Читать книгу Child Protection - Freda Briggs - Страница 8

POLITICS INVOLVED IN CHILD PROTECTION

There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children. —Nelson Mandela

Nigel Parton, NSPCC Professor in Child Care at the University of Huddersfield was one of the first to examine child protection as a political issue. In his book, The politics of child abuse 1, he linked child maltreatment and poverty, challenging the dominant medical model that traditionally used narrowly-defined forensic investigation methods that were isolated from the family unit. Poverty is, of course, linked to government policies and budgets, especially those that result in unemployment, inflation, high interest rates, inadequate welfare payments and housing shortages that prevent victims from escaping from child abuse and domestic violence. It is significant however that although the book was published in 1985, child sexual abuse merited only one mention.

Child protection is a political issue because governments create laws and regulations and allocate funds for the provision of child protection-related services. If governments fail to recognise their importance when annual budgets are decided, there may be cuts to family support agencies, care and education centres for preschool children, child protection curriculum in state schools and universities and in-service training for teachers. Without adequate government funding, there will be a shortage of child protection officers for responding to reports of child maltreatment. This can have fatal consequences for children. Politicians determine the budget for police to prosecute child abuse cases and the courts that hear them. Governments also determine whether prisons provide treatment for convicted child sex offenders.

Historically, child protection has had a low priority in politics. Few politicians have a professional knowledge of child abuse and its consequences and given that they may only be in power for a few years there is little incentive to consider the long-term consequences of ignoring these issues. Children are disadvantaged by the fact that they have no voice, no vote and no strong lobby acting on their behalf. Parents are seldom interested in child protection until their own children are affected. Most child protection professionals are employed by governments or government funded agencies and workers are banned from talking to media. Charities dependent on government funding may require staff to remain silent for fear that their contracts will not be renewed. Governments like to invest in projects that have highly visible outcomes, such as sports stadiums. By contrast, child protection is unpleasant, there is no quick-fix and taxpayers can see little for their money.

In The Politics of Child Abuse in America2, the authors argue that for child abuse to be taken seriously it must be seen as a public safety problem. This definition would make it congruent with other family-based social trends, including the crackdown on domestic violence. The authors said that children must have at least the same legal protection as women experiencing domestic violence. They recommended the creation of a Children’s Authority to make provision for investigation, enforcement, placement services, prevention and education, family support, and research and development.

Richard Krugman, an eminent American pediatrician, reviewed American political history and concluded that laws passed over a thirty-year period were in response to “the perceived crises of the moment”. Major political parties failed to recognise child abuse as a significant health or social issue reflecting (a) centuries of denial of the existence of family abuse; (b) antagonism towards media that exposes it; and (c) a lack of agreement and cohesion between the professions working with children. Krugman also noted that there were few political advocates for children. To change this, child abuse needed to be conceptualised as a “national health problem”³.

University of Melbourne psychiatrist Dr Bill Glaser⁴ left no doubt that child sex abuse is a major health problem that governments must address but have virtually ignored. In a paper for the Australian Institute of Criminology, Glaser, who works with both victims and offenders, described the problem as a “plague” that “while not immediately fatal, lurks in the bodies and minds of victims for decades, making them up to sixteen times more likely to experience its disastrous long-term effects”.

He described these long-term effects as:

“… life-threatening starvation, suicide, persistent nightmares, drug and alcohol abuse and a whole host of intractable psychiatric disorders requiring life-long treatment.” The latter include depression, anorexia nervosa, substance abuse, multiple personality disorder, suicide attempts, sexual difficulties, and general relationship problems including the acquisition of appropriate parenting skiIls. There may also be long-term physical problems such as chronic pelvic pain and irritable bowel disorder …

“Child sex abuse accounts for probably more misery and suffering than any of the great plagues of history, including the bubonic plague, tuberculosis and syphilis. Its effects are certainly more devastating and widespread than those of the modern-day epidemics which currently take up so much community attention and resources: motor vehicle accidents, heart disease and, now, AIDS. Yet the public response to child sexual abuse, even now, is fragmented, poorly coordinated and generaIly iIl-informed.”

Glaser pointed out that the child victims of sexual abuse have no equivalent to the National AIDS Council to advise governments on policy and research issues. They have no National Heart Foundation equivalent to promote public education. They do not have a Transport Accident Commission to provide comprehensive treatment and rehabilitation services.

“A massive public health problem like child sexual abuse demands a massive societal response … The majority of adults in prisons were victims of abuse; the majority of drug abusers use drugs to hide the pain left by childhood experiences; drugs relate to further child abuse and other crimes.”

Glaser suggested that the effects of child sexual abuse are more devastating and more widespread than the other health problems that take up government resources.

“There is now incontrovertible evidence of a firm link between childhood sexual assault and the development of many of these problems in later life, even after factors such as social disadvantage, family dysfunction and other forms of abuse are taken into account.”

Glaser described professional and political ignorance of child abuse and sexual abuse in particular, as “profound” despite data about its prevalence having always been available.

He pointed out that in eight years, three of London’s hospitals recorded 2700 cases of venereal disease among girls aged 11-16 years⁵. In the 1890s, children constituted over half of the prostitutes in Vienna and Paris⁶. A parliamentary committee (1859-1860), heard that girls as young as seven were being prostituted in Sydney. Furthermore, there was extensive knowledge about the identity of the abusers, the nature of the abuse and the effects upon vulnerable children⁷. Glaser attributed the denial of the problem to entrenched patriarchal values. In the short-term he wanted the government to change the legal system to permit hearsay evidence in cases of child sexual abuse, give broader judicial discretion to aIlow the hearing of joined charges where multiple victims are involved, eliminate delays in bringing offences to trial and provide suitable facilities for child witnesses.

The relationship between child maltreatment and lighting fire

For more than a quarter of a century there has been evidence of a relationship between child maltreatment and arson. Despite the fact that bushfires are a serious concern for all Australians, costing insurers from $80-$100 million dollars a year (and $1 billion for the 2009 Victorian bush-fires alone), little research has been conducted into this problem. American research suggests that up to three-quarters of fire-lighters are juveniles, males outnumbering females by 9:1⁸. An Australian study of 134 young arsonists showed that the average age of starting fires was 5.3 years. Those studied admitted lighting an average of 7.1 fires in the year prior to the study⁹.

Young arsonists have been found to have a range of problems including sexual abuse, mental illness, suicide ideation, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, a history of crime, sexual disturbance and family problems. Some also engage in cruelty to animals. All of these are associated with child sex abuse. They often feel the need to express intense anger and hatred, distress, a sense of isolation, a need for power, a cry for help and/or a need to be seen as important or even heroic by reporting their own fires and assisting to extinguish them. The act of arson is also associated with developmental delay, low self-esteem, learning problems, behavioural and psychiatric problems, dysfunctional family backgrounds and a history of all forms of childhood abuse. The connection between fire-lighting and child sexual abuse was made in Dr Hank (Henry) Giarretto’s (1989) clinical writing¹⁰. Giarretto was noted for his innovative community-based child sex offender treatment programmes in California. Sebold (1987)¹¹ found that arson was one of nine indicators of child sexual abuse in boys. A study of female arsonists found that 44% had a history of sexual abuse¹².

A major fire leads to knee-jerk responses demanding severe punishment. Fire services visit schools to deter juvenile arsonists through fear but more than a quarter of a century after the relationship to child abuse was publicised, few seem to recognise this. A decade ago it was suggested that there was a need for government-funded research and, in addition, there should be bridging conversations between child protection and fire services. It was recognised that a consequence of the failure to provide services to prevent child maltreatment was the highest cost to the community – that caused by bushfires. The cost to governments of a pre-emptive response would be significantly less than the cost of putting out bushfires.

Very young children light fires in and around their homes and rarely intend to cause damage. By comparison, adolescents are more likely to experiment with explosives and light fires away from home. If you have discovered burnt matches or papers and suspect that a child is involved in fire setting, seek advice from your fire service¹³.

The media can galvanise governments into action

Goddard and Saunders (2001)¹⁴ noted the vital role that media plays in reforming child protection policies and practices. Media are essential to the growth of society’s awareness of child maltreatment through ongoing news, coverage of research reports, keynote addresses at conferences, government reports and intervention initiatives. Never a day goes by without child sex abuse court cases being reported in the press. Journalists from all sectors bring the failure and negligence of state child protection agencies to public attention, causing embarrassment to relevant departmental heads and government ministers. When another child dies under the watch of state services, journalists re-visit past cases using emotive headlines. Embarrassed governments then order inquiries that make recommendations for change.

In North America, the UK and Australia, investigative journalists were responsible for exposing massive scandals involving the abuse of children in state care and church communities. As Goddard et al. (2001) confirm, abuse victims often depend on whistleblowers for their future safety.

Although there have been many horrendous child deaths in Australia, the most publicised and influential case was probably that of Daniel Valerio (1990), who, at the age of twenty-eight months, was battered to death by his stepfather¹⁵. Media exposed deep flaws in Victoria’s child protection system. This resulted in the state government adopting previously-resisted mandatory reporting laws in 1993. More than 104 bruises were found on Daniel’s body and both his collarbones were fractured. A post-mortem found he died from internal injuries to the abdomen, similar to those suffered in a road traffic accident.

Daniel’s stepfather, Paul Aiton, admitted hitting Daniel “to stop him crying”. What shocked policy makers and the community was that just before his murder, Daniel saw 21 professionals – including GPs and doctors at the children’s hospital and, but only briefly, a teacher. When Daniel was taken to a doctor, with bruising around the eye, forehead and scalp, the doctor “ignored the obvious” and ordered blood tests to check if he had some rare blood disorder.

When Daniel and his mother visited the primary school attended by his sister, a teacher noticed his blank expression, unresponsiveness and listlessness. She asked: “What’s the matter with you, mate?” When describing his response, she said, “He just stared into space … didn’t say a word. He didn’t even acknowledge I was there or that I had touched him. He didn’t close his eyes, he didn’t move his face. He didn’t do anything …” Five days later, Daniel was dead. Apart from one anonymous call to the after-hours Child Protection Service, no one acted to protect the toddler. Shocked policy-makers concluded that the voluntary system of reporting child abuse didn’t work and mandatory reporting laws were introduced.

There is powerful evidence that media can influence change by publicising disturbing details of serious cases of child abuse, igniting public anger and apportioning blame to those responsible. However, unless authorities provide funding to employ a sufficient number of workers and unless those workers have been well prepared for communicating with children and have a sound knowledge of child abuse and child development, deaths will continue to occur. Nowhere has this been more evident than in England.

The influence of media on government policy became most apparent following the death of 7 year old, Maria Colwell. Maria was fostered at an early age and her carers described her as a happy, normal little girl. Her case-workers insisted on family reunification however and, against the child’s wishes, she was returned to her mother and partner, William Kepple¹⁶. He had children of his own and blatantly discriminated against Maria¹⁷. Many abuse reports were made by neighbours and teachers but, although she appeared to be “a walking skeleton”, social services forced her to remain with Kepple¹⁸. On January 6th 1973 she was wheeled in a pram to a hospital suffering from brain damage and severe internal injuries. She died that day¹⁹. Aggressive media coverage led to a government inquiry²⁰. It was learned that numerous professionals were aware of the child’s plight but did nothing. Years later, her name remains etched in public consciousness and it is invariably invoked when similar deaths are exposed.

