A mother acquitted of murder of her six year old daughter, but her jury was not allowed to know about her checkered history of parental supervision.
Reports of drug use, excessive alcohol consumption, prostitution, the sexualization of her daughter or the welfare violations concerning her other children. Sounds relevant, though.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Jury Not Told Facts About Acquitted Mum
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Methadone mum's prostitution, drug past
By Lisa Davies
A JURY which acquitted a mother of giving her daughter a fatal dose of methadone was not told the woman had a history of prostitution and drug offences, and a Department of Community Services file dating back 20 years.
Julie-Anne Austin was yesterday found not guilty of killing her six-year-old daughter Rose Villanueva-Austin. The court found she had mistakenly given her daughter the potentially deadly drug instead of cough medicine.
Disturbing history
What the jury did not hear were details of her chequered history and the DOCS file which revealed a disturbing history involving children in her care.
Ms Austin has been known to DOCS since the late 1980s, when concerns were raised over the care of her eldest child.
A mother of four, Ms Austin has also served jail time for drugs supply and was "known to police for prostitution and drug offences".
"Children neglected"
The alarming file includes concerns about her children being neglected, inadequately supervised and even lists "parent's criminal activity" as a primary concern at one stage.
After one interview in 1992, a DOCS staffer added a file note about seeing one of Ms Austin's children "hand Julie some sex toys from her bag".
Her drug use was also a repeated cause for concern, with one friend ringing DOCS when Ms Austin "stopped responding during a telephone call" in 1993. Other reports have neighbours claiming to hear Ms Austin "yelling at and belting into" one of her children.
A report in the mid-1990s indicates Ms Austin "presents as a woman who does not take a great deal of responsibility for her actions".
Children left home alone
In the mid-1990s, anonymous callers also sought the involvement of DOCS, claiming Ms Austin was leaving the house at 11pm or midnight, leaving her young child at home alone.
DOCS recommended "ongoing monitoring", especially as it came after one of her children was admitted to hospital "in an intoxicated state" after a visit to neighbours.
In relation to Rose, born in early 1999, there were reports in April 2004 that she was being physically harmed by other children known to her mother, sustaining bite and scratch marks.
The report also alleged that her mother used marijuana and "large amounts of alcohol" daily.
Then six months later, another report came in saying they had observed "sexualised behaviour from Rose".
The jury's verdict means the end of a 2½ year saga which began with Ms Austin and John King both being charged with murder.
The charges against Mr King were dropped but were also controversial, with ICAC being called in to investigate his alleged links with government officials.
It is understood the investigation did not turn up any evidence of impropriety, but an ICAC spokeswoman said she could not comment either way.
"Free to grieve"
Visibly relieved as the verdict was handed down, Ms Austin yesterday tearfully said she was now free to grieve for her daughter after 2½ years of fighting for the truth.
Ms Austin, who has a picture of her daughter tattooed on her back, said Rose was the "best thing" that ever happened to her and the pair had shared a special bond.
Yes this is the person you have been slandering, I would love to see where you got this trashy information from, I've never done time for drug supply and I don't drink. What are you people trying to do, its bad enough that i lost my daughter, so you have to go and crush the rest of my life and my childrens.
AH THANK-U
Julie-Anne
It doesnt appear that anyone has been slandered other than the local community of Cattai.
Possibly this strand requires some updating as we suspect that there would be many members of the community, family and friends that would have seen - Anonymous above - drinking and particularly gin and wine.
As for comments about children we of course need to treat such matters with strict sensitivity. However the trial for manslaughter has now concluded some time ago and Mr King's school age children have returned to the care of Ms Austin and Mr King.
Ms Austin however has not sought the return of her own children despite their protestations and previous requests to return to her care.
How can that be ?
Betty
Betty, I don't know the facts of the case, my posting was in reference to any of many articles. But you raise good questions and make good points.
Thank you Weasel. Maybe Julie-Anne can explain. We understand that she recently proposed to John King and that they planning a celebrity wedding on 14 February - refer to Pat Drummond's Gig Guide Online. Nobody seems to have crushed her children and we wonder who she really considers her children to be, as we have never seen them in the Cattai Community.
Betty
Well I think its time Lisa Davies wrote another article because these people seem to do what they like to mess up our community. The kids who were placed in care by DOCS have gone back to live with John and Julie-Anne. John King did not have to get court approval which everyone round here was told would have to happen. If Lisa Davies reporting about Julie-Anne Austin's DOCS and police record is correct then how can DOCS let this happen? It seems that the poor lady who has been a great carer to the kids wasnt even told. DOCS have told the local community that they let the kids go home because they have a right to go home under some charter or something. While all this is happening John King has to walk to his lawyers now because he recently got busted for drink driving at lunchtime.I just dont get it. The people at DOCS seem to have done more to damage carers and kids futures.No wonder they have trouble finding carers.
Lyn
Lyn, I think Lisa should write about DoCS policies in this case. I think we understand what recently happened around here.
DoCS dont seem to care about Julie-Anne's colourful past and performance as a mother and carer of kids.
All they do is give the kids a little book called "Charter of Rights for Children and Young People in Out of Home Care in NSW". Have a look at a copy on their website. It covers 16 points.
There isnt a point that says kids, subject of a court order, can walk out on a carer and go home if influenced by other self interested adults, but Point 14 says "You have the right to be involved in planning before you leave care and to identify what support and assistance you will need after leaving care".
That certainly didnt happen from what I was told and you would think that financial support would stop after kids from a well off family returned home as in this case. So it seems that Julie-Anne and her wealthy partner in effect get DoCS financial support now indirectly through the kids requests to DoCS. You would think that financial support should stop at the end of the care process. That is such a RORT.
I think the State Government needs to clean up DoCS to create some consistency and common sense in the way they operate. Pity DoCS didnt produce other books - one called The Responsibilities (as well as the Rights) of Kids and the other called the Rights of Carers.
It is so bad the way those carers have been treated in Cattai.
Its important that young kids are not required to make the most important decisions about their safety and their care.
DoCS have done the wrong thing.
Betty
Betty
I agree, everything here seemed to have a good chance while DOCS were managing the situation properly. Soon as Julie-Anne was let off, everything seems to have gone downhill ever since.I guess she wanted John King's kids to come home as part of the wedding deal. It seems that she controls everything now including the car. Lyn
Post a Comment