THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTION
MET IN COMMITTEE ROOM 2, PARLIAMENT HOUSE, ON 15 NOVEMBER 2010.
Mr JOHN FLACK AND Mrs TRACEY FLACK WERE CALLED, MADE THE
STATUTORY DECLARATION AND WERE EXAMINED.
CHAIR (Mr O'Halloran) - Welcome, John and Tracey. We have apologies from Mr
Wightman and Ms White. You know that you are covered by parliamentary privilege
and you also know that this is a public hearing and the media has access to everything. It
is not a closed session.
Mr FLACK - This is about children that we have actually cared for. I have been a carer of
children with Child and Family Services for about five years, two years of that as a
residential carer in rostered care - the early rostered care before it was outsourced.
Tracey and I have spent a year-and-a-half in a family group home when we became
foster carers and then we have been foster carers for a year-and-a-half. We have had
around about 32 children in that three years. Some have gone home, some have gone to
other placements and this is about some of their stories.
The person I would like to start off with first, I will just call him A. I met this boy in
residential care. His family put him on a voluntary care agreement because he got into a
bit of trouble. They went to the department for help, so this goes around the Gateway
support. The question you guys really need to answer is: would the Gateway be able to
support this family at the present stage if they went to it for help now, because this
happened before the Gateway was introduced. They went to the department for help
because they had lost control of their son.
Mr GROOM - How old was he?
Mr FLACK - At that time he was around about grade 8. He was attending Geilston Bay
High when he first came into care. I am not quite sure of the circumstances but he could
not actually attend Geilston Bay High as soon as he came into care. He was placed in a
residential facility at New Norfolk with a couple of other younger children. I, as a
residential carer, got him an appointment at New Norfolk High to enrol him at that
school. Because I was only doing two shifts a week, I was only spending 48 hours with
this person a week, I had no control over what happened with the other five days a week.
He just refused to go to school. Then shortly after Tracey and I became family group
home carers so my association with this boy actually stopped.
I am not quite sure what happened in the interim. We got a call from the department to
take this boy on in the family group home because basically all the residential carers
refused to work with him. These are paid 48-hour carers and they get to go home after
two days and they just refused. They had nowhere for him. I said that we would give it a
try and he came to live with us. We are actually in Laroona, which was a group home in
Battery Point so our feeder schools are Taroona High and New Town High. I actually
had to contact Learning Services South to get him enrolled in school. Is it a foster carer's
role to enrol children in care in school? Who is their guardian? Is it the foster carer? If
we had just let it roll then he would have just stayed at home.
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTION,
HOBART 15/11/10 (FLACK)
1
Ms PETRUSMA - He would not be going to school?
Mr FLACK - If we had not actively done it he might have got to school within two to three
months maybe, so who has that role? When he came to us he did not actually have a case
worker so the team leader was managing his case. There is an e-mail here from me
letting the team leader know that I have arranged with Dale from Student Support for an
interview with New Town High. We actually enrolled him in New Town High and it did
go well for probably a couple of days, but this boy had been disengaged from school for
approximately 16 to 18 months. He had probably been walking the streets doing
whatever in residential care and he increased his youth justice record as well because he
had a youth justice record when he came from Ms PETRUSMA - During that 18 months, what was the reason he was not going to school?
Mr FLACK - I could not answer that.
Ms PETRUSMA - He was in a residential home Mr FLACK - He was in residential care, yes.
Ms PETRUSMA - They did not take him or enforce it?
Mr FLACK - Even if you take them Mrs FLACK - Most of the time they would leave anyway because they do not have the
support at the school.
Mr FLACK - It is about support but it is really around about meeting the kids' needs. These
kids have been traumatised along the way somewhere. There has been some sort of
trauma in their life. It is not listening to the kids and finding out why they are not
engaged in school. It is more like, 'Here's your program; do it'. It is not really listening
to the kids and doing an individual education plan and things like that. It is like our
daughter; she is on an autism scale and has learning difficulties, but we have a modified
education plan for her with the school so she is in the classroom but she is not expected
to do the work that the other children are expected to do, but she is still in that classroom,
sitting there learning something.
Mrs FLACK - Our daughter is at a private school. When these kids first go in they need to
look at what the kids need, not just chuck them in the classroom and expect them to cope
like everybody else, because these kids cannot cope with that kind of stuff. They need
modified learning.
CHAIR - They do not have anybody to deal with it - a resourcing issue?
Mr FLACK - Yes, and also this is the third school he has been into in two years. In his
original school something should have been worked out so he could still attend Geilston
Bay, the school he was in when he was removed and came into care as a voluntary
agreement. I have a copy of an e-mail here that the principal of New Town sent to the
worker saying that the boy had left school without permission and the school was
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTION,
HOBART 15/11/10 (FLACK)
2
basically asking what they should do about it. The principal said, 'What do I do about
this boy? He is on a court order. He has bail conditions and part of those bail conditions
was that he attend school'.
This is not the only child in State care like this; there are probably 40 or 50 around the
State but they are still important enough and we need to stop it somehow.
CHAIR - So there are 40 or 50 kids the same as A in the system?
Mr FLACK - Yes, probably. If you look at residential services and see how many kids are in
there, most of those would be in that situation.
Ms PETRUSMA - The principal is asking you or the department what to do?
Mr FLACK - He sent it to the Child Protection worker, and also mentioned Brett Orchard
who is the Youth Justice worker.
Mr GROOM - How did you find out about it?
Mr FLACK - Because Darryl cc'd me because we are part of the team. We were trying to
work together but we had six other kids at the time. At the moment we have six foster
children, plus two of our own. Two of them are in the category of level 2 complex, one
is level 2 intensive, and one is level 1 intensive. These are not just your run-of-the-mill
children in care. 'We cannot place these children, so let us give John and Tracey a ring to
see if they can take them on'.
CHAIR - Is that the way it works?
Mr FLACK - Yes, that is exactly the way it works.
Mrs FLACK - We have a 10-year-old child with us at the moment whom nobody else
wanted because of her complex needs.
Mr FLACK - She has had about four placements. She is in grade 4 at the moment. I was
talking to her the other day. Her parents live at Clarendon Vale so she went to Clarendon
Vale Primary when she went into care. She has been to Margate Primary, Glenorchy
Primary and - what other schools did she mention?
Mrs FLACK - There were a few and this is all in her first years - grade 1.
Mr FLACK - I do not know how long she has been in care but she has been in care a little
while, but each time she has moved placements she has basically moved schools. A child
protection issue is also an education issue, and who advocates for these children? Who
are the ones who say we need to stop this?
Mrs FLACK - We need to give them a stable school life as well.
Mr FLACK - This is not like the first boy's case; this happened before Gateway. This is part
of the reform process.
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTION,
HOBART 15/11/10 (FLACK)
3
Ms PETRUSMA - When they sent you or everyone that e-mail, what was the department's
response to that e-mail? What strategies did they then put in place?
Mr FLACK - I do not think he actually went back to school, did he?
Mrs FLACK - No.
Ms PETRUSMA - He was in grade 8 so he stopped there, basically.
Mrs FLACK - In grade 9; he basically played up. The thing with this child, though, is that
because he did not have any support, whenever he mucked up he could not go back and
face the music, because these kids do not know how to handle that. When you go to the
principal's office most children can cope with that but these kids cannot and they do not
know how to handle consequence.
Mr FLACK - It is a fight or flight cycle; you either fight or you fly and these guys run most
of the time. Sometimes if they are in the corner they will fight. When he left our care he
was placed in the Youth Care shelter out at Glenorchy, so he went to youth care and I
bumped into him. He is the same age as our son - 18 - and has a 16-month-old baby now.
That could have happened while he was living with us because we found him on the front
lawn having pizza and beer one night with a girlfriend at 2 o'clock in the morning. This
could have happened during that time, so he is a dad now.
Mr GROOM - Does he have the child?
Mr FLACK - No. He was released out of Ashley and we bumped into him out at Glenorchy.
I asked him what he was doing and where he was staying and he said, 'I am just couchsurfing.' I said, 'What about Bethlehem House?', because I knew he was about 18. He
said, 'I am not 18 yet, so I can't go there until I am 18.' This is because he was on a
voluntary order. He was not removed because concern for his safety, so the department
never removed him; his parents went to the department for help. He was having access
to our place when we were in Battery Point. His out-of-home carer rang us up and said,
'Those parents are not allowed on your property because they are dangerous.' The reason
they are dangerous is that they put in complaints about the standard of care he was
receiving in the West Hobart home and the condition of that home.
Mrs FLACK - We certainly would not have had them in our home if we thought they were
dangerous. They were far from dangerous.
