Nothing new Jeremy, though no doubt a "National Comparative Study of 2006" has resulted in zero change to the way Child Protection agencies are operating throughout the country.

A hard line needs to be taken. Parents incapable of caring for their children or seriously abusive towards them at an early stage, where there is very little chance of 'rehabilitation' should lose parental rights. If there is intervention and this fails - no more chances. These high risk infants should be offered for adoption and given demand from couples desperate for a family, placement should not pose a problem. There may well be opportunities within the children's extended family for adoption. If so - very good. If not - the 'open market'.

What is important is that the child is not only saved from immediate risk but has the stability and opportunity to realise it's potential in a safe loving environment. Let biological parent/s stuff up their lives if they can't be helped but don't sentence the children to the same fate.

"Social Engineers" take note! Will they? Here's hoping but I'm not making book on it.

I see where you are coming from Jeremy, and I share your frustration about all the children who should have been placed in permanent care long ago.

However, I can understand the reluctance of child protection authorities to do this more often, given that for most children, eventual reunion and placement with one or both parents is usually the kid's most fervent wish as well.

How do we know that we aren't too far away in rehabilitating the parent(s)? It is hard to choose the correct time to take the kids away permanently.

I am also skeptical about adoption in these cases as well, given that 'normal' adopted kids find it hard enough knowing they are adopted, let alone those kids who did live with their parents at one stage, albeit under hard circumstances.

I don't know what the answers are either, but I do know that some of our most vulnerable children come from indigenous families, and these kids are the least likely to have early interventions simply because of the old 'stolen generation' mentality.

If we do up the ante on removing kids earlier if the home situation is irreparable, I hope we also include Indigenous kids in the equation.

As long as there are laws to prevent parents disciplining their kids we'll have continued child abuse in the form of the children not getting a fair lead-up to later life.

Jeremy Sammut:

...One very silent issue here Jeremy: Grandparents rights. A huge asset cruelly neglected by the authorities. Grandparents offer the most fundamental and positive answer to child abuse and child neglect "alternative housing" of these children. They offer the closest genetic family recognition attachment to the child, offering soothing familiarity and sensible intermediary benefits at little cost to the Government.

...Grandparents rights are overridden in the courts, becoming subservient to the rights of the abusing parent (family preservation), which in turn trumps the rights of the child to choose a Grandparent as an alternative to foster care. Kids lose contact with Grandparent(s) over the priority of Family Preservation, to render the loss of the affected child “total”in most cases I have seen, at the "messy" end of the stick.

Our social engineers have produced environments where the abuse of kids is now in epidemic proportions. From the promoters and users of porn who demand their individual rights despite the damage done to society, to the no smacking brigade that has increased violence by massive proportions to the promoters of just put a condom on which defies any faithfulness or commitment we are now reaping what we have sown. We have done away with the moral constraints that produced by and large families together protecting one another. Stepfathers are far more likley (not always) to interfere with young girls than natural fathers, kids who have never had moral boundaries far more likely to take drugs than other kids. The mess produced by these secularist can't be fixed by them.

The mess produced by these secularist
runner,
what a great way of describing the academic morons posing as social engineers. Good one !

“some of our most vulnerable children come from indigenous families, and these kids are the
least likely to have early interventions simply because of the old 'stolen generation' mentality”

Suseonline, it is more than the “mentality” it is called the “Aboriginal Victim Industry” (AVI )
many are employed in this area, many seeking continuation of,
with no real answers other than this continuous and eternal “blame game”.

Meanwhile, back at the old ranch, the children continue to suffer.

Arthur Bell. aka, bully.

“some of our most vulnerable children come from indigenous families, and these kids
are the least likely to have early interventions simply because of the old 'stolen generation' mentality”

Suseonline, it is more than the “mentality” it is called the “Aboriginal Victim Industry” (AVI )
many are employed in this area, many seeking continuation of,
with no real answers other than this continuous and eternal “blame game”.

Meanwhile, back at the old ranch, the children continue to suffer.

Arthur Bell. aka, bully.

