So it appears the minister lying to parliament is "relative minutiae".
This is the real issue ignored by the author. The rest is smokescreen.

I couldn't agree more with the writer. So-called "Child Protection Services" deserve an enormous over-haul Australia wide and the impressionable 17 yr olds who enter University to be brain-washed with the current dogma of the Social Engineers - that the child MUST be kept with it's biological family AT ALL COSTS and children of certain ethnicity ALSO MUST HAVE ACCESS TO THEIR CULTURE, need a whole new curriculum.

We are failing a sizeable number of societies most vulnerable people because of the refusal of a section of entrenched and corrupt bureaucracy to accept the TRUTH and make some changes to its culture.

A child adopted into a safe situation can go looking for his or her roots in young adulthood. There's no hope for the child in the ground and not a lot for the ones terribly damaged, physically and/or psychologically by severe and often systemic abuse

the social engineers (mainly secularist and femininst) who have consistently attacked the natural family and are now seeing the fruit of it are the ones who should be gaoled. they continue in their diastrous social experimentation.

This article raises some interesting points. I am loathe to make strong comment as I have no experience working in child safety. While I am sure there is much to criticise DOCS, being understaffed is probably not helping the situation much even if many of the cases are repeat and unresolved.

If the responsible Minister lied about resources to parliament that is unacceptable and she would not be the first minister or pollie to do so.

It is a difficult area of policy because ideologically there are two opposing forces. Those who think the best interests of the child are in taking them away and those who think working with the families is best, most falling somewhere in between. It is the where one draws the line that is in dispute.

What a horrible choice to make and what responsibility if it is wrong and a child is taken into a worse situation. Or not taken away and abuse and neglect continues or escalates.

There is evidence that parental child bonds are important in a child's development even if the parents are not perfect. But there has to be a point where after support and advice is given that the child must be protected from great neglect and abuse. I imagine that these lines are sometimes blurred. There are lots of horrible stories that one reads about in the papers about kids who die after severe neglect while DOCS stood by and let it happen with failures to check on 'progress' of these families. If DOCS is under-resourced these sorts of situations will no doubt increase.

Bottom line is who gets to decide what is in the best interests of children. But I guess someone has to and it will not always be easy.

Good article, though we have heard a lot of this before.

I never cease to be amazed by the ever-increasing army of child protection workers than now seems to be necessary to police bad parents. I shudder at the cost to the taxpayer. I also wonder whether unconditional welfare contributes to the size of the problem.

Adoption of abused children should be a last resort but at the same time, if it is in the best interests of the child, it needs to happen early in life.

I doubt these problems are confined to NSW child protection authorities, as I'm sure it's the same Australia wide.

Amazingly, many children still desperately want to remain with their biological parents, even if the have been abused or neglected by them.

Courts often take the children's wishes into consideration , which is why there aren't many adoptions from amongst state-protected children.

I don't know what all the answers are, but I do think there needs to be a definite 'cut-off' point as far as how long we leave kids with families that repeatedly abuse or neglect them.

I think the RSPCA removes neglected animals permanently from some homes more often than the department removes neglected children...