Mr FLACK - They both work in the community and things like that.
dangerous. The danger was that they put in complaints.
They were not
Ms PETRUSMA - So the department said they were dangerous?
Mr FLACK - Yes.
Mr GROOM - Can I go back to A again? What level of education or basic education skills
would he have?
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTION,
HOBART 15/11/10 (FLACK)
4
Mr FLACK - I think he was engaged in school until grade 8, so he could read and write and
things like that. So he was engaged in school until it went topsy-turvy, with his doing a
little bit of property damage and breaking and entering with a couple mates and stuff like
that. We hope it does not happen to our kids, we just assume it will not, but you can
never be 100 per cent sure. Both parents work; they have younger children of their own
and things like that.
CHAIR - How was it that this boy left the parents to go into care? What happened?
Mrs FLACK - He was breaking and entering and stuff like that so they asked for help.
Mr FLACK - We do not know the complete story because it is none of our business. We are
only there to care and you do not get told those nitty-gritty details about why the kids are
coming to your care. You get the basics of what their needs are but you are not told
about the reason why.
CHAIR - Was there any engagement with the natural parents while he was with you?
Mrs FLACK - They used to come to visit so he could have access to his younger brothers
and sisters. We would go into the mall because his step dad worked in the mall, so he
would meet him in there. So he was having access but not like he really should have
been having.
Mr FLACK - D came to us from another foster carer. He had a lot of support down at
Woodbridge High. He was getting a lot of support down there and the foster carer he
was living with had a really good case plan going. They had an education program going
for him, but that was pulled. So I am not quite sure what happened. He ended up
coming to us. I was able to get him enrolled into Taroona. We had another non-school
attender going to Taroona at the time. So I used to drop them off and they used to do
what they wanted. I received piles and piles of e-mails from the coordinator saying they
were not at school, they had left school, or asking me where they were - day after day
after day. He ended up leaving us and going into residential care. The cost to the
department for him to be with us - they used to have the group home and pay for that for our reimbursements would have been about $15 000 to $20 000 a year for us to look
after him. He goes into residential care and you are looking at over $100 000 to look
after him. That was just to feed and clothe him because that was all they were doing.
Mrs FLACK - That is what we do not understand. Why do they give them support, and they
are going really well, but then they take all the support away? Then they put them with
people like John and me and then it all falls apart because they are not going to school.
Then they put them in residential care where it costs them more money. It does not
make sense.
Ms PETRUSMA - What support was he was getting before?
Mr FLACK - We have no idea because he was with another carer.
Ms PETRUSMA - You just know that he was getting lots of support.
Mr FLACK - He was getting support and it was working.
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTION,
HOBART 15/11/10 (FLACK)
5
Ms PETRUSMA - So you don't know if it was counselling or through education?
CHAIR - Was he taken from you or you decided that he needed to go?
Mr FLACK - We just got sick of him.
CHAIR - Okay, he got too hard.
Mr FLACK - You can only deal with it so long, sorry.
CHAIR - No, I just wondered.
Mrs FLACK - If we just had him by himself we probably could have kept on him with us
but because we had other children to look after as well and their needs - you just can't CHAIR - I thought you were saying that because he wasn't going to school they took him
away from you.
Mr FLACK - No, they never took him. We actually felt, 'This is getting too hard, this is
ridiculous and this is frustrating.' With A, they came around and said, 'Look, it is not
working with you guys; we need to put him somewhere else.' We really wanted to
change A's life because it was working quite well at New Town and we were getting
there but with all the other kids that we looked after at the time and the comings and
goings - because in a group home we had 25 kids within two years. So you have kids
coming and some going home to their parents, some going on to foster care.
Mrs FLACK - You don't have consistency - the children change all the time. It used to work
out like a family group but because the children were changing all the time you could not
get that cohesiveness.
CHAIR - Could I probably go off the tangent - obviously this is a really difficult child. Have
you been offered any support in terms of, say, professional development and stuff like
that?
Mr FLACK - I have done a diploma in community development so I sort of know the
agencies around there.
Mrs FLACK - I go to psychology work. So I get personal support from that because these
kids have a lot of issues and sometimes I might take those issues on and I don't know
how to get rid of it sometimes.
CHAIR - That is exactly the question I was asking. You don't pay for that yourself do you?
Mrs FLACK - Yes, I do.
Mr FLACK - We have a health plan, so it is only $30.
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTION,
HOBART 15/11/10 (FLACK)
6
Mrs FLACK - The place I go to is the same place that some of our children go as well
because it is such a good place. They don't see the same people that I do. You need to
have that extra support.
I am also an aged care worker. I am not currently working because I can't because of the
children we have.
Mr FLACK - Also, I want to move onto something else.
This one was J - he actually came to us from the psychiatric unit of the Royal. He had a
really good mentoring program going and there are actually e-mails in there from his
mental health nurse saying that he was going really well, but then they cut the program
because of the cost. The Child Protection worker wasn't in agreement with the cutback;
the mental health nurses were not in agreement with it; but management said it was too
expensive.
Mr GROOM - What was the program and how much did it cost?
Mr FLACK - I wouldn't have a clue.
Mrs FLACK - It was a mentoring program - a guy used to come and take him, to get him
back into reality, into everyday life.
Mr FLACK - Because he was involved in smoking dope and everything else and he had a
bad mental health reaction to it, he was actually dropped off under the Mental Health
Act.
Ms PETRUSMA - So the department decided that he had to finish that program?
Mr FLACK - Yes, because they were funding it.
Mr GROOM - Is that a common problem in your experience, John? That programs that
seem to be working aren't being maintained because of resourcing issues?
Mr FLACK - Well, yes. There is another carer that we know of who is actually negotiating
with the school - the carer has done this, not the Child Protection worker, whose role it
really is. The carer has actually negotiated with the school to have a program; the school
has put in $20 000 and the department needs to put in $17 000 or something. But the
department won't come to the party and put in the $17 000 - and this not really the carer's
role to do this sort of stuff; this is not our role. This is the Child Protection worker's role.
I do not know how many times I have read that the advocate for the child is the Child
Protection worker. You see it in the paper, we hear it all the time. But they do not have
time to advocate for these kids. They do not have time, they do not have the resources
and they are just not doing it I am afraid.
Mr GROOM - You have identified a couple of themes there. What do you see as being the
biggest issue currently with the child protection system?
Mr FLACK - The silos. It is ridiculous. I have an email there - I went right up to Mark
Byrne to ask for help with one child out at Claremont High. Because we had him, there
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTION,
HOBART 15/11/10 (FLACK)
7
was no problem and then all of a sudden he started doing stuff and getting suspended.
He was getting suspension after suspension. We would send him back to school and he
would get suspended again, so I just said, 'Look, Mark, something needs to be done.'
Then Mark sent it back down his silo to the area manger, who said, 'You need to speak to
the education area manger.' I went down there. Should it not be the Child Protection
worker talking to them? You have worked in schools, haven't you Paul, you're a teacher
CHAIR - Yes, for a long time.
Mr FLACK - Have you tried to contact Child Protection workers?
CHAIR - Yes. Probably not me directly - it is more the guidance officer and there is such a
shortage of them that it is very difficult.
Mr FLACK - The Child Protection worker will ring the school and leave a message and the
school will ring back and then they will ring back and leave a message - you play phone
tag.
Mrs FLACK - They really need to start working together - they just don't. Then there are
people like us who end up having to do what they are probably are meant to be doing,
but it is because they do not communicate together that we have to do it. If we do not do
it, who is going to do it?
Mr FLACK - We have a girl at the moment and she has been non attending for the last three
years that we have had her but that is because she has had lots and lots of placements.
Mrs FLACK - She's had 22 placements
Ms PETRUSMA - Twenty-two placements - and how old is she?
Mr FLACK - She is 17 and she has been with us for three years. With a group home, they
will get a new group home carer they place her with her; they get another group home
carer and they will place her there and then Mr GROOM - Can I go back to your group home situation before, you mentioned that you
had 25 kids in two years. Of those 25 kids how many would have attended school on a
regular basis?
Mr FLACK - Probably about 60 per cent. The majority did sort of attend school.
Mrs FLACK - It is the teenagers. Once they get to high school it is like Mr FLACK - The children who come to us from their parents are attending school. The
children who come to us from other carers or from residential care or from the system are
not attending school. If you look at most of the kids that we have, the ones who come to
us from their parents - who were removed from their parents to us - they were attending
school. It is the kids who have been in the system for a while, been here, there and
everywhere. It comes back to carer training and things like that to improve the skills of
the carers to deal with this. Tracey and I are dealing with really complex kids but we are
able to do it because of our experience, our training and our passion.
