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 coincidence 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.
By September Pfitzner’s own psychological health was obviously suffering. Rachel openly expressed that she did not see Dean as her son. This feeling was manifest into action in late September 2007, and on the 24th Pfitzner contacted her solicitors and told them she would comply with any recovery order made by the court. Rachel later told police that she did this after hearing that Paul Shillingsworth had threatened her life. This was a message Paul allegedly passed to Rachel via a family member, stating that if he found Pfitzner he was going to kill her. This could have led to her call to her solicitors, though we can’t forget her deteriorating feelings towards Dean in the weeks and months leading up to this.
According to her caseworker, who talked to Rachel on 25 September, she said she wanted to give Dean back to his paternal grandmother (Coffey) because she was not coping. She repeated this request on 3 October, asking when the police could pick Dean up. At this time, she said she could not stand Dean because he reminded her of his father, Paul Shillingsworth, and that she wanted him gone as soon as possible. If Pfitzner was telling the truth, and not being paranoid, then perhaps Paul Shillingsworth’s threat was part of this. If she had returned to court on a specific day, for a case involving his mother, she would not have been hard to find. Did fear drive this act? And was that fear ever real?
On 28 September, the Family Court opened its hearing in regards to Dean’s custody. However, Coffey’s solicitor requested an adjournment as Ann required urgent medical treatment. The application for recovery of Dean was postponed. However, it was recognised that Dean was in an unstable environment, so the court agreed to accelerate the next hearing, and adjourned until 11 October 2007. Pfitzner did try to get Dean taken away as she called the Federal Magistrates Court a number of times, saying she didn’t want to go back to court and asking when someone could collect Dean. Was this a sign that she knew she could hurt him?
In late September, Pfitzner’s parole officer visited and was concerned by Dean’s apparent poor health. Pfitzner told the officer that, because of threats made by Paul Shillingsworth, Dean was going back to live with Coffey and that she had withdrawn from the custody proceedings.
On 28 September, Pfitzner’s caseworker visited the family and recorded that the mother was stressed, having rung the court to find out when someone would be collecting Dean. Pfitzner said she just wanted someone to come and take Dean back to Coffey. Rachel’s caseworker recognised the danger now. She noted in her report that she was not happy with the way Dean was being treated and added to her notes that Dean’s recovery should take place as soon as possible, stating that Pfitzner ‘just can’t stand him’. The caseworker suggested Rachel contact Coffey’s solicitor to arrange a handover. In a file note made after Dean’s death, the caseworker had asked if Pfitzner thought she might harm Dean, to which Pfitzner replied no. The family caseworker rang Pfitzner the following day to ask if she planned to attend a picnic arranged for the following week. No other topics were noted as having been discussed and no further contact occurred between the caseworker and Pfitzner during the next week as the caseworker was attending a training program. Although it’s not possible to know, I wonder whether Rachel had been successfully hiding her abuse of Dean at the beginning, which to me would indicate that she knew it was wrong. At this stage, perhaps it was just too obvious to hide, the bruises too clear or too numerous.
We are now in the critical final days of Dean’s short life. Pfitzner failed to keep her counselling appointment, arranged for early October. She told the person who had organised it that this was because she had decided to return Dean to his grandmother due to the fact that Paul Shillingsworth had been released from prison. Around this time Rachel spoke to her mother, who offered to take the child. Rachel did not take her up on this offer. She claimed – and most of her actions supported this – that she wanted Dean taken away, yet she did not take the offer when it was made. Was control an issue here?
A recovery order was made by the Family Court when the custody case was recalled on 11 October 2007, without the parties being present, authorising the police and/or child recovery officers to recover Dean and return him to his grandmother. It was too late. That morning, Rachel Pfitzner walked to Ms Daley’s house with Dean and his brother B. Dean had been warned not to eat anything while they were there. While on this visit, Rachel tried to call the court to find out what had happened, to see if a recovery order had been made. Rachel didn’t get an answer, as it was against court policy to give information over the phone, but she must have presumed that the order had been sanctioned as she wasn’t fighting it.
Rachel, Dean and B weren’t the only visitors at Ms Daley’s house; Ms Daley’s brother and her partner, who had brought some food from McDonald’s, were also there. When one of the men noticed Dean seemed hungry he kindly gave him a burger. Dean accepted, and when Rachel saw him eating she flew into a rage. She took the food off him and took the children home. Ms Daley remembers that on this day, Dean was already showing signs of physical abuse – his face and arms were bruised and scratched. Ms Daley and her guests were the last people to see Dean alive. Rachel murdered Dean soon after they arrived home.
On 15 October the caseworker met with her supervisor and raised concerns she had noted during her contact with Pfitzner almost two weeks earlier. The supervisor ordered that the caseworker visit Pfitzner immediately and told her to take Dean to DoCS. The caseworker followed part of these instructions in that she called Pfitzner, who said that she had decided to wait for court arrangements to recover Dean. The caseworker recorded that Pfitzner said that Dean had been good and she wasn’t as stressed as she had been, that she was managing. The worker delayed the visit, arranging to attend Pfitzner’s home on 22 October. The visit never happened; Pfitzner was charged with Dean’s murder on 20 October 2007. After all of this, DoCS lodged an application for an emergency care and protection order with the Children’s Court for Dean’s siblings, both of whom were taken into care until they turn eighteen.
THE INVESTIGATION
It is very difficult to know what that final straw was, but in all probability it was the imminent removal of Dean that tipped Rachel over the edge. The final moments of Dean’s life have to be pieced together from Rachel’s comments, including those made during the formal police interview she gave. It appears that when they got home Pfitzner needed some space from Dean, as she was having ‘bad memories coming into her head’. According to a statement Rachel later made to Dr Olav Nielssen, a psychiatrist engaged by the defence, she kept telling Dean to go outside and play, but he wouldn’t go. That’s when she ‘lost it’ with him. She claimed during the interview not to remember strangling or suffocating Dean.
Mothers Who Murder Page 9