Mothers Who Murder (11 page)

In April 2007, Dean’s brother ‘B’ was born to Pfitzner and Connors. At this time the family accepted a Department of Housing offer of accommodation and moved into a house in Rosemeadow, near Campbelltown, around 60 kilometres south-west of Sydney. Shortly afterwards Connors
moved in with them. Later that month, Pfitzner told her family caseworker that she was attempting to improve the relationship with her oldest child, T, saying she was trying to maintain calm communication and not swear at her. She was also hoping to start a parenting course. They also discussed the court action aiming to regain custody of Dean from his grandmother.

In early May 2007 Ann Coffey sought an order from the Family Court for Dean to remain with her permanently, and that contact with his biological parents was to be restricted to such times as they abstained from consuming alcohol in the child’s presence. A further request was that Pfitzner undergo monthly urine tests to ensure she was drug and alcohol free. DoCS were subpoenaed to produce relevant documents to the Family Court, but they declined on the grounds that they
only
had ‘risk of harm’ reports, and they could not be forced to release these, even following a subpoena. During May, Pfitzner was seen by a child and family nurse on two occasions, who said all was fine except Rachel appeared to be under some stress related to the court case to regain custody of Dean. Pfitzner also saw her parole officer, who noted that she looked well, was happy to have her own home, and that B’s father was helping her with childcare. The officer also wrote a letter in relation to the Family Court case, stating that they had not seen Pfitzner affected by either drugs or alcohol. Later that same month (May), Pfitzner and Coffey took part in a mediation phone conference; the records indicate that an agreement was reached between the two women and that Pfitzner was happy with the outcome.

Throughout much of this period, Ann Coffey had official custody of Dean, but back in March 2007 Rachel
Pfitzner had initiated court proceedings to regain custody. Ann opposed the application, as she said it was Paul’s wish that she have custody of Dean and be appointed his guardian. Evidence indicates that Ann treated Dean like her own child, Dean even calling her ‘mum’. Rachel fought for Dean, telling the caseworker from Family Support Services that she loved Dean, and that she wanted him back so that he could get to know his sister and new brother. On 4 June 2007 an interim consent order was granted in which it was decided that Dean would live with his paternal grandmother. This order gave Ms Coffey custody but also gave Rachel defined access periods with her son. If Rachel could remain drug free, Dean would spend time with her. The order was also given that mother and son would have regular phone contact. Pfitzner seemed excited about having access to Dean. About this time, Pfitzner had contact with Dean for the first time since May 2006.

During June there was generally less agency contact with the family, no doubt because Dean was considered safe, and the third child was in a more stable environment with a father involved in his care. Probation and Parole only spoke to Pfitzner by telephone and the baby health clinic only saw B once. The family support service records two home visits, and that B’s father was present during the first. Pfitzner told the caseworker that contact with Dean was going well and that she was looking forward to her next visit with him. This arrangement worked satisfactorily for a short time. Pfitzner had Dean for the weekend of 9–10 June 2007, and returned him to Ann Coffey without incident and on time. Rachel later told the caseworker that it had been a fun weekend and that they’d thrown him a
party. The second such visit happened in early July and was meant to be for the day, with Dean returned to Ann’s care by 5 pm. But Dean was not returned as arranged.

In the following days, his grandmother contacted the police, asking them to check on Dean’s welfare. The police could not find the family, so Coffey tried to find Dean herself, which resulted in a relative of Pfitzner’s calling the police. The incident was noted by police to be a custody dispute. The police attempted to contact DoCS to report the situation, but records show: ‘… on phone for over 10 mins, unable to speak to anyone’.
⁴
DoCS records confirm that the police did report the incident several weeks later – information retained by the Helpline as ‘information only’. It was not until mid-July that the family caseworker found out that Pfitzner still had Dean. On 24 July, Ann Coffey filed the recovery order with the court, the first step in commencing proceedings that would give police the authority to forcibly take Dean and return him to Ms Coffey – his legal guardian. This application was supposed to be heard on 28 September 2007, until which time there was little Ann could do but wait.

