Child protection in Australia - Essay Example

? Child Protection in Australia Children all over the world present the most precious and important resource to humankind because they represent continuity and the future for the human race. Their plight and welfare of children should be guarded at all costs to ensure that the future for man holds a sustainable hope for the betterment of humanity. Child abuse has been touted as an increasingly point of concern for many because of its prevalence in many institutions. In Australia, child protection is causing a rising concern because of an increase of purported child abuse cases characteristic of neglect, emotional abuse, physical and sexual abuse. Child protection interventions have been implemented which are aimed at providing children with safe secure and caring environments. These environments are meant to allow for optimum growth and development, which is implemented through the Departments of Child Safety and Departments of Communities. These departments work through a statutory system that is designed to protect the best interests of a child and treat them as paramount. Over-representation of indigenous or aboriginal Australian children in the welfare system is a cause for concern in this sector. Most of the interventions towards child protection in Australia are directed towards Aboriginal children because of the historical injustices that have been witnessed against their plight and welfare. There have been progressive policies meant to address the welfare of children in Australia. Historical practices and events, which took place at the time of first contact and onwards, have presented a crucial link to issues such as over-representation of indigenous people affecting aboriginals in this country today. This paper seeks to address the historical and more recent ideologies, welfare practices and government policies that have the current situation of over-representation of indigenous people. Previous government legislation and practices that have been operational in Australia have contributed immensely to the sensitive issues affecting aboriginal people today. Apart from the assimilation policy, oppressive legislation is part of the historical injustices perpetrated against the indigenous people thus leading to the current situation of overrepresentation of the Aboriginal people. Most of the interventions by the Australian states and territories towards the Aboriginal populations were in form of punitive and restrictive legislation and policies (Dudgeon Pat et al. 2011 p4). For instance, such acts include “Aborigines Protection Act of 1909 in New South Wales, Australia, the Queensland Aboriginals Protection, and Restriction of the Sale of Opium Act of 1897, and the Welfare Ordinance of 1901. These acts of legislation were intended to mutilate the culture of the Aboriginals through loss of the language, family dispersion, and cessation of cultural practices. The Western Australian Act of 1905 is perhaps the most notorious piece of legislation because of its gross erosion of rights of the Aboriginal persons; for instance, the Western Australian Act resulted to forceful removal of children from their families, natural environments, and the establishment of reserves for Aboriginal persons. Assimilation policies are construed to represent factors that have resulted in intergenerational impacts such as abuse, suffering and neglect of children in Australia. Until 1969, children were forcefully removed from their families and communities as the official Australian policy, which resulted to a lost generation in Australia. White settlement policy on the indigenous population of Australia led to devastating perceptions of loss and grief, impacts that are still being experienced up to date (Aihw, 2013 p2). For instance, grief and loss issues oftentimes result in suicidal feelings among the youth, drug and alcohol abuse, homelessness, overrepresentation in welfare and juvenile criminal justice systems, among other things. The assimilation policies were meant to displace, protect, disperse, convert and eventually assimilate the indigenous Australian populations, thus giving rise to the lost generation whose cultural roots had been cut, thus a subsequent loss of identity. A recognizable effect of this policy in the context of this paper is the over-representation of children in the child welfare system. Oppressive legislation is also part of the historical injustices perpetrated against indigenous Australians leading to their present over-representation in child welfare policy (Combined Voices, 2010 p3). The Western Australian Aborigines Act of 1905 made the Chief Protector of the Aborigines the legal guardian of indigenous persons and half-caste children in Australia. This meant that police constables and pastoralists were delegated powers as protectors of Aboriginals at local levels (CMC, 2004 p1). As it was, the legislation was meant to cut-off all half-caste children from the corrupting influences of their Aboriginal family backgrounds in order to allow them a better life. This is because Aboriginal people were considered inferior, thus their influence is considered inadequate and undeserving of children who bore white settler heritage. The Native Administration Act of 1936 shaped the historical development of the current situation in over-representation of the indigenous population, in welfare policy (Tilbury, 2012 p5). This is because it predisposed them to sanctioned cruelty and