Part 3 Consequences of Removal Chapter 10 Children’s Experiences

TheFACS [SA] came to check mygrand-kids. If they havemuscles they are deemed O.K. The FACS checkon the kids’ skins, muscles, if they tremble. They said they were O.K. andthey left us.

We don’tlike Welfare. We don’t want to give our kidsto Welfare. I onlyseeFACScome,but they don’thelp Anangu.

Wewant the FACSvisitor toadvise women’s Councilof when andwhy they are coming in, so that thewholeof AP [theAnanguPitjantjatjarapeoples] can consider the futureofkids in question. The entire extendedfamily (Harrison 1991 pages25-29).

In Aboriginal communities responsibility for children generally resides with an extended kinship network and the community as a whole. Children are important for the future of the culture and their communityhas a right to their contribution. Raising children in Aboriginal communities commonly involves children living with kin and the extended family taking responsibility for them.

Children are the responsibility of the entire family rather than the biological parents alone. Many Aboriginalpeople havebeen ‘grownup’ by members of the family other than their biological mother and father and this practice ofgrowing up childrenis still very widespread today … As a resultof the children being encouraged to think and haveresponsibility at a very early age, they have a largedegree of autonomy (Daylight and Johnstone1986page27).

The involvement of extended kin networks, close supervision of very young children, a high level of autonomy among older children and an emphasis on providing comfort and affection rather than discipline are features of Aboriginal child-rearing that are widely recognised in communities in different geographic locations and living different lifestyles. Yolgnu children in the Northern Territory from the age of three begin to transfer their physical and emotional dependence from their mother to their camp group and that between the ages of five and fifteen years they have a great deal of independence (Healy et al 1985). Among the Maran people of the Western Desert ‘children are free to do very much as they like most of the time and are given very few explicit instructions by adults’ (Tonkinson quoted by Thorpe 1994 on page 161; see also Hamilton1981, Sansom and Baines 1987).

There is, therefore, a conflict of values. In Western societies a child’s absence from the nuclear family over a period of time or regularly is considered abnormal and indicative of a problem within the family. An assessment of Aboriginal children’s welfare files created in Victoria in 1980 and 1990 found that while there was a greater willingness to use extended family foster carers in 1990 there was still a lack of understanding and lack of acceptance of extended Aboriginal family relations (Thomas 1994). ‘[T]he functioning of the extended familywithin an Aboriginal cultural context is

seen as pathological or dysfunctional’ (page 43). One 1990 file note recorded,

Concernswere expressed around thenumberofpeoplewho may attend thehome whilethe children arepresent [for Christmas]. Mrs A agreed to request that all extendedfamilymembers other thanhermother, will be asked to leavewhile the children are there(quoted byThomas 1994 on page 43).

Thomas concluded from her review of the 1990 files,

Extended family contact is construed as the sourceof potential conflict and abuse, and as such must be tightly controlledby theDepartment. In contrastwith Aboriginaldemandswhichlabel state practices isolating childrenfrom their families as abusive,Departmental concerns lie with the extended family itself (Thomas 1994 page 42).

‘Normal’ Aboriginal practice signals a problem to many welfare workers. The files created in 1990 continued to demonstrate welfare workers’ perception of Aboriginality as a cause of delinquency and problems. Behaviour in both periods was frequently stereotyped in a racist way.

Potential foster mother can already sense that she may already haveAboriginal tendencies, as she canbehappilyplaying in the schoolgroundwith the otherchildren and all of a sudden cut off and ‘go walkabout’.

I think failure as human beings may be an issuewhichwill come up as that is a common experiencewith Aboriginal people (Thomas1994 page 38).

Attitudes in 1990 were contradictory. In some files the child’s Aboriginality and relationship with the community are seen as central and in others they are ignored. While recognition of the child’s Aboriginality had improved by 1990, there was a continuing failure to contextualise the child’s needs. There was also a failure to address racism in the education system, housing problems, lack of family relations where placement with a non-Indigenous family had broken down and more generally poverty and structural factors resulting in interventions.

