The systemic failures of the disabilities system….and the SNAPs court case over little boy lost and his young support worker
Despite all the vulnerable and non verbal children and adult children who get hurt and harmed or abused in care, the providers still do not have to have CCTV cameras. It should be mandatory because they are allowed to have them. I am amazed at all the threats lately by the government over the contact tracing to the people of NSW “you better not lie!” (Kerry Chant - Pedestrian - Rizzo-smith July 2021) yet the same government and NDIS and providers in disabilities constantly lie to us in their handling of the vulnerable in disabilities. They should stop lying themselves.
They let our children have no protection in disabilities classes, programs, respite and accommodation with no penalties and no questions asked of providers. It’s a disgrace how the government ignores the blight of parents of disability children, the government who then preaches to the people about not lying. They lied over robo-debt and now they lie over contradictory lockdowns and hurt the poor, but not the rich, and they lie about disabilities never putting in legislation to protect or prosecute providers, not really caring what happens to those in the system at all.
I finally fought for one on one funding for my son after my son was injured at a day program which I cannot prove without cameras, and likewise they cannot prove that they didn’t do it I said to police this will happen his whole life if we don’t change things. They will kill him these providers I said to others. He was already assaulted in 2019 and they covered it up smoothed it over…Then, James came home with bruises from the day program this year that got deeper and bigger over the next five to seven days. Now James does not go to any programs or respite without a one on one worker I just cannot trust anyone. Cannot even trust a one on one worker because even Anne Marie Smith was let to die last year having one worker.
The systemic failures in disabilities mean our children are never really safe and there is no accountability without cameras. The recent case of “Safework NSW vs SNAP Programs” saw the same failures of another kind negligence in keeping a disability person safe and not following or handing over safety instructions that child needed.
When my son started at a new respite house to stay occasionally now as needed, he will have a one on one worker always with him day and night. I took hard copy instructions I typed out myself , two pages worth, on the first day of the new respite house and said “You read those and I will test you later” the support workers looked alarmed but I wouldn’t test them. I meant you better do what my instructions say. The manager had already said she uploaded instructions on the profile, never mind I said these are my instructions and you need to read them. They are hard copy not just on a computer make sure you do read them.
A court case was finalized this last month “Safe work NSW Versus Snap Programs Ltd” where a young boy of eight and his support Carer had both been killed by a truck on the Pacific Highway in 2018, after instructions to keep the 8 year old boy safe with another worker, in any transport was not relayed to the support worker properly. It was the Snaps” case from Central Coast.
The support worker was only 23 years old and the boy in her charge Riley had been noted in his profile information that there should be a worker sitting with him in the back seat of the van as well as having a special seat belt. This was not relayed to the young support worker Rachel, who lost her life and that of her unborn baby. It was a triple tragedy. Heart breaking.
The organization was fined $70,000 for court costs and $90,000 for the error of their ways. The department of Community services was fined $150,000. Yet shouldn’t someone be in prison? Are disability children and disability workers allowed to die with little repercussions?
This was the outcome of the court case on 18 June 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Decision:
Penalty – SNAP
1 SNAP Programs Limited is convicted.
2 I have taken into account the principle of totality. The two offences arise from the same incident. The s 19(1) offence is the more serious because there were more people exposed to a risk of death or serious injury. For transparency in the sentencing exercise, I will nominate the appropriate fine for each offence but will reduce the fine for the s 19(2) offence to reflect the just and appropriate measure of the total criminality involved.
3 The total fines payable for the two offences is $90,000.
4 SNAP Programs Ltd is to pay the prosecutor’s costs of the proceedings agreed at $75,000.
5 I order pursuant to s 122(2) Fines Act 1996 that 50% of each fine is to be paid to the prosecutor.
Penalty – State of New South Wales
6 The Department of Communities and Justice is convicted.
7 I impose a fine of $150,000.
8 The Department of Communities and Justice is to pay the prosecutor’s costs of the proceedings agreed at $70,000.
9 I order pursuant to s 122(2) Fines Act 1996 that 50% of the fine is to be paid to the prosecutor.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – prosecution – work health and safety – duty of persons undertaking business – duty of employers – risk of death or serious injury – death of worker – death of child in care
SENTENCING - objective seriousness - deterrence - aggravating factors - mitigating factors – appropriate penalty
The little boy Riley, 8 years old, had been given to a foster carer who was not coping and needed respite as she also had autistic children of her own. When SNAPs took the little boy they had his profile with instructions to always have a worker in the Van sitting next to him as he could get out of his seat belts and open the door of the van. These written instructions were not given to his support worker that day.
"59. On Saturday 4 November 2017, Rachel Martin started her shift at approximately 6pm. Ms Ford informed her of Riley’s behaviours of concern when travelling in a vehicle and advised her to pull over safely as soon as practicable if Riley was to take off the Houdini Stop Strap as he may try to open the car door.
60. On Sunday 5 November 2017, Rachel Martin was responsible for transporting Riley from SNAP’s respite house at Thornton back to Fiona Martin’s house in Woy Woy. Rachel Martin told Ms Ford and another SNAP worker that she was having difficulties getting Riley into the car.
