Red Alert: Maternal Safety, Evidence Fidelity, and Risk Assessment of the Inklings Program as part of the Thriving Kids initiative

Prepared by: Sarah Langston, Nicole Moran and Heidi La Paglia, on behalf of the The Australian Neurodivergent Parents Association

For: The Thriving Kids Inquiry, House Standing Committee on Health, Aged Care and Disability.

Date: 3 October, 2025.

About the Australian Neurodivergent Parents Association

The Australian Neurodivergent Parents Association (ANPA) was founded in 2023 by Neurodivergent mothers. It exists to protect and uphold the rights of Neurodivergent parents and their children. Founded by and for our community, we are a Disabled People’s Organisation (DPRO) committed to dismantling systemic barriers, challenging injustice, and creating a world where our families can thrive.

Our work spans grassroots advocacy, legal and policy reform, peer-led research, mutual aid, and public education. We support Neurodivergent parents navigating complex systems; including education, disability, child protection, and healthcare - and fight to ensure that our communities are not silenced, sidelined, or separated.

We believe lived experience is expert knowledge. Our campaigns are led by those directly impacted, grounded in the principles of self-determination, intersectionality, and solidarity. Together, we work to build a future where Neurodivergent families are valued, supported, and free.

1. Introduction: Why This Review Matters

The Inklings program is being positioned as a flagship intervention under the federal government’s new Thriving Kids initiative, a reform package that seeks to divert children deemed to have “mild” or “moderate” Autism away from the NDIS and into block-funded services (Butler, 2025; Campanella & Heathcote, 2025). In this context, Inklings is not a neutral research project or a small pilot. It is being held up as proof that population-level, non-individualised approaches can replace the person-centred supports the NDIS was designed to deliver.

Promoted as an “evidence-based” early intervention for infants who may be developing differently, Inklings traces its origins to the iBASIS-VIPP trials (The Kids Research Institute Australia, 2025). In those trials, parents were filmed interacting with their babies and then provided with structured feedback designed to increase parental responsiveness to infant communication cues. On paper, this may appear benign, perhaps even beneficial. Who could object to supporting parents to notice and respond more closely to their babies?

Yet when we look closer, the risks are profound and foreseeable. The greatest concern is maternal safety. Autism is highly heritable, meaning many babies identified for Inklings will also have Autistic mothers (Sandin et al., 2017). These women are already one of the most vulnerable groups in society when it comes to mental health. Autistic women experience far higher rates of depression, anxiety, trauma, and suicide than non-Autistic women (Cassidy et al., 2014). Maternal suicide itself remains one of the leading causes of death in the postpartum year in both Australia (AIHW, 2020) and the United Kingdom (MBRRACE-UK, 2023). Introducing a program that films new mothers and critiques their parenting behaviours, without robust safeguards, could significantly worsen these risks.

Despite these dangers, Inklings has already been rolled out in Western Australia and South Australia without maternal safety protocols. A rewritten version, never peer-reviewed, never trialled, developed under non-disclosure agreements, and without Disabled People’s Representative Organisation (DPRO) consultation, is now being positioned for national rollout under Thriving Kids (Butler, 2025). This is happening without transparent evidence of benefit and without protections against foreseeable harm.

From a risk assessment perspective, this is reckless. In the original trials, reported benefits were at best modest and often faded over time. In the rewritten program, benefits are entirely unknown. By contrast, the risks include catastrophic outcomes such as maternal death. When benefits are weak but the risks are that severe, the balance of evidence demands not rollout but a halt.

Beyond maternal safety, systemic risks abound. Inklings reinforces the pathologisation of neurodivergence by treating natural variations in infant communication as deficits. This risks driving children into early masking of their differences, something we now know is strongly linked to poor long-term outcomes in Autistic people, including heightened rates of depression, burnout, and suicidality (Cassidy and Rodgers, 2017). At the system level, funding Inklings through Thriving Kids diverts scarce early-intervention resources into surveillance-based programs, rather than into therapies, supports, respite, and peer-led services that families consistently report they actually need.

This report is written from a red-team perspective. In research, governance, and policy, red teams are brought in to stress-test popular initiatives, probe weak spots, and identify risks that advocates may overlook (Zanko, 2015). That is the task here: to systematically examine how Inklings could go wrong, and to highlight why proceeding with national rollout under Thriving Kids without safeguards is unsafe, unethical, and inconsistent with Australia’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the RIghts of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) to consult disabled people through their representative organisations (United Nations, 2006).