Rachel continued to tell the caseworker from Family Support Services that she was happy to have Dean with her, even though her solicitor had advised that she return Dean to his grandmother. The court documents say that on 16 July Rachel said that she ‘felt emotionally attached to him’. This was supported by the caseworker’s own assessment of the situation between mother and son, as on 19 July she observed that Dean seemed healthy and reacted well to Rachel. This continued, and on 1 August, Rachel was still happy that Dean was living with her. At this time, Dean seemed well behaved; he was suitably dressed and
was tidy. This would indicate that he was being cared for appropriately, and – aside from the fact that Rachel was disobeying legal direction by continuing to keep Dean with her, rather than return him to his paternal grandmother – there were no warning signs at this stage that something was wrong.

The Parole and Probation Service soon became aware of the situation. Pfitzner told them that she knew that Ann Coffey had taken out a recovery order as she remained Dean’s legal guardian, and that she was concerned at how she would handle a long, drawn-out custody battle. Rachel was also scared that when Paul Shillingsworth was released from prison in August he would take Dean away and stop her from seeing him. Her parole officer reiterated Pfitzner’s solicitor’s advice to return Dean to his grandmother. Two days later, Pfitzner and Dean attended a young parents’ group with the family support caseworker, who recorded that Dean seemed happy and well, and that he was ‘attached to his mother’.

Sadly, the situation was not to last. While Rachel continued to care for Dean’s two siblings appropriately, her behaviour towards her middle child deteriorated significantly. She became resentful that he was there and very critical of him. Pfitzner told people she thought Dean had become spoiled by his grandparents and said to her caseworker that she would ‘get that out of him’. Evidence suggests that Rachel was physically abusive to Dean at this time and that her attitude towards him was spiralling downwards out of control. She punished him severely, both physically and emotionally. As an example, sometimes she exiled Dean from the home and made him stay outside in the cold alone. Neighbours would hear him begging to be
allowed back inside. Pfitzner also seems to have at least partially starved Dean, as he often scavenged for food, another act that incurred his mother’s wrath. Even as a small child he would have recognised the danger in his actions. Therefore, the fact that he continued to search for food indicates to me that he was acting out of hunger – and was perhaps even suffering from insomnia or disrupted sleep due to his hunger – and was not being disobedient, which is how Rachel interpreted his behaviour. Apart from the physical abuse and obvious emotional neglect, this is evidence of physical neglect, where Dean was being deprived of the basic requirements to keep him safe and well: food, warmth, shelter and supervision.

There are signs at this stage that Rachel’s treatment of Dean was having a detrimental effect on his psyche. And when the child ‘acts up’, this can cause further frustration in an already abusive parent, leading to an increased amount of child maltreatment – a terrible catch-22. Psychological maltreatment rarely happens as a one-off and due to the repetitive nature has serious outcomes, which are evidenced by the child’s behaviour. The physical symptoms of emotional abuse can include the child having problems sleeping, eating disorders, speech and other communication problems, as well as the development of inappropriate bedwetting or retardation in learning complex skills. Bedwetting can anger many parents. In fact, the American Academy of Pediatrics says that more child abuse happens during toilet training than at any other developmental stage, as parents can mistake failure as wilful disobedience. A child not under severe emotional stress would normally be learning the difficult skill of toilet training at around thirty-two months – Dean’s age when he died. It is no coin
cidence that two years and eight months also corresponds to the average age of children who are intentionally burned as punishment for bed wetting. So Dean was probably either toilet trained or in the process of learning, although his progress may have been inhibited by the psychological stress he was under. What we do know is that Dean still had toileting accidents, for which Rachel punished him severely. The worse Rachel’s treatment of him, the more accidents he was going to have. Of course, what Dean needed was positive reinforcement to assist in his development. The fact that Pfitzner’s expectations were unrealistic would have only slowed Dean’s physical progress further.

The psychological abuse Dean was suffering may have also shown itself in his behavioural responses. Pfitzner said he was clingy, which incensed her. This is one of the signs of emotional trauma – increased reliance on adults – as is depression and crying easily, and fear of a parent or adults in general. Dean was showing all of these symptoms, but Pfitzner couldn’t see them for what they were or comprehend her role in creating them. Everything Dean did made Rachel angry – even when he sought his mother’s affection.

The question to be asked is what was going on in her mind to cause her to be so hostile towards her own child? Rachel told people that she loathed and feared Dean’s birth father, Paul Shillingsworth, so perhaps he was the reason her relationship with Dean continued to worsen. Whatever it was, Dean naturally sought affection and warmth elsewhere – and the next closest person was Clifford Connors, Pfitzner’s partner and father to Dean’s youngest half-sibling. The affection was reciprocated. Even though Rachel did not want Dean’s affection and was incapable of giving him any in return, she resented
the relationship between Connors and Dean, saying to one friend ‘he [Dean] is ruining our life’. From my readings of the court material, I wonder if the two things were working in tandem here for Rachel. First, she detested having Dean around as he reminded her of a man she hated and feared, and second, the resentment Rachel already felt was compounded by the warmth between her new partner and Dean. It was a natural response by Dean to seek the comfort he needed elsewhere as he was not getting it from his mother. Rachel Pfitzner was clearly not in a sound frame of mind at this time.

Rachel admits to slapping Dean, and although no one claims to have seen Rachel physically abuse him, the evidence of physical abuse being perpetrated on Dean was seen by Connors, as well as by Rachel’s mother, Mrs Beverley Pfitzner and Ms Twila Daley, a friend of Pfitzner’s – all of whom saw bruises on his little body. Mrs Pfitzner says this was occurring with increased frequency in the months leading up to Dean’s murder. Rachel is thought to have hit Dean around three times every day.

Dean’s maternal grandmother, Beverley Pfitzner, saw the psychological changes in the child. She says Dean was happy and looked great when he’d been staying with his paternal grandmother Ann Coffey, but that changed when he was in his mother’s care. Mrs Pfitzner saw that Dean was terrified of Rachel. Mr Connors, Dean’s stepfather, even considered calling the Department of Community Services due to Rachel’s abusive behaviour towards the toddler. But he didn’t. This caused more problems, as the couple argued about Rachel’s treatment of Dean; this would have further made her feel undermined and isolated. It may also have had the effect of Pfitzner feeling
as if Dean was coming between her and her new partner, which would have caused feelings of anger in her and only serve to increase her abuse of the child.

Pfitzner had contact with two support agencies in August 2007 – the family support caseworker and the agency running the young parents’ group. She did not report to or attend her meetings with her parole officer, and also failed to have contact with her psychologist. A visit with the caseworker on 1 August went well, and it was noted that Dean seemed happy and content. In late August the caseworker rang Pfitzner to cancel an arranged meeting, and was informed by the mother that the children had been good and that all were doing well. This is not supported by events that took place just a few days later, however, when Pfitzner, Dean and B all attended a family photo session organised by a local playgroup. Records state that Pfitzner was teary throughout and that she told a worker that ‘she was feeling upset with [her son] because he reminded her of his father’ and that ‘[Dean’s] father had hurt her a lot in the past’.
⁵
Pfitzner agreed to have counselling and an appointment was made for early October.

There was more trouble at the beginning of September when things appear to have been coming to a head. Police were called to an alcohol-fuelled argument between Pfitzner and Connors. The incident was reported to DoCS and referred to the child protection team. Yet again the department missed their chance to intervene, as this incident was closed three weeks later, due to the now predictable reason of ‘competing priorities’. Later that same month the caseworker met with Pfitzner, who was by now upset and had decided that she wanted Dean returned to his grandmother because she was not coping. She said she would not be
attending the court hearing, scheduled for a few days later. Apparently, Pfitzner then contacted her solicitor and her caseworker, telling them both that there would be no court call, as the police would be coming to recover Dean and return him to Coffey. File notes state that Pfitzner was very relieved Dean was going back to his grandmother.