❓ A parliamentary question regarding cancelled supervised visits between a mother and her children, with the Minister providing explanations and assurances about future communication.
AnsweredQoN 416Legislative Council
Asked
3 June 2004
Member
Portfolio
Community Development, Women’s Interests, Seniors and Youth
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Can the minister please explain why the proposed supervised visit between Christine Mitson and her two younger children, Don and Freya, scheduled for 4.00 pm on Wednesday, 2 June 2004 did not take place, and why Ms Mitson was not given due notice? (2) Can the minister explain why a supervised visit between this mother and the same two children scheduled to take place on Saturday, 28 February 2004 was not organised? (3) If in future supervised access visits are to be cancelled at short notice, can the department ensure that Ms Mitson is informed in writing in due time of the circumstances causing the cancellation? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) I refer to the scheduled visit of 2 June 2004. During a conversation between the case worker and Ms Mitson on 28 May 2004, it was discussed that the two younger children had fallen asleep during the previous 4.30 pm contact, and it was agreed that an alternative time should be arranged. Due to Ms Mitson’s work commitments, she is unable to have contact at an earlier time. Therefore, it was agreed by the contact supervisor and Ms Mitson that a visit would proceed on Ms Mitson’s rostered day off on 7 June 2004, and attempts would be made to arrange future visits on weekends. (2) I refer to scheduled visit 28 February 2004. On 26 February 2004, Ms Mitson intercepted her oldest child on the way to his school. This contact, which caused him extreme distress, was outside the agreed contact plan developed and agreed to in principle by Ms Mitson and the external mediator engaged by the department on the recommendations of the case review board. Concerns about this incident, and concerns expressed by a number of parties, resulted in the decision that contact visits would need to be supervised. This information was then conveyed in a discussion by telephone between Ms Mitson and the team leader from the Perth office on 27 February 2004. During that conversation, despite the encouragement of the team leader that she maintain contact with her children, Ms Mitson repeatedly stated that she wanted no further contact with any of her children. (3) Regarding arrangements for future visits, where possible, the department will provide both verbal and written notification to Ms Mitson should supervised access need to be cancelled. When time frames do not permit written notification by mail, verbal notification will continue to occur. At times this will involve leaving messages for Ms Mitson on her home answering machine or mobile message bank if she is uncontactable.
(2) Can the minister explain why a supervised visit between this mother and the same two children scheduled to take place on Saturday, 28 February 2004 was not organised? (3) If in future supervised access visits are to be cancelled at short notice, can the department ensure that Ms Mitson is informed in writing in due time of the circumstances causing the cancellation? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) I refer to the scheduled visit of 2 June 2004. During a conversation between the case worker and Ms Mitson on 28 May 2004, it was discussed that the two younger children had fallen asleep during the previous 4.30 pm contact, and it was agreed that an alternative time should be arranged. Due to Ms Mitson’s work commitments, she is unable to have contact at an earlier time. Therefore, it was agreed by the contact supervisor and Ms Mitson that a visit would proceed on Ms Mitson’s rostered day off on 7 June 2004, and attempts would be made to arrange future visits on weekends. (2) I refer to scheduled visit 28 February 2004. On 26 February 2004, Ms Mitson intercepted her oldest child on the way to his school. This contact, which caused him extreme distress, was outside the agreed contact plan developed and agreed to in principle by Ms Mitson and the external mediator engaged by the department on the recommendations of the case review board. Concerns about this incident, and concerns expressed by a number of parties, resulted in the decision that contact visits would need to be supervised. This information was then conveyed in a discussion by telephone between Ms Mitson and the team leader from the Perth office on 27 February 2004. During that conversation, despite the encouragement of the team leader that she maintain contact with her children, Ms Mitson repeatedly stated that she wanted no further contact with any of her children. (3) Regarding arrangements for future visits, where possible, the department will provide both verbal and written notification to Ms Mitson should supervised access need to be cancelled. When time frames do not permit written notification by mail, verbal notification will continue to occur. At times this will involve leaving messages for Ms Mitson on her home answering machine or mobile message bank if she is uncontactable.
