Family preservation and child protection: The reality of Children's Court decision-making

2000 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 41-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosemary Sheehan
2010 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 11-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Ainsworth ◽  
Patricia Hansen

Child protection legislation in every Australian state and territory prohibits the disclosure of the identity of a person who acts as a mandatory reporter. There is also provision in most child protection legislation that prevents the naming of children and families in protection cases. It is argued that disclosure is not in the interests of the child, the family or the general public. Children's Court proceedings in most states and territories in Australia are closed to the public so that, unlike in most other jurisdictions, interested parties are not able to observe the proceedings. Child protection authorities also have considerable power to collect information about children and families from many sources. This power to obtain information is compounded by legislation which removes confidentiality provisions from professional codes of ethics. Furthermore, the rules of evidence do not ordinarily apply in the Children's Court. This article uses New South Wales as the exemplar state and raises questions about all of these issues.


1997 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 14-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosemary Sheehan

This article discusses the problems which confronted the Family Division of the Children’s Court, Victoria, in the management of cases in which there were mental health issues. Mental health issues were one of the major reasons for protective concerns in one in four cases presented to the Court during this study. They were cases which were often difficult to decide both because magistrates did not have knowledge about mental health problems and because there was a lack of expert information to assist them. Contributions by specialist mental health practitioners to the assessment of child protection applications were negligible and this meant the mental health problems were not identified for the Court. A more cooperative system which allows mental health professionals to work closely with the child protection service would be of greater assistance to the Court.


2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (7) ◽  
pp. 1961-1980 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily Keddell ◽  
Ian Hyslop

Abstract Families are significantly affected by decisions made in the child protection context, yet decision outcomes differ even when cases are similar. Understanding the concepts, practices and processes of differentiation that push some cases over the threshold of key decision points, but not other similar cases, is crucial. Drawing on interviews and focus groups with child protection social workers from three site offices in Aotearoa New Zealand (interviews, n = 26; focus groups, n = 25) and using thematic analysis, this study identified the case, internal organisational, inter-site organisational and external elements that contributed to threshold decisions. Case factors such as children’s age, abuse type and chronicity recorded family history and perceptions of family compliance interacted with internal organisational processes and practices, social negotiations and hierarchical power differences to produce decision outcomes. Inter-site differences in decision thresholds resulted from differences in site managers’ perceptions of acceptable case type, site workloads, resources, size and cultural commitment to family preservation. External demographic inequalities were perceived as causing differing levels of site workload. This ‘networked decision-making’ process is theorised drawing on an extended version of the decision-making ecology (DME), by using qualitative methods to examine interactions between the DME elements and their relationship with risk regimes.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document