Child Protection Within the Organisation of Child Safety Queensland - Essay Example

 Child Protection within the Organisation of Child Safety Queensland Introduction Many contend that more often than not, social workers are troubled by the disparity between the professional standards set for them and the interests of their clients. Similarly, many a time, many social workers find themselves torn between the need to fulfill organisational and professional responsibilities which may seem to be in diametrical opposition. The reality of this fact is magnified when a sensitive field such as child protection and a competitive organisation such as Child Safety Queensland are brought into consideration. Child safety deals with the prevention of child harm and neglect while Child Safety Queensland is an agency which seeks to not only prevent child harm and neglect, but also seeks to address children’s welfare, as is specified within the provisions of the law and societal expectations. 1. Identifying an Organisational Context Where This Field of Practice Occurs Child Safety Queensland draws its mandate from many acts of parliament, some of them being the Child Protection Inquiry 2003, the Legislation Reforms 2004-2006 and Legislative Amendments 2010-2011. Specifically, the Child Protection and Other Acts Amendment Act 2010 had made several amendments to: support the ratification of the Helping Out Families initiative; recognise and acknowledge long-term guardians’ status; better and catalyse court operations; provide for new court orders to assist relevant departments strengthen the safety of children who are at risk. Additionally, the Legislation Reforms 2004-2006 were formed to strengthen: case planning; child death case reviews; Community Visitor Programme; Children Services Tribunal’s jurisdiction; mandatory reporting by nurses; assessment and approval of carers; Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect (SCAN) teams; and information sharing between agencies, departments and non-governmental organisations (Altman, & Hinkson, 2007, 29 and Altman & Hinkson, 2010, 45). It is against the backdrop immediately above that Child Safety Queensland found its lifeline and the strength to operate. Child Safety Queensland also found in the Legislation Reforms 2004-2006, legal specifications on its jurisdictions, modus operandi and mandate. Since the Child Safety Queensland was formed to enhance the welfare of children and deter their neglect and harm, it closely works with the Attorney-General’s Department, and under the aegis of the Department of Human Services. As such, Child Safety Queensland can liaise with law enforcement agencies to follow up with pertinent cases such as child abuse, and may also at times take cases to a court of law (through the National Ethics Office) for arbitration or criminal prosecution (Bowles, Collingridge, Curry & Valentine, 2006, 45). In respect to the above, it is still important to reiterate that the organisational context for Child Safety Queensland is the Australian society, since all matters that take place within the auspices of the society affect the child, while the entire mandate that Child Safety Queensland seeks to discharge take place within the laws of the land. Geographically, Child Safety Queensland’s premises are located in Canberra and its jurisdiction spreads throughout the country, with anyone below 18 serving as its object of attention and benevolence (Burke & Dalrymple, 2009, 88). 2. (Briefly) State the Legal and Practice Guidelines With Regard To This Specific Practice Context First, there is the commencement of potential complaint which may have been received by the Child Safety Queensland, under the aegis of the National Ethics office. Herein, informal and alternative dispute resolution options are explored before the next step is taken. Should Child Safety Queensland not be convinced that child’s interests and safety will not have been taken care of, the matter may be forwarded to the National Ethics Office which may then forward the copy of the complaint to the Panel Chair of National Ethics (Congress, 2010, 55). The National Ethics Panel Chair may then forward its response from the National Ethics Office. The National Ethics Office may then forward the same to the National Ethics Panel. From this point, the National Ethics Office may contact an investigator and arrange for investigations. Should the matter be deemed to contain enough information to proceed to Hearing, the National Ethics Office will fix a date and venue for the same and create a panel. The results of the Hearing or investigations are sent to the National Ethics Office which in turn forwards the same to the National Ethics Panel. National Ethics Panel may also determine if there are applicable penalties which may be imposed (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2007, 1). 3. Evaluating the Issues and Dilemmas Encountered In Maintaining the Best Interests of the Child When Working In This Specific Practice Context There are instances when the best interests of the child may bring about moral or ethical dilemmas when exerting effort toward child safety. Specifically, confidentiality is matter that may bring in this dilemma. Particularly, the AASW Code of Ethics 2010 binds social workers not to disclose client information. In this light and logically, keeping and treating information of the child in question as confidential is a matter that also falls within the parameters of the child’s interests. However, there are instances when a social worker will expose this information to the National Ethics office who may also divulge the same to the National Ethics Panel. The matter may as well be taken to court if it proves to be more serious, and this means that the jury and the entire public may become privy to such sensitive information that is due to the child (Toohey & Toohey, 2008, 33 and Dominelli, 2009, 90). Conversely, there is also an instance where undertakings and judgement in child safety may severe ties between a child and its parent(s). While a child thrives much better under the umbrella, care, guidance and provision of both parents, child safety may have to separate the child from its parent(s), especially when vestiges of child abuse at the hands of the parent(s) have been established. The highest good