An inquiry resulted in the introduction of a different system of child abuse management²¹. It aimed to put mechanisms in place for information to be shared by key professionals and ensure that they had the knowledge to recognise child abuse. Coordination between services was the key issue, social service departments were the “lead agencies” and social workers were the statutory professionals responsible for coordinating and operating the system. Area committees would coordinate the work and create policies and procedures for handling cases where children were at risk of abuse. Case conferences would enable professionals to share information, decide what actions to take and monitor progress. When a child protection plan was required the child would be placed on a register which could be consulted by other professionals.

Subsequent inquiries showed that the recommendations were ignored. Within a decade there were 29 additional inquiries into horrendous deaths at the hands of mothers and/or their male partners²². These received considerable media attention focussing on the continued failure of the child protection system and inadequately trained case workers²³. Furthermore, it was noted that workers responded to the wishes of parents instead of focussing on the needs and safety of children. Parents are more articulate and more demanding than children and in some cases, workers had neither seen nor communicated with child victims.

The intensity of political and media concern increased in the mid-1980s leading to government inquiries into the deaths of Jasmine Beckford (1985), Tyra Henry (1987), and Kimberley Carlile (1987), all of whom were under the watch of London social services. For the final months of her life Jasmine Beckford was chained to a bed in a tiny attic. She died from a savage blow that dislodged her brain. The pathologist noted 40 other injuries including 20 broken bones. The childhood histories of both parents made it unlikely that they would have sound parenting skills. Maurice Beckford was left in Jamaica when his parents emigrated to England. He joined them at the age of nine and was clearly unwanted. He slept in a freezing cold out-house and was so badly beaten by both parents that they were prosecuted. He was then sent to a special school where he met Jasmine’s mother. She had been abandoned when she was six-months old.

Beckford previously came to notice when he was charged with criminally injuring Jasmine’s five-month-old half-sister Louise. He received a suspended sentence and a £250 fine. Three days after Louise was hospitalised, 18-month-old Jasmine was admitted with a broken femur and was detained for six weeks. They were placed in foster care but five months later, a case conference decided that both girls should return to their parents’ care. In July 1984, the mother found Beckford carrying Jasmine’s dead body. She had been dead for some time. The post-mortem findings were seven pages long and revealed an appalling catalogue of abuse. After breaking Jasmine’s leg, Beckford pinned her to a bed with body-building weights to stop movement. When he eventually hit her so hard on the head that she died, he tried to revive her with electric shocks from a piece of flex attached to a plug. When that failed, he refused to call an ambulance. He put her body into his sister-in-law’s car to drive to the hospital²⁴.

In 1984, 21-month-old Tyra Henry died after being battered by her father while she was officially in the care of the local authority. A report showed that social workers distanced themselves from the parents for cultural reasons. Following substantial media coverage, new guidelines were published for the handling of child abuse cases²⁵. However, in 1984, Heidi Koseda starved to death in a locked room in West London. Another inquiry found that the NSPCC officer assigned to the case failed to investigate reports of abuse and later tried to conceal his negligence with fictitious accounts of visits to the child²⁶.

In 1986, 4-year-old Kimberley Carlile starved and was beaten to death in Greenwich. Her stepfather, Nigel Hall, received a life-sentence and her mother, a 12-year sentence. The inquiry found that Kimberley’s death was avoidable and key social and health workers failed to apply the necessary skill, judgment and care²⁷.

In 1987, Doreen Mason died after her mother and boyfriend bruised, burnt and broke the 16-month-old baby’s leg. She slept on the floor where the couple left junk food for her to eat. Importantly, the baby had been on the “at risk” register from birth. A report said her social worker was inexperienced and had no training or supervision²⁸.

In 1992, Leanne White, aged three, was beaten to death by her stepfather who also made her sleep on the floor. Leanne suffered 107 external injuries and died of internal bleeding and repeated blows to the stomach. An inquiry concluded that her death could have been prevented if social services had responded to reports made by her grandmother and neighbours.

In 1994, 6-year-old Rikki Neave was found strangled by his coat zipper. His drug-dependent mother was jailed after admitting the abuse of Rikki and two of his three sisters. She hit them, burned them, threw them across the room and locked them outside. Importantly, Neave had pleaded with successive social workers to remove her son, threatening that she would kill him if they didn’t. A report criticised senior social services managers²⁹.

In 1999, Chelsea Brown, aged two, was battered to death by her father who already had a criminal record for violence against children. The case-worker visited the family 27 times in the 10 weeks preceding her death. She took Chelsea to a paediatrician who said that six out of nine areas of bruising “had no plausible explanation” and one was obviously deliberately inflicted. These findings should have triggered police involvement and a case conference (as required by regulations) but nothing happened³⁰.

In 2000, 6-year-old Lauren Wright was found dead after being punched and kicked by her stepmother, causing her digestive system to collapse. An inquiry found that inter-agency coordination was “ineffective” and social workers had not acted with “due urgency”³¹.

In 2002 at Plaidstow, East London, Ainlee Labonte, aged two, was starved and tortured to death. The toddler had 64 scars on her body when she died and weighed only half the normal weight for her age. An inquiry found that health and social workers failed to intervene because they were afraid of the parents³².

Massive media publicity following the death of 8-year-old Victoria Climbié (2000) led to yet another government inquiry and the greatest changes to child protection policies. Victoria died from hypothermia and 128 injuries after months of horrific abuse. Her great-aunt, Marie Thérèse Kouao, and Ghanian partner, Carl Manning, were jailed for life. Victoria, the fifth of seven children, was sent from Africa’s Ivory Coast to live with her aunt in France for a better chance in life. Victoria travelled to Paris on a false passport in November 1998³³. The abuse began immediately. Her school issued a “child-at-risk notification” and a social worker became involved. Kouao fled to London in April 1999 after she was found to have wrongly claimed £2,000 in child welfare benefits. Over the next two months, she visited Ealing social services fourteen times seeking housing and financial assistance. Staff noticed the child’s injuries but did nothing. Kouao found work as a cleaner leaving Victoria with an unregistered minder. She met bus driver Carl Manning when she boarded his bus and went to live with him in his one-bedroom flat. The abuse of Victoria then increased³⁴.

On June 18th 1999, a relative reported Victoria’s injuries and said she feared for the girl’s life³⁵. She rang again a few days later, and gained the impression that social services were dealing with the case. They were not³⁶. Three weeks later, social workers visited Victoria’s address, but there was no reply and no further action was taken^37,38. On July 13th 1999, Kouao asked the unregistered carers to accommodate Victoria permanently because Manning did not want her in his flat. When the carers saw her injuries, they took her to hospital. Doctors alerted police and social workers and she was detained under a police protection order. Despite the family history, paediatrician Dr Ruby Schwartz accepted Kouao’s explanation that the child had injured herself while scratching scabies. Schwarz allegedly made the diagnosis without speaking to the child alone³⁹. A ripple effect followed; a junior doctor informed social services that child abuse was not involved⁴⁰, and child protection officer Michelle Hine downgraded Victoria’s level of care⁴¹. Both Schwartz and Hine later told the inquiry that they expected social services to follow up the case although they had given the “all clear” message. Police officer, Rachel Dewar, then allowed Victoria to return home. By law, the police officer was obliged to tell Victoria that she was under police protection, but she failed to interview her or Kouao and Manning⁴². Kouao took Victoria home on July 15th 1999. Nine days later the child was hospitalised with severe scalding to her head and other injuries. There was no evidence of scabies. Consultant Mary Rossiter suspected that Victoria had been abused but recorded “able to discharge” ⁴³. Another doctor said that Victoria was exhibiting signs of neglect, emotional and physical abuse. Rossiter said she expected police and social services to investigate the case and “discharge” did not mean that Victoria must be sent home. Two African social workers were assigned to the case but failed to make a visit because they heard that the child had scabies and were frightened that they might be infected. The inquiry also heard that Police Constable Karen Jones failed to inspect Victoria’s home for fear of catching scabies from furniture. When they eventually met Kouao, workers accepted her explanation that the child’s injuries (including scalds) were self-inflicted⁴⁴.

From October 1999 to January 2000, Manning forced Victoria to sleep on a garbage bag in the bath in her own excrement. By this time a number of workers were involved, none of whom saw the child. Kouao then took her to the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God claiming that she was possessed by the devil. Pastors recognised the abuse but didn’t report it. On February 24th 2000, when Victoria was semi-conscious and suffering from hypothermia, multiple organ failure and malnutrition, the mother caIled a cab to take her back to the church. The driver was so horrified by her condition that he took her to the hospital. She died the next day which was the day planned for the church ceremony to cast out her devils⁴⁵. The inquest found 128 separate injuries and scars, cigarette burns, evidence of being tied up for more than 24 hours, hit with bike chains, hammers and wires and the pathologist described it as “the worst case of child abuse I’ve ever encountered”⁴⁶. Victoria’s plight was known to four social services and three housing departments, two child protection police teams, two hospitals, an NSPCC* centre, and a few local churches, all of whom noted abuse and did nothing to prevent her death. The trial judge described this as “blinding incompetence”. A public inquiry found that there had been at least 12 opportunities for protection agencies to have saved her life and none did⁴⁷.

Administrators revealed that child protection services were under-staffed, under-funded, and poorly managed. A chief executive conceded that her department was “seriously defective”, that many cases were closed inappropriately, that children were placed unaccompanied in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, and children in need of care were turned away⁴⁸. Child protection had a low priority in funding and Haringey Council diverted £18.7m to more popular projects to gain votes while Brent Council diverted £26m. Both authorities under-spent their budgets for children’s services by £28m and Haringey Council admitted failing to assign social workers to 109 abused children in May 1999. The CEO had restructured the department which, according to the union, paralysed child protection services⁴⁹.

You would have thought that all the local authorities in the country would have put their child protection services in order after Lord Laming’s (2003) 400 page damning report that made 108 recommendations for child protection reform⁵⁰. The report led to the introduction of Every Child Matters: Change for Children, a framework to improve the lives of all children; the introduction of the Children Act 2004 51, that provided the legislative base for reform; the creation of ContactPoint, a database that would hold information on all children in England and Wales; and the Office of the Children’s Commissioner with a Commissioner for Children. Regional and local committees for children and families were to be set up, with members from all groups involved in child protection⁵². Each local authority managed their own child protection register and no national register existed; this, combined with their tendency to suppress information about child abuse cases, led to the recommendation to establish a national database. Two organisations to improve the care of children, the General Social Care Council and the Social Care Institute for Excellence, had already been set up by the time the report was published.

^{* National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children}

The reforms introduced by the Every Child Matters: Change for Children paper were expected to be in place by 2008. Before the year ended however, the horrendous death of “Baby P*” (Peter ConnoIly) exploded into the media⁵³. It became clear that changes to government policies do not necessarily translate into changes in practice. In 2007 and 2009, the British public was shocked yet again by the brutal death of the toddler and the trial of his mother and her partner Steven Barker (aged 33). Baby Peter was born to Tracey ConneIly on March 1st 2006. Barker then moved in with her. In December, a GP noticed bruises on Peter’s face and chest. His mother was arrested and Peter was put into the care of a family friend, returning home a few weeks later. Over the next few months, Peter was admitted to hospital twice suffering from injuries, bruises, scratches and sweIlings on his head. ConneIly was arrested again in May 2007⁵⁴. In June 2007, a social worker again observed signs of abuse and informed police. A medical examination confirmed abuse and the baby was placed with a friend. On August 1st 2007, Peter was examined at St. Ann’s Hospital in North London by locum paediatrician Dr Sabah Al-Zayyat⁵⁵. Two days later, he was dead. The post-mortem concluded that the doctor failed to notice more than 50 injuries, a broken spine, eight fractured ribs and the fact that Peter was paralysed from the waist down^56,57. He was punched so hard that he swaIlowed a tooth⁵⁸. His ears were torn, fingernails and fingertips were missing and his lips were ripped. The subsequent neck injury that affected his breathing was probably the fatal blow.

