Report of The Special Commission of Inquiry Into Child Protection Services in NSW, Wood Report V II

Report of the
Special Commission of Inquiry into

Child Protection Services in NSW
Volume 2
The Hon James Wood AO QC
November 2008
© State of NSW through the Special Commission of Inquiry into Child
Protection Services in NSW, 2008
ISBN 978-1-921301-86-5
Published November 2008
Special Commission of Inquiry into Child Protection Services in New South Wales
Table of contents
Volume 1
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................i
Recommendations .......................................................................................................xi
Acronyms ................................................................................................................xxxix
Part 1 DoCS structure and workforce .........................................................................1
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................3
2 DoCS structure and reform...............................................................................7

Introduction .....................................................................................................................8
Pre 2002............................................................................................................................8
2002 Reform Package .....................................................................................................9
Child Protection Major Project.....................................................................................13
DoCS organisational structure and budget................................................................14
Information systems .....................................................................................................18
Research function .........................................................................................................23
Complaints system .......................................................................................................25
Issues arising ................................................................................................................28
Recommendations ........................................................................................................40
3 DoCS workforce capacity................................................................................43

DoCS workforce ............................................................................................................44
Professional standards.................................................................................................57
Issues arising ................................................................................................................66
Recommendations ........................................................................................................79
Part 2 Early intervention and child protection .........................................................81
4 Key child protection research ........................................................................83

Introduction ...................................................................................................................84
Risk, protection and resilience in children and families...........................................86
Parenting capacity ........................................................................................................90
Domestic violence.........................................................................................................91
Neglect ...........................................................................................................................92
Physical abuse ..............................................................................................................95
Carer drug and alcohol misuse ...................................................................................98
Table of Contents
Psychological abuse .................................................................................................. 104

Carer mental health .................................................................................................... 105
Sexual abuse ............................................................................................................... 107
Child/young person risk taking behaviour............................................................... 112
Summary...................................................................................................................... 115
5 Key child protection data ............................................................................. 117

NSW demographic data ............................................................................................. 118
Reporting trends since 2001/02................................................................................. 119
Outcome of assessment at the Helpline .................................................................. 137
Reports referred to a CSC/JIRT for further assessment ........................................ 137
Assessment path ........................................................................................................ 149
Outcome of assessment of all child protection reports ......................................... 156
Care proceedings........................................................................................................ 164
Future Demand............................................................................................................ 166
6 Risk of harm reports to DoCS ...................................................................... 169

Reporting trends ......................................................................................................... 170
Substantiations ........................................................................................................... 174
Reports which receive no further assessment........................................................ 174
Mandatory reporting................................................................................................... 176
Recommendations...................................................................................................... 197
7 Early intervention .......................................................................................... 199

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 201
Types of early intervention services......................................................................... 207
Inter-jurisdictional models......................................................................................... 213
NSW Framework ......................................................................................................... 215
Universal service system........................................................................................... 219
Targeted service system............................................................................................ 223
DoCS Brighter Futures early intervention program ................................................ 231
Issues arising .............................................................................................................. 238
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 259
8 Assessment and response........................................................................... 261

NSW Assessment Framework ................................................................................... 263
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 263
Assessment by the Helpline ...................................................................................... 268
Case allocation............................................................................................................ 272
Case closure................................................................................................................ 277
NSW casework practice ............................................................................................. 279
Interagency work.........................................................................................................299
Recommendations ......................................................................................................321
9 Assessment and response: issues arising .................................................323

Assessment tools........................................................................................................324
Work at the Helpline....................................................................................................334
Work at the CSC ..........................................................................................................337
Supervision and professional development ............................................................360
Inquiry’s review of four CSCs ....................................................................................361
Involving other agencies in assessment and response..........................................365
Different pathways ......................................................................................................369
Conclusion...................................................................................................................376
10 Directions for the way forward .....................................................................379

Principles .....................................................................................................................380
Goals.............................................................................................................................381
What needs to be done ...............................................................................................382
Volume 2
Acronyms ........................................................................................................................i
Part 3 Legal basis of child protection .....................................................................391
11 Statutory basis of child protection...............................................................393

Introduction .................................................................................................................395
Principles .....................................................................................................................395
Aboriginal child placement principles ......................................................................397
Requests for services from other agencies .............................................................399
Requests for assistance from DoCS .........................................................................399
Parent responsibility contracts and s.38 care plans ...............................................400
Emergency care and protection and assumption of care.......................................400
Care applications ........................................................................................................402
Examination and assessment orders........................................................................403
Other expert evidence.................................................................................................406
Care plans and permanency planning ......................................................................406
Care orders ..................................................................................................................407
Contact .........................................................................................................................407
Monitoring....................................................................................................................408
Other orders.................................................................................................................408
Rescission and variation of care orders...................................................................409
Table of Contents
Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court............................................................................ 409

Issues arising .............................................................................................................. 411
12 Other models of decision making................................................................ 465

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 466
Alternative Dispute Resolution ................................................................................. 467
Preliminary Conferences ........................................................................................... 469
Other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms .................................................. 471
Family Court Processes............................................................................................. 472
Alternative dispute resolution in the Family Court ................................................. 478
Care Circles ................................................................................................................. 478
Family Group Conferencing ...................................................................................... 481
Other Conferencing Models....................................................................................... 487
Children’s Hearings (Scottish tribunal model) ........................................................ 487
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 489
13 Court processes in statutory child protection ........................................... 493

Court processes.......................................................................................................... 494
Issues arising .............................................................................................................. 504
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 541
14 Interface with family law ............................................................................... 545

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 546
Intervening in family court proceedings .................................................................. 546
Enforcement of certain Children’s Court orders in the family law courts ............ 551
15 Child protection and the criminal justice system ...................................... 555

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 556
Juvenile Justice .......................................................................................................... 558
Adult justice system and child protection ............................................................... 575
Department of Corrective Services........................................................................... 581
Part 4 Out-of-home care .......................................................................................... 585
16 Out-of-home care .......................................................................................... 587

Overview ...................................................................................................................... 589
Data relating to OOHC................................................................................................ 597
Research...................................................................................................................... 613
Accreditation and monitoring of the OOHC service system ..................................633

OOHC casework by DoCS ..........................................................................................636
Types of placement and support options for children and young persons in
OOHC............................................................................................................................639
Recruitment, training, support and retention of carers ..........................................645
Case Management.......................................................................................................650
Who should be responsible for children in OOHC? ................................................653
Health screening and assessment ............................................................................660
Education .....................................................................................................................670
Unproclaimed provisions in the Care Act.................................................................672
Adoption.......................................................................................................................681
Conclusion...................................................................................................................684
Part 5 Specific issues ...............................................................................................693
17 Domestic and family violence and child protection ...................................695

Introduction .................................................................................................................696
Statistics ......................................................................................................................698
Research ......................................................................................................................699
The need for an integrated response ........................................................................708
NSW response .............................................................................................................712
Department of Community Services .........................................................................723
Other key agencies .....................................................................................................727
NSW Police and domestic violence risk of harm reports .......................................728
Conclusion...................................................................................................................732
18 Aboriginal over representation in child protection ....................................735

Introduction .................................................................................................................736
The history of removal of Aboriginal children from their families in Australia ....736
Legislative provisions.................................................................................................738
Data...............................................................................................................................740
Previous reports and their recommendations .........................................................744
Bringing them home ...................................................................................................744
Ampe Akelyernemane Meke Mekarle “Little Children Are Sacred” the
Northern Territory inquiry ..........................................................................................748
The Inquiry’s experience ............................................................................................756
Work being done by the Commonwealth..................................................................757
Work being done in NSW............................................................................................761
Lessons from the literature........................................................................................776
Promising practices ....................................................................................................783
Table of Contents
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 789

19 A case study: the communities of Toomelah and Boggabilla .................. 793

The communities ........................................................................................................ 794
1988 HREOC report .................................................................................................... 795
Child protection project ............................................................................................. 797
Progress ...................................................................................................................... 798
Data .............................................................................................................................. 802
The Inquiry’s visits ..................................................................................................... 805
Responses of other government agencies .............................................................. 810
Identifying gaps .......................................................................................................... 816
Is the project working? .............................................................................................. 817
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 823
Volume 3
Acronyms ....................................................................................................................... i
20 Young people, leaving care and homelessness......................................... 825

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 826
What the data tell us about young people ............................................................... 827
Funding for youth projects ........................................................................................ 830
Casework practice with young people in statutory care ........................................ 831
Leaving statutory OOHC ............................................................................................ 835
Issues arising for those leaving care ....................................................................... 842
Homelessness of young people................................................................................ 849
Issues arising .............................................................................................................. 849
21 Children and young persons and parents with disabilities....................... 855

Children and young persons with disabilities ......................................................... 856
Parents with disabilities............................................................................................. 858
Issues arising .............................................................................................................. 859
Inquiry’s view .............................................................................................................. 874
22 Disaster recovery .......................................................................................... 879

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 880
DoCS responsibilities under the Displan ................................................................. 881
Delivery of services and funding .............................................................................. 886
Should DoCS continue to be responsible for disaster recovery?......................... 888
Drought relief...............................................................................................................893
Part 6 Oversight and interagency cooperation ......................................................897
23 Oversight ........................................................................................................899
Introduction .................................................................................................................900
NSW Ombudsman .......................................................................................................901
Reviewing child deaths...............................................................................................902
Coroner ........................................................................................................................911
Child Death Review Team ..........................................................................................913
Child Deaths and Critical Reports Unit, DoCS .........................................................914
Other jurisdictions ......................................................................................................914
Issues arising ..............................................................................................................916
Reviews of children in care........................................................................................927
Complaints...................................................................................................................927
Official Community Visitors .......................................................................................929
Reportable allegations................................................................................................930
Commission for Children and Young People...........................................................938
Issues arising ..............................................................................................................942
24 Interagency cooperation ...............................................................................957

Introduction .................................................................................................................958
Interagency Guidelines...............................................................................................963
Memoranda of Understanding ...................................................................................966
Acceptance of the need for a cross government response....................................970
Models for Interagency cooperation in NSW ...........................................................973
The discordant boundaries of the human services and justice agencies ............975
Cross border arrangements.......................................................................................977
Privacy and exchange of information .......................................................................979
Other barriers ..............................................................................................................986
Models of interagency collaboration from other jurisdictions ...............................990
The way ahead.............................................................................................................992
25 DoCS funded non-government services ...................................................1003

Introduction ...............................................................................................................1004
The system.................................................................................................................1004
Recommendations ....................................................................................................1022
26 Performance measurements.......................................................................1023
Table of Contents
NSW State Plan ......................................................................................................... 1024

DoCS Corporate Plan and Results and Services Plan.......................................... 1025
Issues arising ............................................................................................................ 1027
Part 7 Implementation............................................................................................ 1031
27 Implementation............................................................................................ 1033
Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1034
Implementation ......................................................................................................... 1035
Annexure A.............................................................................................................. 1039
Appendices.............................................................................................................. 1061
Special Commission of Inquiry into Child Protection Services in New South Wales i
Acronyms
Acronyms Phrase/meaning
1987 Act Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987
AAE Allegations Against Employees
AAS Area Assistance Scheme
Aboriginal Affairs Department of Aboriginal Affairs
Aboriginal Placement Aboriginal Child Placement Principles
Principles
ABS Australian Bureau of Statistics
AbSec Aboriginal Child, Family and Community Care State Secretariat
ACSAT Aboriginal Child Sexual Assault Taskforce
ACWA Association of Children’s Welfare Agencies
ACYFS Aboriginal, Child, Youth and Family Strategy
ADR alternative dispute resolution
ADT Administrative Decisions Tribunal
AHS Area Health Service
AIFS Australian Institute of Family Studies
AIHW Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
AMIHS Aboriginal Maternal and Infant Health Strategy
AODP Alcohol and Other Drugs Program
Attorney General’s Attorney General’s Department
AVO Apprehended Violence Order
BOCSAR Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research
CALD culturally and linguistically diverse
Care Act Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998
CCYP Commission for Children and Young People
CCYP Act Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998
CCYP Act Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998
CDC Caseworker Development Course
CDCRU Child Deaths and Critical Reports Unit (DoCS)
CDRT Child Death Review Team
CEC Chief Executives Committee
CEO Chief Executive Officer
CIW Corporate Information Warehouse
Clinic Children’s Court Clinic
COAG Council of Australian Governments
Community Welfare Act Community Welfare Act 1987
Corrective Services Department of Corrective Services
CRC Children’s Research Center
CS CRAMA Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993
CSC Community Services Centre
CSGP Community Services Grants Program
CYP Children and young persons
DADHC Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care
Discussion Paper DoCS Discussion Paper, Statutory child protection in NSW: issues
and options for reform, October 2006
Displan NSW State Disaster Plan
ii Acronyms
District Court District Court of NSW
DoCS Department of Community Services
DPP Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions
Education Department of Education and Training
EOI expression of interest
ESD Enhanced Service Delivery
FaHCSIA Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and
Indigenous Affairs
Family Court Family Court of Australia
Family Law Act Family Law Act 1975
FGC family group conferencing
FTE full time equivalent
Health NSW Health
HNEAHS Hunter New England Area Health Service
Housing Housing NSW
HREOC Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
HRIP Act Health Records and Information Privacy Act 2002
IFBS Intensive Family Based Services
Interagency Guidelines Interagency Guidelines for Child Protection Intervention 2006
Interagency Plan Interagency Plan to Tackle Child Sexual Assault in Aboriginal
Communities 2006-2011
JIRT Joint Investigation Response Team
JRU JIRT Referral Unit
Juvenile Justice Department of Juvenile Justice
KiDS Key Information and Directory System
LAC Legal Aid Commission NSW
LAC proposal Draft Proposal for a Care and Protection Mediation Pilot (Legal Aid
NSW)
LAT Less Adversarial Trial
Law Society Law Society of NSW
Magellan Magellan Case Management Model
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NCOSS Council of Social Services of NSW
New Street New Street Adolescent Service
NGO non-government organisation
NTER Northern Territory Emergency Response
OHS Occupational Health and Safety
Ombudsman NSW Ombudsman
Ombudsman Act Ombudsman Act 1974
OOHC out-of-home care
PANOC Physical Abuse and Neglect of Children
Police NSW Police Force
PPIP Act Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998
PPR Personal Planning and Review
Premier and Cabinet Department of Premier and Cabinet
PSA Public Service Association
RACP Royal Australian College of Physicans
RANZCP Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists
RCMG Regional Coordination Management Group
Special Commission of Inquiry into Child Protection Services in New South Wales iii
Regulations Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Regulation 2000
Rules Children’s Court Rule 2000
SAAP Supported Accommodation Assistance Program
SACS Award Social and Community Services Award
SAS1 Secondary Assessment Stage 1
SAS2 Secondary Assessment State 2
SCAN Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect
SCI Special Commission of Inquiry
SDM Structured Decision Making
SDRC State Disaster Recovery Centre
SERM Act State Emergency and Rescue Management Act 1989
SNAICC Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care
Treasury NSW Treasury
Triple P Positive Parenting Program
Usher Review Review of Substitute Care Services in NSW 1992
Young Offenders Act Young Offenders Act 1997
iv Acronyms
Special Commission of Inquiry into Child Protection Services in New South Wales 391
Part 3 Legal basis of child protection

392
11 Statutory basis of child protection

Introduction .................................................................................................................395
Principles .....................................................................................................................395
Aboriginal child placement principles ......................................................................397
History....................................................................................................................397
Section 13..............................................................................................................399
Requests for services from other agencies .............................................................399
Requests for assistance from DoCS .........................................................................399
Parent responsibility contracts and s.38 care plans ...............................................400
Emergency care and protection and assumption of care.......................................400
Care applications ........................................................................................................402
Examination and assessment orders........................................................................403
Other expert evidence.................................................................................................406
Care plans and permanency planning ......................................................................406
Care orders ..................................................................................................................407
Contact .........................................................................................................................407
Monitoring....................................................................................................................408
Other orders.................................................................................................................408
Rescission and variation of care orders...................................................................409
Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court ............................................................................409
Issues arising ..............................................................................................................411
Participation in Children’s Court proceedings .......................................................412
Principles to be applied in care proceedings.........................................................417
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander principles.....................................................423
Self-determination......................................................................................... 423
Aboriginal child placement principles............................................................ 425
DoCS’ requests for services from other agencies .................................................429
Requests for assistance ........................................................................................429
Reports to DoCS ...................................................................................................430
Grounds for the making of a care order ................................................................430
Allocating parental responsibility ...........................................................................432
Permanency planning and care plans ...................................................................434
Contact orders .......................................................................................................437
DoCS’ position .............................................................................................. 438
The Children’s Court’s position..................................................................... 439
The Children’s Guardian’s position............................................................... 440
Legal agency positions ................................................................................. 440
NGOs and peak bodies’ positions ................................................................ 441
Inquiry’s view ................................................................................................ 442
Rescission and variation of care orders ................................................................443
Compulsory Assistance .........................................................................................443
Extended role of the Court.....................................................................................444
Section 82 monitoring of orders concerning parental responsibility ............. 445
Own motion powers.......................................................................................448

Restoration ....................................................................................................450
Supervision orders.........................................................................................451
Section 74: order for provision of support services .......................................452
Apprehended violence orders .......................................................................453
Order to attend therapeutic or treatment program ................................................ 454
Children’s Court Clinic........................................................................................... 454
Expanding the role.........................................................................................454
Completeness of material forwarded to the clinic .........................................456
Timeframes....................................................................................................456
Communication..............................................................................................456
Quality of reports ...........................................................................................458
Payments.......................................................................................................459
The data challenge in the care jurisdiction.............................................................. 459
Introduction
11.1 Much of the power of DoCS to intervene in the lives of children and young
persons derives from legislation, primarily the Children and Young Persons
(Care and Protection) Act 1998 (the Care Act) and the Children and Young
Persons (Care and Protection) Regulation 2000 (the Regulations).
11.2 The Care Act establishes a regime under which the ultimate decision making
about the removal of children from their families without their consent, and the
consequent allocation of parental responsibility, rests with the courts. The
Children’s Court is the court with primary responsibility for making these
decisions. The composition of the Children’s Court will be dealt with in the next
chapter.
11.3 The Care Act vests responsibility for decisions about the exercise of parental
responsibility and the day to day care of the child or young person in the person
who (for the time being) holds office as either the Director-General of DoCS (the
Director-General) or the Minister for Community Services (the Minister). Each
has delegated much of the relevant powers to the holders of specified positions
within DoCS.1 For reasons of simplicity, the term ‘DoCS’ is used in this chapter
when dealing with the power of the Director-General, the Minister, and their
delegates (as well as being used to refer to the Department in a more general
sense).
Principles
11.4 In exercising any of the powers under the Care Act, DoCS (and others) must
adhere to the principles set out in s.9 and s.10. In summary, they require that:
a. The safety, welfare and well-being of the child or young person is to be the
paramount consideration.
b. The safety, welfare and well-being of a child or young person who has been
removed from his or her parents is to be paramount over the rights of the
parents.
c. An opportunity is to be provided for the child or young person to express his
or her views freely and those views are to be given due weight in
accordance with the developmental capacity of the child or young person
and the circumstances.
d. Account is to be taken of the culture, disability, language, religion and
sexuality of the child or young person and, if relevant, of those with parental
responsibility for the child or young person.
1
The Minister and the Director-General have also delegated to others apart from DoCS, for example, the
Minister has delegated parental responsibility for some children to Barnardos and the Director-General has
delegated powers as to child employment to the Children’s Guardian.
e. In deciding what action it is necessary to take (whether by legal or

administrative process) in order to protect a child or young person from
harm, the course to be followed must be the least intrusive intervention in
the life of the child or young person and his or her family that is consistent
with the paramount concern to protect the child or young person from harm
and promote the child's or young person's development.
f. A child or young person in OOHC is entitled to:
i. special protection and assistance from the State, and the preservation
so far as possible of his or her name, identity, language, and cultural
and religious ties
ii. the provision in a timely manner of a safe, nurturing, stable and secure
environment, recognising the child’s or young person's circumstances
and also recognising that, the younger the age of the child, the greater
the need for early decisions to be made in relation to a permanent
placement
iii. the retention by the child or young person of relationships with people
significant to the child or young person, including birth or adoptive
parents, siblings, extended family, peers, family friends and community
iv. the provision of information and the opportunity for the child or young
person to express his or her views, to enable participation in decisions
that have a significant impact on his or her life.
11.5 A person who suspects that a child or young person is at risk of harm (that is, a
person who has current concerns for the safety, welfare and well-being of the
child or young person) can (or in some cases, must) make a report to DoCS.
Upon receipt of such a report, DoCS must make such investigations and
assessment as it considers necessary to determine whether in fact a risk of
harm exists. In the case of a young person, DoCS is to take into account any
known wishes of that young person.2
11.6 The definition of risk of harm and a consideration of the adequacy of that
concept, and of the circumstances in which persons must or may report their
concerns to DoCS, are dealt with in Chapter 6 of this report.
11.7 A suspicion of risk of harm is sufficient to enliven the power of DoCS to

investigate and assess a case after receiving a report. If it forms the opinion on
reasonable grounds that the child or young person is in need of care and
protection then it must take whatever action is necessary to safeguard or
promote the safety, welfare and well-being of the child or young person.3 By
virtue of s.39, it can at any time during or after the investigation and assessment
of a report (or of a request for assistance) exercise any function conferred or
imposed on the Director-General if in its opinion it is necessary or desirable to
do so having regard to the safety, welfare and well-being of the child or young
2
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 ss.30 and 31.
3
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 s.34.
person. Section 41 provides additionally that temporary care arrangements

under s.151 can be made if DoCS forms the opinion that the child or young
person is in need of care and protection.
11.8 A child or young person is in need of care and protection if the Court is satisfied
as to one of a number of matters set out later in this chapter.
11.9 The action DoCS can take if it forms the view that a child or young person is in
need of care and protection includes providing support services, developing a
care plan or parent responsibility contract or exercising its emergency protection
powers. DoCS can choose to do nothing if satisfied that proper arrangements
exist for the care and protection of the child or young person and the
circumstances that led to the report have been or are being dealt with
adequately.4
11.10 In deciding the appropriate response to a report, DoCS must have regard to the
principles that the immediate safety, welfare and well-being of the child or
young person and of other children or young persons in the usual residential
setting of the child or young person is the paramount consideration. Further,
the action taken must be appropriate to the age of the child or young person,
any disability that he or she or his or her family members have, and the
circumstances, language, religion and cultural background of the family.
Finally, removal of the child or young person may only occur where it is
necessary to protect the child or young person from the risk of serious harm.
These principles are to be applied in priority to the principles in s.9 set out in
paragraph 11.4(a) to (f) above in deciding the appropriate response to a report
concerning a child or young person.5
11.11 In addition to the principles set out above, specific principles apply to Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander children and young persons. Sections 11 and 12 of
the Care Act reflect the principle that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people are to participate in decision making with as much self-determination as
possible, and s.13 deals with the placement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children who are removed from their parents.
Aboriginal child placement principles

History
11.12 The Aboriginal Child Placement Principles (the Aboriginal Placement Principles)
were first proposed in 1979, by the Commonwealth Department of Aboriginal
Affairs.6 In 1986, Ministers of state and territory social welfare agencies agreed
4
5
6
NSW Law Reform Commission, Research Report 7, The Aboriginal Child Placement Principle, 1997,
Chapter 3, www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au.
to implement the Aboriginal Placement Principles as policy, but not necessarily

as legislation. In 1989, the need for the Aboriginal Placement Principles to be
contained in legislation was among the recommendations of the Royal
Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody and the Human Rights and
Equal Opportunity Commission report into homeless youth.7
11.13 The Aboriginal Placement Principles first appeared in s.87 of the Children (Care
and Protection) Act 1987 (the 1987 Act). The review of the 1987 Act
recommended that:
The Aboriginal Child Placement Principle should apply to all

non-voluntary placements of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children. There should be an exception for emergency
placements made to protect a child or young person from the
serious risk of immediate harm, and other placements required
for less than two weeks. The Act should require that where an
Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child or young person has
been removed on an emergency basis, as soon as practicable
after the child or young person’s safety has been ensured,
consultation should take place with the relevant Aboriginal or
Torres Strait Islander community in accordance with
recommendation 6.5.8
11.14 Recommendation 6.5 was that the Care Act should require Aboriginal
participation in placement and other significant decisions made under the Care
Act concerning the care and protection of an Aboriginal child or young person.9
Discussion of the recommendation noted that under the 1987 Act, consultation
occurred in limited circumstances where the placement of an Aboriginal child
outside the Aboriginal community was being considered.
11.15 However, the review said that:
A requirement for participation in decision making was identified

as a key way of ensuring that intervention in Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander families and communities was culturally
appropriate and more likely to be effective in protecting children
and young people.
Many people argued that consultation with the Aboriginal family

and community must happen early on in the process so that all
those connected with the child or young person can be
identified and intervention is appropriate for the particular child
or young person and family.10
7
ibid., Chapter 3, paras. 3.4 and p.35.
8
DoCS, Review of the Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987, Recommendations for Law Reform,
December 1997, p.130.
9
ibid., p.128.
10
ibid., p.129.
11.16 The review suggested that the Care Act could require that participation involve
an accredited Aboriginal organisation, a recognised Aboriginal person with
expertise in child protection, a person nominated by the Aboriginal community
to which either or both parents belonged, and/or an Aboriginal person or
organisation nominated by the family.11
11.17 The final wording of s.13 of the Care Act reflects the recommendations made.
Section 13
11.18 Section 13 outlines a preference for the placement of Aboriginal children and
young persons with Aboriginal people when they are placed outside their
families. The general order of preference for placement is that an Aboriginal
child or young person be placed with a member of his or her extended family or
kinship group, or if this is not practicable, a member of the Aboriginal
community to which he or she belongs, or if this is not practicable, a member of
another Aboriginal family residing in the vicinity in which the child or young
person normally lives, or if this is not practicable, a suitable person approved by
the Director-General after consultation with the child’s or young person’s
Aboriginal family or kinship group and an appropriate Aboriginal organisation.
Requests for services from other agencies

11.19 Under ss.17 and 18, DoCS can request a government department or agency, or
a non-government agency in receipt of government funding to provide services
to the child or young person or his or her family. When DoCS makes such a
request, the government department or agency must use its best endeavours to
comply.
Requests for assistance from DoCS

11.20 Under ss.20 and 21 of the Care Act, a child or young person or his or her parent
may seek assistance from DoCS. The matters on which the child or young
person can seek assistance are not limited by the Care Act, although a parent
can do so in order to obtain services that will enable the child or young person
to remain in, or return to the care of, his or her family.
11.21 A parent, child or young person, or any other person, may ask DoCS for
assistance if there is a serious or persistent conflict between the parents and
the child or young person, or if the parents are unable to provide adequate
supervision for the child or young person, and this conflict or lack of supervision
jeopardises the safety, welfare or well-being of the child or young person. On
receiving such a request for assistance, DoCS may provide or arrange for the
11
ibid.
provision of such advice or assistance as is necessary to help resolve the

conflict or to ensure the child or young person is adequately supervised, or to
enable access to appropriate services.12
11.22 If the differences between the child or young person and the parent are such
that it is no longer possible for the child or young person to continue living with
his or her parents, the child, young person or parents may request DoCS to
attempt to resolve the differences. On receiving such a request, DoCS must
seek to resolve the differences by any form of dispute resolution appropriate
before making any application to the Children’s Court. If DoCS is a party to
proceedings in the Court in relation to persistent conflict, then it must formulate
an alternative parenting plan in seeking to resolve the conflict. DoCS may apply
to the Children’s Court for an order approving an alternative parenting plan.13
Parent responsibility contracts and s.38 care

plans
11.23 DoCS can develop a parent responsibility contract that is aimed at improving
the parenting skills of the primary care-givers and encouraging them to accept
greater responsibility for the child or young person.14 The contract can deal with
attendance for treatment of the primary care-giver or testing for alcohol, drug or
other substance abuse, counselling and participation in courses such as
behavioural and financial management. The contract cannot exceed six months
and must be registered with the Children’s Court.
11.24 The breach of a parent responsibility contract gives rise to a rebuttable

presumption that the child or young person is in need of care and protection.15
11.25 DoCS can also develop a care plan by agreement which may be registered with
the Children’s Court; if it allocates parental responsibility or aspects of it to a
person other than the parents of the child or young person then an order from
the Children’s Court is needed for the care plan to take effect.16
Emergency care and protection and

assumption of care
11.26 DoCS (and Police) may remove a child or young person from a place of risk
without first seeking the Children’s Court approval. This power can only be
exercised by DoCS or by Police if satisfied on reasonable grounds that the child
12
13
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 ss.114-116.
14
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 Chapter 4 Division 2 of Part 3.
15
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 s.38E.
16
or young person is at immediate risk of serious harm and the making of an AVO
would not provide sufficient protection.17
11.27 Additionally, DoCS or a police officer may remove a child from any public place
or particular premises if they suspect on reasonable grounds that the child or
young person is in need of care and protection, is not subject to the supervision
of a responsible adult and lives in or habitually frequents a public place; or if
they suspect on reasonable grounds that such person is in need of care and
protection, and is participating in child prostitution or pornography, or has
recently been on premises associated with those activities.18
11.28 Reasonable suspicion lies “somewhere on a spectrum between certainty and

irrationality… Something substantially less than certainty is required.”19
11.29 Alternatively, if DoCS suspects on reasonable grounds that a child or young

person is at risk of serious harm but is satisfied that it is not in the best interests
of the child or young person to be removed from the premises where he or she
is currently located, DoCS may instead assume the care responsibility of the
child or young person by means of an order served on the person in charge of
the premises.20 Such action does not require that the risk of serious harm is
immediate.
11.30 If the child or young person is removed, or his or her care assumed, DoCS must
apply to the Children’s Court at the first available opportunity but no later than
the next sitting day for a care or assessment order; or, if no order is sought,
DoCS must explain the reasons for no care application being made.21
11.31 In accordance with the practice of the Children’s Court, an emergency care and
protection application must be heard by a Magistrate no later than three days
after the application is filed.22
11.32 The Children’s Court can make an order for the emergency care and protection
of a child or young person if it is satisfied that the child or young person is at risk
of serious harm.23 The order has effect for a maximum of 14 days. The order
can be extended (by application) once only for a further maximum period of 14
days.24
11.33 The emergency care and protection order, while in force, places the child or
young person in the care responsibility of the Director-General or other person
specified in the order.25 The care responsibility may be vested in a designated
17
18
19
Goldie v Commonwealth of Australia [2002] FCA 433 at [5] per Gray and Lee JJ.
20
21
22
Children’s Court NSW, Practice Direction No.28, para.7.1.
23
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 s.46(1).
24
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 ss.46(3) and (4).
25
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 s.46 (2).
agency and that responsibility may be delegated by the Director-General or

designated agency.26
11.34 DoCS is obliged to inform various persons of its actions and can discharge the
child or young person from its care responsibility.27 Care responsibility includes
the authority to consent to certain medical and dental treatment, to correct and
manage the behaviour of the child or young person, to give permission to
participate in activities such as school excursions, and to make other decisions
that are required in the day to day care and control of the child or young
person.28
11.35 DoCS or a police officer may apply for and be granted a warrant to enter,
search premises and remove a child or young person from those premises if
there are reasonable grounds for believing that there is, in those premises, a
child or young person at risk of serious harm and the making of an AVO would
not provide sufficient protection.29 The requirement for satisfaction of the child
being at ‘immediate’ risk of serious harm, which is necessary for the exercise of
the emergency removal power discussed above, does not apply in this instance.
Care applications
11.36 Care applications seek from the Children’s Court a determination that a child or
young person is in need of care and protection, and often seek that some or all
aspects of parental responsibility30 for the child or young person be allocated to
someone other than the person (or persons) who currently holds it.31 Care
applications include emergency applications,32 of the kind mentioned earlier
although some of the requirements in relation to emergency applications differ
from those relating to other care applications.
11.37 Generally, care applications can only be made by DoCS. A care application
must specify the particular care orders sought and the grounds on which they
are sought,33 and must be accompanied by an affidavit in support of the
application.34 The order sought can be varied without leave at any time before
a determination as to care and protection has been made, or thereafter only
with leave.
26
27
28
29
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 s.233(2)
30
‘Parental responsibility’ in relation to a child or young person means all the duties, powers, responsibilities
and authority which, by law, parents have in relation to their children: Children and Young Persons (Care and
Protection) Act 1998 s.3.
31
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 Chapter 5, Part 2.
32
33
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 s.61(1) and (2).
34
Children’s Court Rule 2000 cl.21.
11.38 When making a care application, DoCS must provide the Children’s Court with
details of the support and assistance provided and the alternatives to a care
order that were considered by DoCS before the application was made, and the
reasons why those alternatives were rejected. However, the Children’s Court
cannot dismiss a care application only because it is of the opinion that an
appropriate alternative action that could have been taken was not considered or
taken.35
11.39 DoCS must notify the child or young person who is the subject of the care
application that the application has been filed and must also make reasonable
efforts to notify the child’s or young person’s parents, and (if they are able to be
located) must serve them with a copy of the care application and all supporting
evidence.36
11.40 Once a care application has been filed and the relevant parties notified, a
Children’s Registrar may arrange and conduct a preliminary conference
between the parties.37 The purpose of the preliminary conference is to identify
areas of agreement, issues in dispute, the possibility of alternative dispute
resolution, and any interim orders. Parties can be legally represented at the
preliminary conference.
11.41 ‘Establishment’ is the term commonly used within the care jurisdiction to
describe the finding by the Children’s Court that a child or young person is in
need of care and protection.
11.42 DoCS informed the Inquiry that:
The ‘establishment phase’ is to satisfy the preliminary threshold

question of whether the child is in need of care and protection.
Without an affirmative answer to this question, the care
jurisdiction has no further role.38
Examination and assessment orders

11.43 An application to the Children’s Court for an assessment order can be made by
the Director-General or by any party to care proceedings. An assessment order
is an order for an expert report in relation to the physical, psychological,
psychiatric or other medical status of a child or young person, or in relation to
the parenting capacity of a person who has parental responsibility or is seeking
that responsibility.39 An application for an assessment order should be made no
more than seven days after establishment.40
35
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 s.63 (1) and (2).
36
37
38
Submission: DoCS, Operation of courts in the child protection system, (abridged), pp.4-5.
39
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 Chapter 5, Part 1, Division 6.
40
Children’s Court NSW, Standard Direction in Care Matters, para. 4.
11.44 In considering an application for an assessment order, the Children’s Court will
have regard to a number of factors including whether it is likely to provide
relevant information which is unlikely to be obtained elsewhere.41
11.45 If the child or young person is of sufficient understanding to make an informed

decision, he or she may refuse to submit to being assessed. A person may also
refuse to submit to an assessment of his or her parenting capacity.42
11.46 If the order is made, the assessment is carried out by the Children’s Court Clinic
(the Clinic) which submits a report to the Children’s Court (although there is no
obligation for the Clinic to accept that appointment if it is unable or unwilling to
carry out the assessment and prepare the report, or if it is of the opinion that it is
more appropriate for the work to be carried out by another person, in which
event the Court may appoint another person to prepare a report).43
11.47 If the Children’s Court makes an assessment order, it will direct the party who
made the application for the assessment to compile a file of documents to be
sent to, read, and used by the Clinic as part of the assessment. This file must
contain, inter alia, any documents that have not been filed in the proceedings
which the parties agree should be included, or which the Court orders should be
included.44
11.48 Depending on the particular case, the Clinic might be asked to address issues
such as:
a. the individual characteristics of the child or young person, including any
particular cognitive, adaptive, emotional, social and other individual
developmental needs, and any mental health or behavioural issues
b. the characteristics of relevant parents or carers, including an exploration of
any alcohol or other drug dependence, domestic violence or mental health
issues, and any intellectual or other disabilities
c. the parenting capacity of the parents or carers, including the ability to meet
the specific needs of the relevant child or young person;
d. strategies that can be put in place to deal with the needs of the child or
young person and to promote his or her development, including
identification of the kinds of services that should be accessed.45
11.49 An assessment report submitted to the Children’s Court as a result of an

assessment order is taken to be a report to the Children’s Court rather than
evidence tendered by a party.46 This independence from any one party is in
part aimed at limiting the expert evidence in care proceedings to that of a single
41
42
43
44
Children’s Court NSW, Practice Direction No.28, para.31-32.
45
Children’s Court Clinic suggestions for revision of the DoCS Business Help Application for an Assessment
Guidelines, p.3.
46
expert witness. In a document submitted to the Inquiry by the Clinic, Senior

Children’s Magistrate, Scott Mitchell is quoted as saying:
No longer is there likely to be the cacophony of conflicting

reports which bedevilled care proceedings… in earlier times.47
11.50 The Clinic does not undertake physical medical assessments, emergency
assessments, or counselling. The Clinic informed the Inquiry that it prefers not
to undertake placement assessments, defined as an assessment of the
environmental characteristics of a potential placement.
11.51 When the Clinic accepts a referral from the Children’s Court, the Clinic’s
Director will allocate the assessment to a clinician who is either employed by
the Clinic, or who is a member of the Clinic’s panel of external clinicians (both
employees and panel members are referred to as ‘Authorised Clinicians’).
Since the Clinic’s inception, 85 per cent of the assessments have been carried
out by external clinicians.
11.52 From the time that he or she is allocated an assessment, the Authorised
Clinician becomes a Court-appointed expert in the relevant proceedings, and is
bound by the Expert Witness Code of Conduct contained within Schedule 7 of
the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. Adherence to this Code of Conduct
must be acknowledged in the Authorised Clinician’s report.
11.53 The Clinic expects Authorised Clinicians to undertake a number of tasks during
the course of their assessment, including obtaining background information in
relation to the child or young person (from carers or other relevant people);
observing and/or interviewing the child or young person, and where appropriate,
carrying out psychometric testing of the child or young person; observing and/or
interviewing the parents or carers, and where appropriate, carrying out
psychometric testing of the parents or carers and interviewing other relevant
people (sometimes referred to as carrying out ‘collateral interviews’).
11.54 Authorised Clinicians are encouraged by the Clinic to make contact with the
relevant DoCS caseworker to obtain information about the relevant child and his
or her family dynamics. All contact made with the caseworker should be
recorded in the report.48
11.55 Authorised Clinicians submit their reports to the Clinic’s Director for review, and
then the Clinic’s Director, if satisfied that the report meets the Clinic’s quality
standards, submits the report to the Children’s Court. The parties to the
proceedings can then test the report, and can cross examine the Authorised
Clinician in relation to his or her assessment, report, and recommendations.
47
Senior Children’s Court Magistrate cited in Report on the Children’s Court Clinic, Attorney General’s
Department of NSW, August 2007, p.2.
48
Children’s Court Clinic, Authorised Clinicians’ Handbook, p.5.
11.56 Clinicians are remunerated on a per report basis at a rate of $140 per hour. A
maximum number of hours are allowed for that purpose, depending on the
number of children and young persons in the matter. The rate includes all
reading, interviews, observation, analysis and report writing.
11.57 It usually takes about six weeks for the Clinic to prepare a report from the time
the assessment order is made.49
11.58 In 2006/07, 702 matters involving 1,264 children were referred to the Clinic, a
small increase from 690 in 2002/03. The Inquiry has been informed that most
of the assessments sought are in relation to parenting capacity and most of the
children are aged under one year.
Other expert evidence

11.59 Practice Direction 28 specifies that if the child or young person is to be
examined or assessed by any other expert and any subsequent report
prepared, the leave of the Children’s Court is required for its admission.50 The
expert report can be obtained for therapeutic purposes without the leave of the
court.
Care plans and permanency planning

11.60 A care plan must be presented to the Children’s Court before final orders are
made, if an order for the removal of a child or young person from the care of his
or her parents is sought. The care plan must provide for, inter alia, the
proposed allocation of parental responsibility, the kind of placement proposed,
contact arrangements, supervision of the placement and the services that need
to be provided to the child or young person.51
11.61 The Children’s Court must not make a final care order in relation to the care and
protection of a child or young person unless it expressly finds that permanency
planning for the child or young person has been appropriately and adequately
addressed.52 This includes a finding as to whether or not there is a realistic
possibility of the child or young person being restored to his or her parents.
49
Children’s Court NSW, Standard Direction in Care Matters, para. 4.
50
Children’s Court NSW, Practice Direction, No.28, para.33. The status and operation of practice notes in the
care jurisdiction of the Children’s Court NSW are discussed in Chapter 13.
51
52
Care orders
11.62 The Children’s Court can make a care order in relation to a child or young
person if it is satisfied that the child or young person is in need of care and
protection for any of the following reasons:
a. there is no parent available to care for the child or young person
b. the parents acknowledge that they have serious difficulties in caring for the
child or young person
c. the child or young person has been, or is likely to be, physically or sexually
abused or ill-treated
d. the child's or young person's basic physical, psychological or educational
needs are not being met, or are likely not to be met, by his or her parents or
primary care-givers
e. the child or young person is suffering or is likely to suffer serious
developmental impairment or serious psychological harm as a
consequence of the domestic environment in which he or she is living
f. in the case of a child who is under the age of 14 years, the child has
exhibited sexually abusive behaviours and an order of the Children's Court
is necessary to ensure his or her access to, or attendance at, an
appropriate therapeutic service
g. the child or young person is subject to a care and protection order of
another state or territory that is not being complied with.53
11.63 Once it has been determined that a child or young person is in need of care or
protection, the Children’s Court can make an order allocating some or all
aspects of parental responsibility for the child or young person to the Minister,
or to one or both parents or another suitable person or persons, or to a
combination of these people. The Children’s Court must first have given
consideration to the least intrusive intervention principle, and be satisfied that
any other order would be insufficient to meet the needs of the child or young
person.54
Contact
11.64 In 2000, s.86 of the Care Act was proclaimed, permitting the Court to make
orders as to contact as part of the orders made in care proceedings. The child
or young person must be the subject of proceedings before the Court, and the
application must be made by a party to the proceedings.
53
54
11.65 The wording of s.86 makes it clear that any order made under that section
relates to the minimum requirements in relation to the frequency and duration of
contact, and does not prevent more frequent contact with the child or young
person, with the consent of the person who has parental responsibility.
11.66 Supervised contact can only be ordered with the consent of the putative
supervisor (usually supervision is provided by an employee of DoCS). As
stated by McDougall J of the Supreme Court:
It is for the Children’s Court, taking into account, among other

things, the paramount consideration referred to in s 9(a), to
decide whether supervision is required. If it is, the Court
should, with the consent of the proposed supervisor, order it. If
the supervisor does not accept the requirement then contact
should not be given.55
Monitoring
11.67 If the Children’s Court makes an order allocating parental responsibility for a
child or young person to a person other than a parent, it can order that a written
report be made to it within a specified period, in relation to the suitability of the
arrangements for the care and protection of the child or young person. Such a
report must include an assessment of progress in implementing the care plan,
including progress towards the achievement of a permanent placement.56
11.68 If, after consideration of such a report, the Children’s Court is not satisfied that
proper arrangements have been made for the care and protection of the child or
young person, it may order that the case be brought before it so that the
existing orders may be reviewed.57
Other orders
11.69 The Children’s Court may also:
a. make an order accepting written undertakings given by a person
responsible for the child or young person or given by the child or young
person
b. order that support services be provided by a person or organisation who
consents to provide such services
c. order that a parent or child less than 14 years of age attend a therapeutic
program relating to sexually abusive behaviours, provided that the child has
55
Re Liam [2005] NSWSC 75 at [48].
56
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 s.82(1) and (1A).
57
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 s.82 (2).
not been convicted in criminal proceedings arising from the same

behaviours
d. order that the child or young person be placed under the supervision of
DoCS for a maximum of 12 months, (subject to possible extension for a
further 12 months) in situations where, for example, a child or young person
has been found to be in need of care and protection, but there is a plan for
his or her restoration.58
Rescission and variation of care orders

11.70 An application for the rescission or variation of a care order previously made by
the Children’s Court can be made by DoCS, the Children’s Guardian, or a
person who has (or previously had) parental responsibility for the child or young
person, or any person with a sufficient interest in the welfare of the child or
young person. Such application requires leave of the Children’s Court.59
11.71 Leave is granted if the Children’s Court is satisfied that there has been a
significant change in any relevant circumstances since the care order was made
or last varied.60 Factors which indicate a relevant significant change include
(but are not limited to) the following:
a. the parents of the child or young person concerned have not met their
responsibilities under an applicable care plan or restoration plan
b. a finding has been made by the Children’s Court under s.82(2) of the Care
Act that proper arrangements have not been made for the care or
protection of the child or young person.61
Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court

11.72 Nothing in the Care Act limits the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.62 Section
23 of the Supreme Court Act 1970 states that the Supreme Court “shall have all
jurisdictions which may be necessary for the administration of justice in New
South Wales.”
11.73 The Supreme Court also has a ‘parens patriae’ or welfare jurisdiction derived
from the common law. This jurisdiction has been described in the following
way:
The parens patriae jurisdiction derives from the royal

prerogative and although its origins probably go back to the
58
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 ss.73-76(1) and (3).
59
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 s.90(1), (3) and (4).
60
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 s 90(2).
61
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Regulations 2000 cl.6.
62
time of Edward III, in more recent centuries the Chancery

Division in England and the Equity Court in New South Wales
have been responsible for exercising the Queen’s power to do
good to all her subjects, particularly to those who are children or
otherwise incapable of looking after themselves. In exercising
that jurisdiction the court’s concern is predominantly for the
welfare of the person involved. It is not a jurisdiction that is
bogged down at all with any technicalities. It is a quite separate
jurisdiction to the supervisory jurisdiction that is committed to
this court by way of prerogative orders under which this court
supervises inferior courts and tribunals to make sure that they
do justice and right to all people before them.63
11.74 In addition, the Guardianship Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine applications

concerning the special medical treatment of children as well as, financial
management for children and young persons with an intellectual disability.
11.75 In relation to questions concerning the care and protection of children and
young persons, the Supreme Court has stated that the Care Act clearly sets out
the legislature’s intention that the Children’s Court should be the primary forum
for the determination of applications under the Care Act (Re Liam64 - discussed
below). It has also stated that the legislature clearly intended that appeals from
the Children’s Court should be heard in the District Court. In the Supreme
Court decision of Re Victoria65, followed by the decisions in Re Liam and Re
Elizabeth,66 it was determined that the parens patriae jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court should not be used as a means to bypass the appeal process
set out in the legislation. Accordingly parties should not resort to the parens
patriae jurisdiction of the Supreme Court in order to appeal interim decisions of
the Children’s Court. However, the Supreme Court will exercise its parens
patriae jurisdiction in ‘exceptional circumstances’ where “to do so is in the best
interests of the child, such as where some form of protective order is urgently
required and there is no other curial process available to provide it.”67
11.76 In Re Liam, in which the Children’s Court had made an order delegating its
responsibility to determine whether the best interests of the child required that
contact be supervised, the Supreme Court determined that the Children’s Court,
in delegating its responsibility, had failed to consider a matter of real
significance (that is, the best interests of the child in relation to contact), and
that therefore there was sufficient justification for the Supreme Court to
intervene.68
63
Re Frances v Benny [2005] NSWSC 1207 at [17].
64
Re Liam [2005] NSWSC 75 at [30]-[31]; Re Victoria [2002] NSWSC 647 at [36].
65
Re Victoria [2002] NSWSC 647 at [36]-[40].
66
Re Elizabeth [2007] NSWSC 729 at [17]-[18].
67
Re Elizabeth [2007] NSWSC 729 at [17].
68
Re Liam [2005] NSWSC 75 at [41], [48]-[50].
11.77 In relation to the Supreme Court, the Legal Aid Commission NSW (LAC)
submitted:
The majority of ‘appeals’ currently heard by the Supreme Court

are either applications made pursuant to the Court's parens
patriae jurisdiction (in which DoCS either seeks different orders
than those made by the Children's Court or seeks orders that
are unable to be made by the Children's Court at all, such as
forced medical treatment or detention of the child) or challenges
to the powers of the Children's Court to make the orders it has
made (usually, such challenges are made to interim orders
since interim orders cannot be appealed to the District Court,
but they are not necessarily limited to these). These appeals
are heard, most often, in the Equity Division of the Supreme
Court, though it is not unheard of to find them in the Common
Law or Administrative Law Divisions.69
11.78 The Supreme Court will, in exceptional circumstances, hear applications for
prerogative writs70 concerning orders of the Children’s Court. The Supreme
Court also determines parentage under the Status of Children Act 1996, and
deals with adoption applications under the Adoption Act 2000.
Issues arising
11.79 The Care Act establishes a regime whereby ultimate decision making about the
removal of children and young persons from their families without their consent
and the consequent allocation of parental responsibility, rests with the Court.
Decisions about the exercise of that parental responsibility and the day to day
care of the child or young person generally reside with DoCS or the agency into
whose care the child or young person has been entrusted.
11.80 A range of issues were raised with the Inquiry concerning both the operation of
the substantive law, and the procedural aspects of the care jurisdiction. Issues
in relation to the latter are dealt with in Chapter 13. Matters of substantive law
are addressed below.
11.81 The Children’s Court has some powers after final orders have been made,
notably a continuing role in determining contact between the child or young
person and his or her family, and a monitoring power requiring DoCS to report
back to the Court on the suitability of the arrangements for the care and
protection of the child or young person.
69
Submission: Legal Aid NSW, 20 February 2008, p.110.
70
A prerogative writ is a determination by a superior court that a lower court or an administrative agency has
exceeded its legitimate power.
11.82 At the heart of the submissions made to the Inquiry was whether the Children’s
Court should be empowered to embrace a more inquisitorial approach to care
matters or confined to the more traditional role of deciding cases brought before
it on the evidence adduced by the parties. Often this translates to competing
arguments as to the powers that the Children’s Court should, and on a ‘proper’
interpretation of the Care Act, does have, in relation to children and young
persons once they have been subject to care proceedings and placed in OOHC.
11.83 DoCS recommended that the roles of the Children’s Court and designated
agencies be clarified, and that only it and the latter should have any
responsibility for decisions concerning contact and the like in relation to children
in OOHC, subject to review by a tribunal that considers the context in which a
decision is made, and subject also to accreditation and monitoring (from a
systemic perspective) by the Children’s Guardian.
11.84 By contrast, the Children’s Court, often supported by the LAC, submitted for an
extension to its powers.
11.85 Integral to understanding the positions adopted by those before the Inquiry, is
the extent of oversight, in contrast to judicial decision making, which exists in
relation to DoCS. These matters are dealt with later in the report, however, for
current purposes it should be noted that the Ombudsman has significant power
to review DoCS’ decision making and the Children’s Guardian has an
accreditation and monitoring role with respect to children and young persons in
OOHC.
Participation in Children’s Court proceedings

11.86 An issue before the Inquiry concerned the experience of DoCS caseworkers
and legal officers in care proceedings in the Court, as recounted to the Inquiry.
While DoCS acknowledged the need for judicial determination in relation to
proceedings involving the potential removal of children or young persons from
their families, it was critical of many aspects of the Court’s operations and
performance.
11.87 A significant concern which was entertained related to the difficulties which, it
was reported, caseworkers often found in dealing with a process that they
viewed as unduly adversarial. Where that led to overt criticism from the bench
of those caseworkers, or of the Director-General of DoCS, or of DoCS itself, it
was asserted that this left them “disempowered and shattered” and with a
difficulty in continuing to work with the family involved in the proceedings.71
11.88 As it was put in DoCS’ submission to the Inquiry:
The experience of caseworkers and legal practitioners

appearing for the Director-General is that they encounter far
71
Transcript: Public Forum, Role of Courts, 22 February 2008 p.13.
greater criticism, and sometimes intemperate and personal

attack, than is usually the case elsewhere. These comments
are made from both presiding judicial officers and other
practitioners appearing in the jurisdiction…
Caseworkers find that appearing in Court is a stressful

experience. They feel, and sometimes, are, under personal
and professional attack. This is exacerbated by caseworkers
wishing to convey their general concerns about the child and
the child’s circumstances and the Court and the legal
profession wanting to concentrate upon the specific
circumstances of why the matter is currently back before the
Court.72
11.89 DoCS added that as a result some experienced Departmental legal officers
have “refused to practice at Parramatta Children’s Court or have asked to be
transferred from that Court to other Courts exercising the care jurisdiction” and
that some “caseworkers appear to prefer positions that do not require Court
attendance.”73
11.90 The PSA informed the Inquiry, similarly, that some of its members reported that
Magistrates “often treat caseworkers in an inappropriate manner, undermining
and insulting them for the work they have produced.”74
11.91 Additionally, the attention of the Inquiry was brought to the matter of Re Frances
and Benny [2005] NSWSC 1207, where his Honour Young CJ in Eq. quoted the
Senior Children’s Magistrate (from the transcript of the Children’s Court) as
having observed:
This is appalling. The Director-General has got more solicitors

working for him than enough and he has got the resources of
the profession, but he just deliberately, it seems to me, puts up
a case that is… almost impossible to deal with. No reason, just
- I don't think it is obtuseness. I don't know if it is stupidity or
what it is.75
11.92 That was a case where the application for a care order was dismissed by
reason of the finding in the Children’s Court that there was insufficient evidence
to support the application. In holding that it was incorrect for the application to
have been dismissed, Young CJ in Eq. said of the Senior Children’s
Magistrate’s approach to the evidence:
I can well understand him being peeved, though it is not really

the fault of the Department alone. Unfortunately, in this area,
72
Submission: DoCS, Operation of courts in the child protection system, (abridged), p.10.
73
ibid.
74
Submission: Public Service Association, 17 March 2008, p.8.
75
Re Frances and Benny [2005] NSWSC 1207 at [13].
case officers spend a very, very short time with the Department
and one tends to find a large number of them in any particular
case. There are a tremendous number of children in need in
New South Wales. Unfortunately, those who have to attend to
their problems and the courts can well understand why every
witness is not available on every occasion and why the
evidence presented by the Department would not necessarily
be in a perfect state. However, that is no reason why
proceedings involving children should be dismissed.76
11.93 Another area of concern that was raised by DoCS, by the LAC, and by the
Aboriginal Legal Service was the practice of the Court in displacing fixtures, and
bringing the proceedings on for hearing at an earlier date, and sometimes at a
different venue, without sufficient regard being given to the impact on the
parties in terms of maintaining the continuity of legal representation, with a
knowledge of the case and the confidence of the parties, or to the costs
occasioned to the LAC where this occurs.77
11.94 In a submission provided to the Inquiry in response to the Public Forum

concerning the operation of the Courts, and in response to the DoCS
submission, the Senior Children’s Magistrate took issue with the suggestions
that the proceedings in the Court are conducted with undue legalism, that
personal and intemperate attacks were made on caseworkers and legal
practitioners, and that hearing dates were changed or cases moved without the
arguments of the parties being given proper consideration.78
11.95 In this submission, the Senior Children’s Magistrate drew attention to a number
of cases that he suggested showed that DoCS’ decisions had been
inappropriate, some of which he variously described as “idiosyncratic,”
“inexpert” or “unprofessional,” and noted the “occasional need for the Court…to
advise and, when that advice is rejected, warn and cajole DoCS to lift its game
regarding vulnerable children.”79 Transcripts of the cases were attached in an
addendum to this submission.
11.96 He accepted that, on occasions:
Children’s Magistrates have expressed their frustration and

sometimes outrage regarding the behaviour of the department
and/or its apparent failure to act protectively towards children
the subject of proceedings.80
11.97 One of the transcripts provided contains observations to the following effect:
76
Re Frances and Benny [2005] NSWSC 1207 at [22].
77
Transcript: Public Forum, Role of Courts, 22 February 2008, pp.18-21.
78
Submission: Children’s Court NSW, 18 April 2008, pp.4-6.
79
Submission: Children’s Court NSW, 18 April 2008, pp.8, 13 and 14; Transcript: Inquiry meeting with Senior
Children’s Court Magistrate, 29 April 2008, p.60.
80
Submission: Children’s Court NSW, 18 April 2008, p.4.
His Honour: And they were wrong about that…
…I have no reason to be uncomfortable about the father, I don’t

know the father, I withdraw that, I am not able to say I have no
reason, but I don’t know the father and I’m certainly not making
any accusations against the father and I note that the Director-
General is comfortable with the father as a protective person for
the child and I note that the allegation has never been made by
the child against the father but the Director-General was
recklessly able to believe the mother but now seems to have
been a really negligent and dangerous thing for the Director-
General to have done. I do not want to do the same thing by
assuming that the allegations that the mother makes are
without foundation just in case I am wrong about it. I’d like to be
a little bit more protective than the Director-General obviously
wanted to be.81
11.98 A second transcript provided records the Senior Children’s Magistrates

observing:
I can’t understand how the Director-General could allow that

litany of danger, a fair way of describing it, to go unattended for
so long without apparently satisfying herself that those four
children are in safe hands. I mean the Director-General knows
about those matters because they are contained in his officer’s
affidavit but he appears to have done nothing about it.
…Well I must say if I had anyone else in whom I could place the
parental responsibility for this child I would be doing it because
on the track record that is shown in your officer’s affidavit, you
have to wonder if she is going to be properly cared for but I
have no choice.82
11.99 When the concerns which had been raised by DoCS, and the observations in
the several transcripts, were brought to the attention of the Senior Children’s
Magistrate, he made it clear that his purpose had been to “raise the standard” of
the work performed by DoCS, and also to ensure that cases were heard without
delay.83
11.100 The Senior Children’s Court Magistrate informed the Inquiry additionally that it
had not been his experience that DoCS legal officers had refused to practice at
Parramatta;84 and he drew to its attention the visits to the Children’s Court
81
Children’s Court NSW, transcript in the matter of Re A, 11 April 2008, Senior Children’s Magistrate Mitchell,
pp.5, 6 and 7.
82
Children’s Court NSW, transcript in the matter of Re C, 7 April 2008, Senior Children’s Magistrate Mitchell,
pp.12-14.
83
Transcript: Inquiry meeting with representatives of the Children’s Court NSW, 29 April 2008, pp.54-55 and
23-26.
84
ibid., p.51.
which he had encouraged DoCS officers to make, as well as the occasions on

which he had met with DoCS staff on social occasions and had given talks to
them on a variety of relevant topics.
11.101 The Inquiry acknowledges the value of the kind of interaction mentioned, and
notes the existence of a working group which could, with a degree of mutual
trust, address some of the issues raised. At the same time it notes the cogent
caution of the former President of the Court of Appeal of NSW, given in another
context but equally relevant for all judicial officers that “the obligation to act
without fear or favour does not authorise the venting of personal spleen even
when error is clearly established.”85
11.102 It is accepted that the transcripts provided relate to proceedings that represent
only a fraction of the Court’s hearings, and that the Inquiry has only received the
view of the Senior Children’s Magistrate in relation to the concerns expressed to
the Inquiry by DoCS and by the PSA concerning the perceptions of DoCS staff;
and in relation to the views of DoCS Director Legal Services and of the legal
officers representing the LAC and Aboriginal Legal Service, concerning the
problems said to arise from the changes in fixtures and venues for hearing.
11.103 It also acknowledges that the individual cases brought to notice may well have
involved errors of judgement or insufficient attention on the part of DoCS to the
safety, welfare or well-being of the children involved.
11.104 The Inquiry is, however, concerned with the reported perception of DoCS
caseworkers and legal officers that their professionalism and that of DoCS, the
primary litigant in the care jurisdiction of the Court, is undervalued, and that they
are prone to personal criticism from the Bench.
11.105 The context in which care proceedings arise cannot be overlooked.

Proceedings of this kind in the Children’s Court almost always commence in an
atmosphere of acrimony and of great concern on the part of the family that they
might lose their child; as well as concern on the part of DoCS staff as to the
safety, welfare and well-being of the child, and of the need to be able to
establish a positive working relationship if the child is in fact removed, either
temporarily or on a long term basis.
11.106 In these circumstances of a potentially fraught relationship, the parties need to

be confident that their cases will be advanced by those lawyers who they know,
in whom they have established confidence, and who are appropriately apprised
of the facts. Moreover, there is a risk that comments made in the presence of
the family which are unduly critical or dismissive of DoCS, are likely to impact
adversely on the trust that is essential if DoCS staff are to work constructively
with the child or young person who is the subject of the proceedings, and his or
her parents, for example in relation to contact, restoration and support if that
85
The Hon K Mason AC, “Throwing Stones: A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Judges Being Offensive to Each
Other,” The Judicial Review Vol 9 No.1, September 2008, pp.66-67.
child is taken into care. Additionally if DoCS workers feel, whether justifiably or
not, that they are likely to be subject to sustained criticism, then this may
adversely affect the quality of their case preparation or appearance in Court.
11.107 It is not the purpose of this Inquiry to ascribe fault to any party in relation to the
matters canvassed, or to express any view in relation to the correctness or
otherwise of the decisions reviewed in the submissions. Rather, its concern
relates to the clear impression it has formed, from the material placed before it,
that the relationship between DoCS and the Court does appear at least at
times, to be strained, to the point where the best interests of the children and
young persons involve may not always be served.
11.108 The reasons for this may include the nature of the jurisdiction which lends itself
to strong emotional reactions, the strong and understandable desire of the
Court to reach a correct decision, the pressure placed on DoCS staff working in
a very challenging environment, a perception of and, at times, the reality of poor
practice on the part of DoCS, the fact that it is a party in every case, the small
pool of lawyers (mainly legally aided) who appear before the Court, and the
personalities of those involved.
11.109 The Inquiry is strongly of the view that the relationship between DoCS and the
Children’s Court should change to one which is less adversarial, and more
conducive to working cooperatively so as to ensure the safety, welfare and well-
being of the children and young persons involved in care proceedings. This
objective would be assisted by DoCS placing relevant, accurate and fair
material before the Court in a timely way, and by the Court giving due respect to
the professionalism of DoCS staff and making due allowance for the substantial
pressures under which they necessarily work.
11.110 What follows in this, and the succeeding chapters, is an examination of various
matters which may have contributed, collectively, to an unnecessary degree of
complexity or conflict in care proceedings. The recommendations that are later
set out are designed to restore a better working relationship between the
Children’s Court and DoCS, and to improve the relationships between the
parties appearing in the Court in the best interests of the children and young
persons who are subject to care proceedings.
Principles to be applied in care proceedings

11.111 Much has been said about the principles in the Care Act, both to the Inquiry and
in various discussion papers which preceded it, in particular the Ombudsman’s
discussion paper, Care Proceedings in the Children’s Court dated July 2006,
and DoCS’ discussion paper, Statutory Child Protection in NSW: issues and
options for reform (the Discussion Paper) dated October 2006.
11.112 Concerns have been expressed, inter alia, about balancing the least intrusive
intervention principle with the principle that, in all actions and decisions made
under the Act, the safety, welfare and well-being of the child or young person, is
the paramount consideration.
11.113 The Ombudsman, from his investigations and reviews, identified cases where
the level of protective intervention by DoCS following reports of risk of harm was
not commensurate with the apparent level of risk to the child or young person.
Others, most notably the LAC, gave examples to the Ombudsman and to the
Inquiry of cases where, in the view of its lawyers, DoCS had intervened to
remove a child in circumstances where there were other less intrusive
measures available.
11.114 The Inquiry agrees with the comment made by DoCS that a number of these
examples do not necessarily address the question of whether there is confusion
about the concept of the least intrusive intervention.86
11.115 The Senior Children’s Magistrate was of the view that the principles are clear in
the legislation and well understood by lawyers and by the Court.87
11.116 In a meeting with the Inquiry, DoCS’ Director, Legal Services also expressed
the view that the courts properly apply the principles. In his view “the biggest
problem I think comes in terms of the caseworkers rather than from the
courts.”88
11.117 In its Discussion Paper, DoCS opined that the practical effects of the least
intrusive intervention principle, the framing of the paramount interest principle,
and the reference to parental rights in the objects of the Care Act89 appear to be
that the child centred approach of decision making is disrupted.90
11.118 In addition, in its Discussion Paper DoCS also noted that the least intrusive
intervention principle is in conflict with the policy goal of providing stability for
children in OOHC.91 DoCS noted that s.9(f) of the Care Act was introduced in
2001 in order to promote placement stability. DoCS argued that stability and
permanency would be assisted if the conflict between the least intrusive
intervention and permanency planning principles was addressed.92
11.119 It suggests a revision of the principles in its Discussion Paper by reframing s.9
as follows:
The principles to be applied in the administration of this Act are

as follows:
86
NSW Ombudsman, Care Proceedings in the Children’s Court, Discussion Paper, 2006, p.6.
87
ibid.
88
Transcript: Inquiry meeting with DoCS lawyers, 1 February 2008, p.3.
89
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 s.8(a) and 9(a).
90
DoCS, Statutory Child Protection in NSW: issues and options for reform, Discussion Paper for review,
October 2006, p.28.
91
ibid.
92
ibid., p.31.
In all actions and decisions concerning a particular child or

young person that are made under this Act the safety, welfare
and well-being of the child or young person must be the
paramount consideration.
a. A child or young person must (wherever a child or young
person is able to form his or her own views) be given an
opportunity to express views freely on a matter concerning
his or her safety, welfare and well-being. Those views are
to be given due weight in accordance with the
developmental capacity of the child or young person and
the circumstances in which a decision is to be made or
action taken.
b. Account must be taken of the culture, disability, language,
religion and sexuality of the child or young person and, if
relevant, those with parental responsibility for the child or
young person in all actions and decisions made under this
Act that significantly affect a child or young person, and be
reflected in any care planning and cultural care plan for the
child or young person.
c. If a child or young person is in need of care and protection
and is temporarily or permanently withdrawn from his or her
family environment then:
i. the earliest practicable consideration must be given to
the possibility and appropriateness of restoration to the
birth family. A decision on the viability of restoration
should, other than in exceptional circumstances, be
taken within six months of the child or young person
entering out-of-home care where the child is under two
years of age and, for any other child or a young
person, within 12 months of entry into out-of-home
care.
ii. the child’s or young person’s placement should not be
disrupted unless required for the safety, welfare and
well-being of the child or young person.
iii. unless it is contrary to his or her best interests and
taking into account the views of the child or young
person, the child or young person should retain
relationships with people significant to the child or
young person, including birth or adoptive parents,
siblings, extended family, peers, family friends and
community.
d. In considering whether restoration of a child or young
person is possible and appropriate the relevant
considerations are whether restoration:
i. could be achieved within a timeframe that is likely to

minimise significant developmental disruption to the
ii. will provide the child or young person with the
opportunity to meet developmental milestones
appropriate to that child or young person, and in any
event, whether restoration can and should (other than
in exceptional circumstances) occur within two years of
the child or young person entering out-of-home care.
e. If restoration is not considered possible and appropriate for
a child or young person in out-of-home care, then the
provision of a safe, secure, nurturing and stable
environment is to be sought for the child or young person in
a timely manner. In seeking this, regard is to be had to:
i. the circumstances and needs of the child or young
person;
ii. the views of the child or young person;
iii. the principle that, the younger the age of the child, the
greater the need for early decisions to be made in
relation to a stable and permanent placement;
iv. the need to avoid the instability and uncertainty arising
from a succession of different placements or other care
arrangements;
v. the paramount consideration in all decisions and
actions, as set out in (a), is to take priority over any
interests of parents; and
vi. proposed contact between a child or young person and
other significant people in his or her life being designed
to meet the needs of the child or young person.93
11.120 DoCS stated that it would also be necessary to amend the objects of the Care
Act, so that s. 8(a) could read:
that children and young persons receive such care and

protection as is necessary for their safety, welfare and well-
being, having regard to the capacity of their parents or other
persons responsible for them.94
11.121 In submissions responding to the Discussion Paper, the redrafting of s.8(a) was
generally supported by the Ombudsman and the LAC.95 The proposed change
93
ibid., pp.32-33.
94
ibid., p.33.
95
NSW Ombudsman Submission to DoCS, Statutory Child Protection in NSW: Discussion Paper, p.10; Legal
Aid NSW Submission to DoCS, Statutory Child Protection in NSW: Discussion Paper, p.6.
to s.9 received a mixed reaction, with many suggested variations. Generally,

Police, Education, Health, the Children’s Guardian, the Foster Care Association,
and Barnardos were in agreement with clarifying the principles and reducing
conflict with the ‘least intrusive’ principle.96
11.122 By contrast, a number of agencies wanted the ‘least intrusive’ principle retained,
including the Law Society of NSW (the Law Society) and UnitingCare
Burnside.97
11.123 In submissions made to the review of the Care Act, prior to the publication of
the DoCS Discussion Paper, a number of parties submitted that the objects and
principles of the legislation do not adequately reflect the importance of early
intervention. For example, UnitingCare Burnside submitted that a principle
should be included that when a child or young person is at risk or has made a
request for assistance, intervening early with support services will be a priority.
11.124 The Ombudsman submitted that where grounds for a care order had been
established, there should be a presumption that the child will not be returned to
the family unless and until risks are ameliorated and there should be an
amendment to s.9(d) to this effect.
11.125 In his submission to the Inquiry, the Ombudsman supported the removal of the
‘least intrusive’ principle because of evidence suggesting that, in practice, it can
be open to misinterpretation. He also questioned whether that principle is
necessary in light of the clear and overriding principles of intervention in s.36.
11.126 The LAC informed the Inquiry that it is not always apparent what is in the best
interests of a child for the purposes of applying the principles specified in s.9 of
the Care Act. The LAC stated:
There can sometimes be some difficulty I think with people

making determinations as to what is in the best interests of the
child because the Act does not set out what should be
considered when considering what is in the best interests of the
child and there are a number of factors that go into that.98
11.127 The Combined Community Legal Centres Group stated:
In relation to s.9 of the Act, we would suggest consideration of

an expansion to include a reference to the Court considering
96
NSW Police Force Submission to DoCS, Statutory Child Protection in NSW: Discussion Paper, p.4;
Department of Education and Training Submission to DoCS, Statutory Child Protection in NSW: Discussion
Paper, 21 March 2007, p.7; NSW Health Submission to DoCS, Statutory Child Protection in NSW: Discussion
Paper, p.3; Children’s Guardian Submission to DoCS, Statutory Child Protection in NSW: Discussion Paper, 4
April 2007, p.2; Foster Care Association Submission to DoCS, Statutory Child Protection in NSW: Discussion
Paper, 20 March 2007, p.4; Barnados Submission to DoCS, Statutory Child Protection in NSW: Discussion
Paper, 28 March 2007, p.1.
97
Law Society of NSW Submission to DoCS, Statutory Child Protection in NSW: Discussion Paper, 3 April
2007, p.6; UnitingCare Burnside Submission to DoCS, Statutory Child Protection in NSW: Discussion Paper,
March 2007, p.16.
98
Transcript: Public Forum, Role of Courts, 22 February 2008, p.31.
the psychological and/or harmful consequences of removal as

opposed to the child remaining in the current circumstances.99
11.128 Women’s Legal Services submitted that DoCS situates the paramount
principles contained in s.9 against the rights of parents. It submitted that the
best interests of children are frequently aligned with the interests of parents,
and that it is not necessary to diminish the rights of parents in order to maintain
a primary focus on the rights of the child. It stated that the UN Convention on
the Rights of the Child explicitly recognises the rights, as well and the
responsibilities and duties, of parents.
11.129 A retired Children’s Magistrate submitted:
The application of the ‘least intrusive’ provision is not assisted

by the shorthand way in which it is commonly referred to,
overlooking the qualification “that is consistent with the
paramount concern to protect the child from harm and promotes
the child’s development” …Further [s 9(d) of the Care Act]
introduces the additional consideration of intervention in the life
of the child’s ‘family’ that is not followed through to other
provisions of the Act.100
11.130 At the Public Forum on the Role of Courts, a representative from Health
suggested that a further principle be inserted into the Care Act to reflect what it
sees as a ‘desirable object,’ being the “continuity or permanency of
placement.”101
11.131 The Inquiry is of the view that the principles set out in s.9 and s.36 are not, of
themselves, inconsistent or poorly drafted. However, the evidence before the
Inquiry, particularly of caseworkers who may be reluctant to remove a child or
young person because of a mistaken belief of the paramountcy of the ‘least
intrusive’ principle or who may delay a removal while attempting other possible
interventions, is of great concern.
11.132 The Inquiry has carefully considered the amendment proposed by DoCS. It
finds a number of aspects attractive, in particular elevating the safety, welfare
and well-being of the child by having the other principles enumerated below it,
and making reference to early consideration of restoration and the need for a
stable, permanent placement. It also agrees that the combination of s.9(d) and
s.36 has the effect of diluting the least intrusive principle. On balance, however
it is not persuaded that the difficulties or tensions exposed to the Inquiry are
best resolved by repeal of the least intrusive principle.
11.133 Ultimately, the Inquiry agrees with Professor Patrick Parkinson, Professor of
Law, University of Sydney, who told the Inquiry:
99
Submission: Combined Community Legal Centres Group, p.6.
100
Submission: John Crawford, 29 February 2008, p.5.
101
The least intrusive principle has been a staple of child

protection legislation around the world for the last 20 or 30
years. It is nothing new and if one looks at other legislation you
will find it is pretty well established. It is just an obvious
principle of social work. One does not go to the option of
removing the children from parents unless interventions are
needed - basic human rights. I don't see it as conflicting with
paramountcy because both of them have always been
principles of child protection legislation.102
11.134 The Inquiry, however, is of the view that the objects as currently set out in s.8(a)
can be interpreted to ‘disrupt’ the best interests of the child being the prevailing
consideration. The reference to the rights, powers and duties of a parent or
other responsible person sits uneasily with ss.9(a), 9(d) and 36(a). Accordingly,
the Inquiry accepts the desirability of adopting the alternative wording
suggested by DoCS for s.8(a) of the Care Act.
11.135 In addition, the Inquiry is of the view that section 9 should be recast so that the
paramount consideration currently contained in s.9(a) sits above the remaining
principles.
11.136 DoCS’ current Casework Practice policy, Taking Action in the Children’s Court,
states that action in the Children’s Court is taken when all less intrusive
casework actions have not met the care and protection needs of a child or
young person. This policy suggests that court proceedings are not appropriate
unless other casework actions have previously been attempted. The policy
does not identify clearly the distinction between the principles of ensuring the
child’s or young person’s safety, welfare and well-being are paramount and how
this interfaces with the least intrusive principles. As such the Inquiry is of the
view that this policy requires review to ensure there is better guidance for its
staff in understanding these principles, that would accord with the amendments
proposed.
11.137 Further, the changes recommended to casework practices and supervision

(discussed elsewhere in the report) should improve the decision making of
caseworkers and align decisions with the principles enunciated in Care Act.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander principles
Self-determination
11.138 The review of the 1987 Act resulted in self-determination being included in s.11
of the Care Act. This section does not, however, address the recommendation
made following the review of the 1987 Act that to support self-determination:
102
Transcript: Inquiry meeting with Professor Parkinson, 27 February 2008, p.34.
The Act should give the Minister for Community Services the
power to delegate certain departmental functions to Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander people to enable a greater degree of
self-determination in the work of child protection.103
11.139 SNAICC recommended that the implementation of self-determination would

require the transfer of aspects of control and resources from government
agencies to local Aboriginal communities.
11.140 The Inquiry notes the finding of the NSW Children’s Guardian following her
analysis in 2007 that in NSW:
The results of the 2006/07 audit showed that Aboriginal children

and young persons under the parental responsibility of the
Principal Officer [of an Aboriginal agency] were the least likely
to have the following essential information recorded: birth family
contact details, developmental history, current medication,
doctor’s contact details, past school reports, current school
reports and immunisation status. In addition, they were the
least likely to have a case conference convened to conduct the
plan or review.104
11.141 The example of Manitoba, Canada, discussed in Chapter 18, shows that where
such functions have been delegated, responsibility is dependent on the
presence of Aboriginal agencies with capacity to discharge them effectively.
Particularly in the case of the Métis people in Manitoba, a period of capacity
building was required to enable the community to be in a position to start to
undertake these responsibilities.
11.142 Referring to the concept of a statutory child protection service controlled and
run by the Aboriginal community in Australia, Tomison and Stanley in 2001
referred to attempts to develop Indigenous led child protection and family
support services in Canada. They stated:
Unfortunately, implementation of such a model is [not] easy, nor

has it necessarily led to significant improvements in Canadian
First Nation communities’ health and well-being and/or a
reduction in violence. Although providing an example of how to
move forward with more effective services … [the] model has
some serious ‘gaps’. It does not seem to address issues of
how to place a child within their Indigenous community if the
community is beset by familial violence, substance abuse etc.
Nor does it provide a solution to the mainstream statutory
authority’s (or Aboriginal authority’s) reluctance to intervene
with Aboriginal families, which may leave children in serious
103
104
Correspondence: NSW Children’s Guardian, 21 July 2008, p.1.
harm. Finally, it does not address the issue of effective

prevention and/or community development to minimise the
removal of children and violence in the first place.105
11.143 Under the DoCS Aboriginal Strategic Commitment 2006-2011, (discussed in

Chapter 18) DoCS has an obligation to work with Aboriginal communities and
Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal NGOs funded by DoCS to increase their capacity
to deliver prevention and early intervention services for Aboriginal children and
young persons and their families and communities, and to work with DoCS
funded Aboriginal organisations to ensure they are fully functional, sustainable
and have good governance.
11.144 However, the quantity and difficulty of the work required to bring the Aboriginal
NGOs to the point where they can realistically take full responsibility for the
safety and welfare of Aboriginal children should not be underestimated. The
Inquiry would hold similar concerns to those documented above about any
attempt to delegate functions for the care and protection of children to agencies
that were not sufficiently prepared, supported, staffed or funded to perform such
functions to the level required to keep children safe and to protect their welfare.
This matter has been addressed in Chapter 9.
Aboriginal child placement principles
11.145 Although welcomed for its intent to preserve the identity, culture and heritage of
each child and young person and its recognition of the rights of Aboriginal
people to keep their culture and identity alive by passing them on to their
children, the Aboriginal Placement Principles have also been criticised for their
limitations. In a recent examination of Aboriginal OOHC in Australia, Valentine
and Gray state that the most significant limitation is that:
There is no requirement for Aboriginal children to be placed via

an Aboriginal agency and many Aboriginal caregivers, for
historical reasons, will not work with state agencies. In addition,
even if an Aboriginal child is placed with an Aboriginal family by
a non-Aboriginal agency, particularly if not supervised by an
Aboriginal worker, Aboriginal culture is suppressed because the
placement is subject to the dominant rules, mores, and
conventions that inform non-Aboriginal policies, procedures,
and practices as well as the values of non-Aboriginal
workers.106
11.146 Similar concerns were raised by a number of agencies which made

submissions to the review of the Care Act, prior to the publication of the DoCS
Discussion Paper.
105
A Tomison and J Stanley, “Strategic Directions in Child Protection: Informing Policy and Practice”, 2001,
South Australian Department of Human Services, p.85 www.aifs.gov.au.
106
Valentine and Gray, “Keeping Them Home: Aboriginal Out-of-Home Care in Australia”, Families in Society,
Vol.87 Issue 4, 2006, p.538-539.
11.147 It became apparent to the Inquiry that there exists among DoCS caseworkers,
and the community more generally, a range of views about actions that must be
undertaken in order to satisfy the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander principles
within the Care Act (both the Aboriginal Placement Principles, and the principles
at ss.11, 12 and 14). This range of interpretations in turn influenced the range
of views about whether the principles are themselves satisfactory, and whether
they are being satisfactorily applied in practice.
11.148 The Inquiry heard that there were concerns regarding the frequency and
adequacy of consultation by DoCS with Aboriginal people and Services
particularly in relation to the cultural and family background of those involved in
care proceedings. AbSec informed the Inquiry:
The legislation and the regulations and the policies that are
written say that DoCS needs to consult Aboriginal people.
Usually they rely on consulting an Aboriginal DoCS worker who
has been in the Department for 20 years and has more of a
DoCS mentality than a strong relationship with the community.
There are a lot of Aboriginal caseworkers out there who still
have a relationship with the community, but it is often different
when you're working within the Department from working with a
community organisation. That feedback that an Aboriginal
caseworker would give from within the Department would be a
lot different, I think, from what would be received if they had
asked a community organisation for advice.107
11.149 Concerns were expressed regarding the differences in compliance with s.13
from CSC to CSC, and from caseworker to caseworker. A representative of the
Aboriginal Legal Service said:
There are certain areas, and in particular Wagga, has a very

high compliance with s.13(1)(a) where that child goes directly to
family or kinship groups. The rest of the regions the Aboriginal
Legal Service is covering have a relatively poor compliance with
that particular section of the Act.108
11.150 In its submission, the Aboriginal Legal Service stated:
Section 13 of the Care Act should be considered even before

the matter comes to court. In the experience of the Aboriginal
Legal Service, the s.13 principles are only addressed at the
final stages of a matter and in the development of a Care
Plan.109
107
Transcript: Inquiry meeting with representatives of the Aboriginal Child, Family and Community Care State
Secretariat, 18 December 2007, p.22.
108
Transcript: Public Forum, Aboriginal Communities, 24 April 2008, p.43.
109
Submission: Aboriginal Legal Service NSW, p.7.
DoCS’ comments on the application of the Aboriginal Placement

Principles
11.151 DoCS reported that a growing number of Aboriginal children are placed in
accordance with the Aboriginal Placement Principles, rising from 2,262 (84.2
per cent) at 30 June 2005 to 3,284 (85 per cent) at 30 June 2007.110 This
number remained steady as at 30 June 2008.111 However, the Inquiry heard
that DoCS, in common with other agencies, has recognised that the recording
of children’s Aboriginal status has not been consistent, and that it is now taking
steps to improve the collection and recording of information about children’s
Aboriginality.
11.152 Further, the Inquiry heard that data extraction and analysis is currently not
sufficiently sophisticated to report on compliance with the Aboriginal Placement
Principles. The Inquiry asked DoCS, if it was possible to provide the number of
children and young persons placed in compliance with each of the sub-
paragraphs of the Aboriginal Placement Principles. Ms Mallett, Acting Deputy
Director-General, DoCS, responded:
I don't think the system would be that sophisticated in terms of

all individual boxes. What it would have is an overall - ‘tick’ is
not the right word, but anyway - mark, or indicator, that one of
those four has been followed, or believed to be followed, in
these circumstances.112
11.153 The presence of a mark placed by a caseworker on the file is not a sufficient
basis for a claim that Aboriginal Placement Principles have been met. For any
such conclusion to be reached more is needed by way of a commentary as to
what in fact was done.
11.154 DoCS advised the Inquiry, in relation to consultation:
We don't have one standard protocol for across the State, but
every region has a regional protocol that identifies what the
individual differences may be for that individual region and their
units.113
11.155 Regional DoCS staff members provided information on the current

implementation of the Aboriginal Placement Principles. At many CSCs,
consultation occurred with Aboriginal caseworkers rather than with people living
in the relevant community from which the child or young person came. For
example, an Aboriginal caseworker informed the Inquiry:
110
DoCS, Annual Report 2006/07, p.55.
111
112
Transcript: Public Forum, Aboriginal Communities, 24 April 2008, p.36.
113
ibid., p.37.
Caseworker: I did actually recommend that because one

of the children had high needs in regards to education and if we
did place him with a family member, it would have taken him
away from gaining the supports that he would get from that. It
was at (X School) and it's such a hard school to get into. This
child actually needed that school more than he would have
needed the cultural identity. That was my decision because if
we did relocate him, they don't have those services available.
Counsel Assisting: Did you talk to anyone from his extended

family or the broader community before coming to that
decision?
Caseworker: No, I did not. That was purely my decision on

the evidence and the information that I had.114
11.156 One manager described how, because of the confidentiality issues involved,
consultation may occur with Aboriginal community members employed in other
agencies who understood the confidentiality needs, such as Aboriginal health
workers.
11.157 In one CSC in Western Region, caseworkers advised the Inquiry of the extent to
which the limited number of carers, and the large geographical area, impacted
on their ability to place children and young persons in their own community.
11.158 The Inquiry was informed that a lack of Aboriginal carers was a barrier to proper
implementation of the Aboriginal Placement Principles in another CSC in
Western Region.
11.159 In a third CSC in the same Region, the Inquiry was advised of some strategies
that the CSC used to try to engage effectively with the Aboriginal community:
We tend to work on a case by case basis. I meet with the local

Aboriginal elders and due to some of our former staffing, the
Aboriginal staff who have actually left our office at the moment,
we enjoy a very good relationship with the women elders group
who have good oversight of family issues and needs. We also
have a process in the Western Region of Aboriginal
consultation around every report that comes at certain points
where there is decision making about a child who is an
Aboriginal child. We work together on that. I think that is the
whole area of work that we could do a lot more on. Our
Aboriginal staff positions have been vacant now for the last nine
months or so.115
114
Transcript: Inquiry meeting with DoCS staff, CSC Southern Region.
115
Transcript: Inquiry meeting with DoCS staff, CSC Western Region.
11.160 The Inquiry notes that the third projected result of the DoCS Aboriginal Strategic
Commitment 2006-2011 is that the Aboriginal Placement Principles will be
consistently applied across all DoCS Regions. Quality of data on Aboriginal
identity is likely to remain an issue in assessing progress against this aim, and
the current lack of capacity of the system to provide reports on the level of
compliance with each of the subsections of s.13 of the Care Act will also
influence DoCS ability to measure progress.
11.161 Given the way in which consultation has been interpreted in different CSCs, and
the fact that such practices may or may not meet the requirements of s.13 of the
Care Act, depending on the connection of the specific Aboriginal caseworker or
consultant to the family and/or community of the Aboriginal child or young
person, it would appear that clear guidelines need to be developed and
implemented to assist caseworkers to consistently and meaningfully apply the
Aboriginal Placement Principles. There may be regional differences in their
application which should be accommodated.
11.162 DoCS is currently developing Aboriginal consultation guidelines in order to

provide an operationally consistent framework for the process of Aboriginal
consultation, an initiative which the Inquiry supports, and which is further
discussed in Chapter 18.116
DoCS’ requests for services from other agencies

11.163 A number of agencies submitted that s.18 of the Care Act should be amended
to oblige non-government agencies in receipt of government funding, for
relevant services, to use their best endeavours to supply those services in
response to requests from DoCS. The Act currently requires only government
agencies to do so. The Inquiry agrees.
Requests for assistance

11.164 Submissions were made to the Inquiry and to previous reviews that although a
request for assistance from DoCS can be sought without a report being made to
DoCS, in practice a report must be made in relation to a child or young person
before any assistance is considered. This seems to contradict the reason for
inclusion of this section in the Act, namely to provide an entry point for
assistance without the need for any assumption or stigmatisation that the family
is now one that is ‘known to DoCS.’
11.165 A number of peak bodies submitted that ss.20 and 21 of the Care Act should be
amended to widen the class of persons able to request assistance on behalf of
a parent or child or young person. The Inquiry agrees.
11.166 The Inquiry sought details on the numbers of requests for assistance made by
children or young persons (s.20) or by parents (s.21). The data provided is set
116
DoCS, Update on child protection and out-of-home care major projects, June 2008, p.3.
out in Chapter 5. The numbers in 2006/07, fewer than 7,000 are remarkably
low. Either DoCS’ recording is less than perfect or too few people understand
the availability of a right to seek assistance from DoCS or are concerned about
seeking assistance in case it sets care proceedings in motion. The Inquiry
agrees that the scope of such assistance should be expanded and it could play
a role in providing a ‘soft entry point’ to families needing help rather than
statutory intervention.
Reports to DoCS
11.167 A number of peak bodies recommended that s.28 of the Care Act, which
requires the Director-General to keep a record of reports made, actions taken
and any subsequent disposition of and dealings with children and young
persons to whom such reports or actions relate, should be proclaimed. The
Inquiry agrees.
11.168 Education recommended that the s.29(1)(f) prohibition on disclosure should

extend not only to the person who actually makes the report (for example,
school principals) but also to the staff member who initially raises a concern
with the school principal or counsellor that a student may be at risk.
11.169 The recommendations made in Chapter 10 concerning the triaging of risk of

harm reports should obviate the need for a specific amendment as sought by
Education. There will, however, need to be an amendment of s.29 more
generally to reflect the changed reporting regime set out in that chapter.
11.170 Police recommended that the s.29(1)(f) prohibition on disclosure be amended to

provide for the disclosure of the reporters’ details to a law enforcement agency
pursuant to the investigation of a serious crime committed upon a child or young
person, where that might impact on the child’s safety, welfare or well-being.
11.171 The Inquiry agrees with the recommendation made by Police.
Grounds for the making of a care order

11.172 The Children’s Court recommended that s.71 be amended in relation to the way
in which the grounds for a care order are currently specified. It stated:
Presently the ground provided in s.71 is a finding that the child

or young person ‘is in need of care and protection’ but the
various subsections of section 71 go on to describe, and
therefore to limit, the circumstances in which that finding can be
made and this sometimes introduces difficulty and fruitless
complexity. It is submitted that the section should be amended
either by deleting the subsections altogether so that the Court is
at large in determining the question of need of care and
protection or else by reproducing the English provision provided
in the Children Act 1989 (UK) that ‘the child or young person
has suffered or is likely to suffer significant harm.’117
11.173 On the other hand, a retired Children’s Magistrate stated that he did not agree
with the proposition that either there be no specific grounds upon which a child
or young person needs be found to be in need of care and protection, or that
there only be very general grounds (such as in the Children Act UK). He stated:
The justification for State intervention is too important to be left

to no or vague and ill-defined limits.
The apparent simplicity of the English test (Children Act s.31.(2)

– the child is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm and
the harm is attributable to the care given to him etc) actually
has given rise to much litigation.
…One possible area of concern is that the present grounds

could be too limited in picking up ‘neglect’ cases. No case
comes to my mind where ‘neglect’ was not also accompanied
by emotional abuse adverse emotional/developmental
consequences.118
11.174 DoCS informed the Inquiry that it:
has no objection to the proposal of the Court to amend s.71 so

that the determination of the need for care and protection can
be on any basis and is not limited to the sub-categories set out
in that section.
This Department would not be prepared to agree to delete the

subcategories (rather than making the definition one that
included, rather than was limited to, the subcategories) for fear
that Magistrates may not accept that certain circumstances
support the need to establish that a child is in need of care and
protection.
The Department does not agree to adding the words about risk
of harm. This suggestion fails to recognise a significant role
differentiation between this Department and the Court which the
Act establishes. This differentiation is that this Department
receives information about risk (s.23) but the response of both
the Department and the Court is predicated not on the
existence of possible harm but on whether action will achieve a
better position for the child. If no action is possible, or no
further action will improve the situation, then neither the
117
Submission: Children’s Court NSW, 14 January 2008, p.33.
118
Department nor the Court should be taking action – see ss.30

and 71.119
11.175 The Inquiry sees benefit in amending s.71 to ensure that the grounds are not
limited to those enumerated, while still retaining each subsection. This should
ensure that emerging areas of abuse and neglect can be accommodated, while
keeping the current categories in the mind of the parties, and at the same time,
preserving the important difference between the circumstances that give rise to
an obligation or entitlement to report concerns to DoCS and the matters that
justify statutory intervention once those concerns are assessed.
Allocating parental responsibility

11.176 Section 79 of the Care Act provides, in part, that the Children’s Court can make
an order allocating parental responsibility to one or both parents, the Minister or
another suitable person (or to a combination of these people).
11.177 DoCS has recommended that s.79 be amended to make specific provision for
the allocation of parental responsibility to a designated agency.
11.178 In a recent decision by the Children’s Court, In the matter of Director-General of

the Department of Community Services and the BW children,120 the operation of
this section was considered in the context of an application by DoCS seeking an
order allocating parental responsibility to the Principal Officer of the Hunter
Aboriginal Children’s Service, a designated agency. Truscott CM declined to
make that order, and in doing, described the Care Act in the following way:
A Designated Agency is limited to delegations of functions and

tasks of supervision of residential care and control. This is
called Care Responsibility, which is different to Parental
Responsibility. It is significantly and importantly less than
Parental Responsibility and suggests that there is legislative
policy to limit the role of a Designated Agency rather than widen
it to include Parental Responsibility…
But where a child is removed from his/her parents and is going

to be placed in out-of-home care, there is no basis for treating
those children differently from one another, by allocating
Parental Responsibility to various organisations involved in
providing that out-of-home care. There are good policy reasons
for the Parental Responsibility for those children to remain with
the Minister and the consequent administration of out-of-home
care be consistent for all children who are subject to it…121
119
Submission: DoCS, Operation of courts in the child protection system (abridged), p.26.
120
In the matter Director-General of the Department of Community Services and the BW children [2008] CLN
2.
121
2 at [30]-[35].
11.179 After considering various provisions of the Care Act, her Honour went on:
Where sole Parental Responsibility is allocated to a natural

person under s.79, [children] are deemed not to be in out-of-
home care and where placed with a carer not supervised by a
designated agency the provisions of Chapter 8 and 10 do not
apply...122
If Parental Responsibility was allocated to a Principal Officer

pursuant to s79(1)(a)(iii) then there would be an anomaly
whereby the Designated Agency would be subject to the
Children’s Guardian supervision in discharging its out-of-home
care functions, but would be outside any such framework in
discharging its duties of Parental Responsibility.123
11.180 Her Honour found as follows:
I am of the view that the term ‘person’ in s.79 (1)(a)(iii) means

an individual or natural person in his/her personal capacity and
does not empower the Court to make s.79 orders allocating
persons such as a Principal Officer of/or a Designated
Agency.124
11.181 Professor Parkinson informed the Inquiry:
It was never intended that a suitable person is … an agency -

that was subverting the entire out-of-home care system that we
had set up, and this decision, going against submissions from
the Crown extraordinarily enough, has confirmed the intent.
There should not be a single child who is directly placed in the
care of an agency.125
11.182 DoCS informed the Inquiry:
It is the view of this Department that parental responsibility

should be exercised by a person as close as possible to the
child so that information and decisions can be informed by
direct knowledge of the child’s circumstances. Where an
agency is accredited by the Children’s Guardian to perform a
task then it is suggested that the agency should be able to
perform all related aspects. This performance can currently be
monitored either by the Children’s Guardian under section
122
2 at [37].
123
2 at [43].
124
2 at [56].
125
181(1) (e) or by the Children’s Court where it has ordered a

report under section 82.
The Department suggests that consistency can be encouraged

by accreditation, monitoring and funding arrangements to
achieve as great an extent (if not higher) level of consistency
than may currently exist.
11.183 DoCS suggested that once accredited there should not be any further need to
inquire as to suitability, which should overcome the concerns expressed in the
BW children case.126 It further submitted that the decision was wrong in so far
as it stated that a placement in relation to which parental responsibility for a
child had been directly allocated to the designated agency, would be outside of
the power of the Children’s Guardian to monitor. Section 135 of the Care Act
does not restrict OOHC to placements where the Minister is allocated parental
responsibility.
11.184 The Inquiry agrees that this aspect of the decision appears not to correctly
reflect the legislation. However, the Inquiry is troubled by other aspects of the
allocation of parental responsibility by the Court to a designated agency.
11.185 The Inquiry understands that the Minister has established procedures for the
delegation of her parental responsibility to designated agencies where the
agency has been granted accreditation for five years. In these cases residual
powers are retained by DoCS, and a Deed of Agreement between the Minister
and the agency details the roles and responsibilities of each. If the Court
allocated parental responsibility, residual powers would also be allocated and
no safeguards such as are contained in the Deed of Agreement would apply.
The Inquiry is of the view that these safeguards are essential.
11.186 Truscott CM’s decision is not binding on her colleagues on the bench. It has
been brought to the Inquiry’s attention that other decisions have been made that
are inconsistent with that of Truscott CM. The Inquiry is of the view that, in
other than emergency care and protection orders made pursuant to s.46(2),
there should not be power for the Court to allocate parental responsibility to a
designated agency or a principal thereof, but that the Minister should be able to
delegate the parental responsibility that has been allocated to her, subject to the
safeguards discussed above.
Permanency planning and care plans

11.187 There has been some debate between, among others, the Children’s Court,
DoCS, and various NGOs who facilitate OOHC, about the level of detail and
certainty required in a care plan in order for the Children’s Court to be satisfied
that permanency planning has been satisfactorily addressed.
126
2
11.188 The matter of permanency planning was considered in the Children’s Court
decision of Re Rhett.127 The Children’s Court found that the lack of sufficient
information available to the Court about the proposed carers meant that
permanency had not properly been addressed, and that as a result the
Children’s Court was not able to make final orders.
11.189 In that discussion, Mitchell SCM cited the House of Lords decision in S. v S.
and Ors, in which it was held that:
The Court should normally have before it a care plan which is

sufficiently firm and particularised for all concerned to have a
reasonably clear picture of the likely way ahead for the child for
the foreseeable future. The degree of firmness to be expected,
as well as the amount of detail in the plan, will vary from case to
case depending on how far the local authority can foresee what
will be best for the child at that time.128
11.190 His Honour stated that there will be some cases where, given the exceptional
circumstances in relation to the particular child’s needs, DoCS might be less
able “to know what lies in store” for the child. His Honour said that in such a
case DoCS should still be able to tell the Court of the type of arrangements that
it thinks will be suitable for the child, and of the steps it has taken and will
continue to take to secure such arrangements.129
11.191 DoCS has interpreted Re Rhett as meaning that permanency planning requires
a high level of detail in the care plan:
It is certainly the Department's view that the obligation there

upon the Court is to be able to understand what the plans are
for the child, and the plans have to be grounded in reality, but
that doesn't require the level of detail which would require a
specific carer to be identified. You would say this child must
remain in a particular high school, because the high school
appears to be appropriate for that child. Therefore, you want to
look for a carer who lives within a geographical proximity to that
high school. You would be looking at those sorts of plans
rather than coming down to particular details.130
11.192 It has advised the Inquiry that it accepts that the decision correctly interprets the
Act, however, it is concerned that other Magistrates may not follow Re Rhett, or
may read it as requiring too much in the way of detail as to the placement.
11.193 Some agencies have a policy of not recruiting long term carers for children until
the final orders of the Children’s Court are known. Barnardos is one such
127
Re Rhett [2008] CLN 1.
128
S v S and Ors [2002] UKHL 10.
129
Re Rhett [2008] CLN 1 at [27].
130
agency. Barnardos informed the Inquiry that it is not possible to tell the
Children’s Court who the permanent carer for a child placed in long term OOHC
will be. It stated:
Carers are not like a hotel room in which you can just pop
anybody…
Many of us recruit carers to match to children. Those of us who

have good research in relation to the permanency that we're
able to achieve for children are those who do match
placements, which are very carefully constructed. This means
getting to know the child well and matching it with a carer who
is suitable…
Many, many people will come forward before a carer is

recruited who is likely to be able to achieve permanency with a
child. Therefore, to be not able to say to a carer, "Yes, we have
orders on a child" would mean that one could not recruit a
matched carer. This would pose real difficulties.
It isn't simply that we are being awkward as organisations. It

really is the long-term future of the child. Unless we know what
the orders are, we are not able to actually seek the right sort of
carer for that particular child.131
11.194 The Children’s Court, in its submission, stated the following:
There will always be unforeseen events which cannot be the

subject of the Care Plan and will be dealt with by whoever
ultimately holds parental responsibility and there will be other
matters of detail which the Court doesn't need to know about
because they are details. But the broad outline of the kind of
placement envisaged - including whether a child or young
person will be brought up with or separated from siblings, the
methods by which the special needs of a child or young person
as to health, mental health, education, growth and
development, heritage and the like will be addressed, how
contact to parents, siblings or extended family will be
accommodated, whether and in what time frames restoration
and/or placements will be undertaken - should be disclosed to
the Court by the Director-General as best they can be. There
will be cases where the Director-General will be unable, for
perfectly proper reasons, to address permanency planning as
he would wish and, in those cases, he must do his best but the
131
ibid., pp.37, 38.
Court needs and is entitled to have proper information available

to it in order to perform its duty.132
11.195 At the Public Forum on the Role of Courts, Deputy Chief Magistrate Syme
stated the following:
The Court only requires certainty in a Care Plan. We have

never sought, nor do we seek, that there be cross-examination
or identification of particular foster carers before a final order is
made. That has never been the Court's position in any case.133
11.196 The Children’s Court’s position was generally supported by the LAC134 and the
Law Society.135
11.197 The Ombudsman stated:
Section 83(7) (a) places an obligation on the Court to expressly

make findings “that permanency planning for the child or young
person has been appropriately and adequately addressed,” and
so concentrates on the planning rather than the actual
arrangements.136
11.198 The Inquiry does not share the concerns which have been raised in relation to
the decision, nor does it believe that s.83 should be amended to require care
plans to inform the Court of more precise details of the child’s placement. They
are matters properly for the person who is allocated parental responsibility and
supervision of the care placement. Sufficient safeguards exist in relation to the
oversight of DoCS’ decision making concerning children and young persons in
OOHC, including monitoring under s.82, review by the Ombudsman and
exercise of the functions of the Children’s Guardian. The Inquiry notes that Re
Rhett is not binding on other Magistrates; however, the Inquiry is of the view
that Re Rhett accurately reflects the law and represents good policy. It should
be applied by all Magistrates exercising jurisdiction in care proceedings.
Contact orders
11.199 Determining the duration, frequency and supervision needs for contact between
children and young persons in care and those significant to them, is a complex
matter. The Inquiry is aware of the competing views in the literature concerning
the benefits which may accrue to a child or young person from contact being
maintained, and balancing the need for stability, the likelihood of restoration, the
developmental requirements of a child or young person as well as changes in
132
Submission: Children’s Court NSW, 14 January 2008, pp.5-6.
133
134
135
Submission: Law Society of NSW, pp.6 and 7.
136
NSW Ombudsman, Care Proceedings in the Children’s Court, July 2006, p.27.
the circumstances of birth families and the quality of the contact, all within the
context of the best interests of the child or young person.
11.200 A key issue before the Inquiry was whether the Children’s Court should retain
jurisdiction to make final contact orders. Further, whether it should have power
to enforce those orders, and whether it should have the power to require DoCS
to supervise contact.
DoCS’ position
11.201 DoCS has recently issued a draft Policy Statement on Contact that provides a
guide to the supervision of contact by a DoCS caseworker. The type and
frequency of contact is noted to depend upon the case plan goal, for example,
whether it involves assessment, restoration, permanent care or adoption, and
the child’s or young person’s assessed needs and views.
11.202 The minimum frequency of contact extends from three times a week for at least
six hours per week (for 0-2 months of age where the purpose of contact is
assessment, or the plan is restoration) to two to six times per year for the same
age group (where the case plan goal is permanent care or adoption). The
minimum levels then vary according to the age of the child.
11.203 The draft contact policy is not prescriptive as to whether contact is supervised
or unsupervised. It notes that there should be some supervision, whether or not
so ordered, where there is a potential risk to the safety of the child or young
person, or where there is a need to assess the interactions between the child or
young person and family members or the effect of contact on the child or young
person.
11.204 Supervised contact can be provided by DoCS caseworkers or by casual

employees, non-government OOHC agency employees, foster carers, or by a
contracted service that specialises in contact. For unsupervised contact, the
child or young person can be dropped off and picked up from the place of
contact by foster carers, DoCS carers, DoCS caseworkers, DoCS casual
employees or NGO employees.
11.205 During the assessment phase, the draft provides that contact should generally
be supervised once a month and then after six months have passed, once
every two months, in the absence of an order requiring more frequent
supervision by DoCS.
11.206 DoCS carried out an impact analysis for the draft contact policy. It estimated
the cost in 2007/08 dollars based on whether all contact is supervised (A);
contact is supervised about two thirds of the time for the children under twelve
years and just over a third of the time for those aged over twelve years (B); as
with (B) but with higher average hours per visit (C); and as with (B) but with
higher visit frequency (D). The annual costs for each would respectively be
around $49 million, $34 million, $38.5 million and $44.2 million. (A) and (D)
reflect significant increases over current costs (increases in the order of 35 per
cent and 21 per cent) whereas the cost for (B) is seven per cent less than
current costs and (C) represents a six per cent increase.
11.207 Supervised contact is a particularly vexed issue. There is literature to suggest

that no program for supervised contact has yet been demonstrated to
significantly improve parent/child relationships.137 Notwithstanding, according to
DoCS, there is still strong judicial support for supervised contact.
11.208 DoCS also stated “no other jurisdiction appears to give so extensive a power to
order contact to the courts.”138 DoCS recommended that the Children’s Court’s
ability to make contact orders be limited to interim orders and to orders for a
specified period of time following the making of final orders.
11.209 DoCS also urged the Inquiry to consider costs as a relevant consideration:
These are matters which the Court of Appeal has said are quite
properly taken into consideration. They are relevant factors in
the consideration of any parent. They are certainly relevant for
any agency who must decide how best to use the finite
resources available to it.139
The Children’s Court’s position
11.210 The Children’s Court submitted that it should retain its power with respect to
contact and its jurisdiction should be extended to enable an order requiring the
Director-General to supervise contact.
11.211 The Senior Children’s Magistrate argued that contact is:
too important a matter to be left to the internal process of the

