Monster who may have abused up to 55 Aussie kids named for the first time

News.com.au

11 hours ago

EXCLUSIVE
Warning: This article discusses the issue of childhood sexual abuse and could be triggering for some readers
Today as thousands of Aussie families continue to reel in shock over horrifying allegations plaguing our early child care industry, news.com.au is unmasking yet another male child care worker, who has been labelled 'one of Australia's most prolific child sexual abusers'.
David Neil Tuck had already faced 10 child sexual assault charges in NSW at the time he was awarded a licence by the Eurobodalla Shire Council to run a family day care service out of his own home in Batemans Bay, three hours south of Sydney.
It is estimated that Tuck – who ran the facility between 1994 and 1999 – sexually abused as many as 55 children in Batemans Bay alone, and possibly many more across his lifetime.
He is also known to have worked as a gymnastics instructor at two YMCAs; as a nurse at a children's hospital west of Sydney; at a juvenile correctional facility; as a carer for disabled children; as a school bus driver for intellectually disabled children; and as a guide on children's holiday camps, before finally opening his own child care centre, which he ran from his remote rural property.
Tuck, who has faced allegations of child sexual abuse spanning three decades, is also known to have spent time in Victoria, NSW, Queensland, ACT and South Australia.
Until now his name has never been published by other media, due to legal blocks by authorities.
Now, with those hurdles removed, two brave women are speaking out with a message they want every Australian to hear about the crisis in our early childcare industry; the harm being done to children; and the lifetime consequences.
Hiding in plain sight
Hailey* and Laura-Jane Singh (LJ) were just five and seven years old respectively, the first time they attended Bluemoor family day care, located in scenic Batemans Bay, New South Wales.
The centre, which also offered overnight services to children aged two to 14, was run by David Tuck, a man who appeared charismatic and jovial on the surface.
But Tuck had already been charged with 10 counts of child sexual abuse against an 11-year-old girl when the local council licensed him to run the day and overnight childcare facility from his family property.
Had LJ or Hailey's parents known that history, they never would have allowed their children to attend, despite their urgent need for childcare.
Nor would the young girls have continued attending, had their families ever got wind of the numerous complaints made against Tuck during the time they attended; including at least two complaints of sexual abuse made by two girls aged seven and 11.
Now, LJ and Hailey are waiving their right to anonymity to share their stories in the hope that doing so will help educate others and enable adults to identify the insidious tactics predators use to groom whole families, often starting with the parents and other adults first.
'I can remember the property like I was there yesterday,' LJ, who now lives and works in Melbourne where she raises her own family, told news.com.au.
'There was a big dam, a main house for his family, and then a daycare cottage where we would all sleep alongside David who was the only adult …. At first I really liked going there … you got to play and have fun.'
But within four weeks, Tuck would start grooming LJ.
'He would have me sit on his lap and he would make comments like 'You are my favourite child; I love you so much,' and, 'I love you, you're safe here. I won't let anyone hurt you,'' she said.
For LJ, who had come from an unstable home life, the words were like catnip.
'I think he was able to identify vulnerability very quickly to his advantage.'
Hailey – who was only five when she started attending Bluemoor – also remembers being told it would be a 'safe fun place with lots of other kids'.
But then odd rules began to emerge.
Creepy rules at Bluemoor family daycare
In a written pamphlet obtained by news.com.au, parents were told in the strongest possible terms not to enter the cottage unannounced.
'PARENTS – PLEASE REMEMBER that a daycare home is also a family home and you are asked to respect the privacy of the family. PLEASE KNOCK BEFORE ENTERING … ALLOW TIME.'
Once inside, Tuck had a very different set of rules for the children including a mandatory 'open door policy' when it came to using the toilets – this rule also applied to children as old as 12.
'I remember being in the bath on one occasion,' LJ recalled.
'David sat on the toilet and watched us. Although he had his clothes on, I could see that his penis was stiff. I didn't understand what he was doing as I was too young to know but he was rubbing his penis hard, right in front of us.
'I remember the bath water being really hot and focusing on the heat instead of how weird it felt to be watched by David.
'He also always paid close attention to our genital area when he dried us … and he had a rule where we were told we couldn't wear underwear to bed (under our nighties) as our bodies 'needed to breathe'.'
Once night time arrived, the abuse got far worse.
