Anyone who supports the idea that aboriginal children at risk should only be placed in the care of relatives should read the online coroners inquest into the death of Deborah Melville in Darwin on 12th July, 2007. I try to remember that date each year to commemorate her life.
This poor girl, in the protection of the state and in the care of an aboriginal aunt lived a life of sexual, physical and emotional abuse, up until the day she was left to die alone, in the dirt of the back yard, in the dark, in horrific pain. What brought me to tears was the evidence of one of the other 10 kids in the house who reported Deborah was seeing fairies in the trees as she died.
It has always been a small small comfort to me that she saw fairies as her last sight of this world, in her short miserable existence.
It should be mandatory reading for all those who advocate not putting these kids into safe care, regardless of race.

I don't think this system of child protection we have now works for children of any race in Australia. The current system of leaving the kids with their family members, at almost any cost, is causing much physical and mental harm to vulnerable children.

The Government does not provide enough money to fund an effective child protection system so that all vulnerable children can be followed up and removed from poor homes as needed. The foster home situation is often not much better either, so more funds need to be poured into that area as well.

If this system is not improved we can only expect the increase in numbers of neglected children who are more likely to grow up into poor parents themselves, or career criminals, or both. And so the cycle goes on.

Hi Gary,

Yes, are children the property of parents, like dogs or cars, or are they the responsibility of parents ? Is a child a meal-ticket, or a financial obligation ?

Surely social workers etc. have to ask themselves, when gthe4y are confronted with the abuse of an Indigenous child, 'What would I do if this child was NOT Indigenous ?" If the clear answer was to take the child into care, then they take the child immediately into care, no questions, no ifs, no buts.

How many times can a child be taken into care, returned, and taken into care again, before - from bitter experience - social workers KNOW that the disruption will do serious damage to the child ? Once ? Twice ? A maximum of three strikes and the child is immediately put up for adoption ?

Children are not property. They are sacred obligations.

As a side-issue,

"Until the father was about 19, he, his parents, their extended families and siblings were identified, and self-identified, as Anglo-Australians.

"None of his relatives was identified by the community or claimed to be Aboriginal.

"When the father was about 19, his paternal grandmother told him she was Aboriginal."

I would have loved to hear what his grandmother actually said: if she said that she was born a 'Native', an Australian Native, i.e. an Anglo, locally-born, not a ring-in from the UK.

Hi Big Nana,

I'm sure you would know of many, many cases of neglect, neglect so severe that it has led to a child's death ? Life in the Soy-Latte-Kale suburbs is so utterly different, that the chatterati living there would have not a clue about realities, but still have a dismal influence over policy.

Cheers,

Joe

"Judges should rule on law and facts, not feelings" if the author could point to judge that does that would be great.
Even better can the Author explain the process the would dehumanize the Judge so that they could, only deal with facts.

The next question I have would we actually want a judicial system that only dealt in facts.

As to the idea that race should be considered in these sort of cases, I say it should not.

I couldn't agree with you more BIG NANA, children must be placed with those people best able to give them the necessary protection and care available. Ethnicity has no bearing on it; their safety, welfare and proper care is what it's all about.

Australians have allowed their judges to become left activists.