CCPR/C/120/D/2798/2016
the daughter on a list to see a speech therapist when she was two and a half years old. The
author submits that she repeatedly contacted the Department of Community Services to
remind them that the Kogarah Diagnostic Clinic had told them in 1993 and 1994 that the
daughter needed to see a speech therapist as a high priority. The author explains that the
Department ignored her, despite their promise to attend to the daughter’s needs. From 1993
to 1995, the daughter attended preschool and play schools. In 1996, the author placed her
daughter in the Loftus Satellite Class School with the help of the Autism Association of
New South Wales, which gave her help and advice on how to take care of an autistic child.
The author submits three affidavits in support of her parental capacities.
2.7
The author explains that, as her ex-husband had denied her any form of contact with
her daughter and as she had concerns about the daughter being neglected, mistreated and
abused by her father and stepmother, she decided in December 1999 to initiate proceedings
in the Sydney Children’s Court to rescind the care orders made by the court on 21 July
1997. The author submits that the Court rejected her request that an assessment be carried
out of her daughter’s intellectual capacity, and for her daughter to be able to participate in
the proceedings to express her position as to her placement and treatment. The Court gave a
supervision order to the Department of Community Services requiring the author’s exhusband to permit reasonable contact between the mother, the daughter and the daughter’s
siblings.2
2.8
In April 2002, the author initiated new proceedings in the Sydney Children’s Court,
seeking a rescission of the care orders of 1997 and 2000. She submitted a request that her
daughter, who was 12 years old at that time, be allowed to give evidence regarding the
abuse and treatment by her father and stepmother, and a request that her daughter be
assessed by an independent expert. Both requests were rejected. The author explains that
the proceedings were later transferred to the Wyong Children’s Court. The magistrate
ordered that the daughter be allowed to have unsupervised contact visits with the author for
two days every school holiday.
2.9
In January 2003, the author lodged an appeal with the Sydney District Court against
the 2002 decision by the Wyong Children’s Court. The Court ordered an assessment of her
daughter by an expert attached to the Children’s Court. The expert also interviewed the
author, who was assessed as having “a chronic undiagnosed paranoid disorder” manifested
by the “conspiracy theory” about the Department of Community Services. The expert
placed very little emphasis on the medical reports filed by the author of doctors that she had
been seeing over lengthy periods of time since she had lost the custody of her daughter. In
the oral proceedings, the expert admitted that the author’s daughter had said that she wanted
to live with her mother and not with “those people who treat me bad” and that “my mummy
has never treated me bad”. However, the expert disregarded the wishes of the author’s
daughter because she believed that the author’s daughter did not have the capacity to know
what was in her best interest. The author submits that, as a consequence, the court ordered
that her interaction with her daughter be limited to three hours of supervised contact every
school holiday. The author indicates that, despite the fact that it was revealed during the
proceedings that her daughter had been abused by her father and stepmother, she was still
left in their care.
2.10 On 12 March 2003, the author filed an application in the Family Court of Australia
in Melbourne, Victoria, which has Federal Jurisdiction, because she felt she was not getting
a fair trial under the jurisdiction of the New South Wales court, but to no avail.
2.11 In February 2005, the Department of Community Services filed an application in the
Children’s Court at Wyong seeking custody of the daughter because, allegedly, the father
no longer wanted to take care of her. The author applied for legal aid, but her request was
rejected. Her solicitor withdrew from the proceedings and she had to withdraw her
application.
2.12 On 18 February 2005, the author filed an application in the High Court of Australia
seeking special leave to appeal the single-judge decision made on 20 September 2004 by
the Family Court of Australia. She also sought an order from the High Court to prevent the
2
No further details are provided.
3