Frank Gol,
Thanks for providing that information, I was not aware of it and got the impression from the two mentioned reports that some of the kids in the homes were there for criminal acts.

My experience with kids suggests that some of the kids in the homes were not 'angels' but that in no way excuses the conditions and treatment they had to endure, with no one to turn to.

We must ensure that this does not happen now or in the future.

I sometimes find it hard to say just what I think ,but on this issue? never.
I was a welfare kid, in the first 20 years post ww2 most from poor family's lived a life of fear the welfare is in town.
Such people forget children grow up, remember them and their actions.
They took 3 family's all white away in my small street.
They should not be proud of what they said how they acted yes those kids will still remember too.
This country always failed its children ,we do today.
I know three family's who had child sexual assaults, every one was generational, it had been done to them too.
All came from poor family's too many people living together in something like a tribe not a family.
None actually worked none had much education all used grog or drugs too much.
DOCs that waster of air knew them all never ever acted not ever.
4th incident was the little girl I have talked about before 12 years old the only daughter in 7 kids.
She was a rose a great kid she sat beside her dad as he got drunk eyes never leaving him she loved her drunken dad.
After he got very drunk he shouted at her to go away, quote I am not interested in you! I only want mt sons to carry on my name end quote.
5 members of my family cried with me 12 months later he raped that girl while he was drunk, DOCs never acted until then.
Last time I saw that young girl she was 17 drunk and pregnant.
Her eyes are blank now , we must forget the idea DOCs cares they do not.

FrankGol “Beware the Col Rouges of this world who tell us that a complex phenomenon like institutionalisation of children come down to "two issues, neither of them economic".

I note you find opportunity to criticize my post and then present a range of reasons through your reference to Teirney which confirm my observations. Strange!

None of the issues listed in the report you present are fundamentally “economic”. Although “economic circumstance” might actually “aggravate” factors Teirney presents, it is not the principle issue in any

Neglect
Parental separation
Child Disorderly behaviour
Affliction of then parent
Child born out of wedlock.

I would note of the issues listed I could categorize them as follows

Per parental attitude
Neglect
Parental separation
Parental affliction
Absence of wedlock

Per inherited behaviour
Neglect
Child Disorderly behaviour

Now that I have clarified and classified your muddled thinking, I will await your apology (although I will not hold my breath) for your cynical and pseudo-intellectualization of the simple issues.

In short, the pseudo-professionals who draw government salaries by overseeing and writing reams of bunkum about the complexities of child welfare are the sort of folk who pull the wool over then eyes of the gullible (like dear Frank), yet whilst employed as the solution they in fact, merely enhance the sad state of incompetence in public welfare delivery.

Banjo “My experience with kids suggests that some of the kids in the homes were not 'angels' but that in no way excuses the conditions and treatment they had to endure, with no one to turn to.”

Exactly, I agree some children are handfuls but to the “conditions and treatment they had to endure”:

As I said previously “The duty of care has more profoundly failed because the “standards” of a state institution should be beyond reproach and above that expected from (possibly) struggling and inexperienced parents.”

Belly, I feel for you and those you mention in your childhood experiences.
My parents were not well off but my siblings and I were all loved and that is what I passed on the my children, the ongoing experience of unconditional love.

Col the events of child sexual assault did not come from my childhood but all took place in my adult life.
My huge family went without but not without love and standards to live by.
I truly think it is not that hard to start to fix this problem.
No difference should exist in the way we treat children of any color or creed.
It should be law that children have medical check ups often , at such times all aspects of their health and well being should be looked at.
Courts should look into the wellbeing of children after a conviction for drugs or grog is handed down.
We need a brand new department to replace every state and federal one involved in todays failures new people too.

Belly, please excuse my misinterpretation to timing. To the rest I would wholly agree.

“new people too”

At the risk of over-simplifying this too much for FrankGol to comprehend, this is the problem.

Government works on a system of bureaucratic progress (if that is not an oxymoron).

The problems focus not around the laws, checks and balances or any complexity of process or procedure, form filling, WOFTAM meeting schedule or other detriteous of system but around the attitude of people who are supposed to manage and deliver the service.

It may seem cynical of me but the quality of service relies upon a political system driven by the interests of appointed career bureaucrats massaging newly elected politician to their will ensuring the status quo, matters like seniority of appointment and all the old “practices” being maintained under new names and labels.

Back in 1853 The Northcote Trevelyan Report observed

“Admission into the Civil Service is indeed eagerly sought after, but it is for the unambitious, and the indolent or incapable, that it is chiefly desired.”

I doubt it is any better today.

As I said, it might be cynical of me but I fear a lot of folk, professionally engaged in the delivery of government funded services, are far more cynical.

However, that is no excuse not to rally against what needs to be done. it merely qualifies one of the challenges.

Dear Dr Col Rouge

Thank you for clarifying my muddled thinking. What would we all do without you and your erudition? You beat those pseudo-intellectuals hands down.

I'd never have had the wit to classify the causes of institutionalised children into parental attitude and inherited behaviour. Thanks to you, I'll have a whole new dinner-table repertoire.

Just one or two further clarifications if I may, Dr Rouge:

Why do you have 'neglect' down in both categories? If I repeat that in conversations my friends might accuse me of having a bob each way - or being confused. So is there a definitive ruling on 'neglect'?

Also Dr, I might have a bit of a problem explaining 'neglect' as an inherited problem. One of my friends told me recently that because she was neglected as a child, she was all the more determined never to neglect her own children. Does that mean she has broken the laws of heredity, Dr Rouge? Would that be a common aberration? Would you prescribe something to make her normal and neglectful just like her parents?

Why is 'parental affliction' down under 'parental attitude', Dr? I've heard of psychosomatic conditions, but under your scheme all afflictions are explained away as 'attitude'. Can you refer me to an article in The Lancet that will confirm all afflictions as psychosomatic please?

Are you available as a guest speaker to the next meeting of the care leavers group, CLAN? I'm sure you would make a big hit. There seem to be plenty of muddled thinkers there who believe that their family's' poverty was the root cause of their placement in institutions - poor fools, probably led astray by their poor parent's attitude.

I worry too that they might have inherited their parents' reluctance to accept the advice of authorities like you Dr Rouge. So if you speak at the CLAN meeting could you please wear your protective gear. Things could get a bit rough.