Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-2l2gl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T15:58:17.661Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Coaching Parents About Children's Needs and Navigating the Child Protection and Other Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 June 2018

Frank Ainsworth  and
Patricia Hansen
Frank Ainsworth*
Affiliation:
James Cook University – Social Work and Community Welfare, Townsville, Queensland, Australia
Patricia Hansen
Affiliation:
Hansen Legal, Parramatta, New South Wales, Australia
*
address for correspondence: Frank Ainsworth, James Cook University – Social Work and Community Welfare, Townsville, Queensland, Australia. E-mail: frankainsworth@hotmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article reviews developments in the NSW child protection system which aim to reduce the number of children in state care. The first development was changes to the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1988 made in 2016 that created a permanency hierarchy for children who have been removed and not restored to parental or extended family care. Under Section 10A of the Act, guardianship and adoption becomes the priority if restoration is not possible, although Aboriginal children are exempt from adoption to some extent. The more recent development, during 2017, is the purchase by the Department of Family and Community Services (FaCS) of a license for two US models, namely Multi-Systemic Therapy for Child Abuse and Neglect (MST-CAN®) and Functional Family Therapy through Child Welfare (FFT-CW®). US studies have shown that these models reduce the number of children being taken into care. Related to this effort is the recognition by FaCS that the cost of out-of-home care (OOHC) is increasingly unmanageable given the 16,843 children in care in NSW. Added to this is the knowledge, confirmed by the Minister, that for many children in OOHC the outcomes are dismal. Finally, the article turns to the issue of poverty and seeks to address the established correlation (not causality) between poverty and child abuse and neglect. This remains the key issue that underscores child abuse and neglect that has to be addressed if a significant reduction in the number of children taken into state care is to be achieved.

Keywords

teachinglearningcoachingnavigatingpoverty
Type
Practice Commentaries
Information
Children Australia , Volume 43 , Issue 3 , September 2018 , pp. 181 - 185
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ainsworth, F., & Hansen, P. (2011). The experience of parents of children in care: The human rights issue. Child and Youth Services, 32 (1), 9–18.Google Scholar
Ainsworth, F., & Hansen, P. (2014). Family foster care: Can it survive the evidence? Children Australia, 39 (2), 87–92.Google Scholar
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2016). Child protection Australia 2014–15. Canberra.Google Scholar
Berkovic, N. (2018). Love them or lose them. The Australian, p. 9. 29 January.Google Scholar
Bywaters, P., Bunting, L., Davidson, G., Hanratty, J., Maseon, W., McCartan, G., & Steils, N. (2016). The relationship between poverty, child abuse and neglect: An evidence review. London: Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
Cocks, J. (2018). If a community values its children, it must cherish their parents. Presentation, NSW: Newcastle. 17 April.Google Scholar
The Concise Oxford Dictionary (1964). 5th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Connolly, M. (2010). Engaging family members in decision making in child welfare contexts. In Arney, F. & Scott, D. (Eds.), Working with vulnerable families. A partnership approach. (pp. 209–226) Sydney: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Featherstone, B., White, S., & Morris, K. (2014). Re-imagining child protection. Towards humane social work with families. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Functional Family Therapy Child Welfare (FFT-CW®) (2018). Retrieved from https://www.ftcss.Google Scholar
Ghate, D., & Hazel, N. (2008). Parenting in poor environments. Stress, support and coping. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
Multi-Systemic Therapy for Child Abuse and Neglect (MST-CAN®) (2018). Retrieved from http://www.multisystemic-therapy-mst.Google Scholar
NSW Government. (2017). Their futures matter report. Department of Family and Community Services. Sydney.Google Scholar
Ozchild. (2018). Evidenced based services. Retrieved from https://www.ozchildorg.au/our-services/evidence-based-practice.Google Scholar
Swenson, C. C., Schaeffer, C. M., Henggeler, S.W., Faldowski, R., & Mayhew, A. (2010). Multisystemic therapy for child abuse and neglect. A randomised effectiveness trial. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 497–507.Google Scholar
Turner, C. W., Robbins, M. S., Rowlands, S., & Weaver, L. R. (2017). Summary of comparison between FFT-CW® and usual care sample from administration for Children's services. Child Abuse and Neglect, 69, 85–95.Google Scholar
Weatheburn, D., & Lind, B. (2001). Delinquency-prone communities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar