Frankie and Jazlyn
Content Warning: These stories are about violence, abuse, neglect and exploitation and may include references to suicide or self-harming behaviours. They may contain graphic descriptions and strong language and may be distressing. Some narratives may be about First Nations people who have passed away. If you need support, please see Contact & support.
In the late 2010s when Frankie was in his early 40s, he was in a car accident that left him with a brain injury. He lives alone in a public housing unit. He needs 24-hour care and support.
Frankie’s legal guardian is his older sister, Jazlyn. She told the Royal Commission that neither this role, nor her position as close family, gives her the access or authority she needs to ensure Frankie is well looked after. Navigating between the funding agency, the service provider and the support workers to achieve good outcomes for Frankie is difficult and frustrating.
‘It’s a cast of, it feels like thousands at times. It’s a circus, but it’s not enjoyable. There’s a lot of people with their hands, feet and faces in the trough, and, you know – all activity, little action.’
Jazlyn wants Frankie to have care that prioritises his wish for independence, but also manages the other needs set out in his care plan – ‘healthy living, social interaction and exercise’.
‘I’m not asking for more or less than he’s entitled to. I’m asking for the appropriate, timely delivery of services that meet my brother’s actual needs,’ she said. ‘And there’s so much insincerity and people just turn away or they box tick.’
One of her concerns is whether Frankie’s medical needs are being met.
‘When I’ve asked for his, you know, a summary of his medical appointments from last year, “We can’t provide that to you as a family member, there are privacy issues.” I said, “Well, redact it as appropriate and provide it to me as the legal guardian.” I have yet to sight that information.’
Another concern is Frankie’s diet. He gains weight easily and has seen a dietician to get advice on his eating.
‘He gets a menu, gets lists of things he should be eating, but on Monday when he goes for a shop with the carer, [it’s] bags of Twisties, instant coffee fully caffeinated, sauces full of salt and fat, and things he’s not supposed to be eating.’
Jazlyn asked the support worker to shop according to the menu prepared for Frankie. The support worker said it would be ‘restrictive practice’ to intervene in Frankie’s choices, and they’d been told that was not permitted.
Jazlyn told the Royal Commission that no limits are placed on Frankie’s intake of alcohol and caffeine, despite concerns about past drug misuse and his sensitivity to stimulants. No-one ensures he takes his medications appropriately. Support workers do not take him out to agreed-to weekly activities. He has not been given the support he needs to find work.
‘The practice is poor. It is inconsistent. When I query it, “It’s how things are done.” When something isn’t right, for me to challenge it becomes “restrictive practice”.’
Jazlyn is ‘irritated’ that the requests she makes as Frankie’s guardian are ignored – ‘because it’s not easy or because a person is sitting in an office believes that they somehow know more about my brother than I do.’
She believes Frankie’s wellbeing is impacted by the lack of proper care from people who have their own interests at heart. ‘It’s the maintenance of a system, not the blossoming of a man’s life.’
She urged the Royal Commission to recommend greater accountability so ‘people are accountable and there is a chain of evidence’.
‘The policies that have been written and the, you know, the paperwork is not sufficient. It just means that they’ve been written. It doesn’t mean that they’ve been actioned,’ she said.
‘I want an evidence log. Not just words, but actual photographs. Show me that you’ve done what you say you’ve done.’
Disclaimer: This is the story of a person who shared their personal experience with the Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability through a submission or private session. The names in this story are pseudonyms. The person who shared this experience was not a witness and their account is not evidence. They did not take an oath or affirmation before providing the story. Nothing in this story constitutes a finding of the Royal Commission. Any views expressed are those of the person who shared their experience, not of the Royal Commission.