Skip directly to content

Pat Anderson Manager DoCS Cairns North Department Community Services Banshee

Like us on fb

Lukes Dad's picture
on Sun, 04/08/2012 - 11:32

Dear Mr (DoCS Victim),

I refer to your complaints of 12 and 21 September 2011 and the complaint investigation which has been undertaken by the regional office.

The complaint issues that you have raised were:

1.     you were not provided with information you previously asked for in relation to a "complaint about (DoCS Victim) regarding 10 December 2010":

2.     Ms Pat Andersen (Manager of DoCS Cairns North who refused to remove Luke Borusiewicz from the foster home where he was fatally injured) provided misleading or false evidence to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal on 14 September 2011.

In order to respond to your complaint, Ms Jo Riley (Pat Anderson's sidekick, manhater), Client Relations Officer has completed a review of departmental records and relevant legislation; and consulted with officers from Cairns Child Safety Service Centre and Child Safety After Hours Service Centre.

I have now received the complaint investigation report and am able to provide you with the following information in response.

With regards to the first issue you raised, Ms Riley reviewed five separate aspects:

a. alleged failure to respond to past requests for information about a "complaint about (DoCS Victim) regarding 10 December 2010":.

Departmental records do not evidence that officers from Cairns Child Safety

Service Centre responded to your emails of 4 July 2011 or 18 July 2011.

I regret any concern or inconvenience that this failure to respond may have caused you.

This section of the complaint is substantiated.

2

b.   departmental staff allegedly not advising parents of an investigation and assessment.

Departmental records evidence that a meeting was held with you and Ms (DoCS Victim) on 15 December 2011 to discuss the department's concerns for the children as the result of an incident whereby you had removed the children from the supervision of officers on 10 December 2011.

However, the record of that meeting was found to be of a poor standard and it

did not identify whether you and Ms (DoCS Victim) had been provided with specific information about the investigation and assessment process.

As a result of this complaint investigation, I have directed the Cairns Child Safety Service Centre to provide you with written advice about the investigation and assessment process that was undertaken and the outcome.

This section of the complaint is partially substantiated and a number of

recommendations have been made to ensure that identified deficiencies in record keeping and practice are addressed appropriately.

c.   departmental staff allegedly not advising guardians of medical treatment / potential consent issues.

A review of departmental records did not evidence that you and Ms (DoCS Victim) were directly advised by the department about the medical treatment that (DoCS Victim) received on 11 December 2010 or the rationale for that medical treatment.

I am able to advise you that the decision for (DoCS Victim) to be medically examined was made by officers of the Child Safety After Hours Service Centre, under s97 of the Child Protection Act 1999.

As a result of this complaint investigation, I have directed the Cairns Child Safety Service Centre to provide you with written advice about the medical treatment that (DoCS Victim) received on 11 December 2010.

I regret any concern or anxiety that a failure to provide you this information about (DoCS Victim) may have caused you and Ms (DoCS Victim).

This section of the complaint is substantiated and a number of recommendations have been made to address identified deficiencies relevant to record keeping, communication and practice.

d.   information requested about ARCs roster on the day the young person returned to the placement.

Under the provisions of the Information Privacy Act 2009, the department cannot disclose to you details about any other person.

I understand that Ms Riley has previously given you verbal advice that if you have any concern about an employee of ARC Disability Services, you should contact the management of that agency.

3


e. identification of a notifier requested.

A notifier's identity is protected under s186 of the Child Protection Act 1999. On that basis this information cannot be disclosed.

I note that the allegation that misleading or false evidence to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal on 14 September 2011, has been dealt with in consultation with the Ethical Standards Unit and you were posted an outcome letter on 9 November 2011.

The following complaint issue was investigated by the regional office:

2. On 14 September 2011, Ms Pat Andersen had incorrectly stated that the department had previously offered additional sibling contact but you and Ms(DoCS Victim) had refused that offer.

Though this complaint investigation it has been established that Ms Andersen had inadvertently made an inaccurate comment to you and that this error was the result of human error on Ms Andersen's part.

There is no information to suggest that Ms Andersen's intent had been to be deceitful or unjust toward you or Ms (DoCS Victim).

This matter will be dealt with under the department's Code of Conduct. This section of the complaint is substantiated.

I trust that the above information is of assistance to you.

If you are not satisfied that•your complaint has been responded to appropriately, you may certainly seek an internal review from Child Safety Complaints until at 1800 651 341 or complaintsachildsafety.cild.00v.au.

Alternatively, you may choose to discuss your complaint externally with the Office of the Queensland Ombudsman on 3005 7000 or 1800 068 908.

Yours sincerely

 

Arna Brosnan

Regional Director

Child Safety Youth and Families

1 5 DEC 2011

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi Michael

Regarding Pat Andersen, Nth Cairns Child safety manager.
 
If we were to lie in a tribunal or court they call it perjury. When Pat Andersen and her sidekicks lie, they call it as, "Pat Andersen inadvertently made an inaccurate comment to you and this was the result of human error on Ms Andersen's part. The fact is that it was stated as evidence by Pat Andersen to a QCAT tribunal, not directed at us at all. They mysteriously overlooked this fact on the transcript when making the findings.

I am still waiting for written advice about the (so called) medical treatment (DoCS Victim) received on 11 December 2010 and the rational for that treatment. It is now May 2012. The relevant authorities are investigating.......

Comments

Tina Vuchinich's picture

I cant believe these so called "professionals" are trying to claim that by telling an intentional lie, regarding the parents refusing visits with their son, is not a deceitful act towards the parents by the caseworker. Professionals are SMART enough to fully understand their actions speak for their opinions. Professionals also are fully aware that word playing has become ineffective and played out. Every human being for the past century is onto that rediculous game of rhetoric and attorney word twisting. Obviously so and very well instituted into every child protection ageny across the globe, as every case worker and supervisor uses the exact same postion when they are caught red handed abusing the legal power their position entitles them to use over families. This game of word twist has been publically exposed and well understood as a means to use as ther EXCUSE for not fufilling their job duties in a professional competent mannor. Black is black and white is white, stop using excuses for your ill attempts towards humanity. The very first learning experience us parents learn from CPS is they do NOT accept excuses from the parents. CPS does NOT give us a chance to give them excuses for our so called behavior as CPS believes excuses are a means to lie around the truth, even when our excuses are factual. So we the people will NOT accept excuses from CPS either, as we learned from child protection agencies that excuses are not acceptabe. Claiming that a lie on behalf of CPS was only a misunderstanding is considered an excuse. Therefore CPS is lying and at fault for being deceitful towards the family in this case. Rules are rules and must be obeyed even by those who established the rules to follow, in this case CPS must follow the proticol they established. No excuses can be accepted hence CPS is guilty of decieptful behaviors towards the family which is unprofessional and those employees are not who used the decieptful actions legally must be held accountable for the hardship they caused to the deceased childs parents. The agency is also legally responsible for the childs injuries because the agency licensed and permitted the caseworkers to act in as decision makers on behalf of child protection agency hence resulting in the death of the toddler. Child protection agencies have turned family rights into a circus of unprofessional immature uneducated chaos that has created sever pain and suffering within the community. Inhumane and irresponsible actions on behalf of CPS has caused the unneccessary deaths of children across the world.

kirstykimberlee's picture

Tina, you said it so well, NICE WORD TWISTING!!!

All the best, 

KirstyKimberLee.