Question 1
According to Tregeagle and Orr (2003), they argued that there are many Australian children that at one point or another, during their influential years, are not be cared for adequately. For many, this is a brief period that passes however for some; this maltreatment lasts beyond theirtender years and impacts their life. The abuse of children can be defined as any non-accidental behaviour by any adult in the child’s life that causes physical or psychological harm. The behaviour can be intentional, such as abuse, or unintentional, such as neglect (Bromfield, 2005; (Christoffel et al., 1992).
It was meant to protect children from the harms of neglect and abuse within their environment, Australian states and territories have sanctioned protective legislation to assist in recognising the maltreatment of young people. This legislation is more commonly known as MandatoryReporting. However, the fact that NSW refers to is Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW).
All workers regardless of their employment field are required to operate within legal and ethical frameworks. Naturally, this means that their work is exposed to defined boundaries by applicable laws and a duty of care. Community and social workers are regularly operating in a legal and governmental environment, however at times, the problems that are encountered are ethically grounded, as well as legally based. With that being said, it is important to know the difference and the link between the two. Ethics can be defined as behaviours, motivations and standards for certain actions that are valued by a person, group or employer (Swain, 2006). Furthermore, ethical conduct can be known as a duty of care.
The duty of care calls for an acceptable standard of care be provided to ensure the safety and wellbeing of an individual are achieved; in this case, Sally and Peter. Ethical decision making is a highly contested due to its emotive field. These decisions can have life-long consequences for families and their children (Lonne et al., 2016).While it’s inevitable for each worker to have values, principles and morals that guide their rationale, it is important to contain these while making a professional and critical decision surrounding child protection.
Loewenberg and Dolgoff (2000) have developed aHierarchy of Ethical Obligations that is perhaps the best known and most used ethical framework (Lonne et al., 2016). Legal standards are the policies and procedures that are enacted to achieve an employer’s legal obligation to their client or clients. They are ruled by constitutions and legislation. Suitably, this is where Australia’s lawwas enacted. Australia is a signatory for the Rights of the Child (1989) developed by the United Nations that recognises that all children have a right to justice, integrity and freedom. These rights are understood by social workers who are required to report suspected abuse or neglect of children which is described in the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW).
For New South Wales, the above Act stipulates that any person, in the course of paid employment should be delivered to children. It can be achievedthrough healthcare, social work, education, or law enforcement, is required to report for the benefit of the child if neglect or abuse is suspected (Mathews and Walsh, 2014). With this being said, it is my legal responsibility as a social worker to raise my concerns surrounding the possible risk of Peter’s safety and welfare.
As a legal obligation, social workers should consider making a report to a child protection agency, whereby doing so, will prevent an actual identifiable risk of harm to the child. I’m legally obligated to report to my employer and relevant government agency, my fears for Peter’s safety.Inturn,this will highlight the problems that Sally is facing about domestic violence from where she could harness supportive networks. While there are legislative grounds for government intervention and when a child protection service can intervene; highlighting a concern can be beneficial and prevent workers from being held legally liable in the future.
Regardless of mandatory reporting requirements, as a social worker, I have an ethical responsibility to protect and promote the wellbeing of Peter. I have identified through Sally’s account, that Dave has a propensity towards violence when he drinks and drugs. As a result, the force Dave exhibits makes the environment unsafe for both Sally and Peter. Substance misuse and domestic violence are identified as key risk factors towards further childhood neglect and abuse. There are copious amounts of research that cite an association between poor outcomes for children and parental problems such as mental disorders, domestic abuse and substance addiction (Bromfield and Miller, 2007).
Although it is challenging to assess the extent to which these problems affect a child, due to a lack of data collection, most research points towards psychological and behavioural issues in the child’s later years (Edleson, 1999).For Sally, the effects of Dave’s violence have affected her capacity to parent. Commonly, mothers who face domestic violence are frequently held accountable for failing to protect their children (Holt et al., 2008), however as Mullender et al. 2002 discovered, mothers make a much attempt to protect their children. Also, some women might choose to remain with an abusivepartner as they believe it too dangerous to leave on the premise that frequently the abuse may increase after separation. Moreover, it has been confirmed that those that experience violence, can sometimes turn to substances themselves to cope, in turn making them emotionally distant and unable to meet the child’s needs (Holt, Buckley, & Whelan, 2008); this is the case for Sally.
Sally’s intemperance and inattention to pick up Peter for schooldemonstrate that Sally is not coping. Sally symptoms of intoxication, combined with her lack to maintain household tasks and routines is worrying for Peterbecauseneglect and abuse are more prominent if a parent is inebriated. Furthermore, it has been proven that intoxication of any kind, leads to inadequate supervision which can lead to a child’s needs not being met such as keeping a routine, having a clean environment, responding to the child’s emotional needs) (Dawe et al., 2007).
Previous research has concluded that successful intervention and handling of children and their families is highly dependent on the quality of the social workers relationship with the child and family (Axford,etal., 2005). It is my duty to develop beneficial alliances with Sally and Peter, by finding alternative avenues to support the family so that Sally can offer Peter and her unborn child a safe environment. The referral arrangements used within the National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children’s Keeping Them Safe will allow me to access suitable services for Sally and Peter without having to come in contact with the statutory child protection system.
Preventing childhood neglect is not merely a matter of families doing a better job, but rather it is about creating anenvironment in which doing better is easier. To combat this, publically and supported governmental interventions are only part of what is needed. It remains paramount to emphasise to communities and families that child abuse is a genuine threat to any child’s healthy development.
My intervention as a social worker is stubbing the growth of Peter’s perspectivedangersas well as attending to his and his families care and supportive avenues to overcome their problems. Furthermore, while the greater community and services have the ability to accept some responsibility for reducing acts of childhood neglect and abuse. By providing support to each other and offering protection to all children within their family and their community, the problem must be owned as a worrying aspect of society (Robins,et al. 2016).
Question 2
I reply to Iva Rant’s letter that stipulated that the Australian government has a purposeless attitude towards protecting children. The area of children and families is one of the most difficult for human services workers and law employees to remain objective and dispassionate. Being in such an emotive field calls for decisions that are professional and critical to the wellbeing of a child or children. Practitioners making ethical decisions have their morals, values and principles grounded in personal histories and professional experiences. However, while these might dictate their decisions during their normal day to day life, a sense of profound responsibility is felt when deciding on what to do in child protection cases. These decisions are not taken lightly nor are they emotionally charged (Koocher and Spiegel, 1990).
Social workers fulfil a magnitude of roles, from draughting legislation to family counselling. Furthermore, they are the most publicly visible component of the child protection field, in turn, they receive the most criticism. However, they are but only one facet of a complex area of services. The child welfare system in New South Wales consists of much more than the Department of Family and Community Services (FCS). Nowadays, there seems to be a lot of media attention and moral panics surrounding social worker’s failure to protect or remove children from their families, yet many people seem to be unaware that child removal can be just as toxic for a child.
Yes, you’re correct that over recent years, the reported levels of child neglect and abuse has risen at an alarming rate, so much so, that the child protection agencies are struggling with the load (Lonne, 2012). Departments have been inundated with reports of children who may be in need of protection and has not been able to address each statement adequately, but as New South Wales’ principles, procedure and frameworks declarer, protecting children is everyone’s responsibility.Mandatory Reporting is the law for professionals who deal with the kids on a recurring and day to daybasis; however, anybody who suspects the abuse or neglect of a child and does not report it can become legally liable if they do not notify the appropriate services.
As a community, we have all been shocked and concerned to hear about children who were not identified as being at risk, or even being in danger, but not removed. It could be theconsideredthattheextensive amount of children that arebeing referred to protection services may be the reason the system fails some of this children because they have to sort through and recognise the genuine cases from the unsubstantiated cases (Stevens and Higgins, 2002). Fittingly, the recognition of children as outstanding individuals with distinct rights, combined with the changing social values of a community has also added to the increase (Bromfield & Higgins, 2005). Protection agencies were established in response to severe physical abuse, but with the changing community expectations, the number of referrals has skyrocketed (Bromfield and Holzer 2008).
While there are recognisable complications why children may be unnoticed or lost in the system, there is an ever-present threat to many social workers’ personal safety. These workers can instantly becomevictims of moral panics and the culture of blame (Ayre, 2001). Fittingly, it’s unsurprising that worldwide, child protection agencies find it hard to recruit with the concept of burnout and resignation weighing heavily on a workers mind due to the emotive landscape (Koocher and Spiegel, 1990).
Today, Australian child protection structures vary from each state and territory. For some, if a child is, or has been subject to domestic violence in the home, it may not constitute as a reportable feature of childhood abuse (Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2016). The inconsistency between states and territories can be confusing, and even more so for people who migrate from one to another. The differences are also primarily aboutthe intervention and intake protocols when gathering and assigning priorities on individual notifications of child safety concerns (Bromfield and Higgins, 2005).
In addition to this, many services are dealing with families that have a combination of complex problems such as mental illness, domestic violence and substance misuse which should be addressed (Bromfield, et al., 2010).Regardless of the above aspects, the overall way in which you can help a child is the same. Any person who has concerns about a child being at risk of abuse or neglect can notify their statutory child protection agency. Based on the assessment of risk for the child, an intake team will determine whether the concern meets the threshold for intervention and whether the severity prioritises them higher or lower than other cases.
Child protection agencies’ central task is to conduct investigations and decide whether there is a significant risk of harm to the child. However, due to the high volumes of cases reported to these agencies, a threshold investigation assessment is carried out to determine the merit of the case. From there, individual cases only proceed to investigation if the concerns are credible, and there is enough evidence to proceed. Many of these cases rely on professional judgement and actuarial risk assessments (Mathews, 2015).
The protocols and principles for protecting children in New South Wales have been derived from the National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children (2009 - 2020). The framework attempts to resolve the differences between jurisdictions to provide a national agenda.Furthermore, the framework recognises that child protection must move away from being seen as a response mechanism and become preventative (Lawson, 2014).Therefore, it has appointedstrategies to focus onthe support that families may needwhile identifying that some parentsjust lack the ability to meet their obligation to care for their children. Additionally, it provides them with the essential support to help the familiesrespond to theirresponsibility, as it’s seen to be a better alternative to the intervention of a child protection agency (Lang and Hartill 2014).Collective collaboration between families, communities, businesses and government agencies help benefit the protection of children at risk. When parents or guardians are unable or unwilling to protect their children, the protection of children becomes the responsibility of the wider community, where at times, intervention is required (Department of Education and Early Childhood Development and Department of Human Services, 2010).
For New South Wales, collaboration is guided by the NSW Interagency Guidelines for Child Protection Intervention 2006. However, the overall wellbeing concept is directed by the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998.Principles within the Act provide direction in for the scoreorder; that is; the safety, wellbeing and welfare of the child are the most important concept in all decisions surrounding their protection. Guiding standards such as early intervention, the ‘best interest’ principle, the participation of children in the decision-making process, cultural responses to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, the prospect of utilising Out-of-home-care, and aftercare support create beneficial processes for children at risk (Healy,etal.,2014).
The New South Wales government has done everything in its power to avoid situations where people might assume that the government has failed these children. In 2007 a special commission of enquiry into the NSW Child Protection Services led to Justice James Woods commencing a review of the system. He delivered a 3 volume report with 111 recommendations which were addressed by the introduction of Keep Them Safe in an attempt to streamline protection processes.Iva seems adamant that it is a national problem which has led to children being neglected and abused, however in assigning blame, she has failed to acknowledge that child protection is a complex task and issue within Australia. Above, you have read the principles that underpin New South Wales legislation which in particular cases is beneficial. However, with any form of the laws comes an ambiguous and unexpected failure which seems to be amplified by moral panics and the culture of blame.
Question 3
The role of sentencing is to achieve justice for all members of a particular society, including the victim and offender (White and Perrone, 2010). Sentencing aims to punish or prevent further crime from occurring.When an offender has been found guilty or convicted of an offence, it is the court’s role to determine a sentence that is just, once all the facts of the case have been heard. Historically, children were treated and sentenced much the same as adults. It was not until the twentieth century that childrenwere recognised as immature and inexperienced individuals (Cunneen and White, 2007). Nowadays, it is widely accepted that children need to be dealt with separately from adults, with penalties that are less severe and focus more on rehabilitation.
Australia’s juvenile justice systems have often been characterised as alternating between welfare and justice models and principles. It can be seen that rehabilitation of an offender is more commonly associated with the protectionpolicies, whereas punishment is related to the justice principles. In reality, Australia recognises that the well-being and the justice principles are collaboratively ideal, and rarely use one without the other. Fittingly, individual elements of the juvenile judicial system reflect this amalgamation (Richards, 2011).The welfare and justice principles of juvenile sentencing operate on the same premise as above; rehabilitate or punish. For those children who have been found guilty of an offence, and have not been diverted away from the criminal justice system, they are governed primarily by the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 and Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW).
Section 6 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 stipulates the principles that are pertinent to all courts who decide to exercise criminal jurisdiction on juvenile offenders. These principles touch on the welfare side of sentencing where it is acknowledged that if a child is to be sentenced, that regard must be given to ensure that the progress and well-being of the child are not compromised. For example, the preservation of having a bond with their family, remaining at home, the continuance of education and employment and the minimisation of stigma.It can be said that the principles of welfare and rehabilitation dominate all other aspects in the Children’s Court.However,where it is thought to be appropriate the need protect the community is greater, and it is important todeter future offenders byensuring offenders are held accountable for their actions, punishment will outweigh rehabilitation (Fox and Freiberg, 1999).
Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW) was under section 7 and conveys the principles that must be upheld when determining punishment. These laws refer to the justice point of view where, much like adult sentencing, thefinal consideration is taken into account to provide a proportional desert. These principles underpin the New South Wales justice system in using detention as a last resort to protect the community (Cunneen et al., 1995). To come to that conclusion, magistrates have to treat children humanely while paying due regard to the rule of law (Vignaendra and Hazlett, 2005).
