If it happened to me

As a Social Worker working in private practice with a client group who have had their children removed, I notice the struggles parents experience knowing that the State has stepped in and taken their children from them because the parents are "bad" parents.

I was reflecting recently on what that would be like for me, if the Department of Child Protection had entered my life when and removed my children. There was time when my partner and I would have ticked a few boxes which would have been of concern to the Department if we had come under their gaze. I recall a time when my son was eleven months old and walking, climbing and doing what kids of his age do. He had climbed onto a table in the back yard and fell off and landed on his forehead. It created the biggest bump on his forehead that you could imagine. It was a major concern to us but after a little comforting and holding he was fine. We monitored him for sometime and concluded that he was fine.

Risk factor one

If we had taken him to hospital a doctor or nurse may have assumed that the injury was non-accidentally, or that we were not supervising him appropriately. This could have led to a notification to the Department of Child Protection. Because the report came from a nurse or doctor this would have been acted upon immediately.

Risk factor two

Both my wife and I were unemployed. We were barely able to buy food. It was a horrible time and very testing on our relationship. It is likely that the Department would have seen our financial situation also as one which would put our son at risk.

Risk factor three

My wife was in foster care from three to eighteen. As strange as it may seem, I have cited this as being a concern on many Department documents.

Risk factor four

If the Department social workers had landed at our door and wanted to interview us I would have told them in not uncertain terms to mind their own business and I would not have let them in. They would have returned with the police and because I wasn't co-operating would have seen this as a risk factor and would have removed my son.

Risk factor five

My wife and I would have been extremely distressed, and I, back then, would have become somewhat aggressive, mainly because I wouldn't have understood what was going on and certainly didn't see myself and partner as "bad parents". I would have been labelled as aggressive and that my partner was living with an aggressive man and she needed to be removed from the situation. If she had declared that I wasn't abusive of her the Department Social Workers would have declared that she was failing to accept the DV relationship and the damage it was doing to my son.

Even though none of the above happened, under different circumstances it could have happened to me, and it does happen to others.

The labeling and categorizing of clients is endemic within the Department of Child Protection. Young Social Workers, with virtually no experience are making decisions about clients and their children which impact families for the rest of their lives. While they believe that they are saving children from these terrible parents they often fail to understand the impact of removing a child and the long term damage it may cause.

No parent parents perfectly, we all make mistakes, and I admit that I have made my fair share. There are times when we need help. The Department of Child Protection should be the place to go when help is needed. So many clients have asked for this help only to have their children removed until the children are eighteen years old.

Ask yourself how would you respond if the Department of Child Protection knocked on your door and removed your children? At the current rate of removal it is becoming more likely than ever before.

The Abuse of Power

It has been some concern of mine, for some time, that social workers within the child protection system abuse their power and authority. I emphasise, that this is not always the case, but on many occasions I experience social workers using their authority as a weapon against vulnerable clients.

Recently I attended a meeting between the Department of Child Protection and a client and her workers. The issue which needed to be discussed was the clients drug use. There is no doubt that this was a matter which needed to be raised and had to be confronted by all of us, including the client. Rather than accepting that the client had made a mistake, the mistake needed to be addressed, and then a pathway to move on needed to be discovered.

It was apparent that the client felt embarrassed and humiliated by a poor decision that she had made. Rather than accepting where the client was at that particular time and understanding how she felt it seemed more important for the social workers to hammer home the point that she was a serial drug user. We need to understand that if a client has a long term drug addiction that the expectation that they will not ever have a moment where they are enticed back into their old habits is unrealistic. In the area of child protection we understand that a drug addiction hinders a parent's ability to be able to parent appropriately. There is no denying that it is important for parents to address these concerns, but to expect a person who has a long-term addiction to not return to that addiction in the short term places undue pressure upon the client and adds to their duress.

This doesn't mean that we offer excuses for returning to the addiction, but what it does mean is that we understand the struggle required in order to manage the anxiety and stress, which is caused when someone is attempting to refrain from their drug use. When a client has ticked all the boxes, demonstrated that they have the parenting capacity required to look after, care for, and nurture their child and then revisiting of their drug addiction becomes paramount, it discounts all of the work they have done in order to demonstrate to the department that they have the capabilities required in order to become the parents they need to be. I am not advocating that maintaining a drug habit is acceptable, because it isn't, and it needs to be dealt with before a child can be returned to its parent.

