The Ellie Chronicles (67 page)

COURT OF PROTECTIVE SERVICES: CROSSEXAMINATION OF MS MADELEINE RANDALL BY NEIL BLAINE SC

Can you state your name and address please, for the records.

Yes, certainly. My name is Madeleine Randall and I am an Investigations Officer for the Department of Social Responsibility. My address is care of the Department, at 249 Russell Street, Stratton.

And how long have you been employed by the Department as an Investigations Officer Ms Randall?

Well, eight months, but before that I was working for the Children’s Court as a Family Liaison Officer, where I had similar duties in many ways, and before the war I was there for two years.

Thank you. Now you’ll help us today if you can confine your answers to the question you were asked, and that’ll save us a lot of time. So you’ve been an Investigations Officer for eight months. Now Ms Randall, it was brought to your attention that there was a child living out on the Holloway Road from Wirrawee who might be in need of your Department’s attention, is that not so?

Yes, that’s correct.

And when were you notified that this child might be living in circumstances which were not desirable?

I’ll just have to look at my notes if I may Your Honour. Ah, it looks like August 11, we had a telephone call from a . . .

So, August 11. And when did you actually go out and do something about this matter?

Well, October 14 was when I made my visit to the property. We’re like most government departments at the moment, completely overstretched with everything, even vehicles, so although the public might think we’re . . .

You’ll have to forgive my maths Ms Randall but I think that makes it two months between your being told that there might be a child in grave peril and your taking action on it.

Yes, I agree, well at least I agree with what you’re implying, it’s not an ideal situation but I think ‘grave peril’ is putting it a bit strongly. We have a huge workload and there were other cases where there was a more immediate risk to the child. It’s all a matter of priorities of course.

Yet when you went out there you clearly formed the view that this was a child in grave peril indeed. After two months of being not too concerned about him you had him out of the place and into St Bede’s in 48 hours. You must have been alarmed.

Oh well no, if there was a really serious risk to him I would have waited for him to return to the house and taken him with me of course. There’s no suggestion that he was in an abusive situation for example. This is a case of benign neglect rather than direct abuse. I actually think the young girl has probably done quite a good job considering her age and inexperience.

Where have you said that in your report? Can you point His Honour to the spot?

Well, I don’t think I actually said that anywhere, not in so many words. There’s not really much point.

Well I propose to take you through that report if you don’t mind, Ms Randall. Can you have a look at the document the usher is handing you. Is that your report?

Yes it is.

And would you agree that your report is prejudicial to the two young people involved, not only to Gavin but to Ms Ellie Linton as well?

No I certainly wouldn’t agree to that. I’ve always made a point of being balanced. It’s an important part of our work.

Yet you’ve just told us that Ellie was doing a good job in looking after Gavin. Show us again where you’ve said that in your report.

Well of course, as I said, I haven’t actually said that . . .

Do you suggest that the scars and bruises you mention in the report might be the result of ill-treatment at the hands of Ellie Linton?

No, no, I’ve got no evidence of that. There were no bruises, but there were an extraordinary number of marks and scars that suggested to me that he had been the recipient of an untoward amount of physical violence. Even the doctor was quite shocked by the . . . 

His stepfather murdered his mother, do you accept that?

Well as I say he’s never been charged with that, but after talking to the police I would have to say yes, I do accept that that’s quite a likely story.

And the same stepfather launched a vicious and cowardly attack on Gavin just a few months ago, do you accept that?

Yes, certainly I do. He’s in prison for that very thing, as I’ve said there.

Could having a murderous stepfather possibly account for some of those scars do you think?

Well yes, but at the same time what is the child doing being placed in a situation where a man can nearly murder him? To my mind that shows he is not being looked after properly.

So are all victims of murderous attacks negligent, is that what you are saying? It is impossible for someone to be attacked unless they have been dreadfully careless?

Well of course I’m not saying that but what we look for is a pattern.

I say no more than that the two young people were walking through a public park on a Saturday morning in broad daylight, so if that is negligent I’m afraid that every time I walk my dog I am inviting a murderous assault. (laughter) I think you are prejudiced Ms Randall, and I will endeavour to show that now. Let me put this to you, are you a psychologist?

No, I’m not, not as such. We all do a training course where we . . . 

You are not a psychologist yet you throw terms like post-traumatic-shock syndrome around, as though you are indeed well versed in such serious conditions. What are the symptoms of post-traumatic-shock syndrome?

Well, inability to sleep properly, general disturbance of behaviour, being overly fearful, not good at social relationships, that sort of thing.

Is hypervigilance a symptom of post-traumatic-shock?

Well, I’m not actually sure what that is.

Are you familiar with the terms intrusive symptoms, arousal symptoms and avoidance symptoms?

Not as such, no.

Is that a yes or a no?

It’s no, I’m not familiar with them. I imagine the last one you said might be something to do with getting away from things that disturb you though. I’m starting to feel a bit like that myself, now, in the witness box.

A dysphoric mood for example, would you consider that to be a symptom of post-traumatic-shock syndrome?

I actually have no idea Mr Blaine.

What percentage of people exposed to violence or other traumas are likely to develop post-traumatic-shock syndrome?

I believe it’s around 20%.

So you accept the possibility that someone exposed to violence might not necessarily develop the illness? Perhaps 80% of these people even?

Certainly.

So, a 4 in 5 chance that Gavin would not be suffering from this condition. Let us move on. You say that the two young people were paranoid?

