Tai and Caro
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.
Tai, in his mid-teens, is autistic and has an intellectual disability. He is non-verbal and can be very aggressive.
Tai’s mother Caro told the Royal Commission that when she and her partner separated, they ended up in the Family Court over custody. The court ultimately found in Caro’s favour, but the process took several years and cost her hundreds of thousands of dollars.
It cost so much that after paying all her legal fees Caro had no money left for the works on her home that would make it suitable for Tai. As a result, despite the court order, Tai is currently back living with his dad.
Caro believes the family court system is deeply flawed. She said it failed to act in Tai’s best interests.
‘In the Family Court system itself, they don’t feature anybody that has any interest or understanding of disability, and it relied heavily on very expensive reports being obtained. And there’s no sort of – there’s no sort of advocate there for the child … I tried to get help for him for his benefit. It wasn’t available. Like, no-one, like Legal Aid or anything like that, because my child can’t speak so he can’t say what he wants. So, it’s a system that just doesn’t care for children with disabilities.’
Caro is concerned it creates an environment that discourages compromise and prolongs disputes. ‘It really put the parents at each other,’ she said. She wishes the hearing could have taken place in a ‘much less adversarial and normal setting where there’s more of a discussion about who the child is and what their particular disability is’.
‘Tai was always talked about like he was just this, you know, distant little boy over there. They never saw him. Trying to describe in a court setting to a barrister what it’s like to look after my son when they could have seen him, they could have seen videos of him. You’re not allowed to show anything like that in the court.’
As well, the judge requested additional reports, slowing the process down and creating extra expense.
‘No-one tells you in the beginning how much it’s all going to cost … The stress was almost killing me.’
Caro had to organise specialist witnesses to be in court – Tai’s doctor, paediatrician and others – and provide written submissions.
‘Which when you have barristers writing this stuff, they cost, you know, $10-15,000 just for a submission … I’ve heard so many stories of parents that just didn’t last because they haven’t got the money.’
At a second stage of hearings, a court-appointed independent children’s lawyer (ICL) represented Tai’s interests.
‘Again, it’s a case of they might be a lawyer but they have no idea when it comes to looking after a child with disability.’
With no knowledge of disability, the lawyer didn’t understand Caro’s concerns about Tai and refused to communicate them.
‘He just dismissed it and said, “I’m not putting those up to the judge”.’
Caro would like to see an independent disability advocate involved, rather than a lawyer.
‘I think they would be better equipped.’
When Caro eventually won custody, and everything she’d asked for was ‘95 percent given’ by the judge, she assumed that she would also be awarded at least partial costs. But she wasn’t awarded any.
‘I just wish that the whole thing didn’t happen in the first place,’ she said.
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.