During this meeting the client became angry when she was told that her drug was long-term and that she hadn't been compliant at any stage of the process. This accusation is blatantly untrue and the client knew this. For a social worker to make a claim which is without specific evidence and which minimises all the positive work that the client has achieved, demonstrates poor social work practice. I was feeling angry and frustrated as well so it is no wonder that the client felt angry and demonstrated her anger by swearing and raising her voice.

Rather than accepting where the client was, acknowledging her anger and the reasons why she may be feeling angry, the social worker chose to continue the abuse, by telling the clients that if she continued to swear then she would terminate the meeting.

So how did this end for the client? She left the meeting still feeling angry. Her faith in the system further diminished. Her trust of the workers was completely eradicated. Her sense of self was destroyed. None of this improved the situation, but instead it sends the client to a place she has been avoiding for a long time.

I accept that the hardest thing for any social worker to do is to confront somebody about a behaviour which we believe is unhelpful and damaging to others. However, a good practising social worker will be able to express their concerns in an empathetic and effective manner which doesn't damage the client or interferes with the process. Each client is different and needs to be treated differently. We need to understand the nuances, what triggers those issues which are of particular concern to the client. We should never act in a way which damages or harms the clients sense of self and well-being. It is simply our duty to do no harm. It is frustrating when I notice these simple tenants of social work practice not being adhered to nor being understood.

I'm talking about one incident that happened a couple of weeks ago, but my observation is that this happens far too often. My belief is that the reason why some social workers wish to blame clients is that the social workers believe that the client is a "bad parent". No matter what the client chooses to do is not going to change that perception. When we believe fervently that bad behaviour is the sum total of who the person is we are never going to notice the good behaviour. What saddens me is that there is so much good behaviour that the failure to acknowledge it denigrates and humiliates the very people that we should be supporting.

Forming a political party that matters

For over two years now we have been developing a political movement designed to provide a voice for children and adults who have been in contact with child protection services. The challenge has always been to articulate the need for a change within child protection services so that children and their parents have a voice.

The reason why a political party is necessary is born of the idea that change will not eventuate through advocacy alone. The child protection party, threw myself and Nadia, have been working with parents for over 10 years. Even though the work we do has impacted and provided positive outcomes for parents it has failed to make the changes within the child protection systems that are necessary. We need to think of this problem in terms of two silos, one represents the micro level where we work with parents and the department social workers in order to represent the parents in an environment where they are rarely heard. The other important silo is the one in which decisions are made and one in which we do not, at this particular point, have a voice. This silo is the legislative arm of the government, the decision-makers, those with the power to make the changes that will impact the child protection system in the long-term.

We work on the outside of the system. We are observers, we are notetakers, we are the micro change makers. When we look into the system as an outside observer we notice the inefficiencies, the poor practices, the impact on parents and children, the damaged caused and the poor outcomes for all concerned.

We are aware that there are two diametrically opposed views, the one which sees most parents as "bad parents" and which focuses on a deficit model, and the one which we see and implement which is looking for hope and change within the people with whom we work. We see a system which is reluctant to change, a system which is so entrenched in managing risk that it fails to see the opportunities existing within most parents.

In most of my blogs I have talked about the system, about parents and children, so I won't continue that rant here. What I need to say is that it is through political power and influence that significant change can take place. In recent times I've come to realise that there will be many people who will be seeking to cash in on this issue because they realise that it is becoming politically expedient to occupy the child protection space. In my mind, there is only one political party which has the knowledge, the background, the experience, and the policies to make the changes that are necessary.

It has been proven that none of the major political parties have the will, the understanding, nor the policies to change the system that needs to be changed. If they had all of this they would have been able to change the system a long time ago. Each time there is a crisis within the system, that is a child either dies while in care or because the child wasn't taken into care, nothing changes in order to improve or prevent these sorts of outcomes. As a community we can no longer allow the flagrant disregard for the well-being of children to persist. As a community we have to take active steps to change the system so that all children, regardless of socio-economic background, the way they were parented, or the way they have been treated while in care, are safe and secure.

