John and Sue Sandeman desperate for government to fix broken system

More than a decade on from the day they learned they would never hold their grandson in their arms again, John and Sue Sandeman are still fighting to be taken seriously.

John and Sue Sandeman campaigned tirelessly to see legislation change after their grandson was murdered, now they're worried the state isn't investing enough in child protection resources. Picture: Evan Morgan

More than a decade on from the day they learned they would never hold their grandson in their arms again, John and Sue Sandeman are still fighting to be heard.

Their grandson Mason John Parker, was brutally beaten by his mother’s boyfriend, Troy William Reed and died as a result of his injuries in April, 2011.

Just days before Mason died, his daycare took photos of the bruises over his body, but did not report their concerns to the authorities.

Sadly, for them, the reasons they began fighting for change to the rules and regulations around childcare, are still prevelant.

“We don’t care about ourselves. We care about the kids at the daycare centre. I mean, I could show you the photos of the, they had in the courtroom of a grandson and why we did it – he had over 50 bruises on his body,” Mr Sandeman said.

John and Sue Sandeman campaigned tirelessly to see legislation change after their grandson was murdered, now they're worried the state isn't investing enough in child protection resources. Picture: Evan Morgan

“That’s why we did it, because we don’t want any other family to go through that.”

The couple not only lost baby Mason, but have severed all ties with their daughter, Mason’s mother.

Despite the challenge, and an emotional turmoil that has proved constantly exhausting, the Sandemans did have one moment of relief; when their battle against child abuse saw Mason’s law come into effect in 2015, but even that moment has now become cruelly twisted.

“Nothing’s really improved,” Ms Sandeman said.

A photo of murdered toddler Mason Parker and his grandfather John Sandeman,

“It’s not been monitored the way we hoped it was going to be monitored, and we’ve found out some additional information that we think clearly shows that the government is really not fully invested.”

The Sandemans say that after a number of high profile cases involving children being left on buses at childcare centres, or otherwise harmed or not looked after appropriately, they became fed up, and began reaching out to the department of education to see what was going on.

“After fighting the government on both sides of politics, Newman and Palaszczuk to get it introduced, we volunteered our services to go around to centres or to work with the government on how to improve things, but we haven’t heard back from anyone to this day.”

John and Sue Sandeman keep a box of belongings and mementos of their murdered grandson, Mason Parker.

After repeated inquiries as to the state of North Queensland’s early childhood education and how the government was enforcing regulations, the Sandemans were shocked by what they were told.

“I finally got through to the education department in Townsville, and I asked how many inspectors they have. They told me they had six inspectors looking after 234 centres,” Mr Sandeman said.

“They told me that they go out to each centre once every three to five years and that the training is all handled by the providers, that the checks on wether they’re being trained properly are handled by the providers.

“We just want it to be implemented properly and taken seriously.”

The department of education disputed the numbers the Sandemans were told by a local official, saying that the number of inspectors was ‘approximately 11’.

“Regulatory functions are performed by authorised officers, and there are a number of different roles within the RA that hold authorisation,” a spokesperson said.

“There are approximately 11 positions located in our North Queensland regional office in Townsville.

“The RA uses a risk-based framework, Regulating for Quality (R4Q), to manage risk and drive continuous quality improvement in ECEC services. 

“Under R4Q, decisions about when to visit (announced and unannounced) and when to assess and rate a service are based on a number of risk factors including current rating, time since last assessment, any changes to the approved provider or key personnel, current and ongoing compliance action, and compliance history.

“Compliance monitoring visits are carried out at all approved services at least once a year, and more frequently when risk is identified. The majority of these visits are conducted unannounced.”

Originally published as John and Sue Sandeman desperate for government to fix broken system