Although Baby Peter was on a child protection register, social workers, doctors and police failed to take action to stop the abuse despite seeing him at least 60 times over eight months⁵⁹. Newspapers printed front-page photographs of the child with disturbing details of his injuries, triggering yet another urgent review of child protection policies⁶⁰. It was later revealed that Peter’s mother and Barker had been tried in secret in May 2009, for the rape of a 2-year-old girl⁶¹. Barker was sentenced to life imprisonment for the rape and received a 12-year sentence for his role in the death of Peter, the sentences to run concurrently. His brother, aged 37, who slept in the same filthy house with a 15-year old girl, was also jailed with a minimum sentence of three years^62,63.

The Children, Schools and Families Commons Committee (2009) argued that the threshold for admitting children into state care was too high. Not only should Baby Peter have been removed long before his death but, worse, his situation was not perceived as unusual64.

^{* A suppression order was in place throughout the court hearing and the dead child was referred to only as Baby P.}

It should have been clear to social workers that “family support” could never have been effective in this household. Barker was a 95kg sadist who allegedly enjoyed torturing animals. He lived with three dogs, including a Rottweiler which he used to terrify the baby. He collected knives and Nazi memorabilia, while the mother spent her days on the internet, drinking alcohol and watching pornography. When he was not abusing the toddler, Barker, who had a pet snake, would skin live frogs and break their back legs to see if they could still jump. Dead mice, chicks and dismembered rabbits were left lying around the house, along with pornography. The Barker brothers had a long history of violence and were previously charged with assaulting their grandmother, Hilda Barker, aged 82 (1995), locking her in a wardrobe to make her change her will in their favour. The case was dropped when she died⁶⁵.

Newspapers carried sensational headlines such as “Blunder Scandal of Baby Battered to Death” (Daily Mirror, 12 November). “Blood on Their Hands” (The Sun, 12 November), “50 Injuries, 60 Visits – failures that led to the Death of Baby P” (The Guardian, 12 November), while the largest seIling daily tabloid newspaper, The Sun, ran a campaign to have the professionals sacked, creating the “Beautiful Baby P: Campaign for Justice” (The Sun, 15 November). This mirrored earlier media campaigns directed at galvanising the government into action. Two weeks later the newspaper delivered a petition to the Prime Minister containing over 1.3 miIlion signatures, claiming this to be the largest and most successful campaign of its kind. Facebook groups, comprising over 1.6 miIlion members, were set up seeking harsh punishment for Peter’s kiIlers. This weight of expressed opinion put major pressure on the government to be seen to be acting and in control of the situation⁶⁶.

The Secretary of State⁶⁷ responded to the furore by:

 establishing a “Social Work Task Force” to identify barriers that social workers face and make recommendations for the long-term reform of social work

 ordering an urgent Joint Area Review (JAR) of safeguarding children by the responsible authority. On receipt of the report (which he described as “devastating”), the Secretary of State announced that he was using his powers under the Education Act 1996 to direct Haringey to remove the Director of Children’s Services. The Council also dismissed four other employees involved in the case

 ordering the preparation of a new and independent Serious Case Review

 appointing Lord Laming to carry out yet another urgent national review of child protection and report within three months

The central principles of the legislation encouraged negotiation with families and their involvement in agreed plans. The regulations required professionals to work in partnership with parents although quite clearly some parents are unwilling or unable to change their parenting or life-styles. For that reason, some demanded a return to the adoption of children born to seriously dysfunctional parents.

Lord Laming’s (2002) report, Child Protection: Messages from Research68 summarised key findings from government commissioned research⁶⁹. It showed that only about onein-seven children known to be at risk of abuse was subject to a child protection plan and placed on the register (as was required) and fewer than one in 25 was removed from home. The report claimed that the traditional, investigatory child protection system was least successful in cases of emotional neglect and damaging parenting styles, leaving many families alienated and angry. The key recommendation was for policy and practice to prioritise family support rather than concentrate on investigating incidents of abuse in a narrow way. IronicaIly it was failure to investigate and respond to abuse that led to so many horrendous deaths.

Subsequent government research showed that overloaded child protection services found it impossible to provide family support and, of course, deaths occurred because services focussed on the needs of parents and ignored children⁷⁰. The document identified the characteristics of “at risk” children as including:

 low income and parental unemployment

 homelessness

 poor parenting

 poor schooling

 postnatal depression among mothers

 low birth weight

 substance abuse

 individual characteristics, such as levels of intelligence

 community factors, such as living in a disadvantaged community71

The more risk factors a child experienced, the more likely that there would be “negative outcomes” with damaging parenting practices playing the key role. Identifying risk factors and providing early intervention were identified as the major strategies for overcoming social exclusion. Health, social care, education and criminal justice would be integrated to ensure that traditional, organisational and professional barriers were overcome.

The Protection of Children in England: A Progress Report and the government’s response were framed in terms of child safety whilst previous policies and practice focussed on supporting parents. The government confirmed that it introduced Every Child Matters: Change for Children after Victoria Climbié’s death to ensure that it never happened again. Thus the case of Baby Peter raised more embarrassing questions and undermined the proposed reforms at the very time when they were supposed to be introduced. The government made it clear that for improvements in child protection, there had to be a well-trained, respected and highly professionalised social work service that understood and could cater for the needs of children. While improving systems and interagency communications was important, improving the service was dependent on supporting and investing in a knowledgeable professional social work workforce. And that involved universities which have been slow to change.

In 2011, there were media reports that social workers had become overzealous and in the two years after the furore about Baby P, the number of children being removed from parents into state care had soared by almost 50% to an all-time record level of nearly 10,000 a year⁷².

Australian policies and practice have followed the British model, paying lip-service to the importance of family support and early intervention (with insufficient resources) while only investigating “serious cases” of abuse. Unless the balance is right, children will continue to suffer.

For further reading see Goddard, C & Saunders, B (2001) Child Abuse and the Media. AIFS Child Abuse Prevention Issues 14 and Saunders, B & Goddard, C (2002) The role of mass media in facilitating community education and child abuse prevention strategies. AIFS Child Abuse Prevention Studies No 16, both published by the National Child Protection Clearinghouse

The development of child protection systems in Australia

A social historical review of Australian legislation shows the gradual development of a complex system that has consistently been influenced by British initiatives. State intervention arose from the dire necessity of providing food and shelter for homeless and abandoned children⁷³. The state government of South Australia took the lead in social reform in 1845 with the Criminal Law Act which made carnal knowledge (sexual intercourse) of a girl under ten an indictable offence punishable by imprisonment. In 1876, the age limit was raised to 12-years; punishment for offenders involved whipping and a maximum seven-year prison sentence.

In 1935, laws were introduced to protect Under 18s from sexual acts by their guardians and teachers; the abduction of children under 14-years and child abandonment became crimes punishable by imprisonment. However laws were only designed to protect girls, there being a mistaken assumption that either boys were not vulnerable or alternatively, that an early introduction to sex was harmless.

Bearing in mind that unaccompanied children as young as five were deported from England, states built asylums and housed them with adult criminals, paupers and the mentally ill. Children received no education or training. Over-crowding became problematical in the 1850s when a large number of fathers abandoned their families to work in the Victorian gold-fields. The conditions in which children were herded were so unhygienic that the public demanded legislation to control living conditions in state institutions. It was concern that these neglected children were to become the next generation of parents that led to the realisation that the State had a duty of care. Child advocate Caroline Clark wrote to The SA Register in 1866 suggesting that disadvantaged children should be “boarded out” with rural families, pointing out that this had been used successfully in Edinburgh since 1858.

The idea found favour with politicians because it had economic benefits. However, a year later, legislation supported the establishment of three separate types of institution: reformatories for juvenile criminals, industrial schools for neglected children and orphanages for the abandoned and destitute. This change came from recognition that children who broke the law needed rehabilitation as well as punishment. Hitherto boys were placed in adult jails. Conditions remained harsh however; punishments for boys included whipping and, for both boys and girls, a diet of dry bread and water for up to seven days⁷⁴.

In 1872, complaints relating to overcrowding and unhygienic conditions led to the acceptance of foster-care, referred to as “boarding-out”. Untrained volunteers were made responsible for supervision and after 2-3 years, carers received notice that they must either adopt or lose their foster children. Those who chose adoption lost their allowances. This clearly demonstrated that the politicians were more concerned about saving money than providing stability in children’s lives.

The development of child protection charities

Western society has a very long history of child abuse. The first protection efforts began only in the late nineteenth century at a time of social deprivation and great hardship. The Reverend George Staite summed up the inhumanity of the era in a letter to the Liverpool Mercury (UK) in 1881: “… whilst we have a (Royal) Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (the RSPCA), can we not do something to prevent cruelty to children?”75

It was the plight of an American child, Mary Ellen McCormack that showed the need for an agency to strive for children’s safety. Beaten daily, Mary had no protection under American law until her case was taken up by the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Its founder, Henry Bergh, successfully petitioned the US Supreme Court on Mary’s behalf, arguing that a “human animal” should have the same protection as other animals.

British banker, Thomas Agnew visited the Society in 1881. He was so impressed by what he saw that he opened a similar charity in England known as the Liverpool Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. News of this reached the Reverend Benjamin Waugh who was concerned about children’s suffering in London’s impoverished East End. In 1884, he established The London Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. The influential Lord Shaftsbury was appointed president. Waugh’s priority was to draw public and government attention to the plight of abused children in Britain, given the lack of legislation to protect them. Waugh worked to raise awareness, lobbied the government and published reports of abuse and neglect cases to shock the public.

By 1889 the London Society had thirty-two branches throughout the British Isles, each raising funds to employ uniformed inspectors who investigated reports of child abuse and neglect. In 1889 the Society changed its name to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC). Waugh became director and Queen Victoria became their Patron. However, it has always been a concern that the society to protect animals is “Royal” and the society to protect children is not.

The first legislation to protect British children was passed in 1889, popularly known as The Children’s Charter. This was the result of five years’ vigorous lobbying by the NSPCC. The legislation gave their inspectors the power to remove children from abusive homes with the consent of a Justice of the Peace (1904). Only police were involved in child sex abuse cases, which were rare. Amazingly it was not until 1908 that intrafamilial child sexual abuse became a legal matter instead of a religious/church matter.

After the Second World War, NSPCC officers, women police, children’s social workers (known as children’s officers) and probation officers worked together on child protection cases in metropolitan London and police routinely shared information with team members.

Since 1904 the NSPCC has been the UK’s only voluntary organisation with statutory powers to intervene and remove children from abusive homes and seek care and protection orders from courts. The NSPCC also supervises probation orders relating to child maltreatment. The organisation is now best known for its hard-hitting publicity campaigns, advisory service, and advocacy for children, research and publications⁷⁶.

The Victorian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children

Waugh’s success in England led to the formation of the Victorian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (1896) in Melbourne, later known as the Children’s Protection Society (CPS). Created on the London model, it aimed to publicise child abuse, co-operate with relevant organisations, enforce existing laws to deal with neglected children and juvenile offenders and protect children. It was one of few secular non-government agencies in the child welfare field and it operated on the philosophy of persuading or, in the last resort, compelling parents to fulfil their responsibilities. Changes to welfare policy and legislative reform in 1985 changed the Society’s role. A team of psychologists and social workers now provide therapeutic counselling for children and young people who (a) have been sexually abused and (b) exhibit inappropriate or sexually abusive behaviours.

The CPS offers:

 assistance to children, families and caregivers to understand and overcome the impact and difficulties created by sexual abuse

 education and consultation to professionals and the community on matters associated with sexual abuse

 specialised training and education programmes tailored to meet the needs of organisations charged with the care of children such as schools, residential care services, and foster care77

The influence of Dr Henry C. Kempe

The problem of physical abuse was brought to the notice of medical professionals in 1961 when Dr Henry C. Kempe and his American colleagues presented a paper entitled, “The Battered Child Syndrome” at the 30th Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Paediatrics in Chicago (October 3rd). This paper was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association a year later (181-1:17-24). Kempe was concerned that children’s x-rays often showed unexplained fractures. He deliberately used the emotive term “baby-battering” to draw attention to a problem that he found to be far more widespread than was recognised. This gradually gave way to the more general term “child abuse” to include older children and sexual, physical and emotional abuse and neglect and damaging exploitation. Until that time, doctors were reluctant to accept that parents, least of all mothers, were capable of injuring their own sons and daughters.

Kempe and colleagues surveyed 71 American hospitals and found 302 cases of battered children; 33 died and 85 were brain-damaged. Seventy-seven District Attorneys disclosed 447 cases in one year. Forty-five children died and 29 were brain-injured. Kempe emphasised that the problem was not confined to the poor but could be found across all social groups. Kempe’s article was later cited by the American Medical Association as one of the most important contributions to American medicine in the 20th century.

In 1972, the National Center for the Prevention and Treatment of Child Abuse and Neglect was established at the University of Colorado as a national resource, later re-named the Kempe Children’s Center. In 1977 Kempe established the prestigious journal Child Abuse and Neglect: The International Journal published for ISPCAN, The International Society for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect which offers annual conferences and training institutes worldwide.

The first major Australian child protection initiative was a conference on “non-accidental injury” (1973) organised by the Princess Margaret Hospital, Perth⁷⁸ with Dr Henry Kempe as keynote speaker. The publicity surrounding the conference led to responsibility for child protection being transferred from charities to government departments, the emphasis remaining on physical abuse.

ISPCAN held its 6th bi-annual Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect in Sydney in 1986 attended by a record 1600 people. By that time, child protection was no longer the sole domain of the medical profession. At that conference, psychiatrist Dr Roland Summit presented his influential paper, “The Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome” explaining for the first time how children react to sexual abuse⁷⁹.

Australian child protection pioneers

Foremost among Australian child protection pioneers were Victoria’s long serving police surgeon Dr John Henry Winter Birrell and his paediatrician brother, Robert. In 1966 they published a paper entitled, “The Maltreatment Syndrome in Children” in the Medical Journal of Australia. They documented the non-accidental injuries of children admitted to Melbourne’s Royal Children’s Hospital. In the same issue was Dr Dora Bialestock’s paper on her examination of 289 babies who were consecutively admitted to the care of the state. This revealed significant developmental delay associated with neglect⁸⁰. The next influential article was again authored by the Birrell brothers⁸¹. This described the state of 42 maltreated children seen over an eleven-month period. The doctors also recorded parents’ incredible explanations for children’s serious injuries.

The Birrells were ahead of their time in their recommendations. They accepted that punishment was not the answer given that many parents had themselves been abused in childhood and abuse was learned behaviour. They recommended psychiatric help for parents and child victims, the use of multi-disciplinary teams, a central register of abusers/victims, child abuse education for health workers and medical staff and the introduction of mandatory reporting legislation to make reporting compulsory. It took the Victorian Government another 25 years to respond to these recommendations.

Their contention that child maltreatment was a widespread problem in Victoria received no support from the state government or even the Children’s Hospital. The suggestion that a child protection unit should be established was treated with derision. The hospital was known to have dismissed the problem of gonorrhoea in children as caused by “infected linen” and staff responded to the deliberate burning of children with “ongoing observations”⁸².

Although the counting of child abuse cases began in Australia and New Zealand in 1972^83,84, there were no reliable studies that could estimate the extent of child abuse even in the 1980s and, furthermore, the Australian Research Council had no category of funding that included child abuse or protection. The lack of incidence and prevalence data made it easy for professionals and politicians to deny that child abuse occurred.

The damaging long-term influence of Britain’s Poor Law

Historians Dickey, Martin and Oxenberry⁸⁵ showed that prior to the 1960s, Australian policies and practices continued to reflect attitudes associated with the English Poor Law of 1834 which was abandoned in Britain in 1946 with the introduction of the National Health Service. In other words, they were based on the belief that poverty was self-inflicted and people were poor because they were “morally deficient” and idle. There was a widespread belief among the well-endowed that the poor could help themselves and, if they didn’t, they should be punished. Practical and financial assistance were discouraged. It was considered shameful to seek help from charities and charities in turn were accused of encouraging the morally deficient to relapse into idleness. While social welfare department annual reports gave the impression that management knew what was needed for healthy child development, there was little acknowledgement of a collective responsibility for assisting children in impoverished circumstances. The solution was to place them in vast institutions to be cared for by a succession of untrained or minimally trained workers. This practice continued into the early 1980s, more than a quarter of a century after John Bowlby (1951) and the World Health Organisation drew attention to the long-term damaging effects of the institutionalisation of children and the need for consistent, safe, affectionate care⁸⁶. The message was vividly brought to Australia by Drs James and Joyce Robertson who recorded on film the responses of children entering group care, foster care and hospitals⁸⁷. Their messages relating to children’s emotional needs, attachment, bonding, security and preparation for change were taken on board by hospitals but appear to have been largely ignored by Family Courts and those responsible for children in foster care.

Dickey et al. (1986) confirmed that, in the meantime, although the Department gave lip-service to the importance of training for child welfare workers, the preferred qualification for children’s social workers in South Australia was membership of a centrally situated protestant church.

American research initiatives

Dr. Murray A. Straus founded the Family Violence Research Laboratory in 1975 at the University of New Hampshire at Durham. This unique centre gained international recognition for its seminal research into family violence. In the 1980s, Straus’ colleague, Dr. David Finkelhor, became co-director of Family Research and Director of the Crimes Against Children Research Centre which investigated and published findings on child sexual abuse. The University of New Hampshire takes a holistic view of family life, violence and abuse, including the physical, sexual and psychological abuse and physical punishment of children; domestic violence; intra-familial homicide; sibling and peer victimisation; pornography and missing and abducted children.

The introduction of Rape Crisis Centres

American rape crisis centres were established from 1972 in cities where women were politically active. Phone-ins were held to encourage victims to expose their abusive experiences and results were publicised. As more and more women broke their silence, a grassroots movement took shape with influential middle-class women taking part in political activism.

State-funded centres opened in Australia. They too held phone-ins which, for the very first time, exposed the extent of father-daughter incest. While it was helpful to publicise the size the problem, the emphasis on female victims was unhelpful in the longer term. Rape Crisis Centres had notices on doors that banned men from entering the premises. This confirmed the myth that only females were victims and only men were abusers. Unfortunately, men didn’t protest and say, “Hold on! Boys are victims too”. The only male voices heard were those labeIling the activists as lesbian man-hating feminists whose aim was to destroy the patriarchal family. It was not until 1993 that there was a phone-in for abused men in Western Australia. This confirmed that the abusers of boys were mostly men but one-third of caIlers reported being molested by females.

The early rape crisis centres were significantly different from their counterparts today. The first centres were mutual support collectives of survivors, sometimes assisted by counsellors. Many sought social change and saw their anti-rape work as political. The first abuse prevention and empowerment programmes were written and provided for rape victims. Changes occurred slowly. A major change was that sex abuse victims were no longer examined by (predominantly male) police surgeons in police stations; hospitals opened specialist sexual assault units staffed by both male and female doctors.

Male dominance and incest

Incest is when a parent, grandparent or sibling uses a child or sibling for sex. Incest is a serious crime throughout western society because it constitutes the worst possible breach of trust, role reversal (where the child has to keep the secret to protect the parent and family instead of the child being protected). If sexual abuse results in pregnancy, there is a high risk that the baby will be born dead or with disabilities.

In the 19th and 20th centuries, the frequency of incest was exposed then suppressed several times. The truth appears to have been too threatening for a dominant paternalistic male society⁸⁸. Sigmund Freud learned that many of his wealthy female patients were sexually abused by their highly respected fathers and grandfathers. Initially he accepted this, publishing his findings in 1896⁸⁹. Attacked by professional colleagues, his initial courage was short-lived. Within a year, he shifted the blame to victims, unashamedly presenting a revised explanation that his female patients’ descriptions of abuse were fantasies based on their sexual desires towards their fathers. Although these conclusions were not scientifically based, his opportunity to incriminate daughters instead of fathers provided a great sense of relief. It was much easier to accuse victims of lying than to accept or promote the truth⁹⁰. Freud’s retraction did child abuse victims incalculable harm because, thereafter, analysts routinely dismissed rape and incest as being “desired by the child unconsciously [because of an] abnormal psycho-sexual constitution”⁹¹.

De Mause (1991) showed that despite its lack of a scientific foundation, psychoanalytic institutes accepted Freud’s revised theory enthusiastically and taught students that memories of incest reflected children’s wishes to have sex with their fathers. They were instructed to look sceptically on incestuous sexual statements made by patients⁹² and anyone who accepted disclosures as real was scoffed at as professionally naive. Thus incest offenders were protected by the most powerful male health professionals on earth⁹³. Psychiatrists neglected to routinely ask patients about their experiences of abuse until the early 1990s⁹⁴.

Herman⁹⁵ noted that the early textbooks on child abuse did not mention sexual abuse and even Helene Deutsch’s massive Psychology of Women (1944) ignored incest. As recently as 1975, an American psychiatry textbook dismissed the frequency of incest as one case in a million. Herman noted that the legacy of Freud’s retraction was so deeply ingrained that, almost a century later, children who dared to report sexual assaults were disbelieved even when there was incontrovertible evidence such as sexually transmitted diseases. They were explained away unscientifically as transmitted by towels, toilet seats and germs on sheets.

When incest was exposed again, it was by social scientists, not medical practitioners. However, both DeMause and Herman found that many of the authors were sexologists who advocated for paedophilia. They accepted that children were sexually abused but denied that it was harmful. Even now, some academics act as crusaders of sexual liberation, promoting paedophilia under the guise of equal rights for children, demanding the removal of laws relating to the age of consent, ignoring the inequality of power, enticements used to trap child victims and the fact that no child can be in control or exercise an informed, free choice when manipulated by authority figures. If adult relatives demand sex, most children will comply.

De Mause⁹⁶, found that most writers on incest tried to justify the practice by showing its widespread nature⁹⁷. Wardell Pomeroy, wrote that “incest between adults and younger children can be a satisfying and enriching experience …”⁹⁸ De Mause found a staggering amount of literature promoting child sexual abuse without mentioning the harmful effects on children.