No, I said that they were fearful in a way . . . I’ll just find it here, here it is, ‘defensive to the point of paranoia to the idea that Gavin might be “taken away”’.

So their defensiveness was paranoia?

Well, I’m not using the word in a strictly medical sense there, more in the everyday way that people use it. You know as well as I do Mr Blaine that people use the word all the time to mean just overreacting, being unduly aggressive or defensive. Technically speaking perhaps I should have found a better word.

I submit that it’s a highly prejudicial word to use in a report that means not much less than life and death to these young people. You are bandying about a word that implies behaviour that fits into the clinical range of schizophrenia. Yet the irony is that their so-called paranoia was completely justified wasn’t it Ms Randall?

I’m not sure what you mean.

You say they were unreasonably fearful that your department would take Gavin away?

(No reply)

Did your department in fact take Gavin away?

Yes, you know we did, and for very good reasons.

So might not what you call paranoia in fact be evidence of their intelligence, that they summed up a complex situation quickly and accurately, and realised that it was in their best interests not to cooperate with the people who were determined to break up the family relationship that they had successfully established?

That’s certainly not the way I see the situation Mr Blaine.

I notice that as you talk to us here today Ms Randall you often put your hand to your mouth in a gesture that might perhaps be a nervous habit.

Do I? I suppose I do. I seem to remember my mother commenting on much the same thing when I was a teenager. Commenting rather frequently actually. (laughter)

It sounds like our mothers came from the same school. (laughter). Gavin is of course profoundly deaf and obtains most of his information by lip-reading. Did it occur to you that what you chose to interpret as lack of cooperation might be a result of his failing to understand you? That you put him in the embarrassing situation of being a lip-reader who was not able to see your lips?

I think he understood my questions perfectly well but he chose not to answer them.

Did you have an interpreter present when you interviewed him?

No, I didn’t feel that there was any need for that.

Does he use sign language?

I’m not actually sure about that.

You didn’t even find out what language he speaks? Do you accept that Auslan is a language?

Oh yes, certainly. I just can’t recall right now if he . . .

What steps did you take to establish whether he in fact does have serious psychological damage?

Well, we had him assessed by the experts at Holy Cross Children’s Services, and they agree that he is a child in need of . . .

Was that before or after you took him from his home?

Well it was after, but a very short time after.

So at the time you took him you had no way of knowing whether he had any psychological condition which would require treatment or justify your removing him. And I might mention, and I’ll come back to this later Your Honour, the Department took no steps to ascertain whether Gavin was in better mental health or worse than he was say three months earlier or six or nine. There is no benchmark. He may well have been improving dramatically under the care of Ms Linton.

There are his school reports.

If misbehaviour at school was a reason for taking a child away from his family environment then your department would be busy indeed Ms Randall. Now, let us go through your report in a little more detail, if I could trouble the Court to look at page 3. You say there were dog faeces near the house. How many piles of dog droppings were there?

Just the one. Well, I only saw the one.

Which could have been deposited two minutes before your arrival?

I didn’t take a close look. (laughter)

‘Inappropriate proximity of dog to sleeping area.’ What does that mean exactly?

A dog was asleep on the boy’s bed when I went into the bedroom.

Do you think that’s a common scenario in family life?

I don’t know about that but it’s certainly an unhealthy one.

You don’t know whether dogs sleeping on beds is common or uncommon, is that what you are asking us to believe?

I haven’t done a survey on it, no. All I know is that it’s unhealthy. I’m not required to make a personal judgement on these things, just to report what I see.

Well, we shall come to that presently. ‘Unmade beds and general unkempt conditions in bedrooms. No fruit was observed. A tin of Milo was open on the bench. A wet load of laundry in the washing machine.’ This might be my house on a busy day Ms Randall. It might be anybody’s house. Are you proposing to come and take my children from me because we had a mouse in the kitchen last night?

It’s the totality we look at.

Because you don’t like the number of cans of Pepsi we have in the fridge? Because I’m in the process of fixing the radiator and I’ve got the safety guard off it while I do so?

No, of course not. But when the overall picture is one of . . . 

‘Lavatory appeared to be clean but bath and shower area has been neglected for some time.’ ‘Appeared to be’, it’s like the rest of your report, ‘it is possible that’, ‘it is more than probable’, ‘it seems reasonable to suppose’ . . . your report is nothing more than a collection of guesses and hypotheses, and I put it to you, a mirror of your own prejudices.

It’s not meant to be . . . it’s not produced to be analysed in this amount of detail by a barrister, let alone one of your . . . it’s just for the use of the Department, as a guide to us. We, they, don’t normally get the kind of elaborate scrutiny that you’re . . . 

(His Honour) Come now Ms Randall, that won’t do. I think you know better than that.

I’m sorry Your Honour, it’s just that we see so many cases, and not every report has the i’s dotted and the t’s crossed perhaps. I know Mr Blaine’s very good at his job but to my mind the child’s circumstances, living with someone who’s still a child herself, legally speaking, really, it speaks for itself, and so this report is possibly not as detailed as some that we do . . . 

(His Honour) When we are dealing with the intervention of the State in a child’s life, when we are taking a child out of the conditions to which he has become accustomed and in which he may feel secure and comfortable, I say no more at this stage than that we should be very sure indeed that our i’s are dotted and our t’s crossed, yes, and every other letter carefully formed as well.