Department of Community Services or to private arrangements
between the Department and agencies whose own interests in
that regard may not entirely coincide with those of the child or
young person.140
11.212 In addition, the Senior Children’s Magistrate noted that litigation in relation to
varying contact orders has been relatively rare, a position with which DoCS
agrees.
11.213 In a submission to an earlier review, the Children’s Court and the LAC
submitted that the Court should have power to order contact during the period
of an emergency care and protection order.141
137
R Birnbaum and R Alaggia, “Supervised Visitation: A call for a second generation of research,” Family
Court Review, 2006, DoCS, Intranet, Topic 20, Contact between a child and the child’s family.
138
139
ibid.
140
141
ibid., p.28.
The Children’s Guardian’s position
11.214 The Children’s Guardian submitted that s.86 of the Care Act should be
amended to allow the Children’s Court to make interim contact orders only, with
ongoing contact arrangements being determined through case review and
planning. The Children’s Guardian stated that parties should have a right to
apply to the Children’s Court or another review body for review of contact
arrangements if they are dissatisfied with contact arrangements.
Legal agency positions
11.215 The LAC submitted that the Children’s Court is best placed to make contact
decisions. The Aboriginal Legal Service and the LAC both favour the Children’s
Court retaining the ability to make contact orders as a way of ensuring that the
needs of the child or young person in relation to contact are not dwarfed by the
resource considerations of DoCS or other agencies.
11.216 The Aboriginal Legal Service submitted that the Children’s Court’s power to
make contact is particularly important for Aboriginal families. It stated:
In the vast majority of care and protection maters where

children are placed in out of home care, the Department
recommends contact with birth parents four times per year….
In Aboriginal communities, this standard contact regime is
insufficient to give children adequate exposure to their
culture.142
11.217 The Law Society submitted that contact with birth parents is critical to the
development and identity of a child, and stated that the importance of the issue
renders judicial determination the appropriate approach. It also stated that:
Limiting the power of the Court to make contact orders only

during interim proceedings would return us to the problems that
occurred under the Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987.
Under the 1987 Act, contact could not be ordered in the context
of final care orders and one significant adverse impact of this
was that parents seeking additional contact would seek to
rescind the final order to achieve this. This led to significant
disruption to placements even where there was no genuine
desire on the part of the birth parent to reassert parental
responsibility for the child.143
142
Submission: Aboriginal Legal Service, pp.4 and 5.
143
Submission: NSW Law Society, p.5.
11.218 The Redfern Legal Centre advised the Inquiry that in many cases, despite the
existence of orders for more frequent contact, “DoCS informs the parents that
they will be granted the minimum four visits per year.”144
11.219 The Inquiry notes that in response to assertions that DoCS usually “proposes
minimal contact of two to four occasions per year,”145 the recent draft policy
suggests that this should not continue to be the case, if it has been in the past.
11.220 Woman’s Legal Services, in relation to the introduction in the current Care Act
of the power of the Court to make contact orders, stated:
There was significant advocacy at the time for this change, due
to the failure of the Department to facilitate continuing contact
between children in care and their family of origin.
Consequently we consider that it is crucial that the Children’s
Court retain its power to make contact orders, as per section
86(1) of the Act.146
11.221 In relation to the ability of the Children’s Court’s to enforce contact orders, the
LAC submitted that a contact order must be enforceable if it is to be adhered to.
Similarly, the Combined Community Legal Centres Group submitted that it is
currently difficult for a person in favour of whom a contact order is made to have
that order enforced if the person with parental responsibility for the child refuses
to allow contact to take place. The Law Society also recommended that the
Children’s Court have power to enforce contact orders.
11.222 The Inquiry however notes that these orders are enforceable under the Family
Law Act 1975 if registered in the Family Court under that Act, as discussed in
Chapter 14.
NGOs and peak bodies’ positions
11.223 The Council of Social Service of NSW (NCOSS) supports the retention of the
Court’s power to make contact orders, noting that:
The development of a strong policy framework to support

decisions made by the Court – including better provision of
information by caseworkers and designated agencies – may
improve decisions made by the Court, but should not replace
the role of the Court.147
11.224 Foster care groups did not agree with removing or limiting the Court’s role in
ordering contact, but were concerned about the impacts of contact orders on
foster families, particularly where that required extensive travel, or where
144
Submission: Redfern Legal Centre, p.7.
145
146
Submission: Women’s Legal Services, p.7.
147
Submission: NCOSS, p.67.
contact was arranged but cancelled or ignored by the parents of the child or
young person.
11.225 Other NGOs sought flexibility and the introduction of “evidence-based

guidelines or benchmarks” to assist Magistrates determine appropriate levels of
contact.148
11.226 The Association of Children’s Welfare Agencies (ACWA) supported retaining

the Children’s Court’s ability to make contact orders in relation to interim
arrangements pending final orders.
Inquiry’s view
11.227 The Inquiry is of the view that, on balance, the Children’s Court should retain its
power to make contact orders with respect to those children and young persons
about whom the Court has accepted the assessment of the Director-General
that there is a realistic possibility of restoration. For all other children and young
persons, that is those where the Court has accepted that there is no such
possibility, the Court should have no power with respect to making orders as to
contact.
11.228 Contact is of great importance where restoration is contemplated and the Court
properly has a role in those decisions. However, where permanency planning
does not include restoration, it is appropriate that decisions as to contact are
made by DoCS or the designated agency to whom parental responsibility has
been delegated. They can take account of changing circumstances as the child
or young person grows older. Any dispute should be dealt with by the use of
alternative dispute resolution mechanisms as described in the next chapter.
The principles set out in DoCS draft contact policy appear appropriate to guide
its decision making, and that of others when acting in that capacity.
11.229 The Inquiry considers that the development of evidence based guidelines or
benchmarks as suggested by Catholic Social Services NSW/ACT merits the
attention of the Children’s Court or the Judicial Commission. The Inquiry notes
that DoCS has carried out some excellent research in this area which could
form the basis for educational material for the use of Magistrates (both
specialist and non specialist).
11.230 Whether or not contact is supervised should be a matter for the Children’s Court
during the period it has power to order contact, however, the consent of the
agency with responsibility for any supervision should remain a pre-condition to
the exercise of that power by the Children’s Court.
11.231 Of significant concern is the cost of contact. The Inquiry is aware of the
existence of Contact Services, funded by the Commonwealth Government for
the purpose of facilitating contact within the family law jurisdiction. In the
148
Submission: Catholic Social Services NSW/ACT, p.26.
Inquiry’s view, there should be discussions with the Commonwealth in order to

obtain access to those services for the purpose of satisfying contact (both
supervised and non-supervised) within the care jurisdiction.
11.232 The Inquiry understands from its discussions with caseworkers and from the
review undertaken by the Premier’s Delivery Unit, Premier and Cabinet that a
deal of caseworkers’ time is spent carrying out contact orders (primarily in
driving children to the place of contact, supervising the contact, and returning
the children to their authorised carers).
11.233 The Inquiry understands that DoCS has established a Parental Contact Centre
in Northern Region. A recent evaluation suggests that the cost of centre based
contact services is significantly less than the cost of casual NGO contact
service provision and that service quality is better in the former.
11.234 Encouraging or requiring foster carers to deliver children and young persons to
contact visits, minimising the role of caseworkers and increasing the use of
Commonwealth or State provided contact centres are all supported by the
Inquiry.
Rescission and variation of care orders

11.235 The Children’s Court informed the Inquiry that the child’s legal representative
has no clear entitlement under s.90(3) of the Care Act, on behalf of the child, to
bring an application for variation or rescission:
The Children's Court has developed a mechanism to avoid this

problem - the child representative writes to the Court
suggesting that the Children's Magistrate, of his own motion,
may wish to re-list the matter but it is submitted that this
shortcoming should be corrected.149
11.236 DoCS stated that it supports amending the Care Act to permit a child or young
person to make an application for the variation or rescission of a care order.
The Inquiry agrees.
Compulsory Assistance
11.237 DoCS advises that there are a small but consistent number of serious matters
raised before the Court where the issue for the care and protection of a child
relates to their need for intensive care and support to protect them from suicide
or other life threatening or self destructive behaviour.
11.238 The Care Act addresses this with a series of provisions for compulsory
assistance orders, which have never been proclaimed. The making of a
compulsory assistance order would depend on there being an identified
149
therapy, treatment or service that, in a short period of time, would assist the
child or young person to deal with the problem and that would more likely than
not lead to a significant improvement in the circumstances of the child or young
person. DoCS advised that such involuntary therapeutic services are
unavailable in this State and it was unlikely either that such orders could be
made or if an order could be made that it would have the appropriate outcome.
11.239 The Supreme Court's inherent parens patriae jurisdiction is usually invoked in
these circumstances. The Ministerial Advisory Committee considered that there
may be a need for the Supreme Court (or another Court), to have the power to
have a child examined to determine what therapeutic treatment might be
necessary, and that this may not be currently covered within the parens patriae
jurisdiction. The committee therefore recommended to the Minister that a new
power for medical intervention be included.
11.240 In response to the DoCS Discussion Paper, the Ombudsman submitted that
there is a case for compulsory assistance provisions, but said they can only be
used effectively if adequate supports or services are established.150 Others,
including NCOSS, and AbSec have recommended that these provisions be
proclaimed in the same or a revised form.
11.241 DoCS was generally supportive of the Ministerial Advisory Committee’s

proposal, however, it was of the view that the length of stay for the child or
young person should be no longer than absolutely necessary for the
assessment, that there should be a clear process available for children or young
persons to quit the assessment process and that when they did leave the
assessment there would be treatment and support in the community for them.
11.242 The Inquiry is of the view that in the event that the powers set out in Chapter 9
of the Care Act are not sufficient, the parens patriae jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court is capable of dealing with the very small number of children who may
require an intervention of the type contemplated by the unproclaimed section.
Part 3 of Chapter 7 of the Care Act should be repealed.
Extended role of the Court

11.243 The Inquiry received a number of submissions in relation to the extent of the
Court’s powers under the Care Act to make decisions about children and young
persons who are in OOHC and more generally to act on its own initiative. In
considering these submissions, the Inquiry was mindful that the courts
exercising power under the Family Law Act 1975 have own motion powers151
and more generally, in child related proceedings, are able actively to direct,
control and manage the conduct of the proceedings.152
150
NSW Ombudsman, Submission to DoCS, Statutory Child Protection in NSW: issues and options for
reform, Discussion Paper for review, October 2006, p.47.
151
Family Law Rules 2004 rules 15.71 and 15.72
152
Family Court Act 1975 s.69ZN.
11.244 As a matter of principle, the Inquiry agrees that Children’s Court proceedings
should be conducted in a way that permits the Court to direct, manage and
control the proceedings in so far as that is designed to, and does, achieve
better outcomes for the safety, welfare and well-being of the child or young
person before it, and in so far as that is within the powers expressly vested in
it.153
11.245 However, the Inquiry is hesitant to recommend that further and extended
powers be granted to the Children’s Court. In the event that the Children’s
Court is headed by a District Court Judge, generally has specialist and trained
Magistrates sitting in the care and protection jurisdiction, is staffed by an
appropriate number of qualified Children’s Registrars, has simpler procedures,
practitioners who appear before it are accredited and conform to a Code of
Conduct, and DoCS’ caseworkers present fair and balanced evidence, there
may be an argument to endow the Children’s Court with greater powers. Each
of these matters is addressed in this and the following two chapters.
Section 82 monitoring of orders concerning parental responsibility
11.246 Section 82 is a mechanism whereby the Children’s Court can seek a report as
to the arrangements that have been made for the care and protection of a child
or young person and, if that report is not satisfactory, order that the case be
brought back before it so that the existing orders may be reviewed.
11.247 There are two interpretations of the review contemplated by s.82. One is that
review allows for existing orders to be changed. The other is that the Court can
express its concerns, but that new orders will require an application by a party
to the proceedings under s.90 for rescission or variation of an existing care
order.
The Children’s Court view
11.248 In the matter of Re Calvin,154 Mitchell SCM determined that the ‘review’ referred
to in s.82 allows the Court to take further action, in that it can order a further
report pursuant to s.82. His Honour adopted a definition of ‘review’ which
permits the revisiting of proceedings and, if necessary, re-working the decision
and orders.
DoCS’ view
11.249 DoCS submitted that the Children’s Court interpretation of s.82 is contrary to the
intention of the section.
153
Such Courts do not have an inherent jurisdiction: Walton v McBride (1995) 36 NSWLR 440.
154
Re Calvin [2003] CLN 6.
11.250 DoCS referred the Inquiry to the House of Lords decision in Re S (Minors)
(Care order: implementation of care plan),155 which considered the jurisdiction of
the Court after the making of a final order. In that case, Lord Nicolls said:
The particular strength of the courts lies in the resolution of

disputes: its ability to hear all sides of a case, to decide issues
of fact and law, and to make a firm decision on a particular
issue at a particular time. But a court cannot have day-to-day
responsibility for a child. The court cannot deliver the services
which may best serve a child’s needs. Unlike a local authority,
a court does not have close, personal and continuing
knowledge of the child. The court cannot respond with
immediacy and informality to practical problems and changed
circumstances as they arise. Supervision by the court would
encourage ‘drift’ in decision making, a perennial problem in
children cases. Nor does a court have the task of managing the
financial and human resources available to a local authority for
dealing with all children in need in its area. The authority must
manage these resources in the best interests of all children for
whom it is responsible.
The Children Act, embodying what I have described as a

cardinal principle, represents the assessment made by
Parliament of the division of responsibility which would best
promote the interests of children within the overall care system.
The court operates as the gateway into care, and makes the
necessary care order when the threshold conditions are
satisfied and the court considers a care order would be in the
best interests of the child. That is the responsibility of the court.
Thereafter the court has no continuing role in relation to the
care order. Then it is the responsibility of the local authority to
decide how the child should be cared for.156
11.251 The Ombudsman informed the Inquiry that there is some uncertainty and
inconsistency surrounding the use and status of s.82 reports and concluded
that:
We believe that provisions such as ss.82 and 76 (the latter

relating to reports on supervision orders) that enable the Court
to require reports, provide important safeguards for children
who have been removed from the care of their parents or have
been placed under the supervision of DoCS. Accordingly, we
believe that the Court’s power to require reports at whatever
periods the Court considers appropriate should not be restricted
or narrowed. We consider that any issues of procedural
155
Re S (Minors) (Care order: implementation of care plan [2002] 1 FLR 815.
156
Re S (Minors) (Care order: implementation of care plan) [2002] 1 FLR 815 at [27]-[28].
fairness could be addressed through legislative amendment or

court rules.157
Legal Aid Commission’s view
11.252 The LAC submitted that the Children’s Court should have a greater role in
monitoring the implementation of its final orders in care and protection matters
and that the Care Act should be amended to require the Court to conduct a
review of any case in relation to which there had been, or is proposed to be, a
change to the permanency plan upon which the Court’s final orders were based.
It stated:
Legal Aid NSW takes this view because we are aware of many
cases in which the permanency plan initially proposed by DoCS
for a child (and that formed the basis on which the Court has
made long term care orders) is ultimately not proceeded with...
These issues have only come to light as a result of the Act’s
current requirement for the provision of section 82 reports.158
Proposal of the Honourable Mr Crawford
11.253 The former Children’s Magistrate, Mr Crawford, has proposed a model to

amend s.82 to clarify the powers of the Children’s Court.159
11.254 Mr Crawford suggested that, properly construed, the Care Act means that the
Children’s Court receives a s.82 report, considers it and makes a finding as to
whether the proper arrangements have been made for the care and protection
of the child. If the Children’s Court is not satisfied that proper arrangements
have been made, the Magistrate then exercises a discretion in determining
whether or not to order that the matter be brought back before the Court. If the
matter is brought back, the order is then reviewed by the Court (first by
returning notionally to the position when the order was originally made, and then
by considering whether the original order still remains appropriate in light of any
new information). Mr Crawford suggested that what was intended was a
consideration of whether the existing order is appropriate rather than inviting a
speculative examination of whether some other order may be better suited even
if the existing order is appropriate.
11.255 Mr Crawford stated that bringing the matter before the Court for a review
hearing would be of limited use if there is no opportunity to alter the situation.
He also stated that the process should be quick, simple and responsive. He
stated that if there are factual matters in dispute, the Court cannot resolve them
as it is not able to call witnesses or mount a case, but he suggested that where
157
Submission: NSW Ombudsman, 10 March 2008, Part 1, p.23; NSW Ombudsman, Care Proceedings in the
Children’s Court, A Discussion Paper, 2006, pp.30 and 31.
158
Submission: Legal Aid NSW, 20 February 2008, pp.96 and 97.
159
J Crawford, “Monitoring and Review of Court Orders: Section 82 of the Children and Young Persons (Care
and Protection) Act 1998,” CLN 8, 2004, p.34.
there is a significant factual dispute, it could make a finding that the proper
arrangements are not being made and leave it to a party to bring an application
to rescind or vary.
Inquiry’s view
11.256 The Inquiry takes the view that the Children’s Court appropriately has decision
making power in relation to matters requiring a judicial response. The ability to
monitor the decisions it makes is entirely consistent with this approach.
However, the Children’s Court is not and should not be an oversight body. The
Children’s Guardian and the Ombudsman ably fulfil that role.
11.257 The Inquiry is of the view that the Children’s Court should have the power to
order that a written report to be made to it and, if not satisfied that proper
arrangements have been made, to re-list the matter with notice to the parties to
the original proceedings in order to give any of them an opportunity to make an
application pursuant to s.90 or for any other ancillary or incidental order.
However, if no party wishes to apply for an order varying any of the orders
made, the matter should be taken no further. In the absence of a moving party,
the Children’s Court cannot act. It would be an odd outcome if the Court, based
on nothing more than the s.82 report, and in the absence of any party indicating
a desire for some alteration or calling evidence, determined to alter the existing
state of affairs.
11.258 The Children’s Court should develop rules concerning the timing, provision of
notice, confidentiality and procedure to ensure that reports are made to it in a
timely fashion, that all parties are provided with a copy of the report and that the
process by which a date is set for any hearing is also clear.
Own motion powers
11.259 The Senior Children’s Magistrate informed the Inquiry that he would like the
Children’s Court to have the ability to initiate action, particularly in cases where
DoCS has removed some but not all of the children from a particular household,
and where the Court feels that the remaining children are likely to be at risk of
harm or where concerns become evident in proceedings in the Court’s criminal
jurisdiction. He said:
The Court remains what some might describe as a junior

partner in the child care and protection system. Only the
Director-General may initiate proceedings and, even where
care and protection issues regarding a child or young person
come to the attention of the Court, there is no power to require
the Director-General to take any protective action. It frequently
happens that, when a child is removed from a dangerous or
abusive home, his or her young siblings are left in that home in
most unsatisfactory conditions and the Court has no jurisdiction
to influence events and must rely on seeking to persuade the

Director-General to take action.160
11.260 The Deputy Chief Magistrate of the Local Court suggested, during the Public
Forum on the Role of Courts, that it would be useful if the Children’s Court
could, of its own motion, call for particular evidence. She said:
The way that the Court would currently get around that would
be to suggest to a party or another that the Court may benefit
from evidence from this particular area, but if that party doesn't
want to bring that evidence, there's nothing that we can do
about it at this stage.161
11.261 The Inquiry believes that the Court should have the power to order that expert
evidence be provided to it, in the form of Clinic reports or otherwise. In relation
to lay evidence, the Inquiry believes that as the child is usually separately
represented in care proceedings, as are parents or other interested parties, and
DoCS, there are sufficient safeguards to ensure all appropriate evidence is
before the Court.
11.262 In relation to the position of siblings, the Inquiry understands that there is a
process whereby the Senior Children’s Magistrate can report concerns to
DoCS’ Director, Legal Services. That is the appropriate route to take with any
concerns the Court has arising from proceedings before it.
11.263 While the Inquiry notes that the Family Court has powers akin to ‘own motion’
powers, it understands that they are rarely used, and in any event that is a
superior court of record. The Inquiry is of the view that such powers should not
reside in the Children’s Court.
Re Josie
11.264 In the matter of Re Josie,162 the Children’s Court made an order granting interim
parental responsibility to the Minister, and later made an order in relation to the
interim placement of the child contrary to a decision DoCS had made. DoCS
appealed this latter order. Levine J of the Supreme Court found that when
parental responsibility has been allocated to the Minister, the Children’s Court
cannot derogate the Minister’s power to exercise it in accordance with the
discretion reserved to that office. In this case, the Supreme Court found that
the Children’s Court had acted beyond power in ordering that the child remain in
a particular placement.
11.265 In relation to this decision, the LAC informed the Inquiry:
160
161
162
Re Josie [2004] NSWSC 642.
This decision has been the cause of much concern to Legal Aid
NSW, and in particular to our solicitors who act as the direct or
independent legal representative for the children involved.
Whether children are placed by DoCS in out-of-home-care, with
their parents or with other relatives pursuant to an interim order
allocating parental responsibility to the Minister, the current
state of the law according to the Supreme Court is that they can
be removed from that placement without anyone – even the
child’s legal representative – being notified or heard in regards
to whether such a removal would be in the child’s best interests.
Indeed, as a result of this decision in several cases in which
Legal Aid NSW has been involved DoCS has even refused to
consent to giving an undertaking to the Court to notify the Court
or the child’s legal representative in the event that a removal of
the child from his or her interim placement is planned.163
11.266 The LAC stated that allowing DoCS to have this discretion even in relation to a
grant of interim parental responsibility can lead to multiple short term
placements for children.
11.267 The Combined Community Legal Centres Group stated:
We consider it to be a highly unsatisfactory situation that the

Court cannot make orders incidental to the primary orders for
the purposes of rendering the primary orders capable of being
complied with. We consider that the ability to make ancillary
orders is a useful and necessary tool.164
11.268 For reasons consistent with those set out above in relation to s.82, the Inquiry is
not of the view that it is in the best interests of children and young persons for
the Children’s Court to have the power to intervene in the discretionary exercise
of parental responsibility by the Minister or her delegate. It is not, in the
Inquiry’s view, an ancillary power as described by the Combined Community
Legal Centres Group.
Restoration
11.269 The Children’s Court is concerned that once parental responsibility has been
allocated to the Minister, DoCS can choose to restore a child to his or her
parents without any requirement to consult the Children’s Court. The Deputy
Chief Magistrate of the Local Court said:
It would be a matter of logic that if a Court has made a finding

already that there is no realistic prospect of a child being
restored to the parents' care and therefore made an order for
163
164
Submission: Combined Community Legal Centres Group, pp.9 and 10.
parental responsibility in the Minister and before it has made

that order approved a permanency plan that places the child in
out-of-home care, as a matter of logic if there then becomes a
reasonable prospect of restoration of the child to a parent then
that is something that the Court should know about.165
11.270 The Children’s Court accordingly submitted that where the Minister proposes to
restore a child or young person to the care of a parent after a finding of “no
realistic possibility of restoration”, she should be required to apply to the
Children’s Court so that the matter may be canvassed and determined, by the
Court.
11.271 This issue is complicated by the lack of data available on failed restorations.
The Inquiry does not know the frequency with which restoration fails, and if so,
the number of such failures, or the reasons for them.
11.272 As noted above, the Inquiry agrees with the decision in Re Josie, and with the
general proposition that while the decision as to the allocation of parental
responsibility properly lies with the Court, decisions in relation to the exercise of
parental responsibility properly should lie with the person to whom that
responsibility has been allocated. This would generally include decisions as to
placement (subject to matters properly the concern of the Court, as already
discussed in relation to Re Rhett).
11.273 Decisions as to whether, and if so when, to restore children and young persons
to their parents will rarely be straightforward. It is clear from the earlier chapters
that poor judgements will be made from time to time. It is also clear that the
circumstances of the child or young person and parents may change from time
to time in ways that were incapable of prediction when the original assessment
as to the realistic possibility of restoration was made. The Inquiry notes that
DoCS has a Permanency Planning strategy operating in 42 CSCs, and that
more than 1,000 caseworkers have received training on Permanency Planning,
including restoration decision making.166
11.274 However, the Inquiry is persuaded by the argument expressed by Deputy Chief
Magistrate. It is of the view that the decision to restore a child or young person,
who was removed from his or her parent by order of the Children’s Court, and in
respect of whom, the person with parental responsibility is now of the view
should be restored, that decision should be made by the Children’s Court, upon
application of the person with parental responsibility.
Supervision orders
11.275 The Senior Children’s Magistrate submitted that the Care Act should be
amended to impose specific duties and responsibilities on the Director-General
165
166
when a supervision order is made (and/or to provide the Children’s Court with
power to specify those duties or responsibilities), and in addition, to allow a
supervision order that is longer than 12 months’ duration to be made. He stated
that it is a shortcoming of s.76 that the form of supervision remains entirely a
matter for the Director-General, and can in practice involve little more than a
theoretical supervision.
11.276 The Inquiry received no other submissions, nor is it aware of any submissions
being made to earlier reviews, recommending that a similar power be granted to
the Children’s Court. Nor is it aware of any specific evidence of inadequacies or
deficiencies in the exercise of supervisory obligations by DoCS. It is
unfortunate that insufficient data are available to understand the extent of the
use of these orders, or of the form of the supervision provided where it is
ordered.
11.277 Consistent with the approach adopted by the Supreme Court and Court of
Appeal as set out above and below, the Inquiry believes no change is
warranted. In any event it is of the view that there are a wide variety of ways in
which a person may be supervised and that flexibility would be preferable to the
rigidity of a formula. That is not to say that the Court could not make
recommendations to assist the parties when it makes a supervision order.
Section 74: order for provision of support services
11.278 This provision was considered in George v Children’s Court of New South
Wales.167 In that case, Ipp JA with whom the other members of Court agreed,
said:
The pool of funds available to DoCS for carrying out its manifold
duties is finite. No doubt, as with all government departments,
DoCS works out its budget each year by reference to the
amount allocated to it under the governing Appropriation Act. In
doing so it will allocate a particular sum for the provision of
services to children and young persons in need of care and
protection. If the Children’s Court is empowered to order DoCS
to expend money other than in accordance with the current
budget applicable, the result will be that some children who
otherwise would have benefited will not receive the services
intended. The money available for the services to be provided
to them will have to be used to accommodate the orders of the
Children’s Court.
In essence, the allocation of money and other resources for the

care and protection of children and young persons is a matter of
policy. It is preferable that such policy decisions be made by
the body vested with the administrative responsibility for the
167
George v Children’s Court of New South Wales (2003) 59 NSWLR 232.
proper use of the resources in question, and not by a Court on

an ad hoc basis.
Next, I would point out that the overall amount likely to be

involved in the provision of transport and accommodation
expenses to parents of children in foster care, generally, is not
necessarily trivial.
….all parents have to make choices in regard to their children.

These choices involve such matters as the place of family
residence, the kind and place of education each child is to
receive, and the kind and standard of medical treatment each
child is to receive. The number of choices that parents are
required to make through the lifetime of their children is infinite.
While parents will ordinarily have the welfare of their children at
heart, the choices that parents will make will be dictated,
largely, by the funds that they have at their disposal. It would
be unthinkable to compel parents to make choices which they
could not afford simply because those choices would advance
the interests of a child.
In my view, the same approach has to be taken when parental

responsibility is allocated to the Minister pursuant to the [Care
Act]. What is in the best interests of the child one would readily
expect to be left to the discretion of the Minister and the
Director-General, having regard to the limited funds allotted to
DoCS for the protection of children in need of care, generally.168
11.279 Many submissions which recommended that the Director-General be required

to provide support services if ordered to do so were received by the Inquiry and
by the 2006 Discussion Paper.
11.280 DoCS submitted that the approach taken in George v Children’s Court of New
South Wales and restated in Re Josie is the correct approach. The Inquiry
agrees, and does not consider amendment of the section necessary or
appropriate.
Apprehended violence orders
11.281 The Senior Children’s Magistrate submitted to the Inquiry that the Children’s
Court should have the power to make AVOs, or orders similar to AVOs, against
parents or other persons in order to protect a child or young person. He
described it as “a very handy weapon in the child protection armoury.”169 He
advised of a case where Police were not willing to apply for an AVO in
168
George v Children’s Court of New South Wales (2003) 59 NSWLR 232 at [132]-[133].
169
Submission: Children’s Court NSW, 14 January 2008, pp.32-33.
circumstances where it was in the best interests of the child that one be
obtained.
11.282 DoCS opposes giving this power to the Children’s Court for a range of reasons,
including the undesirability of the involvement of Police in care proceedings,
altering the nature of the DoCS caseworkers work to enforcement and making
the person against whom the order was sought a party to proceedings and as
such giving them access to information, not otherwise available.
11.283 On balance, the Inquiry is persuaded by DoCS’ arguments. Additionally it notes

the recent statutory amendments which provide a more comprehensive
structure for the obtaining of Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders and
Apprehended Personal Violence Orders which make it more likely that Police
will act in circumstances of the kind mentioned.170
Order to attend therapeutic or treatment program

11.284 Health told the Inquiry that an order under s.75 to attend therapeutic or
treatment program has not, to its knowledge, been made. Health’s New Street
Adolescent Program, which is discussed in Chapter 7, has argued for a greater
use of this provision to reduce the likelihood of children and young persons
dropping out of the program before benefits can be realised.
11.285 The Inquiry agrees and urges DoCS to have regard to the provision in
appropriate cases. If in the future, its benefit is demonstrated, the Inquiry can
see no reason for it to continue to be confined to children aged under 14 years.
Children’s Court Clinic
Expanding the role
11.286 A number of bodies have submitted that the role of the Clinic should be
broadened. Health submitted that the Clinic’s role should include making
physical health assessments of children and young persons and risk
assessments in relation to adolescents who sexually abuse, and providing
appropriate treatment services.
11.287 Health noted that Justice Health staff provide advice to the Children’s Court in
its criminal jurisdiction and indicated that it would support consideration being
given to a transfer of responsibility for the Children’s Court Clinic from the
Attorney General’s portfolio to Justice Health, on the basis that those who are
providing Health interventions should work for the Health portfolio. Health noted
that Justice Health currently provides forensic mental health and drug and
alcohol services for both adults and adolescents in the community. The team
providing these services to the Children’s Court includes psychiatrists, drug and
170
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007.
alcohol staff, specialist mental health nurses and a social worker. The team
also provides community based assessments and referrals to appropriate
community services, discharge planning for young persons in custody and case
management of a small number of clients. The clinicians receive regular
supervision, and while the team does not employ psychologists, a framework to
extend the current supervision could be created to include this group.
11.288 The Inquiry is particularly interested in assessments for children or young

persons who have sexually abused other children or young persons. Justice
Health has staff with expertise in this area.
11.289 The Inquiry supports a feasibility study into the transfer of the Clinic to Justice
Health and its possible expansion to provide the kind of services currently
offered by Justice Health in the criminal jurisdiction.
11.290 In other submissions, it was suggested that the Clinic should be used to assess
the parenting capacity of people who are not seeking parental responsibility, but
with whom a child has been placed pending final orders. In his 2006 discussion
paper, the Ombudsman expressed some concern about leaving the
assessment of such carers to an ‘in-house’ placement assessment by DoCS (as
opposed to an assessment by the Clinic).171
11.291 Against this, DoCS stated that any expansion of the Clinic’s role without a
significant enhancement of its budget would result in an increased delay in the
time between the making of assessment orders and the provision of an
assessment report to the Court, which would in turn delay care proceedings.
11.292 DoCS’ internal guidelines in relation to making an application for assessment

state: “it is not appropriate to lodge an application for an assessment when the
assessment is required for therapeutic or case management purposes.”
However, a number of DoCS officers informed the Inquiry that the Clinic’s
reports are sometimes used by caseworkers as a basis for their casework
decisions or for reaching a settlement. The Ombudsman also stated that:
“people familiar with the specialist courts said that DoCS uses the Clinic to
inform its casework decisions, including the question whether there is a realistic
possibility of restoration.”172
11.293 The Inquiry agrees that the work of the Clinic should be expanded. The Inquiry
sees no reason in theory or practice why the Clinic’s reports should not assist
caseworkers’ decision making and be used as a basis for discussion between
the parties which may result in matters being finalised without a court order.
Section 56 of the Care Act provides a safeguard for children and young persons
against the over use of assessments. Whether assessments are sought for
temporary carers should be decided on a case by case basis. Clearly matters
such as the length of time that temporary carers are expected to care for a child
171
NSW Ombudsman, Care Proceedings in the Children’s Court, A Discussion Paper, 2006, p.18.
172
ibid., p.19.
or young person, and other matters known about the carers, will influence
whether an assessment is sought or ordered.
Completeness of material forwarded to the clinic
11.294 What emerged as a significant issue was the number of people unhappy with
the documents provided to the Clinic for use in the preparation of its
assessments. The rules are clear that all parties are to agree to the documents
to which the Clinic has regard. However, it appears in practice that this does
not always occur. It clearly should.
11.295 More generally, the Clinic also informed the Inquiry that it is often the case that
either Authorised Clinicians do not receive all the information relevant to the
assessment from the parties, or else they receive the entirety of the DoCS file,
irrespective of the relevance of most of the documents on that file.
11.296 The Inquiry investigated a number of the claims made, usually by a parent, that
all relevant documents had not been sent to the Clinic. None of those
investigations supported the assertion that DoCS has sought to mislead the
Clinic by the selection of documents forwarded to the Clinic.
11.297 However, more needs to be done to ensure that the documents forwarded are
complete, only as voluminous as necessary to answer the questions posed in
the assessment order, and that each party has consented to them. DoCS
should ensure, where it is the applicant for an assessment order, that this
occurs.
Timeframes
11.298 One concern raised with the Inquiry in relation to the production of reports by
the Clinic was the delay between the Children’s Court making assessment
orders, and the report being submitted to the Court. In one case, the period
taken was cited as being between eight and 18 weeks. Any reduction in that
timeframe can only be in the best interests of children involved in care
proceedings.
Communication
11.299 The extent to which the relevant DoCS caseworker should be able to
communicate with the Authorised Clinician appointed to complete an
assessment was raised by the Inquiry. As noted above, Authorised Clinicians
are encouraged by the Clinic to make contact with the relevant DoCS
caseworker to obtain information about the relevant child or young person and
his or her family dynamics.173 The Clinic’s Director advised the Inquiry that
173
Authorised Clinicians Handbook, p.5.
contact with the DoCS caseworker might be necessitated by the quality of the
file of documents provided to the Authorised Clinician.174
11.300 DoCS’ internal guidelines in relation to making an application for an assessment

order, place restrictions on the contact that a caseworker can have with an
Authorised Clinician by stating that, outside of the file of documents provided to
the Authorised Clinician pursuant to the directions of the Children’s Court:
other information may only be provided by the caseworker to

the clinician upon their specific request. If the additional
information is in writing then copies are to be distributed to all
parties. Any other extra information should be limited to verbal
clarification of the information already provided.175
11.301 In the event that information becomes available after the material has been
forwarded to the Clinic, and it is information relevant to the Clinics’ work, there
should be provision for that material to be provided to the Clinic after each
relevant party has been informed of its existence and of the intention to forward
it to the authorised clinician thus giving them an opportunity to object.
11.302 The LAC submitted that the independent legal representative for the child in
care proceedings should be able to communicate with the Clinic and to provide
and receive information from the Authorised Clinician as currently occurs in the
family law jurisdiction.
11.303 The Inquiry is of the view that the value of the Authorised Clinician’s reports is
enhanced by their independence from the process. It believes that DoCS’
internal guidelines should be the standard governing communication between
Authorised Clinicians, DoCS caseworkers and others. Additionally, it considers
it important that each party should ensure that the documents provided to the
Authorised Clinician reflect any information they wish him or her to take into
account.
11.304 The Inquiry understands that there is no requirement that the Court advise
parties that a Clinic’s report has been received. The Inquiry is of the view that
the Court should advise parties when such a report is received. The Court
should be empowered to release a copy of the report to a person who is not a
party to the care proceedings but nevertheless has an interest in the safety,
welfare and well-being of the child or young person, by virtue of the professional
services being provided to that child or young person, such as a health
professional.
174
Transcript: Inquiry meeting with representatives of the Children’s Court Clinic, 26 May 2008, p.28.
175
DoCS, Intranet, Casework practice, Courts and legislation, Court order procedures, Application for an
assessment.
Quality of reports
11.305 The Inquiry received a variety of submissions (written and verbal) in relation to
the quality of the Clinic’s assessment reports. These submissions ranged from
the comment of a caseworker in a CSC in Southern Region who stated that she
had recently been involved in a matter where she felt that the Clinic carried out
“an absolutely outstanding assessment,”176 and the statement of the Clinic that
its surveys of Magistrates in relation to the usefulness of Clinic assessments
have generally resulted in positive feedback, to some submissions providing
examples of what were asserted to be poor quality reports. The Inquiry has
been advised on a number of occasions that reports submitted to the Court by
the Clinic are of ‘variable’ quality.177 In some cases, the quality of the Clinic’s
assessments were criticised on the basis of a failure to interview the subjects of
the report.
11.306 Against this, the Clinic’s Director informed the Inquiry that the Authorised
Clinician would almost always observe or interview the child.
11.307 The Clinic acknowledged that work needs to be done to educate the Children’s
Court and the parties to care proceedings about what may be reasonably asked
of the Clinic in the short time available for these assessments. The Clinic said
that a presentation has been recently given to Children’s Magistrates about this
issue, during which the Magistrates were asked to simplify the areas to be
addressed by Authorised Clinicians to ensure a useful assessment report.
11.308 The Clinic stated that it is exploring ways of achieving greater participation from
Authorised Clinicians in group supervision and in the Clinic’s Professional
Development program generally, and stated that it has submitted a proposal for
a new Panel application process to Attorney General’s that explicitly requires
participation in Professional Development.
11.309 The Clinic indicated that it will also be providing more outreach Professional
Development opportunities for Authorised Clinicians located in rural and
regional areas, which will include better use of the Clinic’s website to convey
relevant clinical information.
11.310 The consistency and quality of reports is an important matter and the Inquiry is
of the view that the work proposed by the Clinic is positive. However, since the
clinician’s report will normally constitute the only expert evidence before the
Court it is critical that it be impartial, fair and correct.
11.311 On a related matter, s.58 permits the Clinic to indicate it is “unable or unwilling
to prepare the assessment report.” While it is understood that there may be
very good reasons why a lack of resources and the like mean that the Clinic is
176
177
Transcript: Public Forum, Health and Disability, 11 April 2008, p.32; Transcript: Inquiry meeting with DoCS
staff, CSC Northern Region; Transcript: Inquiry meeting with representatives of the Law Society of NSW, 29
April 2008, p.22.
unable to prepare a report, the concept of unwillingness does not properly

reflect the Clinic’s role as an expert consultant to the Court. That portion of the
section should be deleted.
Payments
11.312 In relation to payment, the rate at which Authorised Clinicians are currently paid
is (according to the Clinic) well below the hourly rate recommended by the
Australian Psychological Society.
11.313 The Inquiry was provided with a copy of a proposal for a budget enhancement
for the Clinic, and was told by Attorney General’s that the proposal is currently
being evaluated. The proposal states that the Authorised Clinicians’ fees have
not increased since June 2001.
11.314 The Inquiry supports an increase in payment in order to attract sufficiently

skilled and experienced clinicians.
The data challenge in the care jurisdiction

11.315 Obtaining accurate data in relation to proceedings in the care jurisdiction has
proven to be a challenge. Neither the Children’s Court, nor Attorney General’s,
keeps detailed or reliable statistics in relation to care proceedings. The
Children’s Court publishes some of the decisions it makes in care proceedings
on its website, whilst the District Court publishes very few, and, until recently, it
did not provide a copy of decisions on appeal from the Children’s Court to that
Court. Decisions of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal in relation to appeals
concerning care and protection issues are, however, routinely published on its
website, as are those of the Supreme Court on its website.
11.316 The data limitations were lamented by many before the Inquiry. For example,
DoCS stated:
In understanding the current working of the Children’s Court,

any discussion is severely hampered by an absence of reliable
data and an inability to study a sample of cases.178
11.317 The Commissioner for Children and Young People, in a joint submission with
two academics, stated that even though the Children’s Court played a critical
role in making significant decisions in children’s lives:
We know little about the processes in terms of the profiles of

cases that come before it and the orders that are made. There
is no reliable information on a court data base, and no
178
comprehensive record of judgments or appeals from the

Court.179
11.318 DoCS recommended that the Children’s Court improve its data collection
methods and procedures in relation to all care proceedings.
11.319 The Ombudsman stated:
In our Children’s Court Discussion Paper we highlighted the

paucity of relevant data captured relating to Children’s Court
proceedings. We are also aware that there was a meeting in
August 2004 between a range of agencies to better identify
data needs.180
11.320 It appears that the meeting referred to by the Ombudsman identified the data
that would be useful to capture. The Inquiry strongly encourages the Children’s
Court, Attorney General’s and DoCS to move quickly to collect that data
(independently of Justice Link if necessary). It also encourages the District
Court to publish the decisions made in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction,
in relation to care proceedings as a matter of course.
11.321 The limited statistics currently available are set out in Chapter 5.
Recommendations
Recommendation 11.1
With respect to the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection)
Act 1998:
i. Section 8(a) should be amended to provide as follows:
that children and young persons receive such care and
protection as is necessary for their safety, welfare and well-
being, having regard to the capacity of their parents or other
persons responsible for them.
ii. Section 9 should be amended to provide:
The principles to be applied in the administration of this Act
are as follows:
In all actions and decisions concerning a particular
child or young person that are made under this Act
the safety, welfare and well-being of the child or
young person must be the paramount
consideration.
179
Submission: Commission for Children and Young People, p.48.
180
Submission: NSW Ombudsman, 10 March 2008, p.6.
Paragraphs (b) to (g) should then be renumbered

commencing with (a).
iii. Section 18 should be amended to insert the words “or a non-
government agency in receipt of government funding for the
requested services” after “or agency”.
iv. Section 21 should be amended to permit an NGO in receipt of
government funding for the requested services to apply on
behalf of a child or young person for assistance.
v. Section 28 should be proclaimed.
vi. Section 29(1)(f) should be amended to reflect the changed
reporting structure as set out in Chapter 10.
vii. Section 29(1)(f) should be amended to permit the disclosure of
the reporter’s details to a law enforcement agency pursuant to
the investigation of a serious crime committed upon a child or
young person, where that might impact on the child’s safety,
welfare or well-being.
viii. Section 71 should be amended so that the grounds are not
limited to those enumerated, while still retaining each sub-
section.
ix. The Act should be amended to make clear that, other than
emergency care and protection orders made under s.46(2) of
the Care Act, the Children’s Court can not allocate parental
responsibility to a designated agency or a principal thereof.
x. The Act should be amended to limit the power of the
Children’s Court to make contact orders to those matters
where the Court has accepted the assessment of the Director-
General that there is a realistic possibility of restoration.
xi. Section 90(3) should be amended to permit the child or young
person to make an application pursuant to that section.
xii. Part 3 of Chapter 7 should be repealed.
xiii. Section 58 (1) (a) should be amended to delete “or unwilling.”
xiv. Pursuant to s.82, the Children’s Court should have the power
to order that a written report be made to it and, if after
receiving that report, it is not satisfied that proper
arrangements have been made, it should have the power to re-
list the matter with notice to the parties to the original
proceedings in order to give any of them an opportunity to
make an application pursuant to s.90 or for any other ancillary
or incidental order. However, if no party wishes to apply for
an order varying any of the orders made, the matter should be
taken no further. In the absence of a moving party, the
Children’s Court should not be empowered to make orders of
its own motion.
In addition, the Children’s Court should develop rules

concerning timing, notice, confidentiality and procedures to
ensure that reports are made to it in a timely fashion, that all
parties are provided with a copy of the report and that the
process by which a date is set for hearing is also clear.
xv. The Children’s Court should have the power to order that
expert evidence be provided to it, in the form of reports
provided by the Children’s Court Clinic or otherwise.
xvi. Relevant amendments should be made to ensure that Re Rhett
[2008] CLN 1 is followed.
xvii. The Act should be amended to provide that a decision to
restore a child or young person to the care of the parents
from whom he or she had previously been removed by an
order of the Children’s Court, in circumstances where the
Children’s Court had accepted the assessment of the Director-
General that there was not a realistic possibility of restoration,
must be made by the Children’s Court upon application by the
person with parental responsibility.
Recommendation 11.2
There should be a feasibility study into the transfer of the Children’s

Court Clinic to Justice Health that should also investigate its expansion
to provide the services of the kind currently offered by Justice Health in
the criminal jurisdiction, as well as an extension of the matters dealt
with in the current assessments so as to provide greater assistance in
case management decisions.
Recommendation 11.3
Data in relation to all aspects of proceedings pursuant to the Children

and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 should be kept by
DoCS and the Children’s Court and made public.
Recommendation 11.4
DoCS should review its Casework Practice Policy, Taking Action in the
Children’s Court, to ensure it is consistent with the Children and Young
Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, in particular, the principles set
out in ss.9, 10 and 36.
Recommendation 11.5
DoCS should develop Guidelines for staff in order to ensure adherence

to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child and Young Person
Placement Principles in s.13 of the Children and Young Persons (Care

and Protection) Act 1998.
Recommendation 11.6
Evidence based guidelines for Magistrates should be prepared in

relation to orders about contact made under s.86 of the Children and
Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998.
12 Other models of decision making

Introduction .................................................................................................................466
Alternative Dispute Resolution..................................................................................467
Preliminary Conferences............................................................................................469
Other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms ..................................................471
Family Court Processes .............................................................................................472
Less adversarial trial..............................................................................................472
Magellan ................................................................................................................474
Magellan Report ....................................................................................................475
Evaluations and comments ...................................................................................476
Family Consultants ................................................................................................477
Alternative dispute resolution in the Family Court..................................................478
Care Circles .................................................................................................................478
Family Group Conferencing.......................................................................................481
Effectiveness .........................................................................................................482
UnitingCare Burnside’s Family Group Conferencing Pilot ....................................486
Other Conferencing Models .......................................................................................487
Children’s Hearings (Scottish tribunal model).........................................................487
Conclusion...................................................................................................................489
Introduction
12.1 The Inquiry considered whether the existing model by which statutory child
protection is delivered remains appropriate.
12.2 As noted earlier, the Children’s Court, a court sitting at the fourth tier of the
judicial hierarchy in NSW, is the principal decision maker in relation to matters
concerning the removal of children and young persons, the allocation of
parental responsibility and contact. The Children’s Court, which for the
purposes of this section encompasses the Local Court when it is sitting as a
Children’s Court, comprises both specialist and non-specialist Magistrates, with
the work allocated roughly two thirds to one third respectively. Appeals from the
Children’s Court proceed to a higher court, generally the District Court.
12.3 DoCS, an administrative body, makes most other decisions in relation to

children and young persons who are at risk of harm, and who may be or are in
need of care and protection. Appeals from the administrative decisions of
DoCS (and other agencies who have been delegated responsibility for the care
of children and young persons) proceed to the Administrative Decisions
Tribunal and occasionally to the Supreme Court.
12.4 The Inquiry is of the view that judicial oversight is necessary in this important
jurisdiction. However, whether some of the decisions in relation to all or some
children and young persons could be made in a forum other than the Children’s
Court, has been a live issue.
12.5 The Inquiry initially raised the issue of whether the Children’s Court should be
replaced by a tribunal, following from the DoCS 2006 Discussion Paper where
this approach was suggested by DoCS. Since that time, DoCS has retreated
from that position.181 It appears to the Inquiry that it was not strongly embraced
by any other party, and it is not something which the Inquiry would support.
12.6 The Inquiry however considered a range of other decision making models or
processes that might be used as an adjunct to, or in connection with,
proceedings in the Children’s Court.
12.7 First, the Inquiry considered whether the alternative dispute resolution
mechanisms which are provided for in the Care Act, but which are apparently
not used to any significant extent, could be more effectively utilised.
12.8 The Inquiry also considered the Family Court processes including the Magellan
case management model (involving modification of the existing court
processes), the NSW Care Circles pilot (which comes into play after the
establishment phase of care proceedings, and involves an alternative process
for decisions in relation to care plans), the New Zealand Family Group
181
Conferencing model (a mediation model designed to resolve issues before court

proceedings are initiated) and finally, the Scottish Children’s Hearings Tribunal.
12.9 The unifying feature of all of these models or processes is that each is less
formal and technical in nature than proceedings in the Children’s Court.
Alternative Dispute Resolution

12.10 Notwithstanding that the Care Act specifically provides for alternative dispute
resolution (ADR), the Inquiry has been consistently informed that in practice,
there is no real form of ADR operating in the care jurisdiction.
12.11 The recommendations resulting from the 1997 review of the 1987 Act included
a recommendation that mechanisms should be available as an early
intervention strategy, both as an alternative to a care application and during the
course of a care application.182 It was recommended that the Care Act should
not be prescriptive about how or what form of ADR was used, nor mandate its
use in all circumstances. The Care Act should allow for the widest possible
range of options to accommodate the complexities and unique requirements of
care and protection cases, and such options might include family group
conferencing, mediation and preliminary conferences.
12.12 It was further recommended that the Minister should be responsible for
establishing and funding ADR services that are independent of DoCS.
12.13 The legislation was amended along the lines suggested by the review.
12.14 There are three provisions in the Care Act that govern the use of ADR in care
proceedings. Section 37 states:
(1) In responding to a report, the Director-General is to

consider the appropriateness of using alternative
dispute resolution services that are designed:
(a) to ensure intervention so as to resolve

problems at an early stage, and
(b) to reduce the likelihood that a care application

… will need to be made, … and
(c) to reduce the incidence of breakdown in

adolescent-parent relationships, and
(d) if an application for a care order …is made, to

work towards the making of consent orders
182
DoCS, Review of the Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987: Recommendations for Law Reform, 1997,
p.49.
that are in the best interests of the child or

young person concerned.
(2) Attendance at a preliminary court conference is

mandatory.
(3) Participation in all other forms of counselling and

conferencing is voluntary.
12.15 A notation below this section states:
Within this provision, models for counselling and conferencing

may be developed to accommodate the unique requirements of
a community (whether cultural, geographic or language), the
complexities of the case, or the nature and severity of the
abuse suffered by the child or young person.
12.16 In addition, s.38 of the Care Act provides that care plans, developed by
agreement in the course of ADR, may be registered with the Children’s Court
and used as evidence of an attempt to resolve the matter without bringing a
care application.
12.17 The Senior Children’s Magistrate advised the Inquiry that s.38 plans are used
‘reasonably often’ but said that it does not keep figures as to the frequency with
which such care plans are filed with the Court.183
12.18 Section 65 of the Care Act deals with preliminary conferences. Subsection 2
states:
The purpose of a preliminary conference is:
(a) to identify areas of agreement between the parties,

and
(b) to identify issues in dispute between the parties, and
(c) to determine the best way of resolving any issues in

dispute, including by referring the application to
independent alternative dispute resolution, and
(d) if it is not appropriate to refer the application to

Independent alternative dispute resolution, to set a
timetable for the hearing of the application by the
Children’s Court, and
(e) to formulate any interim orders that may be made by

consent.
183
Transcript: Inquiry meeting with representatives from the Children’s Court NSW, 29 April 2008, p.46.
Preliminary Conferences
12.19 Professor Parkinson informed the Inquiry that the concept of preliminary
conferences to be conducted by Registrars in the Children’s Court had been an
attempt at early resolution in care matters. The Inquiry understands that their
intended role was twofold: first, to ensure that the matter was ready for hearing,
in that the evidence was filed and served and the like; and secondly, to resolve
issues in dispute.
12.20 DoCS informed the Inquiry that:
Preliminary conferences were to be meetings held on an

appointment basis which were to be less alienating than court
proceedings and allow greater accessibility to people with low
levels of literacy... In fact, the preliminary conference is often
little different to a directions hearing and the Court consistently
seeks all parties to be legally represented. This denies
individuals the ability to directly participate and adds to the
sense of formality… The suggestion by the Court that it uses
preliminary conferences as a form of ‘in-house ADR’ is rejected,
as the experience of DoCS is that Children’s Registrars have no
training or demonstrated skills in ADR and instead use this
forum as a directions hearing.184
12.21 The LAC effectively agreed.
12.22 Caseworkers had different experiences. Some said that preliminary

conferences were being used primarily as mediation sessions, and that
agreement was reached in relation to the major issues in the case at about half
of the preliminary conferences held. Some noted that preliminary conferences
had been run like mediation when led by a particular, experienced Children’s
Registrar.
12.23 Others said that preliminary conferences have simply become another delay in
the court process.
12.24 A legal practitioner who was present at the Nowra Public Forum stated that
preliminary conferences were not being used as forums for settlement
discussions, and said:
I don't believe Registrars have had mediation training, the

DoCS solicitor doesn't attend and so usually nothing gets
resolved. It seems to me to be a bit of a waste of time.
12.25 A particular issue raised was the timing of preliminary conferences. The LAC
stated:
184
Submission: DoCS, Operation of courts in the child protection system, p.13.
The preliminary conference is … held at a time in proceedings

where all parties have often already taken a strong position,
leaving little room for discussion or compromise… the
preliminary conference should be held earlier in the
proceedings than is currently the case, and certainly before the
filing of the care plan. The preliminary conference should be
the vehicle by which an agreed care plan, with orders by
consent, is drafted wherever possible… The preliminary
conference could be used to identify and limit issues in dispute
and to identify what parents may need to do for restoration to
even be considered by DoCS.185
12.26 A Children’s Registrar informed the Inquiry that in cases where the preliminary
conference is held prior to the establishment phase of the proceedings, and the
meaning of establishment is explained to the parties, establishment is often
settled. However, data are not kept as to the number of preliminary
conferences held in which settlement discussions have occurred.
12.27 A current and former Children’s Magistrate had different views. The Senior
Children’s Magistrate stated that in nearly every case, the child has been
removed prior to the commencement of care proceedings, and that such
circumstances are not conducive to effective ADR.
12.28 A former Children’s Magistrate advised the Inquiry that the parties are reluctant
to negotiate before they have all the information before them, and that it is
unlikely that this will occur early in the proceedings.
12.29 The role, as originally envisaged, of the Registrars is an important one in

facilitating early resolution of matters by way of agreement or ensuring that the
matter is ready for hearing. It is clear that the former role is not occurring
sufficiently often to make a real difference.
12.30 The Inquiry is not convinced that the prior removal of the child will always or
necessarily mean that ADR will not be effective. Given that establishment is
more often than not conceded, it should be possible for matters such as
parental responsibility and contact to be resolved through ADR.
12.31 The Inquiry is of the view that DoCS, the parties and the Court need to do much
more to bring ADR into child protection work. As a start, there should be more
Children’s Registrars and each of them should be legally trained and qualified
as mediators. Recommendations are made about these and related matters in
this and the following chapter.
185
Other alternative dispute resolution

mechanisms
12.32 There have been no referrals to external ADR nor is there any arrangement in
place whereby such referrals can be made. Nor is DoCS currently equipped to
offer ADR.
12.33 However, in 2002 DoCS entered into an MOU with the Community Justice
Centres whereby the Centres agreed to provide all clients referred under s.65 of
the Care Act with an independent and confidential mediation service. It appears
that this avenue has never been used.
12.34 In 2006, the LAC developed a Draft Proposal for a Care and Protection
Mediation Pilot (the LAC proposal), based on its Family Dispute Resolution
Service (used in the family law jurisdiction) which is geared towards multi-party
dispute resolution and is child focused.186
12.35 The LAC proposal involves a combination of mediation and conciliation, and the
appointment of an impartial, trained and accredited chairperson to assist parties
in a conference setting to discuss problems, consider options, and develop
plans. Parties must agree to be referred to conferencing.
12.36 The LAC proposal envisages that the following people would attend the
conference:
a. the DoCS caseworker and/or manager as well as the DoCS legal officer
b. the children’s representative
c. any other parties and their legal representatives
d. in some circumstances relevant others such as a carer grandparent, aunt
or uncle.
12.37 The conference would only be held after a determination has been made that a
child is in need of care and protection, and under the LAC proposal, only the
Court would have the power to refer a matter to this process, and the Court
would specify the issues which should be addressed.
12.38 Under the LAC proposal, any agreements reached during the course of the
conference in relation to issues referred by the Court would be drafted into
‘consent orders’ for approval by the Court. All attendees would be required to
enter into a confidentiality agreement.
12.39 A conference would not occur in circumstances where there was violence,
where an AVO was in place and may be breached or where a party suffers from
impaired functioning.
186
Legal Aid NSW, “Care and Protection Mediation Pilot: Draft Proposed by Legal Aid Commission NSW –
Alternative Dispute Resolution Section,” 6 February 2006, pp.1-2.
12.40 The LAC proposal states that matters should be referred back to the Court
where:
a. a party had not cooperated in the timely organisation of the conference
b. a party withdrew consent to the holding of the conference
c. the chairperson considered that the matter was no longer suitable for a
conference
d. the conference was complete.
12.41 DoCS informed the inquiry that it would have ‘no problems’ in adopting the
model put forward by the LAC.187
Family Court Processes

Less adversarial trial
12.42 Since 1 July 2006, the Family Court of Australia (the Family Court) has dealt
with applications for orders concerning children by way of a Less Adversarial
Trial (LAT). The relevant provisions are found in Part VII Division 12A of the
Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
12.43 The Inquiry understands that the model is not followed in every respect in every
Family Court in Australia, and this report describes the model rather than the
details of its implementation.
12.44 The aims of the LAT model are to:

a. focus on the children in the case and their future
b. be flexible so as to meet the needs of the family situation
c. be less costly compared with judicial trials and to save time in court
d. allow for participation of the family in the process
e. be less formal than is usually the case in a court.188
12.45 The LAT has the following elements:

a. the matter is heard on all occasions by the same Judge
b. the Judge (rather than the parties) decides what information is to be put
before the Court
c. the Judge controls how the trial is run
d. the focus is on what is best for the children
e. a Family Consultant is made available to the parties throughout the hearing
187
Transcript: Inquiry meeting with DoCS lawyers, 1 February 2008, p.13.
188
Family Court of Australia, Less adversarial trials, 2008, p.1.
f. technical rules of evidence are not applied.189
12.46 Prior to the first day of the LAT, the family meets with the Family Consultant
who has been allocated to the case.
12.47 The Family Consultant who is a psychologist or social worker attached to the
Family Court attends the first day of the LAT to give general expert advice and
information to the Judge to help identify the relevant issues in dispute. On the
first day of the LAT, the parties are asked to talk about the case, and to indicate
the orders they are seeking (either in their own words, or if they prefer, via their
lawyer).190 The Judge then identifies the issues to be decided.
12.48 Decisions are also made about the evidence to be heard (including which
witnesses, if any, will need to attend), who should provide evidence in writing
and what it should be about, what expert reports will be required if any, and
whether a family report will be required. Where ever possible this report will be
prepared by the Family Consultant allocated to the matter.191
12.49 In cases where there are concerns about family violence, the Family Court will
make arrangements to enable parties to be both safe and able to participate
fully in LAT. This might involve a person being heard by video or
192
teleconference.
12.50 The LAT has been described as follows:
In children’s cases, Division 12A [of the Family Law Act 1975]
swept away restrictive rules of evidence and the control of the
proceedings was placed in the hands of the judge, rather than
the parties or their legal representatives. The focus is a future
looking one, geared to the needs of a child. As a consequence
of the new procedures, parties are no longer free to conduct
litigation as a forensic war between each other at the expense
of the interests of the child. At the same time the best features
of the Court’s highly developed system for mediation and
resolution of disputes has not only been preserved but also
enhanced, and the role of … the family consultant has become
even more significant. The unique approach retains and relies
on the special assistance provided by family consultants, whilst
providing a clear child focus underpinned by active judicial
leadership and direction.193
189
Family Court of Australia, Fact sheet: Less Adversarial Trial, 2008, pp.1-3.
190
Transcript: Inquiry meeting with representatives of the Family Court of Australia, 9 May 2008, pp.31.
191
Family Court of Australia, Less adversarial trials, 2008, p.3.
192
ibid.
193
M Harrison, Finding a Better Way: A bold departure from the traditional common law approach to the
conduct of legal proceedings, April 2007, p.ix.
12.51 The LAC recommended to the Inquiry that the Children’s Court trial a LAT
program.
12.52 In 2008, the Family Court implemented the Child Responsive Program
nationally.194 It appears that the program enhances the pre-court assessment
role of the Family Consultant, and allows for a more thorough assessment of
the child’s needs. The Child Responsive Program involves the Family
Consultant interviewing and assessing school aged children involved in family
law proceedings. The Family Consultant assesses the developmental needs of
the child, the child’s emotional response to the parents’ dispute, and considers
the child’s views on the various options available (for example, who they will live
with). The assessment is summarised in a preliminary report by the Family
Consultant, which is presented and discussed with the parents in a feedback
session.195
12.53 A 2006 study of the Child Responsive Program identified it as an important

screening tool in the early detection of children who require child protection
involvement, or therapeutic services, and in the identification of parents who
required early, specialist services to assist the management of their separation,
particularly those with personality or mental health disorders.196
Magellan
12.54 The Magellan case management model (Magellan) was introduced to Family
Court registries in 2003, and was designed to expedite children’s matters in the
family law jurisdiction in cases where one or both parties had raised serious
allegations of child abuse.
12.55 Where a Notice of Child Abuse and Family Violence containing allegations of
serious physical and/or sexual abuse is filed in a case involving an application
for parenting orders, the application is referred to the Magellan Registrar for
consideration for inclusion in the Magellan list.
12.56 Magellan has the following elements:

a. cases are managed throughout by one Judge
b. each case is allocated a Registrar, who becomes familiar with the details of
the case and coordinates the process
c. each case is allocated a Family Consultant, who prepares an early, detailed
family report analysing the family dynamics and the needs of the child
d. every child has a court ordered legal representative (Independent
Children’s Lawyer) funded by Legal Aid
194
Family Court of Australia, Annual Report 2007/08, p.20.
195
J McIntosh and C Long, The Child Responsive Program, operating within the Less Adversarial Trial: A
follow up study of parent and child outcomes, July 2007, pp.5.
196
ibid., p.7.
e. the amount of Legal Aid funding is not capped for parents who qualify for
Legal Aid.
f. interagency protocols are in place, and there is a multi-agency committee in
each registry
g. resources are provided early in the case, including uncapped legal aid,
provision of information by other agencies such as statutory child protection
agencies and early access to the Judge, counsellors, and the registrar
h. there is a separate Magellan court list and there are timeline goals, with the
aim to finalise matters within six months of commencement
i. the Court orders expert investigations and assessments from the state child
protection service and the court counsellors.197
12.57 Early in the Magellan process, the Family Court makes an order requesting the
state/territory child welfare agency to intervene in the Family Court proceedings.
Magellan Report
12.58 DoCS provides its initial evidence in Magellan cases by way of a ‘Magellan
Report’, which is essentially a summary of DoCS’ involvement with the child and
family, and of DoCS’ recommendations (if any) in relation to the case. The
Magellan Report typically sets out:
a. family details, including names, ages, place of residence
b. a summary of the child protection history – including reports made to
DoCS, primary risk of harm issues recorded, whether or not a secondary
risk of harm assessment was carried out, and, if so, the outcome
c. an analysis of the issues
d. any recommendations
e. details of any current or proposed action by DoCS in response to the
Family Court’s request to intervene.
12.59 DoCS stated:
One reason the Magellan model is considered effective in the

Family Court context is because evidence is provided to the
Court by DoCS in a manner other than by way of affidavit and in
the process, DoCS caseworkers can, as experts in child
protection, offer practical solutions to the problems facing the
family in question.198
197
DoCS, Discussion paper on alternatives for hearing and making decisions in child protection matters,
February 2008, p.14-15: Family Court of Australia, Magellan Manual: National procedures for conduct of
Magellan cases, 2 May 2007, p.2.
198
February 2008, p.17.
Evaluations and comments

12.60 Two evaluations of Magellan have been carried out. The first, in 2001,
evaluated the pilot. The second, in 2007, followed the implementation of
Magellan nationally (it commenced in different registries at different times).
12.61 The 2007 evaluation found that Magellan cases, when compared with Magellan-
like cases199 in the Family Court:
a. were shorter (from commencement to finalisation)
b. involved fewer court events
c. were dealt with by fewer judicial officers
d. were more likely to settle.200
12.62 Qualitative results of the evaluation also found that the following occurred in
Magellan cases:
a. cooperation between all agencies involved
b. good individual case management (Judge-led) with consistency of
approach
c. child focused processes, including timely reports from Family Consultants
and other experts.201
12.63 It was noted in the 2007 evaluation:
Participants felt that Magellan delivers better outcomes for

children and families. A critical element to this is the tight case-
management procedures, particularly the role of the Magellan
Judges and Registrars.202
12.64 A Family Court Judge was quoted in the 2007 evaluation as saying:
It must be achieving good things. You get the early reports in.
Then the parties can come to an acceptable agreement about
what’s in the best interests of the children promptly. The fact
that the decisions are being made on proper supporting
evidence, and you have the cooperation of the various people
involved: police, the child protection department and the Court.
That’s got to work in children’s favour. The sharing of
information. They’re not getting caught up in unnecessary
bureaucratic quagmire.203
199
Cases in the Family Court, where one or both parties have raised allegations of sexual abuse or physical
abuse of children in a parenting dispute, filed in a registry where Magellan was not operating at the time.
200
D Higgins, “Cooperation and coordination: An evaluation of the Family Court of Australia’s Magellan Case
Management Model,” Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2007, p.16.
201
ibid. pp.16-17.
202
ibid., p.18.
203
ibid., p.123.
12.65 Another Family Court Judge was quoted in the 2007 evaluation as saying:
The Judge can – despite high workloads – retain a level of

familiarity with the file, and can remember the previous interim
proceedings, the reports, and those outcomes. Whereas if you
always had a different Judge every time, there wouldn’t be that
level of familiarity, and that could extend the proceedings. They
may try to argue the same thing before a different Judge for the
third or fourth time.204
12.66 The evaluation also noted that in some registries, due to judicial resources,
although Magellan cases were being managed by a single Judge, if they
proceeded to a final hearing, they may have been heard by a different Judge.205
12.67 The Inquiry also understands that a substantial number of Magellan cases are
resolved prior to hearing.206
12.68 In terms of efficiency, DoCS informed the Inquiry that the 2001 evaluation of the
pilot examined costs and found that they had reduced for Victorian Legal Aid
involvement in the Family Court by 50 per cent. In general, Magellan required a
higher workload earlier in the case, which was however offset by requiring less
work later, partly because more cases were resolved.207
Family Consultants
12.69 As noted earlier Family Consultants are social workers or psychologists
attached to the Family Court and are used in all children’s cases in that Court
(both in Magellan cases and in LATs). When a children’s matter comes before
the Family Court, each family member meets with the Family Consultant prior to
the matter coming before a Judge. The Family Consultant then prepares a brief
report for the Court about the relevant issues in the matter. The Family
Consultant remains associated with the matter for the duration of the
proceedings, providing expert evidence about child development and the
appropriate orders that might be made in relation to specific children.
12.70 The Inquiry understands that the Family Consultant generally provides the
Judge with an ‘issues assessment’ early in the proceedings. The Judge then
asks each parent to outline the orders they are seeking and, with the
involvement of the Family Consultant, determines whether further reports are
required. The Inquiry also understands that in cases involving child protection
issues, the Family Consultant makes inquiries with service providers and
schools to gather information about the child and the family. The Inquiry was
told that the Family Consultants do not undertake confidential ADR.
204
ibid., p.130.
205
ibid., p.131.
206
Transcript: Representatives from the Family Court of Australia, 9 May 2008, p.4.
207
12.71 The Sydney Registry of the Family Court currently has eight full time Family
Consultant positions. The Family Court also provides funding for external
consultants to be contracted when internal resources cannot meet demand.208
12.72 The Inquiry was told that each Family Consultant in the Sydney registry has, on
average, more than 80 matters allocated to them.209
Alternative dispute resolution in the Family

Court
12.73 In most family law matters, ADR is compulsory.210 The Law Society informed
the Inquiry that mandatory ADR has worked well in the Family Court, and that
as a result, only very complex cases proceed to a full hearing. However,
compulsory ADR does not apply to matters in which there is an allegation of
family violence or child abuse211 – and ADR is not compulsory in Magellan
matters.
Care Circles
12.74 Attorney General’s, in combination with DoCS, has this year commenced work
on a Care Circle pilot as an alternative way of resolving care matters involving
Aboriginal children and young persons. The Care Circle pilot will be run at
Nowra,212 and the first Care Circle has been listed to occur on 10 December
2008.
12.75 The Care Circle is intended to be activated after the establishment phase of
care proceedings (that is, after the Children’s Court has determined that the
child or young person is in need of care and protection) either on the Court’s
own volition, or on the application of one of the parties to the proceedings. The
Care Circle is intended to provide a model for the increased participation of the
child’s or young person’s family and community in relation to their future care
arrangements.
12.76 Suitability of a matter for referral to the Care Circle would be based on
consideration of:
a. the child’s or young person’s and parent's connection to the local Aboriginal
community
208
Correspondence: Family Court, 10 June 2008.
209
ibid.
210
Family Court of Australia, Fact sheet: Compulsory Family Dispute Resolution court procedures and
requirements, 2008.
211
ibid., p.2.
212
Attorney General’s Department of NSW and DoCS, Care Circles: an alternative court process for
Aboriginal children at risk, November 2008, p.5.
b. the potential benefits to the parents, child or young person and community.
12.77 DoCS advised the Inquiry that matters would be excluded from the Care Circle
in certain circumstances, for instance if there was a dispute about whether the
child or young person was Aboriginal or where one of the participants had been
physically violent towards other participants.
12.78 The model envisages involvement of the following people in the Care Circle:
a. three respected Aboriginal community members, who will have been
provided with some training in relation to the operation of the Care Circle,
the relevant legislation, and the concept of the paramountcy of the safety,
welfare and well-being of the child or young person
b. the child or young person (the legal representative and the Magistrate are
to agree that it is appropriate for the child or young person to attend)
c. the mother and father
d. the legal representatives of the child, mother and father (the mother and
father may have separate legal representatives in attendance)
e. a DoCS legal officer
f. the DoCS caseworker and casework manager
g. the Care Circle Project Officer (an employee of the Attorney General’s
Crime Prevention Division)
h. the Magistrate (the Registrar coordinates the administrative aspect of the
Care Circle and may attend)
i. other family members and advocates at the discretion of the Magistrate.213
12.79 Participation in the Care Circle is to be voluntary and the consent of all parties
to participate is required. The model envisages that the Care Circle should be
held in a community environment, but should be confidential and closed to the
public.
12.80 The model involves two Care Circle conferences. The first should be held as
soon as possible after establishment, allowing time for the Care Circle
coordinator to organise community members to sit on the Care Circle, and
allowing time for any assessment reports (DoCS informed the Inquiry that five to
six weeks after establishment should be an adequate timeframe).
12.81 The Care Circle proposal states:
The first circle conference is an opportunity for the parties to

come together to discuss what is in the best interests of the
child or young person. The care circle may provide valuable
input into the following:
213
ibid., pp.13-15.
If there is to be a restoration
What interim arrangements there should be for the care
of the child,
What services/supports can be made available to the
family; or,
If there is to be no restoration, then
Where the child should live
What contact arrangements should be put in place
Alternative family placements214
12.82 A summary of why the child is in need of care and protection and any issues to
be discussed by the Care Circle will be agreed by all parties to the proceedings
who are present at court when the matter is set down by the Magistrate for
referral to a Care Circle.
12.83 DoCS informed the Inquiry that it is envisaged that the first Care Circle
conference would typically run for about three hours. After the first Care Circle
conference, the DoCS caseworker should prepare a care plan based on the
discussion and outcomes.
12.84 The second Care Circle conference should be held about three weeks after the
first. The purpose of the second Care Circle conference is to consider and
discuss the proposed care plan, and to discuss and decide on appropriate care
orders for the care and protection of the child. DoCS informed the Inquiry that it
is envisaged that the second Care Circle conference would typically run for
about 90 minutes.215
12.85 In cases where agreement on care orders cannot be reached by all parties at
the second Care Circle conference, the matter would be referred back to the
Children's Court to be determined using the usual care proceedings processes.
12.86 One of the aims of the pilot is to demonstrate DoCS’ recognition of the
importance of kinship relations in the care and protection of children and young
persons consistent with s.13 of the Care Act and to improve the effectiveness of
undertakings agreed upon by parents.
…it is questionable whether this model of participation would

work in the broader community, or even in Aboriginal
communities in metropolitan areas or regional centres. In the
broader community, there are unlikely to be persons generally
214
ibid., p.10.
215
acknowledged to be in the position of Aboriginal elders or their

equivalents. In metropolitan and regional centres, even
Aboriginal community ties are likely to be less in evidence and
families more isolated and transient.216
12.88 The Children’s Court submission to the Inquiry stated that:
the Children's Court believes that the proposal holds out great
hope for the more sensitive and efficient provision of child care
and protection services in the ATSI communities with a marked
enhancement of community involvement in the lives of
indigenous children and young persons.217
12.89 However, it also raised specific concerns regarding the potential of alternative
mechanisms such as Care Circles to cause a delay in proceedings and
exacerbate placement instability, the potential for a level of rigour in
proceedings to be lost, and the need for the benefits of community participation
to be balanced against “the right to confidentiality, the right to a fair hearing and
the various presumptions which can be found, particularly in section 9 of the
Act.”218
12.90 The Inquiry supports the trial as a means of exploring an alternative method by
which decisions can be made concerning Aboriginal children and young
persons and which actively engages members of the Aboriginal community.
The evaluation should be closely considered and if successful, Care Circles
should be implemented in appropriate locations in NSW for the same client
group.
Family Group Conferencing

12.91 Family group conferencing (FGC) involves bringing together the child or young
person, members of their immediate and extended family, and child protection
professionals to discuss issues, come to a resolution and develop a plan for
future action.
12.92 FGC began in New Zealand in the late 1980s and was based on Maori cultural
practice. Its use in Australia is now supported in a number of States (Tasmania,
Queensland, and Victoria). In NSW FGC has been strongly promoted and
developed by UnitingCare Burnside, which has well established FGC programs
in partnership with DoCS. Burnside has also developed an accredited training
course for FGC facilitators.219
216
ibid., p.20.
217
218
ibid.
219
N Harris, “Family Group Conferencing in Australia 15 years on,” Australian Institute of Family Studies,
Child Abuse Prevention Issues, No.27, 2008, pp. 9, 17.
12.93 The FGC model is based on the following assumptions:

a. families have a right to participate in decisions that affect them
b. families are competent to make decisions if properly engaged, prepared
and provided with necessary information
c. decisions made within families are more likely to succeed than those
imposed by outsiders.
12.94 In New Zealand, conferences occur in three stages. The first stage of the
conference involves the sharing of information by child protection workers and
other professionals with the family. This will usually include discussion of the
concerns that are held for the child or young person, as well as the services that
are available. The second stage of a conference involves the family having
time on their own to deliberate and agree on possible solutions. In the final
phase of the conference the aim is to arrive at agreement on first, whether the
child or young person is in need of care and protection, and secondly, on the
formulation of a plan that will address these concerns. This may involve
negotiation between the family, care and protection workers, and other
agencies about the services and supports that can be provided. For a
conference agreement to come into effect it is necessary that all participants
agree. If there is not agreement in the conference about whether a child or
young person is in need of care and protection, or on a plan to address these
needs, the conference can be reconvened or the case can be referred to the
court.220
12.95 Conferences have particular significance because New Zealand’s legislation

prescribes that they are a key decision making process that must be used in
particular situations, and that decisions made within them have a legal status
that must be recognised by participants. In these respects, the decisions made
in a conference are accorded no lesser status than that of court decisions.221
Effectiveness
12.96 According to Huntsman’s review on FGC, there is considerable evidence that
families prefer FGC to other case planning processes, and some evidence that
negative perceptions of the child protection agency and workers (as well as
family/agency communication) lessen following the FGC experience.222
Evidence is accumulating that children and young persons are more likely to be
placed with relatives if FGC is used.223
12.97 However Connolly notes that, despite the success of FGC and consistent
research evaluations indicating that FGC compares favourably in terms of child
220
ibid., p.3.
221
ibid.
222
DoCS, Family Group Conferencing in a child welfare context, Literature Review, July 2006, p.15.
223
M Connolly, “Family Group Conferences in child welfare,” Developing Practice 19, Winter/Spring, 2007,
p.27.
safety and stability measures, the general shift of child protection services
towards a more interventionist and forensic focus diminishes the focus on
creating statutory environments within which families can participate and be
involved in decision making. 224
12.98 Harris provides a recent overview about the extent to which conferencing has
become part of child protection practice in Australia over the last 15 years.
Harris observes that the use of conferencing in Australian child protection
systems is fairly limited and “that while conferences have had an impact on
practice, they have not yet become part of mainstream practice.”225 The
following table provides information on when FGC is used and how its
outcomes are implemented.226
Table 12.1 Comparison of when conferences are used and how their outcomes are
implemented
When Outcome requires Implementation
New Zealand When it is believed a Agreement of the Outcome must be
child is in need of family, child protection implemented by
protection – worker and facilitator. Department unless
prior/alternative to impractical or
seeking court orders. inconsistent with the
Act.
Victoria Various decision There is variation in Expectation is that
making points, for use of conferences, agreed outcomes will
example, development but agreement of the be implemented by the
of case plans or when family and caseworker Department.
significant decisions is usually required.
are to be made about
an Aboriginal child.
South Australia Prior to seeking care Agreement of the Families SA has
and protection orders. family and the discretion whether to
Can be an alterative facilitator. Agreement implement agreements
seeking court orders, of child protection and/or seek additional
but orders are still worker is usually court orders.
sought in some cases. sought.
Western Australia An early intervention During the trial, When used,
program was agreement of the expectation was that
conducted for children family, child protection outcomes would be
younger than 10 worker and facilitator. implemented by the
identified as having Department.
behavioural problems.
Australian Capital When it is believed a Agreement of child’s Department must
Territory child is in need of parents, the child implement outcome but
protection – where appropriate, may take further action.
prior/alternative to and child protection
seeking court orders. worker.
224
ibid., p.28-29.
225
N Harris, “Family Group Conferencing in Australia 15 years on,” Australian Institute of Family Studies,
Child Abuse Prevention Issues, No.27, 2008, p.16.
226
ibid., p.12.
When Outcome requires Implementation

Tasmania Usually in conjunction Agreement of the Department has
with court orders (for child’s guardian, the discretion to endorse
example, when an 8- child or their advocate, the outcome. If it is not
week Assessment and the facilitator. endorsed, the
Order is made or a 12- conference can be
month Care and reconvened, or the
Protection Order is family’s plan and a
extended), but can be Departmental
used separately. alternative are
presented to the court.
Queensland In most cases where it Unspecified in Department has
has been assessed that legislation. discretion to endorse
a child is in need of the outcome agreement
care and protection and or amend if for
ongoing intervention is submission to court.
required. A case plan
must be developed
before the court can
make a Child
Protection Order.
12.99 The role that conferencing plays varies, so that in some states conferences
focus “on early intervention, in others they occur en route to court, and in still
others they are used to reach agreements once orders have already been
sought in court.”227 However:
a distinct advantage of conferencing is precisely that they are a

‘high tariff’, formal process that engages and empowers family
in making decisions when this is required because less formal
approaches have not succeeded or are considered
inappropriate. They provide a forum that communicates to
families that the concerns are very serious, not least because
the next option for statutory services is often to seek court
orders, while at the same time allowing families to contest that
opinion or to engage in finding solutions.”228
12.100 DoCS conducted a literature review in 2006, which found “some general
consensus on the potential benefits as well as on the difficulties posed by FGC
practice.”229 Findings, in relation to client outcomes, included the following:
a. inclusion in the decision making process can empower families who
previously feel powerless in regard to their relationship with statutory
authorities
b. FGC positions child abuse as a community responsibility, potentially
leading to more reporting of neglect and child abuse cases by communities
227
ibid., p.16.
228
ibid., pp.16-17.
229
and families and greater awareness of child protection issues by the

community in general
c. plans developed in negotiation with families are more likely to work.230
12.101 In relation to operational effectiveness, the literature review found that:

a. there was an improved commitment and attitude of families towards
implementation of decisions (as a result of families’ higher satisfaction
about their interaction with statutory child protection agencies and the
outcomes of the process)
b. children are more likely to be placed with extended family members which
assists in retaining children's links to their family and increases the
likelihood of finding a culturally appropriate placement.231
12.102 However, DoCS stated that a potential problem of the FGC is that it positions
the family as the primary source of protection in cases where statutory
authorities should be retaining a larger proportion of protection responsibility. It
also informed the Inquiry that in New Zealand “plans for the protection of
children developed during the FGC are often not implemented due to lack of
support services and funding.”232
12.103 DoCS also stated that:
… managing confidential disclosures and sensitive information

in a conference setting can be complex and difficult for FGC
practitioners. The FGC process can also lack clarity on who
holds responsibility for convening a conference, negotiating
attendance and reviewing progress against the original plan.
Families may not always have the capacity or cohesion to
cooperate and communicate to develop adequate plans.
FGC also may not be useful in all contexts. Families with

serious mental health issues, small extended networks, or
substantial internal conflict may be better served by a more
formal child protection procedure. In these cases, anecdotal
evidence suggests that the FGC can become an administrative
hurdle that must be legally completed before the agency can
take the matter to court, where it may be more appropriately
dealt with.
The flexibility provided by the FGC can also mean an absence

of due process and inadequate legal representation and the
conference structure may prevent disclosures from family
230
ibid., p.22.
231
ibid., p.23.
232
ibid.
members intimidated by perpetrators present at the

Conference.233
12.104 DoCS submitted that the Care Act does not present a barrier to utilising FGC,
and stated:
FGC could be used to assist in the development of contact

orders and care plans prior to resolution of matters in court,
promoting early resolution of matters where an application to
the Children's Court has been made.234
12.105 Catholic Social Services NSW/ACT, in a joint submission with the Catholic
Education Commission, recommended that the Inquiry investigate the efficacy
of FGC and its potential as a mandatory precursor to care proceedings.
Centacare Broken Bay made a similar submission.
UnitingCare Burnside’s Family Group Conferencing Pilot

12.106 The Inquiry was informed that from 1996 to 1999, UnitingCare Burnside, in
partnership with DoCS, piloted an FGC model of ADR in western Sydney, which
dealt mostly:
with matters that were post-court or with non-court matters, in

which the issues involved decisions about placements for
children, contact between the child and family members or the
supports required to maintain or restore the children to the
family.235
12.107 DoCS said that outcomes of the pilot demonstrated:

a. improved relationships between families and DoCS
b. better relationships between family members
c. an enhanced capacity to reach agreement
d. a reduced risk to children and children remaining at home in about two
thirds of cases.
12.108 Dr Judy Cashmore, Research Academic, University of Sydney, who conducted

an evaluation of the UnitingCare Burnside FGC pilot spoke positively of it to the
Inquiry.
12.109 The LAC informed the Inquiry that since the conclusion of the pilot, UnitingCare
Burnside has continued to conduct family group conferences (Family Mediation
Service) on an as needed basis but the program itself has not been taken up as
a model for dealing with child protection issues in general. UnitingCare
233
ibid.
234
ibid., p.24.
235
Burnside informed the Inquiry that its Family Mediation Service is used primarily
in the family law jurisdiction.
Other Conferencing Models

12.110 There are a number of other models that have grown out of the family
conferencing movement. For example, the Inquiry received information on the
Family Engagement Model operating in Cannington, Western Australia. An
evaluation indicated that while almost all stakeholders had a very positive
attitude toward the model and reported that it was very empowering for families,
the outcomes on select indicators were unclear. The evaluation recommended
further analysis, evaluation and comparison with existing case management
processes.
Children’s Hearings (Scottish tribunal model)

12.111 In Scotland, care and protection matters, as well as juvenile crime matters, are
heard by a tribunal (and are referred to collectively as ‘Children’s Hearings’).
The key elements of this model are:
a. a unitary system for hearing matters of juvenile justice (including truancy)
and care and protection
b. the use of lay panels of volunteers comprising representatives of local
communities to hear matters in a non-adversarial and informal setting (each
Children’s Hearing is heard by three panel members)
c. the use of straightforward procedures which minimise legal technicalities
d. the provision of an opportunity for parents and children to participate in the
discussion of their difficulties and proposed solutions during the hearing
e. a separation of the responsibility of deciding upon the need for compulsory
orders from the determination of the facts of the case. The role of the court
is limited to establishing facts (where they are in dispute), hearing appeals
and dealing with more serious offenders.236
12.112 Matters are referred to a Children’s Hearing where the grounds for referral can
be proven in court, were compulsory measures of supervision are required and
where legal intervention will be more beneficial for the child than not making an
order.
12.113 If a matter is referred to a Children’s Hearing, the Children’s Hearing Tribunal

(Tribunal) can appoint a ‘safeguarder’ to offer an independent view of what is in
the child’s best interests. If the case is legally complex or secure
236
accommodation for the child is being considered, the Tribunal will appoint a
legal representative to represent the child's views.
12.114 Attendees at the Children’s Hearing are:

a. the child
b. the parents/carers
c. relevant professionals
d. the safeguarder (if appointed).
12.115 The panel members discuss the circumstances with the attendees. If a
safeguarder is appointed, he or she also assists the panel in its decision
making.
12.116 The hearing is more inquisitorial than adversarial, and the Tribunal has the right
to call for reports, require assessments of the child and adjourn the hearing to
allow further investigations to take place. However, if the parents do not accept
the ‘grounds’ or reasons for calling the Children’s Hearing, the matter is referred
to the Sheriff Court for a determination in relation to establishment. The Sheriff
Court operates on an adversarial model, and DoCS informed the Inquiry that
about 80 per cent of care and protection matters end up being referred to the
Sheriff.
12.117 Decisions are made in the Children’s Hearing itself, in the presence of the child
and parents/carers.
12.118 DoCS informed the Inquiry that participants in a study of the Children’s
Hearings felt that they were less adversarial and formal than court hearings,
and provided greater opportunity for party participation. However, DoCS
indicated that evaluations of the Children’s Hearings have found that the
establishment phase is conducted in an adversarial manner, that children and
young persons participated in a limited way, and that parents were not aware of
their rights and needed to be provided more information on how the system
works. These shortcomings were, it seems, based on resource considerations
rather than on the model per se.
12.119 DoCS submitted that the advantage that the Scottish model has over the
current NSW care proceedings model is that it is more inquisitorial, does not
limit evidence to that provided through affidavits, and is, as a result, able to look
at the needs of the child more holistically.
12.120 DoCS stated:
Research suggests that tribunals, particularly those not

involving legally trained personnel, can fail to provide
procedural fairness due to lack of proper reasoning, lack of
proper representation, failing to apply legal principles,
perceptions of bias and formation of views prior to the hearing.
Anecdotal evidence and research findings in the first decade of

the operation of the Scottish Children's Hearing system
indicated that informality led to procedural laxity as well as wide
variations in practice between hearings. This is supported by
2007 research into the relationship between social work
recommendations to Scottish Children's Hearings and the
decisions taken, which found that widely different policies and
practices operated between different regional localities
throughout Scotland. There is a risk that a failure to provide
procedural fairness can lead to complex, costly and formal
appeal processes.237
12.121 The Inquiry does not however favour a model that includes lay, volunteer panels
who often lack the rigour and experience in decision making that is necessary in
such a sensitive and complex area.
Conclusion
12.122 The Inquiry does not consider it necessary to replace the existing model of
decision making by the Children’s Court. It makes recommendations as to its
operation in the previous and following chapters.
12.123 The Inquiry is, however, of the strong view that ADR should be used before and
during care proceedings. Most of those who spoke to the Inquiry or submitted
information to it supported the greater use of ADR in child protection including
the Benevolent Society, Centacare, ACWA, UnitingCare Burnside, the
Intellectual Disability Rights Service and the Aboriginal Legal Service.
12.124 In this respect, the Inquiry favours adopting an approach that would preserve
flexibility and be capable of using FGC and aspects of other models including
that proposed by the LAC.
12.125 In relation to the model proposed by the LAC, the Inquiry understands that the
presence of violence may be a feature not always present in family law matters.
Child protection work however, has violence, actual, threatened or
apprehended, as a constant feature. It presence should not operate to exclude
ADR, rather those conducting it should have appropriate training.
12.126 The Inquiry agrees with DoCS that all of the following should be able to be dealt
with, or at least discussed, with the assistance of one or more of the ADR
mechanisms discussed in this chapter:
a. placement plans
b. contact arrangements
237
ibid., p.30.
c. treatment interventions
d. long term care issues
e. determination of the timing/readiness for returning a child or young person
to the home
f. determination of when to discontinue protective supervision
g. the nature and extent of a parent's involvement
h. parent/child conflict
i. lack of, or poor, communication between a worker and parents due to
hostility
j. negotiation of length of care and conditions of return
k. foster carer/agency/parent issues.
12.127 ADR should not be used to resolve a dispute about whether a child or young
person has been abused or neglected or is otherwise in need of care and
protection or in cases where an AVO has been granted, (where the process of
ADR or the desired outcomes would lead to a breach of the AVO). If used
effectively there would be no need to introduce the resource intensive
procedure employed in the Family Court.
12.128 The Care Act needs no amendment to achieve the goal mentioned. It can be
attained by a combination of the greater use of trained and legally qualified
Children’s Registrars, access to externally operated services such as those
described in the LAC submission, or the MOU with the Community Justice
Centres, or through FGC offered by an NGO, or by trained DoCS staff. The last
option is perhaps the least attractive because of perceptions by those involved
in the jurisdiction of DoCS partiality. The benefits are obvious and include
improved participation by the children and families in the decision making
process.
12.129 Detailed guidelines will need to be developed to determine who is entitled to

apply for and whether a matter is referred to ADR. Practically, ADR will have to
be funded by the State regardless of which party initiates proceedings. This
means that the person presiding or mediating will be funded by the State.
However, the appearance by the parties in any ADR proceedings should be
funded in the same manner as if they were attending court proceedings. It is
noted that DoCS has estimated that the additional resources required for its
Legal Services area alone would amount to about $1.44 million (presumably
annually). Costs, of course, are likely to be saved by reduced hearing times, if
ADR is successful.
12.130 In addition, for those matters which are dealt with by the Children’s Court, the
Inquiry is of the view that there should be consistency of judicial officers, a
Children’s Registrar allocated to each matter, less formal requirements for
adducing evidence and an enhanced role for the Children’s Court Clinic. Each
of these is addressed in the preceding or following chapter.
Recommendations
Recommendation 12.1
Adequate funding should be provided so that alternative dispute

resolution is used prior to and in care proceedings in order to give
meaning to s.37 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and
Protection) Act 1998, in relation to:
a. placement plans
b. contact arrangements
c. treatment interventions
d. long term care issues
e. determination of the timing/readiness for returning a child to the
home
f. determination of when to discontinue protective supervision
g. the nature and extent of a parent's involvement
h. parent/child conflict
i. lack of, or poor, communication between a worker and parents due
to hostility
j. negotiation of length of care and conditions of return
k. foster carer/agency/parent issues.
Recommendation 12.2
The Nowra Care Circle Pilot should be monitored and evaluated. If

successful, consideration should be given to its extension to other parts
of the State with significant Aboriginal communities.
13 Court processes in statutory child

protection
Court processes ..........................................................................................................494
The Children’s Court..............................................................................................494
General procedure in care proceedings ................................................................497
Appellate structure.................................................................................................498
Appeals to the District Court ......................................................................... 498
The Administrative Decisions Tribunal ......................................................... 499
The Supreme Court ...................................................................................... 500
Legal representation in care proceedings .............................................................501
Guardians ad litem........................................................................................ 503
Issues arising ..............................................................................................................504
Initiating process and affidavits .............................................................................504
Evidence in relation to emergency removals.........................................................508
Expedition ..............................................................................................................509
Movement of hearing dates .......................................................................... 511
‘Adversarial’ Proceedings ......................................................................................512
Rules of evidence ..................................................................................................515
A model litigant? ....................................................................................................516
DoCS affidavits ............................................................................................. 516
Appeals..................................................................................................................526
Legal representation in care proceedings .............................................................528
Training ......................................................................................................... 529
Code of conduct for legal representatives .................................................... 530
Legal Aid funding issues ............................................................................... 530
Guardians ad litem........................................................................................ 531
Inquiry’s view ................................................................................................ 532
Magistrates exercising care jurisdiction.................................................................532
A District Court Judge ................................................................................... 532
Circuits .......................................................................................................... 533
Qualifications and tenure .............................................................................. 534
Judicial education ......................................................................................... 536
A docket system............................................................................................ 538
Children’s Registrars .............................................................................................539
Conclusion...................................................................................................................541
494 Court processes in statutory child protection
Court processes
13.1 The Report thus far has considered matters of substantive law in relation to
child protection. However, just as frequently (if not more so), real issues arise
in relation to the processes by which significant decisions about the lives of
children and young persons are made. This chapter deals with these matters.
The Children’s Court

13.2 As noted above, the Children’s Court deals with matters related to the care and
protection of children and young persons (care proceedings), and also criminal
cases in which the alleged perpetrator is a child or young person.
13.3 The Children’s Court is composed of Children’s Magistrates and Children’s

Registrars, as well as generalist Magistrates and Registrars in situations where
the Local Court sits as a Children’s Court. Children’s Magistrates are from time
to time appointed by the Chief Magistrate of the NSW Local Courts (the Local
Court). A person is qualified to be appointed as a Children’s Magistrate if the
person:
a. is a Magistrate
b. has (in the opinion of the Chief Magistrate) the knowledge, qualifications,
skills and experience in the law and the social or behavioural sciences, and
in dealing with children and young persons and their families, necessary to
enable the person to exercise the functions of a Children’s Magistrate.238
13.4 Children’s Magistrates are appointed for a three year term, however they are
eligible to be re-appointed at the expiry of a term. A Children’s Magistrate does
not cease to be a Magistrate during the term of his or her appointment as a
Children’s Magistrate.239
13.5 The most senior judicial appointment within the Children’s Court is that of the
Senior Children’s Magistrate.240 Currently, this position is held by his Honour Mr
Scott Mitchell.
13.6 The functions of the Senior Children’s Magistrate are to:

a. administer the Children’s Court
b. arrange sittings of the Children’s Court
c. convene, at least once every six months, a meeting of Children’s
Magistrates and such other persons as the Senior Children’s Magistrate
thinks fit
238
Children’s Court Act 1987 s.7(2).
239
Children’s Court Act 1987 Schedule 1(1), (2) and (6).
240
Children’s Court Act 1987 s.8.
d. confer regularly with community groups and social agencies on matters

involving children and the Children’s Court
e. provide judicial leadership to the Children’s Court
f. develop practice directions and recommendations for rules, in conjunction
with the Chief Magistrate
g. oversee the training of Children’s Magistrates and prospective Children’s
Magistrates in accordance with the Children’s Court Rule 2000 (the
Rules).241
13.7 Children’s Registrars are employed under the Public Sector Management Act
1988, and can have any function of the Children’s Court or of a Children’s
Magistrate conferred on them.242 The Children’s Registrars are attached to the
specialist Children’s Courts. They undertake both quasi-judicial and
administrative functions. They conduct call overs and preliminary conferences,
hear applications for adjournment, make procedural directions, assist in case
management, and sometimes assist in ADR.243 The Children’s Registrars also
conduct research and provide advice to the Children’s Court on case flow
management systems, listing and other practices.244
13.8 There are seven dedicated Children’s Courts in NSW. These are: Parramatta
Children’s Court (six courts), Bidura Children’s Court – Glebe (two courts),
Campbelltown Children’s Court, Woy Woy Children’s Court, Wyong Children’s
Court, Broadmeadow Children’s Court and Illawarra Children’s Court – Port
Kembla. The Children’s Court currently has 13 Children’s Magistrates.245
13.9 In regional NSW, the Local Court sits as a Children’s Court (that is, it hears and
determines matters that are within the jurisdiction of the Children’s Court), and
is presided over by either a Local Court Magistrate, or occasionally by a
Children’s Magistrate from one of the above Children’s Courts. In 2007, there
were 135 generalist Magistrates (including Children’s Magistrates) located
throughout NSW.246
13.10 The Senior Children’s Magistrate has issued a number of Practice Directions
relevant to care proceedings including: Practice Direction No.20 – Hearing
dates and applications for adjournment (PD 20), Practice Direction No.25 –
Requirement for conference of expert witnesses in Care Proceedings (PD 25),
Practice Direction No.28 – Case management in the Care Jurisdiction (PD 28),
and Practice Direction No.30 – Access to and Publication of Confidential
Children’s Court documents. Four Practice Notes have also been issued by the
predecessor in the office of Senior Children’s Magistrate.
241
Children’s Court Act 1987 s.16(1).
242
Children’s Court Act 1987 s.10A.
243
Local Court of NSW, Annual Review 2007, p.22.
244
Children’s Court: www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/children’s_court.
245
Transcript: Inquiry meeting with representatives from the Children’s Court NSW, 12 December 2007, p.14.
246
Local Court of NSW, Annual Review 2007, p.5.
13.11 In KF v Parramatta Children’s Court 247 Hidden J held that Practice Direction 30
is ultra vires as it is inconsistent with the Care Act. The Inquiry understands
that this decision is unlikely to be appealed by DoCS. While the Inquiry makes
no comment in relation to the decision, there is a wider issue alive concerning
the issue of general Practice Directions, so far as the Children’s Court is
concerned.
13.12 Its power in relation to making directions is derived from Rule 17 of the Rules,
which provides as follows:
(1) In any proceedings, the Court may, in respect of any

matter for which this Rule does not make provision,
give any directions that it considers appropriate in
connection with the practice and procedure to be
followed in relation to that matter.
(2) A practice direction given under this Rule that is

inconsistent with:
(a) the Act under which the Court has jurisdiction

to hear proceedings in respect of that matter,
or
(b) any regulation under that Act,
does not apply to the extent of the inconsistency
13.13 The Inquiry interprets this provision as permitting directions to be made in

relation to particular proceedings before the court. On its face it would not
seem to authorise the issue of general practice directions. If this is correct, then
all Practice Directions made in the Children’s Court in relation to matters at
large, are arguably, invalid. The Inquiry notes, by way of contrast, that the Local
Court Act 2007 empowers the Chief Magistrate to issue practice notes in
relation to any matter with respect to which rules may be made, and establishes
a Local Court Rule Committee which is empowered to make rules in relation to
the practice or procedure of the Court.248 The Children’s Court does not have a
similar authority to establish a Rules Committee with equivalent power to make
rules, nor does it vest in the Senior Children’s Magistrate any power to issue
practice note or directions.
13.14 In this respect, while the functions of the Senior Children’s Magistrate include a
function, in conjunction with the Chief Magistrate to “develop Practice Directions
and recommendations for rules” this would seem to fall short of authorising their
issue. The authority to make rules for the practice and procedure of the
Children’s Court lies with the Governor.249 It would appear, accordingly that as
247
KF v Parramatta Children’s Court [2008] NSWCA 1131.
248
Local Court Act 2007 ss.25-27.
249
Children’s Court Act 1987 s.23.
the Act is currently framed, general Practice Directions would need to be

incorporated in the Rules.
13.15 The Inquiry considers that this situation needs to be regularised in order to
remove any doubt in relation to the validity of any practice directions or notes
which the Court sees fit to issue.
13.16 The Inquiry recommends that the Children’s Court Act 1987 be amended to
insert a provision similar to s.27 of the Local Court Act 2007, and that the Rules
be reviewed to ensure that they are consistent with the Children’s Court Act
1987 and the Care Act, and that any Practice Directions or notes that are issued
after amendment of the Act similarly accord with the legislation.
General procedure in care proceedings

