Royal Commission: Behind the curtain of cruelty

DURING her investigation into child protection, Royal Commissioner Margaret Nyland conducted case studies into key elements of the system. Here are four of them and the recommendations they prompted.

The Royal Commission investigation uncovered shocking cases of neglect and cruelty.

• What the child protection inquiry got right - and wrong
• Damned: System that failed our children

DURING her investigation into child protection, Royal Commissioner Margaret Nyland conducted case studies into key elements of the system. Here are four of them and the recommendations they prompted.

CASE STUDY 1

JAMES – Vulnerable children, birth to school age

HIS STORY: James, aged four-years-old, was discovered by police inside a squalid northern suburbs home, hidden away naked in a filthy bedroom with garbage and rubbish strewn across the floor while his derelict parents were intoxicated elsewhere in the house.

The little boy’s “bones were visible and he was dishevelled and shaking and shivering” the Royal Commission notes.

The youngster was cold to touch and dirty, with sunken eyes and unable to move without trembling.

James “weighed little more than a toddler and was suffering developmental delay and serious malnutrition”, it was recorded.

In his four years, James had been the subject of many notifications to Families SA. His parents were ultimately sent to prison on neglect charges.

South Australian authorities were unaware James’ father previously had an infant removed from his care in Victoria over concerns the child was deprived of affection, kept in a dark house in front of a heater and not taken outdoors.

James’ sad plight was brought to Families SA’s attention before he was born. His mother’s age and damaged background raised concern of staff and the Lyell McEwin Hospital.

A child abuse report line call was made when the mother was 34 weeks pregnant, amid concerns about her lack of ongoing contact with the hospital.

There was no response from Families SA.

After several warnings following his birth, a Families SA counsellor was engaged to manage the case.

Police attended the home after several planned meetings between the mother and Families SA were missed and officers noted the unhygienic conditions. However James was not removed until police returned 18 months later.

During that time, James was so hidden from the outside world that neighbours were not even aware a child was living at the house.

RECOMMENDATIONS

— Establish a child protection service unit at the Lyell McEwin Hospital.

— Fund initial health assessment clinics at the Women’s and Children’s Hospital, Flinders Medical Centre and Lyell McEwin Hospital including a psychosocial component.

— Abandon the proposal to engage unqualified call agents to receive telephone notifications.

CASE STUDY 2

ABBY – Intervening in high-risk families

HER STORY: “Abby”, an Aboriginal child, entered care as a two-month-old.

Her mother, Ms B, had a history of child protection concerns, drug use and exposure    to domestic violence.

Ms B gave birth to her first child, a son,        in Western Australia when she was 17.

He was later put into the care of his grandmother.

In early 2012, a 22-year-old Ms B had moved to South Australia and gave birth to Abby at the Flinders Medical Centre.

Over time Abby’s mother continued to   take drugs and disappear for weeks on end while leaving Abby in the care of others.

Eventually it was decided to remove the child from her mother – but the toddler bounced around the system, from emergency foster carers to a foster family that was already caring for a large number of children.

She later ended up in a state-run home for more than five months until, aged about 14 months, she was placed with non-Aboriginal Anglicare foster parents.

In April 2014, Families SA made its first attempt to reunite Abby with her mother but  it failed after a violent altercation involving Abby’s mother. Police also found drug paraphernalia at her home.

A second reunification attempt also failed and it was eventually decided to put Abby on an order to remain in the care of the state for the long-term.

In the end – at the age of two years and  four months – Abby was sent back to WA to live with relatives.

Ms Nyland found the process to reunite Abby with her family had dragged on “for far too long”.

Recommendations were made to help maintain and strengthen Abby’s cultural identity “but it does not appear that any    effort was made to follow them”.

There was also a lack of suitable Aboriginal foster carers.

RECOMMENDATIONS

■ Establish a “scoping unit” to find suitable Aboriginal foster families.

■ Develop a strategy to recruit and retain  more Aboriginal staff.

■ Allow parents of children younger than
two a limit of six months to prove they can regain custody before longer-term plans        are made.

CASE STUDY 3

HANNAH – Leaving care

HER STORY: “Hannah” was in the care of the state between the ages of nine and 18 after being “relinquished” by her adoptive parents.

She was placed in short-term emergency foster care then a large residential care unit.

At 11, Hannah was placed into a foster family where she lived for more than three years, until her mental health and behavioural issues caused problems.

At 15, Hannah was living in a home run      by a non-government organisation – but she struggled to cope emotionally and attempted suicide. Following her discharge from hospital, Hannah was placed in short-term emergency foster care. She was no longer in school.

Families SA had become aware she was associating with a man known to harbour children under the guardianship of the minister when they went missing.

Authorities feared he was sexually exploiting Hannah. Families SA discussed issuing written directives to bar the man     from contact with Hannah, but never acted.

Hannah spent time in emergency accommodation and was later referred to an independent living program funded by Families SA and operated by the Salvation Army. She continued to have contact with    the man while living there.

Staff at the program discovered he had  been assaulting Hannah.

At 17, she began another relationship with   a man supplying her with alcohol and drugs. Despite notifications to the Child Abuse Report Line, Hannah moved in with the man after her accommodation through the Salvation Army program was terminated.

Months later the man was given a written direction stopping him from seeing Hannah and she was given supervised accommodation.

A month before she turned 18, Hannah moved into a Housing SA property.

Her Families SA file was formally closed shortly after her 18th birthday.

RECOMMENDATIONS

■ Require the minister to arrange assistance for young people leaving care between the ages of 18 and 25, including support to obtain housing, education, training and employment, access to legal advice and health care.

■ Fund a pilot program of intensive case management assistance for vulnerable young people leaving state care.

■ Amend the guidelines on directives given   by Families SA and provide training to ensure child protection workers understand them.

CASE STUDY 4

NATHAN – children with complex needs in out-of-home care

HIS STORY: “Nathan” was removed from the care of his mother when he was 18 months old after experiencing serious and sustained abuse at the hands of his mother and her partner.

He was placed in the care of his grandmother and attempts were made to reunite him with his mother but she continued to be physically and emotionally abusive.

However, concerns were also raised about the capacity of Nathan’s grandmother to continue to care for him full-time.

It was decided to place him with a foster family, but Nathan’s behaviour became increasingly challenging for them.

By the time he was six a psychologist advised that Nathan should be moved again – this time into a state-run home, where he remained for two years until he was eight.

He was mistreated there by paid carers.

Nathan’s behaviour was particularly difficult at school. At age five, he was suspended from primary school after he        was violent towards two other students.

By the time he was 11, Nathan had attended seven schools, including two private schools.

He was also arrested for offences such as property damage and assault, and ran away from his care homes. During one six-month period he committed 22 criminal offences.

While he lived in a particular state-run home – from June 2013 until mid-February 2015 – 76 critical incident reports were made about Nathan. Eventually, carers found themselves dealing with an “11-year-old boy spiralling out of control” who was self- harming and displaying “high-risk behaviour”.

He was referred to mentoring programs  and placed in homes alone in a bid to remove him from the influence of other children in care. These options were expensive and required more staff to care for him.

Eventually Nathan was placed alone in a four-bedroom state-run home.

RECOMMENDATIONS

■ Recruit and train school services officers to support children with trauma-related behavioural challenges.

■ Develop a mobile outreach service for children who frequently run away from placements.

■ Consider setting up a therapeutic care facility for children with complex behavioural needs.