ALECOMM

It describes itself as “a leading national provider of services and supports for people with disabilities and children and young people in out-of-home care.

“Our purpose is to enable the people we support and their communities to achieve what is important to them. What matters to them matters to us,” it states in its annual report.

Case sparks ‘independent review’

In response to questions from the Herald, Minister for Families and Communities Natasha Maclaren-Jones said she had “asked the Office of the Children’s Guardian, an independent oversight body, to look into the adequacy of current oversight arrangements for placements of this nature, to ensure improvements are made to meet the needs of children in [out-of-home care] in NSW.”.

She said she had also “asked the Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) to acknowledge that it needs to reflect the standard of care the community expects.

“I have also asked that the secretary take steps to make any changes that will prevent a repeat of the failings identified in this judgement, which I note he has committed to.”

In a statement, the department said secretary Michael Tidball “has ordered an independent review into the issues raised in the judgement.”.

“The review will explore the adequacy of casework services provided by Lifestyle Solutions, Life Without Barriers, and DCJ.”

Abuse matters raised in the case had been referred to the police, the statement said.

“Lifestyle Solutions is being closely monitored by DCJ to ensure any practice or systemic issues are addressed. Lifestyle Solutions has made a number of changes to its leadership team, and DCJ acknowledges that this is a positive step forward.”

In this year’s budget, the government announced a $1.6 billion programme targeting children in out-of-home care. A 2018 review into child protection services in NSW labelled the system “ineffective and unsustainable.”. More than 45,000 children were in out-of-home care in Australia last year, with about 16,000 in NSW, according to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

The department's behaviour is ‘alarming’

The Hughes children’s predicament emerged when Magistrate Sheedy heard an application involving the boys, Finn (born in 2009) and Lincoln (born 2011), and their twin siblings, dubbed Marina and Blake (born 2012), following the death of their father and the failure of their mother to provide care due to alcohol abuse and neglect.

Following a drug-related police raid on their mother’s house in June 2020, the children were removed from the family home and put into state care.

“It is of overwhelming concern ... and unconscionable that these children have had their therapeutic needs ... that are well known to DCJ and to Lifestyle Solutions, ignored for so long.”

Children’s Court magistrate Tracy Sheedy

The children were moved between their mother’s ex-husband, other family members, foster care, and supervised out-of-home care. They were also separated into two groups: twins Marina and Blake, and Finn and Lincoln.

The Children’s Court was examining whether there was any realistic possibility of returning the children to their mother. As the matter dragged on, Magistrate Sheedy laid bare the trauma and treatment of the children, admitting she was troubled by “disingenuous” evidence presented to the court.

She singled out the department, saying its behaviour was “alarming” given it should be a “model litigant.”.

When Finn and Lincoln were with out-of-home care provider Life Without Barriers from February to June 2021, the department received five risk-of-serious-harm reports, including that one of the boys had been hit and strangled by a staff member.

In April, the department was informed of “suspicious indicators consistent with sexual abuse," including access to pornography.

In June 2021, an assessment detailed concerns about sexual abuse and being grabbed and pushed by a worker. Other reports detailed that the children said they were sad and depressed, workers would scream or swear, and one of the children expressed suicidal ideation that resulted in hospitalisation.

Months later, three further risk-of-serious-harm report notices were lodged, including those for physical abuse, the risk of physical harm, and sexual acts or exploitation.

In December 2021, Finn and Lincoln moved to the care of Lifestyle Solutions amid hopes they could join their siblings in a foster placement managed by the same provider.

By March, as the department sought a ruling that there was no realistic possibility of restoring the children to their mother, the mother objected, and the matter was deferred to August.

The interim care of the boys broke down, and they were placed in “crisis” care-style accommodation managed by Lifestyle Solutions and staffed by agency providers, the court heard.

At an April meeting between the department and Lifestyle Solutions, the department “expressed concern that Lifestyle Solutions had not provided any support to Lincoln and Finn”.

Concerns were also expressed about Lincoln being allowed to play his Xbox 12 hours a day.

The magistrate noted that six weeks after the children’s deterioration had been noted by the department, “there is no evidence of any changes or strategies put in place to assist these children, save for an extra worker three days per week.”.

A caseworker speaks up

In July, a department caseworker dubbed Ms. P expressed concerns about what had happened since Lifestyle Solutions had taken over the case management.

“Ms. P’s affidavit outlined an appalling neglect of Finn and Lincoln’s needs while under the case management of Lifestyle Solutions and the failure of Lifestyle Solutions to provide for the boys’ short-term and long-term needs,” Magistrate Sheedy’s judgement read.

Ms. P “has been diligent in attempting to address the needs of these children,” the magistrate said, noting that despite the concerns raised in April about the boys’ mental health, nothing had been done to support them.

“Lifestyle Solutions were not providing any therapeutic support to Finn or Lincoln despite this being identified as a current need,” Sheedy wrote. “There are many references in the evidence filed in these proceedings to the decline in the mental health of Finn and Lincoln when they were placed in the Life Without Barriers interim care model.