A study of 335 children’s case files in WA found that the exercise ofdiscretion by welfare officers affects Indigenous children in an adverse manner (Thorpe 1994 page 170). Definitions of neglect are more subjective and culturally particular than definitions of abuse. This may contribute to the large number of Indigenous children found to be neglected. There has been no specific research into whether culturalbias contributes to the high percentage of substantiated neglect cases. However, cultural bias within welfare departments suggests that this is likely. A further factor is the high level of poverty in Indigenous communities.

Systemic inequalities Submissions to the Inquiry reflected communities’ grave concerns about social breakdown and its consequences, including alcohol, petrol and other substance abuse, domestic violence, poor nutrition, child abuse and other consequent problems. The primary reason for welfare intervention in Indigenous communities is neglect. Social inequality is the most direct cause of neglect. Adequate family assistance could make major inroads.

Welfare departments in all jurisdictions continue to fail Indigenous children. Although they recognise the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle, they fail to consult adequately, if at all, with Indigenous families and communities and their organisations. Welfare departments frequently fail to acknowledge anything of value which Indigenous families could offer children and fail to address children’s well-being on Indigenous terms.

Aboriginalfamilies continue tobe seen as the ‘problem’, and Aboriginal children continue to be seen as potentially ‘savable’ if they canbeseparated from the ‘dysfunctional’ or ‘culturally deprived’ environments of their families andcommunities. Non-Aboriginals continue to feel that Aboriginal adults are ‘hopeless’ and cannot be changed, but Aboriginal children ‘have a chance’ (Link-Up (NSW) submission 186 page85).

The needs of Indigenous families and communities are neglected while Indigenous children continue to be disproportionately involved with ‘The Welfare’ and juvenile justice. Evidence to the Inquiry repeatedly indicated a community perception that the problems which result in removals need to be addressed in terms of community development. However, welfare departmentscontinue to pathologise and individualise protection needs of Indigenous children. At the same time, recognition of past failures, under-resourcing and, in some instances, racist attitudes frequently result in a failure to intervene until the family crisisis of such proportions that separation is the most likely or even only possible course.

Indigenous communities throughout Australia gave evidence to the Inquiry of their need for programs and assistance to ensure the well-being of their children. Not a single submission to the Inquiry from Indigenous organisations saw intervention from welfare departments as an effective way of dealing with Indigenous child protection needs. Departments recognise that they need to provide culturally appropriate services but they fail to develop them.

Despite changes ofnames from Departmentof CommunityWelfare to theDepartment of Community Development to the Department ofFamily and Children’s Services (FCS) [WA] many Aboriginal peoplefeel that theDepartment hasremained a welfare institution reminiscent of NativeWelfare.FCS still wields statutory controloverfamilies struggling to survive. Decisionswhich affect the lives of children are frequently made by staffwithoutdiscussion with Aboriginalfamilies. Many peoplefacing crises with their families will oftennotseek assistance from the department because of their association with ‘Welfare’ who took the childrenaway (Kimberley Land Council submission 345page28).

It is not surprising, given theexperiences ofpresent and earlier welfarepolicy and practices, that Aboriginal perceptions of the current roleof DCS [NSW] remainoverwhelminglynegative. Despite the employment of Aboriginal fieldworkers most interviewees expressed suspicion of and antipathy towards,DCS.Despite changes to policy andlegislation,DCS practice remains, in the opinion of those interviewed, culturally inappropriate(Learning From the Past 1994 page58)

Families are concerned that any contactwithFACS[SA] may result in their children being removed. Hence forprograms involving thewell-being ofAboriginal children tobe successful, they need tobe managedby and operatedfrom Aboriginalorganisations (SAACCA submission 347 page 37).

Evidence to the Inquiry confirms that Indigenous families perceive any contact with welfare departments as threatening the removal of their child. Families are reluctant to approach welfare departments when they need assistance. Where Indigenous services are available they are much more likely to be used.

