Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

For all the 'Ebonys' ...

By Jeremy Sammut - posted Friday, 3 July 2009


This is the root cause of the crisis. A relatively small hard core of dysfunctional parents retain custody of their children, despite being re-reported 10 and 20 times. Many children are not even seen to check on their welfare and child protection agencies fail to take appropriate statutory action in thousands of higher risk and potentially catastrophic cases. The most vulnerable children are exposed to increased risk of serious harm due to lack of intervention or intervention that comes too late.

Unfortunately, we don t know the percentage of reports that are re-reports in the rest of the country. As part of the National Child Protection Framework, the Rudd Government should insist the states collect and publish the number of re-reports each year, because these figures show the numbers of children the child protection system is failing.

The staggering NSW statistics reflect the ideological shifts that have occurred in the field of child protection since the 1970s. According to the radical family preservation-focused approach that has had a major impact on child protection policy and practice, the best way to protect vulnerable children is to defend parental rights, keep families intact, and try to prevent abuse and neglect by providing support services which attempt to address parent's complex needs.

Advertisement

Child protection agencies, which in most states are sub-departments of much larger departments of community services, have become increasingly confused about their core responsibility to intervene in the best interest of children. Traditional child protection work has been crowded out by the provision of family support services and other forms of social work with parents, such as drug counselling.

Based on the highly unrealistic and unproven premise that family preservation combined with support services can fix entrenched behavioural problems and transform dysfunctional people into functional parents, child removal has been relegated to a last and reluctant resort. Permanent removal and adoption of children has been rendered virtually unacceptable. Many stakeholders, both in government departments and in the NGO community sector, have a vested interest in keeping children with families so taxpayer funded services can be provided.

As a result, too many vulnerable children are placed on a destructive treadmill. Multiple, poor quality out of home care placements that frequently breakdown are interspersed with repeated failed attempts at family reunion. Churning children through the system permanently damages child development, curtails educational and life opportunities, and, in many cases, perpetuates the intergenerational cycle of poverty, dysfunction, and child abuse and neglect.

If we are serious about ending the crisis and protecting the “Ebonys” of Australia, the challenge for policy makers is to promote cultural and institutional change, and end the marginalisation of traditional child protection work. The first step is to create stand-alone child protection departments, which are staffed and led by specialists and overseen by a minister solely responsible for protecting vulnerable children, which rigorously assesses and fully investigate all risk of harm notifications.

The next step is to squarely face the unspoken truth of the crisis. In most hard core cases, early child removal and the provision of stable out of home foster placements and, better still, adoption of children by suitable families, is the best way to ensure that vulnerable children are protected from parents incapable of providing the proper physical, emotional, and developmental support that all children have a right to receive.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

Jeremy Sammut is author of Fatally Flawed: The Child Protection Crisis in Australia released by the CIS on Monday, June 29, 2009.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

5 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Jeremy Sammut is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies. Jeremy has a PhD in history. His current research for the CIS focuses on ageing, new technology, and the sustainability of Medicare. Future research for the health programme will examine the role of preventative care in the health system and the management of public hospitals. His paper, A Streak of Hypocrisy: Reactions to the Global Financial Crisis and Generational Debt (PDF 494KB), was released by the CIS in December 2008. He is author of the report Fatally Flawed: the child protection crisis in Australia (PDF 341KB) published by the CIS in June 2009.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Jeremy Sammut

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 5 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy