Case workers

July 2004

One of the more frustrating aspects of Sues case has been with Sue's case worker, Jenny. Jenny has told me that they do not intend offering Sue services in the future and that they intend to "wash their hands of Sue".

Jenny has said on three occasions now that she believes that having a facility built for women like Sue is a waste of money. That it is wrong for the government to put that much money into people. That to provide services like that would cost up to $800,000 a year and that it is wrong to spend that much money on individuals. When asked what the alternatives are she says "there really are none. Sue can't live in the community". When asked about finding an institution for people like Sue Jenny says "Oh no, we don't promote putting people in institutions, we're de-institutionalising people". And putting them where? On the streets obviously, she can't manage in the community and the government won't offer services, so when she is released from gaol she won't have anywhere to go and no way of getting accommodation and will end up living on the streets.

Now I do grant that it is a lot of money but to say that some one should not get services because of cost is shameful.

Personally I think the building should just be bought. Jenny has already told me that Sue already has unlimited funding approval for services and I'm sure that other people who could make use of this service would be eligible for similar funding. Jenny herself doesn't want to be involved with Sue anymore and she would be the one who would have to administer the funds and provide services.

I do not understand why people in Sue's situation are so readily seen as disposable, a scourge on society and not worthy of as much help as possible. I wonder if Jenny would be so callous in her statements if she understood how those comments sound to outsiders, let alone the family. She has basically said that Sue and people like her should not be given support to be the best they can be. Why is she working in this area?

Jenny is the person in the position of providing services for Sue. I have no faith in her to do so. I also believe that since Sue is in goal that to some extent they have no motive to assist Sue in finding services and accommodation, as Jenny said in our conversation last Thursday "she's really the problem of the criminal justice system now." Jenny has also said that "at least she's not homeless if she's in gaol and in gaol she's safe". Safe in gaol is an oxymoron. Gaol is a better alternative to homelessness? Homelessness is inevitable for a someone with ID?

Sue has also been given a guardian and it seems the main motive there is to pass the buck. The guardian, Daniel has realised this and wants to pass the buck back and wants to push for his guardianship to be removed.

I think the whole system have their heads up their arse and are just plain lazy. Or just cold and unfeeling as no one with any emotions in their veins could think that goal was better that establishing a facility to support people.