Child-removal threshold 'too low'

PARENTS who neglect or abuse their children and are mentally ill, drug addicted or in violent relationships should not have the children removed, except in the most extreme circumstances.

PARENTS who neglect or abuse their children and are mentally ill, drug addicted or in violent relationships should not have the children removed, except in the most extreme circumstances.

Instead, children should be allowed to stay with their parents unless there is a "likelihood" the child will be harmed. At present children are removed only when they are "at risk" of harm.

Speakers at the Australian Child Welfare Association conference also argued that parents are being punished by a child protection system that removes children from parents' care.

Patricia Hansen, head of the School of Social Work at Australian Catholic University, said: "Parents who neglect their children aren't evil or malicious people.

"They might be mentally ill or have drug addictions, or they might be young and with no support. But they are losing their children when they could be given a second chance."

Professor Hansen admitted her comments represented a "controversial position, but it's something that needs to be said".

"With the best of intentions, and everybody involved has the very best intentions, they have started to be punitive to parents who are doing the best they know how," she said.

"Often there's not even a strong likelihood that a child is at risk but the child will be reported (to the Department of Community Services).

"It used to be the case that parents who were in trouble could contact the department and receive some assistance. No sensible parents would do that now. They know they might lose the children."

Child protection expert Frank Ainsworth, guardian ad litem who helps parties deal with the Children's Court of NSW, said there were many people in child protection who did not approve of the way parents were treated by DOCS. "I've been involved in child welfare for 30 years, and I don't like the things I'm seeing," said Dr Ainsworth, who addresses the conference tomorrow.

"The system is now very punitive ... There is a general feeling that child protection has become forensic and investigative, and it's resulted in a massive increase in the number of reports.

"It's not sustainable ... Somebody has got to have the courage to say we've gone too far. It's a basic infringement of people's rights."

Women's Legal Service NSW made a similar submission to the inquiry into child protection headed by retired judge James Wood. The service said the "best interest of the children should not always be viewed in opposition to the rights of parents".

Speakers said the community had been shocked by cases of child abuse in recent years, such as twins left to starve to death in their cots in Queensland; a girl left to starve in the front room of her home in NSW; and a two-year-old boy found in a suitcase, floating in a lake, also in NSW.

But Professor Hansen said most parents often did not understand that unless their behaviour changed, they would lose their children forever.

"A whole lot more could be done to keep the families going and keep the children in the family home, but all the money is going on reporting," she said.