Opinion & Commentary
Better protection is needed for vulnerable children
The conviction of the Hawk Nest couple accused of starving their daughter to death again highlights the need for governments to better protect the most vulnerable children in our community. The question is why do child protection authorities fail to protect children such as ‘Ebony’?
Last year’s $3.4 million Wood Inquiry into the NSW child protection system showed just how bad the situation is. Only 13% of reports of suspected risk of harm to children are followed up with an investigation that includes a home visit by a Department of Community Services (DoCS) caseworker.
The inquiry also revealed that proven cases of child abuse and risk of abuse have continued to increase. But in three-quarters of these cases children do not enter foster care.
Even more disturbingly, the inquiry was unable to establish what happened to these children after they were left with abusive and neglectful families due to gaping holes in DoCS record keeping practices.
DoCS has constantly claimed that it can’t protect the most vulnerable children because of mandatory reporting. It maintains that the ‘Kids Helpline’ has been swamped by an ever-rising number of so-called less serious reports and that this prevents the identification of the most serious and higher risk cases.
Mandatory reporting was introduced in the late 1990s. The number of reports has increased significantly to over 300,000 last year. But over the last decade, the proportion of less serious reports has remained stable. Two-thirds of reports are still requiring further assessment and investigation.
The real problem is DoCS chronic failure to appropriately respond to more serious reports. These reports concern children at grave danger of permanent and potentially fatal harm due to ongoing parental neglect and abuse.
The fact is that a relatively small number of frequently re-reported families account for half of the reports that DoCS receives. 2100 families account for 25% of reports. And almost 50% of reports concern just 7,500 families.
In other words, the most at-risk children are continually being identified and re-indentified, mainly by mandatory reporters. Half of all reports concern a ‘hard core’ of clearly dysfunctional, welfare dependent families, which have a range of complex problems including domestic violence, mental illness, and drug and alcohol abuse.
The reason doctors, nurses, teachers, and police frequently re-report the same children between 10 and 20 times is because, despite having identified serious health and welfare concerns among an underclass of families, in too many cases nothing happens.
In most cases, DoCS does not conduct a full investigation. This means children are not even seen to check on their welfare. But even if an investigation is conducted and harm is proven, in the overwhelming majority of cases children are not removed from unsafe situations.
DoCS argues that the best way to keep children safe is to keep families intact and help parents overcome their problems by providing family support and other community services. Removing children from their families has become a last and reluctant resort.
Yet there is no evidence that this approach is effective. Most studies that have examined so-called child abuse prevention programs have not even measured the impact on child protection reports or the outcomes for at-risk children.
The Wood Inquiry noted the high number of re-reports. But it recommended more of the same unproven policies. Even in cases where children were assessed to be at risk of significant harm, DoCS was advised to provide additional family support services.
The NSW government has endorsed this approach. Rather than keep children safe as the government promises, this will expose more children to greater risk of long-term harm and severe abuse and neglect.
If we really want to protect children like ‘Ebony’ we have to dramatically revise the current system.
The Department of Community Services should no longer be responsible for investigating child protection reports. DoCS has a vested interest in keeping children with dysfunctional families so that taxpayer-funded support services can be provided by the department.
Stand-alone child protection departments must be created. The sole focus of these new departments must be the full investigation of reports and deciding whether statutory removal of children is in their best interests.
We also must reassess the community’s attitude to the permanent removal of at-risk children. In most hard core cases, early removal and adoption by suitable families is the best way to keep the most vulnerable children in the community safe from harm.
Dr Jeremy Sammut is a Research Fellow at CIS. His report Fatally Flawed: The Child Protection Crisis in Australia was released by CIS in June.