It is stating the obvious to say that kids are our future, that unless we look after them, care for them, ensure that they are safe, we are doing a great disservice to them and to the way this country will develop over the decades to come. Each of us has a responsibility to work towards a better future for all children, not just those who are in the child protection system. This includes children with a range of challenges, such as learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, and physical disabilities. We need to ensure that regardless of the school one attends or the educational standard attained by a parent, a child has the right to experience the best educational opportunities available.

It is vital that we as a political party and as a community confront social issues such as domestic violence, drug and alcohol use, and neglect, so that children who find themselves in those environments have the opportunity to feel safe and secure. This can be achieved by providing services which identify the groups mentioned above which will help them to understand the damage done by being in a violent and abusive relationship, by taking drugs and alcohol and how that creates a neglectful environment for the children.

I have stated many times that parents, almost without exception, love their children. Most parents that we encounter want to make the changes that they need to make in order to have their children remain within the family. We need to provide the opportunity for these parents to confront the issues which sit in their lives so they can become better parents. Blaming them, denigrating them and offering minimal services for them to confront and change those issues which inhibit their parenting is not what a cohesive and caring community would want.

The Child Protection Party advocates for these changes. We need to work within the political silo to make the changes that are necessary. We need your support in order to do that.

Poverty and the impact on Children.

Poverty is the singular cause of dysfunction in families. To extinguish poverty as we know it would mean a significant and vital change to the social conscience and the development of political policies. We acknowledge that poverty does not stand alone as the only cause of family dysfunction. We also acknowledge that family dysfunction is not the sole domain of the poor. However, our starting point is the light which is shone on those who are the most vulnerable because of there reliance on social funding.

As a Political Party, we are concerned about the unfair and inequitable distribution of wealth and the glare of those who have access to the resources not afforded most people in this country. It is important that we provide a focus in this area so that the problem may be addressed and appropriate solutions be discovered.

Domestic Violence, drug abuse, child abuse and neglect etc are not mutually exclusive and need to be viewed with a wide perspective incorporating all the nuances which encapsulate these issues.  Poverty sits there along side all the sins of human kind. It is used as a means of control by determining the amount of financial contribution made by governments which will assuage those in power who wish to see others as different and inferior to themselves. To confront those who wield this power means that their own greed and prejudices need to be confronted. They will argue they do what is possible by their narrow definition as controllers of the purse. While offering incentives for the wealthy to become wealthy they are simultaneously offering the poor less and placing controls on them which they would never place on the wealthy.

The bargaining chips offered by those with wealth and power is inordinately effective compared to the apparent limited bargaining chips offered by those who say they represent the poor or the poor themselves. The poor don’t form lobbying groups, stand for parliament or exert any real energy that will change the way they are treated. While the wealthy will influence the political class to ensure that their interests are best served. The political parties who receive donations from the wealthy will always have their donor’s interests at heart. This will determine the political decisions made at the expense of the those who don’t have a voice.

As a political movement, it is therefore imperative that we work to limit the power of the wealthy so that the space which is meant for political debate can be utilised to discuss those who are impacted and suffer at the hands of financially motivated policies which provide nothing but closer surveillance of the poor.   

Policies which limit the distribution of wealth impact the children of the poor. These policies subjugate children through financial suppression and continual denigration based on the parents perceived worthlessness and contribution to society. Someone must make a stand for those who are not able to voice their concerns nor articulate their experiences in a manner which changes the debate and opens a pathway towards true equitable and fair decisions which include the ALL.

Poverty is not a stage of growth, something we have to experience in order for our lives to be different, rather it is an unfortunate pathway determined by the degree to which we as a society castigate those who are lumbered with poverty. In the same way that we would reach down to help someone who has fallen over, we need to reach down and help those who are struggling with life no matter what the affliction.

This is not about becoming extremely paternalistic or superior it is about identifying the structures which bring about poverty and the beliefs which trap people into believing that there is no escape.