13.17 Hearings in care proceedings are not public,250 and consistent with provisions in
relation to many tribunals that have been established in NSW, care proceedings
are not to be conducted in an adversarial manner, and are to be conducted with
as little formality and legal technicality and form as the circumstances of the
case permit.251
13.18 Similarly, they should proceed as expeditiously as possible.252 Legal

practitioners and parties involved in care proceedings must do all they can to
facilitate the just, quick and cost effective disposal of those proceedings.253
13.19 To aid this expeditiousness, hearing dates will not be vacated and
adjournments will not be granted without “cogent and compelling reasons.”254
13.20 The rules of evidence do not apply in care proceedings, unless the Children’s
Court determines that they should apply in a particular case.255
13.21 A recent amendment to the Care Act has resulted in a requirement that the
Children’s Court admit evidence that a parent (or primary care-giver) of a child
or young person who is the subject of care proceedings has had a child
previously removed from his or her care and not restored, or is a person who
has been named or otherwise identified (by the coroner or a police officer) as a
person who may have been involved in causing a reviewable death of a child or
young person.256
250
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 s.104B.
251
252
253
Children’s Court NSW, Practice Direction No.20, Hearing Dates and Applications for Adjournments in
Criminal and Care Jurisdictions, para.1.
254
Children’s Court NSW, Practice Direction No.20, Hearing Dates and Applications for Adjournments in
Criminal and Care Jurisdictions, para.7 and 11; see also Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection)
Act 1998 s.94.
255
256
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 s.106A(1). See Chapter 23 concerning
reviewable deaths.
13.22 Such evidence is deemed to be prima facie evidence that the child or young
person the subject of the care proceedings is in need of care and protection.257
A parent or primary care-giver in relation to whom this evidence has been
admitted can rebut the prima facie evidence by satisfying the Children’s Court
on the balance of probabilities that either:
(a) the circumstances that gave rise to the previous removal of

the child or young person concerned no longer exist, or
(b) the parent or primary care-giver concerned was not involved

in causing the relevant reviewable death of the child or
young person.258
13.23 All documentary evidence in care proceedings must be in affidavit form unless a
Children’s Magistrate or Children’s Registrar directs otherwise. Affidavits must
be written in the first person, must be divided into numbered paragraphs, and
any extractions from other documents contained within or annexed to affidavits
must be fair extracts.259
13.24 The usual procedure in relation to the evidence of witnesses is that the affidavit
of the witness is tendered into evidence and is treated as being his or her
‘evidence in chief’. The witness can be called to be cross examined on their
evidence if the parties desire it. Leave may be granted to a party to supplement
the affidavit evidence of a witness with further oral evidence, or to call a witness
who has not sworn or affirmed an affidavit in the proceedings, if the Children’s
Court is satisfied that to do so would promote the interests of justice and the
interests of the child or young person the subject of the proceedings.260
13.25 The standard of proof in care proceedings is on the balance of probabilities.261
Appellate structure
Appeals to the District Court
13.26 A party who is dissatisfied with a care order made by the Children’s Court (other
than an interim order) can appeal to the District Court against the order.262 No
review lies to the Supreme Court unless the case is one that would attract
prerogative relief or invocation of the parens patriae jurisdiction.263
257
However, it was held in the matter of SB v Parramatta Children’s Court [2007] NSWSC 1297 that evidence
of a previous removal is not in itself a ground for determining whether a child or young person is ‘in need of
care.’
258
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 s.106A(3).
259
Children’s Court NSW, Practice Direction No.28, Case Management in the Care Jurisdiction, paras. 16 and
28.
260
ibid., paras 17, 17.2, 17.3, 17.14.
261
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 s.93, see also Re Sophie [2008] NSWCA
250.
262
263
Re Sophie [2008] NSWCA 250.
13.27 An appeal to the District Court is by way of a new hearing, and fresh evidence
(or evidence in addition to or in substitution for the evidence on which the care
order was made) can be received. The Court may, instead of taking fresh
evidence, admit into evidence the transcript of the Children’s Court proceedings
and any exhibits tendered.264
13.28 Statistics held by the District Court of NSW (the District Court) indicate that just
over one per cent of all District Court lodgements were care proceedings
appeals in 2005, 2006, and 2007. In 2005 there were 31 such appeals,
increasing to 37 in 2006 and to 40 in 2007 with the average disposal time being
7.7 months. However, data provided by DoCS indicate the number of appeals
in 2004/05 and in each successive year was 54, 92, 85 and 86. The Inquiry
understands that the difference between the figures arise, in part, because
DoCS’ data concern workload, whereas the District Court’s data relate to new
matters commenced in that year.
13.29 The District Court was unable to provide the numbers of individual children and
young persons involved in the appeals or the numbers of appeals relating to
Aboriginal children and young persons.
13.30 Information held by DoCS indicates that between July 2002 and December
2007, 73 per cent of appeals were brought by the parent and 17 per cent by
DoCS. The parent was successful in 39 per cent of the parent instituted
appeals, and DoCS was successful in 66 per cent of the remaining appeals.
13.31 Of the 35 pending District Court care proceeding appeals as at 30 June 2007,
three had been ongoing for at least 12 months, none for longer than 15 months
and 18 for more than six months.
The Administrative Decisions Tribunal
13.32 The Administrative Decisions Tribunal’s (ADT) Community Services Division

has jurisdiction in relation to original decisions and reviewable decisions. In its
original decision jurisdiction, applications can be brought by a prohibited person
- that is a person convicted of sex offences or offences involving the use of
violence against a child. A prohibited person is barred from working with
children unless a declaration stating otherwise is made by the ADT. Before
making such an order, the ADT must be satisfied that the applicant does not
pose a risk to the safety of children.
13.33 Under s.245 of the Care Act, decisions reviewable by the ADT include decisions
in relation to:
a. the authorisation of people as authorised carers for children or young
persons in OOHC, and the cancellation or suspension of their authorisation
264
b. the granting to, or removal from, an authorised carer of the responsibility for
the daily care and control of a child or young person
c. the accreditation of agencies in relation to the conduct of OOHC services
d. the disclosure (or non-disclosure) by an agency conducting OOHC of high
level identification information concerning the placement of a child of young
person
e. the employment of children in the entertainment, exhibition and door-to-
door sales industries
f. the transfer of a child protection order to another participating state.
13.34 Most of the decisions reviewed by the ADT concern the removal of children and
young persons from foster parents and the cancellation or suspension of a
foster parent’s authority.
13.35 The number of applications for review of decisions made under the Care Act fell
from 18 in 2006/07 to 17 in 2007/08. Twenty applications were filed under the
Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998 (the CCYP Act) in
2007/08, representing no change from the previous year. Approximately two
thirds of all applications disposed of in the course of 2007/08 were determined
in less than six months from the date of filing.265
13.36 Appeals in care matters from a decision of the ADT are heard by an appeal
panel. Appeals under the CCYP Act, from a decision of the ADT, are heard by
the Supreme Court. In 2006/07, two decisions made under the predecessor to
the CCYP Act were appealed to the Supreme Court. Both were dismissed.266
The Inquiry does not know the number of appeals (if any) from decisions made
by the ADT under the CCYP Act in 2007/08.
13.37 The ADT advised the Inquiry that between 2002 and 6 February 2008, 22
matters were listed for mediation. Of these, three were vacated and listed for
later in 2008, six settled and 11 did not settle.
The Supreme Court
13.38 The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to conduct a judicial review of

administrative decisions made in the course of the management of matters
arising in relation to the care and protection of children and young persons.
Such jurisdiction is exercised in accordance with usual administrative law
principles. Additionally it can intervene in the exercise of its’ parens patriae
jurisdiction (although subject to the limitations noted in Re Elizabeth267) as
discussed in Chapter 11.
265
Correspondence: Administrative Decisions Tribunal, 7 November 2008.
266
Administrative Decisions Tribunal, Annual Report 2006/07, p.21.
267
Re Elizabeth [2007] NSWSC 29.
Legal representation in care proceedings

13.39 The following people have a right of appearance in care proceedings:
a. each child or young person who is the subject of the care proceedings
b. each person who has parental responsibility for the child or young person
c. the Director-General
d. the Minister.268
13.40 Each of these people may appear in person (if capable) or be legally
represented.269
13.41 Other persons who, in the opinion of the Children’s Court, have a genuine
concern for the safety, welfare and well-being of the child or young person may,
with the leave of the Children’s Court, appear in care proceedings (in person or
through a legal representative).270
13.42 Section 99 of the Care Act allows the Court to appoint a legal representative to
act for a child or young person who is the subject of proceedings brought under
the Care Act (Care Proceedings). There is a rebuttable presumption under the
Care Act that a child aged less than 12 years is not capable of giving proper
legal instructions.271
13.43 A legal practitioner will act as an Independent Legal Representative if the child
is younger than 12 years or if a guardian ad litem (see below) has been
appointed. Such a representative is often referred to as a ‘separate
representative.’ A practitioner appointed to represent a child or young person
12 years of age or older, for whom a guardian ad litem has not been appointed,
will act as a Direct Legal Representative, on the instructions of child or young
person.272 If a guardian ad litem has been appointed the legal representative
will act on that person’s instructions.273
13.44 Appointments of Independent Legal Representatives and Direct Legal

Representatives in care proceedings are referred to the LAC and the work is
allocated to a practitioner who is either employed by the LAC, or engaged by it
on its Care and Protection Panel.274 The Panel is comprised of private
practitioners who have been accepted by the LAC as being eligible to carry out
legal work in care proceedings. Generally, they need a demonstrated
knowledge and experience in the conduct or preparation of matters under the
268
269
270
271
See Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) ss.99A, 99B and 99C.
272
See Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) ss.99A, 99B and 99C.
273
274
Children’s Court NSW, Practice Direction No.28 Case Management in the Care Jurisdiction, para.10.1.
Care Act. Successful applicants are appointed to the Panel for up to five
years.275
13.45 The key difference between the two types of representation is that the Direct
Legal Representative acts on the instructions of the child or young person, while
the Independent Legal Representative acts in the best interests of the child or
young person.
13.46 There is currently no requirement that legal practitioners appearing in care

proceedings undergo any specialist training or have any specialist accreditation.
However, Panel members must complete at least five Continuing Legal
Education points (equivalent to five hours of face to face learning, or 10 hours of
video or online learning) each year in courses relevant to their practice in care
proceedings.276
13.47 The absence of a specialist training requirement to be an Independent Legal

Representative or Direct Legal Representative, is in contrast to the eligibility to
be a children’s representative in the family law jurisdiction.
13.48 Eligibility to become a children’s representative in the family law jurisdiction

requires, inter alia, participating in a compulsory two day National Training
Program.277
13.49 The LAC annually conducts a one day training course in Care and Protection
Law, which it offers to its in-house solicitors and current Panel members. DoCS
also conducts a single day of training to legal practitioners who are on its panel.
Apart from this (and from any Continuing Legal Education courses that might be
offered by various institutions from time to time), the Inquiry does not know of
any training courses currently available that are specifically targeted at
practising in care proceedings. It is noted that the Children’s Court facilitates a
mentoring program to provide Independent Legal Representatives with advice
and assistance in relation to their role.278
13.50 The Law Society offers specialist accreditation in various areas of the law. A
practitioner wishing to become an accredited specialist must have completed at
least five years of full time practice, and at least three years of work in the area
of specialisation. In addition, the practitioner must pass exams in
communication, problem solving, client service, and the law. The Law Society
asserts that the benefits of specialist accreditation include:
a. offering the public and the profession a reliable means to identify a
practitioner with proven capability in a specific area of law
b. encouraging improvements in the quality and delivery of legal services
275
Legal Aid NSW, The Panels Process, www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au.
276
Legal Aid NSW, Care and Protection Practice Standards, November 2007, p.8.
277
Legal Aid NSW, Panel for Independent Children’s Lawyers, Information for new applicants, p.2.
278
Children’s Court NSW, Mentoring Program, www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/childrenscourt.
c. providing practitioners with an incentive and opportunity to increase their

competency in their chosen area of law.279
13.51 Children’s Law is one of the areas in which specialist accreditation is

periodically offered.280 However, the Law Society informed the Inquiry that
accreditation in Children’s Law has not been offered for a number of years, and
that when it will next be offered depends on market interest. DoCS has
however informed the Inquiry that it understands from the Law Society that
specialist accreditation in children’s law will be next offered in 2009.
Guardians ad litem
13.52 Under s.99C(2) of the Care Act, the Children’s Court can, on the application of a
legal representative for a child or young person who is older than 12 years,
make a declaration that the child or young person is not capable of giving
proper instructions. In such cases, the Children’s Court will generally appoint a
guardian ad litem for the child or young person under the provisions of s.100 of
the Care Act.
13.53 The Children’s Court can also appoint a guardian ad litem for a child or young
person over the age of 12 years, if the Court is satisfied that there are special
circumstances that warrant the appointment of a guardian ad litem, or that the
child or young person will benefit from that appointment.281
13.54 The Court can appoint a guardian ad litem for the parent of a child or young
person the subject of care proceedings if it is satisfied that the parent is
incapable of giving proper instructions to his or her legal representative,282 or
request the legal representative to act as amicus curiae.
13.55 Where any party seeks to appear in person, the Children’s Court can require
that person to be legally represented if it is satisfied that he or she is incapable
of representing him/herself. If the Court is also satisfied that such a person is
incapable of giving proper instructions to his or her legal representative, it can
appoint a guardian ad litem to instruct that party’s legal representative.283
13.56 The Inquiry was informed that a guardian ad litem appointed in care
proceedings is entitled to retain a solicitor, who will be funded by the LAC. In
situations where a guardian ad litem has been appointed for a child or young
person, the legal practitioner representing the child in the proceedings will in
fact act on the instructions of the guardian ad litem.284
279
Law Society of NSW Specialist Accreditation Scheme, Guide to Application and Assessment, 2008, p.4.
280
ibid.
281
282
283
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 s.98 (2) and 98(2A).
284
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 ss.99D(b)(i) and 100(4).
13.57 The Children’s Court may require that a guardian ad litem provide written
evidence of their views and of the instructions that they have given to the legal
representative acting for the child, young person or parent for whom the
guardian ad litem has been appointed. This evidence may be provided by way
of affidavit (which would be prepared by the solicitor), or by way of a report
prepared by the guardian ad litem.285
13.58 All guardians ad litem, upon appointment by the Children’s Court, are given
access to the Court’s file in relation to the care proceedings.
Issues arising
Initiating process and affidavits
13.59 DoCS submitted that the requirement that evidence be submitted by way of
affidavit is unduly legalistic, and stated:
No other Australian care jurisdiction has this requirement for the

submission of all evidence to be included in an affidavit, for
example, as part of the innovations within the Family Court, the
Magellan Project allows for the information to be supplied by
the child welfare agency by way of a report. Similarly, the
Family Court’s practice in children’s matters is to initially ask the
parties to identify what is agreed and what is in dispute and
then affidavits are only allowed to be filed about issues in
dispute.286
13.60 According to DoCS lawyers, the use of affidavits is contrary to a holistic

approach to child protection work.
13.61 The LAC submitted that affidavits might not be the best way to ensure that all
relevant information is put before the Court. It stated:
An alternative might be to consider simpler documentary

requirements at first instance (that is, when the care application
is first filed), provisions for discovery of the DoCS file, and
directions for the filing of affidavits (and the matters to be
addressed in those affidavits) when it is clear that the matter is
proceeding to a defended hearing.287
13.62 The Children’s Court favours the use of affidavits (indeed, it is the Children’s
Court’s Practice Direction that requires that affidavits are used), but stated:
285
Children’s Court Clinic, Guardian ad Litem Handbook, para.3.4.
286
287
It would be very helpful if the Department of Community

Services were prepared to be more economical and selective in
the matters contained in its affidavits that, from the Court's point
of view, frequently are far too long and contain far too much
information, a great deal of which is unreliable.288
13.63 The combination of ss.61(2) and 68 of the Care Act (which require that DoCS
specify the orders that it seeks in its application and that leave be sought before
further documentary evidence can be filed) and cl.21 of the Rules (which
requires that an application be accompanied by an affidavit supporting the
orders sought) has resulted in the general view that DoCS is required to file the
entirety of its evidence at the outset of care proceedings. Further, altering the
orders sought, and filing further evidence, can only be done with the leave of
the Court.289
13.64 A representative from the LAC informed the Inquiry that DoCS makes ambit
claims, although she conceded that the legislation might be the cause of this.290
She said that DoCS often sets out “as much as possible of the most damning
evidence it has,”291 and that, especially in matters where DoCS does not
ultimately seek long term orders for parental responsibility, this process of
making an ambit claim “gets everyone sort of tense and anxious
unnecessarily.”292
13.65 The LAC informed the Inquiry that in many cases DoCS does not specify the
actual final orders it will seek until shortly before the final hearing. This
statement is to some extent supported by the results of the LAC’s own survey of
care proceedings in which it was involved that were finalised between 1 January
and 31 March 2008. The LAC informed the Inquiry that this survey indicates
that it was in only 17 out of the total of 58 cases, that DoCS specified the exact
orders it would finally seek at the commencement of the proceedings. In 12
cases, it specified the exact orders it would finally seek either at the preliminary
conference or in a Care Plan filed before the preliminary conference. In 29
cases, it specified the exact orders it would finally seek after the Care Plan had
been filed (this number includes seven cases in which DoCS did not specify the
exact orders it would seek until the commencement of the final hearing).
13.66 The Children’s Court, while supporting the continued use of affidavits, stated:
It might be more useful if the Director-General were to present

to the Court on that first day only sufficient material to allow the
case to be established and to support his application for interim
care orders and, thereafter, to make the DoCS file available for
inspection by the child representative and the legal
288
289
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 ss 61(3) and 68.
290
Transcript: Inquiry meeting with representatives of Legal Aid NSW, 8 February 2008, p.23.
291
292
Transcript: Inquiry meeting with representatives of Legal Aid NSW, 8 February 2008, p.23.
representatives of the parties. Discussions along those lines

are underway by ‘the working party’ made up of representatives
of the Department of Community Services, the Attorney
General's Department, Legal Aid NSW and the Court.293
13.67 DoCS stated:
An alternative approach would be to file a far more limited

document that merely addressed the evidence to support a
determination that the child is in need of care and protection
and interim orders. Detailed material to support final orders
could then be filed at a later time in the process allowing greater
time for deliberation and consultation over the proposals.
By requiring DoCS to file all material at the commencement of

proceedings, DoCS is often unaware at that time as to the final
orders which may be sought and will not have received the
benefit of hearing from the child or the child’s family. This
means that DoCS must file comprehensive material to cover all
possibilities. In filing any material that might be held,
irrespective of whether it is later relied upon, DoCS can
antagonise the child’s family and induce unnecessary argument
and anxiety. This can add to the adversarial nature of the
proceedings.294
13.68 DoCS recommended:

a. Dispensing with the requirement that DoCS must file all material at the
commencement of the proceedings.
b. Simplifying court documentation and recognising the constraints of time in
preparing such documents.
c. Simplifying documents required to commence proceedings so that the
information provided supports a determination that the child is in need of
care and protection and interim orders. Detailed material to support final
orders could be filed at a later date.295
13.69 A retired Children’s Magistrate informed the Inquiry:
A procedure where DoCS only files minimum evidence at the

outset and perhaps in (unsworn) report form is something of a
return to the processes under the 1939 Act. This often placed
the Court in a difficult position when considering making interim
orders. Magistrates were faced with conflicting submissions
293
294
Submission: DoCS, Operation of courts in the child protection system (abridged), pp.13.
295
ibid., p.34.
from the bar table with little reliable evidence. Sometimes there
were requests for officers to be cross-examined on reports.
….the notion that there be full disclosure (or discovery) to the

parties but only selective evidence to the Court (being only that
which is essential for that stage of the hearing process
reached), may reduce the volume of the court files but is also a
slippery slope towards the Court actually being misled by
omission.296
13.70 The Inquiry is persuaded that the requirement for affidavit evidence, and all
material relied upon, to be filed at the beginning of the proceedings is ultimately
not in the best interests of the children and young persons for whom the system
operates.
13.71 The Inquiry is of the view that applications by DoCS should be by way of report
which succinctly and fairly summarises the information available to DoCS and
contains sufficient information to support a determination that a child or young
person is in need of care and protection and any interim orders sought. Where
further evidence dealing with matters in dispute is necessary the Court can give
directions as to how that evidence is to be adduced, once those matters have
been identified.
13.72 The Inquiry is keen to see the system move towards a more holistic and less
incident based response. Changing the initiating process in this way should
reduce the ‘legalism’ associated with care proceedings, ease the anxiety of
caseworkers caused by preparing lengthy affidavits and lessen tension between
DoCS and the family by not commencing with an ‘ambit’ claim.
13.73 In relation to the requirement that DoCS indicates in its application the particular
care order sought, the Inquiry is of the view that this provision should remain, as
it permits all parties to understand the position taken by DoCS. It should not be
onerous on DoCS as it should have formed the requisite opinion by the stage of
instituting proceedings.
13.74 The Inquiry is troubled by the use of the ‘ambit’ claim as asserted by the LAC. It
will not enhance any early resolution of the matter and may well alienate the
parents, or their lawyers. DoCS should refrain from its use. Where preliminary
conferences work as intended (see the previous chapter) the final orders sought
by DoCS should be made known to the other parties at least one week prior to
the preliminary conference.
13.75 The reliability of some of the material supporting the application will be an issue,
regardless of whether it is in the form of an affidavit or a report. The nature of
the jurisdiction is such that reports of risk of harm are nothing more than
assertions by the reporter. The veracity of the material contained in the report
296
Submission: John Crawford, 29 February 2008, pp. 2-3.
will still be able to be tested and its form should not impede the Magistrate’s
decision making.
13.76 There is merit in making the DoCS files available to parties to the proceedings
shortly after an application is made. The Inquiry understands that the work
involved in masking the identity of reporters before providing access to the file
can be considerable. However, to provide the files as a matter of course,
obviates the need for subpoenas, gives all parties the opportunity to know the
available information and rely on it as necessary, and reduces the likelihood of
allegations of skewed affidavits by DoCS (see below).
13.77 Alternatively, DoCS might provide specified documents which may include
previous court orders and reasons for decision, minutes of key meetings, any
assessment or other expert reports. Whichever solution is adopted should
improve the process and relationships.
Evidence in relation to emergency removals

13.78 Many DoCS caseworkers, and the PSA, informed the Inquiry of the difficulties in
drafting an affidavit within hours of an emergency removal.
13.79 The Children’s Court submitted:
The statutory requirement that DoCS file an affidavit within 24

hours of its removal of a child from the care of his/her family…is
designed to ensure that the State does not arbitrarily remove
children from the care of their parents and that it acts with
proper cause. It is submitted, in the circumstances, that the
inconvenience to DoCS officers is justified particularly since all
that is required to support an Emergency Care and Protection
Order is a brief affidavit outlining an immediate risk. The
resulting emergency care and protection order will “hold the
ring” for a fortnight giving DoCS a further period in which to
prepare its affidavit as to the need of care and protection which
will ground its s.61 care application.297
13.80 A former Children’s Magistrate submitted that amending the legislation to allow
for a three working day period in which to file an emergency application could
be desirable in that it would allow for better preparation of evidence.298
13.81 As the Inquiry understands it, the length of time prior to a court determining the
needs of a child, in relation to an emergency removal, varies from jurisdiction to
jurisdiction. In some jurisdictions, an application must be made within one
297
298
working day or eight hours299, 48 hours,300 in some 72 hours,301 in some 10

days.302 A Judge in Manitoba, Canada stated that the timing should:
Achieve a constitutional balance between the need for interim

measures to protect the child at risk of serious harm and a
requirement for an expedited post apprehension hearing
process.303
13.82 NSW seems to have one of the shortest timeframes. The Inquiry is aware that
Professor Parkinson recommended the provision which now appears in the
Care Act, which involved a change from the 1987 provision which permitted an
application within 72 hours. While the Inquiry understands the policy
underpinning the current provision, it is of the view that the timeframe should be
extended to 72 hours, in order to properly put the evidence before the Court,
and that such an extension would not infringe the balance set out above.
Expedition
The duration of court proceedings is important for a child. Not

only is the process stressful for the child and will disrupt other
important activities (such as schooling, for those of that age) but
pending the making of final orders, it defers the implementation
of plans for the long term stability of the child and the formation
of new stable, nurturing and loving relationships where these
might be necessary.304
13.84 A number of submissions similarly described the deleterious effect that waiting
for final orders has on children. The Children’s Court agreed.
13.85 Most submissions that referred to the length of care proceedings favoured
shortening, to the extent possible, the time taken to complete proceedings and
reach a final decision about the child’s future care.
For the very young child, the best evidence available to this
Department is that long term arrangements should be in place
within six months.305
299
Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic) s.242(2) and Child Protection Act 1999 (Qld) s.18(5) and (7).
300
Los Angeles County Department of Child Services v Superior Court (1988) 200 CalApp3d505 cited in
DoCS, Intranet, Topic 15: Emergency removal of children for their care and protection, p.17.
301
Jordan v Jackson (1994) 15F3d333.
302
State X REL Miller v Locke (1979) 253SE2d540.
303
Winnipeg Child and Family Services v Child and Family Services v W(KAL) (2000) 191DLR (iv) 1 at [127].
304
305
ibid.
13.87 DoCS stated that the duration of the process might be shortened if the process
itself was trying to achieve less, and therefore stated “limiting of the Court’s
jurisdiction might permit earlier final orders – to the benefit of the child.”306
13.88 Other submissions pointed to the procedural and practical problems which were
thought to prolong proceedings. A legal practitioner who was present at the
Public Forum in Wagga Wagga stated that in regional areas, there can be long
delays in the court process due to the length of time between sittings. She said:
In regional areas where there are circuit courts… courts don't sit
every day in that particular location. For example, in the Griffith
circuit, where parties have their children removed, they face the
disadvantage of either having to wait a longer period of time
than anticipated in the legislation to have their matter come
back before the court. Alternatively, which is often what is
happening, if we seek to have the matter listed within the circuit,
then they have to travel numerous hours in regional areas
where no public transport is available in order to have that
decision reviewed at an earlier stage.307
13.89 Another legal practitioner present at the Wagga Wagga Public Forum said that
she has experienced delays in proceedings due to DoCS not filing evidence on
time.
13.90 A DoCS officer from a CSC in Southern Region described delays as a result of
the actions of parents not attending Court or awaiting legal representation, or
the granting of adjournments by the Court. She also said that matters are being
delayed on account of legally aided practitioners lengthening the process for
financial reasons. She said:
One solicitor said to me that if they offer up a draft minute of

care then Legal Aid will pay them more money, so they will ask
for an extra week's adjournment so that they can offer up a draft
minute of care which is nearly identical to the Department's, but
maybe has two or three different words in it, so then that means
that the case has to take an extra week in court.308
13.91 Another DoCS officer from a Northern Region CSC informed the Inquiry that
care matters before the Children’s Court are continually adjourned due to
parents not filing their evidence.
13.92 The PSA stated:
The inefficiency of the court system is a constant frustration for

caseworkers. The court expects (caseworkers) to adhere to
306
ibid.
307
Transcript: Public Forum, Wagga Wagga, 11 March 2008 pp.3 and 4.
308
timeframes, but then does not adhere to its own time

restrictions, leading to inefficiencies in caseworkers’ time. For
example, caseworkers report that it is not unusual for there to
be five or six caseworkers waiting all day in court for their
matters to be heard.309
13.93 The Inquiry received a submission from a DoCS caseworker in relation to the
difficulty in determining the prospects of restoration within a short timeframe.
She stated:
On many occasions, the timelines set by the Children’s Court

seem to be unrealistic, in my experience. Once a determination
is made that the child is in need of care and protection, the
Director-General has three weeks in which to file and serve his
Care Plan. Where a family has been known to the Department
for some time, this deadline is not usually a problem. Where a
family has just become known to the Department, the deadline
provides no leeway for the parents to demonstrate whether or
not there is a realistic possibility of restoration. It is often
frustrating for managers and caseworkers to make a well
thought out, appropriate recommendation for final orders for the
child.310
13.94 The Inquiry is of the view that expedition is in the best interests of children and
young persons, however, not at the expense of a fair, considered hearing.
There should be no changes to the processes solely to reduce the time taken.
Movement of hearing dates
13.95 DoCS stated that listing dates in the Children’s Court shift so that court rooms
and Magistrates are constantly occupied:
Dates for hearing are often moved between courts and even
moved to earlier dates. Consideration is rarely given to the
availability of legal representatives, instructing caseworkers or
witnesses or to the need to maintain continuity of legal
representation. This leads to hearings being conducted by
legal representatives with less than 24 hours notice. It is now
the full time work of a clerical officer within DoCS Legal
Services to do nothing but re-arrange timetables and locate
lawyers who may be able to handle matters at the last
moment.311
309
Submission: Public Service Association, 17 March 2008, p.8.
310
Submission: DoCS current staff member, p.3.
311
Submission: DoCS, Operation of Courts in the child protection system (abridged), p.11; Transcript: Public
Forum, Role of Courts, 22 February 2008, p.18.
13.96 DoCS recommended that the Children’s Court adhere to the principles of
continuity in judicial and legal representation, given the specialist nature of the
jurisdiction and the significant impact court orders will have on the lives of
children, young persons and their families.
13.97 The LAC also cited the movement of hearing dates without regard to the
availability of children’s solicitor. A representative informed the Inquiry:
Those children have a relationship with that lawyer; they know

that lawyer and that lawyer knows them. To have another
lawyer turn up at a hearing because their lawyer isn't available
is inappropriate for those children.312
13.98 The LAC also said that the Court’s desire to expedite proceedings was leading
to listing problems and a lack of predictability.
13.99 A representative from the Aboriginal Legal Service, who had also experienced
alterations to court dates and locations, said that this was problematic for
Aboriginal people, stating “continuity is particularly important to Aboriginal
people.”313
13.100 As stated earlier in this chapter, expedition is important in this jurisdiction, but
not at the expense of a fair hearing in which a party can be represented by a
lawyer with whom they have developed a relationship. The Children’s Court
should reconsider its practice of moving cases to different courts and on
different dates at short notice.
13.101 In addition, the Inquiry considers that the Children’s Court should reconsider its
listing practices in its criminal and care jurisdictions in relation to callover days
and mentions, by listing cases in successive time brackets, so as to avoid the
need for practitioners, caseworkers and families to remain at the Court for
unnecessarily lengthy periods waiting for their cases to be called up for what
can be quite brief hearings.
‘Adversarial’ Proceedings
13.102 The Inquiry received a number of submissions stating that care proceedings
are, or are increasingly becoming, ‘adversarial’, or that legal practitioners and
DoCS were behaving in an ‘adversarial’ manner. It was not always clear what
was meant by ‘adversarial’, and it seems likely that the term means different
things to the different people who used it. The definition of the term is likely to
cover everything from the mere testing of evidence in court, the presence of a
number of legally represented parties, to combative, hostile and point scoring
behaviour. It may relate to procedures, processes or the conduct of
participants.
312
313
ibid.
13.103 DoCS characterised an adversarial approach as being akin to a contest

between competing interests. DoCS stated that adversarial approaches do not
assist families, carers and officers of welfare agencies in building cooperative
working relationships, and can make it “almost impossible” in many cases for
caseworkers to continue working with the family of the child who is the subject
of the proceedings.314 DoCS further stated:
Child protection is not (or should not be) about balancing

competing interests. It is about identifying the risk(s) to a child
and protecting that child from the risk(s). An adversarial contest
is unlikely to be the best way to arrive at a sound decision on
such issues.315
13.104 DoCS recommended that the Children’s Court adopt ‘less adversarial court
procedures’ as trialled in other courts, such as the Family Court (discussed in
the previous chapter).
13.105 The Ombudsman characterised the adversarial approach of lawyers as being

“to vigorously represent the interests of their clients”316 and stated:
It must be said that such an approach does not necessarily

assist in facilitating the conduct of care proceedings in a way
that promotes the best interests of children.317
13.106 During a meeting with the Inquiry, a representative from the LAC stated:
The word ‘adversarial’ has some very difficult connotations. It is

put as a very bad thing. But if it means that cases are being run
properly, that evidence is being required, that the decisions are
being based on appropriate evidence and therefore are in the
best interests of those children, I don't see that as being a bad
thing.318
13.107 However, the LAC was critical of DoCS appealing Children’s Court decisions,
an approach it described as adversarial.
13.108 A barrister practising in care proceedings informed the Inquiry that the child
protection system would be improved by giving properly trained Magistrates
“more inquisitorial powers.”319 The PSA also submitted that the Children’s
Court should be inquisitorial rather than adversarial. Similarly, Women’s Legal
Services stated:
314
ibid., p.13.
315
316
NSW Ombudsman, Care Proceedings in the Children’s Court: A discussion paper, July 2006, p.36.
317
ibid.
318
Transcript: Legal Aid NSW, 8 February 2008, p.17.
319
Submission: a barrister, p.1.
The Children’s Court does not function in the non-adversarial

manner legislatively required. This is perhaps inevitable,
given…the Act does not substitute an adversarial model by
assigning an inquisitorial role to the Court. In the absence of
this, it is unsurprising that the Children’s Court defaults into an
adversarial role.320
13.109 Women’s Legal Services also stated that care proceedings are ‘legalistic’ in that
practitioners and the Court use ‘jargonistic language,’ which can ‘disempower’
parties to the proceedings.321
13.110 The Inquiry was informed by DoCS caseworkers and legal officers in every non-
metropolitan region, that care proceedings in those regions are being conducted
in an increasingly adversarial manner.
13.111 A DoCS legal officer in a CSC in Western Region stated:
Every step of the way sometimes is a big battle. Interim orders

go to hearing quite often to establish the child's in need of care
goes to hearing…Contact, in particular, is becoming more
adversarial in court.322
13.112 DoCS caseworkers in different CSCs in the Southern Region informed the
Inquiry that there had been a recent increase in the number of cases in which
‘establishment’ is contested (that is, there is a contest in relation to whether the
relevant child or young person is in need of care or protection).
13.113 There can be little doubt that there is much concern amongst stakeholders
about the way in which care proceedings are conducted. However, for reasons
already discussed, use of the word ‘adversarial’ is ultimately not very helpful.
13.114 The Inquiry agrees that the model of a judicial officer balancing competing
interests is not an appropriate one in this jurisdiction. However, it is also the
case that the consequences of the decisions made in care proceedings on
families and children are enormous. There should be testing of evidence, there
should be legal representation and it is appropriate that both DoCS and
representatives for children and families vigorously seek to obtain an outcome
in the best interests of children. However, it is clear that practice and procedure
in this area requires change and improvement, and recommendations to this
end are made later in this chapter.
320
Submission: Women’s Legal Services, p.4.
321
ibid.
322
Rules of evidence
13.115 Rules of evidence place limits on the information that can be considered by a
court, but also assist the court in determining the strength and reliability of the
information that is before it.
13.116 The Inquiry received some submissions in relation to some of the

consequences of non-application of the rules of evidence in the Children’s
Court.
13.117 The Children’s Court stated:
It doesn't matter if material complies or fails to comply with the

rules of evidence. What matters is whether, acting protectively,
the court can place some reliance on the material. It is a
feature of the information provided to the court on behalf of the
Director-General that it may include anonymous, and
sometimes unreliable and occasionally malicious and/or quite
incredible reports which have been made to the Department
and then handed on to the Court. It is another feature that
many of these reports will never have been closely investigated
or examined by departmental offices before handing them on to
the court. It is not the approach of the court to ignore those
reports simply because they are hearsay or anonymous or
vague or deal with ‘historical’ matters but it is necessary, in
order to avoid error and the possibility of making unnecessary
or inappropriate care orders to the ultimate disadvantage of the
child or young person, to sift the material carefully in order to
arrive at the truth.323
13.118 A barrister practising in care proceedings informed the Inquiry:
Evidence is almost never excluded because it is not in proper

form. The increase in ‘paper’ may have been at the behest of
the Senior Children’s Magistrate who has been properly
concerned about how he is to find ‘facts’ when there is no-one
with first hand evidence to contradict a parent’s denial of
neglect or abuse.324
13.119 The PSA stated that the ‘standard’ and ‘level’ of evidence expected by the
Children’s Court in care proceedings is too high.325
13.120 The Inquiry agrees with the approach set out above by the Senior Children’s
Magistrate. From the various transcripts the Inquiry has reviewed, it is satisfied
323
324
Submission: a barrister, p.1.
325
Transcript: Inquiry meeting with representatives of the Public Service Association, 9 January 2008, p.25.
that the Court appropriately applies ss.93(3) and (4) of the Care Act in relation
to the rules of evidence and standard of proof.
A model litigant?
13.121 During the course of the Inquiry, it was frequently asserted in submissions and
during Public Forums that the affidavits sworn by DoCS caseworkers and
tendered in Court did not always contain all relevant material in DoCS
possession. In particular, it was asserted that material favourable to the
opposing party, and material that was not consistent with DoCS’ application was
omitted from some DoCS affidavits.
13.122 It is obviously of critical importance to the court system that government

agencies with a statutory responsibility to bring applications in relation to care
and protection do so fairly and objectively. Accordingly, the Inquiry was
concerned to receive evidence supporting these assertions. The assertions
were made by lawyers as well as by parties to proceedings.
DoCS affidavits
13.123 Some submissions stated that in some cases, DoCS caseworkers select only
the information supporting the DoCS case for inclusion in their affidavit. A
solicitor who was present at the Public Forum in Nowra informed the Inquiry that
in his experience DoCS was selective about the material it put into its affidavits.
He stated:
In my experience, they very selectively put material before the

court that's prejudicial to the parents. If I subsequently
subpoena the DoCS file, I'll find a whole lot of things that are
very useful, for instance, that the parents aren't really the
parents from hell, but that doesn't go into the DoCS affidavits. It
seems to me that they've actually usurped the role of the
magistrate. It is up to the magistrate to decide whether or not
the children should return home or not. It's actually the
department doing all they can to make sure that they decide it
by only feeding selected material to the magistrate.326
13.124 The Inquiry sought documents from this solicitor as well as material and a
response from DoCS. The Inquiry’s examination of the documents from the two
sets of proceedings in relation to which the solicitor provided documents,
revealed the following:
a. There was information favourable and unfavourable to DoCS application
which was omitted from an affidavit tendered by DoCS.
b. One DoCS affidavit selectively quoted from a report, however that report
was annexed in full to the affidavit.
326
Transcript: Public Forum, Nowra, 13 May 2008, p.19.
c. In the same affidavit, the caseworker inaccurately quoted from a report by

an expert. That report was separately tendered to the Court and the
caseworker acknowledged to the Court, via the lawyer representing DoCS,
the inaccuracy. Unfortunately, however, in the ultimate judgement by the
Court the inaccurate reference in the affidavit was relied upon by the
Magistrate.
d. In relation to the other matters raised by the solicitor, they were either not
supported by the material reviewed by the Inquiry or there was insufficient
information available for the Inquiry to form a view.
13.125 However, as illustrated by various submissions to the Inquiry, a lack of attention

to detail can be perceived as DoCS selectively presenting a position and, at the
least indicate poor practice.
13.126 The LAC informed the Inquiry:
DoCS does not always present all the evidence of which it is

aware when filing evidence in support of its positions. Affidavits
filed by DoCS in support of its position that the child is ‘in need
of care and protection’ and/or in support of the final orders that
it is seeking can set out all of the ‘bad’ and none of the ‘good’,
all of the ‘weaknesses’ and none of the ‘strengths’ of the
parents. Summaries of other documents that are contained in
these affidavits can minimise or even omit altogether evidence
that would paint the parents in a better light. These practices
mean that DoCS’ case often contains only that evidence that
supports its own position and omits evidence of which it is
aware that might support the parents’ or child representatives’
positions.327
13.127 The Inquiry spoke with a group of six experienced and well regarded barristers
and solicitors who regularly appear in the care jurisdiction (both for DoCS and
for other parties). In relation to representing DoCS, one said:
It is the approach of the Department, and it's an endemic

problem, that we must prove our case; we must only marshall
the evidence that will support us; and we must ignore or not
produce the evidence against us ….
I'm not saying it's deliberate. It is an endemic policy that seems

to be within the Department itself. It is not individual officers …
That has been my experience. When I act for the Department, I

say, "Our position is to provide all relevant information - good,
bad or ugly - to assist the Court in reaching the most proper
decision.” I know my colleagues certainly will do the same, but
327
Submission: Legal Aid NSW, 20 February 2008, pp.48-49.
I will disclose information that I know does not advance my

case and might be adverse to it because I see an obligation as
a representative of the Department to provide all relevant
information to the court and to the parties that touches upon the
issue to be determined …
They often selectively quote from reports instead of producing

the whole report.328
13.128 Another, in relation to acting for the child or young person, said:
One of the functions is that really you must subpoena the DoCS
file. When you do that and you go through the file, invariably
you find that there is a mountain of material plus and minus.
Sometimes DoCS says that you should be restoring; then you
find a huge amount of material as to why it should not be, or
vice versa.329
13.129 As part of its investigation, the Inquiry sought the views of a number of
caseworkers employed by DoCS throughout the State. The information they
provided ranged as set out below, however it emerged that among at least
some of those workers, there was a belief that they are required to place before
the Court only that material which is favourable to their application.
13.130 At one end of the spectrum caseworkers in CSCs in the Hunter/Central Coast,
Western and Southern Regions, and a legal officer from a Hunter/Central Coast
CSC, informed the Inquiry that casework managers ensure that caseworkers tell
the ‘whole story’ in their affidavits.
13.131 Other DoCS caseworkers had a different approach. In a Hunter/Central Coast

CSC, one caseworker stated that DoCS caseworkers skew the evidence they
put into their affidavits in order to support their case:
I believe that we do skew them towards the Department’s point

of view. And I know there are people sitting in this room that
would not agree with me because we have had that discussion
about the fact that we do tend to present the Department’s case
which, as I have been informed, is our job regardless of
whether we agree with what we are presenting, that our job is to
present it to the Court.330
13.132 Another said:
My training was 22 years ago and it was very different then and
caseworkers are constantly retraining me on how it’s supposed
328
Transcript: Inquiry meeting with lawyers specialising in care and protection matters, 12 March 2008, p.36.
329
ibid.
330
Transcript: Inquiry meeting with DoCS staff, CSC Hunter/Central Coast Region.
to be done now, but very much for me the basis of an affidavit is

to provide evidence to the Court to support the action that the
Department has taken. It needs to talk to why the child is in
need of care and protection. It doesn’t need to provide every
single thing we’ve ever done with the family and in fact if we
include that, the legal support officer will take it out because
affidavits shouldn’t be too long. They’re too difficult for the
Magistrate and the solicitor’s to read if they’re 25 pages long.331
13.133 The following exchange took place during a meeting with DoCS officers:
Counsel Assisting: If there’s material which suggests, by

way of a report of other information available to you, that the
parents or mother is actually capable and competent to look
after the child and there is no need of care and protection, it is
clearly a piece of information you’ve taken into account and in
the overall scheme discounted to have come to the view that an
application was necessary, but is that the sort of information
you would put in your affidavit?
Caseworker: I’m not sure. I can’t think of a time when we’d

do that. We’d certainly encourage the mother to put that before
the Court herself as part of her evidence. We wouldn’t discount
it, but it probably wouldn’t form part of our evidence.332
13.134 The following exchange took place during another meeting with DoCS officers:
Caseworker: I think when we first got the solicitors on

board, which was only in recent times, initially it became very
adversarial and it became very much you had to win your case,
so you only put the stuff that backed up our arguments. We
fought that and I think we won.
Counsel Assisting: Who did you fight with?
Caseworker: We actually fought with legal branch and we

went up to management to the Regional Director. Eventually it
came back down that no, we wouldn’t do it this way. I think it’s
working well.333
13.135 During another meeting, a caseworker said:
I have been with the Department for 14 years. I haven’t done

fieldwork for a significant number of years. However, when I
was in the field as a caseworker and then also as a casework
331
332
ibid.
333
ibid.
specialist, historically that was definitely my training, and my

line direction from my managers was that you only focus on the
negatives of the situation – so not to risk losing the case.
In all my years, I can’t say that I had any training or influence to

balance that up. I can definitely say that the focus was to get
whatever efforts you could get – in my experience – to
demonstrate that the family is not coping and, I guess, to make
a very clear statement that that child is at great risk of harm if
the court doesn’t accept what our recommendations are. But
again that’s not current; I haven’t had any recent experience.334
13.136 A more recently trained DoCS caseworker said:
I have been around for two years, so I finished my training just

over a year ago. The affidavit training we received was
basically that, in a case where we are going for removal, what
we are actually putting in is: these are the reasons why we want
to remove and this is how the family has engaged with us or
how they have not. In cases where they have and where
attempts have been made by the family to say “These are the
reasons why we shouldn’t remove our children,” what we are
actually doing is we are saying that, but we are trying to use it
as a leverage point to say, “Okay, these are the positive things
that this family has, but this is why, in our opinion, this is not
enough.”335
13.137 In Re Liam, McDougall J commented on the evidence of DoCS. He noted that

in an affidavit, a caseworker had included some material about a contact
session that was taken out of context and resulted in that part of the affidavit
being misleading.336 His Honour said:
I draw attention to this in the hope that, in future, care will be

taken to ensure that when employees of DoCS summarise or
extract from documents that are not otherwise in evidence (as
the relevant access report was not in evidence before the
Children's Court) they do so accurately, fairly and impartially. In
my view, any other approach is inconsistent with the paramount
consideration specified in s.9(a) of the Act.337
13.138 The Inquiry sought further information about the events described above by
caseworkers and was advised by DoCS that “at no stage was anything stated
by way of policy other than that all relevant information should be included [in
334
ibid.
335
ibid.
336
Re Liam [2005] NSWSC 75 at [60]-[63].
337
Re Liam [2005] NSWSC 75 at [64].
affidavits].”338 DoCS stated that since 2004, more guidance has been provided
to casework staff as to the content of affidavits.
13.139 The Inquiry sought from DoCS the current and historical policies, procedures,
transcripts and programs concerned with educating caseworkers and others
who regularly swear/affirm affidavits in care and protection proceedings as to
the requirements. From that material it appears that between 2000 and 2004
the information contained in relevant policies and procedures was that affidavits
should include all relevant information, including evidence of any alternative
action attempted.
13.140 A discussion on the types of matters that should be included in the affidavit
appears in the policy relevant to the period from 2004 to 2007. There is no
reference to the important principle that affidavits should contain all material
whether favourable or not favourable, which is relevant to the application.
13.141 Since January 2007 a new policy has been published by DoCS for its staff. In
this document there is reference to the affidavit containing truthful material
which should not be put in a way that either deliberately misleads the court or is
false. There is reference to only stating relevant facts.339
13.142 In relation to training caseworkers in the art of preparing affidavits for court, the
materials have changed over the years. In the most recent training package
there is reference to the fact that DoCS must prove its case in support of an
application, which is of course true. There is no reference to ethical
requirements in relation to presenting all relevant evidence to a court.
13.143 DoCS also provided the Inquiry with its care and practice standards which are
said to apply to both in-house legal officers and external legal practitioners
acting in care matters on behalf of DoCS. There is nothing in that document
which refers to ethical responsibilities other than a reference to being a ‘model
litigant.’ A Code of Conduct and Ethics dated May 2004 has been provided. It
contains little guidance in this area.
13.144 It is clear from the material provided that some effort has been directed at
educating caseworkers in the use of affidavits. The introduction of Care Legal
Support legal officers in 2006 was designed to ensure that affidavits were
improved in quality. In addition, there was a joint project with the LAC and the
Children’s Court to remove extraneous material from affidavits and instead
focus on the applications before the Court and the Inquiry understands that this
project is still ongoing.
13.145 DoCS indicated to the Inquiry that:
as there are no known cost orders from the 2007 to 2008 period
arising from a failure to properly disclose information and very
338
Correspondence: DoCS, 4 June 2008.
339
DoCS, Intranet, Casework Practice, Affidavits.
few comments on appeal on this topic it is not possible to

further comment other than to point out that if this was a
significant issue then either or both of these avenues would be
expected to elucidate the issues.340
13.146 The information available to the Inquiry is troubling. The Inquiry concludes that
there is a practice in, at least, some CSCs whereby caseworkers routinely do
not provide all relevant material which both supports and does not support its
application, to the Children’s Court. It is unlikely that those caseworkers intend
to mislead the Court, rather they are acting on a mistaken belief that this is
required of them. Unfortunately, the effect of such actions is that the Children’s
Court may not always have all the relevant information before it in order to
make decisions in the best interests of the children and young persons who are
subject to its jurisdiction.
Case study 20
The Inquiry received a submission from the Redfern Legal Centre in

relation to statements made by DoCS officers in criminal proceedings
against their client (the mother). The criminal proceedings related to the
mother’s alleged assault of her two daughters, “A” and “B”. The following
information was provided.
DoCS records indicate that A, B and the mother’s son “C” were known to
DoCS. DoCS records show a number of risk of harm reports and requests
for assistance relating to A and B dating back to 1995 (usually made by
either the mother, or her former partner and father of A and B – “the
father”), the presence of AVOs protecting the mother and children from the
father, and a “system alert” that was sent to Queensland Department of
Children and Family Services (after A had run away from the mother and
was living with the father in Queensland). DoCS records show that the
system alert states:
There is a history of severe and ongoing domestic violence

perpetrated by [the father] against [the mother] dating back to 1999.
The mother and the father had been involved in “a long running and
acrimonious family law dispute over the custody of their daughters,” and
that at various times the Family Court had allocated parental responsibility
to the mother, and at other times to the father. On three occasions the
Family Court had made recovery orders against the father for the return of
the children to the mother.
In November 2006, A made allegations that she and B had been assaulted
by the mother in 2003. The mother was charged with eight counts of
common assault against her daughters. On the day that the mother was
340
Correspondence: DoCS, 5 June 2008.
arrested and charged by Police, B and C were assumed into care by

DoCS.
At the time of making the allegations, A was living with the father, B had
recently started having contact with the father and A, and the father was
again seeking “custody” of B in the Family Court. DoCS was aware of
these circumstances.
A had originally made allegations of assault against her mother in 2003.

Police reports and DoCS records demonstrate that this was investigated at
the time. The mother had reported to Police that A and B had fought over
a jar of Nutella, and that the mother had restrained A to prevent her from
harming her sister. When interviewed by DoCS officers, A informed them
that she had been fighting with her sister and that she had told her sister
that she was going to “smash her face in,” and that her mother had
restrained her. DoCS and Police took no further action in relation to this
incident.
In relation to the complaints made by A in 2006, two DoCS officers (the

caseworker with day to day responsibility for the casework in relation to B
and C, and the secondary caseworker) provided statements to Police (at
the request of Police). Despite extensive knowledge of the family and the
context in which A’s allegations against the mother were made, DoCS did
not provide relevant information to Police. The caseworkers’ statements:
could be read as inferring that the historical risk of harm reports

(dating from 1995) were made only against [the mother]. The
statements contain no reference to any report of violence against [the
father] or the children, they contain no reference to the earlier
Recovery Orders and the involvement of the Australian Federal
Police, they contain no reference to the Systems Alert regarding [the
father] and they contain no reference to the investigation by DoCS
caseworkers into the allegations of assault made by A in 2003, which
then became the subject of the Police investigation in 2006.
The criminal charges made against the mother were dismissed after
hearing the prosecution evidence only. The Magistrate noted that the
statement of one of the DoCS caseworkers:
does appear to give a one sided account of key aspects concerning

the DoCS file. It seems to gloss over what appears to have been a
number of notifications over the years which, rather than implying they
were the result of a concern conducted by the accused they may well
have been a concern of conduct by the father of A. But the statement
is one sided and doesn’t really bring out the full detail there, doesn’t
go to matters such as more that one AVO being in place for the
protection of the accused against [the father] and the children
involved. So it does appear to be one sided and unsatisfactory.
The Inquiry sought a response from DoCS to the submission. DoCS

accepted the facts as recounted above and stated:
it is acknowledged the witness statements provided to the Police by

[caseworker] and [secondary caseworker] did not contain a full
overview of the history of reports received by the Department,
references to any domestic violence, or previous family law court
proceedings involving family members.
DoCS sought to explain how the one sided statements came to be

provided to Police. DoCS stated:
[Secondary caseworker] advises that the statements provided were

requested by [Constable] of NSW Police. Specifically, [Constable]
requested information about any physical abuse of B by [the mother]
that the caseworkers were aware of.
The caseworkers entered into the formulation of a statement with

Police in the context of new advice that [the mother] had been
charged with an alleged assault against her daughter. The
caseworkers reasonably took this request to be a request for
information specifically in relation to these allegations.
[Secondary caseworker] advises that at the time she provided her

statement she held the view (as did the Department) that Police would
subpoena the Department’s files to supplement the information that
she had given in her statement. Departmental files show that a
subpoena was received from NSW Police for the children’s files on 10
October 2007.
DoCS also told the Inquiry that its files show that on 20 December 2006 the
caseworker had prepared and filed two detailed affidavits to the Children’s
Court in relation to this matter, which outlined the history of the reports
received by DoCS and its interventions with the family.
While it is accepted in hindsight the statements proffered by

[caseworker] and [secondary caseworker] were narrow and indeed not
reflective of all the information known to the Department at the time,
the context in which they provided these statements must be
considered. That is, that the Police requested statements about a
particular aspect of the caseworkers’ knowledge of the family and this
request was responded to, thereby giving the mistaken view that the
allegation of physical abuse by [the mother] was the key issue in the
Department’s perspective.
Actions have been initiated within the Community Services Centre in

order to address the practice issues identified in this complaint by
Redfern Legal Centre. For example, the Manger Client Services is
arranging for legal services to run a staff training session on providing
statements to the Police and the importance of obtaining legal advice

in such matters. A broader practice issue for further consideration is
how DoCS and NSW Police can work together to share information
more effectively in matters of child abuse.
13.147 Further education of DoCS caseworkers in relation to the nature of care

proceedings and the information that should be included in affidavits is required.
13.148 The LAC informed the Inquiry that it sees a relationship between adversarial
behaviour, and the lack of an implemented model litigant policy. It stated:
Were DoCS to act as a ‘model litigant’, whereby it presents a

fair and balanced case, makes full disclosure, acts in such a
way as to ensure that all of the evidence relevant to the child’s
best interests (rather than only that evidence which supports its
own case) is before the court, shares all information about its
case with the other parties and accepts and recognises that it is
bound by the decisions of the court, the adversarial nature of
the proceedings would be muted rather than enhanced.341
13.149 The Model Litigant Policy for Civil Litigation has recently been approved in
NSW. That document describes the nature of the obligation to act as a model
litigant as follows:
The obligation to act as a model litigant requires more than

merely acting honestly and in accordance with the law and
court rules. It also goes beyond the requirement for lawyers to
act in accordance with their ethical obligations. Essentially it
requires that the State and its agencies act with complete
propriety, fairly and in accordance with the highest professional
standards.342
13.150 The obligation requires that the State and its agencies act honestly and fairly in
handling claims and litigation. The details are more appropriate to inter partes
civil litigation than care proceedings, although the underlying policy is sound.
13.151 The LAC recommended that all agencies responsible for conducting care
proceedings be required to act as a model litigant. It stated that “the policies
and guidelines that apply to the officers of the DPP are an appropriate
model.”343
341
342
Attorney General’s Department NSW, The Model Litigant Policy for Civil Litigation, 22 July 2008, para.3.1–
3.4.
343
13.152 A barrister experienced in care proceedings stated that the care jurisdiction is
quasi-prosecutorial, and also suggested that a code of conduct needs to be
introduced, similar in nature to that followed by prosecutors in the criminal
jurisdiction, and reflecting “the ethical duties and responsibilities of the Director-
General in cases before the care court.”344
13.153 The Inquiry agrees that DoCS should do more to install in its staff the principle
underpinning the concept of the model litigant. The Inquiry recommends
guidelines be developed for DoCS caseworkers based on the guidelines
applicable to the DPP.345
Appeals
13.154 A number of submissions were made about the nature and timeliness of
appeals from the Children’s Court to the District Court. Surprisingly, and
somewhat alarmingly, the Children’s Court holds no information as to the
outcomes of appeals from its jurisdiction. This issue was raised at one of the
Inquiry’s Public Forums and soon thereafter, the Inquiry was informed that the
District Court will now provide copies of such decisions. That is clearly
necessary for the Children’s Magistrates to properly carry out their functions.
13.155 At issue before the Inquiry was whether there should be a change to the
appellate procedure including whether appeals should be limited to questions of
law, whether there should be a leave requirement and whether a specialist
division of the District Court should be established.
13.156 The recommendation made by DoCS that appeals be heard by a full bench of
Children’s Magistrates to ensure the same level of expertise as in the Children’s
Court was explored with stakeholders. The LAC stated that if this occurred, the
full bench should be made a court of record. The Children’s Court however
noted that the full bench model would require the appointment of more
Children’s Magistrates. The Deputy Chief Magistrate stated that she had some
“philosophical difficulties” with a review panel being composed of judicial
officers who are, in other cases, sitting as the first instance decision maker.346
13.157 Alternatively, it was suggested by CCYP that specialist District Court judges
hear the appeals. The LAC agreed. Similarly, the Law Society said that it
favoured:
the creation of a Care and Protection Division in the District

Court, with specially nominated judges trained in care and
protection matters to increase the efficiency of hearings.347
344
Submission: a barrister.
345
Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, ODPP Guidelines, 1 June 2007. Guidelines 3-7 and 26-27 are
of particular relevance.
346
347
Submission: Law Society of NSW, p.8.
13.158 Many submissions were concerned with the ‘inexperience’ of judicial officers in
the District Court in dealing with care proceedings.348
13.159 If the District Court continued to hear appeals, the Children’s Court and DoCS
suggested that such appeals only be allowed with the leave of the Court, and
DoCS recommended that they be limited to questions of law. By contrast, the
Law Society stated there should be no impediment to an appeal, as did the
Foster Care Association and the LAC. The LAC stated:
As things currently stand, care decisions can often be made by

Local Court magistrates sitting as the Children's Court who
have no expertise in the Act or in care matters. Further, even
those Magistrates who sit in the Children's Court as specialists
do not always agree on the application of the law to cases with
similar facts. It is essential that the appeals courts in these
matters be able to review not just errors of law but also the
merits of these cases. Given that appeals are few and far
between,… there does not appear to be any reason, other than
the resource problems that appeals cause for DoCS, for any
change to the current system.349
13.160 The LAC advised that it applies a means and merits test for grants of legal aid
to potential appellants (other than children’s representatives) in the District
Court, and that this effectively operates as a leave mechanism.
13.161 The Children’s Court recommended that appeals should proceed on the basis
of the material filed in the Children’s Court, and on the transcript of the
Children’s Court proceedings, rather than as a new hearing.
13.162 The Inquiry also received some submissions in relation to the time taken to
complete appeal hearings in the District Court. The Children’s Court stated
that:
an appeal to the District Court is likely to add the best part of a

year to the delay in settling a child or young person and this is
unfair and unsatisfactory.350
13.163 The Inquiry is not in favour of a full bench comprised of Children’s Magistrates.
While they undoubtedly have the necessary expertise, they are relatively small
in number and the importance of the matters being considered warrants an
appeal to higher level court which is a court of record.
348
Submission: Legal Aid NSW, 20 February 2008, p.109; Submission: Law Society of NSW, p.8; Submission:
Children’s Court NSW, 14 January 2008, p.30.
349
350
13.164 The Inquiry understands that the Chief Judge of the District Court is of the view
that it is not possible for a specialist bench of the District Court to be created to
deal with the small number of appeals.
13.165 The Inquiry notes that the District Court has established a group of judges who
sit on the Medical Tribunal, which, deals with a smaller number of cases on an
annual basis, than appeals in the care jurisdiction. Unlike care matters, the
Medical Tribunal hears first instance matters as well as appeals, and the District
Court judge sits with two medical practitioners and a lay person.
13.166 The Inquiry is persuaded that the relatively few appeals would be best served
by being heard by judges with particular expertise in the care jurisdiction. While
it may not be necessary to create a separate division, a process whereby the
selection of judges to hear such matters takes into account their knowledge,
interest and experience, would be useful.
13.167 As about one third of care matters are dealt with by non-specialist Magistrates,
the Inquiry is not of the view that appeals should be limited to questions of law
alone. The Inquiry has had the benefit of reading a number of transcripts of
hearings from specialist and non-specialist Magistrates. It is fair to say that the
understanding from the bench of not only the law but the research and learning
behind children’s development and related matters is variable. Occasionally,
non-specialist Magistrates equate matters of contact with access or ‘spending
time’ decisions in the family law jurisdiction. It is clear to the Inquiry that this
kind of misconception can have significant effects on families when translated
into orders. This matter could be revisited if a circuit of some sort is introduced
so that fewer than 10 per cent of care matters are dealt with by non-specialist
Magistrates.
13.168 It is also the Inquiry’s experience that leave applications can be lengthy and can
canvass those matters that would ordinarily be covered in an appeal, and thus it
is not of the view that a leave requirement should be required.
13.169 However, the District Court should, as a general rule, hear appeals based on
the transcript in the Children’s Court particularly when the appeal is from the
decision of a specialist Children’s Magistrate. Clearly when new facts or issues
have emerged since the time of the first decision, there will be a necessity for
the evidence below to be supplemented by additional evidence.
Legal representation in care proceedings

13.170 An academic lawyer, in a paper submitted to the Inquiry, said:
The effective representation of children is challenging and

requires lawyers to develop new skills and knowledge beyond
those required when working with adults. Lawyers working in
these jurisdictions have to develop skills in communicating with
and relating to children and young people as clients. Lawyers
also have to develop means of communicating with other non-
legal professionals involved in judicial decision making for

children.351
13.171 The Inquiry agrees. A number of recommendations were made to the Inquiry in
relation to improving the quality of representation.
Training
13.172 The Inquiry received a number of submissions supporting the introduction of

training for practitioners who practice in care proceedings, both those
representing children and young persons, and those representing adults.
13.173 This issue is not a recent one, in his 2006 discussion paper on care
proceedings in the Children’s Court, the Ombudsman stated:
Questions have been raised about the inconsistent quality of

legal representation in country courts, where there are said to
be few practitioners well versed in the legislation and sufficiently
experienced in care proceedings.352
13.174 An academic lawyer informed the Inquiry that in the course of her research, she
had interviewed 35 lawyers representing children in care proceedings, family
law proceedings, and criminal proceedings. She stated:
Independent lawyers representing children in child protection

matters have been offered significantly less education and
support in undertaking their roles compared with those
representing children in family proceedings and criminal
matters…Some lawyers with significant experience expressed
concerns about the way in which new lawyers representing
children in care matters were supported and educated in order
to be able to perform the role competently.353
13.175 The Inquiry also received oral submissions in relation to some practitioners not
spending enough time with their clients prior to hearings, and on occasions not
even speaking to the children or young persons involved in the proceedings.
13.176 Compulsory training for Independent Children’s Lawyers is a feature of the

family law jurisdiction, and its use in care proceedings was cautiously
suggested by the LAC.
351
N Ross, “Legal Representation of Children,” in G Monahan and L Young (eds), Children and the Law,
2008, p.552.
352
NSW Ombudsman, Care Proceedings in the Children’s Court – a Discussion Paper, 2007, p.42.
353
Submission: N Ross, p.3.
Code of conduct for legal representatives
13.177 It was also submitted that a code of conduct or best practice standard be
developed for all legal representatives in care proceedings.
13.178 The Family Court and the LAC informed the Inquiry that the establishment of
training and codes of conduct for Independent Children’s Lawyers has worked
very well in the family law jurisdiction.
13.179 Practitioners representing children and young persons in care proceedings are
subject to the LAC’s Care and Protection Practice Standards, which set out the
practitioner’s responsibilities to the child. Compliance with the standards is
monitored by the LAC. The obligations include maintaining continuity of
representation, maintaining a relationship with the child or young person,
interviewing the child or young person, explaining the procedure and possible
outcomes, exploring the child or young person’s wishes or instructions,
obtaining and advising the child or young person of all relevant material, and
participating in court proceedings either in the child’s or young person’s best
interests or with a view to advancing the child's or young person’s stated
position.
13.180 In order to comply with the LAC’s practice standards, Independent Legal
Representatives and Direct Legal Representatives must observe the Law
Society’s Representation Principles for Children’s Lawyers. These principles
include matters such as determining whether or not a child or young person is
capable of giving instructions, the role of direct and independent representatives
and how to determine what is in the best interests of a child or young person.354
Legal Aid funding issues
13.181 DoCS submitted that, as a result of the LAC’s funding policy, which provides
funding in stages, one of which is the hearing, some private practitioners who
are being funded by the LAC prolong matters that might otherwise be resolved
in order “to gain additional funding under a grant.” This view was supported by
caseworkers in a Southern Region CSC. The LAC conceded that it was
possible that the way in which it funds these cases might encourage
practitioners in receipt of Legal Aid funding to proceed to a full hearing of a
matter rather than to attempt settlement.
13.182 DoCS has submitted that, in order to avoid this, practitioners should be required
to sign a certificate certifying that, after a review of the materials, they are
satisfied that there are reasonable prospects of their client obtaining care orders
that are substantially different from those proposed by DoCS. DoCS submitted
that any finding at the end of the proceedings that there was no reasonable
basis for the certification should result in a financial penalty in relation to the
funding grant.
354
Law Society of NSW, Representation Principles for Children’s Lawyers, pp.5 and 7.
Guardians ad litem
13.183 The Inquiry was informed that in England, children’s guardians (the English
equivalent of guardians ad litem) are always interposed between a child who is
involved in, or is the subject of, proceedings, and the child’s legal
representative. The Executive Officer of the Children’s Court stated that the
advantage of the English system is that:
The guardians are very experienced social workers. The first

thing that they do when they're appointed is to go to…the Social
Services office, and read the file from beginning to end. They
can critique the work that has been done, and they can build up
a rapport with the child and all of those things which a lawyer
doesn't have the time to do, won't be paid to do and won't do.
So their decision making is on a par with what DoCS decision
making should be, because they're coming from the same
discipline… the lawyers just argue the case.355
13.184 DoCS informed the Inquiry that the role of the Independent Legal
Representative would be ‘clarified’ if a guardian ad litem were to be appointed
for all children and young persons under 12 years of age for the purpose of
providing instructions, and recommended that a guardian ad litem should be
appointed in these cases. A group of guardians ad litem to whom the Inquiry
spoke, suggested routinely interposing a guardian ad litem between the child
and their lawyer.
13.185 DoCS also recommended that there should be a requirement that some of the
guardians ad litem appointed to the Guardians ad Litem Panel are Aboriginal
“so that decision making might be appropriately crafted to accommodate
particular concerns of Aboriginal people.”356 The Senior Children’s Magistrate
indicated that he believed the system of interposing a guardian ad litem
between a child and his or her lawyer is a “better system,”357 but stated that it is
also a very expensive system.358
13.186 The coordinator of the Court’s guardian ad litem program stated that there is
currently no code of conduct, nor any formal complaints procedure, in relation to
guardians ad litem. She also informed the Inquiry that there is currently some
work being carried within Attorney General’s to develop a centrally coordinated
guardian ad litem panel to be used by all courts and tribunals in NSW.
355
Transcript: Inquiry meeting with representatives of the Children’s Court NSW, 29 April 2008, p.11.
356
357
Transcript: Inquiry meeting with representatives of the Children’s Court NSW, 29 April 2008, p.12.
358
ibid., p.11.
Inquiry’s view
13.187 The Inquiry supports the development of a coordinated capacity in NSW to

appoint guardians ad litem in care and other proceedings, as well as the
development of requirements to ensure that they have the relevant
qualifications and experience and that they attend relevant and regular training.
It also support the development of a code of conduct for their role in legal
proceedings, in particular in care proceedings, and arrangements for monitoring
compliance with it.
13.188 The requirement that some of the guardians ad litem are Aboriginal is seen by
the Inquiry as important given the over representation of Aboriginal children and
young persons in the child protection system.
13.189 While the Inquiry accepts the evidence before it that the interposition of a
guardian ad litem between a child under 12 years of age and his or her legal
representative, may ultimately work in the best interests of the child, it is not
persuaded that this is the most effective way of ensuring children are well
represented.
13.190 The Inquiry is of the view that a code of conduct should be developed
applicable to all legal representatives in care proceedings. Particular attention
should be given to the training that they are required to undergo, using the
training available in the family law jurisdiction as a guide. Further, specialist
accreditation should be available. The LAC and DoCS, in the operation of their
respective panels, should establish a mentoring or supervision system to assist
inexperienced practitioners to enter the jurisdiction with suitable direction.
13.191 The Inquiry is not persuaded by DoCS’ recommendation to introduce a

certification of a client’s case having reasonable prospects of success. It
accepts the contention of the LAC that its processes for granting legal aid
should have the same or similar effect. It believes that an appropriately drafted
code of conduct should also address the issue.
Magistrates exercising care jurisdiction

13.192 The Inquiry considered a number of matters in relation to the constitution of the
Children’s Court including, whether it should be headed by a District Court
Judge, whether those sitting as Children’s Magistrates should be regularly
rotated and whether there should be a rural circuit.
A District Court Judge
13.193 The review of the 1987 Act chaired by Professor Parkinson which led to the
Care Act and the amendments to the Children's Court Act 1987 recommended
that, as in Victoria and other jurisdictions, the senior judicial officer in the
Children's Court should be of a status equivalent to a District Court Judge.359
13.194 This has been supported by DoCS, lawyers who frequently appear in the
jurisdiction and by the NSW Law Reform Commission in a 2005 report.360 The
Inquiry agrees. The appointment of a District Court Judge to head the
Children’s Court would reflect the importance of the care and protection of
children or young persons and the complexity of many of the cases heard in the
jurisdiction. In other respects that person would take on the responsibilities of
the current Senior Children’s Magistrate position.
Circuits
13.195 The Local Court informed the Inquiry that in 2006, a total of 4,875 care matters
were “dealt with” in NSW.361 The Local Court said that 2,731 of these matters
were heard in designated Children’s Courts, that is about 56 per cent, although
it may be higher as specialist Magistrates can hear cases in regional areas.
13.196 In its submission, DoCS stated that, based on the statistics it had received from
Attorney General’s (which, DoCS stated, were flawed due to a change in the
counting system and a duplication of some counting), about 65 per cent of care
matters are dealt with by specialist courts.
13.197 DoCS stated:
It is strongly recommended that an arrangement be put in place

so that there … be circuits of specialist Children’s Magistrates
to cover the State so that hearings of more that 95 per cent of
care matters may be dealt with by a specialist Children’s
Magistrate.362
13.198 DoCS also recommended that the numbers of specialist Children’s Magistrates
and Children’s Registrars be increased, thus “permitting a greater coverage of
the State.”363
13.199 The NSW Law Reform Commission also formed this view as expressed in a
2005 Report on Young Offenders.364
13.200 The Children’s Court advised that it would “welcome a system which allowed all
care cases to be heard by specialist Children’s Magistrates.”365 The Children’s
Court stated that if it was given the resources for the appointment of another
359
December 1997.
360
NSW Law Reform Commission, Report 104, Young Offenders, 2005.
361
Submission: Local Court of NSW, p.2.
362
Submission: DoCS, Operation of courts in the child protection system, pp.30 and 31.
363
Submission: DoCS , Operation of courts in the child protection system, p.37.
364
365
two Children’s Magistrates, then they could assume responsibility for country
circuits, and “could make a big dint in all of the non-urban work in the State.”366
The Children’s Court said that this number would not include coverage of the
big regional centres.367
13.201 The Inquiry is of the view that there should be sufficient specialist Children’s
Magistrates appointed to permit a circuit to be held and that the number of
matters presided over by non-specialist Magistrates should be reduced to fewer
than 10 per cent. The Inquiry notes that in the event that Children’s Registrars
assume greater responsibility as set out below, more Magistrates’ time may
become available to assist in establishing a circuit.
Qualifications and tenure
13.202 DoCS stated:
The criteria that the current (or indeed any previous) Chief
Magistrate has applied in selecting Magistrates to be appointed
to the Children’s Court are unknown. It is presumed that the
current criteria are restricted to the Magistrate expressing an
interest in working in the Court. While the current Senior
Children’s Magistrate has extensive experience in child and
family law, other appointments as Children’s Magistrates would
not appear to have any experience in a professional capacity in
dealing with children or young people or their families or be able
to demonstrate a requisite level of knowledge, qualifications or
skill.368
13.203 The Women Lawyers’ Association of NSW recommended that all judicial
officers presiding over care proceedings be specialists in child protection. A
barrister practising in care proceedings submitted that the manner in which
magistrates are rotated in and out of the Children’s Court jurisdiction requires
review. He also informed the Inquiry:
rarely, if ever, are any persons with any background in both the
law and social or behavioural sciences ever appointed to the
Children’s Court.369
13.204 DoCS caseworkers in the Northern and Western Regions were critical of local
Magistrates’ knowledge of the jurisdiction. Some lawyers practising in the
jurisdiction were also concerned about the expertise of Children’s Court
Magistrates.
366
Transcript: Inquiry meeting with representatives of the Children’s Court NSW, 19 December 2007, p.13.
367
ibid., p.14.
368
369
Submission: a barrister.
13.205 A DoCS officer informed the Inquiry that one of the Local Court Magistrates in
her area makes contact orders based on standards used in the Family Court.
She said:
We had one long term order where he gave the mother, who
had significantly harmed the child, three days a week contact
because that's very similar to the Family Law Court where he
had worked. We were looking at the primary responsibility
going to the father, but he said, ‘Yes, mother’s harmed the
child, but the Family Law Court would say she could have the
children for three days a week so we will do that.’370
13.206 In relation to the selection and term of appointment for Children’s Magistrates,
the NSW Law Reform Commission recommended an appointment based on
Victoria’s model, whereby the president of the Children’s Court in consultation
with the Chief Magistrate determines who is appointed to the Children’s Court.
It also recommended that appointments should be for a term not exceeding
three years (but that reappointments may be made).371
13.207 In relation to the rotation of Magistrates, the Local Court informed the Inquiry:
As far as practical, Magistrates rotate through the Children’s

Jurisdiction on a three-year term. This accords with the policy
of rotating Magistrates through metropolitan courts. It is
considered that approximately three years is the optimal time
for a Children’s Magistrate to specialise in children’s matters
and still obtain objectivity and enthusiasm for the position. The
rotation policy also increases the number of judicial officers with
an in-depth knowledge and experience in this area.372
13.208 DoCS recommended that the current practice of rotating Children’s Magistrates
generally should end as valuable experience built up in the Children’s Court is
being eroded.
13.209 A former Children’s Magistrate submitted that the position of Children’s

Magistrate should be advertised, and should invite lawyers or Magistrates to
apply for the position, and that the position should be for three years, with an
option to extend for a further two years.373
13.210 The Ombudsman stated that given the distinctive nature of care proceedings,
there are strong grounds for the Magistrates that hear care proceedings having
a particular commitment to, and considerable experience in, the jurisdiction.
The Ombudsman said:
370
371
NSW Law Reform Commission, Report 104, Young Offenders, 2005, p.205.
372
373
Submission: B Holborow, p.2.
We are aware that there is currently significant rotation amongst

Children’s Court Magistrates and believe that there would be
value in considering whether the current practice of regular
rotation adequately promotes the development of judicial
expertise in this important jurisdiction. In this regard, we
believe that it may be useful to compare the system for
appointing Children’s Magistrates in Victoria with the system in
NSW. Our understanding is that there is no legislative
restriction on how long Magistrates can be appointed to sit on
Children’s Court in Victoria.374
13.211 The Local Court advised the Inquiry that in Western Australia, Children’s
Magistrates are appointed for tenure. The Local Court submitted this is ‘not
desirable,’ and stated:
Anecdotally, Magistrates who spend extended time in the

Children’s Court find the extended exposure to care matters
can have deleterious effect on productivity and their health.375
13.212 The Inquiry notes that Family Court Judges deal with an equally demanding
workload over an often lengthy period. The Inquiry is of the view that s.7(2) of
the Children’s Court Act 1987 provides the appropriate qualifications for a
Children’s Magistrate. It accepts that rotation is desirable to ensure that
Magistrates remain objective, however in order to benefit from the experience
gained on the bench, rotation should occur after five years, if desired, rather
than three years.
Judicial education
13.213 According to the Judicial Commission of NSW (the Judicial Commission),

judicial education and professional development is not mandatory for judicial
officers in NSW. However, participation in programs of education and
professional development are strongly encouraged by policies of the various
courts, and by the existence of the National Standard for Professional
Development for Australian Judicial Officers, which recommends five days of
judicial education per judicial officer annually (including self-directed
professional development).376
13.214 However, the Children’s Court advised the Inquiry that:
Attendance by Children’s Magistrates at the five days judicial

education provided each year, the five days live-in orientation
374
Submission: NSW Ombudsman, Children’s Court NSW, p.8.
375
376
Judicial Commission of NSW, Annual Report 2006/07, pp.18-19.
course and the s.16 meetings for Children’s Magistrates

conducted at least twice per year is compulsory.377
13.215 The Judicial Commission, in conjunction with the Local Court, offers a two day
Pre-Bench Workshop for all newly appointed Magistrates. At the Pre-Bench
Workshop, new magistrates are provided with the Local Court Bench Book,
which contains information on the Care and Protection Jurisdiction.
13.216 The Judicial Commission operates a Magistrates Orientation Program annually

which is a five day residential program for all new Magistrates. New
Magistrates participate in the program once they have had between four and
twelve months experience on the Bench.
13.217 Each year the Magistrates Orientation Program includes one session
specifically relating to the care and protection jurisdiction. In relation to the last
three Orientation Programs, these sessions were presented by the Senior
Children’s Magistrate and academic lawyer, Dr Judy Cashmore. A number of
sessions have been offered over the last three years relevant to care
proceedings presented by the Senior Children’s Magistrate, DoCS, Police and
various academics.
13.218 The Judicial Commission informed the Inquiry that, relevant to care
proceedings, it had published the Sexual Assault Handbook and various other
papers.
13.219 The Local Court has a policy of attaching Magistrates to the Children’s Court in
Parramatta for three months prior to those Magistrates taking responsibility for a
regional circuit for the first time. The Local Court stated:
Each Local Court Magistrate, upon appointment must

undertake a period of service on the country circuit for a
minimum of two years and a maximum of five years (subject to
the discretion of the Chief Magistrate).378
Prior to appointment to a country circuit, every Magistrate must

sit for three months, full time in the Metropolitan Children’s
Court. This usually occurs at Parramatta Court, where there is
a spread of work assistance and guidance from experienced
Children’s Magistrates, in particular the Senior Children’s
Magistrate.379
13.220 The Inquiry was advised by the Children’s Court that during this three month
period, the Magistrates are provided with tuition, consisting of:
377
Correspondence: Children’s Court NSW, 18 July 2008.
378
379
ibid.
A number of sessions with the Executive Officer where relevant

aspects of the Children and Young Persons (Care and
Protection) Act, together with the Standard Directions which
apply in the Children’s Court, Practice Directions and some of
the more significant decisions appearing in Children’s Law
News, are explained and discussed in detail. The Executive
Officer provides an outline of the jurisdiction and some of the
practices of other parties to the child protection system
including the Department, the agencies and the Children’s
Court Clinic. Various Care files relating to previous cases are
examined and discussed.380
13.221 The Inquiry was advised that during the three month training period, these
Magistrates are allocated ‘less complex’ matters to hear and determine, and are
encouraged to discuss these matters with experienced Children’s Magistrates.
13.222 DoCS recommended that:
Identified and publicly available training is required for those

Magistrates sitting in the care jurisdiction for the first time.381
13.223 Section 16(1)(c) of the Children’s Court Act 1987 requires the Senior Children’s
Magistrate to convene a meeting of Children’s Magistrates at least once every
six months. The Children’s Court informed the Inquiry that the Children’s
Magistrates meet tri-annually for conferences at which they discuss issues and
receive training related to the Children’s Court jurisdiction.
13.224 The Inquiry has been provided with the program in relation to three conferences
held in 2007. In relation to care proceedings, a large range of topics were
discussed including intervening in child neglect, DoCS’ parental drug testing
pilot and discussions on family group conferencing, care circles, reports
pursuant to s.82 of the Care Act and the administration of psychotropic
medication to children.
13.225 The training regime appears adequate for specialist Magistrates, however, non-
specialist Magistrates appear to receive little by way of formal training in the
specialist jurisdiction.
A docket system
13.226 The LAC has suggested that the Children’s Court adopt a formal docket system,
whereby cases are allocated to a single judicial officer for the duration of
proceedings (from the first return date through to the final hearing). The LAC
submitted that a docket system would ensure that a consistent approach was
adopted throughout the course of proceedings, and that:
380
Correspondence: Children’s Court NSW, 18 July 2008.
381
This would avoid the current situation whereby interim orders

can be made and changed by different magistrates, where
leave for the preparation of expert reports might be granted or
refused by one magistrate and then the parties subsequently
questioned by another magistrate at final hearing as to why
there is no expert report, and where section 82 reports and
applications for variation / rescission are heard by magistrates
who have no knowledge of the reasons behind the underlying
orders.382
13.227 The LAC also submitted that the greater degree of judicial management
resulting from the docket system might reduce the level of adversarial
behaviour. The Children’s Court was of the view that it would not be successful,
given the number of registries and specialist Magistrates, and because it had
not been successful in other jurisdictions.
13.228 While the Inquiry is mindful of the experience recounted by the Local Court in
other jurisdictions, it is persuaded of the advantages of consistency in judicial
decision making. The Inquiry believes that a trial of a ‘docket system’ in the
Parramatta Children’s Court should be undertaken.
Children’s Registrars
13.229 DoCS stated that Children’s Registrars were originally intended to “work in an
arrangement akin to the Magellan model,” but that this has not occurred.383
13.230 In 2007 there were five specialist Children’s Registrars in NSW.384 The
Parkinson review of the 1987 Act recommended that 13 Children’s Registrars
be appointed, and funding was provided for the appointment of nine. The fact
that only five Children’s Registrars have been appointed has attracted the
criticism of the Ombudsman and DoCS.
13.231 There is currently one Children’s Registrar, and two Acting Children’s
Registrars, who do not have legal qualifications. The Children’s Court advised
the Inquiry that it would support a requirement for legal qualification for all future
appointments to the position of Children’s Registrar.
13.232 DoCS stated:
While Children’s Registrars were initially all legal practitioners

this no longer appears to be the case. If the occupiers of these
positions are to conduct ADR or to assume a greater role in
382
383
384
Local Court, Annual Review 2007, p.21.
making consent orders and presiding at directions hearings,

then legal qualifications should be a pre-requisite.385
13.233 The Children’s Court stated that, under Attorney General’s training budget,
Children’s Registrars are offered the same training as Local Court Registrars,
but are not offered any training in mediation.
13.234 Professor Parkinson, stated:
I do not think that sufficient advantage has been taken of the

opportunities created by the 1998 Act [Care Act] for better
dispute resolution processes. The Children’s Registrars were a
significant innovation….They have proved very effective both in
terms of getting consent arrangements by negotiation and
ensuring that cases are ready to proceed to trial.386
13.235 When required, Children’s Registrars travel to regional areas to provide

assistance in care proceedings. A DoCS officer in a CSC in Northern Region
informed the Inquiry that there was a noticeable difference in the way
preliminary conferences were run when a Children’s Registrar from Sydney had
carried out some work in that Region.
There was a period where we did a lot of preliminary

conferences, they were run like a mediation, and they were
really successful. We actually had matters dealt with
expeditiously because there was a skilled and trained and
aware Registrar that would come up from Sydney and run it like
a mediation… Now our preliminary conferences do not run the
same way, there is often no outcome, and it is another delay in
the process. A matter can have three, four, five preliminary
conferences before it is finalised and often for no real point
other than to check on compliance of documents and things like
that.387
13.236 The Local Court indicated that, when a request is made by a Local Court
Magistrate for assistance from a Children’s Court Magistrate in care
proceedings, “the Senior Children’s Magistrate would initially allocate a
Registrar to conduct a settlement or directions hearing (or both).”388
13.237 The Inquiry is of the view that sufficient legally qualified and experienced
Children’s Registrars are necessary to ease the burden of Magistrates in
procedural and consent matters throughout NSW, and to perform ADR
functions.
385
386
Transcript: Inquiry meeting with Patrick Parkinson, p.4.
387
Transcript: Inquiry meeting with DoCS staff, CSC Northern Region.
388
Submission: Local Court of NSW, pp.2-3.
Conclusion
13.238 The Inquiry makes the following recommendations in order to simplify
proceedings, improve the quality of the evidence adduced by DoCS, ensure that
lawyers appearing in the jurisdiction are appropriately skilled and qualified and
act professionally, enhance the standing of the Court and the skills of Registrars
and have more cases heard by specialist Magistrates.
13.239 While this chapter has not specifically referred to the needs of Aboriginal
children and young persons before the Children’s Court, the Care Circle project
referred to in the previous chapter is an important step in identifying further
ways in which the court processes can become less alienating and more
meaningful for Aboriginal children, young persons and their families.
Recommendations
Recommendation 13.1
The Children’s Court Act 1987 should be amended to insert a provision

similar to s.27 of the Local Court Act 2007 and the Children’s Court
Rules 2000 should be reviewed to ensure that the Rules are consistent
with the Children’s Court Act 1987 and the Care Act, and any practice
directions or notes that are issued after amendment of the Act should
similarly accord with the legislation.
Recommendation 13.2
There should be no requirement, by way of legislation or practice, that

DoCS is to file all material relied upon in care proceedings at the
beginning of the proceedings.
Recommendation 13.3
Care applications by DoCS under ss.45 and 61 should be made by way

of an application filed in the Court supported by a written report which
succinctly and fairly summarises the information available to DoCS and
contains sufficient information to support a determination that a child is
in need of care and protection and any interim orders sought, without
any requirement for the filing of any affidavit, unless ordered by the
Court in circumstances where establishment is contested. The DoCS
file or relevant portion of it should be made available to the parties.
Recommendation 13.4
Section 45 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act
1998 should be amended to require DoCS to apply to the Children’s
Court no later than 72 hours after the child or young person has been
removed or care assumed.
Recommendation 13.5
The Children’s Court should revise its practices in relation to changing

hearing dates and moving proceedings between courts, as well as its
listing practices for callovers and mentions.
Recommendation 13.6
DoCS caseworkers should be given more specific training and guidance

in relation to the nature of care proceedings and in relation to the
evidence to be placed before the Court, to ensure its relevance,
accuracy and fair balance.
Recommendation 13.7
Guidelines should be developed for DoCS caseworkers based on the

Code of Conduct applicable to the Office of the Director of Public
Prosecutions.
Recommendation 13.8
A code of conduct should be developed applicable to all legal

representatives in care proceedings. Specialist accreditation should be
regularly available. Any necessary training or assessment mechanisms
should be available on an ongoing or regular basis. A similar regime
should also be established for Guardians ad Litem.
Recommendation 13.9
A District Court Judge should be appointed as the senior judicial officer

in the Children’s Court.
Recommendation 13.10
There should be sufficient specialist Children’s Magistrates appointed to

permit rural and regional circuits to be held to ensure that the
proportion of matters in the care and protection jurisdiction presided
over by non-specialist Magistrates is reduced to fewer than 10 per cent.
A trial of a ‘docket system’ in the Parramatta Children’s Court for

matters in the care and protection jurisdiction should be undertaken.
Registrars of the Children’s Court should be legally qualified and

alternative dispute resolution trained and sufficient in number to
perform alternative dispute resolution and to undertake procedural and
consent functions.
14 Interface with family law

Introduction .................................................................................................................546
Intervening in family court proceedings...................................................................546
Enforcement of certain Children’s Court orders in the family law courts ............551
Financial and other assistance from DoCS for non-parent carers who care
for children as a result of family law orders ...........................................................553
Extending the Magellan Project.............................................................................553
Introduction
14.1 As is evident from Chapter 13, there are mechanisms whereby serious
allegations of sexual or physical abuse of children in post-separation parenting
matters are brought to the attention of child protection agencies such as DoCS,
and whereby reports from that agency about the child or young person can be
provided to the Family Court.
14.2 The reforms brought about under Magellan were necessary in part because of
the complexities of a system in which the family law courts, created by
Commonwealth legislation, adjudicate private disputes within a family, and in
which the child protection agencies and the Children’s Courts, created by State
legislation, determine matters of public concern about the safety, welfare and
well-being of children and young persons.
14.3 Formal arrangements between DoCS and the family law courts are in place and
consist of an MOU (containing general principles) and a Protocol (containing
operational procedures) between DoCS and the Family Court, and a separate
MOU and Protocol, in similar terms, between DoCS and the Federal
Magistrates Court. Each of the Federal Magistrates Courts and the Family
Court exercise jurisdiction under the Family Law Act 1975. They are collectively
referred to as ‘family law courts’ in this chapter.
14.4 The most significant ways in which the Federal and State systems intersect, for
the purposes of this Inquiry, are as follows.
14.5 First, DoCS may intervene in family law court proceedings for a number of
reasons including where serious allegations of sexual or physical abuse of
children have been made, either through the Magellan process as discussed in
Chapter 13, or otherwise.
14.6 Secondly, an order for contact made by the Children’s Court may be registered
in the family law courts, and thus become enforceable in accordance with
powers exercised by those Courts.
14.7 Thirdly, a child or young person may be cared for by a person by virtue of an
order of a family law court, in circumstances where the carer is entitled to a
supported care allowance from DoCS.
Intervening in family court proceedings

14.8 The Family Law Act 1975 (Family Law Act) provides for mandatory and
voluntary reporting to a child protection agency, which for the purposes of this
report is DoCS.
14.9 If a party to parenting proceedings alleges that a child has been abused or is at
risk of being abused, DoCS is notified by a family law court.389
14.10 Where an officer or professional in a family law court has reasonable grounds
for suspecting that a child has been abused or is at risk of being abused, that
person must notify DoCS. Where a person has reasonable grounds to suspect
that the child has been or is at risk of being ill treated, or “has been exposed or
subjected, or is at risk of being exposed or subjected, to behaviour which
psychologically harms the child”, that person may notify DoCS.390
14.11 To avoid any inconsistency or overlap in decision making, orders made under
the Care Act (that is, orders made under the State system), by virtue of a
provision in the Family Law Act, prevail over orders made under the Family Law
Act (that is, orders made under the Federal system). In addition, the family law
courts cannot make an order in relation to children or young persons under the
care of a person under the State welfare law, that is the Care Act in NSW,
unless the order comes into effect after the child or young person has left care
or, in NSW, DoCS consents.391
14.12 DoCS may also intervene in proceedings in a family law court, either at the
request of the court through the Magellan process as discussed in Chapter 13
or otherwise, or of its own initiative.392
14.13 DoCS will normally intervene in family law proceedings where it does not
consider that either parent is a suitable carer or where it does not consider that
the protective parent is able to place all relevant material before the court for the
benefit of the child.
14.14 The Inquiry was informed by the Family Court that in most Magellan cases,
DoCS does not intervene. It stated that out of the 82 matters which had been
placed in the Magellan program across the two registries in which Magellan had
been implemented in NSW (being Sydney and Parramatta) up until May 2008,
DoCS had intervened in only nine of these matters. DoCS agrees with these
data.
14.15 DoCS has informed the Inquiry that there had been 110 requests for it to
intervene since July 2007, pursuant to s.91B of the Family Law Act, that is,
other than in Magellan cases, and that it had intervened in 82 of those matters.
DoCS informed the Inquiry that its involvement in family law cases has
increased from 20 matters per year in 2000/01 to 223 in 2006/07.
14.16 The Inquiry received a number of submissions from agencies and from
individuals stating that DoCS was reluctant to become involved with families
who were in family law court proceedings. UnitingCare Burnside, for example,
389
Family Law Act 1975 s.67Z.
390
Family Law Act 1975 s.67ZA (2) and (3).
391
Family Law Act 1975 s.69ZK.
392
Family Law Act 1975 ss.91B and 92A.
informed the Inquiry that DoCS caseworkers tend to ‘back away’ if a child’s
parents are involved in family law court proceedings, on the assumption that the
child is ‘under the attention of the law’ and will therefore be safe.393 The Inquiry
was informed by a legal practitioner practising in both family law court
proceedings and care proceedings:
There is a real issue about whether the Department chooses

not to intervene in matters. I have had a couple of matters
where the experts say that the Department needed to intervene
and the Department has said no thanks. We are then left with
really dysfunctional parents with kids with absolutely no
protective safeguards in place.394
14.17 The Inquiry understands and accepts that notifications arising out of family law
disputes are generally reports of concern about the safety of a child in a family
setting, and that this does not necessarily mean that DoCS needs to investigate
each notification in order to fulfil its statutory function. There are a number of
very valid reasons why DoCS may not investigate a notification received from a
family law court. First, the report may not be sufficiently serious to justify its
intervention. The question in family law proceedings is usually about the
competing claims of each parent in relation to where the child will live and with
whom they will spend time. These are not the same questions that arise in child
protection proceedings.
14.18 Secondly, the information provided by the notifier may not disclose sufficient
reason to believe the child is at risk of the abuse alleged. While the notifier may
have a belief to that effect, the evidence to support that belief may be
insufficient.
14.19 Thirdly, the reported concern may relate to events some time in the past or the
child may currently be in a situation where he or she is no longer exposed to the
risk disclosed in the report. The Care Act, at least in relation to its reporting
requirements, includes the standard of “current concerns.” Thus historic
matters, while relevant to family law proceedings, are not sufficient to attract the
intervention of the child protection system.
14.20 Finally, DoCS necessarily must prioritise the response it makes to reports of risk
of harm and, based on the reports under assessment and allocation, the
notification from a family law court may not be the subject of an investigation.
14.21 In addition, the Family Law Act requires the reporting of many incidents which
are not reportable under the Care Act. Under the Family Law Act, the threshold
for making a notification is that the child to whom the proceedings relate has
been abused or is at risk of being abused. As indicated above, it does not
393
Submission: UnitingCare Burnside, p.28.
394
Transcript: Inquiry meeting with lawyers specialising in care and protection matters, 12 March 2008, p.48.
require there to be any current concerns about the safety and welfare of the
child, as is provided in the Care Act.
14.22 Of particular note is the fact that, in the event that the parents have separated
and the child can be protected adequately through orders made in family court
proceedings, which deny or restrict contact between the offending parent and
the child, there will be no need for DoCS to intervene. In other words, if there is
a viable carer and the child is in his or her care, then the child will not be in
need of intervention under the Care Act.
14.23 A final matter of consideration is that family law proceedings are essentially
private proceedings and can be resolved by consent at any time. There is no
requirement that any consent orders be protective of the child. Under the Care
Act proceedings must have the safety, welfare and well-being of the child at
their centre.
14.24 As can be seen from the discussion above, the issue is not a simple one and
must be decided on a case by case basis.
14.25 The Inquiry understands that generally the Family Court has no issue with
DoCS not intervening, as in most cases, there is one protective parent.
However, there have been two cases where the Inquiry was informed that
intervention would have been preferred but did not eventuate.
14.26 The MOU and the Protocol appear to be comprehensive and sensible. The
Inquiry is of the view that if DoCS and the family law courts act in accordance
with the terms and spirit of those documents, intervention should take place in
appropriate cases. DoCS will always have to prioritise its work and thus make
decisions as to when it intervenes.
14.27 Pursuant to the Protocol, when the family law court requests that DoCS
intervene, DoCS provides the Family Court with a Magellan report. This should
be provided whether or not DoCS intends to intervene. Both DoCS and the
Family Court are of the view that the provision of reports works well.
14.28 Finally, the Inquiry is aware that a 2002 report by the Family Law Council on
Family Law and Child Protection recommended that, in order to avoid
duplication of effort between the state and federal systems, a decision should
be taken as early as possible whether a matter should proceed under the
Family Law Act or under child welfare law, with the consequence that there
should be only one court dealing with the matter. The report referred to that as
the “One Court principle”. 395 The Inquiry agrees with this approach.
14.29 The following case study demonstrates the complexities of the inter relationship
of the powers of the Local Court and the Family Court and the role of DoCS and
the Police.
395
Family Law and Child Protection, Family Law Council, September 2002.
Case Study 21
The family became known to DoCS in 2005. Between July 2006 and the
end of August 2007, the personal history for six year old C records initial
assessments of 14 reports to the Helpline, in the context of reports of
domestic violence and family law court proceedings. DoCS was told that
family law court orders were in place stating that C and her brother B (7)
were to reside with their mother, with the father having contact every
second weekend and for half of the school holidays.
In March 2007 DoCS received several reports regarding a threat said to

have been made by the father of the children. The father was alleged to
have told the mother on the telephone, while the children were in his care
and able to hear, that “you don’t get much for murder so I’ll put a bullet
through each of the children’s heads and then I’ll come and get you.” The
father was said to have access to firearms and to have a history of violence
toward the mother.
According to Police, a previous AVO taken out by the mother had expired
the day before the threat was made. Police told DoCS that the children
were “reported to be safe and well in mother’s care,” that the mother was
seeking legal advice to amend the family law court orders, and that she
had indicated she would not send the children to their next contact visit.
In April 2007, a SAS1 states that the mother rang the allocated caseworker
at DoCS, distressed, after the AVO she had sought for herself and the
children was not granted. The mother advised the caseworker that the
Magistrate in the Local Court refused to grant the AVO because neither
Police nor DoCS had investigated the matter. The notes say that the
“Magistrate stated that this indicated the threat was not considered serious
and thus he decided the AVO was not warranted.”
The caseworker also recorded that the “NM feels helpless now to protect
her children as she must allow NF contact as per [family law] orders or risk
fine or jail.” The caseworker says that in response to the mother
questioning why DoCS did not investigate, she “Advised her that as the
children were in her care and that as a result were safe as NF did not have
access to them, that there was no risk to them and consequently no
investigation took place. Explained further that due to lack of resources,
that as she was being a protective parent, that other matters were given
priority.”
It appears that DoCS were concerned about the comment attributed to the
Magistrate. Email records in the file document efforts by DoCS to confirm
that the Magistrate denied the AVO on the grounds stated. One email,
which appears to be from a senior manager, states “If the views are as
indicated, then there are some other avenues we will need to explore
including judicial review of the decisions being made at that court and for
that we’ll need [DoCS Director of Legal Services] direction.”
The emails record that a caseworker contacted the Court for verification,
and was advised that DoCS could, for a fee, apply for either a copy of the
transcript or the Magistrate’s file, but that there was ‘no guarantee’ that the
information would be in the transcript. The worker asked whether she
should pursue the matter further. The file holds no further information
about DoCS investigation of the Magistrate’s views.
Later reports to DoCS indicate that the matter was referred to the Magellan
project and that the father’s access was suspended, and that he was also
ordered to attend anger management counselling. An initial assessment in
August noted that the father was to have no access until further notice.
Enforcement of certain Children’s Court

orders in the family law courts
14.30 Children’s Court orders about residence and contact can be registered under
the Family Law Act, in a family law court and then enforced as if they were
orders made under that Act.396
14.31 Thus, for example, a NSW care order dealing with contact could be registered
in a registry of a family law court in NSW or in a different state. Once
registered, the order “has the same force and effect as if it were an order made
by that court.”397
14.32 The Family Law Act contains detailed provisions for enforcing orders dealing
with matters such as with whom the child should live and have contact
(‘parenting orders’). In general, because of the lack of any separate
enforcement agency,398 such proceedings are usually brought by a party to the
parenting proceedings, who claims that the other party has not complied with
the orders.
14.33 It should first be noted, however, that enforcement has proved a difficult and
frustrating aspect of family law.399 Most parenting orders involve continuing
396
Family Law Act 1975 ss.70C and 70D.
397
Family Law Act 1975 s.70E.
398
The Family Law Council has recommended, among other things, “That the Government establish a child
orders enforcement agency or in the alternative that the Government provide additional and specified funding
to enable the State and Territory Legal Aid Commissions to assist parties to bring applications about serious
contraventions of parenting orders before the family courts.” Family Law Council, Improving Post-Parenting
Order Processes: A report to the Attorney-General, October 2007, www.ag.gov.au/flc.
399
For a detailed consideration, see the Family Law Council, Child Contact Orders: Enforcement and
Penalties, 1998 www.ag.gov.au/flc. The present Family Law Act includes provisions based on the Council’s
recommendations, but the 1998 report remains a valuable discussion of the nature of the problems, many of
which persist. See also Australian Law Reform Commission, “For the sake of the kids - Complex contact
cases and the Family Court,” Australian Law Reform Commission Report, 73, 1995.
obligations, and dealing with a particular breach may not ensure compliance in
the future. Some of the penalties that might be considered, especially fines and
imprisonment, might well have an adverse impact on the children concerned,
whose best interests were the basis for the original parenting order. The need
for parties to bring enforcement proceedings has also proved a significant
difficulty. Parties may be reluctant or unable to undertake further proceedings
for enforcement. The Inquiry understands that the lack of enforcement powers
in the Care Act is a deliberate recognition of the need to encourage voluntary
participation in performing court orders. Thus, enforcement provisions may be
unlikely to achieve better long term outcomes for the child.
14.34 The Family Law Act, however, contains a number of enforcement provisions.
There is an injunction power, a power of arrest, and powers to make location
orders (requiring people to provide information about a child’s location) and
recovery orders (requiring people to return a child, and authorising the police or
others to use force if necessary).400
14.35 There are also proceedings for contravention of orders.401 The provisions
distinguish between more serious and less serious contraventions. In relation
to the less serious contraventions, the family law courts can direct the person to
a post-separation parenting program, make a further parenting order that
compensates a person for the time not spent with a child as a result of the
contravention, require the person to enter into a bond, or to make monetary
compensation, or pay costs.402 In relation to the more serious contraventions,403
the possible orders include a community service order, a bond, a fine, and a
sentence of imprisonment for up to 12 months.404 In addition, there is a power
to deal with a contravention of an order under the Family Law Act that “involves
a flagrant challenge to the authority of the court” as a contempt of court.405 As
well as providing for penalties, the Family Law Act also makes provision for the
Court to vary the parenting order that was breached, reflecting the realisation
that some contravention proceedings stem from misunderstood or badly drafted
orders, or from orders that have become unsuitable for changed situations.406
14.36 Once an order from a Children’s Court has been registered in a family law court,
the enforcement provisions sketched above become available. DoCS can
register a Children’s Court order, and can apply for an enforcement order, the
only special requirement being the necessity under s.69ZK of providing the
written consent of a child welfare officer. Thus, it appears that there would be
400
Family Law Act 1975 s.68B. The court may “make such order or grant such injunction as it considers
appropriate for the welfare of the child” including various restraining and other orders ss.65Q, 67J-67N, 67Q-
67Y, 68C.
401
Family Law Act 1975 ss.70NAA–70NFJ.
402
Family Law Act 1975 s.70NEB.
403
Defined, in substance as repeated contraventions and contraventions that show a serious disregard of
obligations under the parenting order that was contravened: Family Law Act 1975 s.70NFA.
404
Family Law Act 1975 ss.70NFB-70NFG.
405
Family Law Act 1975 s.112AP.
406
Family Law Act 1975 ss.70NAE, 70NBA.
no difficulty in DoCS making application for any of these various forms of

enforcement of a Children’s Court order registered in a family law court.
14.37 The Family Law Act specifies who can bring applications for a recovery or
location order, or an injunction, or contravention proceedings. In each case, the
requirements are the same as those in relation to applications for parenting
orders, the relevant category being “any other person concerned with the care,
welfare or development of the child.”407
14.38 While the representatives of the Family Court with whom the Inquiry had
discussions were not aware of these provision being used for care matters,
DoCS informed the Inquiry that the procedure has been used by it, particularly
in cases where there is risk of interstate flight.
Financial and other assistance from DoCS for non-parent

carers who care for children as a result of family law
orders
14.39 The Inquiry received submissions from carers who were responsible for children
following orders made by a family law court rather than the Children’s Court. A
number of them said that they had been informed by DoCS, or otherwise
understood, that they were not entitled to any financial or other assistance from
DoCS, because of the absence of a Children’s Court order granting them the
care of the relevant children.
14.40 This is not the case. A supported care allowance can be provided for children
and young persons who are in the care of relative or kinship carers, even where
the Minister or Director-General has no aspect of parental responsibility. This
allowance may be payable for placements resulting from a Children’s Court
Order, a family law court order and even where there is no court order. It is at
the discretion of DoCS and depends, in part, on the likelihood of the child
entering OOHC if not for the care currently provided by the relative or kinship
carer. Other assistance may also be available pursuant to s.22 of the Care Act.
The Inquiry does not suggest that there should be any alterations to this
practice.
14.41 More needs to be done however to ensure that those carers who may be in
need of assistance from DoCS, are aware of DoCS’ guidelines, and of its
discretion to provide financial support.
Extending the Magellan Project