would have recommended that such parents be counseled or rehabilitated so that they can provide the child with parental love, care and guidance, but this is a matter that exists out of Child Safety Queensland’s mandate. Thus, the child will have to forfeit parental love, care and guidance (Adams, Dominelli, & Payne, 2009, 67). Similarly, it is difficult to balance between a child’s ability to provide his informed consent. This is because, children in child safety cases are always far below the age of consent. This in turn demands that parents make a decision for the child. Therefore, if the parents or guardians of the child are the very culprits who expose the child to harm or neglect, then the issue of informed consent becomes blurred (Farrelly & Lumby, 2009, 90 and Gray & Webb, 2010, 84). How the Best Interests of the Child Can Be Discounted in These Practice Contexts As touching confidentiality, information touching on the victim must be treated as classified, and only to be accessed by relevant agencies and party. Unfortunately, there is nothing that can be done to reduce the number of participants who may access the information. Again, there is no recourse to severing ties between the child and its parents if the parents are the ones that undermine the rights of the child. Child Safety Queensland may be compelled to arrange for an alternative custody for the child. In a closely related wavelength, the decision on the safety of the child will be arrived at through consultative forums with the National Ethics Panel. This is so since the child may not have attained the age of consent. 4. (Two) Evidence-Based Strategies Which Would Be Used As A Response to These Issues As a response to the issues, the investigator whom the National Ethics Office appoints is the one who should produce the information provided and the veracity of the information concerning a child safety case. Secondly, the involvement of other agencies such as the National Ethics Office and the aforementioned panelist ensures the use of a collective approach. This approach increases the autonomy and objectivity of the resolution which will have been arrived at, while also extricating such resolutions of conflicts of interests and subjective feelings (Ife, 2010, 75). 5. Theoretical Frameworks Underpin These Strategies The theoretical approaches that underpin these strategies are collective bargaining and the Erickson model of development. Demonstrate your understanding of how these theoretical frameworks underpin these strategies. Collective bargaining will demand that several parties are involved in the same process. 6. Specific Challenges Faced When Responding To Indigenous Issues When responding to indigenous issues, there is almost always a knack for ignoring cultural values. For instance, there is no way Child Safety Queensland will be able to reconcile the familial values of indigenous people like the Aborigines or the Torres Strait Islanders. Among these communities, a child belongs to the family and Child Safety Queensland’s act of removing the child from a hostile family setting may pit Child Safety Queensland against local communities (Banks & Gallagher, 2009, 90 and Bin-Sallik, 2003, 56). 7. Understanding of how these theoretical frameworks underpin these strategies The involvement of Child Safety Queensland, the National Ethics Office and the National Ethics Panel shows the use of this collective approach. Erickson model of development outlines the different stages of an individual’s development. At this stage, an individual cannot make independent decisions and hence, the need for other parties to get involved becomes paramount. In this case, Child Safety Queensland and the National Ethics Office will act in the best interests of the child. References Adams, R, Dominelli, L & Payne, M (eds) 2009, Social work: themes, issues and critical debates, 3rd edn, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke (UK). Altman, C. J. & Hinkson, M. 2007, Coercive Reconciliation: Stabilise, Normalise, Exit Aboriginal Australia, Arena Publications Association, Canberra. Altman, J. & Hinkson, M., 2010, Culture Crisis: Anthropology and Politics in Aboriginal Australia, New South Wales Press Ltd, Sydney. Australian Human Rights Commission n.d., 2007, Social Justice Report 2007-Chapter 3: The Northern Territory ‘Emergency Response’ intervention, https://www.humanrights.gov.au/publications/social-justice-report-2007-chapter-3-northern-territory-emergency-response-intervention Banks, S & Gallagher, A 2009, Ethics in professional life: virtues for health and social care, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke (UK). Bin-Sallik, M 2003, ‘Cultural safety: let’s name it!’ The Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, vol. 32, pp. 21–28. Bowles, W, Collingridge, M, Curry, S & Valentine, B 2006, Ethical practice in social work: an applied approach, Allen & Unwin, Crows Nest (NSW). Burke, B & Dalrymple, J 2009, ‘Critical intervention and empowerment’, in R Adams, L Dominelli & M Payne (eds), Social work: themes, issues and critical debates, 3rd edn, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke (UK), pp. 261–270. Congress, E 2010, ‘Code of ethics’, in M Gray & S Webb (eds), Ethics and value perspectives in social work, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke (UK), pp. 19–30. Dominelli, L 2009, ‘Anti-oppressive practice: the challenges of the twenty-first century’, in R Adams, L Dominelli & M Payne (eds) Social work: themes, issues and critical debates, 3rd edn, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke (UK). Gray, M & Webb, S 2010, ‘Introduction: ethics and value perspectives in social work’, in M Gray & S Webb (eds), Ethics and value perspectives in social work, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke (UK), pp. 1–16. Farrelly, T & Lumby, B 2009, ‘A best practice approach to cultural competence training’, Aboriginal & Islander Health Worker Journal, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 14–22. Ife, J 2010, ‘Human rights and social justice’, in M Gray & S Webb (eds), Ethics and value perspectives in social work, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke (UK), pp. 148–159 Toohey, P. & Toohey, P., 2008, Last Drinks: The Impact of the Northern Territory Intervention, PTY Ltd, Sydney. Read More