“The Victorian Government is considering a plan to quarantine welfare payments to at risk families, as part of plans to improve the handling of child protection cases.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/27/2755225.htm

Not mentioned in the report is the obvious point that the Macklin trials apply to all welfare recipients in the area deemed disadvantaged by the minister. So the tool would be in no way useful as a way of discouraging child abuse amongst the minority of welfare recipients who engage in it.

Current reported rates of child abuse and neglect very probably are no greater now than in previous periods. Australian institutional history certainly seems to suggest that. The rates may even be less. It appears clear that increased reportage flowed from the rise of second wave feminism and the incorporation of the ‘private sphere’ under the rule of law in the interests of protecting women and children. The extension of the rule of law to protect women and children is a key modernising moment because agential citizenship is beyond the reach of anyone driven to madness, personality disorderor (but usually and) drug and alcohol use by systematic abuse.

Terrible failures do occur. It often comes down to the capacity of staff to stand their ground and argue a child’s interest in the face bureaucratic inertia or imperious magistracy. The work is gendered and employment in the field is heavily imbalanced towards young female graduates who are relatively life inexperienced. More men are needed to do this work.

You also touch on a sad underpinning truth that makes this area so very, very hard:
“the question shouldn’t necessarily be around why the Child Protection system is failing, but how does it function at all”

Indeed. Sadly, underpinning it all, is that when a kid who finds themselves in a family situation where they are abused, or a parent is so incapable due to drugs or similar, and significant intervention is necessary, there is no winning solution. Some out of home placements work but many stuff up down the track. Some support services work, many don’t (it would still be worth a significant hike in the funding to that end though). It’s so often an exercise in finding the least-crap outcome, rather than the glowing decent childhood a kid deserves. This despondent hopelessness fcuks with everyone who touches it.

I have to reiterate: If the really violent types were either given lengthy prison sentences or psychiatric treatment when they came before the ‘other’ magistrate’s courts, child protection’s workload would decrease by about 1/3…

The relationship with the courts is not all one sided contempt, there are reasons for the lack of trust by the courts in the judgement of the protective workers.

If DHS only ran cases that had a reasonably sound legal basis they would save hundreds of hours in court each year- AND get far greater trust from that court.

Why are DHS running cases that don’t have a reasonably sound legal basis? Lack of understanding of the law? A view that the law is an ass and doesn’t take case workers gut feelings into enough account? Arse-covering, in that in marginal cases they’ll run it by the courts and if things go wrong it’s the court that gets the blame?

I agree that there are two sides. The Department very often runs shambolic legal arguments that are hastily put together by inexperienced, unsupported and overworked people. This doesn’t mean that the court doesn’t make matters infinitely worse. Far from providing checks and balances, it ends up creating idiotic compromise positions (like removing a child from parents, but ordering that some magical team of non-existent workers facilitates daily access with said parents).

The herald sun, kneejerk factor takes a lot of resources up with heavy handed responses too.

I agree that the Hun reports badly on these things. The ultimate blame, hwoever, must surely lie with the senior managers who divert significant resources to butt-covering tasks.

Ultimately calling people scabs is not fair- it isn’t a question of a grand strike holding out for more money.

I don’t blame the overseas workers. Some of them can’t get jobs in their own countries due to the GFC. The way that these overseas people are used, however, is effectively the same as scab labour. I think everybody agrees that the conditions are shithouse, but I’m not sure what makes you think that the pay is ‘okay’. Last I checked, the entry level wages were on a par with stacking shelves at the supermarket, and wages for senior workers were below the national average.

If DHS only ran cases that had a reasonably sound legal basis they would save hundreds of hours in court each year- AND get far greater trust from that court.

The herald sun, kneejerk factor takes a lot of resources up with heavy handed responses too. If a DHS worker finds that a 15 year old girl is having a s3xual relationship with her 18 year old boyfriend, they are obliged to treat it as a formal protective matter because they can’t be seen as ‘endorsing’ the scenario. But trying to restore the morality of a s3xually active 15 year old by sticking them in secure welfare for a fortnight is like trying to solve rising sea levels with a collander.

Ultimately calling people scabs is not fair- it isn’t a question of a grand strike holding out for more money. And many, MANY Australian social workers go on working trips overseas and enjoy the perks there. The pay is ok but the problem isn’t money. It’s dealing with some of the nastiest and/or most screwed up people on earth, with no form of personal protection, day in and day out. You really think the police turn up every time a social worker has to go visit an ice addict and talk about taking their kids off them?

If the really violent types were either given lengthy prison sentences or psychiatric treatment when they came before the ‘other’ magistrate’s courts, child protection’s workload would decrease by about 1/3…