Supplementary
Submission
No 92a
INQUIRY INTO FOUNDATIONAL AND DISABILITY
SUPPORTS AVAILABLE FOR CHILDREN AND YOUNG
PEOPLE IN NEW SOUTH WALES
Name: Name suppressed
Date Received: 17 September 2026
Partially
Confidential
SUPPLEMENTARY SUBMISSION
Cross-system verification, participation and review
Select Committee on Foundational and Disability Supports Available for Children and Young People in New
South Wales
September 2026
Purpose. This supplementary submission clarifies the systemic issue underlying Recommendations 1-6 of my principal submission. It does not ask the Committee to determine the merits of any individual dispute.
The issue is not that every organisation acted in the same way or for the same reason, nor is my position that no court order ever existed. An ADVO existed during the relevant period. My concern is that I disputed descriptions suggesting that custody or parenting orders removed or transferred my parental responsibility, and I repeatedly sought clarification of the actual legal or other basis for continuing restrictions or limitations on my participation.
I do not suggest that every organisation relied on the same information, was subject to the same legal obligations, or made the same decision.
The significance of the issue lies in its recurrence across several independent parts of the children’s support system. Different organisations may have received different information and may have been operating under different legal, privacy, safety, clinical, consent or service frameworks. The common concern is that similar questions arose repeatedly about verification, parental participation, explanation of restrictions, review and correction.
Information sharing should not operate as a transfer of decision-making responsibility. An organisation receiving information from another agency or service may reasonably take account of that information, but it remains responsible for the decisions it subsequently makes in reliance upon it, particularly once the accuracy or legal effect of the information has been disputed. Where a court order is materially relied upon, the original order should, where reasonably available, be checked rather than an unverified description being repeatedly transmitted and treated as verified fact.
The recurring questions raised by my experience are whether: descriptions of relevant court orders or legal status were checked against primary records; the current legal, privacy, safety, clinical, consent or service basis of a participation restriction was identified and recorded; a restriction was reviewed when the accuracy of relevant information was disputed or when circumstances changed; a correction or statement that information was disputed followed the information to other organisations using it; and responsibility remained identifiable when information, concerns or correction requests moved between organisations. The systemic concern is therefore not that every organisation necessarily acted wrongly for the same reason. It is that, across functionally separate parts of the support system, I have not been able to identify a consistent and transparent process for verification, explanation, parental input, correction, review and responsibility.
That experience is the basis for Recommendations 1-6 of my principal submission, addressing: recording and verifying the basis of restrictions; reviewing restrictions when their basis changes; consistent guidance about different legal and participation restrictions; written explanations and a safe channel for relevant family information; ensuring corrections or disputed-information statements reach relevant recipients; and maintaining clear responsibility when information or concerns are shared between organisations. I have provided the identities and differing evidentiary positions of the relevant organisations separately and confidentially. That material distinguishes between documented participation restrictions, non-participation where the basis remains unresolved, historical or source-tracing context, and downstream information pathways. My request remains for systemic recommendations, not investigation or determination of individual liability.
Page 1