Reparation ordered over theft from kids

A woman who stole $12,629 from two of her children's bank accounts has been sentenced to 200 hours' community work and ordered to pay them that amount of reparation.

Donna Maree Frame (43), of Roxburgh, had earlier admitted two charges of theft by a person in a special relationship.

She appeared for sentencing in the Alexandra District Court yesterday

The victims of the charges were her elder children.

She had opened accounts for the children when they were younger and had operating authority for those accounts because of their age, Judge Stephen O'Driscoll said.

When they were old enough, the children had gained after-school jobs, paid their wages into the accounts and saved some money.

Prosecutor Sergeant Ian Collin told the court at Frame's appearance in October that she had withdrawn money 140 times from one child's account, between March 30, 2006, and February 5, 2010 - a total of $9924.

Some of that money was for the child, but "the vast majority was for herself".

Frame had taken money from the other child's account 24 times between May 24, 2005, and April 21, 2008 - a total of $2705.

Some was for the child , but "most was not", Sgt Collin said.

Judge O'Driscoll said the victim impact report the children, twins aged 19, now had little contact with their mother.

"They felt disappointed and let down by the state in which they found their finances and on learning that the money was taken by you," Judge O'Driscoll said.

It was a breach of trust, he said.

Counsel for Frame, John Pritchard, said the defendant was a first offender. She had raised the children "with no assistance from anyone" since they were young.

There was no bank or automatic teller machine in Roxburgh and so she used telephone banking to transfer money from her children's accounts to her, believing that was at the children's request.

Judge O'Driscoll then asked why Frame had not defended the charge.

She had pleaded guilty to two criminal offences, that she had taken money without their authority. Sometimes the money was taken with their consent, but there were other times it was without their consent, he said.

Mr Pritchard said Frame had earlier entered a not guilty plea "but that could not be sustained".

She had accepted the amount of reparation but could only spare $52 a year to pay the money back.

"I hope that the offer to pay reparation is not a meaningless and shallow one," Judge O'Driscoll said.

Offering $1 a week towards reparation was not enough. The amount had to be "meaningful".

He received references and testimonials on Frame's behalf from several people in the community.

Mr Pritchard said although her name had been suppressed in the interim, the defendant was not seeking final suppression.