get court orders to keep any animal in their care. They can enter to investigate, just like child protection and the police.

Brookestar - I promise you that you are wrong on many counts including the episode I am discussing. You may have seen a different episode but be careful about accusing me of making it up.I believe Melzawelza saw the same episode. Best you take a better look at state laws and what they can and cant do before you stick your neck out.

[Steve]

I watched RSPCA rescue where there had been a report of a dog with a docked tail located around Bankstown. I watched while the inspector knocked on the door got no response so she got a ladder and climbed up to the second floor - open window - went in and seized the dog. Left the owner a note to get in touch with them. The dog was about 6 months old and did have a docked tail which had been done some 6 months earlier. So based on that I guess the answer is they can and do. owner said the dog was docked when she got it and her ex boyfriend had purchased it for her so she didn't know who the breeder was and the ex was travelling overseas and she had no idea how to contact him to ask him. So they returned the dog to her.

You missed the worst part of that story.

They took the dog to their vet hospital, put it under a general anaesthetic and x-rayed it all without the owner's permission or knowledge to ascertain whether the dog was a natural bob or had been docked.

I was so horrified. The owner had no idea their dog had been taken and it was a brachy breed to top it off. Unnecessary GA and the dog could have died while under and who would be responsible?! Not the RSPCA!!

You're right I remember that now but I was so horrified over her bum going in through the window it slipped my mind.

Pretty much what they did to the dogs which had been debarked. The owner had all of her paper work from her vet showing they had been done by a qualified vet and how but they still took em away and wouldn't say where , knocked em out, called in a very expensive "expert and did what they wanted to them. That's after they were examined by the RSPCA vet and declared all well and healthy and in no danger of being taken to a show which is such a dreadful thing to do of course.

[Steve]

Sorry I think comparing what they can and cant do to child protection workers etc wont take us anywhere - primarily because all of that has an external process to deal with complaints.

I am not accusing the RSPCA nor am I considering any particular case or incident. The fact is that this is a charity and therefore their accountability and processes are not open to the same type of scrutiny or rules and whether there ever has been corruption or collusion etc the opportunity for that to happen is there and the public need to know they have rights and a process to complain to an outside third party to be heard. Based on history and why the anti corruption legislation and ombudsman were introduced and the fact they are still finding that this type of behaviour and its still happening, turn on the news to hear of a council which is pinged for corruption almost weekly to consider that giving this kind of power to anyone is never going to turn up someone who has done the wrong thing is ridiculous. If it hasn't happened yet it has to happen and if there were such processes then we wouldnt need to be worried and accusations could be dealt with appropriately.

[asal]

I am still wondering why on earth after Leon Mills letter was tabled in Parliament it has not been acted on

Especially in the light it puts on the new order of "employing " solicitors only began in 2000. the fact alone that the employee got the job without tender and was a director of RSPCA NSW at the time would have had any politicions being called to fall on their sword has me very puzzled why nothig has been done to put things back to what they should be on that point alone?

a previous poster had me with their take on it

"Its ridiculous that a charity has greater powers (with no accountability) than a legitimate body such as police. It's like having the girl guides doing health inspections at restaurants and being able to shut down a cafe without explaining why. "

Except the not so funny bit is in this case its true. sigh

Edited October 10, 2012 by asal

[yarracully]

I am still wondering why on earth after Leon Mills letter was tabled in Parliament it has not been acted on

Especially in the light it puts on the new order of "employing " solicitors only began in 2000. the fact alone that the employee got the job without tender and was a director of RSPCA NSW at the time would have had any politicions being called to fall on their sword has me very puzzled why nothig has been done to put things back to what they should be on that point alone?

a previous poster had me with their take on it

"Its ridiculous that a charity has greater powers (with no accountability) than a legitimate body such as police. It's like having the girl guides doing health inspections at restaurants and being able to shut down a cafe without explaining why. "

Except the not so funny bit is in this case its true. sigh

Glad you enjoyed the laugh Asal, and yes the sad part is it is true.

[perrin]

Thing that gets to me is they ignore valid complaints and emergencies and focus on this BS

True. I've heard some horrible stories about reports being ignored.

It is really about what is in the reports that are made. Child protection is the same. People can and do report, but they give so little information that they do not have enough to go on. Child protection is based on reasonable belief, police warrants are based on reasonable belief. The police cannot prove you committed a crime without finger prints, DNA or the like and these cannot be taken without you being arrested first. They are simply required to have reasonable belief. Child protection cannot prove a child is being harmed without seeing the child. In order to see the child they have to have reasonable belief. Are there children who slip through absolutely, are there children who are taken who should not be, absolutely, and way too many. I can assure you there are websites of parents who seriously have done nothing more than the average parent and the kids were taken away, often at 3 am by the police, and put in some institutional setting with total strangers, kids are not placed in foster care at 3 am that is left until the following day. Don't think that traumatises a child??

Whatever one might think of dail docking it is illegal in ALL states of Australia. The RSPCA cannot just do as they like, they are required to get court orders to keep any animal in their care. They can enter to investigate, just like child protection and the police.

Of course foster children can be placed in care at 3am in the morning. I'm not sure where you have received this information from.

[WreckitWhippet]

If they manage to lose(as in escapes) an animal that they have seized they don't accept responsibility for that either.

or they break it's leg in transit