Diver Dan - I agree 100%

As per my earlier comment "There may well be opportunities within the children's extended family for adoption. If so - very good. If not - the 'open market'" - Grandparents are often best placed and have the childs best interest at heart. In such cases they should have first call, but the transfer of parental rights needs be absolute and permanent. Ditto for other close family - Aunts, Uncles, older siblings - provided they meet requirements. Obviously there are cases where grandparents and other extended family are part of the problem

Suzeonline - Abused infants and toddlers under 3 years are most suited to adoption. Best from 0 - 12 months. The 'damage' from adoption - even into a family completely removed is absolutely minimal compared to what many children have endured and continue to suffer. Adoption needs to be open and the child to have information about biological family available to them at appropriate age. Older children are a tougher nut due to the damage done, but then again permanent removal to a safe 'forever' foster or adoptive home is going to give them the better chance of physical and mental health along with life success. Children over the age of 10 with strong views on where they wished to be would likely need consideration. On indigenous children - 100% agreement. The fact many are left in situations where any other child would be removed is testament to the absurdity, immorality and stupidity of politically correct policy and the brain dead bureaucrats who administer it

...I wait with “bated breath” for the next “DOCS” absurdity to splash across the headlines!

Runner blames the dreaded 'secularists' for all child abuse.
Runner, as you well know, child abuse in all it's forms has been around long before the word 'secularist' was even thought of.
And we all know that some God-believers are not immune from such practices.

Divine-msm:

# Obviously there are cases where grandparents and other extended family are part of the problem #

...Part of the problem for who must be asked of course! My experience tells me, grandparents to the abused children, are in fact parents to the abusers! Where this all goes “belly-up” in the courts is at the point of conflict between the parents (grandparents of the abused child), and their abusive siblings (Parents of the abused children)!
With “family preservation” as the priority default, the courts (read DOCS recommendation) will lean towards the authority of the parents of the abused child to determine whether or not to support intervention by the grandparents.

...Too often spirited antagonism of the abusing parent rules against the welfare of the abused child and the abusive parent will choose foster care first as priority, blocking attempts by the natural grandparents to assist.

...Also; a criminal record attached to a grandparent should not exclude their rights of natural merit to assist the child automatically as it does, but should be meritorious and based on current history. This point becomes “official” abuse in itself to both the child and the grandparents, all too often!

Susionline

'Runner blames the dreaded 'secularists' for all child abuse.'

No Susi I blame the corrupt nature of humans which is not helped when fed by putried secular dogma. This is what leads to an increase in child abuse.

Diver Dan - occasionally grandparents and other close family have similar issues to the parent/s. This can be particularly disturbing and dangerous where idiot policy decrees that for cultural on top of kinship considerations, short of hell freezing, children MUST be placed within their 'ethnic group' and vetting of suitable 'carers' is lacklustre at best, criminally negligent at worst ...

Of course, children of any background can face similar problems. A grandparent or pair of grandparents may have substance abuse, mental or physical health issues, unsuitable housing, insufficient resources etc etc. If this is the case I suggest they are not the best answer regardless of good intention.

In the great majority of cases however, the grandies are the best choice - provided the idiot judiciary can get past the 'preservation of the family' dogma which currently ensures that most kids go back into dysfunctional environments when the 22 yr old experienced Social Worker deems Mummy & Daddy/Step-Daddy #1,#2,#3,#4 'rehabilitated' and ready to reclaim the unfortunate pawns ... er I mean kids.

Grandparents raising their grandchildren, either because of parental death or inability, are grossly under supported and deserve a far better, fairer deal.

divine_msn:

# In the great majority of cases however, the grandies are the best choice - provided the idiot judiciary can get past the 'preservation of the family' dogma which currently ensures that most kids go back into dysfunctional environments when the 22 yr old experienced Social Worker deems Mummy & Daddy/Step-Daddy #1,#2,#3,#4 'rehabilitated' and ready to reclaim the unfortunate pawns ... #

...Perfect summation divine_msn: You obviously circle the reality closely. There is a youthful arrogance to be surmounted on the occasion of contact with DOCS. It is not the lot of DOCS to squirrel abused kids from social dysfunctional and low socioeconomic backgrounds, into cushy middle class settings, totally foreign to them. The attitudes of the middle class are frightening to those kids, and are quickly identified for their condescension presented as care, as they are in foster homes.

