Bet that gets a few bites. Seriously though, as grim and as horrible as these places mostly were, kids being kept there at least had some stability in that they came fairly quickly to know what to expect, and there were no ongoing upheavals in their lives.

The current foster-home situation is just as grim. DOCS complains that they cant get quality carers, then penalises those that they do have for doing too good ajob.

I know a couple of foster mums and they consistently tell everyone that the kids are great (yes they often have problems, but thats to be expected), but that they spend more time jumping through hoops to prove themselves to the system, than looking after the kids.

One great foster mum has just had enough. She has had two girls taken away from her because she got too emotionally involved - she had their pictures on the wall in their lounge room. One of these girls is just 6, and the foster mum has had them on a long-term basis, including nursing their older brother through a terminal illness (he went home to his own parents for a while, but they beat him for throwing up - caused by his medication). She wasnt even allowed to say goodbye - the girls were taken from their school by docs. How can that not be damaging to the kids.

Another had a 3 yo aboriginal boy taken away from her because he "needed" to be with his own culture. She had had him since he was 4 weeks old. His room was filled with aboriginal art and books, and he had a bedspread made by his foster grandmother of the aboriginal flag. She hasnt been allowed to see him since he was taken away.

When I heard these stories I felt sick to my stomach. How had we allowed such as system to develop. A system that also allows children to starve to death in their own homes.

Hi country gal.

It saddened me to read the examples you provided in your post. It does seem ludicrous to remove a child who has been with a caring foster parent for a long time. What sort of emotional impact must this have on kids.

It is a catch-22 - the need to ensure foster parents are suitable without being too intrusive or overly dogmatic in style. From my understanding DOCS is terribly understaffed and they are struggling to keep on top of the ever growing cases of child abuse or neglect.

I would imagine the advantage foster care has over orphanages is the feeling of normalcy (ie. not standing out from other kids) and having the care and attention of one or two committed foster parents in a family situation.

This does not mean that workers in orphanages are not committed but that the institutionalisation, bureaucracy and ratio of staff to kids might be prohibitive. But then again a good orphanage would be a better option than a bad foster parent.

Country Gal ,

Bring back whatever works best for the children .

Foster homes with their dedicated carers must be supported .

Aboriginal Kids may need Aboriginal foster parents - from what I have seen many Aboriginal Parents are struggling with the care of the children of their own extended families.

Grandparents especially need support .

Schools must TEACH everyone responsible parenting - it seems to be a lost art . If you can't get the theory right stay back til you do .

It's a skill no society can afford to lose .

The problem with fostering is highlighted by one of the examples provided - that they are not allowed to become emotionally involved with the kids. To me this is utter rot! In the first example I gave the foster parents have young kids of their own, that still go to the same school as their foster siblings (at least they didnt take them out of town). How does it look to a young child if they are treated differently to their foster parents "own" children. It cant be emotionally healthy to be consistently reinforced that you are "different". The comment re orphanages was tongue-in-cheek, but at least there would be consistency.

I understand that DOCS is understaffed, but surely there are better things for them to do than to penalise foster parents who are "too" good. One of the examples I gave has now made the sad decision to give up fostering, as she finds the mental trauma inflicted on her and the kids from DOCS to be too much. That's a sad day for the welfare of the kids of this country.

Country Girl

You can't be serious! Look at the Care Leavers of Australia Network (CLAN) survey of 291 care leavers' experiences in orphanages. 43% reported they were sexually molested, 44% reported they were placed in solitary confinement , another 36% said they were locked in a cupboard. Almost all reported they were physically assaulted. 28% reported they had only primary level schooling or none at all; more than half left school without an educational certificate at all.

If you want to see the lifetime consequences of this abuse in adult life, read the survey report or the Senate Report Forgotten Australians

http://www.clan.org.au/pages/CLAN_Survey_results_in_brief.pdf
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/completed_inquiries/2004-07/inst_care/report/report.pdf

As for your claim that "kids being kept there [orphanages] at least had some stability in that they came fairly quickly to know what to expect, and there were no ongoing upheavals in their lives", you could say the same for Guantanamo Bay.

I don't disagree that the current foster-home situation is grim. The stories you tell are horrific. But surely you can't argue that the only alternative is to turn the clock back to orphanages where we know the damage was systemic.

pelican is right to argue that "...a good orphanage would be a better option than a bad foster parent", but the chances of getting a good foster parents are much higher than getting a good orphanage. And do the maths. 200 kids in one bad orphanage versus 200 bad foster families?

The chances of reforming the foster care system are infinitely better than reforming the orphanage system.

My primary school bordered, in 1940 odd, an orphanage.
They were an isolated bunch. I walked to school past the entrance, set in a formidable fence, often I was joined by one or other of the inmates .
I gathered, as a child, it wasn't the happiest of places! Strict rules, and chores allocated often as punishment, saw to that.
The freedom I enjoyed, while I often thought unfairly critisised, being put "in there" was as a dire threat, my mother would make not infrequently.

As the inmates already felt "left out" it was no wonder the threat made me tremble. Strict as was my mother strict had another dimension in "there".
Being "left out" when an adult is just debilitating, as a child it's
just unacceptable!
Why were they there? Mostly it was threatend or real violence in the home.
In the early 40's society was still recovering from the depression add to that there was a war. Men absconded marriage and family by "joining up" nodoubt a period when family was under real threat.
INMO we under no such threat today! but expectations are much higher!
We are better to do more about the expectations?
I had friends in "posh" schools, thats separation too, but of a different kind. It's perhaps too much to have expected kids today to have lost there "superiority/ inferiority" complexes.
Boarding schools are being introduced for aboriginals, why not for
neglected children per see! "early experience" teachers trained correctly, handle race discrimination easier too. "form mothers" Are good idea too.

That "threat" perhaps still has a measure?

fluff4

fluff4: You ask why kids were in orphanages, and then answer: "Mostly it was threatend or real violence in the home." Your evidence?

The CLAN survey (2007) showed that the main reasons in order were:

father's alcoholism (20% - a high % were returned servicemen )
parents divorced (17% - plus unmarried mothers 8%)
one or other parent dead (16% - less than 2% had both parents dead )
parent's mental illness (14%)
poverty (10%).

Eight % said they didn't know why they were in orphanages.

The only reputable contemporary study is by Tierney in Victoria (1963). He gives these figures, showing significant differences between Wards of State and Voluntary Admissions.

State wards 1st, then --- voluntary admissions:

neglect (54% --- 19% )
parental separation (16% --- 36%)
behaviour of child (14% --- NA)
affliction of parents (8% --- 27%)
child born out of wedlock (NA ---11%)

While there can be little doubt that violence accompanies alcoholism in many cases, there is not much evidence to suggest violence played a significant part in orphanage children's lives - until after they were admitted.

Were the abuse issues associated with orphanages symptoms of the times or unresolvable issues that will always be a serious risk with that style of care?

I'm undecided. I suspect that the forms of abuse described can for the most part be kept at a lower rate in an institutional environment than they would in individual homes - we are much better educated today about child sexual abuse than people were in the 50's, attitudes regarding physical punishment of children have changed dramatically in most quarters and the technology exists to support independant monitoring of what goes on. A larger number of care givers hopefully equates to a better chance of a child having someone who will listen if things do go bad.

What concerns me more greatly is the difference between growing up in an institution and growing up in a family. I would have expected that was one of the advantages of foster care but the situation Country Gal describes suggests that many of those advantages may not exist. Kids should see their picture on the wall of the home they live in, they should have a sense of being connected to the main caregivers.

R0bert

It saddens me to say that as emotional; physical and sexual abuse can
often be inflicted at home within so-called 'normal families' kids
are not really safe anywhere in today's society!

Many kids in foster care; and many who were in the 'care' of institutions were also abused emotionally; physically and sexually.

What is really needed IMHO is better protection of at risk kids wherever they reside!

Sigh....

R0bert, I agree. Whilst my comment on orphanages was tongue-in-cheek, it would be less taxing on a monitoring agency to keep tabs on what is happening inside 1 institution, as opposed to 200 homes. And I do think that some of the problems in years gone back are symptoms of the times and our unwillingness and inability to recognise and confront them headon.

