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 !