Below is Ann's own take on how child protection services are able to invade families, cause more harm than good in some cases and then retreat without having to answer to their own dysfunction.

In just two and a half years in the Parliament of South Australia numerous cases have been brought to my attention where families have had their children removed on little more than a whim. In fact, when child protection services become involved you can expect that life will never be the same again.  As one social worker put it in an interview in my office while dealing with a run-away “you invited us in and we can’t just leave”.  My question is why not? 

This case involved an 11 year old boy who demanded he be placed n foster care at the age of 10.  He was hardly old enough to make such a life changing decision, but none the less the department of Families SA obliged dutifully.  This child has a history or behavioral problems that could be traced back to sexual abuse at his school by an older student (aged 10 at the time). It was reported both to the school and to Families SA and to the police. Families SA did not pursue the matter because the abuse was perpetrated by a child in the same age group (there is a big difference between a child aged 5 and a child aged 10). As a result, the Police also did not pursue the case. From this time on the child’s behaviour deteriorated and to add insult to injury he was exposed to abusive behaviour of his mother who in one incident had burst his ear drum from hitting him around the head. The mother and father separated and the child’s behavior with each trauma became less and less functional. 

The father sought assistance for the abuse and was referred to CAMS only to have to wait 7 months for an appointment.  While all of this was ongoing the child was now being bullied at school. This was also brought to the attention of the school who failed to act. The child started skipping school and eventually be ran away because he was being made to attend school even though he was being bullied. The father had too few options – send his child to school to be bullied and hope that the school would act in his son’s best interests or keep his child home and face being the subject of accusations of neglect because his son was not attending. Having seen the long-term emotional and psychological effects of bullying and harassment I can only imagine the stress this child was under having to endure the dysfunction of a system on top of having to deal with “post traumatic stress disorder” from the original sexual abuse.  His was not an easy life and with every new trauma his behavior worsened. 

The father had reached out and received no assistance and while he was dealing with a very difficult situation he was also being judged as a “bad parent”.  He was struggling - no one would argue that - but he was struggling because there was either an absence of services available or an unwillingness to assist, either is unacceptable. He and the child’s aunt have had allegations made against them by the case workers that are difficult to offer a defense because the allegations are lies by omission.  In other words there is an “element” of truth with some significant details omitted and this is what will be presented to both the Minister and the court in the process of the State determining this child’s future.

Let me be perfectly clear the father was floundering and the child was finally sent to the brink when his dearly beloved cat died while he was away for the weekend.  This sent the child into a tailspin, which according to psychologists is typical when a person, especially a child suffers from “post traumatic stress disorder”.  The child went to school, climbed a school building and threatened to jump on the same day he presented to Families SA and demanded to be put into foster care.  One would think that a child who threatens self harm, with such a history would at least demand attention and be deemed in need of some serious psychological support.   But apparently not!  What the child got was what he wished for – placed in foster care and placed on an “Interim Care and Protection Order”.  Seven months later the child ran away from foster care and ended up in my office at Parliament House, North Terrace.  When asked why he demanded to be put into foster care he stated that he thought it would be like a holiday, but it wasn’t of course.

The father had  made requests for “RESPITE CARE” and was denied unless he was willing to sign over his parental rights – which he refused to do.  He then arranged respite care with members of his church.  He was told “no”  - respite care must be supervised by the department.  He offered to pay the expenses of the weekend carers for having his son – he was told “no” again by the department. The department then proceeded to recruit those same people as ‘foster carers”.

Since his placement into foster care the child has continued to run away  – so nothing has changed from when he was in his father’s care.  One would typically assume that his “needs”  are not being met, just as the state determined this from his behavior when living with his father.  This kind of behavior is not typical of a child who feels safe and secure but who notices?  Well his father did and for his efforts he now faces court with the prospect of his child being placed into foster care on a 12 month order.

The department wasted no time in implementing supervised visits in the office which the child protested against and then proceeded to report that the child’s behavior was difficult after access visits. No one could put two and two together and determine that the child was ‘acting out” as children do when they are dissatisfied.

On asking this child what he wanted he stated clearly to me “I want to live with my family – my Dad, but no one will listen to me so I ran to you”.

When asked why did you ask to go into foster care his response was “I thought it would be like a holiday – you know – I needed a rest, but it’s not like a holiday. Also I was angry with my Dad because my cat died and he didn’t tell me until I got home”. Sounds like an angry kid to me, but nothing that a sit down and chat could not fix.