unnecessary suffering brought by these policies. These policies gave people grounds for enacting out abusive practices on aboriginal people in the name of alleviating them to civilization. Cultural racism overtly influenced the lives of the indigenous Australians thus gave rise to the present situation of over-representation of aboriginal children. Today’s cultural racism in Australia is less overt and blatant, but it is still rampant in institutions where it is manifested through established societal systems of education, justice, economy and healthcare. This brings us to issue of over-representation of the indigenous people in areas such as welfare systems, child protection systems, homelessness, health systems, juvenile and criminal justice systems, among others (Nsw, 2009 p8). Historical practices, events that took place at the time of first contact onwards, have a crucial link to the issues such as over-representation of the indigenous people affecting Indigenous Australians today. The causes of over-representation because of historical development are both far-reaching and specific to the lives of aboriginals, and specific to the child welfare systems. Historical developments caused social-economic impacts that are the causes of over-representation of indigenous people in welfare systems (Combined Voices, 2010 p). Over-representations means that indigenous children are more likely to end up in child protection care systems. This is because state interventions and policies meant to address child welfare rely on child removal than family support. This can be attributed to the effects of cumulative disadvantage of the indigenous people that put constraint to their access of their basic human needs (Queensland Government n.d, 2011 p6). Over-representation of aboriginal children in child welfare systems is due to biases and inconsistencies encouraged and built by society. Institutionalization of cultural racism can be construed to have a contributory role in providing a background upon which these biases can be realized. The discriminatory practice of welfare workers is the cause of over-representation of children, in welfare. Indigenous peoples’ lack of legal representation in placement and removal decisions is also cause of over-representation. This is attributable to the effects of the cumulative generational disadvantage of the indigenous people that constrain their access to things such as health, education; evidently, indigenous people are highly susceptible to imprisonment and homelessness, which reflects generations of disadvantage. Micro level factors that result to further overrepresentation of Aboriginal children in child welfare system are the biases and inconsistencies in decisions made by the reporters-police, nurses or teachers, and those assessing these reports. For instance, differences in child rearing like more laissez-faire supervision may be viewed as deficits and institutional racism and/or system biases such as lack of cross-cultural competence, cultural appropriate service delivery lead to overrepresentation. In addition to that, the discriminatory practice of child welfare workers and the indigenous people’s probable lack of legal representation in removal and placement decisions are also responsible for the souring cases of overrepresentation. Institutionalized racism in Australia today is manifest in the institutions power to develop, sustain, and enforce specific racial views of people through established societal systems of education, economy, justice and health care, among others. These systems in Australia are applied to the disadvantage of the indigenous persons; institutionalized racism results to high rates of socio-economic disparities, high rates of arrests and imprisonment, and low life expectancy, among other gross impacts. Racism is still a crucial reality in Australia today, despite the considerable changes in Australian society-it is invasive, pervasive, and unrelenting; for instance, 30 % of indigenous people in Australia reported having been discriminated on the basis of their race in a 2001 survey. The establishment of the Placement Principle in the 1970s was done in recognition of the devastating effects of removing children from their families and communities. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community initiated this legislation in an attempt to ensure that the rights of children were protected when they were placed in statutory care (Berlyn, Bromfield &Lamont, 2011 p182). The Islander has agitated the adoption of the Placement Principle in other Australian states, which has seen its incorporation into the Child Protection legislation (Snaicc Review, 2011 p4). Departments of Child Safety and Departments of Communities are tasked with implementation of these laws, and ensuring that they continue to be guiding principles in child welfare. However, this does not over-emphasize the need for reunification of children with their families and communities. It stresses the need to advocate the best interests of children by providing them with safe, secure and caring environments that promote growth. This has eventually led to the best interests of a child’s placement criteria overshadowing the importance of cultural diversity and identity. This overemphasizes the well-being of children thus leading to over-representation due to fear of abuse of children (Adams, 2011 p1). Various recommendations have been made towards improving childcare and protection of the