The Child Protection Party believes that we can challenge the beliefs which cause children to grow into the beliefs adopted by their parents and imposed by the society in which they live.

Child Protection Concerns ALL of us

Child protection has been for many years an issue which receives primarily negative coverage. This  is because the media tends to focus on children when they have been mistreated by individuals or the system itself. The well-being of children is not necessarily seen as a political issue or something that we as a public should focus on. Because children don’t vote then they don’t have a voice. We don’t listen to them, we don’t seem to care about them, they should only be seen and not heard. Unless abuse has happened to us, we have a personal experience of being abused, then we are likely to dismiss it, to ignore it, to deny its existence. When we see in the press that a child has been harmed or even killed, the public then rises to its feet, complains, displays their sense of indignation and wants to blame the person or persons responsible for this atrocity.

Yet on the other hand, we know that children do matter. Those of us who are parents appreciate the changes and the growth that we see in our children. We want them to have better opportunities than perhaps we have had. We want them to be safe. We understand the need to nurture and to care for our children to ensure that their mental and physical well-being is ensured. We will fight to protect our children because we want them to feel safe and confident that they can move forward with their lives so they can have the things that are important to them. However, we don’t want to be confronted by the abysmal abuse that occurs to children and families outside our own circle. We want to stay encased in our own bubble refusing to see anything that steps beyond the world we have create.

That some form of abuse fits within 25% of all families is an idea which very few of us are prepared to confront. There is a sense of willing ignorance which prevents a connection with the reality that sits around all of us.

Over the years, I have had many people say to me that they didn’t believe that the issues stated in the media were issues that would ever impact them, until the time that their children or grandchildren or someone who was close to them had their children removed. Until it is personal, we don’t seem to care. We don’t want to care, perhaps we don’t have the energy to care. Until you feel the pain of losing a child, you may never know what it means to have one taken from you. This doesn’t mean that you must have a child removed through the child protection system because there are occasions where children leave their families through death, mental illness, divorce and separation. The separation of a child from its parents is a devastating experience for the child under any circumstances. We often don’t reflect on what that experience may be like for the child.

Regardless of the reasons why children are separated from their parents or their parents separated from children. It is damaging, it impacts everyone.

We have a system, a government system, which is designed to take consideration for the impact abuse has on children and to protect children who have been abused. The system though is powerless at preventing the abuse in the first place. If governments reflect social mores, then the creation of a child protection system is a reflection of a social believe that children should be safe. It means that as a society we are concerned about the well-being of children. So there must be something in the “community think” that says children are important, therefore we must have a system designed to protect them. Yet, we have a community who would prefer not to have to care about children, who don’t see child protection as a major political and social issue. Yes, the community is outraged when a child is abused or dies, and it appears on the front page of the local paper.

When you look at all the other issues that concern most of us. It is hard to imagine why the issue of child protection is not even considered. I think about all the issues that seem to concern most people and wonder how significant they really are. Sure, taxes are important, employment is important, immigration is important, diversity and our multicultural society and how we respond to it is important, but are they equally important as the well-being of children? They are important, all of them are important, but the one which is lease significant or rarely debated is the matter of caring for and ensuring that children have the best possible outcome. I haven’t the answer and the Child Protection Party doesn’t have the answer either. What we know for certain is that to us and our members. It is a vital issue which has been ignored for too long.

Our role is to ask questions around the child protection system to challenge people’s views of children, to give children a voice where they don’t have one, and parents and significant others to talk about their experiences and ultimately to develop a dialogue that discusses the way the system may be improved. Beyond all of that. Our aim and goal is to talk about how we can prevent abuse from occurring in the first place.

We want people to become engaged with the problem to be able to talk about it to their friends, to their neighbours to the people they care about. We want people to become concerned, passionate, motivated and looking for change that is new, different, and significant.

