Robin Clark was an inspirational leader in the child protection and out-of-home care field throughout the 1980s and 1990s in Australia. Robin died in 2001. However her legacy continues due to her mentoring of social workers throughout her career and her numerous reviews and evaluations of child protection systems. This article pays tribute to the lessons Robin Clark taught administrators and practitioners in the design and delivery of child protection and out-of-home care systems.

This paper outlines the growing awareness of one experienced professional in the out-of-home care field regarding some of the deleterious practices of the present time. While much good practice exists in this field, it is the author's contention that entrenched attitudes which convey insensitivity and discrimination towards children and young people in care are still all too frequent; and that these attitudes continue to militate against meeting the essential needs of children and young people.

This paper outlines a group of theoretical concepts and relates them to a number of areas of current malpractice by way of an attempt to explain how these occur. In doing this, it seeks not to deny the sensitivity and skill of most current practitioners, and the excellent work that abounds in the child/youth welfare fields. Rather, the paper seeks to address those areas of practice which are still of concern, and to call for a change of attitude where needed.

This paper explores the recent emphasis on family reunification as an intervention strategy with ‘high-risk’ families whose children have been placed in the care of the State for reasons of significant abuse and/or neglect. It considers some of the dominant ideas and ideologies around reunification as an intervention strategy and reflects on the many layers of complexity involved in seeking to reconnect children and families under circumstances of risk Finally, it considers the ‘systemic factors’ that compound the inherent difficulties involved in returning children to the care of their parents and offers some practice strategies aimed at recognising and minimising those risks and maximising the likelihood of a successful and safe outcome.

In March 2002 the authors notified all the children living in the Woomera Detention Centre to South Australia's child protection system, in an effort to ensure that the well-being of those children was protected. An investigation was conducted; serious problems at Woomera were identified; and the relevant South Australian Minister asked the Federal Minister for Immigration for ‘new guidelines’ for the centre. Then silence descended.

In this article, the authors detail the reasons for their notifications and outline the events which followed. The Federal Government criticised the report of the investigation by SA child protection workers, and there is no indication of any action taken on it. In explaining the ensuing silence the authors refer to their understanding of the contents of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Federal and South Australian Governments. This memorandum, it is believed, ensures no further information about Woomera will be revealed. Further, the memorandum appears to leave the Federal Government with total responsibility for follow-up action. The South Australian Government seems to have surrendered its responsibility in this regard. Given the lack of action, the authors question whether both levels of government could be in breach of South Australia's Children's Protection Act 1993.

Children and young people have too easily been subjected to state-sponsored mistreatment and neglect. One primary reason for the discriminatory and often hostile conduct directed at them by agencies ostensibly established to promote their welfare is that they have been ‘constructed’ as dangerous and ‘antisocial’, or as dependent, incompetent and naïve. A key aim of this article is to promote discussion about the significance of children's and young people's status as a key determinant of policies which routinely override their basic rights. The article argues that attention needs to be given to how child and youth policies can be developed more securely within a justice framework.

I argue that, if we are serious about developing both just policies and ethical relationships with young people, we need to recognise the role played by dominant narratives about young people in shaping policies. Once this is achieved, attention can then be directed towards how those identities might be contested and reconstructed. I offer a number of suggestions for securing ethical treatment of young people which includes respecting them as fully-fledged human beings and citizens. I argue that challenging common-sense understandings of young people as dependent, not fully intellectually or morally competent, etc, can inform policies in ways that secure young people's entitlements as full citizens. In particular one way of challenging popular views about young people is to increase their involvement in the public sphere. The fact that most young people cannot currently claim rights for themselves directly is no reason for denying them. Indeed it is a good reason for securing mechanisms for monitoring those who have children in their care and to intervene to put those rights into effect. I also make a case for embedding young people's rights into an account of obligations that can be used to secure respectful and just conduct on the part of older people who have young people in their care.