*Disclaimer- names of people in this description have been changed to protect privacy of the victim.
Tom’s Case—Systemic Child Protection Failure: Is There a Negligence Claim? Personal injury claim?
Self-placement with documented abuser = foreseeable harm
Post-ICU discharge return = exceptional foreseeability
Intelectual Disability + absence of support = foreseeable homelessness.
Departments primary goals that were critical for the development of a child with an intellectual disability are consistently not achieved.
Department worries consistently note the urgency for formal diagniosis that never occurred.
Department notes of Tom requiring support to achieve tasks and NDIS funding should be secured but never happened.
Tom, a neurodivergent young man (autism, ADHD, PDA, intellectual impairment), was under Chief Executive guardianship when, at age 16, he self-placed with his mother—the documented source of prior abuse and neglect. Child Safety approved or failed to prevent this placement without safety measures or capacity assessment.
Subsequently, Tom and four peers overdosed on prescription opioids obtained and encouraged by his mother, resulting in one child’s death. Despite this catastrophic event, Child Safety returned Tom to his mother’s care while declaring him in need of protection. When his mother fled and was later imprisoned for manslaughter, Tom became homeless.
At age 18, with Tom living under a bridge, lacking income support, and with unmanaged mental health issues, Child Safety closed his file without providing transition support or disability assistance—despite case notes stating “Tom has no fear and is not safe when alone” and acknowledging his intellectual disability.
Tom is now 20, experiencing homelessness, anxiety-driven behaviour, sensory processing dysfunction, and trauma responses stemming directly from these systemic failures.
Question: Does Tom have a viable negligence claim for failure to protect from foreseeable harm, personal injury, anti discrimination, human rights claim?
Obviously Tom does is not in a position to finance legal action against a government department so the only real prospects of a law suit would be no win no fee type of arrangement.. Its the only chance he has of getting some kind of justice to recover what has been lost from miss opportunities such as grants and compensation from the physical and phycological harm suffered due to inactions of the department of child safety.
Legislative Violations
Child Protection Act 1999 (QLD)
• Section 10 (Best Interests): Failed to prioritise best interests in self-placement approval and post-overdose return to abuser
• Section 74 (Care Agreements): No enforced safety protections in placement
• Section 75 (Transition to Independence): Failed to provide support from age 15-25; closed file while homeless without transition assistance
• Section 107 (Guardianship): Guardian failed to provide protective environment or medical/therapeutic care despite guardianship order
• Chief Executive’s Responsibilities: Failed to coordinate protection services and investigate/assess harm post-overdose
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (COMMONWEALTH)
• Part 2: Discriminatory failure to provide reasonable adjustments for intellectual disability; systemic denial of NDIS access through blocked formal diagnosis
• Part 5: Tom entitled to discrimination complaints
Anti-Discrimination Act 2017 (QLD)
• Part 2: Discriminatory treatment—failure to make reasonable accommodations for disability in decision-making and support provision
Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (QLD)
• Sections 5 & 6: Failed to assess capacity despite incapacity indicators; Chief Executive failed duty to develop decision-making skills
• Capacity Assessment Guidelines 2020: Not followed despite clear need
Human Rights Act 2019 (QLD)
• Section 26 (Right to Life & Safety): Systemic negligence violated right to protection from foreseeable harm
• Section 27 (Dignity): Forced homelessness contradicts human dignity protections
• Section 38 (Equality): Tom denied equal protection based on disability
Mental Health Act 2016 (QLD)
• Duty of care violations: No mental health follow-up post-ICU discharge; closure of file despite documented unmanaged mental health issues
Tom’s Case—Systemic Child Protection Failure: Is There a Negligence Claim? Personal injury claim?
Self-placement with documented abuser = foreseeable harm
Post-ICU discharge return = exceptional foreseeability
Intelectual Disability + absence of support = foreseeable homelessness.
Departments primary goals that were critical for the development of a child with an intellectual disability are consistently not achieved.
Department worries consistently note the urgency for formal diagniosis that never occurred.
Department notes of Tom requiring support to achieve tasks and NDIS funding should be secured but never happened.
Tom, a neurodivergent young man (autism, ADHD, PDA, intellectual impairment), was under Chief Executive guardianship when, at age 16, he self-placed with his mother—the documented source of prior abuse and neglect. Child Safety approved or failed to prevent this placement without safety measures or capacity assessment.
Subsequently, Tom and four peers overdosed on prescription opioids obtained and encouraged by his mother, resulting in one child’s death. Despite this catastrophic event, Child Safety returned Tom to his mother’s care while declaring him in need of protection. When his mother fled and was later imprisoned for manslaughter, Tom became homeless.
At age 18, with Tom living under a bridge, lacking income support, and with unmanaged mental health issues, Child Safety closed his file without providing transition support or disability assistance—despite case notes stating “Tom has no fear and is not safe when alone” and acknowledging his intellectual disability.
Tom is now 20, experiencing homelessness, anxiety-driven behaviour, sensory processing dysfunction, and trauma responses stemming directly from these systemic failures.
Question: Does Tom have a viable negligence claim for failure to protect from foreseeable harm, personal injury, anti discrimination, human rights claim?
Obviously Tom does is not in a position to finance legal action against a government department so the only real prospects of a law suit would be no win no fee type of arrangement.. Its the only chance he has of getting some kind of justice to recover what has been lost from miss opportunities such as grants and compensation from the physical and phycological harm suffered due to inactions of the department of child safety.
Legislative Violations
Child Protection Act 1999 (QLD)
• Section 10 (Best Interests): Failed to prioritise best interests in self-placement approval and post-overdose return to abuser
• Section 74 (Care Agreements): No enforced safety protections in placement
• Section 75 (Transition to Independence): Failed to provide support from age 15-25; closed file while homeless without transition assistance
• Section 107 (Guardianship): Guardian failed to provide protective environment or medical/therapeutic care despite guardianship order
• Chief Executive’s Responsibilities: Failed to coordinate protection services and investigate/assess harm post-overdose
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (COMMONWEALTH)
• Part 2: Discriminatory failure to provide reasonable adjustments for intellectual disability; systemic denial of NDIS access through blocked formal diagnosis
• Part 5: Tom entitled to discrimination complaints
Anti-Discrimination Act 2017 (QLD)
• Part 2: Discriminatory treatment—failure to make reasonable accommodations for disability in decision-making and support provision
Guardianship and Administration Act 2000 (QLD)
• Sections 5 & 6: Failed to assess capacity despite incapacity indicators; Chief Executive failed duty to develop decision-making skills
• Capacity Assessment Guidelines 2020: Not followed despite clear need
Human Rights Act 2019 (QLD)
• Section 26 (Right to Life & Safety): Systemic negligence violated right to protection from foreseeable harm
• Section 27 (Dignity): Forced homelessness contradicts human dignity protections
• Section 38 (Equality): Tom denied equal protection based on disability
Mental Health Act 2016 (QLD)
• Duty of care violations: No mental health follow-up post-ICU discharge; closure of file despite documented unmanaged mental health issues