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.