Australian interstate liaison officer (ILO) and NSW DoCS officers regarding C’s status and other matters affecting her but not directly related to Ebony. from a verbal request, a request for information from SA to NSW could also more formally have been effected by way of the completion of a straightforward form specifically designed for the very purpose. The failure of the South Australian authorities to inform itself about Bradley history was a serious oversight and I have little doubt that proper inquiry in respect of this topic could have been enough to have prevented Ebony’s death. It could and should have altered what ultimately became a casual approach to her protection on the part of Families SA. Events following the first notification to Families SA In this section I will discuss events during the period from Ebony’s discharge from hospital following her birth until her hospitalisation on 10 August 2011. During that period Ebony was the subject of the notification that had been made to Families SA by the WCH social worker on 6 July 2011. was discharged from the WCH on 8 July 2011 following her birth on 4 July 2011. She was discharged into the care of her parents. The family resided in the unit at Brooklyn Park to which I have already referred. Although Ebony was the subject of the notification to Families SA, she would not actually be sighted by a Families SA employee until 1 August 2011. Even then, there is good reason to believe that the home visit that was conducted by the Families SA employee only took place as the result of further concerns raised by staff employed by the CAFHS. Any detailed analysis of what transpired between 8 July 2011 and 10 August 2011, as with all aspects of this matter, has to be examined against the premise that any engagement between Ebony’s parents and any service provider, including Families SA, was fundamentally flawed as a result of the fact that none of these services knew of the background or history of Bradley Napier-Tucker. This is no criticism of service providers such as CAFHS because no-one from that entity was in a position to have obtained the information about Bradley Napier-Tucker that needed to be obtained.
Australian interstate liaison officer (ILO) and NSW DoCS officers regarding C’s status and other matters affecting her but not directly related to Ebony. from a verbal request, a request for information from SA to NSW could also more formally have been effected by way of the completion of a straightforward form specifically designed for the very purpose. The failure of the South Australian authorities to inform itself about Bradley history was a serious oversight and I have little doubt that proper inquiry in respect of this topic could have been enough to have prevented Ebony’s death. It could and should have altered what ultimately became a casual approach to her protection on the part of Families SA. Events following the first notification to Families SA In this section I will discuss events during the period from Ebony’s discharge from hospital following her birth until her hospitalisation on 10 August 2011. During that period Ebony was the subject of the notification that had been made to Families SA by the WCH social worker on 6 July 2011. was discharged from the WCH on 8 July 2011 following her birth on 4 July 2011. She was discharged into the care of her parents. The family resided in the unit at Brooklyn Park to which I have already referred. Although Ebony was the subject of the notification to Families SA, she would not actually be sighted by a Families SA employee until 1 August 2011. Even then, there is good reason to believe that the home visit that was conducted by the Families SA employee only took place as the result of further concerns raised by staff employed by the CAFHS. Any detailed analysis of what transpired between 8 July 2011 and 10 August 2011, as with all aspects of this matter, has to be examined against the premise that any engagement between Ebony’s parents and any service provider, including Families SA, was fundamentally flawed as a result of the fact that none of these services knew of the background or history of Bradley Napier-Tucker. This is no criticism of service providers such as CAFHS because no-one from that entity was in a position to have obtained the information about Bradley Napier-Tucker that needed to be obtained.
NAPIER%20Ebony%20Simone.docx