Failure to address serious problems within communities has been identified as being ‘fuelled’ by systemic problems with the provision of child welfare services to Aboriginal communities (Atkinson and Memaduma 1996). Cultural distortion together with incapacity to cope with the extent of the problems has led to Aboriginal children remaining in abusive situations which non-Aboriginal children would not be left in. Further it has prevented a constructive approach being taken to addressing ‘crisis’ situations.

… too frequently in the area of child abuse, and similarly in the area of domestic violence there is a covert ideology that because these concerns are so significant amongAboriginal communities, their existenceis presumed to be culturally sanctioned. Thisform of cultural reductionism, acts as a form of cultural apology, perpetuating and exacerbating the crises of child abuse in Aboriginal communities. Such a view has several critical attitudinal consequences amongst workers in their serviceunderstanding and intervention response.

The cultural apologist position enables plannersandworkers to adopt a position of inevitable resignation over the problem of child abuse in Aboriginal communities, ‘what else can you expect, that’s theway Aboriginal people goon – you cannot expect anybetter’. Such an approach is clearly, an extreme form of cultural determinism, where child abuse is seen as a function of Aboriginal culture and not a consequenceofthestructural context of Aboriginal life in this country (pages13-14).

Welfare officers may feel uncertain about when it is appropriate to intervene in an Indigenous family in crisis. The Sydney Aboriginal Mental Health Unit complained of intervention occurring too late.

There is a failure to involve appropriate Aboriginalprofessionals at an early notification stage, involvement is always later …

Therecognitionof the shameful legacy of the forcedremoval of childrenby government departments has led to a paradox of inaction.Community Serviceswhen notified of abuseor neglectfrequently do nothing, hence compounding a situationof abuse and neglect.

As a result of critical inaction, a child will sometimes suffer for an unnecessarily prolonged period andwhen action is taken,removal ensuesbecauseof the established chronicity. Involvement of appropriate Aboriginal professionals is oftennot instigated at the early notificationphase,when a situation couldhavebeen most easily remedied.

Hence the initial official neglect compounds the cycle of continuedremoval of children (submission 60 pages4-5).

Ineffective responses to structural problems and individual circumstances lead not only to separations through late intervention but to loss of children through suicide, cultural breakdown and social disintegration. This loss is a serious concern to many communities.

A number of submissions to the Inquiry suggested that for many Indigenous children separation from land and kin was an extreme form of abuse and that the threat of children being removed was so frightening that the threat was abusive itself.

In relation to understanding the conceptof abusein Anangu terms, thewomen were emphatic that the most destructive and harmfulform of abuse which could be inflictedon any childwas removal from their country and lossof theirculturalheritage. This was identified as a form of emotional andmental abusewhich couldresult in physical illness for thechild(Harrison 1992 page 11).

The WA Working Party on Guidelines for the Assessment of Aboriginal Caregivers similarly recognised,

Not telling childrenwho theirrelations and country are is regardedby Aboriginal people as one of the most destructive and harmful forms of abuse (WA Government submission, Attachment 4 page 10).

Bureaucratic procedures Indigenous people often see welfare departments as unable to assist them and their communities. They perceive the departments as bureaucracies which require a lot of paperwork, judge Indigenous people’s livesand ultimately remove their children. The Inquiry was told repeatedly of the difficulty Indigenous carers encounter in obtaining the financial and other support they need to care for children. Kin care is often placed under stress because of a shortage of food and other necessities. Sometimes assistance which is provided does not go to the person caring for the child. Frequently women found the

Department of Social Security inaccessible. They could not handle the paperwork required to obtain assistance. At a community level Aboriginal organisations are often not linked into grant and funding programsand hence miss out on the opportunity to access funds from the range of available sources.

Older Pitjantjatjara women on the AP lands describe their experience of Family and Community Services as one where the department exercises blanket powers, fails to recognise AP protocols and fails to informfamilies when the department is visiting, why or what is likely to happen. This perception contrasts with the view of the Chief Executive Officer of SA Family and Community Services.

