West Australian authorities have stripped a desperate mum of her parental rights.

Seeking help for her son, the Perth woman followed a GP’s advice and took the six-year-old to hospital.

After a preliminary diagnosis, which the specialist said was likely to be leukaemia, the shocked mother of two tried to leave with her son, stating she wanted to make an informed decision about what to do next.

According to WAToday, the mother was allegedly given no real help in understanding what was happening.

Despite asking for more information, none was given.

Asked if she could see her son’s test results, or any other paperwork, the boy’s mum was instead taken to a small room, and told what was going to happen next.

The mother found herself in a government overreach horror story.

After requesting the chance to seek out a second opinion and wanting to take her boy home for the night, authorities accused her of refusing to take proper care of her son.

WAToday reported that the hospital denied the mother’s requests, arguing the child “was at high risk of sepsis if he got an infection outside.”

Doubling down, the specialist “red-flagged” the concerned mother, reporting her to the Department of Child Protection (DCP).

The six-year-old was removed from her care, then sentenced to a foster home for the two-year duration of his State-sanctioned treatment.

His distraught mum told WAToday, “We’re not hippies, we weren’t going to run away into the bush and give him blueberries, and not accept that he’s got leukaemia.

“I’m not anti-chemo, I just wanted it to be my choice for my child and for my family.”

All she wanted, was “to know everything that she could” about what was happening to her son, and have time “to comprehend what she was hearing.”

Acting on the seemingly subjective DCP decision, the mum, younger brother, and the sick boy’s grandmother were “locked out of the ward.”

Authorities then reportedly “forced the family to leave the hospital.”

Political justification for the son’s medical confiscation falls under Section 37 of the 2004 West Australian Children and Community Services Act.

The State can take a child without warrant if authorities arbitrarily determine there to be “an immediate, and substantial risk to the child’s wellbeing.”

Section 37 gives the State the power to “enter, search for, and remove a child with reasonable force, and assistance” at their discretion.

The only provision preventing the abuse of power is subsection 4.

This requires an officer or authorised officer, to formally justify the removal of the child, post-hoc.

A Go Fund Me page set up to support the family’s travel, and legal costs, described the ordeal as “doctors abusing their power, by using the DCP to threaten parents.”

The hurting mum is determined to fight for her son, his life, and their rights.

The WA case raises questions about the weaponization of legislation like Section 37.

Therapeutic Totalitarians pushing for the State ownership of children aside, it’s not hard to see how Section 37’s blank cheque will be abused in other contexts.

How long until the State-sanctioned trans police lock onto this law, and lock out parents not allied with LGBTQ+?

The false doctrines of intersectionality already teach its adherents that non-LGBTQ+ parents are the enemy – and are to be viewed as a threat to public health.

These parents – breeders; heteronormative villains, or so goes the Critical Theory/Cultural Marxist belief – are an oppressor class.

Removed by a gaslighting, pro-LGBTQ+ medical establishment, children are taken into “the arms of love is love,” because they have equated their so-called “oppressor’s” care with child abuse.

In the United States, this is already being proposed by lawmakers.

California’s Democrat-dominated senate is set to pass an amendment to its Family Code, ‘classifying parents who do not endorse their child’s gender confusion as’ child abusers.

Should players pushing the amendment succeed, the State will be granted the power to remove a child from their parent’s care.

This is despite, CBN said, the amendment not having been properly defined, or its terms clearly expressed.

It’s no stretch to argue that Section 37 is poised to be a tool to remove children from parents who’ve chosen to practice informed dissent.

To the horror of onlookers, and for one Aussie family, this is already happening.

The West Australian mother’s case cements a troubling precedent for the kidnapping of children by the State, on politicalised medical grounds.