2. Evidence Fidelity: The Broken Chain of Evidence

For a program to be truly “evidence-based,” it must demonstrate evidence fidelity: continuity with the program that was originally tested (Carroll et al., 2007). If a program is rewritten or substantially changed, the claim of being evidence-based collapses, because the chain of evidence has been broken.

The original iBASIS-VIPP trials (Green et al., 2017) showed moderate benefits for children, including improved social communication and reduced likelihood of Autism diagnosis, but only under tightly controlled conditions with strict fidelity.

The Western Australian rollout of Inklings has already diverged from those conditions. The proposed new rewrite, marketed as more neuro-affirming and thus more “acceptable” to the community (The Kids Research Institute Australia, 2025), is a different product altogether. It was developed under NDAs with a handful of Autistic therapists, with no engagement of DPROs, and has never been tested. Its outcomes for babies or mothers are completely unknown.

Several of the therapists involved in this re-write have informed The ANPA that they were required to sign Non Disclosure Agreements prior to working on the manual, and The ANPA were also asked to sign an NDA before working on the program, which we declined to do on public interest principles. See below, snippet from a text message exchange with one of the four therapists involved in the re-write:

To continue calling this program evidence-based is misleading. The rewritten version cannot inherit the evidence base of the original trials. It is, in effect, an untested product being proposed for national expansion. Given the relative vulnerability of Neurodivergent families, this is an unacceptable safety risk.

3. Maternal Safety: Why Mothers Must Be at the Centre

Autism is highly heritable, with studies estimating approximately 80% heritability (Sandin et al., 2017). This means that when a baby is enrolled in Inklings, there is a strong likelihood that the mother herself is Autistic or has significant Autistic traits. Maternal characteristics are therefore not incidental - they are and should be central to the design and potential impact of any early intervention program with this cohort.

Autistic mothers are already a high-risk group when it comes to mental health and wellbeing. Research has consistently demonstrated stark disparities:

• Suicide risk: Autistic adults without intellectual disability die by suicide at 7–9 times the rate of the general population (Hirvikoski et al., 2016). Autistic women, in particular, face elevated risks compared to Autistic men (Cassidy et al., 2018).
• Postnatal depression: Surveys find that 60% of Autistic mothers experience postnatal depression, compared with around 12% of non-Autistic mothers (Pohl et al., 2020). Other studies suggest Autistic mothers are also more likely to report anxiety, social isolation, and difficulty accessing supportive services during the perinatal period (Crane et al., 2021).
• Maternal mortality: Maternal suicide is among the leading causes of death in the postpartum year in both Australia (AIHW, 2023) and the UK (MBRRACE-UK, 2023). These figures reflect the profound risks that exist even before layering on additional pressures from surveillance-based interventions like Inklings.

For Autistic mothers, these risks are compounded by stigma and systemic discrimination. Many report feeling scrutinised or judged as parents, with their parenting abilities questioned more frequently than non-Autistic peers (Pearson & Rose, 2021). Some even describe fear of child protection intervention if they disclose mental health struggles. Against this backdrop, a program that requires mothers to be filmed and then critiqued on their interactions with their infants risks amplifying feelings of shame, inadequacy, and fear, factors that can directly contribute to deteriorating mental health.

The postpartum window is already one of the most vulnerable stages of life for any mother. Sleep deprivation, hormonal changes, and the intense demands of caring for an infant intersect with heightened social expectations and, for many, limited support (WHO, 2022). For Autistic mothers, who often experience sensory overwhelm and reduced access to appropriate healthcare, the pressures are magnified. Introducing an evaluative, surveillance-driven intervention in this context is not a neutral act, it is one that carries foreseeable and potentially catastrophic consequences.

This makes maternal safety central, not peripheral. Any program that interacts with Autistic mothers in the perinatal window must be designed with a principle of first, do no harm. It must include robust safeguards, independent evaluation, and above all, genuine co-design with Autistic women themselves. Without these protections, programs like Inklings risk tipping vulnerable mothers into crisis, with consequences that extend far beyond the individual to infants, families, and communities.

4. Why Videotaping is Not Neutral

Videotaping parents with their babies is not a neutral act. In psychological terms, it constitutes what is known as social evaluative threat: the perception of being watched, judged, or assessed by others. This is not simply an abstract idea. Decades of research show that Social Evaluative Threat is one of the strongest activators of the human stress response (Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004; Kirschbaum, Pirke, & Hellhammer, 1993).