… the challenge forus is to balance the legislative obligationswehave and implementingthese obligations in a way thatgives Aboriginal agencies and peoplescope to ensure that we are meeting needsin terms that are appropriate for them, and in a way that enablesAboriginal families to makedecisions about thefuture of their own young people, andin a way that enables Aboriginal agencies to play asignificantpart … it’s entirely consistentwithour current legislation that [in]decisionswe make that involve Aboriginal families and children, we should be actively seen to have taken the advice ofappropriate Aboriginal leaders and agencies (Mr Richard Deyell evidence).

The experience of Indigenous agencies contradicts government rhetoric of enhanced consultation and cultural sensitivity.

… thereality is that childwelfareofficers who had three months training in some diploma course at TAFE are the ones who are exercising therights over theultimate destinationof Aboriginal children. Theyhave nounderstandingof theAboriginal community. They have noknowledgeof theculture of Aborigines.Theyhave no understandingwhatsoever in those courses about the disadvantages that Aboriginalpeople suffer and yet … they are the peoplewho are exercising the delegated authority of the Director indetermining whatwill happen to those kids(Michael Mansell, TasmanianAboriginalCentre, evidence 325).

Children with disabilities Indigenous children with disabilities are over-represented in all welfare statistics, particularly in non-Indigenous substitute care. In May 1995 Aboriginal children represented 79% of all children with disabilities in care in the NT. Just over one-half (53%) of children in care were Aboriginal and almost half of these children had disabilities. Only 37% of Aboriginal children with disabilities were placed with Aboriginal carers (NT Governmentinterimsubmission pages 54 and 56).

In August 1995 the first general meeting of people with disabilities, their carers and families took place on AP lands (South Australia). Anangu at the meeting said that disabled people on the lands are ‘ngaltujara mulapa’ – ‘truly unfortunate’ and the most disadvantaged.

Many people spoke about theneedsof thesechildren to learn theirown culture and language, including ‘mara wangkani,’ Ananguhandsigns, instead ofAustralasian sign or Makston. Anangu also talked about welfarepolicies soundinggood,but notresulting in anyactionon a community

or family level … Therewasmuch discussionabout Anangustartingtheir own welfareservice basedon the lands (Uwankaraku Meeting Report1995page 9).

The meeting set guidelines including,

• Compulsory cross-cultural training for non-Aboriginalfoster families.

• Makeplansfor children with disabilities so everyone knows the storywith families on top,not foster familiesand Welfare.

• Morefundsneeded to make this work.

• Disability ngura (supported accommodation)for childrenwith disabilities on the lands.

• Communities and Aboriginalorganisations to take over moreof thewelfare role.

• Welfare needsto helpfamilies to visit their children by paying forthetrips (Uwankaraku Meeting Report 1995page 10).

These guidelines reflect the needs of many Indigenous communities, particularly remote communities or communities where disability facilities are not available. The NSW Council for Intellectual Disability pointed out in a submission to the Inquiry the incoherent and confused law, policy and practice affecting children with disabilities which have particularly negative effects on Indigenous children.

Aboriginal children and young peoplewith intellectual disability are in a position of double jeopardy, beingdevalued notonlyon thebasis of their disability, but also theirAboriginality. WhereAboriginal children and young people withdisabilities originatefrom rural and remote communities they are multiply disadvantaged(submission848page3).

The Council noted the low participation rate of Aboriginal people in disability services and suggested this may lead to inappropriate welfare intervention being the only support available (page 5). The Council also noted that Indigenous children easily disappear into long-term non-Indigenous residential care without being detected. Other matters raised included the failure of services under the Disability Services Act 1993 (NSW) to cater for Aboriginal children. The Act has established service principles which include the requirement to meet the needs of persons with disabilities who experience additional disadvantage including Aboriginal people to ‘recognise the importance of preserving family relationships and the cultural and linguistic environments of persons with disabilities’ and to establish transition plans where these needs are not met. However, the Council has reviewed several hundred of the 850 transition plans developed for specialist disability services and not a single plan addresses reunion of Aboriginal children with their families or takes steps to establish plans for substitute care arrangements for Aboriginal children with their family or community (submission 848 page 10).