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTION,
HOBART 15/11/10 (FLACK)
8
Mr GROOM - Can I just explore that because to me that raises a pretty serious question
because what you are describing is kids who may have issues with their home situation
but from an education perspective are attending school on a regular basis then moving
into the State care system where that breaks down. Is that what you are describing?
Mr FLACK - Yes, because once they go on an 18-year order, they place the kid near where
the carer is living. I think that is plain policy. I did want to get onto departmental policy
and about the size. I attended the working in partnership conference at the Casino in
2008. Lee Taylor heads up communication since 2008 between the two departments. I
have not seen much improvement in that communication between departments. We have
actually has someone at a senior level, Lee Taylor, in that position to work on schools,
medical and child protection working together because a lot of these kids go from
disability school as well as Child Protection.
Also I wanted to touch on the legislation. One of our kids is Aboriginal. Her five-yearold brother, who is also Aboriginal, is in care and she has seen him twice in five years.
When they drafted the Gateway legislation they put in guardianship laws for foster carers
so we could become guardians of the kids we're looking after. This carer has become the
guardian of this five-year-old Aboriginal boy and she is basically putting up blockages
preventing him from seeing his sisters. At the last meeting they had she reported back, I
think to Mark Byrne, that he was unsettled because he didn't know who they were.
Mrs FLACK - That's because he's only seen her twice in five years.
Mr FLACK - Yes. This is part of legislation and quite important. We've had the Stolen
Generation and things like that - I mean, have we learnt nothing? Before a carer is meant
to be given guardianship it's meant to go to a board. If they are Aboriginal, the
Aboriginal community is meant to be consulted. Mum and dad are meant to give
approval for them, if they can be found. If mum and dad can't be found there are other
mechanisms for it to be approved. We knew where mum was because the girl with us
was visiting mum.
Ms PETRUSMA - So you're saying that mum wasn't Mr FLACK - I don't know; I haven't seen the paperwork. But to me that's pretty serious
stuff for staff when you're dealing with that community and we're making those
decisions with those kids.
Ms PETRUSMA - So the older child is not seeing the younger one - what's her response to
all this? How is she seeing the situation?
Mr FLACK - Well, she's oblivious to what's going on behind the scenes. They just say,
'He's at school now so he can only see her during the holidays'.
Ms PETRUSMA - But she wants to see him more often?
Mr FLACK - She does. She wants to have some sort of relationship with him.
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTION,
HOBART 15/11/10 (FLACK)
9
Mrs FLACK - They took a camera and took photos of him so they've got photos, but how
long do photos become Mr FLACK - With the legislation - keeping families together - it is great to have it there but
if it's not abided by - for example, four of the kids that we had came to us because there
was an emergency. The two girls went to a carer in Bridgewater and the two boys went
to a carer in Mornington, and that happens quite a bit. One of the boys has three other
siblings, one is with one carer, the other two are with another carer and he is with a carer
by himself. These are families and siblings.
Ms PETRUSMA - So they're not getting access to each other very much?
Mr FLACK - We don't really know because he was only with us in the group home for a
short time.
Mr GROOM - But in that instance they've been broken up?
Mr FLACK - Yes.
Mrs FLACK - We have another child we constantly care for who has five brothers; three are
somewhere, two are somewhere and we have him.
Mr FLACK - Our family consists of six different families.
CHAIR - John and Tracey, if I asked you to write down what's wrong and how to fix it,
could you do that?
Mr FLACK - The trouble is we're not experts.
Mr GROOM - No, but you've had practical exposure.
Mr FLACK - It's basically about them working together. By the legislation you're meant to
have family conferences and the like. We had a worker monitoring phone calls so mum
couldn't suggest a family conference to the child because mum was putting ideas in his
head. When he did have a family conference, it went really well because he could bring
outside professionals into that conference. When they request a family conference, they
can request other counsellors outside the department - teachers or whoever they want - to
be part of that conference, and then we sit and discuss what is in the best interest of the
child and how we can move forward and improve the child's life, and it works really
well.
Mrs FLACK - That's what we really want to focus on: it's all about the child and what's best
for them.
Ms PETRUSMA - So family conferences are not happening enough?
Mr FLACK - I think that they might be scared of the outside source being in a family
conference and making those suggestions and being held and bound by them. We could
go on for hours like this.
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTION,
HOBART 15/11/10 (FLACK)
10
CHAIR - I've got a very good feel of it but if you'd like to come back if you feel as though
you missed anything, you can make an appointment through Shane. Or if you would like
to put something in writing I would love to actually see Mr FLACK - I have talked to Catherine - is it Catherine?
CHAIR - You're talking about Caz - Caroline. She spoke to me about that.
Mr FLACK -Yes, inviting you to morning tea, so I could probably talk about some of that
stuff with you then.
Ms PETRUSMA - If there is more stuff we can look at we'll need you to come before us
again to present evidence because this report can only go by what is actually heard in this
forum.
Mr FLACK - Another thing is I feel that we should have an independent advocate for kids. I
don't know whether it should be part of the commissioner's office or not. The
department is really pushing these trial visitors. I just see that as another person that
comes into a child's life and disappears, that sort of thing, but it would be good if we
could actually have an advocate where the parents could go for individual advocacy, the
foster carer could go and the children could go. At the moment it's ridiculous, it really is.
You've got a commissioner for children who can only advocate with the minister's
permission. What's that? Why have him or her? There's no place we can go to. There
is a letter there from Advocacy Tasmania. They cannot advocate if we go to them; only
the guardian can give permission for a child to be advocated through them, and the
guardian is the Child Protection worker so we cannot give permission for Advocacy
Tasmania to advocate.
Mr GROOM - So you're saying in your view there is no independent advocate and assistant,
not just for children but also for parents, by the sound of it.
Mr FLACK - And for parents as well for what is going on, just to making sure we are acting
in the best interests of the child, because we're making a huge decision removing these
kids from their parents and we're meant to be removing them to make their lives better.
We're not meant to be removing them and doing nothing.
Mr GROOM - It goes back to that point in relation to education. You were citing examples
where in fact in many instances their situation declines on going into State care.
Mr FLACK - Yes, in some cases.
CHAIR - Thank you.
Ms PETRUSMA - I think it would be good if you could come back either before us or in
writing because I have a lot more questions I would like to ask.
Mr FLACK - So can we book another half-hour?
CHAIR - I will be in touch.
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTION,
HOBART 15/11/10 (FLACK)
11
Mr GROOM - Thanks for coming in.
THE WITNESSES WITHDREW.
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTION,
HOBART 15/11/10 (FLACK)
12
Ms JILL BEECH WAS CALLED, MADE THE STATUTORY DECLARATION AND
WAS EXAMINED.
CHAIR - Hi Jill, welcome. My name is Paul O'Halloran I am the chair of this committee.
We also have Matthew Groom and Jacquie Petrusma at the table but we are missing the
two Labor people, Bec White and Brian Wightman, who are apologies because they are
tied up with mundane stuff.
Have you read the preliminary information that has been sent out?
Ms BEECH - Yes, I've gone through it.
CHAIR - And the terms of reference, you're pretty aware of what those are?
Ms BEECH - I think so, yes.
CHAIR - In general we're just looking at the whole issue of child protection so anything that
will inform that process will be good.
Ms BEECH - Okay. Well, it's been 12 months since I've had dealings with Child Protection.
It all stated back on 27 August last year when my eldest daughter, Jodie, received a
phone call from Leah Woolford from CPS asking if she would out and collect Molly as
Megan, her mother, had notified her that she was going to Melbourne and that she was
going to leave Molly in the care of her father, and Child Protection knew of him because
he's a known druggie known to police.
Ms PETRUSMA - How old is Molly?
Ms BEECH - Molly now is three; she was three in October. So Jodie picked Molly up, as
requested. The next day, Leah made time to have an appointment with us to run through
just what was happening and expected, blah, blah, blah, and she said that the department
was going to hand Molly over to us for three months and was that okay with us and of
course we said yes because Molly is my granddaughter and Jodie's niece. At that stage
there was nothing written to say that we had Molly and as Leah left, she said to us both
that the worst that could happen was that the police could arrive on our doorstep and
accuse us of kidnapping Molly.
Ms PETRUSMA - So this is the Child Protection worker telling you that?
Ms BEECH - Yes, and then she was unavailable for four days because she was away on
leave. So you can imagine what we were like - panicking, expecting a knock on the
door, but it didn't come.
Ms PETRUSMA - So did she let you know at what stage Child Protection would give you
that safety?
Ms BEECH - No, nothing was given whatsoever - it was just, 'Here's Molly'.
Mr GROOM - And you felt you had no choice?
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTION,
HOBART 15/11/10 (BEECH)
13
Ms BEECH - Of course. I know the situation so I was of the opinion that I didn't have a
choice - you take family regardless and that's what we did, we took her.
CHAIR - So, Jill, who is Molly's mother, your daughter?
Ms BEECH - Yes.
CHAIR - Her name is?
Ms BEECH - Megan Beech. So on 6 August we had a meeting with Child Protection at
New Town with myself, Jodie, Megan and Leah Woolford, who was the case manager.
The meeting didn't go well. We had a lot of points that we wanted to put forward so that
we had some answers and Leah deliberately antagonised Jodie. She realised that Jodie
was very easily antagonised and she worked that out very quickly and Jodie lost her
temper and walked out the door. So, with that, Leah just said to me, 'Well, are you
willing to take Molly for the three months?' and of course I said yes, so that was the end
of the meeting. I took Molly home and it was only a three months voluntary order on
Megan's behalf so it didn't go any further than that.
On 7 August I rang Leah to find out exactly what was happening and she told me that the
department had made a decision that Jodie was not to see Molly at all under any
circumstances due to what had happened the day before.
Ms PETRUSMA - So why was the Child Protection worker aggressive to Jodie?
Ms BEECH - I think because Jodie is pretty clicked on and she was asking questions that she
thought she needed answers to and the answers just were not coming.
Ms PETRUSMA - You were doing the department a favour by taking her at such short
notice.
Ms BEECH - Oh yes, definitely. The help was just not coming forward.
CHAIR - Jill, I just missed that bit - Jodie is?
Ms BEECH - My eldest daughter, Megan's sister.
Ms PETRUSMA - Who was first asked to look after Molly?
Ms BEECH - Yes, they actually asked her to go out and pick Molly up. But in saying that,
at no time did the department give Jodie a ring and tell her of their decision that she was
not to see Molly. Jodie never, ever received that notification from them.
On 10 August 2009, I still didn't have anything written from the department to say that I
had been given the care of Molly. I needed this so that I could go to Centrelink because I
needed to get some help financially as far as looking after Molly was concerned. So on
11 August, I rang Leah and asked if I could have a meeting with her to follow up on
some of these matters and she told me that Claire Lovell, who was her team leader,
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTION,
HOBART 15/11/10 (BEECH)
14
would also be at the meeting. I was rather pleased that I did have the team leader there
as well.
So on the 12th I went to the meeting with Claire and Leah. I went through all my
problems that I had, including the major problem that Megan's boyfriend, Ben Goodwin,
was still around even though the department had told Megan he was not to be under any
situation. I was just told by Leah that they wouldn't expect her to stop the relationship
straight away, even though that's the feeling we got - 'You don't see him and the
relationship finishes here'. I also brought to Leah's attention that I still didn't have an
official letter from them and Claire was quite surprised and not happy about this and told
Leah that she had to write that letter straight away and send one straight to Centrelink so
that they knew exactly what was going on.
Mr GROOM - So, Jill, at that point how long had you had custody for her for?
Ms PETRUSMA - It would have been 16 days because it was 27 July.
Ms BEECH - Yes, and to me that's far too long.
CHAIR - Jill, why were they saying that Ben Goodwin shouldn't be around?
Ms BEECH - He's known to the department in another instance and they also know his
background.
From then on, there weren't an awful lot of problems; the department sort of let me do
my own thing. The only thing they did ring and ask was if I would be willing to do
kinship care, to which I said yes, I would, which included a lot of my time because
you've got a good two hours-plus of questions and answers that you have to go through.
Mr GROOM - Can you explain that to me?
Ms BEECH - Being a kinship carer means that I've got legal rights to have Molly if
something happens where she's put in a situation where she's back with CPS again. They
do a Federal check, I answer an awful lot of questions, and they come and do house
checks for safety et cetera. These are all things that I did under the assumption that that
was the line that was going to happen but it didn't of course. To me that was a lot taken
on by me. I had never done anything like this before and I felt as though I'd been thrown
in the deep end and then all of a sudden nothing happened. At a meeting I did ask what
was happening about the kinship carer and they just said, 'Oh well, you just don't know
what's going to happen down the track'. So that's what happened with that.
I did have a meeting with Bruce Kemp and Paulette from CPS. Bruce Kemp is the
manager. Jodie and I went through a lot of our worries with both of them and Paulette
did a lot of the talking, Bruce didn't do an awful lot at all, but when we left that meeting
we were both under the impression that they were taking Megan's case to court because
they had enough evidence for the court to decide what was going to happen with Molly
and as to whether Molly would be taken off her mother, and that didn't happen either.
These are all the sorts of things they led us to believe and then all of a sudden nothing
happened and, I might add, no notifications, no communication, no nothing as far as the
department was concerned. They just leave you up in the air and off you go.
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTION,
HOBART 15/11/10 (BEECH)
15
In between the gap of August and me starting to have more worries again after Molly was
given back to her mother Ms PETRUSMA - So during that three months that you had her did you get any payment at
all during that time?
Ms CLAYTON - From them, no.
Ms PETRUSMA - So you didn't receive a cent.
Ms CLAYTON - No, which was quite funny because after - I have got it here - I think it was
three or months after Molly was back with her mum I got a phone call from CPS asking
me if I was aware that I should be getting payment. I thought I don't have Molly any
more but she said, 'I'll just send me the form out, you fill it out, send it back to me. You
just never know, you might be deserving of some money'. Well, that was the end of that
because I didn't hear any more either.
Ms PETRUSMA - So you had her for three months at the department's request without
receiving any payment?
Ms BEECH - Yes. I got Centrelink payment but I didn't receive anything from CPS
whatsoever.
Ms PETRUSMA - You didn't get a carer or kinship payment?
Ms BEECH - No. It's a long time since I've had children in my house so I had to provide an
awful lot of things.
Ms PETRUSMA - Clothing, toys and bedding?
Ms BEECH - Bedding and everything, because her mother had nothing. So at the time I was
a little bit disappointed because I thought Mr GROOM - Can I ask a question? From your own personal perspective, how much
would that have cost you out of pocket?
Ms BEECH - I know the initial outlay in the first few days of having Molly included extra
food and everything because two-year-olds eat differently to what I do, and clothing
because what clothing I did find at her mother's was all size 1 and Molly was size 2. I
think the initial outlay was $300 so just the normal everyday living after that.
CHAIR - Were you able to keep working?
Ms BEECH - Yes, I was lucky enough to find some family daycare and Molly was in family
daycare for three days a week and her mother had Molly Thursday and Friday.
CHAIR - Did you pay for the family day care?
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTION,
HOBART 15/11/10 (BEECH)
16
Ms BEECH - Well, it went through Centrelink, so I didn't have to actually pay out of my
own pocket, which was a godsend, thank goodness.
On 8 December last year I rang the Bridgewater Police Station and asked them if they
would do a check on Molly as I had been trying to get hold of Megan with no answer.
This was over a few days and I really was starting to get worried about her because I
knew Megan's relationship with Ben would have been still well and truly in hand. The
police did go around there and I also mentioned breathing and they rang me back to say
that Molly was in bed asleep and she appeared to be okay and that a male fitting Ben's
description was in the bed in the main bedroom, and they said that they were going to
send a report to CPS about that. So I felt as though I had got somewhere in that regard.
On 10 December I went to the Bridgewater Police Station to follow up on the report.
You will find I'm like a dog with a bone, I just keep going until I get something. They
said that the two officers weren't available at the moment and I said fine, no worries. I
went back there on 11 December and spoke to the sergeant who was there at the time,
Darren Latham, and he knew of Megan and he told me that because of his worries he was
going to ring CPS and put through a report to them personally, but that was to no avail
because nothing came of that.
On the 14th I went back to the Bridgewater Police Station and spoke to the two police
officers who went to Megan's and they told me they had sent the report through to CPS
but in saying that they also said it was probably a waste of time because they wouldn't
follow it up. So they were right.
On 16 December I rang Lisa Stelfox who was the team leader for Tegan who was
Megan's case worker at the time but, as usual she was unavailable, so I left a message
and got no return call, which I had got used to because this was an ongoing thing. It was
as if as soon as I mentioned my name they were not available, and that's just how I felt it
was happening because I wasn't getting any return phone calls. To me it was starting to
get into the too-hard basket. I also rang Gateway and left a message and there was no
return call from that person either.