(3) If in future supervised access visits are to be cancelled at short notice, can the department ensure that Ms Mitson is informed in writing in due time of the circumstances causing the cancellation? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) I refer to the scheduled visit of 2 June 2004. During a conversation between the case worker and Ms Mitson on 28 May 2004, it was discussed that the two younger children had fallen asleep during the previous 4.30 pm contact, and it was agreed that an alternative time should be arranged. Due to Ms Mitson’s work commitments, she is unable to have contact at an earlier time. Therefore, it was agreed by the contact supervisor and Ms Mitson that a visit would proceed on Ms Mitson’s rostered day off on 7 June 2004, and attempts would be made to arrange future visits on weekends. (2) I refer to scheduled visit 28 February 2004. On 26 February 2004, Ms Mitson intercepted her oldest child on the way to his school. This contact, which caused him extreme distress, was outside the agreed contact plan developed and agreed to in principle by Ms Mitson and the external mediator engaged by the department on the recommendations of the case review board. Concerns about this incident, and concerns expressed by a number of parties, resulted in the decision that contact visits would need to be supervised. This information was then conveyed in a discussion by telephone between Ms Mitson and the team leader from the Perth office on 27 February 2004. During that conversation, despite the encouragement of the team leader that she maintain contact with her children, Ms Mitson repeatedly stated that she wanted no further contact with any of her children. (3) Regarding arrangements for future visits, where possible, the department will provide both verbal and written notification to Ms Mitson should supervised access need to be cancelled. When time frames do not permit written notification by mail, verbal notification will continue to occur. At times this will involve leaving messages for Ms Mitson on her home answering machine or mobile message bank if she is uncontactable.
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) I refer to the scheduled visit of 2 June 2004. During a conversation between the case worker and Ms Mitson on 28 May 2004, it was discussed that the two younger children had fallen asleep during the previous 4.30 pm contact, and it was agreed that an alternative time should be arranged. Due to Ms Mitson’s work commitments, she is unable to have contact at an earlier time. Therefore, it was agreed by the contact supervisor and Ms Mitson that a visit would proceed on Ms Mitson’s rostered day off on 7 June 2004, and attempts would be made to arrange future visits on weekends. (2) I refer to scheduled visit 28 February 2004. On 26 February 2004, Ms Mitson intercepted her oldest child on the way to his school. This contact, which caused him extreme distress, was outside the agreed contact plan developed and agreed to in principle by Ms Mitson and the external mediator engaged by the department on the recommendations of the case review board. Concerns about this incident, and concerns expressed by a number of parties, resulted in the decision that contact visits would need to be supervised. This information was then conveyed in a discussion by telephone between Ms Mitson and the team leader from the Perth office on 27 February 2004. During that conversation, despite the encouragement of the team leader that she maintain contact with her children, Ms Mitson repeatedly stated that she wanted no further contact with any of her children. (3) Regarding arrangements for future visits, where possible, the department will provide both verbal and written notification to Ms Mitson should supervised access need to be cancelled. When time frames do not permit written notification by mail, verbal notification will continue to occur. At times this will involve leaving messages for Ms Mitson on her home answering machine or mobile message bank if she is uncontactable.
I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) I refer to the scheduled visit of 2 June 2004. During a conversation between the case worker and Ms Mitson on 28 May 2004, it was discussed that the two younger children had fallen asleep during the previous 4.30 pm contact, and it was agreed that an alternative time should be arranged. Due to Ms Mitson’s work commitments, she is unable to have contact at an earlier time. Therefore, it was agreed by the contact supervisor and Ms Mitson that a visit would proceed on Ms Mitson’s rostered day off on 7 June 2004, and attempts would be made to arrange future visits on weekends. (2) I refer to scheduled visit 28 February 2004. On 26 February 2004, Ms Mitson intercepted her oldest child on the way to his school. This contact, which caused him extreme distress, was outside the agreed contact plan developed and agreed to in principle by Ms Mitson and the external mediator engaged by the department on the recommendations of the case review board. Concerns about this incident, and concerns expressed by a number of parties, resulted in the decision that contact visits would need to be supervised. This information was then conveyed in a discussion by telephone between Ms Mitson and the team leader from the Perth office on 27 February 2004. During that conversation, despite the encouragement of the team leader that she maintain contact with her children, Ms Mitson repeatedly stated that she wanted no further contact with any of her children. (3) Regarding arrangements for future visits, where possible, the department will provide both verbal and written notification to Ms Mitson should supervised access need to be cancelled. When time frames do not permit written notification by mail, verbal notification will continue to occur. At times this will involve leaving messages for Ms Mitson on her home answering machine or mobile message bank if she is uncontactable.