The Kinsey Reports⁹⁹ discarded taboos around masturbation, extramarital sex and homosexuality but they minimised the trauma experienced by child sexual abuse victims and assured readers that if children were upset by their experiences, it was not the fault of the abuser but the result of prudish community attitudes. Ignoring issues relating to adult dominance and power, Kinsey took a position that advocated for greater sexual licence for men¹⁰⁰.

Two years later, sociologist S. Kirston Weinberg published a scholarly work, Incest Behaviour, based on 203 cases reported to courts and social agencies. There was no public response and the book was soon out of print. The problem was buried again until the late 1970s and early 1980s when women became politically active. Herman quotes studies confirming that up to 97% of incestuous crimes were committed by fathers on daughters and only 3% involved mothers and sons. Briggs et al. (1994)¹⁰¹ confirmed Weinberg’s finding that when boys are molested by a parent, the aggressor is much more likely to be the father than the mother.

Mandatory reporting legislation in Australia

The Government of South Australia led the way when, in 1968, it introduced mandatory reporting legislation requiring doctors to report evidence of child abuse. This was a controversial step given that medical professionals had an obligation to maintain patient confidentiality. In Victoria, the Birrell brothers noted that GPs did not report abuse because they wanted to avoid involvement in time-consuming court proceedings. They also feared that, if patients were reported, their businesses might suffer, especially in country towns. Without legislation to protect them, they were also unwilling to risk civil action if the diagnosis was wrong¹⁰².

In 1977, the South Australian Government extended the list of mandated reporters to include all those whose work involved children, including pharmacists and dentists. Initially teachers had to make reports of abuse and neglect to school managers but at that time, few were educated in matters relating to child abuse and some failed to pass reports to child protection services. The law was quickly changed to ensure that mandated persons were responsible for making their own reports directly to state child protection services. Volunteers in child-related activities and even clergy were subsequently added to the list of mandated reporters. There are financial penalties for those who fail to make reports but, nationwide, these have rarely been imposed.

Penalties should be viewed positively. When managers deter reporting with:

 “It’s that kind of family. Reporting won’t make any difference”

 “The department’s useless. Reporting is a waste of time”

 “I don’t want parents coming after me. He’s got a foul temper”

 “Don’t rock boats or make waves. I’m retiring next year”

 “The department won’t like it”

Concerned staff in most jurisdictions can say, “If I don’t report it, I can be fined several thousand dollars and we could be sued by the victim in years to come”.

In 2000, a former primary school student successfully sued the State of Victoria for the failure of her school principal and deputy to report a reasonable suspicion of sexual abuse (AB v Victoria 2000). It is significant that this action referred to negligence to report abuse before the introduction of reporting legislation. The victim was awarded $494,000 in damages on the grounds that staff negligence enabled the step-father to rape the child for another year.

Australian states have different and sometimes illogical legislative requirements for reporting child abuse. Readers are urged to check what the requirements are in their state or territory. Western Australia was the last to introduce mandatory reporting legislation but only for child sexual abuse (January 1st 2009). The list of mandated reporters is limited to doctors, nurses, teachers, police and midwives. Previously, licensed providers of child care or before-and-after school care were required to make reports while Education Department regulations required teachers to make reports to principals who might pass them on to line managers who might pass them to other bureaucrats and, along the way, someone decided whether the report should be passed on to the child protection service. Not surprisingly, reports disappeared en route. Under the 2009 legislation, West Australian professionals who fail to report sexual abuse to the Department for Child Protection can be fined $6,000. Western Australia’s legislation differs from other states in that verbal reports have to be followed up in writing and copies of reports are sent to police. Failure to write a report could result in a $3,000 fine. This could of course inhibit reporting by people with poor literacy skills.

The Australian Capital Territory introduced mandatory reporting legislation in 1986 for teachers and doctors but this was not enacted until 2000. Tasmania included teachers in 1997 but the legislation was not activated until 2000. Queensland introduced partial provisions in 2004 and the Premier and government resisted pressures to widen coverage. Under section 81 of the Child Care Act 2002, child care licensees must report harm to children if the harm was caused when in the care of a carer of the service, if a child has died or suffered a serious injury, or the licensee becomes aware, or reasonably suspects, that harm has been caused to a child; and the death or serious injury happened, or the harm was caused or is suspected to have been caused, while a carer in the service was (i) providing care to the child (whether or not the care provided to the child was child care); and (ii) providing child care in the course of the service.

So far as schools are concerned, the Education (General Provisions) Act 1989 (Qld) requires all school staff (including but not limited to teachers) to report knowledge or reasonable suspicions that a student under 18 years of age attending the school has been sexually abused by someone else who is an employee of the school. In other words, if a child reports incest to a teacher, the teacher is under no legal obligation to report it. This bizarre situation was defended by the then Minister for Education and, later, Premier of Queensland Anna Bligh^103,104.

While all American and Canadian states introduced mandatory reporting legislation in the late 1970s, Britain and New Zealand resisted it. Successive New Zealand government ministers responsible for child welfare told the author that mandatory reporting legislation would not be introduced because reports would increase if reporting became compulsory; social workers were already over-stretched. In other words, “We know there are many more abused children out there but we are not prepared to provide the resources to intervene.”

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Annual Report, Child Protection (published on the internet) shows that teachers are the second most frequent professional reporters after police. However there has been no large-scale empirical research to show how many teachers are avoiding their legal obligations and what happens after reports are made.

Readers should be aware that failure to make a report of abuse can have grave legal personal and financial consequences years later when victims realise that those responsible for their safety were negligent. They may then decide to take civil action for compensation.

Defining child abuse in a multicultural society

Different cultures have different ideas about what constitutes abuse; what is regarded as normal adult behaviour in one context may be viewed as abusive in others. If we lack a cross-cultural perspective, we are likely to view our own practices as the “right” ones but if we value cultural interests more than the humane treatment of children, we may ignore evidence of harm and justify lower standards of care for children from other cultures.

Three levels of abuse have been identified:

 Practices acceptable in the culture with which the parents associate but constitute a crime in the country where they live. The most obvious of these is female circumcision practised in some Muslim communities

 Individual abuse or neglect that exceeds the standards set by the abuser’s own community. Beating is in this category

 Societal conditions beyond the control of the parent such as homelessness or a lack of sanitation contributing to neglect

Arguments persist as to when child protection services should step in. Should we ignore the flouting of child labour laws because in the migrant family’s culture there is the expectation that children will contribute to family income? Should we ignore 12 year olds being responsible for the care of younger siblings on the grounds that this was normal practice in their parents’ homeland and their parents have a restaurant to run? Should we ignore child brides being given to old men to pay off parents’ debts? Should we turn a blind eye to under-age girls being taken overseas to marry men they don’t know? The internet is awash with evidence of children being involved in arranged marriages from the age of eight.

In their report Culture: No excuse, the New South Wales Child Protection Council made it very clear that we must never excuse or ignore evidence of child abuse or neglect on cultural grounds. The Council noted that physical abuse is most likely to be ignored by professionals when the father proclaims that he is “head of the household” and has the right and duty to beat children “for their own good”. In other words, professionals may accept patriarchy as an excuse for violence against children. While knowledge of cultural practices is helpful, “intervention on the grounds of suspected or actual abuse should never be delayed by cultural considerations¹⁰⁵.”

Abuse prevention

Prevention is classified into three groups: primary, secondary and tertiary.

Primary prevention includes community, professional and parent education for child protection and safety education in schools. In education and care settings it includes the provision of parent participation to:

 develop behaviour management techniques through modelling

 improve communication and listening skills

 develop a better understanding of child development and how to help children to reach the next stage of growth and learning

 demonstrate and encourage educational play with children

 teach personal safety skills to children and parents

 provide workshops for issues of concern such as budgeting, catering for children’s emotional needs, assertiveness training, nutrition and cooking on a budget, women’s health, discipline and positive child management skills

 develop self-help and mutual support schemes when parents live in areas with high unemployment and chronic poverty

 provide parent-organised school-based “pre-loved” clothing boutiques

 provide secondary school courses in child care, life-skills and sexuality education and emergency child care and before-and-after school and holiday programmes

Secondary Prevention focusses on children/families known to be “at risk”. Early intervention includes multi-professional children’s centres providing one-stop-shops offering health, counselling, child care and early childhood education, before-and-after school and homework assistance programmes. It includes routine home visits to new mothers by suitably qualified nurses who assess and provide referrals to support services as needed. Early childhood centres plan to enhance children’s development and assist parents catering for children with serious disabilities. Secondary schools may also provide:

 programmes to reduce the risk of young people living on the street and becoming unemployable

 violence prevention programmes for adolescents that include rights and responsibilities

 programmes to assist early school leavers to return to school with on-site childcare

 breakfast programmes and showers for children in disadvantaged areas

America’s 4th National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect (2010)¹⁰⁶ showed that (a) education played a highly significant role in preventing child abuse and neglect and (b) “high quality” prevention programmes “work”. There was a 26% decrease in incidents of serious child abuse, especially sexual abuse, between 1993 and 2005. This decrease coincided with a massive investment in evidence-based prevention strategies, such as home visitation, parent support and education and information on early childhood development. The report supported the belief that these investments are less costly than the cost of abuse. In 2010, there was evidence that prevention infrastructure was at risk from government budget cuts. It was noted that children of unemployed parents had two times the rate of abuse and three times the rate of neglect than children of employed parents. Children living in households with incomes below $15,000 were neglected at seven times the rate of others. Despite its success, in 2009, many states cut funding to prevention, early childhood and home visitation programmes such as Healthy Families America.

Tertiary Prevention involves direct intervention to stop child abuse such as the treatment of perpetrators and potential perpetrators. The Tasmanian and South Australian Government were the last to introduce treatment programmes for convicted child sex offenders. Politicians expressed scepticism about their value.

In 2009, it was disclosed that only 25 incarcerated child sex offenders a year (out of 125) could receive treatment in South Australian prisons and the university’s specialist forensic psychology course to provide specialists for treatment programmes was closed down. In 2009, Western Australia’s Minister for Children Robin McSweeney proclaimed that state funding should only be spent on women and children, and closed the community-based Safecare Programme that treated 700 potential child sex offenders over a 20 year period. This was the state’s only counselling service for men who voluntarily sought help.

When asked to explain her actions, the Minister told the media that there was no proof that clients stopped abusing children and they didn’t need specialist help given that they could go to any psychologist using Medicare. Safecare’s director Ms Chamarette responded that, “It is too late to offer treatment in prison; we need good public health treatment programmes in the community.”

The view that child sex offenders are untreatable is widespread in political circles. Treatment does not sit comfortably with governments’ “let’s get tough with paedophiles” stance that was adopted in recent years¹⁰⁷.

Risks to indigenous children

Australian state child protection departments have been accused of failing in their role to protect indigenous children, especially in the Northern Territory. As the ombudsman pointed out, these are recent, not historical bungles.

In January 2010, the Northern Territory Government was accused of being “shambolic” and having a “culture of cover-up”. Four different government ministers on a “ministerial merry-go-round” were blamed for ignoring the concerns of social workers leading to the horrific death of 12-year old foster child Deborah Melville who died of a heart attack caused by an untreated leg fracture. The criminal court heard that a child protection officer visited the foster home the day before the child’s death¹⁰⁸. She documented Deborah’s distress as she lay weeping on the kitchen floor, later to stagger down the hallway to the bathroom, unsteady on her feet and gripping the walls for support.