The following day on the 17th I went up to CPS at New Town and asked if I could speak
to Lisa. I was told that she was at a meeting, I said fine, so I left. As I was just about to
get in the car Lisa came running out and asked what the problem was and I said I needed
to speak to her about my worries and that even though the case had been handed over to
Gateway I was still worried about things that were happening and I just needed to speak
to her to make them aware of what was happening.
I had a meeting of one hour and fifteen minutes with her and told her that nothing had
changed at all with Megan, things were still happening the same way. Megan is very
clever. A case worker will go and speak to her and say something has been brought to
her attention, but if Megan says no, it is the end of story. Even though we know
otherwise, what can we do? We cannot go against her because they'll turn around and
say they believe her, not us. Just as the meeting finished Lisa said to me, 'It wouldn't
matter what Megan did, you would never be happy with it'. I said, 'No, that's not the
case. All I've ever wanted Megan to be is a good mother and I don't think that's an awful
lot to ask' - which I don't and still don't. I was told that the case would remain closed and
stay with Gateway.
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTION,
HOBART 15/11/10 (BEECH)
17
In between times Megan has had another child to Ben Goodwin; she had a baby in July,
and it just happened that the weekend that she had the baby it was my access to Molly
because I had access once a month and Jodie had access once a month, so it was my
weekend. She had the baby and rang me the day after to let me know that she had had
him and was coming home on the Tuesday. I said, ' Fine'. She said, 'Is it all right?' I
said, 'Yes, no problems'. Another few days was not going to make the slightest bit of
difference to me. I was taking Molly to childcare anyway because I had organised with
Megan, so that I knew she got there, that I would take her on Monday, Tuesday and
Wednesday on my way to work. That was my way of keeping an eye on Molly just
making sure that everything was fine and it just made my life a little easier that I knew
that everything was fine.
I didn't hear anything at all from Megan. On 19 August I took Molly back to her
mother's house because Ben had rung me and told me, not so nicely, that Megan was
home. He said,' When are you bringing Molly back?', and I said, ' I'll bring her back
when I can see Megan', because he had made it to the point where I could not speak to
Megan. So I took Molly back. As soon as I pulled in the driveway Ben came out of the
house and said to get Molly out of the car. I said I wasn't handing Molly over to him, he
wasn't her father; he was no relation. He said, 'Megan's in there feeding the baby', and I
said, 'I don't care, I need to see Megan, I want to see Megan before I hand Molly over,
end of story'. There wasn't going to be any communication about that.
With that, Ben came flying around my side of the car - I thought I'd locked it but I hadn't
- opened the door on the driver's side when Molly was on the passenger side, and tried to
get in the car to get Molly. I pushed the car door and told him to get out of my car and
this went on for quite a while to the point where he ended up grabbing me by the head
and pushed me out of the way, and then he got the car door and said, 'You're worried
about your car blah, blah, blah.'
He literally dragged Molly out of the car and dumped her on the ground and then got
back into the car and dragged the car seat out. With that, I grabbed Molly and ran next
door. The police were called by me and by Megan and the minute they arrived at the
door they arrested Ben for outstanding warrants. They charged him with assault to me
and damage to my vehicle and when the police arrested him and took him away both
Jodie and I went and saw Megan and spoke to her about what had happened and she said
that the lady from Gateway was coming to see her and we asked if it was all right if we
came to the meeting. She said that was fine. In the meantime I had to go up to the police
station and give statements, et cetera, but in that time Ben came back and locked Megan
in the house and we couldn't get in so we couldn't be there for the meeting.
At the meeting Gateway was told that I was the one who assaulted him and had been
charged with assault and the bail conditions were that I was not to be anywhere near him
or Megan when in fact the condition was the other way around. But Gateway notified
CPS of what he had told them and they believed him.
Ms PETRUSMA - So it has never been confirmed?
Ms BEECH - Well, I sent a letter to both Georgie Sloane from CPS to Gateway with a copy
of the bail notice. I received a letter back from Gateway with all the excuses under the
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTION,
HOBART 15/11/10 (BEECH)
18
sun as to why they believed Ben but nothing from CPS, and to this day I still haven't
received anything from CPS even though they have a copy of the bail notice. They still
have not acknowledged the fact that they were wrong and I should be apologised to, but
nothing. It's very frustrating.
We had a further conversation with Georgie Sloane later that day and she basically told
Jodie she didn't want to hear from her again. She had received a report from Jodie and
she didn't want to speak to her any more and she told Jodie she wasn't talking to her
because she was abusing her and raising her voice, and that was after what we'd been
through on that day, which was only minor in comparison to what we've been through.
So Jodie handed the phone to me and I told her what Ben had said about the bail notice
was incorrect and she just said basically, 'That's what we've been told so that's what we
believe', and I said fine. I asked a couple of questions about Megan and she just said to
me that it was the Privacy Act and she couldn't tell me anything because I was not
immediate family, so she obviously didn't have her facts right.
I have told you about writing the letter to them both and did not receive anything. On
12 September this year I rang to speak to Mary Mulligan at CPS and was advised that she
was unavailable and the lady on reception said to me, 'Are you ringing about Molly?', and
I said, 'Why?', because I was not ringing immediately about Molly, I was ringing Mary to
find out if there was anything further I could do so I wasn't hitting a brick wall every
time. I was told that Molly had been taken off her mother and was in foster care which I
was absolutely devastated about because the first thing I thought was why wasn't I
notified seeing as I had been given kinship care?
Ms PETRUSMA - Yes, and seeing as you'd been making all these reports.
Ms BEECH - Yes, so I just go to the whatever stage. Sarah Langdale from CPS rang me on
13 September at about 10 a.m. re Molly and Shia and she told me that they were in a safe
place and they were helping Megan find accommodation.
Ms PETRUSMA - So Megan lost the baby as well?
Ms BEECH - Yes, and she told us that Megan did not want Jodie and me to know about this.
I just kept on asking questions but I didn't receive any answers so I just ended up giving
up and saying thank you very much and there were no further conversations with the
department after that. So at the moment I don't know anything; I don't know what's
going on.
CHAIR - Where are the two kids?
Ms BEECH - Well, I'm assuming they're still in foster care but I don't know because I've
never received anything from CPS to tell me so, or the reason why they're in foster care.
CHAIR - You've had no contact at all?
Ms BEECH - No, nothing.
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTION,
HOBART 15/11/10 (BEECH)
19
CHAIR - Jill, have you had any further attempt to try to, for want of a better description,
clear your name in relation to that misunderstanding?
Ms BEECH - No, because I just thought that the bail notice from the police should be
enough and I honestly did get to the stage where I was starting to feel, 'what is the point?'
Mr GROOM - You would feel as if you had hit a brick wall with the department.
Ms BEECH - Yes, literally hit that brick wall and there was just no point in speaking to
anybody else because I felt like I had been through them all.
Ms PETRUSMA - Jill, just to sum up. So you had been approved as a kinship carer?
Ms BEECH - Yes.
Ms PETRUSMA - So you were found good enough the look after her for three months but
then you had been making all these reports to the department about your concerns about
Molly and then when it came down to it, were you made to feel as if you had been
creating trouble or something, and that you were punished for it and that is why you did
not get care of Molly in the end?
Ms BEECH - Yes, I really do. I just feel as though they think that I am out to cause waves.
I am not really out to cause waves; I am just worried about my grandkids. At the end of
the day, this is what this is all about and it is a shame the department does not realise it.
It really bewilders me, just sometimes, just where their heads are.
Ms PETRUSMA - So you have had no access now to Molly?
Ms BEECH - I have not seen Molly. I have had nothing to do with Molly since the baby
was born in July.
CHAIR - So, July. So the little baby is in care as well?
Ms BEECH - Yes.
Mr GROOM - It is a very raw experience and obviously you care a lot about your children
and your grandchildren. But if you were to just summarise it, what do you think is
wrong with the system, Jill?
Ms BEECH - To me, they are not answerable to any decisions they make, whether they are
right or wrong. That is number one - they are just not answerable. They make decisions
and, to me, they are God. They do not go any further than that department, whether they
are right or wrong. They have to remember that these are children and they are playing
with children's lives. Children are the future and we have seen what happens to children
who are not looked after in the system. I just wish sometimes they had hearts. They just
do not seem to have hearts, any of them. I know they have children. Some of the carers,
to me, are too young. Tegan Dwyer, who was number two after Leah Ms PETRUSMA - The case worker?
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTION,
HOBART 15/11/10 (BEECH)
20
Ms BEECH - Yes, she was straight out of university - far too young and does not know
anything about life. You can all have uni degrees but you still have to know about real
life. I do not know how many there are in the department who are married but you really
do end up having to be a mum to know just what it is like to have someone else running
your family's life and not being able to get answers or truth out of them.
