1 / 24

Working with NGOs in child protection while keeping clients visible

This conference explores the challenges and best practices in working with NGOs in child protection, with a focus on ensuring the visibility of clients. Topics include legal aid, care and protection, and the case study of Archie Windsor.

dbounds
Télécharger la présentation

Working with NGOs in child protection while keeping clients visible

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Working with NGOs in child protection while keeping clients visible Legal Aid care & Protection Conference 23/08/2019

  2. Chair: Phillip Squires – Legal Aid • Facilitator: Mark Whelan – Mark Whelan Lawyer Pty Ltd • Speakers: Magistrate Nell Skinner – Children’s Court Steve Kinmond - ACWA Jeevani Korathota - LWOB Elanor Canning – Legal Aid NSW

  3. HYPOTHETICAL Background • The subject child is Archie Windsor, born 9/04/2014. • Archie’s mother is Ms Megan Windsor . Archie’s father is known only as “Harry” but is otherwise unknown. • Between 1/10/2013 and 09/04/2014 Family and Community Services received Eleven (11) Risk of Significant Harm reports relating to Archie indicating ongoing and escalating concern for his safety once he was born • Caseworkers from Family and Community Services (FACS) met with Ms Windsor to complete a safety assessment. The outcome of the safety assessment was that Archie was found to be unsafe in the care of his mother and that due to her mental health issues she could not care for and protect him.  

  4. On 12/04/2014 Ms Windsor consented to a Temporary Care Agreement. Ms Windsor was admitted to the Acute MH unit at Royal North Shore Hospital for psychological assessment due to episodes of dissociation. • On 16/04/2014 Archie was discharged from hospital and placed with an authorised carer, Ms Phillips. Ms Phillips is a 57 year old authorised with out-of-home-care designated agency Kids r Us. • On 11/07/2014 Archie Windsor was assumed into under section 44 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 • On 16/07/2014 the Secretary filed an Initiating Care Application in relation to Archie Windsor to Parramatta Children’s Court.

  5. The Secretary filed a Care Plan proposing that Archie is placed in the long term care of the Minister until Archie attains 18 years of age. • The CP indicates Archie will be moved to a suitable long term carer with a view to adoption. • On 01/112014 Parramatta Children’s Court made a final order Pursuant to Section 79(1)(b) of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 that Archie is to be placed under the Parental Responsibility of the Minister until Archie Windsor attains eighteen (18) years of age • On 12/11/2014 case management responsibility for Archie transferred to Kids r Us.

  6. The Placement is never changed. Ms Phillips is now 63 and Archie is over 5 and has lived with her his whole life. • On 14/06/2018 Caseworker from Kids r Us completed a Parenting Capacity report at the request of Archie’s out-of-home-care Caseworker for an “independent” Restoration Viability Assessment. • The report focusses exclusively on the mother’s progress and changes. No assessment of Archie’s attachment or risk of psychological harm if placement changed is undertaken.

  7. Recommendations of this assessment were that Archie be restored to Ms Windsor ’s care with the following conditions: • Transition period of three to six months; • Megan to work intensively with a restoration program for parenting support; • Megan and Archie to engage in family therapeutic support to help foster attachment; • Megan to support Ms Phillips and Louis’ (foster sibling) relationship with Archie and continue monthly contact with them; • Megan to complete parenting courses.

  8. 2/07/2018 FACS Permanency Coordinator completed a Permanency Consultation with Kids r Us Team. Case Plan changed to restoration. • 6/08/2018 Archie started unsupervised birth family contact visits with Ms. Windsor. • 13/09/2018 Archie has first sleepover with the mother for one night. • 15/09/2018 Archie spends first Saturday with the mother and this then continues fortnightly. • Shortly after this Archie told that he will be “going home to mum”.

  9. 26-28/09/2018 Archie has 2 night sleepover with the mother. • 28/09/2018 Permanency coordinator advises Kids r Us that FACS and Kids r Us could not progress with restoration until a legal order is made supporting this. • 13-14/10/2018 Archie has sleepover with the mother despite Kids r Us having been told that restoration process could not proceed without court orders. • 24/10/2018 Permanency coordinator advised Kids r Us during the permanency support program operational implementation review meeting that Kids r Us have commenced a restoration plan on advice from previous permanency coordinator. Did not follow up with progressing legal application.

  10. 09/11/2018 Carer files Section 90 application for rescission/variation of care order. Orders sought Parental responsibility for Archie allocated to the carer. • 09/11/2018 Archie has a 3 night stay at mother’s home • Kids r Us schedule indicates transition plan and Archie will be fully restored by 18/12/2018.

  11. 09/11/2018 Carer files Section 90 application for rescission/variation of care order. • Orders sought by carer: Parental responsibility for Archie allocated to the carer.

  12. THE FIRST RETURN DATE • What happens ????????

  13. What actually happened: • Court critical of Kids r Us commencing a restoration without bringing section 90 given finding of no realistic possibility of restoration to the mother; • Secretary says there was no intention by FACS to restore the child to the mother without a finding of realistic possibility of restoration to the mother. • Court does not accept this on the evidence • The schedule produced by the mother from Kids r Us which lays out the time line for restoration was not developed by FACS but by the NGO Kids r Us.

  14. Court critical of blame shifting between the FSP & the DCJ • Secretary provides undertaking that 18/12/2018 is not going to be a date for restoration of Archie to the mother. • ILR submits that level of unsupervised overnight contact is not appropriate given finding of no realistic possibility of restoration to the mother. Court accepts this • Secretary undertakes not to allow further overnight contact until further material is filed.

  15. On 27/11/2018 DCJ filed a Section 90 Application for the restoration of Archie to the care of Ms Megan. Kids r Us are strongly supportive of this application. • On 03/12/2018 Carer filed a Joinder Application. Carer is opposed to the restoration and is seeking for Archie to remain in her care long-term. • Mum opposes Carers sec 90. • Carer opposes DCJ sec 90 • Mum opposes Carers joinder

  16. ILR files assessment application to look at sec 90(6) issues • Court sets all 4 applications down for hearing on one day

  17. Court strongly suggested leave been granted in both sec 90 applications, they be consolidated, carer joined and assessment order made. • Everyone agreed to that and orders made

  18. WHAT DID The expert SAY ?

  19. child too attached to carer to move without causing psychological harm. • Insufficient attention paid in the restoration assessment as to risk of relapse by mum • Recommendation: continued placement of Archie with carer • DCJ filed an amended sec 90 seeking Guardianship to the carer

  20. Relationship between carer and Mum so poisonous that eventually DCJ had to drop Guardianship proposal due to concerns no contact would happen. • Files an Amended Care Plan proposing PR to Minister and continued placement with carer • Mum pressed on with restoration and the FSP caseworker filed in the mothers case supporting her, Notwithstanding DCJs position that placement should not change.

  21. FINAL THOUGHTS ??

More Related