Recent policy reforms have substantially changed state responses to child abuse in Aotearoa New Zealand (ANZ). These reforms draw on two related discourses: vulnerability and social investment. Shaped by a neoliberal political context, these discourses influence constructions of children and parents. Children are constituted in individualistic ways; as vulnerable victims requiring intervention to optimise future functioning, dichotomised against their irresponsible and invulnerable parents. This has different consequences for children in and outside of the permanent fostercare system.
BallCTumenSCrichtonSet al. (2016) Characteristics of Children at Greater Risk of Poor Outcomes as Adults. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Treasury.
2.
BeddoeL (2013) Making a moral panic: ‘Feral families’, family violence and welfare reforms in New Zealand. Doing the work of the state? In: CreeVClaptonGSmithM (eds) Revisiting Moral Panics: A Critical Examination. Cardiff: Cardiff University Press, pp. 29–37.
BiehalNSinclairIWadeJ (2015) Reunifying abused or neglected children: Decision-making and outcomes. Child Abuse & Neglect49: 107–118.
6.
BradtLRoetsGRooseRet al. (2015) Poverty and decision making in child welfare and protection: Deepening the bias-need debate. British Journal of Social Work7: 2161–2175.
7.
BrownK (2011) ‘Vulnerability’: Handle with care. Ethics and Social Welfare5: 313–321.
8.
BrownK (2012) Re-moralising ’vulnerability’. Policy, Place and Policy6: 41–53.
9.
BrownK (2015) Vulnerability & Young People: Care and Control in Policy and Practice. Bristol: Policy Press.
10.
BurnsKPosoTSkivenesM (2017) Child Welfare Removals by the State: A Cross Country Analysis of Decision-Making Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11.
BywatersP (2013) Inequalities in child welfare: Towards a new policy, research and action agenda. British Journal of Social Work45: 6–23.
12.
BywatersPBradyGSparksTet al. (2015). Exploring inequities in child welfare and child protection services: Explaining the ‘inverse intervention law’. Children and Youth Services Review57: 98–105.
13.
BywatersPBuntingLDavidsonGet al. (2016) The Relationship between Poverty, Child Abuse and Neglect: An Evidence Review. Coventry: Joseph Rountree Foundation.
14.
CameronGFineMMaiterSet al. (2013) Creating Positive Systems of Child and Family Welfare: Congruence with the Everyday Lives of Children and Parents. Toronto, ON, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
15.
CannJ (2016, June2) Claims Kids at Risk Under Team. Auckland: NZ Herald.
ConnellCMBergeronNKatzKH (2007) Re-referral to child protective services: The influence of child, family, and case characteristics on risk status. Child Abuse & Neglect31: 573–588.
18.
ConnollyM (2004) Understanding Child & Family Welfare: Statutory Responses to Children at Risk. Christchurch, New Zealand: Te Awatea Press.
19.
CorbyBShemmingsDWilkinsD (2012) Child Abuse: Towards a Knowledge Base, 4th edn.Maidenhead: Open University Press.
20.
CramF (2012) Safety of Subsequent Children: Māori Children and whanau. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Government.
21.
CulpittI (1999) Social Policy & Risk. London: SAGE.
22.
DaleCO’BrienMSt JohnS (2014) Our Children, Our Choice: Priorities for Policy. Auckland, New Zealand: Child Poverty Action Group.
23.
DaroD (2009) The history of science and child abuse prevention: A reciprocal relationship. In: DodgeKColemanD (eds) Preventing Child Maltreatment: Community Approaches. New York: Guildford Press, pp. 9–28.
24.
DaviesM (2012) Introduction. In: DaviesM (ed.) Social Work with Children & Families. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 1–7.
25.
DoyleJJJr (2007) Child protection and child outcomes: Measuring the effects of foster care. American Economic Review97: 1583–1610.
26.
DudgeonPCubilloCBrayA (2015) The Stolen Generations: The forced removal of First Peoples children in Australia. In: NewnesC (ed.) Children in Society: Politics, Policies and Interventions. UK: Policy Press, pp. 50–81.
27.
Expert Panel (2015a) Final Report: Investing in New Zealand’s Children and their Families (ed Ministry of Social Development). Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Social Development.
28.
Expert Panel (2015b) Modernising Child Youth and Family Interim Report. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Social Development.
29.
FeatherstoneB (2006) Rethinking family support in the current policy context. British Journal of Social Work36(1): 5–19.
30.
FeatherstoneBMorrisKWhiteS (2014a) A marriage made in hell: Early intervention meets child protection. British Journal of Social Work44(7): 1735–1749.
31.
FeatherstoneBWhiteSMorrisK (2014b) Re-Imagining Child Protection: Towards Humane Social Work with Families. Bristol: Policy Press.
32.
FinemanMA (2008) The vulnerable subject: Anchoring equality in the human condition. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism20: 8–40.
33.
FlukeJDChabotMFallonBet al. (2010) Placement decisions and disparities among aboriginal groups: An application of the decision making ecology through multi-level analysis. Child Abuse & Neglect34(1): 57–69.
34.
GarrettPM (2010) Examining the ‘conservative revolution’: Neoliberalism and Social Work education. Social Work Education29(4): 340–355.
35.
GilbertNPartonNSkivenesM (2011) Child Protection Systems: International Trends and Orientations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36.
GrahamM (2011) Changing paradigms and conditions of childhood: Implications for the social professions and social work. British Journal of Social Work41(8): 1532–1547.
37.
GrayMDeanMAglliasKet al. (2015) Perspectives on neoliberalism for human service professionals. Social Service Review2: 368–392.
38.
