Aboriginal child placement principle and family group conferences

Abstract

Throughout the twentieth century, Aboriginal children have been removed from their family and cultural networks under a range of government policies that have professed to be 'in their best interests'. This article outlines the historical context to the development of the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle, which is currently the operating principle for all States and Territories in Australia when child welfare services have engaged with Aboriginal families and there is likelihood that a child may be removed. Because of problems with the implementation of the Principle, the option of family group conferences is suggested as a way of ensuring the objectives of the Principle are still met. Family Group Conferences originated in New Zealand initially as a response to the over-representation of Maori children in the substitute care system, and have since been part of child welfare legislation in that country for both Maori and non-Maori families since 1989. The application of the New Zealand model to working with Indigenous Australians will be discussed, along with a recommendation for this form of empowering practice to be considered more comprehensively as a family decision-making strategy within the field of child protection.

Realist Review of Programs, Policies, and Interventions to Enhance the Social, Emotional, and Spiritual Well-Being of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Young People Living in Out-of-Home Care

“…The aims of the program were to empower the community and the family as decision makers, reduce the overrepresentation of Māori children in the child welfare system, and ensure the maintenance of family group and cultural connections. Since its inclusion in the Children, Young Persons and their Families Act (NZ) in 1989, FGDM has been adopted internationally (Ban, 2005). This program has been implemented in varying degrees in the US, Canada, Australia, and in some European countries.…”

Preparing Social Workers for Alternative Dispute Resolution in Care and Protection Cases

“…Care and protection ADR is being increasingly utilised in many countries because of its potential for resolving some of the disputes and problems which typically arise in these cases (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Guidelines (AFCC Guidelines), 2012; Australian Law Reform Commission, 2012). Mediation and family group conferencing variants are by far the most common methods being successfully employed (Ban, 2005;Chandler & Giovannucci, 2004;Evans, 2011;Mayer, 2009;Olson, 2009;Weigensberg, Barth & Guo, 2009). However, a comparative review by the Australian law reform commission indicated that other less commonly utilised methods which are sometimes effective include "conferences prior to a court hearing; the role of family consultants in the Family Court; and ADR processes developed for indigenous families, such as Care Circles" (Australian Law Commission, 2012: para 23.67).…”

Three models of collaborative child protection: what is their influence on short stays in foster care?

“…1 Because family group conferencing and family team decision meetings are common practices that are implemented at least a week or possibly months after placement in out-of-home care. Thus, engaging extended families and other support systems to develop safety plans and prevent out-of-home placement is less relevant for cases that involve emergency short-term placements (Campbell 1997;Ban 2005;Pennell et al 2010). 2 One example of this kind of complementary practice tool is the CCC Preliminary Protective Hearing Benchcard that juvenile court judges are beginning to use across the country.…”

“…Because family group conferencing and family team decision meetings are common practices that are implemented at least a week or possibly months after placement in out‐of‐home care. Thus, engaging extended families and other support systems to develop safety plans and prevent out‐of‐home placement is less relevant for cases that involve emergency short‐term placements (Campbell ; Ban ; Pennell et al . ).…”