Sofja and Tully
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.
‘There must be accountability. Criminal charges and disciplinary action against providers who abuse, neglect and exploit a participant. My sister's one of thousands.’
Tully is the younger sister, legal guardian and financial administrator of Sofja, who is in her 50s and has Down syndrome, schizophrenia and early onset dementia.
‘She's encountered a lot of trauma due to disturbing events in her life,’ Tully told the Royal Commission. ‘It's been sexual, physical, mental and financial abuse.’
Child protection services placed Sofja in an institution when she was about 10. When the family visited, staff would tell them Sofja ‘wasn’t available or was on an outing’.
‘This caused my mother much despair and heartache. There was never any communication. The government isolated her from the family.’
When the organisation relocated Sofja without informing her family, she disappeared ‘off the radar’ for years.
Tully eventually tracked her down in the mid-90s. She learned from the providers’ files that Sofja ‘had been a victim of serious incidents of rapes and sexual assaults’ at the institution.
‘The provider was very aware of these criminal offences. The evidence was actually never reported and followed through.’
Sofja’s legal advocate described the oversight as ‘alarming’. There was no police involvement or criminal charges, and the provider took no steps to protect Sofja.
‘Did they just go, oh look, she has Down syndrome, just don't worry about it?’ asked Tully.
About a decade ago, Sofja was living in a unit on her own. Tully said the provider was giving her little spending money from her disability pension.
‘We suspected there was a lot of theft and misappropriation of her funds. You know, we'd buy her items and they'd go missing … The carer who was taking her out for the day doing grocery shopping was helping herself to [Sofja’s] groceries.’
Sofja was in ‘significant financial deficit’ because of the fraud. Tully approached the public trustee, Sofja’s financial administrator.
Tully said the public trustee failed to act.
‘It's been overlooked for so long and no-one has stepped in … They left her in an abusive position ... It was a conflict of interest. They were all covering for each other.’
Tully said the abuse continued. Despite significant NDIS supports, Sofja had ‘minimal service provisions’ to access medical treatment, and many appointments were missed.
‘This neglect has seen her health deteriorate immensely. She's non-verbal now. She's not even mobile, she's now confined to a wheelchair … It's just horrendous.’
A couple of years ago, Tully started questioning the provider more about her sister.
‘Why was she in a situation that she was in? Why did she look the way she is? Why is she not getting the care that she needed? ... And they shut me down.’
The organisation moved to place Sofja under the public guardian. Tully said service workers who wanted to give evidence of the neglect at the tribunal ‘feared they were gonna lose their job’.
‘They were given less hours … Given a hard time just for coming forward.’
Tully’s concerns about the provider weren’t ‘investigated or actioned’.
‘Leaving them free to take advantage of other disabled clients … They’re not really interested in my sisters’ care … I’m glad to be on the scene, making all of her doctor’s appointments, and I’m ensuring that's happening.’
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.