Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Submitted by Lukes Dad on Sat, 07/02/2009 - 16:48 Luke's Army General discussion forum Luke's Army "He is not just a number, he is not an animal, he is my little boy and he means the world to me." - Quote: Luke's Dad to Child Safety officers on numerous occasions. Luke Borusiewicz 22.9.06 – 18.1.09 Luke at his last visit with his father. Luke died in his fathers arms two weeks after this photo was taken. A picture says a thousand words, Please Daddy can I come out this gate and stay with you forever. Luke only saw Daddy for two hours a week for the last six months of his short life. When he was removed from his parents care his father had been drug free for almost six months, had a full time job and stable accommodation with a single mother and two children. January 29th, 2009. TO: C. Coroner, nn Sh. Street. C, FROM: Michael Borusiewicz I am the father of the Child Luke Borusiewicz. I have some concerns regarding circumstances surrounding the death of my son resulting from injuries which occurred on Monday 12th of January, 2009. 1. He was not under satisfactory supervision at the time of his death. I disagreed with decision to place my child with a 74 year old woman who was already burdened with three older children, all at home on school holidays. This would make it virtually impossible to show the care and attention needed for a two year old child. I voiced my concerns to Child Safety officer L. who supervised my visits with Luke, immediately upon her informing me of his change of residence and carer. I also stated I was worried about the 3 older children bullying my child, and a constant list of previous injuries which he had sustained. 2. The injuries sustained by my child I am puzzled by the severe bruising of his right pointer finger. The police are confident the old lady was not capable of causing such an injury but I would like you to take into consideration it may have been caused by one of the other children, who were the only witnesses to the actions which caused Luke’s death. My suspicion is that he may have been held by the right pointer finger by someone’s left hand whilst being struck by the other hand. Not knowing the size of the other children I would ask that you consider and investigate these as legitimate possibilities. 3. The constant injuries sustained by Luke whilst in the brief care of this elderly lady. These included a severe burn to his hand and constant severe bruising to his head and body. At the day I last had contact with Luke he had scratches on his face which I asked the visit supervisor L. to record. Other injuries were also witnessed by visit supervisors, P. and J. at previous visits. Two days after my last visit with Luke his mum saw a severe scratch on his penis which needed medical attention. I was also informed by J. during this week prior to the injury that he had severe bruising on his bum. She stated that it was from jumping off his bed. She informed me that she could not control him and he kept jumping off the bed. Did she inform child safety that she was not capable of proper care and control of Luke. Why haven’t Child Safety been forthcoming with the list of previous injuries? 4. The failure to act on my concerns as a father about my child’s safety with this carer. During the week preceding his fatal injury and immediately upon being informed of his placement with this carer, I embarked upon a tireless but futile attempt to have him removed from J.'s custody. The contacts I made with child safety include:- a)When I spoke to the visit supervisor L. during the visit on 5.1.09 b)A phone call with L. 6.1.09 c)A phone call with J. from child safety complaints in Brisbane on 9.1.09 d)A meeting with supervisor L. and Team Leader J. on 9.1.09 d)3 unreturned phone calls to P. A., manager of Child Safety in C. 2 of these were on 9.1.09 and one was on 12.1.09. Luke’s mother, J., also voiced her concerns about his safety whilst in the care of J. 5. Why he was not given proper care at the time of his injury. Why was he allowed to ‘sleep’ from 11am til 5pm. I rang the carer, J., at 11am on the day of Luke’s injury. She informed me he had returned home, hit his head whilst having a tantrum and had been put to bed. I was very concerned after this phone call and immediately attempted to contact P. A., the manager of Child safety in C. This was my third attempt to contact her and voice my concern over his safety whilst in the care of J. None of my calls were ever returned. I also rang L. from Child Safety C. and repeated my concerns. This was the third time within a week of the fatal injuries occurring, that I informed L. of my fears for Luke’s safety. First, at Luke’s visit the week before, and secondly, during a phone call when she informed me, two of the children were to be removed immediately so that Luke would receive proper care. The third time was during a phone call to organise a meeting with L. and the Team Leader J. I phoned J.’s home phone at 1.30pm on the same day. The phone was answered by a child, who informed me Luke was asleep. I rang a third time that day at 5pm to talk to Luke and was told he was still asleep. I commented that he doesn’t usually sleep that long and told her I would ring again soon. I did not want to upset his carer so decided to ring again the following morning. My mobile phone activity report can verify the times, when I rang. 6. The inaccurate account of times supplied by his carer I am suspicious of the reasons for supplying a misleading account of times for Luke’s injuries occurring and when he was put to bed. His carer knew his usual time for a daytime sleep was 1.30 and that it was highly unusual for Luke to go to sleep at 11am. As he returned from the visit an hour and a half earlier than normal, J. would have been informed and well aware of his early arrival. I am suspicious that she is trying to hide the fact that his going to bed at this time, had never occurred before and was therefore a result of his head injury. 7. I am also concerned, as the father of a deceased child, and as the father whose child was placed in a supposed - ‘sanctioned safe environment’. Who is responsible for sanctioning a 74 year old woman as a full-time carer of four young children. Even a responsible person half that age would have their work cut out for them, so why was Luke placed with a carer, who even admitted she did not want the added burden of another child; said, she did not want him – and yet, Child Safety saw fit to overload a 74 year old woman with a very active 2 year old, thus creating an extremely DANGEROUS environment of uncontrollability and neglect. I believe the Child Safety Officers involved in the decision making processes of this case should be investigated thoroughly for neglecting their duty of care, - in (a) allowing a 74 year old woman to ‘care’ for 3 children, let alone 4 – plus, what about the other three children still in her ‘care’? Are they ‘safe’?? Do they suffer constant injuries?? Is anyone monitoring this?? Do ‘carers’ attend a basic first aid course, which would point out the obvious steps to adhere to if a child sustains a head injury- don’t let them sleep for 6 hours. Was it only my child who suffered constant injuries and would this be an indication of bullying from the older children. I simply ask that you consider my concerns when you conduct your investigation into the matter, Regards Michael Borusiewicz.
Post a Comment