1. Official N.S.W. Government records, finally released to “Paul” (not his real name) shortly after his 60th birthday, reveal that the primary reason for his removal was that his family couldn’t afford enough blankets for each of their five children to sleep in separate beds.
The legal account of the children’s removal begs the question why the social worker didn’t assist their father to claim the veteran’s pension rightly due to a man who had returned, after three years in a war prison, with shrapnel wounds to his legs, tuberculosis, and no doubt psychological ailments resulting from fear and abuse during incarceration. Despite suffering years of illness, “Fred” went to his grave in his late 60s without ever collecting a cent of his well-earned entitlement. His offspring fought for almost a year before his daughter- in-law finally succeeded in persuading a Federal Government agency to grant his wife a war widow’s pension.
While accusing “Paul’s” parents of neglect, social workers allowed two baby boys to remain at home in their parents’ care, and records indicate that they never followed up to check on the welfare of those children, who, along with six younger siblings born after Paul’s removal, grew up healthy, loved and happy and in awe of the parents they adored.
2. The name of the child has been changed, but Robbie’s story is based on a truthful account told by the author’s mother after witnessing a young boy suffering severe punishment for taking a hoe and doing an excellent job of weeding the orphanage gardens.
3. It is noteworthy that official records note that the children were charged and convicted of the offence of being neglected, and were sentenced to “be of good behaviour” during a period of incarceration. That record has never been expunged.
4. The accounts of conditions in the orphanage were verified from multiple sources, including the author’s first-hand observations as a regular visitor, and accounts provided by past employees of St Patrick’s, including the stand-in cook who sought to serve milk pudding to the children. Much of what is written here is verified in official records accrued through a Government project that involved interviewing adults who grew up in orphanages and children’s homes, and a past employee of St Patrick’s.
Unlike children in many Homes throughout the country, residents at St Patrick’s did not suffer sexual abuse.
5. “Father Joseph” is a fictional character, based on a real priest who worked hard to instigate reform at St Patrick’s and who showed the children kindness . The story of the girl being beaten for stealing a sip of orange juice is a factual account of an incident in the early ’70s, witnessed by the author’s mother.
6. “Paul” remembered vividly the day the nuns locked the children in the dormitories claiming a prowler presented danger. He recalled seeing the man from a distance, through an upstairs window, but he wasn’t close enough to recognise his father. He learnt of his father’s visit from a brother about 16 years after the event.
7. “Paul” deliberately wiped the negative experiences on the Moree farm from his memory, remembering only that he went with a friend on a farm holiday. He recalled what actually transpired when, in 2008, he was finally allowed to read the (previously legally withheld) official records of his youth in incarceration, and found a section blacked out by authorities who were withholding the information in that section to protect the privacy of third parties.
8. “Fran” actually talked with the hawker through a translator, and heard her story just as it is told here. Many years later, when her father-in-law was close to death, he spoke to her for the first time about his war experiences, detailing the girl’s remarkable kindness to him and crediting her for saving his life. He wept when “Fran” told him she had met his angel. The story of this remarkable coincidence was first told in a short story titled “SuSu”, written by the author when she was in her mid-20s.
9. While it is true that “Paul’’ was cheated out of his deferred pay for the first two years of army service, he actually remained unaware that the State had stolen his pay until, in about 2007, he met up with a man he had served with in Singapore and who had also been an apprentice at Balcombe. When this man mentioned how he had considered investing the lump sum payment he received on graduation, “Paul’’ was shocked. About a year later, at an army band corp reunion, he asked others for confirmation of the payment. Their responses confirmed, some 30 years after the event, that --- by accepting and retaining the payment the army made to the Child Welfare Department as Paul’s trustee --- the State had robbed him of his pay.
10. Official records include a notation that the judge ordered “Paul’’ committed to care until he was 12 years of age. There was no order relating to his care past that date. His file also includes a record of a social worker’s interview with his parents shortly before his 12th birthday. That record is signed by his mother. A few pages further on, a Statutory Declaration signed by the social worker declares that his parents could not be located and “in these unfortunate circumstances, the boy must remain in care”.
Siblings recall social worker visits, including one made shortly before “Paul’’ joined the army. They recall his father going raging mad at the suggestion that a son of his might be a soldier, and adamantly refusing consent for him to join. The official records state that the Commissioner for Child Welfare was asked to sign the consent for “Paul’’ to join the army, because social workers again lied, claiming his parents could not be found.
There has been considerable speculation about the motives for these lies. Ultimately, the conclusion drawn --- and supported by a retired social worker who worked in the system at the time --- was that the department’s budget and thus social workers’ jobs depended on retaining as many children as possible in care. Also, children’s homes profited from receipt of government support payments for kids in care, by spending far less than the allowance, providing subsistence diets, donated old clothing, and virtually no health or educational benefits. Those running the homes were known to offer generous gifts to social workers --- possibly as an incentive to bring in more children, and thus increased Government payments.