Section 33 of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 defines the sentencing options. These penalties are set out in a hierarchy of severity. Consequently, the penalties range from a charge being dismissedwith or without the child entering into a good behaviour bond; being fined; being referred to a youth justice conference; being subject to a probation order, community service order or a control order (Poletti, etal2012).With the above Acts in mind, it is important to determine the difference between summary and indictable offences and how this affects the sentencing.
The category of crime that a child has been charged with ultimately determines how the matter is handled. Summary offences are crimesthat tried in a lower court and are less severe crimes such as petty crime, offensive language and traffic offences. The maximum penalty for a summary offence is no longer than two years. Furthermore, for it to constitute as a summary offence the statute that creates it must clearly outline that it can be dealt with summarily. Indictable offences are tried in a higher court and come with more severe penalties due to the most unadorned nature of the crime. Violations such as indecent assault, aggravated burglary and murder are included in this category. However, it has been seen that there are certain occasions that indictable have been dealt with summarily (Cuneen and White, 2011)
A report titled Seen and Heard noted that sentencing within courts needed to take into account social factors which led to offending, for example, family circumstances, homelessness, education, and health. Traditionally, the focus of the juvenile justice system has been in the rehabilitation of this court system. The court was seen as the universal guardian of the youth who came before it, and the court was charged with ensuring that the child's best interests were considered when determining the proper disposition of a juvenile case. As a result, individuals adjudicated in the juvenile justice system were not subject to the same punitive standards and harsh sentences commonly imposed in adult criminal court. As violent juvenile crime and recidivism have increased, incapacitation in the interest of public safety and deterrence have become critical system goals. State trends indicate that punishment and accountability have become equally important, if not primary, priorities in juvenile justice policy.
The sentencing principles have been developed through legislation and common law and form the basis of sentencing decisions. For example, rehabilitation is one of the drives of sentencing, especially to young children. Juvenile justice being a combination of rules in institutions administered to individuals who have committed an offence, this justice is majorly the responsibility of government states. For example, the UN Convention Rights of the Child (CROC) that was designed to provide proper treatment and policies that can be measured in giving justice to a juvenile who has committed a crime.
In 2008,children and young people act were enacted and contained youth justice principles that focused on greater recognition in involving young people and children in making decisions. However, the act based more emphasis on children’s interest arguing that they are paramount and must be respected (Spiranovic,2014). Proper attention needs to be given to the children and their families with services that will ensure that these kids physical and social functioning of their well-being are strengthened.
They also said that sentencing the children with theoffence should be more of rehabilitation for them to change their misconduct rather than imposing demanding punishment to the kids. Some of the justice principles that guide the sentencing of children with guilt and criminal offence include theprinciple of proportionality and totality. First, is the principle of totality that makes the custodialsentencesbe reduced through application of concurrency rules to protect the criminal from having acrushing life sentenced incarceration. Secondly, was proportionality principle which states that an offender should not be agiven excessive punishment that cannot be justified as appropriate regarding the crime committed through a High Court ruling.
Child protection involves set of designed proceduresused by the leaders in handling children individual cases and relies on the members of theauthority and the community to protect their rights from any personal abuse regardless of their gender, race,beliefs and abilities. The family is covered and portrayed in a series of different independent circles to shape discipline and strengthen the proper conduct of their kids through interacting with other people within the society.
Also, the child protection system establishes standards of care to the children by making decisions based on anassessment of their behaviour and support building their capacity to a higher level (Wulczyn, 2010). Young people and children in collaboration with the care and protectionsystem shouldbe givenindirect and direct opportunities to express their wishes to the adults. The elderly people they will interact with in their lives will continuously guide them on practical and emotional supporteveryday through the complaints they made and provided with solutions on forums they attend.
In conclusion, the children act policies are implementedwith an attitude of committing themselves to working together with the children under the police custody in making the rehabilitations work better and fairly for the kids with criminal offences. Families of thesechildren are also advised to offer safety, love and well-being for such children until they complete their term of changing their behaviours at the rehabilitation centre under the judicial rules and laws. The children, on the other hand, should take these treatments imposed to them positively and not as a form of punishment as they are meant to correct their mistakes and be well behaved in the community as a whole, not as a form of punishment. The lawyers need to listen to voices of the young children as they also have a right to express their experiences in a children’s court of law about the offence they have done.
References
Wulczn F,DaroD,FlukeJ,FeldmanS,Glodek C and LIfanda K. (2010). Adapting a Systems Approach to Child Protection: Key Concepts and Considerations. Retrieved fromhttp://www.unicef.org/protection/Conceptual_Clarity_Paper_Oct_2010(4).pdf