'He had a thing where he would choose a child to sleep in his bed each night,' remembers Hailey.
'When you first start attending the daycare, you think (it's) special to be chosen. (You think) it's lucky, you know. Until you get chosen the first time.'
For LJ that first time came four weeks into her enrolment at Bluemoor. She was only eight.
'On this night, he chose me. It felt like I'd won a prize,' she said.
'But then he placed his hands under my nightgown … He told me that it was his way of showing me his love. He told me that it was our secret and that I was his special little girl and that what we were doing was OK.'
From then, the abuse became more frequent and severe. As did Tuck's threats.
'He would say 'Don't tell anyone. If you tell anyone, you won't be believed. If you tell someone you're going to be hurt or your family's going to be hurt. If you tell somebody you'll be removed, you'll never see your family again.' As a child, obviously that sticks in your mind.'
Tragically, for Hailey, who was five when the abuse began, she did try to sound the alarm, but, contrary to what many parents might expect, disclosures of sexual violence from children rarely come in neat little packages that are easily recognisable and decipherable to adults.
But that doesn't mean there aren't clear signs.
'I remember being pulled from the car screaming to go there and I think that's what people need to understand: children might tell you but they're going to tell you the only way they know how,' she explained.
'When the abuse first started I didn't even have a word for abuse or sex. I didn't have those words, but … there were other signs, bed-wetting at ages where it's beyond a regular occurrence and withdrawal from school, withdrawal from friends.'
Eventually, as Hailey grew older, she mustered up the courage to disclose.
'I do remember distinctively one day when we were getting ready to go to David's and my mother was there getting ready as well,' she said.
'And I thought, you know what, I'm just gonna say it. I need this to stop. I got her attention but she was in a rush. She turned around and said 'what do you want?'
'And just from that reaction and knowing her moods I was like 'well now's not the time to disclose.'
'And you have to remember I've been told the whole time by David 'you're going to be in trouble', 'this needs to be a secret', so there was that huge unknown factor of how she was going to react.'
Tragically, LJ was also exhibiting clear signs of abuse but once again, those signs weren't accurately interpreted by other adults.
Her educational development was significantly delayed. She was often unwell and absent from school. She began self harming at 10 years old.
'I've looked back through a lot of my old school reports and linked them back to when I started going to David's. In year two, year three, I was still wetting myself at school, I was withdrawn, they talk about my 'inappropriate behaviour' … they're all really clear signs of sexual abuse but it was never picked up,' she said.
'It was never looked at more than there being something wrong with me as a child.'
What LJ and Hailey did not know was that in 1991 – several years before they each enrolled – Tuck had gone on trial in Sydney, facing 10 counts of child sexual abuse over incidents spanning 1985 and 1986.
The jury had found him not guilty and in 1994 he'd passed a police record check and been licensed to run the child care centre.
In 1996, another 11-year-old girl came forward to police alleging sexual abuse. This time no charges were laid and the girl dropped the complaint.
But the following year, a third girl came forward, this one aged under eight. She too alleged sexual abuse by David Tuck at his childcare centre, also claiming to authorities that children were made to sleep next to him in his bed.
Records obtained through Freedom of Information reveal that it took Council more than nine months to investigate that claim, during which time Tuck was permitted to continue operating his overnight facility.
'In my opinion, had they stepped in at that point it might have saved years of abuse against us,' Hailey said.
Instead, in 1999, the girl was pressured to withdraw the complaint and the allegation of sexual abuse was deemed unsubstantiated.
Nonetheless the Department of Community Services (DoCS) and the local Council concluded that Tuck was sleeping with children in his bed. He was sent a firm warning letter, advising him that the sleeping arrangement was unsatisfactory but no other substantive penalty was given.
'What is staggering is that not only was he allowed to continue running an overnight child care centre during the investigation,' LJ said.
'But no one from council then ever came out to perform an inspection at night time even after they knew he'd had children sleeping in his bed.'
Records obtained through Freedom of Information also indicate that during this time the Council received multiple other non-sexual complaints from other members of the public. While they did perform numerous inspections in person, records indicate these all occurred during daylight hours – and often with advanced notice.
LJ, Hailey and a group of David Tuck's victims are now represented by Donaldson Law.