...When distant, as they too often are in rural areas, the foster homes present an impenetrable barrier to grandparent contact with the needy child. This situation is an “official crime” and abuse, with the cost loaded onto the child to be paid in isolation

Jeremy, this is a very useful article – useful because it serves as a reference point for what could happen if we let the debate over child protection lapse into undisciplined, ideological territory. Normally I would describe your unequivocal support for a generalised approach to such a complex issue as naïve, but the fact that we are talking about people’s whole lives here just makes it frightening, irresponsible, and dangerous.

You can’t just remove a child from their parents. In order to remove a child, a court needs to be satisfied that it is in their best interests – which if memory serves is the guiding principle behind CP legislation in all Australian states. In order for this to happen, there needs to be sufficient evidence to establish that abuse or neglect has occurred, and that the danger of it recurring outweighs the not-insignificant drawbacks for the child of removal. In a sense this is equivalent to any criminal case: the CP caseworkers are a bit like police, in that they have to gather this evidence - however their job is much more difficult as they simultaneously need to ensure the process causes as little disruption as possible to the child. Secondly, the evidence of abuse, and even more so of neglect, is highly ephemeral. The reason these cases go through the children’s courts is precisely because there is insufficient evidence to justify police involvement (and you can hardly expect a 3-year-old to testify against its parents over a criminal matter). And yet you seem to be arguing that an even lesser extent of evidence than is available currently is sufficient to permanently remove a child from their parents – a “punishment” that I would argue exceeds life imprisonment in severity. Neither is this good for the kids: you need only look into the stories of the Forgotten Australians and of those who were adopted as a result of the churches’ ill-conceived practices last century to see the fractured despondency people who have been “adopted out” without adequate justification are forced to live with their whole lives

I’m not sure where you get your “data” on placement prevention programs. Can you break this down state by state? Because it’s meaningless otherwise. And what do you classify as “placement prevention” anyway? Do you mean voluntary, case specific early intervention case management of families with emerging difficulties, or more intensive crisis intervention in cases where harm is suspected but doesn’t justify removal? You say: “intensive family preservation services has therefore increased by 317%”, but overlook the fact that these services hardly existed 10 years ago, and have not yet been running long enough anywhere in Australia to show what effect they are having. In any case, your claim that “placement prevention programs that prolong the time vulnerable children spend in the custody of dysfunctional parents are flawed in terms of child safety” is a nonsense – since, if there is any suggestion that the program is not in the interests of the child then it will be discontinued, and statutory intervention taken. These programs operate on the very premise that they have a reasonable chance of success. As you point out, they are very expensive, and will only be used as a last resort, and where the prospect of success exists.

Finally, you reel off that OOHC numbers have doubled in the last decade - isn’t this a national tragedy? But you explain it in financial terms! – and yet you still maintain that we are not making enough removals. How does that work?

I shudder to think where your motivation for making the arguments you do comes from – but if you are as interested in eugenics as you appear then wouldn’t it be more effective to state that explicitly? It’s simple really: if people were required to prove their abilities and obtain a license to have kids then obviously there would be no child abuse! (and have you ever even spent time with any of these “dysfunctional families”? Would you believe I suspect you have not?).

[cont]

I would suggest that a better (though more difficult – perhaps Jeremy you’re just lazy?) strategy is to aim to prevent abuse before it occurs, by alerting people to what it actually is, ensuring government and NGO services collaborate effectively, ensuring there are enough social workers so that they can spend adequate time with families to understand their problems, ensuring OOHC and adoption is resourced enough to make it work for the kids (because as it stands, it falls well short), and ultimately, building social cohesion by emphasising the responsibility we all have to each other to make the world a more accepting, less adversarial place. Your silly, ill-informed one-man campaign is not helping, and is doing the CIS no favours.