As her report reached the desks of departmental bureaucrats, the child was being carried from the bath into the yard where she died, propped against a trailer. The bone infection that developed from a three-week-old untreated leg fracture had entered a critical stage. Her leg filled with 1.5 litres of pus, the septicaemia spread to the girl’s vital organs and she became delusional. In the hours after the social worker saw Deborah hobbling “like a crab” along the corridor, the girl collapsed and was found two hours later lying fully clothed in the bath. Children gave evidence that they washed out Deborah’s dry mouth with salt water. It was revealed that 17 people lived in the foster home, two of whom were males with intellectual disabilities. The foster mother was alleged to have visited the casino daily. The trial heard that an assessment of whether this was an appropriate foster home had been delayed repeatedly.

Deborah Melville’s death triggered a damning audit of the department, details of which were not made public. Following evidence in the “previously secret report” that the child protection service was “near-total breakdown”, ombudsman Carolyn Richards labelled the inquiry as a “façade”, accusing the government of failing to protect the most vulnerable children (while simultaneously “muzzling” her office). The report revealed that the children were harmed by being placed in homes known to be dangerous or by ignoring serious abuse.

While there are no accurate statistics for the incidence of child abuse in Aboriginal communities, there is sufficient information to show that the occurrence of violence of all kinds is disproportionately high compared with the Australian population as a whole creating “a crisis of frightening magnitude”¹⁰⁹. Stanley, Tomison and Pocock (2001)¹¹⁰ cited several studies showing that too many indigenous children are growing up learning that violence is normal. In one Queensland community alone, more women have been killed in violent assaults than there have been black deaths of males in custody throughout the entire state111. Aboriginal women in remote communities are 45 times more likely to be victims of domestic violence than non-Aboriginal women¹¹². In most cases, children are witnesses.

The failure to report the abuse of indigenous children to child protection services or police is due to a lack of support and protection for victims and non-offending relatives, shame and embarrassment; the risk of family backlash and pressures to remain silent; the fear of retribution from perpetrators and their supporters; police inaction; fear, distrust and dislike of police and “the welfare”, blamed in the past for the removal of children referred to as the Stolen Generation. Inaction may also be due to workers being fearful for their own safety given the high levels of alcohol-related violence in these communities. Indigenous workers sometimes have problems taking action against an offender who lives in the same community or, worse, is a member of their own large extended families.

Some abusers are protected because of fear relating to the high number of indigenous deaths and suicides in custody and the fact that victims are often blamed for these deaths. It is possible that in some traditional communities, the initiation of Aboriginal boys is being hijacked around child sexual abuse so that, especially for children, it would be difficult and confusing to understand what is cultural and what is abuse¹¹³. In addition, there are often practical barriers to reporting. Social workers are usually based in towns such as Alice Springs, Kununurra, Broome and Coober Pedy … far from the remote communities they are expected to serve. Reporting and prosecutions then involve travelling great distances, possibly to interview people who speak a different language.

Queensland elders attending a workshop for indigenous women told the author that parents did not report sex offences because police didn’t investigate them. Police replied that allegations were usually withdrawn before cases reached trial making investigations “a waste of valuable time”. The elders pointed out that it could take two years for a case to reach trial by which time offenders and their mates had beaten up victims and their mothers, smashed their homes and, in some cases, burnt them and their cars. “Child sex abuse cases need to be “fast-tracked” in the legal system”, they said “and victims need to be protected”. “Not possible” said senior police in two states: “Either there isn’t the manpower to speed up the investigation or there isn’t a court or a magistrate available”.

In 2008, a Kimberley victim was under attack from her abuser’s supporters and had to be flown out for her own safety. For more than ten years, indigenous women have demonstrated the need for safe-houses to protect abused children and their non-offending family members, not necessarily in the towns in which they live if safety cannot be guaranteed.

Given the alien environment of a criminal court and the way in which child victims are cross-examined, it is not surprising that there are comparatively few successful prosecutions of child sex offenders who commit crimes against indigenous children.

Adult criminal courts are ill-equipped for handling shy, unsophisticated children who, despite having English as a second language, are expected to cope with “rigorous” cross-examination by barristers.

Several government commissioned reports have highlighted the problems. West Australian Magistrate Sue Gordon was very clear about the size and seriousness of child abuse when she wrote in 2002 that “the statistics paint a frightening picture of what could only be termed an “epidemic” of family violence and child abuse in Aboriginal communities”¹¹⁴. Indigenous academic Professor Marcia Langton (2007) agreed, indicating that while the “dreadful plagues” of domestic violence and sexual assault are constantly reported in the media, no action results. In an indictment of policy inefficacies Langton said that Aboriginal women have been screaming for police help for thirty years¹¹⁵.

The debate about indigenous affairs reached a new crescendo in 2007-8, fuelled by the uncensored exposé of the extent of child abuse in remote communities and the inaction of the Northern Territory Government. More than a century of policy experimentation climaxed with the Commonwealth Government sending the army and a police taskforce into the Northern Territory, the only jurisdiction where it had powers to intervene. It legislated more than 500 pages of emergency measures that subverted the self-government of the Territory in the most extraordinary federal intervention in Australian history. The intervention was rushed. Queensland Police took the 1970s American Protective Behaviours Programme to remote indigenous children despite published research findings (from 1990 onwards) that it was seriously flawed as a tool for stopping or preventing sexual abuse.

A major concern of teachers in remote communities has been the lack of treatment programmes for very young children who sniff petrol and other adhesives, leading to brain damage, loss of body functions and control. There is a strong suspicion that substance abuse by some children is a response to sexual abuse – a way of self-medicating their pain and suffering.

Where children engage in substance abuse, they increase their risk of sexual violation. Effects of petrol sniffing on users may include promiscuous behaviour and little awareness of anything that is going on around them beyond maintaining the petrol supply which is usually stolen. There is also evidence that children engage in prostitution to buy petrol and drugs¹¹⁶.

Australia’s Obligations: The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCROC)

On 20th November 1989, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. In Australia and Canada where there are both state and federal governments, the states are expected to bring their national legislation into line with Convention provisions. Ratification by the national government makes states publicly and internationally accountable for their actions. By signing the Convention, countries agree that “The child shall be protected against all form of neglect, cruelty and exploitation. He shall not be the subject of traffic in any form” (Principle 9). Furthermore, under Article 19 it was agreed that*:

 State Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation including sexual abuse while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child

 Such protective measures should, as appropriate, include effective procedures for the establishment of social programmes to provide necessary support for the child and for those who have the care of the child, as well as for other forms of prevention and for the identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment and foIlow-up of instances of child maltreatment … and, as appropriate, for judicial involvement *italics inserted by the author

In Article 1, the “child” is defined as someone who has not yet had their 18th birthday. The Preamble refers to the need for protection for the child before and after birth. In a 2003 case in the High Court of New Zealand (Ref 1NZLR 115) there was a successful application by child protection services to have an unborn child placed under the guardianship of the High Court to prevent the mother from having the birth filmed for pornographic purposes. It was argued successfully that this would be harmful to the child in the long term. The Court found that New Zealand, in adopting the Convention, had recognised the rights of the child before and during birth and the judge declared that the term “child” includes unborn babies.

Article 34 requires that children shall be protected from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse. Governments shall take appropriate measures to prevent:

1 the inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any sexual activity

2 the exploitative use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual practices

3 the exploitative use of children in pornographic performances and materials

Article 39 states that governments shall take all appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of child victims of any form of neglect, exploitation, abuse, torture or any other form of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In other words, governments must provide treatment for victims and counselling for their families.

Article 3 is relevant to statutory child protection authorities, legislators/politicians and Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) providing services for children who are “care and protection” cases:

 Parties to the Convention undertake to provide the necessary legislative and administrative measures for the care and protection of children (while taking account of the rights and duties of their parents etc.)

 Parties shall ensure that the institutions, services and facilities responsible for the care or protection of children shall conform to the standards established by competent authorities, particularly in the areas of safety, health, in the number and suitability of their staff, as well as competent supervision.

Article 4 is directed at politicians, legislators and administrators of child protection services who must take all appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognised in the Convention. Article 6 confirms that parties to the Convention shall ensure to the maximum the sound development of the child. This should be especially relevant to Family Courts and those responsible for out-of-home care.

Articles 9 and 10 are again relevant to Family Courts and out-of-home care services which must ensure that children have a voice relating to where they live after separation from a parent. It should be noted that at the time of publication, Australian children are not allowed to give evidence in the Family Court.

Article 11 refers to child abduction and, indirectly, the Hague Convention on Child Abductions: States Parties shall take measures to combat the illicit transfer and non-return of children abroad.

Article 20 covers children in out-of-home care.

Articles 22 and 25 cover the care and protection of child refugees.

Article 44 State signatories agreed to submit regular reports showing the steps they have taken to put the Convention requirements into effect. Reports are published on the internet. These websites show that some countries, including Australia, have failed to meet their obligations.

On January 18th, 2002, an optional Protocol was introduced to ban the sale of children for prostitution, adoption, child pornography etc. On February 12th 2002, another optional protocol was introduced to ban the involvement of children in armed conflict; 110 countries signed and 87 ratified this. Those that failed to sign were the countries that had the most serious problems.

The Convention contains four general principles which are formulated in Articles 2, 3, 6 and 12.

 Non-discrimination (Article 2): Equal rights and opportunities for boys and girls, children with disabilities, refugees, migrants and children of indigenous or minority groups

 Decisions shall involve “the best interests of the child” (Article 3): Child protection authorities, criminal and family courts must make decisions that give precedence to children’s “best interests”. The implementation of this message is a major challenge given that there is no definition of “best interests” and interpretation is highly subjective. Furthermore, decisions are made by professionals whose backgrounds are rarely grounded in child development theory

 The right to life, survival and development (Article 6): This includes the right to develop “to the maximum extent possible”. “Develop” in this context includes physical, cognitive and social development and sound mental health

 The views of the child shall be heard (Article 12): Signed by 197 countries, UNICEF (2002) claims that the Convention is the most universally accepted human rights instrument in history and the first legally binding international document to incorporate the full range of human rights for children

The Hague Convention on Child Abduction

In 2010, it was reported that increasing numbers of mothers were fleeing overseas to protect their children from abuse and violence by their fathers when Family Courts had failed to protect them. The number of cases appeared to have increased as a result of the priority given to shared parenting.

The aim of the Hague Convention is to return the child to the country of origin. If a child has been taken out of Australia without proper consent, or has not been returned after a contact visit, assistance from the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department, or a State Central Authority, can be requested. There are a number of requirements that must be satisfied before a person can make an application for the return of a child. These are:

 The child must be in a country that has signed the Convention. These countries are listed on the internet

 The applicant must have had “rights of custody” to the child (by law, court order or legal agreement) prior to the removal of that child. If you have parental responsibility for your child, you have “rights of custody” under the Convention

 The applicant must have been exercising his or her “rights of custody” to the child (or would have been exercising those rights but for the removal or retention)

 The child must have been habitually resident in Australia before the abduction or retention

 The applicant must not have consented to the removal/retention of the child

If one of these requirements is not met, the child will not be returned.

The grounds on which an abducting parent may oppose the return of the child are set out in the Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations (available at www.law.gov.au/childabduction).