(1) I refer to the scheduled visit of 2 June 2004. During a conversation between the case worker and Ms Mitson on 28 May 2004, it was discussed that the two younger children had fallen asleep during the previous 4.30 pm contact, and it was agreed that an alternative time should be arranged. Due to Ms Mitson’s work commitments, she is unable to have contact at an earlier time. Therefore, it was agreed by the contact supervisor and Ms Mitson that a visit would proceed on Ms Mitson’s rostered day off on 7 June 2004, and attempts would be made to arrange future visits on weekends. (2) I refer to scheduled visit 28 February 2004. On 26 February 2004, Ms Mitson intercepted her oldest child on the way to his school. This contact, which caused him extreme distress, was outside the agreed contact plan developed and agreed to in principle by Ms Mitson and the external mediator engaged by the department on the recommendations of the case review board. Concerns about this incident, and concerns expressed by a number of parties, resulted in the decision that contact visits would need to be supervised. This information was then conveyed in a discussion by telephone between Ms Mitson and the team leader from the Perth office on 27 February 2004. During that conversation, despite the encouragement of the team leader that she maintain contact with her children, Ms Mitson repeatedly stated that she wanted no further contact with any of her children. (3) Regarding arrangements for future visits, where possible, the department will provide both verbal and written notification to Ms Mitson should supervised access need to be cancelled. When time frames do not permit written notification by mail, verbal notification will continue to occur. At times this will involve leaving messages for Ms Mitson on her home answering machine or mobile message bank if she is uncontactable.
(2) I refer to scheduled visit 28 February 2004. On 26 February 2004, Ms Mitson intercepted her oldest child on the way to his school. This contact, which caused him extreme distress, was outside the agreed contact plan developed and agreed to in principle by Ms Mitson and the external mediator engaged by the department on the recommendations of the case review board. Concerns about this incident, and concerns expressed by a number of parties, resulted in the decision that contact visits would need to be supervised. This information was then conveyed in a discussion by telephone between Ms Mitson and the team leader from the Perth office on 27 February 2004. During that conversation, despite the encouragement of the team leader that she maintain contact with her children, Ms Mitson repeatedly stated that she wanted no further contact with any of her children. (3) Regarding arrangements for future visits, where possible, the department will provide both verbal and written notification to Ms Mitson should supervised access need to be cancelled. When time frames do not permit written notification by mail, verbal notification will continue to occur. At times this will involve leaving messages for Ms Mitson on her home answering machine or mobile message bank if she is uncontactable.
(3) Regarding arrangements for future visits, where possible, the department will provide both verbal and written notification to Ms Mitson should supervised access need to be cancelled. When time frames do not permit written notification by mail, verbal notification will continue to occur. At times this will involve leaving messages for Ms Mitson on her home answering machine or mobile message bank if she is uncontactable.
(2) Can the minister explain why a supervised visit between this mother and the same two children scheduled to take place on Saturday, 28 February 2004 was not organised? (3) If in future supervised access visits are to be cancelled at short notice, can the department ensure that Ms Mitson is informed in writing in due time of the circumstances causing the cancellation? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) I refer to the scheduled visit of 2 June 2004. During a conversation between the case worker and Ms Mitson on 28 May 2004, it was discussed that the two younger children had fallen asleep during the previous 4.30 pm contact, and it was agreed that an alternative time should be arranged. Due to Ms Mitson’s work commitments, she is unable to have contact at an earlier time. Therefore, it was agreed by the contact supervisor and Ms Mitson that a visit would proceed on Ms Mitson’s rostered day off on 7 June 2004, and attempts would be made to arrange future visits on weekends. (2) I refer to scheduled visit 28 February 2004. On 26 February 2004, Ms Mitson intercepted her oldest child on the way to his school. This contact, which caused him extreme distress, was outside the agreed contact plan developed and agreed to in principle by Ms Mitson and the external mediator engaged by the department on the recommendations of the case review board. Concerns about this incident, and concerns expressed by a number of parties, resulted in the decision that contact visits would need to be supervised. This information was then conveyed in a discussion by telephone between Ms Mitson and the team leader from the Perth office on 27 February 2004. During that conversation, despite the encouragement of the team leader that she maintain contact with her children, Ms Mitson repeatedly stated that she wanted no further contact with any of her children. (3) Regarding arrangements for future visits, where possible, the department will provide both verbal and written notification to Ms Mitson should supervised access need to be cancelled. When time frames do not permit written notification by mail, verbal notification will continue to occur. At times this will involve leaving messages for Ms Mitson on her home answering machine or mobile message bank if she is uncontactable.
