There is a simpler solution, 'NOT MY PROBLEM'. I've helped raise two model kids and bring them up as fine, respectful adults. I'm sorry, but other peoples kids are their responsibility, end of story.

rehctub - Sorry to say but you might think it is "end of story" but if one of the degenerates does something to one of your, the story continues.

It does not matter how careful a person is things can get out of hand very quickly because another person is not as responsible as yours are.

Hi Phillip,

So how can government - if they have any role at all in intra-family responsibilities - put pressure on parents to do the right thing, the human thing, and look after their kids properly ? Well, there are carrots and there are sticks. Carrots have been tried for decades and, if anything, probably strengthened the mistaken notion that 'colonisation' and 'self-determination' meant that government agencies would do everything that all hitherto human societies required parents to do. I get the idea that people in remote 'communities' love colonisation for that reason. And so many government agencies have done little but reinforced that illusion, generation after generation.

So how about sticks ? Governments could withdraw funding, say, Family Allowances, from parents who don't sen their kids to school. When I was a kid, parents could be fined or jailed for letting their kids truant. Notes to teacher are famous. How do governments get across that welfare payments are CONDITIONAL rights, more like privileges, payable if people had done everything reasonable to avoid the need for them, and only then if they observed basic rules, like sending kids to school. I'm not suggesting jailing useless parents, or fining them, but simply cutting back on their entitlements which are, after all, made with the implication that those parents will do the right thing.

Twenty notifications in barely two years. Wouldn't that constitute dereliction, the abandonment of parental duties ? Do parents have 100 % rights over their children ? Yes, of course, if they do the right thing. And if not ? If one of their kids is raped, beaten, starved and/or neglected ? Have those parents lost their rights to 'own' those kids ? DO they 'own' their kids ? No, the kids themselves do. Nobody else does, but the government is, after all, in loco parentis of last resort - it has obligations to protect all citizens, of any age.

[TBC]

[continued]

So how many strikes should parents have ? At what point can - or should - government agencies take children into care, take them away if you like, 'steal' them, and permanently ? Should the fostering process be extremely short, in preparation for permanent adoption ? Of course, each case would have to go before a magistrate with arguments for and against passionately proposed.

But whose rights should be primary - the parents, the kids' or the government's ? I'd suggest: the kids'. The parents are stewards, carers, WHEN they do the right thing, but they have no absolute rights, no 'ownership' of children.

End of rant.

Joe

Criminal action occurs in all societies and in this case a baby is alleged to have been raped. As SR pointed out the same offence occured in Melbourne quite recently. However, from what I can find out, it appears that child sex is a frequent occurence in aboriginal communities.

Adults having sex with minors was mentioned in the report 'Little children are Angels' as did the number of kids, and even babies, that have to be treated for Venerial Diseases in Aboriginal communities.

There must be medical evidence that could be ferretted out that would give an accurate picture of child sex and VD rates and I suspect it would surprise. It may be called STD these days.

With all the social problems facing the aboriginal people one would think that there would be less talk of self determination and push for specific seats in Parliament or a governing body. We have recently been hit with a heap of calls to stop taking kids from families, when it appears we should be taking far more for their own protection.

As ATSIC showed, these people are far from capable from running any sort of governing body. The polys we have now leave much to be desired.

Banjo, with regard medical confirmation on rates of stds in aboriginal kids, you would be surprised at how difficult it apparently is to obtain.
Even Bess Price, as an elected minister couldn’t get that information.
And of course, the known cases are only the tip of the iceberg. The majority of cases wouldn’t be known because kids aren’t tested for stds.
I was working in the Paediatric dept of the Royal Darwin Hospital when the government intervention was introduced, and one of the measures taken was a mandatory health check on all children in remote communities. It was a great idea and picked up a huge number of chronic illnesses in these kids, including rheumatic heart disease, however, when it was suggested that these health checks should include an std check, the reaction was violent rejection. By all aboriginal organisations and some non aboriginal organisations.
It was said to be too traumatic etc. however kids were having blood taken to check for iron deficiency anaemia so I failed to see how the taking of a bit of extra blood would have hurt.
From my 30years experience of working with aboriginal children in the north, I learned that regardless of which party was in power, child Protection workers are so overwhelmed by their caseloads that they could only focus on reports where actual physical or sexual damage had occurred. Kids being neglected or at risk were way down on the list.
And the burn out rate of these workers is horrific.