This research explored the experiences of care leavers, who lived in institutions (such as Children's Homes and orphanages) or other forms of out-of-home care between 1930 and 1989. Participants included representatives of three sub-cohorts: Forgotten Australians, members of the Stolen Generations and Child Migrants. Employing mixed methods, this research used three forms of data collection: surveys (n = 669), interviews (n = 92) and focus groups (n = 77). This research concentrated on participants’ experiences in care, leaving care, life outcomes after care (education, employment, health, wellbeing and relationships), coping strategies and resilience, current service needs and usage and participation in organisations as well as the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. Most participants experienced extreme neglect and abuse while in care. Leaving care, often after years of institutionalisation, was generally a frightening and demoralising process. Despite these challenges, a number of participants demonstrated remarkable resilience. For many, however, these experiences had negative consequences in adulthood including serious physical and mental health problems. This often made adult learning, paid employment and positive relationships virtually impossible. Most survivors carry high levels of trauma and complex unmet needs. Implications for policy, practice and services are drawn from key findings.

In 2020, social workers across the world responded to the global COVID-19 pandemic and the consequent strict lockdown procedures over several months. In many countries, including Australia and New Zealand, this virtual shutdown period necessitated a reframing of social work practice to incorporate factors including delivery of services via virtual means and more limited access for vulnerable clients. This article draws on the integration of two methods designed to address the research question: ‘How has social work practice in Australia and New Zealand been affected by COVID-19?’ These include (i) a narrative review of papers published during 2020 on social work practice and the COVID-19 pandemic and (ii) an online survey, undertaken from October to December 2020, of Australian and New Zealand social workers. The questionnaire data were analysed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and thematic analysis. The findings of this article details include the significant impacts of COVID-19 on practice, the increased needs of clients, including a rise in health issues, violence, homelessness and financial concerns, and the resulting critical changes to social work workloads. Social workers also reported greater use of technologies to deliver services and fears for their families and themselves if exposed to COVID-19.

No abstract

This article examines how children's voices can be heard in Family Court hearings when there are allegations of child sexual abuse. Using a case study approach, three judgements are examined to see how judicial determination centralised the information from and about children. In these three purposively selected cases the voices of children was identified from conflicting evidence presented by professional assessors and counsellors. These three cases were selected because of the primacy given to evidence that was presented from and about children. In these cases allegations were not assumed to be artifacts of a parental dispute, instead, the Judge who heard them worked actively to discern the child's voice within the conflicting evidence. Further, these three cases were also distinguished by the range of evidence available that included family reports and assessments from professionals as a result of Court Orders, but also evidence from those who had ongoing involvement with the children in counseling roles. These counsellors were located outside the Family Court, in the child protection sector. The evidence from counsellors was preferred by the Judge as it provided a higher level of detail about the children and their allegations. The 'voice of the child' was constructed by the Judge in their interpretation of professional evidence.

No abstract