The Trier Social Stress Test (TSST), one of the most widely used experimental paradigms in psychology, reliably demonstrates this effect.^1 In the TSST, participants are asked to give an impromptu speech and perform mental arithmetic while being observed and videotaped. The result is a consistent physiological stress response: spikes in cortisol, elevated heart rate, and heightened anxiety (Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004). Crucially, the perception of being evaluated, even if no negative judgment is actually delivered, is enough to trigger this stress cascade. The body responds to the possibility of scrutiny as though it were a direct threat.

When applied to new mothers, the stakes become even higher. The postpartum period is already marked by vulnerability: disrupted sleep, hormonal shifts, physical recovery, and the challenges of adapting to a new caregiving role. Superimposing surveillance into this environment risks layering stress on top of stress. Research shows that elevated cortisol in the perinatal period is associated with worsened maternal mental health and can even affect infant regulation and attachment (O’Donnell et al., 2009). What might seem like a simple observational tool can therefore have cascading effects.

For Autistic people and especially Autistic women, the impact of Social Evaluative Threat is magnified. Many Autistic women have long histories of being judged, corrected, or punished for their differences, whether in school, the workplace, or within families. This lived experience creates heightened sensitivity to evaluation. In this context, videotaping interactions in one’s own home is not a benign exercise in ‘coaching’; it sits directly atop layers of trauma and stigma.

The act of being filmed while parenting is thus not just stressful in the moment; it also creates an anticipatory environment of hypervigilance: the ongoing sense of being observed even outside the recording session. Mothers may begin to second-guess ordinary interactions with their babies, fearing how they might be perceived on camera. For some, this could reinforce masking behaviours, consciously suppressing natural responses in order to appear “correct” or “acceptable.” Masking in Autistic people is strongly linked to exhaustion, depression, and suicidality (Bradley et al., 2021). When imposed during the fragile perinatal period, these risks are likely to be sharply intensified.

In short, videotaping parents with their infants is not neutral. It is a psychological intervention in itself, carrying well-documented stress effects. For Autistic mothers, already at disproportionately high risk of postnatal depression and suicide, the potential harms are profound. Any program that employs this method must account for these risks, build in safeguards, and above all ensure that Autistic women are not placed in positions where surveillance undermines their safety and wellbeing.

^1 Kirschbaum, C., Pirke, K.M. and Hellhammer, D.H. (1993) ‘The “Trier Social Stress Test” – A tool for investigating psychobiological stress responses in a laboratory setting’, Neuropsychobiology, 28(1–2), pp.76–81.

5. Theory of Harm: From Videotaping to Suicide Risk

The risks associated with Inklings are not abstract. They can be mapped onto well-established psychological and suicidological frameworks, showing clear pathways by which videotaping Autistic mothers with their babies can escalate into serious mental health crises, including suicide risk.

Masking and Exhaustion

Autistic women are significantly more likely than Autistic men to engage in camouflaging, the suppression or alteration of natural behaviours in order to meet social expectations (Hull et al., 2019). While camouflaging may sometimes help avoid stigma, it comes at a high psychological cost. Research consistently links masking with exhaustion, loss of identity, depression, and suicidality (Cage & Troxell-Whitman, 2019).

Videotaping is a powerful prompt for masking. The presence of a camera compels Autistic mothers to perform ‘good parenting’ behaviours under surveillance, striving to look responsive and appropriate rather than simply being authentic with their babies. Over time, this performance pressure can deplete energy reserves and worsen mental health.

Defeat and Entrapment

When corrective feedback follows the videotaping, mothers may feel they are failing as parents and that there is no way to escape judgement. The concepts of defeat and entrapment, feeling overwhelmed by failure and trapped in an inescapable situation, are robust predictors of suicidal ideation, particularly among Autistic adults (Cassidy et al., 2018). In the perinatal period, when mothers already feel scrutinised and exhausted, the addition of structured, judgment-laden feedback can amplify these feelings of hopelessness and entrapment.

Burdensomeness and Shame

The Inklings model places the mother’s responsiveness at the centre of her infant’s developmental trajectory. While this framing may be intended to empower, for Autistic mothers it can produce a devastating opposite effect: the belief that ‘my baby is worse off because of me.’ According to the interpersonal theory of suicide (Joiner, 2005), perceived burdensomeness and shame are core psychological drivers of suicidal desire. By positioning mothers as the decisive factor in their child’s success or failure, Inklings risks entrenching self-blame and maternal guilt.

