Today, we live in a child-conscious society.

We have seen the evolution of numerous child welfare programmes by the traditional agencies and are currently observing a proliferation of new and varied plans through recently developed agencies such as the Children's Commission. Supported by the possessive liberal-individualism in social thought, these policies and programmes purport to secure each child's individual material and emotional well-being so that he or she can develop into a well-reared, industrious and respectable community member. The trouble is that very few people seem to have considered the effects that such individualistic programmes have on our community as a whole. What are the overall objectives of child welfare programmes today? What are the values that determine policies? Are these policies and programmes flexible enough in the light of changing social values and cultural conditions? It is the purpose of this paper to raise questions about the objectives of child-welfare policies and to suggest that they may need to change their disposition towards highly individualistic programmes to an approach that emphasizes clearly established community perspectives.

In the past few years discussion concerning the composition of children's rights seems to have oscillated between the conservative statements of such august bodies as the United Nations (1) and the extreme stand of those who advocate “kid power”. (2) The. meaning of the term “children's rights” has become obscured and is in danger of becoming a gimmicky catchphrase which ignores the broader framework of intertwining rights, interests and obligations that involve interaction between the child, the family, the State and other individuals and groups who have an interest in their welfare.

On Wednesday February 25th 1976, a Joint Committee of both Houses of the English Parliament was set up to consider the whole matter of intra-familial violence. This development is, it is suggested, of very considerable significance because it marks, really for the first time, an official awareness of the phenomenon of violence in the family. Clearly, certain aspects of the matter have received parliamentary attention, but this is the first time in jurisdictions analogous to Australia that a total overview of the matter has been attempted. Accordingly, it is the purpose of this article to consider the problem from an Australian point of view and to suggest policies which might adequately protect the victims of such violence.

The description of the P. family — their anxieties, hardships and frustrations will be a familiar story to social workers working with non-English speaking migrant clients, regardless of whether the social worker is employed by ethnic or sectarian agencies or the wider general agencies such as government departments, municipal councils or independent organizations. This attempts to investigate some of the ways in which social workers can attempt to help and support the migrant client from a different ethnic group in his struggle to create a new life in Australia. The P. family's story will be used to illustrate some of the major areas of difficulty faced by a migrant family and a number of social work roles and strategies are suggested which might be employed in seeking to bring about social change. The implications of ethnicity for social work practice in a multi-cultural society form a central focus of concern. Finally, general comments and suggestions will be made about the role and responsibilities of the social worker in the multi-cultural society.

Foster care has long been overlooked as a viable alternative in the range of services to the retarded child and his family.

At a time when a number of agencies are planning developments into this area, this article discusses some of the underlying principles and conditions for a successful programme.