This paper reports a survey of 21 Intensive Family Services programs, members of the Intensive Family Services National Practice Symposium. The survey was designed to elicit a ‘snapshot’ of program models, operational issues and policy matters within these services, in order to consolidate some understanding of the evolution of Intensive Family Preservation Services since the developments of the early 1990s.

This study, undertaken for the qualification of BSW(Hons), explored the nature of supports used by non-residential fathers after separating from their children. It was designed to address the perspectives of men who were separated from their children and to explore the supports they used to cope with this separation experience. It acknowledges the complexity and changing nature of the fathering role in Australia today.

Data was obtained from semi-structured interviews with men who were encouraged to share experiences in relation to their roles as non-residential fathers. An interpretive perspective and descriptive method used in the design allowed for a deeper understanding of what men experience when separated from their children.

The findings demonstrated that the nature and use of supports employed by fathers related to how they experienced separation and managed relationships and contacts with their children. Men used a range of informal and formal supports to manage the often difficult post-separation period and maintain relationships with their children. These findings have implications for social work practice, particularly for understanding the support needs of men when separating from their children. It points also to the need for an increased emphasis on the importance of supports for non-residential fathers.

Paying attention to under-represented voices is considered by some researchers to be one of the current critical issues in child welfare (Kufeldt & McKenzie 2003; Mason & Gibson 2004). Children and young people in care have often been the targets of public policy, the subjects of research projects and the focus of practice that is aimed at protecting them, but not necessarily involving them. Is there really a preparedness to invite children and young people to have a say? Do adults and professionals rather presume to know what is best? Children and young people have much to offer researchers and policy makers by giving their opinions and expressing their views about a range of matters that concern them. This paper will discuss a Department of Families' initiative in the Mackay Whitsunday Region that invites children and young people to be part of the community of practice. It will showcase the successful positioning of eight to ten young people within the research, practice and policy agenda, and outline a vision to champion children and young people's participation at a community practice level throughout Australia. It will explore the journey of placing the voice of children and young people at the centre of the child protection system.

This paper is based on a three-year longitudinal evaluation of a family-based placement and support program for children with disabilities and high support needs. Particular lessons emerged about the importance of partnerships: between caseworker and alternative family; the alternative family and the birth family; and the caseworker and the birth family.

The evaluation used case studies, following ten children through the life of the study. A qualitative approach drew on people's experiences to understand individual perspectives and to identify patterns and themes to gain insight into the factors contributing to success.

The study was informed by international literature, including: Maluccio et al (1983, 1986) and Smith (1995) in relation to permanency planning; Thoburn (1986, 1990, 1994) and Wedge (1986) in relation to hard-to-place children; and Argent and Kerrane (1997) who demonstrate that continuing contact between birth and alternative families can work well with support from workers.

This article focuses on one part of the evaluation - the development of relationships. The relationship between the caseworker and the alternative family is a key to the success of the placement. In the best examples of good practice, the relationship is one of partnership, with both partners having the interests of the child as their central focus.

The partnership is not evident in dealing with birth families. We note the strongest relationships are where birth families have an ongoing role in caring for their child. In some cases, the alternative family takes on a role of supporting the birth family's ongoing involvement with their child. The paper explores the different relationships and points to further possible areas of future research.

Fifty-two (52) cases of infant abusive head trauma (IAHT), investigated by the Queensland Police Service over a ten-year period, were examined for information on victim and offender demographics. The study revealed a mean age of 2.6 months for victims of assaults categorised as involving a shaking-type mechanism, indicating that the youngest infants are particularly susceptible to that form of injury. It was further demonstrated that abusive injuries are most likely to be caused by a primary caregiver, such as a biological or step-parent. It is thus hypothesised that to assist in prevention, some form of written caution on the dangers of infant shaking should be provided to all parents immediately prior to their child's departure from the maternity ward.

When looking back through history, it is often the care of the needy and disadvantaged that is taken as the measure of our society's past decency and worth. How our ancestors dealt with the distribution of wealth, what attention they gave to issues of justice and equality, and how much concern they showed for those suffering poverty or distress are questions used to judge the value of social developments. People who work with children often keep ideas and images of children's past welfare in mind as a guide for their work today. In the process of considering the care of children historically, and particularly that of orphaned or unwanted children, one is often struck either by the lack of change in the ways by which people care for children; or by the undue praise awarded to ‘progressive’ or ‘scientific’ understandings of children's needs. The view taken does, of course, depend largely upon which era is chosen for comparison with the present.