Disclosure Suppression

Finally, surveillance-based programs create a chilling effect on openness. Fear of being judged as a ‘bad mother,’ of losing credibility with professionals, or of triggering child protection involvement, makes Autistic mothers far less likely to disclose distress. This suppression of disclosure has been documented as a major barrier in perinatal care more broadly (Shakespeare et al., 2021). When mothers feel unsafe to speak about their struggles, opportunities for intervention are missed and crises escalate in silence.

A Direct Harm Pathway

Taken together, these mechanisms form a direct, evidence-supported harm pathway:

• Videotaping triggers masking → masking drives exhaustion and suicidality.
• Corrective feedback fosters defeat and entrapment → core predictors of suicidal ideation.
• Program framing exacerbates burdensomeness and shame → central to suicide theory.
• Fear of judgement suppresses disclosure → preventing early intervention.

The pathway from videotaping to suicide risk is not speculative. It is grounded in empirical evidence from Autism research, suicidology, and perinatal mental health literature. Any program that ignores these mechanisms cannot credibly claim to be safe.

6. Transitory Distress: Why It Matters and Why DASS-21 is Inadequate

One of the greatest dangers in perinatal mental health, particularly for Autistic mothers, is transitory distress.

Transitory distress refers to short but intense crises: panic attacks, meltdowns, shutdowns, episodes of self-harm, or suicidal ideation that emerge suddenly in response to stress. These episodes may last hours or days, then subside. They are not constant states, but they are dangerous. Research shows that many perinatal suicides occur after acute crises, not after prolonged depression (MBRRACE-UK, 2023).

For Autistic mothers, transitory distress is especially important because:

• They experience heightened physiological reactivity to social threat.
• They often mask, appearing ‘fine’ between breakdowns or crises.
• Crises are frequently triggered by perceived evaluation, defeat, or shame - the exact conditions created by videotaping.
• Videotaping and feedback in Inklings could provoke such episodes within 24–72 hours of sessions.

Yet the DASS-21, the self-report survey reportedly used in Inklings, is not fit for this purpose. The DASS asks about symptoms over the past week and contains no suicide items. A mother could self-harm or attend an emergency department after a session, and still score “normal” a week later. Many Autistic mothers, fearing stigma or child protection, may also under-report distress.

This creates a fatal blind spot. Monitoring systems that rely solely on DASS-21 will miss the most dangerous period: the immediate aftermath of sessions, when suicide risk is highest. The absence of detected harm in such data cannot be taken as evidence of safety.

7. Risk Matrix and Assessment

Applying standard likelihood × consequence assessment yields the following profile:

• Suicidality/self-harm post-session
  • Likelihood: Likely
  • Consequence: Catastrophic
  • Risk rating: Extreme
• Retraumatisation in mothers with DFV/trauma histories
  • Likelihood: Likely
  • Consequence: Major–Catastrophic
  • Risk rating: High–Extreme
• Service disengagement misinterpreted as neglect → child protection escalation
  • Likelihood: Possible–Likely
  • Consequence: Major
  • Risk rating: High
• Privacy/data misuse of recordings
  • Likelihood: Possible
  • Consequence: Major
  • Risk rating: High

The presence of multiple Extreme risks, coupled with only modest or unknown benefits, means that rollout should not proceed. Under any credible risk governance framework, the responsible course is to halt Inklings until robust safeguards, independent evaluation, and co-design with Autistic mothers are in place.

8. Community Testimonies

Autistic mothers have consistently told us, through surveys, community meetings and social media discussions, that being filmed with their babies would be distressing and traumatising. Many have voiced fears that recordings could be misinterpreted or misused, particularly given their prior experiences of stigma and judgement in health, education, and child protection systems.

These testimonies have been gathered in multiple ways: through structured community consultations, surveys and public comment threads on social media posts about Thriving Kids. The consistency of messages across these channels, formal and informal, private and public, underscores the depth and breadth of concern in the community.

Importantly, this lived experience aligns directly with the empirical research. What Autistic mothers are describing: stress under observation, fear of judgement, masking, shame, and disclosure suppression, maps precisely onto the harm pathways documented in the literature. Their voices confirm that the risks are not hypothetical. They are real, immediate, and already being articulated in community spaces where Autistic women feel able to speak freely.

