Ipswich mum fronts court for cruelty after malnourished child repeatedly hospitalised

An Ipswich mother was forced to separate from her whole family after her years of negligence saw her baby repeatedly hospitalised and subjected to multiple unnecessary treatments, a court has heard.

An Ipswich mother was in tears today as a court heard how her years of negligence saw her baby repeatedly hospitalised and put through multiple unnecessary treatments.

An Ipswich mother was in tears today as a court heard how her years of negligence saw her baby repeatedly hospitalised and put through multiple unnecessary treatments.

Ipswich District Court heard the mum was eventually forced to separate from her whole family as a result of her negligence.

The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, fronted court on June 16, 2023, after previously pleading guilty to one count each of child abuse and failing to supply the necessaries of life – both domestic violence offences.

The cruelty charge referred to the woman’s failure to provide her youngest daughter with adequate food over the span of around 2.5 years.

The court heard the woman suffered from a range of health problems including life-threatening asthma, a connective tissue disorder and a mild thoracic aortic aneurysm.

Her youngest child was born with her own related health problems, and was just nine months old when the cruelty offending started some years ago.

Judge Dennis Lynch said the child was repeatedly presented to hospital in a malnourished condition over the 2.5-year span of offending.

He said the child lost weight in her mother’s care, and went through a number of invasive therapies and treatments as a result.

These included the insertion of feeding tubes into her stomach and surgery to provide a feeding tube to her blood system.

Judge Lynch further noted the woman had told hospital staff that the child simply would not feed in the normal way.

“Over time it was realised, that these complaints of [hers] were not in fact correct,” Judge Lynch said.

He said the hospital found, while the child was in its care, that she was able to feed normally.

Judge Lynch said there became a cycle throughout the period of offending in which the child’s condition would improve in the hospital’s care and then deteriorate once more in her mother’s care to the point where she would require hospitalisation again.

He noted the hospital eventually concluded that a number of treatments would have been unnecessary if the child had been properly cared for.

The woman’s second charge related to her failure to provide a hygienic environment for her child, whose feeding lines became contaminated in her care.

Judge Lynch said the child suffered 16 bloodstream infections in the span of around a year as a result of that contamination.

The woman was the principal carer for that child, along with her two older children, at the time.

There are no allegations of mistreatment relating to the woman’s older children.

The Department of Child Safety eventually became involved and the woman was forced to moved away from her children, leaving them in her husband’s care.

Judge Lynch said the victim child had rapidly recovered and “thrived” after she was removed from its mother’s care.

The court heard that Child Safety had since allowed the woman to move back in with her family.

Judge Lynch noted a psychological report suggested that the woman’s health concerns likely played a role in her offending.

The report suggested that the medication she was taking likely contributed to erratic changes in mood, impulsive and ill-considered behaviour, and influenced her judgment and reasoning.

It also noted she had been diagnosed with major depressive disorder and anxiety.

Judge Lynch said it was “obvious” that the woman’s conduct caused harm to her daughter.

However, he said her attempts to get medical treatment for her daughter – albeit with incorrect descriptions of her child’s condition – still made the matter “significantly different” to other similar cases.

“It is a most unusual case that someone who did things which caused harm to their child was nevertheless presenting to child to medical experts for care and treatment.”

“Ultimately you were concerned for the care of your daughter.”

Judge Lynch said letters of support from the woman’s husband and other family members indicated that the woman was otherwise a “committed and caring parent, partner, and member of [her] family”.

Although the prosecution submitted that the woman should serve some actual jail time, Judge Lynch said the woman would be a “vulnerable” prisoner.

He said it seemed her level of risk may actually increase in prison, as she would not have access to the same services.

Judge Lynch noted he had also considered whether prison would be necessary to protect the victim child, but concluded: “time has now demonstrated that that is not necessary”.

The woman was sentenced to two years imprisonment, wholly suspended for an operational period of two years.

She was also sentenced to two years probation, and convictions were recorded.