Watson
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.
‘I want to tell my story to the Royal Commission because it shows how the child protection system can trap parents within its reach, make damaging claims against parents and ultimately ruin lives. The department discriminates against parents with slight disabilities, even if those disabilities result in minimal impairment.’
Watson was abused as a child and lives with post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety and depression. ‘Despite my history of trauma and mental illness, I have managed throughout my life okay.’
A couple of years ago Watson moved interstate for a new start. He got a job which he described as ‘hard physical work’, but said ‘It felt good to make some money and start my new life.’
He soon met Katie who, like him, had a traumatic past. He was aware she had some psychosocial disabilities, but it was only later he learnt the child protection department labelled her bipolar with autism and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Katie already had a young child when they met, and Watson became his stepfather and provided for the family.
Katie had also had two children with a much older man when she was still in high school. The man had a history of substance abuse and violence. Watson said that when the relationship broke down, the man’s family targeted Katie. The child protection department became involved in the custody dispute and, despite the man’s history, had removed the children from Katie.
Watson and Katie were happy together and, a few months into their relationship, she became pregnant. ‘I was in a new relationship, had become a stepfather, was living in a good home, had a full-time job and a young son on the way,’ Watson said.
About a month before Katie was due to give birth, the department began to appear in their home. Katie was scared and felt they were targeting her. ‘It was like she turned into a teenager,’ Watson said. ‘I thought that it must have been from the trauma of already having two of her children taken away from her.’
Katie’s fears were realised. Child protection removed her newborn child and told Watson he would need to quit his job to be the baby’s primary carer – he did.
The department then made Watson and Katie see a psychologist.
‘It was a fifteen-minute conversation that focused entirely on negative points, such as my childhood abuse and the small amount of cannabis I smoke. There was nothing about my work, about our household. Or about how I was paying off a new car for the family.’ Watson felt the psychologist’s report ‘completely demonised [him] as a person’.
The department made an application to remove Watson’s son. Watson challenged the order in court but the department argued Katie was not a fit person to parent, and Watson could not parent because he did not understand their concerns about Katie.
Although Watson completed two parenting courses he has been unable to overturn the order.
Watson and Katie’s relationship broke down.
‘An entire department weighed against me to remove my son and funded questionable psychological reports that undermine my character as a parent. My “impairments” were exaggerated to justify an 18-year removal order … I worry about my son’s trauma from the whole ordeal and the impact it will have on his future.’
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.