Survey Findings and Discussion

The survey conducted by ANPA in September 2025 gathered responses from 46 parents and carers across Australia, the vast majority of whom are raising neurodivergent children. The demographic spread was broad, with respondents from Queensland (12), New South Wales (11), Victoria (9), Western Australia (4), South Australia (2), Tasmania (1), and the ACT (1). The respondent group was overwhelmingly women (42), with small representation from men (2) and non-binary parents (2). Almost every participant reported having at least one neurodivergent child. This means the perspectives captured are not hypothetical but come directly from the families most likely to be impacted by Thriving Kids and Inklings.

When asked about the core practice of videotaping interactions with their babies, parents expressed overwhelming distress. Across responses, words such as anxious (35 mentions), scrutinised (34), distressed (22), humiliated (20), and scared (17) dominated. By contrast, only a handful of participants described the process as curious (6) or comfortable (3), and none described it as supportive. Parents also reported strong opposition to peer feedback and to retention of recordings, citing fears of misuse, retraumatisation, and loss of trust.

These findings mirror what community testimonies have already articulated: that surveillance-based interventions amplify shame, reinforce masking behaviours, and risk driving Autistic mothers into crisis. The consistency between lived experience, survey data, and established research evidence underscores that the risks are not speculative but grounded, foreseeable, and urgent.

Peer Feedback Between Parents

The survey revealed that the majority of respondents found the idea of peer-to-peer feedback within Inklings to be unsafe, humiliating, and unhelpful. Parents described it as another form of scrutiny, reinforcing the sense that their parenting was being judged against hidden standards. Many articulated concerns that such a process could easily slip into comparison or criticism rather than constructive support. Only a very small minority described peer feedback in positive terms such as “collaborative” or “connected.” These were exceptions rather than the rule, indicating that this element of the program is widely regarded with suspicion and distress.

The implications of these findings are significant. For Autistic mothers, who already experience heightened vulnerability in relation to judgment and stigma, peer feedback can compound the stress of being filmed. It adds another layer of social evaluative threat: not only being observed by professionals but also by peers who may not share their cultural or neurodivergent context. In practice, this may drive further masking behaviours, deepen maternal shame, and accelerate disengagement from services. From a program design perspective, this raises fundamental questions: if the peer feedback component is experienced as humiliating rather than supportive, then it risks doing harm rather than fostering resilience.

Masking and Autistic Mothers

Survey responses showed that most Autistic parents would be “extremely likely” to mask their natural traits in the Inklings setting. Parents described preparing in advance to appear more “appropriate,” forcing themselves to interact in neurotypical ways, or hiding distress during sessions to avoid being judged. Several noted that masking in this context would leave them exhausted, embarrassed, or needing recovery time afterwards. Others reflected on long histories of masking in front of health professionals, often to ensure they were taken seriously as parents or to avoid the risk of child protection involvement. This evidence aligns closely with existing literature showing that camouflaging, while often a survival strategy, carries significant psychological costs.

The dangers of embedding masking into a program designed for early parenting are profound. Masking has been repeatedly linked to depression, identity loss, and suicidality in Autistic adults. When such pressures occur in the perinatal period, already a time of heightened vulnerability, they create conditions that can tip mothers into crisis. The survey data suggests that Inklings is not creating a space where Autistic mothers feel safe to be authentic. Instead, it is likely to entrench patterns of self-suppression, with direct consequences for maternal mental health and infant bonding. In this light, the program risks undermining the very goals it claims to serve, replacing genuine support with a performance-driven environment of surveillance and fear.

Concerns About Recordings and Data Retention

When asked about the Inklings practice of keeping copies of session notes and video recordings, parents expressed strong opposition and distress. Many described feeling physically sick, unsafe, or fearful at the idea that such intimate footage of them with their infants could be retained indefinitely. Respondents voiced concerns that recordings might be misinterpreted or misused, particularly in child protection contexts where Autistic parents already report heightened scrutiny. Only a handful of participants expressed neutrality, and almost none endorsed the practice as safe or acceptable. The overwhelming sentiment was that recording retention represents a significant breach of trust rather than a supportive safeguard.

The implications of this are serious. In healthcare and family support, trust is foundational. If families perceive that their private moments may be stored, replayed, or repurposed without their control, they are less likely to engage openly and more likely to disengage altogether. For Autistic mothers, already at increased risk of discrimination and intervention, such fears are amplified. The survey confirms that rather than fostering connection, data retention policies intensify anxiety, retraumatisation, and fear of surveillance. From a governance perspective, this raises not only ethical questions but also potential legal risks under privacy, human rights, and child protection law.