14.42 NSW became part of Magellan in July 2003 and its reach was limited to a small
number of postcodes in the Sydney metropolitan area. The Inquiry understands
407
Section 67K (location orders); s 67T (recovery orders); and s 69C (all other proceedings under Part VII of
the Act, ie the Part dealing with children.
that DoCS imposed this restriction because of other reforms being implemented
and because the MOU and Protocol were not yet in place.
14.43 Given its recent positive evaluation, the Inquiry is of the view that Magellan
should be extended to a significantly greater area of NSW than is currently
covered. The Inquiry understands that DoCS proposes to extend its
participation in Magellan to the Metro West Region this year and to rural regions
by the end of 2009. The Inquiry agrees with this phased approach. It is also
noted that Magellan is only available in the Family Court and not the Federal
Magistrate’s Court, where a significant majority of family law matters are now
heard.
15 Child protection and the criminal justice

system
Introduction .................................................................................................................556
Juvenile Justice...........................................................................................................558
Release on bail or subject to a bond .....................................................................558
Sentencing and diversion of juvenile offenders.....................................................562
The Young Offenders Act ............................................................................. 563
Youth Conduct Orders .................................................................................. 564
The Youth Drug and Alcohol Court............................................................... 564
Indigenous youth sentencing.................................................................................565
Cooperation between DoCS and Juvenile Justice ................................................567
Reducing the risk of re-offending...........................................................................569
Justice Health Program .........................................................................................572
Participation of DoCS in cases within the Juvenile Justice system.......................573
Conclusion .............................................................................................................575
Adult justice system and child protection................................................................575
Role of NSW Police Force.....................................................................................575
Child Protection and Sex Crimes Squad ...................................................... 577
Joint Investigation Response Teams............................................................ 577
Specialist support positions ...................................................................................577
Additional protective powers..................................................................................578
Diversion and crime reduction strategies ..............................................................580
Pre-trial diversion of adults charged with child sexual assault ..................... 580
Other Diversionary Programs Concerning Adults......................................... 581
Department of Corrective Services ...........................................................................581
556 Child protection and the criminal justice system
Introduction
15.1 Research shows that there is a significant correlation between juvenile
participation in crime and rates of reported neglect or abuse, as well as a strong
relationship between juvenile offending and homelessness.408
15.2 Two surveys in this State in relation to juvenile offending have shown that:
a. 28 per cent of male and 39 per cent of female detainees, and 21 per cent of
males and 36 per cent of females subject to community orders had a
history of being placed in care409
b. over 90 per cent of detainees had been suspended from schooling at one
time or another, and that three quarters had left school before finishing
Year 9.410
15.3 In addition, a study carried out in 2002, found the following:
Sixty-eight per cent of those who appeared in the Children’s

Court for the first time in 1995 had reappeared in a NSW
criminal court at least once within the next eight years. Forty-
three per cent of the cohort reappeared at least once in the
Children’s Court and 57 per cent had at least one appearance
in an adult court over this period. … In other words, 13 per cent
of those who appeared for the first time in a Children’s Court, in
1995, ended up in an adult prison within eight years. The
number of reappearances in court was found to be significantly
related to the age at which the juvenile first appeared in court;
with youths aged 10 to 14 at their first appearance having
significantly more court appearances over eight years than
youths who were aged over 14 at their first appearance.
Nearly 70 per cent of the 5,476 juveniles examined in the

present study reappeared in court within eight years. These
results are fairly consistent with the international literature on
juvenile offending .… One important policy implication of the
current findings is that efforts to reduce the risk of reoffending
should not be delayed in the belief that most young people
making their first appearance in the Children’s Court will never
reappear in court again.411
408
See for example, the studies cited by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare in its Feasibility Study,
Linking SAAP, Child Protection and Juvenile Justice Data Collection, June 2008, p.2; NSW Bureau of Crime
Statistics and Research, Social and Economic Stress Child Neglect and Juvenile Delinquency, 1997.
409
Department of Juvenile Justice, Justice Health and University of Sydney, NSW Young People on
Community Orders Health Survey 2003-06: Key Findings Report, 2006, p.11.
410
Department of Juvenile Justice, Justice Health and University of Sydney, NSW Young People in Custody
Health Survey: Key Findings Report, 2003.
411
S Chen, T Matruglio, D Weatherburn and J Hua, “Crime and Justice Bulletin: ‘The transition from juvenile
to adult criminal careers,’” NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Contemporary Issues in Crime and
Justice, Number 86, May 2005, pp.10-11.
15.4 The significant correlation between the high level of offending behaviour and the
indicators of risk among young offenders, points to the importance of DoCS,
Juvenile Justice and Police, and also those agencies such as Education, Health
and Housing who have close contact with families, working together to provide
support and interventions to address the factors of neglect, abuse, social and
economic distress that contribute to offending behaviour.
15.5 Not only is this important for the personal well-being of the adolescents and
young persons affected by these negative factors, but it also has ramifications
for the community at large, as the following observations of the Bureau of Crime
Statistics and Research (BOCSAR) show, in relation to urban areas:
a. The findings indicate that, assuming other factors remain unchanged, an
increase of 1,000 additional neglected children would result in additional
256 juveniles involved in crime. Alternatively, and again assuming other
factors remained unchanged, an increase of 1,000 additional poor families
would result in an additional 141 juveniles involved in crime.
b. The increases in juvenile court appearances resulting from such increases
in neglect or poverty would be 466 for each additional 1,000 neglected
children or 257 for each additional 1,000 poor families. The increase in
criminal offending would be substantially larger given that only a small
proportion of offences result in court appearances.412
15.6 The recently released NSW Criminal Courts Statistics 2007 show a three per
cent increase in the number of persons with matters finalised in Children’s
Courts for that year (up to 9,141).413
15.7 In the first part of this chapter the sentencing of young offenders is examined,
including the availability of diversionary options, and the several programs and
strategies that exist which are directed towards preventing anti-social and
criminal conduct by young offenders. Issues concerning the management of
young offenders once they come under the supervision of Juvenile Justice
particularly those who are under the parental responsibility of the Minister, and
the programs that then become available for their rehabilitation, are also
examined. In the second part of the chapter, consideration is given to those
aspects of the adult or general justice system that have an impact on keeping
children and young persons safe.
412
NSW Bureau of Statistics, “Social and Economic Stress Child Neglect and Juvenile Delinquency,” 1997,
p.viii.
413
NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, “NSW Criminal Court Statistics 2007,” August 2008, p.iii.
Juvenile Justice
Release on bail or subject to a bond
15.8 One problem which was repeatedly brought to the notice of the Inquiry has
been the difficulty in securing accommodation for young people who might
otherwise have been released on bail, but cannot be released because they do
not have stable accommodation or are unable to return home because of family
breakdown or safety or neglect risks.
15.9 In the absence of dedicated bail facilities for young people, many have been
held remanded in detention for significant periods, with potentially adverse
consequences for their prospects of rehabilitation. Particularly difficult to place
are those facing sexual offence charges or who have a history of sexual
offending. Similar problems can arise where young offenders who, after
conviction, are unable to obtain suitable accommodation where that is the
subject of a condition in a bond.
15.10 Recent statistics show that there is a significant increase in the number of
detainees in juvenile detention centres.414
15.11 Juvenile Justice advised the Inquiry that as at 15 June 2008 there were 272
young people in custody on remand, compared with an average daily total of
164 for 2006/07.
15.12 Juvenile Justice has advised that:
On any given day, detainees on remand in juvenile detention

make up 55 per cent to 60 per cent of the total juvenile
detention centre population. This figure is even higher for
young women in detention, with around 65 per cent to 75 per
cent being on remand. A recent review of remand cases
undertaken by Juvenile Justice over a period of three months
(the first quarter of 2006/07) found that 90 per cent of these did
not meet bail conditions in the first instance and spent an
average of eight days in custody. Ninety-five per cent of those
remanded during the review period had court imposed bail
conditions to ‘reside as directed’.
The review also indicates that the 10 – 12 years age group

spend an average of 25 days in custody before being able to
meet their conditions of bail. Of those young people who were
identified as having been involved with DoCS, the average time
in custody before meeting their bail conditions was 12 days
414
Department of Juvenile Justice, Annual Report 2006/07, p.18.
compared to seven days for those who had no previous DoCS

involvement or where this was unknown.
This situation is particularly worrying when it is considered that

about 84 per cent of young people remanded to custody do not
go onto receive a custodial order after sentencing.415
15.13 It would seem that Juvenile Justice has no legislative obligation or common law
duty to provide or to arrange accommodation for people within this group, and
no legislative basis to place children under 16 years of age in accommodation
other than with their parents or legal guardians or authorised carers (where they
are under the parental responsibility of the Minister). It is not funded to provide
accommodation services other than within detention centres, although it does
from time to time use ‘brokerage funds’ to purchase accommodation as a step
of last resort, where that will assist in preventing those within this group entering
custody, in accordance with their bail/case management plan.
15.14 It would also appear that, save in the case of those under the Minister’s parental
responsibility, DoCS cannot be compelled to find accommodation for those
within this group.
15.15 The nature of the problem is illustrated by two cases. First, there is the case of
Minister for Community Services and Anor v Children’s Court of NSW416 in
which DoCS brought proceedings in relation to the validity in law of a condition
included in a bond imposed by the Children’s Court requiring the child in
question to “reside as directed by the Department of Community Services, - not
with your mother unless both the mother and [child] agree.”417 This case was
one in which DoCS had made it clear to the Court, both earlier in the
proceedings when bail was at issue, and at the time of sentencing, that it did not
have the facilities to house the child, nor was it in a position to provide any
direction as to where she should go. It was held that the condition was within
power, although it did not have the effect of requiring DoCS to provide the
accommodation or assistance contemplated.
15.16 The second case is that of Police v Raymond,418 which involved a 14 year old
boy charged with several offences, but without a prior record. Despite being
granted conditional bail in similar terms to that considered in the last mentioned
case, his custody continued for some time because of DoCS’ inability to find a
suitable place of residence for him. Juvenile Justice notified DoCS of his
homelessness on several occasions, as did the Magistrate who made a formal
declaration that he was homeless. Serious concerns were expressed by the
Magistrate concerning the fact of a 14 year old homeless youth being
warehoused in a juvenile detention centre. The application of the Department
415
Submission: Department of Juvenile Justice, p.14.
416
Minister for Community Services and Anor v Children’s Court of NSW [2005] 62 NSWLR 419.
417
Minister for Community Services and Anor v Children’s Court of NSW [2005] 62 NSWLR 419 at [16].
418
Police v Raymond [2007] CLN 3.
to revoke the condition, which would have permitted his release, was declined.
This left DoCS in the position of endeavouring to find some temporary
accommodation, although still without any statutory obligation to do so.
15.17 One of the Inquiry’s case studies highlights this issue.
Case Study 22
A was born on 18/4/91. Her mother was 14 years old. She lived with her
maternal grandmother and then with her maternal aunt until 2004 when
she returned to live with her mother who was getting married and was
pregnant. Reports to DoCS commenced on her return to her mother when
she was 13 years old. To date there are 95 reports to DoCS. The mother
repeatedly reported to DoCS expressing her inability to cope with A’s
behaviours. She was fearful of A being around her toddler and newborn
baby and could not cope with the financial stress of providing A’s required
ADHD medication. From December 2005 to March 2006 there were a
number of incidents of reported assault on the mother by A. In April 2006 A
was arrested and held in the custody of the Juvenile Justice. The
conditional bail undertaking was that she ‘remain in custody until suitable
accommodation is found in community eg DoCS/Juvenile Justice.’
The mother stated that A was not able to return home and no placements
were able to be located, however a high cost option was available ($3,200
for weekend with a 1:1 carer in a motel). After consultation with the
manager, the DoCS caseworker advised Juvenile Justice that no
placement options were available and A remained in detention in Juvenile
Justice's care. Juvenile Justice urged DoCS to find a placement as this
was 'just an AVO matter so A does not deserve to remain in custody over
the weekend.'
15.18 Access to bail is of particular significance for young people charged with
criminal offences in diverting them from potentially unnecessary contact with a
delinquent group, and in limiting the interruption of their education and family
connection. The desirability of maintaining members of this group in the
community and of involving them in programs and support services while on
bail, so as to encourage their successful completion of the bail period, has been
recognised by the Youth Justice Board in the UK whose model includes the
following standards:
a. Programs should be developed at the initial bail assessment point, and be
individually tailored to the needs of the young person.
b. Young persons should have immediate access to programs and support
services once they are released on bail. If there is to be an intensive
support program, a timely start will improve the young person’s retention in
the program.
c. Programs should take a more holistic view of the young person and their
needs, and interventions should be focused on promoting a more stable
lifestyle.
d. Family should be involved when possible.
e. Programs should include court support to help the person to comply with
their bail conditions. For example court reminder calls, accompanying the
young person to court, organising transport when necessary and providing
information and advice about the court and bail process.419
15.19 A positive commitment on the part of Juvenile Justice to secure accommodation

for young people within the juvenile justice or criminal justice systems who
would be allowed their liberty, either pending trial or pursuant to a non-custodial
disposition such as a bond or suspended sentence, had they a stable place in
which to live, would accord with the requirements of the international
instruments to which Australia is signatory.420
15.20 It is understood that one such service, ‘New Pathways’, can provide for a limited
amount of accommodation combining residence with treatment but more is
obviously needed.421 It is also understood that a trial of an integrated case
management project is to be conducted out of the Parramatta Children’s Court
commencing in December 2008 and involving DoCS, Juvenile Justice, Justice
Health, and DADHC to respond to the needs of young people before the Courts,
who have high level and complex needs and who would normally be bailed if
they had suitable accommodation or placement options. This, the Inquiry
believes, is a commendable initiative which should be expanded, if found upon
evaluation to be effective.
15.21 It has, however, been pointed out that the trial will only target a very small
number of people (five at any one time), and that it does not immediately
address the more systemic issues which are apparent, as a result of the fact
that Juvenile Justice clients are often excluded from accessing the limited
accommodation services including SAAP funded services (see Chapters 17 and
20) which are available to adolescents and young persons, due to their complex
needs and high risk rating. Among those particularly likely to be excluded are
those with a history of sexual offending and those charged with property
damage and serious behavioural offences, leaving as the only available option,
at this stage, a detention centre ‘placement’.
15.22 The Inquiry considers that it would be helpful to establish an after hours bail
placement service similar to Victoria’s Central After Hours and Bail Placement
Service, that is available to young people aged 10-18 years, who are at risk of
419
G Denning-Cotter, “Bail Support in Australia,” Indigenous Justice Clearinghouse, April 2008.
420
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989, Article 20; and the UN Standard Minimum
Rule for the Administration of Juvenile Justice Rule 24.
421
This program is run by Youth off the Streets and caters for moderate to high risk male adolescents aged 13
to 18 years. It has recently been extended to include young people with an intellectual disability and is to be
the subject of an evaluation commissioned by DoCS which is to start by the end of 2009.
being remanded in custody, or who require bail accommodation; or similar to

Queensland’s Conditional Bail Program and Youth Bail Accommodation
Support Service.422
15.23 The difficulties in securing the release on bail of young Aboriginals has been
particularly problematic. It needs to be addressed, as a matter of urgency,
given the disproportionately high number of Aboriginal children and young
people who come into contact with the juvenile justice system. The intensive
Bail Support Program recently introduced in NSW may prove to be beneficial in
this respect if it can be extended to rural areas.423
15.24 It is only in its early stages and seemingly the subject of limited funding, but it
does have the advantage of using the window between arrest and sentencing to
address the factors behind offending and to open up opportunities for diversion.
Sentencing and diversion of juvenile offenders

15.25 HREOC has noted the commitment of Australia to introduce diversionary
measures for juvenile offenders in accordance with the provision of the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child, as elaborated upon by other United
Nations rules and guidelines.424
15.26 HREOC noted that:
Indigenous juveniles are particularly vulnerable to being trapped

in a cycle of contact with the criminal justice process. Yet
studies show that Indigenous juveniles are less likely than non-
Indigenous youth to benefit from mechanisms, such as
conferencing, to divert juveniles from custody... Similarly, there
is evidence that Indigenous children have not received the
benefit of police cautioning at the same rate as the general
youth population.425
15.27 HREOC also drew attention to the recommendations of the Royal Commission
into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody concerning the desirability of providing a wide
range of non-custodial options for young Aboriginal juvenile offenders.426
15.28 This is an area where Police through their Youth Liaison Officers have a role in
activating interventions under the Young Offenders Act 1997 (the Young
Offenders Act); in organising programs that can target the behaviour of young
offenders to divert them from the criminal justice system or to assist them in not
re-offending; in identifying young people whose risk taking behaviour, family
422
G Denning-Cotter, 2008, op. cit.
423
ibid.
424
The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Human Rights Brief No. 5 Best Practice Principles
for the Diversion of Juvenile Offenders, 2001.
425
ibid.
426
ibid., p.6.
situation or previous contact with Police indicate that they are at risk of
becoming persistent offenders; and in referring them to relevant services. It is
also an area where other agencies, including DoCS, Health and Juvenile
Justice have an important role to play, and for which the provision of assured
funding for relevant programs is of considerable importance.
The Young Offenders Act
15.29 The Young Offenders Act provides an opportunity for offenders aged 10-18
years who have committed certain categories of offences427 to be dealt with by
Police outside of the court system,428 in a variety of ways that fall short of the
criminal sanctions that might otherwise be attracted, including warnings,
cautions and youth justice conferences.
15.30 Under the Young Offenders Act, the level and type of intervention will be
determined on the basis of a number of factors, including the seriousness of the
offence, the harm to the victim, the degree of violence and any previous
offending history.
15.31 The Young Offenders Act has been the subject of evaluation by the NSW Law
Reform Commission,429 by the BOCSAR on three occasions430 and by the
Sydney Institute of Criminology.431 Generally these evaluations concluded that
the Young Offenders Act has introduced a successful scheme for diverting
young offenders from court.
15.32 The Ombudsman has been actively involved in encouraging Police in relation to
the effective use of diversionary options, including the use of community
members to issue cautions, securing access by offenders to legal advice, and
developing a Youth Liaison Officer training package. In a submission to the
Inquiry the Ombudsman advised:
We found significant discrepancy in the use of diversionary

options between commands, and on occasion, between
different sectors within the same command. This suggests that
use of the [Young Offenders] Act depends very heavily on the
views of an individual officer rather than the application of more
general criteria. In our view, this issue should be closely
monitored by NSW Police to identify how referral rates might be
improved.432
427
As specified in s.8 of the Young Offenders Act 1997.
428
Young Offenders Act 1997 s.3.
429
430
An Evaluation of the NSW Youth Justice Conferencing Scheme (2000); Reducing Juvenile Crime:
Conferencing Versus Court (2002); and Reoffending among young people cautioned by Police or who
participated in a Youth Justice Conference (2006).
431
J Chan (ed), Reshaping Juvenile Justice: The NSW Young Offenders Act 1997, Institute of Criminology,
Monograph 22, 2005.
432
Submission: NSW Ombudsman, Young People at Risk, pp.19-20.
15.33 The Inquiry is of the view that this option is an important component of a
criminal justice system that can provide an early brake upon an emerging
pattern of anti-social activity or criminality, and that can also pave the way for
access to relevant programs, particularly at the conferencing stage. It is of the
view that the concerns of the Ombudsman need to be addressed.
Youth Conduct Orders
15.34 A trial of the use of youth conduct orders to be made by the Court, as an
alternative to dealing with cases under the existing provisions of the Young
Offenders Act, has been announced, which is to commence from December
2008, in the New England, Campbelltown and Mt Druitt Local Area Commands.
The NSW Attorney General has announced that:
Orders can include strict limitations on a juvenile’s movement

and behaviour, including curfews, school attendance
requirements and non-association orders so they don’t mix with
bad influences or gang members.
Offenders will also undergo intensive case management with

their families, forcing them to confront issues like drug and
alcohol dependence.
They can also be referred to treatment for mental health

problems and their families may be given extra help with
parenting support and housing.
The aim is to get young offenders to work with their families in

addressing the causes of their anti-social behaviour before they
graduate into career criminals. 433
15.35 The Inquiry welcomes this initiative, which may provide greater rigour to the
diversionary regime already mentioned.
The Youth Drug and Alcohol Court
15.36 Another route for diversion, and for addressing the circumstances that give rise
to juvenile offending, involves referral to the Youth Drug and Alcohol Court, an
initiative that grew out of the 1999 NSW Drug Summit, that has been trialled in
western Sydney since 2000, and is being expanded to central and eastern
Sydney. It operates within the legislative framework of the Children (Criminal
Proceedings) Act 1987.
15.37 Program funding is provided by the NSW Government and by the

Commonwealth Government through the National Illicit Drug Diversion
Initiative.434
433
Attorney General’s Department of NSW, Media Release, 18 July 2008.
15.38 An evaluation by the Social Policy Research Centre of the University of New
South Wales of the first two years of the program suggested that it was having
an important positive impact on the lives of many participants and
recommended that it:
should continue and possibly be expanded to selected other

geographical areas subject to a number of issues being
addressed.435
Indigenous youth sentencing

15.39 An area requiring particular attention is that of young Aboriginal offenders who
represent almost 50 per cent of the juveniles who are in detention pursuant to
control orders,436 and approximately 33 per cent of young offenders subject to
community supervision.437 This group is particularly prone to homelessness
and violence or abuse, and its members tend to enter the juvenile justice
system in early adolescence and often remain with the criminal justice system
into adulthood.
15.40 The Ombudsman has pointed out that:
In 2004, the police undertook an analysis of Aboriginal

offenders aged 10 and 11 years. The review examined criminal
charges against 10 and 11 year old Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander offenders in the six months to 31 December 2003.
It identified 23 children who were charged with a total of 91

offences in this period. Analysis of police information relating to
the 23 children charged found that:
a. Every child charged had child/young person at risk reports,
and 15 of the 23 had five or more reports of this nature.
b. All 23 had been the subject of DoCS referrals, and 16 of the
23 had been the subject of DoCS referrals on five or more
occasions.
c. At age 10 or 11, every child charged with an offence in the
six month review period had previously been charged.
d. Every child had faced between two and 53 charges before
this six month period.
434
Lawlink NSW: Youth Drug and Alcohol Court, www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/drug_court.
435
Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales Evaluation of the New South Wales, Youth
Drug Court Pilot Program, Final Report, December 2003 (Revised March 2004), pp.v-vi.
436
Department of Juvenile Justice, Annual Report 2006/07, p.45; showed that the average daily number of
young people in custody for the year was 331, of which 159 were of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander
background: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Juvenile Justice in Australia 2006/07, p.52.
437
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Juvenile Justice in Australia 2006/07, p.32.
e. In the six month period reviewed, one child accrued a further

23 charges.438
15.41 The Ombudsman has been conducting reviews of the measures that Police
Local Area Commands across NSW have introduced to implement the Police’s
Aboriginal Strategic Directions Policy, the aim of which is to improve criminal
justice outcomes for Aboriginal communities and to make positive changes in
the relationships between Police and those communities. In particular, it has
looked at diversion strategies, and other activities operated through initiatives
having a relevance for the broader community, such as those provided through
the Police Community Youth Clubs.
15.42 In general, the Ombudsman has reported favourably on the Police response in
its more recent reviews during 2006 and 2007, and has noted the replacement
of ad hoc activities with properly planned strategies. The Inquiry considers that
continuity of implementation of such strategies across all Local Area
Commands is important.
15.43 Strategies which improve relations between Police and Aboriginal communities,
and the use of the several opportunities that exist for diversion, including those
available under the Young Offenders Act 1997, are particularly important for
Aboriginal youth whose contact with Juvenile Justice is likely to have a long
term negative impact. The need for these kinds of responses is only part of the
solution. Until the several criminogenic factors, and general background of
disadvantage and isolation from mainstream services elsewhere discussed in
this report are met, there is likely to continue to be a disproportionate
representation of Aboriginal youth in the juvenile justice and care and protection
domains.
15.44 The Inquiry notes that in Victoria, the Koori Youth Justice Program established
in 1992, has now been expanded to most of the State. It is staffed by custodial
Koori workers and community Koori workers employed by community
organisations. It has a role that is preventative, as well as responsive in relation
to offenders subject to supervision or diversion following their appearance in
Court.439
15.45 It is the role of Koori Youth Justice workers to develop Aboriginal cultural
support plans and to provide support for clients and their families, in addressing
and planning suitable goals.440
15.46 Associated Programs in Victoria include the Koori Intensive Bail Support
Program, the Koori Early School Leavers and Youth Employment Program, and
the Koori Pre and Post Release Program, each of which is focused upon
diverting young Aboriginal people from the youth justice system, and
438
Submission: NSW Ombudsman, Young People at Risk, p.14.
439
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Juvenile Justice in Australia 2006/07, p.112.
440
ibid.
responding to the need to provide rehabilitation opportunities for those who do

enter that system.441
15.47 The Inquiry is of the view that consideration could usefully be given to the
development of a similar model in NSW, involving Juvenile Justice and
Aboriginal Affairs. It could take its place within the structure of the Interagency
Plan, and build upon those programs and strategies that have currently been
introduced for the purpose of reducing the disturbing over representation of
Aboriginal Youth in the group of young persons subject to community
supervision or detention. It would need to satisfy the principles for a culturally
appropriate program identified in Chapter 18 of this report, and an assessment
of its viability in this respect would be assisted by a careful study of the Koori
Youth Justice Program.
Cooperation between DoCS and Juvenile Justice

15.48 Serious problems can arise in those cases where a child or young person in
statutory care comes into conflict with the criminal law and becomes subject to
the control or supervision of Juvenile Justice.442
15.49 Clearly there is a need for Juvenile Justice and DoCS to have a cooperative
framework to ensure that those within this group who are in care, but in
detention or under supervision, have their needs met and their prospects of
rehabilitation sufficiently addressed.
15.50 The removal by DoCS of the Specialist Adolescent District Officers who had a
responsibility to work with this group among others, and to ensure that their
needs were met, appears to have been unfortunate, for this reason.
15.51 Juvenile Justice drew attention to the desirability of a shared client database
being established, that would permit a better linkage between DoCS and
Juvenile Justice, and strategies for interventions for those who are most at risk
of being entrenched in the criminal justice system. The provision of a systems
interface between the client databases of DoCS and Juvenile Justice would
seemingly allow the two agencies to plan their services more effectively,
improve case management, allow for a useful exchange of information and
permit Juvenile Justice to prepare better informed background reports of the
kind that are required for sentencing purposes. It might also enable each
agency to provide more meaningful assistance for young people who are
appearing before the courts, sometimes at a point where they are not
technically a client of either agency. The Inquiry considers that there is
considerable force in the submission of Juvenile Justice in support of the
introduction of such a capacity.
441
ibid.
442
HA v Minister for Community Services [2003] NSW ADT 149. Case determined under the 1987 Act, but
illustrative of the challenging issues involved for DoCS, carers and the ADT in these cases.
15.52 An allied suggestion of Juvenile Justice was to the effect that there be an
allocated caseworker at the DoCS Helpline to deal with Juvenile Justice calls, or
at least that Juvenile Justice be added to the Police and Education on the
priority list for a response. This, it suggested, could be of considerable value in
relation to those young people who are brought before Bail Courts during the
weekends, who present with care and protection issues, but who are not subject
to the parental responsibility of the Minister. Currently, it was suggested, DoCS
is slow to respond to those involved in those cases, resulting in them being
effectively assigned to the responsibility of Juvenile Justice and detained in a
Juvenile Justice facility.
15.53 The Inquiry notes that the 2004 MOU between DoCS and Juvenile Justice,
which was supported by formal local protocols between the Regional Directors
of the two agencies, determines each agency’s respective roles and
responsibilities for young people aged 10 years or above who are under the
parental responsibility of the Minister, and who are subject to the effective
control of Juvenile Justice by reason of their offending. The MOU and protocols
are due for review but this has not occurred. The Inquiry considers that this
requires urgent attention.
15.54 Juvenile Justice also suggested that DoCS and Juvenile Justice work together
in addressing those cases where one or other of the agencies becomes
involved because of a conflict between a juvenile and his or her family, which
may result in proceedings for a breach of an AVO attracting Juvenile Justice’s
jurisdiction, or a risk of harm notification to DoCS. This could be addressed by
the preparation of a Parent Responsibility Contract in which each agency
contributes its specialist skills to defusing the conflict and addressing any
ongoing issues, or by referral to an external DoCS funded agency similar to the
procedure adopted by the Queensland Referral for Action Intervention Service
model.
15.55 The Inquiry notes that there is a current project between DoCS and a number of
other Departments including Juvenile Justice to address DoCS response to
Juvenile Justice calls. DoCS advised the Inquiry, and the Inquiry agrees, that
there is a clearly different perspective between the relevant departments as to
whether a child is, indeed, in need of care and protection. The Inquiry
understands that as part of this project, Juvenile Justice has been party to
inquiries which have established that there are less than 20 young people a
year who fall into the group who are the subject of these calls. In light of this
relatively low number, the Inquiry does not agree with the Juvenile Justice
suggestions that there be an allocated caseworker at the Helpline to deal with
such calls. This does not, however, mean that the interests of those within this
group, can be neglected, or that joint work should not be undertaken.
15.56 Worthy of consideration, is the suggestion of Juvenile Justice that a juvenile

offender compact be established, involving in addition to Juvenile Justice,
Department of Corrective Services, Education, Health, DoCS, DADHC, Police
and Attorney General’s, that would better align the policies of each department.
15.57 As envisaged by Juvenile Justice, the compact would establish a set of

principles under which agencies would co-operate in servicing and prioritising
young offenders. The principles would include recognition that:
a. the reduction of re-offending requires a multi-agency approach
b. the needs of Aboriginal children and young persons require particular
attention
c. there is a need to target the group of young offenders at highest risk of
future offending namely 10-14 year old Aboriginal males
d. pre-court/detention and post order/detention are areas for the focus of
agencies’ interventions.
15.58 Juvenile Justice proposes that for each agency, specific services, strategies
and target groups would be clearly defined in this compact. These would be
developed through consultation with each agency and would be supported by
performance measures to assess the ongoing efficacy of the compact.
Reducing the risk of re-offending

15.59 Juvenile Justice has a core responsibility to work with offenders under its
supervision in reducing their risk of re-offending and in addressing the
underlying issues that contribute to such conduct. It has, however, pointed out,
in a submission to the Inquiry, that little headway will be made unless the wider
welfare and support needs of this group, whose members predominantly come
from backgrounds of neglect and disadvantage, are met.
15.60 Therein lies the challenge. Having regard to the average length of community
supervision for juveniles, and the average length of detention pursuant to a
control order, of six months, Juvenile Justice has only a short period of time to
work with these people. It follows that intensive support from other agencies is
essential during this period, which can then lead to ongoing assistance or
casework, so as to give those within this group a positive redirection.
15.61 Juvenile Justice has advised that it finds that other agencies, both government
and non-government, tend to withdraw their services and to decrease the level
of support once young people come under Juvenile Justice supervision, most
likely in the belief that Juvenile Justice will be able to provide the necessary
support, or otherwise out of a reluctance to take on complex high needs clients
who may be difficult to engage, or because of the potential occupational health
and safety risks to their staff.
15.62 Juvenile Justice has, however, recognised the need for it to adopt innovative
strategies. As noted in its Annual Report for 2006/07 it now has:
A range of programs and interventions within both the custodial

and community environments that are designed to address the
needs of young offenders. These include offending behaviour
programs, such as Targets for Effective Change, a program
from the United Kingdom, that uses strategies that research has
shown are effective in reducing reoffending. They also include
counselling and group-work programs that focus on young
offenders’ alcohol and other drug issues, sex offenders and
violent offenders and programs specific to Aboriginal young
people.443
15.63 It added that:
A priority for the Department is addressing the high numbers of

Aboriginal young offenders, and young offenders aged between
10-14 years. To address the needs of these groups, the
Department is enhancing current strategies and developing new
programs to provide effective interventions. Initiatives such as
the Intensive Supervision Program will have a clear focus on
young Aboriginals in the 10-14 age range.444
15.64 Among the services provided from Juvenile Justice Community Offices are
specialised programs that deliver interventions such as the Sex Offender
Program and Violent Offenders Program, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counselling,
and case management and networking, aimed at linking offenders with
community support services.445 Not all of these programs are available within
the eight Juvenile Justice Centres now under the control of Juvenile Justice
although specialist and psychological services are available of a generic kind
involving educational, vocational, recreational and personal development
programs.446 It is understood that the Sex Offender Program is only available to
offenders under supervision in the community. Clearly this limits the capacity of
such programs to address the behavioural problems of those who need them.
15.65 Of potential value in this respect is the proposal of Juvenile Justice to introduce
an Intensive Supervision Program in two pilot sites (the Hunter area and
western Sydney) that will involve intensive work with children and young
persons and their families, involving multi-systemic therapy over a period of four
to six months. It will deal with a range of issues including substance abuse, re-
engagement in education and vocational pursuits, health and welfare issues,
housing needs, family conflict and negative peer pressure, for those juveniles
with a history of committing serious offences and/or repeat offending, or whose
severe anti-social behaviour puts them at risk of incarceration. The
interventions are to be delivered both at home or in community settings and
address parenting practices, family relationships, substance abuse problems,
443
444
ibid.
445
ibid.
446
The Kariong Juvenile Correctional Centre for the more serious offenders aged 16 and above and those
whose behaviour while in detention has required their transfer to a more secure facility, is now within the
responsibility of the Department of Corrective Services.
education, improved group associations and the establishment of a suitable

network of support.447
15.66 A unit is to be established to oversee the program and to manage the

development of similar evidence based programs.448 It is understood that this
program has been successfully used in New Zealand, the USA, Canada and a
number of European countries, that up to 70 families will be targeted each year
for the four years of its current life, and that it will draw upon the cooperative
support of other agencies including DoCS, Police and Health. It is expected to
be of particular value for an Aboriginal target group.449
15.67 The Inquiry considers this to be a program that should be actively supported
and expanded if found, after evaluation, to be successful; and in this respect it
notes that particular attention has been given to ensuring that this intervention is
appropriate for young Aboriginals with a Juvenile Justice history.
15.68 One further matter of relevance for those leaving juvenile justice custody is the
requirement for Juvenile Justice to develop a Post Release Support Plan, in
compliance with the requirements of the Department’s Post Release Support
Program. It includes a structured 12 week program designed to achieve an
overall reduction in the number of clients who re-offend after release from a
juvenile justice centre.450 It is further enhanced with a brokerage system that
supports clients without ready access to a Post Release Support Provider and,
in particular, clients in rural and remote areas. This Program is funded through
the Department’s Community Funding Program.
15.69 Also funded under the Community Funding Program are the following
programs:
a. Accommodation Support Programs that assist young people in securing
and maintaining appropriate accommodation, in developing living skills and
in providing case management services.
b. Local Offender Programs that assist young persons at risk of offending or
reoffending to access educational and vocational pathways.
c. Alcohol and Other Drug Programs that aim to increase the capacity of
young persons to effectively manage their lives and achieve a sustained
reduction in their levels of substance use. The Department currently funds
two types of programs – a Family Counsellor Program in metropolitan
Sydney and two eight-bed rural residential drug rehabilitation services at
Dubbo and Coffs Harbour managed by the Ted Noffs Foundation.
Residential drug rehabilitation services aim to provide an intensive
treatment program for substance misusing young persons located close to
their homes and families.
447
448
ibid., pp.39–40.
449
NSW Youth Action Plan, Progress Report as at 30 June 2007, pp.19–20.
450
d. The Employment Skilling Program that assists young people subject to a

supervised court order by providing access to relevant education,
vocational training and employment pathways, and by helping them to
establish and maintain positive links with the community.
e. The Children’s Visiting Legal Service (Legal Aid Commission) that provides
legal assistance to detainees.451
15.70 The Inquiry has been advised that 39 non-government organisations are funded
through Juvenile Justice’s Community Funding Program. Funding for 2007/08
was $5.7 million and the budget for 2008/09 is $5.9 million.
15.71 An additional program of value is the Juniperina Shared Access Trial negotiated
between Housing, Juvenile Justice, DoCS and Justice Health, (see Chapter 7).
Justice Health Program

15.72 Commonly, young offenders have mental health issues, including personality
disorders, that need to be addressed before they become entrenched. Juvenile
Justice has informed the Inquiry that a significant number of those in detention
have significant mental health or personality disorder issues, a circumstance
that tends to be aggravated where, as is commonly the case, their parents also
have history of criminal offending or of mental illness, or are in custody.
15.73 Justice Health has an important role to play in this area, both in arranging
assessments and reports to the court, and in linking these people to mental
health services and other agencies as well as services for those exiting juvenile
detention through its Community Integration Team. DoCS should also play a
role, as part of its responsibility in providing assistance to those under the
parental responsibility of the Minister, by engaging Justice Health, in those
cases.
15.74 As noted in the NSW Youth Plan Progress Report as at 30 June 2007:
Justice Health has received $1.2 million recurrent funding to

provide services for clients 10-18 years old who have come in
contact with the criminal justice system and have an emerging
mental illness and/or drug and alcohol problems.
The service comprises four main components: community

based assessments and linkage to appropriate community
services; court liaison and diversion; discharge planning for
young people in custody and for some young people occupying
mental health inpatient beds; and case management of a small
number of clients. The service has commenced in Western
Sydney area and will expand to the Central Sydney area and a
regional area yet to be determined. Results from the first four
451
ibid., pp.36-37.
months of operation of this service indicated that of 44 clients

referred to assessment via court diversion 14 cases were
diverted into treatment, with all criminal matters dismissed, with
a further 11 diverted into treatment with treatment compliance
as a condition of their bail.452
Participation of DoCS in cases within the Juvenile Justice

system
15.75 Relatively few cases are reported to DoCS by Magistrates sitting in the criminal
jurisdiction of the Children’s Court.453
15.76 The Children’s Court, in its submission to the Inquiry, submitted that a power
should be conferred on the Court to require the Director-General of DoCS to
provide courts with reports on the care and protection issues of a child or young
person brought before them in proceedings of this kind, and on the actions
which the Department proposes to take concerning them, or to give an
explanation of why no action is to be taken.
15.77 While the NSW Ombudsman accepts that there would be merit in the Children’s
Court receiving timely information from DoCS in relation to those appearing
before it, about whom a Magistrate has concerns, it suggests that such referrals
should be limited to cases where “a high risk of harm appears to exist.”454
15.78 The NSW Law Reform Commission considered this point in its 2005 Report on
Young Offenders. The Commission noted that:
… the relationship between the Children’s Court, DoCS and

Juvenile Justice in care matters that come before the court
seems to be problematic. … it is not always clear who has, or
should have, responsibility for the young person before the
Court. Nor is it always clear what services and resources are
available and who has the authority to utilise these in a
particular matter. Benefits would flow to young people caught
up in the criminal justice system if the ambiguities in the
Court/departmental interrelationships were resolved and if there
were greater cooperation between these bodies in matters
before the Court. Such cooperation should extend to providing
the Court with the information it needs to make the most
appropriate orders in respect of the young offender.455
452
NSW Youth Action Plan, Progress Report as at 30 June 2007, p.16.
453
Submission: NSW Ombudsman, Young People at Risk, p.20, NSW Ombudsman noted that only 32 cases
of this kind were reported in 2005.
454
ibid.
455
NSW Law Reform Commission, Report 104, Young Offenders, 2005, at 8.141.
15.79 It recommended that:
A Protocol should establish which department or departments

has responsibility for a young person appearing before the
Children’s Court in a criminal matter who is in need of care and
protection and/or bail or crisis accommodation. The Protocol
should promote co-operation in such matters between the
Children’s Court, the Department of Juvenile Justice and the
Department of Community Services, in the child’s best
interests.456
15.80 The Law Reform Commission noted that the Children’s Court currently has the
power under s.7 of the Children (Protection and Parental Responsibility) Act
1997, when exercising criminal jurisdiction, to require the attendance at court of
the young offender’s parents.457 The Children’s Court submitted to the
Commission that this power should be extended to apply to the Director-
General of DoCS or his or her delegate. Currently, s.3 of the Children
(Protection and Parental Responsibility) Act 1997 specifically excludes the
Minister and the Director-General of DoCS from the definition of ‘parent’ under
the Act. The Commission’s view was as follows:
The Commission sees the merit and logic of the Court’s

submission. However, amendment of the definition of ‘parent’
in the Children (Protection and Parental Responsibility) Act
1997 (NSW) to include the Minister and the Director-General of
DoCS would have consequences in many different areas of
parental rights and responsibilities, extending far beyond
sentencing. Accordingly, it would not be appropriate for the
Commission to recommend this change in this review. This is
particularly so given that the submission was made late in the
review and we have not had the opportunity to consult widely
on it. We do, however, recommend that Parliament consider
the issue and the Children’s Court’s submission, at the least in
relation to DoCS’ attendance in court in criminal proceedings
where the young offender is subject to a care order.458
15.81 The Inquiry does not consider it appropriate for the Children’s Court to have an
own motion power of the kind suggested, as this would be inconsistent with its
role as a court of law charged with the determination of cases brought before it.
To confer upon the court an own motion or supervisory role would cross the
appropriate boundaries within which the two institutions, one judicial and the
other administrative, need to function.
456
ibid., at Recommendation 8.7.
457
ibid.
458
ibid., at 8.144.
15.82 However, the Inquiry does agree that, if requested by the Court, DoCS should
provide relevant information within its possession that might assist in the
sentencing young people before the Children’s Court in relation to a criminal
offence which, it might be expected, would identify any ongoing care and
protection issues that might need to be taken into account in the exercise of the
court’s sentencing discretion. It can exercise its s.248 power for that purpose.
Conclusion
15.83 It is recognised that there is a clear distinction between the child protection and
criminal justice systems which needs to be maintained. On the other hand,
coming within the juvenile justice or criminal justice system should not exclude a
young offender from long term services from DoCS and other human service
agencies. Nor should a shortage of refuges or other forms of accommodation
result in young people, who cannot live safely with their families, being
remanded in custody unnecessarily, pending trial.
15.84 There are important strategies and trials that are designed to prevent young
people from becoming engaged with the criminal justice system, including the
Redfern Waterloo Case Coordination Project, the New Street Adolescent
Service, the Anti-Social Behaviour Project, the Project Energy Scheme in the
Illawarra Local Area Command, and the Tirkandi Inaburra Project for Aboriginal
boys aged between 12 and 15 years, who have potential but are beginning to
get into trouble, some of which are discussed elsewhere in this Report.
15.85 These initiatives need to be encouraged. The long term consequences of

acquiring a record as a juvenile, or of being detained in a detention centre, in
terms of future employability and rehabilitation, are such that every possible
alternative should be made available. This has a particular significance for
those young people who, through no fault of their own, have suffered that
degree of abuse, neglect and poor parenting that might call for care and
protection intervention or that might otherwise heighten their risk of drifting into
criminal behaviour.
15.86 For those who do become the subject of interest by both DoCS and Juvenile
Justice, the case for extensive joint intervention including Health is compelling.
Adult justice system and child protection

Role of NSW Police Force
15.87 Police officers have a substantial role in the area of child protection, arising
under the Care Act and the general criminal law, including;
a. the investigation and prosecution of those offenders who are responsible
for the infliction of physical harm upon young people, or for their sexual
assault, or for their neglect, as well as those involved in child pornography

and child prostitution offences
b. attending domestic violence incidents and investigating drug offences or
responding to disturbances involving mentally ill persons, which may leave
them with reasonable grounds to suspect that young people who are
associated with those involved in such events are at risk of harm from
abuse or neglect and with a resulting obligation to notify DoCS
c. delivering or coordinating crime prevention and diversionary/support
programs that are aimed at identifying and diverting young people from
offending or becoming the victims of crime
d. arranging activities for young people through the Police and Community
Youth Club network and similar services
e. assisting DoCS staff in the removal of young people who are suspected of
being at risk, and in cases of emergency acting on their own volition to
remove such persons, pending DoCS engagement in the case,459 and to
refer them to emergency, interim placements
f. seeking AVOs in the name of the child or young person where that is
considered necessary for their protection, and enforcing them when
breaches come to notice
g. reporting to DoCS where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a
child or young person is at risk of harm,460 or is homeless,461 or where there
are concerns for the possibility of future harm to an unborn child462
h. assisting with the provision of the information required for working with
children checks
i. locating missing young people, including those who have run away from a
placement, and responding to abandoned or unsupervised children, as well
as those who are left unattended in motor vehicles
j. presenting children believed on reasonable grounds to be in need of care
and attention, to a medical practitioner463
k. investigating persons suspected of posing a risk to young people, operating
the scheme for the registration of certain offenders who pose risks of that
kind, and seeking Offender Prohibition Orders concerning persons within
this group
l. reporting to the Coroner in relation to child deaths where the death has
occurred under any of several defined circumstances, and to carry out
investigations into any such death where directed by the Coroner, or upon
its own motion
459
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 ss.43.
460
461
462
463
m. participating in the work of the Child Death Review Team, including the
provision of records required to inform research undertaken by that team.
Child Protection and Sex Crimes Squad
15.88 This is a statewide Specialist Child Protection Squad that includes the Sex
Crimes Team and the JIRTs. It is structured to carry out investigations into
serious or serial child and adult sex crimes, as well as serious child physical
assault cases, child pornography and grooming offences, female genital
mutilation and protracted or complex child prostitution cases and to provide
support for Local Area Command investigations. It administers the Child
Protection Register, and maintains a proactive intelligence and surveillance
capacity to support squad and Local Area Command investigations. Its Child
Exploitation Unit investigates child sex offender activities on the internet and
related computer and telecommunications devices and it is the liaison point for
national and international investigations into this area of activity. It also
provides forensic examinations of computers and hard drives suspected of
being used for the manufacture or distribution of child pornography.
Joint Investigation Response Teams
15.89 JIRTs comprise representatives from Police, DoCS and Health, that investigate
cases involving the sexual assault and serious physical abuse and neglect of
children and young persons upon referral from DoCS. Their principal concern is
with victims aged under 16 years. Their role has been examined in Chapter 8.
Specialist support positions

15.90 The response of these units in relation to child protection issues is supported by
the presence of a number of specialist positions.
a. Domestic Violence Liaison Officers are stationed within Local Area
Commands, with a responsibility to support and monitor the policing
response to family and domestic violence, ensure protection orders are
sought for victims including young people, monitor family and domestic
violence-related ‘child at risk’ reports made to the DoCS, and support JIRT
police officers in applications for AVOs through the courts.
b. The Inquiry was advised that a Domestic and Family Violence Team is to
be established under the authority of the Deputy Commissioner, Field
Operations, to provide a corporate monitoring role of domestic violence
incidents, and their management by Police.
c. Youth Liaison Officers work with young people, their families and
community members to reduce and prevent crime, to enhance positive
relationships between young people and Police, and to promote a safer
shared public environment.
d. Police and Community Youth Club Youth Program Officers are based in 59
Police and Community Youth Clubs across the State, and their task is to
deliver programs and interventions for young offenders, young people at

risk of offending, and youth crime hotspots, that are aimed at addressing
risk factors, and building protective factors and resilience in those within
this group.
e. School Liaison Police Officers implement educational programs and crime
prevention workshops at high schools, that are aimed at addressing youth
crime, supporting victims of crime, and developing mentoring schemes.
f. Aboriginal Community Liaison Officers assist operational police officers to
develop, implement and monitor programs that are designed to establish
positive relationships between Aboriginal communities and Police.
g. Ethnic Community Liaison Officers are unsworn officers who assist
operational police officers in building closer relationships with local
communities from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds.
h. Child Protection Regional Liaison Officers have a coordination role and a
potential for direct involvement in the Child Protection Watch Team
strategy.
15.91 Police in its submission to the Inquiry has argued for retention of the tiered
approach mentioned above. The Inquiry does not see any reason to depart
from that structure, or to question the establishment of the specialist positions
mentioned, each of which has the potential to add value to the contribution
provided by Police in protecting children and young people.
Additional protective powers

15.92 In addition to their capacity to charge those who commit offences under the
general criminal law against young people, the Police have power to apply for
Apprehended Domestic or Personal Violence Orders on their behalf under the
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007; and for Child Protection
Prohibition Orders that prohibit persons who are registered under the Child
Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000, and who pose a risk to the lives or
sexual safety of children, from engaging in specified conduct, under the Child
Protection (Offenders Prohibition Orders) Act 2004.
15.93 Specific protection is also provided for young people following the successful
prosecution by Police of those who are involved in certain sexual and violence
offences, as a result of the registration regime established under the Child
Protection (Offenders Registration) Act 2000, which requires such offenders to
provide Police with personal information, including the details of any children
and young persons with whom they reside or have regular unsupervised
contact. Compliance with these requirements is now enhanced by the
establishment of the Child Protection Watch Team Project which has multi-
agency involvement and has been the subject of a positive evaluation.
15.94 Consequences arise in relation to the capacity of those offenders thereafter to

work with children and young persons, by reason of the provisions of the CCYP
Act.464 Additional protection is provided by the power of the Supreme Court, on

the application of the State, to order the extended supervision or continuing
detention of certain classes of sex offenders.465
15.95 Apart from the general criminal law, the Care Act creates the following several
specific offences which are designed to protect young people:
a. A person intentionally takes action that has resulted in or appears likely to
result in the physical injury or sexual abuse of a child, or young person, or
in the child or young person suffering emotional or psychological harm such
that their emotional or intellectual development is or is likely to be
significantly damaged, or in their physical development or health being
significantly harmed.466
b. A person without reasonable excuse, neglects to provide adequate and
proper food, nursing, clothing, medical aid or lodging for a child or young
person in his or her care.467
c. A person without lawful excuse removes or causes or procures a child or
young person to be removed from the care of the person into whose care
and protection or care responsibility they have been placed.468
d. A person tattoos any part of the body or a child or young person without the
written consent of a parent of that child.469 The definition of tattooing has
now been extended to include other procedures including body piercing.
e. A person leaves a child or young person in the person’s care in a motor
vehicle without proper supervision for such period or in such circumstances
that they are likely to become emotionally distressed and their health
becomes or is likely to become permanently or temporarily impaired.470
15.96 For each of these offences under the Care Act the maximum penalty is 200
penalty units ($22,000). The need for these offences under the Care Act is
obvious. The issue which arises, however, is whether they should be
punishable by imprisonment as an addition to, or as an alternative to, a court
imposed penalty. The Inquiry notes that in a response to the DoCS Discussion
Paper, the Police Ministry proposed an amendment of these provisions so as to
allow a term of imprisonment to be imposed for up to six months. The Inquiry
does not agree, at least in relation to the prosecution of parents, since
imprisonment is only likely to exacerbate any underlying risk issues.
464
Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998 Part 7.
465
Crimes (Serious Sex Offenders) Act 2006 Parts 2 and 3.
466
Child and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 s.227.
467
468
469
470
Diversion and crime reduction strategies
Pre-trial diversion of adults charged with child sexual assault
15.97 A critical aspect of law enforcement in relation to the protection of young people
from sexual and physical abuse is the provision of diversionary programs which
can address the offending behaviour of adults and reduce the risk of its
repetition. There are some useful initiatives in this respect, which the Inquiry
considers should be encouraged and made more widely available.
15.98 Among their duties Police have a responsibility to provide information to

arrested adults concerning the Pre-Trial Diversion of Offenders (Child Sexual
Assault) Program, the Cedar Cottage Program, established under the Pre-Trial
Diversion of Offenders Act 1985.
15.99 The Cedar Cottage Pre-Trial Diversion of Offenders (Child Sexual Assault)
Program provides therapy for sexual offenders who plead guilty to abusing a
child in their care. Offenders are referred to the program by Police or the courts
and receive an eight week intensive assessment to decide if they will be
accepted. Participants then attend group and individual therapy sessions for a
minimum of two and a maximum of three years. Victims and families are also
provided with individual and group therapy sessions.471
15.100 An evaluation of the program found a sharp drop in estimated lifetime re-
offending rates from 13.2 per cent to 7.5 per cent for sexual offences. Non-
sexual offending also declined in the treatment group, although not to the same
extent.472 Those who did not enter the program had an associated lifetime re-
offending rate for sexual offences of about 12 per cent, those who participated
in the program – even if they did not complete – had an estimated re-offending
rate of less than five per cent.473 The authors conclude that:
the remarkably successful outcomes of this diversion program

must be viewed in the context of other comparatively costly
prison-based and community based offender treatment
programs, most of which are unable to demonstrate any effects
of treatment.474
15.101 The Inquiry understands that Health, which administers the program intends to
give consideration to possible legislative change to broaden the criteria for
access, and to the conduct of further research. In the meantime the Inquiry is of
the view that the program should be maintained and that additional efforts
471
J Goodman-Delahunty and J Pratley, The NSW Pre-Trial Diversion of Offenders (Child Sexual Assault)
Program: An Evaluation of Treatment Outcomes, July 2008, p.ii.
472
ibid.
473
ibid., p.iv.
474
ibid., p.v.
should be made by Police, the DPP and the defence Bar to make its availability
known and understood by potential participants.
15.102 The Inquiry does, however, note that Health has concerns about DoCS ceasing
its involvement with a family once an offender has been referred to Cedar
Cottage, and that it also has similar concerns about DoCS limiting its
involvement in the case of young persons referred to the New Street
Program.475 The Inquiry understands Health’s concern, but is also mindful of
the prioritisation process which DoCS inevitably must follow.
Other Diversionary Programs Concerning Adults
15.103 There are some additional diversionary programs targeted at adults which have
relevance for the safety of young people. Where successful they can reduce or
eliminate the circumstances within the home that contributed to abuse and
neglect in their several forms. Although any detailed consideration of these
programs is beyond the scope of this report, the presence and potential value of
the following programs in NSW is briefly noted:
a. The Magistrate’s Early Referral into Treatment Program, a Local Court pre-
plea diversion program that targets adult defendants with illicit drug abuse
problems.476
b. The Rural Alcohol Diversion Pilot Program directed at adult defendants with
alcohol abuse or dependence problems who are offered the opportunity of
rehabilitation as part of the bail process.
c. The participation of offenders in the Circle Sentencing process and in the
Adult Drug Court, that also opens up the possibility of diversion and access
to rehabilitation programs or services which may reduce the safety risk of
children and young persons living in the same household as the offender.
This has a particular significance for those cases where substance abuse
has been a major factor in the notification of children at risk to DoCS, since
its presence can operate as a significant impediment to restoration.
Department of Corrective Services

15.104 The Interagency Guidelines define the child protection role of the Department of
Corrective Services (Corrective Services) as the management of offenders in
custody (including young offenders held in Kariong Juvenile Correctional
Centre) and in the community. The Interagency Guidelines state that one role
of Corrective Services is to work with child related offenders to reduce their risk
of re-offending, and supervise offenders released into the community on
probation or parole. This involves case management of the offender,
475
This program is discussed in Chapter 7.
476
NSW Health: The Magistrate Early Referral and Treatment (MERIT) Program, Health Outcomes,
November 2007.
incorporating strategies to minimise risk of harm to the community, including

young people with whom the offender may have contact.
15.105 The Interagency Guidelines also state that Corrective Services has a
responsibility to maintain a victims’ register responding to requests from
registered victims for information concerning an offender’s release from
custody, escape or participation in external leave programs from a correctional
centre.477 Corrective Services reported that in the 11 years from the
establishment of the register to 2007, it had provided a service to 2,200 victims
of crime.478
15.106 Corrective Services stated that it established the Child Protection Coordination
and Support Unit to ensure these child protection responsibilities were met.
15.107 Corrective Services provides or resources a number of programs, projects and

interventions to reduce the risk of reoffending and contribute to a safer
community.
15.108 Programs for offenders in custody include:

a. drug and alcohol treatment programs
b. programs for violent offenders and sex offenders (including a program for
female sex offenders)
c. mental health programs
d. restorative justice conferencing
e. facilitation of visits with family and friends to enhance reintegration after
release from custody.479
15.109 Programs and services for offenders being managed in the community include:
a. Sex offender risk assessments (140 risk assessments and eight
assessments under the Crimes (Serious Sex Offender) Act 2006 conducted
in 2006/07).480
b. Aboriginal specific programs in the community. Corrective Services
received $3.8 million from July 2004 to June 2008 under the Two Ways
Together Aboriginal Affairs Policy 2003-2012. This funding has been
allocated across the following three project locations:
i. Lismore and Tabulam – Rekindling the Spirit. Corrective Services
reported that:
Developed in 1998, Rekindling the Spirit targets

Aboriginal males and Aboriginal females and their
477
NSW Interagency Guidelines for Child Protection Intervention, 2006, Appendix 2, p.4-5.
478
Department of Corrective Services, Annual Report 2006/07, p.22.
479
ibid., p.34.
480
ibid., p.39.
families to address the underlying causes of

offending behaviour thereby reducing family violence
and re-offending. ... In 2006/07, 53 male and 14
female Community Offender Services clients started
the program and the Department forged community
partnerships to extend the program to Tabulam.481
ii. Dubbo–Yindyama La (Family Violence Project) to develop an inter-
agency approach to male perpetrators of violence. Corrective Services
reported that in 2006/07, 30 supervised Aboriginal male offenders were
referred to the program.482
iii. Newtown/Redfern - Walking Together Project. Corrective Services
reported that this program addressed problems of loss and lack of
cultural identity for urban Aboriginal offenders, and that the program
had been revised to more specifically target family violence. It was
reported that in 2006/07 Corrective Services developed a parallel
program for Aboriginal female offenders to address family violence,
emphasising the need to protect children and speaking out against
violence towards women and children in the family and in the
community, and that during that year, 56 men and 28 women were
referred to the programs.483
c. Sex offender program maintenance for offenders being released.
Corrective Services reported that in 2006/07, 20 additional sex offenders
commenced a community based relapse prevention program. It was
reported that 14 completed the program, and three were returned to
custody and therefore did not complete the program. It was also reported
that 47 sex offenders located too remotely to access metropolitan based
programs were seen individually.484
d. The establishment of community based programs for offenders with dual
diagnosis (both mental health and drug and alcohol disorders) in
2006/07.485
e. The Community Compliance Group which targets high risk offenders,
primarily sex offenders, and work closely with the families of offenders, is
an initiative of Corrective Services.
15.110 Corrective Services programs have targeted strategies for Aboriginal people,
such as an Aboriginal mentoring program in some facilities. The Aboriginal
Support and Planning Unit, established in 1993 after the Royal Commission into
Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, was involved in the development of specific
policies, resources and programs for Aboriginal inmates, such as the Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Inmate Handbook.
481
ibid., p.42.
482
ibid., p.42.
483
ibid., p.43.
484
ibid., p.44.
485
ibid., p.45.
15.111 Corrective Services administers a Community Funding Program, which

allocated a total of $2,828,171 to 10 organisations in 2006/07.486 Link-Up
(NSW) Aboriginal Cooperative received $74,480 for services to help Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Offenders establish and strengthen their family links.
SHINE for Kids received $572,865 from Corrective Services for services to
support children of offenders.487 This represented 45 per cent of the total
SHINE for Kids income for that financial year.488
Recommendations
15.112 The Inquiry has noted the sentencing options and the range of diversionary or
rehabilitation programs in place or subject to trials, which seek to advance the
objective of keeping young people out of the criminal justice system and of
advancing their rehabilitation once they have offended, and of reducing the
extent to which adult offenders pose a continuing threat to the safety of children
and young persons. The overall structure appears to the Inquiry to be
comprehensive and adequate, and it does not see it as necessary to do more
than express its general support for the current system.
Recommendation 15.1
An after hours bail placement service should be established by the

Department of Juvenile Justice similar to the Victorian Central After
Hours and Bail Placement Service, that is available to young people
aged between 10 and 18 years, who are at risk of being remanded in
custody, or who require bail accommodation; or similar to the
Queensland Conditional Bail and Youth Program Accommodation
Support Service.
486
ibid., p.133.
487
ibid., pp.45 and 133.
488
SHINE for Kids, Annual Report 2006/07, p.15.
Part 4 Out-of-home care

586
16 Out-of-home care
Overview ......................................................................................................................589
Key provisions/concepts........................................................................................591
Entry into care............................................................................................... 591
Parental responsibility................................................................................... 591
Supervisory responsibility ............................................................................. 592
Care responsibility ........................................................................................ 593
Permanency planning ................................................................................... 593
Review .......................................................................................................... 594
Types of care arrangements......................................................................... 594
Adoption........................................................................................................ 595
Financial support........................................................................................... 596
Data relating to OOHC ................................................................................................597
Children and young persons in OOHC..................................................................597
Number of children and young persons in OOHC ........................................ 597
Rate of children and young persons in OOHC ............................................. 598
Children and young persons entering OOHC........................................................600
Age at entering OOHC.................................................................................. 600
Time between first report and first entry to OOHC ....................................... 601
Re-entry to OOHC ........................................................................................ 602
Time spent in OOHC..................................................................................... 602
Summary....................................................................................................... 603
Care arrangement .................................................................................................603
Service provider.....................................................................................................605
Placement type ......................................................................................................605
High Needs Kids ....................................................................................................607
Number of OOHC placements...............................................................................607
Allocation of OOHC cases.....................................................................................610
Leaving care ..........................................................................................................611
Cost of care ...........................................................................................................612
Data summary .......................................................................................................612
Research ......................................................................................................................613
Permanency planning............................................................................................614
Health ....................................................................................................................617
Mental health ................................................................................................ 618
Education...............................................................................................................620
High needs children and young persons ...............................................................621
Residential care ............................................................................................ 623
Therapeutic foster care ................................................................................. 624
Multi-systemic therapy .................................................................................. 624
Service coordination ..................................................................................... 625
Foster care.............................................................................................................626
Kinship care ...........................................................................................................630
Accreditation and monitoring of the OOHC service system ..................................633
OOHC casework by DoCS ..........................................................................................636
588 Out-of-home care
Types of placement and support options for children and young persons in
OOHC ........................................................................................................................... 639
Aboriginal children and young persons in OOHC ................................................. 642
Djarragun Foster Care Program ........................................................................... 644
Recruitment, training, support and retention of carers .......................................... 645
Case Management ...................................................................................................... 650
Children’s Guardian audit...................................................................................... 650
Who should be responsible for children in OOHC?................................................ 653
Introduction ........................................................................................................... 653
Options .................................................................................................................. 653
Arguments in favour of transferring all or much of OOHC responsibility to the
non-government sector ......................................................................................... 656
Arguments against transferring all of OOHC responsibility to the non-
government sector ................................................................................................ 657
Other factors ......................................................................................................... 657
Position of the oversight bodies ............................................................................ 658
Inquiry’s view......................................................................................................... 659
Health screening and assessment............................................................................ 660
DoCS, Health and the Colleges ............................................................................ 660
Services................................................................................................................. 664
Issues Arising........................................................................................................ 666
Education..................................................................................................................... 670
Unproclaimed provisions in the Care Act ................................................................ 672
Voluntary Out-Of-Home Care................................................................................ 672
Dispute resolution function.................................................................................... 673
Case plan/review function ..................................................................................... 673
Delegating to non-government agencies .............................................................. 674
Residual powers of guardianship.......................................................................... 675
A ‘safety net’.......................................................................................................... 676
Other proclaimed functions of the Children’s Guardian ........................................ 679
The Register.......................................................................................................... 680
Adoption ...................................................................................................................... 681
Inter-country adoption ........................................................................................... 683
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 684
Principles............................................................................................................... 684
Goals ..................................................................................................................... 684
Future Demand ..................................................................................................... 686
Overview
16.1 Removing children and young persons from their family can only occur where it
is necessary to protect them from the risk of serious harm. The safety, welfare
and well-being of the child or young person removed is paramount over the
rights of the parents.
16.2 While these principles governing the removal of children and young persons are
apparently straightforward, their application is not. There is little reliable
research that tracks children and young persons through OOHC. Performance
assessment of the OOHC system is presently based on process rather than on
measured outcomes. As a result little is known of the long term outcomes for
children and young persons in OOHC and there is relatively little to guide one
when reviewing practices in NSW.
16.3 It is however noted that progress is being made. DoCS is implementing, in

conjunction with non-government organisations, an OOHC minimum data set
which will collect information on such things as school attendance, suspensions
from school and medical assessments.
16.4 A longitudinal study commissioned by DoCS of children and young persons in

OOHC is in progress to enable a better understanding of their backgrounds and
characteristics, and of how these factors influence outcomes.
16.5 Additionally, in November 2007, DoCS engaged Ernst & Young to undertake an
evaluation of the OOHC program.
16.6 The NSW OOHC service system is complex and involves a range of
stakeholders including children and young persons, their families/carers and
government and non-government agencies. Designated agencies, including
DoCS, provide placement, supervision and support services and are
responsible for the authorisation of carers who have responsibility for the daily
care and control of the child or young person whilst in OOHC.
16.7 The Care Act, the Regulations and the Adoption Act 2000 set the legislative
framework for the provision of OOHC placement and support services in NSW.
16.8 A number of provisions of the Care Act have not been proclaimed and as a
result, the foster provisions of the 1987 Act have not been repealed. While
there are some exceptions, this means that care orders by the Children’s Court
are regulated by the Care Act and other arrangements are regulated by the
1987 Act. This is discussed later in this chapter.
16.9 Section 135 of the Care Act defines OOHC as residential care and control of a
child or young person at a place other than their usual home, for a period in
excess of 14 days, by a person other than a parent or relative489 where the care
489
Except where the Minister has parental responsibility or the Director-General has care responsibility.
and control is provided under an order of the Children’s Court or where the child
or young person is a protected person as defined by that section.
16.10 Clause 17 of the Regulations and s.135(2) of the Care Act exclude certain
arrangements from the definition of OOHC. Otherwise cases answering the
description in the preceding paragraph constitute statutory care.
16.11 DoCS provides support to children and young persons placed with
relative/kinship carers, or in voluntary care, where there has not been statutory
intervention or a related court order. The purpose of its extended ‘definition’ is
to prevent the unnecessary entry of children into statutory OOHC. Section
161(2) of the Care Act provides a broader definition of OOHC for the purpose of
allowances than does s.135.
16.12 DoCS both funds and provides OOHC services to children and young persons.
The OOHC service system is mixed, with DoCS as the largest service provider
delivering services to around 85 per cent of all children and young persons in
OOHC, with the remaining 15 per cent comprising those in non-government
general foster care, that is care by persons other than relatives or kin, or in
residential care. They include the children and young persons with high and
complex needs who are catered for in more intensive non-government
organisation placements.
16.13 All OOHC systems nationally, including NSW, have experienced a substantial
increase in the number of children and young persons entering care in recent
years. Not only has the need for these services increased, but many of those
entering OOHC are presenting with increasingly complex needs and
challenging behaviours.490 The task of meeting this demand is placing the NSW
OOHC system under considerable pressure. All Australian jurisdictions are
confronting similar challenges.
16.14 In December 2002, approximately $617 million was allocated in additional

funding to increase the number, type and quality of OOHC services for children
and young persons as part of the DoCS Reform Package. Approximately 75
per cent of this funding was to be provided in the last three years of the Reform
Package. A significant proportion is still subject to the finalisation of the 2007
expression of interest process for new OOHC services. This means that many
of the new services identified to meet the demand for placements and supports
have yet to commence. DoCS anticipates that these new services will be in
2008/09. It is unclear from the information provided by DoCS how many new
places will result from this funding and whether this will be adequate to meet the
anticipated demand.
490
C Smyth and T Eardley, “Out of home care for children in Australia: A review of literature and policy. Final
Report,” Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, February 2008, p.3.
Key provisions/concepts
16.15 OOHC is generally regulated by Chapter 8 of the Care Act. Section 134(1)(c) of
the Care Act provides that one of the objectives is to clarify the roles and
responsibilities of those involved in the provision of OOHC by distinguishing
between:
a. care responsibility – the daily care and control of a child or young person
b. supervisory responsibility – the supervision of those who have care
responsibility, and
c. parental responsibility – all the duties, powers, responsibilities and authority
which by law, parents have in relation to their children.
16.16 These categories are not necessarily exclusive of each other. As outlined
below, care decisions may be made by more than one body, such as a person
with parental responsibility, the designated agency and the authorised carer.
Entry into care
16.17 The entry of a child or young person into the OOHC system can occur through
multiple pathways:
a. a request from a parent to a designated agency, DoCS or DADHC for a
voluntary care placement
b. DoCS initiated non-statutory(supported) care (mostly relative/kinship care)
c. DoCS initiated statutory care through an order of the Children’s Court that
the child or young person is in need of care and protection
d. answering the description of a protected person, as defined by s.135(4) of
the Care Act.
Parental responsibility
16.18 Under s.79(1)(b) of the Care Act, if the Children's Court finds that a child or
young person is in need of care and protection it may make an order placing the
child or young person under the parental responsibility of the Minister. Where
such an order is made the Court must determine which aspects of parental
responsibility (if any) are to be the responsibility of others or are to be exercised
jointly with the Minister pursuant to s.81 of the Care Act.
16.19 The Court may make an order under s.79(1)(a) allocating parental
responsibility, or specific aspects of parental responsibility, to either:
a. one parent to the exclusion of the other parent (in which case the child or
young person is not in OOHC)
b. one or both parents and the Minister or others jointly
c. another suitable person (for example the Court has to date placed some
Aboriginal children under the parental responsibility of the principal officers
of specialist Aboriginal designated agencies).
16.20 A parent may retain specific aspects of parental responsibility (for example
contact and religious upbringing), while parental responsibility in relation to
residence may be allocated to another person. In cases where the parent does
not have (at least) parental responsibility for residence, the child or young
person will be in OOHC, unless one of the specific exemptions in s.135(2) of the
Care Act or clause 17 of the Regulations applies.
16.21 The parental responsibility of the Minister is delegated to the Director-General,

with the exception of certain residual powers of guardianship. Aspects of
parental responsibility, other than those residual powers may be delegated to
the principal officer of a designated agency and then sub-delegated to other
authorised carers.491 The delegate may also, in some situations, arrange for
others to perform care tasks while still retaining care responsibility.
16.22 Section 164 of the Care Act provides that the Minister is responsible for the
provision of accommodation for any child or young person for whom the
Minister has sole parental responsibility or parental responsibility in relation to
residence.
Supervisory responsibility
16.23 Section 138 of the Care Act provides that arrangements for the provision of
OOHC may only be made by a designated agency or by the Children's
Guardian. Section 140 of the Care Act provides that a designated agency is
responsible for supervising the placement of a child or young person that the
agency has placed in the OOHC of an authorised carer. That responsibility
extends, inter alia, to giving directions to authorised carers.
16.24 Section 141 of the Care Act requires DoCS to supervise the placement of a
child or young person in OOHC if another designated agency ceases to be able
to fulfil its responsibilities in relation to the child or young person.
16.25 Section 139 of the Care Act defines a designated agency as a department of
the Public Service, or an organisation that arranges the provision of OOHC, if
the department or organisation is accredited for the time being in accordance
with the regulations.
16.26 Clause 36 of the Regulation provides for accreditation by the Children's

Guardian of a department or organisation as a designated agency if the agency
satisfies accreditation criteria.
491
Care responsibility
16.27 All foster carers and relative/kinship carers (where the Minister has parental
responsibility or the child or young person is in the care of the Director-General
by order of the Children's Court) must be authorised.
16.28 Sub-sections 157(1)(a)-(d) of the Care Act provide that an authorised carer of a
child or young person has authority to consent to certain medical or dental
treatments or other activities involving a person in care, while sub-section
157(1)(e) gives the authorised carer general authority “to make other decisions
that are required in the day to day care and control of the child or young
person."
16.29 Section 157(3) provides that the exercise by authorised carers of these
functions is subject to any written direction given by the designated agency that
placed the child or young person in the daily care and control of the authorised
carer, or given by the Children's Guardian.
16.30 This means that the designated agency with supervisory responsibility can
determine the extent to which authorised carers exercise daily care and control
of children and young persons in their care. This enables the designated
agency to have daily care and control in respect of specified matters, with daily
care and control in respect of other matters being left to the authorised carer.492
Permanency planning
16.31 A key principle of the Care Act requires that safe and stable permanent
placements be secured for children and young persons in OOHC as early as
possible493. Section 78A specifies the need for permanency planning for those
who enter OOHC and requires the making and execution of a plan that aims to
provide a child or young person with a stable placement that offers long term
security.
16.32 Where an application is made by the Director-General to the Children’s Court

for a care order, s.83 of the Care Act requires the Director-General to assess
whether there is a realistic possibility of the child or young person being
restored to his or her parents. Section 84 specifies the matters to be dealt with
in a permanency plan that involves restoration.
16.33 If a child or young person cannot be reunited with his or her family, decisions
about long term placement, including adoption, must happen as early as
possible.494 If the child or young person cannot be returned to his or her family
492
Children’s Guardian, Proposed regulatory amendments for the assessment and authorisation of carers and
principal officers of designated agencies, October 2007, pp.9-10.
493
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 s.9(f).
494
DoCS, Child protection and out-of-home care caseworker policy manual, p.93.
a permanency plan that identifies other suitable options of caring for the child or
young person must be developed.495
Review
16.34 Section 150 of the Care Act requires placements of children and young persons
in OOHC pursuant to an order of the Children’s Court to be reviewed by the
designated agency supervising the placement, for the purpose of determining
whether the safety, welfare and well-being of the child or young person is being
promoted by the placement. The review is to be undertaken within the
timeframes respectively specified by s.150(2) (a) and (b) of the Care Act and/or
when there are changes in the circumstances of the placement.496
Types of care arrangements
16.35 Short to medium term OOHC placements are usually required when a child or
young person requires a placement because of a temporary care agreement or
pending the outcome of action in the Children’s Court. At the time that the
placement is arranged the outcome for the child or young person may not be
clear.
16.36 Long term foster or relative/kinship care, permanent care, or adoption are
considered for children or young persons who are placed in care under an order
of the Children’s Court for a period longer than 12 months, where restoration is
unlikely.
16.37 Children and young persons who enter OOHC may be in voluntary care,
temporary care, or supported care placements, in addition to statutory care
placements as defined earlier.
16.38 Voluntary care refers to care arrangements when an agency responds to a

family’s request for assistance by providing a placement away from the usual
home of the child or young person. In this instance, there is no Children’s Court
order to reassign parental responsibility, so the parent keeps the decision
making role. The statutory provisions in relation to voluntary care including the
unproclaimed provision of the Care Act are dealt with at the end of this chapter.
16.39 DoCS does not arrange these placements and it only becomes involved if there
are grounds for making a report that the child in voluntary care is at risk of
harm. Currently DoCS stipulates that agencies should supply no more than two
per cent of their DoCS funded placements as voluntary care on a care day’s
basis.
16.40 Temporary care is a voluntary form of OOHC specified under s.151 of the Care
Act and is usually provided by a relative, kinship or foster carer. DoCS can
495
DoCS, Permanency Planning Policy, Executive Summary, p.1.
496
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 s.150 (2) (c) and (d).
organise temporary care where a child or young person is assessed as in need

of care and protection. This occurs when particular circumstances of the
placement are part of an approved case plan to support the family to resolve
issues of a child’s or young person’s safety, welfare or well-being. Temporary
care of a child or young person may only be arranged either:
a. with the consent of a parent, or
b. without parental consent if the parents of a child or young person cannot be
reasonably located.
16.41 These arrangements are for a period of up to three months after which DoCS
can renew the arrangement for a further three months if the child or young
person is still in need of care and protection. These arrangements cannot be
made or renewed if the child or young person has, during the previous 12
months, been in temporary care for a period exceeding six months.497 A case
plan is to be developed as part of these arrangements and should address the
restoration of the child or young person upon leaving this form of care. DoCS is
required to keep parents or usual carers informed about the whereabouts of a
child or young person placed into temporary care.498
16.42 Supported care is a voluntary arrangement whereby a child or young person

lives with either:
a. a relative or kinship carer, if the carer has parental responsibility via a
Children’s Court or Family Court order and they receive the Supported
Care Allowance
b. a relative or kinship carer, after a child protection intervention but where
there is no court order and the carer receives the Supported Care
Allowance
c. a non-relative who has parental responsibility via a Family Court order and
the carer receives the Supported Care Allowance.
16.43 Statutory care as defined earlier can include relative or kinship care where the
Minister has parental responsibility for the child or young person as a result of
an order of the Children’s Court.
Adoption
16.44 Adoption can become part of the case plan for a child or young person at any
time after the decision not to pursue restoration has been made. Casework in
relation to adoption involves working with the authorised carers, the child or
young person and the birth parents. Adoption orders are granted by the NSW
Supreme Court. The important issues for the Supreme Court include whether
an adoption order is in the best interests of the child or young person, what
attachments have been formed between the child or young person and the
497
498
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 s.154(2)(c), and see also s.51.
proposed adoptive parents and the views of the birth parents of the child or
young person regarding consent to the adoption.
16.45 Other types of adoptions, including local, special needs and inter-country
adoptions are discussed later in this chapter.
Financial support
16.46 To support these placements, DoCS provides financial support for children and
young persons who are unable to live with their parents, by way of allowances
and extra financial support payments; that is payments for special expenses not
included in the standard allowances.
16.47 Section 161 of the Care Act provides the legislative basis for these payments.
16.48 The type of allowance available for the care of a child or young person depends
on the care arrangement and placement category:
a. A statutory care allowance is provided for the care of children and young
persons who are in the parental responsibility or care of the Minister or
Director-General and are placed with an authorised carer. This allowance
may also be payable where the Minister has shared parental responsibility
with another person but the Minister has parental responsibility for
residency of the child or young person. This allowance may also be
payable where a Children’s Court Order has allocated parental
responsibility to an agency or a non-relative carer, where such person has
been authorised.
b. A supported care allowance is provided for the care of children and young
persons in the care of relative or kinship carers, where the Minister or
Director-General has no aspect of parental responsibility, or where shared
parental responsibility is between a relative and the Minister, but where the
Minister does not have parental responsibility for the residency of the child
or young person. This allowance may be payable in relation to placements
subject to a Children’s Court Order, a Family Court Order or where there is
no court order.
16.49 There is an assessment process to determine the level of allowance paid to a

carer, according to the level of care required, which in turn depends on whether
the child or young person has high or complex needs.
Data relating to OOHC

Children and young persons in OOHC
Number of children and young persons in OOHC
16.50 There were 14,667 children and young persons in OOHC in NSW as at 30 June
2008, compared with 9,273 at 30 June 2002. Since 30 June 2002, the number
of children and young persons in OOHC in NSW has increased by 58.2 per
cent. Since 2002, the most significant annual increase in the OOHC population
in NSW was 19.7 per cent from 30 June 2006 to 30 June 2007.
16.51 While the total number of children and young persons in OOHC at 30 June
2008 was available and known at the time of compiling the data in this chapter,
detailed data on children and young persons in OOHC throughout 2007/08 had
not been finalised. Therefore the detailed data provided in this chapter are
based on children and young persons in OOHC as at 31 March 2008 rather
than 30 June 2008. Similarly, any 2007/08 OOHC data relate to the period 1
April 2007 to 31 March 2008 rather than 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008.
16.52 The number of Aboriginal children and young persons in OOHC in NSW
increased by 90.1 per cent between 30 June 2002 and 31 March 2008. The
number of Aboriginal children and young persons in OOHC as a proportion of
the OOHC population has also risen from 25.3 per cent as at 30 June 2002 to
31.3 per cent as at 31 March 2008.
Table 16.1 Children and young persons in OOHC as at 30 June, 2002 to 2007 and
31 March 2008
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Aboriginal children and 2,345 2,706 2,703 2,686 3,033 3,865 4,458
young persons in
OOHC
Aboriginal children and 25.3% 26.9% 26.1% 26.8% 28.6% 30.4% 31.3%
young persons in
OOHC as a percentage
of the OOHC
population
Non-Aboriginal children 6,576 7,031 7,281 7,271 7,562 8,822 9,761
and young persons in
OOHC
Not entered 352 322 353 84 28 25 25
Total number of 9,273 10,059 10,337 10,041 10,623 12,712 14,244
children and young
persons in OOHC
Percentage change - 8.5% 2.8% -2.9% 5.8% 19.7% 12.1%

from previous year
16.53 The number of children and young persons in OOHC in each age group as a
proportion of all children and young persons in OOHC remained relatively
steady from 30 June 2002 to 31 March 2008. There has been a slight increase
in children aged less than one year in OOHC as a proportion of all children and
young persons in OOHC, rising from 2.6 per cent as at 30 June 2002 to 3.1 per
cent as at 31 March 2008.
16.54 While the total number of children and young persons in OOHC increased by
12.1 per cent from 30 June 2007 to 31 March 2008, the number of children in
OOHC aged less than one year increased by 23.6 per cent. There was a 15.5
per cent increase over the same period for children aged 1-2 years and 21.3 per
cent in young persons aged 16-17 years.
16.55 As at 31 March 2008, 43.4 per cent (6,182) of children in OOHC were aged 5-
11 years and 25.7 per cent (3,657) were aged 12-15 years.
16.56 The pattern of children and young persons in care by age does not appear to
differ greatly by reference to Aboriginality, as shown in Figure 16.1. The
numbers for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children and young persons
tend to increase with age until around seven years and then flatten out until
around 15 years when a sharp decrease occurs.499
Figure 16.1 Number of children and young persons in OOHC by age and
Aboriginality as at 30 June 2007500
800
Aboriginal Other
700
600
No. of children
500
400
300
200
100
0
<1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Age of child at 30 June
Note: ‘non-Aboriginal’ includes ‘not stated’
Rate of children and young persons in OOHC
16.57 The rate of children and young persons in OOHC per 1,000 of the NSW 0-17
years population increased from 5.9 per 1,000 as at 30 June 2002 to 9.1 per
1,000 as at 30 June 2008. During this period the most significant increase was
499
DoCS, What DoCS data tell us about Aboriginal clients, December 2007.
500
ibid.
from 30 June 2006 to 30 June 2007 when the rate rose from 6.7 to 8.1 per
1,000.
16.58 The rate of Aboriginal children and young persons in OOHC per 1,000 of the
NSW Aboriginal 0-17 year population is significantly higher than for all children
and young persons in the State. The rate increased from 41.9 per 1,000 as at
30 June 2002 to 61.4 per 1,000 as at 30 June 2007. During this period the
most significant increase was from 30 June 2006 to 30 June 2007 when the rate
rose from 48.2 to 61.4 per 1,000.
16.59 At 30 June 2007, the rate of Aboriginal children and young persons per 1,000 in
OOHC in NSW was almost eight times higher than the rate for all children and
young persons in OOHC. It was 10 times higher than for non-Aboriginal
children and young persons.
Table 16.2 Rate of children and young persons in OOHC per 1,000 population as
at 30 June, 2002 to 2007
30 June 30 June 30 June 30 June 30 June 30 June
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
All children and young 5.9 6.4 6.5 6.3 6.7 8.1
persons in OOHC
Aboriginal children and 41.9 48.3 42.9 42.7 48.2 61.4
young persons in OOHC
16.60 As shown in Figure 16.2, the rates of Aboriginal children and young persons in
care as at 30 June 2007 are greater than those for other children across all age
groups. The difference in rates of children in care by Aboriginality is generally
far greater for those aged from 4-15 years.501
Figure 16.2 Rate of children and young persons in OOHC by age and Aboriginality
per 1,000 population, at 30 June 2007502
90 Indigenous Non-Indigenous/not stated

80
Rate per 1,000 of population
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
<1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Age of child at 30 June
501
ibid.
502
ibid.
Children and young persons entering OOHC

16.61 In the 12 months to 31 March 2008, 4,686 children and young persons entered
OOHC in NSW, which was an increase of 0.8 per cent on the 4,648503 children
and young persons who entered OOHC in 2006/07.504 While there was a 6.9
per cent increase in children and young persons entering care from 2002/03 to
2007/08, the numbers of children and young persons remaining in care longer
has significantly increased in this period.
Table 16.3 Number of children and young persons entering OOHC, 2002/03 to
2007/08
Year Entry into Care
2002/03 4,382
2003/04 N/A
2004/05 3,479
2005/06 3,681
2006/07 4,648
2007/08 (1 April 2007 to 31 March 2008) 4,686
16.62 Of the children and young persons who entered care in 2006/07, around 30 per
cent (1,380) were Aboriginal. For every 1,000 Aboriginal children and young
persons in NSW in 2006/07, 22 entered care. This compares with a rate of two
per 1,000 for non-Aboriginal children and young persons entering care in
2006/07.
16.63 In 2006/07, of the 4,648 children and young persons who entered OOHC, 70.6
per cent entered care for the first time, while the remaining 29.4 per cent had an
OOHC history before re-entering care.
Age at entering OOHC
16.64 In 2006/07, children aged less than one year had the highest rates of entry to
care. For every 1,000 children in NSW aged less than one year, around seven
entered care. The rate is around 50 per 1000 children for Aboriginal children
aged less than one year and around five per thousand for other children aged
less than one year.
16.65 While the proportion of children and young persons entering care in 2006/07
generally decreased with age, there was an increase for children at 14 years of
age.505
16.66 The age distribution of children and young persons entering OOHC for the first
time was different from that of children and young persons re-entering care, as
503
This figure varies slightly from that used in DoCS annual reporting for 2006/07 (4,658) due to a different
data source being used for a detailed analysis of entries.
504
DoCS, Analysis of children and young persons who entered OOHC in 2006/07, June 2008.
505
ibid.
shown in Figure 16.3. 53.9 per cent of new entry children and young persons
were aged less than six years compared with 24.5 per cent of re-entry children
and young persons. Further, 18.7 per cent of new entry children and young
persons were aged less than one year compared with 1.3 per cent of re-entry
children and young persons. Re-entry children and young persons were more
likely to be aged over six years than new entry children and young persons.506
Figure 16.3 Children entering OOHC in 2006/07 by OOHC history: percentage

accounted for by each age group507
20
New entry
18
Re-entry
16
14
12
%
10
8
6
4
2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
Age at e nte ring care
16.67 Aboriginal children and young persons accounted for 28.7 per cent (1,346) of all
those entering OOHC in the twelve months to 31 March 2008. There were no
marked variations across the age groups, although Aboriginal children aged
less than one year accounted for 29.8 per cent of all children entering care aged
less than one year and Aboriginal children aged 1-5 years accounted for 29.5
per cent of children entering care aged 1-5 years.
Time between first report and first entry to OOHC
16.68 Table 16.4 shows that for children and young persons entering OOHC for the
first time in 2006/07, the average number of days from the time of their first
report and entering care was 1,284 days, or 3.5 years. Of these, half entered
care within 938 days (2.6 years) of their first report. So in 2006/07, the majority
of children and young persons entering OOHC had a long child protection
history.508
16.69 For children aged less than one year at entry to care, the median time that
elapsed between the first report and entry into care was 144 days while for
children and young persons aged 13-17 years, it was 2,139 days (5.9 years).
506
ibid.
507
ibid.
508
ibid.
The median time that elapsed for children aged 6-12 years was similar to that of
children and young persons aged 13-17 years.509
Table 16.4 Time from first report to entering OOHC 2006/07 based on new entry
children and young persons who had a child protection history
Age at entering care No of children and Average waiting time Median waiting time
young persons (days) (days)
<1 year 570 164 144
1-5 years 1,093 916 850
6-12 years 972 1,917 2,004
13-17 years 442 2,246 2,139
Total 3,077 1,284 938
Re-entry to OOHC
16.70 Table 16.5 shows the previous OOHC experience of children and young
persons who re-entered care in 2006/07. Older children and young persons
were more likely to have had more OOHC episodes and to have stayed longer
in OOHC than younger children. Over half of the 13-17 year olds who re-
entered OOHC had been in care two or more times previously. This group had
spent an average of 1,390 days in care previously.
Table 16.5 Children and young persons re-entering OOHC in 2006/07, by OOHC
history
Age at No of % with 1 % with 2+ Average no. Average no.
entering children and previous previous of previous of days in
OOHC young episode in episodes in care episodes previous care
persons OOHC OOHC
<1 year 18 100.0 0.0 1.0 68
1-5 years 317 61.8 38.2 2.0 184
6-12 years 617 52.5 47.5 3.3 541
13-17 years 414 43.7 56.3 3.0 1,390
Total 1,366 2.9 709
Time spent in OOHC
16.71 Some children and young persons remain in OOHC for short periods of time
prior to returning home, while others remain in OOHC for long periods of time,
possibly until they reach 18 years. As at 30 June 2007, 32 per cent of
Aboriginal children and 36 per cent of the remainder had spent at least five
years in their current care period.510
509
ibid.
510
ibid.
Figure 16.4 Time spent in care during current care period for children and young
persons in care as at 30 June 2007511
40%
Aboriginal Other
35%
% of children in OOHC 30%

25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
< 6 mths 6 mths to < 1 yr 1 yr to < 2 yrs 2 yrs to < 5 yrs 5 yrs or more
Time in current care period
Summary
16.72 Of the children and young persons who entered care in 2006/07:
a. 70.6 per cent were entering care for the first time
b. those entering care for the first time were more likely to be aged less than
six years than children and young persons who were re-entering care
c. the likelihood of them having been reported before entering OOHC was
similar for both new entry and re-entry children and young persons
d. half of the children and young persons who entered care for the first time
received their first report when they were aged less than one year
e. older children and young persons were more likely to have been in OOHC
previously than younger children and to have had a longer previous period
in OOHC before re-entering care.
Care arrangement
The proportion of children and young persons in OOHC under statutory care
arrangements increased slightly from 60.3 per cent at 30 June 2005 to 63.4 per
cent as at 31 March 2008.
The proportion of children and young persons in relative or kinship care, but
under no care order, increased from 10.0 per cent at 30 June 2005 to 16.2 per
cent at 31 March 2008. The proportion of these children and young persons
whose legal status was parental responsibility to a relative decreased from 21.6
per cent at 30 June 2005 to 15.1 per cent at 31 March 2008.
511
ibid.
Table 16.6 Children and young persons in OOHC by care arrangement as at 30

June, 2005-2007 and 31 March 2008
30 June 2005 30 June 2006 30 June 2007 31 March 2008
Care arrangement No % No % No % No %
Statutory care
Parental responsibility 5,723 57.0 6,402 60.3 7,790 61.3 8,843 62.1
to the Minister
Parental responsibility 149 1.5 142 1.3 144 1.1 133 0.9
to non-relative
Parental responsibility 83 0.8 84 0.8 69 0.5 33 0.2
to agency
Interstate ward no 50 0.5 0.0
transfer
Detached 33 0.3 36 0.3 31 0.2 15 0.1
Refugee/non-citizen
child
Protected person 13 0.1 7 0.1 6 0.0 10 0.1
Statutory care sub-total 6,051 60.3 6,671 62.8 8,040 63.2 9,034 63.4
Supported care
Parental responsibility 2,164 21.6 2,100 19.8 2,102 16.5 2,156 15.1
to relative
Relative/kinship care: 1,005 10.0 1,180 11.1 1,927 15.2 2,313 16.2
no order
Temporary care 243 2.4 218 2.1 180 1.4 189 1.3
Care responsibility of 84 0.8 167 1.6 257 2.0 195 1.4
DG Removal/Assume
Parents 71 0.7 64 0.6 77 0.6 123 0.9
Emergency care & 10 0.1
protection order
Pre Adoption Care 2 0.0 4 0.0 4 0.0 3 0.0
responsibility of DG
Supported care sub 3,579 35.6 3,733 35.1 4,547 35.8 4,979 35.0
total
Other voluntary care 236 2.4 139 1.3 96 0.8 84 0.6
arrangements
Not specified 175 1.7 80 0.8 29 0.2 147 1.0
Total 10,041 100 10,623 100 12,712 100 14,244 100
The proportion of Aboriginal children and young persons in OOHC who were in
statutory care increased from 52.9 per cent (2,044) at 30 June 2007 to 54.8 per
cent (2,443) at 31 March 2008. This is significantly lower than for non-
Aboriginal children and young persons in OOHC, of whom 67.4 per cent (6,591)
were in statutory care at 31 March 2008.
Of the 1,932 Aboriginal children and young persons under supported care
arrangements at 31 March 2008, 56.4 per cent (1,090) were in relative or
kinship care but under no care order, and for 36.7 per cent (710), parental
responsibility was assigned to a relative. This compares to 40.1 per cent
(1,223) and 47.5 per cent (1,446) respectively for the 3,047 non-Aboriginal
children and young persons under supported care arrangements.
The proportion of children and young persons under finalised care orders
decreased from 77.2 per cent at 30 June 2005 to 69.6 per cent at 31 March
2008. Over the same period, the proportion of children and young persons in
OOHC under no care and protection orders increased from 12.4 per cent to
18.0 per cent. Over this period, the proportion of children and young persons
under no care and protection orders who were Aboriginal remained steady at
around 45 per cent.
Service provider
16.73 The proportion of children and young persons in OOHC with a legal status of
parental responsibility to the Minister who were placed with an NGO OOHC
service provider increased from 17.1 per cent at 30 June 2003 to 21.8 per cent
at 31 March 2008. In relation to the OOHC placement provider, there are
significant variations between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children and young
persons. While proportionately more non-Aboriginal children and young
persons were in NGO placements at 31 March 2008 compared with 30 June
2003 (22.3 per cent compared with 14.9 per cent), the opposite has occurred
for Aboriginal children and young persons. At 31 March 2008, 20.5 per cent of
Aboriginal children and young persons in OOHC were in NGO placements
compared with 27.1 per cent at 30 June 2003.
Table 16.7 Number of children and young persons in OOHC with a legal status of
parental responsibility to Minister, by placement provider and
Aboriginality as at 30 June 2003 and 31 March 2008
Aboriginal Non-Aboriginal Total
No % No % No %
30 June 2003
DoCS placement 625 72.9 3,287 85.1 3,912 82.9
NGO placement 232 27.1 576 14.9 808 17.1
Total 857 100 3,863 100 4,720 100
31 March 2008
DoCS placement 1,870 79.5 5,005 77.7 6,875 78.2
NGO placement 481 20.5 1,440 22.3 1,921 21.8
Total 2,351 100 6,445 100 8,796 100
Placement type
16.74 At 31 March 2008, 51.2 per cent of children and young persons in OOHC were
placed in relative or kinship care and 37.1 per cent were placed in foster care.
16.75 A relatively small proportion (2.4 per cent) of children and young persons in
OOHC were in residential care at 30 June 2007 and 31 March 2008.
Proportionately, even less Aboriginal children and young persons were in
residential care at those dates (1.4 per cent).
Table 16.8 All children and young persons in OOHC by placement type as at 30
June 2007 and 31 March 2008
Placement type 30 June 2007 31 March 2008
No % No %
Parents 611 4.8 802 5.6
Relative & Aboriginal 6,497 51.1 7,290 51.2

Kinship Care
Non related person 350 2.8 274 1.9
Foster care 4,741 37.3 5,289 37.1
Supported 79 0.6 75 0.5
accommodation
Residential care 309 2.4 344 2.4
Independent living 125 1.0 163 1.1
Not specified 0 7 0.0
Total 12,712 100 14,244 100
16.76 Of the 1,660 children and young persons who entered care in 2006/07 and were
placed in relative/kinship care, 29.0 per cent were in statutory care and 62.5 per
cent were in supported care. Proportionately, there were fewer children and
young persons entering relative/kinship care under care orders in 2006/07 than
in 2004/05, when they accounted for 38.3 per cent of children entering
relative/kinship care.
16.77 As at 31 March 2008, proportionately more Aboriginal children and young

persons in OOHC were placed in relative/kinship care than non-Aboriginal
children and young persons in OOHC: 62.8 per cent compared with 45.9 per
cent. Proportionately fewer Aboriginal children and young persons in OOHC
were placed in foster care than non-Aboriginal children and young persons in
OOHC: 28.8 per cent compared with 40.9 per cent.
Table 16.9 Aboriginal children and young persons in OOHC by placement type as
at 30 June 2007 and 31 March 2008
Placement type 30 June 2007 31 March 2008
No % No %
Parents 133 3.4 195 4.4
Relative & Aboriginal Kinship 2,469 63.9 2,799 62.8
Care
Non related person 68 1.8 54 1.2
Foster care 1,102 28.5 1,284 28.8
Supported accommodation 11 0.3 12 0.3
Residential care 53 1.4 64 1.4
Independent living 29 0.8 49 1.1
Not specified 0 1 0.0
Total 3,865 100 4,458 100
16.78 Of the 7,290 children and young persons in relative/kinship care at 31 March
2008, over two thirds (4,980) were under a care order.
High Needs Kids

16.79 As at 30 June 2008, there were 583 children and young persons in OOHC that
were classified as High Needs Kids.512
16.80 As at 30 June 2008, 38.4 per cent of High Needs Kids were in funded
placements. The remaining placements were funded through allowances and
extra financial support payments. It would appear that High Needs Kids and
young persons in program funded placements cost approximately 35 per cent
more than those whose placements were paid through allowances and extra
financial support payments.
16.81 Caution should be exercised when comparing the cost of program funded
placements with placements paid through allowances and extra financial
support payments. The latter are often used where there is a shortage of
funded general foster care placements resulting in a broader range of needs in
this group, some of which are below the threshold for the high needs funded
placements and others above the needs threshold. The costs for High Needs
Kids in funded placements include all costs for the child, including allowances
and extra financial support payments, and all caseworker operational and
management costs. This is not the case for placements paid through
allowances and extra financial support payments, which do not include the
costs of the DoCS caseworker and management and operating costs.
Table 16.10 Number and cost of High Needs Kids placements as at 30 June 2007
and 2008
30 June 2007 30 June 2008
Funded Paid through Total Funded Paid through Total
placements allowances & placements allowances &
extra financial extra financial
support support
payments payments
Number of 224 298 522 224 359 583
placements
Average $144,220 $89,531 $148,871 $97,119
annual cost
per
placement
Total annual $32.3 $26.7 $59.0 $33.3 $34.9 $68.2
cost million million million million million million
Number of OOHC placements

16.82 The following table outlines the number and percentage of placements for
children and young persons in OOHC for the period June 2005 to June 2007.
The data have remained fairly steady over the four years, with almost half of all
512
DoCS commonly refers to children and young persons in OOHC with high and complex needs as ‘High
Needs Kids’. It is a term the Inquiry uses in this chapter to refer to this cohort of children and young persons.
children and young persons having only one OOHC placement and a further
one quarter having had two placements.
Table 16.11 All children and young persons in OOHC by number of placements as
at 30 June, 2005 to 2007 and 31 March 2008513
Number of 2005 2006 2007 2008
distinct No % No % No % No %
placements
1 4,599 45.9 4,996 47.1 6,164 48.6 6,876 48.5
2 2,564 25.6 2,567 24.2 2,996 23.6 3,408 24.0
3 1,300 13.0 1,323 12.5 1,533 12.1 1,698 12.0
4 or more 1,563 15.6 1,718 16.2 2,000 15.8 2,200 15.5
Total 10,026 100 10,604 100 12,693 100 14,182 100
Note: this data does not include children and young persons in a placement of less than 7 days.
16.83 Over the four years from 2005 to 2008, Aboriginal children and young persons
were slightly less likely to have multiple placements than other children.
Table 16.12 Aboriginal children and young persons in OOHC by number of

placements as at 30 June, 2005 to 2007 and 31 March 2008514
Number of 2005 2006 2007 2008
distinct No % No % No % No %
placements
1 1,303 48.6 1,542 50.9 2,060 53.4 2,368 52.9
2 655 24.4 695 23.0 839 21.7 960 21.5
3 298 11.1 334 11.0 406 10.5 499 11.2
4 or more 425 15.9 457 15.1 554 14.4 647 14.5
Total 2,681 100 3,028 100 3,859 100 4,474 100
16.84 Table 16.13 shows that the likelihood of multiple placements increases with the
length of time a child or young person remains in OOHC. For instance, at 31
March 2008, 21.8 per cent of children and young persons who had been in
OOHC for between one and two years had been in three or more placements.
By comparison, 41.5 per cent of children and young persons who had been in
OOHC for five years or more had been in three or more placements.
513
The total numbers for each year are slightly different to the data on the number of children in OOHC
provided in other data.
514
The total numbers for each year are slightly different to the data on the number of children in OOHC
provided in other data.
Table 16.13 Children and young persons in OOHC by number of placements and
length of time in care, 31 March 2008
Number of distinct Length of time in OOHC
placements <1 month 1 month to 6 months 1 year to 2 years to 5 years or
<6 months to <1 year <2 years <5 years more
1 placement 305 1,153 914 1,328 1,518 1,658
2 placements 13 337 346 683 876 1,153
3 placements 3 71 151 292 468 713
4 or more 0 7 70 267 577 1,279
placements
Total 321 1,568 1,481 2,570 3,439 4,803
16.85 As at 30 June 2007, a lower percentage of children and young persons in foster
care had been in only one placement compared with children in other types of
OOHC placements. The data also indicate that children and young persons
placed in DoCS foster care are less likely to have multiple placements than
children placed in NGO foster care.
16.86 However DoCS advises caution when examining the data in the table. A child
or young person placed with an NGO may have had a prior placement with
DoCS in the current care period or vice versa. The table classifies the
placement type (that is, DoCS or NGO) according to the current placement in
the care period.
Table 16.14 Children and young persons in OOHC by number of placements and by
NGO foster care and DoCS foster care, as at 30 June 2007
NGOs foster DoCS foster Total foster Other All children
care care care
No % No % No % No % No %
1 placement 396 26 1,041 33 1,437 31 4,727 59 6,164 49
2 placements 385 25 931 30 1,316 28 1,680 21 2,996 24
3 or more 752 49 1,177 37 1,929 41 1,604 20 3,533 28
placements
Total 1,533 100 3,149 100 4,682 100 8,011 100 12,693 100
Note: ‘Other’ category includes relative and kinship care, residential care, supported
accommodation and independent living
16.87 Figure 16.5 shows that the stability of placements is quite different for those
children and young persons in foster care when compared with those in relative
or kinship care. Children and young persons in relative or kinship care are
more likely to have had only one placement, with little difference between
Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal relative or kinship care. 515
515
Figure 16.5 Number of placements in current care period for children and young
persons in OOHC by type of care and Aboriginality as at 30 June
2007516
70%
Aboriginal - foster care
60% Other - foster care
% of children in OOHC
50% Aboriginal - relative/kinship

Other - relative/kinship
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1 placement 2 placements 3 placements 4+ placements
Placements in current care period
Allocation of OOHC cases

16.88 As at 31 March 2008, 63.8 per cent of children and young persons in OOHC
had an allocated caseworker, 2.7 per cent of OOHC cases had an allocation
status of ‘unallocated’ and 33.4 per cent of cases were categorised by DoCS as
being considered for allocation on a ‘resubmit’ basis.517 When taking the latter
two categories into account, 36.1 per cent of children and young persons in
OOHC do not have an allocated caseworker to undertake full case
management.
Table 16.15 Children and young persons in OOHC by allocation as at 31 March