There is an underlying sense of indignation when we have been attacked personally. You may remember occasions where someone has said something to you that you’ve found offensive. Can you remember the emotions that were created inside of you? That sense of resentment, the sense of injustice that just ate away at everything that you believed in. We all have had those moments where we want to fight back wanted to say something disparaging of the other person. For some, that is the way they feel all the time about the child protection system, the system that has removed a child from a parent and parent from a child. The difference here is that it’s not possible to fight back, it’s certainly possible to be enraged, angry, resentful, vengeful, and a range of other intense emotions, but it sometimes seems hopeless to fight back. So we give up. We accept the inevitable, but the resentment and all those other emotions swell around inside of us like a whirlpool. Never settling, never quiet and always, always active.

Most of the community don’t understand the damage that is done to all those who are involved in the Child protection system. Generally, we don’t see the miscarriage of justice. The pain that is created and the poor outcomes experienced by all involved.

The problem is that we want to see the immediacy of any change that governments create. The biggest and best factory and the jobs that it will create is far more important than creating better outcomes for children. Better because we see what is going to happen in the short term, and it is tangible. What benefit is there to considering investing in young people and children when that investment is 15 to 20 years from the time the investment was made. What advantages is there for governments to make that investment now when they may not be in power or have influence or be rewarded for their marvelous and wonderful insight some 20 years later.

I am writing this post because there are a group of people who are passionate about the future of our children. We feel the pain that parents feel, we feel the despair of children who are removed from their parents. We are frustrated because every day we experienced the inconsistencies and poor decision-making made by those who are responsible for the well-being of our children. Change can only come through those of us who are prepared to work together so that we all can find a new way of working.

Bad Behaviour is always Bad Behaviour

Under no circumstances will the child protection party support any behaviour that harms children. Every now and again people comment to us that we are too supportive of parents and are not critical enough of their behaviour. The inference is that because we are not critical of them as perhaps other people may be that we are somehow supportive of their behaviour. I don’t know how many times we need to say this but that is not the truth. Under no circumstances are we supportive of a parent who has harmed or damaged her child or his child in any way. You will never find anyone from this party saying that a damaging behaviour is acceptable. You have never heard any of us say that a certain behaviour which is damaging the child is acceptable. Do we confront parents who have acted badly? Of course, we do! The difference here is that we will confront them in a way which does not denigrate the parent. We understand that if we are to bring about change we need people to work with us, we can’t be bullish or aggressive or judgemental or superior, we must walk the fine line which is confronting yet understanding as well.

It may be difficult for many people to understand why we take this particular way of working. If I was to come to you and tell you that you were a bad mother that these were all the things you do that indicate to us that you do not love your children, that you are a drug addict, hopeless and helpless and unable to resolve the issues which sit in your life, would you want to work with me? You may feel that you must because people have told you that you have to work with me, but it is likely that you would not want to work with me, and if you chose to work with me because you had to, then our working relationship will be tense and probably unproductive.

I believe it is also important to understand how we view people. Do we see people as hopeless and helpless, as losers, as drug addicts, as bad parents, and simply as bad people? As hard as this might be for some people to believe that isn’t how I see others, nor do I want to see others in that way, because it limits us from seeing the good things that inhabit a person’s life. By labelling and categorising we prohibit and restrict change.

I am not suggesting for a moment that the way I work is the only way to work neither amI  suggesting that it is the most effective but what I am saying is that for me and the people that I work with it appears to be the most productive. I know that people do not see the world as I do, that perhaps some times my views are somewhat radical, different. I have often confronted those people and even  judged those people who thought and acted differently to me.

When people confront me with the idea that we as a political party are not focusing on the children but focusing too much on the parent I wonder why they would even think that. Surely, it should go without question that it is the well-being of children that is the sole reason why the Child protection party exists. Do people expect us to be angry, intolerant, vengeful and hateful? Do they expect us to express those emotions because that is how they feel about children being abused or conversely how they feel because their children have been taken from them. I understand that those emotions are intense and justified and right.

I know that when parents have their children removed they are extremely emotional as you would be if your child was taken from you. I also know that amongst the many emotions that they experience sits shame and guilt because they have been identified as parents who were unable to cope with their own children, the people they love the most. These emotions are complicated, they are not just about what is happening for them at that particular time, they about the complexities of their lives, the regrets, the fears, the resentments that sit eating away at them over and over again. Often, it is about the unresolved issues that also sit in their lives that they have never been able to deal with and are now confronted by because their own children have been removed. Often it is about their own feelings associated with their own removal as children.  