These are:

(a) The child has been in Australia for over 12 months and is settled in its new environment

(b) The applicant did not have “rights of custody” or was not exercising those rights at the time of the removal

(c) The applicant consented to or subsequently acquiesced to the removal

(d) The child would be exposed to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm if returned

(e) The child objects to being returned and is mature enough to express that view

(f) The child’s return would be a breach of its fundamental freedoms and human rights

Governments shall take all appropriate measures to discover the whereabouts of a child who has been wrongfully removed or retained and prevent further harm to the child. They shall also institute judicial or administrative proceedings with a view to obtaining the return of the child.

Few parents are aware of the Hague Convention and if they threaten to flee overseas they should be advised of the possible consequences. Not only will they have to abandon their homes, possessions and careers but they will have to change their identities and abandon their extended families given that phone caIls, correspondence and emails can be traced.

The Family Court may give the abandoned parent permission to publicise photographs and information that could lead to the identification of the departed parent and child. When located, abducting parents may find themselves jailed indefinitely in a foreign country while the children may be placed in the care of the state. Some young Australian children have been placed in overseas institutions for prolonged periods of time resulting in mental iIlness. When child abuse is aIleged, the children may be returned to the country of origin accompanied by strangers. In a West Australian case, they were in state care for three years before the judge accepted professional advice and returned them to their mother in Switzerland. It is rare for judges to refuse to return children; one explanation for this being that they do not wish to insult judges overseas by implying that their decision was wrong.

Child protection services in disarray

In the last decade, Australian state and territory governments have commissioned a number of inquiries relating to child protection. A major report released on August 22nd 2002¹¹⁷ showed that statutory child protection services were in disarray, failing to prevent up to one in four abused children from being re-abused. While more and more children are entering state care, there are fewer and fewer foster carers to care for them. No government adequately reimburses carers whose expenses for foster children were said to be on average 52% higher than for their own children due to their poor health and traumatised state.

The report by the Child and Family Welfare Association of Australia (CAFWAA) showed that in every Australian State more than 10% of children who are confirmed cases of abuse are subject to further abuse within a year despite the involvement of case workers. The figure for South Australia was 24%. Inadequate government funding was blamed for the fact that families in urgent need of help were placed on long waiting lists. CAFWAA recommended that the Federal Government should develop a national plan and ensure substantially increased investment in family support, child protection and out-of-home care. It was pointed out that national standards and accreditation existed for other services such as aged care, health and child care and national standards were obviously needed for child protection, family preservation services and the childcare system. It was anticipated that action and greater investment would not only reduce the number of children being abused and neglected, it would reduce problems that manifest later in life such as substance abuse, crime, homelessness and mental illness¹¹⁸.

In 2010, in response to child protection chaos, the New South Wales government announced a $750 million “shake-up” transferring responsibility for less serious cases to non-government agencies. This would enable the Department of Community Services to deal with children “most at risk of significant harm”. The aim was to provide practical assistance to prevent family problems from reaching crisis point. New South Wales had 309,000 reports of child abuse and 16,000 children were known to be in out-of-home care in 2008/9. The Minister acknowledged the government’s failure to protect children resulting in some “very, very real tragedies” including fifty-seven child deaths resulting from maltreatment¹¹⁹. Thirty of these children had previously been reported to child protection services for being at risk of harm. In his report to Parliament, the Ombudsman showed that many of the mothers of the dead children had themselves been reported to the department as victims of abuse in childhood and abuse was intergenerational. In one case the dead baby’s mother was herself a child in the care of the state. Four times more males than females were involved in these children’s deaths¹²⁰.

In 2011, Ombudsman Bruce Barbour published a scathing report saying that it was inconceivable that a strong welfare regime would be delivered in the near future. The report reviewed the first 12 months of the “shake-up” and showed that in 2010-2011, fewer children and families received face-to-face assessments, despite the significant fall in demand following the recommendation to lift the reporting threshold. Twenty-five percent of reports assessed by Community Services as requiring some intervention had received no response. Reports about high-risk older children and adolescents, and habitual school absenteeism received a very low level of response. Sue Richards, CEO of NSW Family Services, said outcomes for vulnerable children wouldn’t change while “we keep doing the same things … For years we have been stuck with a system that is very process driven and which gives scant attention to outcomes for children. That 79 percent of reports of children being at risk of significant harm do not lead to the child being seen should have us not only very, very worried, but also ashamed”.

Clearly more attention must be given to the prevention of abuse and neglect given that statutory child protection services are failing to provide protection after abuse has occurred¹²¹.

The National Child Protection Framework

In November 2007 the Coalition of Organisations Committed to the Safety and Wellbeing of Australia’s Children was established to develop a National Framework for Child Protection. The Coalition comprised 63 managers of not-for-profit organisations and a few academics. The first draft was released for comment in April 2008. While Google had 760,000 references to child sex abuse in Australia, the problem was reduced to half a sentence advising the Minister that: “It is critical that the Framework address the issues of reducing sexual exploitation …”

The author alerted Minister Jenny Macklin to this omission and the final copy of Protecting Children is Everyone’s Business: National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2009-2020 included raising awareness of exploitation and cyber abuse; developing community awareness initiatives such as White Balloon Day; early intervention for children who exhibit sexually inappropriate behaviours and interagency planning to tackle child sexual assault in Aboriginal communities. Shortly afterwards, Victoria’s County Court Judge Michael McInerney banned White Balloon Day in a country town under an unprecedented court order, although that day was part of the national Child Protection Week launched by Minister Macklin. The extraordinary order prohibited “from this day forward” the display or distribution of posters and white balloons in support of the cause. Police seized them from hotels, shops, offices and cafes and a woman was arrested for non-compliance. The explanation for the judge’s extraordinary action was said to be his fear that educating the public about child abuse might influence a jury involved in the trial of a man facing child sex charges¹²².

Other Framework recommendations were to:

 strengthen the capacity of families to support children (without saying how this could be achieved)

 provide community education

 implement mechanisms for involving children and young people in decisions affecting their lives

 integrate services for children and families

 develop information sharing between Commonwealth and State/Territory agencies and NGOs working with vulnerable families

 ensure consistency of support and services for all children and families

 enhance services for vulnerable children and families

 provide priority access to child care services for vulnerable children

 enhance alcohol and substance abuse initiatives

 enhance programmes to reduce family violence

 increase services and support for people with mental illness

 provide housing and services for homeless families

 increase services to identify children at risk

 enhance access to support for victims

 support grandparent, foster and kinship carers

 improve support for young people leaving care

 support national consistency and improvement in child protection services

 expand access to indigenous services

 promote the development of safe and strong indigenous communities

 ensure that indigenous children receive culturally appropriate services and care

The Framework made no mention of the very obvious need for a national child protection school curriculum at a time when only New South Wales and South Australia had them. It failed to mention the need for national definitions and national legislation relating to reporting child abuse. There was no reference to the need to reform the criminal justice and family court systems to better protect children and the very complex subject of child sex abuse was dismissed in one-and-a half pages.

Chapter 2 – References

1 Parton, N. (1985), ‘The politics of child protection’, in The politics of child abuse, Palgrave Macmillan.

2 Costin, L. B., Karger, H. J., & Stoesz, D. (1997), The politics of child abuse in America, Oxford University Press.

3 Krugman, R. (1999), ‘The politics’, Child Abuse & Neglect, 23 (10), pp. 963-967.

4 Glaser, W. (2005). McDermott’s interview with Dr Bill Glaser. ABC Four Corners, 23 May 1997 ‘Paedophilia: the public health problem of the decade’, in M. James (ed), Paedophilia: policy and prevention. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 1997 (Research and Public Policy Series, No. 12).

5 Pearsall, R. (1983), The worm in the bud, Harmondsworth, Penguin.

6 Rush, F. (1980), The best kept secret, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall.

7 Masson, J.M. (1985), The assault on truth, Harmondsworth, Penguin.

8 Dittmar, M. J. (1991), ‘Juvenile firesetting: An old problem’, Fire Engineering, December, 49-62 [cited Stanley, J (2002), ‘Preventing children and young people lighting bushfires in Australia’, Child Abuse Prevention Newsletter, Vol. 10, No. 2, Summer, Australian Institute of Family Studies National Child Protection Clearing House].

9 Adler, R., Nunn, R., Northam, E., Lebnan, V., et al. (1994). ‘Secondary prevention of childhood firesetting’, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 33(8), 1194-1202.

10 Giarretto, H. (1989), Community-based treatment of the incest family, Psychiatric Clinics of America, 12(2), pp. 351-361.

11 Sebold, J. (1987), ‘Indicators of child sexual abuse in males’, Social Casework: The Journal of Contemporary Social Work, Feb, 75-80 [cited in J. Stanley, op.cit.].

12 Puri, B.K., Baxter, R., & Cordess, C. C. (1995), ‘Characteristics of fire-setters: A study and proposed multitaxial psychiatric classification’, British Journal of Psychiatry, 166, 3, 38-41 [cited in J. Stanley 2002, op.cit.].

13 http://www.mfb.vic.gov.au/Community-Safety/Home-Fire-Safety/Juvenile-Fire-Awareness.html. Viewed February 9th 2010.

14 Goddard, C., & Saunders, B.J. (2001), Child abuse and the media, National Child Protection Clearinghouse, Melbourne, Child Abuse Prevention Issues, N27, August 2002.

15 Bradley, S. (2002), ‘Abuse and the system’, The Age, October 23rd.

16 The Times (1973), ‘Foster-parents not told of decision to move girl’, 23 October, Issue 58920, p. 3, col A.

17 The Times (1973), ‘Stepfather’s preferential treatment’, 31 May, Issue 58796, p. 2, col F.

18 The Times (1973), ‘Thirty complaints of ill-treatment before girl died – QC’, October 10th, Issue 58909, p. 4, column A.

19 Batty, D. (2003), ‘Catalogue of cruelty’, The Guardian, January 27th, http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/jan/27/childrensservices.childprotection, viewed December 9th, 2009.

20 DHSS (1974), ‘Non-accidental injury to children’, LASSL (74)(13).

21 DHSS (1976a), ‘Non-accidental injury to children: Area review committees’, LASSL(76)(2). DHSS (1976b), ‘Non-accidental injury to children: The police and case conferences’, LASSL(76) (26). DHSS (1978), ‘Child abuse: The register system’, LA/C396/23D. DHSS (1980), ‘Child abuse: Central register systems’, LASSL(80)4, HN(80). DHSS (1982), ‘Child abuse: A study of inquiry reports’, 1973-1981, London: HMSO.

22 Corby, B., Doig, A., & Roberts, V. (1998), ‘Inquiries into child abuse’, Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 20(4), 377-95.

23 DHSS (1982), Child abuse: A study of inquiry reports, 1973-1981, London: HMSO.

24 Batty, D. (2003), ‘Catalogue of cruelty’, The Guardian, January 27th, http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2003/jan/27/childrensservices.childprotection, viewed December 9th, 2009.

25 Batty, D. (2003), ibid.

26 Batty, D. (2003), ibid.

27 Batty, D. (2003), ibid.

28 Batty, D. (2003), ibid.

29 Batty, D. (2003), ibid.

30 Batty, D. (2003), ibid.

31 Batty, D. (2003), ibid.

32 Batty, D. (2003), ibid.

33 Victoria Climbié Inquiry-Background-Chronology (2007), The Victoria Climbié Inquiry, Viewed 9 December, 2009.

34 Laming Report (2003), ‘The Victoria Climbié Inquiry: Report of an Inquiry by Lord Laming’, Cm5730, London: Stationery Office.

