This article reports on a comparison of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) and non-ATSI children involved in the child protection system sampled from the Victorian Children’s Court. Groups were compared in terms of demographic profile, the types and grounds for protection applications and the types of abuse proven in court.
Findings
Our results highlight similarities between ATSI and non-ATSI children in the child protection system, a finding that indicates similar children, regardless of background, are being found to be at increased risk of abuse. The over-representation of ATSI children in the sample indicates a continued social and economic disadvantage associated with this group, requiring ongoing public health preventive measures. Our study also highlighted the longer term involvement of ATSI children with child protection services before reaching court. This may be explained by differences in case management policies affecting ATSI children in the child protection system as well as the ongoing legacy of the Stolen Generation.
Applications
In addition to addressing underlying inequalities, advancing the ATSI people towards self-determination in child protection may reduce the over-representation and longer term involvement with the child protection system. Importantly, alternative approaches must be considered as the potential trauma associated with longer term child protection involvement is greater in children of ATSI background.
BarberJ.DelfabbroP.CooperL. (2000) Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children in out-of-home care. Children Australia25(3): 5–10. Retrieved from http://search.informit.com.au/.
9.
BlackstockC.TrocmeN.BennettM. (2004) Child maltreatment investigations among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal families in Canada. Violence Against Women10(8): 901–916.
10.
Bromfield, L., Lamont, A., Parker, R., & Horsfall, B. (2010). Issues for the safety and wellbeing of children in families with multiple and complex problems. The co-occurrence of domestic violence, parental substance misuse, and mental health problems. (Child Abuse Prevention Issues No. 33). Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies, National Child Protection Clearinghouse.
11.
CarterV. (2010) Factors predicting placement of urban Indian/Alaskan Natives into out-of-home care. Children and Youth Services Review32(5): 657–663. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.12.013.
12.
CashmoreJ.DolbyR.BrennanD. (1994) Systems abuse: Problems and solutions, Sydney: NSW Child Protection Council.
13.
CCYPCG (2012) Indigenous child placement principle. Audit report 2010/11, Brisbane, Queensland: Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian.
14.
Child Protection and Family Services Branch (2007) Guidance on promoting children's stability, Melbourne: Department of Human Services, pp. 13.
CumminsP.ScottD.ScalesB. (2012) Report of the protecting Victoria's vulnerable children inquiry, Melbourne: State Government of Victoria.
18.
De BortoliL.ColesJ.DolanM. (2013) Parental substance misuse and child removal in child protection cases. Children and Youth Services Review35(9): 1319–1326. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.05.002.
19.
DelfabbroP.HirteC.RogersN.WilsonR. (2010) The over-representation of young Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people in the South Australian child system: A longitudinal analysis. Children and Youth Services Review32(10): 1418–1425. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.06.011.
Department of Human Services (2007b) Guide to court practice for child protection practitioners 2007, Melbourne: Victorian Government Publishing Service.
23.
Department of Human Services (2010) Best interests case practice model: Summary Guide, Victoria: Victorian Government Department of Human Services.
24.
Department of Human Services (2012a) Circumstances for immediate removal of a child. Advice no: 1199 Victoria protecting Victoria's children – Child protection practice manual, Melbourne: State Government of Victoria.
25.
Department of Human Services (2012b) Protection order descriptions. Advice no: 1336 Victoria protecting Victoria's children – Child protection practice manual, Melbourne: State Government of Victoria.
26.
Department of Human Services (2012c) Responding to Aboriginal children. Advice no: 1059 Victoria protecting Victoria's children – Child protection practice manual, Melbourne: State Government of Victoria.
27.
DettlaffA.JohnsonM. (2011) Child maltreatment dynamics among immigrant and US born Latino children: Findings from the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-being (NSCAW). Children and Youth Services Review33(6): 936–944. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.12.017.
28.
DrakeB.JolleyJ.LanierP.FlukeJ.BarthR.Jonson-ReidM. (2011) Racial bias in child protection? A comparison of competing explanations using national data. Pediatrics127(3): 471–478.
29.
ForresterD.HarwinJ. (2006) Parental substance misuse and child care social work: Findings from the first stage of a study of 100 families. Child and Family Social Work11(4): 325–335.
30.
FreemanM. (2007) Article 3: The best interests of the child, Boston, MA: Martinus Nijhoff.
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1997) Bringing them home. Report of the national inquiry into the separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, Sydney: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.
33.
Jones, L. (2004). The prevalence and characteristics of substance abusers in a child protective service sample. Journal of Social Work Practice in the Addictions, 4(2), 33–50.
34.
LongM.SephtonR. (2011) Rethinking the “best interests” of the child: Voices from Aboriginal child and family welfare practitioners. Australian Social Work64(1): 96–112.
35.
NSW Child Death Review Team (2008) Trends in the fatal assault of children in NSW: 1996–2005, Sydney: NSW Commission for Children and Young People.
36.
SaundersP.AdelmanL. (2006) Income poverty, deprivation and exclusion: A comparative study of Australia and Britain. Journal of Social Policy35(4): 559–584. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047279406000080.
37.
SkivenesM. (2010) Judging the child's best interests: Rational reasoning or subjective presumptions?Acta Sociologica53(4): 339–353.
38.
TrocmeN.MacLaurinB.FallonB.KnokeD.PitmanL.McCormackM. (2006) Mesnmimk Wasatek – Catching a drop of light: Understanding the overrepresentation of first nations children in Canada's child welfare system: An analysis of the Canadian incidence study of reported child abuse and neglect (CIS-2003), Toronto: Centres of Excellence for Child Welfare.
39.
WarnerJ. (2003) An initial assessment of the extent to which risk factors, frequently identified in research, are taken into account when assessing risk in child protection cases. Journal of Social Work3(3): 339–363.