Overall Risk Profile

The survey findings paint a consistent and troubling picture: across videotaping, peer feedback, masking pressures, and recording retention, parents reported high levels of distress, fear, and mistrust. Words like anxious, scrutinised, humiliated, and unsafe dominated the responses, while supportive or positive reactions were almost non-existent. Importantly, these reactions were not isolated anecdotes but recurring themes expressed across dozens of participants. Combined with the demographic profile, 46 parents and carers, overwhelmingly mothers, most raising neurodivergent children, this represents a meaningful and credible dataset. It reinforces that the program’s design features are not being experienced as neutral coaching but as surveillance and judgment.

When mapped against established risk frameworks, the findings highlight an extreme risk profile. The likelihood of maternal distress is high, and the potential consequences, including disengagement from services, retraumatisation, or suicidal crises, are catastrophic. The consistency between lived experience, survey evidence, and peer-reviewed literature strengthens the case that these risks are both real and foreseeable. In this context, the claim that Inklings is “evidence-based” cannot outweigh the harm signals identified. For a program intended to support families in their most vulnerable period, the failure to build in adequate safety measures amounts to a governance failure. From a risk management perspective, the only responsible course is to pause or halt rollout until the program can demonstrate both safety and fidelity.

9. Conclusion and Recommendations

The Inklings program has broken its chain of evidence. The original iBASIS-VIPP trials demonstrated only moderate and time-limited benefits under tightly controlled research conditions. The version now being advanced under Thriving Kids is substantially rewritten, never peer-reviewed, and entirely untested. To claim that it remains “evidence-based” is misleading. Evidence fidelity has been lost, and the new iteration stands without a valid foundation.

At the same time, the risks for Autistic mothers are real, foreseeable, and catastrophic. Autism is highly heritable, meaning many participants will be Autistic mothers, already one of the highest-risk populations for perinatal mental illness and suicide. Videotaping and corrective feedback during the fragile postpartum window taps directly into established suicidality pathways: masking and exhaustion, defeat and entrapment, burdensomeness and shame, and suppression of disclosure. Each of these has been independently validated as a predictor of crisis. Layered together in the context of Inklings, they constitute an extreme risk profile.

Compounding this, the program’s reliance on DASS-21 monitoring creates a fatal blind spot. DASS cannot capture acute, transitory crises such as panic attacks, shutdowns, or episodes of self-harm that are most likely to occur in the immediate aftermath of filming sessions. The absence of detected harm in such data cannot be taken as evidence of safety. Instead, it represents a failure of monitoring design.

From a red-team risk perspective, the conclusion is unavoidable: the national rollout of Inklings must be halted immediately. Any continuation of the program should occur only as part of a transparent, safety-first research pilot with independent oversight. Such oversight must include Autistic mothers and Disabled People’s Representative Organisations (DPROs) as mandated by the UNCRPD (Article 4.3), and must incorporate robust, suicide-specific maternal monitoring. Anything less would represent not only a profound failure of duty of care to Autistic mothers and their children, but also a breach of Australia’s obligations under the UNCRPD and the Public Governance, Performance and Accountability (PGPA) Act, which requires public officials to act ethically, manage risks responsibly, and protect the wellbeing of those affected by government programs.

The decision before government is therefore not one of efficiency or reform branding. It is a matter of maternal safety, human rights compliance, and governance integrity. The evidence presented here makes clear that continuing with Inklings, in its current form, is unsafe and improper.

10. Reference List

Australian Government. (2013). Public Governance, Performance and Accountability Act https://www.legislation.gov.au/C2013A00123/latest/text

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2020). Maternal deaths in Australia 2018–2020 (Cat. no. PER 140). AIHW. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/mothers-babies/maternal-deaths-in-australia

Butler, M. (2025, August 20). Speech from Minister Butler, National Press Club – 20 August 2025. Australian Government Department of Health, Disability and Ageing. Retrieved from https://www.health.gov.au/ministers/the-hon-mark-butler-mp/media/speech-from-minister-butler-national-press-club-20-august-2025

Campanella, N., & Heathcote, A. (2025, August 29). Labor to cut children with mild autism from NDIS, Thriving Kids to take its place. ABC News. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-08-29/ndis-thriving-kids-program-spending-plan/10570179

