‘Creating another Stolen Generation’: Child Protection Department placed children with man who was no relation

The case of three children being placed with a non-Indigenous man instead of blood relatives has triggered a furious response from the Aboriginal Children Commissioner.

The Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People has accused the Child Protection Department of “creating another Stolen Generation” in response to a child placement decision.

An Indigenous family has claimed that they were not consulted at all before child protection authorities placed three siblings in the long-term care of a non-Indigenous man, because he was deemed their “psychological” father.

The children, who are all under the age of seven, were removed from their mother at the end of 2017, when she said she suffered from postnatal depression and started abusing drugs.

Commissioner April Lawrie said “this case illustrates yet again DCP’s preference to keep Aboriginal children away from their family, culture and community; with little or no regard for the Aboriginal child placement principle”.

“I am conducting an Inquiry into these very issues, and much more, that pervades the child protection system when it comes to the rights of Aboriginal children,” she said.

Ms Lawrie said the removal of indigenous children to be placed with non-indigenous people is “creating another Stolen Generation; perpetuating the intergenerational cycle of trauma and decimation of Aboriginal culture”.

“If it weren’t for the fight of the family to be involved and to take their rightful place with them, DCP would have been very satisfied with themselves that they have acted in the best interest of these Aboriginal children, when, in my view this is far from fact.

“There needs to be a change in care arrangements with family sooner than later.”

The children were then placed with their grandmother as primary carer before she died suddenly in January this year.

In the two weeks between her death and funeral, the children remained with the grandmother’s de facto partner of three years, while family members planned and conducted her funeral in a town more than eight hours drive away.

Once the family returned from the funeral of the children’s grandmother and carer, they were left shocked to find out that a Department for Child Protection caseworker had given long-term placement to a man they knew nothing about, the grandmother’s partner of less than four years.

“He’s from Adelaide and we don’t know anything about him,” the next of kin to the children told The Advertiser.

“He just rocked up (to the community) and moved straight into mum’s. None of us had a relationship with him.”

The family say they are now pursuing legal action to get the children back to living with blood relatives after an application for an internal review of the decision made by the department was knocked back.

“DCP has reviewed your application and advise the concerns raised are out of scope for an internal review,” the department said in the review outcome.

In the internal review application seen by The Advertiser, the family claimed that a DCP caseworker in the community had given primary care to the man because he was their “psychological” parent.

The Advertiser has acquired photos which purport to show the man with illegal drugs in his possession, and sent questions to the department to ask if due diligence was conducted by their caseworker when the children were placed in the man’s care.

An Indigenous family has claimed that they were not consulted at all before the Department for Child Protection placed three siblings in the permanent care of a non-Indigenous man. The carer pictured holding a marijuana leaf. Picture: Supplied

Questions sent to the department by The Advertiser asked if the man was drug tested prior to having the children placed with him, why he was given placement despite the children having no blood connection and why the family were not consulted when it happened.

However, the department said it was unable to comment on individual cases.

Under the department’s policy, the principles of Family Led Decision Making (FLDM) for Aboriginal families, blood relatives are to be included in all decisions when a placement is being arranged for children.

“Aboriginal children and young people are best cared for in their family, kin and cultural network,” the policy states.

“Family is a culturally defined concept and therefore who is included in the decision-making process should be defined by Aboriginal family, children, young people and communities”.

In South Australia, if an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander child or young person is to be placed in state care under the Children’s and Young People (Safety) Act, the child should, if reasonably possible, be placed with a member of the child or young person’s family.