The situations I described appalled me - its basically emotional abuse of the kids by the system, and abuse that is likely to have a long-lasting impact. And what's super-sad is that these are what I would class as great foster-parents, and they have had enough and no longer want to be involved

Country Gal,

I knew you had to be joking! However, there is a serious movement in the USA to bring back orphanages. I think it's supported by the organised pedophile rings.

R0bert,

Abuse issues associated with orphanages were not 'symptoms of the times'. Child rape has always been a crime and always will be. And the rapists knew it then as they do now.

Nor were they 'unresolvable issues that will always be a serious risk with that style of care'. They were crimes that people could get away with because

(a) staff were never made accountable
(b) 'carers' were the dregs of society (who else would work there - long hours, poor pay, too many kids, no training, no qualifications, ask no questions, etc?)
(c) responsible authorities - the state, the churches, charities - put a very low priority on 'those sorts of children' ' children of the dangerous classes', 'orphans of the living' who were out of sight and therefore out of mind.

Your touching faith in large-scale institutions to provide better supervision and lower rates of sexual abuse defies common sense. The more kids, the more likely abuse can be covered up. Inspections of orphanages were notoriously window-dressing. As soon as the Visitor went, off came your best clothes, and woe betide anyone who had dared tell about what really went on.

As for "a better chance of a child having someone who will listen", the analogy that springs to mind is the sergeant-major tucking all his soldiers into bed at night. As absurd as expecting Old Lady Who Lived in a Shoe to tell each of her 'too many children' individual stories at bedtime.

The situation Country Gal describes is the extreme end of foster care. The situation in orphanages that I described was endemic. It's not hard to find good foster parents (but there's not enough I know). But it's almost impossible to find a good orphanage.

wearyMum is right: "What is really needed IMHO is better protection of at risk kids wherever they reside!"

Cheers for your support Spikey - really needed ATM

weary

Hasn't there been a big stink recently in England about an 'orphanage'
involving the digging up of child bodies?

Spikey, I think that you have misunderstood me.

When I'm talking about symptoms of the times I'm talking about the lack of knowledge and or denial of child sexual abuse, the differing attitudes to discipline and childrens emotional needs. The child rapists knew they did wrong, it seems that a big part of the problem was that too many others refused to believe that stuff could happen so the warning signs were ignored. We do need to learn from the mistakes of the past and the horrors inflicted on children should give pause for any consideration of institutional care but we also need to try and seperate out social issues from other aspects.

I think that there are at least two quite distinct aspects to this. A childs physical safety and a childs emotional needs. Those headings may be poorly phrased and if anybody has better descriptions go for it. The first is the stuff that you can achieve by good process and monitoring, the second is about environment and interactions between people.

Can an institution be run and monitored to provide at least the same or better level of physical child safety than placing children in individual homes - I think so.

Can an institution meet a childs emotional needs as well as a family home can provide - I don't think so.

I do agree with Wearymum and yourself, we need better protection for kids whereever they reside.

R0bert

Orphanages.

1. Personal experience makes me reluctant to support such an idea without sound accountability, supervised by qualified people.
2. Growing up in an orphanage during the WW2 years children were treated as objects without rights and often mistreated, sometimes brutally. If they complained to any outsider they were likely to be severely punished.
3. I understand and realise we need alternatives as there are insufficient foster parents available to meet the demand. However as an advocate I come across or hear of cases where good foster parents are punished for caring.
4. While on the other hand there are cases of child abuse by some foster parents, however, we should not brand all foster parents based on the behaviour of a few. Most become foster parents because they care.
5. In Australia the law supports the rights of the parents and as a result children become the pawns for "payback", vendettas or spite.
6. I acted in the capacity of an advocate for a family where the father has access rights. When the father collects the children they are forced to go regardless of their wishes. The youngest is usually dragged kicking and screaming and often spends weekend access being punished for some perceived wrongdoing.
7. The courts declare they are too young to comprehend the implications of a decision not to want to go. Children are fully aware why they do not want to go. If siblings speak of what happens during access, court attitude is that children are not reliable witnesses.
8. In my view the rights of the children should come first. Unsuitable parent/s should be denied access possibly until adulthood of children. Supervised access needs to be supervised by trained qualified people, not acquaintances without knowledge of the issues.
9. In Britain this is the policy and unsuitable parents can be refused access until the children are adults (I believe 21 is still considered adult for this purpose).
10. My experience developed in me a dislike of bullies; individuals, corporations or bureaucrats and influenced my choice to become a volunteer advocate as an adult.

