Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in child protection: A sample from the Victorian Children’s Court

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lillian De Bortoli ◽  
Jan Coles ◽  
Mairead Dolan
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.


1999 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 4-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Margaret Ah Kee ◽  
Clare Tilbury

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle has been the policy guiding the placement of indigenous children in most Australian child protection jurisdictions for around fifteen years. The Principle requires the involvement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community representatives in decision making concerning indigenous children, and ensuring that alternative care placements of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander careproviders.Most Jurisdictions still have a significant number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children placed with non-indigenous careproviders, and community based Aboriginal and Islander child care agencies continue to express dissatisfaction about the nature and level of consultation which occurs when welfare departments are taking action to protect indigenous children.This paper, which was presented at the IFCO conference in Melbourne in July 1999, examines why there has been such limited improvement in Child Placement Principle outcomes. Work undertaken in Queensland to address the over representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in the child protection system will be outlined from both a departmental and community perspective. The paper argues that if strategies for addressing these issues are not located within a framework of self determination for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, then they will not work.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document