Skip to main content

Judson and Makenna

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.

Judson is in his mid-50s. He is autistic and has a cognitive impairment. He lives with his sister Makenna and her husband in Western Australia.

Judson used to live in supported accommodation.

Makenna told the Royal Commission that Judson first moved into supported accommodation in the early 2000s when their mother became too frail to care for him. His first home was in a complex of several units managed by a large services provider. The support staff had their office in the garage adjoining Judson’s unit, which they could enter through a sliding door.

‘We thought fantastic, because [Judson] is more vulnerable than the other four because the other four clients were in wheelchairs but they were competent, mentally competent,’ Makenna explained. This living situation worked well for some years.

But problems began to emerge. Judson had a fall and broke his ribs and the doctor didn’t follow up with the family. He got repeated infections on his feet. When Makenna visited she found him sleeping in soiled sheets, and his place was dirty. Support staff did not have their own bathroom or kitchen and were using Judson’s, entering his unit anytime, day or night.

Management was using Judson’s pension to pay huge utility bills that included the cost of running the office. ‘They never reimbursed that money,’ Makenna said.

The family decided to move Judson. The provider made this difficult, applying new fees and then insisting they had no records about his care to release to the family. Makenna eventually found these records, hidden in Judson’s unit – poorly kept and revealing a history of cover-ups about incidents.

Judson moved to a new unit with a different provider, who organised a live-in support worker.

The new provider charged Judson a significant monthly fee for support services that it never supplied.

The support worker the provider had organised demanded Makenna give 72 hours notice before visiting. They set up a pet-minding business in the unit, despite Judson’s fear of animals. Makenna tried to terminate her employment, but the provider took the support worker’s side. The family had to pay her compensation.

Makenna described other instances of neglect and abuse and the provider’s obstructive practices that made it hard – and costly – to change unsatisfactory arrangements.

One weekend, Judson came to stay with Makenna and her husband. Over that time her husband suggested Judson move in with them permanently.

‘Why doesn't he move in here?’ he said. ‘Why don't you become his carer … because you know this is never going to stop. This is always going to be a problem because obviously, you know they're not going to care for your brother like you.’

With NDIS funding, Judson now has a package of care from two providers and a private support worker. Makenna is able to monitor who is employed and supervise their work. She has peace of mind that Judson is well looked after.

Makenna is grateful to the NDIS for making it possible to look after Judson in her home, in an environment where, finally, he feels safe and receives the support he needs.

The NDIS is ‘brilliant’, she says. ‘Now … he can't be exploited, he can't be defrauded, he can't be – he's in a safe place.’

Community
Settings and contexts
 

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.