Country girls story about foster homes is true.
The case is one of many, and sickening.
I am pleased however she did not truelly want that return to the past.
We need more protection for every child.
And in my truly held view from the true danger the idiots who took this child away pose to any child.
How can these truly unaware people get involved in child care?
They are in no way acting as most would want.

wearyMum,

Yes there was a big stink recently in England - well Jersey to be precise - involving the digging up of child bodies in a former orphanage. (Perhaps 'big stink' is an unfortunate metaphor in the circumstances.) The old story - lots of vulnerable kids, out of sight, the dregs of society appointed as 'carers', no accountability and no supervision of the 'carers' by the responsible authorities.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/feb/29/ukcrime.childprotection?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

The horror stories about orphanages have no limits - and many are closer to home. Have a look at the Will Will Rock Cemetery near Broadmeadows where hundreds of babies are buried, many unnamed and many of them dying of 'unknown' causes. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~pobjoyoneill/WillWillRook/wwrcemA.html

The Commonwealth Serum Laboratory and the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research have admitted using orphanage children in Victoria for experiments to test new drugs. http://mc2.vicnet.net.au/home/shortboys/web/broadmeadows.html

R0bert,

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. The greater awareness of child sexual abuse that you point to is the very reason it would be impossible to return to orphanages.

The distinction you make between a child's physical safety and a child's emotional needs, while a brave call, is spurious. No child can be split in two parts for separate treatment. The physical bears on the emotional and vice versa. Splitting even for analysis therefore is not useful.

Your argument about there being greater physical safety in larger numbers is dubious. It's precisely when there are large numbers of children that pedophiles thrive. Sure, predatory actions take place with a child alone, but the crowd scene enables the vulnerable child to be isolated without anyone noticing. That's why pedophile rings thrived in orphanages.

Children growing up during the WW2 years and even later were mostly treated as objects without rights whether they were in an institution or in the care of their own parents. It was a very different world to the one that we live in today.

I also disagree that it is because of a large number of children that paedophiles can operate in orphanages. its because the public doent care, that they can. Lack on on-going public scrutiny is a big problem, and I cant see how foster homes are anymore exempt from this than orphanages. There are some horrific stories from the past, but I'll bet you that there are plenty more horror stories starting now with the system that we have got. At least we are now prepared to suspect the worst and are not naive enough to think that these things cannot happen.

Professor-au's comments fill me with more dread about what is happening to our kids today.

Country Girl,

We may disagree on why pedophiles were able to get away with sexual abuse in orphanages in the past. But we don't disagree that they did.

I think though I have to disagree with you in your claim that the public doesn't care about child sexual abuse. The evidence is against you. The Senate reports (both the Forgotten Australians and the Child Migrants), the massive intervention in the NT, the number of books written by or about victims since the early 1990s and the continuous media stories of abuse all demonstrate that they do care.

But I agree with you that abuse still happens. The evidence is undeniable. And I can't see any reason why foster homes would be exempt. However, while orphanages as a whole are thoroughly discredited (and not just because of the abuse of vulnerable children), foster care is not because on the whole foster parents are good people.

Not all foster parents act from pure motives, of course, and that's why you are absolutely right to be cautious and to call for greater care to be taken and tighter scrutiny and accountability.

Country Gal

I understand your position on this and I realised you weren't totally serious about the orphanage suggestion, more using it as a way to make a point. However, there is some merit in the idea if there was a new style of orphanage with much greater controls and modern child caring standards, world's best practice type of stuff. Yes, I'm sure there would be cynicism about whether this would work.