2008
Allocation status Children and young persons
No %
Allocated 9,086 63.8
Resubmit 4,753 33.4
Transfer 23 0.2
Unallocated 381 2.7
Not Stated 1 0.0
Total children and young persons in OOHC 14,244 100
Note: this data is predicated on the assumption that all NGO provided placements have allocated
caseworkers.
516
ibid.
517
Defined as “a workload management strategy and means that no work is being undertaken in the current
period, although the cases may be subsequently allocated to ensure payments are made or if a crisis occurs.”
DoCS letter to Children’s Guardian, 10 March 2008.
16.89 As at 31 March 2008, 78.5 per cent (7,088) of the 9,034 children and young
persons in statutory care had an allocated caseworker.518 Of the 7,044 children
and young persons in DoCS statutory care, 72.4 per cent had an allocated
caseworker. 93.7 per cent of children in DoCS statutory care aged less than
one year and 82.5 per cent of children aged 1-2 years had an allocated
caseworker. Allocation rates generally dropped for children older than two
years.
16.90 As at 31 March 2008, 35.9 per cent (1,788) of the 4,979 children and young
persons in supported care had an allocated caseworker. Of the 4,811 children
and young persons in DoCS supported care, 33.7 per cent had an allocated
caseworker. 81.6 per cent of children in DoCS supported care aged less than
one year, and 59 per cent of children aged 1-2 years had an allocated
caseworker. Allocation rates dropped progressively as children got older.
Leaving care
16.91 In 2007/08, children aged 5-11 years represented 29.4 per cent of all children
and young persons who left care. This was followed by children aged 12-15
years at 24.2 per cent and young persons aged 16-17 years at 19.6 per cent.
Table 16.16 Children and young persons exiting care by age and Aboriginality
during 2006/07 and 1 April 2007 to 31 March 2008
2006/07 2007/08
Age group Aboriginal Non- Total Aboriginal Non- Total
Aboriginal Aboriginal
<1 year 38 122 160 38 121 159
1-2 years 77 187 264 77 222 299
3-4 years 68 217 285 69 193 262
5-11 200 600 800 180 616 796
years
12-15 174 505 679 198 457 655
years
16-17 94 369 463 121 408 529
years
Not stated 2 2 4 0 3 3
Total 653 2,002 2,655 683 2,020 2,703
518
The data is based on the assumption that all NGO cases are allocated.
Cost of care
Table 16.17 Average cost children and young persons in OOHC 2006/07 and
2007/08
2006/07 2007/08
Average cost per day – supported care $28.65 $32.98
allowance
Average annual extra financial support $1,077 $523
payments children and young persons in
supported care
Average cost per day – statutory care $33.48 $29.75
allowance
Average annual extra financial support $6,554 $9,327
payments children and young persons in
statutory care
16.92 The average cost for children and young persons in OOHC generally increases
with age, whether the child or young person is in statutory or supported care.
Table 16.18 Average cost per day for care allowances by age, 2007/08
Age Supported Care Statutory Care
Average cost Average cost Average cost Average cost
allowance per contingencies per allowance per contingencies per
day per child annum per child day per child annum per child
<1 24.59 1,225 25.59 2,732
1 26.42 1,393 26.90 4,495
2 27.04 961 26.62 5,317
3 27.46 786 26.47 5,997
4 27.52 814 27.34 5,722
5 29.13 758 28.52 5,042
6 30.85 405 30.66 6,235
7 31.41 407 31.86 4,491
8 30.61 254 31.12 5,205
9 31.07 528 30.88 6,667
10 31.47 346 31.05 6,669
11 31.35 346 30.87 9,808
12 31.28 401 29.44 15,777
13 30.59 949 29.19 16,239
14 36.23 473 31.30 18,843
15 41.39 385 31.34 21,922
16 41.90 446 33.61 15,056
17 41.34 379 30.47 21,491
Total 32.98 523 29.75 9,327
Data summary
16.93 The number of children and young persons in OOHC and the rate of children
and young persons in OOHC has increased each year since 2002, with the
most significant increase occurring between 30 June 2006 and 30 June 2007.
16.94 The extent of the increase in the number of Aboriginal children and young
persons in OOHC and the rate of their entry into OOHC is greater than for non-
Aboriginal children and young persons in OOHC.
16.95 There has been a moderate increase in the number of children and young
persons entering care since 2002, however, there has been a significant
increase in the numbers of children and young persons in OOHC remaining in
care longer.
16.96 Nearly two thirds of all children and young persons in OOHC are under statutory
care arrangements and just over half of Aboriginal children and young persons
in OOHC are in statutory care arrangements.
16.97 About one half of children and young persons in OOHC were placed in relative
or kinship care and over one third in foster care. A small number were in
residential care.
16.98 More Aboriginal children and young persons in OOHC were in relative/kinship
care than non-Aboriginal children and young persons.
16.99 There has been little change in the number of placements per child over the last
four years, with almost half of all children and young persons having only one
OOHC placement and a further one quarter having had two placements.
Aboriginal children and young persons in OOHC were slightly less likely to have
multiple placements.
16.100 Children and young persons in statutory care were about twice as likely to have
a caseworker allocated than children and young persons in supported care.
16.101 The average cost of children and young persons in supported care has
increased between 2006/07 and 2007/08 while it has decreased for children
and young persons in statutory care. Extra financial payments for the former
have halved and increased by half for the latter.
Research
16.102 It is well recognised nationally and internationally that children and young
persons in OOHC are a vulnerable and at risk group in the population.
Research indicates that those entering OOHC have poorer outcomes than the
average child or young person. They have been identified as having increased
developmental, behavioural, emotional and mental health issues and are less
likely to access continuous education, treatment and medical care as a
consequence of multiple placements, changes in caseworkers or alternating
periods of placement at home and in OOHC.
16.103 The findings of research about the effectiveness of children and young persons
in OOHC services, including foster care, compared with children and young
persons remaining at home are mixed. Some studies show that children and
young persons who are in stable OOHC are better off remaining in care,519
while other studies have found that going into care fails to have a remedial
effect for many and may in fact have adverse outcomes.520
Permanency planning
16.104 Permanency planning is a relatively recent area of development in Australian
child protection, having been introduced in 2003. Evidence derived from
neuropsychological and attachment research521 clearly identifies the need for
children to have security and continuity of attachment in order to develop
optimally.
16.105 A rupture of attachment ties is a traumatic event in a child’s life, with major short
term and long term consequences such as cognitive problems, psychological
and behavioural problems, and delays in development.522
16.106 A study from Illinois demonstrated that maintaining family and community links,
by placing children with relatives and/or placing siblings together and by
maintaining the child in his or her community, leads to increased placement
stability.523 According to this study, a child “placed in such a setting is over 60
per cent less likely to experience a placement move than a child placed with a
non-relative caring for at least one other non-related foster child.”524
16.107 Expert opinion is that for younger children in particular, a decision about
restoration should not take longer than six months. Similar timeframes have
been recommended and/or implemented in other jurisdictions in Australia, the
UK and USA.525
16.108 Research undertaken in South Australia to identify factors and strategies which
might reduce instability and delay in the care system, found that:
children’s social and family background factors influenced

placement trajectories. Infants entering the care system come
from families with multiple difficulties and co-occurring
problems. In particular, parental substance misuse and neglect
519
J Barber and P Delfabbro, Children in foster care, London, Routledge, 2004, cited in Submission:
Cashmore, Scott and Calvert, 26 February 2008, p.19.
520
J Doyle, “Child protection and child outcomes: measuring the effects of foster care,” American Economic
Review, in press, 2007, C Lawrence, E Carlson and B Egeland, “The impact of foster care on development,”
Development psychopathology, 18, 2006, cited in Submission: Cashmore, Scott and Calvert, p.19.
521
J Shonkoff and P Phillips, From neurons to neighbourhoods: the science of early childhood development,
National Academy Press, Washington, 2000.
522
Fahlberg, Attachment and Separation, BAAF, 1982, Gauthier Y, Fortin G & Jeliu G, “Clinical application of
attachment theory in permanency planning for children in foster care: the importance of continuity of care,”
Infant Mental Health Journal, 25 (4), 2004, 379-396, cited in DoCS, Permanency Planning Guidelines Good
Practice Guidelines, May 2007, p.42.
523
A Zinn, J DeCoursey, R George, M Courtney, “A study of placement stability in Illinois,” Chapin Hall Center
for Children, University of Chicago, 2006, cited in DoCS, Permanency Planning Guidelines Good Practice
Guidelines, May 2007.
524
DoCS, Permanency Planning Guidelines Good Practice Guidelines, May 2007, p.42.
525
DoCS, Permanency Planning Policy, (undated), p.3.
were found to be increasingly more common. These same

factors and parental intellectual disability significantly
decreased the likelihood of successful reunification.526
16.109 The study also found that almost 40 per cent of children and young persons
who had been placed in protective care, who were subsequently placed back
home still had at least one social or family risk factor present and approximately
one in ten had three or more risk factors present. Subsequent abuse was
confirmed in 26 per cent of these cases.527
16.110 A supplementary study, Children with Multiple Care and Protection Orders,
found that multiple 12 month orders appear to be associated with lengthy
restoration processes. The study indicated that the restoration process requires
good assessment and planning, family compliance with case plans and family
readiness to safely reassume the ongoing responsibility for their child(ren). For
some families, making the required progress can be slow and may necessitate
ongoing service assistance and close monitoring, even after a child’s return to
the family home.528
16.111 The authors state that to ensure a child’s stability, to enable them to form
secure attachments, and to have their development proceed accordingly,
reunification attempts should not go on indefinitely. As such, reunification
needs to be targeted, time limited and subject to change if parents do not
demonstrate significant progress for their child’s developmental and emotional
needs.529
16.112 The Certainty for Children in Care study highlights that:
establishing cause and effect in relation to this placement

stability was difficult given that a cluster of inter-related factors
are involved… it is unclear to what extent the interaction
between child and carer characteristics played a role. The
children who had experienced placement stability were
generally better adjusted and had fewer conduct problems than
other children in care. Thus, while it may seem logical to
conclude that stability itself led to these better psychosocial
outcomes, it may also be the case that these children were
better adjusted or less ‘damaged’ when they came into
care….(and) although carer characteristics were identified as
being very important in influencing placement outcomes for
526
P Delfabbro, H Jeffreys, N Rogers, R Wilson and M Borgas, “Certainty for Children in Care: A study into
the placement history and social background of infants placed into South Australian Out-of-home Care 2000-
2005”, South Australian Department for Families and Communities, July 2007, p.28.
527
ibid.
528
P Delfabbro, H Jeffreys, N Rogers, R Wilson and M Borgas, “Certainty for Children in Care: Children with
multiple Care and Protection Orders: Placement History, decision making and psychological outcomes,” South
Australian Department for Families and Communities, July 2007, p.39.
529
ibid.
stable children, it is not clear what aspects of parenting were

specifically influential in the cases identified.530
16.113 Several factors are linked with placement disruption. For example, it is more
likely that the child is older, that their birth families are from economically and
socially marginalised ethnic minorities, that they have health and behavioural
problems and that they are separated from their kin. Research suggests that
the first six to seven months of a placement is the period of highest vulnerability
to placement movement.
16.114 Although the evidence is not yet conclusive, it is generally agreed that
maintaining safe contact between children and birth families and/or wider
kinship networks is an important step towards continuity. In addition to safety,
the research data that exist indicate that the quality of the contact is of equal
importance to safety.
16.115 The participation of children and young persons and their representation in
decisions that affect their long term welfare and well-being is also crucial.
Willingness to join a new family, and the degree to which their wishes are heard
and acted upon, are factors logically connected to placement outcomes,
particularly the risk of disruption. Bessell and Gal, however, note that the
literature reveals the absence of children’s participation in decisions made
about them, once they enter the care and protection system.531 Given that
children identify their participation in decisions affecting them as one of their
central needs, they suggest that workers must find ways which empower
children to participate.532
16.116 There are no identifiable trends in the research that specify the characteristics
of potential good adoptive or foster carers. A more systematic approach to
identifying carer suitability and readiness for committed and sensitive care
giving relationships may decrease the number of placement disruptions.
16.117 Fernandez states that:
placement instability is the outcome of poor initial decisions and

lack of support to foster carers. Strengthening professional
decision making to ensure children are less likely to move, and
investing in the support of carers are important for improving
stability.533
530
P Delfabbro, H Jeffreys, N Rogers, R Wilson and M Borgas, “Certainty for Children in Care: Children with
Stable Placement Histories in out-of-home care,” South Australian Department for Families and Communities,
July 2007, p.45.
531
S Bessell and T Gal, “Forming Partnerships: The Human Rights of Children in Need of Care and
Protection”, Crawford School of Economics and Government, Australian National University, 2007, p.4.
532
ibid., pp.12 and 16.
533
E Fernandez, “Unravelling Emotional, Behavioural and Educational Outcomes in a longitudinal study of
children in foster care,” British Journal of Social Work, April 2007, p.14.
She also adds that planned monitoring as well as services to deal with
transitions and disrupted attachments are crucial.
16.118 Thoburn concludes that:
for children who cannot be safely brought up by their birth

parents, a sense of permanence and confidence in being a full
member of the family they are living with are essential to their
long-term well being. 534
Health
16.119 International studies show that children and young persons entering OOHC
have a high prevalence of acute and chronic health problems and
developmental disabilities.535
16.120 Research also indicates that once in OOHC they have significantly poorer
health outcomes in relation to visual defects, dental health, hearing
impairments, speech development, completed immunisations, mental,
emotional and behavioural health.
16.121 A study undertaken by the Child Protection Unit at Sydney’s Children Hospital in
2005, (of the health needs of children living in OOHC in NSW), showed rates of
physical, developmental and emotional health problems that are higher than the
rates for health problems reported in the general community of Australian
children.536
16.122 This evaluation of the first 122 children seen by the OOHC health screening
clinic at Sydney Children’s Hospital Child Protection Unit found that only three
per cent of these children were free of health problems; 25 per cent had
incomplete immunisation; 30 per cent had an abnormal vision screen; 28 per
cent had an abnormal hearing test; 30 per cent had dental problems; 60 per
cent needed referral to development assessment following the Australian
Developmental Screening Test; 33 per cent showed speech delay (45 per cent
of the under fives showed speech delay); and 54 per cent had behavioural or
emotional health problems.537
16.123 The financial risks in the longer run for state health authorities associated with
the provision of identified specialist services are considered to be significantly
outweighed by the costs (ethically and financially) of providing appropriate early
treatment. Outcomes from research show that young persons with high support
534
J Thoburn, 2007, Routes to permanence for children who have experienced deprivation and family
violence, some messages from research, paper to Centre for Research on Community and Children’s
Service, International Conference, Overcoming Violence and Poverty, August 2007, p.17.
535
Royal Australasian College of Physicians Paediatric Policy, “Health of children in ‘out-of-home’ care,” 2006,
p.14.
536
D Nathanson and D Tzioumi, “Health Needs of Australian Children living in out-of-home care”, Journal
Paediatrics and Child Health, Vol 43, pp.695-699.
537
ibid., p.696.
needs who have left the formal care system are likely to cost governments “on
average $2.2 million over the life course from age 16 up to 60, with an overall
estimated average cost per annum of $50,000.”538
Mental health
16.124 Several recently published Australian studies have examined the mental health
and well-being of children and adolescents in care.
16.125 Sawyer et al sampled children and adolescents in foster care in Adelaide. They
found that 61 per cent of children and adolescents living in foster care scored in
the clinical range for behaviour problems on care-giver reports on a
standardised checklist. The proportion of children in foster care with problems
on the externalising syndrome scales (such as ‘attention problems’, ‘aggressive
behaviour’ and ‘delinquent behaviour’) was six to seven times that of children in
the community group. Adolescents in foster care also scored significantly
higher on a depression scale than those in the community. The difference
between groups on depression scores was particularly marked for boys. 539
16.126 Osborn and Delfabbro conducted a case file study in four Australian States
(South Australia, Western Australia, Queensland and Victoria) examining
children in OOHC with two or more placement breakdowns. 540 The total
sample had experienced a range of 2-55 placements during their time in OOHC.
Just under half of the total sample had experienced at least one relative care
placement, and more than half had experienced at least one residential/group
care placement.541
16.127 Results from this study showed that almost three quarters of the children came
from households with a history of domestic violence or physical abuse; two
thirds had parents with substance abuse problems; and almost three in five had
been neglected. Half the sample had parents with mental health problems,
significant financial problems, or homelessness. The majority of the children
and young persons had suffered physical abuse (73.4 per cent), sexual abuse
(65.9 per cent) and neglect (58.2 per cent). Low levels of family contact and
poor social functioning were evident in the children across the states. Almost
three quarters of the children were attending school or TAFE/apprenticeship
538
Morgan Disney and Associates and Applied Economics, Transition from Care: Avoidable Costs to
Governments of Alternative Pathways of Young People Exiting the Formal Child Protection Care System in
Australia, Volume 1, Summary Report, November 2006, cited in Health, Community and Disability Services
Ministers’ Conference paper, Medicare benefits schedule item number for health checks of children in out-of-
home care, 23 July 2008, p.4.
539
M Sawyer, J Carbone, A Searle and P Robinson, “The mental health and well-being of children and
adolescents in home based foster care,” NWA, 2007, 186, p.181-184.
540
A Osborn and P Delfabbro, “National comparative study of children and young people with high support
needs in Australian out-of-home care,” Final Report, Adelaide, South Australia, University of Adelaide, 2006
cited in DoCS, Models of service delivery and interventions for children and young persons with high needs,
September 2006, p.2.
541
DoCS, Models of service delivery and interventions for children and young persons with high needs,
Literature Review, September 2006, p.2.
programs, of these 34 per cent had been suspended and 12.7 per cent had
been excluded.542
16.128 Similar to Sawyer et al, the study by Osborn and Delfabbro found that almost 60
per cent of the children were in the abnormal clinical range for emotional and
behavioural functioning.543
16.129 The Children in Care Study544 stated that those in the study had exceptionally
poor mental health and social competence, relative to the general population
and to other populations of children in care. More than half the boys and girls in
the study were reported to have clinically significant mental health difficulties.
They presented with complex disturbances, including multiple presentation of
conduct problems and defiance, attachment disturbance, attention-
deficit/hyperactivity and trauma related anxiety.545
16.130 The RANZCP stated that a key finding of this study was that:
children who were placed in care before the age of seven

months had fewer attachment problems than children entering
care at older ages. The risk for attachment and mental health
problems rose to moderate in children who entered care
between seven and 30 months of age and increased further for
those placed after the age of 30 months.546
16.131 Age at entry into care appears to be a strong predictor of children’s mental
health outcomes. Several studies have new reported that older age entry into
OOHC is associated with poorer mental health outcomes. However, further
analysis has showed that the poorer mental health of older children in care is
largely attributed to later placed children entering care with high levels of pre-
existing disturbance. Many children in OOHC have experienced a number of
adverse and stressful events prior to care entry.547
16.132 This is consistent with attachment theory. By age three, the most critical
aspects of attachment development are either successfully negotiated or have
led to aberrant development. Attachment theory suggests that children who
enter care before the age of six to nine months are likely to develop normal,
secure attachments to their foster or kinship carers. The Children in Care
Study’s findings are consistent with this expectation, that children who entered
542
A Osborn and P Delfabbro, 2006, op. cit., cited in DoCS, Models of service delivery and interventions for
children and young persons with high needs, Literature Review, p.2.
543
The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, The Mental Health needs of children in
out-of-home care; A report from the expert working committee of the Faculty of Child and Adolescent
Psychiatry, Melbourne, 2008, p.10.
544
M Tarren-Sweeny.and P Hazell, “Mental health of children in foster and kinship care in NSW,” Journal of
Paediatrics and Child Health, Volume 42, 2006, pp.89-97.
545
ibid., p.96.
546
Psychiatry, Melbourne, 2008, p.9.
547
DoCS, Research to Practice Note, 2007, Mental Health of Children in OOHC in NSW, p.2.
care prior to seven months had significantly better mental health and fewer
attachment problems than children entering care at older ages.548
16.133 Placement security can influence the development and well-being of children in
care. In the study, placement security or longevity was a strong predictor of
mental health outcomes for children after controlling for age at entry into care
and anticipated placement breakdown. This is consistent with emerging
research, which demonstrates a strong relationship between placement
instability and high mental health service usage by children in care.549
16.134 This study also showed that children living in alternate care, whether placed
with relatives or foster parents, are disadvantaged compared with children in the
general population in regard to their prior exposure to adversity, subsequent
development and mental health problems.
Education
16.135 There is little published Australian data on the educational performance of
children and young persons in OOHC.
16.136 Research that has been undertaken into the education experiences of children
and young persons in care shows that those in care are less likely than their
peers to continue their education beyond the minimum school leaving age.
They are likely to attend a large number of different schools and to experience
substantial periods of absence from school.550 Educational disruption was
frequently a direct result of children and young persons in care having to
change school as a result of a placement change.551 They also appear to have
a significant risk of being suspended or expelled because of behavioural
problems or truancy.
16.137 DoCS stated that children and young persons in statutory OOHC “are at
significantly higher risk of poor educational achievement, unemployment,
homelessness, substance abuse and mental health problems” and that early
identification and timely provision of government services, including education
intervention programs and services were needed to reduce these risks and
ensure positive outcomes.552
16.138 Research confirms that the educational outcomes of those in OOHC are poor.
This is related to the impact of a poor start in life, low expectations of education
548
DoCS, Children in Care Study, 2005, Mental Health of Children in OOHC in NSW, p.3.
549
R Newton, A Litrownik, J Landsverk, “Children and youth in foster care: disentangling the relationship
between problem behaviours and number of placements,” Child Abuse and Neglect, 24(10), 2000, pp.1363-
74, D Rubin, E Alessandri, C Feudtner, D Mandell, A Localio, T Hadley, “Placement stability and mental
health costs for children in foster care,” Peadiatrics, 113(5), 2006, pp.1336-41, Fernandez, “Unravelling
Emotional, Behavioural and Educational Outcomes in a longitudinal study of children in foster care,” British
Journal of Social Work, April 2007, p.2.
550
CREATE Foundation, Education Report Card, 2006, p.30.
551
ibid., p.6.
552
DoCS, Child protection and out-of-home caseworker policy manual, p.95.
in birth families, the impact of multiple placements and schools attended and
limited additional support provided to them within the school system. While 80
per cent of children and young persons living at home with their families in NSW
complete their HSC, less than 36 per cent of children and young persons in
care complete this milestone.553
16.139 Further, Cashmore et al found that:
four to five years after leaving care young people were much
less likely than their peers to be in full-time work and/or
education. Many had a history of part-time and casual work in
poorly paid and low skills jobs, and over half the young women
had children. Those who had completed Year 12, however,
were more likely to be employed or studying, and to be faring
well across a number of areas compared with those that did not
complete Year 12. The more stable and secure they had been
in care, the more years of schooling they completed, the better
they were faring 4-5 years after leaving care.554
16.140 The CREATE Foundation Report Card on the education of children and young
persons in OOHC in 2006 found a number of key challenges faced by this
group and noted that those in care were:
a. much less likely to continue within mainstream education beyond the period
of compulsion
b. much more likely to be older than other children and young persons in their
grade
c. on average likely to attend a larger number of primary and high schools
than other students
d. likely to miss substantial periods of school through changes of
placement.555
High needs children and young persons

16.141 Children and young persons in OOHC who have high needs generally present
with complex and multiple problems, including significant histories of abuse,
serious mental health issues, ‘challenging’ behaviours, intellectual and learning
disabilities, histories of school suspension/expulsion, and difficult familial
relationships.556
553
J Cashmore and M Paxman, “Longitudinal Study of Wards Leaving Care,” Social Policy Research Centre,
University of New South Wales, January 1996, p.116.
554
J Cashmore M Paxman and M Townsend, “The Educational Outcomes of Young People 4-5 years After
Leaving Care: An Australian Perspective,” Adoption and Fostering, Volume 31, Number 1, 2007, p.50.
555
CREATE Foundation, Education Report Card, 2006, p.30.
556
Literature Review, September 2006, p.iii.
16.142 A recent Australian study of children and young persons with high needs in
OOHC found that the majority had suffered physical abuse (73.4 per cent),
sexual abuse (65.9 per cent) and neglect (58.2 per cent). 557
16.143 Osborn and Delfabbro found that most children and young persons with high
needs first came into contact with the child welfare system at around the age of
three years but usually did not finally enter care until four years later.558 Their
study also showed that children within this high needs population are usually
aged around 12-13 years and have typically experienced 10 or more previous
placements. On average, these children had been in the care system for five
years.
16.144 Children and young persons with high needs are often involved in two or more
service systems.559 Figures from the 1996 US National Adolescent and Child
Treatment Study indicate that agency contact was, in order of frequency, mental
health (93 per cent), juvenile justice (80 per cent), school based special
education (71 per cent) and child welfare (69 per cent).560 Walrath et al found
that re-contact with any agencies or services after six years was high, with four
out of 10 adolescents being re-arrested and 75 per cent being readmitted to a
mental health placement or juvenile correction facility.561
16.145 The frequency, intensity and duration of the behaviours and the complexity of
the needs of these children and young persons present difficult challenges for
carers and service providers and can lead to multiple, crisis related placement
changes that often exacerbate underlying behavioural and emotional issues
16.146 Families of children and young persons with high needs are often characterised
by low self-esteem, poor impulse control, aggressiveness, anxiety and
depression. Adverse environmental conditions such as poverty, unemployment,
poor nutrition and lack of social supports often interact with parent and child
factors to increase stress.562
16.147 Research has suggested that almost three quarters of this high needs group
came from households with domestic violence or physical abuse, two thirds had
parents with substance abuse problems and half had parents who had
557
children and young persons with high needs, Literature Review, September 2006, p.2.
558
children and young persons with high needs, Literature Review, September 2006.
559
A Muscat, A Baron, A M Baron and N Spencer, “The care and health needs of children in residential care
in the Maltese Islands,” Child: Care, Health and Development, 27, 2001, pp.251-262, cited in DoCS, Models
of service delivery and interventions for children and young persons with high needs, Literature Review,
September 2006, p.3.
560
J Howell, M Kelly, J Palmer, R Mangum, “Integrating child welfare, juvenile justice and other agencies in a
continuum of services,” Child Welfare 83(2), 2004, cited in DoCS, Models of service delivery and interventions
for children and young persons with high needs, Literature Review, September 2006, p.3.
561
C Walrath, D Mandell and P Leaf, “Responses of children with different intake profiles to mental health
treatment,” Psychiatric Services: A journal of the American Psychiatric Association, 52(2), 2001, cited in
DoCS, Models of service delivery and interventions for children and young persons with high needs, Literature
Review, September 2006, p.3.
562
significant mental health issues and/or parents who were unable to provide
adequate housing.563
16.148 A number of models of service delivery have been developed for children and
young persons with high needs. These are typically intensive, multi-faceted
interventions involving a network of professionals working in collaboration with
the child or young persons and their foster carers and birth families.564
Residential care
16.149 The decrease in residential care over the past two decades has resulted in a
limited availability of flexible, high quality residential services for children and
young persons with high needs. Early research on residential care generally
reported poor outcomes for children and young persons, and the experience
has been one of a decline in residential facilities throughout the western world
with an increase in alternative forms of care. For instance, in Australia in 1983,
approximately 40 per cent of those in OOHC lived in some form of residential
care. In 2008, less than three per cent of the total care population were residing
in this form of care in NSW.
16.150 More recent research findings have however found that some young persons
can benefit from an appropriate residential placement, particularly when it is
time limited, has a therapeutic component and is part of a plan for transition to a
more ‘normalised’ care environment.565
16.151 Delfabbro et al note that many forms of residential and group care options that
were previously thought to be very restrictive can actually be less restrictive
than home based care environments. The authors conclude that the elements
that characterise care (for example, levels of discipline, routine, autonomy and
free time), rather than the type of care (foster or residential), determine how
restrictive the placement will be for the child or young person. The implication
of this research is that greater effort needs to be put into establishing the
optimal characteristics of care, rather than the ideal placement type, that will
result in the best outcomes for children. Delfabbro and colleagues argue that
the care continuum should be re-evaluated and residential care be considered
as an option when children first enter care, where they can be assessed and
receive appropriate treatment services. 566 As Cashmore and Gilligan note:
563
ibid., p.2.
564
ibid., p.3; L Bromfield and A Osborn, “‘Getting the Big Picture’: A Synopsis and Critique of Australian Out-
of-Home Care Research,” Australian Institute of Family Studies, No 26, 2007, p.29.
565
566
P Delfabbro, A Osborn, and J Barber, “Models of service for children in out-of-home care with significant
emotional and behavioural difficulties,” Developing Practice, 14, 2005 cited in L Bromfield and A Osborn
“’Getting the Big Picture’: A Synopsis and Critique of Australian Out-of-Home Care Research,” Australian
Institute of Family Studies, No 26, 2007, p.29.
The question is not just about whether certain forms of

residential care ‘work’, but also being able to say why and
under what conditions.567
16.152 Underpinning most successful service interventions for high needs children and
young persons and indeed others in OOHC are strong case management,
integrated multi-agency working, and highly skilled staff and carers who receive
expert supervision, ongoing training and support.
Therapeutic foster care
16.153 There is a recognised need for specialised models of therapeutic foster care to
address the limited number of placement options for children and young
persons with challenging emotional and behavioural difficulties.
16.154 Therapeutic foster care is an intensive, family based therapeutic approach for
children and young persons with serious emotional and behavioural disorders
and for particular groups of children (like siblings) that require a more complex
caring role. Intensive foster carers have specialised training and support
requirements and receive a higher level of reimbursement than general foster
carers.568 Based on current evidence, therapeutic foster care is a ‘promising’
intervention for children and young persons experiencing mental health
problems, behavioural problems and problems of delinquency.569 Therapeutic
foster care appears to be most successful for children under the age of 14 years
and for boys rather than girls, with previous OOHC placement as the most
significant predictor of impairment and change in mental health status over
time.570
Multi-systemic therapy
16.155 Multi-systemic therapy is an intensive, goal oriented, time limited (typically three
to six months) home and family focused treatment approach designed to equip
children and young persons and their carer families with the skills to function
more successfully in their community environment. Several reviews have
classified multi-systemic therapy as a 'probably efficacious' treatment according
to the criteria for empirically supported treatments.571
16.156 Bor argued, in a submission to the Inquiry, that the case for applying multi-
systemic therapy to child abuse and neglect is strengthened because correlates
of child abuse and neglect are similar to correlates of antisocial and aggressive
567
J Cashmore and R Gilligan, “Residential Care,” International Handbook on Child Research (unpublished).
568
Literature Review, September 2006, pp.10-17.
569
G M McDonald and W Turner, “Treatment Foster Care for improving outcomes in children and young
persons,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Vol 1, 2008, p.38.
570
Literature Review, September 2006, pp.15 and 20.
571
ibid., p.iv.
behaviours. Queensland Health has proposed a trial of multi-systemic therapy

as part of the Department of Child Safety’s response to the Report of Crime and
Misconduct Commission into Child Protection. Pilot projects are being
undertaken in Brisbane. Juvenile Justice is soon to commence a trial of multi-
systemic therapy.
Service coordination
16.157 The term ‘wraparound services’ had its origins in American programs originally
developed for children and young persons with significant mental health and
behavioural difficulties. These services were characterised by comprehensive,
coordinated, community based service delivery programs. The term is used in
a broader sense in Australia to refer to the individualised services which
address the needs of the child or young person in care, as identified through the
assessment and case planning process.572
16.158 Major transition points or milestones in the life of a child or young person are
likely to provide the clearest signal of the need to consider or reconsider
whether additional support services are required. These critical periods may
typically include entry into a new placement, commencing school (primary and
secondary), the onset of puberty, leaving school, leaving care and commencing
employment. Services that have been identified as priority supports needed for
children and young persons in care include:
a. respite care
b. psychological and counselling services (including behaviour management
support)
c. specialist medical and allied health services
d. educational support services.573
16.159 Studies examining outcomes of ‘wraparound services’ for children and young
persons show improvements in school performance and psychological and
behavioural functioning. However, 'flexible' and ‘individualised' nature and
grassroots development of such services makes rigorous evaluation difficult.
As such, there is a lack of empirical evidence to show whether ‘wraparound
services’ work any better than regular services such as individualised
therapies.574
16.160 The Systems-of-Care model developed in the USA represents an attempt to

achieve an integrated approach at the broader level of systems and
organisations in order to address the multiple service requirements of children
and young persons with high needs. This model aims to provide improved
572
DoCS, Out-of-home Care Wraparound Support Services for Children and Young People, April 2007, p.4.
573
ibid.
574
Literature Review, September 2006, p.v.
organisational and interagency arrangements as a key component of the

program logic for delivering services to this target group.575
16.161 There have been several reviews of the empirical status of the Systems-of-Care
model. The consensus has been that there is a growing body of evidence
suggesting that Systems-of-Care can lead to improved interagency working.
However, the gains for the children and adolescents and their families have
been modest. As a result, the evidence is mixed regarding the effectiveness of
Systems-of-Care on outcomes for children and young persons with high
needs.576
In brief, trends in service provision indicate that residential and

specialised models of care are being implemented in Australian
States and Territories. However, there is little evidence that
these programs are being routinely evaluated … In addition,
there is a recognised need for specialised models of residential
or group care and treatment foster care to address the limited
number of placement options for children and young persons
with challenging emotional and behavioural difficulties.577
16.162 Research design limitations have been identified across all services and
interventions for children and young persons with high needs. These include
limited use of control or comparison groups and lack of valid and reliable
outcome measures making evaluation of effectiveness and comparison
between studies difficult.578
Foster care
16.163 In Australian and overseas jurisdictions:
while the need for foster carers has been rising, there have
been decreasing numbers of individuals willing to foster. This
has been attributed to the greater participation of women in the
workforce, the inadequacy of remuneration provided to carers,
increasing expectations of carers, and attrition as existing
carers age.579
16.164 Bromfield and Osborn state that these and other reasons, such as the
challenging behaviours of children in care, and inadequate supports to carers,
have also contributed to decreased retention rates for existing carers.
575
ibid.
576
ibid.
577
L Bromfield and A Osborn “‘Getting the Big Picture’: A Synopsis and Critique of Australian Out-of-Home
Care Research,” Australian Institute of Family Studies, No 26, 2007, p.30.
578
Literature Review, September 2006, p.v.
579
L Bromfield and A Osborn, 2007, op. cit., p.2.
16.165 The research indicates that broad based media strategies are effective for
awareness raising and stimulating an initial interest in fostering, but are less
successful in the conversion of inquiries into actual carers. One of the ‘best’
recruitment strategies is the use of current and experienced carers to recruit by
word of mouth.580
16.166 A DoCS research report, Spotlight on Safety notes that one in three adults
surveyed indicated they might at least consider being a foster carer in the future
and almost half said they might consider being a respite carer.581 Other
researchers have found that the majority of carers feel they have ‘good’ or ‘just
enough support,’ however, carers also reported they were often dissatisfied as
they did not feel adequately supported by the relevant state or territory
government agency, and often experience difficulty in communicating with
caseworkers in obtaining approvals for extra financial support payments, and in
complying with contact requirements. 582
16.167 Further, Bromfield and Osborn stated that most carers cease fostering due to a
change in their personal circumstances. However, there also appeared to be a
link between support and retention, with participants from several studies
reporting that they stopped fostering due to burn out, lack of support, adverse
effects on their families, and the foster children being difficult.
16.168 They suggested that carer retention may be improved if carers are better
supported through improved reimbursement packages, increased recognition
and involvement (for example, input into decisions regarding foster children),
better information about the child, and increased levels of support (such as,
access to support services and respite).583
16.169 In considering the question whether foster carers should receive a salary,
McHugh notes:
a. the growing professionalism of foster caring; that is, assessment, training
and supervision is more highly regulated and rigorous
b. carers are no longer simply substitute parents
c. fostered children’s complex needs and challenging behaviours require
highly committed multi-skilled specialist carers
d. carer recruitment and retention has become increasingly problematic here
and elsewhere.584
16.170 McHugh argues that as:
580
ibid., p.12.
581
Urbis Keys Young and DoCS: Spotlight on Safety: Community attitudes to child protection, foster care and
parenting, 2006, p.3.
582
583
ibid.
584
M McHugh, “Should Australian foster carers be entitled to receive a fee/salary wage for caring?” Social
Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Paper presented at the “ACWA 08 Strong, Safe and
Sustainable: responding to children, young persons and families in a civil society”, August 2008.
the older generations of foster carers retire from fostering a

wage component may attract a different cohort of younger,
qualified persons into fostering, able to meet the challenges of
more demanding and difficult placements and, meet their need
for an adequate income.585
16.171 Ambivalence on the part of carers towards the merits of being paid for caring,
and the current income support arrangements for some carers, however, are
complicating factors that may impede support for a carer wage. At the present
time many foster carers are reliant on government income support payments
and associated benefits (for example, Health Care Card, rental assistance).
Currently carer subsidy payments are not regarded as income and are not
subject to income tax.
16.172 McHugh notes that the Productivity Commission’s estimates of annual real
expenditure on residential OOHC per child range from $150,000 to $240,000.
This is seven to eight times higher than the annual real expenditure on foster
care per child ($21,000–$29,000).586 In comparison with residential care, foster
care is far less expensive to government and provides significant cost savings.
16.173 The limited research into the experiences of the natural children’s foster parents
showed that foster children do have an impact on natural children. Foster
children encourage positive experiences (such as sharing, responsibility, caring
and independence), but these are coupled with the contradictory experiences of
loss (such as having to share the attention of parents), resentment and a wish
to escape.587
16.174 Although some carers feel they receive sufficient training, many feel that further
training to fully prepare them for the role of caring is a priority. The amount of
training undertaken by carers varies, and possibly 20 per cent in a sample
surveyed in 2004 had not completed initial training.588 Some carers reported
that they did not receive any training prior to having children placed in their
care. Carers want training that is both practically oriented and nationally
accredited, as well as specialist training to enable them to provide therapeutic
foster care.589
16.175 Carer requests for nationally accredited training and specialist training in
treatment foster care may be an indication of carers’ support for the
professionalisation of foster care.590 Of the 450 NSW carers surveyed in a
study by McHugh et al, 54 per cent thought fostering should be semi-
585
ibid.
586
Productivity Commission, 2007, 15.36, cited in M McHugh, 2008, op. cit.
587
588
M McHugh, J McNab, C Smyth, J Chalmers, P Siminski, P Saunders, “The availability of foster carers:
main report,” DoCS and Social Policy Research Centre, 2004, p.63.
589
590
ibid.
professional, 32 per cent thought it should be professional, and 13 per cent

thought it should be voluntary. 591
16.176 The Victorian Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare developed the
Foster Care Communication and Recruitment Strategy to strengthen its
approach to carer recruitment and retention, and redress the shortage of foster
carers across Victoria.592 This strategy identifies four points in the life of a carer
which can help retain carers:
a. the period from the time a family contacts the agency until they are
approved as a foster carer/family
b. the period of time between approval as a foster carer and placement of
children with them
c. the period of time after children have been placed in the family
d. the end of placement support and debriefing.
16.177 The Centre’s research found that:

a. carers are more likely to continue caring when there is a financial package,
which implies they want foster care to be more professionalised
b. 62 per cent of past carers surveyed said they would consider returning to
caring if systemic sources of dissatisfaction were addressed
c. carers stay involved because of positive changes and outcomes for the
child, and positive feedback from the child, professionals or parents.593
16.178 Disincentives to become or remain a foster carer included:

a. lack of information provided about the child
b. the nature of the child
c. lack of worker continuity
d. lack of respite care
e. interference with personal life
f. financial drain
g. perceived lack of trust and respect for the carer role
h. fear of meeting the child's parents
i. assessment processes that are perceived to be lengthy and intrusive. 594
16.179 A significant initiative of the recruitment strategy will be to implement the Best
Practice Engagement Project. The Best Practice Engagement Project is a 12
591
M McHugh, J McNab, C Smyth, J Chalmers, P Siminski, P Saunders, 2004, op. cit., p.69.
592
J Higgins “Foster Care Communication and Recruitment Strategy – Best Practice Engagement Project,”
Child Abuse Prevention Newsletter, Vol 16, no. 1, National Child Protection Clearinghouse, Australian Institute
of Family Studies, 2008, pp.12-13.
593
ibid.
594
ibid.
month project involving ongoing collaboration and communication between

foster care services in Victoria to identify and test potentially good practice
ideas in foster care recruitment and retention. The process is being facilitated
at both statewide and local levels.595
16.180 Another area of potential dissatisfaction and loss of foster carers from the
system concerns the process for managing allegations which are made against
them. This is examined in more detail in Chapter 23.
Kinship care
16.181 The increase in the use of kinship care for OOHC placements is an international
phenomenon that commenced in the late 1980s. The literature suggests this
trend is likely to continue and perhaps increase. Despite this, the growth in
kinship care is not underpinned by strong outcomes focused evidence.
Australian studies have found there is little substantial research on kinship care
in Australia.596 Furthermore, there is no concrete evidence that this type of care
produces better outcomes for children and young persons.597
16.182 Paxman states that:
The research literature is limited by methodological problems

such as small samples or the sample being part of larger
investigations of other topics, and a lack of baseline measures
from which progress comparisons can be drawn.598
16.183 Barth, Green, Guo, McCrave (in Press) state that the differences between
children in kinship care and foster care is complicated as a result of the various
selection processes which complicates the interpretation of outcomes in child
protection cases.599
16.184 Listening to children about their experiences and needs is not often reflected in
studies, as children tend not to be included as participants.600 Research
however suggests that essential knowledge about positive and less positive
experiences that children have, in different care arrangements, can enable a
595
ibid.
596
J Cashmore and F Ainsworth, “Audit of Australian Out-of-home care research,” Child and Family Welfare
Association of Australia and Association of Children’s Welfare Agencies, 2004, p.10, L Bromfield and A
Osborn, 2007, op. cit., p.31.
597
598
M Connolly, “Kinship Care: A selected literature review,” New Zealand: Department of Child, Youth and
Family, 2003 and E Farmer and S Moyers, Children Placed with Family and Friends: Placement Patterns and
Outcomes, report to the Department of Education and Skills, School for Policy Studies, University of Bristol,
2005 cited in DoCS, Outcomes for children and young persons in kinship care: an issues paper, December
2006.
599
R Barth, R Green, S Guo and J McCrae, Kinship care and non-kinship foster care: informing the new
debate, cited in R Haskins, F Wulcyzn and M Webb (eds), Findings from the national survey of child and
adolescent well-being, 2006.
600
GS Cudderback, “Kinship family foster care: A methodological and substantive synthesis of research,”
Children and Youth Services Review 26 (7), 2004, pp.623-639; J Messing, “From the child’s perspective: A
qualitative analysis of kinship care placements,” Children and Youth Services Review 28, pp.1415-1434.
better understanding of the dynamics of kinship care.601 Messing states that

recent evidence from children in kinship care has identified that there is a
reduction in stigma compared with foster care, due to the reduced trauma
associated with separation from parents, and to preservation of the sense of
familial relationships.602
16.185 In NSW, relative/kinship care is more common than foster care. It is the only
State where there are significantly more children and young persons in
relative/kinship care than in foster care.603 As discussed earlier in this chapter,
a higher proportion of Aboriginal than non-Aboriginal children and young
persons are placed in kinship care.
16.186 Whilst research into kinship care is in its infancy, it suggests that:
a. there is no conclusive evidence that those in kinship care are more or less
well adjusted than those in foster care
b. being placed in kinship care decreases the risk of placement disruption,
however, recent longer term studies indicate that stability in kinship care
may reduce over time
c. it may depend on who the carer is, for example an older grandmother or
younger aunts and uncles
d. children and young persons placed in kinship care, in comparison with
those placed in foster care, tend to remain in care longer, are reunified with
their birth families at slower rates, and are adopted at lower rates
e. children and young persons placed with relatives are more likely to have
contact with birth parents and siblings than their counterparts in foster care
f. kinship care placements require the same entitlements to monitoring and
support as non-relative foster care placements. 604
16.187 While there is little research in Australia on the characteristics of kinship carers,
studies overseas indicate that kinship carers are more likely than foster parents
to be single older women, and to be poorer and less educated. Factors that
may impact on effective caring include economic disadvantage, stress, health
issues and limited parenting skills. Conflict with birth family is a feature of many
kinship care placements and this adds to the stress that kinship carers face.
Further research is needed to understand the impact of kinship care on the lives
of carers and on the outcomes for children and young persons.605
16.188 Grandparent headed families are increasingly prevalent in Australia and are one
of the fastest growing forms of OOHC. Increasingly grandparents are assuming
601
S Altshuler and J Gleeson, “Completing the evaluation triangle for the next century: measuring child ‘well-
being’ in family foster care,” Child Welfare, 78(1), 1999 cited in M Connolly, 2003, op. cit., p.16.
602
J Messing, op. cit., pp.1415-1434.
603
As at 31 March 2008, L Bromfield and A Osborn, 2007, op. cit., p.32.
604
ibid., pp. 31-32; DoCS, Outcomes for children and young persons in kinship care: an issues paper,
December 2006, p.5.
605
DoCS, Outcomes for children and young persons in kinship care: an issues paper, December 2006, p.iv.
the full time parental care of their grandchildren because of mental illness and
drug addiction of the biological parent(s), or because of the effects of child
abuse or neglect, family violence, incarceration, HIV/AIDS and/or parental
death.606 However, there is little information regarding the characteristics and
experiences of Australian grandparent headed families who assume care
through the intervention of child protection services or of those who arrange the
care of their grandchildren privately.607 This “lack of visibility means that there
are a substantial number of grandparent headed families who do not receive
supervision, support services or financial assistance.”608 Evidence suggests
that grandparent headed families that arranged care, without the intervention of
child protection sources, are relatively more disadvantaged in terms of financial
and social services than all other forms of kinship care families and non-relative
foster families.609
16.189 Literature from the USA reveals that assuming full time parenting
responsibilities for grandchildren is associated with a number of negative
outcomes including psychological distress, poorer physical health and lower
social supports.610
16.190 In Australia, Aboriginal carers tend to have higher rates of poverty and
disadvantage and are more likely to be experiencing poorer health than their
non-Aboriginal counterparts. A key concern for Aboriginal grandparent carers is
overcrowding and birth parents living in or regularly visiting the same house.
16.191 In addition, the level of services and support provided to relative/kinship and
foster placements differ. There is strong evidence that relative/kinship carers
receive less training, fewer services and less support than foster carers.611
There is evidence that the assessment of relative/kinship carers often occurs
after the child has been placed.
16.192 There is general agreement in the literature that kin are less likely to enrol
children in additional services and are less likely to be supervised by a statutory
agency. Some research shows relative/kinship carers are keen to receive
services to help them care for these children but often they are reluctant to
request assistance from statutory agencies.
16.193 There is some evidence that caseworkers do not feel the same level of services
is necessary for relative/kinship placements as for foster placements.
606
B Horner, J Downie, D Hay and H Wichmann, “Grandparent-headed families in Australia”, Family Matters,
Australian Institute of Family Studies, No, 76, 2007, p.77.
607
ibid., p.79.
608
C Goodman, M Potts, E Pasztor, D Scrozo, “Grandmothers as kinship caregivers: Private arrangements
compared to public child oversight,” Children and Youth Services Review, 26(3), 2004, cited in B Horner, J
Downie, D Hay and H Wichmann, 2007, op. cit., p.78.
609
B Horner, J Downie, D Hay and H Wichmann, 2007, op. cit., p.79.
610
ibid.
611
G Cuddeback, “Kinship family foster care: A methodological and substantive synthesis of research,”
Children and Youth Services Review, 26(7), 2004, pp.623-639, cited in DoCS, Outcomes for children and
young persons in kinship care: an issues paper, December 2006, p.iv.
16.194 A greater understanding of relative/kinship care requires more methodologically

rigorous research that could include longitudinal studies that could take into
account: baseline data on entry to care to measure pre-existing differences
between foster care and kinship care; the use of standardised measures across
a number of domains (such as behaviour, child development, school
performances, child and family functioning and outcomes as well as a focus on
the child’s experience); well designed controlled studies; and a multiple
informant approach (children, carers, workers, parents, case files). Given the
over representation of Aboriginal children in kinship care placements, studies
should also include appropriate and culturally sensitive research methods and
should canvas the views of Aboriginal children and young persons in care as
well as consulting with their carers.612
16.195 The Inquiry notes that DoCS is undertaking primary research on kinship care in
NSW. Stage one of this study, the analysis of historical data on all children and
young persons in kinship and foster care is complete. Stage two involves an
analysis of 120 case files and telephone interviews with caseworkers of a
random sample of children and young persons who have been in care for longer
than six months in four placement types (supported kinship care, statutory
kinship care – Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal and foster care). A draft report is
expected by March/April 2009, which will go some of the way to building an
evidence based approach.
Accreditation and monitoring of the OOHC

service system
16.196 In NSW, the Care Act establishes the Children’s Guardian as the agency
responsible for the accreditation and monitoring of the designated agencies,
that is, the government and non-government organisations that provide OOHC
placement and support services to children and young persons. These services
include placement, case management, supervision and support. The Children's
Guardian reports directly to the Minister for Community Services.613
16.197 The NSW OOHC accreditation system, which provides a structured means of
providing recognition of an organisation's performance against relevant
standards, commenced operating in July 2003. The NSW Standards for
Substitute Care Services, were developed by and for the OOHC sector as
optimum standards. It was considered unlikely that any organisation would
meet the standards immediately but would do so in time.
612
DoCS, Outcomes for children and young persons in kinship care: an issues paper, December 2006, p.iv; N
Richardson, L Bromfield and D Higgins “The Recruitment, Retention and Support of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Foster Carers: A Literature Review,” Australian Institute of Family Studies, National Child
Protection Clearinghouse, 2005, pp.66-67.
613
16.198 Accreditation is commonly used in Australia in the health, child and aged care
sectors. NSW, however, is the only jurisdiction that has established an OOHC
accreditation system. The agencies that are accredited by the Children’s
Guardian essentially have a licence614 to provide OOHC services. The
Children's Guardian also has a number of other powers common to licensing
bodies, including powers to impose, vary and revoke conditions of operation,
and to remove or suspend an organisation from the OOHC sector. The
Regulation, inter alia, provides for ADT review of Children’s Guardian decisions
concerning the imposition of conditions on, and the suspension or cancellation
of, accreditation.
16.199 At June 2008, there were 58 government, non-government and private

agencies, including DoCS and DADHC, approved as designated agencies to
provide foster or residential care to children and young persons in NSW.615
16.200 The provisions regulating OOHC in the Children and Young Persons (Savings
and Transitional) Regulation 2000 were not introduced until July 2003. Clause
22A of this Regulation provides for the interim accreditation of service providers
operating immediately before the accreditation scheme commenced.
16.201 Designated agencies with interim accreditation were given a choice whether to
enter an Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program prior to 30 June 2005
or to apply for immediate full accreditation. The purpose of the Accreditation
and Quality Improvement Program is to allow agencies, which were not able to
apply for full accreditation, to improve the quality of their OOHC over a period of
time. Agencies are issued with a Quality Improvement Certificate and are
required to provide a Self-Study Report yearly that demonstrates continuing
improvement in the mandatory requirements and core standards, the critical
standards and the significant standards.616 Agencies wishing to remain in the
Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program must submit evidence for all
mandatory requirements and applicable core standards that have not been
met.617 These agencies must progressively achieve the standard that would
entitle them to be accredited as a designated agency by 14 July 2013.
16.202 Of the 58 designated agencies, there are currently 21 designated agencies in

the Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program, including DoCS and
DADHC.618
16.203 Case file audits are conducted to determine whether the agency fulfils its
obligations under the Care Act and Regulations. If recommendations are made
614
A ‘licence’ is often described as a ‘permit to do business which could not be done without the licence’ –
Judicial and Statutory Definitions of Words and Phrases, Vol 5, St Paul, West Publishing, 1904:4138.
615
Children’s Guardian, Annual Report 2007/08, p.92.
616
Children’s Guardian, Out-of-Home Care Accreditation and Quality Improvement Guide for Organisations,
10 April 2007, p.20.
617
ibid., p.21.
618
Office for Children, Annual Report 2007/08, p.117.
they must be implemented as a priority.619 If the case file audits of agencies in

the Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program show continued non-
compliance or failure to address the recommendations, that agency may be
required to apply for accreditation.620
16.204 The Children’s Guardian has conducted an internal review of the OOHC
accreditation and quality improvement system. This report identified the
following issues:
a. The requirement that all OOHC agencies be accredited is different from
most other accreditation schemes. Generally, accreditation is not a pre-
requisite to enter a particular market, while OOHC accreditation in NSW
effectively operates as a form of licence.621 As such, the accreditation
scheme currently determines entry to the market based on criteria that are
founded on optimum standards.
b. The OOHC Standards were developed for quality improvement purposes,
not for regulation purposes.
c. Accreditation systems generally allow for accreditation to be granted where
relatively minor performance issues are identified, with conditions imposed
to direct further improvement. The system may operate to exclude
providers from the market for minor matters that, under most other
accreditation schemes, would be addressed within a performance
improvement framework.
16.205 The report recommends that the Children and Young Persons (Savings and
Transitional) Regulation 2000 be amended to enable the Children’s Guardian to
accredit an applicant that substantially satisfies the criteria for accreditation,
with conditions to be imposed to drive further necessary performance
improvement within 12 months of accreditation.
16.206 Information provided or heard by the Inquiry indicated overall strong support for
the role and functions of the Children’s Guardian in providing a framework to
improve OOHC policies, procedures, practices and services for children and
young persons in OOHC in NSW. The proposed changes to the Accreditation
and Quality Improvement Program proposed by the Children’s Guardian would
support a move to outcomes based performance indicators (where possible);
place a stronger focus on performance, rather than conformity; lead to a
reduction in the overlap and duplication of aspects of the OOHC Standards; and
give a stronger recognition of agency innovation and alternative ways of
meeting standards. The Children’s Guardian informed the Inquiry:
Broadly speaking, it is to move the system from a pass/fail

system into one that is focused on continuous quality
619
Children’s Guardian, Out-of-Home Care Accreditation and Quality Improvement Guide for Organisations,
10 April 2007, p.23.
620
ibid., p.24.
621
Children’s Guardian, Review of Out-of-Home Care Accreditation and Quality Improvement System and
Processes, October 2007, p.6.
improvement. It is one that will allow for more flexibility and

innovation by services. It will allow the Guardian to take into
account other sources of information. At the moment it is a
paper-based system. It is our intention that we would
undertake site visits and talk to staff and look at requirements
ourselves.622
16.207 The Inquiry supports the recommendations of the internal review.
16.208 The Children’s Guardian, in exercising the accreditation and monitoring

functions may come across information that gives rise to concerns about a
community services provider or about the welfare and well-being of a child or
young person, or group of children or young persons in care.
16.209 In such instances, the Children’s Guardian can refer such matters, or
complaints received by that office, to the Ombudsman. Similarly where the
Ombudsman has concerns about the complaints handling system of a
designated agency or of a non-government adoption service provider, a report
containing recommendations regarding its systems may be referred to the
Children’s Guardian and then taken into account in relation to that Office’s
accreditation role.623
16.210 The Inquiry notes that the Ombudsman and the Children’s Guardian have
discussed the appropriateness of recognising the Children’s Guardian as a
relevant agency under Schedule 1A of the Ombudsman Act 1974 to enable the
Ombudsman and Children’s Guardian to enter into complaint referral and
information sharing arrangements under Part 6 of that Act.
16.211 This would remove any uncertainty as to whether the Care Act or Adoption Act
2000 may limit the Children’s Guardian authority to pass on complaints
information to the Ombudsman.
16.212 The Inquiry agrees that these amendments should be made.
OOHC casework by DoCS

16.213 One of the key areas of the DoCS Reform Package was to increase its capacity
to allocate caseworkers to children and young persons. This package included
the establishment of an additional 300 OOHC caseworker positions,624 50 to
work with High Needs Kids (known as intensive support services), a further 50
to assess, authorise, recruit, train and support carers for a period of 12 months,
and the remaining 200 to work in generalist OOHC positions.
622
Transcript: Public Forum, Oversight Agencies, 28 March 2008, p.29.
623
Ombudsman Act 1974 s.43.
624
150 under the original package and a further 150 announced in the 2006/07 budget.
16.214 When a child or young person becomes the subject of care proceedings, the
role of the Child Protection Caseworker (CSC based) includes: assessing the
protective intervention required to address the risks to the child or young
person; identifying and organising an OOHC placement where required;
identifying and assessing relative/kinship carers; and carrying out permanency
planning case review and case management until final orders are in place.
Once final orders with parental responsibility to the Minister are made, the case
is transferred to an OOHC team or identified non-government OOHC service
provider.625
16.215 The role of OOHC Caseworkers (CSC based) is to support decision making on
issues about achieving permanency for the child or young person, to advise and
support the Child Protection team to find a long term placement option, to
negotiate the handover of case management from the Child Protection team if
final orders exceed 12 months, to implement the case plan, to monitor and
review it, and to carry out the tasks associated with leaving care.
16.216 The transfer of cases from the Child Protection team to the OOHC team is an
area of practice still requiring improvement, according to the Ombudsman.
Delays in case transfer can mean that required services are not put in place for
children and young persons, or for their carers, in a timely manner thereby
affecting outcomes.
16.217 There was evidence in submissions, case files and other information received
by the Inquiry to suggest a lack of matching between the child or young person
and the carer, a lack of communication between birth parents, carers, and
children and young persons, and a lack of participation of children and young
persons. Poor practice in this area leads to a range of problems including
placement breakdown, poor outcomes for children and young persons in OOHC
and difficulty in attracting and retaining carers.
16.218 Submissions, and the Inquiry’s case file audit, identified that where DoCS Child
Protection staff are attempting to find an OOHC placement for a child or young
person there are often a series of inappropriate referrals and placements due to
the focus on the crisis rather than on the quality of the placement. The shortage
of carers also means that there are less options from which to select. DoCS
OOHC staff often become involved in matters too late in the process to get
placement matching right in every case.
16.219 Key issues raised particularly by non-government services providing

placements for children and young persons in OOHC included:
a. the lack of personal information provided by DoCS caseworkers about a
child or young person when placed and the timeliness of this information to
ensure their needs and matching with the carer occurred
625
DoCS, Caseworker policy manual child protection and out-of-home care Draft, March 2008, p.47.
b. the failure to provide critical information and documentation of relevance for

children and young persons such as their birth certificates, Medicare cards,
health status, allergies and the like
c. lack of review processes by DoCS as the case manager.
16.220 DoCS has also recognised these deficiencies and has informed the Inquiry that
it is revising casework practice on care plan reviews to ensure that they specify
the issues that should be covered in the review and documented on the file.
16.221 DoCS has also commenced a project to identify the information that should be
provided to carers at the time a child is placed with them, including information
of the kind outlined earlier in this chapter.
16.222 Findings from the Ombudsman’s Review of Children under five years states that
there have been improvements since 2002 in the documentation in care plans
of how permanency would be achieved. However, concerns still exist
concerning the relationship of the DoCS Child Protection team, the OOHC team
and in relation to the handover that is necessary to give effect to these plans.626
16.223 Many children and young persons are in care for short periods before being
restored to their families. A number of submissions to the Inquiry identified that
there is, at times, inadequate preparation, assessment or planning, as well as
poor support for the family following the child’s return home, where restoration
has been identified as a goal for that particular child, or young person. This at
times has resulted in the child or young person being returned to OOHC, often
repeatedly.
16.224 Statistics provided by DoCS indicate that 29.4 per cent (1,366) of children and
young persons entering care in 2006/07 had previously been in care.627 Of
these children and young persons, they had an average of between 8-26
previous child protection reports. Further, over half of the 13-17 year olds who
were re-entering care had on average been in care three times previously with
an average of 1,390 days in care. This suggests that the process for assessing
the needs of these children and young persons, as well as the capacity of the
family to provide adequate and safe care, and then putting in place appropriate
supports to enable effective restoration may not have been adequate, or
alternatively that the decision concerning restoration may not have been
comprehensive. The circumstances of the family may also have changed, and
may not been sufficiently taken into account.
16.225 There were a number of issues raised concerning the need for concurrent
planning for children and young persons entering OOHC. Often when children
or young persons are removed from their families they can have multiple
placements while the matter is before the court. Wesley Community Services
advised the Inquiry:
626
NSW Ombudsman, Group Review Report: Children under five, November 2007, pp.14-18.
627
DoCS, Analysis of children who entered OOHC in 2006/07, June 2008.
Children come into the care system when they’re removed from
their families. I believe that we need to start looking for long-
term placements immediately. At the moment, various CSCs
will not do that, because they say that it’s pre-empting the
decision of the Court.628
16.226 Unfortunately, DoCS does not keep data on the number of children and young
persons restored to their families and their outcomes. Thus the Inquiry has
largely relied on information from other reviews as well as submissions.
16.227 The Inquiry is of the view that the OOHC Caseworker/NGO provider should
begin working formally with the child or young person at the time of entry into
care to ensure that placement matching and associated functions are
progressed. The Child Protection Caseworker should retain case management
and responsibility for the development of the care/case plan in conjunction with
OOHC Caseworker/NGO/carer/natural family. The discretion permitted by the
current DoCS procedure as to whether consultation with the OOHC
Caseworker/OOHC provider occurs, should be strengthened to a requirement,
where it has been determined there is not a realistic possibility of restoration.
Types of placement and support options for

children and young persons in OOHC
16.228 There are a range of service models that have been established, or that are
being established for children and young persons in OOHC in NSW. OOHC
service models include those relating to relative/kinship care, general and
intensive foster care, residential care, wraparound services including respite
care, supported independent living services, leaving and after care support, and
adoption.
16.229 Many of these service models are in the process of being established as a
result of the DoCS OOHC expression of interest process that occurred in 2007,
and as such are not yet available as options for all children and young persons
across the State.
16.230 There are presently 3,225 relative/kinship carers managed by DoCS, and 7,290
children and young persons were in this type of care as at 31 March 2008.
16.231 As at March 2008 5,289 children and young persons were in general foster
care. DoCS has approximately 2,100 active carers, which is an increase of 400
on 2004 figures.
16.232 There are presently 105 intensive foster carer placements across the State.
628
Transcript: Public Forum, OOHC, 29 February 2008, p.5.
16.233 Residential care is provided to a small number of children and young persons
who have challenging behaviours and high support needs,629 and continues for
as long as is required. This type of care is generally only suitable for those
aged 12 years and above. As at March 2008, 2.4 per cent (344) of children and
young persons in OOHC were in residential care.
16.234 Supported independent living services are provided for young persons with low
to moderate support needs who are in transition to independent living. The
client group is young persons aged 16-18 years in the parental responsibility of
the Minister. As at March 2008, 238 young persons were in either supported
accommodation or independent living.
16.235 Family preservation services are primarily designed to maintain children and
young persons aged from 0-15 years with their family and/or extended family,
who are engaged sufficiently with appropriate support networks to prevent them
from entering OOHC.
16.236 ‘Wraparound support services’ are being introduced by DoCS. These services
include respite care, psychological and counselling services, (including
behaviour management support) specialist medical and allied health services
and educational support services which focus on improving the social,
emotional, educational and physical health needs of those in OOHC.630
16.237 Information provided to the Inquiry indicates that for a number of children and
young persons placement stability remains a significant issue. For children and
young persons in OOHC multiple placements, changes in schools,
neighbourhoods and communities, irregular contact with their families, loss of
friends and multiple changes of workers undermine continuity of care, stability
and sense of their security and identity.631 The present lack of placement
options for children and young persons within their own communities reported to
the Inquiry means that some are located in other parts of the State away from
local networks and supports. A young woman informed the Inquiry:
I stayed with some families, rehabs, and I was locked up quite a

few times, so a lot of different environments. Because I moved
around so much it meant that every time I moved my file would
get transferred which meant that sometimes I wouldn't have a
DoCS officer for months at a time.632
16.238 A young man informed the Inquiry:
629
These children and young persons are likely to fall into the category of High Need Kids.
630
DoCS, Out of home care service model: Wraparound support services, April 2007, p.4.
631
J Cashmore and M Paxman, “Longitudinal Study of Wards leaving Care: four to five years on,” Social
Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, 2007, p.7.
632
Transcript: Inquiry meeting with representatives of CREATE Foundation, 2 April 2008, pp.6, 15-20.
I have been in care 13 years. I have been in and out of 38

families within that 13, 14 years.633
16.239 A small number of children and young persons in OOHC exhibit extremely
challenging and risky behaviours, to themselves and to others. These children
and young persons typically have a history of multiple placements, complex or
high level casework and support needs and/or challenging behaviours. While
these ‘High Needs Kids’ represented approximately four per cent of those in
care (522), in 2006/07, they accounted for around 23 per cent of OOHC budget
for contracted care, allowances and extra financial support payments.
16.240 In June/July 2002 there were 240 High Needs Kids being cared for through
individualised funding arrangements. This number represented 2.6 per cent of
the then 9,273 children and young persons in the OOHC system. The
management of this high needs group was subject to significant criticism from
oversight agencies and other non-government services as many children and
young persons were in these placements (often outside their area of origin and
thus away from their normal support networks) through Individual Client
Agreements, which were both costly, short term, lacked a focus on permanency
planning and were not necessarily achieving good outcomes.
16.241 In 2002 the Ombudsman reviewed a number of these individual funding

arrangements634 and identified several systemic weaknesses including:
a. the limited capacity of non-government program funded agencies to provide
services for children and young persons with high or complex needs, for
reasons including negative experiences with contracting in the past, a lack
of growth funds in the program and an out of date funding formula not
reflective of the real costs of service provision
b. the absence of a policy framework for residential care
c. the lack of provision of any therapeutic models of care in NSW, whether
through residential or foster care/professional care placements.
16.242 Most of the recommendations emanating from this report have since been
implemented by DoCS.
16.243 As noted earlier, data on children and young persons entering care show that
older members of this group were more likely to have had more OOHC
episodes and to have stayed longer in OOHC than those who were younger.
This together with a significant child protection history suggests that they
become increasingly more complex and require more intensive supports.
16.244 The Inquiry accordingly supports DoCS’ direction in providing a greater diversity
in types of placements in its current funding reform process including program
funding for High Needs Kids. More needs to be done however on reducing
633
ibid., pp. 7-8, 20.
634
NSW Ombudsman, Inquiry into individual funding arrangements in out-of-home care, June 2003, p.iii.
unnecessary multiple placements for this group through improved assessment

and matching of children and young persons and carers, as well as supporting
foster and kinship carers, especially in relation to managing challenging
behaviours.
Aboriginal children and young persons in OOHC

16.245 Not only are Aboriginal children and young persons more likely to be placed in
OOHC compared with non-Aboriginal children, there is also a shortage of
culturally appropriate placements to accommodate these children and young
persons.
16.246 The Inquiry was told that a lack of safe accommodation for children and young
persons is resulting in an increase in the number of Aboriginal and non-
Aboriginal children and young persons being placed on remand in detention
centres. There was support for the view that a range of safe accommodation
models for this group should be available in NSW. While some of the models
suggested to the Inquiry are controversial, they included:
a. boarding school models, including schools managed by small community
controlled organisations (not large residentials) to deal with both OOHC
and entrenched community issues
b. temporary group home style care for Aboriginal children and young
persons, incorporating intensive work with the child or young person and
his or her family to enable transition back into the care of their family, such
as the Safe Families Program in Alice Springs (refer to Chapter 8 for more
details).
c. Aboriginal community controlled and supported foster and kinship care
models, which incorporate fluid care arrangements to facilitate placement,
retention and fulfilment of the need for proper cultural instruction of
16.247 DoCS informed the Inquiry that a project is currently underway with Juvenile
Justice, DADHC, Justice Health, DoCS and Police to examine the issue of a
lack of safe accommodation for children and young persons to reduce numbers
remanded in juvenile detention. The new approach will be trialled in Parramatta
Court.
16.248 The AIFS and SNAICC has noted that there is a diverse and large range of
programs and interventions that have been designed to tackle this problem.635
16.249 In 2005, the AIFS commenced research into the needs of Aboriginal children in
OOHC. SNAICC and AIFS then worked together to identify and profile
635
J Higgins and N Butler, “Characteristics of Promising Indigenous Out-Of-Home-Care Programs and
Services. Promising Practices in Out-Of-Home Care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Carers, Children
and Young People,” Booklet 1, Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2007, p.3.
promising programs and services in the OOHC sector for Aboriginal children.
They reported that:
While a few of the profiled programs had been externally

evaluated, the majority had not, and the term ‘promising’
applies to the collection of programs profiled for this project.636
16.250 SNAICC and AIFS identified eleven promising tools and programs, three of
which are found in NSW: Step by Step Aboriginal assessment tool – (ACWA, in
collaboration with the DoCS), Aboriginal Carers Network - Carer support group
network (AbSec) and Marungbai – Leaving and after care service for
Indigenous young people (Great Lakes Manning Aboriginal Children’s Services,
Taree).
16.251 The research found that the common characteristics of these projects were as
follows:
a. establishing effective relationships with government departments and
NGOs
b. developing strategies for seeking project funding approval
c. building the profile of the organisation or program
d. identifying the organisation’s core business
e. establishing a collaborative staffing structure so that staff feel empowered
f. offering a comprehensive service
g. empowering the community, carers and young persons.637
16.252 Successful organisations with promising practices for Aboriginal children and
young person in OOHC were seen to have had the community on board. They
had spent time and effort in consulting and involving community members so
that the local community had a sense of ownership over the program. Where
this occurred, the local community tended to be more satisfied with the
program’s services.
16.253 In terms of the management styles of the successful organisations that were
profiled in the research, all had strong leadership, were clear on core business,
and operated within the boundaries of that core business. Each of these
organisations had a collaborative teamwork approach with staff within a flat
organisational structure.638
16.254 Successful organisations were also characterised by strong relationships with

external stakeholders, and a respected and influential profile in the community;
and each organisation undertook a role in educating the community and other
636
ibid., p.4.
637
ibid., pp.7-18.
638
ibid., p.17.
organisations about more culturally appropriate ways of addressing child

protection and OOHC issues for Aboriginal children and young persons.639
16.255 In addition, this Inquiry notes the Ombudsman’s submission that the current
capacity of the Aboriginal OOHC sector is limited, with these services currently
only able to place around 200 of the Aboriginal children and young persons in
OOHC. The Inquiry supports further consideration of the Ombudsman’s
suggestion that a review take place of AbSec’s current capacity with the view to
considering the role it might play in the future through expanding its activities in
this area. This is captured in the recommendation made in Chapter 8
concerning the Lakidjeka program.
Djarragun Foster Care Program

16.256 The Inquiry heard that the Cape York Institute and Djarragun College have
developed a proposal for a school based model of care for children from Cape
York, Queensland. The model was developed in response to a lack of
Aboriginal foster care in Queensland.
16.257 Djarragun College is an Indigenous school located in Gordonvale, Queensland,

providing early childhood education for children aged 3-4 years through to post
secondary vocational education to students from Cairns, Cape York, Yarrabah
and the Torres Strait Islands. School boarding facilities are provided on site for
students from Year 8 through to Year 12. Emergency boarding is also provided
to primary age students who are not able to live at home. The school has been
operating since 2001.640
16.258 The program envisaged the establishment of a purpose built facility on a

separate campus in partnership with the Queensland Department of Child
Safety to provide care for 40-50 Cape York children aged 9-12 years. The
facility would act in a manner similar to a primary boarding school but with more
intensive support provided. Responsibility for the care of each child would be
shared between the school and permanently assigned respite parents in a
family based environment. The model would cater for children subject to child
protection orders and also children accepted through a voluntary referral
mechanism.641
16.259 Features of the model include:

a. delivery of high quality education with small class sizes and individual
education plans
b. intensive on-campus support including counselling and medical services
delivered within a model of ‘rigorous health management’, which includes
639
ibid.
640
Cape York Institute and Djarragun College Proposal, April 2008, p.23, provided by Secretariat of National
Aboriginal and Islander Child Care.
641
ibid.
an initial health assessment and access to regular ongoing consultation

and specialist care as required
c. maintenance of a strong connection with culture through placement in an
indigenous environment in the school, involvement of family where
appropriate with on-site accommodation available, homeland visits for
supervised and structured cultural activities, and video and
teleconferencing facilities to enable regular contact between children and
family members
d. 24 hour support through consistent boarding parents for school based care
with a ratio of at least one carer to 8 children at all times, and permanent
‘respite parents’ specifically recruited and making a long term commitment
to a particular child, providing for care outside the academic year and for
regular weekends visits, and participating in the child’s school life through
academic, cultural and sporting events.642
16.260 The exit program would usually involve transition into the secondary boarding
program at Djarragun College.643
16.261 In July 2008, the Commonwealth Government committed $2 million to the

project.644 In August 2008, ABC media reports quoted the Queensland Minister
for Child Safety as supporting the project in principle.645 The proposed model
appears to be consistent with a number of the principles for promising practices
identified in the literature.
16.262 The Inquiry agrees that innovative measures are needed for Aboriginal children
and young persons to remain connected with their culture while being safe,
cared for and educated. Recommendations are made in Chapter 18 on this
matter.
Recruitment, training, support and retention

of carers
16.263 Recruiting, training, supporting and thus retaining foster carers was a key issue
before the Inquiry.
16.264 Continuity of key relationships with caseworkers is integral to effective

intervention and support for children and young persons and their carers.
Equally important is the skill level of the caseworker in being able to build a
relationship with children and young persons and their carers. Information
provided by DoCS indicates that just over one half of children and young
642
ibid., pp.8-12.
643
ibid., pp.4-12.
644
Media Release: Minister for Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs,
22 July 2008, www.fahcsia.gov.au.
645
State funding for Indigenous foster care program still in doubt, 12 August 2008, www.abc.net.au.
persons in DoCS OOHC have an allocated caseworker, which ultimately

impacts on its ability to support children and young persons and their carers.
16.265 Further while the number of those in foster care has increased by six per cent in
2007, the number in DoCS foster care has increased by 12 per cent in 2007,
resulting in an increase in the proportion of foster care placements effected
through DoCS.646
16.266 The Inquiry was provided with detail of a raft of changes that DoCS has
implemented or proposes to implement, that are designed to increase the
numbers of carers and to improve their quality and support.
16.267 DoCS has introduced dedicated positions within each of the seven regions, to
work in Carer Support teams. These positions are primarily focused on
recruiting, training and providing individual support to carers, primarily new non-
related authorised carers.
16.268 In August 2006, DoCS introduced a centralised telephone line for statewide
foster care inquiries, which operates beyond the standard hours of a CSC.
However, a recent review undertaken by DoCS showed that 77 per cent of
applicants authorised in 2007 went directly to the CSC rather than the
centralised telephone line.
16.269 Advisory Committees have been established and DoCS intends to provide
funds for the provision of peer support services for foster carers in NSW.
Standard health care records have been distributed to carers and they also
receive newsletters, which are intended to keep them informed of any relevant
developments and of any functions which they might wish to attend.
16.270 Some of these strategies are reasonably new and it would not be expected that
their value would yet be felt by carers. However, the litany of problems reported
to the Inquiry suggests that much more needs to be done, or that what has
been done needs to be better explained and brought to the attention of carers.
Three broad issues, in particular, were brought to notice.
16.271 First, DoCS and others noted that the current recruitment, assessment and
authorisation processes were cumbersome and needed to be streamlined.
DoCS said:
Delays can be due to DoCS internal processes,

screening/probity check timeframes, as well as applicant
delays. The current authorisation process is also costly in
terms of time and resources because there is a requirement
that two trained assessors should be involved in the ‘Step by
Step’ assessment process.647
646
DoCS, Business Process Review: authorisation of foster carers, March 2008.
647
Submission: DoCS, OOHC, p.26.
16.272 In a recent review DoCS found that:648

a. only four per cent of applicants who express an interest in foster care are
finally authorised
b. the average time to complete the authorisation process is 43 weeks
c. there is no single management information system to monitor and control
the process
d. the authorisation process is overly staff intensive, repetitive and confusing
e. the current competency based assessment of carers used by DoCS is not
well understood by its staff.
16.273 Aboriginal carers raised related but different issues. AbSec informed the Inquiry
that:
... agencies are able to better recruit foster carers. DoCS can't
recruit foster carers because they have still got a bad name in
the Aboriginal community. You are working for welfare. If you
are a carer for DoCS, the Aboriginal community look down on
you - "What are you doing working for the welfare?" When they
work for an agency, they have not got that stigma.649
16.274 Higgins and Butler examined a number of programs that successfully recruited,
assessed and trained Aboriginal carers as part of the Promising Practices in
OOHC series. They concluded that recruitment of Aboriginal carers works best
when: training and support programs provide comprehensive, supportive
services to carers; recruitment is conducted by Aboriginal persons through
Aboriginal organisations; recruiters use community generated opportunities to
reach potential carers; and Aboriginal carers are available to speak to
prospective foster carers.650
16.275 The Ombudsman also reported that word of mouth was arguably the most
effective strategy for recruiting Aboriginal carers, and for it to be effective,
carers needed to feel well supported and to strongly endorse fostering to others
in their community.
16.276 Higgins and Butler found that effective assessment and training of Aboriginal
carers occurred when assessment and training programs were carer centred
and responsive. The most effective assessment tools used a relaxed,
conversational style of gathering information, and incorporated community
knowledge about a family when assessing a potential carer. Successful training
648
DoCS, Business Process Review: authorisation of foster carers, March 2008.
649
Transcript: Inquiry meeting with representatives of the Aboriginal Child, Family and Community Care State
Secretariat, 18 December 2007 p.14.
650
J Higgins and N Butler, “Characteristics of Promising Indigenous Out-Of-Home-Care Programs and
Services. Promising Practices in Out-Of-Home-Care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Carers” Booklet
2, Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2007, p.36.
programs valued the input of carers and acknowledged the skills and
knowledge that carers brought to the caring role.651
16.277 Successful support of Aboriginal carers was found to involve advocacy on

behalf of carers when dealing with child welfare agencies; the provision of
access to needs based, comprehensive and responsive support, enabled
knowledge sharing and skills building, and opportunities for carer unity through
support group meetings or community events.652
16.278 A recent report by the Ombudsman Supporting the Carers of Aboriginal

Children, while based on a small sample of 100 carers, found that NSW carers
of Aboriginal children and young persons identified a need for regular and
appropriate support from caseworkers, improved access to quality training,
consistent consultation in compliance with the principles in the Care Act, better
cultural support planning and assessment and intervention for the health and
education needs of Aboriginal children in OOHC.653
16.279 The consistent statements of the need for further support are at times not
specific about the actions required. However, the 2004 study of 450 carers in
NSW by McHugh et al found:
All stakeholders viewed the provision of casework to children as

a critical component of support for carers. The support carers
want from caseworkers is casework itself, stated the NSW FCA
[Foster Care Association] spokesperson. They want
caseworkers to work with carers and to build up ongoing
relationships with children to bring about the best outcomes.654
16.280 The Inquiry has three key observations to make about carer recruitment and
support. First, DoCS needs to change its processes to reduce the time taken to
improve the quality of its screening at each stage, including the entry point, and
to train staff in any new processes. DoCS shares this view and is currently
progressing the move to an assessment centre approach on similar lines to that
employed for caseworker recruitment. If viable in the short term, pending
transfer of most OOHC service provisions to the non-government sector
(discussed later in this chapter), this strategy should continue. DoCS will also
require a short term emergency carer capacity to deal with children and young
persons entering temporary OOHC time.
16.281 Secondly, it is clear to the Inquiry that relative/kinship carers have received less
training and support than other authorised foster carers. DoCS accepted that:
651
ibid., p.38.
652
J Higgins and N Butler, “Comprehensive support for Indigenous carers and young persons. Promising
Practices in Out-Of-Home-Care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Carers,” Booklet 3, Australian
Institute of Family Studies, 2007, p.6.
653
NSW Ombudsman, Supporting the Carers of Aboriginal Children, 2008.
654
M McHugh, J McNab, C Smyth, J Chalmers, P Siminski and P Saunders, 2004, op. cit., p.76.
the level of assessment, training and support provided to

statutory relative/kinship carers should be broadly at an
equivalent level to that provided to un-related authorised foster
carers, although it is acknowledged that there may be points of
difference between the two carer groups. For example,
although the training needs of both groups may have many
similarities, relative/kinship carers may require additional input
and support around managing family contact issues.655
16.282 Thirdly, the Inquiry is concerned that the communication with and engagement
of carers by DoCS caseworkers and their direct line managers do not always
reflect DoCS policies and procedures. Examples of problems which were
raised with the Inquiry on numerous occasions, included:
a. poor communication between caseworkers, casework managers and carers
b. non response to calls or letters
c. information not being provided to carers about children or young persons in
their care including a failure to provide, or a delay in the provision of,
essential documents such as Medicare cards, or the Blue Book
d. non engagement of carers in case conferences and failure to respect their
views about children and young persons in their care
e. months taken to receive payments or approvals for expenses incurred for
the child or young person in their care, including the cutting off of
allowances where the CSC had overlooked the need for an annual review
f. failure to allocate a caseworker, or to maintain a continuity in the allocated
casework
g. failure to provide respite.
16.283 A number of OOHC agencies also identified problems in getting DoCS to

acknowledge and listen to carers. The CEO of Barnardos informed the Inquiry:
My experience is my agency has to very strongly advocate to

have either the agency’s point of view heard or, most
particularly, the carer’s point of view heard and their experience
acknowledged.656
16.284 In contrast, the Ombudsman’s 2007 review of 49 children in OOHC under five
years found that 75 per cent of all carers, even those without an allocated
worker, said they felt well supported by DoCS in meeting the identified needs of
the children in their care. A number of these carers were very positive about
the support they received from carer support caseworkers.657
655
656
Transcript: Public Forum, OOHC, 29 February 2008, Louise Voigt, p.12.
657
NSW Ombudsman, Group Review Report: Children Under Five, November 2007, pp.7-27.
16.285 DoCS acknowledged that its relationship with carers required improvement:
The relationship between DoCS and some carers has been

difficult. There are two elements. The first is resources. There
are simply not enough DoCS’ OOHC caseworkers to provide a
satisfactory level of service to carers and children. The second
is culture, with the Foster Care Association suggesting that
DoCS’ caseworkers have a poor attitude to carers.658
16.286 Given the increasing numbers of children and young persons in OOHC as well
as their placement with relatives or kin, supporting these carers is essential.
DoCS cannot do it with its current resources. The recommendations made at
the end of this chapter in relation to a gradual transition to NGOs being
responsible for more, and ultimately most, children and young persons in
OOHC should address this issue in the long term.
16.287 Further research on the needs of relative/kinship carers would be useful to

identify the support they need and to reduce placement breakdowns caused by
any systemic neglect of carers.
Case Management
16.288 Case management is a process involving assessment, planning,
implementation, monitoring and review to strengthen families and decrease
risks to children and young persons and to achieve identified case plan goals.659
Case management is meant to ensure that resources and services are
mobilised, and coordinated to meet the needs of a child or young person
entering and in OOHC.
Children’s Guardian audit

16.289 A recent case file audit undertaken by the Children’s Guardian identified
significant differences between the case management practices of DoCS and
non-government organisations, and found that children and young persons in
non-government agency care were likely to benefit from the more informed and
comprehensive case support provided by these agencies, than was the case for
children and young persons in DoCS care.
Non-government agencies with case management

responsibility were more likely to have case conferences
convened to support case planning and review, consider
contact arrangements, invite the child or young person and their
mother to attend case reviews, have mental health reports and
review behaviour management and the use of psychotropic
658
Information provided by DoCS to Government, March 2008.
659
DoCS, Case Management Policy.
medication, and commenced preparation for leaving care. They

were also more likely to identify timeframes for reviews and the
completion of tasks, and stipulate the responsibilities of each
person or agency.660
16.290 The results are not particularly surprising, although unsatisfactory. The reality is
that the additional caseworkers employed by DoCS under the Reform Package,
were faced with a 58.2 per cent increase in the numbers of children and young
persons in OOHC by 30 June 2008. As a consequence DoCS data show that
just over half of the children and young persons in DoCS OOHC placements
had an allocated caseworker. Of these, 72.4 per cent in DoCS statutory care
placements and 33.7 per cent in DoCS supported care had an allocated
caseworker.
16.291 The caseloads for NGOs are about 1:10, with an upper limit of 1:12, compared
with 1:19 for DoCS. It is also the case that DoCS as the ‘provider of last resort,’
cannot turn children and young persons away even if it will provide sub-optimal
services.
16.292 While not in response to these findings but of relevance to them, DoCS
informed the Inquiry and Cabinet that:
the high volume, demanding nature of the work currently means

that DoCS casework effort is primarily directed towards
responding to crisis. As a result all children and young persons
in care are not able to receive the comprehensive case
management required,661
and
for many children in OOHC DoCS is not able to meet even the
most basic requirements of allocating a caseworker and
conducting an annual review of the placement.662
16.293 Given the findings of the Children’s Guardian and faced with DoCS data, the
Inquiry requested the Children’s Guardian to undertake an analysis of the DoCS
allocated and unallocated cases examined in her audit. The purpose of the
analysis was to examine whether the existing audit findings, in relation to DoCS
statutory care cases, were affected by the allocation status of the cases in the
sample.
16.294 The results of that analysis showed that of the 1,356 DoCS case files audited by
the Children’s Guardian, 76 per cent were allocated. Further, while allocated
files were between twice and three times as likely to have a current plan or
660
Submission: Children’s Guardian, p.39
661
662
Information provided by DoCS to Government, March 2008.
review, than unallocated or ‘resubmit’ files, the allocated files did not meet the
standard set by the audit of 80 per cent compliance with the OOHC Standards.
16.295 Further, compliance levels of allocated files progressively declined across the
age groups, indicating that young children were being prioritised over
adolescents, a similar finding to the April 2008 report, Australia’s Homeless
Youth: A Report of the National Youth Commission Inquiry into Youth
Homelessness. Similarly, preparation for leaving care for those aged 15 years
and over was non-compliant across all allocation categories, although allocated
foster care files were more likely to have information about leaving care when
compared with relative/kinship carers.
16.296 Just over 55 per cent of all allocated files showed that formally constituted case
conferences had occurred. DoCS allocated files, however, reached compliance
levels of over 80 per cent for inviting carers and significant others to case
conferences.
16.297 In relation to Aboriginal Placement Principles, all unallocated files documented

the explanation for placements while only six in ten allocated files contained this
information.
16.298 The Inquiry was surprised that so many of DoCS’ cases were allocated in the
audit. It was not consistent with the average number allocated, although data
provided by DoCS suggest that the allocation rate for those in statutory OOHC
is significantly higher than those in supported OOHC. However, when one
considers the ratio of caseworkers to children and young persons in OOHC,
some of the disparity in the quality of casework with NGOs may be explained.
16.299 As at December 2007, the notional average DoCS caseworker caseload was
around 26 when caseworker position vacancies are taken into account. Whilst
there is no universally accepted formula for calculating caseload, on average,
the literature offers support for a caseload of around 15 OOHC cases per
worker.663 Research evidence broadly identifies a recommended OOHC
caseload range of 12-20 ‘standard/low need’ cases/children per caseworker and
five to eight ‘intensive/high need’ cases/children per caseworker at any given
time. Actual caseloads at different government and non-government
organisations range from 17-32 cases.
16.300 The audit concludes with the Children’s Guardian view that serious
consideration should be given to gradually transferring the case management of
a larger proportion of the OOHC cases to the non-government sector.
663
Who should be responsible for children in

OOHC?
Introduction
16.301 There are significant debates nationally and internationally about whether the
state or non-government services should primarily deliver OOHC services.
Currently, different jurisdictions in the Australia have different approaches. In
Queensland, South Australia and Victoria, the department is a regulator, funder
and provider. In Victoria, the government case manages a very small
percentage of children and young persons, and in the other two states
mentioned, the government is responsible for fewer that 50 per cent of children
and young persons in OOHC.
16.302 The ACT is the only jurisdiction where the government is not an OOHC
provider. The ACT department funds OOHC services and monitors these
through funding agreements. In Tasmania, the Northern Territory and Western
Australia, the department provides OOHC and funds non-government services,
monitored through funding or service agreements. In Tasmania and the
Northern Territory, contracting of non-government services is limited.
16.303 There have been a number of reviews in NSW of OOHC such as the 1992
Ministerial review of Substitute Care Services in NSW (the Usher Review) which
recommended the gradual transfer of all OOHC services to NGOs, with DoCS
only providing services “where a contract with a non-government agency is
impossible.”664 This was not adopted by the Government at the time because
previous DoCS attempts at contracting had resulted in poor performance
outcomes, costs were seen to be higher in the non-government sector and
concerns were held by the government that non-government services would not
take the more difficult to place children. Since that time there have been
changes in the contracting arrangements including performance management,
and a greater experience in the provision of OOHC by the NGO sector, as well
as the introduction of accreditation.
Options
16.304 There are a number of possible arrangements for the allocation of decision
making responsibility for children and young persons in OOHC.
Scenario A
16.305 DoCS has parental responsibility and is responsible for placement and case
management and there is no involvement of a non-government agency, other
than the provision of identified support services. This arrangement is presently
664
NSW Ministerial Review Committee, A Report to the Minister for Health and Community Services from the
committee established to review Substitute Care Services in NSW (Usher Review), January 1992.
the most common for children and young persons in DoCS foster and relative
care.
Scenario B
16.306 DoCS has parental responsibility and is responsible for case management. The
non-government agency provides a placement only service with responsibility
for ensuring the day to day care by an authorised carer.
Scenario C
16.307 DoCS has parental responsibility and case management and the non-
government organisation provides placement and casework services.
Scenario D
16.308 DoCS retains parental responsibility and a non-government organisation is

responsible for case management, placement and casework services. Under
this scenario, the agency has responsibility for assessment, case planning,
implementation, review, transition and case closure as well as the placement of
a child with an authorised carer, or the decision to remove a child or young
person from a carer. DoCS retains the key decision making role in restoration
decisions, developing and approving the initial care plan and has a role in
implementation. DoCS and the agency have joint responsibility for decisions to
apply to change court orders and for providing after care assistance. This
arrangement applies to only a few of the children and young persons currently
in OOHC.
Scenario E
16.309 DoCS delegates parental responsibility and transfers case management,

placement and casework services to a non-government organisation (while
retaining residual powers). Barnardo is the only agency where this has
occurred. DoCS and the NGO are jointly responsible for the initial care plan,
court applications, records and providing after care assistance. Approximately
300 children and young persons are currently cared for in this way.
Scenario F
16.310 The Children’s Court assigns parental responsibility to an NGO which is

responsible for case management. This matter is dealt with in Chapter 9 where
reasons are given for not preferring this option.
16.311 DoCS’ policy is that case management will transfer from DoCS to a non-
government agency in circumstances where:
a. DoCS child protection action is complete and DoCS is not undertaking
court action
b. final Children’s Court orders for sole or shared parental responsibility to the
Minister are in place
c. final Children’s Court orders for restoration are in place

d. other long term orders such as a supervision order, which places the child
or young person under the supervision of the Director-General, are in
place. In such cases, prior to the case being transferred, DoCS is to
negotiate and agree with the service provider, the initial case plan for the
16.312 Also part of DoCS’ current policy, case management will not transfer in cases
where the child or young person:
a. has significantly complex needs
b. is assessed as at high risk of immediate or serious harm
c. case management requires high level collaboration from other government
agencies that is unable to be achieved by a non-government organisation.
16.313 Further, agencies with case management are required to:

a. maintain current and comprehensive essential information about children
and young persons to inform decision making
b. regularly review placements in accordance with s.150 of the Care Act
c. review all behaviour management plans and use of psychotropic
medication
d. develop plans and conduct reviews according to guidelines provided by the
Children’s Guardian.665
16.314 The Inquiry received many submissions addressing the responsibility for
children and young persons in OOHC. Most of the non-government service
providers’ submissions argued that DoCS should not be a provider of OOHC at
all. By this, the Inquiry understood that Scenario D or E set out above were
preferred. DoCS, on the other hand, was in favour of a mixed service system in
which DoCS and non-government services shared the provision of OOHC, in
which case management would generally be undertaken by the NGOs, except
for a small number of High Needs Kids.
16.315 The difference between these positions essentially lies in the proportion of
children and young persons who would be cared for by the State or by NGOs
respectively. The State, in the form of the Department, prefers it to be mixed,
whereas the NGOs want the greater share of the work.
16.316 A factor which should not be overlooked is s.141(1) of the Care Act which
provides that DoCS is obliged to take responsibility as a ‘provider of last resort’
where a service provider does not meet the needs of a child or young person or
withdraws from service provision for other reasons.
665
DoCS, Case Management Policy.
Arguments in favour of transferring all or much of OOHC

responsibility to the non-government sector
16.317 There is an inherent conflict in DoCS being both a provider and a funder of
OOHC services.
16.318 Casework for children and young persons both entering and in OOHC who are
under the management of DoCS can often be neglected due to prioritisation of
crisis driven work.
Forensically driven systems are so preoccupied with managing

their problematic ‘front ends’ that precious resources: financial,
human and intellectual, are diverted away from the
development and maintenance of effective systems of care.666
16.319 This concurs with feedback provided by DoCS staff when the Inquiry met with
CSCs. It is also consistent with the findings of the audit recently conducted by
the Children’s Guardian.
16.320 A transfer of much of the OOHC responsibilities to the non-government sector is

not inconsistent with preserving a short term role for DoCS in the delivery of
crisis placements. This concurs with findings of the Usher Review which stated:
...that the appropriate, long term role for the Department of

Community Services should be to assess and review service
needs, negotiate contracts with service providers, and to
monitor standards, and to ensure programme and financial
accountability on the part of service providers. The Department
should not continue to operate as a major substitute care
provider. Such activity by the state government seriously
compromises its proper assessment, contracting, review and
monitoring roles in relation to the provision of services for
children who are in need of substitute care services.667
16.321 NGOs have smaller and less formalised management structures and often have
greater capacity to implement reforms and innovative service models more
quickly than government agencies.
16.322 Of significance to many who made submissions was the experience that, in
some cases, clients do not want to deal with a government agency, but are
happy to deal with an NGO, which is associated in their minds with the broader
community and is seen as a non-judgemental agency that is directed towards
providing assistance to those in need.
666
Submission: Australian Association of Social Workers, p.29.
667
NSW Ministerial Review Committee, A Report to the Minister for Health and Community Services from the
committee established to review Substitute Care Services in NSW (Usher Review), January 1992, p.4.
16.323 Effective performance management and performance based contracting, such

as has been introduced by DoCS will be capable of addressing any current
deficiencies in NGO governance, structures and other aspects of their
operations.
16.324 Finally, the functions of the Children’s Guardian and those of the Ombudsman
provide additional safeguards for monitoring the standards for the delivery of
services to children and young persons in OOHC services.
Arguments against transferring all of OOHC responsibility

to the non-government sector
16.325 As noted, DoCS has advocated for a mixed service system in which DoCS and
non-government services share service provision in OOHC. The advantages of
such a system, such as presently exists are that:
a. it ensures flexibility for services being provided in the most effective and
efficient manner by the provider best placed to do so
b. it enables DoCS to be an informed purchaser.
16.326 Other arguments have been advanced in favour of maintaining the status quo
as follows:
a. to alter the existing system would expose DoCS to higher policy
implementation risks if it does not directly manage OOHC
b. NGOs can lack economies of scale, efficient and effective infrastructure,
management systems or suitably qualified personnel. The provision of
more expensive services by NGOs, even if of better quality, could lead to
an increase in DoCS under funding its clients
c. some objectives of NGOs may differ from those of the Government and
where it is difficult to monitor outputs or outcomes, an NGO may render
different services from those for which it was contracted
d. as they only have responsibility for part of the child protection system,
NGOs may not necessarily support policy changes that improve the system
as a whole.
e. where the outputs or outcomes from services are difficult to observe or
measure this can lead to performance problems.
Other factors
16.327 Several important factors need to be taken into account in addition to these
competing contentions.
16.328 First, the OOHC population is projected to increase from the current 14,667
children and young persons to 19,495 by the year 2011/12. Accordingly, NGOs
would need sufficient capacity to meet this increased and probably increasing
need. DoCS estimates that once the current OOHC funding reform process is
complete, NGO maximum capacity will be 4,063 placements.
16.329 Secondly, comparing the cost to the State of OOHC provided by the
Department with that provided by NGOs is not simple. There is little difference
in the cost per person in general foster care between the two sectors, and that
difference is generally accounted for by the higher salaries paid to government
workers. However, when one factors in the lower ratios of children or young
persons to caseworkers in the NGO sector (about 1:10), DoCS appears to be
the cheaper provider. This, however, is misleading as it does not adequately
reflect the number of unallocated cases and the poorer quality of casework
which inevitably occurs when a caseworker is faced with a greater number of
children and young persons.
16.330 Thirdly, data provided by DoCS suggest that children and young persons in
OOHC have multiple placements whether in DoCS foster care or non-
government foster care. In 2006/07, 49 per cent of those in non-government
foster care had three or more placements, compared with 37 per cent in DoCS
foster care. These figures, however, need to be carefully examined as a child
or young person placed with non-government organisation may have had a
prior placement with DoCS in the current care period or visa versa.
16.331 Fourthly, most OOHC service provision is managed by DoCS and as such the
scale of the operation varies significantly between DoCS and NGOs. For
example, Barnardos currently provides services to 214 and UnitingCare
Burnside to 104 children and young persons. By comparison, as at June 2008
one large DoCS CSC, Campbelltown alone was responsible for 615 children
and young persons in OOHC.
16.332 Fifthly, there will always be a cohort of seriously disturbed and high needs
children and young persons, particularly those in their later years, which NGOs
will have difficulty in placing or may be unable to place unless there have
specialised places or carers. In addition, there will always be a need to have
carers available for short term crisis situations. Unless there is a body of
carers, trained and ready to care for this group on DoCS behalf, it may be
prevented from delivering an essential part of its statutory function.
Position of the oversight bodies

16.333 The Ombudsman and the Children’s Guardian are more cautious than the
NGOs and suggest a more gradual process. The Children’s Guardian
recommended the progressive delegation of case management responsibility to
NGOs according to their capacity as set out in by DoCS case management
policy. She further recommended that DoCS consult her before delegating
case management or broader parental responsibility to particular NGOs.
16.334 Both the Ombudsman and the Children’s Guardian note that when comparing
the quality of DoCS casework with non-government service provision,
consideration needs to be taken of caseworker allocation rates. The

Ombudsman stated that there may be some merit in DoCS being an informed
purchaser of services if it remains a supplier.
We are of the view that a move towards a greater proportion of

out of home care placements being under the umbrella of the
non government sector needs to be carefully managed and
closely monitored. In particular any rapid expansion of
individual services – particularly those without well established
practice in this field – may pose a risk to the quality of services
provided.668
and
However, perhaps a more critical issue in relation to whether

DoCS should continue to have a role in directly providing these
services relates to whether it is realistic and desirable that all
children in care could and should be accommodated in the non
government sector …. there is the question as to whether
DoCS may need to retain responsibility for certain young
persons whose behaviour and/or circumstances places them in
need of specialist care services. In this regard we note the
improved service delivery arrangements that DoCS has put in
place to meet the needs of this group over the past four
years.669
Inquiry’s view
16.335 Regardless of whether children and young persons are cared for by the State or
by the NGO sector, the increase in the size of the group in care and in the
length of their stay in care, and the need for acceptable ratios of caseworkers to
children and young persons, inevitably mean that the cost of OOHC will
increase.
16.336 The Inquiry agrees with the comments of the Usher Review quoted above, and
with the caution expressed by the Ombudsman and the Children’s Guardian. In
its view, there should be a gradual transition to Scenarios D and E with case
management for those with complex needs as defined in the policy remaining
for the time being with DoCS, along with a close monitoring of the cost benefits
of any such progressive devolution of this function. There will always be the
need for DoCS to be the provider of last resort.
16.337 As is clear from the data, there is an increasing number of children and young
persons entering care with significant child protection histories which suggests
that managing the complexity of their needs will require experienced staff. This
668
Submission: NSW Ombudsman, pp.1-2.
669
ibid., p.2.
together with an increasing shift to non-government service provision will need

to be accompanied by adoption of a workforce strategy that will attract staff able
to support and coordinate services from a range of agencies to meet the needs
of those in care.
16.338 The Inquiry is satisfied that the safeguards in place with the delegation of
parental responsibility to the Principal Officer of Barnardos are sufficient and
should be followed in subsequent delegations. Further, it agrees with the
Children’s Guardian that she should be consulted by DoCS before the
Department determines to delegate parental responsibility to any other person
or agency, and be heard on the suitability of such a delegation.
16.339 The Inquiry also agrees with the Children’s Guardian that DoCS’ Case
Management Policy is sound and clearly spells out appropriate roles and
responsibilities in relation to case management functions and the need for case
management to sit with the agency providing the direct services to children and
young persons in OOHC. As she said:
The 2007 DoCS Case Management Policy outlines the

responsibilities of DoCS and non government agencies under
particular parental responsibility, case management, casework
and placement arrangements. This is an excellent resource
and it is hoped it will resolve some of the uncertainties that have
traditionally accompanied arrangements where DoCS and a
non-government agency share responsibilities for a child or
young person in OOHC.670
Health screening and assessment

DoCS, Health and the Colleges
16.340 DoCS and Health signed a MOU in 2006 aimed at increasing access for
children and young persons in OOHC to services provided by Health. The
MOU is being implemented at the local level through joint agreements between
DoCS Regions and the Area Health Services. The quality of local level working
relationships and service capacity varies across the State. An addendum to this
MOU is being developed, aimed at meeting the mental health needs of children
and young persons in care.
16.341 The types of services covered under the MOU include:

a. identifying referral points in each Area Health Service for community health,
drug and alcohol services, and mental health services
b. specialist medical, psychiatric and other health assessment services
670
Submission: Children’s Guardian, p.39.
c. specialised medical and mental health services, including secure in-patient

psychiatric acute care appropriate for children and young persons
d. specialist sexual offender services for children and young persons who
sexually offend.
16.342 Health in its submission to the Inquiry stated that referrals of children and young
persons in OOHC are prioritised because the serious health and social
inequalities experienced by these children and young persons are recognised
as an additional dimension beyond the presenting features of any referral. As
such, the referral of a child and young person is “considered ahead of any
others where a clinical imperative does not require an alternative
prioritisation.”671 Health further stated that those in OOHC need to have access
to a comprehensive primary health assessment, and need to be subsequently
linked into the local services best equipped to meet their needs. Information
provided to the Inquiry suggests that while policy supports this, practice can at
times be variable depending on capacity within Area Health Services.
16.343 The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) has issued a paediatric
policy relating to the health of children in OOHC. It states that:
there are multiple reasons for vulnerability in these children

including their high prevalence of abuse and neglect, their
greater likelihood of disadvantaged backgrounds, and their
increased biological weighting for example, with parents with
mental health and drug abuse problems. These factors also
contribute to fragmented health care.672
16.344 It stated that there is no unified response or specific policies or recommended

standards of health assessment intervention for those in OOHC. RACP has
recommended that an assessment of children and young persons should be
conducted within 30 days of entering OOHC.673
16.345 Other states have acknowledged the need for a health screening process for
those who are in OOHC. These states are currently in the process of
developing or have implemented a process to undertake health screening for
this group with the purpose of identifying any health issues and facilitating
appropriate follow up.674
16.346 Queensland’s Department of Child Safety, with the assistance of Queensland

