What really protects our children?
March 14th, 2007
In today’s New Matilda:
Moria Rainer, former Director of the Office of the Children’s Rights Commissioner for London and current Vice President of Defence for Children International (Australian Section) asks why WA has introduced madatory reporting of child abuse. (only accessible to subscribers)
“That is why, having spent most of my life as an advocate for the human rights of children, I believe that the implementation process should be publicly overseen, and I do not support mandatory reporting, because:
It doesn’t reduce child abuse; It doesn’t help the families of abused children; It doesn’t prevent recidivism, or protect other children from harm from the same offender; It discriminates against some groups; It doesn’t lead to timely, appropriate or welcome assistance to the children and families; because
there is no link between a mandated report and the mandatory delivery of an appropriate service for that child and family.”
Her experience, her commitment and her deep understanding of the issues, policies and systems around the world make her opinion a powerful one. But, despite all this knowledge - why do governments persist in implementing policy that is of no measurable benefit for children.
I believe it is caught up in our idolising of childhood and youth. Rather than respecting children and young people and accepting the responsibility we have in children’s lives (whether they are ours or not) is more difficult than implementing legislation that gives the perception that something has been done about child abuse.
Child abuse is as complex as it is destructive. That complexity requires complex solutions. Mandatory reporting protects politicans more than it protects children because while it has no measurable effect on supporting children and protecting them from child abuse, it protects politicians because it looks like they are taking a strong and decisive stand against child abuse. The fact is, they are not.
A strong and decisive stand against child abuse would be rooted in a deep respect for children and young people. It would mean investing much more in intensive programs that help families to begin to make sense of themselves, that give them the financial support that would allow them to concentrate on the deeper problems. It means respecting the broader role we have in supporting each other and childrne and families in our community - rather than picking up the telephone and passing that responsibility to a large and cumbersome government department.
Child protection agenies across Australia are struggling. I know from personal experience that the lack of investment in these services limits their ability to do effective work. And, when the work is not effective, it can be just as destructive as families that are not part of the system. There are great ideas and small initaives doing great work. But, no government seems prepared to invest in identifying them and then rolling them out on a larger scale. Instead - they draw up legislation about mandatory reporting and police checks for staff of children’s services.
A world that respected childhood would spend more time trying to help their parents and community support them, rather than just taking them away.
I applaud Moira Rainer. And, hope her ideas get published much wider than New Matilda.
March 15th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
Unfortunately I’m not a subscriber, so I can’t view the entire article.
I find it frustrating, though, that Rayner has given no reasons (at least in the sections you quoted) for her views. No statistics, no description of exactly HOW it is failing, no examples to illustrate her point.
It would also be interesting to see how many others with Rayner’s qualifications and experience would agree with her. Remember, she is quite a maverick, with all the positives and negatives that come with that, including being fired from a high-level position in WA - the very state she has in her sights in this article.
I would be very interested to see a comparison between child protection today and pre-1990, when Mandatory Reporting was introduced. Indeed, the legislation was introduced as a result of a high-profile and very tragic case which hastened the bill through the Victorian parliament.
And there is no better forum than a blog such as yours, where the debate is open and public, in the intellectual tradition. Let’s see a range of ideas expressed here, particularly on such an important issue.
March 15th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Well, you’ve expressed those ideas thanks.
I think you’d be surprised who agrees with the thesis in the New Matilda piece. The evidence is quoted in the piece and the argument is compelling (but i won’t re-print it all here…I’d encourage people to subscribe it is worth it).
I’d be interested in your experience of the child protection system. I have worked closely with it when I worked for the State government and have had some personal experience dealing with it through reporting. Those involved with the system across Australia acknowledge that it is significantly under resourced. Another issue with the mandatory reporting is the huge rise in the number of notifications because of it. Government’s did not adequately fund for the anticipated increase and now we have a system bursting at the seams.
The real issue is that protective services can take children away, that is true. But, they are really treating symptoms, not the cause. I, like you, am appauled and horrified by child abuse and neglect, but I think the soultion relies in addressing issues of cycles of poverty and abuse through adequate funding of social services rather than legislative measures like police checks and mandatory reporting that proect politicians more than children.
They make us feel better, they seem to be doing something. But, by picking up the phone and giving the problem of a suspected case of child abuse to a government department inadequately resourced to do anything about it you are not addressing the real cause of the problem. You are not taking responsibility for it except to tell someone else it is happening.
So, how do we make a safer community for all vulnerable people? Is it really through greater monitoring and reporting powers? That is the direction we are headed, so time will tell. I think we may find in abother 10 years there will be a reaction to the over-regulation and we may start to head back in the other direction.
You are very defensive at times of the status quo, petal. Do you think the system needs improving or not?
Because most people involved have an idea how things could be changed for the better. Those ideas do conflict and are different - but they do know change is necessery.
Yes, the individual cases are tragic. The media coverage highlights the terrible-ness of it all. But, should media be driving our public policy…because that is what it is doing on these issues. The Minister’s simply want to be able to avoid the front page of the paper.
March 19th, 2007 at 10:18 am
Of course the system is bursting because of the introduction of Mandatory Reporting - it happened almost immediately after its introduction and I’m sorry to hear it’s still happening.
But surely it’s not the fault of MR per se - obviously MR is the first step and stupidly the next steps have not been taken.
I have worked for over ten years in education and before that I did work with children at risk. One 15 year old was living independently with escorted visits to the parents, and his younger brother was with a foster family, also visiting the the (divorced) parents accompanied. A sad situation, but how much sadder it would have been with the kids still living at “home”. Mum and Dad were both intelligent and pleasant enough to speak to, and Mum’s new boyfriend was OK, but they just couldn’t handle day-to-day life: the house(s) were filthy and they were regularly on the booze. The kids were suffering and there was evidence of some sexual abuse from step-parents.
I agree entirely that breaking the poverty cycle and funding social services is essential - but these can work in tandem with MR. MR means that if you are working with children and there seems to be evidence of abuse you HAVE to report it: before this (and I can remember back that far), workers would NOT have to report it and they regularly didn’t, because of an entrenched culture of MYOB or fear of losing their jobs or whatever.
Do we really want to go back to that? And remember, reporting doesn’t mean that you are reporting it to some “faceless” government agency - you are asking social workers / police / welfare nurses (PEOPLE!!) to intervene. To suggest otherwise is to play into the hands of neo-conservatives who prattle on about the “nanny state” - and that is my greatest fear about some of the ideas you have put forward. Do you REALLY want to be quoted by Andrew Bolt in one of his anti-”Lefty” articles?
March 19th, 2007 at 10:31 am
I don’t want to go back Petal, and if I appear in an Andrew Bolt article - so be it. A fear of what others might say does not figure highly in my reasoning for forming my opinions.
We are looking at the same outcome, only you still haven’t given me much evidence for the value of mandatory reporting.
I want to move forward. To build a society that starts to trust each other and respects children enough that they will protect them without the need for legislation. My belief is that the “next steps” are not taken because people see MR as a solution to the problem. It is not. In many instances it only exacerbates the real problem and means those parents you talked about could not get the support they needed to get their lives together and raise their children. Who does it impact upon most - those children.
Surely you agree the best outcome is support for parents so they can support the development of their children, rather than have them removed.
MR can operate in tandem. But, I still question its value in protecting children. I think the MYOB culture is partially generated by policies like MR. I think we don’t take on enough responsibility for being involved in the lives of children in our community. And, if you call the child protection line you’ll realise you are reporting it to a bureaucracy.
Thanks for your concern for my well-being of being challenged by other commentators. But, I’ll be ok.