Corruption Coverups in NSW Child Protection - Issue Three : The Ombudsman (Case Background)
- Details
- Category: NSW Ombudsman
- Created: Sunday, 06 February 2011 21:01
- Written by Michael Hart
In Issue One of Corruption Coverups in NSW Child Protection Alecomm alerted readers how the NSW Ombudsman failed to recognise Conflicts of Interest in the NSW Child Abuse Industry. Alecomm noted that the family in the example had been to the Department of Community (sic) Services to obtain the services necessary for the health and welfare of their disabled children but that Department fabricated the level of support provided and were also critical of the family for complaining about services being unavailable: Source : (http://www.alecomm.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=237:bruce-barbour-and-anti-corruption-ethical-fatigue&catid=5:general&Itemid=92) (Top of image two).
In this issue we discuss what those supposed services were and the provide evidence they were not in place. In the next issue we will provide the relevance of this information in the Ombudsman's decisions.
As readers will see there were significant recommendations from Westmead Children's Hospital (Image two).
We at Alecomm would hope responsible parents would follow up on medical recommendations for therapies for their children and ensure the recommendations from specialists were put into place. With this family, since the NSW Department of Disability (DADHC) was not forthcoming they went to the Department of Community Services which has an obligation to act in the interests of the children and family.
Image two, however, indicates that the Department of Community Services may have been somewhat more interested in acting in the interests of DADHC than the children.
They appear to have recorded significantly false claims regarding the services provided. In direct contradiction to the NSW Disability Services Act they were also critical of the father for asking for assistance with the ABA therapies: despite being recommended by health specialists, being evidence based and also providing a measurable improvement in the children's welfare and development (Image three). (Source : http://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/fragview/inforce/act+3+1993+sch.1+0+N?tocnav=y)
This information has been provided as background information to Alecomm readers and we would particularly like readers to note that the documentation proves:
- There is a significant difference in service level between a 24 hour psychologist that DoCS records in October 2008 and NON AT ALL that DADHC say is was available in October 2008, or even an intermittent service that was available previously.
- The weekly speech therapy that DoCS records as being provided by the Government was actually funded privately making the report significantly false.
- The Behaviour Therapy that DoCS claims was unavailable was not only available for some time but was reported by both DADHC and a University Professor to provide positive outcomes for the children's development. There claim that it was unavailable is manifestly FALSE.
ALECOMM WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT TO READERS AT THIS STAGE THAT EVERY SINGLE ENTRY IN THE DOCS RECORD IS FALSE AND THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATES THIS.
ALECOMM notes that the difference between a 24 hour psychologist (840 hours / year) and 10 hours per year is quite significant. We note here that DoCS defines the unavailability of psychological and medical treatment as per recommended treatment plans as significant enough to warrant a Mandatory Report for child neglect. (Source : http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/kts/guidelines/reporting/abuse_neglect.htm)
Neglect –medical care – medical professionals is where:
* there is a chronic condition which is not being treated or a treatment plan is not being followed and this is likely to result in significant harm.
Neglect –medical care –non-medical professionals is where:
* parent/carer is refusing or ***unable*** to seek recommended medical care
* there is a medical condition that requires an ongoing treatment plan that is not being followed.
Neglect –mental health care is where:
* parent/carer is refusing to provide or access mental health care that the child/young person requires.
Alecomm believes that if it was the parents that were negligent in seeking the services they would be charged with neglect for the child. Despite this it is DoCS itself that refused to provide support for, and critical of the parent for wanting, the medical plan recommended by Westmead Children's Hospital. It is therefore implied in the record there is a problem with the parent for wanting the Allied Health services.
Alecomm also notes the hypocrisy when Government considers it FRAUD for doctors tell the Government they are doing work they do not do (Source : http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/02/2380081.htm) but when the Government reports they are carrying out procedures that are not done it is seen as insignificant. Maybe we should just close all the hospitals and merely report the procedures being done instead of actually doing them so doctors can make sure their chairs do not gather dust! – or is it only disabled children that deserve to be treated with this contempt?
For the record Alecomm notes to the readers that all this documentation and more has been sent to at least THREE people in the NSW Ombudsman's Office:
Subject: Re: Complaint Our Ref: C/2009/7924
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 09:14:30 +1000
From: PARENT
To: Andrew Christodoulou, (Disabilities) Christine Flynn
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2010 09:36:50 +1100
From: PARENT
To: Kimber Swan
Subject: Re: C/2009/794
This is despite Image 2&3 in Issue 2 of Corruption Coverups indicating the Ombudsman claims he does not have this information. (Source : http://www.alecomm.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=239:corruption-coverups-in-nsw-child-protection-issue-2-the-ombudsman&catid=5:general&Itemid=92)
Perhaps they are simply too fatigued to remember what they receive in their email. Is this yet another case of Conveniently Related Immediate Memory Exhaustion Syndrome (CRIMES) coming from the NSW Public Service? We welcome the Ombudsman’s response in the section below. Readers are also welcome to contribute their views.
We hope this background material aids readers in understanding the situation families face when confronted by the NSW Child Protection System. In our next issue we will look at how the NSW Ombudsman responded to the false information that has been shown to readers in this article.