Health, has developed the Child Health Passport to facilitate a baseline health
assessment for each person upon entry into care and to provide for annual
health checks whilst they remain in OOHC. The process enables health issues
671
Submission: NSW Health, p.43.
672
Royal Australian College of Physicians, Health of children in out-of-home care: Paediatric Policy, 2006,
p.14.
673
ibid., p.6.
674
Health, Community and Disability Services Ministers’ Conference paper, Medicare benefits schedule item
number for health checks of children in out-of-home care, 23 July 2008, p.5.
to be identified through the health screening process and where there is a need
for follow up, this is undertaken by the caseworker who also ensures that health
information is shared with a child’s carer to enable them to meet any health
needs.675
16.347 In Victoria, under the Looking after Children case practice framework, plans are
developed to meet the health needs of children and young persons in OOHC.
Plans are reviewed six monthly for children under five years of age and annually
for children aged five years or over. Victoria is moving to strengthen this
approach through a comprehensive health and well-being assessment when
children and young persons first enter care. This will be provided by the
combination of a general practitioner, a mental health clinician and a
paediatrician.676
16.348 Western Australia’s Departments of Health, Child Protection and Education and
Training are working to establish a system that will ensure children and young
persons in OOHC have health and education assessments and plans covering
physical, mental and dental care. It is envisaged that the assessment model
chosen would review physical growth, progress towards developmental
milestones and psychological/emotional development.677
16.349 South Australia has developed Health Standards for Children and Young
People under the Guardianship of the Minister. This involves an agreement
between the Department of Families and Communities and the Department of
Health that Health will provide a comprehensive paediatric assessment upon
entry into care.678
16.350 RANZCP, following a recent review of the evidence regarding the mental health
of children and young persons in OOHC, has recommended that every person
entering care as part of the entry process, has a multi-model mental health
assessment. It was also stated that particular attention should be paid to
assessment of those with intellectual disabilities entering care, because of the
potential for these disabilities to mask their mental health issues. This
assessment should occur within 30 days of entering care.679
16.351 The RANZCP has concluded that the evidence is ‘convincing’ that ‘chronically’
maltreated children can be protected from developing mental health problems if
they enter care at a young age. They therefore recommended that in cases
where parental incapacity to change makes it clear that reunification is unlikely,
permanent care arrangements should be prioritised, especially for children aged
under two years.680
675
ibid.
676
ibid.
677
ibid.
678
ibid.
679
Psychiatry, Melbourne, 2008, pp.21 and 24.
680
ibid, p. 18.
16.352 The RANZCP supported the establishment of evidence based parent education
and home visiting programs to prevent child abuse and neglect, as well as
maternal antenatal assessments, and antenatal and postnatal education to
improve parental mental health and parenting skills.681
16.353 RANZCP noted that Aboriginal cultural and spiritual factors can impact on how
mental health problems develop and may influence how the problems appear
and how appropriate and acceptable treatment may be. However, the report
also noted that diagnoses based on culturally specific assessments may lead to
misdiagnosis with long term consequences. The RANZCP therefore called for
development of culturally appropriate tools to assess child development and
mental health, and for increased knowledge and understanding of these
issues.682
16.354 Further, RANZCP stated:
Access to competent, comprehensive mental health care needs

to be a priority for children in out-of-home care.683
16.355 DoCS’ procedures state:
All children and young persons should undergo a health,

developmental and mental health/behavioural assessment
within 60 days of entering care. Their case worker is
responsible for arranging these assessments which are carried
out by a range of medical and allied health professionals.
The physical health/medical component of the assessment

should include the following:
i. completion of a medical history profile of the child and
family to understand the health conditions of parents or
siblings which may impact on the child’s health, welfare
and well-being
ii. immunisation register check
iii. physical examination that checks for growth delay (e.g
careful measure of weight, height and head
circumference) and signs of malnutrition
iv. screening for visual and hearing deficits
v. screening for signs of pathological conditions that need
further investigation (e.g. foetal alcohol syndrome,
fragile X syndrome, physical abnormalities that may be
related to past abuse)
681
ibid., pp. 18 and 19.
682
683
ibid., p.23.
vi. dental health screening.
A developmental assessment component should also be done

which covers domains such as general cognitive functioning,
language and communication, gross and fine motor functioning
and socialisation.684
16.356 The mental health/behaviour assessment may be deferred until after the initial
shock of being removed from family has subsided and the child or young person
has settled into an alternative placement.685
16.357 DoCS’ policy places responsibility on the caseworker to obtain the child or
young person’s personal health record (Blue Book), from the parents. If this is
not possible the caseworker arranges for the carer to obtain a new one from
their local child health centre or hospital. It then becomes the responsibility of
the carers to update the Blue Book during the time the child or young person is
placed with them. If the child or young person leaves a placement the Blue
Book should be returned to the caseworker to ensure that it goes to the next
placement or to the parents.686
Services
16.358 OOHC Assessment Clinics are specialist health and development assessment
services for children entering OOHC operating in NSW Health’s specialist
children’s hospitals. The clinics offer medical and psychosocial assessment
and referral to allied health assessment (where allied health assessments are
not provided at the same time).
16.359 The Children’s Hospital Westmead Clinic operates from the Child Protection
Unit. Children placed under the care of the Minister for Community Services for
a period of two years or more, living in the Sydney West Area aged from 0-12
years, with a priority for children aged 0-8 years, may be referred by DoCS for
this service.
16.360 Sydney Children’s Hospital Child Protection Unit Out-of-Home Care Screening
Clinic provides a similar service for children in the DoCS Metro Central Region.
This service is also for children aged 0-12 years, and targets those in care,
under temporary or permanent orders, and gives priority to children aged 0-5
years. An evaluation of this service was published in 2007, and the service has
been running since 2005.
16.361 The Kaleidoscope Health Screening Clinic for Children in OOHC is the John
Hunter Children’s Hospital’s Out-of-Home Care Screening Clinic, based in the
Hunter Child Protection and Family Counselling Service. It is available for
684
DoCS, Child Protection and out-of-home care caseworker policy manual, p.96.
685
ibid., p.97.
686
ibid., p.96.
children placed under the care of the Minister for Community Services who are
expected to be in long term care and are children aged from 0-12 years.
16.362 Similar to the Children’s Hospital in Westmead, priority is given by the

Kaleidoscope Clinic to children aged 0-8 years. The Clinic provides medical
and psychosocial assessment with referral to allied health assessment where
indicated. Referrals are taken from DoCS or from the foster care non-
government organisation responsible for the child. The service is based at
Wallsend in Newcastle. Hunter New England Area Health Service advised the
Inquiry that the service had been running since November 2006. Statistics,
evaluation, funding information, and the cost of the program in 2006/07 were
not available.
16.363 KARI Aboriginal Resources is funded by DoCS to deliver foster care services
across South West Sydney and to coordinate comprehensive health
assessments for Aboriginal children entering OOHC. The KARI Clinic is a
partnership between KARI, Sydney South West Area Health Service and DoCS.
16.364 The KARI Clinic operates from three locations: Tharawal Aboriginal Corporation
premises in Airds, KARI Aboriginal Resources Inc. site in Liverpool, and at the
Liverpool Hospital Rainbow Cottage.
16.365 The KARI Clinic was evaluated in 2005 by the Centre for Health Equity Training
Research and Evaluation. The focus of the evaluation was to establish the
extent to which the initiatives of the Clinic had achieved its stated aims, and to
examine how it evolved and how it has worked with Aboriginal children and
young persons entering care.687
16.366 It was reported that the KARI Clinic had experienced a range of obstacles. One
was that at the time of the evaluation in 2005, the Clinic was said to be “running
on goodwill since its establishment ... there was still no formal/written
agreement between the partners about the resources to be committed.”688
Whilst an MOU was in place between the agencies there was no specific
reference to resources to be committed from the respective agencies.
16.367 Lack of specific funding for this Clinic was said to be a major limitation of the
Clinic’s operation, as was the fact that it was not seen as an established health
service for Aboriginal children, and that it did not have a consistent location or
consistent personnel. Lack of specific services such as dental and hearing
services was also mentioned by staff as an access barrier for foster carers.689
16.368 The time taken for the provision of assessments was seen as a further barrier:
The slow response in assessing children was also seen as a

result of the limited one a month times allocated for clinical
687
Sydney South West Area Health Service, Final Draft of the 2005 Evaluation Report, p.ii.
688
ibid., p.13.
689
ibid., p.14.
assessments, the transitional nature of Aboriginal families and

the clinic not being seen as core business.690
16.369 It was also reported that at the time of the evaluation, follow up and treatment
for the children assessed had been limited.691
16.370 The evaluation noted that the Clinic had experienced difficulties in accessing
and maintaining health care data and information for the children assessed, and
noted that the management of health care data and information was one of the
challenges of this model.692
16.371 It was reported that achievements of the KARI Clinic included the fact that it had
provided the opportunity for early identification of the health needs of Aboriginal
children in OOHC, with children receiving health and developmental
assessments. The benefits were believed to have extended beyond the
children to their carers, who were said to have experienced improved
confidence in caring for foster children, increased knowledge of health
behaviours and improved access to health services as a result of their
involvement with the Clinic.693 The KARI Clinic was also said to have improved
communication and relationships between the interagency partners KARI,
Health and DoCS.694
16.372 Despite the obstacles encountered, it was seen that “the future vision of the
KARI Clinic is a transferable model of health care not only for Indigenous
children but for all children in OOHC.”695 It was acknowledged, however, that
the model required further work to achieve this goal. In 2008, the Kari Clinic
was a winner of the NSW Aboriginal Health Awards for Strengthening Aboriginal
Families and Children.
Issues Arising
16.373 The issues raised with the Inquiry relating to the health needs of children in
OOHC fell into three broad categories. First, the need to secure access to
comprehensive, multi-disciplinary health and developmental assessments for
children entering OOHC; secondly, the need for access to routine and
specialised services to improve health and development outcomes for children
and young persons in OOHC and to support their carers; and thirdly, problems
with agency and government structures and systems that acted as barriers to
improving the outcomes for those in OOHC.
16.374 The Inquiry heard that there was a widespread understanding of the importance
of comprehensive health and development assessments for children entering
690
ibid., p.15.
691
ibid., p.16.
692
ibid., p.29.
693
ibid., p.8.
694
ibid., p.9.
695
ibid., p.30.
OOHC, and that the recommendations of the RACP policy were widely
supported. The comprehensive assessment clinics run at the three children’s
hospitals, and the KARI clinic for Aboriginal children were perceived to be good
models. However, access to such services was identified as a problem.
16.375 Access to follow up health and developmental interventions was a concern

across the State. The Inquiry understands from Health that only an estimated
10 per cent of children entering OOHC had a primary health assessment by
NSW Health Services in the period July 2007 to 30 June 2008. This highlights
that the MOU has yet to be fully implemented. The Inquiry heard that although
health workers were willing, the implementation of the MOU was hampered by a
lack of services. A major gap in the availability of speech pathology services
was identified. The paucity of services was seen to impact adversely on the
children, but also on their carers and their caseworkers. One NGO OOHC
service provider said:
The impact for us as an agency is for our caseworkers working

with foster families with the children in care, because they're the
ones still waiting, waiting, waiting, and we can't give them an
answer and we don't have access to make the system work
better. So when we were looking earlier today at disruption
rates and support, I think that that flow on will make a big
difference, if we can improve the access and service delivery.696
16.376 The Inquiry heard that one pressing issue that hampered agencies in their
efforts to meet the health needs of children entering OOHC was the fragmented
information systems and poor access to personal and family health information.
The Inquiry understands from Health that, following an audit in September
2008, it was identified that there is no standard or consistent approach to the
collection of data for health screening and assessment for children in care by
Area Health Services other than in the five clinics set up to conduct multi-
disciplinary assessments. Further, health information about a child who moves
from one area to another can be problematic as the relevant health provider
may not be informed of the relocation and the child’s health information does
not necessarily follow them. One paediatrician in Wagga Wagga informed the
Inquiry that a process was needed to ensure that when a child was removed
from his or her parents, essential health information was gathered such as
whether the child had a condition requiring regular medication. He gave the
example of an epileptic child on anti-convulsant medication.
16.377 The Inquiry was advised that the presence of an accessible, comprehensive
medical record or a transferable record (as recommended by the RACP) would
be of huge value in the assessment of these children and young persons, and
that even the routine information recorded in the Blue Book would assist in
providing a comprehensive assessment of the child’s needs. The Inquiry heard
that currently, the information systems within Health made it difficult to access
696
Transcript: Public Forum, OOHC, 29 February 2008, p.51.
health histories especially where children and young persons had moved into a
different health area, and that there were additional problems accessing
information from other agencies such as DoCS and DADHC to inform the
assessment.
16.378 Health informed the Inquiry that there was a national and statewide move
toward centralised electronic medical records, but that a functioning centralised
record was unlikely to be available for a decade.
16.379 Children and young persons have many needs which cannot always be met by
one government department or agency. In an attempt to meet these needs in a
coordinated manner a range of MOU have been established between various
government departments, notably, Health, DADHC and Education. These
MOUs state that children and young persons in OOHC are to be given priority
for services delivered by these agencies. Information provided by both DoCS,
other non-government agencies and through submissions, however, indicates
that there is presently a difficulty across NSW and particularly in rural and
remote areas in accessing assessment and intervention services. Barnardos
advised the Inquiry:
We are sceptical in the implementation. For example an MOU

negotiated by DoCS Director-General with his equivalent in
Health to achieve prioritised paediatric assessment was well
publicised in the media. However 18 months later conversation
with staff at the hospital concerned demonstrates very few
children referred by DoCS received the paediatric
assessment.697
16.380 While the policy and the MOU are clear, presently within the NSW OOHC
system there is no guarantee that children and young persons entering OOHC
will have their health, developmental and dental needs assessed and followed
up in a timely manner. In the 2007 Review of children under five years by the
Ombudsman, ongoing concerns were identified about the adequacy of general
health and other screening when children enter care. Similar findings were also
made in the NSW Ombudsman’s 2008 draft report on 35 children aged 10 to 14
years who were in OOHC and who were under parental responsibility of the
Minister.698
16.381 Health in its submission to the Inquiry stated that while DoCS and Health have
agreed on a model for comprehensive health assessments, other contract
arrangements have been put in place by DoCS. Health strongly recommended
that it should become the primary provider of health assessments to children
and young persons in OOHC to prevent service duplication, disjointed care and
waste of resources. Health stated that it was able to offer statewide
697
Submission: Barnardos, pp.17-18.
698
NSW Ombudsman, Review of a group of children aged 10 to 14 in out-of-home care and under the
parental responsibility of the Minister for Community Services, Draft, 12 November 2008, p.8.
assessment services that are linked to treatment services, although it accepted

that successful implementation would require additional resources.
16.382 As part of the OOHC expression of interest process, DoCS sought tenders for
the provision of health assessments for children and young persons, which
would suggest that access to these services is currently not being provided in a
systematic manner by Health. DoCS is currently in negotiation with Catholic
Healthcare to provide health assessments across the seven DoCS regions.
The annual cost of this contract is estimated at approximately $4 million. DoCS
advises that this agency will not be contracted for treatment or clinical services.
Referrals will be prepared and treatment sought through the usual Health
processes or through private practitioners where necessary.
16.383 It is unclear whether or not these services contracted by DoCS will compare
favourably with the public health models currently available in some locations in
NSW. A concern for the Inquiry is how services that are needed following the
assessment of children and young persons will be accessed and delivered and
by whom. Many submissions and concerns raised during the Inquiry’s Public
Forums, meetings with DoCS CSC staff highlighted the current lack of required
treatment and health services presently available, despite a plethora of well
documented MOUs.
16.384 There was, however, evidence provided to the Inquiry of successful partnership
models in place between some Area Health Services and DoCS, which were
providing good results. Health has collaborated with DoCS on a potential
service model option for health assessments of children and young persons
entering care. As such it is unclear to the Inquiry why negotiations with another
service provider (Catholic Healthcare) and not Health are being progressed. It
would appear that subject to having sufficient funding, Health would be best
placed to provide both assessment and ongoing provision of services, where
required, subject to being able to deliver consistently across the State through
the various Area Health Services. Health informed the Inquiry:
NSW Health is the best agency to provide these comprehensive

health care assessments as it has the expertise, knowledge
and skills, within a tiered health care system, ensuring that
there is no duplication of services, disjointed care; delays for
children nor waste of resources.
Furthermore, the link between the Health assessment process

and the referral process to improve access to mental health
services for children and young persons in care remains critical
given that mental health issues contribute significantly to
morbidity in this population.699
16.385 Recommendations are made at the end of this chapter.
699
Submission: NSW Health, p.43.
Education
16.386 There is an MOU between DoCS and Education in relation to educational
services for children and young persons in OOHC. The objectives of this MOU
are to:
a. clarify the roles and responsibilities of the two departments in meeting the
needs of children and young persons in OOHC who are attending a NSW
government school
b. ensure that children and young persons in OOHC receive appropriate
support at those stages, or in those circumstances in their school life,
where coordinated service delivery through information sharing, or case
planning or management is beneficial
c. promote information sharing about each department’s programs, services
and other resources, to facilitate better outcomes for children and young
persons in OOHC.
16.387 The MOU provides for the development of individual education plans on a case
by case basis, as appropriate. It also provides for responding to requests from
DoCS, an authorised carer, or a child, or young person in care, for learning
support, based on identified need.
16.388 Many submissions to the Inquiry raised concerns about children and young
persons not getting access to education because of their challenging
behaviours resulted in expulsion and suspension from school. While
Education’s, Suspension and Expulsion of School Students Procedures states
that “a work program should be provided for the duration of the suspension”
information provided to the Inquiry suggests that this rarely happens.
UnitingCare Burnside informed the Inquiry:
In 2007 Burnside had 76 children and young persons 5-16

years old in care … Thirteen children and young persons in
Burnside services, aged between 10 and 16 years, were
expelled or suspended from schools in 2007. This represents
approximately 17 per cent or almost one in five children placed
in our care were in conflict with the school system at this level.
The result was approximately 30 months of lost school between
the 13 children…. In about 40 per cent of cases no school work
was provided.700
16.389 In the Ombudsman’s review of children aged 10-14 years in OOHC, a number
of these children had multiple school placements and histories of poor school
attendance and school suspension with many performing below average in
relation to literacy and numeracy skills. This draft report also noted that some
700
Submission: Burnside, OOHC, June 2008, Attachment: Briefing Paper: Suspension / expulsion of children
and young persons in UnitingCare Burnside Out of Home Care Services, 2007, p.19.
children whose academic performance was below average before they entered
long term OOHC had made significant improvements as a result of additional
support including in-class support, tutoring, and assistance from school
counsellors.701
16.390 All Australian jurisdictions have identified the importance of Individual Education
Plans. In Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and ACT the intention is for all
children in OOHC to have these plans. In NSW, Tasmania, Western Australia
and Northern Territory these plans are completed on a needs basis. National
and international research confirms that Individual Education Plans are
regarded as the best strategy for ensuing an educational focus is maintained
throughout the period the child is in care.
16.391 The CREATE Foundation has also been conducting research on the education
of children and young persons in care. CREATE identified the fundamental
areas of immediate action required to support and improve the educational
participation and performance of children and young persons in care that have
been reported on since 2002. The areas of action include:
a. ensuring that all children and young persons in care have an individual
education plan
b. establishing mechanisms that monitor, evaluate and review achievement of
outcomes.702
16.392 The Inquiry agrees that these actions are required.
16.393 DoCS is currently funding research into the educational needs of children and
young persons in OOHC to identify how these can be better met. The results of
this will be available in early 2009.
16.394 DoCS has developed a policy position under which there is a requirement for all
children and young persons aged three years and over to have an educational
assessment within 90 days of entering care.703 In addition, children aged 3-12
years who are already in care, who have not had such an assessment, will be
required to have one completed. For care leavers, as part of their leaving care
plan, the need for an educational assessment will be determined on a case by
case basis.704 The Inquiry supports this policy, subject to education and
employment options being examined for all care leavers. DoCS advised that an
estimated $2 million would be required to fully implement this policy.
16.395 The implementation of the ‘OOHC minimum data set’ in NSW will provide
information on educational participation, incidences of suspension and
expulsion, educational attainment levels and retention rates for children and
701
NSW Ombudsman, Review of a group of children aged 10 to 14 in out-of-home care and under the
parental responsibility of the Minister for Community Services, Draft, 12 November 2008, p.9.
702
CREATE Foundation, Report Card on Education 2006, p.5.
703
DoCS, Proposed policy position on educational assessment of children in OOHC, February 2008, p.2.
704
ibid., p.3.
young persons in care. The OOHC minimum data set is expected to be

implemented by NGOs in March 2009 and in DoCS in July 2009. To date, no
data on educational participation and performance are available in NSW. It is
unclear from the information provided by DoCS when reporting on this area will
commence for both funded and direct OOHC services.
Unproclaimed provisions in the Care Act

16.396 A number of key sections of the Care Act have not been proclaimed. Most of
these relate to powers of the Children’s Guardian with respect to OOHC.
16.397 The Children's Guardian believes the current unproclaimed provisions would be
unworkable in their current form and are not in the best interests of children and
young persons in OOHC. This position was generally supported by others,
including DoCS. Those provisions concern voluntary OOHC, dispute resolution,
case review, delegation to non-government organisations and the exercise of
residual powers of guardianship.
16.398 There are however a number of amendments which are sought by the
Children’s Guardian, which are addressed below.
Voluntary Out-Of-Home Care

16.399 Sections 135(1)(c)(ii) and 135(3)(b) effectively exclude some forms of voluntary
care from the OOHC definition. In addition, ss.155 and 156 which provide for
the monitoring or review of children and young persons in voluntary OOHC
remain unproclaimed.
16.400 A number of submissions were critical of the consequent absence of regulation

of those providing care for these children and young persons, including those
provided by the Ombudsman and ACWA.
16.401 The Inquiry understands that DoCS has recently consulted extensively on a
proposal for a revised scheme for voluntary care. Its purpose is to clearly
distinguish between a statutory scheme for OOHC, temporary arrangements
which are supported by DoCS, and voluntary care without the involvement of
the Courts or DoCS, so as to ensure those in the latter category are not subject
to harm. That scheme, which this Inquiry supports, incorporates the following
elements:
a. Limiting the definition of OOHC to apply only to children and young persons
in court ordered care or who are protected persons.
b. Reclassifying voluntary OOHC into supported care, including short term
temporary care arrangements involving and supported by DoCS, and
parent initiated and managed voluntary care.
c. Requiring for those in voluntary care, if in care for over 90 days, that care is
to be provided or supervised by a designated agency which must prepare
care plans which are reviewed annually. If in care for under 90 days and
not by a designated agency then the provider of the care should be
registered with the Office of the Children’s Guardian.
16.402 This proposal is primarily directed at children and young persons with
disabilities and recognises that the current unproclaimed provisions would
capture arrangements where state intervention is not warranted. For example,
they could apply to a child or young person staying with friends over school
holidays, or to a child or young person with a severe disability who is in respite
care frequently.
16.403 The Inquiry notes that this proposal has received the support of those most
concerned with the voluntary OOHC regulation including DADHC, the Children’s
Guardian, NCOSS, ACWA and the Ministerial Advisory Council.
16.404 The Inquiry is of the view that consideration should also be given to
incorporating a formal mechanism for mediation as part of the voluntary OOHC
system, to be accessed in circumstances where care-givers become concerned
about a parent’s ability to act in the best interests of the child or young person
and these concerns fall short of a reportable risk of harm. The Inquiry notes
that this mechanism has been supported by DADHC and by the Children’s
Guardian.
Dispute resolution function

16.405 The unproclaimed s.183 of the Care Act provides that the Children's Guardian
may use his or her best endeavours to informally resolve disputes between
various parties that may arise in the administration of the Care Act and
regulations.
16.406 The Children's Guardian has told the Inquiry that her Office does not have the
expertise to resolve disputes concerning the broad administration of the Care
Act and Regulations, given its OOHC focus. The Inquiry understands that the
intention of the Parkinson review of the 1987 Act was that this function was to
be limited to matters arising between carers and DoCS in the context of OOHC.
16.407 The Inquiry is of the view that since these provisions were drafted, a more
sophisticated complaint handling framework is in place within DoCS, NGOs and
the Ombudsman rendering it unnecessary for the Children’s Guardian to
undertake this work. In addition, greater use of ADR as set out in Chapter 12
should enable these disputes to be resolved by other means.
Case plan/review function

16.408 The unproclaimed s.181(1)(d) of the Care Act requires the Children's Guardian
to examine a copy of the case plan for each child or young person in OOHC
and a copy of each report made following the regular review of the case plan.
16.409 The unproclaimed s.150(5) of the Care Act requires copies of each review
report to be provided to the Children's Guardian, with reviews to be conducted
at least annually. More frequent reviews are required in some circumstances.
16.410 The Children’s Guardian submitted that given the numbers of children and
young persons in statutory care, proclamation of ss.181(1)(d) and 150(5) would
require the Children's Guardian to review well in excess of 10,000 case
plans/reviews each year.
16.411 The Children’s Guardian is of the view that the broad monitoring provided for
under the Case File Audit Program and in the Accreditation and Quality
Improvement Program constitute a better vehicle to ensure the review of
children and young persons in statutory care.
16.412 Professor Parkinson suggested to the Inquiry that at least annual reviews
should be provided to the Children’s Guardian:
That they be received by the Guardian, that the Guardian has a

register, a record of children in out-of-home care, and ticks off
that it has been received. That then is an extra tool for her if
she has concerns about a particular child or a particular
category of case, to at least have the review on file to be able to
look at what has been happening in the last couple of years. It
is an obvious management tool.
I would be comfortable if we repealed the provision that they

have to examine every report.705
16.413 The Inquiry agrees with Professor Parkinson’s suggestion. Requiring review
reports to be forwarded to the Children’s Guardian would enable a register to be
kept by her Office which can then inform the other statutory functions attaching
to it. It will also render more transparent this activity in DoCS. There should not
be a statutory requirement that the Children’s Guardian examine each report.
Nor should there be a requirement for the Children’s Guardian to examine every
case plan for those in OOHC.
Delegating to non-government agencies

16.414 Under s.181(1)(a) the Children’s Guardian has the power to exercise, subject to
the direction of the Minister, the parental responsibilities of the Minister for a
child or young person for the benefit of the child or young person. As this is not
proclaimed, DoCS has responsibility for delegating responsibility for decision
making to non-government agencies.
16.415 The Children's Guardian advised the Inquiry that to proclaim this provision
would interfere with:
705
recently established systems for allocating parental

responsibility, case management responsibility and casework
responsibility. These systems set out in the 2007 DoCS Case
Management Policy are linked with current funding systems and
should be given an opportunity to be embedded.706
16.416 However, the Children's Guardian advised the Inquiry that she believes that her
Office held sufficient information relevant to agency capacity to take on
additional decision making functions, and that DoCS should consult with the
Children's Guardian before delegating responsibility (including case
management responsibility) to non-government agencies.
16.417 DoCS has agreed with this proposal, although prefers that it be effected
otherwise than by legislative amendment.
16.418 The Inquiry agrees that DoCS and the Children’s Guardian should develop a
process whereby consultation occurs before DoCS delegates the responsibility
mentioned. In the absence of agreement between them, the Inquiry
recommends that the Care Act be amended to require consultation. Provision
should be made for those the subject of adverse comment from the Children’s
Guardian to respond to that comment.
Residual powers of guardianship

16.419 By virtue of the fact that the powers of the Children’s Guardian to act as the
name suggests, have largely remained unproclaimed, s.186, which has been
proclaimed, is anomalous.
16.420 To grant to the Guardian the non-delegable powers set out in s.186(1)(a) – (f)
would not be in keeping with the current role and function of that office. These
include:
a. granting consent to the marriage of a child or young person
b. granting permission to remove a child or young person from NSW
c. applying for a passport on behalf of a child or young person
d. granting consent to medical and dental treatment of a kind prescribed by
the regulations
16.421 The Children's Guardian submitted to the Inquiry that it would not be in the best
interests of children and young persons in OOHC for the Children's Guardian to
exercise the non-delegable ‘residual powers of guardianship referred to in s.186
of the Care Act.’ She recommended that the Care Act be amended to remove
the references to the Children's Guardian exercising these residual powers of
guardianship. The Inquiry agrees. They are currently exercised by DoCS and
by other persons with parental responsibility.
706
16.422 The Children’s Guardian also submitted that non-delegable functions should be
set out in the Regulations, and the Children's Guardian should have the:
a function of monitoring the systems in place for making such

decisions;
b power to require the Director-General of DoCS to provide

such information to the Children's Guardian on the exercise
of ‘non-delegable’ parental responsibility functions, as the
Children's Guardian may require; and
c power to report and make recommendations to the Minister

on systems for making 'non-delegable’ parental
responsibility decisions and on particular parental
responsibility decisions that should or should not be capable
of being delegated.707
16.423 A senior officer from the Office of the Children’s Guardian explained the
proposal in the following way to the Inquiry:
It is appropriate to have an external party involved in that

process, but does it respond to an identified crisis or concern?
The answer is no. It is a sensible oversight arrangement that
really requires some discussion and is likely to have minimum
impact on our workloads, but perhaps offer some assurance to
the sector that these decisions are not being made unilaterally
and are being made in consultation.708
16.424 DoCS did not support this proposal. It noted that if the designated agencies are
concerned about decisions made by DoCS, there are existing mechanisms
including application to the ADT to have the decisions re-considered. In
addition, the Children’s Guardian’s Case File Audit Program provides it with
capacity to deal with matters of this type.
16.425 DoCS is subject to considerable oversight by a number of agencies. The

Inquiry is of the view that there are sufficient mechanisms in place, including the
various functions of the Ombudsman, to address any concerns about the
exercise of the non-delegable functions associated with parental responsibility.
It does not support the suggestion of the Children’s Guardian in this respect.
A ‘safety net’
16.426 The Children's Guardian advised the Inquiry of her experience of individual
children and young persons in OOHC who are not receiving appropriate care
and where the regulatory framework does not offer them sufficient protection.
707
ibid., p.69.
708
Transcript: Inquiry meeting with representatives of the Office of the Children’s Guardian, 1 July 2008, p.22.
16.427 The Children’s Guardian also noted in her submission to the Inquiry that the
Usher Review, the 1997 Police Royal Commission and the Parkinson review of
the 1987 Act all identified the need for a body, independent of DoCS and the
Courts, to exercise its powers of guardianship in respect of children and young
persons under the parental responsibility of the Minister.
16.428 The Children's Guardian sought:
more targeted special guardianship powers so they are focused

on vulnerable children and young persons in OOHC who have
not had their care concerns addressed by existing mechanisms,
or whose life or safety is in such danger that urgent
independent decision making is required….This would see the
Children's Guardian taking on a ‘safety net’ role, … the
Children's Guardian would be the guardian of last resort.709
16.429 Under this model, the Children's Guardian would have the power to “overrule
the decision of a designated agency concerning any aspect of parental
responsibility,"710 with s.140 of the Care Act being amended to provide that a
designated agency must comply with any written direction of the Children's
Guardian to exercise parental responsibility in a particular way.
16.430 It would be also necessary to proclaim s.182 of the Care Act to allow the
Children's Guardian to remove a child or young person from a particular care
arrangement if the designated agency did not comply with a proposed written
direction under s.140.
16.431 The Children's Guardian would, in exercising such decision making powers,
need to be able to apply to the Court for the rescission or variation of a care
order under s.90(3) of the Care Act. Section 184 of the Care Act would then
need to be proclaimed to ensure that the Children's Guardian may make such
an application, notwithstanding the Children's Guardian not having been a party
to the original proceedings.
16.432 The Children’s Guardian and her staff expanded on her submission in the
following way:
It is the power to direct an agency, a designated agency, that

the Minister's delegated parental responsibility be exercised in a
specified way. At the moment, for instance, we would have no
power to direct DoCS to find an alternative placement for that
child. Once the agency is out of the out-of-home care
accreditation system, our formal powers in relation to that
agency stop, but because parental responsibility cascades
down from the Minister to the Director-General of DoCS and is
709
710
ibid., p.70.
then subdelegated on to delegated agencies, if you had the

power to direct the Minister's parental responsibility with respect
to accommodation be exercised in a particular way, if it had not,
after you'd discussed it, managed the issue appropriately, you
would be able to issue a legally enforceable direction.
...
If an agency is applying inappropriate restraint practices in

respect of one child but is providing good care for the majority
of its clients, but they have one child who has special needs
who is not being cared for well, you would ask the agency to
address those concerns. If the agency did not address those
concerns, you would have a power to direct that care be
provided in a particular way. If that care were not provided in a
particular way, you would have the power to direct the removal
of that child and have them placed with a more appropriate
agency.711
16.433 The Children’s Guardian gave a series of examples. The first example was in
relation to monitoring the transition of children and young persons from
agencies which no longer intend to provide OOHC or are deemed inappropriate
to provide that care. She pointed to delays in transitioning particular children
and young persons and advised that using her existing power to require
information about those children and young persons from DoCS, pursuant to
s.185, was not effecting positive change.
16.434 Secondly, an example was given in relation to the Children’s Guardian receiving
information during its case file audits or through the accreditation process of
defective management. She made reference to a case of a child who was in
short term crisis accommodation for 14 months, without a behaviour
management plan, without consent for psychotropic medication, and without
case reviews or immunisation records or school reports. She sought reports
from DoCS through s.185, which did not result in any appropriate change to the
child’s situation.
16.435 Finally, the Children’s Guardian provided an example of the cessation of

funding for a service for Aboriginal children and young persons in
circumstances where, had she the power, she would have intervened at a much
earlier time to protect the children.
16.436 DoCS disagreed and advanced two reasons for not adopting the Children’s
Guardian’s suggestion. First, the Children’s Guardian accredits agencies and
can place conditions on their accreditation. If the placement is in accordance
with that accreditation, that should be the end of the Children’s Guardian
711
Transcript: Inquiry meeting with representatives of the Office of the Children’s Guardian, 1 July 2008, pp.7-
8.
involvement. Otherwise, new criteria are being brought into play and added
complexity results. Secondly, such a role would permit the Children’s Guardian
to make decisions without being obliged to consider the budgetary and practical
implications for DoCS or for the designated agencies which its funds.
16.437 The Inquiry is aware that there are undoubtedly cases where children and
young persons in care ‘drift;’ that is, they are not the subject to active
intervention by the Department or designated agency. Their emotional,
educational and medical needs may go largely unmet. The current oversight
arrangements to ensure the safety, welfare and well-being of the child or young
person include: a court order following a hearing (in most cases); being placed
in care with an agency which has been accredited and/or is being monitored, or
with the Department, each of which would owe statutory obligations; appeal
rights in some cases to a Tribunal; and the existence of an external and internal
complaint handling body. The existence of these remedies or oversight
arrangements tends to dilute the need for the establishment of an independent
body with a general authority to exercise a power of guardianship in relation to
individual children and young persons under the parental responsibility of the
Minister.
16.438 While the Inquiry is acutely conscious that the current system does not always
result in quality care for all children and young persons who have been removed
from their home, it is not persuaded that increasing the oversight in the manner
suggested by the Children’s Guardian is the solution. The Children’s Guardian
can and does use s.185 to bring the deficiencies she finds to the attention of
DoCS, and/or the Ombudsman.
16.439 The Inquiry is of the view that the preferable approach is to equip DoCS and
other designated agencies better so that they can respond to the children and
young persons in their care, and to the Children’s Guardian, when she draws
attention to concerns. The Inquiry is particularly concerned that the Children’s
Guardian should not be empowered to make decisions, with a legislative
mandate, which have budgetary implications for DoCS, and which might
interfere with the most effective allocation of its resources.
Other proclaimed functions of the Children’s Guardian

16.440 The Children’s Guardian submitted that several other sections of the Care Act
are no longer appropriate and should be repealed or amended.
16.441 Section 105(3)(b)(iii) of the Care Act if proclaimed would permit the Children's
Guardian to consent to the publication or broadcasting of identifying information
about children and young persons under the parental responsibility of the
Minister, where the Guardian was of the opinion that the publication or
broadcasting could be seen to be of benefit to the child or young person.
16.442 The Children's Guardian is not a party to care or other court proceedings and
has not been involved in case management or case planning for children and
young persons under the parental responsibility of the Minister.
16.443 The Children's Guardian has accordingly delegated this function to the Director-
General of DoCS since it is DoCS that appears in Children's Court proceedings
and has a relationship with the Court.
16.444 Notwithstanding, the Children's Guardian is still occasionally approached to

approve the publication or broadcasting of identifying information concerning
children and young persons under the parental responsibility of the Minister.
16.445 The Children's Guardian suggests that s.105(3)(b)(iii) should be amended to

delete her role in this respect and to authorise the Director-General to consent
to such publication or broadcasting. The Inquiry agrees, since the Children’s
Guardian will not be sufficiently informed to make assessments under
s.105(3)(b)(iii).
16.446 The Children's Guardian also suggests that s.90(3A) of the Care Act should be
amended to remove the requirement that the Children's Guardian be notified of
certain rescission and variation proceedings concerning the assignment of
parental responsibility. The Inquiry agrees.
16.447 Finally, the Children’s Guardian submitted that s.141(2) should be amended to
require that DoCS be advised, and that it then advise the Children’s Guardian,
when a designated agency ceases to be able to fulfil its responsibilities in
relation to a child of young person, in addition to making an application to the
Children’s Court to vary the OOHC arrangements. DoCS opposed that
submission. The Inquiry understands that s.141 applies in a very few cases
where the Minister has delegated parental responsibility to a designated
agency. In the event of the application being made to the Children’s Court,
each interested party would have an opportunity to adduce evidence and make
submissions. In light of the Children’s Guardian relatively limited role with
respect to parental responsibility, the Inquiry sees little reason to amend the
section.
The Register
16.448 Section 159 of the Care Act has not been proclaimed. It was intended to place
an obligation on the Director-General to maintain a register in which there are
entered particulars of every child or young person who has been in OOHC for a
continuous period of 28 days or more.
16.449 In line with the amended definitions of OOHC to statutory care, supported care
and voluntary care, the Inquiry can see no reason why a record in the form
contemplated by s.159 cannot be kept for at least those children and young
persons in statutory OOHC.
Adoption
16.450 The Care Act, the Regulation and the Adoption Act 2000 set the legislative
framework for the provision of OOHC placement and support services in NSW,
including the process for adoption of a child. Adoption orders in NSW are
granted by the Supreme Court.
16.451 In other Australian jurisdictions, different courts are responsible for granting an
adoption order.
a. In the ACT, the Supreme Court makes adoption orders.712
b. In the Northern Territory, the Local Court grants adoption orders.713
c. In Queensland, the Children’s Court grants adoption orders.714
d. In South Australia, adoption matters are handled by the Youth Court of
South Australia.715
e. In Tasmania, adoption orders are granted by the Magistrates Court
(Children’s Division).716
f. In Victoria, the primary responsibility for adoption lies with the County
Court.717
g. In Western Australia, the Family Court of Western Australia handles
matters relating to children, including adoption.718
16.452 Adoption is the legal process which permanently transfers all the legal rights
and responsibilities of being a parent from the child's birth parents to the
adoptive parents. It is one of the range of options to be considered in
placement planning for children who cannot live with their birth families, that can
help to ensure that such children have the stability and continuity of a
relationship that is necessary for their well-being and development.
16.453 Adoption of children is not a common practice in Australia. According to the

AIHW, in 2006/07 there were a total of 568 adoptions of children in Australia.
Of these, 71 per cent, were inter-country adoptions. A further 18 per cent were
‘known child’ adoptions, which were generally adoptions by a step parent to
incorporate children into a new family. The remaining 10 per cent were local
adoptions.719 Of the 568 children adopted in Australia in 2006/07, 164 were in
712
Adoption Act 1993 (ACT), p.72 Dictionary.
713
Adoption of Children Act 1994 (NT) s.3 and see:
www.nt.gov.au/health/comm_svs/facs/adoption/adopting_child_in_nt.pdf
714
Adoption of Children Act 1964 (Qld) s.6.
715
Adoption Act 1988 (SA) s.4.
716
Adoption Act 1988 (Tas) s.3.
717
Adoption Act 1984 (Vic) s.5, covers the role of County Court, concurrent Supreme Court jurisdiction, and
that matters may be referred to the Supreme Court by the County Court see also
www.cyf.vic.gov.au/adoption-permanent-care/adoption.
718
Adoption Act 1994 (WA) s.4. See also www.familycourt.wa.gov.au.
719
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Adoptions Australia 2006/07, February 2008, p.8.
NSW.720 In 2007/08 in NSW there a total of 125 adoption orders made. Of

these, 73 were inter-country adoptions, 22 were adoptions of children by carers,
15 were local adoptions, 10 were step-parent adoptions, three were relative
adoptions and two were special case adoptions.721
16.454 According to Cashmore the main reasons why children in long term OOHC are
not being adopted more often include the financial disincentives to adoption for
carers, and overloaded caseworkers not having the time and skills or the
necessary supervision to ensure that they follow through on developing the
necessary plan and preparing the paper work. Also many children in care are
living with relatives and adoption is generally not considered a useful or
appropriate option. The issue of adoption for Aboriginal children is particularly
problematic given the history of the ‘stolen generation’ and because, as
HREOC’s Bringing them Home report states, the concept of adoption is
“incompatible with the basic tenets of Aboriginal society.”722
16.455 Following a recent review of the Adoption Act 2000, the Inquiry understands
that NSW Cabinet has approved reforms to adoption law and practice, which
include:
a. streamlining the processing of inter-country, step parent and relative
adoptions with applications being submitted directly to the Supreme Court
without the involvement of DoCS
b. reforms to adult adoptions
c. less prescriptive eligibility criteria (to be included in the Adoption Regulation
2003) including removal of a prohibition on accepting applications from
persons pursuing fertility treatments and a focus on factors that affect
parenting capacity
d. greater involvement of Aboriginal agencies in the adoption of Aboriginal
children
e. reforms to the right to access adoption information, and to the publication of
the names of parties to adoption proceedings
f. streamlining the processes for children aged 12-16 years who wish to
consent to their own, or their child’s adoption
g. agreement by Cabinet that statutory foster carers should continue to
receive the statutory care allowance for children and young persons that
have been in their care for a minimum of two years, after the making of an
adoption order.
16.456 Perhaps reflecting the low numbers of children and young persons adopted in
NSW, the Inquiry received few submissions on this issue. From the material
720
ibid., p.9.
721
722
J Cashmore, “Lessons from the US on Permanency Planning,” Social Policy Research Centre, University
of New South Wales, undated.
reviewed doing the course of the Inquiry, there is nothing in the reforms
approved by Cabinet which would give rise to any concern by the Inquiry.
16.457 However, mindful of the importance of stable relationships for children and
young persons unable to live with their families and the emphasis on
permanency planning, the Inquiry has considered whether the Supreme Court
remains the appropriate forum for adoption applications and orders.
16.458 It believes that consideration should be given to transferring jurisdiction to the

Children’s Court in circumstances where current child protection concerns exist.
That would be consistent with the practice in other States and may result in
adoption being given more consideration at an earlier stage. The jurisdiction
would otherwise remain with the Supreme Court. Any appeal against an order
by the Children’s Court in relation to adoption should lie to the Supreme Court.
Inter-country adoption
16.459 In June 2008, NSW became a signatory to a revised Commonwealth-State
Agreement on Inter-country Adoptions. Under this Agreement, the
Commonwealth has assumed responsibility for the management and
negotiation of inter-country adoption programs. The States and Territories
continue to be responsible for day to day approval and processing of these
applications including training and assessment of applicants, placement
arrangements and post-placement reporting to the child’s country of origin.
16.460 DoCS reported that the review of the Adoption Act 2000 had provided an
opportunity to examine the Department’s ongoing involvement in inter-country
adoption court processes.
16.461 DoCS informed the Inquiry that in 2005, it conducted a comprehensive internal
review of its adoption functions and practices:
The review concluded that the first order priority role for a State
level child protection agency ought to be securing stable and/or
permanent placements for children who are in out-of-home
care.723
16.462 As a consequence, DoCS has been investigating ways to reduce the

commitment of its resources to adoptions where there are not child protection
concerns that fall within NSW jurisdiction.
16.463 The Inquiry supports DoCS endeavours in this regard.
723
Conclusion
16.464 This section collects the principles which the Inquiry believes should underpin
OOHC in NSW, the goals to be reached and what needs to be done to achieve
these goals. The Inquiry has not costed the recommendations contained in this
chapter, however, where DoCS has provided the Inquiry with an estimate of
costs, that estimate has been included.
Principles
16.465 Children and young persons both entering and in care should be heard and
should participate in decisions affecting them.
16.466 Decisions and actions should be based on an understanding of how they will
affect the children and young persons, particularly in relation to their safety,
well-being and development.
16.467 Children and young persons require a stable foundation from which their
relationships, identity, values, and cultural awareness can develop.
16.468 Continuity of attachment ties is essential for the overall development of a young
child, and when children and young persons are separated from their birth
families, stable foundations must be re-established as soon as possible either
with their birth family or with an alternative long term carer or family.
16.469 Early decision making about permanency planning, including restoration to

family, results in better outcomes for children and young persons, both in
immediate terms and for life after care.
16.470 All Aboriginal children and young persons in OOHC should be connected to
their family and their community, while addressing their social, emotional and
cultural needs.
16.471 Children and young persons should be assisted to gain regular access to
education, health and other services to meet their changing needs and to
enable them to grow and develop.
16.472 Carers should actively participate in decision making in relation to children and
young persons in their care.
Goals
16.473 Restoration decisions should not take longer than six months, particularly for
younger children.
16.474 A continuum of services should be in place that listens to children and young
persons, that responds to their changing needs and that minimises changes in
the people who are critical to caring for and working with them, such as carers
and caseworkers.
16.475 Greater in-depth assessment of children and young persons coming into care
through more comprehensive assessment and interventions in the crucial early
stages of placements should be part of agency placement and planning
processes.
16.476 Care arrangements for children and young persons should be based on their
assessed needs, and the assessed capacity of carers to meet these needs.
16.477 Carers should be provided with timely information about those in their care, their
needs, and the type of support they need to flourish in their care.
16.478 Children and young persons where possible should be placed with relatives
and/or with siblings, and generally should be placed as close as possible to
where their family/kinship and support networks are located.
16.479 There should be sufficient health and specialist services including dental,
psychological, counselling, speech therapy, mental health and drug and alcohol
services available to meet the needs of children and young persons in OOHC.
16.480 Assistance and supports should be provided to children and young persons in
OOHC and to their carers at critical life transition points, such as entering care,
moving from primary to secondary school and leaving care.
16.481 There should a system common to all agencies delivering services to children
and young persons in OOHC that collects essential health information and
monitors their health and educational outcomes. This should include an
accessible, comprehensive medical record or a transferable record for children
and young persons in care.
16.482 Foster, kinship and relative carers should be supported in caring for children
and young persons, including managing those with challenging behaviours, to
improve the stability of placements. This should include access to regular and
planned respite care, behavioural management support, and other evidence
based specialist services.
16.483 Interventions for high needs children and young persons in OOHC should
include strong case management, integrated multi-agency work, and highly
skilled staff and carers who receive expert supervision, ongoing training and
support.
16.484 Young persons should be assisted when leaving care to transition effectively to
stable accommodation and to receive further education and/or training and/or
employment, so as to maximise their potential for independent living.
16.485 NGOs in partnership with other relevant government agencies such as Health,
Education and DADHC should deliver OOHC services.
16.486 Outcome measures of the performance of the agencies engaged in OOHC work
at the local, regional and state level, should be compatible and outcome based,
in addition to process focused. These should be available to all agencies
delivering OOHC services.
16.487 Safe housing for children in care is critical. There should be a mix of low,
medium and high intensity accommodation and support services that are
flexible in meeting the changing needs of children and young persons in care,
including, where appropriate, residential accommodation. Resorting to SAAP
services should be avoided for children in care.
Future Demand
16.488 As noted in Chapter 5, the data show that the number of children and young
persons in OOHC has substantially increased and suggest that without
modification of the current care and protection system this pattern will continue.
Further, as a result of increasing cases being investigated by an expanded child
protection workforce and children and young persons staying in care longer, the
number of children and young persons in OOHC is projected to continue to
increase. In the longer term strategies to intervene much earlier to help
families will reduce the numbers of children and young persons entering OOHC.
These strategies are outlined in Chapter 10.
16.489 DoCS has developed a funding model which estimates the future OOHC
population using past and expected rates of entry into care and length of time of
stay patterns in OOHC.
16.490 Regardless of whether children and young persons are cared for by the State or
by the NGO sector, the increase in the size of the group in care and in the
length of their stay in care, and the need for acceptable ratios of caseworkers to
children and young persons, inevitably mean that the cost of OOHC will
increase
16.491 The caseworker ratio to support the placements of children and young persons
in care should be between 1:12 and 1:15. DoCS has provided estimated
costing to achieve an average of 1:15.
Table 16.19 Projected OOHC population and additional caseworkers (cumulative)

required to attain caseloads of 15 and expenditure on care allowances
and contingencies for children and young persons in OOHC
2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Total
Total 14,667 15,605 16,993 18,295 19,495 20,332 21,197
1:15 - 300 400 490 550 600 650 650
Caseload:
Additional
Caseworkers
required
Extra - 53 70 86 96 105 114 524
Caseworkers
$m
Estimated - 23 37 56 70 82 94 362
increase in
allowances for
additional
children in
OOHC $m
16.492 DoCS informed the Inquiry that additional funding over the next six years will be
required to make payments to authorised carers (allowances) for every day
costs of caring for a child (such as, school clothes, food) as well as extra
activities to support a child in OOHC, such as contact with birth parents. This is
a result of the increased number of children and young persons in OOHC.
Recommendations
Recommendation 16.1
DoCS OOHC/NGO OOHC caseworkers should become involved with

children and young persons in OOHC at an earlier stage than final
orders and have a responsibility to identify and support the placement
of the children or young people, where it has been determined that there
is not a realistic possibility of restoration.
Recommendation 16.2
Over the next three to five years, there should be a gradual transition in
the provision of OOHC for children and young persons as follows:
a. Most children and young persons in OOHC should be supported by
one of the two following models:
i. DoCS retains parental responsibility and a non-government
organisation is responsible for case management, placement
and casework services. The agency has responsibility for
assessment, case planning, implementation, review, transition
and case closure as well as the placement of a child or young
person with an authorised carer, and for any decision to
remove a child or young person from a carer. DoCS retains
the key decision making role in restoration decisions,

developing and approving the initial care plan and has a role
in implementation. DoCS and the agency have joint
responsibility for decisions to apply to change Court orders
and for providing after care assistance.
ii. DoCS delegates parental responsibility and transfers case
management, placement and casework services to a non-
government organisation (while retaining residual powers)
subject to consultation with the Children’s Guardian (see
Recommendation 16.15).
iii. Children and young persons with significantly complex needs
or who are assessed as at high risk of immediate or serious
harm or whose case management requires high level
collaboration with other government agencies will remain case
managed by DoCS.
b. At an early stage, DoCS should progressively commence the
transfer of long term kinship/relative carers to NGOs so as to allow
the NGOs to carry out any necessary training and to provide
ongoing support for these carers.
c. At an early stage, DoCS should progressively reduce its role in the
recruitment of foster carers and transfer current long term foster
carers to NGOs.
Recommendation 16.3
Within 30 days of entering OOHC, all children and young persons

should receive a comprehensive multi-disciplinary health and
developmental assessment. For children under the age of five years at
the time of entering OOHC, that assessment should be repeated at six
monthly intervals. For older children and young persons, assessments
should be undertaken annually. A mechanism for monitoring,
evaluating and reviewing access and achievement of outcomes should
be developed by NSW Health and DoCS.
Recommendation 16.4
NSW Health should appoint an OOHC coordinator in each Area Health

Service and at The Children’s Hospital at Westmead.
Recommendation 16.5
The Department of Education and Training should appoint an OOHC

coordinator in each Region.
Recommendation 16.6
The NSW Government has a responsibility to ensure that all children

and young persons removed from their parents and placed in its care
receive adequate health treatment. Thus, there should be sufficient
health services including speech therapy, mental health and dental
services available to treat, as a matter of priority, children and young
persons in OOHC.
Recommendation 16.7
The introduction of centralised electronic health records should be a

priority for NSW Health. Given that this is likely to take some time, an
interim strategy should be developed to examine a comprehensive
medical record or a transferable record for children and young persons
in OOHC, which should be accessible to those who require it in order to
promote or ensure the safety, welfare and well-being of the child or
young person.
Recommendation 16.8
Within 30 days of entering OOHC, all preschool and school aged

children and young persons should have an individual education plan
prepared for them which is reviewed annually by the Department of
Education and Training and by the responsible caseworker. A
mechanism for monitoring, evaluating and reviewing access and
achievement of outcomes should be developed by the Department of
Education and Training and DoCS.
Recommendation 16.9
Carer allowances should be reviewed periodically by an independent

body and should more closely reflect the actual costs to the carer of
providing care, according to the varying categories of need.
The Memoranda of Understanding between DoCS and respectively, the

Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care, NSW Health and the
Department of Education and Training should be revised to reflect the
increasing responsibilities of NGOs for the provision of OOHC.
A common case management framework for children and young people

in OOHC across all OOHC providers, should be developed, following a
feasibility study on potential models including the Looking After
Children system.
Due to the large numbers of Aboriginal children and young persons in

OOHC, priority should be given to strengthening the capacity for
Aboriginal families to undertake foster and kinship caring roles.
There should be sufficient numbers of care options for children and

young persons with challenging behaviours that include specialised
models of therapeutic foster care.
DoCS and/or relevant NGOs should receive sufficient funding to service

the actual and projected OOHC population to enable an average ratio of
one caseworker to 12 children and young persons.
DoCS should consult with the Children’s Guardian before delegating

parental responsibility to any person, except in circumstances where
DoCS has shared parental responsibility and is delegating to the person
with whom it shares parental responsibility. In the event that a
mechanism for that to occur has not been introduced to the satisfaction
of DoCS and the Children’s Guardian within 12 months of the
publication of this report, the Children and Young Persons (Care and
Protection) Act 1998 should be amended to require that consultation.
With respect to the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection)
Act 1998:
i. the proposal set out in the draft Cabinet Minute to introduce a
revised scheme for voluntary care should be implemented and
the Children’s Guardian should receive the additional
resources necessary to perform the functions of that office
that would apply to those within that scheme
ii. section 183 should be repealed
iii. section 181(1)(d) should be repealed
iv. section 181(1)(a) should be repealed
v. section 186 should be repealed
vi. section 105(3)(b)(iii) should be amended to delete reference to
the Children’s Guardian and to replace it with the Director-
General of DoCS
vii. section 90(3)(b) should be repealed
viii. section 159 should be proclaimed
Part 5 Specific issues

694
17 Domestic and family violence and child

protection
Introduction .................................................................................................................696
Statistics ......................................................................................................................698
Research ......................................................................................................................699
The need for an integrated response ........................................................................708
NSW response .............................................................................................................712
Whole of government response.............................................................................713
Apprehended Violence Orders ..............................................................................716
Specific NSW Government domestic and family violence projects.......................718
Staying Home Leaving Violence................................................................... 719
Risk assessment and information sharing .................................................... 721
Integrated Case Management ...................................................................... 722
Department of Community Services .........................................................................723
Domestic Violence Line .........................................................................................724
Supported Accommodation Assistance Program..................................................724
Orana Far West Child and Family Partnership Development Project ...................726
Other DoCS initiatives ...........................................................................................726
Other key agencies .....................................................................................................727
NSW Police and domestic violence risk of harm reports .......................................728
Conclusion...................................................................................................................732
696 Domestic and family violence and child protection
Introduction
17.1 The report thus far has considered the nature of reports to, and response of, the
child protection system to risks of harm in children and young persons. Detailed
data about the system appear in Chapter 5 as does research about child
protection practices in Chapter 4. Directions for a way forward are suggested in
Chapter 10 to address the need for an integrated response to child abuse and
neglect from all agencies, in particular Health, Education and Police.
17.2 Improvement to case management and case practices are addressed in

Chapter 9 which is designed to address the response of DoCS to its
increasingly complex client base.
17.3 The Inquiry notes that in service provision, research, legislation and policy the
terms ‘domestic violence’, ‘family violence’ and ‘domestic and family violence’
are sometimes used differently and at other times interchangeably. The Inquiry
recognises that ‘family violence’ is the term preferred by many Indigenous
communities. ‘Family’ covers a diverse range of ties of mutual obligation and
support, and perpetrators and victims of family violence can include, for
example, aunts, uncles, cousins and children of previous relationships724.
17.4 For the purposes of this report, the broader term, ‘domestic and family’ violence
will generally be used. However, when referring specifically to risk of harm
reports ‘domestic violence’ will be used as this reflects the terminology used by
DoCS and the Police.
17.5 Domestic and family violence is taken to occur when one partner in an intimate
relationship attempts by physical or psychological means to dominate and
control the other. It is generally understood as ‘gendered violence,’ and is an
abuse of power within a relationship or after separation.
17.6 Definitions of domestic and family violence are “multiple and shifting.”725
Narrow definitions of domestic and family violence typically refer only to
physical and sexual violence but broader definitions encompass threats of
abuse (harassment), stalking or psychological or emotional abuse.726
17.7 Domestic and family violence “is typically not about one-off incidents of actual
violence but a sustained pattern of abusive behaviours and attitudes that may
escalate over time,”727 although it is usually an incident that triggers the
mandatory report which is made to DoCS.
724
Australian Government’s Green Paper on Homelessness, Which Way Home? May 2008, p.89; Violence in
Indigenous Communities, National Crime Prevention, 2001, p.1.
725
J Irwin, F Waugh and M Wilkinson, “Domestic Violence and Child Protection: A Research Report,”
University of Sydney, August 2002, p.19.
726
ibid.
727
A Mullender, “What children tell us ‘He said he was going to kill our mum’” in C Humphreys and N Stanley
(eds), Domestic Violence and Child Protection Directions for Good Practice, 2006, p.56, cited in DoCS,
Domestic Violence: Strategies and Interventions to Support Children and Families, Literature Review, Draft,
March 2008, p.13,
17.8 For a woman, ongoing domestic and family violence may:

a. mean that her decisions are constantly undermined (by the man)
b. make it difficult to access medical care (for bruises, fractures, cuts)
c. mean little opportunity for normal social contact for her children and herself
d. prevent her from providing her children with strong positive and reliable
relationships which are necessary to helping them manage the stress and
trauma in their lives
e. cause trauma, lessening her capacity to help her children make sense of
what is happening during or after a violent incident, than would be the case
in other frightening situations
f. mean that she experiences hyper-anxiety and alertness.728
17.9 As is clear from Chapter 5, domestic violence in the family is the most
commonly reported issue in child protection reports. Those reports will usually
be made by Police after they have been called to the victim’s home. The
children and young persons who are the subject of these reports may or may
not have been home at the time of the incident, and may or may not have been
sighted by Police prior to making the report to DoCS. Upon the basis of existing
data, these reports from Police are very unlikely to be treated by DoCS as
urgent and are unlikely to be the subject of a detailed investigation. Many of
these children and young persons probably do not need statutory intervention
but most will benefit from some service offered by the government or non-
government sector. How they can best be directed to that service is dealt with
in Chapter 10.
17.10 In Australia, only three of the eight child protection systems incorporate
consideration of child exposure to domestic and family violence within child
protection legislation – NSW, Western Australia and Tasmania.729
17.11 Domestic and family violence poses a number of challenges for the child
protection system as well as for other human services and justice systems.
First, while academic commentators caution against the assumption that
domestic and family violence is always damaging to children and young
persons, they tend to represent a significant minority of commentators. The
general weight of the research is that witnessing domestic and family violence is
in all cases a form of psychological child abuse.
17.12 Secondly, the mother is more likely to be a victim of domestic and family
violence rather than a perpetrator, however, it is usually to her protective
conduct or lack thereof that the child protection scrutiny is directed.
728
DoCS: Brighter Futures Practice Resource: Domestic and Family Violence Vulnerability, August 2008,
pp.5-6.
729
KL Nixon, LM Tutty, G Weaver-Dunlop and CA Walsh, “Do Good Intentions Beget Good Policy? A Review
of Child Protection Policies to Address Intimate Partner Violence,” Children and Youth Services Review, 29,
2007, p.1476.
Caseworkers need to have sufficient training and access to resources to

navigate an appropriate response in these circumstances.
17.13 Thirdly, any effective response to children and young persons residing in a
home where domestic and family violence is present, needs to consider that
frequently such violence will coincide with drug and alcohol use by one or more
carers and, on occasions will also coincide with the presence of mental health
issues for one or more carers. Thus, an integrated response involving health
expertise and services as well as the potential need for Police to apply for an
AVO, is needed. This is addressed in Chapters 9 and 10.
17.14 Finally, significant resources are expended by DoCS and Police systems in
making and processing reports about domestic violence, even though few of
those reports end in interventions designed to reduce the risk of harm to
children or young people.
17.15 This chapter is concerned with understanding the research base and data on
domestic and family violence, and suggesting ways in which reports about
domestic violence to DoCS can better be made to increase the likelihood of a
positive response for those subject to it.
Statistics
17.16 Over the last three years, namely 2005/06 to 2007/08 (preliminary figures)
domestic violence has consistently accounted for about a quarter of all reports
made to DoCS. Similarly, the Police have consistently made almost three
quarters of all domestic violence reports to DoCS over that period of time.
17.17 Just under one third of all child protection reports over the last three years have
had domestic violence listed as at least one of the reported issues. In numbers
alone, over 94,000 reports were received which included domestic violence as a
factor in 2007/08 (preliminary).
17.18 The most frequently recorded child protection risk factors in reports concerning
55 per cent of all children, known to DoCS, who died in 2007 were domestic
violence and parental substance abuse. Further, in 39 per cent of all families,
domestic violence and parental substance abuse were the most commonly
recorded co-existing risk factors, while in 24 per cent of all families neglect and
domestic violence were co-existing risk factors.
17.19 As is known from Chapter 5, multiple reports about the same child or young
person have significantly increased over the last five years. However, re-
reporting by Police within seven days about the same issue is relatively low
and, therefore not surprisingly, such short term re-reporting about domestic
violence incidents is also relatively low, even though such behaviour tends to be
repetitive to the point of becoming an endemic feature of these relationships.
17.20 Domestic violence was the primary reported issue in over one quarter of all
reports that were referred to a CSC/JIRT for further assessment in 2006/07.
However, only 2.5 per cent of these reports were assigned a response time of
the less than 24 hours, with the majority (61.1 per cent) being assigned a
response time of less than 10 days. Accordingly, domestic violence reports are
less likely to be considered urgent by DoCS, perhaps because the information
in domestic violence reports is low level and does not warrant a higher priority
unless associated with other risk factors.
17.21 Further, domestic violence reports by Police were less likely again to be
considered urgent by DoCS, with 1.7 per cent being assigned a response time
of less than 24 hours and the majority (65.8 per cent) being assigned a
response time of less than 10 days.
17.22 In both 2006/07 and April 07/ March 08, domestic violence reports were slightly
less likely to be referred to a CSC/JIRT for further assessment when compared
with all reports so referred in those years.
17.23 For the period 1 April 2007 to 31 March 2008, over one quarter of all domestic
violence reports were closed and the CSC/JIRT before any secondary
assessment. In 2006/07, over one third were so closed.
17.24 For the period 1 April 2007 to 31 March 2008, almost one third of all domestic
violence reports were closed after a SAS1 was completed and 6.9 per cent
were the subject of a completed SAS2. Of those reports that were
substantiated, 14.2 per cent had domestic violence as the primary reported
issue.
17.25 What can be seen from this data is that domestic violence reports were less
likely to result in intervention by DoCS. Of the more than 76,000 reports made
in April 07/ March 08 about a risk of harm from domestic violence as the primary
reported issue, just over 5,000 were substantiated.
Research
17.26 It is difficult to accurately estimate the true incidence of domestic and family
violence in the community as victims are often reluctant to report such violence
to Police or to Health or to seek assistance. However, the Ombudsman’s 2006
report, Domestic Violence: Improving Police Practice, states that only 14 per
cent of women who experienced violence from an intimate partner reported the
most recent incident to Police.730 In addition, as noted earlier, there are differing
definitions of domestic and family violence, and data collection methods are
730
Australian Institute of Criminology, Women’s Experiences of Male Violence: Findings from the Australian
Component of the International Violence against Women Survey, 2004 cited in NSW Ombudsman, Domestic
Violence: Improving Police Practice, December 2006, p.4.
inconsistent.731 However, Access Economics has estimated that approximately

1.6 million women in Australia have experienced domestic and family violence
in some form since the age of 15 years.732
17.27 Many women are subject to domestic and family violence while they are
pregnant, although prevalence estimates vary. Abused women are also at
greater risk of experiencing health problems during pregnancy and postnatally.
The period leading up to, and just after, birth is one of the most vulnerable
periods in human development.733
17.28 Aboriginal women experience domestic and family violence at a considerably

higher rate than non-Aboriginal women.734 As with non-Aboriginal women,
Aboriginal women under report incidents.735 In NSW, Aboriginal women are
four times more likely than the average NSW woman to be a victim of domestic
and family violence.736 In NSW in 2002, Aboriginal women reported
experiencing domestic and family violence related assault at six times the State
average.737 There is also evidence that Aboriginal women are more likely than
non-Aboriginal women to suffer serious injury as a result of domestic and family
violence.738 Reflecting this research has been the recent requirement to make
prenatal reports739 and the introduction by Health of domestic violence
screening referred to in Chapter 7.
17.29 Research consistently shows that domestic and family violence is nearly always
associated with other risk factors as well.740 Poverty, substance abuse, child
sexual and physical abuse, parental anti-social personality syndrome and other
mental conditions including and maternal depression may all co-occur. Learned
behaviour and de-sensitisation to the presence of abuse within a family, during
childhood, can lead to distorted perceptions of its acceptability and of
appropriate response mechanisms.
731
J People, “Trends and patterns in domestic violence assaults,” Crime and Justice Bulletin, Number 89,
NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, October 2005, p.2.
732
Access Economics, The cost of domestic violence to the Australian economy, October 2004, p.16, cited in
T Drabsch, “Domestic Violence in NSW,” NSW Parliamentary Library Research Service, Briefing Paper
07/2007, June 2007, p.1.
733
DoCS, Responding to Pre-Natal Reports Policy, August 2007, p.7.
734
T Szirom, D Chung and R Jaffe, Indigenous Family Violence Phase 1 Meta-evaluation Report, 2003 cited
in DoCS, Domestic Violence: Strategies and Interventions to Support Children and Families, Literature
Review, Draft, March 2008, p.7.
735
P Memmott, R Stacy, C Chambers, C Keys, Violence in Aboriginal Communities, 2001, Commonwealth
Attorney-General's Department (National Crime Prevention) pp.7, 38, 41.
736
J Fitzgerald and D Weatherburn, “Aboriginal Victimisation and Offending: The Picture from Police
Records,” NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and research, December 2001, p.2.
737
NSW Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Two Ways Together Report Indicators Report 2005, p.61.
738
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women's Task Force, “Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women’s
Task Force on Violence report,” Queensland Government, 1999; H Blagg, “Crisis Intervention in Aboriginal
Family Violence: Summary Report,” Commonwealth of Australia, 2000, p.8.
739
740
DoCS, “Domestic Violence and its Impact on Children’s Development,” presentation delivered at the DoCS
Fourth Domestic Violence Forum, 24 September 2002, p.2.
17.30 The Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey 2005741 found that
57 per cent of women who experienced violence by a current partner reported
that they had children in their care at some time during the relationship, and 34
per cent said that these children had witnessed the violence. The survey also
found that nearly 40 per cent of women who experienced violence by a previous
partner said that children in their care had witnessed the violence.
17.31 Research has also found that the inclusion of women’s predictions of
‘dangerousness’ improves the accuracy of predictions of further assault.742
Assessment tools, such as actuarial tools used for domestic and family violence
have limited scope for inclusion of individual vulnerabilities and personal
circumstances whereas women’s assessments do.743
17.32 A growing body of international research confirms that domestic and family
violence and child abuse frequently co-occur within the same families.744
Recent research has shown that rates of co-occurrence of child abuse with
domestic and family violence can range from 22-67 per cent.745 This is
supported by the data analysis in Chapter 5 and highlights the complex
environment within which child protection and health workers operate.
17.33 Child abuse and neglect in the context of domestic and family violence can
occur in a variety of ways: the same perpetrator may be abusing both mother
and children, the children may be injured when ‘caught in the crossfire’ during
incidents of adult violence; children may experience neglect because of the
impact of the violence and controlling behaviours on the mother’s physical and
mental health; or children may be abused by a mother who is herself being
abused.746
17.34 Evidence is emerging that cases where both domestic and family violence and
child abuse occur represent the greatest risk to children’s safety and that large
numbers of cases in which children are killed have histories of domestic and
family violence.747 Of the 114 reviewable child deaths in 2006 in NSW where
the children and young persons or their sibling were known to DoCS:
741
Australian Bureau of Statistics, Personal Safety, Australia, 2005 (Reissue), p.40.
742
A Weisz, R Tolman and D Saunders, “Assessing the risk of severe domestic violence. The importance of
survivor’s predictions,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15(1), 2000, pp.75-90 cited in DoCS, Domestic
Violence: Strategies and Interventions to Support Children and Families, Literature Review, Draft, March
2008, p.49.
743
L Laing, “Risk assessment in domestic violence,” Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse
Topic Paper, 2004; A Weisz, R Tolman and D Saunders, 2000, op. cit., pp.75-90 cited in DoCS, Domestic
Violence: Strategies and Interventions to Support Children and Families, Literature Review, Draft, March
2008, p.49.
744
L Laing, “Domestic Violence in the Context of Child Abuse and Neglect,” Australian Domestic Violence
Clearinghouse, 2003, p.1; DoCS, Domestic Violence: Strategies and Interventions to Support Children and
Families, Literature Review, Draft, March 2008, pp.16-17.
745
L Knickerbocker, R E Heyman, A M Smith Slep, E N Jouriks and R McDonald, “Co-occurrence of child and
partner maltreatment: Definitions, prevalence, theory and implications for assessment,” 2007, European
Psychologist, pp.36-44.
746
L Laing, 2003, op. cit., pp.1-2.
747
ibid., p.2.
at least one risk of harm report was made in relation to 85

children and/or their sibling(s) in the 12 months prior to the
death. In just under half of the reports made (41), domestic
violence was the main issue reported.748
17.35 Research about domestic and family violence and its effect on parenting has
found that children living in households with domestic and family violence have
an increased risk of physical abuse.749 DoCS has advised that 24 per cent of
children who died in 2007 were reported as being at risk from both domestic
violence and physical abuse.
17.36 Laing cautions against stigmatising children and young persons who have been
exposed to violence. Raising their experience of violence as a social issue
“inevitably constructs a socially deviant identity for these young people.”750
Potentially one of the most damaging aspects of this ‘deviant’ identity, it is
suggested, is the belief that these children and young persons will inevitably go
on to either perpetrate or suffer violence themselves. Laing, accordingly,
challenges the “unthinking acceptance of the cycle of violence”751 and refers to
evidence that abused children do not necessarily become ‘abusers.’
17.37 Humphreys argues that statutory child protection agencies have been slow to
recognise the contribution of domestic and family violence to many situations of
child abuse and neglect.752 Historically, child protection intervention has tended
to focus on women (mothers), despite the fact that men are estimated to be
responsible for around half of the incidents of physical abuse of children and
young persons and for the majority of the most serious incidents of physical
abuse. Interventions have focused on women, even when their violent male
partners are known to have committed the abuse of children and young
persons.753
17.38 Several reviews undertaken by DoCS in 2007 found that there was little or no
contact with the perpetrator following reports of serious domestic violence. In
these cases DoCS found that casework in response to domestic violence
focused on supports for the victim or encouraging the victim to seek protection
through legal orders.
17.39 This has led to the proposition that there is often ‘gender bias’ in child protection
intervention. It is argued that this gender bias can result in women being held
accountable for ‘failing to protect’ their children from the actions of men who use
748
NSW Ombudsman, Report of Reviewable Deaths in 2006, Volume 2: Child Deaths, December 2007, p.27.
749
G Margolin, EB Gordis, AM Medina and PH Oliver, “The co-occurrence of husband to wife aggression,
family of origin aggression and child abuse potential in a community sample: implications for parenting,” 2003.
750
L Laing, “Children, Young People and Domestic Violence” Issues Paper 2, Australian Domestic and Family
Violence Clearinghouse, 2000, pp. 21 and 22.
751
ibid., p.22.
752
C Humphreys, “Avoidance and confrontation: social work practice in relation to domestic violence and child
abuse,” Child and Family Social Work, Vol 4, 1999, pp.77-87 cited in L Laing, 2003, op. cit., p.3.
753
L Laing, 2003, op. cit., p.3.
violence against them, and in a failure to hold men accountable for the effects of
their violence on women and children and young persons.754
17.40 The use of language when recording information concerning domestic violence
in child protection cases was also highlighted as a casework practice issue by
DoCS. Common ways of recording domestic violence in files included ‘violence
between the parents’ and ‘a violent relationship.’ These terms were used even
when the father was violent towards the mother. Lamb describes such labelling
as “acts without agents” and argues that the way violence is described can
minimise the seriousness of this violence.755
17.41 In fact, Nixon et al, note that:
women’s perceived inadequacies, including a perceived lack of

parenting skills, an inability to protect their children, a lack of
awareness of the impact of abuse on children, and an inability
to choose non-violent partners, frequently become the focus of
child protection intervention.756
Further:
By making abused women the focus of child welfare

intervention, the actual perpetrators are ignored.757
17.42 ‘Gender blind’ child protection intervention may place pressure on a woman to
leave a relationship in which she is being abused on the threat of removing her
children. However, appropriate support may not be provided nor the
complexities with which she is struggling recognised.758 Humphries notes that
separation, where there has been a history of domestic and family violence, is
one of the highest risk factors for homicide and serious sexual and physical
assault.759 The goal, however, of much child protection intervention is often to
insist on separation as the only way to ensure the safety of the children and
young persons. As Nixon et al state, this is because support of the non-
offending parent falls outside the mandate of child protection agencies as their
paramount consideration is for the welfare of the child protection agencies.760
Balancing the needs of child protection with interventions sensitive to the de-
powered position of the abused woman poses challenging dilemmas for
statutory child protection services.761 This highlights the need for good
754
ibid.
755
S Lamb, “Acts without agents: an analysis of linguistic avoidance in journal articles on men who batter
women,” 1991.
756
KL Nixon, LM Tutty, G Weaver-Dunlop and CA Walsh, 2007, op. cit., p.1473.
757
ibid.
758
759
C Humphreys, “Domestic Violence and Child Protection: exploring the role of perpetrator risk
assessments,” Child and Family Social Work, Vol. 12, 2007, p.365.
760
761
casework and effective supervision, quality training and real interagency

collaboration.
17.43 Professor Reg Graycar, Associate Dean (Postgraduate Research), University of

Sydney and Professor Julie Stubbs, Deputy Director, Institute of Criminology,
University of Sydney advised the Inquiry that there has been a ‘pendulum shift’
from a failure to pay attention to domestic and family violence as an issue with
respect to children, to a heavy handed over reaction in some cases.
17.44 They argued that domestic and family violence cases cannot be dealt with
uniformly as a single category and that cases need to be approached on a case
by case basis. They cautioned against the presumption that domestic and
family violence is always damaging to children. Further the research literature
does not provide an adequate definition of exposure to violence and provides
little consensus as to the impact of particular forms, types and frequencies of
violence on children. This, Nixon et al state, means that the assessment as to
whether violence is ongoing and of a serious nature is left to the discretion of
individual workers.762
17.45 In a submission to the Inquiry, Professor Graycar and Professor Stubbs, cited
international research that indicates a wide variation in the responses of
children who have been exposed to domestic and family violence. They said
that Bragg found that children’s responses ranged “on a continuum where some
children demonstrate enormous resiliency while others show signs of significant
maladaptive adjustment.”763 They also cited Edelson’s argument:
against assuming that childhood exposure to violence is

automatically a form of child maltreatment and suggests the
need to modify child protection services and the expansion of
primarily voluntary community-based responses to these
children and their families.764
Mills, Huntsman and Schmied also note that whilst there is evidence that
supports the conclusion that domestic and family violence has a detrimental
effect on children “the fact remains that many children have not been found to
be suffering significantly adverse effects.”765
17.46 Some argue that witnessing domestic and family violence is in all cases a form
of psychological child abuse, while others argue against automatically defining
all child witnesses as victims of child abuse.766 Those who caution against
762
K L Nixon, L M Tutty, G Weaver-Dunlop and C A Walsh, 2007, op. cit., p.1481.
763
H Bragg, Child Protection in families experiencing domestic violence, US Department of Health and Human
Services Administration for Children and Families , Office on Child Abuse and Neglect, 2004, cited in
Submission: Graycar and Stubbs, 11 February 2008, pp.6-7.
764
J Edelson, “Should childhood exposure to adult domestic violence be defined as child maltreatment under
the law?” in P Jaffe, L Baker and A Cunningham (Eds), Protecting Children from Domestic Violence,
Strategies for Community Intervention, 2004 cited in Submission: Graycar and Stubbs, 11 February 2008, p.7.
765
DoCS, Domestic Violence: Strategies and Interventions to Support Children and Families, Literature
766
automatically defining exposure to violence as child abuse argue that this fails
to take into account the efforts which women are making to protect their children
and to deal with the violence in their lives, and that insensitive child protection
intervention may place the woman and her children at greater risk.767
17.47 Edleson identifies a need for a standardised measure of children’s behaviour

that addresses the unique problem of children exposed to domestic and family
violence (including a measure of perceived safety).768 Other research also
suggests the need to develop appropriate diagnostic criteria to measure
traumatic symptoms and to accurately assess their impact on preschool aged
children.769 The Inquiry sees merit in exploring the use of such tools.
17.48 Research indicates that victims of domestic and family violence can continue to
be effective parents.
The majority of victims of domestic violence are not bad,

ineffective, or abusive parents, but researchers note that
domestic violence is one of a multitude of stressors that can
negatively influence parenting. However, many victims, despite
ongoing abuse, are supportive, nurturing parents who mediate
the impact of their children’s exposure to domestic violence.
Given the impact of violence on parenting behaviours, it is
beneficial that victims receive services that alleviate their
distress so they can support and benefit the children.770
17.49 Best practice guidelines typically support maintaining the children in the care of
their ‘non-offending parent’ if possible. For instance, practice guidelines for
“Effective intervention in domestic violence and child maltreatment cases”
developed on behalf of the US National Council of Juvenile and Family Court
Judges have endorsed three core principles:
a. To ensure stability and permanency, children should remain in the care of
their non-offending parent (or parents), whenever possible.
b. A community service system should have many points of entry, should
minimise the need for victims to respond to multiple and changing service
providers, have adequate resources to allow service providers to meet
family needs and avoid out-of-home placements.
c. Responses should differ according to the experience and needs of
particular families: “Families with less serious cases of child maltreatment
767
Review, Draft, March 2008.
768
J Edleson, The overlap between childhood maltreatment and woman abuse, 1999, cited in DoCS,
Domestic Violence: Strategies and Interventions to Support Children and Families, A Literature Review, Draft,
March 2008, p.27.
769
AA Levendosky, A Huth-Bocks, M Semel and DA Shapiro, 2002 “Trauma symptoms in preschool aged
children exposed to domestic violence,” Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, pp.150-164, cited in DoCS,
Domestic Violence: Strategies and Interventions to Support Children and Families, Literature Review, Draft,
March 2008, p.27.
770
H Bragg, 2004, op. cit., cited in Submission: Graycar and Stubbs, 11 February 2008, pp.6-7.
and domestic violence should be able to gain access to help without the
initiation of a child protection investigation or the substantiation of a finding
of maltreatment.”771
17.50 It is difficult to argue with the appropriateness of any of these principles.
17.51 Australian research suggests that some women victims of domestic and family
violence choose not to call the Police because of their concerns about the
mandatory child protection reporting provisions.772 This may be a particular
concern for Aboriginal women. The Office of the Status of Women estimated
that only six per cent of families where domestic and family violence is present
have contact with statutory services.773 The need for a non-coercive response
to domestic and family violence which, where appropriate, is not linked to child
protection reporting was raised in the Inquiry’s Public Forum on Assessment
Model and Process as it was acknowledged that this kind of link can prevent
women from reporting. Munro also confirmed to the Inquiry that there is fear
among victims of domestic and family violence that if they report they will get
caught up in the child protection system. The system needs to deal with these
perceptions because they can indeed be accurate.
17.52 Child welfare interventions have been criticised for potentially exacerbating
violent situations. Abused women who are already under tremendous stress
because of the abuse may be further traumatised by child welfare involvement
thus compromising their parenting abilities and reducing their capacity to meet
their children’s emotional needs. Children in turn may also experience “severe
and long lasting effects” if they are removed from the non-abusive parent.774
17.53 Other reasons for not reporting domestic and family violence to Police relate to
concern about the consequences for their children, the desire to avoid
involvement in the criminal justice system and fear of reprisals.775
17.54 There is therefore debate about whether all children and young persons who
are exposed to domestic and family violence should be considered ‘abused’ and
hence the possible subject of statutory child protection intervention.
17.55 In their international comparative analysis of how the issue of child exposure to
intimate partner violence has been addressed within a child protection policy
context Nixon et al conclude that legislation or policy decisions that broadly
define any children who are exposed to violence in the home as maltreated can
771
S Schechter and J Edelson, Effective Intervention in Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment Cases:
Guidelines for Policy and Practice, 1999, cited in Submission: Graycar and Stubbs, 11 February 2008, p.7.
772
C Humphreys, “Domestic Violence and Child Protection: Challenging Direction for Practice,” Australian
Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse, Issues Paper 13, May 2007, p.5.
773
Office of the Status of Women, 1998, cited in DoCS, “Domestic Violence and its Impact on Children’s
Development,” presentation delivered at the DoCS Fourth Domestic Violence Forum, 24 September 2002,
p.2.
774
K L Nixon, L M Tutty, G Weaver-Dunlop, and C A Walsh, 2007, op. cit., p.1473.
775
N Taylor and J Mouzos, “Community Attitudes to Violence Against Women Survey 2006: A full technical
report,” Australian Institute of Criminology, November 2006, p.94; S Trally, D Faulkner, C Cutler and M Slatter,
“Women, Domestic and Family Violence and Homelessness: A synthesis report,” Department of Families,
Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Commonwealth of Australia, August 2008, p.21.
be problematic as they may further victimise abused women and their children,
deter women from seeking help or disclosing abuse for fear of their children
being removed, and overwhelm already overburdened child protection
systems.776
17.56 This appears to hold true in NSW. The decision to include exposure to domestic
and family violence as a form of child abuse has had significant implications for
child protection services. A 2002 study by Irwin, Waugh and Wilkinson found
that, consistent with current trends, domestic violence was the most common
reason for reporting a child to DoCS but that domestic violence referrals were
less likely to undergo an investigative assessment.777
17.57 Further, Irwin et al’s research found that many child protection workers felt ill-
equipped to respond to cases involving domestic violence and the inclusion of
“exposure to domestic violence as a category of child abuse did not translate
into changed practices for many child protection workers.”778 The need to
support better practice and quality training remains relevant today.
17.58 This also points to a need for those reporting to exercise their professional
judgement about the presence of a significant risk of harm within the terms of
the legislation. This is addressed later in this chapter.
17.59 At the Public Forum on Assessment Model and Process, DoCS expressed
concern that children and families experiencing domestic and family violence
who are reported to DoCS “do not yet have the pathways to get effective help
… they get locked in the DoCS system, and to no value to them.”779
17.60 Given the necessity of safety and security as a primary means of helping
women and children living with domestic and family violence, a number of
practitioners and researchers in this field have given attention to developing and
determining the effectiveness of programs for perpetrators of violence. Laing
and Bobic, however, emphasise that this is a contentious area.780 To date the
evidence for the effectiveness of perpetrators programs is weak and some
argue that scarce resources are better devoted to supporting women and their
children. The National Crime Prevention report Ending Domestic Violence?
Programs for Perpetrators reviewed programs specifically for male perpetrators
of domestic and family violence and concluded that:
Concerns about program effectiveness, and particularly about

the capacity of programs to stop men continuing to abuse their
partners or ex-partners and their children, have contributed in
776
K L Nixon, L M Tutty, G Weaver-Dunlop, and C A Walsh, 2007, op. cit., pp.1469-1470.
777
J Irwin, F Waugh and M Wilkinson, 2002, op.cit., p.9.
778
ibid., p.10.
779
Transcript: Public Forum, Assessment Model and Process, 18 April 2008, p.29.
780
L Laing and N Bobic “Economic Costs of Domestic Violence: Literature review,” Australian Domestic and
Family Violence Clearinghouse, April 2002.
part to the reluctance of many governments to fund perpetrator

programs.781
17.61 This highlights the importance of ensuring that programs for perpetrators work
in parallel with programs that engage and support women. It is also imperative
that while men are participating in programs women's safety is ensured.782
17.62 Little attention seems to be given in perpetrators programs to their relationship

with their children and their role as a parent, even though men who perpetrate
domestic and family violence are often very limited in their ability to parent
effectively.783
17.63 Domestic and family violence behaviour change programs in NSW are funded
primarily through Corrective Services and partnerships with non-government
services. The Inquiry understands that the NSW Government has concerns
about the effectiveness and applications of these programs and is currently
developing guidelines to ensure that they are consistent with best practice
standards and are effective in reducing re-offending and do not place victims at
risk. A report is to be provided to the Government by an interagency working
group by December 2008.784
17.64 Evidence does however, exist which shows that integrated domestic and family
violence systems are necessary to reduce the rates of violence.785 Most
research examined by the Inquiry identifies that the best way to protect children
subject to domestic and family violence is to support and protect the adult
victim, while holding the perpetrator accountable.
The need for an integrated response

17.65 The recognition that child abuse and domestic and family violence frequently
co-exist, together with that body of evidence that accepts the harmful effects of
exposure to domestic and family violence on children, have led to calls for
improved collaboration between statutory child protection services and domestic
and family violence services. The complexity involved in the ‘causes’ or risk
factors for domestic and family violence and child abuse indicates that there can
be no single, simplistic solution: models need to draw on multiple perspectives
with a view towards integrating services and intervention approaches as
781
National Crime Prevention, “Ending Domestic Violence? Programs for Perpetrators,” Attorney General’s
Department, Canberra, 1999, p.199.
782
EW Gondolf, “Evaluating batterer counselling programs: a difficult task showing some effects and
implications,” Aggression and violent behaviour, 9(6), 2004, pp.605-631, cited in DoCS, Domestic Violence:
Strategies and Interventions to Support Children and Families, Literature Review, Draft, March 2008, p.73.
783
784
Department of Premier and Cabinet, Discussion Paper on Domestic and Family Violence, p.24.
785
L McFerran, “Taking back the castle: how Australia is making the home safer for women and children,”
Issue paper 14, Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse, July 2007, p.22.
necessary.786 Health care workers, police, teachers, domestic and family

violence and child protection workers all play overlapping roles in the prevention
and intervention of cases of harmful domestic and family violence.
17.66 Leading researchers and policy makers in Australia, the USA and the UK have
argued for a more collaborative approach between domestic and family violence
and child protection agencies which has as an objective better support for both
children and victims.787
17.67 Laing, however, states that such collaboration faces considerable challenges,
given the very different histories, philosophies and structures of these two
services. 788
17.68 On one hand, domestic and family violence services:

a. are community-based, offering services on a voluntary basis to women and
children escaping violence
b. are ‘woman-centred’ and stress the empowerment of women through
respecting their choices and providing information and support.
17.69 In contrast, child protection services:

a. have a statutory base and deal largely with involuntary clients
b. focus on children
c. deal with women who may be at a very different stage in recognising and
dealing with the violence than the women who contact domestic and family
violence services.
17.70 Laing notes that these differences result in a number of barriers to collaboration:
a. tensions between the ‘child-centred’ and ‘woman-centred’ philosophies of
child protection and domestic and family violence services
b. tensions about how best to hold violent men accountable. Child protection
services often have little leverage with abusive men. As a result, threats to
remove children may not be a concern to the perpetrator of violence, while
at the same time, a woman's fear of losing her children can be utilised by
the abusive man as part of his tactics of coercive control.789
17.71 The Inquiry supports the strategies for building collaboration that have been
found to be effective including:
a. establishing ‘common ground,’ that is, agreement on a common goal of
intervention
786
787
Review, Draft, March 2008, p.74; C Humphreys, May 2007, op.cit., p.16.
788
L Laing, “Evaluation of the Green Valley Domestic Violence Service,” University of Sydney, 2005, p.71.
789
b. understanding the roles of each service system, including the constraints

and pressures under which they operate
c. cross training to bring together two bodies of expertise
d. arranging ongoing consultation between child protection and domestic and
family violence workers on a case by case basis to combine the knowledge
and experience of each system, and in this way, develop practice
knowledge with complex cases.790
17.72 Chapters 10 and 24 further expand on the Inquiry’s views about building the
better practice and stronger interagency responses, which are of relevance in
particular for the cohort of high risks families which tend to become repeat
clients of more than one agency.
17.73 A recent literature review undertaken by DoCS provides an overview of

strategies and interventions that address both domestic and family violence and
child protection concerns.791
17.74 Interventions may include individual counselling, group programs and

interventions for mothers and children. The length of interventions also varies
considerably, lasting anywhere from six weeks for some group programs to two
years for individual counselling.792
17.75 Overall fewer interventions designed for children and young persons
experiencing domestic and family violence exist than for women experiencing
domestic and family violence. Many of those that do target children in the 4-13
year age group. There appears to be a gap in services for programs specifically
targeting adolescents.793
17.76 Child abuse prevention programs, such as home nurse visitation, have been
found to be less effective when domestic violence is present.794 Olds found that
the presence of such violence had a negative impact on the ability of home
visitation schemes to achieve their targeted outcome, noting that “the program
had no impact on the incidence of domestic violence, but domestic violence did
moderate the impact of the program on child abuse and neglect.”795
17.77 In terms of effectiveness, while many programs undertake before and after
client satisfaction surveys, comprehensive program evaluations, including
measuring long term impact, are uncommon. Furthermore, due to small sample
sizes, the scarcity of control groups and variability in programs, evaluation
790
ibid., pp.8-9.
791
792
ibid.
793
ibid.
794
795
D Olds, L Sadler and H Kitzman, “Programs for parents of infants and toddlers: recent evidence from
randomised trials,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Vol 48(3), 2007, p.378.
results are not only difficult to compare they often lack the rigour to provide
conclusive outcomes.796
17.78 The recent DoCS review of selected studies provides the following synthesis of
ideas about what works in intervention programs for women and children:
a. The greatest benefits for children and their mothers come from programs
that run for both women and children concurrently.
b. Timing of the programs is important, intervention is of the greatest benefit
once child/family are living free of violence.
c. Follow up indicates that ongoing support provides significant benefits for
women and children.
d. Irrespective of the particular program the act of intervention, with its
associated support, expression of care and concern and reduction of family
isolation, appear to have an impact on improving the quality of life for many
of these families.
e. Evidence supports the notion that well planned and appropriately intense
interventions, along with inclusion of parenting support to mothers, can help
lead to a reduction in children's and women's distress following exposure to
intimate partner violence.
f. Research has yet to identify which particular program components have the
greatest benefit for specific treatment needs. 797
17.79 Much of the recent literature reviewing models of practice explores and/or
evaluates ‘integrated' or ‘coordinated community response' models, as opposed
to individual interventions or programs. These models involve the collaboration
of a range of services involved in various aspects of supporting women and
children experiencing domestic and family violence. “Underpinning these
models is the realisation that no single program has the capacity to develop or
provide the resources or services required by families experiencing domestic
violence.”798
17.80 Integrated models may, for example, may involve any or all of the following:
domestic and family violence services; child protection agencies; housing
services, Police, correctional services, community, women and child support
agencies, and schools. Domestic and family violence is also often just one
‘problem' in the lives of these families who may require the resources of multiple
services. An integrated model would, as the name suggests, help families
access the necessary services in a coordinated and managed way. It has been
noted that until recently integrated services have focused mainly on services for
796
797
ibid.
798
ibid.
women experiencing violence and have to some extent neglected the needs of
children.799
17.81 UnitingCare Burnside in particular advocated for agencies to provide family

based support for families who experience domestic and family violence, rather
than referral between agencies that separately provide services for parents,
children, young people and perpetrators.
17.82 McFerran examines a range of models that allow women and children victims of
domestic and family violence to stay in their homes and states:
the evidence from the ACT, Tasmania and Victoria and the
NSW pilots, is that governments and community services now
recognise that a state-wide, integrated response ensures the
most consistent, accountable and durable outcomes for the
greatest numbers of women and children.800
17.83 The Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse states:
good practice domestic and family violence integrated systems

across states and territories can reduce homelessness by
supporting women to stay in their homes, enhancing victim
safety, reducing secondary victimisation and holding abusers
accountable for their violence.
17.84 The Clearinghouse further states that “the evidence that integrated programs
can provide safety for women experiencing family violence to remain in their
homes is compelling.”801 It is difficult to argue with the proposition that when
domestic and family violence forces a woman to leave home this fact is of itself
a form of secondary harm that should not be visited on her or her children.
17.85 The Inquiry concludes that integrated services which are built on evidence
based casework, clear guidelines for intervention, quality training and
supervision and effective interagency collaboration form the basis of the
appropriate response to domestic and family violence in the child protection
context.
NSW response
17.86 Priority R1 of the NSW State Plan, reduced rates of crime, particularly violent
crime, states that:
799
ibid.
800
L McFerran, “Taking back the castle: how Australia is making the home safer for women and children,”
Issue paper 14, Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse, July 2007, p.22.
801
Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse response to: Australian Government’s Green
Paper on Homelessness, Which Way Home? May 2008, p.2.
Domestic and family violence is a crime and is a priority area for

Government. Our responses need to support the victim, ensure
the legal processes are timely, and respond to the causes of
domestic and family violence. To achieve this, we will develop
and implement a State-wide strategy to deal with the causes
and consequences of domestic violence.
The strategy will include programs to facilitate early intervention

in high risk situations, provide more options for victims and their
children to escape domestic violence, and coordinate services
so victims receive integrated police, legal and social assistance.
Families at risk of, or suffering from, domestic violence will be
able to seek help earlier and be supported through fast-tracked
legal proceedings and other support services.802
17.87 The State Plan has set a target of reducing the incidence of violent crime
against individuals by 10 per cent by 2016.
17.88 The achievement of these results is closely linked to a number of other State
Plan priorities, including reducing re-offending (R2), increasing participation and
integration in community activities (R4), prevention and early intervention (F4)
and reducing avoidable hospital admissions (F6).
Whole of government response

17.89 Premier and Cabinet have estimated that the cost of domestic and family
violence to the NSW economy is approximately $2.8 billion. This figure includes
the cost of support services, police intervention, court services and the pain and
suffering of victims. The largest part is spent on mainstream services or core
agency business, such as the DoCS Helpline or emergency health services.
Only a small proportion is spent on targeted domestic and family violence
services, such as the DoCS Domestic Violence Line or Domestic Violence
Liaison Officers provided by Police.803
17.90 In August 2007, the Government commissioned a review of existing structures

for coordinating NSW Government action to address domestic and family
violence and violence against women.804
17.91 As a result of the review the Government is now implementing a new approach
to preventing violence against women to enable coordination of strategic policy
development, service provision and training.
17.92 The new approach involves the following:
802
NSW Government: A New Direction for NSW – State Plan, November 2006, p.28.
803
Department of Premier and Cabinet, Discussion Paper on Domestic and Family Violence, p.11.
804
ARTD Consultants, Coordinating NSW Action Against Domestic and Family Violence, 8 November 2007.
a. The establishment of a Violence Prevention Coordination Unit in the Office

for Women’s Policy, Premier and Cabinet, which will take a leadership role
in the development of policy aimed at reducing domestic and family
violence. The initial task of this unit will be the development of a statewide
strategic framework to ensure that linkages between agencies and
programs are strengthened and services are integrated.
b. The engagement of five statewide project officers in addition to two existing
positions to deliver major Government projects in key service delivery
agencies. Three of these projects have already been trialled and
evaluated, and the Government has committed to either expanding, or
making these projects permanent under the new approach. Two of these
coordinators are located with DoCS to work on the Staying Home Leaving
Violence and the Integrated Case Management projects. Two coordinators
are based with Health to work on the Intersectoral Domestic and Family
Violence Education and Training project and the Risk Assessment Tool and
one coordinator is located with Attorney General's to work on the Domestic
Violence Intervention Court Model.
c. The appointment of nine regional coordinators within Police who are to
focus on ensuring the integrated delivery of human services and criminal
justice responses. These positions will be expected to establish and
maintain a regional coordination network to ensure links between local
domestic and family violence service delivery agencies within the region.
Regional coordinators will be located at the Police Regional Command
Offices in Parramatta, Surry Hills, Bankstown, Newcastle, Coffs Harbour,
Wollongong, Wagga Wagga, Dubbo and Tamworth. In addition to the nine
regional coordinator positions, Police is establishing 40 additional Domestic
Violence Liaison Officers (previously 123 positions)805 to be located within
Local Area Commands.
d. The establishment of a new Premier’s Council for Preventing Violence
Against Women to advise the Premier and facilitate more formal and direct
engagement between the non-government sector and the Government.
17.93 The NSW Government has committed the following amounts to specific
domestic and family violence projects over four years (2007 to 2011):
805
Department of Premier and Cabinet, Discussion Paper on Domestic and Family Violence, November 2008,
p.18.
Table 17.1 NSW Government domestic and family violence projects

Domestic Violence Court Intervention Model $8.4m
Integrated Case Management $12.0m
Non-government Sector Grants $8.0m
Staying Home Leaving Violence $5.1m
Court Assistance Scheme $2.6m
Indigenous Programs (to be announced) $3.6m
Police Equipment $0.5m
Total $40.2m
17.94 In addition, $8 million will be spent on remote witness facilities that are expected
to assist victims of domestic and family violence when giving evidence in
prosecutions of perpetrators.
17.95 A number of NSW Government agencies have been involved in providing

training for practitioners in domestic and family violence, both within their
agency and with partner government and non-government agencies. For
example, Health funds the Education Centre Against Violence, administered by
Sydney West Area Health Service. The centre provides statewide specialised
training, consultancy and resource development for Health and interagency
workers who provide services to children and adults who have experienced
sexual assault, domestic and family violence and/or physical and emotional
abuse and neglect. Police and DoCS also provide specialist training for officers
and caseworkers in recognising and responding to domestic and family
violence.
17.96 While work has been done by NSW Government agencies and the non-
government sector to improve responses to domestic and family violence, there
is not yet an effective coordinated and comprehensive response to this problem
in NSW. These responses and services are primarily provided by mainstream
services, which largely operate independently of each other.
17.97 The Inquiry has been informed that Premier and Cabinet is developing a
strategic framework to underpin statewide responses to domestic and family
violence. As part of this process, Premier and Cabinet has developed a
discussion paper on domestic and family violence which will form the basis for
feedback and consultation in 2009. General issues identified by the NSW
Government in responding to domestic and family violence include:
a. the complex array of service providers across multiple sectors and
disciplines
b. concern that domestic and family violence victims must compete for priority
with other demands on each of those service systems
c. the difficulty involved in achieving coordination across agencies as a result
of limited availability of resources, different information systems and
territorial issues
d. concern that the sector is often specifically interested in parts of the

problem or service responses rather than engaged in taking a holistic view
of domestic and family violence
e. there is no statewide approach to providing targeted support for high
demand clients to reduce their disproportionate impact across the service
spectrum.806
17.98 The former Director-General of DoCS has been engaged to assist in the
development of the Domestic and Family Violence Strategic Framework, and as
part of that work is considering the extent to which high demand clients of
human services and justice agencies are among those families experiencing
domestic and family violence.
17.99 It is evident from the Inquiry’s work that there is substantial anecdotal evidence
indicating that a relatively small proportion of families in NSW take up a
substantial amount of the human services and justice services provided and
that these families have experienced domestic and family violence. The extent
of the problem and possible systemic improvements in dealing with it at both
agency and interagency level are under consideration.
17.100 A number of concerns and questions were raised about the Government’s new
approach to domestic and family violence in various Public Forums and
meetings held by the Inquiry around the State. There were concerns in relation
to gaps in services but also in relation to the increasing focus on a criminal
justice and police response to domestic and family violence rather than other
needed responses such as community capacity building.
Apprehended Violence Orders

17.101 On 10 March 2008 Part 15A of the Crimes Act 1900 was repealed and the
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 commenced. For the
purposes of the Act a ‘domestic violence offence’ is defined as a personal
violence offence committed by a person against another person with whom the
person who commits the offence has or has had a domestic relationship, an
expression which is given an extended definition.807
17.102 In passing this Act, Parliament recognised, inter alia, that: domestic violence, in
all its forms, is unacceptable behaviour; domestic violence is predominantly
perpetrated by men against women and children; children who are exposed to
domestic violence as victims and witnesses are in a particularly vulnerable
position; and such exposure can have an impact on their current and future
physical, psychological and emotional well-being.808
17.103 Significant changes made by the new Act include requirements that:
806
ibid.
807
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 ss.5 and 11.
808
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 s.9(3)(f).
a. where a person has been found guilty of a domestic violence offence, a

recording is to be made in the person’s criminal record that the offence was
a domestic violence offence and similar recordings may be made in relation
to domestic violence offences previously committed by the person809
b. when making an apprehended domestic violence order or interim
apprehended domestic violence order for an adult, there is to be included
as a protected person, under the order, any child with whom the adult has a
domestic relationship unless there are good reasons for not doing so.810
17.104 Previously, when a victim took out an AVO, the children were not necessarily
included on the order. The Ombudsman found that it was unusual for Police to
initiate separate AVOs for children and questioned whether police officers had
received adequate procedural guidance to determine the circumstances that
warranted an application for an AVO on behalf of a child.811
17.105 It is anticipated that the new Act will remedy this by requiring the Magistrate to
consider the safety of the protected person and any child directly or indirectly
affected by the conduct of the defendant.812 It will be critical to monitor the
impact of these provisions.
17.106 Section 43 of the Care Act requires DoCS and Police to consider whether an
AVO would provide sufficient protection to a child or young person who is
believed to be at risk before making the decision to remove the child from his or
her family. The note to section 40 of the Care Act states that:
The intention of the Act is to ensure that children and young

persons are protected by using the least intrusive option.
Removal of children and young persons should be a last resort.
The option of an apprehended violence order to protect a child
or young person should be considered. In cases where there is
an immediate danger of abuse, an apprehended violence order
against the alleged abuser, requiring him or her, for example, to
leave the house, may be sufficient to ensure the protection of
the child or young person while investigations and assessments
continue. The order could be made to cover the child or young
person and, if appropriate, the child or young person's primary
care-giver and other members of their household.
These orders are available under the Crimes (Domestic and