“The children have experienced, since removal from their mother in a police raid, multiple placements, multiple carers, separation from siblings, abuse in care, a lack of stability, and ongoing uncertainty. It is likely that the children’s need for therapy has intensified in the more than one year that the clinician’s report was published.”

In her statement, Minister Maclaren-Jones thanked the caseworker for her diligence.

Not enough food

In June, the department was alerted to concerns about Finn’s school attendance “due to a lack of appropriate school uniforms and inadequate food within the home,” the court heard.

Finn told his lawyer that “they run out of food at his home, that the carers buy food on a Tuesday, which is meant to last a whole week, but the food usually runs out by Friday, and they have to wait until the following Tuesday to shop for food.”.

In June, Lincoln’s school principal advised DCJ and Lifestyle Solutions that Lincoln had reported “often feeling pain in his stomach, which was attributed to hunger.”.

Lincoln also felt too cold to attend school as he did not own a winter uniform.

The magistrate turned her attention to the funding of Finn and Lincoln’s care, noting the department provided the court with a quote from Lifestyle Solutions dated April 28. The department did not indicate the quote was not accepted, Sheedy said.

“Lifestyle Solutions quoted $232,668 to look after Finn and Lincoln for 90 nights in the period 24 May 2022 to 22 August 2022,” Sheedy noted, adding she calculated weekly and daily rates taking into account the allocation of funds based on details from subcontractor Connecting Families.

There is no evidence of engaging the children in any fun activities or any activities which might bring them some joy.

Children’s court magistrate Tracy Sheedy

“Lifestyle Solutions’ quote sought payment from DCJ of approximately $18,096.45 per week to look after Finn and Lincoln,” Sheedy wrote.

“On August 1, 2022, Connecting Families informed DCJ that “the allocated and approved budget by Lifestyle Solutions in relation to groceries and activities... for the children... was $80 per child per week,” Sheedy wrote, highlighting the money was for both categories.

“Out of the $1,292.60 daily payment quoted by Lifestyle Solutions to DCJ to look after Finn, Finn was allocated $11.43 daily for food and activities. Out of the $1,292.60 daily payment quoted... to look after Lincoln, Lincoln was allocated $11.43 daily for food and activities.

“No specific sum or funds were sought by Lifestyle Solutions for therapy for either Finn or Lincoln, and it appears that no funds were spent on therapy.”

When Finn told his lawyer he needed new clothes, he said he had been told by Lifestyle Solutions that “they do not have money for these items.”.

In response to questions about the children’s care, the provider’s accountability, and the claims of spending on the children, Lifestyle Solutions issued a statement, saying it “is committed to providing high-quality support and care to children and young people in out-of-home care, their families, carers, and communities.”.

It said it was not a party to the court proceedings and “the magistrate was not adequately assisted in interpreting the financial data.”.

“As part of our commitment to continuous improvement, we have reviewed and taken advice on the magistrate’s recent judgement following the interim hearing for ways we can further improve how we support children in partnership with the Department of Communities and Justice.”

It said it will seek representation at a future hearing.

In response to questions concerning the treatment of children in its care, Life Without Barriers said in a statement: “We will be cooperating with any processes initiated by the Department of Communities and Justice into this matter.”

The magistrate raised “another area of apparent neglect of these boys, namely the seeming lack of recreational activities provided to them.

“There is no evidence that the staff took the children to any recreational activities except for taking Finn to the skate park. There is no evidence of swimming lessons, taking the children to the movies, bowling, or watching a game of football. There is no evidence of engaging the children in any fun activities or any activities that might bring them some joy.”

The department’s manager of client services, dubbed Ms. G by the court, acknowledged that “the $80 currently allocated for food and activities was an insufficient allocation of funds.”.

The magistrate was critical of both the department managers and a Lifestyle Solutions manager, to whom the court granted anonymity.

The magistrate expressed “great concern” about the evidence given by Lifestyle Solutions caseworker Ms. X, describing it as “quite disingenuous” given that it “contained at least three statements that were not accurate.”.

“It is clear that management of [the department] has been well aware of the ongoing issues of abuse and neglect for these children in care, as DCJ management has been involved in many meetings discussing the ongoing concerns.

“Ms. P, the DCJ caseworker, was doing everything she could, within her means, to have Lifestyle Solutions meet their obligations in relation to looking after the boys. Despite the ongoing and determined efforts of Ms. P, the care of the boys did not significantly improve.

“The power to make a real difference in these boys’ lives was with senior management within DCJ. Although there were regular meetings and ongoing requests to Lifestyle Solutions, these measures did not produce significant positive change, and no decisive or effective action was taken by DCJ.”

Magistrate Sheedy said the department has resumed case management for Finn and Lincoln, and “the situation... has improved but is still not good.”.

In granting the application for a fresh clinical assessment of the boys, Magistrate Sheedy was circumspect about the outlook for the children.

“There are four children, each with complex needs,” she wrote. “The children have been separated, and they have suffered harm while in care. Their futures in care cannot reliably be predicted at this stage.”

Source : https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/left-hungry-and-too-cold-to-go-to-school-urgent-review-of-children-in-care-20221127-p5c1kr.html