Child Protection Department taking more newborns into state care in SA

Every year, more than 100 South Australian mothers have their newborn babies taken away by the state. A woman who was taken from her mother said it has caused long-term harm.

Up to 150 newborns are being removed from their mothers at birth by child protection workers each year – and Aboriginal babies are taken at much higher rates.

New data from the Child Protection Department shows a record 149 infants were removed in their first month of life in 2020-21.

Of those, 54 (or 36 per cent) were Aboriginal, despite Aboriginal children making up just 5 per cent of the population.

In cases where infants are removed there are almost always repeated and early red flags, which often involve domestic violence, drug use or parents who have been unwilling to make changes to keep a child safe.

In many cases a mother may have been identified as having a high risk pregnancy, or have had previous children removed.

The rate of removals has skyrocketed from just 19 in 2012-13 to the peak of 149, before falling slightly last financial year to 107.

Members of the public are able to lodge concerns about a pregnant mother or unborn baby from 20 weeks gestation.

Department data shows 1521 such reports were made last financial year, almost triple the 553 lodged in 2012-13.

About a quarter of those reports involved Aboriginal families.

April Lawrie, Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People. Picture Matt Turner

Aboriginal Children’s Commissioner April Lawrie said very few Aboriginal children were reunited with their parents after being taken into state care and more investment in Aboriginal-led support services was needed to avoid removal in the first place.

“There’s a big push for permanency planning which, in my view, is pseudo-adoption, particularly when we’ve got Aboriginal children in non-Aboriginal care,” she said.

“It is often judgment (on mothers) without providing services to support mum in her pregnancy.

“Early help services have diminished to the point where the option that’s relied on is removal.

“We’ve got to have government willing to shift funding from mainstream organisations and put it into Aboriginal organisations and build capacity.”

Child Protection Department deputy chief executive Fiona Ward said two new programs were launched in 2021 which connect expectant parents with support services, including Relationships Australia and Aboriginal Family Support Services.

Both programs were successfully helping those involved to “continue to safely care for their infant”, Ms Ward said.

The department also has installed “high risk infant workers” at city and regional hospitals to help families create a safe environment for babies to go home to.

Some babies are referred to Centacare’s specialist foster care program where carers work to reunite infants with their parents.

“If a baby is removed, often in a referral we might see things like no antenatal care, drug and alcohol use or domestic violence during pregnancy, or a baby might be withdrawing from drugs when they’re born,” said foster care program manager Amalie Mannik.

“(Specialist foster carers) will be an extension of support for the family. It gives the parents an opportunity to demonstrate that they can be a safe home and get their children back.”

FEARS OF A VICIOUS CYCLE

An 18-year-old Indigenous woman who was placed in eight different residential homes by the Child Protection Department, has described how unstable placements have affected her in the long term.

Kaylie-Jade Litchfield, who was 11 when she was removed from her mother’s care, believes she is now worse off because of the care she received under guardianship of the department.

Also diagnosed with Aspergers and ADHD, Ms Litchfield said under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) she was receiving the medical help needed for her condition, which stopped once she was placed in care.

“They stopped giving me my medication,” she said.

“I had all these supports in place, because obviously I’ve got Aspergers and ADHD, so I’ve got NDIS funding, which my mum utilised.

“Then all of a sudden I was taken and all those supports were gone; none of them there any more.”

Ms Litchfield was removed from her mother’s care because of domestic violence and drug use.

Kaylie-Jade Litchfield, 18, with her mother. Both women were both removed by child protection authorities and are critical of the support provided. Picture: Tom Huntley

Throughout her time under the guardianship, Ms Litchfield was placed in eight different residential homes across South Australia, some of which she described as “chaotic” environments, full of other children who had also been removed.

“There’s no stability for us, it’s just for the workers. We just get the grunt end of it,” she said.

She said her time in one residential care facility ended up with her being charged by police for assaulting a social worker, which she said was a regular occurrence for the other children as well. Social workers used to call the police when they could not control the children.

During this time, Ms Litchfield said social workers at the facility had the authority to physically restrain children if they needed to, which she said would always provoke a response.

“These workers, they’re allowed to restrain you, they’re allowed to touch you,” she said.

“So like, you know, night shift, when kids are trying to go out the doors after 11 o’clock, because they’re not allowed to lock us in.

“But they’re allowed to restrain us from going outside. It would cause riots in the houses.”

Ms Litchfield’s mother, who did not want to be named, had been taken and placed in care as a infant and spent 18 years under the protection of the department. She felt as though her daughter had become another part of an ongoing cycle.

She told the Advertiser child protection needed to exist, but believed that the system was completely broken and in many cases, did more harm to children than good.

“There’s a need for child protection. I was one of those children who, I can tell you this, needed protection, I should have been removed,” said the mother.

“(But) when she (Kaylie) was in my care, she was playing sports, getting fantastic grades. She was a really decent kid.

“And then she went into care, and she became the complete opposite.”

Ms Litchfield’s mother said she did not receive the support necessary from the department when her daughter was removed, and if she had, things would have been different.

Now, the mother and daughter say they are fearful of a third generation removal, and that the department would re-emerge into their lives one day if Ms Litchfield were ever to have a child of her own.

“That’s what I’m scared of, if like, one day I have a kid and I do or say one thing wrong, then all of a sudden there’s a report made,” Ms Litchfield said.