SA parents sue state over daughters’ deportation as Charlie’s case remains in spotlight

As South Australia’s child protection system comes under fire over the death of six-year-old Charlie, the parents of two girls being treated for a gluten allergy are suing the state government, claiming that they were illegally removed.

Key points:

  • The state government is being sued over the illegal removal of two children
  • He accused his mother of “fabricating” a gluten allergy
  • The documents reveal that doctors supported the parents

In their statement of claim filed in the South Australian District Court, the parents, who cannot be named to protect their children’s identities, alleged the state government entered and falsely imprisoned their children for five months in 2017.

His lawyer Andrew Carpenter said it highlighted the disparity between responses within the Department for Child Protection (DCP).

“…Something as small as a gluten intolerance led to five months of children being taken away,” Carpenter told the ABC.

“It could happen to any parent, but DCPs have to act in the best interests of children … it’s not in the best interests of the child to be taken away when their parents confirm a medical diagnosis.”

Parents reported some type of gluten allergy

The case is before the SA District Court. (ABC News: Che Chorley)

The documents stated that her daughter first experienced vomiting and nausea when she was three years old from consuming foods containing gluten and was taken to gastroenterologist Dr Rupert Hinds.

“Beginning in December 2015, in accordance with Dr. Hinds’ advice, the girl began a gluten-free diet,” the documents stated.

In June 2016, she developed “some degree of non-celiac gluten intolerance” and Dr. Hinds told her parents to continue the gluten-free diet.

The claim said the parents told the girl’s nursery in Adelaide’s eastern suburbs that their daughter was allergic to gluten and needed to be on a special diet in January 2017.

“In February 2017, the parents attended the nursery and were advised by nursery staff that their daughter was not eating enough… and arranged a review with Dr Hinds,” s ‘indicates in the documents.

The nursery notified the DCP of the diet

According to the documents, the parents notified the kindergarten that Dr. Hinds found that the now four-year-old girl may have experienced poor appetite as a side effect of surgery she had when she was 13 months old.

The kindergarten notified DCP that the girl needed a gluten-free diet in April 2017.

The documents stated that two days later, “without further investigation,” DCP removed the girl and her older sister from their parents’ care and placed them in care because the allergy had been “manufactured” by the his mother

“Following the removal, at the direction of the state government, the girl was placed on a gluten-containing diet [and] as a result she became increasingly ill,” the parents state in court documents.

The documents indicated that child psychiatrist Dr. Jon Jureidini diagnosed the girl’s mother with Munchausen syndrome by proxy, a form of child abuse in which a parent causes symptoms to make it appear that their child is ill.

But pediatric gastroenterologist Dr David Moore found it was “reasonable” for the parents to put their daughter on a gluten-free diet, which was supported by another independent doctor in September 2017.

Nick Xenophon asked DCP to review the case in September 2017. (ABC News: Lincoln Rothall)

The children were returned to their parents later that month after former SA senator Nick Xenophon asked DCP to review the case.

The parents claim that DCP failed to investigate the girl’s medical condition before removing her and “improperly took into account” a previous charge against the mother.

In 2013, the mother was accused of harming her daughter by giving her lactose after surgery.

The judge ruled that this was a mistake and not due to malice. The mother was not convicted of the crime.

In a statement, a DCP spokeswoman said the department’s interaction with the family ended in 2017.

“As this matter is the subject of ongoing court proceedings, the department is unable to provide any further comment,” he said.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *