Written by David Dalrymple, Director
David, the founder of Only-The-Cover.com, brings a world of creativity to life through AI art, educational aides, unique designs, and digital tapestries. As an artist brimming with passion and diverse interests, David constantly seeks to push the boundaries of what can be achieved through the fusion of art and technology.
I dedicated 18 years to Child Protection Victoria, concluding my career as a senior manager in 2024. During this time, we encountered numerous families with multiple and complex needs, often rooted in intergenerational trauma and severe poverty.
However, what concerns me most is the ease with which the State can remove children from parental care, often permanently, with minimal oversight, no procedural fairness, and limited recourse for families found to be unjustly separated. I firmly believe that this issue demands urgent public attention and significant reforms.
Child protection framework
Child Protection operates chiefly under the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (CYFA). This Act sets out several very good principles and safety nets to help ensure child safety. However, oftentimes, they are simply ignored, misunderstood, or contested by Child Protection, which is reprehensible for an organization compelled to act as a model litigant.
The CYFA 2005 authorizes Child Protection to investigate concerns about the safety and well-being of children for 90 days before any court oversight is required. In reality, many cases sit in investigations for hundreds of days, languishing unaccounted for, while high-paid bureaucrats embody and support a risk-averse analysis paralysis that leaves families in limbo for hundreds of days beyond statutory authority. There seems to be no consideration for the additional stress and strain this places on families already doing it.
The protection application
When a Child Protection manager (CPP5.2 or above) forms the view that a child is at ‘an unacceptable risk of significant harm,’ there is an option to issue a Protection Application by Emergency Care. This is the procedure required to remove children from parents with no requirement to give notice or explanation other than a tick-box of an abuse type:
Child is abandoned
Parent incapacitated
Physical harm
Sexual harm
Emotional harm
Importantly, the burden of proof in the Children’s Court of Victoria is lower than in every other court in Victoria. The Magistrate needs only to be satisfied that the harm has occurred ‘on the balance of probabilities’ (more likely than not), a far cry from the higher threshold in the Criminal Courts of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’ The best legislation in the world is no good if it is blatantly, repeatedly ignored with no recourse.
Anyone can ring up and make a report to Child Protection, and reporters can be anonymous. Furthermore, if three reports are made within 12 months, an investigation is triggered automatically, regardless of the veracity or seriousness of the allegations.
The court process
Sadly, children under the age of 10 are not permitted to attend court and have no legal representation. The practitioner who removed them from parental care is charged with obtaining their wishes and relaying these to the court. In my opinion, this is a serious conflict of interest. Children over the age of 10 are not required but may if they wish, attend court. They are sometimes allocated a lawyer.
Everyone arrives at court the day following the children being removed. Parents may or may not be eligible for legal aid, however, they are always provided a lawyer for the first court date. In my 18 years in Child Protection, I never once experienced a case of children being reunified with parents at first mention.
At the first mention hearing, a number of factors combine to disempower and disadvantage the parents (not least of which is the significant stress and emotional trauma they are experiencing). The Magistrate is, for example, required to take only verbal submissions. No evidence is heard, and is compelled by the legislation to take Child Protection submissions at face value and at the highest level of concern. These can be allegations made by an anonymous source, often later found to be spurious and false.
There is one hope for children to be returned at the first court hearing, and that is if a Magistrate agrees to hear an Interim Accommodation Order Contest. This involves presenting the evidence at hand, enabling the Magistrate to make a decision without hearing sworn evidence. The Magistrate is unable to make a determination on the case and can only make strong recommendations that parties reach an agreement. This clearly works in favor of Child Protection, who simply agree to nothing and have the matter booked for a contested hearing, often several months away.
The children
Despite Child Protection having removed the children from parental care, this does not mean they have yet found an alternate caregiver. Often, children sit in the office until the small hours of the morning as the placement system struggles to locate a vacant placement. One of the saddest experiences I had was watching a close sibling group being split up and sent to various caregivers due to caregiver shortages. After the trauma of being removed from their parents, the added trauma of sibling groups being split is often too much, and the poor children fall into an indescribable sadness characterized by dissociation and vacant expressions. But that’s not all. Available placements are often so far from the children’s usual home that they then have to contend with a change of education facility.
Statistics to support the case
According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, in 2022-23, there were 49,315 children in out-of-home care in Australia, with 12,059 of these in Victoria alone.
The number of child protection investigations in Victoria has increased by 30% over the past five years.
A report by the Commission for Children and Young People found that in 2023, 25% of Victorian children in care had been moved three or more times within a year.
A survey conducted by the Australian Childhood Foundation revealed that 48% of children in care reported feeling disconnected from their siblings.
Conclusion
This is part 1 in a series based on the Child Protection system in Victoria. I will never detail or outline individual cases or put in writing the horrific trauma a small percentage of Child Protection clients have suffered. I do that out of lasting respect for client confidentiality and privacy. For more information:
Children's Court of Victoria
Child Protection Manual
Part 2 will focus on children’s experiences in care and the draconian, impossible systemic challenges parents face when they endeavor (often for years) to have their children returned.
If this article caused you any distress:
Lifeline: 13 11 14 (24/7 crisis support and suicide prevention)
Beyond Blue: 1300 22 4636 (support for anxiety, depression, and mental health crises)
Suicide call back service: 1300 659 467 (counselling for people affected by suicide)
Kids Helpline: 1800 55 1800 (counselling for young people aged 5–25)
MensLine Australia: 1300 78 99 78 (support for men with emotional health, family, and relationship concerns)
Read more from David Dalrymple
David Dalrymple, Director
David, the innovative founder of Only-The-Cover.com, brings a world of creativity to life through AI art, educational aides, unique designs, and digital tapestries. With a formal qualification in Management, OH&S, and Social Sciences, David seamlessly blends his expertise with his passion for Diversity, Inclusion, and Equality. Dedicated to promoting respect, truth, and freedom, David's work is a harmonious fusion of art, technology, and social values.
In addition to his creative endeavors, David is an avid restorer of antiques and old objects, breathing new life into forgotten treasures. His talent extends to crafting bespoke jewelry, where his meticulous attention to detail shines through in every piece.