(3) If in future supervised access visits are to be cancelled at short notice, can the department ensure that Ms Mitson is informed in writing in due time of the circumstances causing the cancellation? Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) I refer to the scheduled visit of 2 June 2004. During a conversation between the case worker and Ms Mitson on 28 May 2004, it was discussed that the two younger children had fallen asleep during the previous 4.30 pm contact, and it was agreed that an alternative time should be arranged. Due to Ms Mitson’s work commitments, she is unable to have contact at an earlier time. Therefore, it was agreed by the contact supervisor and Ms Mitson that a visit would proceed on Ms Mitson’s rostered day off on 7 June 2004, and attempts would be made to arrange future visits on weekends. (2) I refer to scheduled visit 28 February 2004. On 26 February 2004, Ms Mitson intercepted her oldest child on the way to his school. This contact, which caused him extreme distress, was outside the agreed contact plan developed and agreed to in principle by Ms Mitson and the external mediator engaged by the department on the recommendations of the case review board. Concerns about this incident, and concerns expressed by a number of parties, resulted in the decision that contact visits would need to be supervised. This information was then conveyed in a discussion by telephone between Ms Mitson and the team leader from the Perth office on 27 February 2004. During that conversation, despite the encouragement of the team leader that she maintain contact with her children, Ms Mitson repeatedly stated that she wanted no further contact with any of her children. (3) Regarding arrangements for future visits, where possible, the department will provide both verbal and written notification to Ms Mitson should supervised access need to be cancelled. When time frames do not permit written notification by mail, verbal notification will continue to occur. At times this will involve leaving messages for Ms Mitson on her home answering machine or mobile message bank if she is uncontactable.
Hon LJILJANNA RAVLICH replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) I refer to the scheduled visit of 2 June 2004. During a conversation between the case worker and Ms Mitson on 28 May 2004, it was discussed that the two younger children had fallen asleep during the previous 4.30 pm contact, and it was agreed that an alternative time should be arranged. Due to Ms Mitson’s work commitments, she is unable to have contact at an earlier time. Therefore, it was agreed by the contact supervisor and Ms Mitson that a visit would proceed on Ms Mitson’s rostered day off on 7 June 2004, and attempts would be made to arrange future visits on weekends. (2) I refer to scheduled visit 28 February 2004. On 26 February 2004, Ms Mitson intercepted her oldest child on the way to his school. This contact, which caused him extreme distress, was outside the agreed contact plan developed and agreed to in principle by Ms Mitson and the external mediator engaged by the department on the recommendations of the case review board. Concerns about this incident, and concerns expressed by a number of parties, resulted in the decision that contact visits would need to be supervised. This information was then conveyed in a discussion by telephone between Ms Mitson and the team leader from the Perth office on 27 February 2004. During that conversation, despite the encouragement of the team leader that she maintain contact with her children, Ms Mitson repeatedly stated that she wanted no further contact with any of her children. (3) Regarding arrangements for future visits, where possible, the department will provide both verbal and written notification to Ms Mitson should supervised access need to be cancelled. When time frames do not permit written notification by mail, verbal notification will continue to occur. At times this will involve leaving messages for Ms Mitson on her home answering machine or mobile message bank if she is uncontactable.