CHAIR - Jill, thank you very much and I know this has not been easy for you.
Ms PETRUSMA - Jill, do you have some paperwork there you could let us have?
Ms BEECH - Yes.
Mr GROOM - We really appreciate your coming in, Jill. I know it is hard for you to speak
about this, but it is very important from our perspective that we get a sense of what it is
like because that raw experience is part of the truth of this. What you are describing
there is a government bureaucracy that is involved in people's lives and in family and it
is important that we understand what that feels like.
Ms BEECH - Oh yes and they are a department that needs an awful lot learning. They do
need to find out what it is all about before they start ruining people's lives which, to me,
is what they are doing.
CHAIR - Good luck with your reconnection with your grandchildren. Do you have other
grandkids.
Ms BEECH - Oh yes. The two who are in care at the moment are the last two of Megan's
and she has six - which she has nothing to do with.
Ms PETRUSMA - Where are your other grandchildren?
Ms BEECH - The first three are with their father. The fourth one is with her father and they
have gone through court, so the parents and then there is Molly and the baby, who had
two different fathers and so now, hence, they are in foster care.
CHAIR - Good luck with it all.
THE WITNESS WITHDREW.
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTION,
HOBART 15/11/10 (BEECH)
21
Ms LOUISE STOWARD WAS CALLED, MADE THE STATUTORY DECLARATION
AND WAS EXAMINED.
CHAIR - Thanks for coming in, Louise.
Ms STOWARD - I invited my son to come too so he isn't sitting at home worrying about
what I am saying, what is happening. Also, if there is anything that you want to know
that I don't know, he knows.
Ms PETRUSMA - So who is this again, sorry?
Ms STOWARD - This is Ryan. Ryan was 12 when he was taken. My other son was 14.
CHAIR - Ryan, where are you at school?
RYAN STOWARD - I am in grade 7 at Rose Bay.
Ms STOWARD - You mustn't photograph him - I don't know that the school would like their
school uniform photographed.
CHAIR - No, I thought that. Ryan is okay - he can chill out over there and have a listen.
Ms STOWARD - I notice the Labor Party are absent.
CHAIR - They are because we knew this though a week or so ago and we decided to go
ahead because we have a quorum. We have a pretty tight sort of time line so our
apologies for that but certainly we will be feeding information back to them.
Ms STOWARD - I intend to go and actually see them if they don't listen or take notice.
Ms PETRUSMA - They will read the transcript.
CHAIR - We did know it is no fault of theirs.
Ms STOWARD - It is not that they are not interested?
CHAIR - Absolutely not. We decided as a group to go ahead because we have a quorum.
Louise we have half an hour.
Ms STOWARD - Half an hour is probably not enough - I needed an hour so I will do what I
can.
CHAIR - The trouble is that I have an appointment, so that is a problem, but if you do need
longer, you are welcome to come back on another day.
Ms STOWARD - I have decided to go through what I feel are systemic problems and you
may not get time for my story.
Ms PETRUSMA - We can re-book you in.
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTION,
HOBART 15/11/10 (STOWARD)
22
Mr GROOM - If you do want to come we do not want to shut you off.
CHAIR - I would love to hear the systemic problems.
Ms STOWARD - Look that is what I want. The reason I am coming here to give my story it
is a huge risk Ms PETRUSMA - Do you think we need to hear your story first though to get the picture of
this problem?
Ms STOWARD - I hope that you will get it. Just to give a bit of a rundown.
Mr GROOM - What do you mean that it is a huge risk?
Ms STOWARD - The stereotype of a mother who has had their children removed is a victim
of the worst stereotyping. We are just scum. Everybody assumes that I am a druggie, I
beat my kids, I am uneducated, I am on the dole, I am sleeping around and I leave my
children unattended. We are marked. I don't fit that stereotype but if you can't see me
and if you can't talk to me my name will be in the paper and my children will be
identified. They haven't met me. What do you think Ryan has to put up with other
children thinking what type of mother he has?
So I am coming forward because I want to point out the systemic changes in the system
because I have been to the Family Inclusion Network and seen the other mothers who
have had their children removed. I have seen that nothing they do will satisfy Child
Protection. I have seen that they can't get their children back.
Our family has a stain, a shame, and we are not the same any more. I would say we have
mental illness now. We have shame, we have anxiety, we are affected by what we have
been through. I don't want other people to go through that.
Ms PETRUSMA - Louise, you might actually walk us through what happened so that we
can Ms STOWARD - All right, okay. And a legal mandatory report. It is against the law to not
make a mandatory report. It's also against the law to make a false mandatory report. I
was speaking to a worker from Gateway. The workers at Gateway are all inexperienced.
I asked for a worker who had children and they said they didn't have any. The first
worker I got was young, had no children and lived with her mother. I tried to terminate
her but another gentleman stepped in and said, 'I can help you. I don't have children but I
used to work for Reconnect and I have a lot of experience with children.' I said to him,
'There's only one thing I need help with. I have a son who has a learning disability. He's
incredibly intelligent but he has a very low score in processing and sequencing. It's very
difficult since he's been at high school because he's got lots of teachers, I'm unable to
communicate the problem and they don't understand why some of his work is of an
incredibly high standard, he speaks well, but the work that has more processing in it is
rubbish. My son is lying continually and I feel that it may be related to his learning
disability, his low self-esteem. He's not performing as well as he could.'
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTION,
HOBART 15/11/10 (STOWARD)
23
The school sent me off for a neuropsychological report at the university. It was 15 pages
of total rubbish; no-one could understand it. The guidance officers couldn't understand it.
I said, 'The help that I need in my parenting is to have this report explained to me. I need
to understand if this is related to his lying.' They said, 'Yes, we can help you'. Six weeks
later he's having little family meetings and taking the children bowling - I don't know
what they do. My son lies again. Well, he's lying all the time but I found out that my
son's maths have not gone up, not because, as he said, his teacher is useless, but when I
looked he actually hadn't done any work and he couldn't do the maths. I got really angry
at him because he'd lied to me for a year and I slapped him.
When I say I slapped him, no child stands there while you slap him; it's more of a slap
and they move so it's a small amount of contact. I phoned up the worker and said, 'Look,
I'm fed up with your service. You are giving me stuff I don't need and you have not done
what I need. School is back in three weeks and you have not given me any help with this
report. We have wasted an entire year with my son telling lies and not doing well at
school. I don't think he's able to face the truth that he's failing. In grade four he was at
the top of the class and as there is more processing involved and things get more
complicated and he can't handle it, rather than tell me he's having problems he's lying and
saying he's doing really well. I can't waste another year. I'm at my wits' end and this is
what I want.'
Now, somewhere in that conversation he decided that James was in danger. I said to
him, 'When my son lies to me I get so angry inside I feel like I want to just hit him and
hit him because he's telling me this thing and I know it's not true and he keeps saying it'.
I said, 'I don't like that feeling and I have to walk away or I have to send him for a run. I
don't like it.' He then said, 'We are coming to take your son away to a safe place.'
CHAIR - How old is James?
Ms STOWARD - He was 14 then; he's 15 now. I said, 'My son is safe. He does not need to
be taken away.' 'No, we are coming to take him away.' Nothing I could do could
convince him that my son was not in danger. It was my saying that I felt as if I wanted to
hit him.
Ms PETRUSMA - Because you were asking for help.
Ms STOWARD - Yes. Well actually, I was basically saying if you can't help me, go away
and I'll find somewhere else. A feeling isn't the same as an action. If you come home
and your boss has insulted you, you might say to your husband or your friends, 'Oh God,
I could just punch him in the nose!', but you're not going to do it. I was feeling
frustration; my children were brought up correctly and to tell the truth and my son is
lying about his performance. I do not know why. I don't know whether it is connected
to his learning disability. I want help. I was trying to express to him I really need that
help. I feel really angry when my son lies. He was going to take my son away. I said,
'My son would hate that. He's not in danger.' Then I said, 'I'm not giving up my son', but
he said, 'We are taking him away'. I said, 'No mother gives up their son. Any mother
who gave up her son would die of shame. You'd have to kill yourself - how could you
face people if you'd given your son away?'
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTION,
HOBART 15/11/10 (STOWARD)
24
He said, ' We're taking your son away', and very sarcastically I said, ' Oh great, so I die
today - thanks a lot.'. He backed down then and said, 'I'll get you the help, don't worry
about it, are you sure you're all right?' I convinced him that I just wanted to know that he
was going to get that help before school went back. I believed him. My son went for a
beach run. Then three policemen knocked on the door - two police cars - and I instantly
knew that I'd been had.
The report that he made was that I had threatened to kill my children and kill myself.
That is not correct; that is not what happened. That is murder-suicide - that's an
enormous threat. The police were phoned and told that I was threatening to kill my
children and myself. Who wouldn't take the children away?
I want to know who gives him the right to make that mandatory report and how do I
prove my innocence? The minute that report had been made to the police everything I
did appeared irrational, so when the affidavits came in it was 'Ms Stoward was acting
irrationally', 'Ms Stoward was confused and distressed in front of her children', because
they were going to take my children away and I was sectioned to go to the Royal.
I didn't know what his report said so I didn't really know what I had done. All I knew
was that I had reported that I'd slapped my son and that I had felt anger. I didn't even
take the suicide comment as serious because it was said in sarcasm. So I asked why and
in front of my children they said, 'This is because of what you have done'. I asked what
and they said, 'You threatened suicide'. When they took my children away my children
thought that I had threatened suicide. It was just appalling. I did not know for five days
what his report was. The children were taken away, I was sectioned, I was taken to the
Royal and was immediately released. As soon as I spoke to the psychiatric registrar and
told him what I said he said, 'This is a misunderstanding. You were expressing
frustration, you're free to go'.
It was interesting how the police beforehand had been very abusive and taunting me when the children packed a bag they wouldn't let me touch it, they were waving keys in
front of my face. The children were horrified and could not believe that the police were
doing this to their mother. On the way home the police treated me like a normal person
because they didn't have a report to say that I was threatening suicide.
While I was in the hospital I was told that the children had been removed and I was not
to contact them. My son has anaphylaxis to egg and peanut and I said they needed to
return him home. In any event, the argument was only between my other son and this
son needed to come home. By phone they said, Your son does not want to talk to you,
he needs a break'. This has caused Ryan considerable concern because he didn't say that
and if I had been suicidal, how would that have helped? This is just one of the many lies
that they would tell me or my children. They told the children that 'Mum was having a
lovely time doing all the things that she could never do when she had you', for instance.
It's just cruelty.
On the way home I said to the police, 'What is this? What do you mean I can't phone my
children? Is there a restraining order against me? I've just been released and told I'm
fine.' 'No, there's no restraining order.' 'Then why can't I have my children?' 'Well, you
can; there's no order, they just hope you'll obey.' The children had been sent to my
mother's and she'd been threatened that if I was to even contact her she was to phone
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTION,
HOBART 15/11/10 (STOWARD)
25
them. I've worked in the legal industry for 14 years. I know if there's no order I have a
right to my children. I'd been vindicated by the Royal, so I went and got them. We came
home and spent the weekend together. They were traumatised by what had happened but
we thought that was it. I went; I was clean; I was free; we were home. No. Child
Protection were absolutely furious that I'd gone and got my children back.
Then what happened is just unbelievable - in fact, I'm sure you've heard it all before.
Now, you know that kidnapping is a criminal offence, don't you? Not necessarily. You
know that a child who is kidnapped would be expected to be a victim of crime, to be
traumatised, would need counselling and would be given compensation under the
Criminal Injuries Act. The mother would also be a victim and she would receive
counselling and compensation under the act. Child Protection regularly kidnaps children
entirely within the law and it's done with that same drama, so how come a child who was
kidnapped by Child Protection, legally kidnapped, would not still be traumatised and not
still need counselling and the mother also?
My children were legally kidnapped and taken to a house in South Hobart; not a nice
house but a dump unsuitable to accommodate children at all. There were holes in the
walls, the television had been kicked in, the oven didn't work, the bedding wasn't clean,
it stunk. The children had to clean for hours before they could even eat. There were no
toys, books, sporting equipment; nothing. That is because the house wasn't meant to be
used; it had been condemned and needed repair. My children didn't know why they were
there or how long they were going to be there, but what they did know was that no-one in
their family knew where they were. They didn't know if anyone in their family was okay
and they knew that I didn't know if they were okay. They did know they were afraid.
They did know that I would be distressed. They'd lost their entire world as they knew it.
My eldest son said our family now has a stain that can never be removed.
Ms PETRUSMA - Were they put in a foster group home here or was it a foster carer?
Ms STOWARD - They are entitled to a five-day removal and you get a warrant. They have
five days and they just take those kids away and put them in that house. With the
mandatory report given by Gateway, I'm a homicidal maniac, aren't I, despite the fact
that the children were with me all weekend and were not killed or harmed. They took
them away and hid them. In that time they would not answer my questions or contact
me. I tried to find out what I'd done -'What do you want me to do; do you want me to
have counselling?' 'Well, that's up to you.' 'Well, if I am to have counselling, how do I
tell a counsellor what I need counselling for?', because at this stage I don't know that I've
been accused of killing my children.
Mr GROOM - Can you just take me through the actual warrant process? Did the police
come to your home?
Ms STOWARD - Issued a warrant; yes.
Mr GROOM - Yes, and they came to your home to collect your children?
Ms STOWARD - Once they'd issued the warrant - I'm not stupid; I realise the law and I
knew there was nothing I could do.
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTION,
HOBART 15/11/10 (STOWARD)
26
Mr GROOM - You were present at the home?
Ms STOWARD - I was present at home. The children were at home and my mother was at
home.
Mr GROOM - What did the police say to you?
Ms STOWARD - They knocked on the door and asked to come in. They'd been pretty awful
to me on the Friday so I said they could on the condition they were nice to me.
Ms PETRUSMA - This was on the Monday, was it?
Ms STOWARD - Yes. They smiled, came in and I was issued with a warrant.
Mr GROOM - Did they explain what that was for?
Ms STOWARD - The warrant explains nothing other than that the children are being
removed.
Mr GROOM - So it doesn't give you the reason?
Ms STOWARD - No, there are no details on the warrant, it's just a document authorising
them to take the children.
Mr GROOM - It sounds like you may have other access to it but were you offered any legal
advice or any assistance?
Ms STOWARD - No. I was handed some sort of standard Child Protection thing where they
suggest you get legal advice. The only rights I had was the right to find out whether my
children were in foster care or a group home and I had the right to find out if they were
together or separate.
Mr GROOM - From the time when the children were taken, at that point, when was the next
time you actually spoke to them?
Ms STOWARD - Three weeks later.
Ms PETRUSMA - Were they in a foster care situation or in a group home?
Ms STOWARD - They were in a foster care situation. They were placed in a home but the
carers changed, so the first day they had no carer. The first day they were there Tim
from the office stayed with them.
Ms PETRUSMA - At this home in South Hobart?
Ms STOWARD - Yes. Interestingly enough, everybody who stayed with my children
worked out pretty quickly that they were not the kind of children who are normally in
care. They told Tim there had been a misunderstanding and he said, 'You will probably
go home tomorrow'. Interestingly enough he said it happens quite a lot that children are
removed incorrectly. 'You'd be surprised how often this happens', he said. So at that
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTION,
HOBART 15/11/10 (STOWARD)
27
stage the children thought, 'Oh good, we go home tomorrow'. But Tim went back the
next day and they got Andy. Andy was appalling. Andy was not child-focused at all.
Where they get the carers from I have no idea.
Andy was pretty impressed because these kids were pretty easy. Andy told them he was
going to take them to Port Arthur for the day and give them a good time. On the way he
called in on his brother's property. His brother had a caravan and he spent three hours
with his brother while the kids stayed outside. The kids believe he was drinking. My
eldest son had to continually say, 'You're over the speed limit, Andy, you're over the
speed limit.' Andy took them to Eastlands because he needed to buy a present for one of
his cousins. Andy didn't do anything for them; he just let them follow him around. In
fact, he was so impressed with them he applied to work a second shift with them,
because they get some difficult children there and my kids did as they were told. Yes,
Andy was pretty happy, but he couldn't have cared less. He was on the phone, he was
visiting his friends, he took them out to his house to load some wood on a truck. It
wasn't about the children. He wasn't a danger to them, but those children were going
through trauma and they needed someone more client-focused.
The next day, luckily, they got a new worker, Dallas. They were his first children ever
and he was a good worker. He took them down to the Tahune Airwalk, bought them
lunch and gave them such a good time. He heard their story and said, 'Let's take your
mind off it. Let's have a good day.' Andy had continually said, 'We're not allowed to
spend any money on you.' He wouldn't even buy them toothpaste. 'No, we're not
allowed to spend any money on you'. There was food in the fridge and Tim had said the
previous day, 'I don't know how old this is, don't eat it', but Andy said, 'We're eating the
food. We're not allowed to spend any money on you.' Dallas spent all this money on
them. Now, you tell me: did Dallas use his own money, or did Andy pocket the
expenses? Why did Dallas have money to spend on my children but Andy not spend a
cent? Something's wrong, because there is an allowance for these children.
