NSW Government Issues Apology Over Foster Care Scandal Involving Serial Killer
The New South Wales Government has been compelled to issue a formal apology after it was revealed that two vulnerable foster children were placed in the care of an elderly woman who was living with a convicted serial killer. The children, aged 12 and 14, were allocated to a home in Western Sydney where Reginald Arthurell, now known as Regina after transitioning in 2020, was residing.
Triple Murderer's Background and Placement
Arthurell, 78, has a violent criminal history spanning decades. They served 24 years in prison for bludgeoning their fiancée, Venet Mulhall, to death in 1996. Prior to that, Arthurell was convicted of killing their stepfather with a carving knife in the 1970s and murdering a teenage sailor in the 1980s. At the time of the foster placement, Arthurell was on parole, having been released in November 2020 after completing their sentence.
The alarming situation first came to public attention on Monday when 2GB radio host Ben Fordham disclosed the details. In response, heavily-armed police officers intervened the following day to remove Arthurell from the property. This swift action highlighted the immediate danger posed to the children and the elderly woman.
Government Response and Accountability
On Wednesday, NSW Families and Communities Minister Kate Washington addressed the issue, acknowledging that the children had been put at significant risk. 'It's entirely unacceptable for a vulnerable child in the care of the state to be living with a triple murderer,' she stated during an interview with 2GB. 'It should never have happened and I'm deeply apologetic.'
Washington revealed that her department had initially been informed about the unusual living arrangement in December. However, she admitted that 'some very poor decisions' were made at that time, which failed to correct the placement. She confirmed that Arthurell has since been relocated from the property, but the incident has raised serious questions about the oversight and safety protocols within the foster care system.
Extended Supervision Order Lapses
During a budget estimates hearing, NSW Attorney-General Michael Daley faced intense questioning from Coalition MP Damien Tudehope. Tudehope pressed Daley on why no action was taken to seek an extended supervision order for Arthurell, which had lapsed in December 2024. 'You took no action to seek an extended supervision order and the circumstances of this person... now living with a woman who is significantly at risk and her foster children,' Tudehope asserted in a heated exchange.
He further challenged Daley, asking, 'No one in the government took any steps in relation to it. Do you think that's acceptable in protecting community safety?' A spokesperson for Daley later explained that decisions regarding extended supervision orders are based on thorough risk assessments, with community safety as the primary concern. They emphasised that any allegations of abuse should be reported to the NSW Police Force.
Historical Context and Further Concerns
This incident is not the first time Arthurell has caused community alarm. Five years ago, they were forced to leave a Yagoona retirement home after residents discovered their true identity. Additionally, in January 2022, Arthurell was arrested on sex crime allegations, accused of sexually touching a 55-year-old man. These past incidents underscore a pattern of concerning behaviour that should have triggered more vigilant monitoring.
It is understood that Arthurell began sharing the home after being invited by an elderly woman they met at Westmead Hospital. The woman's daughter alerted 2GB on Monday, expressing growing fears for her mother's and the children's safety. This whistleblowing action ultimately led to the police intervention and public scrutiny.
The scandal has ignited a broader debate about the effectiveness of child protection services and the mechanisms in place to supervise high-risk individuals post-release. As investigations continue, the NSW Government faces mounting pressure to implement stricter safeguards to prevent such dangerous oversights in the future.
