RObert

I think you are far wide of the point. What you are suggesting is to invest MORE trust into state-run institutions with the reputation of DOCS. (Department of Community Services in NSW). The department of the “Brain Dead” or maybe “The Department of Child Horror” would be a more fitting title and better describe the collective ability of that lot to defend the welfare of any child.

Sorry, but through a long and painful experience of observation I have firmly concluded the problem is over involvement not under involvement. It is far safer for all, generally speaking to allow broken families to fix themselves than to subject the accumulated mess of separation to Government departments.

diver_dan I get your point but do think we need some form of safety mechanism. Some families can't or won't sort it out themselves broken or intact.

What I want is for those safety mechisms to work regardless of the parents relationship status and to avoid those safety mechanisms being a tool for people to get back at an ex or to use to gain personal financial advantage.

Pied Piper is in a far better position than me to comment on what works and what does not work about child protection. My comments are more about the abuse of the concept of protecting children in the context of family law.

R0bert

Diver you are on the right track and R0bert is too.

I believe DoCS and all our state’s child welfare systems need help, they are failing our children, they’ve told lies and listened to lies, there’s been an enormous amount butt covering and deceit in every story I have heard about people’s dealings with them.

Instead of an ever expanding system involving multiple NGO’s it first to be simplified then fixed.

In emergency cases where the life of a child is at risk; go get the child. Court stepping in within 24 hours to check if it was justified. Without it being critical then Court decides if a child is in need of removal or early intervention or neither and parents get to defend themselves against whatever child abuse charges have been laid. State pays all fees because that is in the best interests of the child.

Anon accusations to govt don’t cut it unless prepared anon to talk to the judge about why you made the abuse accusation.

Removal or Intervention put in place. NGO’s take on all intervention and report back to court when over on its success, if it fails in the meantime; report goes to state run care where if an emergency again exists the child is removed.

Children removed are then under state care who are working with whatever services are required to help the parent’s have their children returned, or not.

Two parents in court and the matter of abuse; that is not a matter of custody and who gets access until investigated. Parental alienation accusations only considered worthy of note if the accusations span a certain period of time. Accusations from both parents of abuse and the child/ren go into care which can be an agreed upon by both parents kinship carer.

We need better monitoring of Foster Parents/Homes. All foster parents to be volunteers registered with the govt only. The staff of 27 NGO’s in NSW with their own policies and cultures can go work for govt if they wish to remain focused on caring for the children under state custody/guardianship.

But speed is needed, we have to move quickly on all issues when a child is parked up in a foster home or the parents are accused of something. Trained people are out there, the NGO’s have them. Take away fostering from them and get them investigating, advocating and intervening early on behalf of families.

It is sometimes difficult, without medical evidence/photographs and the like to prove violence and abuse if the victim has not made enough approaches to officialdom. The added difficulty is the number of false allegations distort the figures and make it doubly difficult for safety issues to be taken seriously.

It is equally difficult for officialdom to distinguish between the malicious allegations and the legitimate ones if there is no overwhelming evidence.

There should be a premise of shared parenting in custody arrangements and any permeatations can be worked out according to work and living conditions in consultation with couples. The 'system' fails when children continue to be placed with a neglectful or abusive parent of either gender. Clearly there have been cases involving women who kill, neglect or abuse children as well as men. We don't need to list every case on either side because this is about safety not about some personal slight women/men take about gender politics. We are all grown ups, kids are not.

Obviously people want to ensure the system does not allow a child to be put a risk at the hands of a violent or disturbed parent. Safety should always be put first.

I would not blame a parent taking off with their child if they knew their ex-spouse was putting the child at risk. The more we ignore the safety of children in these cases the more we set up the impetus for 'secret railways'. If the system cannot work it out, and it would be impossible to ensure 100% accuracy in these highly emotional cases often fraught with feelings of anger and revenge, then it will come down to individuals taking 'safety' into their own hands.

And who could blame them.

'It is sometimes difficult, without medical evidence/photographs and the like to prove violence and abuse if the victim has not made enough approaches to officialdom.

Na its not. All you have to do is expand the definition of violence to 'violent behaviour' to 'threatening' behaviour, to manipulative behaviour' to... hell it's pretty easy. That's what the new laws are all about; Rather than putting money into faster and more thorough investigation, just reduce the burden of evidence.

'Obviously people want to ensure the system does not allow a child to be put a risk at the hands of a violent or disturbed parent. Safety should always be put first.'

With any calculation there is always an element of risk. That risk has to be balanced and it's easy to emotively say 'No Tolerance' and 'Unacceptable', but there IS an acceptable level of risk when the alternative is taking kids and giving them to strangers or totally destroying the relationship with a parent due to a temporary stress on that parent or even a totally fallacy.

I hear a lot of grandstanding about 'best for the children' as if it's clear cut. There are easily many rungs of abuse that children should endure if the alternative is not seeing that parent especially given these expanded definitions. And that IS looking at it from the desire of the children, the kid's perspective.

Ask a lot of kids, whether grown up in a family with periods of abusive behaviour or even low scale 'abuse' (By the new definitions) and they'll tell you you're crazy if you think they'd rather be separated from their parent(s).

Zero tolerance is just a way of saying that you see the world in black and white terms.