So how do those ideas conflate, come together at that moment that someone steps into your life and remove your child/ren. Whoever really thinks about that, who contemplates what it is like for the parent at that time that their children are removed, instead, we want to blame the parent for finding themselves in that situation in the first place.

We feel sad for the child, and rightfully so, that they have been placed into a situation that has harmed them. Yet, we need to understand the context, the past, that encapsulates and surrounds these people.

It is always about keeping children safe, it is also about ensuring that the cycle of abuse is broken.

Understanding parents and their drug use

I am responding to an article in today's advertiser written by Lauren Novak. The main point emphasised by Lauren in this article is that there is an epidemic of ice use amongst parents. That there needs to be a focus by the government on this problem is an understatement. There is no doubt that the excessive or daily use of any illicit drug will prevent a parent from parenting appropriately thus creating a risk for children.

The Child Protection Party experiences drugs as a risk factor in over 90% of the cases we deal with. Recently, a client asked me to seek out an appropriate rehabilitation program for her. I discovered that there was one program where the waiting period was six months and there were a range of other programs which represented drop-in centres rather than a live-in program. It was evident that drug rehabilitation programs were scarce and were not well funded.

Most of the parents I work with, who have a drug problem, which is most of them, are scheduled regular drug tests or have random drug tests regularly. This in itself creates a problem because if a person is unable to make a drug test because they are ill or feeling overwhelmed, the department will automatically suspect that they have been "using". This creates another layer of mistrust.

Some Department of child protection office's have a drug counsellor on the premises with the expectation that parents will attend drug rehabilitation counselling through this service. I think this is a valuable service and it should be offered at every centre where parents are being investigated and assessed. However, accessing the department's designated and preferred counselling service does not create compliance because clients become wary and mistrustful of these services. This means that parents often find it difficult to engage with the counsellor.

Parents find it difficult to cease drug taking when they spend most of their time discussing the drug problem. What needs to be discussed, but seldom is, are the other problems which influence the drug taking. This type of counselling requires the client to trust the worker, and the client to be assured that whatever it is said in front of the worker will remain confidential. Parents believe, and rightfully so, that statements they make to any other professional will find their way back to the department. This therefore prevents parents from being honest and open with the issues that have plagued them for most of their lives.

When a parent encounters a child protection service it is an opportunity for them to confront the traumas and abuse that the client has received, and in order for them to do so they need to be able to trust the service which has engaged with them. If that service though is a service which they do not trust then it is hard to imagine how they can experience a positive outcome.

Ultimately, we need child protection services to be a one-stop shop, where trust is established confidentiality is maintained, support is offered and working together to have the children returned is everyone's goal. It is sad though that the culture does not permit this sort of service to be offered. The culture of blame has to be eradicated and a sense of partnership needs to be established. Working with parents who trust the worker produces some amazing outcomes in a shorter time frame. Working in an environment where there is little trust will always produce negative outcomes.

Back to Lauren's article, the number of tests a parent has to do and the amount of counselling they receive is irrelevant if they fail to believe in and confide in the process. The challenge should be to create environments where people feel safe, where they can openly talk about their concerns without feeling and believing they will be punished for doing so.

There is hardly a parent I speak to who doesn't want to be a better parent for their children. For those of us who have never experienced an ice addiction will never understand the power and influence such an addiction can have on a person. For us to offer simplistic solutions to emotionally intense problems dismisses the experiences of victims. The experiences of many of the people whom I deal with range across the spectrum of all types of trauma. None of which I have ever experienced. Which most of us in the community also have not experienced. However, many of us are prepared to adopt the "get over it" mentality, without ever understanding what it is like for some of these people. By simplifying the problem we are undervaluing the experiences of those people who we want to help.

The Child Protection Party is working desperately to change the narrative so that we all can have a different perspective of what the issues are and how to resolve them. By becoming paternalistic and simplistic we are accomplishing nothing.