Cassidy, S., Bradley, L., Robinson, J., Allison, C., McHugh, M., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2014). Suicidal ideation and suicide plans or attempts in adults with Asperger’s syndrome attending a specialist diagnostic clinic: A clinical cohort study. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 44(6), 601–610. https://doi.org/10.1111/sltb.12097

Cassidy, S., & Rodgers, J. (2017). Understanding and prevention of suicide in autism. The Lancet Psychiatry, 4(6), e11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(17)30162-1

Cassidy, S., Gould, K., Townsend, E., Pelton, M., Robertson, A., Rodgers, J., & Allison, C. (2018). Is camouflaging autistic traits associated with suicidal thoughts and behaviours? Molecular Autism, 9, 51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13229-018-0226-8

Carroll, C., Patterson, M., Wood, S., Booth, A., Rick, J., & Balain, S. (2007). A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Implementation Science, 2, 40. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-2-40

Crane, L., Cheslack-Postava, K., Larson, F., & Robertson, A. E. (2021). Experiences of motherhood, social support, and maternal mental health for autistic mothers. Autism, 25(5), 1413–1425. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361321991269

Dickerson, S. S., & Kemeny, M. E. (2004). Acute stressors and cortisol responses: A theoretical integration and synthesis of laboratory research. Psychological Bulletin, 130(3), 355–391. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.355

Green, J., Pickles, A., Pasco, G., Bedford, R., Wan, M. W., Elsabbagh, M., Slonims, V., Gliga, T., Jones, E., Cheung, C., Charman, T., Johnson, M. H., & the BASIS team. (2017). Randomised trial of a parent-mediated intervention for infants at high risk for autism: Longitudinal outcomes to age 3 years. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58(12), 1330–1340. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12728

Hirvikoski, T., Mittendorfer-Rutz, E., Boman, M., Larsson, H., Lichtenstein, P., & Bölte, S. (2016). Premature mortality in autism spectrum disorder. British Journal of Psychiatry, 208(3), 232–238. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.114.160192

Hull, L., Mandy, W., Lai, M.-C., Baron-Cohen, S., Allison, C., Smith, P., Petrides, K. V., & Cassidy, S. (2019). Development and validation of the Camouflaging Autistic Traits Questionnaire (CAT-Q). Autism, 23(8), 2126–2138. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361318819836

Joiner, T. (2005). Why people die by suicide. Harvard University Press.

Kirschbaum, C., Pirke, K. M., & Hellhammer, D. H. (1993). The ‘Trier Social Stress Test’—A tool for investigating psychobiological stress responses in a laboratory setting. Neuropsychobiology, 28(1–2), 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1159/000119004

MBRRACE-UK. (2023). Saving lives, improving mothers’ care: Lessons learned to inform maternity care from the UK and Ireland Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths and Morbidity 2019–21. National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, University of Oxford.

O’Donnell, K. J., Bugge Jensen, A., Freeman, L., Khalife, N., O’Connor, T. G., & Glover, V. (2009). Maternal prenatal anxiety and downregulation of placental 11β-HSD2. Developmental Psychobiology, 51(7), 571–580. https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.20402

Pearson, A., & Rose, K. (2021). A qualitative study of the experiences of mothers with autism spectrum disorder. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 725371. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.725371

Pohl, A. L., Crockford, S. K., Blakemore, M., Allison, C., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2020). A comparative study of autistic and non-autistic women’s experience of motherhood. Molecular Autism, 11, 3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13229-019-0304-2

Sandin, S., Lichtenstein, P., Kuja-Halkola, R., Larsson, H., Hultman, C. M., & Reichenberg, A. (2017). The heritability of autism spectrum disorder. JAMA Psychiatry, 74(3), 216–225. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2016.4124

Shakespeare, J., Blake, F., & Garcia, J. (2021). Disclosure of suicidal thoughts in perinatal women: Barriers and facilitators in healthcare settings. BMJ Open, 11(6), e044560. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-044560

The Kids Research Institute Australia. (2025). The research behind the Inklings Program. https://inklings.org.au/research

United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. United Nations General Assembly, A/RES/61/106. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/disabilities/documents/convention/convoptprot-e.pdf

World Health Organization. (2022). Mental health and substance use: Maternal mental health. WHO. https://www.who.int/teams/mental-health-and-substance-use/maternal-mental-health

Zenko, M. (2015). Red teaming: How your business can conquer the competition by challenging everything. Basic Books.