Events

The Child Protection Laws of WA require urgent amending. The Children and Community Services Act 2004 came into effect on March 1, 2006, and replaced the Child Welfare Act 1947, Community Services Act 1972 and Assistance Act 1961.

Children and Community Services Act 2004 is dangerously broad, loose with its lack of definitions and has been therefore misused to unnecessarily remove children from their families and for the unwarranted pervasive intrusion in the lives of families on grounds that should not be allowed.

The Act does not preserve the best interests of the child. The Act has the proven capacity to work against the keeping together of families.

The Act is argued by the DCP as 'a strong, modern and flexible framework for the protection and care of children' however it lends unwarranted and unchecked power to caseworkers and team leaders to unnecessarily intrude and misjudge parents and children. It presumes that the caseworkers accord to conciliation and remedy and that they have interpersonal skills, life experiences, grounded postgraduate education and professional development to ensure they are suitably guided in their decisions. The objects and principles underpinning the Act are not guaranteed when those who are to be guided by them lack the education, experience and acumen to fully understand the intentions of the objects and principles.

It is wrongful for the DCP to argue that the cultural, ethnic and religious identity of children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds are preserved and enhanced by the Act and by the DCP.

It is wrongful for the DCP to claim that the Act defines when a child is in need of protection - this is the major flaw in the Act, in that it has failed to clearly, and target-specifically, define when a child may be in need of assistance.

The Act has dangerously failed to define 'significant harm', has failed to define 'physical, sexual, emotional and psychological abuse and neglect'.

The Act has dangerously failed to describe and define 'the ability or willingness of parents to protect the child from harm...'

The Act has failed to include definitions of foster care and of approved relative carers.

The Act has failed to define the various staff and their powers within DCP as guided by the Act.

The Act has failed to ensure the natural rights, and access to defined rights, of the families.

The Act has failed to define the rights of children.

The Act has a major contradiction to correlative laws in terms of 'warrants' and the 'execution of a warrant'.

The Act has failed to describe and define the 'immediate and substantial risk' which would risk a DCP worker or police office to remove a child prior to the execution of a warrant.

The four protection orders need to be reviewed and with conciliation and remedy as underwriting.

The Children's Court role needs to be reviewed and ensure the natural rights, and access to information, for the parents. The Act needs to ensure justice.

The Act's ambitious claims are not supported by funding to the DCP to ensure well-qualified workers, support mechanisms, arbitration and conciliation and the best-interests of the child and the families.

The Western Australian 2010 State Government Budget as delivered by Premier/Treasurer Colin Barnett has set aside 43.5 million dollars for the Department for Child Protection. This Department is already funded an annual 440 million dollars. Child Protection Minister Robin McSweeney has been quoted that she believes this funding will assist in the recruiting and employment of 'front line workers' as she believes there shall be a 5% increase in children who shall be placed into the care of the state - there we have it! More children will be removed from their parents, their families and traumatised rather than funding allocated in employing experienced workers who understand remedy, conciliation and in assisting the bettering of peoples lives. We have this lazy minimalist attitude that wherever there is a perceived problem or a perceived potential problem, and these can be any number of attributable perceptions as the 2004 Act allows for much, and I claim it is unwarranted - that the answer to everything is to make things worse by removing children from their families and many instances destroying all hope for these families. The trauma is long lasting, and the effects of this are post traumatic stress and disorders, a breakdown of coping capacities, loss of self esteem, loss of trust, mental health breakdown, suicide. These can be the results of lazy, minimalist and draconian aggression and other measures.

Colin Barnett and Robin McSweeney should consider consulting all the groups and persons in community who work remedially and conciliatory to improve people's lives and demonstrate to these parents and children that they believe in them and that society cares. Colin and Robin should have considered setting funds aside not for recruiting more 'front line workers' rather in professionally developing the current crop - having many of them pursue graduate studies, specialist programs, intra and inter cultural awareness studies, interpersonal skills, conciliation skills - and to guide those within their ranks away from presuming themselves overtly judgmental, 'god-like', 'good judges of character', and from acting as if 'clinical psychologists' (which they are not) - and teach them to work with the parents and with the external (and often specialist) support groups that may be there for the parents and the children - rather than spend their time 'building cases' against parents and by presuming they have achieved this by some cheap and cruel 'connect the dots investigative questioning'. They should be taught to be transparent and on request provide case files and all documentation to appropriate persons or the parents and not require people to pursue FOI or court summonses. Colin and Robin should redirect or allocate funding for support mechanisms, and such culture - counselling, psychosocial guidance and in bringing external mechanisms together to assist families in terms of financial welfare, educational welfare, physical health and its access, vocational guidance - and at all times ensure that no policies exist where unnecessary caution is required.

No DCP 'front line worker' or case manager should be inexperienced or without due qualifications - this is currently the case and I am ready for the Director-General of DCP and I to discuss this. I have met three dozen case workers from DCP and its affiliates and I am surprised by their lack of appropriate knowledge, lack of suitable skills and under qualification. This is dangerous and coupled by a horrifically loose 2004 Children and Community Services Act to guide them we have the blueprint to disaster and maybe the explanation as to why more children are being detained into the care of the State.