Ms PETRUSMA - What time of the year was this all happening at?
Ms STOWARD - Just before school went back, two weeks before school.
Ms PETRUSMA - So in January, was it?
Ms STOWARD - February 1 I think the warrant was issued.
Ms PETRUSMA - So this is this year?
Ms STOWARD - Yes. It was particularly difficult because my children's father died twoand-a-half years earlier, and although my eldest son was going to a school he was
familiar with and teachers he was familiar with, Ryan was starting grade 7 and was in a
class he didn't know. He had no supports around him and he started his school year with
no mother, no father, and no support.
Ms PETRUSMA - Okay, so they still started them off at school on the right day.
Ms STOWARD - Oh yes, school is important. So without any sort of interest in me, they
arranged for kinship care.
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTION,
HOBART 15/11/10 (STOWARD)
28
Mr GROOM - Can I just stop you there then, Louise? So they had been in State care Ms STOWARD - Had a five-day order.
Mr GROOM - Yes, they had been in State care for some time. What communication
through that period of time did you have from the department or anyone official?
Ms STOWARD - I had the misfortune to have Tegan and Tegan does not talk to anyone.
Tegan never answers her phone and she gives you two minutes - hardly any time at all.
They came around to my house to get all medical documents to do with the children. I
had to confirm his anaphylaxis, my son's asthma, my son's learning disabilities and any
medical reports that I had whatsoever. They came to my house and I provided all of
those details. I also showed Tegan my son's bedroom and how talented he was - he is
very good at art and design - and she was very impressed with my home. But they were
going for a four-week assessment order. I went to a lawyer. I am not entitled to Legal
Aid. She said, 'You cannot fight the assessment order. The affidavit will be handed to
you the night before; you cannot answer it because you haven't got time. It will be given
automatically, there is not a thing that can be done by a lawyer or by anyone.' She said
that if I wanted to fight the case I would need $10 000 and she said that I had to think
about it because actually fighting it could delay the return of my children.
Ms PETRUSMA - This is Tegan?
Ms STOWARD - No, this is the lawyer I saw in Sandy Bay. Tegan works for the
department. I basically said to her, 'If you cannot stop the order, I might as well appear
myself.' I resigned myself to the fact that they were going to work out that I am a good
mum. They were going to work out this is a mistake and they are going to give them
back. But I have not seen the affidavit yet. I do not know what the mandatory report is
yet. Remember, I am still in the dark. In this five days they find out that the children
have a half-sister and they place the children in kinship care.
Now, there is a piece of information here that I do not want put in the Mercury asked by
the kinship carer, can I do that?
CHAIR - No, you cannot because this is an open hearing, so you are better off not to say it,
no.
Ms STOWARD - All right, you will just have to work it out. This would actually really
distress you if you knew. The kinship carer was actually incredibly sick Ms PETRUSMA - Can we get this section in writing then?
CHAIR - Louise, what we could do, though Ms STOWARD - Just an agreement from the Mercury not to use this?
CHAIR - No, it does not work like that. What you could do, though, if you wanted to
reappear in a closed hearing, so in camera, I think that would be the way to go. It is safer
for you and it is safer for everybody.
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTION,
HOBART 15/11/10 (STOWARD)
29
Ms STOWARD - Okay.
CHAIR - Probably that is a good place to be right now because if you do come back, and I
think we agree that there is a story to be told here, would you be okay with that?
Ms STOWARD - Yes. Have I got time to run through these quickly?
CHAIR - We are running out of time.
Ms STOWARD - Because these are the systemic problems.
CHAIR - You could leave it with us, though.
Ms PETRUSMA - When you come back you could present that.
CHAIR - Yes, you could. Either leave it with us or when you - are you available to come
back?
Ms STOWARD - Yes.
CHAIR - I would certainly appreciate it.
Ms STOWARD - I have barely started.
CHAIR - Okay. I think there is a need for you to come back and I think it can be in camera.
Ms STOWARD - A lot of it I do want to make public- there is only the detail of her illness.
CHAIR - Okay, we can do that. When you talk to Shane you can request that the first 10
minutes or the last 10 minutes is in camera and the rest of it is not. Is that okay with
you?
Ms STOWARD - Yes.
CHAIR - So we will do that, then.
Ms STOWARD - Okay. How long have I got?
CHAIR - Now?
Ms STOWARD - Of this session.
CHAIR - Next session, sorry.
Ms STOWARD - I did tell them I needed an hour.
CHAIR - Yes, I know we knew that, but the problem is with me because I have got another
appointment I have to get to. You know that this has been an open session.
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTION,
HOBART 15/11/10 (STOWARD)
30
Ms STOWARD - Yes, I am well aware.
CHAIR - But you are protected by parliamentary privilege in here, but I need to inform you,
though, that as soon as you step outside this room that you are not.
Ms STOWARD - I know.
CHAIR - If you do a media interview or talk to anybody else outside it is not covered by
parliamentary privilege, even if you repeat what you said to us in here.
Ms STOWARD - I do understand. I have some legal experience and I know CHAIR - Okay. I just need to let you know that.
Ms STOWARD - I know the rules.
CHAIR - So are you okay then to make another time and come back?
Ms STOWARD - Yes.
CHAIR - That would be great.
Ms STOWARD - I have hardly told you a thing.
Mr GROOM - We are very keen to get the systemic stuff.
Ms PETRUSMA - It is really important.
CHAIR - The systemic stuff is really important.
Mr GROOM - What is the biggest issue do you think, Louise?
Ms STOWARD - Child Protection is answerable to no one. In fact, I can just read you the
headings, if you like.
CHAIR - Go through the headings, that is good.
Ms STOWARD - Child Protection are answerable to no one. So, what can you do?
The Gateway is appalling. Their staff are young and inexperienced as opposed to when
it was previously run by the Salvation Army, where the staff were much older and
experienced and understood children's issues.
Child Protection is understaffed. I was meant to have four hours access; I got one.
Shortage of accommodation to place children resulting in my children being in a
vandalised house.
Shortage of carers.
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTION,
HOBART 15/11/10 (STOWARD)
31
Unsuitable carers.
No protection of the children's rights. My children should have been given an advocate.
They were given no information and no one to listen to them. They were 12 and 14 at
the time so that is a huge issue for me; that the children's rights be protected.
Gross inaccuracies, exaggerations in affidavits. That's a Tegan problem and, from my
involvement with FIN - have you heard of FIN?
Members - Yes.
Ms STOWARD - It's in all of the affidavits; not just mine.
Removal of family support payments while under an assessment order. Even though this
was an error, I lost $2 000 but I had to pay for all my children's expenses in that time uniforms, fees, everything. Carers didn't pay for that; I did. It was a huge financial
stress. The children were returned to me and I was poor; no legal aid. We're not entitled
to it. Why? Martin Bryant gets it but a Child Protection mother, no.
Mr GROOM - Why weren't you entitled to it in this instance?
Ms STOWARD - I wouldn't have been entitled to it anyway. I owned $5 000 for my child's
orthodontics and that precluded me from any legal aid.
Mr GROOM - You owed it?
Ms STOWARD - I owned it. I had $5 000 in the bank.
Mr GROOM - Oh.
Ms STOWARD - It was for my child's orthodontics.
Ms PETRUSMA - Also, last financial year there was an allocation for legal aid to parents
with Child Protection workers; there is this financial year, an amount of $200 000 or
something, but last financial year Mr GROOM - Yes, I am thinking more in Louise's specific circumstances whether they
provided you with an explanation.
Ms STOWARD - But I was asked for $10 000 to fight and yet I was earning no money
because they'd taken it away.
Child Protection covering up their errors.
Delay of a psychological assessment of me. They did a four-week assessment and it
took me four weeks to get them to have me psychologically assessed. If they had done
that immediately, the psychological assessment was positive and my children would
have been returned within a week. But they wouldn't move; they wouldn't do anything.
So they're slow.
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTION,
HOBART 15/11/10 (STOWARD)
32
When they got the psychological assessment and it was in my favour, they hid it from the
court. It was only because of my legal knowledge that I exposed that to the court; that
the children were given back to me. They pretended they didn't have one and I proved
that they had. That's when my children were returned. So there are myths. There are
things going on that are wrong.
CHAIR - I think we need to hear more about this another day.
Mr GROOM - Yes, it is very important.
CHAIR - They're really good points you made there and I'd like to hear more about that.
Ms PETRUSMA - Thanks Louise.
THE WITNESS WITHDREW.
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY SELECT COMMITTEE ON CHILD PROTECTION,
HOBART 15/11/10 (STOWARD)
33