‘Tragic reality’: Department of Child Protection failed in its duty to two vulnerable groups of siblings, State Ombudsman finds

An investigation into Department of Child Protection failings when dealing with two families has revealed years worth of a problems, the state ombudsman says.

The State Ombudsman has found that an under-resourced Department of Child Protection failed to properly respond to reports of violence and neglect against two South Australian sibling groups despite years of concerns.

Ombudsman Wayne Lines, handing down a report which commenced last year, said there was an “inadequate response” from the department in the cases of two families, identified in the report by pseudonyms of Anderson and Harding.

Mr Lines has made five recommendations in the report, all of which have been accepted by the DCP in principle.

“Evidence obtained by my investigation revealed a tragic reality for the Anderson and Harding children, and an increased risk to their welfare over the course of two or more years,” Mr Lines said.

South Australian Ombudsman Wayne Lines said there was an “inadequate response” from the department in the cases of two families. Picture: Tait Schmaal.

“Of concern, was the department’s inadequate response to this escalated risk and on some occasions, failure to intervene despite requests from State authorities that it do so. Frequently, this appeared to be driven by a lack of departmental resources.”

In the case of the Anderson family, the report said the DCP received its first notification to the Child Abuse Report Line in 2011 and, by 2022, had received more than 60 notifications.

“Notifications raised a range of serious concerns about the children’s wellbeing and included exposure to violence, substance abuse, neglect, and chronic school absenteeism,” the report said.

“In 2020, one State authority engaged with the Anderson family wrote to the department identifying risks of concern for the children and said ‘I believe this family needs DCP to intervene as there has been no changes even with the support from services’.

“The department’s response was that it did not have the capacity to ‘open and work the case’.”

In the case of the group of siblings known as the Harding children, Mr Lines said that, “Between August 2021 and June 2022, the Harding siblings were the subject of more than 30 CARL notifications including concern about domestic violence, substance abuse, chronic absenteeism and the impact of parental suicidal ideation on the children.”

“Over the relevant period there was a sustained and increasing level of severity in the notifications received. Multiple attempts were made by the department to refer incoming notifications to a State authority for a response. The first referral was not matched to a State authority on the basis that the State authority was ‘not well situated to manage the high level of risk’ and that a ‘statutory response is required’. The department took no further action at the time.”

Mr Lines made five recommendations to address the “errors identified in my report”.

The recommendations, all of which have been accepted in principle by the DCP, are:

– The department amend its Outcome Codes Procedure to ensure that where the department has attempted to refer a notification to a State authority, and that authority rejects the referral for any reason, the notification must be reassessed by the department for alternative response (not closed without further action).

– The department amend the Manual of Practice to include time frames for referrals of CARL notifications under section 33 of the Act, specifically when a referral must be accepted by a State authority, or an alternative response considered in the event a response is not received.

– The department implement a function within the department’s systems to prompt follow up by the department in circumstances where it has not received a response from a State authority to referral of a CARL notification.

– That the department amend the Manual of Practice to require that if, following a referral of a notification to a State authority and the subsequent escalation of a matter through the regional Partnership meetings, a State authority forms the view that risk to a child or young person is too high and cannot be sufficiently mitigated, the Department for Child Protection must open an investigation file and conduct a safety assessment for the relevant child or young person.

– That the department amend the Manual of Practice to require that if, following an attempted referral of a notification to a State authority, the notification is declined on the basis that the risk to a child or young person is too high and cannot be sufficiently mitigated, the Department for Child Protection must open an investigation file and conduct a safety assessment for the relevant child or young person.