Opinion: Department of Child Safety is still letting children down

THE Department of Child Safety’s priority appears to be focussed on keeping families together, even if that means effectively serving vulnerable children a death sentence.

IN 2004, then premier Peter Beattie called a snap state election, ostensibly to fix a crisis in what was then called the Families Department.

Following a public inquiry by the Crime and Misconduct Commission, Beattie said publicly that both his government and the department “had failed” and stated his intention of seeking a mandate to fix the crisis, claiming he was “putting the children first”.

As a result of the CMC’s recommendations, after the re-election of the Labor government, the name of the Families Department was changed and a stand-alone Department of Child Safety was created to “focus exclusively on core child protection functions”.

Unfortunately, not much else has changed over the past 13 years.

Sure, successive state governments have increased funding and resources, but not enough to cope with the rising level of child abuse in the community, caused by multiple factors, particularly drug and alcohol abuse.

However, the renamed department has not changed its culture as was hoped because its primary focus seems to be on keeping families together, even where there is obvious risk to children.

It is called the Department of Child Safety for a reason. It is not the Department of Second Chances for Unfit Parents, nor is it the Department of Family Preservation.

That this is the case is evidenced by the tragic and unnecessary deaths of toddlers Joshua Migala, Mason Lee and Maddilyn-Rose Stokes, whose families, it has been reported, were known to the department.

The department’s website says: “We are committed to the safety of children and young people. Their best interests and rights are paramount in all of our decisions.”

If only this was always the case.

There appears to be a problem of conflicting values and priorities.

The department’s policy is that “if a child or young person has been harmed or is at risk of harm, it is important for the whole family to be supported … Vulnerable families and children will have access to high-quality services at the right time to help them to maintain the family unit”.

Obviously, the department needs more funding and resources to keep Queensland children safe from abuse. But it seems that it also needs a massive cultural shift.

The renamed department has not changed its culture as was hoped because its primary focus seems to be on keeping families together, even where there is obvious risk to children, as evidenced by the tragic death of Mason Lee.

It is called the Department of Child Safety for a reason. It is not the Department of Second Chances for Unfit Parents, nor is it the Department of Family Preservation.

While it must be acknowledged that many child safety officers are doing a very difficult job the best they can, they need to make tough calls more often – to put the health and safety of children first and remove them much sooner from harm’s way.

The Government has the responsibility to provide clear legislative direction and sufficient resources to ensure that children who are at risk of serious emotional, physical or sexual abuse are taken into care. And, if after a reasonable period, their parents are still unable or unwilling to protect them from harm, it must allow these children to be adopted into families which will provide them with the love, nurture, stability and security they need.

With 9262 Queensland children living away from home, but only 10 local adoptions a year, the current system is failing our most vulnerable kids.

Alan Baker is a member of the state committee of the Australian Family Association