For all the 'Ebonys' ...

This is the root cause of the crisis. A relatively small hard core of dysfunctional parents retain custody of their children, despite being re-reported 10 and 20 times. Many children are not even seen to check on their welfare and child protection agencies fail to take appropriate statutory action in thousands of higher risk and potentially catastrophic cases. The most vulnerable children are exposed to increased risk of serious harm due to lack of intervention or intervention that comes too late.

Unfortunately, we don t know the percentage of reports that are re-reports in the rest of the country. As part of the National Child Protection Framework, the Rudd Government should insist the states collect and publish the number of re-reports each year, because these figures show the numbers of children the child protection system is failing.

The staggering NSW statistics reflect the ideological shifts that have occurred in the field of child protection since the 1970s. According to the radical family preservation-focused approach that has had a major impact on child protection policy and practice, the best way to protect vulnerable children is to defend parental rights, keep families intact, and try to prevent abuse and neglect by providing support services which attempt to address parent's complex needs.

Child protection agencies, which in most states are sub-departments of much larger departments of community services, have become increasingly confused about their core responsibility to intervene in the best interest of children. Traditional child protection work has been crowded out by the provision of family support services and other forms of social work with parents, such as drug counselling.

Based on the highly unrealistic and unproven premise that family preservation combined with support services can fix entrenched behavioural problems and transform dysfunctional people into functional parents, child removal has been relegated to a last and reluctant resort. Permanent removal and adoption of children has been rendered virtually unacceptable. Many stakeholders, both in government departments and in the NGO community sector, have a vested interest in keeping children with families so taxpayer funded services can be provided.

As a result, too many vulnerable children are placed on a destructive treadmill. Multiple, poor quality out of home care placements that frequently breakdown are interspersed with repeated failed attempts at family reunion. Churning children through the system permanently damages child development, curtails educational and life opportunities, and, in many cases, perpetuates the intergenerational cycle of poverty, dysfunction, and child abuse and neglect.

If we are serious about ending the crisis and protecting the “Ebonys” of Australia, the challenge for policy makers is to promote cultural and institutional change, and end the marginalisation of traditional child protection work. The first step is to create stand-alone child protection departments, which are staffed and led by specialists and overseen by a minister solely responsible for protecting vulnerable children, which rigorously assesses and fully investigate all risk of harm notifications.

The next step is to squarely face the unspoken truth of the crisis. In most hard core cases, early child removal and the provision of stable out of home foster placements and, better still, adoption of children by suitable families, is the best way to ensure that vulnerable children are protected from parents incapable of providing the proper physical, emotional, and developmental support that all children have a right to receive.