I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1) I refer to the scheduled visit of 2 June 2004. During a conversation between the case worker and Ms Mitson on 28 May 2004, it was discussed that the two younger children had fallen asleep during the previous 4.30 pm contact, and it was agreed that an alternative time should be arranged. Due to Ms Mitson’s work commitments, she is unable to have contact at an earlier time. Therefore, it was agreed by the contact supervisor and Ms Mitson that a visit would proceed on Ms Mitson’s rostered day off on 7 June 2004, and attempts would be made to arrange future visits on weekends. (2) I refer to scheduled visit 28 February 2004. On 26 February 2004, Ms Mitson intercepted her oldest child on the way to his school. This contact, which caused him extreme distress, was outside the agreed contact plan developed and agreed to in principle by Ms Mitson and the external mediator engaged by the department on the recommendations of the case review board. Concerns about this incident, and concerns expressed by a number of parties, resulted in the decision that contact visits would need to be supervised. This information was then conveyed in a discussion by telephone between Ms Mitson and the team leader from the Perth office on 27 February 2004. During that conversation, despite the encouragement of the team leader that she maintain contact with her children, Ms Mitson repeatedly stated that she wanted no further contact with any of her children. (3) Regarding arrangements for future visits, where possible, the department will provide both verbal and written notification to Ms Mitson should supervised access need to be cancelled. When time frames do not permit written notification by mail, verbal notification will continue to occur. At times this will involve leaving messages for Ms Mitson on her home answering machine or mobile message bank if she is uncontactable.
(1) I refer to the scheduled visit of 2 June 2004. During a conversation between the case worker and Ms Mitson on 28 May 2004, it was discussed that the two younger children had fallen asleep during the previous 4.30 pm contact, and it was agreed that an alternative time should be arranged. Due to Ms Mitson’s work commitments, she is unable to have contact at an earlier time. Therefore, it was agreed by the contact supervisor and Ms Mitson that a visit would proceed on Ms Mitson’s rostered day off on 7 June 2004, and attempts would be made to arrange future visits on weekends. (2) I refer to scheduled visit 28 February 2004. On 26 February 2004, Ms Mitson intercepted her oldest child on the way to his school. This contact, which caused him extreme distress, was outside the agreed contact plan developed and agreed to in principle by Ms Mitson and the external mediator engaged by the department on the recommendations of the case review board. Concerns about this incident, and concerns expressed by a number of parties, resulted in the decision that contact visits would need to be supervised. This information was then conveyed in a discussion by telephone between Ms Mitson and the team leader from the Perth office on 27 February 2004. During that conversation, despite the encouragement of the team leader that she maintain contact with her children, Ms Mitson repeatedly stated that she wanted no further contact with any of her children. (3) Regarding arrangements for future visits, where possible, the department will provide both verbal and written notification to Ms Mitson should supervised access need to be cancelled. When time frames do not permit written notification by mail, verbal notification will continue to occur. At times this will involve leaving messages for Ms Mitson on her home answering machine or mobile message bank if she is uncontactable.
(2) I refer to scheduled visit 28 February 2004. On 26 February 2004, Ms Mitson intercepted her oldest child on the way to his school. This contact, which caused him extreme distress, was outside the agreed contact plan developed and agreed to in principle by Ms Mitson and the external mediator engaged by the department on the recommendations of the case review board. Concerns about this incident, and concerns expressed by a number of parties, resulted in the decision that contact visits would need to be supervised. This information was then conveyed in a discussion by telephone between Ms Mitson and the team leader from the Perth office on 27 February 2004. During that conversation, despite the encouragement of the team leader that she maintain contact with her children, Ms Mitson repeatedly stated that she wanted no further contact with any of her children. (3) Regarding arrangements for future visits, where possible, the department will provide both verbal and written notification to Ms Mitson should supervised access need to be cancelled. When time frames do not permit written notification by mail, verbal notification will continue to occur. At times this will involve leaving messages for Ms Mitson on her home answering machine or mobile message bank if she is uncontactable.
(3) Regarding arrangements for future visits, where possible, the department will provide both verbal and written notification to Ms Mitson should supervised access need to be cancelled. When time frames do not permit written notification by mail, verbal notification will continue to occur. At times this will involve leaving messages for Ms Mitson on her home answering machine or mobile message bank if she is uncontactable.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.