Well done Jeremy. After almost 20 years in child protection I agree with every word of your article. The only intervention that works in a significant proportion of cases is to remove the child/ren permanently after strike 2 and find them a long-term family. The cycle of investigation/removal/placement- breakdown/return to family over and over again is incredibly destructive to children and young people. And as for "children have a right to grow up in their family", children have a right to grow up safe and well-adjusted too, which ought to outweigh all other rights.

And good luck cracking the ideological bias so many workers use to investigate and analyse families!

The current format of the NSW “joint investigative response teams” which combines police, DOCs and health workers attempts at a joint response to child abuse crises is akin to ploughing a field with a three headed horse with a magnetic attraction to the “butt” of every gum tree that grows within!
In a recent case in which I was involved, the case of sexual and physical abuse of one child in particular, in a four sibling household, could have made the missing chapter from Louis Carrols “Alice in Wonderland”.

As the case migrated its way through multiple branches of multiple agencies it took on the personality of a “Chinese whisper” with the inevitable outcome (predicted by all – including myself) of the child returning to the abusers for more of the same: The initial saviours of the children treated as the abusers and officially removed from further observation of any future abuse of those children. All evidence supplied by the child ignored, which included evidence of severe bruising and detailed accounts of the sexual abuse submitted by the four year old female child in question and , according to the policies of DOCs reunited with the family. Put simply, madness.

Right on the money Jeremy! Don't think NSW is exceptional - QLD is just as bad and the problem likely endemic throughout the nation.

I worked in public health from the mid 70s and witnessed the rot take hold. Somewhere in the early 70s some idealogically twisted social engineers decided children should be removed from their biological parent/s as a last resort. (In a coffin?) Families should be kept together no matter how dangerous or dysfunctional.

Despite the failure of this approach, there is little change and no improvement. I would suggest the situation is worsening as generational neglect and abuse perpetuates itself. Doubt whether anyone would challenge my observation that among the "feral" population dragged up in poverty - material and moral, there's definate inclination towards breeding early, often and with multiple partners.

It never ceases to amaze when 'do-gooders' consider girls as young as 13 or 14 have the "right" to keep a baby despite their "child" status, immaturity and total inability to support the child. Even more so when extended family is non-supportive, dysfunctional or both. So-called reproductive rights for profoundly intellectually disabled also leaves me shaking my head. Would the social engineers allow such a one to adopt? Doubt it! Ooops, perhaps I should reconsider possibilities .... The system will place a dozen aboriginal kids together in one dodgy overcrowded foster home simply because the fosterers are indigenous.

I agree where there has been systemic and repeated abuse children should be removed from deadbeat parents and preferably adopted. This business of remove then reunite over and over is completely NOT in the best interest of the children involved.

BTW - I'm an adopted child myself. Not because I was removed from an abusive situation but because it was definately not fashionable or socially acceptable to have babies out of wedlock in the 50s nor was there welfare payment for doing so. I have contact and good relationships with biological family on both mother and fathers side. However I had lovely adoptive parents and nothing replaces that love, nurturing, stability and security. They are my true "parents"

What do you expect when the central glue, of a functioning society has turned to jelly. Where is the community that used to protect children. The network of mothers, and older sisters who used to look after the little ones, attend church regularly, and generally ensure that any abused child was attended to and rescued. Sure there were children who fell through the gaps. But generally compulsory attendance at school, and the well known curiosity of children, would have ensured effective help was at hand.

Churches performed much more than a place of worship. They were places where children and parents gathered, Sunday School was more than a place to tell stories, it was also a place where any abused child would get noticed, and peer pressure applied to correct the abuse. This is not effectively replaced by a Church State and paid investigators, described by a fellow poster as a three headed horse.

A properly functioning Church, has a fully integrated care structure, from the children to the elderly, and is inclusive, not exclusive. It worships Almighty God, but the practical benefits flow throughout the community, to its members.

With the absolute and complete destruction of the Supreme Court in New South Wales dating from 1970, the invention of the Satanic and child abusing Family Court, the intrusion of the Child Support Agency, to destroy any goodwill that may have existed between children and their father, and the replacement of courts, with agencies, tribunals, and bureaucracies, is the root cause of all this cruelty. Nasty vindictive ex wives, use the Child Support Agency as a form of harassment, and it is a root cause of the alienation of children from their fathers.

Without accountability, child abuse will continue, and the child abusers include public servants. The good ones despair, and the bad ones keep on with their abuse, because there is no independent umpire, and no grass roots public meeting, where complaints against Police, Case Workers, DOCS, Social Security, Centrelink, or the CSA can be taken for a fair hearing

Child abuse is 'caused' by fatherlessness!

We all know that smoking causes cancer - the risk of cancer is increased by 120% if you smoke. Well, when children live without BOTH their natural parents, the risk of abuse or neglect is increased not by 120%, but by 2,600%

The most risky type of household is for a "family" of mum and 'mummies-new-boyfriend". Tragically, the policy of "keeping families together, in effect usually means keeping children with their mothers (and frequently with mummies-new-boyfriend")... not in families with both their natural families.

There are usually obstructions to children maintaining a relationship with their natural father. Leaving children vulnerable

Citations available
PartTimeParent@gmail.com