A spokesperson from Eurobodalla Shire Council told news.com.au: 'Council has received notification of some claims for compensation arising out of Mr Tuck's operation of a family day care service in the 1990s. As those claims are the subject of legal action, Council is unable to provide any comment on the matters or the operations of the family day care service.'
A dead body is found
It was Monday July 23, 2001, when a dead body was found inside a car at Lake Tabourie, half an hour north of Batemans Bay.
The body belonged to David Tuck, then aged 39.
On the Friday three days prior, he'd been charged with sexual offences against yet another child in Queanbeyan.
Over the weekend, a further eight children had come forward with their own accounts of sexual abuse against Tuck.
By then both Hailey and LJ's families had moved away from the region and neither would learn of the development until later.
Tuck too had moved from the area in 1999, after he'd been caught forging parent signatures to receive additional childcare rebate payments. He was found guilty of more than 50 counts of defrauding the local council and left Batemans Bay in disgrace.
So by the time Tuck took his own life, more than a dozen children had made allegations spanning more than two decades.
And that number was about to explode.
Chris Graham, the former editor-in-chief of the local newspaper, The Bay Post, remembers the case well.
'I was a young editor, at 28,' Mr Graham told news.com.au.
'I was known for being a bit of a rule breaker and a bit of a rogue. But it was one time I was warned not only by the government and not only by our lawyers, but also by colleagues and management, not to name Tuck.'
Having now worked as a journalist for more than 30 years, Mr Graham says the story still stands out in his mind 'partly because of the sheer number of children that were eventually involved, but also because it is the only time in my career that I can remember actually losing it on the phone at a government official'.
'What had upset me was we were pursuing the story of a man who had sexually abused children and we were being told that we couldn't report not only the man's name – even though he was deceased – but we weren't allowed to report in my view enough detail to alert people within the region of who the man was, where he worked and what children were at risk of being abused,' he explained.
'And my argument to the government was, if we don't make every effort to contact, or at least notify family members that their children may have been exposed to a serial predator, then how are those parents supposed to know that their child may have been harmed by this guy? I mean, it's not always obvious.''
Mr Graham said he was told by a media spokesperson for DoCs, 'well, the man's dead, so the matter's resolved. It's over. It's finished.'
'I remember just being stunned,' he added.
'And then quite angry. And then quite loud. It just seemed basic common sense to me that if you know the name and the identity of the perpetrator, then you would have a duty of care to let people know that their children have been exposed.
'I mean it's inconceivable to me that there would be any other reaction. But that wasn't the government's reaction at all: their reaction was 'the man is deceased, the investigation is over'.
'And they said, 'what are we supposed to say? That their child has been exposed to a pedophile?'
'And I said, 'yeah, that's exactly what you're supposed to say because they're parents. And if it was your children, that's what you'd want to know.
'By then I was yelling down the phone and they were yelling back. It was a pretty unpleasant interaction and it's the only time in my career that's ever happened.'
Mr Graham said he also expressed concern that concealing Tuck's name would mean abused children would be left to navigate their trauma in silence, shame and isolation.
'I remember making the argument that children who've been abused by this man will grow up without any assistance to deal with what they have suffered.' That is so patently obvious,' he said.
'But they were not just unmoved, they were absolutely uninterested. They just wanted to get me off the phone and I remember thinking 'am I the only one who thinks trying hard to narrow down the victims of a serial sexual predator was a good idea? Because they clearly didn't think it was.'
Then, Mr Graham's newspaper received a tip-off that the number of victims in Batemans Bay alone was suspected to be at least 30.
'And that tip-off came from the police,' says Mr Graham. 'So the story suddenly grew much bigger.'
Tuck had access to 55 children
Today, records obtained through Freedom of Information show the true number of children Tuck may have sexually abused in Batemans Bay is as high as 55.
That number does not take into account the many other workplaces Tuck worked in before coming to Batemans Bay, all of which gave him access to children, including working at a children's hospital, a children's camp, as a gymnastics YMCA instructor, a school bus driver for disabled children, and at a juvenile detention facility.
Disturbingly, the FOI records also reveal that on the day of Tuck's death, the police investigation into his crimes against children was immediately terminated – with victim interviews scheduled for that day also cancelled.
This was despite authorities noting in official memos that 'a large number of children may have been assaulted and further disclosures are expected over ensuing days and months'.
The memos show that an active decision was then made not to brief local school principals or school counsellors despite the belief that more children would keep coming forward. Instead, children would be 'strongly urged' to contact a single service, allowing for containment.
The Department of Community Services also established 'Agreed Procedures to respond to future disclosures'.
Alarmingly, that procedure involved sending children on a deliberate fool's errand.
The procedure states that children who wished to disclose would be referred to JIRT police – the Joint Investigative Response Team.
The JIRT team would speak to the child and 'create a detailed event' but then 'reject the referral' and send the child packing, since the investigation had already been closed.
LJ was shocked to see the 'agreed procedures'.
'The process was clearly designed to leave the victim feeling exhausted, defeated and demoralised,' she said.
'Children were being sent on a deliberate goose chase with no possibility of any other outcome, other than a dead-end, which was predetermined from the outset.
'It's purposeful misdirection and procedural re-victimisation to lure vulnerable children into coming forward and reliving what they have been through knowing all along that there is no other possible outcome other than rejection.'
To this day, no other Australian media has ever named David Tuck and no authorities have ever reached out to Hailey or LJ's families – despite LJ's name appearing on a list of possible victims.
As for Chris Graham, he left The Bay Post not long after Tuck's suicide. He went on to help establish the National Indigenous Times, and has won multiple prestigious journalism awards including a Walkley Award and an Australian Human Rights Media Award for other reporting.
He now owns and runs independent media outlet New Matilda.
He says this story still stands out and unsettles him.
'Looking back, I wish I'd just named the prick,' he said.
'He might be one of Australia's most prolific serial sex offenders. He was a master manipulator and a master at ingratiating himself with adults in order to prey on their children. I mean it gives me chills talking about it.
'He was obviously just born a predator. I wish I had just told everybody David Tuck did this and if your children went to this childcare centre, there's a reasonable likelihood that they were assaulted by this man.
'To this day, I don't know how many victims there are, I shudder to think, I mean he had engineered unfettered access to hundreds of helpless children and he was licensed to do it by the government.'
A spokesperson for the NSW Department of Communities and Justice (previously known as DoCS) told news.com.au: 'DCJ takes all allegations of abuse seriously. We extend our deepest sympathies to the victim-survivors in this matter and acknowledge their experiences.
'In 2018, the NSW ombudsman released its report. 'The JIRT partnership – 20 years on', which made 67 recommendations to improve the program.
'All DCJ-specific recommendations have since been implemented. These include new referral criteria.'
Fighting for national reform
Speaking out today, LJ and Hailey are now spearheading a national campaign, and have launched a petition calling for an overhaul of safety regulations in Australia's childcare industry.
They want to prevent other children experiencing a lifetime of trauma, which LJ says has ranged from drug use and self-harm, to violent relationships, homelessness, and multiple mental health struggles.
Remarkably, over time and with support from loved ones, LJ – who is a proud Aboriginal woman – has become an academic whose work centres on child protection, social justice and advocacy for Aboriginal young people involved in residential care systems, and Hailey has become a highly regarded professional with tertiary qualifications. Despite their achievements, they continue to suffer immensely and wonder what more they could have achieved were it not for the abuse they suffered.
Now, they want accountability for the institutions that shield perpetrators and education for parents, families and children.
'How are children supposed to report if no one has offered language to even describe what's going on?' Hailey added.
'If people were more educated on how to look out for these signs (and if) children were taught their bodies are theirs and nobody should be trying to coerce you into doing anything that would be a strong start.'
The women are also on a mission to ensure that every child who was ever abused by David Tuck is given support.
'They should have named him back then,' LJ said.
'That omission had a profound effect as it meant a vital opportunity for us to be believed as children was missed.
'Instead all the onus of responsibility was put on our little shoulders to have to come forward and seek help, and convince the adults in our lives of what we had gone through, with no certainty of what that reaction would be or if we would be taken seriously.'
'I could have accessed support,' Hailey agreed.
'And that could have helped me immensely with dealing with this throughout my life, but particularly in those first instances when I was still a child.'
So far, LJ and Hailey have been able to identify around 30 other survivors of Tuck.
But they fear there may be many more scattered across the country.
'And that's why we want people to share this far and wide,' Hailey said.
'The biggest thing for me is getting his name out there because we want all survivors of his to know you're not alone and I'm sorry no one told you.'