Jane and Maree

‘Ten years on from the initial sexual abuse, our daughter … still suffers from PTSD, distrust issues, life-threatening psychogenic seizures, anxiety and depression requiring medication and many fears.’

Jane, Maree’s daughter, has autism. She began having seizures as a baby, resulting in development delays and challenging behaviours. By the time Jane’s autism was diagnosed she was in her early teens and Maree was worn out because of a lack of support. Maree and her husband made the decision for Jane to live in a care home supported by a large agency. She told the Royal Commission it was a ‘traumatic option’ but the only one possible at the time.

Maree said Jane was excited at the idea of living independently and was very happy with the night and weekend staff. But she had many issues with the day staff. Her behaviour management plan was never followed and instead she was subjected to humiliation, intimidation and bullying. Maree complained to the day staff and eventually to the general manager. Her emails went unanswered and she felt staff avoided her.

Maree describes ringing one night to speak with Jane. The staff member who answered asked if the agency had been in touch regarding the ‘critical incident’. Maree knew nothing about it. Jane told Maree she had been sexually abused by a staff member. Maree told us when she called the agency the next morning, they asked, ‘Oh you think that happened? Do you want us to get the police involved?’ Maree was adamant that she did. Two weeks later Jane was interviewed by police.

Maree told us that in the 20 months it took for the case to go to trial, Jane was in a constant state of anxiety and the agency offered her no support. Jane developed a fear of new people supporting her. When new support people were introduced, she was scared of them and told Maree they were hurting her. Jane’s behaviour escalated and police were called.

Maree said the staff member was found guilty and sentenced to prison. The prosecutor was surprised, telling Maree it is ‘quite rare for a person with a disability to win a case of abuse’, as they are ‘not considered veritable witnesses’. However, the conviction was overturned on appeal. Maree felt this was because Jane had to engage with a series of prosecutors who lacked understanding of autism, while the defendant had one lawyer for the entire process.

Maree says Jane was left angry, fearful, anxious and distrusting, and behaved accordingly. The service provider suggested Jane would benefit from a stay in their lockdown facility to ‘help people with challenging behaviours’. Maree wanted to see the facility and a behaviour management plan, but says this never happened. Instead, she says, they placed Jane there one weekend when they were short-staffed and suggested Jane have no contact with Maree or her favourite people.

After 10 days, Maree was allowed to see Jane and said she was appalled at the conditions – there was nothing to do and Jane had been denied her personal possessions. ‘This place, and how she was treated, has become a trigger to [her] fears and nightmares,’ Maree said.

Maree and her husband brought Jane home. Jane was severely damaged by the experience and blamed Maree for sending her there. Maree said Jane was fearful of home support staff and reacted aggressively.

Jane began having post-traumatic anxiety attacks. During these attacks, which are like seizures and can last for hours, she requires incontinence pads, rails on the bed, a helmet and a wheelchair. ‘This is a young woman who is normally very physically able and is continent,’ Maree said.

Jane is living out of home again and things seem better, but what happened to her ‘continues to have an impact on her daily life … on our family and her carers’.

Maree would like to see more comprehensive training for people working in the disability system and the legal system so they understand autism and associated behaviours.