In practice the AboriginalChild Placement Principle appears to have only limited application for Indigenous children with disabilities. This situation urgently needs to be

acknowledged and addressed.

Conclusions Welfare legislation and the language of welfare policy have changed. However, submissions to the Inquiry from Indigenous organisations working with Indigenous families indicate little change in practice.Paternalistic attitudes persist in welfare departments. Indigenous children continue to be severely over-represented within all State and Territory welfare systems. Departmental attempts to provide culturally appropriate welfare services to Indigenous communities have not overcome the weight of Indigenous peoples’ historical experience of ‘The Welfare’ or the attitudes and structures entrenched in welfare departments.

Submissions to the Inquiry urged that culturally-appropriate welfare-related services are most effectively provided by Indigenous organisations.

TheDepartment of Community Services[NSW] should be reformed, or they should nothave the responsibility of dealingwith Aboriginal families.If DOCS is to be reformed then there needs to bedrastic changeswhich ensure that theAboriginal community is adequately consultedwhen any decision is made about theplacement of an Aboriginal child.For example, a communitypanel couldbe createdwhich sits as a consultative body whenplacement decisions are made. Alternatively a neworganisation could be created which serves to empower the Aboriginal communities by providing the Aboriginal community with a real role toplay in the management of child welfare within their own community (Western AboriginalLegal Service (BrokenHill) submission 775 page 27).

Real controlover thedelivery of our citizenship rightsneeds tobehandedover toAboriginal organisations and legitimate representativegroups … Until this occurs thenorganisations such as Tangentyere Council will continue to struggle on shoe stringbudgets to deliver services to, and act as advocates on behalfofAboriginalfamilies whose lives are still impacted on byfutile mainstream services, that useterms such as ‘culturally appropriate’ and have absolutely no idea what this means (Tangentyere Council submission 542page 2).

All State and Territory governments have recognised the importance of Aboriginal self-determination or self-management in the provision of welfare services to Indigenous peoples. If the gap between intentions and experience is to be narrowed or closed these meanings and implications must be addressed.

For many Indigenous communities the welfare of children is inextricably tied to the well-being of the community and its control of its destiny. Their experience of ‘The Welfare’ has been overwhelmingly one of cultural domination and inappropriate and ineffective servicing, despite attempts by departments to provide accessible services. Past and current legislative and administrative policies together with bureaucratic structures and mainstream cultural presumptions create a matrix of ‘Welfare’ which cannot be reformed by means of departmental policy alone. If welfare services are to address Indigenous children’s needs they need to be completely overhauled. Welfare services must be provided in a manner which is accepted by communities.

While broad schemes are administratively convenient, communities vary significantly in their aspirations, capacities and awareness of options. Child welfare models should be sufficiently flexible to accommodate these variations. Ultimately, child welfare appropriate to each community and region should be negotiated with those whose children, families and communities are the subjects of the system. Negotiation clearly implies empowerment of Indigenous parties and recognition of their true partnership in the reform process.

Endnotes

1WELSTAT data are marred by inconsistency andvariablequality between jurisdictions andoverall are incomplete. All State and Territory welfare departmentskeep records of childreninout-of-home care, whetherplacedby government or by private agencies. Varyingdefinitions are used for thecollectionand collationof data. All agenciesbreak down the figures intoa range of categories including whetherthe child is Indigenous.Theaccuracyof this breakdown is not clear althoughitis known that a number of children who are Indigenous are not recorded as such. It is particularly difficult to make comparisons between Statesand Territoriesonthe rate of childrenunder departmental attention, and particularlyinout-of-homecare, because departmentsusedifferent definitions and categories in the collection of data.

Nonetheless the data available clearly indicate serious over-representation of Indigenous children in all stages of contact with welfare systems. The level of over-representationincreases as the level of intervention increases. Indigenous children areover-represented in all categories. Their over-representation is markedly higher among children removed for neglectcompared with abuse. Torres Strait Islander children in Queensland – where the largest Torres Strait Islander population lives – appeartohavehigher rates of notification and substantiated findings of abusecompared with Aboriginal families.