Personal Violence) Act 2007.
If a child or young person is removed in an emergency

situation, the Director-General should also consider whether an
809
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 Part 3, section 12.
810
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 Part 9, section 38.
811
NSW Ombudsman, Domestic Violence: Improving Police Practice, December 2006, p.42.
812
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 s.17(1).
application for an apprehended violence order may still be the

most effective way of ensuring the immediate and safe return of
the child or young person to the home.
17.107 These requirements recognise the strong association between domestic and
family violence and child protection concerns,813 and the desirability of
maintaining the victim and children or young people in their home.
Specific NSW Government domestic and family violence

projects
17.108 The Domestic Violence Intervention Court Model was developed to improve the
efficiency and quality of the criminal justice response to domestic and family
violence, through agreed protocols and services for:
a. improved policing
b. improved court assistance support
c. improved management of local court activities
d. reduced incidence of re-offending
e. linking victims with other sources of support, including housing and
counselling.
17.109 Attorney General’s is the lead agency for this project. A two year trial began in
Wagga Wagga and Campbelltown in September 2005. The Government has
now committed recurrent funding of $2.1 million per year for four years to
continue the model at both locations. This funding commenced at the start of
the 2007/08 financial year.
17.110 Attorney General's is currently investigating the options and implications of

mainstreaming the protocols and services developed as part of the model as
part of the core business of partner agencies.
17.111 An evaluation of the model found mixed results with Police and local court
outcomes, however, victims were very satisfied with the Police response in both
of the trial local area commands and with the support they received. Most
victims reported that they felt safe at the time of interview and most victims said
they would report a similar incident to the Police in the future.814
17.112 The majority of stakeholders also believed the trial was successful and should
be continued in Campbelltown and Wagga Wagga and should be considered for
implementation in other locations.
813
Standing Committee on Social Issues, Care and Support. Final Report on Child Protection Services,
814
L Rodwell and N Smith, “An Evaluation of the NSW Domestic Violence Intervention Court Model,” NSW
Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Attorney General’s Department of NSW, 2008.
17.113 However whilst the evaluation reports positive results with respect to the
experience of victims, it is silent in relation to the impact of the model on women
with children and any associated child protection issues. Given that DoCS is
one of the interagency partners in this model the Inquiry suggests that future
evaluations factor this into their analysis and subsequent recommendations.
17.114 The Domestic Violence Intervention Court Model has been identified as an
effective integrated crisis response and short term criminal justice and
community social welfare response to domestic and family violence. Following
a further evaluation and the completion of the business model, consideration
will be given to expanding this program.
Staying Home Leaving Violence
17.115 DoCS and Housing are the lead agencies for this project. Staying Home
Leaving Violence is an approach that helps women and children stay safely in
their homes without their violent partner. The support of the Police, Magistrates
and Local Courts is an important aspect of the project as an exclusion order is
negotiated as a part of an AVO. The framework entails:
a. the removal of the violent partner from the home
b. keeping the violent partner out of the home over time
c. addressing the immediate and longer term safety issues for the woman and
her children
d. providing longer term support for the woman and her children, and the
prevention of future violence.
17.116 The framework is based on research funded in 2004 by DoCS, to find out from
women who had left a violent relationship what would enable them and other
women to remain in their homes.815 The study found that remaining in their own
home brought considerable benefits to the woman and her children including
stability of accommodation, stability and security for the children, less disruption
to their lives and a sense of empowerment. The study also noted the broader
social and economic benefits including reducing women’s homelessness and
financial disadvantage and placing accountability for violence and its
consequences with the perpetrator.
17.117 The specific practices that underpin the framework are:

a. protocols between key agencies to ensure a coordinated response for the
removal of the violent partner, and the addressing of safety issues for the
woman and her children
b. a local community campaign to increase awareness of, and support for the
option of staying home safely
815
R Edwards, “Staying Home Leaving Violence; Promoting Choices for Women Leaving Abusive Partners,”
Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse, 2004.
c. the provision of outreach support by all agencies

d. safety plans for the women and children which may include enhanced
home security: the changing of locks, installation of a phone alarm linked to
key agencies, and security doors.
17.118 Pilots have been established to put the key elements of the framework into
practice, and to test and evaluate different service approaches to implementing
the framework.
17.119 Evaluations for both Bega and South Eastern Sydney Staying Home Leaving
Violence projects have been conducted. The evaluation of the Bega project
found that the pilot had been successful in developing a robust, holistic model
for providing a service to assist to keep women and children in a stable home
environment while excluding a violent perpetrator.816 While the Bega evaluation
recorded that two thirds of clients reported positive outcomes, there was also
significant reporting of inadequate or unsupportive police and court responses,
which identified the need for formal MOUs or agreements, which have
subsequently been developed.817
17.120 The evaluation of the Eastern Sydney Staying Home Leaving Violence pilot
reports that the pilot reached a broad range of women in terms of those who
had not previously used welfare services and in terms of their age, housing
tenure and cultural identity but noted that “although there is a high incidence of
family violence in Aboriginal communities, there is under representation of this
group in the project.”818 Nearly two thirds of the project’s clients were able to
remain living in their own homes with the perpetrator of violence excluded.
Women who had been employed, were able to stay in employment and the
majority of children maintained stability in education and child care
arrangements. The pilot found that the project developed strong and well
managed linkages with other service providers, leading to appropriate referrals
to the project, joint case management and linking of clients to other support.
17.121 Both pilots involved the negotiation of an MOU with Police.
17.122 The NSW Government has committed an additional $5.1 million to expand the
project to an additional 16 locations from 2009/10 onwards. The locations of
these programs will be determined on the basis of Police reporting data.
Planning for this expansion commenced in July 2008.
17.123 Housing is currently investigating options under the Housing and Human
Services Accord, whereby other government agencies and their NGO partners
could have nomination rights for public housing properties for domestic and
816
Bega Women’s Refuge, Purple Kangaroo Consultants, Final report of the Staying Home Leaving Violence
project, April 2007, p.26.
817
p.6.
818
“Evaluation of Staying Home Leaving Violence Eastern Sydney Pilot Final Report,” August 2007, p.5.
family violence clients where support arrangements were in place (see Chapter
7).819
Risk assessment and information sharing
17.124 A priority identified by workers in domestic and family violence has been the
development of an approach that can appropriately identify the full range of
domestic and family violence risk factors and the consequent intervention that
might be required to break the cycle of violence.820
17.125 In March 2006 the Government commenced the development of a cross agency
approach. Health is the lead agency for this project. The cross agency risk
assessment approach is intended to be used by service providers in Health,
Police, DoCS, Attorney General's and other agencies in order to:
a. assess the needs of the victims, including children
b. identify existing interventions and service options designed to reduce the
risk of violence and address the needs of victims
c. provide appropriate referrals and/or reports
d. liaise with other agencies to develop a clearer picture of the risks (including
documentation of decision making processes, sharing information between
agencies and a standard format for data).
17.126 A trial of the approach is scheduled for the end of 2008 in two locations (one
metropolitan, one rural). An evaluation report of the trial is anticipated by April
2009.
17.127 As of 1 July 2008, Health had also recruited a statewide coordinator for
Intersectoral Domestic and Family Violence Education and Training. This
position will be responsible for scoping, coordinating and delivering specialist
domestic and family violence training and resource development across
government agencies. The position is based at the Education Centre Against
Violence. It is the Inquiry’s view that it is of critical importance that DoCS
establishes strong links with this initiative.
17.128 Overall the literature supports routine screening for domestic and family
violence but notes that for successful implementation there needs to be
comprehensive training of healthcare and support workers, workers within the
judicial system, and the availability of a multi-agency referral network.821
819
ARTD Consultants, “Coordinating NSW Government Action against Domestic and family Violence” 8
November 2007, p.20.
820
ibid., p.21.
821
Department of Premier and Cabinet: Domestic Violence Rapid Review Draft Report, September 2008,
p.10; M Hester and N Westmarland, “Tackling Domestic Violence: Effective Interventions and Approaches:
Home Office,” Communities and Development Unit, London, 2005; R Braaf and G Ganguly, “Cultural
Challenges for violence prevention: working towards an ethical practices of sustainable interventions.
Expanding on Horizons,” University of Sydney, 2002.
Integrated Case Management
17.129 Integrated Case Management aims to deliver coordinated services to clients

through a multi-disciplinary team based on clear referral protocols between
agencies. The need for such a model arises because no single government
agency is structured to provide the complex mix of services needed to respond
to domestic and family violence. The lead agency for this project is DoCS.
17.130 The Government provides funding of around $3 million per annum for Integrated
Case Management projects targeting high risk groups and communities
experiencing domestic and family violence, at nine locations across NSW
(Green Valley, Wyong, Canterbury/ Bankstown, Bourke, Mt Druitt, Wollongong/
Shellharbour, Brisbane Waters, Manning/ Great Lakes and Bellambi/ Corrimal).
17.131 Different approaches have been adopted to integrated case management

reflecting regional partnership arrangements and local service systems.
17.132 DoCS advised that under priority R1 of the NSW State Plan, it has commenced
work on the development of the consistent framework for the Integrated
Domestic and Family Violence Services Programs. The purpose is to
consolidate the project and support alignment with statewide directions.
17.133 A number of the projects have been evaluated, and while each vary in terms of
operation, process and staffing, evaluation results consistently report the
following:
a. There has been an increase in the number of victims pursuing AVOs as
well as a reduction in the reporting of high risk families, systemic
improvements in sharing of knowledge and information between Police and
child protection services, and a significant reduction in the numbers of
chronic high risk offender families.822
b. There has been a sustained decrease in the number of dismissals of AVO
and other proceedings because of non-attendance by the parties, a
reduction in the percentage of repeat offenders and repeat victims, and a
reduction in the percentage of AVO breaches, along with the provision of
information, emotional and practical support resulting in women feeling safe
during the court process.823
c. There have been improved interagency responses to domestic and family
violence, strengthened relationships with Police and the adoption of
practice that addresses the safety of both women and children.824
d. There has been an increase in the rate at which AVOs are granted in
domestic violence cases, compared with domestic violence cases that do
not involve integrated case management, along with a significant reduction
822
D Atkins, AandK Consulting Pty Ltd, DART Review Report, December, 2004, p.27.
823
Evaluation of the Central Coast Domestic Violence Intervention Response Team Project, February 2006,
p.4.
824
L Laing, 2005, op. cit.
in the rate of repeat domestic violence incidents as well as an improvement

in relationships between Aboriginal women and Police, with Aboriginal
women becoming more willing to report domestic violence.825
e. Clients reported feeling safer and helped with a reduced incidence of
domestic and family violence.826
Department of Community Services

17.134 DoCS allocates significant funding to deal with the consequences of domestic
and family violence for children and families. The major program responses
cover service delivery through its CSCs and JIRTs, its Domestic Violence Line,
CSGP and SAAP.
17.135 There are also a range of early intervention and prevention strategies to
address the causes and consequences of domestic and family violence. For
example, DoCS has partnered with local organisations to deliver the Tamworth
Children and Domestic Violence Group Work Program for mothers and children.
17.136 The Department also allocates funding to a range of targeted domestic and
family violence services, including training and education campaigns and
projects funded respectively under the Area Assistance Scheme, and the CSGP
and Intensive Family Based Services.827
17.137 Delivery of the youth component of the Aboriginal family violence partnership
projects has begun in five separate locations in rural and remote areas of NSW.
Aboriginal family violence partnership projects are being developed in
partnership with Aboriginal communities, local agencies and the Commonwealth
Government. They aim to prevent domestic and family violence by promoting
messages about healthy and non-violent relationships and by improving access
to the legal system for Aboriginal women experiencing violence.828
17.138 In addition DoCS early intervention program, Brighter Futures, involves a

partnership between DoCS and non-government agencies that offers intensive
support to vulnerable families, focusing on their needs and addressing the wide
range of factors that can contribute to poor outcomes for children and young
persons, including domestic and family violence. Almost half of the families
who have entered the program to date have been affected by domestic and
family violence.829
825
H Armstrong and P Melser, “Evaluation of the Police/Women's Refuge Partnership against Domestic
Violence Project,” February 2005.
826
DoCS, Evaluation Report: Canterbury-Bankstown Domestic Violence Team, 19 December 2005, p.28.
827
An evaluation of the Intensive Family Based Services demonstrated that the program significantly reduced
reports involving domestic violence, physical and psychological abuse, Intensive Family Based Services,
Evaluation Report, Draft, March 2008, p.6.
828
829
p.22.
Domestic Violence Line

17.139 DoCS statewide Domestic Violence Line is a toll free 24 hour, seven days a
week telephone counselling and referral service. Caseworkers help people
work towards stopping domestic and family violence through appropriate
referrals thereby minimising the risk and increasing their safety. Domestic
Violence Line staff work with DoCS Helpline where children are in danger or at
risk of harm in violent family situations.
17.140 It is a centralised access point for all women’s refuges across NSW and links
with other crisis support services in NSW and interstate.
17.141 The Domestic Violence Line received more than 23,000 calls in 2007/08. The
majority of these involved incidents of verbal, psychological and physical
violence. More than 7,200 calls involved nearly 15,000 children in the affected
households, an increase of 2,800 children from 2006/07.830 From information
provided by DoCS to the Inquiry, it appears that staffing has remained relatively
stable at about 32 staff.
17.142 As can be seen from Chapter 10, the Inquiry is of the view that if a report does
not meet the statutory threshold, this resource should be used more frequently.
Other state agencies, including the Police and NGOs should refer the family, or
the reporters, themselves should contact the Line to obtain further assistance
for the family. This may require additional resources at the Domestic Violence
Line.
Supported Accommodation Assistance Program

17.143 SAAP provides accommodation and support services to help people who are
homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. This can include families in crisis,
single adults, young people, and women and children affected by domestic and
family violence. Domestic and family violence was cited as the main reason for
seeking support in 54 per cent of SAAP support periods for women with
children.831 SAAP is jointly funded by the Commonwealth and the NSW
Governments. NSW contributes 50.4 per cent of funds and the Commonwealth
49.6 per cent. In 2007/08, the program provided around $120 million in funding
to 390 NGOs in NSW to deliver support, outreach, advocacy, living skills
development and supported accommodation services, as well as linkages to
other specialist services such as health, housing and aged care. It provides a
major crisis response for people affected by domestic and family violence
whose personal safety is threatened and who have acute needs and require
immediate support.832
17.144 The different service models that are funded under SAAP include:
830
831
Australian Government’s Green Paper on Homelessness, Which Way Home? May 2008, p.20.
832
a. women’s refuges/safe houses and domestic and family violence outreach

services
b. domestic and family violence support services
c. supported accommodation for families
d. supported accommodation for young people
e. crisis support groups
17.145 In 2007/08, DoCS provided funding under SAAP to 82 women’s refuges. In

2008/09 these services will receive more than $32 million in SAAP funding.
17.146 According to a 2004 national report, approximately 10,500 women pass through
NSW refuges each year.833 Concerns were raised with the Inquiry about the
levels of funding for some safe houses, which meant that the needs of the
community could not be met.
17.147 Humphries reported that national research showed that only 14 per cent of
children accompanying women using SAAP services were provided with
counselling, child care, kindergarten and/or assistance with access
arrangements. Similarly, an audit of 1,244 agencies across Australia showed
that only three per cent of organisations operated individual programs for
children exposed to domestic and family violence.834
17.148 The Commonwealth Government’s recent Green Paper on Homelessness

suggests that there is a need to align homelessness responses to domestic and
family violence with law and justice services. This could mean, for example:
a. changing laws to require the removal of perpetrators of violence from the
family home
b. creating alternative accommodation, custodial and treatment options for
perpetrators
c. co-locating support and accommodation services with other services such
as child care centres, health clinics or recreational facilities
d. providing flexible assistance packages that help people move back into
safe and permanent housing in a timely manner
e. changing laws and procedures to encourage courts and police to work
more closely with domestic and family violence service providers
f. counting children as SAAP clients and providing brokerage funds to pay for
counselling, school books and uniforms so that children can go to school
g. forming partnerships between schools and family health services to identify
children at risk and to respond early, to minimise the disruption to children’s
833
WESNET, “Women’s Refuges, Shelters, Outreach and Support Services in Australia,” Office for Women,
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, 2004, p.60.
834
C Humphreys, May 2007, op. cit., pp.16-17.
schooling and to address the effects of homelessness on their ability to

learn. 835
Orana Far West Child and Family Partnership

Development Project
17.149 The Orana Far West Child and Family Partnership Development Project is
considered an example of a best practice homelessness response for families
experiencing violence. The project, led by DoCS, provides emergency
accommodation for women and children escaping domestic and family violence.
The project includes assisting the transition of families from the safe houses into
longer term affordable housing. Safe houses are also ‘drop-in’ centres where
women can support each other. The project is a partnership between the
Commonwealth and NSW Governments and brings together the following key
service elements:
a. promoting strong, functional well supported families, healthy development
of children and to reduce and prevent child abuse and neglect in
participating families through the Brighter Futures program
b. enhanced SAAP funding and support – to improve the capacity of safe
houses in Bourke, Brewarrina, Lightning Ridge, Walgett and Wilcannia to
respond to women and children experiencing, or at risk of, family violence
c. establishing Child and Family Linkage workers in each of the five safe
houses
d. linking with Housing to assist safe house clients to receive the support
services they need to live independently and maintain their tenancies
e. investigating options for the crisis accommodation program to support the
work of the five safe houses
f. working with the Aboriginal Housing Office to improve housing options for
clients and children in safe houses.
Other DoCS initiatives

17.150 In addition to the funding it provides, DoCS has developed a number of
resources to provide guidance to caseworkers on working with domestic and
family violence. One of these is the Brighter Futures Practice Resource:
Domestic and Family Violence Vulnerability, which is evidenced based and
provides practical guidance for caseworkers in this Program.
17.151 The Caseworker Development Course has a module which focuses exclusively
on domestic and family violence. Staff involved in early intervention casework
receive extra training in domestic and family violence via the Safe Homes, Safer
835
Australian Government’s Green Paper on Homelessness, Which Way Home? May 2008, p.66.
Futures Training Program. This training reflects and operates from the following
principles:
a. responsibility for abuse remains with the perpetrator of abuse
b. responsibility for changing abusive behaviour remains with the perpetrator
of abusive behaviour
c. children’s and women’s safety is prioritised at all times
d. working with interagency partners to access more in depth and specialised
intervention.
17.152 In addition, Research to Practice seminars are held which included a seminar
on domestic and family violence. Relevant research papers are also available
on the intranet.
17.153 There is a need for a more nuanced assessment and intervention approach by
DoCS Child Protection Caseworkers to the impacts of domestic and family
violence on children and women. The Inquiry is of the view that this group of
staff also need access to specific training and expertise such as that provided to
Early Intervention Caseworkers. Further, casework practice guidelines need to
highlight the importance of offering support and protection and identifying
strategies and resources that can assist child protection workers in better
supporting the non-offending partner and children.
Other key agencies

17.154 Health predominately delivers domestic and family services through mainstream
health services (emergency departments, drug and alcohol, maternity, mental
health and other community and hospital services). Health policy and
procedures mandate routine screening for domestic violence for women
attending antenatal and early childhood health services and for women aged
over 16 years attending mental health and drug and alcohol services.
17.155 There is no specialist service stream for domestic violence counselling across
Health as there is for sexual assault. Victims are referred to other services,
where these are available, however, the Inquiry understands that some Area
Health Services have developed specialised centres.836
17.156 Appropriate accommodation is a key issue in domestic and family violence.

Housing is working with other agencies in seven priority locations covering 18
public housing areas, where a component of this work may support families
experiencing violence and increase their capacity to access mainstream
services and supports.837
836
p.12.
837
ibid., p.13.
17.157 Homelessness NSW has reported that the number of women and children
becoming homeless as a result of domestic and family violence in NSW is not
decreasing under current strategies.838 The most significant problem identified
with the current response is the lack of exit points from crisis and transitioned
accommodation.839
17.158 While there are some initiatives as noted earlier in this chapter, these need to
be complemented by a range of accommodation and support options to meet
the varying needs of children and women.
NSW Police and domestic violence risk of

harm reports
17.159 Police has a policy titled The Investigation and Management of Domestic and
Family Violence which requires its officers to report to DoCS when a child is
present at a domestic violence incident, or is known to be living in a domestic
violence situation. This is in contrast to paragraph (d) of s.23 of the Care Act
which is in the following terms:
the child or young person is living in a household where there

have been incidents of domestic violence and, as a
consequence, the child or young person is at risk of serious
physical or psychological harm.
17.160 As a consequence of this policy, Police make many reports to DoCS, the
precise number being unknown, where they attend a single incident of domestic
violence occurring at premises in which a child usually lives, but who was not
present at the time, without harbouring any suspicion of risk of serious physical
or psychological harm. Police officers have informed the Inquiry that they report
to DoCS about half of the domestic violence incidents they attend. Presumably,
the other half have no children in attendance or ordinarily present.
17.161 From the work done by the Ombudsman in 2007 in reviewing the deaths of
certain children between January 2005 and April 2007, 29 events involving 18
families are identified in which he had concerns about Police compliance with its
policy for reporting children at risk of harm in relation to domestic violence.840
17.162 In nine events, a mandatory risk of harm report and/or a report under the policy
may have been warranted, however the Police records do not indicate that one
was made. In 10 events, a mandatory risk of harm report and/or a report under
the policy may have been warranted, and Police records indicate that a report
838
ibid., section 4.8, p.8.
839
D Tually, C Cutler and M Slater, “Women, Domestic and Family Violence and Homelessness: a Synthesis
Report”, Flinders Institute for Housing, Urban and Regional Research, 2008, cited in Department of Premier
and Cabinet, Discussion Paper on Domestic and Family Violence, November 2008, section 4.58, p.17.
840
was made but there was no evidence that it was received by DoCS. In 10
events, in which neither a mandatory risk of harm report nor a report under the
policy may have been warranted, a report was recorded as having been made
by Police yet there was no evidence that it was received by DoCS.
17.163 The Ombudsman dealt with these matters by convening meetings with DoCS
and the Police. No resolution had been achieved by the time of the writing of
this report.
17.164 Domestic and family violence warrants serious and timely attention by all
authorities. Possible models are discussed in this chapter. However, the
response by Police as set out in its reporting policy is resulting in resources
being spent unproductively.
17.165 It is clear from Chapter 6 that health and education workers acknowledge and
accept that the legislation requires of them the exercise of judgement as to
whether a risk of harm exists. Those with whom the Inquiry spoke, believed
that their knowledge of the child and family and their professional skills well
place them to form the judgement required by the Care Act.
17.166 The Inquiry has questioned those representing the Police on a number of
occasions during the Inquiry about the breadth of its notification policy.
Assistant Commissioner Kaldas informed the Inquiry:
if we were to move towards filtering more and not sending

things on, we feel that all we would be doing is simply shifting
the risk.841
17.167 By which, he clarified, he meant shifting the risk from DoCS to the Police.
Detective Superintendent Begg stated:
I think most Police officers are probably not in a position to

judge whether a child is going to have any sort of long term
effects of domestic violence.842
17.168 In its submission to the Inquiry Police said:
A significant proportion of children reported to the Helpline by

police officers attending a domestic violence incident require no
child protection intervention based solely on the incident.
However, the information gathered by police officers from a
domestic violence (or any other) incident adds to any
information that may already be held by DoCS on the child or
the family and should be important in assisting DoCS
caseworkers assess any increase in the risk to the children. If it
is the first such police report, it could assist DoCS in
841
Transcript: Inquiry meeting with NSW Police Force senior executives, 25 June 2008, p.2.
842
ibid., p.4.
determining risk of harm if future reports are made by any

agency about the children.
The Australian Domestic Violence and Family Violence

Clearinghouse and the Australian Institute of Criminology have
a wealth of literature linking the deleterious impact that
witnessing domestic violence has on children. Even if children
are not the direct victims of domestic violence, the ability of
women victims to provide appropriate quality of care to their
children is affected by their violent experiences. There is strong
evidence of the coexistence between domestic violence and
child protection/child abuse. It is not reasonable to assume that
exposure to a ‘verbal argument’ is any less traumatic than the
actual physical abuse of another when witnessed by a child,
especially if there is frequent and ongoing patterns of similar
family behaviour. The content and context of the verbal
argument may determine the impact of the argument upon a
child. For example, if there is threatening behaviour by an adult
to another, or to the child, this is significant. Context is an
important consideration for police officers including whether the
incident forms a pattern of abuse or represents the escalation of
abuse. This is not for attending police officers to judge. Such
matters should always be referred to DoCS caseworkers for
appropriate assessment.843
17.169 Taking a different view, a police officer at one interagency meeting indicated
that “we are, as police officers, well able to apply an objective risk assessed
view of the world in terms of the need to provide a child at risk assessment”844
so that not as many unnecessary reports go to DoCS. It was suggested that a
commissioned officer in each command could have the report referred to them
and then make an assessment based on relevant criteria.
17.170 In relation to DoCS having all available information, DoCS KiDS system is
obviously an important resource to child protection work. However, Police
holdings are available and can be accessed by the use of the s.248 Direction
Power.
17.171 Police urged the Inquiry not to increase the threshold for reporting domestic
violence incidents. However, the key concern for the Inquiry has not been the
circumstances prescribed by the Care Act as to when domestic violence
incidents should be reported, but that Police are directed by policy to report
matters which fall short of that specified in s.23(d). In its submission, Police
appear to be supporting an amendment to s.23 to align it with the policy. No
other person has submitted to the Inquiry that s.23(d) should be amended to
that end.
843
Submission: NSW Police Force, May 2008, pp.13-14.
844
Transcript: Interagency meeting, Southern Region.
17.172 Concerns about the ‘noise’ generated in the system by the volume of domestic
violence reports were recorded in a number of submissions received by the
Inquiry. The consequence of over reporting means that “when you get all of
those reports coming in and the vast majority are trivial, you swamp the system
so much you don’t notice the really serious ones.”845 Humphries states that
“inundating the statutory child care agency with referrals may actually increase
the risk of harm, as those children in greatest danger may become lost in the
‘debris of referrals’ and not receive a service.”846 The Benevolent Society also
noted that we “have a system whereby an incident of domestic violence is
counted as a child being at risk of harm.” This means “you have this massive
reporting with no action taking place.”847
17.173 As discussed in Chapter 6, 16,426 reports made by Police in 2006/07 did not
meet the statutory test. It is likely that most of these were domestic violence
incidents.
17.174 In a meeting with the Inquiry, Dr Eileen Munro, Reader in Social Policy, the
London School of Economics and Political Science, suggested that if Police
used a simple grading of seriousness from one to five, it would be much more
useful for DoCS workers. NCOSS similarly suggested that there be a filter
applied by mandatory reporters before reporting to DoCS to reduce ‘crowding’
of the system.
17.175 Humphries cites work by different Police authorities in the UK that are using or
developing tools to assess the risks posed by the perpetrator of domestic and
family violence to assist them to prioritise their work. Most of the tools are
based on the factors that have been associated with lethality and serious
assaults including sexual assault, stalking, perpetrator substance misuse and
mental health problems, separation, pregnancy and child abuse.848 The
evaluation of Police risk assessment showed that officers appreciated having a
systematic approach to risk assessment that also provided a basis for safety
planning.849
17.176 Police raised with the Inquiry the inadequacy of COPS850 in identifying repeat
victims of domestic violence: “There is a great anomaly between the numbers of
repeat victims on our COPS system.”851
17.177 Police referred to a domestic violence checklist that is completed by every

officer at the scene of a domestic violence incident, however this is not
845
Transcript: Inquiry meeting with Dr Eileen Munro, 10 March 2008, p.4.
846
C Humphries, “Domestic violence and child protection: exploring the role of perpetrator risk assessments,”
Child and Family Social Work, Vol 12, 2007, p.361.
847
Transcript: Inquiry meeting with senior representatives from the Benevolent Society, 12 December 2007,
p.30.
848
C Humphreys, 2007, op. cit., p.362.
849
ibid., p.366.
850
‘COPS’ is the Computerised Operational Policing System which records all police activities by NSW Police.
851
Transcript: Public Forum, Assessment Model and Process, 18 April 2008, p.18.
analysed statistically on a state basis, so that one of the questions a police

officer has to ask is whether the incident has happened before.
17.178 DoCS raised the issue of the quality and timeliness of reports received from
Police. In some instances the information was insufficient to make an adequate
assessment. DoCS told the Inquiry that Police:
are interested in criminality and prosecution and evidence; we

are just into the softer things that the police may not actually
record on their system……Such as how a child was presenting
when the police turned up to a domestic violence incident.
Totally irrelevant really, unless the child has been assaulted, to
police purposes, but really critical to us.852
17.179 The Ombudsman has also noted the variable quality in information provided by
Police to DoCS in child at risk reports. Police reports do not necessarily contain
contextual information that may assist DoCS to make an appropriate
assessment.853
17.180 DoCS reported that they would like to get more information from Police, for
example, if it is the first offence, the severity of domestic violence cases, so that
DoCS can use this intelligence in assessing the relative priority of the reports for
investigation.
17.181 Police and DoCS have recently completed a project, following from a
recommendation made by the Ombudsman to improve the risk assessment of
matters reported by Police. It has resulted in a one page tool being developed
to collect key information relevant to assessing risk of harm in domestic and
family violence situations. The type of information sought includes whether the
incident was a repeat, whether children were present and currently safe and
whether there are signs of drug or alcohol use by carers or of mental health
issues. The Inquiry understands that some concerns about privacy are being
dealt with through legal advice and urges those concerns to be resolved quickly
by agreement or amendment of the relevant instrument or law.
17.182 It is a very sensible document and should be implemented and shared, after
suitable amendments, with other mandatory reporters.
Conclusion
17.183 The Inquiry supports the findings of the recent Premier and Cabinet 2008
Literature Review of domestic violence that there is agreement in peer reviewed
literature that outcomes of programs designed to prevent the recurrence of
domestic violence and to improve the long term safety and well-being of those
852
Transcript: Inquiry meeting with DoCS senior executives, 30 November 2007, p.38.
853
NSW Ombudsman, Domestic Violence: Improving Police Practice, December 2006, p.43.
who have experienced domestic violence have been inconsistently and poorly
evaluated, thus reducing a reliable evidence base about what works.
17.184 Notwithstanding this, considerable work has been and is being done in the area
of domestic and family violence and child protection. However, challenges
remain to ensure that caseworkers and other key professionals such as police
have available to them, understand and apply the developing evidence based
approaches to intervening in families where domestic violence gives rise to child
protection concerns. They need to work with other agencies and NGOs, and
with their domestic violence workers, to determine the right service or response.
Preferably, caseworkers should support the non-offending parent, usually the
mother, to stay in the home with her children, having sufficiently reduced the
risk of harm. This may require collaboration with Housing, Police and the
courts.
17.185 The fathers should not be forgotten; they should be encouraged to take
responsibility for their violence or other abusive behaviours and increase their
awareness of the impact of their violence on the children. This requires access
to Health or other perpetrator programs and/or the involvement of Police and
the courts.
17.186 Legal protections should be used, including AVOs and criminal charges, and
active public awareness campaigns conducted that will emphasise this
unacceptability of this form of conduct and publicise the resources available to
victims.
17.187 In addition to the features identified by DoCS and set out earlier in this chapter
of interventions which work, the following principles should be the benchmarks
against which proposed interventions are tested:
a. interventions should occur at universal, secondary and tertiary levels
b. the response should be integrated and coordinated and involve, at least
Police, Housing and Health and relevant non-government services
c. where possible services should be co-located or operated from a ‘hub’
d. cross agency assessment tools should be used
e. cross agency training should by undertaken
f. women and children should be supported to stay in their homes.
17.188 Where possible, and to assist the Government in determining where best to
allocate funds, projects designed to reduce domestic violence or to assist those
living with it, should have compatible measures for success. In addition,
evaluations of these projects should be undertaken using consistent
methodology to enable more useful comparisons to be made than those which
have occurred to date.
17.189 The nature of the research on the effects of exposure to domestic violence on
children and the potential for ‘gender blindness’ in child protection work854
suggest that more should be done to equip caseworkers with the knowledge
and skills to assess risk of harm reports and determine interventions when
domestic violence is the cause of risk. The use of Structured Decision Making
as recommended elsewhere in this report may also assist in this regard.
17.190 Equally, joint training between child protection workers and workers with other
agencies concerning children and domestic violence should occur. The
Education Centre Against Violence would appear to be an appropriate vehicle
to facilitate such training.
17.191 Otherwise, the Inquiry supports the current Government initiative to develop a
comprehensive cross agency response to the problem, be driven from within
Premier and Cabinet, focusing on the core group that take up a substantial
amount of the time and resources of the human services and justice agencies.
Effective intervention in that area could have a significant impact on the costs of
those agencies in not having to deal with these families in the future. Equally it
could provide an example and incentive for those on the periphery of this care
group to seek out assistance.
Recommendations
Recommendation 17.1
The NSW Police Force should amend its policies in respect of reporting
domestic violence incidents to DoCS to align with the requirements of
s.23(d) of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act
1998 and should provide the necessary training to its officers to enable
them to comply with the amended legislation.
Recommendation 17.2
DoCS and NSW Police should agree on the process and content of
information to be exchanged when reporting children or young persons
at risk to ensure that information received by DoCS enables an
appropriate and timely risk of harm assessment to be made.
Recommendation 17.3
DoCS caseworkers should receive domestic violence specific training,

jointly with other relevant agencies and NGO workers.
854
18 Aboriginal over representation in child

protection
Introduction .................................................................................................................736
The history of removal of Aboriginal children from their families in Australia ....736
History of removal of Aboriginal children in NSW..................................................737
Legislative provisions.................................................................................................738
Data...............................................................................................................................740
Aboriginal families .................................................................................................741
Care and protection of Aboriginal children in NSW ...............................................742
Previous reports and their recommendations .........................................................744
Bringing them home ...................................................................................................744
Findings of the Bringing them home report ...........................................................744
Responses to Bringing them home .......................................................................746
Critiques of the Government response to Bringing them home ............................747
Ampe Akelyernemane Meke Mekarle “Little Children Are Sacred” the
Northern Territory inquiry ..........................................................................................748
Findings of the NT Inquiry .....................................................................................749
Recommendations from the NT Inquiry.................................................................750
Responses to the NT Inquiry report ......................................................................754
Progress on the NTER ..........................................................................................754
Report of the NTER Review Board........................................................................755
The Inquiry’s experience ............................................................................................756
Work being done by the Commonwealth..................................................................757
COAG Murdi Paaki Trial ........................................................................................760
Work being done in NSW............................................................................................761
The NSW Aboriginal Child Sexual Assault Taskforce report ................................761
DoCS .....................................................................................................................770
Justice agencies ....................................................................................................772
Capacity building ...................................................................................................774
Lessons from the literature........................................................................................776
Characteristics of Aboriginal family structures and child rearing practices ...........776
What constitutes evidence for what works in Aboriginal contexts?.......................777
Findings of the literature ........................................................................................781
Identifying ‘promising’ practices.............................................................................782
Promising practices ....................................................................................................783
Canada ..................................................................................................................783
Manitoba Model ............................................................................................ 783
Vancouver..................................................................................................... 784
Indigenous Triple P – the Positive Parenting Program .........................................785
Alcohol Supply Reduction Programs .....................................................................786
The NSW Aboriginal Maternal and Infant Health Strategy....................................787
Conclusion...................................................................................................................789
736 Aboriginal over representation in child protection
Introduction
18.1 Aboriginal children and young persons are significantly over represented in the
child protection system, as well as in juvenile justice institutions. The reason for
this state of affairs is likely to be the cumulative effects of poor health, drug and
alcohol and drug abuse, gambling, pornography, unemployment, discrimination,
poor education, housing and the general disempowerment of their parents and
communities which has led to family and other violence and then on to sexual
abuse of men and women and, finally, of children.855
18.2 Much has been said and written about this inequity, and this chapter refers to
most of it. Sound principles have been expressed by reviews, more recently
and notably, the inquiry which led to significant intervention in the lives of
Aboriginal families in the Northern Territory.
18.3 For a child protection system, the enormity and long standing nature of the
causes of child abuse and neglect in Aboriginal communities can be
overwhelming. This chapter seeks to document the words and work of others,
to examine in some detail the response of NSW to child sexual abuse and to
express some views about possible ways forward in NSW.
18.4 The purpose of this chapter is to provide a considered basis for intervention,
drawing upon other recent inquiries and academic research, that underpins the
general recommendations made in this chapter, but more importantly, those
individual recommendations which the Inquiry has made in the other chapters,
which focus on the individual components or aspects of the care and protection
system. The reasons for those recommendations are set out in those chapters,
and are not repeated in this chapter, save, an occasions, in passing.
The history of removal of Aboriginal children

from their families in Australia
18.5 In 1997, HREOC delivered the Report of the National Inquiry into the
Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families,
Bringing them home.
18.6 Bringing them home has since been a key reference point for policy
development and further inquiries regarding Aboriginal children and families. In
the introduction to the report, the authors note that:
The histories we trace are complex and pervasive. Most

significantly the actions of the past resonate in the present and
will continue to do so in the future. The laws, policies and
855
Northern Territory Government, “Ampe Akelyernemane Meke Mekarle ‘Little Children are Sacred’”, Report
of the Northern Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse,
Darwin, Australia, 2007, p.6.
practices which separated Indigenous children from their

families have contributed directly to the alienation of Indigenous
societies today.
For individuals, their removal as children and the abuse they

experienced at the hands of the authorities or their delegates
have permanently scarred their lives. The harm continues in
later generations, affecting their children and grandchildren.856
18.7 Bringing them home details ongoing negative effects for many survivors of the
separation. Main areas of functioning discussed were parenting skills (including
high anxiety about parenting that can manifest as a lack of discipline),
reluctance to use mainstream services due to a fear that those services will take
their children away, and a higher incidence of behavioural problems in the
children of those who were removed.857
18.8 Those removed as children were reported to experience high rates of self harm
and suicide, high rates of domestic violence, and unresolved grief and trauma
that was passed on to their children as anxiety and distress.858 The report also
commented on the poor mental health of those removed as children, and the
effect on their parenting capacity and therefore the life outcomes of their
children.859
18.9 The ongoing and generational negative effects of such policies and practices
have been noted in other countries with a similar history of colonisation, and of
policies that attempted to control or assimilate Indigenous populations into
mainstream culture. The literature notes particular parallels between the
experiences of Australia and Canada, the USA and New Zealand.860
History of removal of Aboriginal children in NSW

18.10 The findings of Bringing them home at a national level are also true of the
experience of people in NSW. A Protector of Aborigines was first appointed in
NSW in 1881, and a Board of Protection established in 1883. The Board was
granted statutory authority with the passing of the Aborigines Protection Act
1909. Under this Act, an Aboriginal child no longer had to be considered
856
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Bringing them home: Report of the National Inquiry into
the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families, 1997, p.4.
857
ibid., pp.193-196.
858
ibid., p.197.
859
ibid., pp.198-202.
860
For example, D Valentine and M Gray, 2006, op. cit, pp.537-545; T Bell and T Libesman, “Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Child Protection Outcomes Project Report, From Aboriginal child welfare to Aboriginal
children’s well-being,” Commissioned by Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care and the
Department of Human Services Victoria, unpublished, October 2007; T Libesman, “Child welfare approaches
for Indigenous communities: International perspectives,” 2004 Child Abuse Prevention Issues no. 20,
Australian Institute of Family Studies; Northern Territory Government, “Ampe Akelyernemane Meke Mekarle
‘Little Children are Sacred’”, Report of the Northern Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal
Children from Sexual Abuse, Darwin, Australia, 2007, p.274.
neglected before the Board had the power to remove the child from his or her
family.861
18.11 Missions and institutions to accommodate Aboriginal children removed from

their parents were established at a number of sites across NSW, including
missions at Bomaderry, Bowraville, Erambie, Lake Macquarie, Maloga School,
Parramatta, Warrangesda and Wellington Valley, and institutions at Kinchela
and Cootamundra.862
18.12 NSW claims to be the first Australian jurisdiction to stop the indiscriminate
removal of ‘part Aboriginal children’ in 1940 and also to be the first Australian
government to apologise to the Aboriginal people in the wake of Bringing them
home.863
18.13 DoCS has acknowledged the history of removal of Aboriginal children by child
welfare authorities in NSW. The DoCS intranet has the following statement:
DoCS and its predecessor organisations have a long history of

involvement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
communities. It is estimated that between 1883 and 1969
nearly 6,000 Aboriginal children were removed from their
families in NSW, amounting to one in six or seven children
compared to one in 300 for non-Aboriginal children.864
18.14 DoCS, through its former and current Director-General, has also apologised to
the Aboriginal people for the effects of past policies.
Legislative provisions
18.15 The Care Act contains specific provisions regarding needs of Aboriginal children
and young persons.
18.16 ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander’ means a person who:

(a) is a member of the Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander race of
Australia, and
(b) identifies as an Aboriginal person, or Torres Strait Islander race of
Australia, and
(c) is accepted by the Aboriginal community or Torres Strait Islander
race of Australia, as an Aboriginal person or Torres Strait Islander
race of Australia.865
861
T Drabsch, “Indigenous Issues in NSW: NSW Parliamentary Research Service Background Paper 2004”,
NSW Parliamentary Library, no. 2/04, pp.52-53.
862
ibid., p.54.
863
864
DoCS, Intranet, Aboriginal Welfare History.
865
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 s.5 and Aboriginal Land Rights Act 1983 s.4.
18.17 If the Children’s Court is satisfied that a child or young person is of Aboriginal or
Torres Strait Islander descent it may determine that they are an Aboriginal or
Torres Strait Islander for the purposes of the Care Act.866 The Director-General
is to make reasonable enquiries as to the Aboriginality of a child or young
person who is the subject of a report.867
18.18 The objects, principles and responsibilities contained in Part 1 of Chapter 2 of

the Care Act868 apply equally to Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children and
young persons.
18.19 The Care Act also contains Aboriginal specific principles the first of which is that
Aboriginal people are to participate in the care and protection of their children
and young persons “with as much self-determination as is possible” and the
Minister may negotiate and agree with Aboriginal people to the implementation
of programs and strategies that promote self-determination.869
18.20 The second Aboriginal specific principle recognises Aboriginal participation in

decision making and states that Aboriginal families, kinship groups,
organisations and communities are to be given opportunities to participate in
decisions made about the placement of their children and young persons, and
in other significant decisions made under the Care Act, “by means approved by
the Minister.”870
18.21 The Care Act also contains the Aboriginal Child Placement Principles, including
the general order for placement, the relevance of the child’s self-identification
and wishes, and guidance for cases where a child or young person has parents
from different Aboriginal communities or one Aboriginal and one non-Aboriginal
parent.871 These principles have been discussed in detail in Chapter 11. The
Care Act requires that a permanency plan for an Aboriginal child or young
person must address how the plan has complied with the Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Child and Young Person Placement Principles in s.13.872
18.22 The Care Act contains specific provisions for the keeping of records by DoCS
and designated agencies relating to Aboriginal children and young persons
placed in OOHC.873
18.23 The Adoption Act 2000 sets out the Aboriginal Placement Principles and their
application to adoptions of Aboriginal children. Provision is made for Aboriginal
participation in decision making, and to ensure that alternatives to adoption are
considered for Aboriginal children.874 It also includes specific requirements for
866
867
868
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 Part 1 of Chapter 2.
869
870
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 s.12
871
872
Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 s.78A(3).
873
874
Adoption Act 2000 ss.33-39.
counselling and information to be supplied prior to the giving of consent for the
adoption of an Aboriginal child.875 The court must not grant an adoption order
for a child unless it is satisfied that the Aboriginal Placement Principles have
been properly applied.876
18.24 An adoption plan for an Aboriginal child to be adopted by non-Aboriginal

parents must set out the ways in which the child is to be assisted to develop a
healthy and positive cultural identity and for links with that heritage to be
fostered.877
Data
18.25 The literature reveals the disadvantage experienced by the Aboriginal
population compared with the non-Aboriginal population. HREOC has noted
that:
It is a tragic fact that an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child

born today does not have the same life chances as other
Australian children.
This is something that should not exist in 21st century Australia.

And it is the defining challenge for our nation.878
18.26 One of the problems with data collection regarding Aboriginal status is that
information collected by the census and by government agencies regarding
Aboriginality is self reported. This means that if, for any reason, an Aboriginal
person does not wish to disclose his or her Aboriginal identity, the statistics will
not record him or her as an Aboriginal person.
18.27 There are powerful historical and current reasons why Aboriginal people may
wish to avoid being identified by government authorities. This means that most
of the statistics gathered about Aboriginal people for official purposes are likely
to underestimate the true numbers of Aboriginal people using a service. Even
with this qualification, the available statistics still clearly demonstrate the over
representation of Aboriginal children and young persons among the more
disadvantaged people in Australian society, and in the child protection and
justice systems. Chapters 5 and 16 set out in detail the available data on
Aboriginal people in the child protection system.
875
Adoption Act 2000 ss.64-65.
876
Adoption Act 2000 s.90 (e).
877
Adoption Act 2000 s.46 (3).
878
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Social Justice Report Commonwealth of Australia,
Canberra, 2007, p.6.
Aboriginal families
18.28 The rate of involvement of Aboriginal children and young persons in the child
protection system occurs within a broader context of disadvantage and
vulnerability experienced by Aboriginal families.
18.29 2.1 per cent of the NSW population identify as Aboriginal.879 Aboriginal children
account for approximately four per cent of the total NSW 0-17 years
population.880
18.30 13 per cent of Aboriginal families have four or more children compared with five
per cent for the total population of families in Australia.881
18.31 The Aboriginal population has a younger age structure than the non-Aboriginal
population. 40 per cent of the Aboriginal population in Australia is aged less
than 14 years – more than twice the rate for the total population.882 45 per cent
of the Aboriginal population of NSW are aged 0-17 years.
18.32 In 2004/05 the life expectancy for Aboriginal men in Australia was 59 years and
for Aboriginal women 65 years, compared with 77 years for all males and 82
years for all females.883 This impacts on the structure of the extended family, the
availability of grandparents and other key relatives to support parents and form
relationships with children.884
18.33 Aboriginal children have poorer health and a higher mortality rate than non-
Aboriginal children. For example:
a. Since 2001, over 10 per cent of NSW Aboriginal babies have had low birth
weight (less than 2,500 grams) and prematurity (less than 37 weeks
gestation). These rates are one and a half to two times higher than the
rates for NSW babies overall.885
b. The perinatal mortality rate among babies born to Aboriginal mothers in
NSW was 15.2 per 1,000 in 2005, higher than the rate of 8.6 per 1,000
experienced by babies born to non-Aboriginal mothers.886
c. In 2007, the NSW Child Death Review Team reported that 56 of the
children who died in NSW in the reporting period identified as Aboriginal.
This was 9.3 per cent of the deaths in that period, and represents a death
879
Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2006 Population Census, 26 September 2008.
880
881
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, “Longitudinal Study of
Australian Children,” Fact Sheet No. 5 Indigenous Families are Different, 2006.
882
ibid.
883
Australian Bureau of Statistics and Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Health and Welfare of
Australia’s Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples, Vol 4704.0, 2008, p. xxii.
884
F Stanley, S Richardson and M Prior “Children of the Lucky Country? How Australian society has turned its
back on children and why children matter?” Macmillan, 2005, p. 52.
885
NSW Health, “Mothers and Babies Report,” 2005, p.10.
886
ibid.
rate of 99.8 deaths per 100,000 for Aboriginal children, compared with
35.37 deaths per 100,000 for the overall child population for 2007.887
d. Of the 54 infants who died suddenly and unexpectedly in NSW in 2006, 13
(24.1 per cent) were Aboriginal.888 Aboriginal infants in Australia are up to
six times more likely to die from sudden infant death syndrome than non-
Aboriginal children. Nationally, between 1991-2000, the Aboriginal rate
was 4.49 per 1,000 live births compared with the non-Aboriginal rate of
0.73.889
e. Suicide by Aboriginal people is concentrated in the younger age groups for
both males and females. The suicide risk for Aboriginal males aged 15–19
years has been identified as four times that of the general population.890
18.34 In 2006/07 Aboriginal children and young persons represented 27.2 per cent of
those attending a Youth Justice Conference, 39.5 per cent of those under
community supervision, 37.8 per cent of those remanded in custody, and 54.7
per cent of those sentenced to detention.891
18.35 In June 2007, Aboriginal men comprised 20 per cent of the total male offender
population in custody. Aboriginal women comprised 31.3 per cent of the total
female offender population in custody.892
18.36 Aboriginal children and young persons are less likely than non-Aboriginal
children to finish their high school education, reach minimum standards of
literacy and numeracy, or to leave school with the educational levels they need
to undertake further education or to enter employment.893
18.37 In 2005/06, Aboriginal people accounted for 16 per cent of all SAAP clients in
NSW (4,300 Aboriginal clients, including 2,750 accompanying children).
Care and protection of Aboriginal children in NSW

18.38 As can be seen from Chapter 5 of this report, Aboriginal children and young
persons are far more likely to be reported to DoCS than non-Aboriginal children
and young persons. For children aged under one year, Aboriginal children are
almost five times more likely to be reported than non-Aboriginal children.
Aboriginal children are also more likely to be the subject of multiple reports.
18.39 There has been a slowing trend in the number of child protection reports in the
period 2006/07 to 2007/08 (preliminary) compared with 2005/06 to 2006/07.
887
NSW Child Death Review Team, Annual Report 2007, p.9.
888
ibid.
889
SIDS and Kids, “2004 Report on First Australian SIDS Pathology Workshop,” p.8: www.sidsandkids.org.
890
B Nielsen, E Katrakis and B Raphael “Males And Mental Health: A Public Health Approach,” NSW Public
Health Bulletin, 12(12), 2001, pp.330-332.
891
892
Department of Corrective Services, Annual Report 2006/07, p.42.
893
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, “Longitudinal Study of
Indigenous Children” Fact Sheet No. 5, 2006.
For reports involving non-Aboriginal children and young persons, the

percentage increase over these two periods fell from 16.7 per cent between
2005/06 to 2006/07 to 4.7 per cent between 2006/07 to 2007/08. For reports
involving Aboriginal children and young persons, there was also a fall in the
percentage increase of reports, but it was not as marked. The percentage
increase fell from 29.1 per cent to 11.9 per cent.
18.40 In the period April 07/March 08, Aboriginal children and young persons were
less likely to be the subject of reports that were designated as ‘information only’
or that were closed at the Helpline. The Aboriginal children and young persons
in these categories, however, had about twice the number of reports per person
compared with non-Aboriginal children and young persons in this group.
18.41 Therefore, reports on Aboriginal children and young persons were slightly more
likely to be referred for further assessment than non-Aboriginal children and
young persons. Of the reports referred to a CSC or JIRT for further assessment
in the period April 07/March 08, those concerning Aboriginal children and young
persons are less likely to be closed without further assessment.
18.42 If the percentage of reports made about Aboriginal children and young persons
is taken as a benchmark, the statistics show that a slightly higher proportion of
the reports that received a SAS1 and were subsequently closed in April
07/March 08 concerned Aboriginal children and young persons. The proportion
of reports concerning Aboriginal children and young persons that received a
SAS2 over the same period was also higher than for non-Aboriginal children
and young persons. Of the reports that received a SAS2 and were
substantiated, the proportion that concerned Aboriginal children and young
persons was also higher.
18.43 It would appear from the data that Aboriginal children and young persons
involved in reports are more likely to be the subject of a completed secondary
assessment. Further the subsequent statutory response by DoCS is more likely
to result in Aboriginal children and young persons entering care. As is shown in
Chapter 16, Aboriginal children and young persons, who accounted for about
one seventh of all people reported to DoCS in 2007/08, accounted for almost a
third of the children and young persons in OOHC.
18.44 In 2006/07 and 2007/08, the proportions of Aboriginal children and young
persons reported with specific issues differed from the proportions of non-
Aboriginal children and young persons reported with those issues. The
proportions of Aboriginal children and young persons with reported issues of
carer drug and/or alcohol abuse or neglect were higher than those for non-
Aboriginal children and young persons. The difference between the two groups
was not as pronounced in the case of domestic violence.
18.45 The number of Aboriginal children and young persons in care, and the
proportion of Aboriginal children and young persons in the OOHC population,
has steadily increased since 2005. Based on the rates per 1,000, Aboriginal
children and young persons are more than ten times more likely than other
children and young persons to be in OOHC.894
18.46 Of the children and young persons in OOHC in 2008, Aboriginal children and
young persons were less likely to be in statutory care than non-Aboriginal
children and young persons, were less likely to be in an NGO placement, and
were more likely than other children and young persons to be in relative/kinship
care. Those in relative/kinship care tended to have a lower number of
placements, and this may contribute to the fact that Aboriginal children and
young persons are slightly less likely to have multiple placements.
18.47 Aboriginal children and young persons also continue to be over represented in
reviewable deaths, and more broadly, they also feature disproportionately in the
deaths of all children in NSW.895 In 2006, the deaths of 123 children were
reviewable. Twenty-five were Aboriginal children.
18.48 From 2003 to 2006, 19 per cent of all child deaths in NSW were reviewable. In
the same period, 42 per cent of the deaths of Aboriginal children were
reviewable.896
Previous reports and their recommendations

18.49 The experience of Aboriginal people in the child protection system has been
discussed in a number of reports and issues papers.
18.50 In the years since the release of Bringing them home, South Australia, the
Northern Territory, NSW, Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia have
released reports which considered at least some aspects of the involvement of
Aboriginal children and young persons in child protection systems in Australia.
18.51 These key reports are discussed below.
Bringing them home

Findings of the Bringing them home report
18.52 The report concluded that although legislation and the language used in the
child welfare field had changed, paternalistic attitudes towards Aboriginal
children and families persisted in child welfare departments in Australia. The
experience of Aboriginal children and families with child welfare agencies was
still reported to be “overwhelmingly one of cultural domination and inappropriate
894
DoCS, What DoCS data tell us about Aboriginal clients, December 2007, p.3.
895
896
ibid., p.ii.
and ineffective servicing, despite attempts by departments to provide accessible

services.”897
18.53 Thus, it was concluded, a complete overhaul of welfare services for Aboriginal
children, families and communities was required, resulting in a very different
model of service in which Aboriginal communities would be involved as true
partners in negotiating the services and models most appropriate for their
particular community or region.898
18.54 It was noted that the involvement of extended kin networks, close supervision of
very young children, a high level of autonomy among older children, and an
emphasis on providing comfort and affection rather than discipline, are features
of Aboriginal child rearing widely recognised in communities in different
geographic locations and living different lifestyles. Such practices contrast with
the view in Western societies, where a child’s regular absence from the nuclear
family or absence over a period of time is considered abnormal and indicative of
a problem within the family.899
18.55 This contrast demonstrates one aspect of the conflict of values between
Western and Aboriginal perspectives regarding children and families. Where
there is a lack of understanding and lack of acceptance of extended Aboriginal
family relations, the functioning of the extended family within an Aboriginal
cultural context is seen as pathological or dysfunctional, and what is ‘normal’
Aboriginal practice signals a problem to many welfare workers.900
18.56 Many of the recommendations of Bringing them home dealt with providing
appropriate mechanisms to record and recognise the experiences of individuals,
families and communities affected by the forcible removal of Aboriginal children,
and the need for a formal apology by government and church groups who were
historically involved in the forcible removal of Aboriginal children from their
families.
18.57 Some of the recommendations had specific relevance for the care and
protection of Aboriginal children in NSW. These were about mental health,
substance abuse, and parenting and well-being programs, addressing the social
and economic disadvantages that underlie the contemporary removal of
Aboriginal children and young persons, developing a legislative framework for
self-determination, minimum standards of treatment for all Aboriginal children,
and amendments to family law.
897
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Bringing them home: Report of the National Inquiry into
the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families, 1997, p.400.
898
ibid., p.401.
899
ibid., p.392-393.
900
ibid., p.392-393.
Responses to Bringing them home

18.58 In December 1999, in response to the report, the Commonwealth allocated
funding of $63 million over four years for “practical assistance for those affected
by the former practice of separating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children from their families.”901 The funding included a number of history and
archiving initiatives to assist Aboriginal people to record and protect their
heritage. It also included funding for four program areas:
a. almost $6 million for further development of Indigenous family support and
parenting program
b. $11.25 million to establish a national network of family link-up services to
assist individuals
c. $16 million for 50 new counsellors to assist those affected by past policies
and for those going through the reunion process
d. $17 million to expand the network of regional centres for emotional and
social well-being, giving counsellors professional support and assistance.902
18.59 In addition, in 2001/02 the Commonwealth allocated $53.8 million over four
years (to June 2006) to continue the Link-Up services, the education and
training, and the counselling and parenting elements of the original package of
measures. This brought the total expenditure to $116.65 million for the period
to June 2006.903
18.60 In 2003, the Ministerial Council of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs
evaluated the implementation of the recommendations of the Bringing them
home report.
18.61 The 2003 evaluation noted that the overall response by all states and territories
to issues regarding the contemporary separation of Aboriginal children and
young persons from their families and communities focused almost exclusively
on the impact of children’s and young person’s legislation and the requirement
for compliance with Aboriginal Child Placement Principles. The evaluation
stated:
The removal of children from Indigenous families for child

protection reasons still occurs much more frequently than it
does for non-Indigenous families. While action to implement
the Indigenous Child Placement Principle has been taken in
every jurisdiction, some children are still being placed in non-
901
The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Stolen Generation Compensation Bill
2008, June 2008.
902
J Herron, Press Release, Bringing them home: Commonwealth Initiatives, 1997, parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au.
903
Office for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health, “Evaluation of the Bringing them home report and
Indigenous Mental Health Programs,” Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2007, p.2.
Indigenous care because of a shortage of Indigenous foster

carers.904
18.62 A Commonwealth funded evaluation published in 2007 found that there were
four main achievements of the programs funded in response to Bringing them
home. First, the link-up and counselling programs had provided services to a
large number of Aboriginal clients nationally. Secondly, along with the mental
health and well-being programs, these programs had provided services to many
Aboriginal people who are unlikely to have received services otherwise. Thirdly,
the programs had generally provided services in a culturally appropriate
manner. Finally, there were generally high levels of client satisfaction and
positive outcomes for clients in relation to most programs, with the exception of
a number of social and emotional well-being regional centre programs.
18.63 The evaluation also found four main limitations of the programs. It said there
was a lack of focus on the first generation Stolen Generation members, and a
significant and undesirable level of variation in the skills and qualifications of
staff in many of the programs.905 As a result of these and other factors, it was
found that staff burnout and turnover were significant problems for the
programs.906 A lack of national consistency in service delivery, and limited
geographical coverage were found to be the other limitations in all four program
areas.907
Critiques of the Government response to Bringing them

home
18.64 In a speech to mark the tenth anniversary of Bringing them home on 24 May
2007, Professor Lowitja O’Donoghue said:
Of the 54 recommendations made in the Bringing them home

report, 35 have been ignored – that is two thirds.
Where there has been a response – for example, Link-Up

services – the funding is drastically inadequate to meet the
need.908
18.65 On Wednesday 13 February 2008, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd delivered a

national apology to the Stolen Generations on behalf of the new Commonwealth
Government sworn in on 3 December 2007. In a response to the Government’s
904
Ministerial Council of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, “Evaluation of Responses to Bringing
Them Home Report: Final Report,” December 2003, p.49.
905
Office for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health, “Evaluation of the Bringing them home report and
Indigenous Mental Health Programs,” Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, 2007, p.iii.
906
ibid.
907
ibid.
908
L O’Donoghue, “Tenth Anniversary of the Bringing them home report,” hosted by Stolen Generations
Alliance: Australians for Healing, Truth and Justice, Great Hall, Parliament House, Canberra, Speech, 24 May
2007.
national apology to the Stolen Generations, Tom Calma, the Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner with HREOC said:
The Stolen Generations have needs that have yet to be met,

mainly due to under-funding of Link Ups and other support
organisations. There remains a pressing need for specific
assistance tailored to the particular circumstances of those
forcibly removed from their families…
And there are many recommendations of the ‘Bringing them

home’ report that have not been implemented…
In fact, there has been little attempt to even consider many of

these recommendations at the federal or state level in recent
years, or for them to be implemented systematically across all
jurisdictions.909
18.66 The Inquiry was unable to locate any comprehensive evaluation of the progress
in implementing each of the recommendations of the Bringing them home report
that would provide sufficient detail to assess these current claims that the
majority of recommendations have not been implemented.
18.67 It did, however, seek information from DoCS about the actions it had taken in
response to the report. DoCS advised that it had formally apologised as set out
earlier in this chapter, sought and achieved legislative amendment in
accordance with nine of the report’s recommendations, including maintaining
and granting access to records, self-determination and the Aboriginal Child
Placement Principle. In addition, it has improved the availability of and access
to records, developed a relative and kinship care policy, devised the Aboriginal
Strategic Commitment set out later in this chapter, reviewed the Interagency
Guidelines in light of the report and begun targeted recruitment of Aboriginal
carers.
18.68 Further reference to actions by DoCS is made later in this chapter.
Ampe Akelyernemane Meke Mekarle “Little

Children Are Sacred” the Northern Territory
inquiry
18.69 In 2007, Ampe Akelyernemane Meke Mekarle “Little Children Are Sacred”, the
Report of the Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from
Sexual Abuse (the NT Inquiry), was provided to the Northern Territory
Government. Chaired by Rex Wild QC and Patricia Anderson, the NT Inquiry
was asked to examine, among other matters, the extent, nature and factors
909
T Calma, “Let the healing begin: Response to government to the national apology to the Stolen
Generations” Speech delivered at Parliament House, Canberra, 13 February 2008 at www.hreoc.gov.au.
contributing to sexual abuse of Aboriginal children, with a particular focus on

unreported incidents of such abuse, and to identify barriers and issues
associated with the provision of effective responses to, and protection against,
sexual abuse for Aboriginal children.910
18.70 In the report, the co-chairs note that:
Our terms of reference required us to enquire into the protection

of Aboriginal children from sexual abuse. We will, no doubt,
receive some criticism for appearing to stray well beyond that
limited brief. However, we quickly became aware – as all the
inquiries before us and the experts in the field already knew -
that the incidence of child sexual abuse, whether in Aboriginal
or so-called mainstream communities, is often directly related to
other breakdowns in society. Put simply, the cumulative effects
of poor health, alcohol, drug abuse, gambling, pornography,
unemployment, poor education and housing and general
disempowerment lead inexorably to family and other violence
and then on to sexual abuse of men and women and, finally, of
children.911
18.71 As a result of this widening of the investigation from the limited brief given to the
NT Inquiry, the report effectively provides a recent review of national and
international work related to the protection of children of the Indigenous peoples
of Australia, North America and New Zealand.
Findings of the NT Inquiry

18.72 The NT Inquiry found that the sexual assault of Aboriginal children was
associated with the broader indicators of Aboriginal disadvantage.
18.73 Asserting that sexual assault is no more acceptable in Aboriginal culture than it
is in European or mainstream society, the report summarised the underlying
causes of the present situation in both urban and remote Aboriginal
communities.
18.74 The excessive consumption of alcohol and other drugs, including petrol sniffing,
was described as a major factor, and as either the cause or result of poverty,
unemployment, lack of education, boredom and overcrowded and inadequate
housing. Together these factors lead to excessive violence, and in the worst
case to sexual abuse of children. The NT Inquiry was convinced that neglect
led to physical and emotional abuse and thence, in the worst case, to sexual
abuse.
910
Northern Territory Government, “Ampe Akelyernemane Meke Mekarle ‘Little Children are Sacred’”, Report
911
ibid., p.6.
18.75 The NT Inquiry found that the problems underlying the sexual abuse of
Aboriginal children have been well documented and that many of the solutions
were also well documented. While it found that there were no ‘quick fixes,’ and
that a conservative estimate is that it would take at least 15 years (or one
Aboriginal generation) to begin to make the necessary difference, it also found
that there were some actions that can be taken relatively quickly and easily.
18.76 The inquiry’s report noted that vast resources were allocated to crisis
responses, when it seemed desirable to prevent the problem from occurring in
the first place. Despite the expressed abhorrence of Aboriginal communities for
the sexual abuse of children, the same communities appeared to find it difficult
to accept responsibility for the behaviour of those community members who
committed such abuse. The NT Inquiry found that attitude change was
required.
18.77 Education was a key strategy in changing the problem attitudes and in
rehabilitating Aboriginal communities.
We are utterly convinced that education (that properly

addresses the needs of the local community) provides the path
to success. We have been dismayed at the miserable school
attendance rates for Aboriginal children and the apparent
complacency here (and elsewhere in Australia) with that
situation.912
18.78 Along with education, the report noted that addressing alcoholism was a major
priority. The effect of alcoholism on the Aboriginal community was seen as so
significant, that it was useless to try to implement any other proposals unless
alcoholism was addressed.
Recommendations from the NT Inquiry

18.79 All the recommendations of the report of the NT Inquiry are seated within a
context of working in partnership with Aboriginal people, families and
communities. Within the 97 recommendations a number have wider
applicability than the Northern Territory.
18.80 The recommendations included a call for the Commonwealth to work with the
Northern Territory to “develop long term funding programs that do not depend
upon election cycles nor are limited by short-term outcomes or overly
bureaucratic reporting conditions and strictures.”913
18.81 A whole of government approach to child sexual abuse, and enhanced

information sharing between agencies, was recommended. Consultation with
Aboriginal people and communities regarding investigations and decision
912
ibid., p.18.
913
ibid., p.22.
making about Aboriginal children was specifically addressed, and consultation

with Aboriginal communities in the development of strategies and programs was
also a feature.
18.82 The report described gaps in the interagency response to sexual assault, and
noted that regional and remote services are not adequately resourced to meet
the needs, and that victims of sexual assault require a coordinated and
integrated response from investigative and support agencies.914
18.83 For statutory child protection services the recommendations covered the need
for greater government investment in child protection system reform and in the
recruitment, training and retention of a greater number of child protection
workers, greater access to cultural advice and expertise for child protection
workers, and more strategic, planned investment in local community
workforces.
18.84 The report found that while hospitals may contribute to the forensic investigation
of child sexual abuse and the treatment of injuries and infections, it is primary
health care services that play the largest role in the response to child sexual
abuse.915 Particular reference was made to: mental health; the implications and
impacts of sexually transmitted infections in young persons; the development of
comprehensive child and adolescent mental health services; and the provision
of increased services for those children whose behaviour indicates significant
trauma and distress resulting from abuse.
18.85 The development or expansion of health services such as maternal and child
health home visitation, increased services for prenatal care and children aged
0-5 years and their families, increased access to health and welfare services
through primary health care centres as ‘service hubs’, and the collaborative
development and implementation with Aboriginal communities of services and
programs to address ‘inter-generational’ trauma and to improve the emotional
and mental well-being of community members, was also part of the preventive
and early intervention response recommended.
18.86 For investigative and justice agencies, themes relevant to most states including
NSW included:
a. better integration of police and statutory child protection
b. development of a repository of specialist knowledge and skills in
interviewing child victims and Aboriginal child victims
c. active recruitment of Aboriginal police officers and associated roles with an
emphasis on recruitment of female staff
d. more effective consultation with Aboriginal communities
914
ibid., pp 104-105.
915
ibid., p.106.
e. improved knowledge and skills of staff through better education on child

abuse and neglect and improved procedures for reporting abuse and for
offering support to people affected by abuse
f. consideration of the needs of possible child victims when determining bail
where a sexual offence is alleged to have been committed against a child
g. provision of more sex offender rehabilitation programs, including culturally
appropriate community based programs for convicted offenders deemed
suitable for such programs, as well as for those at risk of offending
h. provision of youth specific culturally appropriate rehabilitation programs for
juvenile sex offenders in detention, on parole or subject to community
based orders.
18.87 Family support services were recommended by the report as an integral aspect
of prevention. The need for specific services and groups for men to address
their counselling, healing, education and treatment needs and the provision of
short term accommodation in crisis was addressed, including a
recommendation that the government actively support Aboriginal men to
discuss and address child sexual abuse and other violence in communities.916
18.88 The key role of education was addressed in two parts: school education and
community education and awareness.
18.89 The suggested school education strategies included:

a. ensuring that all children of school age attend school on a daily basis in
accordance with the government’s responsibility to provide compulsory
education for all school age children, to be supported by the employment of
additional home school liaison officers and school counsellors
b. ensuring that all three year olds and above attend a preschool program
c. ensuring that every child attends a full time transition to school program
prior to commencing school.
18.90 There were also strategies suggested to reform the education system to provide
Aboriginal students with the same outcomes as other students, within a
culturally appropriate context. Fostering ownership of the education system by
local communities through strategies such as a universal meals program for
Aboriginal students with parents to provide financial and in-kind support, and
utilisation of schools after hours for purposes such as community centres,
supervised homework rooms and adult education venues, were also
recommended.
18.91 The report urged that consideration be given to the provision of additional
residential schools for Aboriginal students, designed to be located near their
country, that would enable maintenance of family and cultural ties.
916
ibid., pp.26-28.
18.92 The report proposed a community and parent education campaign on the value
of schooling that would encourage community and parental commitment to
sending children to school, and also proposed a major attitude change and
awareness raising campaign.
18.93 Several recommendations in the report specifically focused on addressing the

threat posed by alcohol abuse and intoxication in Aboriginal families and
communities. The recommended approach included a policy framework to
guide actions to reduce overall alcohol consumption and intoxication. Other
strategies provided for reduced access to takeaway liquor in the Northern
Territory, and reforms to licensing and liquor legislation to increase the
consideration of social impacts when granting or refusing liquor licences.
18.94 Media and education campaigns were also part of the recommended response
to alcoholism, pornography and gambling.
18.95 Implicit in the recommendations about the role of communities was the
responsibility of government to support and resource Aboriginal communities
actively to develop community based and community owned strategies that fit
within their cultural context to meet the needs of children.
18.96 Finally, the recommendations about compulsory cross cultural practice training
for government workers addressed the lack of understanding of Aboriginal
perspectives and the conflict of values between Western and Aboriginal
perspectives regarding children and families, which was identified as a root
cause of the failure of the welfare system to address the needs of Aboriginal
children in the Bringing them home report and other material reviewed by the
NT Inquiry.
18.97 All the recommendations made in the report were intended to be implemented
according to nine ‘rules of engagement’ or principles. The report provided
detailed interpretation and explanation of each principle to assist service
providers. The principles may be summarised as:
a. improving government service provision to Aboriginal people
b. taking language and cultural ‘world view’ seriously
c. ensuring effective and ongoing consultation and engagement
d. involving a local focus and recognition of diversity
e. encouraging community based and community owned initiatives
f. encouraging recognition and respect of Aboriginal law and empowerment
and respect of Aboriginal people
g. ensuring balanced gender and family, social or skin group representation
h. providing adequate and ongoing support and resources
i. providing ongoing monitoring and evaluation.
Responses to the NT Inquiry report

18.98 On 21 June 2007, the Australian Government announced a national emergency
response to protect Aboriginal children in the Northern Territory from sexual
abuse and family violence. This response became known as the ‘Northern
Territory intervention’ or Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER).
18.99 The NTER was originally designed with three phases:

a. stabilisation–the introduction of emergency measures to protect children
and make communities safe (year one)
b. normalisation of services and infrastructure (years two to five)
c. longer term support based on the same norms and choices that other
Australians enjoy (year five onward).917
Progress on the NTER

18.100 On 21 June 2008, the NTER Taskforce final report to Government was released
(the Taskforce Report). A further update was posted on the FaHCSIA website
documenting progress to 22 October 2008.918
18.101 The October operational update noted that income management measures
were in place in 70 communities, associated outstations and town camp regions
with a total of 15,554 people being subject to income management as at 22
October 2008. Income management provisions involved half of all income
support and family assistance payments being held back to be spent only on
food, school, nutrition, rent and other essential items. The measures were
applied to all members of a target community who received welfare payments.
18.102 Additional positions had been created as part of employment reform measures
as well as police deployed and more custodial facilities put in place. New liquor
laws have been in force since 15 September 2007, with the intent to ban the
sale, possession, transportation and consumption of alcohol on Aboriginal land
and to monitor takeaway sales across the Territory. Additional activities
included interventions to help address the need for alcohol and other drug
withdrawal, treatment and rehabilitation services. Changes to Territory
legislation to extend ‘dry’ areas and to support communities in the development
of Alcohol Management Plans and permit systems were also noted.
18.103 The supply and possession of pornographic material have been banned in
prescribed areas since 14 September 2007.
18.104 The activity to enhance education reportedly included the provision of funding to
the Northern Territory Government to recruit an extra 200 teachers over four
917
Northern Territory Emergency Response Taskforce, “Final Report to Government,” June 2008,
www.facsia.gov.au.
918
ibid., p.8.
years and to establish additional classrooms. Provision of breakfast and lunch

to school aged children through the School Nutrition Program has been put in
place in 68 communities as at 22 October 2008.
18.105 The supporting families element of NTER was reported to include the
recruitment of child protection and community workers. Health checks have
been carried out with follow up specialist treatment where necessary and new
property and tenancy management arrangements are being introduced for
public housing.
18.106 The Taskforce Report acknowledged the critical role of both early childhood
intervention and education in achieving better outcomes for Aboriginal people.
It supported a range of investments, from greater support for pregnant women,
early parenting skills development and preschool for all four year olds, through
to ensuring that there is a primary school in each community, compulsory
parental contribution to school nutrition programs, universal access to
secondary education for all secondary school aged students, and provision of
adult literacy and numeracy programs in remote communities.
18.107 The Taskforce Report noted the positive impact of income management
strategies for women with children, and the protection it provided from
‘humbugging’ or being coerced into giving money to others.
18.108 In relation to alcohol, the Taskforce Report stated supported the expansion of
rehabilitation services, and recommended:
Consideration should be given to consulting with each

community to replace alcohol bans with community-specific
Alcohol Management Plans.919
Report of the NTER Review Board

18.109 On 13 October 2008, the NTER Review Board, which was appointed by the
Commonwealth Government to conduct an independent review of the first 12
months of the NTER to assess its progress in improving the safety and well-
being of children and in laying the basis for a sustainable and better future for
residents of remote communities in the Northern Territory, reported.920
18.110 The report however also described a mixed response to NTER, in particular, a
“deep belief that the measures introduced by the Australian Government under
the NTER were a collective imposition based on race.”921 It referred to a “strong
sense of injustice that Aboriginal people and their culture have been seen as
exclusively responsible for problems within their communities.”922 The report
919
ibid., p.21.
920
Report of the Northern Territory Emergency Response Review Board, October 2008.
www.nterreview.gov.au.
921
ibid., p.9.
922
ibid.
found that the effectiveness of the intervention was diminished through its
failure to engage constructively with the Aboriginal people.
18.111 The report identified gains and noted that there was support for the additional
police stations, and the measures designed to reduce alcohol related violence,
to increase the quality and availability of housing and to advance early learning
and education.
18.112 It recommended that while the benefits of income management were being
increasingly experienced, it should be imposed only as a part of child protection
measures.
18.113 It recommended that laws prohibiting the possession and transportation of

alcohol on prescribed lands be maintained and that alcohol supply, demand and
harm reduction strategies be implemented and comprehensive alcohol
management plans finalised. It was recommended that illicit drug use should
also be addressed.
18.114 Recommendations in relation to capacity building were also made as well as

various other recommendations of particular relevance to conditions specific to
the Northern Territory.
The Inquiry’s experience

18.115 The Inquiry travelled throughout NSW and visited a number of towns either with,
or located near, significant Aboriginal communities, including Bourke,
Coonamble, Broken Hill, Wagga Wagga, Dubbo, Lismore, Moree, Inverell,
Ballina and Nowra. The Inquiry visited metropolitan CSCs and held a Public
Forum on issues facing Aboriginal communities. It also visited Toomelah and
Boggabilla and held meetings with the local communities and with the agencies
working with those communities. The Inquiry met with a number of
representatives of Aboriginal organisations including the AbSec, the Tharawal
Aboriginal Corporation, the Aboriginal Legal Service and the Victorian
Aboriginal Child Care Agency Cooperative. SNAICC made valuable
contributions to the Public Forum. In addition, the Inquiry met with the
Ministerial Advisory Panel on Aboriginal child sexual assault and Aboriginal
Affairs.
18.116 During these visits and meetings, the Inquiry heard similar stories to those
recounted by the reports referred to above. Its experience in relation to the
Toomelah and Boggabilla communities is set out in more detail in Chapter 19 of
this report.
18.117 The Inquiry was particularly impressed by staff of the Ourgunya Women's
Safehouse in Brewarrina, a service for Aboriginal women and children with
seven beds in the Western Region. Similar to many other rural areas, the
Inquiry was informed of insufficient services in this area and of relationships of
variable quality between DoCS workers and Aboriginal communities and

workers.
18.118 Positive messages were also provided. In the Southern Region, an Aboriginal
lawyer from a community legal centre said:
There is a negative perception of DoCS within the Aboriginal
community, obviously, given the history of the Stolen
Generation, and there is much fear and mistrust of DoCS.
Despite this, I have seen some improvement. I think this is a
flow on from the community engagement that DoCS is doing.
Also, their efforts in communicating with the community about
the early intervention programs and their employment of
Aboriginal people as liaison officers, et cetera, have gone a
long way towards bringing about a slow change in the
perception of DoCS. The perception is still there, most
community members would agree that DoCS is seen as a place
that takes children away, but that is slowly changing and I
believe that people are starting to see that DoCS can also
provide support for families in need.923
18.119 Summing up working with DoCS staff, one Brighter Futures Aboriginal program
manager informed the Inquiry:
Some are excellent. It's like every department … you get the
odd one that doesn't know anything about Aboriginal issues.924
18.120 Improvements in relationships with DoCS were also noted in the Northern
Region, where the Inquiry was advised that since the commencement of the
Brighter Futures program, Aboriginal families had started to specifically request
DoCS involvement in preference to that of the Lead Agency.
18.121 While still concerned at the lack of Aboriginal agency representation in the
evaluation of expressions of interest for OOHC service provision, in its final
submission to the Inquiry, AbSec noted that there had been a “significant
improvement in the Department’s willingness to engage at a meaningful level
with AbSec and its member agencies” resulting in the funding of, and
participation in, specific projects and in regular meetings between the
agencies.925
Work being done by the Commonwealth

18.122 The Commonwealth Government has specific initiatives responding to the
needs of Aboriginal children, including their over representation in the child
923
Transcript: Public Forum, Nowra, 13 March 2008, p.6.
924
Transcript: Inquiry meeting with representatives of Tharawal Aboriginal Corporation, 8 March 2008, p.20.
925
Submission: Aboriginal Child, Family & Community Care State Secretariat, 10 October 2008, p.2.
protection system. The Federal ALP policy released before the 2007 Federal
election New Directions: An equal start in life for Indigenous children makes the
following commitment:
Within a generation, Indigenous and non-Indigenous children

should be able to expect the same healthy life outcomes.926
18.123 The Commonwealth Government has a responsibility for funding Aboriginal-

specific primary health services, and it also funds Aboriginal child health checks
under the Medicare system. The New Directions policy made a commitment of
$112 million over four years to child and maternal health services, including
enhancements to health care for Aboriginal mothers and children, $37.4 million
for sustained nurse-led home visiting, and additional capital funding for
accommodation facilities for Aboriginal women who need to leave their
communities to give birth.
18.124 The policy also includes commitments to parent-child services to improve

parenting skills, as well as the development, learning and well-being of
Aboriginal children, and to the provision of 15 hours per week of early learning
programs for Aboriginal four year olds, and of funds for further implementation
of the Australian Early Development Index, and for intensive literacy and
numeracy programs.
18.125 Finally, the policy proposes the establishment, where practicable, of ‘Indigenous
Child and Family hubs’ to co-locate parent-child services to “allow greater
continuity of care and attention to the individual needs of Indigenous children.”
18.126 In the May 2008 discussion paper Australia’s Children: safe and well, the
Commonwealth Government described the establishment in December 2007 of
a specific Working Group on Indigenous Reform under the authority of COAG,
with a work program that includes protection from violence for Aboriginal
parents and children, early childhood development interventions, safe home
environment, access to primary health services, and supporting school
attendance.927
18.127 The paper listed existing government strategies including the review of the
NTER and the National Indigenous Violence and Child Abuse Intelligence Task
Force, jointly funded by the Commonwealth and the States and Territories with
a focus on understanding violence, child abuse, substance abuse, pornography
and fraud in Aboriginal communities.
18.128 Strategies proposed in the discussion paper included the development of a

specific set of principles and approaches to guide child protection interventions
with Aboriginal children, and the development of specific service models for the
926
Australian Labor Party Policy, “New Directions: An equal start in life for Indigenous children,”
www.alp.org.au, p.11.
927
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Australia’s Children: safe
and well, Discussion Paper, 2008, p.24.
urban, rural and remote protection of Aboriginal children. The discussion paper
suggests a strategy to improve the responsiveness of mainstream interventions
to the needs of Aboriginal children, and a specific action to support compliance
with the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle. An Aboriginal child protection
workforce strategy is also proposed.
18.129 The 2008/09 Commonwealth Government budget included additional Aboriginal

specific strategies, such as the provision of:
a. $1.6 billion over four years for remote Aboriginal housing, to be delivered
through bilateral agreements with the States and Territories
b. $19 million over three years to strengthen the Aboriginal health workforce,
which was additional to $49.3 million over four years allocated as part of
the COAG commitment to address drug and alcohol use in Aboriginal
communities
c. $323.8 million for 2008/09 for the NTER mentioned earlier in this chapter
d. $1.7 million over two years to contribute to evidence based policy.928
18.130 Some Commonwealth Government strategies include Aboriginal specific

aspects. For example, FaHCSIA reported that the Indigenous Children’s
Program, part of the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy, funded 33
services in Australia at a cost of $5.72 million which expired on 30 June 2008.
The implementation of the Australian Early Development Index now includes an
Aboriginal specific version of the Index.
18.131 The NSW and Commonwealth Governments are signatories to the bilateral
agreement: Framework Document Overarching Agreement on Aboriginal Affairs
between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of NSW 2005-2010,
which includes an agreement on working together through Two Ways Together
(discussed later in this chapter) and the development of Shared Responsibility
Agreements. The Murdi Paaki COAG Trial which commenced in 2002 was
implemented under this Agreement.
18.132 Shared Responsibility Agreements are voluntary agreements between

governments and Aboriginal communities developed where Aboriginal people
and communities decide that they want to address specific priorities. These
agreements set out what families, communities, governments and other
partners will contribute to address the priorities and to achieve the outcomes in
the agreement.929
18.133 The 2006 evaluation of the COAG Murdi Paaki trial by Urbis Keys Young stated
that people consulted in the course of the evaluation raised issues regarding
Shared Responsibility Agreements, and gave the following example:
928
Commonwealth Budget Statement: Closing the Gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians,
May 2008. www.ato.gov.au/budget/2008-09.
929
Framework Document Overarching Agreement on Aboriginal Affairs between the Commonwealth of
Australia and the State of NSW 2005-2010: www.daa.nsw.gov.au.
While the Australian Government has made it very clear that

SRAs have no relevance to core government responsibilities
and services in health, education and training, law enforcement,
employment services and the like, there can in practice be
disagreement about what matters can and cannot be
appropriately included in an SRA.930
COAG Murdi Paaki Trial

18.134 The Murdi Paaki COAG Trial is one of eight COAG trials that were established
in 2002 and referred to as the ‘Shared Responsibility Trials’. The purpose of
the trials was twofold. First, for governments to work better together at all levels
and across all agencies. Secondly, for Aboriginal communities and
governments to work in partnership to improve life outcomes and to build the
capacity of people in those communities to manage their own affairs.931
18.135 In the Murdi Paaki region, which covers sixteen communities in the far western
district of NSW, it was reported that there were six regional Shared
Responsibility Agreements signed by the Murdi Paaki Regional Assembly (or its
predecessor, the Regional Council) and 11 local agreements with six of the
local communities at the time of the evaluation, with further local agreements
under negotiation.932
18.136 The evaluation stated that among stakeholders familiar with the COAG trials,
Murdi Paaki was seen as the most advanced trial in terms of community
capacity and governance. Further, the findings of the evaluation were positive
with regard to the strong commitment to the trial, demonstrated by the key
government departments involved, and with regard to the relationships those
agencies had developed in the communities. The evaluation also found “the
governance capacity of communities has improved, and many communities
appear better able to articulate their priorities to government in constructive
fashion.”933
18.137 The evaluation stated that DoCS was noted positively by stakeholders among
the agencies and perceived as having embraced the trial.934
18.138 Bromfield and Holzer found that the separate funding of individual services by
the Commonwealth and State Governments provided some examples of local
collaboration which included Aboriginal health services, Aboriginal targeted
programs and family violence programs.935 The Inquiry notes that the Aboriginal
Maternal and Infant Health Strategy (AMIHS) in NSW has incorporated the
930
Urbis Keys Young, Evaluation of the Murdi Paaki COAG Trial Final Report, 2006, p.17.
931
Morgan Disney and Associates, Synopsis Review of the COAG Trial Evaluations, November 2006, p.12.
932
Urbis Keys Young, Evaluation of the Murdi Paaki COAG Trial Final Report, 2006, p.18.
933
ibid., p.ii.
934
ibid., p.27.
935
L Bromfield and P Holzer, “A national approach for child protection: Project report,” National Child
Protection Clearinghouse, Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2008, Melbourne. p.50.
Commonwealth funded Alternative Birthing Services Program sites, provided

additional funding to those services to enhance them to the level of the State
funded programs and aligned the performance indicators to produce a single
successful strategy now being implemented statewide.
Work being done in NSW

18.139 NSW is addressing the disadvantage experienced by Aboriginal people in a
number of ways. The NSW State Plan includes an Aboriginal specific priority
which is to improve health, education and social outcomes for Aboriginal people
(priority F1). In addition, Two Ways Together is the NSW Government 10 year
whole of government Aboriginal Affairs Plan. The Inquiry notes that the
Standing Committee on Social Issues on Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage
will consider the issue of responsibility for performance indicators and delivering
priorities under these two plans in its final report.936
18.140 In 2008 an indicator’s report was published on Two Ways Together which
showed a wide gap in outcomes for Aboriginal people compared with the
general population of NSW, and acknowledged that there was a need to
develop more comprehensive information about many of the services provided
for Aboriginal people. It noted that many of the initiatives aimed at reducing
Aboriginal disadvantage were targeted at specific locations, in recognition of the
need to avoid the ‘one size fits all’ approach. The report noted that data quality
remained an issue.937
18.141 The Aboriginal Family Health strategy and the extension of New Street, an
adolescent early intervention program for adolescents who display sexually
abusive behaviours to Aboriginal adolescents are discussed in Chapter 7.
Reference is made to the Education Centre against Violence initiative Weaving
the Net which has been developed for Aboriginal communities in Chapter 8.
The NSW Aboriginal Child Sexual Assault Taskforce

report
18.142 The 2006 report of the NSW Aboriginal Child Sexual Assault Taskforce
(ACSAT) Breaking the Silence: Creating the Future. Addressing child sexual
assault in Aboriginal communities in NSW938 was among the reports considered
by the NT Inquiry, and the broad findings of both reports are similar. The
ACSAT report found that the sexual assault of Aboriginal children was
widespread and under reported, that the incidence of sexual abuse and other
936
Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage in NSW, Interim Report of the Standing Committee on Social
Issues, June 2008, p.xix. www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/socialissues.
937
Department of Aboriginal Affairs, Two Ways Together Report on Indicators 2007, p.1.
www.daa.nsw.gov.au.
938
NSW Aboriginal Child Sexual Assault Taskforce, “Breaking the Silence: Creating the Future, Addressing
child sexual assault in Aboriginal communities in NSW,” Attorney General’s Department of NSW, Sydney,
2006.
forms of child abuse and neglect in Aboriginal communities was associated with
the broader indicators of Aboriginal disadvantage, and that they were symptoms
of a breakdown of Aboriginal culture and society.
18.143 Similar to previous reports and the report of the NT Inquiry, ACSAT identified a
number of factors that influenced the incidence of child sexual assault. These
included:
Substance abuse; social and economic disadvantage; exposure

to pornography and a sexualised society; the ‘normalisation’ of
violence (or intergenerational cycle of violence); the presence of
family violence; unresolved trauma and grief; breakdown of
family and community structures; lack of community
engagement with the issue; lack of support for community-
driven solutions; and inadequate responses from service
providers.939
18.144 ACSAT found that child sexual assault was not well understood in Aboriginal
communities, and was therefore often undetected. While the research
specifically considering a link between child sexual assault and family violence
required further development, the report noted that the work which had been
done, suggested that the presence of family violence in Aboriginal communities
had an influence on the incidence of child sexual assault.
18.145 ACSAT found that Commonwealth and State Government responses to child
sexual abuse in Aboriginal communities lacked coordination and suffered from
limited government leadership. It found that child sexual assault in Aboriginal
communities was not explicitly addressed in Two Ways Together and that
service responses to child sexual assault were not being provided in a holistic
way.
18.146 In relation to data collection across NSW government agencies that impacted
on the data used to plan responses to child sexual assault in Aboriginal
communities, it found inconsistent recording of Aboriginality, the use of different
key definitions across agencies, and the use of different data collection periods,
making data correlation and comparison difficult.
18.147 ACSAT made specific findings about DoCS. These included the following:
a. While there was some understanding of the pressures on DoCS and some
communities expressed the view that DoCS workers in their area were
doing a good job, many Aboriginal people continued to fear and mistrust
DoCS as a consequence of past practices towards Aboriginal people. This
was compounded by a lack of understanding of the supportive role DoCS
could take. Fear and mistrust increased every time DoCS responded
inappropriately or inconsistently to a report of child sexual assault, failed to
keep families informed or failed to make appropriate referrals for support.
939
ibid., p.4.
b. There were few stable OOHC placements available for Aboriginal children
and young persons. Instances where children were not safe in out-of-home
kinship care were cited, as was the need to undertake thorough
assessments prior to placing a child in an OOHC placement, and to
continue to monitor children’s safety. ACSAT also found that DoCS
needed to provide adequate financial and practical supports to ensure
stability in kinship care placements.
c. While DoCS had made attempts to employ more Aboriginal workers,
recruitment and retention of Aboriginal staff was still hampered because the
Aboriginal people they did employ felt overwhelmed, overworked and not
well supported.
d. Young persons aged 16 – 18 years were falling through a service gap, and
many communities were not aware that DoCS was supposed to provide
services to this group.940
18.148 The need for an improved understanding of Aboriginal culture and improved
engagement with Aboriginal communities was identified for staff in DoCS,
Police, the DPP Witness Assistance Service, and the Judiciary. ACSAT found
that a number of agencies, including Police, the DPP and Education should
employ additional Aboriginal staff.
18.149 It also found that more culturally specific services and programs needed to be
developed and implemented across Corrective Services and Juvenile Justice.
These agencies were identified as having an important role in supporting the
healing of survivors of child sexual assault, and in preventing further assaults,
inter alia, by identifying and offering culturally appropriate and effective
programs for those people in contact with their services who displayed sexually
offending behaviour.
18.150 Overall, ACSAT reported that Aboriginal communities were positive about the
quality of services provided by Health. However, ACSAT also found that there
were barriers to effective service provision for Aboriginal people who had
experienced child sexual assault. It was found that Aboriginal people were
often confused about the roles of different health workers, and were frequently
not aware of sexual assault services or of what they could provide. Some of the
services provided by Health, such as child sexual assault telephone
counselling, were reported to be culturally inappropriate.
18.151 Other health services, such as drug and alcohol services, it was suggested did
not respond adequately to the likelihood that their clients may have experienced
child sexual assault. ACSAT found that: there were not enough forensic
medical services available, especially in rural and regional NSW; there were not
enough counsellors or support workers to respond to Aboriginal communities;
referral requirements and delays reduced access to services; and it was not
clear what types of counselling models worked well for Aboriginal people.
940
ibid., pp.6-7.
18.152 Communities reported to ACSAT that many Aboriginal people had difficulty
accessing JIRT, and did not feel supported by JIRT. Co-location of Police and
DoCS together was identified as an effective model, and the suggestion was
made that a Health worker should also be co-located with JIRT officers. It
found that Health should be more involved in the JIRT model, and that where
the transport of Aboriginal people was required, they were most comfortable
with it being provided by Health.941
18.153 JIRT interviewing and communication styles were not seen to accommodate
Aboriginal cultural practices, and were ineffective for Aboriginal children and
young persons. Families who had had involvement with JIRT reported that a
lack of information about the JIRT investigation, and the absence of Aboriginal
people as staff or community partners in JIRT, made it a difficult experience.
18.154 ACSAT found that an incomplete understanding of child sexual assault, and a
lack of understanding of the dynamics and impacts of child sexual assault in
Aboriginal communities, impacted on the quality of services provided in a
number of contexts. These included support provided by the Witness
Assistance Service, responses provided by Juvenile Justice, and education and
protective behaviours training in schools.
18.155 The lack of community awareness of available services for families who had
experienced child sexual assault was not found to be limited to Health or DoCS
services. ACSAT also found that Aboriginal communities were often not aware
of resources in the broader service system such as emergency and alternative
accommodation for families in crisis available through Housing, counselling and
compensation available through Victims Services, for which Attorney General’s
has responsibility.
18.156 ACSAT examined the response of NGOs. NGO services were well perceived
by Aboriginal people and for many Aboriginal people it was the only service type
of service they would use. However, many NGOs reported feeling unsupported
by government agencies, insufficiently funded to meet community needs for the
services they provided, and hampered by the prevalence of one-off project
funding which tended to lead to ad hoc service delivery. ACSAT expressed
concern about the access of NGO staff to training, about the dynamics of child
sexual assault in Aboriginal communities, and about NGO staff awareness of
their reporting obligations.
18.157 Alternative models for addressing child sexual assault considered by ACSAT
included specialist sexual offences courts in South Africa, a Queensland local
community model known as the Cherbourg Critical Incident Group and the
Community Holistic Circle Healing Model from Hollow Water in Canada. From
its examination of alternative models, ACSAT concluded that further research
was required.
941
ibid., p.9.
18.158 ACSAT considered the discussion of alternative models to be introductory

rather than definitive, and commented that the complexity of theories and
principles underpinning the alternative models, and the appropriateness of the
various responses to child sexual assault in Aboriginal communities required
careful consideration. It suggested that research and development of a new
model for responding to child sexual assault in Aboriginal communities needed
to occur, at the same time as the recommendations of the report were
implemented.
The Interagency Plan
18.159 In January 2007 the NSW Government released its public response to the
ACSAT report, the New South Wales Interagency Plan to Tackle Child Sexual
Assault in Aboriginal Communities 2006-2011942 (the Interagency Plan). The
Interagency Plan contains 88 actions, focused on four strategic directions: law
enforcement; child protection; prevention and early intervention; and community
leadership. Several actions are to be implemented statewide, while others are
to occur in specific locations. The Interagency Plan is linked to existing policy
frameworks such as Two Ways Together and the NSW State Plan.
18.160 There are nine lead agencies involved in implementing this plan: Aboriginal
Affairs, Attorney General’s, DoCS, Corrective Services, Education, Health,
Police, Juvenile Justice and Premier and Cabinet.
18.161 The Inquiry reviewed the Interagency Plan and the ACSAT report. It found that
more than one third of the 119 recommendations of the ACSAT report were not
addressed by the Interagency Plan.943 It is noted that the NSW Government did
not accept all recommendations which partially accounts for this figure. For
example, the role of the Ombudsman as, in effect, auditor of its implementation
was not accepted. This matter is discussed later in this chapter.
18.162 Those not addressed included some important recommendations or parts of

recommendations for child protection services:
a. Recommendation 11: establishing an Aboriginal child sexual assault
coordination unit
b. Recommendation 17: concerning the way in which the government
provides funding for regional and local initiatives to address child sexual
assault issues
c. Recommendation 21: proposing a formal review by the Ombudsman of how
the ACSAT report recommendations are implemented
d. Recommendation 26: providing more prevention and early intervention
services
942
NSW Government, New South Wales Interagency Plan to Tackle Child Sexual Assault in Aboriginal
Communities 2006-2011.
943
Examples are actions 7, 12.1, 25, 27, 33, 51, 56, 58, 64, 66, 72, 77, 80, 81, 82, 88.
e. Recommendation 34a: relating to the conduct of annual reviews of all

DoCS supported placements for Aboriginal children.
f. Recommendation 65: relating to the development of community based
offender treatment programs for adults, that can be available for self
referral and are not dependant for access on involvement in the criminal
justice system.
Adequate funding?
18.163 The release of the Interagency Plan was not accompanied by any additional
funding.
18.164 The Inquiry understands that a funding proposal for the Interagency Plan was
submitted in late 2006, however, the relevant committee of Cabinet determined
that all initiatives would need to be funded within existing agency resources.
18.165 However, it appears from a response from the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs to a
question asked of him in the Budget Estimates Committee on 13 October 2008,
that the Interagency Plan is costed at $52.9 million and, of that, $26.9 million
was new money allocated in last year’s budget.944
18.166 The Inquiry understands that the 2008/09 budget allocated $22.9 million over
four years for the Safe Families Program, which aims to tackle the incidence
and consequences of child sexual abuse in Orana Far West. This is to be
achieved by providing community engagement, child protection, early
intervention and prevention, law enforcement and individual and family support
services.
18.167 The Inquiry agrees with the comments of Tom Calma, Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, HREOC:
While the plan is a step in the right direction on the part of the
New South Wales Government, it also highlights the limitations
of addressing such an issue of such scale and seriousness
without the commensurate level of responses and resources.945
18.168 Various agencies also commented to the Inquiry on the resource implications of
some of the actions required under the Interagency Plan. Attorney General’s
noted that there had been no funds provided to recruit additional Witness
Assistance Service officers. The cost of training was noted as a barrier for
agencies seeking to train more staff to Certificate IV Aboriginal Cultural
Education Program. Health noted that the statewide expansion of the AMIHS
was to be met from within existing resources, and noted that the lack of
additional funding was a barrier to implementation of the forensic services
review. Many of the strategies implemented by Police, Juvenile Justice and
944
The Inquiry understands that $22.9 million rather than $26.9 million has been allocated.
945
Speech by Tom Calma, NAIDOC Week, NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet, 10 July 2008.
Corrective Services are also dependent on funding from within existing

resources.
18.169 There were some references to funded actions, such as Education’s Kids Excel
and Youth Excel programs and the installation by Police of digital recording
equipment for JIRT units, however the funds referred to do not appear
connected to the Interagency Plan. For example, the funds for Education
appear to have been announced in 2005, prior to the Interagency Plan.
18.170 The recently released Interim report by the NSW Standing Committee on Social
Issues, Overcoming Indigenous disadvantage in NSW, states that government
funding allocated to reduce the incidence of child sexual assault has been
inadequate, that the indicators to monitor the programs and implementation of
the Interagency Plan have not yet been developed and that the reporting
processes vague at best.946
Progress
18.171 In January 2008 the Inquiry requested that Aboriginal Affairs provide a progress
report on implementation of the Interagency Plan. When it proved difficult to
access a coordinated analysis of progress, the Inquiry requested copies of the
reports provided to Aboriginal Affairs by each agency. These were provided up
to October 2007.
18.172 Further, in March 2008, the Inquiry requested that all agencies involved provide
a progress report on their implementation of the Interagency Plan, along with
the milestones and performance measures and information about any funding
required, sought and received for implementation.
18.173 The Inquiry has reviewed the draft milestones and performance measures
proposed for the actions of the Interagency Plan. In the majority of cases the
performance measures proposed show a direct link to the action, and logically
would indicate whether the action has been successfully achieved.
18.174 However, it appears to the Inquiry that the performance indicators are often
designed to measure a process (such as a review of legislation, revision of
policy or procedures, development of an education package or of a plan for
delivery of annual training, or preparation of a research paper or options paper).
This means that they measure how well the process has been undertaken,
rather than giving a measure of a tangible or practical outcomes for Aboriginal
children and young persons or their families. Even where the action relates to a
specific service, such as Intensive Family Based Services, current performance
indicators are about the completion of a service evaluation, rather than whether
there has been a greater availability of services or any improvement in
outcomes for Aboriginal children and young persons.
946
Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage in NSW, Interim Report of the Standing Committee on Social
Issues, June 2008, p.132. www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/socialissues.
18.175 With regard to Action 33, which deals with the application of the Aboriginal Child
Placement Principles, DoCS has set performance measures such as “per cent
of placements meeting Aboriginal Child Placement Principle requirements.”
This matter has been addressed at some length in Chapter 11. In short, it is
likely that the data are not of sufficient quality to adequately measure
compliance.
18.176 The ACSAT report found that the problems facing Aboriginal communities in
reducing child abuse and neglect and family violence required coordination of
services, more community awareness, better cultural awareness for agency
staff, changes in policy and more research to inform practice. The Interagency
Plan includes actions to address these needs.
18.177 However, the ACSAT report also found that Aboriginal people needed more
prevention and early intervention services, more services to respond to child
sexual abuse, more services to effectively work with adults and young persons
who abused children, and more support and counselling for people who report
abuse and proceed to court. The Interagency Plan has limited actions to meet
these needs.
18.178 The Interagency Plan has an emphasis on the development of agency capacity
to:
a. improve staff awareness of Aboriginal culture and increase their capacity to
work in a culturally respectful way with Aboriginal people
b. increase the proportion of the workforce in human services and justice
agencies that identify as Aboriginal
c. increase awareness of the incidence and dynamics of child sexual assault,
and the flags or markers that can assist in recognising that child sexual
assault is occurring, with an emphasis on recognition of risk to Aboriginal
children.
18.179 At this stage, the human services and justice agencies involved in
implementation have reported progress in a number of areas including the
development of policies, training packages and programs and
negotiations/strategies to improve the recruitment and retention of Aboriginal
staff. A number of reviews have been conducted, which contribute a further raft
of recommendations to the activities outlined in the Interagency Plan. The
reviews that have contributed to implementation of this plan include the JIRT
review, and the Review of Forensic Medical Services, the implementation of
which is still to occur, even through it is of vital importance for the provision of
forensic support for Police investigations and prosecutions.
18.180 Additional services have been announced – such as the establishment of four
Health Aboriginal child sexual assault counselling positions, with another two
funded and about to be established, and a new treatment service for adolescent
offenders who are not eligible for Juvenile Justice programs (for the Hunter New
England region) which is expected to start taking referrals in late 2008. AMIHS
is also included in service delivery strategies; as are the delivery of the Schools
In Partnership (with $65 million over four years granted by Treasury in 2005 and
2006), the Kids Excel ($7 million over four years) and Youth Excel ($4.6 million
over four years) programs by Education. Additionally, the newly introduced
Health Youth Alcohol Action Plan 2008-2012 includes a special focus on alcohol
use in Aboriginal communities.
18.181 While the Interagency Plan appears to have generated significant activity levels
within each of the agencies since its release in 2006, the nature of the draft
performance measures makes it difficult to assess the actual impact on
Aboriginal people and communities, or on those Aboriginal children and young
persons who are experiencing or at risk of sexual assault.
18.182 The lack of independent oversight of implementation by the Ombudsman

recommended in the ACSAT report (Recommendation 21) is of particular
concern. The Inquiry could not access a report measuring success against the
Interagency Plan and this task is not being undertaken by Aboriginal Affairs.
The Ombudsman met with Aboriginal Affairs in January 2008 and received
advice that the Department was in the process of developing performance
indicators to measure the success of these strategies. It was agreed that the
Ombudsman would develop a localised audit strategy that complemented the
Aboriginal Affairs’ coordinating role.947 In the Inquiry’s view it would be
appropriate for the Ombudsman to monitor and report to government on
progress with implementation of the ACSAT report, on an ongoing basis.
18.183 The NSW Ministerial Advisory Panel on child sexual assault in Aboriginal
communities (the Advisory Panel) provided information to the Inquiry on
recommendations and actions that had not progressed.
18.184 At the Inquiry’s invitation, the Advisory Panel provided the Inquiry with a list of
areas which it believes require further and particular action on the part of NSW
Government in addressing Aboriginal child sexual assault in NSW. Those
areas were academic research, restorative justice, workforce development,
comprehensive cultural awareness and OOHC. Each of these matters was
either the subject of a recommendation or an action in Interagency Plan. The
Advisory Panel informed the Inquiry that, in its view, any initiatives should
receive additional funding from the NSW Government and that responsible
agencies should not be required to implement strategies from existing budgets.
18.185 A recommendation about the ACSAT report and the Interagency Plan appears
at the end of this chapter.
947
NSW Ombudsman, Submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Office of the Ombudsman
and the Police Integrity Commission, February 2008, p.25.
Department of Community Services

18.186 DoCS has submitted to the Inquiry that key elements of reform in the child
protection system in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
and families are as follows:
a. establishing a localised response at the community level that will engage
Aboriginal people in driving change and in planning service delivery
b. continuing efforts to recruit and retain Aboriginal staff and to improve the
knowledge and capacity of non-Aboriginal staff to work with Aboriginal
families (discussed in Chapter 3)
c. continuing work to build the information and research base to inform
effective evidence based services
d. introducing changes to the Children’s Court procedure and practices to
make it more appropriate for Aboriginal people
e. delivering programs such as Brighter Futures linked with the Aboriginal
Infant and Maternal Health Strategy to deliver more holistic and intensive
programs over a longer and sustained period
f. investigating the merits of family conferencing (discussed in Chapter 12)
g. investigating the development of an Aboriginal parenting strategy
h. developing further models of care that are appropriate for Aboriginal
children and young persons at risk of harm, such as IFBS, accompanied by
a pathway into post intervention support services (discussed in Chapters 7
and 8)
i. working with Aboriginal NGOs to build the capacity of that sector
(discussed in Chapter 3)
j. recruiting and retaining Aboriginal foster carers and providing better support
for Aboriginal kinship care (discussed in Chapter 16).
18.187 The Inquiry agrees with this assessment.
18.188 Of particular note, DoCS has published an Aboriginal Strategic Commitment