I know of the stories of sexual and physical abuse and neglect that many suffered in orphanages in the past. Absolutely horrific and traumatising to say the very least. But I would hope that things have improved in terms of community service delivery systems, and that there would be a dramatically better model possible. Perhaps there is a need for foster caring and orphanages, I'm not sure.

Anyway, my main reason for posting was actually to comment on the foster care examples you gave. Apart from the issue of the children being removed in both cases, surely it is not the emotionally nurturing way to go to simply take children without allowing them or the foster parents to say goodbye. Unless it was a situation of abuse by foster carers, everyone would benefit from a proper goodbye and an opportunity for closure in some way, as sad and painful as it might be. Coming to take children away from school and they never go back to the home and bed they've been used to? I wonder why this happened?

Mindful

POSSIBLE IMPACT ON THE LIVES OF CHILDREN FROM ORPHANAGES.

Before writing further, I would like to make one thing clear. Not all staff in orphanages were abusive or deviants.

During my time in the orphanage there excellent and compassionate people there. Unfortunately they usually occupied a position of little influence.

A lawyer once asked me what I thought was the impact of the brutality on me as a person.

How can I answer that?

I am the person who grew out of that experience. Although I did not commence school until I was 8 years old, I was lucky I was good at school, which brought me to the headmaster’s attention. He determined he would try to ensure I received an opportunity for a better education rather than becoming “farm fodder” (labourer) under the guardianship of a farmer until 21.

My first year of technical training I completed while in the orphanage.

At fourteen I went to live with my father when he informed me he did OK without an education. If I wanted it then go out and earn it.
Accepting the challenge I did all sorts of work, working long Hours.
Now, had I an easier life would I have been a better person or worse?
I do not know.

I became determined to go after whatever I wanted. I educated myself, built a farm and an engineering business. Selling them I invested in a manufacturing business, eventually taking over. I became a consultant to the Victorian government and later took a permanent position.

I have been a business consultant. Now retired I act as a volunteer advocate helping people less fortunate.

Other children were not as fortunate; some committed suicide or had drug and alcohol problems.

People handle adversity in different ways.

One impact of the brutality, especially from certain individuals who would have enjoyed making me cry. I turned off and built a wall around myself so no one could get near.

It has posed difficulties with relationships until I met my wife when she got through and helped me break it down.

Good on you professor, that's a great story and surely an inspiration. You're clearly one of the good, genuine people here.

Professor

Thanks for telling us more of your story. I agree, you're a good guy, and it seemed so peaceful when I read what you wrote. I know that not all people who have been through what you have are able to deal with their adversity as well as you. We must keep this in mind as we advocate for the prevention of these problems, and the services to deal with the fallout when bad things happen despite prevention measures.

Mindful

Spikey, I am happy to modify what I said a little. The public cares, but not enough to do anything about it. It comes up in the media, we all get outraged, then it falls by the wayside as the next "outrage" is exposed. I am as guilty as the majority of people out there. This little bit of raising an issue that I have seen is the little that I can do (I have difficulty in even finding the time to get back on here to see how the discussion is going, with two young kids of my own).

Mindful, the danger of too much scrutiny is that you risk driving the good, nurturing carers away. The case I highlighted happened because the foster parents were too "emotionally involved". DOCS cited the fact that the children's pictures were on the wall in the loungeroom of their foster home. This was no ordinary foster situation to start with - the girls older brother (10-ish) had recently died of cancer, whilst he was in the same foster home with them. They NEEDED as much emotional care and nurturing as they could get. The foster parents did their best to ensure a normal childhood, including taking them on family holidays (when these were not curtailed because the children's natural parents might want to see them at Christmas time etc).

The risk of less scrunity opens the doors to letting predators loose. Somewhere in between is balance, and we have yet to find it.