GuptaAFeatherstoneBWhiteS (2016) Reclaiming humanity: From capacities to capabilities in understanding parenting in adversity. British Journal of Social Work46(2): 339–354.
39.
HackellM (2016) Managing anxiety: Neoliberal modes of citizen subjectivity, fantasy and child abuse in New Zealand. Citizenship Studies20: 867–882.
40.
HarveyD (2005) A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
41.
HollekimRAnderssenNDanielM (2016) Contemporary discourses on children and parenting in Norway: Norwegian Child Welfare Services meets immigrant families. Children and Youth Services Review60: 52–60.
KeddellE (2015a) The ethics of predictive risk modelling in the Aotearoa/New Zealand child welfare context: Child abuse prevention or neo-liberal tool?Critical Social Policy35(1): 69–88.
KeddellE (2016a) Child protection reform and welfare reform in Aotearoa New Zealand: Two sides of the same coin? In: MaidmentJBeddoeE (eds) Social Policy for Social Work and Human Services in Aotearoa New Zealand: Diverse Perspectives. Christchurch, New Zealand: Canterbury University Press, pp. 27–36.
48.
KeddellE (2016b) To punish parents or protect children? The neoliberal ambivalence of child poverty policies in Aotearoa New Zealand. In: Symposium on children’s rights: International and national perspectives, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, 28 November.
49.
KeddellE (2017) The child youth and family review: A commentary on prevention. The Policy Observatory. Auckland. Available at: https://thepolicyobservatory.aut.ac.nz/
50.
KeddellEStanfieldDHyslopI (2016c) Editorial: The social work voice – doxa and dissent in neoliberal times. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work28: 21–22.
LonneBPartonNThomsonJet al. (2008) Reforming Child Protection. London; New York: Routledge.
53.
McConnellDLlewellynGFerronatoL (2006) Context-contingent decision-making in child protection practice. International Journal of Social Welfare15(3): 230–239.
54.
MeltonGB (2005) Mandated reporting: A policy without reason. Child Abuse & Neglect29: 9–18.
55.
Ministerial Advisory Committee (1988) PUAO-TE-ATA-TU (day break): The Report of the Ministerial Advisory Committee on a Māori Perspective for the Department of Social Welfare (ed Department of Social Welfare). Wellington, NewZealand: Ministerial Advisory Committee.
56.
Ministry of Social Development (2011) Every Child Thrives, Belongs, Achieves: The Green Paper on Vulnerable Children. Wellington New Zealand: New Zealand Government.
57.
Ministry of Social Development (ed.) (2012a) Children’s Action Plan: Identifying, Supporting and Protecting Vulnerable Children. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Government.
58.
Ministry of Social Development (2012b) The White Paper for Vulnerable Children, Volume 1.Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Government.
59.
Ministry of Social Development (2014) Children’s Action Plan Approved Information Sharing Agreement (Consultation paper). Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Social Development.
60.
MorelNPalierBPalmeJ (2012) Towards a Social Investment Welfare State?Bristol: Policy Press.
OakE (2016) A minority report for Social Work? The predictive risk model (PRM) and the Tuituia assessment framework in addressing the needs of New Zealand’s vulnerable children. British Journal of Social Work46(5): 1208–1223.
64.
O’BrienM (2016) The triplets: Investment in outcomes for the vulnerable–reshaping social services for (some) New Zealand children. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work28: 9–21.
65.
Office of the Children’s Commissioner (2015) State of Care. Wellington, New Zealand: Office of the Children’s Commissioner. Available at: http://www.occ.org.nz/publications/reports/
RiggsS (2010) Childhood emotional abuse and the attachment system across the life cycle. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma19(1): 5–51.
72.
SchiettecatTRoetsGVandenbroeckM (2014) Do families in poverty need child and family social work?European Journal of Social Work18(5): 647–660.
73.
SethiDBellisMHighesKet al. (2015) European Report on Preventing Child Maltreatment. Copenhagen: World Health Organisation.
74.
SimpsonJDuncansonMObenGet al. (2016) Child Poverty Monitor: Technical Report 2016 (National report). Dunedin, New Zealand: New Zealand Child and Youth Epidemiology Service.
75.
SprattT (2012) Why multiples matter: Reconceptualising the population referred to child and family social workers. British Journal of Social Work42(8): 1574–1591.
76.
TempletonRCrichtonSTumenSet al. (2016) Research Using Administrative Data to Support the Work of the Expert Panel on Modernising Child, Youth and Family. Wellington, New Zealand: New Zealand Treasury.
TrocméNKyteASinhaVet al. (2014) Urgent protection versus chronic need: Clarifying the dual mandate of child welfare services across Canada. Social Sciences3: 483–498.
79.
VaithianathanRMaloneyTPutnam-HorsteinEet al. (2013) Children in the public benefit system at risk of maltreatment: Identification via predictive modeling. American Journal of Preventive Medicine45(3): 354–359.
80.
WacquantL (2009) Prisons of Poverty. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
81.
WacquantL (2014) Marginality, ethnicity and penality in the neoliberal city: An analytic cartography. Ethnic and Racial Studies37(10): 1686–1686.
82.
Welfare Working Group (2011) Reducing Long-Term Benefit Dependency: Recommendations. Wellington, New Zealand: Welfare Working Group Secretariat.
83.
WilsonMTumenSOtaRet al. (2015) Predictive modeling: Potential application in prevention services. American Journal of Preventive Medicine48(5): 509–519.
84.
WolfeD (2011) Risk factors for child abuse perpetration. In: WhiteJWKossMKazdinA (eds) Violence against Women and Children: Mapping the Terrain, vol. 1. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. xxii, 332.