2006/2011 which has projected results over a five year period, including an
increase in the capacity of DoCS funded Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal NGOs,
particularly in relation to: early intervention and prevention; the provision of
cultural support to Aboriginal children and young persons in child protection and
OOHC; a consistent application of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
placement principles, support, development and retention of Aboriginal staff;
and increased collaboration across all tiers of government and with Aboriginal
communities.
18.189 A key area in which DoCS has had some success is in relation to the numbers
of Aboriginal caseworkers and other staff that it employs, which is discussed in
Chapter 3. Further, it has increased the capacity of its Aboriginal Services
Branch, which provides policy and program advice, from two positions in 2001
to 16 positions in 2008 and is taking steps to increase the number of Aboriginal

legal officers. It has introduced a number of measures to increase the skills,
qualification and career paths of Aboriginal staff, to compensate for the lesser
entry qualifications that apply this group, which are discussed in Chapter 3.
18.190 DoCS notes that there has been limited research in understanding the issues
facing Aboriginal children, young persons, families and communities. Research
is now being undertaken by it to examine early childhood education within
Aboriginal communities and a senior research officer (Aboriginal) was appointed
to the Centre for Parenting and Research in 2007. A literature review on early
intervention strategies for Aboriginal children is also being undertaken, while the
evaluations which have now been completed in relation to IFBS and Brighter
Futures have had some regard to Aboriginal families.
18.191 DoCS is carrying out a longitudinal study of children and young persons in
OOHC, one sub-component of which will focus on Aboriginal children. In
addition, its recent review of the Interagency Guidelines included an evaluation
of the effectiveness of the tools for working with Aboriginal communities. This
review found that there was a need either to expand the content of the
Interagency Guidelines to address the cultural and practical issues or to provide
more information and support to workers. Almost 30 per cent of Aboriginal
respondents to that study disagreed that the guidelines were useful for
Aboriginal people and suggested that the provisions in the Interagency
Guidelines for addressing sexual assault could not be effectively applied to
Aboriginal children and young persons.948 This needs to be addressed.
18.192 A further area of work includes the development of a Cultural Support Case
Plan to be incorporated into the existing care plans which are presented to the
Court.
18.193 There are several DoCS initiatives in relation to OOHC which are dealt with in
Chapter 16. In particular, DoCS is implementing a training package for
Aboriginal foster carers, is preparing a step by step Aboriginal assessment tool
for foster carers, and is developing an Aboriginal Life Story Book to support
children in care. It has been engaged in consultation and in work directed
towards extending the Permanency Planning Project to include Aboriginal
children and young persons. Additionally it has been working with seven
Aboriginal OOHC service providers to build on existing service provision so as
to assist them to become strong and sustainable providers of OOHC to
18.194 In August 2007 DoCS commenced the Aboriginal Child Deaths Project to
analyse and identify systemic or practice issues arsing from the deaths of
Aboriginal children from 2005 to 2007.
948
DoCS, Evaluation of NSW Interagency Guidelines for Child Protection Intervention 2006, Final Report,
Volume 1, 24 September 2008, p.19.
18.195 It is also noted that DoCS is working with Police and Health to enhance the
JIRT program. This includes developing a culturally appropriate JIRT model
and working on an Aboriginal child sexual assault project in Nowra to lead
practice improvement and better service delivery within DoCS. These matters
are discussed in Chapter 8.
18.196 In response to recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s Report of

Reviewable Deaths in 2006, DoCS is developing a uniform consultation
framework for staff in CSCs, and has established Local Commitment of Service
Plans, with Aboriginal advisory groups in each region, to provide a mechanism
for the identification of key issues and priorities for Aboriginal families and
communities. These can serve as a means of embedding the commitment of
service to Aboriginal people within the systems and culture of the organisations,
and of reinforcing the role expected of DoCS staff at a local level to give effect
to that commitment.
18.197 A case study highlighting the importance of understanding Aboriginal family

relationships appears in Chapter 9.
18.198 DoCS has funded a position to assist Aboriginal agencies through the
accreditation process required by the Children’s Guardian, to be included on a
number of panels of review and to attend regular meetings with senior DoCS
officers.
18.199 In addition, in August 2008, SNAICC, AbSec and ACWA signed a Service
Development, Cultural Respect and Service Access Policy which seeks to
develop more culturally appropriate partnership and service delivery models
when the non-Aboriginal NGO sector in NSW is working with Aboriginal
communities. The policy is in line with AbSec’s service delivery model which
has been developed to establish new Aboriginal OOHC services under the
DoCS capacity building project.
18.200 Both these events are welcomed by the Inquiry.
Justice agencies
18.201 The initiatives which Police advise have been implemented or are in the
process of implementation include the following:
a. enhancing evidence gathering on paedophile activity in rural and remote
communities and working with other agencies when required
b. reviewing the effectiveness of AVOs
c. providing funding for Aboriginal specific crime prevention and for improved
responses to domestic and family violence strategies, with improved data
collection and analysis
d. improving relationships with Aboriginal communities, to be brokered by the
Aboriginal Community Liaison Officers with the active participation of police
officers at 12 Local Area Command Aboriginal Consultative Committees,
inter alia through the preparation of a guidelines package, workforce

recruitment and retention policies and practices to target Aboriginal
employment
e. recruiting an Aboriginal Family Violence Officer, as a member of the
Aboriginal Coordination team, to work with Local Area Commands and
specialist areas, to raise awareness of Aboriginal specific issues, including
awareness training for Aboriginal Community Liaison Officers in sexual
assault, and to develop Aboriginal Sexual Assault Standard Operating
Procedures.
18.202 The disproportionate involvement of Aboriginal juvenile offenders in the juvenile

justice system has been mentioned in Chapter 15, and is a matter that calls for
specific attention.
18.203 In this regard several initiatives were noted in the NSW Youth Action Plan
Progress Report as at 30 June 2007, which appear to hold promise, although
some exist on a trial basis and await evaluation. They include the following
programs or pilots within the responsibility of Juvenile Justice.
18.204 A trial of the Intensive Court Supervision Program was completed at the end of
June 2007 in Bourke and Brewarrina as a partnership between the Court, and
community and human service agencies. It aims to reduce recidivism and
incarceration among young people in these towns, through offering an
opportunity to demonstrate a capacity for rehabilitation to young offenders prior
to sentencing. Juvenile Justice is to support the program through its Intensive
Bail Support Program.949
18.205 Our Journey to Respect Program is an inter-generational Violence Prevention

Program for young Aboriginal men who have been charged, or are at risk of
being charged with an offence of violence. Training has been conducted under
this program in each of the Juvenile Detention Centres and in the western and
other regions of the State, and has included Aboriginal young persons under
community supervision. It is supplemented by associated programs such as
Black on Track and Step out from the Shadows, as well as by programs
focused on alcohol and other drugs which Juvenile Justice has developed or is
in the course of developing.950
18.206 One further initiative worthy of mention is the Tirkandi Inaburra Cultural and
Development Centre, which began operations in 2005 and is funded by the
NSW Government principally through Attorney General’s. It is situated on a
rural property near Coleambally in the Riverina region and provides a residence
for Aboriginal youths, aged 12-16 years, who demonstrate potential but are
showing signs of being involved in the criminal justice system. It is managed by
the local Aboriginal community in partnership with the NSW Government and
949
NSW Youth Action Plan Progress Report, as at 30 June 2007, p.16.
www.youth.nsw.gov.au/minister_and_policy.
950
ibid., p.22.
provides educational, vocational, and cultural programs, using teachers

provided by the Coleambally Central school, and Aboriginal elders, as well as
mentoring programs following the return of participants to their communities.951
It is the subject of ongoing evaluation with a report due in December 2008.952
18.207 It may be noted that the Circle Sentencing initiative that was established in
February 2002 initially at Nowra Local Court and subsequently extended to
other parts of the State953 is only available in relation to adult offenders. In this
respect it differs from the Murri Court in Queensland which also operates in
association with the Children’s Court.
18.208 Circle Sentencing has been the subject of recent evaluation by the Cultural and
Indigenous Research Centre Australia,954 prepared with the assistance of the
statistical analysis conducted by the BOCSAR of its reoffenders database to
assess whether participants have lower rates of recidivism (the Circle
Sentencing Evaluation). The BOCSAR analysis found that Circle Sentencing
had not influenced the rate of re-offending, or the seriousness of the offences of
those who had re-offended. However, the report noted that Circle Sentencing
has had a positive impact on community members, particularly elders.
18.209 Subject to ongoing evaluation of the Circle Sentencing strategy, an increase in

the experience of those involved, and attention to the suggestions made in the
Circle Sentencing Evaluation concerning the ways in which the effectiveness
and cost efficiency of the system could be improved, consideration could be
given to its use for juvenile Aboriginal offenders, or for adopting a Murri Court
model within the Children’s Court.
18.210 Elsewhere in this report, we have noted, with concern, that young Aboriginal
offenders have been less likely to be involved in diversionary programs than
their counterparts in the broader community. The Inquiry is of the view that this
is a matter that needs to be addressed since the acquisition of a criminal record
and exposure to detention is commonly the beginning of a lengthy involvement
in the criminal justice system for this section of the community.
Capacity building
18.211 The Inquiry has identified capacity building in Aboriginal communities as critical
to building more culturally appropriate models for supporting Aboriginal children.
18.212 A Commonwealth Inquiry into capacity building and service delivery in

Aboriginal communities in 2004 defined capacity to include “activities which
seek to empower individuals and whole communities while building the
951
Attorney General’s Department of NSW, TIRKANDI INABURRA Factsheet.
952
NSW Youth Action Plan Progress Report as at 30 June 2007, p.15.
www.youth.nsw.gov.au/minister_and_policy.
953
Armidale, Bourke, Brewarrina, Dubbo, Kempsey, Lismore, Mt Druitt and Walgett Local Courts.
954
Attorney General’s Department of NSW, Evaluation of Circle Sentencing Program Report, May 2008.
operational and management capacity of both organisations and governments

to better deliver and utilise services.”955
18.213 In relation to building the capacity of government agencies to deliver effective

services to address Aboriginal people’s needs, the Inquiry found the evidence
fell into four areas of need: enhancing integration and cooperation; enhancing
government service delivery; enhancing funding delivery; and enhancing
Aboriginal-government partnerships.956
18.214 The Inquiry supported the argument that Aboriginal people need to be more
involved in the design and delivery of services, and need to be supported or
resourced to implement initiatives in a sustainable way, as they often know the
solutions to the problems they face.
18.215 Further, it was found that inequities in the funding provided to Aboriginal and
non-Aboriginal organisations providing similar services needed to be
addressed. Education and health equity was seen as critical to improving
Aboriginal capacity as literacy, numeracy and an acceptable level of health
were key requirements to enabling people to participate and function in society.
18.216 The Inquiry identified a need to build the capacity of government agencies to
understand and work with Aboriginal people and communities, and a need to
build the capacity of Aboriginal people and communities to participate in
decision making processes. However, the Capacity Building Inquiry stated that
“until basic issues of dysfunction and disadvantage in Indigenous communities
are addressed, greater capacity building efforts will remain largely
ineffective”.957
18.217 In conclusion, the Capacity Building Inquiry noted that:
This inquiry has largely been about service delivery, and about
building the capacity of stakeholders. At the first level, this
involves building the capacity of governments to be more
responsive and effective in addressing the service delivery
needs of Indigenous Australians. The second layer, which
meshes and overlaps with that, is about building the capacity of
Indigenous people and organisations so that they can then
deliver or influence the delivery of services more effectively.
The third layer is about building capacity so that the need for
service delivery is reduced, and the way to do that is work
together to improve Indigenous people’s quality of life.958
955
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, “Many
Ways Forward: Report of the inquiry into capacity building and service delivery in Indigenous communities,”
The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra, June 2004, p.13.
956
ibid., p.57.
957
ibid., p.170.
958
ibid., p.251.
18.218 DoCS efforts at building Aboriginal capacity in its workforce have been
discussed elsewhere in this report, and compare favourably with the results
achieved by other NSW government agencies. The OOHC capacity building
project with non-government organisations involves DoCS, “working with seven
Aboriginal OOHC service providers to build on existing service provision and
help them to become strong and sustainable providers of OOHC for Aboriginal
children and young people.”959
18.219 The concept of the DoCS project was applauded by AbSec, but was seen as
being too small. AbSec stated that the project aimed to increase the capacity of
Aboriginal OOHC services from 170 to only approximately 320 places, in the
context of there being about 3,200 Aboriginal children and young persons in
care. DoCS, on the other hand, advised that the project would increase the
capacity of Aboriginal OOHC services by 426 places.
18.220 Significant further work is required across the State to build sufficient system
capacity to meet needs, as DoCS stated:
Notwithstanding this valuable work at an individual NGO level,

NSW lacks a network of agencies that can work across the
issues confronting Aboriginal families in a holistic and locally
responsive way. DoCS’ relationship with AbSec has the
potential to create such a model by drawing on its networks. In
addition, further investigation is needed as to the most effective
structures to inform policy and program development at a
strategic level, given the diversity of Aboriginal representative
groups.960
A recommendation in relation to increasing capacity building in Aboriginal

communities is made in Chapter 10.
Lessons from the literature

Characteristics of Aboriginal family structures and child
rearing practices
18.221 While the terms ‘kinship’ and ‘culture’ have become part of the language of the
child protection system in NSW in relation to the care and protection of
Aboriginal children, research with Aboriginal communities has demonstrated
that “kinship terminology is not purely a matter of language.”961 A kinship
system is a cultural construct.
959
Submission: DoCS, Aboriginal Communities, p.12.
960
ibid., p.13.
961
F Morphy, “Lost in translation? Remote Indigenous households and definitions of the family,” Family
Matters, no. 73, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne, 2006, p.24.
18.222 The differences in the concepts of ‘family’ and ‘kin’ have implications for more
than the accurate collection of meaningful data about families. It could be
difficult for caseworkers and others, with an understanding that values the
nuclear family above other conceptualisations of ‘family,’ to have any insight
into the different kind of information that may be required for them to assess the
safety of an Aboriginal child, or the appropriateness of the potential options
available within the family and community to meet the care and protection
needs of the child.
18.223 There are also implications for the efforts of caseworkers to correctly assess the
context of the child, the meaningful and supportive relationships they have with
their family and kin, and to identify the best potential kinship placements for
children. Caseworkers raised in Anglo-Celtic society may find it difficult to
understand and reflect in casework, and in file notes, the complexity of
Aboriginal family and kinship relationships that are important for a child, and for
making decisions about where the child should live, if he or she cannot live with
parents.
An individualistic approach that focuses on the child’s needs

without proper consideration of their parent/s’ and communities’
circumstances has been criticized by Indigenous groups in
Canada, New Zealand and Australia as failing to take into
account Indigenous understandings of family and children.962
18.224 It has also been said that the implications for the child protection system, of
having a system based on one set of concepts trying to provide services to
children and families who operate on a very different set of concepts, cannot be
resolved by making simple modifications to a system designed for non-
Aboriginal children. The 2004 Victorian report, Protecting children: ten priorities
for children’s well-being and safety in Victoria, noted that:
It will not be sufficient to add an Indigenous element to, for

example, the assessment and investigation procedure or to
make modifications to the out-of-home care processes for
Aboriginal children without considering whether the system as a
whole is inclusive of Indigenous cultures and values.963
What constitutes evidence for what works in Aboriginal

contexts?
18.225 The literature is consistent in stating or implying that the trauma experienced by
Aboriginal people is not only historic but is current and continuing. Responses
to trauma and early removal from family and community include antisocial
activity, violence and depression, which in turn lead to continuing social
962
T Bell and T Libesman, 2007, op. cit., p.18.
963
Victorian Government Department of Human Services, “Protecting Children: Ten priorities for children’s
well-being and safety in Victoria” cited in T Bell and T Libesman, 2007, op. cit., p.64.
isolation and dislocation. One study of note from Western Sydney964 examined
two adjoining, demographically similar, economically depressed
neighbourhoods with contrasting rates of reported child maltreatment. The
outstanding difference between the two neighbourhoods was the structure of
social networks. The locality with the higher rate of abuse suffered from a
relative lack of connection in the social network.
18.226 The cumulative effect of these factors is seen to provide some explanation for
the continuing poor health and welfare of Aboriginal people, and their extreme
disadvantage compared with non-Aboriginal people.
18.227 Libesman notes that it has been recognised that an individualised, case based
approach to dealing with the issues, looking at each child’s issues in isolation
from the broader community issues, has not been successful for Aboriginal
children and families.965
18.228 According to Stanley et al:
There is a common call in the literature that effective

intervention into family violence needs to address both the past
traumas and present situational problems and health
disadvantages of Indigenous communities. Almost without
exception the literature notes the need for inclusion/participation
of the local community.966
18.229 Any discussion of ‘what works?’ begs the question ‘how do we know?’
Pressures over the last decade or more to adopt ‘evidence based’ programs,
approaches and practices have led to a demand for more rigorous justification
of practices.
18.230 Tomison and Poole, in their 2004 audit of prevention programs, note that:
... the difficulties of conducting research in applied settings, a

lack of agency resources and staff research expertise has
meant that despite the vast number of program evaluations that
have been performed on a variety of child abuse prevention
programs, very few rigorous evaluations have been done in
Australia or internationally. The majority of program evaluations
are modest, internally focused studies that assess client
satisfaction, document the services delivered, describe program
964
T Vinson, E Baldry and J Hargreaves, 1996, cited in J Stanley, AM Tomison and J Pocock, “Child abuse
and neglect in Indigenous Australian Communities,” Child Abuse Prevention Issues Paper no. 19 National
Child Protection Clearinghouse, Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2003 Melbourne, p.8.
965
T Libesman, “Indigenising Indigenous Child Welfare,” Indigenous Law Bulletin, Vol 6 Issue 24, 2007, p.17
966
J Stanley, K Kovacs, AM Tomison and K Cripps, “Child Abuse and Family Violence in Aboriginal
Communities – Exploring Child Sexual Abuse in Western Australia,” National Child Protection Clearinghouse,
Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2002, p.56.
implementation (for replication) and, if possible, the immediate

effects of service provision.967
18.231 The quality of the information available about the short and long term outcomes
of interventions is therefore unlikely to be available at the level of empirical
trials, particularly in Aboriginal contexts where it is difficult to implement such
trials even where it may be ethical to provide a service or program to an
experimental group and to deny it to a control group.
18.232 Stanley et al state that:
Best practice responses and solutions to Indigenous violence

are difficult to find due to both what would seem to be a dearth
of programs and the lack of documented evaluations about the
effectiveness of programs. The many reports on the problems
within Indigenous communities conclude that the general failure
to find solutions is exacerbated by a significant lack of
resources, an on-going paternalistic approach towards
Indigenous people and a reluctance to address the problem.968
18.233 However, they also note that a number of principles are repeatedly identified in
the literature.969 These can be useful in guiding the development and
dissemination of programs to address violence and neglect in Aboriginal
communities. This dissemination must be undertaken, however, in the context
of local acceptance and adaptation of programs. In the conclusion of her review
of international literature, Libesman states:
While some of the issues and ideas may be useful and relevant
in the Australian context, a key finding in the research is that a
‘one size fits all approach’ does not work. Research and
programs for children’s well-being need to be developed,
implemented and evaluated locally.970
18.234 It should also be acknowledged that Aboriginal ways of understanding may

place greater value on forms of evidence that are not as highly regarded in
scientific frameworks. For example, Stanley, Tomison and Pocock note that:
... an Indigenous perspective is rarely recorded in the academic

literature.
Further, much Indigenous knowledge is based on personal

accounts and stories, a method which has Indigenous cultural
integrity ... Indeed, Indigenous perspectives can be seen as
967
AM Tomison and L Poole, “Preventing Child Abuse and Neglect: Findings from an Australian audit of
prevention programs,” National Child Protection Clearinghouse, Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2000,
p.6.
968
J Stanley, K Kovacs, AM Tomison and K Cripps, 2002, op. cit., p.4.
969
ibid.
970
T Libesman, 2004, op. cit., p.34.
similar to the qualitative methodologies increasingly being used

by some non-Indigenous researchers.971
18.235 The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, has
advised caution about proclaiming ‘best practice’ for working with Aboriginal
communities. He has said:
I have deliberately chosen the term ‘promising practice’ over

‘best practice’. Best practice is a term from the business world
and states that best practice approaches need to be ‘replicable,
transferable and adaptable’
Indigenous communities are diverse. This means that we need

to be very careful about proclaiming best practice, transplanting
it to another community and then just expecting it to work.
‘Promising practice’ is a slightly more tentative term, but still
allows us to recognise and develop strengths.972
18.236 The term ‘promising practices’ was also used in a review of OOHC programs
and services for Aboriginal children in 2007, undertaken by Higgins and Butler
for the AIFS. They state:
… the term ‘promising’ describes programs that have been

successful in meeting their goals and objectives, but which
have not necessarily been externally evaluated.973
18.237 In 2007, the Office for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health, within the
Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing, published a review that
evaluated the available evidence of effective programs to address selected
social and environmental factors relevant to Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander people and communities.974
18.238 The review highlighted the limited quality and quantity of programs addressing
these factors in Aboriginal communities in Australia, which makes formulation of
specific recommendations difficult. However, the review did identify a number
of features of successful programs. These included:
a. involvement of local Aboriginal people in the design and implementation of
programs
971
J Stanley, AM Tomison and J Pocock, “Child abuse and neglect in Indigenous Australian Communities,”
Child Abuse Prevention Issues Paper no. 19, National Child Protection Clearinghouse, Australian Institute of
Family Studies, 2003, p.1.
972
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Social Justice Report 2007, Commonwealth of
Australia, Canberra, p.21.
973
J Higgins and N Butler, 2007, op. cit., p.4.
974
A Black, “Evidence of effective interventions to improve the social and environmental factors impacting on
health: Informing the development of Indigenous Community Agreements,” Office for Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Health, Australian Government, 2007.
b. effective partnerships between community members and the organisations

involved, which resulted in community capacity building and employment
for local Aboriginal people
c. cultural understanding
d. mechanisms for effective feedback to individuals and families.
18.239 The conclusion that can be drawn from this information is that the best evidence
for what works in addressing the issues in Aboriginal communities is likely to be
drawn from the Aboriginal people themselves, through consultations, drawing
on their ideas, experiences and opinions, respecting their knowledge drawn
from their own individual and community experiences, and drawing on case
reports of individual Aboriginal people and specific programs.
Findings of the literature

18.240 The literature supports an approach which addresses both the past traumas
and history of colonialism and the present situational problems and health
disadvantages of Aboriginal communities. The concept of culturally appropriate
or culturally competent service provision requires that Aboriginal ways of
understanding are incorporated into and respected within models of service
delivery.
18.241 A number of principles for the way forward have been proposed and reiterated
in the literature. Favoured models of intervention:
a. are tailored to meet the needs of specific localities
b. are based on community development principles of empowerment
c. are linked to initiatives that deal with poor health, alcohol abuse and similar
problems in a holistic manner
d. employ local people where feasible
e. respect traditional law and customs where appropriate
f. employ a multidisciplinary approach
g. focus on partnership between agencies and community groups
h. add value to existing community structures where possible
i. place greater stress on the need to work with men
j. place more emphasis on intervention that maintains family relationships
and healing.
18.242 Based on these principles the report of the NT Inquiry advocates for the
integration of health and family support services in community ‘hubs’ or ‘one
stop shops’, and for the trial of joint teams, in a co-located permanent
multidisciplinary structure for both investigation and subsequent professional

intervention.975
18.243 The HREOC 2007 Social Justice Report provides a similar view:
There is no ‘magic bullet’ to solve the problems of family

violence and abuse in Indigenous communities. However, we
know that there are a range of program areas that must be
addressed holistically to promote change. These program
areas include:
a. support programs
b. identity programs
c. behavioural change
d. night patrols
e. refuges and shelters
f. justice programs
g. dispute resolution
h. education and awareness raising
i. holistic composite programs.976
Identifying ‘promising’ practices

18.244 A number of programs, services or strategies were recommended to the Inquiry.
Examples of programs were selected for further discussion by the Inquiry based
on the level of ‘promise’ they exhibited, as well as their potential for broader
application in NSW. Some of these are discussed in this Chapter while others
appear in Chapters 7, 8 and 16.
18.245 For the purposes of the Inquiry, the approaches examined can be broadly
categorised as follows:
a. Prevention or early intervention strategies that aim to address multiple
factors that are associated with disadvantage and with higher incidence of
child abuse and neglect for individuals, families and communities. They
include interventions that aim to influence the behaviour of children, parents
and communities so that children have improved social and physical
environments in which to grow up, and so that risk is reduced.
b. Child protection interventions, which respond to the presence of reported or
suspected child abuse and neglect. Such interventions generally have a
975
Northern Territory Government, “Ampe Akelyernemane Meke Mekarle ‘Little Children are Sacred’,” Report
976
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Social Justice Report 2007, Commonwealth of
Australia, Canberra, p.18.
focus on improving the situation so that children can remain with their
family of origin. For Aboriginal children, this will also mean programs that
ensure culturally relevant responses to child protection issues.977 The IFBS
program is outlined in Chapter 8 of this report.
c. Interventions to improve the outcomes for children in OOHC, which apply to
those children who have (usually) been placed in the care of someone
other than a parent after a concern has been raised about their safety
and/or welfare.
18.246 Some programs cross the continuum of early intervention and child protection.
18.247 The level of ‘promise’ shown by any particular intervention or program that was
assessed was based on:
a. any available formal evaluation of the program and its outcomes
b. annual reports or other service data to show the utilisation and/or
effectiveness of the service or program
c. less formal ‘evidence’ such as expert opinion (including recommendation of
the program by an agency with expertise in the field), consumer satisfaction
surveys or qualitative impressions of program staff on the outcomes
achieved by the service
d. the extent to which the intervention is consistent with the principles found in
the literature, including the extent to which it complies with the principles in
practice, as well as the extent to which the principles were incorporated in
program design and development.
18.248 Where the literature contained an analysis of the factors that contributed to a
program or intervention being ‘promising’ for broader application to Aboriginal
communities, the analysis was included rather than detailed discussion of the
individual programs. This was the case with OOHC services.
Promising practices
Canada
Manitoba Model
18.249 Similar to Aboriginal people in Australia, Aboriginal people in Manitoba

experience significantly worse health and welfare than the non-Aboriginal
population. The Aboriginal population is very young, Aboriginal people have an
unemployment rate four times that of non-Aboriginal people, and have hospital
utilisation rates two or three times the rates for other Manitobans. Aboriginal
977
J Higgins and N Butler, 2007, op. cit., p.4.
children are more likely to live in poverty and are more likely to be in the child
welfare system.
18.250 In 2002, after significant joint work between government and Aboriginal groups,
legislation was enacted creating four new child and family services authorities,
one for each Indigenous group. All four authorities have the responsibility to
develop policy, practices and procedures that are culturally appropriate. All are
responsible for the delivery of services, coordination of services and the funding
of community based agencies.978
18.251 There has been both positive and negative commentary on the Manitoba
system.979
18.252 The Manitoba system may offer options for Australia to move toward a child
protection model that will allow Aboriginal communities self-determination, and
the autonomy and adaptability that is said to be required for such communities
to find ways of delivering child and family services to protect their children, and
that will give them an environment that can support their growth and
development free from abuse and neglect.
Vancouver
18.253 In 2005, the Ministry of Children and Family Development transferred child
protection services for Aboriginal children, youth and families in Vancouver to
the not for profit agency, the Vancouver Aboriginal Child and Family Services
Society. The functions transferred include:
a. reviewing, assessing and investigating reports of child abuse and neglect of
children
b. providing services to the parents or others who are responsible for the care
of such children
c. providing services that will help strengthen Aboriginal children and their
families.980
18.254 The Inquiry considers that the current environment would not be appropriate for
a sudden move to such a model. It is something to which the system could
move carefully and by degrees, that is by a progressive increase in the
involvement of the Aboriginal communities in the decision making and delivery
of services.
978
T Bell and T Libesman, 2007, op. cit., p.94.
979
ibid., p.101.
980
www.vacfss.com/index.php
Indigenous Triple P – the Positive Parenting Program

18.255 Triple P is a parenting and family support strategy with a number of levels that
aims to prevent severe behavioural, emotional and developmental problems in
children.
18.256 The program aims to do this by enhancing the knowledge, skills and confidence
of parents. Triple P is available at a number of levels depending on the needs
of parents and families. This ranges from population based media material,
through to fact sheets, structured groups and individual parenting programs. An
Indigenous version of Triple P was developed and evaluated in two trials, the
first with a small sample in Queensland, and the second in twelve communities
across Australia.981
18.257 The report on the first clinical trial noted that:
These results provide the first outcome evidence from a

randomised controlled trial of a parenting intervention for
Australian Indigenous families conducted by Child Health and
Indigenous Health workers in a community setting. This study
adds to a series of controlled outcome studies exploring the
efficacy and effectiveness of Triple P interventions. The
outcomes of this initial trial are a significant step forward in
increasing appropriate service provision for Indigenous families
and reducing barriers to accessing available services in the
community. These trial results are sufficiently encouraging to
warrant wider scale implementation and evaluation of the
programme with other Indigenous groups in rural and regional
areas.982
18.258 Indigenous parents who had completed the Triple P group program reported
significantly lower levels of behavioural and emotional problems in their
children, and less reliance on dysfunctional parenting practices than was the
case for parents who were still on the waitlist for a group. It was reported that
the positive effects of the program were still being maintained six months after
the program.983
18.259 The evaluation examined the cultural acceptability of the program and reported
consistently positive feedback from participants on that issue.984
18.260 The second trial, in twelve diverse urban, rural and remote sites across
Australia, displayed similar outcomes to the first trial, including:
981
K Turner, “Supporting Indigenous Health Professionals: Key issues and supports for the adoption of
evidence-based behavioural family intervention in Indigenous communities” Paper prepared for the Australian
Research Alliance for Children and Youth, 2007, pp.5-6.
982
K Turner, M Richards and M Sanders, “Randomised clinical trial of a group parent education programme
for Australian Indigenous families,” Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health vol 43, 2007, p.436.
983
ibid., p.429.
984
ibid., p.435
Significant decreases in problem child behaviour and

dysfunctional parenting practices (particularly authoritarian
discipline, displays of anger and irritability), and high rates of
consumer satisfaction. In addition, there were significant
decreases in parental depression and stress, and a significant
increase in parenting confidence.985
18.261 This trial, however, also included data collected from practitioners which
revealed some barriers to delivery of the program:
Practitioners reported finding the program useful and

appropriate, but many interested sites faced obstacles to
program implementation, such as community perception of the
priority of parenting support, lack of availability of trained
professionals and lack of opportunities for supervision and skill
rehearsal, difficulties in rearranging workload to allow for group
sessions, engagement issues, and perceived reluctance for
completion of questionnaires and data collection.986
Alcohol Supply Reduction Programs

18.262 Until recently, alcohol supply reduction programs have been trialled in various
Aboriginal communities particularly in the Northern Territory and in Western
Australia, with a minimum six month trial. Black examined six trials and found
that four of these demonstrated significant reduction in alcohol consumption and
related harm.987 The analysis concluded that Indigenous communities are
increasingly engaged in addressing the problem of alcohol misuse. The
evidence remains inconclusive. Of the studies that have been done, most are
too small to be generalised to the greater Aboriginal population, and others are
of poor quality and have yielded inconclusive results. Nevertheless, the results
indicate the importance of community support for successful supply reduction
interventions.988
18.263 Black notes that expert opinion has indicated that sustained success is unlikely,
unless programs also address the underlying reasons for alcohol misuse.989
These include the lack of meaningful employment, lack of engagement in the
education system, poverty, and lack of opportunity to accumulate lifelong
assets. Unless addressed there is a risk that alcohol reduction strategies will
see users turn to potentially more harmful practices involving drug abuse and
petrol sniffing and to a greater extent than presently occurs.
985
K Turner, 2007, op. cit., p.6.
986
ibid.
987
A Black, “Evidence of effective interventions to improve the social and environmental factors impacting on
health: Informing the development of Indigenous Community Agreements,” Office for Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Health, Australian Government, 2007, pp.53, 55-56.
988
ibid., p.53.
989
ibid.
18.264 In terms of applicability to NSW, the programs and studies reviewed were in
remote locations such as Halls Creek, Curtin Springs Roadhouse, Tennant
Creek, Derby and Alice Springs. The alcohol reduction programs operating in
the Northern Territory under the NTER have not yet been fully evaluated.
18.265 New liquor laws came into effect in NSW on 1 July 2008, to provide, inter alia,
for greater protections for local communities from alcohol related crime. The
new legislation includes Aboriginal specific harm reduction measures which
permit the declaration of restricted alcohol areas within which the sale, supply,
possession or consumption of liquor can be restricted. The declaration of a
restricted alcohol zone may only be done at the behest of the community and in
consultation with local community members as well as the Minister for
Aboriginal Affairs.990
18.266 In addition, under the Local Government Act 1993, councils can prohibit the
consumption of alcohol and create alcohol free zones.991 The Inquiry
understands that Bourke has made its town an alcohol free zone with the
consensus of the community.
The NSW Aboriginal Maternal and Infant Health Strategy

18.267 AMIHS was developed by Health in 2000, in response to research into
Aboriginal perinatal health in NSW (this research was later published in 2003 as
the NSW Aboriginal Perinatal Health Report). The research showed that
Aboriginal babies were far more likely than non-Aboriginal babies to die in the
first four weeks after birth, were more likely to be born prematurely, and that the
rate of Aboriginal babies born with low birth weight was almost double that of
non-Aboriginal babies. Low birth weight and prematurity are associated with
higher risk of death and illness in the first month after birth.992
18.268 Health stated that the research recommended a specific model of service
provision, which included a team approach to community maternity services
including midwifery, Aboriginal health workers, specialists and general practice,
a flexible and non-judgemental approach to service delivery, and a sensitive
approach to the underlying social and economic factors impacting on the lives
of Aboriginal people. Health states that this model has become the core of the
AMIHS service delivery approach. Additionally, the model includes a specific
Training and Support Unit which provides support to the staff developing and
implementing AMIHS services.993
18.269 Initially AMIHS operated from Broken Hill, Wilcannia, Coffs Harbour, Taree,
Dubbo, Moree, and Newcastle. In 2007, DoCS entered into a partnership with
Health to fund the expansion of the service to the remainder of NSW. As part of
990
Liquor Act 2007 (NSW) ss.115-116.
991
Local Government Act 1993 (NSW) ss.642-649.
992
NSW Health, ”Aboriginal Maternal and Infant Health Strategy,” Newsletter 1, NSW Department of Health,
October 2007.
993
ibid.
this expansion, the seven alternative birthing service programs funded by the
Commonwealth will receive additional funding to bring them to the level of
AMIHS programs.994
18.270 With the existing AMIHS services, the enhanced alternative birthing services
programs, and additional services to be set up, there will be the equivalent of
31.5 full time equivalent midwife and Aboriginal health worker teams providing
specific services to Aboriginal parents across NSW. The cost of providing these
services will be approximately $7.3 million per annum.995
18.271 The AMIHS model was evaluated after three years of operation, and the results
published in 2005.996 Outcomes included the following:
a. significantly more women attended their first antenatal visit before 20
weeks of pregnancy
b. there was a significant reduction in the numbers of babies born preterm
c. more women initiated breast feeding, and more maintained breast feeding
to six weeks
d. Aboriginal women were very satisfied with the services provided by the
program.
18.272 As part of the expansion of services under an MOU between DoCS and Health
the program will continue to be externally evaluated.
18.273 Although programs exist across Australia with similar goals to the AMIHS, the
evaluation of this program has generally demonstrated better outcomes than
some other programs.997
18.274 Health informed the Inquiry that the 2008/09 State Budget included the
provision of an additional $19.1 million to extend the services already provided
under the AMIHS model to ensure that Aboriginal families with young children in
NSW have quality access to universal early childhood health services. The
amount is to be provided over four years. Health further advised that the
precise service model was still being developed. Any impact of extending
services to early childhood will need to be evaluated and monitored, but the
model continues to be promising. In particular an early antenatal visit can be a
useful entry point for addressing issues such as alcohol and other drug abuse,
994
NSW Health and DoCS, “Memorandum of Understanding between the Minister for Community Services
and the Minister for Health regarding joint funding of the Aboriginal Maternal and Infant Health Strategy,”
2007.
995
ibid.
996
NSW Health “NSW Aboriginal Maternal and Infant Health Strategy Evaluation: Final Report,” 2005,
www.health.nsw.gov.au.
997
See for example A Rumbold, and J Cunningham, “A Review of the Impact of Antenatal Care for Australian
Indigenous Women and Attempts to Strengthen these Services,” Journal of Maternal and Child Health 12,
2008, p.83-100. This paper compares the results of ten antenatal care programs developed for Indigenous
women, concluding that the impact of the antenatal care programs evaluated and published to date remains
inconclusive. The study involved a search of databases of peer reviewed publications and Commonwealth
Government websites. Possibly because State department websites were not included in the search strategy,
the researchers did not review the AMIHS evaluation, and this program did not inform their analysis.
thereby reducing the incidence of babies born with foetal drug syndrome, and
for reducing the risk of domestic violence.
Conclusion
18.275 From the several reports which emanated from the Inquiries referred to in this
chapter, and from its own investigations, the Inquiry considers that there are a
number of key challenges to be taken into account, when existing programs are
implemented or when new strategies are introduced. In order to place its
recommendations in context, it is convenient to note these challenges, each of
which was recognised by DoCS in its submission.
18.276 The proportion of children and young persons within the Aboriginal population is
in excess of that for the non-Aboriginal population, and is growing. A strong
community and family structure to support their development is necessary.
18.277 Each Aboriginal community in NSW is different, with the result that any
intervention needs to focus on local circumstances including the composition of
that community, the strength and capacity of local Aboriginal leadership and the
physical availability of government and non-government resources.
18.278 There has been limited research, and hence limited understanding, concerning
the critical issues facing Aboriginal communities in NSW. These include the
circumstances leading to the occurrence and concealment of sexual abuse, the
normalisation of violence, the breakdown of family and community structures,
and the long term impacts of kinship care.
18.279 The problems facing Aboriginal families and their children involve a wide range
of causes of disadvantage, such that a holistic response involving the full
complement of human services and justice agencies is needed.
18.280 An effective integrated network of government agencies and sufficiently

supported and funded non-government agencies is needed at a local level to
address issues confronting Aboriginal families in the more remote communities,
in a holistic way.
18.281 The risk of problems of high levels of violence, particularly domestic and family
violence, sexual abuse, substance abuse, poverty, mental illness,
unemployment, and poor housing becoming entrenched, and of positive
parenting being unavailable, increases significantly where Aboriginal families
are living in small towns or in isolated communities without the services and
social infrastructure that support families elsewhere.
18.282 The existing services for responding to substance abuse, family violence and
neglect in NSW are fragmented, poorly linked and do not reach the more high
risk, remote communities. This problem is then compounded by the difficulties
faced by caseworkers based in the larger communities, such as Broken Hill, in
reaching the at risk families.
18.283 Challenges remain in securing the level of training, support and supervision of
the Aboriginal caseworkers who are needed to maximise engagement with
Aboriginal communities.
18.284 Difficulties persist in maintaining a suitable pool of Aboriginal foster carers, a

significant proportion of the current cohort being grandmothers or aunts who are
ageing and in poor health, and also in assessing the capacity and suitability of
potential kinship carers to whom the care responsibility is progressively being
passed.
18.285 There has been a lack of differential approaches adopted by or available to the
Court that would take into account, and that would be more conducive to, kin
and community participation in decision making concerning the future of
18.286 Those young Aboriginal people caught up in the juvenile justice system have
not been well served in relation to bail, diversionary options, or Aboriginal
specific rehabilitation options, with the result that they have been left at risk of
joining a cycle of re-offending with limited opportunities for establishing sound
family relationships.
18.287 There is remarkable unanimity in the published reports and literature about the
problems facing Aboriginal communities, (particularly those in remote areas),
the causes of those problems and the principles which should underpin any
intervention in their lives of Aboriginal people.
18.288 Notwithstanding this mutual understanding, Aboriginal children and their

families remain over represented in the child protection and criminal justice
systems. This Inquiry, like many of those that have preceded it, has not
identified any universal solution, but has in relation to each of the relevant
aspects of child protection, given attention to ways that they may be severally
addressed.
18.289 Recommendations have been made in Chapter 10 concerning the general

principles which the Inquiry believes should underpin the child protection
system in NSW, the goals to be reached and what needs to be done to achieve
such these goals. Matters specific to Aboriginal children, young persons and
their families have also been addressed in those recommendations. In addition,
in Chapter 8, a recommendation is made concerning building capacity in
Aboriginal organisations to enable one or more of them to take on a role similar
to Lakidjeka. Recommendations concerning Aboriginal children and young
persons in OOHC are dealt with in Chapter 16.
18.290 In addition, the Inquiry supports the nine rules of engagement devised by the
NT Inquiry and agrees that they should be applied in responding to child
protection issues in Aboriginal communities.
18.291 One strategy identified by Premier and Cabinet was the development of co-
located family centres servicing Aboriginal communities, involving health and
education, given the importance of success in these domains to interrupt the

inter-generational transmission of family and child vulnerability. These along
with other strategies such as improved housing supply, the regulation of alcohol
supply and access to alcohol and other drug treatment services are currently
being considered by the COAG Working Group on Indigenous Disadvantage.
The Ombudsman stated that such a strategy, if effectively implemented, has the
potential to give Aboriginal communities much easier access to a suite of
services aimed at a continuum of care. The Inquiry agrees and has made a
recommendation to that effect in Chapter 10.
18.292 As noted earlier, the recommendations made in this chapter are of a broader
nature and should be read in conjunction with the more specific
recommendations developed elsewhere in this report.
Recommendations
Recommendation 18.1
The NSW Ombudsman should be given authority to audit the

implementation of the Aboriginal Child Sexual Assault Taskforce
recommendations as described in Recommendation 21 of the
Taskforce’s report.
Recommendation 18.2
The NSW Government should consider the following:
a. Assisting Aboriginal communities to consider and develop

procedures for the reduction of the sale, delivery and use of alcohol
to Aboriginal communities.
b. Working with the Commonwealth to income manage

Commonwealth and State payments to all families, not only
Aboriginal families, in circumstances where serious and persistent
child protection concerns are held and there is reliable information
available that income is not being spent in the interests of the
safety, welfare and well-being of the relevant child or young
person.
c. Introducing measures to ensure greater attendance at school,

preferably by means other than incarceration, including the
provision of transport and of meals.
d. In smaller and more remote communities, introducing the greater

use of night patrols to ensure that children are not wandering the
streets at night in circumstances where they might be at risk of
assault, or alternatively of involvement in criminal activities.
e. Providing accommodation to Aboriginal children and young people

at risk of harm of a boarding nature type where the children are
cared for and educated.
Recommendation 18.3
The NSW Government should take steps to ensure that the

recommendations of the Aboriginal Child Sexual Assault Taskforce
report, and the actions in the Interagency Plan, which relate to provision
of direct services to Aboriginal children, young persons, families and
perpetrators, are carried into effect within the lifetime of the plan.
Recommendation 18.4
The NSW Government should work actively with the Commonwealth in

securing the delivery, in NSW, of the services identified in the New
Directions Policy and in the 2008/09 Commonwealth Budget that were
earmarked for the benefit of Aboriginal people.
19 A case study: the communities of

Toomelah and Boggabilla
The communities.........................................................................................................794
1988 HREOC report .....................................................................................................795
Child protection project..............................................................................................797
Progress.......................................................................................................................798
June 2006 ..............................................................................................................798
November 2006 .....................................................................................................799
February 2008 .......................................................................................................800
June 2008 ..............................................................................................................801
Data...............................................................................................................................802
Reporters and assessment....................................................................................802
Issues reported ......................................................................................................803
Multiple reports ......................................................................................................803
Seriousness of reports...........................................................................................804
Removal of children...............................................................................................804
Prosecutions ..........................................................................................................805
DoCS responses to children..................................................................................805
The Inquiry’s visits......................................................................................................805
The Team’s experiences .......................................................................................807
The communities’ experience................................................................................808
Responses of other government agencies ..............................................................810
Interagency response ............................................................................................810
Aboriginal Affairs ...................................................................................................811
Housing..................................................................................................................812
Education...............................................................................................................812
Health ....................................................................................................................813
Police .....................................................................................................................815
Identifying gaps...........................................................................................................816
Is the project working? ...............................................................................................817
Conclusion...................................................................................................................823
794 A case study: the communities of Toomelah and Boggabilla
The communities
19.1 Toomelah is an Aboriginal community located just south of the McIntyre River,
which forms the border between NSW and Queensland. It has a primary
school, a health service with visiting general practitioner, a preschool, a family
support service and a shop. It is about 21 kilometres south of Goondiwindi in
Queensland and 125 kilometres north of Moree in NSW.
19.2 According to the 2006 census there were 337 persons usually resident in
Toomelah, 247 (or 73 per cent) of whom identify as Aboriginal. Of the
residents, 51 per cent were male and 49 per cent female.
19.3 As at the census date the median age of the Aboriginal population in Toomelah
was 20 years, compared with 37 years across the whole Australian population.
Ninety-seven (39 per cent) of Toomelah’s Aboriginal residents were children
aged 0-14 years and most Aboriginal people over the age of 15 years were not
in the labour force. About 20 per cent of Aboriginal persons aged 15 years and
over had completed Year 10 or equivalent as their highest qualification, and 36
per cent had a qualification. About eight per cent had completed Year 12 and
two per cent aged 15-19 years were in full time education.
19.4 There were 48 total dwellings, over 90 per cent of which were rented.
19.5 The median individual weekly income for Aboriginal persons aged 15 years and
over was $210, compared with $466 across Australia and the median
household income was $619, compared with $1,027 across Australia. The
average household size was 5.1 persons and the average number of persons
per bedroom was 1.5. The median weekly rent was $50, compared with $190
across Australia.
19.6 Boggabilla is another small community located half way between Toomelah and
Goondiwindi, also on the NSW side of the river. It has a central school (primary
and secondary), a post office, a police station and court, a health service
without a general practitioner, a play group, a TAFE, the Wobbly Boot Hotel, the
Town & Country Club, a butcher shop, a service station, a general store and a
paper manufacturing business.
19.7 According to the 2006 census there were 647 persons usually resident in
Boggabilla. Of the residents, 53.5 per cent were male, 46.5 per cent female, 56
per cent were Aboriginal. The median age was 27 years. About 36 per cent
were children aged from 0-14 years. Eighteen per cent were unemployed. The
median weekly individual income was $245, while median household income
was $560. One parent families accounted for 42.5 per cent of the town’s
population. The median weekly rent was $100.
19.8 Aboriginal Affairs informed the Inquiry that the Toomelah and Boggabilla
communities experience various socio-economic problems associated with
isolated Aboriginal communities including poverty, poor housing, limited
infrastructure, and high incidence of domestic violence, alcoholism and

diabetes.
19.9 There have been a number of inquiries and reports describing the two
communities and recommending action by Commonwealth, state and local
agencies over the past two decades.
1988 HREOC report

19.10 In January 1987, racial violence occurred between Aboriginal and non-
Aboriginal communities in Boggabilla, Toomelah and Goondiwindi.
19.11 In response, the then Race Discrimination Commissioner, Irene Moss, visited
the area and found wide disparities between the living standards and socio-
economic expectations of Aboriginals and non-Aboriginals. In particular, she
found that the living conditions of Toomelah were unacceptably poor and
considerably worse than those in Goondiwindi and Boggabilla.
19.12 In Toomelah, Commissioner Moss found that the water supply was rationed and
dispensed twice a day for fifteen minutes at a time, the sewerage system was
completely inadequate, the roads were unsealed dirt tracks and there was no
drainage or street lighting. She concluded that the poverty and neglect that
made up the fabric of the lives of Aboriginal people in Toomelah and to a lesser
extent in Boggabilla needed to be further investigated.
19.13 An inquiry was then undertaken by HREOC which resulted in the publication in
June 1988 of the Toomelah Report: Report on the Problems and Needs of
Aborigines Living on the New South Wales/Queensland Border (the HREOC
Report). The HREOC Report recorded the history of Toomelah as follows:
Toomelah’s five hundred residents live on what was originally

part of the traditional land of Gamiliraay people. Present
knowledge suggests a connection of Aboriginal people with
land in this area stretching back fifty thousand years. Toomelah
has been an Aboriginal reserve since 1937... In 1975 the land
ceased to be a reserve and the freehold title was transferred to
the New South Wales Aboriginal Lands Trust pursuant to the
Aborigines Act 1969...
In 1984 the freehold (184.9 hectares on which stood forty

houses, health clinic, primary school and sheds) was
transferred to the Boggabilla – Toomelah Local Aboriginal Land
Council… established under the Aboriginal Land Rights Act
1983. Generally speaking, all Aboriginal residents of Boggabilla
and Toomelah are eligible for membership of the Local
Aboriginal Land Council. Members elect their own office
bearers. Funding support for the Land Council comes from an
annual allocation from the New South Wales Government under
the Aboriginal Land Rights Act. The Co-operative continues to

operate and to receive Federal funding. It holds a ninety-nine
year lease over the entire original area…
In the decade since [the reserve era ended] the community has
had come to terms with a vast array of new rights and
responsibilities. They have had to learn to deal with numerous
government departments and other bodies with respect to the
provision of a wide range of services and goods, including
housing, enterprise funding and other matters. This period has
been attended by many difficulties forged by the reserve
experience… As Mrs Madeline McGrady told the Inquiry, “No
training was given to help people make the transition”…998
19.14 The HREOC Report further stated:
The Inquiry was struck by the fact that even after numerous
State and Federal government inquiries into Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander needs, the awarding of joint responsibility
for Aboriginal affairs to the Commonwealth Government by a
constitutional amendment in 1967, the conclusion of the
Commonwealth – State Arrangement with respect to funding for
Aboriginal affairs in 1976, and the passage of the Aboriginal
Land Rights Act by the New South Wales Parliament in 1983,
the people of Toomelah still suffered living standards far below
those experienced by the vast majority of non-Aboriginal
residents of New South Wales and for that matter by the vast
majority of Australians. Words, intention and goodwill are
simply not sufficient.999
19.15 The HREOC Report recorded that there were 40 dwellings at Toomelah,
generally of poor standard, accommodating on average more than 12 people
each; which was four times the State average of three persons per household.
Water was being rationed.
19.16 The HREOC Report referred to a 1986 Health Department survey of children
under six years which found:
over 20% suffering from recurrent chest infections and almost

50% had chronic ear disease... Other health problems identified
include diabetes, alcoholism and sexually transmitted
diseases… Although a community of five hundred people;
Toomelah residents have inadequate access to medical
services. The community health worker… has a diploma in
Aboriginal Health and services the entire community on her own
998
Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, Toomelah Report: Report on the Problems and
Needs of Aborigines Living on the New South Wales/Queensland Border, June 1988, pp.2-4.
999
ibid., p.4.
most of the time. At times over the past few years a registered
nurse has worked full-time at Toomelah. However, there has
been no nursing service there since shortly before this Inquiry
commenced. A Health Department doctor visits about ten times
each year but only to immunise the children… the people must
travel to Goondiwindi for most medical treatment… For dental
treatment they must often travel to Moree…1000
19.17 The HREOC Report summarised the condition of the community as consisting
of sub-standard, overcrowded housing, without an adequate water supply or a
properly functioning sewerage system, higher than average rates of a range of
debilitating diseases for which members of the community could not get
adequate treatment, lack of adequate education and chronic unemployment.
Child protection project

19.18 In 2005, with the assistance of a consultant, the then elders identified key
issues in the Toomelah community as health, child sexual abuse and relations
with police. As part of a whole of government project to address these issues in
both of the communities, the Child Protection Project was initiated in December
2005, led by DoCS. The DoCS Project Team (the Team) began work in June
2006 with the intention that the Team of three caseworkers and a manager, all
Aboriginal, would be assisted by two health workers, employed by Hunter New
England Area Health Service (HNEAHS).
19.19 The objectives of the project were stated as follows:

a. co-ordination of the planning and implementation of government responses,
interventions and prevention programs regarding child sexual abuse issues
based on close collaboration with community elders, leaders and agencies
and the development of outcomes which would be externally evaluated
b. engagement of the local people in learning necessary skills
c. oversight of capacity building
d. development of a program with Education.
19.20 The primary focus was to be on community prevention combined with

counselling and healing to address past abuse.
19.21 It was anticipated that the desired outcomes would take at least five to 10 years
to achieve. It was estimated in 2006 that the costs would be around $650,000
in 2006/07, $688,000 in 2007/08 and $638,000 in 2008/09.
19.22 The governance structure is as set out in the diagram below.
1000
ibid., p.53.
Regional Coordination
Management Group
All Agencies
Community Councils (or alternate Direction setting, policy, resources
leadership structure)
Meet regularly with Local Management
Group
Meet 2-3 times per year with Steering Toomelah/Boggabilla Steering
Committee
Committee
Health, DoCS, Education, DAA, Police,
Premier and Cabinet
Coordinates strategy, advise RCMG
Incorporates Child Protection Reference Group
Cross Boundary NSW Local Managers / Issue Specific Co- Specific Working
Directors Meeting Team Leaders agency Networks / Groups
Queensland, NSW, Core Agencies Meetings Time limited
Commonwealth, Local Operational Planning/ e.g. Child Protection Selected
– 2 year Monitoring/ Problem team representatives as
Address Solving Regular required for task/topic
jurisdictional/boundary Operational Focus
issues (barriers, gaps,
opportunities)
Interagency Forum
Support for workers,
Local sharing information/ Team Meetings
Managers ideas/ issues, all local
Meeting service providers (incl.
visiting) Other Community
Monthly Engagement
Mechanisms
Elders Group, Women’s
Co-agency
Group, Men’s Group,
Networks/ Issues/ Engagement Days,
Working Groups General Community
Consultation, Specific
Ad Hoc specific topic meetings
one off meetings to
resolve issues
Selected
representatives as
required
Progress
June 2006
19.23 One of the first tasks undertaken by the Team was to analyse child protection
data from the two communities for the period 2003 to 2005. The following
matters were identified:
a. the reporting trends were consistent
b. 20 per cent of reports were from non-mandatory reporters of whom 16 per

cent were family or community members
c. neglect was the most reported issue
d. 21 per cent indicated that carer alcohol or other drug use was an issue
e. almost a third of reports related to concerns about children being exposed
to sexual harm and most of these reports came from mandatory reporters
who appeared to be relaying concerns on behalf of community members
f. four individuals were identified as perpetrators as well as a number of
members of one particular named family
g. an estimated 15 per cent of all the children in the two communities had
been reported for sexual harm or risk of sexual harm in 2004/05
h. only 17 per cent of these sexual abuse reports received a less than 24
hours response, notwithstanding that in many cases the perpetrator was
clearly identified and named
i. the great majority of alleged perpetrators referred to in reports of specific
incidents of sexual abuse or immediate risk of harm were outsiders or
community members not closely related to the children
j. few children were interviewed and only one perpetrator out of the 50 was
interviewed; he made a confession and was placed on a bond.
November 2006
19.24 By November 2006, most of the 92 children who had been reported for harm or
risk of harm from sexual abuse since January 2004 had received some
attention from the Team. Thirty-eight children had been assessed, of whom
nine were identified as being at serious risk of harm. More than 20, nearly one
quarter, were being dealt with by other child protection agencies and another 20
did not warrant further attention by the Team because of, generally, an
assessment of low risk of harm.
19.25 In relation to perpetrators, some suspected men and adolescents had left the
community and a non-Aboriginal alleged perpetrator was charged with
numerous sex offences following a JIRT investigation. Disclosures from two 13
year old girls were being investigated by JIRT, however, ultimately no
prosecution occurred as they did not wish to give evidence.
19.26 The plans for 2007/08 were to develop a comprehensive community education
program, further develop partnerships, consider international models, evaluate
data and outcomes, employ two trainees and establish a transition plan.
19.27 Regular interagency meetings and cross border collaboration meetings were
being held. However, one caseworker had resigned and would not be replaced
until October 2007.
February 2008
19.28 By February 2008, the communities had suffered the death of three key elders,
one of whom was identified as having been the key player in persuading the
elders group to request government help. The Team manager had been off
work for some five months following an injury. These events were to hinder the
Team in attaining its objectives.
19.29 Two administrative positions within the team had been recently created.
Community engagement activities had been organised and apparently were
well attended. Men’s and women’s groups were operating with variable
attendances and success. The Inquiry was told that about 50 per cent of the
Team’s time was spent on education and community awareness and support
activities.
19.30 Also by this time, risk assessments had been initiated on all children reported
for child sexual abuse since 2005 who had remained in the communities. One
couple had been assessed as foster carers.
19.31 Thirteen children and young persons had disclosed abuse since July 2006, as a
result of which charges were laid against four men and an AVO was granted.
Most of the victims were girls aged between 14 and 16 years. It was recorded
at this time by the Team that:
They [the victims] are without exception unable to confront

alleged perpetrators who live close by, who are related or living
with someone related to them and who may be in positions of
power and influence in the community.1001
19.32 Clearly, there were considerable challenges in encouraging reporting and in

following through with giving evidence in any prosecution of the perpetrator.
19.33 A survey of the community was undertaken by the Team, and based on the
findings from that survey, a Community Education Plan was drafted. It covered
broad and targeted education using the resources of Health, Education and
Corrective Services. Elders, men’s and women’s groups were identified, as
were preschool, primary and secondary school children and young persons.
19.34 In terms of the progress made by other agencies, after November 2006,
experiences were mixed.
19.35 Significant improvements at the Toomelah Public School were reported

including breakfast being provided to children and activities being arranged
during breaks and after school. ‘Beats’, a program to ensure primary school
children were attending school, had been instituted, which had resulted in a
1001
DoCS, Briefing Note, Update of Toomelah / Boggabilla Child Protection Project, 6 July 2007, p.5.
doubling in attendance rates to 80 per cent. Caseworkers were involved in one

or two personal development classes at the Boggabilla Central School.
19.36 Relationships with Police suffered when, following a domestic violence incident
at Toomelah, a number of community members withdrew the existing MOU with
Police to enable Police to enter onto Aboriginal land.
19.37 HNEAHS had created new positions in 2006 in response to community

requests, comprising a community development facilitator and a child and family
health worker. Both of these positions had been vacant, one since
August/September 2007 and, the other since January 2008. However, more
positively, Health was funding a new offender treatment program, based on the
New Street Service (see Chapter 7), which would operate in Tamworth and
target young offenders from the Toomelah and Boggabilla communities.
19.38 The laying of a sewerage system in Boggabilla was apparently complete and
repairs to houses were underway.
19.39 During the preceding months, community attention had been diverted by
concerns with governance and management at the Land Council, which
resulted in the contracting of Land Council management of the community to a
private provider. This ultimately affected management of infrastructure, in
particular the maintenance of houses.
June 2008
19.40 By June 2008, there had been little further progress recorded. Sixty-nine
children were under scrutiny of the Team. While the Toomelah Women’s Group
was apparently working well, Boggabilla groups were not.
19.41 A deal of publicity had been generated when claims were made to ABC’s
Lateline program about children prostituting themselves at the Boggabilla
Roadhouse. The Inquiry had discussions with Police and DoCS about these
claims and was advised that each had been unsuccessful in obtaining sufficient
and reliable information from the community to take any further action.
19.42 The Team assisted the Youth Group to develop activities for Youth Week. The
HNEAHS positions remained vacant. The Child Protection Reference Group
continued to meet bi-monthly.
19.43 Concerns about one of the project Team interviewing a child about allegations
against a person to whom the caseworker was related were raised by Police
and resolved, apparently to everyone’s satisfaction. This highlights the
particular challenges when those from within small communities are carrying out
difficult and sensitive work, such as child protection.
19.44 The proposed young mothers group, an important initiative given the numbers
of pregnant young women and mothers and their reported reluctance to engage
with doctors, had commenced.
Data
19.45 Understanding the progress made by the Team is important to know the
challenges being faced. In order to gauge the nature of the child protection work
being undertaken in the Toomelah and Boggabilla communities, the Inquiry
sought various statistics and other data from DoCS. The data collected for the
financial year 2006/07 and for July 2007 to March 2008 show the following:1002
Reporters and assessment

19.46 In 2006/07, 59 reports involving 31 children and young persons were allocated
to a member of the Team. Twenty-two of those reports received a SAS2, 33
reports received a SAS1 only and for four reports there was no record of a risk
assessment.
19.47 In this period, 54 reports were made by mandatory reporters with 22 from police
and 21 from school/child care reporters. Five reports were by non mandatory
reporters comprising three relatives and two from the community.
19.48 For the period July 2007 to March 2008, 106 reports made about 62 children
and young persons were allocated to the Team of which, 34 reports received a
SAS2, 36 reports received a SAS1 only and for a further 36 reports there was
no record of a risk assessment.
19.49 In this period, 84 reports were by mandatory reporters, of whom 32 were police
officers, 27 worked in education and 14 in health. There were 22 non-
mandatory reporters of whom 11 were from the community, eight were relatives
and three were others.
19.50 Thus, the number of reports almost doubled while the percentage that received
a SAS1 and SAS2 had reduced, assuming all appropriate records were kept.
1002
Unallocated reports or reports allocated to the Moree CSC are not included in this data.
Table 19.1 Reports involving alleged child sexual abuse allocated to the Toomelah
Boggabilla DoCS case workers by reporter type
Source of report 2006-07 July 2007-March 2008
Mandatory reporters
Police 22 32
Probation and parole 1 0
Corrective services 3 0
Interstate welfare 3 0
Juvenile Justice 1 6
Education 21 28
Health 2 14
NGO 1 4
Non-mandatory reporters
Relative 3 8
Community 2 11
Other 0 3
Total 59 106
Issues reported
Table 19.2 Child protection reported referred to the Toomelah Boggabilla DoCS
caseworkers by primary reported issue
Primary Reported Issue 2006 to July
2007 2007 to
March
2008
Sexual abuse 20 43
Drug and alcohol use by child or young person or carer 6 4
Domestic violence 14 18
Neglect 11 12
Physical abuse 2 9
Inappropriate sexual behaviour by a child or young person 2 10
Psychological abuse 3 6
Carer mental health issues 1 2
Suicide risk 0 2
19.51 The reporting of sexual abuse, physical abuse and inappropriate sexual
behaviour by a child have clearly increased.
Multiple reports
19.52 In 2006/07, 15 children and young persons received between two and five
reports with the majority receiving two reports. The average number of reports
per child or young person was 1.9.
19.53 From July 2007 to March 2008, 29 children and young persons received
between two and four reports with the average number of reports per child or
young person being 1.7.
Seriousness of reports
19.54 In 2006/07 two reports requiring a response time of less than 24 hours were
received, 30 requiring a within 72 hours response and 27 requiring a response
within 10 days.
19.55 Of the reports received from July 2007 to March 2008, seven were assigned a
required response time of within 24 hours, 49 within 72 hours and 50 within 10
days.
19.56 Four cases have been referred to the Brighter Futures Lead Agency, one
through the community pathway and three through the Helpline. The Brighter
Futures program began in July 2007. Of the four cases, two are in the
assessment phase, one is in the case management phase and the remaining
family has exited the program.
Removal of children
19.57 Between July 2006 and June 2007:
a. 10 children had been removed from their families, three of whom were
Aboriginal children. Two of those were siblings who were in care and later
removed from their carer by Moree CSC and returned to a kinship
placement. The third child was removed at her own request and returned
to her grandmother/carer, at her own request. The return was subject to
undertakings which were not made under the Care Act. The seven
remaining children are from a non-Aboriginal sibling group
b. six children were placed under the parental responsibility of the Minister or
under shared responsibility
c. 12 children were living in OOHC within the communities of Toomelah or
Boggabilla.
19.58 During the period July 2007 to March 2008:

a. one child living in Toomelah or Boggabilla had been found by the Court to
be in need of care and protection, and one child was removed from the
family
b. one child was placed under parental responsibility of the Minister or under
shared parental responsibility
c. 11 children were living in OOHC within the communities of Toomelah or
Boggabilla
d. there had been no children restored to families in that period.
19.59 In the period July 2006 to March 2008, there had been one order accepting
undertakings and no orders for the provision of support, to attend therapeutic or
treatment programs or for supervision.
Prosecutions
19.60 Police informed the Inquiry that, as at March 2008, there had been six
prosecutions, some of which were continuing, some dealt with and some found
not guilty. A small number of AVOs had been granted.
DoCS responses to children

19.61 To understand the nature of the intervention for some of the children and young
persons who received SAS2 assessments, the Inquiry sought and was provided
with the following response.
19.62 Between April 2007 and March 2008, 38 children, the subject of 24 reports, had
a SAS2 completed. DoCS took the following action concerning these children:
a. Nine reports were referred to JIRT:
i. three of the reports were in relation to sexual abuse of a non-Aboriginal
child; these were assessed by the Moree CSC and in each case the
matter was investigated by JIRT
ii. six were referred to JIRT by the Team; one case concerned domestic
violence and the remaining five concerned sexual abuse.
b. Services, usually in the form of referrals for drug and alcohol counselling or
to the adolescent mental health services were provided in eight cases. The
Inquiry is unaware of the outcome of those referrals.
c. The child and/or the family relocated in six instances, generally in response
to issues of neglect and sexual abuse.
d. A care application was brought in two cases; both concerned sexual abuse,
and each child was placed with a relative.
e. In relation to two matters the young person involved was not willing to
pursue charges.
f. In two cases the perpetrator was charged; one in relation to domestic
violence and the other, sexual abuse. In a number of other cases the
perpetrator was in jail on unrelated matters.
g. In one case a placement was arranged by the family.
The Inquiry’s visits

19.63 The Inquiry travelled to Toomelah and Boggabilla on two occasions. On the
first occasion, in March 2008, the Team arranged for the Inquiry to meet with a
number of elders from the Toomelah community at Toomelah. In addition, the
Team arranged a meeting with interested members of the Boggabilla
community in Boggabilla.
19.64 During that visit, the Inquiry also met with caseworkers and their managers from
Moree CSC and representatives of agencies working in the region.
19.65 On the second occasion, in June 2008, the Inquiry held a Public Forum to
discuss concerns within the two communities. At the request of members of the
communities, a portion of that forum was held in private to enable them to
express their views without the presence of the representatives of various
agencies who also attended.
19.66 At the meeting with elders on 18 March 2008 the issues raised with the Inquiry
were similar to those identified in 1988. They included inadequate transport,
poor maintenance of houses and overcrowding, continued problems with the
water supply, inadequate street lighting and limited employment opportunities.
The elders identified a lack of activities for children, a concern about safety of
children at communal areas such as the playground, the cost of the contract to
build new houses, the failure to transfer skills to the community after those
houses had been constructed and the reluctance of young mothers to seek
early medical assistance.
19.67 Positively, they noted that there had been improved school retentions since the
new principal had commenced at the Toomelah Public School.
19.68 They also identified an issue of particular concern to the Inquiry, which is the
reduced ability of the current generation of mothers to assist their daughters in
looking after their children, because of substance abuse and similar problems
which have blighted some within that generational group. This has led to an
increased dependence on ageing elders, and it raises a serious issue for the
safety of future generations unless there is a change within the communities.
19.69 The elders identified the need for improved security at the school in relation to
the safety of children, drug and alcohol programs and training and linked
employment programs. The elders advised the Inquiry that there had been a
discussion about whether Toomelah should become a dry community but no
agreement had been reached.
19.70 The Inquiry gained the impression that the elders who attended the meeting had
little understanding of the presence of the Team or, more broadly, that a
concerted effort was being made by various government agencies to assist the
community and that additional services and programs were now available.
19.71 This was supported by one of the Team members who advised us that, in her
experience, the members of the community did not connect the work that the
Team was doing, in relation to establishing and running groups and community
education activities, with child protection work. She informed the Inquiry that
the members of the community continually asked the Team to tell them again
why they were there.
19.72 At Boggabilla, those attending the meeting also raised concerns with the lack of
public transport, the need for more services such as mental health, medical and
dental services, problems with housing including overcrowding, and the costs
and maintenance and the closure of a local community centre. Additionally
there was a degree of scepticism about external intervention and the Inquiry
was informed that people from the Government made repeated visits, talk a lot,
but nothing ever changes.
19.73 While in the region, the Inquiry also met with representatives of Aboriginal
Affairs, DoCS, Police (including JIRT), Health, Housing, Education, Juvenile
Justice and DADHC.
19.74 The Inquiry notes that many of the issues raised by the community are under
consideration on a statewide basis by the Legislative Council’s Standing
Committee on Social Issues, in particular the effective provision of essential
services including water and transport and improving educational outcomes.1003
The Team’s experiences

19.75 On the second occasion the Inquiry visited, the members of the Team informed
the Inquiry of the challenges they had experienced in engaging with the
community.
19.76 For example, one caseworker advised the Inquiry that to have the community
attend various events, encouragement by way of a supply of food was often
necessary and that any overt mention of child sexual abuse tended to keep
people away. Door knocking the communities has been done to encourage
people to attend meetings.
19.77 The Team manager described their work as dealing with people who have been
disempowered and disenfranchised, and who looked to others to identify for
them what was needed to address the many problems faced by the community.
This accords with the sentiment expressed at the Public Forum in Boggabilla
that the past abuses that had led to these communities becoming dysfunctional,
had not yet been addressed, and that there needed to be a more effective
healing process and a mutual understanding of the history of these
communities.
19.78 An example of the complexity of the task of tackling child sexual assault in the
communities arose recently. The Inquiry heard that a 11 year old girl told her
family she had witnessed a sexual assault by a 15 year old boy on a nine year
old girl. Police were informed, as was DoCS, and JIRT investigated the claim.
However, the 15 and nine year old denied that it had occurred, the community
became divided between support for the witness and the two supposedly
involved. The 11 year old was harassed at school, and tensions developed
between the two families.
1003
NSW Parliament Legislative Council, Standing Committee on Social Issues, Overcoming Indigenous
Disadvantage, Interim Report, June 2008, pp.xix-xx.
19.79 JIRT could not take the matter much further in the absence of a disclosure by
the nine year old and the events were too old to result in useful forensic
evidence. A further compounding factor was described as follows:
There is an underlying attitude within the community as well to

what they'd call marrying up or relationships between children
and young people and in some people's eyes this nine-year-old
girl has been in a relationship with this 15-year-old boy.1004
19.80 However, gains have been made. The Team manager told the Inquiry of a man
who had lived in the community all of his life who had mental health problems
and who had sexually assaulted different people at different times. Following
intervention by a caseworker, reports were made to DoCS and, as a result, the
man was charged and jailed.
19.81 The Inquiry was also told of a 16 year old young woman who had been in a
violent and abusive relationship and who, with the support of a caseworker,
obtained an AVO and took action which resulted in the young man being
charged.
19.82 Another caseworker described collecting a girl to take her to school every day
and after 12 months, she gained her trust and the child made disclosures to her.
The communities’ experience

19.83 In the part of Public Forum where only members of the communities were
present, similar issues were raised to those when the Inquiry first visited. In
addition, the Inquiry’s attention was drawn to limited counselling for sexual
assault victims, lack of knowledge about how to respond to disclosures of
sexual abuse, problems with school attendance, the need for a TAFE Certificate
Course in Indigenous Therapies and the closure of a community centre funded
by the Land Council.
19.84 A Toomelah resident said that the presence of the DoCS worker made a great
deal of difference in terms of “people taking responsibility for their kids and
making sure that they’re safer and getting people to look at the issue.”1005
19.85 The Inquiry was informed:
This has been going on since I was a child. I'm nearly 50. It
happened to me and there's nothing different, nothing has
changed out there. It's hopeless, they think it's hopeless,
there's hopelessness in this town and in Toomelah. As a child
growing up in Toomelah, being sexually assaulted by family
members, non-family members, you know, it's hard for a child,
1004
Transcript: Inquiry meeting with members of the DoCS Project Team at Boggabilla, 10 June 2008, p.6.
1005
Transcript: Public Forum, Communities of Toomelah and Boggabilla, 11 June 2008, p.15.
especially a young girl, and for a boy it's even harder. They feel
disgraced, they feel dishonoured, they feel disrespected and
you wonder why they grow up with all this anger, all this
tension. They just want to rage at people. I can identify with
them.
It is actually the elders that keep all this hidden. It's not the
young people, it's the elders. They don't want it to be leaked
out because it will disgrace them, it will disgrace the family and
speaking from experience and from this place, when things are
being opened up, there’s lot that's going to shut it down.1006
19.86 By contrast, the Inquiry was informed of the following event, as illustrative of
positive change which was occurring in the communities:
There was a recent situation … where, you know, the big boys
were at the toilet and the little fellow was there. He knew that
those big boys were there for something, and I'm talking about
a little fellow about five. He knew what to do. He called out for
help. Then he went back to the class and he was congratulated
and everybody supported him. That's the sort of stuff that has
been happening out there. The bigger boys are now identifying
some of the men who have been perpetrators in the community.
That's the sort of stuff I'm talking about. But the most important
one I think is that the kids are getting it, but a lot of our women
are not. I think that's where it lies too, that we need to get some
more education there.1007
19.87 However, there was frustration expressed about the slow pace of change:
The fact is that we had a human rights inquiry some 20 years

ago. I don't know if people have noticed much change. They
came out and addressed some of the infrastructure stuff, but in
terms of the social issues, nothing: our education, economic
development, no. We're still going to be sitting down there
below the poverty line until our community gets up and says,
"Yes, we're going to have a go," but we also need greater
assistance from the government and from people within the
community as well.1008
1006
Transcript: Interagency meeting, Communities of Toomelah and Boggabilla, 10 June 2008, p.61.
1007
Transcript: Public Forum, Communities of Toomelah and Boggabilla, 11 June 2008, p.9.
1008
ibid., p.16.
Responses of other government agencies

19.88 The Inquiry also benefited from the views of other agencies involved in
supporting the communities as part of the whole of government response.
Interagency response
19.89 A number of structures have been put in place to enhance interagency work. A
Regional Coordination Management Group meets a number of times a year and
is coordinated by Premier and Cabinet. There is also a Toomelah-Boggabilla
Strategy Steering Group.
19.90 Remote Community Critical Incident Response Standard Operating Procedures

For Child Protection in Toomelah and Boggabilla Communities have been
formulated to define the joint responsibilities and responses to be taken by
NSW Government agencies for serious cases. A critical incident of child abuse
is defined as a JIRT referral or other child abuse incident where there is, or is
likely to be, significant community impact. They essentially require each
relevant agency to respond quickly and appropriately.
19.91 From all accounts, the cooperation achieved has been significant. The
representative from Health informed the Inquiry:
...when we first started as a group having discussions… in

2005, we agreed that the issues that we were working on within
this community required a long term approach and we said
between ourselves right back then, "This is at least a 10 year
commitment that we're making," so we're now two and a half to
three years into that 10 year commitment. I think at this stage I
wouldn't claim necessarily big health achievements. I can't say
to you that we're seeing major improvements in the health
status of the local communities yet, but I think what we have
done is laid the foundations and …I think that's largely around
the agencies getting their acts together and working much more
closely together… We are in the process of doing some
extensions and refurbishments to the clinic building in
Toomelah to enable us to house the additional services that
we're providing there…. I think the fact that we have had a few
social emergencies, which is a very broad term, particularly
some around child protection, but also some others where we
have initiated a very rapid response between the agencies, that
has I think worked quite effectively and that's something that
might not have happened previously.1009
1009
Transcript: Interagency meeting, Communities of Toomelah and Boggabilla, 10 June 2008, pp.34-35.
19.92 The Police gave an example of recent interagency response to an event in the
community:
That was a situation, …a Saturday…, where a young fellow had

gone in the river and drowned and been taken out of the river
by one of the locals and revived and that caused a lot of trauma
in the community. The child had to be airlifted to Brisbane. The
family had no money. We were quickly able to make contact
with the relevant agencies. I know we contacted DoCS and
Health and the next day… the Sunday morning, Health were
able to put counsellors on the ground in the community and
were able to service that on a Sunday morning, which was
remarkable considering that's a big feat generally in the real
world. That was a really good outcome and we worked very
well together and we were able to ring the right people and get
the response we needed.1010
19.93 Key issues identified by those attending the Inquiry’s interagency meeting have
been the engagement and retention of qualified staff, obstacles to sharing
information, some practical problems in obtaining access to cross border
services, the insufficiency of specialist services, inadequate transport, absence
of sexual assault counselling and the closure of a centre in Boggabilla funded
by the Council. The cross border and information sharing issues are dealt with
in Chapter 24 of this Report.
19.94 In addition to their combined effort, each agency has particular responsibilities.
Aboriginal Affairs
19.95 The Inquiry was informed that Aboriginal Affairs is undertaking a number of
projects in the area. One, in conjunction with the Department of Climate
Change is exploring community engagement structures and others concern how
to better manage housing infrastructure, water and sewerage.
19.96 The Toomelah water supply comes from an artesian bore and, according to
Aboriginal Affairs, there has been a long held community view that the water is
unsafe due to its relatively high salt and mineral content. Prolonged testing has
been undertaken and a major water supply infrastructure upgrade amounting to
$600,000 has been commissioned.
19.97 The HNEAHS advised the Inquiry that between January 2007 and June 2008
there have been seven occasions where samples of water have not complied
with Australian drinking water guidelines for E.coli. Three of those failures were
in 2008 with one continuing for a week in March 2008.
1010
ibid., p.35.
19.98 On each occasion of the Inquiry’s visits on 18 March 2008 and on 11 June
2008, Toomelah was without water. The Inquiry was told on the second
occasion that the pump had broken down and the back up could not be found.
Water was being shipped into the communities. Not surprisingly, many in the
community were angry at the failure to provide adequate water supplies.
Housing
19.99 Housing has been a vexed issue for decades. It appears from data provided by
Housing that there has been considerable expenditure in the area.
19.100 Between 2000 and 2006 Toomelah/Boggabilla benefited from an Aboriginal

Community Development Program with a budget of $11 million to provide new
and improved housing and infrastructure. The program was hampered and
delayed for some years due to compliance and capacity issues with the Land
Council. To date the program has delivered 20 new houses, 13 house
refurbishments, three house acquisitions and an eight block sub-division
(including all services, extension, earth works and roads), a waste transfer
station, storm water drainage works, upgraded street lighting, traffic calming,
playground equipment and various miscellaneous works. In addition 10 local
Aboriginal people have been employed by a private building company as
trainee apprentices.
19.101 The management of Toomelah housing has been outsourced by the Land
Council to a private Aboriginal management company. The Inquiry understands
that there are disputes about the payment of rent and what has been described
as the ‘poor maintenance’ of the properties. Aboriginal Affairs described the
Land Council as having “really, really struggled” with housing issues.1011
19.102 The 2006 census and the view of the community members with whom we spoke
suggest that overcrowding persists.
Education
19.103 The Toomelah and Boggabilla schools each receive additional funding as result
of their location and the disadvantage suffered by many of their students.
19.104 For example, since the start of the 2007 school year, Education has funded a
non-teaching school principal at Toomelah Public School to strengthen the
schools relationship with the community. Education describes Toomelah and
Boggabilla as “focus support schools” which means they have attracted
additional funding (respectively $180,000 and $150,000 a year) for matters such
as literacy, numeracy and attendance.1012 The child protection syllabus is
taught weekly.
1011
1012
ibid., p.48.
19.105 Boggabilla Central School has a Families NSW funded playgroup operating
three days per week. Year 11 and 12 studies are offered as part of the
Northern Border Senior Access Program. The school receives additional
funding from the Country Area Program, the Priority Schools Program and the
Targeted Schools Initiative.
19.106 Toomelah Public School receives additional financial and staffing support from
a similar range of programs.
19.107 That funding has allowed both schools to reduce class sizes. Boggabilla
Central School has also focused on attendance, which the principal said is
worse from Year 7. Its Principal said:
We have what's called a "You can do it" program. That deals

with anti-bullying, violence, child protection, and I suppose to
the basic, good touch, bad touch. We work with and it is done
just about every day in schools. We initiated last year with
DoCS to bring in the DoCS workers to have them come into our
secondary department. That sort of fell over and we are putting
it together again this year… So as we are building up this
resilience and ways of the children looking after themselves and
how they go about reporting, they will also know the faces of
the DoCS workers so that there is a bit of a relationship
developed between them that they will report. We have had
issues of sexual assault where, when it comes to interviewing,
the children just will not disclose, and it can go nowhere unless
the children tell their story. I think [that is] the biggest.1013
19.108 The reporting rate for the school is promising. Sixteen reports, the majority of
which were of a sexual nature, were made to DoCS in the first six months of
2008 compared with 12 for 2007 and a similar number for 2006. These were
made as a result of greater number of disclosures by children at Toomelah
Public School.
19.109 Recently conducted evaluations of Boggabilla Central School and Toomelah

Public School reveal attendance and performance are significantly below
regional and state levels.
19.110 However, the most recent Basic Skill Test figures for Boggabilla Central School
show an improvement in the growth recorded by matched students moving from
Year 3 to Year 5.
Health
19.111 As at June 2008, the Inquiry was informed that HNEAHS operates the
Toomelah Clinic which is staffed by one registered nurse and one Aboriginal
1013
ibid., p.52.
health worker. In addition, the Aboriginal Medical Service of the Pius X

Aboriginal Corporation had recently recruited two health workers, including a
nurse, who are also located at the Toomelah Clinic. General Practitioner clinics
are held in Toomelah twice weekly and a specialist physician visits monthly.
19.112 A clinic is also situated in Boggabilla staffed by two registered nurses. There is
no doctor in Boggabilla. The closest hospital is in Goondiwindi, in Queensland
and dentists are located in Moree and in Goondiwindi. There are challenges in
using the Queensland health system, for example the mental health services in
that State are not available to NSW residents.
19.113 AMIHS has a team in Moree which services Toomelah and Boggabilla.
… we are having some difficulty recruiting a midwife to that

team at the moment. One of the RNs in Boggabilla, who was
recently appointed in a relieving role but likely to be taking on a
more permanent role, is actually a midwife and so is doing a lot
of that work at the moment as well. We are responding using
those strategies. I think the maternal and infant health strategy
is probably the most significant strategy that we use, not only in
Toomelah-Boggabilla because it's not the only community that
has those issues, yes.1014
19.114 Funding has been received to establish a New Street program for juvenile
offenders based in Tamworth and the Toomelah/Boggabilla community is the
first priority community for that program.
19.115 HNEAHS said that it was difficult to obtain detailed health status data at a level
of a small community. It said that over 200 Aboriginal people aged over 30
years had been offered screening and as a result 26 new diabetics had been
diagnosed along with 29 new cases of heart disease. Half of those screened
had been diagnosed as having diabetes and or heart disease or were
considered at high risk of developing such conditions. Sixty per cent had
accepted and attended referrals to other services.
19.116 The clinical services offered include immunisations, blood pressure, blood
glucose, and child and adult health checks. A weekly antenatal program is
available through Goondiwindi Hospital. Eye and vision clinics are provided
through the Walgett Aboriginal Medical Service and there is a monthly visit by a
renal Aboriginal health education officer. Various health promotions are run.
Toomelah and Boggabilla preschools have been screened for Otitis Media
throughout 2008.
19.117 Of particular interest, is an MOU which was entered into on 18 February 2008
between HNEAHS, Pius X Aboriginal Corporation and the Toomelah
Community Council.
1014
ibid., p.34.
19.118 The MOU acknowledges that the Commonwealth Department of Health and
Ageing has funded Pius X Aboriginal Corporation to deliver primary health care
services in Toomelah and Boggabilla. If that MOU is satisfied, there will be a
considerably increased array of services available to the two communities. It is
worth setting out in full.
19.119 Under the MOU, Pius X Aboriginal Corporation is to provide a senior Aboriginal
health worker, an Aboriginal health worker and a vehicle, as well as a fortnightly
substance abuse worker and weekly mental health worker. HNEAHS is to
provide an Aboriginal health worker, registered nurses at Toomelah and
Boggabilla, a community development facilitator, a general practitioner twice a
week, an occupational therapist on request and by referral, a diabetes educator
fortnightly, a drug and alcohol counsellor fortnightly, a mental health worker
fortnightly, a dietitian monthly, an immunisation clinic and well baby clinic
weekly, an Aboriginal midwifery service fortnightly, a child and family health
worker, a sexual assault counsellor weekly, a PANOC counsellor by referral, a
substance abuse project worker weekly, a renal health education officer weekly,
a physician half day a week, palliative care by referral, cancer care social
worker by referral, Families NSW worker (pending recruitment), Aboriginal
family violence support worker, Aboriginal health coordinator, environmental
health officer as required, asthma educator by referral and audiometrist.
19.120 According to a worker at the Pius X Aboriginal Medical Service:
It's a humungous problem and it needs a humungous amount of

work in there to get anywhere because of the shame factor and
of course it's shameful, but it is coming down from the
generations. As I said, the kids think that's the norm until they
get the idea that there's another way of life and this is a very,
very sad thing.1015
Police
19.121 Police resources in the area are as follows: there is no Domestic Violence
Liaison Officer, there are six police officers at Boggabilla and one of three
Aboriginal Community Liaison Officers in the Local Area Command covers
Toomelah and Boggabilla. There are three JIRT positions at Inverell which
covers Toomelah and Boggabilla while the Health worker for JIRT comes from
Tamworth or Glen Innes. Forensic medical services are provided in Armidale or
Tamworth.
19.122 Police informed the Inquiry that disclosures of child sexual assault were being
made through their usual channels, Education and the community, rather than
from the Team. Further, there has not been an increased willingness by people
in Toomelah or Boggabilla to speak with Police about child sexual assault
matters over the last couple of years.
1015
ibid., p.59.
19.123 The Police expressed the challenges in obtaining evidence to support charges:
I know that JIRT have a great deal of difficulty trying to obtain

the relevant evidence that they need to progress things. That is
a very frustrating thing. It is very frustrating for the community
because I think at times they don't understand the level of
evidence we need to progress things, but it is very frustrating
for the Police on the ground who are trying to contain the
situation at the same time.1016
19.124 The Team Manager’s view was as follows:
I suppose, first and foremost, we have to accept, whether we

like it or not, that it is not always the desire of the community for
members of their group to actually be incarcerated: that's one
point. Another point is that because of the nature of the
environment in which these children are living, that it's not
always going to be in their best interests either to disclose or to
see something through. That is also dependent upon the
supports that they have around them and the possibility that, for
instance, their supports, as in their immediate family, if the
family member is not the perpetrator, to withstand some of the
pressures that can come. It is very different for a child in a
Toomelah or even in a Boggabilla to deal with the ramifications
of speaking out than it is for a child in a Blacktown or Dubbo or
somewhere else.1017
19.125 In discussions with members of the Australian Crime Commission, the Inquiry
learned of the less formal methods which staff were using in engaging with local
communities in the Northern Territory and which were achieving a greater level
of disclosure. The lessons of this experience may be of assistance to JIRT
officers.
Identifying gaps
19.126 As is clear from the introduction to this chapter, there has been considerable
interest taken in these communities since 1988. Various plans, strategies and
approaches have been developed over the decades.
19.127 Sensibly, in 2007, Aboriginal Affairs engaged a consultant to examine these

various initiatives and to reduce them to specific actions.
1016
ibid., p.25.
1017
ibid., p.42.
19.128 Most of the actions identified derive from the Interagency Plan to Tackle Child
Sexual Assault which is dealt with in the previous chapter. In addition, other
strategies which are either in place or needed are described as including:
a. establishment of a preschool and occasional child care centre
b. the proposed appointment by Queensland Health of a health
education/community liaison position
c. an upgrade of the sub-standard housing and water supply
d. an audit and assessment of assets
e. development of sporting programs
f. revival of the language
g. support for the Toomelah Family and Youth Support Service
h. provision of a bus service
i. vocational education for youth at risk and young offenders.
19.129 The consultant identified gaps including:

a. alternative accommodation for offenders
b. an assessment of the community capacity for the application of the
Aboriginal Placement Principles for Aboriginal children and young persons
in OOHC
c. wider use of the TAFE Certificate IV course in Aboriginal Cultural Education
Program
d. cultural camps
e. employment related strategies
f. improved street lighting in Toomelah
g. night patrols
h. a service agreement with Moree Plains Shire Council.
Is the project working?

19.130 An evaluation of the Child Protection Project was proposed in October 2007.
An expression of interest for that evaluation anticipated that a number of
measures would be considered. Ultimately, for reasons associated with the
anticipated ending of the project in December 2008, an evaluation of a different
kind was conducted and a report prepared in October 2008. Those conducting
the evaluation had access to similar written information to this Inquiry. In
addition, they had a series of face to face meetings with groups and individual
stakeholders during a three day visit to the communities.
19.131 Under the categories of child protection reports and responses, community
engagement, capacity building, coordination and improvement in support
services and community education, the evaluation made the following

observations or conclusions:
a. There had been a significant increase in reporting by the community,
although the nature of the reports did not generally result in sufficient
information being available for a prosecution.
b. New reports were being appropriately followed up and risk assessments
undertaken.
c. Systemic failures including non-reporting by the schools and JIRT criteria
had been addressed.
d. While building community engagement has been a core activity for DoCS,
feedback was mixed about the work of the Team with the Boggabilla
community being least satisfied.
e. Attracting and retaining staff was an ongoing difficulty for Health and DoCS.
f. While Police were generally positive about the effects of the project, the
evaluation noted poor relations between the two schools and the Team.
g. Strong senior governance structures were in place, although at the local
level this was not as evident.
h. No referrals had been made by DoCS of Toomelah or Boggabilla families to
the Brighter Futures Lead Agency, notwithstanding the fact that there was
capacity in that Agency (DoCS advised the Inquiry that referrals for Brighter
Futures are made from Moree CSC, of which there have been five for
Toomelah and Boggabilla).
i. A lack of services targeting youth was identified as well as the adverse
impact of the closure of the community centre.
j. Service coordination was hampered by the absence of co-location and the
lack of feedback by DoCS.
k. Community education was also been hampered by the delay in providing
an education plan, the draft of which has not yet been accepted by other
agencies and the communities, although some work of an educative nature
had occurred.
l. The evaluation concluded that the project had “achieved quite a lot, but still
had a way to go.”
19.132 The Inquiry reviewed the success of the project by reference to the measures
which were set out in the initial expression of interest document. They appear
below in bold. The data available to the Inquiry is discussed beneath each
measure.
Frequency and severity of reports and number of further reports after

DoCS (appropriate) action. The criteria for success are stated to be
decreasing reports
19.133 Between January 2003 and November 2005, 61 children and young persons
were the subject of a child protection report, of whom 60 per cent received no
assessment and five per cent received a SAS2. In 2006/07, 31 children and
young persons the subject of a child protection report which was allocated to
the Team and in the following nine months, the number of children and young
persons involved in reports doubled as did the number allocated. This may be
due to an increase in reporting overall, an increased capacity in the team, or it
may indicate a lack of success by the team or, conversely, success in raising
the awareness of child sexual assault.
19.134 There has been a decrease in the number of reports requiring a less than 24
hours response and an increase in the number of reports requiring responses
within 72 hours and within 10 days. This may suggest that the presence of the
Team in the community has enabled them to address risks earlier. Of the 38
children and young persons who received a SAS2 and for whom information
was available in relation to DoCS follow up, it appears that most received some
sort of referral, although its outcome is unknown.
19.135 There has been no significant change in the number of children and young
persons reported more than once, although the rate of multiple reports is lower
than that which occurs on average across the State.
19.136 Of the 11 children and young persons reported more than once in 2007/08, for
whom the Inquiry had information about the action taken by DoCS, two were
being dealt with by Moree CSC and had been referred to JIRT, three had been
referred to JIRT by the Team, one had relocated and the remainder had
received support in one form or another from DoCS, as described earlier in the
chapter. The dates of the relevant response and their results are not known, so
no real conclusions can be drawn.
19.137 There has been increased reporting of sexual abuse, physical abuse and
inappropriate sexual behaviour by a child.
19.138 Fewer children and young persons have been removed.
Number of prosecutions and convictions initiated
19.139 Overall, there have been few criminal charges laid, which although
disappointing, is hardly surprising.
Number of children and young persons counselled, number of children

and young persons and families where DoCS provides follow up and
support and nature and type of preventative measure implemented.
19.140 The data provided to the Inquiry are set out earlier. There has been an
increase in the number of children who received a SAS2, although whether or
not that resulted in the provision of any particular services and whether they
were successful is not known.
Improved school attendance, health measures and changes in parental

supervision, neglect, domestic violence and drug and alcohol abuse
19.141 Improved school attendance has been reported at Toomelah Public School and
there have been reduced class sizes in each school. There is some indication
of improvement in performance at Boggabilla Central School.
19.142 There is not sufficient information about changes to health status. HNEAHS
told the Inquiry that it is difficult to obtain detailed health status data at the level
of a small community.
Communication protocols approved and distributed
19.143 The protocols are in place and the comments made to the Inquiry by the
relevant agencies were generally positive. It is noted however that the
evaluation reported some dissatisfaction with DoCS, in particular concerning
feedback.
Change in community awareness
19.144 There has been an increase in reports from non-mandatory reporters from nine
per cent in the first year the Team operated to 20 per cent in the following year.
19.145 There has been an increase in reports from Health from 0 to 17 per cent of all
reports by mandatory reporters.
19.146 There has been a decrease in the proportion of reports from Education from
about 39 to 32 per cent.
Meetings held with elders, men’s and women’s groups and other
community members
19.147 The success of these groups has been patchy although a young women’s group
has been recently established. There is evidence from the interagency
meetings organised by the Inquiry that a range of meetings have been held by
DoCS and other agencies.
Number of services that have improved capacity to deliver services
19.148 There appears to have been an enhanced capacity by Health to deliver some
services, although gaps, as set out earlier, remain. Similarly, the funding
available to Education suggests an improved capacity.
Project costs sustainable
19.149 According to DoCS, the Team cost just under $1 million in the year 2007/08 and
it expects to spend about $700,000 in the second half of 2008. The source of
funding has been existing consolidated revenue. The key costs have been
staffing.
19.150 In addition to these funds, the CSGP has funded $130,000 for the Toomelah
Family and Youth Support Service. The Children’s Services Program has
funded a preschool and occasional care centre with an annual cost of about
$115,000 providing 35 places. The Alcohol and Other Drugs Program for the
year 2008/09 will fund about $170,000 for the Toomelah/Boggabilla Getting it
Together Program.
19.151 Those figures contrast with the projected costs in 2006, when it was estimated
that the costs would be around $650,000 in 2006/07, $688,000 in 2007/08 and
$638,000 in 2008/09.
19.152 It is clearly very resource intensive and more so than anticipated.
Other measures
19.153 The Inquiry does not have sufficient information to comment on the remaining
indicators, that is the:
a. number of local persons appointed to community development, counselling,
youth work and family support roles
b. percentage of case plans which are collaborative
c. percentage of documented collaborative efforts
d. percentage of children and young persons who have received services in
line with their case plan
e. nature, type and attendance levels for training for:
i. government and non-government staff
ii. children and young persons
iii. parents and other adults
f. children and young persons who view services as responsible and
culturally sensitive
g. perceived increases in safety and reduced vulnerability in the community.
19.154 The Inquiry has not viewed individual files and, in particular, care plans to
determine their adequacy and whether they have been implemented. A
different story may emerge from that material.
19.155 The Inquiry also reviewed the progress being made against the
recommendations of the ACSAT report and considered the issues arising from
the evaluation of the project.
19.156 The report contained 119 recommendations for implementation across

Government. A detailed analysis of the Interagency Plan appears in the
previous chapter.
19.157 The plan contains a number of recommendations which relate to priority

locations, Toomelah/Boggabilla being one of them. The Inquiry has applied the
work being done by the Team and the Government, about which the Inquiry has
sufficient information, against those measures which have been identified as
necessary to address child sexual assault in Aboriginal communities.
19.158 Generally, the work being done is in line with the recommendations and
indicates that progress is being made. First, in relation to the work which is
consistent with the Plan, the following has occurred:
a. In relation to options for removing impediments to reporting child sexual
abuse and family violence, there has been increased reporting, particularly
from Health, and education sessions with mandatory reporters have been
conducted including school principals and the Queensland Department of
Child Safety (actions 36 and 37).
b. Truancy is being addressed in a number of ways (action 61 and 62).
c. Community placements have ultimately been found for all young children
who could not remain with their parents/carers (action 40).
d. Community events have been held including a child protection summit in
September 2007, a community education plan has been developed,
personal development classes have been delivered at school and there has
been interaction with schools, police and NGOs (action 81).
e. A treatment program for children who sexually offend is being established
in Tamworth and will take clients from Toomelah/Boggabilla (action 56).
f. AMIHS has been implemented in Moree and covers Toomelah/Boggabilla
(action 64).
g. Experienced Aboriginal staff have been recruited, one of whom is JIRT
trained (actions 38, 63 and 66).
h. Cross border meetings are held (action 65).
19.159 Secondly, in relation to those areas where progress is not as stipulated in the
Plan:
a. No research on safe houses for Aboriginal women has been carried out
(action 41).
b. There is no ongoing coordinated program for school holiday activities or

sport and recreational facilities and transport remains a key issue for the
communities (action 62).
c. The sexual assault counselling position and the community development
worker position exists but neither is filled and both have been vacant for
some time (action 44).
Conclusion
19.160 The Child Protection Project was established with an expectation that results
would be unlikely to be seen for five to 10 years. Two years in, it is fair to say
that there have been modest gains.
19.161 Knowledge in the professional community of child protection issues seems to

have improved as seen through the indicator of increased reporting by those
mandated to do so, in particular health workers. While a high level of
awareness of child protection issues among those living in the communities of
Toomelah and Boggabilla was not demonstrated to the Inquiry, the Inquiry
accepts that there may be little connection made in the communities between
the activities encouraged by the Team and child protection.
19.162 There is available to the Inquiry little information about outcomes for children
and young persons reported in the communities. Although, that is true for much
of NSW, the numbers of children involved are relatively small.
19.163 There is a deal of information about the costs of the Child Protection Project
and some information about the expenditure by Education. Health appears to
have committed to make available significantly more resources than were
previously available in the community. The Project is without doubt resource
intensive and more so than was originally envisaged.
19.164 The complexities and challenges are significant and the interplay with other
events such as the death of key community members and the performance of
the Land Council, cannot be predicted.
19.165 What is clear to the Inquiry is that no intervention will be successful until many,
and particularly leaders within the community, want their lives, and the lives of
their children, to change and subsequently begin to participate actively in
causing that change. It is not only the responsibility of government and non-
government agencies. It has struck the Inquiry that it is the young persons who
need to be engaged, along with those young mothers and fathers whose own
parents have been unable to help them. The young mothers’ group may assist.
19.166 A key issue is the planned finalisation of the Child Protection Project at the end
of this year. Most agencies expressed concern to the Inquiry that it would be
detrimental to the community for it not to continue. The importance of DoCS
presence should not be understated, the Inquiry was informed, it seems
because of the pivotal role played by the Team manager and the Team’s
consistent and visible role, at least, so far as the professional community is
concerned.
19.167 The Inquiry is of the view that it is too early to wind the project up and to refer
case management back to Moree CSC. It should continue for up to 18 months
on the basis that more comprehensive data are kept, particularly on outcomes,
that there is closer collaboration with the new health workers, with whom the
Team is preferably co-located, and that there are more referrals to the Brighter
Futures Lead Agency.
19.168 DoCS has recently informed the Inquiry that it has made a commitment to the
Toomelah/Boggabilla project for a further two years and noted that it had not
been funded to do so. The costs of the Project are estimated to be about
$773,000 in 2008/09 and about $795,000 in 2009/10.
19.169 Whether this project, or aspects of it, is an appropriate model for child protection
work in other Aboriginal communities, is not yet known. While it began at the
invitation of some of the elders, it has not continued in that vein, which may be
partly because of their deaths, or because their vision was not necessarily
shared by other members of the community. It is the case that it incorporates
many of the features identified in the literature as contributing to a good model.
That literature is discussed in the previous chapter.
19.170 An area which does seem to require more attention, and which was addressed
at the Public Forum, was the need for the local community and the broader
community, particularly those delivering services in the area, to acquire a better
understanding of the history that led to these communities becoming
dysfunctional, and of the differences in culture that might lead to a better
understanding and partnership.

Report of The Special Commission of Inquiry Into Child Protection Services in NSW, Wood Report V II

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report of The Special Commission of Inquiry Into Child Protection Services in NSW, Wood Report V II

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report of The Special Commission of Inquiry Into Child Protection Services in NSW, Wood Report V II

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Report of the

Special Commission of Inquiry into

The Hon James Wood AO QC

Executive Summary .......................................................................................................i

Part 1 DoCS structure and workforce .........................................................................1

2 DoCS structure and reform...............................................................................7

3 DoCS workforce capacity................................................................................43

Part 2 Early intervention and child protection .........................................................81

4 Key child protection research ........................................................................83

Psychological abuse .................................................................................................. 104

5 Key child protection data ............................................................................. 117

6 Risk of harm reports to DoCS ...................................................................... 169

7 Early intervention .......................................................................................... 199

8 Assessment and response........................................................................... 261

9 Assessment and response: issues arising .................................................323

10 Directions for the way forward .....................................................................379

Part 3 Legal basis of child protection .....................................................................391

11 Statutory basis of child protection...............................................................393

Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court............................................................................ 409

12 Other models of decision making................................................................ 465

13 Court processes in statutory child protection ........................................... 493

14 Interface with family law ............................................................................... 545

15 Child protection and the criminal justice system ...................................... 555

Part 4 Out-of-home care .......................................................................................... 585

16 Out-of-home care .......................................................................................... 587

Accreditation and monitoring of the OOHC service system ..................................633

Part 5 Specific issues ...............................................................................................693

17 Domestic and family violence and child protection ...................................695

18 Aboriginal over representation in child protection ....................................735

Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 789

19 A case study: the communities of Toomelah and Boggabilla .................. 793

20 Young people, leaving care and homelessness......................................... 825

21 Children and young persons and parents with disabilities....................... 855

22 Disaster recovery .......................................................................................... 879

Part 6 Oversight and interagency cooperation ......................................................897

24 Interagency cooperation ...............................................................................957

25 DoCS funded non-government services ...................................................1003

NSW State Plan ......................................................................................................... 1024

Part 7 Implementation............................................................................................ 1031

Annexure A.............................................................................................................. 1039

Part 3 Legal basis of child protection

11 Statutory basis of child protection

Own motion powers.......................................................................................448

e. In deciding what action it is necessary to take (whether by legal or

11.7 A suspicion of risk of harm is sufficient to enliven the power of DoCS to

person. Section 41 provides additionally that temporary care arrangements

Aboriginal child placement principles

to implement the Aboriginal Placement Principles as policy, but not necessarily

The Aboriginal Child Placement Principle should apply to all

11.15 However, the review said that:

A requirement for participation in decision making was identified

Many people argued that consultation with the Aboriginal family

Requests for services from other agencies

Requests for assistance from DoCS

provision of such advice or assistance as is necessary to help resolve the

Parent responsibility contracts and s.38 care

11.24 The breach of a parent responsibility contract gives rise to a rebuttable

Emergency care and protection and

11.28 Reasonable suspicion lies “somewhere on a spectrum between certainty and