Behind the scenes of the starvation trial that gripped Perth

He became the breadwinner of the family when his daughter was born and his wife gave up her career to be the girl’s full-time carer.

The family moved to Floreat five years ago and purchased a four-bedroom house for almost $2 million.

Department of Communities staff told the court that when they visited the home to check on the girl, it looked “cluttered” and cockroaches were seen scuttling out of the front door where they stood speaking to the father.

The father refused to allow them inside and, away from the jury, the court was told the house was filthy and unhygienic, with piles of used sanitary towels sitting in corners. Despite this, the father tried to convince the jury he suffered from obsessive-compulsive disorder.

While the husband was earning good money, the wife’s family were also wealthy, and the girl’s grandfather wanted to pay for her to attend a prestigious girls’ school which commands fees of up to $28,000 a year.

But the parents refused, instead choosing to homeschool the girl.

The mother’s relationship with the girl’s grandfather was rocky. She claimed he was abusive to her when she was a child, and would not allow him to be left alone with her daughter.

However, the girl was later placed in his care by the Department of Communities, where she stayed until her 18th birthday, when she returned home to live with her parents.

The mother also testified that she had little to do with her siblings, and claimed her daughter was hospitalised in part because her sister and their father had both spoken to the department about the girl’s emaciated appearance.

When the mother’s sister raised those concerns with her, she cut off contact.

The girl was also, for some time after her parents were arrested, placed into the care of her uncle, who soon after relinquished that care because of the parents’ “ongoing involvement”.

Outside court, it was also mentioned that the girl was unable to do much for herself and needed constant care and help with day-to-day activities, such as washing and taking care of her hygiene. She was 17 years old at the time.

Prosecutors said that after the woman’s own mother died, she isolated herself and her daughter from the rest of the family.

None of her family came to court throughout the four-week trial.

What the jury weren’t allowed to hear

One element of the case that was kept from the jury was the suggestion the girl was wearing nappies as a teenager.

Both the prosecution and defence agreed to withhold the information, but some witnesses almost blurted it out on a number of occasions.

The jury was also not allowed to hear why the girl herself did not enter the courtroom to give evidence, and that seeing her so distressed almost brought District Court Judge Linda Black to tears.

On November 14, the girl’s mother’s lawyer called her as a witness to tell her side of the story.

It was a much-anticipated moment, but she did not make it into the courtroom. The jury was told the girl had “changed her mind”.

After coming to court with a “support person”, the 20-year-old had a panic attack and could not give evidence.

Black went out of the courtroom to speak with her and, on her return, confronted the mother’s lawyer Michael Perella, asking whether he had ensured the girl received her own legal advice before coming to court. He replied that he had only recommended she did.

Black asked Perella whether the girl was told what to wear for the occasion by her mother, and noted she was wearing a “relatively child-like dress” and ballet flats.

Perella denied that was the case, and attempted to apply to have the trial aborted because of the turn of events.

Black fought back tears as she blasted the lawyer for suggesting such a vulnerable person be brought to court in the first place.

“If she was shocked that her daughter was in floods of tears, [the mother] must not know her daughter very well at all,” the judge said.

She refused to allow the trial to be vacated.

The impacts of infantilisation “can be profound and far-reaching”, Stambulich said.

“In the short term, children may experience delayed emotional development, poor self-esteem, and significant difficulties in peer relationships,” she said.

“They often struggle with basic decision-making skills and age-appropriate social interactions.

“The long-term consequences can be even more severe, potentially leading to chronic dependency, persistent relationship difficulties, anxiety and depression, and significant challenges in managing adult responsibilities.

“Many adults who experienced infantilisation struggle with boundary setting and may have difficulty establishing their own independent identity.”

During the trial

The trial itself may have been arduous for the jury, who were initially told it would be finished in seven days.

Instead, it dragged on for weeks, in part due to attempts by the mother to have the trial thrown out twice – midway through proceedings, the court was told the woman was too unwell to attend and listen to the evidence.

She was given a brief reprieve to recover, but Black insisted she return and could keep a sick bag at her side in case she needed it.

They couple sat side-by-side for four weeks but did not appear to communicate once.

As the jury read out their guilty verdicts, the father sat straight-faced, as he had the entire trial, while his wife sobbed, even after bring asked to stop by the judge because of the noise.

Their relationship had been examined throughout the trial, with accusations of manipulation, control and verbal abuse from the husband to the wife.

He didn’t deny that on the stand. But it was accepted throughout the trial that both parents loved their daughter very much.

Stambulich said parents who infantilised their children often had limited insight into their behaviour and its impact.

“They typically rationalise their actions as necessary protection or expressions of love and care,” she said.

“These parents may minimise or completely deny any harmful effects of their parenting style, viewing their actions as beneficial rather than potentially damaging to their child’s development.”

The mother told the jury her daughter would always be her little girl.

She had made sure of that by limiting her ability to grow in height and mature like a girl of her age should have, and limiting her ability to mix with other girls her age, to develop age-appropriate interests and have any level of independence.

When the father of the girl was presented with photos of her looking small, frail, sick and severely underweight, he told the prosecutor she was thin but not overly so.

“Do you have problems with your eyesight?” he was asked.

“No,” he replied.

Knowing that they were neglecting and damaging their daughter was at the heart of ensuring there was a guilty plea, state prosecutor Jehna Winter told the court.

Their education, ability to comprehend when someone looks healthy and well, and their choice to ignore repeated concerns were what led to them being charged and ultimately convicted.

The pair will be sentenced in January and face a maximum penalty of 20 years each.