She was charged with “engaging in conduct knowing that it may result in a child suffering harm as a result of neglect” with Judge Petrusa telling the woman the act of leaving her “extremely vulnerable” son home alone was neglectful.
The woman was sentenced in Perth District Court.Credit: Elliahn Blenkinsop
“Your conduct is serious … he was extremely vulnerable by reason of his age and of his other conditions,” she said.
The woman is believed to have told police that she thought she may have been burgled on the night in question, which is how the boy got out of the house, but Judge Petrusa said she did not accept that explanation given “the house was clearly not secure”.
She also claimed the reason her house was such in a state of squalor was because her mother did not like her to throw things away and that her “desire to keep [her] mother happy, prevented [her] from cleaning things” which Judge Petrusa said was “extraordinary”.
“This was, in my view, an extraordinary claim given it was your house,” she said.
“And if your mother was unwell, there were clearly opportunities for you to attend to household duties without her necessarily knowing. Further, whilst she may not have wanted you to throw things away, you could have ensured that they were stored in an orderly way, and that the house was kept clean and sanitary.”
The court heard she gave up work after her son was diagnosed with autism.
“All of this makes clear to me that you have had a challenging life, overcoming many obstacles, including making a life in a new country, and managing the care of both your children, particularly [your son], and caring for ageing parents,” Judge Petrusa said.
“It is said on your behalf that, since this incident, you have been suffering from anxiety, depression,
post-traumatic stress, and insomnia.”
But Judge Petrusa said it added to the woman’s neglect that she did not seek support for her son by way of NDIS funding, despite his eligibility.
“I’m told you did initially make an application when he was first diagnosed, but the fact that there has been nothing since that time does, in my mind, speak to the level of the neglect,” she said.
Loading
Despite telling the woman that she “failed dismally in [her] parental duties and knowingly put [the boy] at risk” Judge Petrusa told her a term of imprisonment would not be a suitable punishment, rather that the woman needed to undergo parenting courses and get education in home care “with an emphasis on safe and hygienic practices”.
She said the woman “clearly needed ongoing supervision” giving her a two-year intensive supervision order as penalty for the offence.
Read the full article here