I was an inmate of various orphanages and foster homes from the age of three until 17.I was a lot happier and better cared for in the orphanages than the foster homes, where the sons and fathers were the ones who thought it was their right to molest me. I believe that we should once again have orphanages but with better control and more stringent checks on the staff and their treatment of the children.I was also in numerous reform schools(that is another story).I remember being shuffled from one foster home to another and wondering why no-one wanted me.Far better to be kept in the one place where you at least have a chance to form frienships with the other inmates.If the children in homes were interviewed by outside supervisors periodically without the staff of those orphanages being present i believe we could solve the problem of abuse in those places.I have spent most of my life wondering how to help the children and i firmly believe,bringing back orphanages is the only way.I have many friends who were in the same boat as myself as children and the majority agree with me.

Haygirl

I'm sorry I have to disagree with you. I normally think you make a lot of sense).

You had worse experiences as a fostered child than as an orphanage girl. And on that basis, it's understandable that you advocate the return to so-called orphanages.

I personally did time in three orphanage and three foster families aged 2-15. The foster families were OK - except for the one who took us back to the orphanage after nine days 'because of their habits' - I was two years old!). The orphanages were sheer misery every way you look at them.

But swapping personal stories doesn't solve anything. You've got to look at the bigger picture (e.g the CLAN Survey 2007 and the Forgotten Australians Senate report which I gave reference to earlier in this thread).

The irrefutable facts are these: almost all orphanages were hell-holes for children. Only some foster families were hell for children. We know from the hundreds of bleak stories submitted to the Senate inquiry (Forgotten Australians 2004) that lumping together hundreds, even just scores, of children is a recipe for life-long disaster.

You think orphanages can be changed 'with better control and more stringent checks on the staff and their treatment of the children'. Harder to do than better control and more stringent checks of foster families. Orphanage children being interviewed by outside supervisors periodically without the staff of those orphanages being present? What a farce that would be.

Who would interview the under 6s? Would they know that having your genitals rubbed prodded and tugged was exploitation and abuse? If a teenager complained of rape would there be water-tight guarantees of no pay-backs? What if the staff gang up and deny all claims and then make allegations that the teenager has exhibited signs of significant mental illness with hallucinations and frequent self-harming?

I'm really sorry that you firmly believe that bringing back orphanages is 'the only way'. It's a bit like saying bringing back child labour is the only way to keep kids off the streets.

Haygirl, thanks for your contribution. Its certainly interesting to see your perspective. I think the relative success of day care centres shows that mass childcare doesnt have to be a disaster. Perhaps childcare can play a role in helping to regulate both foster homes and potentially "orphanages". Children who were in foster homes might benefit from exposure to larger groups of kids in centres, while I would bet that kids who were institutionalised would benefit from attending family daycare, and mixing with kids from "normal" families. Strange behaviour of preschoolers and toddlers would help to pickup potential abuse issues (eg inappropriate touching of themselves of other children, or not "sufficient" concern for privacy), and longterm family daycare would help provide more emotional support for institutionalised children (again I am referring to preschoolers here, where they are less able to express themselves). A mix of situations might help give us the best of both worlds.

Spikey,i see your point but i can only speak from personal experience.I am also a member of Clan and have read all the reports re abuse in homes.I had numerous foster parents and can count 7 orphanages that i was in according to my welfare files.Sure the punishments were sometimes unjust but i was never inappropriately touched in any of those orphanages.I have friends who were locked in cupboards etc whilst in foster care.I still believe that properly supervised orphanages need to be reinstated.Let the younger ones go to day care where unusual behaviour may be noticed and reported.With the proper checks and balances i believe they would work.Maybe a few of our street children would find orphanges a better place to live than on the streets where they often resort to crime or prostitution to survive.This is not an easy problem to fix but times have changed and maybe their would be more accountability re the staff supervising those places.

haygirl,

I respect your point-of-view. I think we'll both have to agree to disagree on this one.

Instead, let's make the agenda the total abolition of all sexual and other forms of abuse and neglect of vulnerable children wherever they are being raised.

One of the best ways of doing this is through thorough and paid professional training and mandatory qualifications for all people who work with children. And regular refresher courses to give them a break while they upgrade their skills and knowledge.

Another is to recruit top-notch people into what is often regarded as low grade work - caring for children (whether it be in foster families, youth detention centres, orphanages, schools, scouts etc).