CCPR/C/120/D/2798/2016 Civil and Political Rights, because her daughter, who is diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder, was taken from her custody by the New South Wales Government Department of Community Services when she was 6 years old. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party on 25 December 1991. The author is represented by counsel, Christopher Kogias. 1.3 On 13 March 2017, the Committee, acting through its Special Rapporteur on new communications and interim measures, decided to consider the questions of admissibility and the merits of the communication separately. The facts as submitted by the author 2.1 The author married her daughter’s father on 25 April 1987. They separated on 29 January 1990, when the author was four months pregnant. The father had some contact with his daughter after she was born, but ceased all contact after she turned 3 years old. The author submits that, the same year, her daughter was diagnosed as having “moderate autistic tendencies” by the Kogarah Diagonistic Clinic. About a year and a half later, she was diagnosed with “mild autistic tendencies” by the same clinic. 2.2 The author submits that she came to the attention of the Department of Community Services in 1995 following an incident in which her daughter developed a small blue rash/lump on the upper part of her cheek. Department workers came to her home to investigate and accused her of abusing her daughter. The author explains that she had taken her daughter to see the family doctor the day before and he had diagnosed the rash as being an allergic reaction to a mosquito bite. The doctor telephoned the Department to assure them that the mark on her daughter’s cheek was not a result of any abuse by the mother, and he appeared as a witness for her in the court proceedings in 1996 and 1997. 2.3 The author states that, on 6 August 1996, there was a confrontation between her and the same Department of Community Services workers who had come to investigate the year before. She claims the workers “provoked” her, then called in a mental health team and had her admitted to the psychiatric ward of the local hospital. The workers told the doctors that the author had threatened to kill herself and her daughter, which the author denies. She was kept in the hospital for three days then released because she was not found to have any mental illness. 2.4 On 14 August 1996, the Department of Community Services commenced court proceedings against the author to remove her daughter from her care, relying on a psychiatric report from a psychologist who was also an employee of the Department. During the proceedings, the author’s daughter was placed with foster parents. The author claims that, when her daughter asked for her during that time, the Department workers told her that her mother had abandoned her. On 21 July 1997, the court decided that the daughter should be placed with her father. 1 According to the author, when their daughter was placed in his care, her ex-husband and his new wife were strangers to her. She also suggests that her ex-husband’s new wife was not happy about having to care for a young child with autism. 2.5 The author complains that the court proceedings were “a terrible miscarriage of justice”. She claims that the proceedings were unfair and that she could not effectively cross-examine the Department of Community Services witnesses who provided testimony against her. The Department alleged that the daughter was in need of care and that the author was an unfit mother. The author maintains that she had been a good mother who had done everything possible for her daughter, attending to all her needs. She adds that, as demonstrated by her fight throughout the years to regain custody of her child, she loves her very much. 2.6 The author maintains that she had taught her daughter to read, count and talk and had taken her regularly to the baby health clinic for the first six years of her life to make sure that she was healthy and developing properly. She submits that the clinic had placed 1 2 A copy of the orders made by the Children’s court on 21 July 1997 is attached to the author’s affidavit sworn on 5 April 2002.

Select target paragraph3