Now seven months down the track the child has run away and on two occasions has had to be PHYSICALLY restrained to force him back to the offices of families SA. “Not a desirable outcome” I am told by a worker “to have to restrain him”.  I wonder what charges the father would have faced if he of restrained his child in such a manner when in his care?  I wonder how a course of action would be pursued should the child decide to sue the state for assault? I wonder how a course of action would have been pursued if the child, in his earlier state of anger had pressed charges of assault against his father?

The child has insisted on having his say in court.  He is old enough and it is within the legislative frame work, but his child advocate had denied him that right up until Ministerial intervention.   

I truly believe that the recently appointed Minster Hon. Jennifer Rankine is sincere in her desires to sought this department out and I know that she is genuine in her concern for children in her care because I have seen a Minister who is prepared to listen, a Minister who on two occasions now has gone above and beyond the call. She is a tough cookie, but she is not unreasonable. I guess the measure will be where this child ends up – with his father or in the continued care of others. If it is the case that he is not returned to his father and he is placed in foster care and he continues to run away and he gets into trouble what recall does the father have? Well in short – NONE. No doubt in 3 or 4 years time the department will retreat and leave the father and other family members to try and pick up the pieces. A task that has been impossible for many others before them!

For the Hon Jennifer Rankine to make a difference to this department she will need to tread with care and accept that some workers have had free reign in her name for a long time and a “generational culture” has been allowed to flourish – a culture that for whatever reason is anti family – a culture that believes that the family is the cause of all dysfunction – which from the states own record of ‘share and care” is laughable if it wasn’t so tragic.  It is tragic for the children who for the most part end up being deprived of family structure, safety and security and most of all a true sense of who they really are.  It is tragic for the parents who like all other parents, including the Minister herself have made mistakes and been denied the experience of problem solving and conflict solving.

Show me a family that does not have a level of dysfunction and yet the majority come through at the end with valuable experiences, reasonable values and beliefs and a view on life that is unique to them and their experiences. The alternative is the state will step in on “every family” will inflict it’s own dysfunction that originates from who knows where and our children in state care will have a distorted attitude toward family. The saga of the Mulligan Inquiry into ‘The Abuse of Children in State Care’ is testament to this.

What is needed:

1.     Training appropriate for child protection workers that is not just university social work orientated.  Training in early childhood development and child protection is essential.

2.    A family preservation model on which policy, procedures and best practice is modeled.

3.    Case management of every worker by a senior manager who has the above credentials.

4.    Regular and mandatory assessment and evaluation of case workers based on competencies developed from the model of family preservation.

5.    Strict guidelines for collation of “evidence” i.e. forensic procedures for investigating child abuse and neglect and a clear set of guidelines to make a professional assessment.

6.    Tape and video recordings of all interviews – children and parent interviews.

7.    A chain of evidence for documents and supporting documents.  No hearsay documents will be accepted.

8.    Staff selection criteria that is forensically proven – polygraph testing for such things has been used in other countries for over a decade.

9.    The “WORD”  of a department worker is not evidence.

10. Independent psychological reports.

11. A parliamentary Standing committee should be established to investigate cases where abuse of power and unprofessional conduct has been alleged.  This Standing Committee should have the power to refer cases of concern to the Ombudsman and a report from the Ombudsman to the committee must be provided which in turn must be provided to the Minister and also be placed  on public record via a website.

More funding is not the answer because what we have here is a government department that is “co dependent” and there is nothing more toxic than a co-dependent organisation. In other words corruption of the original intent can occur because of the dysfunction of the few who literally “need to be needed”.  Such people can create drama and chaos – create something out of nothing and will stop at nothing to defend their position, even fabricate “evidence”.

Finally, parliament apologised to the children abused in state care, to the carers and parents of those children for not believing them.  The Mulligan Inquiry revealed a history of abuse, neglect and what I would consider to be criminal indifference to the hundreds of children who were physically, emotionally and sexually abused. I do not want to have to in a position where I am apologising again in another 10 years for the same mistakes. This system can be fixed and it requires just three things:

1.    Tight management of workers and the processes they use.

2.    Political Will to overcome the ideological position of some within the department that hold an ‘anti family” view.

3.    Engage professionals who have expertise in child abuse and early childhood development where the principal focus is truly on the ‘best interests of the child” rather than members of staff desperate to cover their own mistakes or intent on reenacting their own childhood traumas.