By Dee McLachlan
I’m involved in many cases, but one continues to haunt me.
A young boy was seemingly or allegedly violently taken from his mother and has never been seen by her again. Like so many parents caught in the child protection system, she has been left in complete darkness. She doesn’t know whether her son is safe, whether he is healthy—or even whether he is still alive.
Some time ago, I tried to make enquiries simply to establish that he was okay. As I quickly discovered, however, almost everything surrounding children removed by the State is hidden behind a wall of secrecy.
I recently learnt that the South Australian Ombudsman was Emily Strickland. We had spoken some years earlier when she was Deputy, and I remembered her as someone who appeared willing to listen. The Ombudsman exists to ensure government agencies act lawfully, fairly and accountably, so I once again took to letter writing.
Below is an extract of my 6-page letter:
Dear Ms Strickland,
I hope you are well. I write concerning a mother whose case raises profoundly disturbing questions about the exercise of public power in South Australia. The legality of the extraordinary statutory powers exercised against her must stand or fall on the objective evidence that existed before her four-year-old son was forcibly removed, before she was detained, medicated and permanently separated from him. Subsequent diagnoses or later events—including those potentially arising from the trauma and grief of that separation—cannot retrospectively create a lawful foundation that did not exist at the time.
Our Discussion in 2018
I do not know whether you recall our conversation just before Christmas in 2018, when you were Deputy Ombudsman. We spoke for close to forty minutes about a mother whose eight-year-old daughter had been removed despite that mum having recently been awarded sole parental responsibility by the Family Court.
What I remember most was your genuine concern. You indicated that the matter would be referred to your most senior investigators. I was unable to reach you in 2019 and thereafter you were occupied in other positions in government. Although that investigation and my subsequent submissions came to nought, I never forgot the care and professionalism with which you initially reacted to my December 2018 complaint.
It marked the beginning of an eight-year journey advocating for countless parents across Australia—entirely pro bono—and working to expose these deeply troubling cases to public scrutiny.
It took considerable effort between late 2019 and 2021 to obtain the recorded police interview, police notes and other material. That material revealed that a police officer had deliberately concealed the child’s (innocently told) disclosures of sexual abuse, torture and r**e, and subsequently created notes that directly contradicted what was recorded during the interview… [details of that case redacted]
It is for that reason that I now respectfully ask you to consider this case personally.
The removal of her son
I have followed the mother’s case for several years. Having reviewed the documentary evidence, listened to recordings involving clinicians, and assisted her in some court submissions and I have formed the view that her case raises issues of profound public importance.
At its heart is a simple chronology.
The mother had previously worked as a court security officer in courts, hospitals and Parliament in Victoria, where she says she witnessed institutional misconduct. In 2019, when her son was about eight months old, Victorian Child Protection became involved after she escaped threats from a neighbour. Her son was removed for a short period before being reunified — and mother and child continued with their lives.
Four years later, in late April 2023, the mum was on holiday and travelling with her now four-year-old son after completing part of a pilot training course in Canberra, and on route to visit her mother in South Australia. In early May 2023, she attempted to report allegations of government corruption, together with concerns surrounding the alleged wrongful death of her infant nephew, to the Yoorrook Justice Commission.
Within hours, a notification was made from Victoria alleging that she had “fled” the State. If that allegation was knowingly false or recklessly made without regard to its truth, it fundamentally undermines the lawfulness of the decisions that followed. The following day, she was located and detained in a small town in South Australia. Her four-year-old son was violently and forcibly removed from her care, and she was detained under the Mental Health Act and immediately subjected to involuntary psychiatric treatment.
The extraordinary feature of this case is that the mum’s beliefs concerning government wrongdoing were treated as evidence of psychosis before she had even undergone an assessment. I have listened to a disturbing recording the next day when a clinician immediately informed her that she would be treated for psychosis. When she asked how that conclusion had been reached before any assessment had taken place, the clinician replied that an assessment would then be conducted.
The mother was administered olanzapine, an antipsychotic (Schizophrenia) medication, before any psychiatric assessment had been undertaken. She repeatedly informed clinicians that the medication was causing severe adverse effects, including suicidal thoughts, yet those concerns were not acted upon. She was released and later was then subjected to compulsory depot injections, despite reporting similar adverse effects.
The mother immediately sought reunification through the Youth Court proceedings. However, a litigation guardian was appointed to represent her despite her opposition, and the guardian supported the Department’s position rather than seeking reunification.
This mother subsequently informed the treating authorities that she had married and was pregnant with a baby girl. Despite being notified of the pregnancy, the compulsory treatment continued notwithstanding the recognized need to assess the risks of antipsychotic medication during pregnancy — because pregnant women are generally excluded from clinical drug trials for ethical reasons
Tragically, she lost the pregnancy. She has also remained separated from her son since then, and as of the time of writing this letter, she has had no contact for over 1,170 days.
This gives rise to a profoundly disturbing question:
Was a four-year-old child removed, and the bond between mother and son effectively severed, before any lawful evidentiary foundation existed, with subsequent events then relied upon to retrospectively justify that intervention?
It also raises a further question:
Was sufficient and lawful consideration given to the continuation of compulsory antipsychotic treatment, particularly after the treating authorities became aware of the mother’s pregnancy, having regard to the potential risks to her unborn child?
I have seen the photographs and videos of a happy child with his loving mother in early 2023. The contrast with what followed is profoundly distressing.
I am thus equally concerned that the profound grief and psychological trauma flowing from the forced separation have become the rationale for continuing the intervention and separation. If so, the State risks relying upon psychological harm created by its own actions to justify the continuation of those actions—a proposition that should concern every public authority entrusted with coercive statutory powers.
END OF EXTRACT FROM LETTER
The letter goes on to discuss the Ombudsman’s response.
In it, I ask Ms Strickland to secure the body-worn camera footage of the alleged violent removal of the child, together with the records relating to the notification that the mother had allegedly “fled” Victoria, and any medical assessments or other material that existed at the time which purportedly justified such extraordinary intervention.
During the past eight years, I have encountered numerous cases in which deeply held beliefs about government conduct have been characterised as evidence of mental illness, with devastating consequences for the individuals and families involved.
To be clear, the mother maintains that elements within government are corrupt. She says this belief arose from her own experiences. Whether she is right or wrong is a matter that should be determined by evidence, not by psychiatric assumption. Australia has established anti-corruption commissions, integrity bodies and ombudsmen precisely because governments and public officials are capable of misconduct. The existence of those institutions is itself an acknowledgment that corruption does occur.
If a person’s political or institutional beliefs can become the basis for compulsory psychiatric intervention or the removal of a child, we enter profoundly dangerous territory. It evokes the dystopian warning of George Orwell’s 1984—not because disagreement with government is itself proof of oppression, but because the freedom to question authority without fear of being labelled mentally ill is fundamental to a democratic society.