35 BBC News (2001), ‘Victoria’s relative “warned social services”’, 1 October.

36 ‘Witnesses to be Called in Week Beginning 1 October, The Victoria Climbié Inquiry’, 28 September 2001.

37 BBC News (2002), ‘Could Victoria have been saved?’, 11 July.

38 Batty, D. (2007), ‘Social services were told Victoria’s life was in danger’, The Guardian, 1st October.

39 Batty, D. (2001), ‘Climbié doctor admits errors put girl at risk’, The Guardian, 12 October.

40 BBC News (2002), ‘Could Victoria have been saved?’ 11 July 2002.

41 BBC News (2001), ‘Climbié, 12 October’, Retrieved on 5 July 2007. Butler, P. (2001), ‘ “I was wrong” admits Climbié social worker’, The Guardian, 12 October.

42 42 BBC News (2001), ‘PC “handed Victoria back to abusers” ’, 6 November.

43 BBC News (2003), ‘Victoria Climbié: Chain of neglect’, 28 January.

44 BBC News (2003), ibid.

45 BBC News (2001), ‘Victoria’s life of horror’, 12th January.

46 BBC News (2003), ‘Timeline: Victoria Climbié, 28th January.

47 Department of Health (2003), ‘The Victoria Climbié Inquiry Report of an Inquiry by Lord Laming’.

48 ‘The Victoria Climbié Inquiry’, 2002, 25 January. Batty, D. (2001), ‘Climbié council closed cases inappropriately’, The Guardian, 9 October.

49 Batty, D. (2001), ‘Councils underspent for children’s services, Climbié inquiry told’, The Guardian, 28 September 2001. Batty, D. (2001), ‘Social services cash went to education’, The Guardian, 18 December.

50 Laming Report (2003), ‘The Victoria Climbié inquiry: Report of an inquiry by Lord Laming’, Cm5730, London: Stationery Office.

51 HM Government (2004), ‘Every child matters: Change for children’, London: Stationery Office.

52 BBC News (2003), Commissioner for children, 8 September.

53 LGA (2009), ‘Councils struggling to recruit social workers in wake of Baby P.’, London: Local Government Association.

54 BBC News (2008), ‘Timeline: Key events in baby case’, 14 November. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7729045.stm.

55 BBC News (2008), ‘Baby P: The full health dossier’, 18 November. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7735063.stm, viewed 9 December 2009.

56 BBC News (2008), ‘Baby P doctor “deeply affected” ’, BBC News, 19 November, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7737809.stm, viewed 9 December 2009.

57 The Australian (2009), ‘Ban lifted on child killers’, 12 August.

58 Jones, S. (2008), Sixty missed chances to save baby ‘used as a punchbag’, The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/nov/12/child-protection-crime-baby-p, downloaded 8 December 2009.

59 Campbell, D., Jones, S., & Brindle, D. (2008), ‘50 injuries, 60 visits – failures that led to the death of Baby P.’, The Guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/nov/12/baby-p-child-protection-haringey. Viewed 9 December 2009.

60 World News (2009), ‘Couple named in Baby P. Case’, 11 August, News.com.au.

61 BBC News (2009), ‘Baby P. man guilty of raping girl’, 1 May. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/8029499.stm, Retrieved 9 December 2009.

62 BBC News (2009), ‘Three jailed over Baby P.’s death’, BBC News, 22 May, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/8055340.stm, Retrieved 9 December 2009.

63 Murray, D. (2009), ‘Baby Peter’s torturers revealed’, Daily Telegraph, 11 December.

64 Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS) (2009), CAFCASS care demand: Latest quarterly figures: 08 July 2009, London: CAFCASS.

65 Hughes, M. (2009), ‘The killers: a lethal pairing of inadequacy and sadism’, The Independent, 11 August.

66 Professor Nigel Parton (2009), personal communications, December.

67 BaIls, E. (2008), ‘Baby P.: Ed BaIls’ statement in fuIl’, The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/dec/01/baby-p-ed-baIls-statement, viewed 9 December 2009.

68 Department of Health (1995), ‘Child protection: Messages from research’, London: HMSO.

69 Parton, N. (2007), ‘Constructive social work practice in an age of uncertainty’, in D. Saleebey & S. Witkin (eds), Social work dialogues: Transforming the canon of inquiry, practice and education, USA: Council on Social Work Education.

70 Department of Health (2001), ‘The children act now: Messages from research’, London: Stationery Office.

71 Chief Secretary to the Treasury (2003), ‘Every child matters’, London: Stationery Office, p. 17.

72 HM Government (2009), ‘The protection of children in England: Action plan, The government response to Lord Laming’, CM758. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families.

73 Davey, C.M. (1956), Children and their law-makers, Adelaide: Griffin Press.

74 Davey, C.M. (1956), ibid.

75 NSPCC (2009), History of the NSPCC: Child abuse – an invisible social evil.

76 NSPCC, ibid.

77 Children’s Protection Society Victoria, Heidelberg.

78 Dept for Community Welfare (1975), ‘Proceedings of the First Australian Conference on the Battered Child’, Perth.

79 http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/slides_archive.pdf.

80 Bialestock, D. (1966), ‘Neglected babies: A study of 289 babies admitted consecutively to a reception centre’, Medical Journal of Australia, 2, pp. 1129-1133.

81 Birrell, R. & Birrell, J. (1966), ‘The maltreatment syndrome in children: A hospital study’, Medical Journal of Australia, 2 (23), pp. 1134-1138.

82 Yule, P. (1999), The Royal Children’s Hospital, A history of faith, science and love, Rushcutters.

83 Ferguson, D.M., Fleming, J., & O’Neill, D.P. (1972), Child abuse in New Zealand, Wellington: Department of Social Welfare, Government Printer.

84 Picton, C., & Boss, P. (1981), Child welfare in Australia: An introduction, Sydney: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

85 Dickey, B, Martin, E., & Oxenberry, R. (1986), Rations, residence, resources: A history of social welfare in South Australia since 1836, Adelaide: Wakefield Press.

86 Bowlby. J. (1953), Child care and the growth of love, Penguin.

87 Robertson J. & Robertson J. (1989), Separation and the very young, London: Free Association Books.

88 Herman, J. L. (1981), Father-daughter incest, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press.

89 Freud, S. (1954), The origins of psychoanalysis: Letters to Wilhelm Fliess, drafts and notes: 1887-1902, New York: Basic Books, p. 220.

90 Herman, J.L. (1981), op.cit.

91 Abraham, K. (1948), The experiencing of sexual traumas as a form of sexual activity, in Selected Papers of Karl Abraham, London: Hogarth Press, p. 48. Abraham’s blaming of victims is clear in ‘On the Significance of Sexual Traumas in Childhood for the Symptomatology of Dementia Praecox’, in Karl Abraham, Clinical Papers and Essays on Psycho-Analysis, New York: Basic Books, 1955, p. 14.

92 DeMause, L. (1991), ‘The universality of incest’, The Journal of Psychohistory, 19, 2.

93 Herman, J.L. (1981), op.cit.

94 Klein, M. (1960), Narrative of a child analysis: The conduct of the psycho-analysis of children as seen in the treatment of a ten year old boy, New York: Basic Books.

95 Herman, J.L. (1981), op.cit., pp. 11,12.

96 Symonds, J.A. (1964), Sexual inversion, New York: Bell Publishing Company.

97 Edwardes, A. & Masters, R. E. L. (1963), The cradle of erotica, New York: The Julian Press, p. 22.

98 Pomeroy, W.B. (1976), A new look at incest, Penthouse Forum, November, p. 10.

99 Kinsey, A et al., op.cit. Kinsey, A., Pomeroy, W. B, Martin, C. F., & Gebhard, P.H. (1965), Sexual behavior in the human female, Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1953, p. 117. Kinsey’s raw material was re-analysed in John Gagnon, ‘Female Child Victims of Sex Offenders.’ Social Problems, 13, 1965: 176-92.

100 Herman, J. L. (1981), op.cit., pp. 16, 17.

101 Briggs F., Hawkins R.M.F., & Williams, M. (1994), A comparison of the early childhood and family experiences of incarcerated, convicted male child molesters and men who were sexuaIly abused in childhood and have no convictions for sexual offences against children, Report for the Criminology Research Council, Canberra, University of South Australia.

102 Birrell R. G. & Birrell J. H. W. (1966), ‘The maltreatment syndrome in children’, Medical Journal of Australia, 2, 1134-1138. Birrell, R. & Birrell, J. (1968), ‘The maltreatment syndrome in children: A hospital survey’, Medical Journal of Australia, 2, 1023-1029.

103 Matthews, B. & Walsh, K. (2009), Issues in mandatory reporting in child sex abuse by Australian teachers, Brisbane: Queensland University of Technology.

104 Walsh, K., & Mathews, B. (2001), ‘Queensland teachers’ new legal obligation to report child sexual abuse’, Australia and New Zealand Journal of Law and Education, 9(1), pp. 25-40.

105 New South Wales Child Protection Council (undated), Child protection on non-English-speaking background communities, Culture – No excuse, Sydney, pp. 4,5.

106 Hmurovich, J. (2010), CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, 5 February. (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/).

107 SafeCare Press Release, 25 May 2009.

108 Robinson, N. (2008), ‘Child death acquittals, but system failures laid bare’, The Australian, 16 August.

109 Crime and Misconduct Commission (2004), Protecting children: An inquiry into abuse of children in foster care, Brisbane: Queensland Government.

110 Stanley, J., Tomison, A., & Pocock, J. (2003), Child abuse and neglect in Indigenous Australian communities: Issues, National Child Protection Clearing House, Australian Institute of Family Studies.

111 Sam, M. (1992), Through black eyes: A handbook of family violence in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, Fitzroy, Vic.: Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care.

112 Ferrante, A., Morgan, F., Indermauer, D., & Harding, R. (1996), Measuring the extent of domestic violence, Sydney: Hawkins Press.

113 Coorey, L. (2001), ‘Child sexual abuse in rural and remote Australian indigenous communities – A preliminary investigation’, Report for the Senate, Canberra, http://www.Aph.Gov.Au/Senate/Committee/Indigenousaffairs_Ctte/Hearings/Lyla_Coorey_Report_March05.Pdf, February.

114 Gordon, S., Hallahan, K. & Henry, D. (2002), ‘Putting the picture together: Inquiry into response by government agencies to complaints of family violence and child abuse in Aboriginal communities’, Western Australia: Department of Premier and Cabinet. p. xxiii.

115 Langton, M. (2007), ‘It’s time to stop playing politics with vulnerable lives’, Sydney Morning Herald, 30 November.

116 Coorey, L. (2001), op.cit.

117 Child and Family Welfare Association of Australia (2002), Media Release, ‘Repeat cases of child abuse demand new national response, 27 August, citing: A time to invest in Australia’s most disadvantaged children, young people, and their families’, http://www.acwa.asn.au/.

118 Child and Family Welfare Association of Australia (2002), ibid.

119 AAP. (2010), ‘$750 shake-up of child services’, Canberra Times, 25 January, p. 4.

120 Horin, A. (2011), ‘Child deaths reveal tragic trail of neglect in families’, Sydney Morning Herald August 25th, http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/child-deaths-reveal-tragic-trail-of-neglect-in-families-20110824-1jac1.html.

121 AAP (2011), ‘Ombudsman slams NSW child welfare’, August 30, 2011.

122  http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,26023514-2862,00.html