Social Work - Theses
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2
-
ItemThe introduction and implementation of permanent care orders in Victoria( 2019)This research investigated debates surrounding the introduction and implementation of Permanent Care Orders (PCOs), a type of guardianship, in the context of permanency for children unable to be reunified with their parents in the statutory child protection and out-of-home care system in the Australian state of Victoria. Two thematic document analyses were conducted using Applied Thematic Analysis, which facilitated rigor and reduced potential bias in the studies. The first study analysed the official records of the relevant 1984–1989 parliamentary debates to investigate the key issues and ideas that informed the introduction of PCOs in Victoria. Four primary themes were identified: the rhetoric of rights; the ‘hierarchy of family’ debate; child protection is everybody’s business; and the politics of influence. The second study analysed the publicly available submissions to a government-commissioned inquiry into the early outcomes from changes made in 2014 to Victoria’s permanency laws to investigate the implementation of PCOs in relation to the issues that triggered their introduction. Again, four primary themes were identified: the power of government; the assumption of a perfect system; disproportionate impact on the most disadvantaged; and the impact of the permanency hierarchy. Overall, the studies found that a children’s rights perspective, particularly with respect to continuity of care, family connections, culture and identity, has not been prioritised in the operationalisation of children’s right to protection and in the development of alternative permanency options. Viewed in terms of Fox Harding’s four-fold typology of ideological perspectives in Western child welfare, the findings indicate that the Victorian Government’s approach has shifted from a defence of the birth family and parents’ rights orientation, which emphasises the importance of biological families and values continuity in children’s relationships and connections with them, toward a state paternalism and child protection orientation, which more highly values legal permanency in the provision of alternative care arrangements for looked after children. The implications of the 2014 change to Victoria’s permanency hierarchy, which now positions adoption ahead of PCOs, mean that progress toward a children’s rights approach to policy development and practice in the area of child protection and out-of-home care may be further undermined. An alternative framework integrating a broad range of children’s rights and recent international research evidence is proposed with a view to stimulating thinking and debate in this politically sensitive and contentious area of social policy, practice and research.
-
ItemFamily links: kinship care and family contact( 2016)The yearning of children for their parents when separated is recognised in the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child that asserts the child’s right to maintain contact with their parents. However parental contact may be a complex issue when children’s separation is due to neglect or abuse; therefore the Convention declares that the child’s best interests must be the paramount consideration. Family contact thus may be a deeply sensitive area. This is particularly so for children in kinship care, where the family relationships between their parents, carers and other family members may generate particular challenges. Given the limited capacity of authorities to regulate the private world of the family, there may be risks to children’s wellbeing and at times, safety. On the other hand, kinship care also promotes opportunities for children to have supportive relationships with parents and members of the extended family. There has been considerable research about the impact of parental contact for children in out of home care in recent decades. However to date there has been no dedicated research about family contact in kinship care. This study sought to explore the nature of family contact in kinship care in Victoria, Australia, and to identify circumstances and interventions that may improve children’s experience of family contact, ensure their safety, and promote positive relationships. It started by exploring the literature about family contact in out of home care, together with existing studies on broader aspects of kinship care. Commitment to children’s rights to be heard on matters relating to them, and awareness of the marginalised status of parents in child protection, argued for inclusion of both children and parents in the research design. A mixed methods approach was adopted involving a survey of statutory kinship carers in Victoria, Australia, together with focus groups and interviews with children, parents, carers and support workers. In light of the over-representation of Aboriginal children in protective care, a nested study of Indigenous kinship care was included. Results showed that parental contact was a mixed experience for children in kinship care. Survey respondents reported that for half the children, contact with their mothers and fathers was going well. However, a range of difficulties were apparent for the other half. Safety concerns were noted for one-third of children in contact with their mother, and over one-quarter in contact with their father. By contrast, there were numerous reports of positive contact with children’s separated sisters and brothers, and with a wide range of other relatives. The maintenance of these relationships was overwhelmingly viewed by kinship carers as being of benefit to the children. Interviews with children fleshed out the survey results. Some children spoke of the trauma involved when they were pressured into contact with mothers and fathers who repeatedly disappointed them or threatened their wellbeing. Where their concerns had not been heard, a few had taken the law into their own hands to stop contact with a parent. However, many children described their enjoyment of relationships with siblings, cousins, aunts, uncles and grandparents. Interviews with parents highlighted their loss of service support when their children were removed, a time when they felt acutely vulnerable. Many mothers described fraught relationships with their children’s caregivers, especially when the caregiver was their own mother. Focus groups with kinship carers provided an overwhelming picture of the burden of care including stresses from multiple sources, parental contact being prominent amongst these. Kinship care support staff provided insights into the complexity of facilitating contact visits with families impacted by intergenerational trauma, and the need for new approaches to this unique area of protective care. Indigenous survey respondents reported a lack of cultural support planning for children in their care; non-Indigenous carers of Indigenous children were particularly concerned about loss of contact with family and culture for children in their care. Focus groups in Indigenous services stressed the imperative of family contact and cultural connection for Indigenous children, and described creative approaches to maintaining children’s safety. The study provided evidence to support the view that kinship families need individually tailored support to allow children to have the best chance of maintaining their family relationships. Specific support for family contact needs to be seen in the context of the early stage of development of kinship support services in Victoria, where ongoing monitoring and support is yet to be extended to all children in statutory kinship care. The results of this study were published in six refereed journal articles and have been the subject of numerous conference presentations. The study has provided input into four government Inquiries, three at Federal and one at State level. It has also paved the way for three more research initiatives in kinship care, each with opportunities for further knowledge dissemination.