61. She finally managed to fasten Riley’s seatbelt and notified Ms Ford that everything was okay. The journey was to take approximately 1 hour and 12 minutes. It required travel predominantly on the M1 Pacific Motorway which has a speed limit of 110 kilometres per hour.
62. At about 5:30pm, Rachel Martin was heading southbound on the M1 Pacific Motorway near Cameron Park NSW when she pulled over and stopped the Toyota Tarago in the breakdown lane.
63. Witnesses observed Riley running on the road with Rachel Martin running after him before they were both struck by a southbound truck.
64. Riley and Rachel Martin sustained fatal injuries and died at the scene."
When Riley the little boy was handed over to the organization Rachel Ford worked for the people in charge of each organization or program then at court blamed the other organization for not passing on the information about Riley that he needed someone sitting with him in the van. The support worker did not have the whole information she needed. This cost her life and only 23 years old and her unborn child’s life and the life of Riley. It was a triple tragedy. All the people involved in those organizations were at fault for not being careful enough to make Riley or his support worker safe.
When safety is lacking and not provided and negligence such as passing on safety information is ignored. There was negligence in the system and then it could be covered up if not investigated… note *systemic failures *(bottom of page)
The prosecution of Snaps and Department of Community services was based on legislation as follows:
“Legislation Cited:
Children and Young Person (Care and Protection) Act 1988
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Regulation 2012
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Fines Act 1996
Work Health and Safety Act 2011
Think of young Merna who died in care in 2019 having only been there for a few months at Afford Disabilities – that they did not relay the information to the workers of the need for her supervision at that house particularly in the bath because she suffered seizures. Yet she was left there in the bathroom alone. Apparently the profile on the computer did not show her information, why? It never came up. Why? Why is Afford disabilities still off the hook and working with other disability vulnerable young people when they let a girl die due to their negligence? Another tragedy she lost her life through their negligence not the mother’s negligence not her family’s but the organization Afford. This is another tragedy due to negligence why has Afford disabilities not be prosecuted or suspended as Integrity Care was when Ann Marie smith died in Adelaide again due to gross negligence by her carer from Integrity who were contracted to Anglicare? Is it because Afford Disabilities is a multi million dollar corporation so that the courts do nothing to stop what they let occur in their care?
Is a disability person’s life worth so little that anyone can hurt them or ignore safety so that they are harmed or die with no repercussions? This is wrong.
Where is the justice? Where are the penalties for Afford disabilities? Why have they not paid as in the SNAPs case and why has the head of NDIS remained silent? NDIS quality commission should be investigated for not following up on Merna’s case with some severe penalties for Afford and the police also should investigate it as criminal like the SNAPS case.
When all the disabilities organizations care about is the money our vulnerable children and adult children suffer. When they, the organizations, CEOs, and Managers down to support workers, do not take safety measures they are told to take our disability children suffer and die.
Over half the deaths in disability care are preventable. Why aren’t they being stopped? Lack of staff lack of carefulness, lack of care by the managers and CEOs. Disability children and adult children should not be treated as a number they are human beings they should be shown compassion and care but the money has driven it out of the care places it has made them less interested in caring. Our disability children pay for it and adult children. We need to protect them as much as we can and for the day when we are not here to care for them any longer. WE need to bring in new legislation that will protect them and force change in the system. Its too late when someone dies we need to stop anymore of our children and adult children dying in the system. Parents need support but the support should not be so dangerous we cannot use it for fear of what could happen to our vulnerable child – we need to change the system and make the providers accountable.
All the best
Anndrea

Sign my petition:    change.org/disabilitycameras
*disabilitylivesmatteroz
*ifJamescouldtalkactiongroup
*The systemic failures shown up in the SNAPs case were as follows:
(District court NSW 2021) SafeWork NSW v SNAP Programs Limited and State of New South Wales (Department of Communities and Justice) [2021] NSWDC 259
66. FACS, as the organisation that held the case management for Riley at the relevant time, was responsible for providing and sharing information on Riley’s updated Behaviour Management Plan and other relevant material that detailed Riley’s care needs. FACS did not provide or share any information with SNAP about Riley for the purposes of providing respite care.
67. At the time of the incident, the SNAP referral form asked if the young person has any behavioural difficulties and did not have specific questioning regarding a child’s transportation needs. In any event, SNAP never received the filled out referral form from FACS.
68. For Riley’s respite care placement on the weekend of 3 to 5 November 2017, SNAP relied on its 2013/2014 records of Riley, previous care knowledge, and conversations with Fiona Martin to formulate its care plan and transportation strategy.
69. Riley had significant growth and development since the time he spent in SNAP’s care in 2013 and 2014. The outdated records were not suited to address the risks involved in transporting Riley.
70. SNAP was not informed by FACS that it needed to allocate a second carer for Riley. SNAP did not undertake an adequate risk assessment in relation to Riley’s capabilities, behaviours and care/support needs, including his transportation requirements, that identified that Riley was not safe to travel in the car without an additional carer seated next to him.
71 FACS and SNAP did not allocate a second carer in additional to the driver to sit beside Riley when he was being transported in order to minimise the risk of him extricating himself from the harness and to prevent him from attempting to exit the vehicle