Laurence and Janine

Laurence, early 50s, has an intellectual disability.

At 18 he moved to a group home. Janine, his mum, wanting him ‘to have money and to be as independent as possible’, set up a bank account for him.

After a couple of weeks she noticed ‘half of it was gone’. She asked the disability service provider what was going on, and they told her Laurence ‘likes to eat out and is extravagant’. The provider asked for access to Laurence’s Disability Support Pension.

Concerned, Janine applied for guardianship to protect Laurence’s money.

She was ‘taken aback’ when the provider strongly opposed the application. They claimed the family mistreated Laurence by dressing him in second-hand clothing and treating him in a derogatory way.

The court ruled in Janine’s favour, dismissing the provider’s claims.

In the years that followed ‘hostility began to be more obvious’, Janine told the Royal Commission. Staff and management ‘resented’ the family coming to the house and asking questions.

Staff started treating Laurence poorly, calling him names such as ‘big ears’.

One staff member was ‘cruel’. Whenever she was on shift, Laurence would ask Janine if he could come back home for a while.

Staff smoked and drank alcohol in the house, encouraging the residents to do the same. They laughed when residents become intoxicated.

One time a staff member gave Laurence the wrong medication, which caused significant distress. The staff member claimed they were dyslexic and couldn’t read.

Staff gave the master key to another resident who had lost his key. He would ‘force his way’ into Laurence’s bedroom at night. Laurence became so frightened he would blockade his room with his furniture.

Management often employed children of staff members. Sometimes an untrained 16-year-old would be the only staff member in the house with six adult men.

When Laurence’s family made complaints, management labelled them ‘dysfunctional’. At one stage, the manager told Laurence’s family never to come to the house without calling ahead.

‘There was the whole sense the place was really a charity and we ought to be grateful that [Laurence] was being cared for and weren’t we relieved of a huge burden.’

Laurence loved going to work and liked to start early. But this was inconvenient for staff so they changed his roster.

‘We discovered it when [Laurence]’s wages started to go down and he had lost $100 in three or four weeks. So we went over and asked [the provider] and they just said, “Yes. It was impossible to get him there by [then].” And that was the end of that.’

‘Somehow or other’ a staff member contacted Laurence’s superannuation and had herself instated as his nominee.

Janine ‘nearly had a fit’ because there was quite a lot of money in the account.

While investigating the superannuation issue, Janine discovered staff were ‘double dipping’ and claiming a meal allowance, even though the residents were paying for their meals when eating out.

An auditor investigated the complaint, and the provider reimbursed the residents around thousands of dollars each.

Janine said that, over the years, two residents died because of neglect.

One man died after being scalded with boiling water. Another died because staff weren’t properly supervising him while he ate – he choked to death.

‘[Laurence] still bears severe traumatic scars from those 26 years.’