indigenous children in Australia. This has been on the backdrop of the fact that more effective and cultural-sensitive responses towards improving the welfare of indigenous children in Australia. There is a need for increased and improved remedial strategies to successfully reduce the number of Aboriginal children entering the child protection system. This can be achieved by combining strategies that are already in place and those that have worked in other regions of the world like the United States (US). Promoting social equity, establishment of agency collaborations, monitoring of racial differences and outcomes, expanding service provision and working with communities are some of the strategies utilized the US. The Child Placement Principle is collective Aboriginal community response to ever-representation in policy. The principle emphasizes the need to incorporate families and communities in decision-making exercises pertaining to child placement in welfare. Australia should invest in community controlled child protection services. Child entry into the child protection system through accessible and culturally appropriate prevention responses for indigenous children and their families should be encouraged. Improvement of familial relationships and functions should be adopted to eradicate over-representation of indigenous children in the child welfare system. The current situation of over-representation of indigenous children in welfare systems and child protection systems has been shaped by Australian history and criminal justice. Interventions to achieve positive results in reducing over-representation of indigenous children in child welfare system should be directed towards involving aboriginals. This should be through collaborative initiatives between child welfare agencies and local communities. Child welfare services should be expanded to include prevention, early interventions for families that are at risk, and a statutory intervention besides enhancement of capacity to protect children. Australia can also reduce entry to the child protection system through accessible and culturally appropriate prevention responses for indigenous children and their families; besides focus on quality service in the childcare system, public policies that privilege child removal to family preservation must also be addressed. Given the direct linkage between high levels of socio-economic disadvantage and allied problems, and the resultant overrepresentation of indigenous children in the child welfare system, focus should shift to improving family functioning and relationships. Macro level factors influencing housing, drug and alcohol abuse, family violence, health, and mental health issues that impede the capacity of indigenous parents to provide care for their children must be dealt with comprehensively before removal. References Adams, E. (2011). Losing Ground: A Report on adherence to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle in Queensland. Retrieved from: http://www.qatsicpp.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Losingground010911.pdf Aihw. (2013). Strategies and practices for promoting the social and emotional wellbeing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Retrieved from: http://www.aihw.gov.au/uploadedFiles/ClosingTheGap/Content/Publications/2013/ctgc-rs19.pdf Berlyn C., Bromfield, L. and Lamont, A. (2011).Child protection and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children. Retrieved from: http://www.pdc.org.au/lac/res/file/child%20protection%20Aboriginal%20and%20Torres%20Strait%20Islander%20Children.pdf CMC. (2004). Protecting children: An inquiry into abuse of children in foster care. Retrieved from: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDwQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cmc.qld.gov.au%2Fresearch-and-publications%2Fpublications%2Flegislatiion-review%2Fprotecting-children-an-inquiry-into-abuse-of-children-in-foster-care&ei=Vba0UaTaLIi0O4_hgaAL&usg=AFQjCNHLB2_y-n8j32pAdsJNTQy0jld9Ag&sig2=aZdSrXZbCRi0Fdtkmt5RFw&bvm=bv.47534661,d.ZWU Combined Voices. (2010). Representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Families in Protection System. Retrieved from: http://www.qatsicpp.com.au/wp-content/uploads/Combined-Voices-Policy-Monograph-Addressing-Over-representation1.pdf Dudgeon P.,et.al. (n.d). The Social, Cultural and Historical Context of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. Retrieved from: http://aboriginal.childhealthresearch.org.au/media/54859/part_1_chapter3.pdf Nsw Department of Community Services. (2009). Working with Aboriginal People and Communities: A Practice Resource. Retrieved from: http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/docswr/_assets/main/documents/working_with_aboriginal.pdf Queensland Government. (n.d). Blueprint for implementation strategy: Reducing the over representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in Queensland's child protection system. Retrieved from: http://www.communities.qld.gov.au/resources/childsafety/child-protection/blueprint-strategy.pdf Snaicc Review (2011), State and territory legislation incorporating the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle. Retrieved from: http://www.snaicc.org.au/_uploads/rsfil/02571.pdf Tilburry, C. (2012). “Intensive family-based support services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and families”. Griffith University. Retrieved from: http://www.snaicc.org.au/_uploads/rsfil/02866.pdf Read More