HSSW 504: Juvenile Justice and Child Protection - Case Studies Analysis

This assignment analyzes two case studies based on the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, focusing on the risks of harm to children and the legal and administrative responsibilities for their protection. The first case involves a family with a child with Down syndrome who is neglected and left alone at home, while the second case examines the protection of children from a father with a history of domestic violence. The analysis utilizes the DECIDE model for ethical decision-making and explores the relevant legislative principles of the Act, including the paramountcy of children's welfare and the need for less invasive interventions.

HSSW 504 JUVENILE JUSTICE AND
CHILD PROTECTION
1

Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................3
Question 1........................................................................................................................................4
Issue.............................................................................................................................................4
Rule..............................................................................................................................................5
Analysis........................................................................................................................................6
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................8
Question 2........................................................................................................................................9
Issue.............................................................................................................................................9
Rule............................................................................................................................................10
Analysis......................................................................................................................................11
Conclusion.................................................................................................................................12
Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................13
References......................................................................................................................................14
2

Introduction
The assignment describes the provision of Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection
Act) 1998, and the assignment includes two different case studies based on the harmful activities
caused and suffered by the children. In the First case, Mary is suffering from Down syndrome,
and her family is not concern about the safety and well being of the child. The complaint is made
by the neighbor and professional healthcare person to the Department of community and
healthcare services. The description is made in the form of DECIDE Model for ethical decision-
making process for the safety of children. Apart from that, the second question is based on the
provision of Section 9 of Care and Protection Act 1998and the related legislative principles of
the Act describes that, the legal and administrative department are accountable for the protection
and well being and safety of the children from harm along with the parents, siblings, family and
friends.
3

Question 1
Issue
Sophie and her husband Ron are working professionals. They have two children – Rachel and
Mary. Mary has a down syndrome and therefore requires special medical attention. She is also
given visits and assistance from an NGO which specializes in assisting families for taking care of
children. The children are left at home alone and sometimes they are left alone even at nights.
The Department of Family and Community Services received many complaints with reference to
well-being and safety of Rachel and Mary. A neighbour reported that the children are left alone
at home sometimes at nights. A healthcare professional reported that he has found Mary in soiled
nappies continually and even after several discussions, Sophie has taken no action. Sophie
herself disclosed to the professional that some nights ago, Ron came house drunk and threatened
the children. In given case, there is risk of harm to children and therefore they require attention
and care.
4

Rule
As per the provisions of Section 23 of Children and young persons (Care and Protection) Act,
1998, under following circumstances a young person or child shall be deemed to be at risk of
significant harm:
 Basic needs of a young person or child whether psychological or physical are not being
dealt with
 The necessary medical care could not be arranged for the child by parents or caretakers
 The child is unable to receive an education because his parents could not arrange for his
education
 There is a risk of sexual, physical or ill-treatment of a child
 Child are at risk of psychological harm because ofbehaviour of parents or caretaker
 The birth mother could not provide support services when the child was subject to pre-
natal report.
A report can be submitted to Director General by anyone who has reason to believe that a young
person or child is facing a risk of harm. On receipt of such report, The Director-General shall
investigate the matter and take necessary actions.
5

Analysis
D: Define the problem- The problem in the case is whether Mary and Rachel are at risk of
significant harm or not. They are left alone at home even at nights by their parents. One day,
Ron, the father came home drunk and also threatened the children. As per the healthcare
professional, Mary who down syndrome has been not given special attention by her parents as he
found Mary in soiled nappies many times and after discussions with her mother Sophie, the
situation did not get any better. Therefore, actions need to be taken to provide attention and
safety to the children.
E: Establish the criteria- The criteria for ensuring that the children are at risk of significant
harm shall be judged by considering the claims made by the healthcare professional and the
neighbor. Through the reports made by the healthcare professional and the neighbor, it can be
established that the children were at risk of significant harm. Leaving children alone at home
even at night’s falls under negligence. They are not given attention by their parents. Even the
mother Sophie confessed that father came home drunk and threatened the children. The given
case falls under Section 23 of Children and young persons (Care and Protection) Act, 1998. The
action shall be taken by Director General when reported.
C: Consider all alternatives- The alternatives available were to make the parents understand the
situation and make them aware of the consequences. It is the duty of parents to take care of their
children and provide them with all the physical and psychological needs. If the parents could not
understand the situation then the matter shall move to Director General who will investigate the
matter and take necessary actions.
I:Identify best alternatives- The professional from healthcare department found Mary in soiled
nappies and spoke to the mother about it several times. But the mother did not make any attempt
to make the situation any better or give attention to her children. Neither the father made any
attempt to take care of his children. Therefore, the best alternative can only be reporting the
matter to Director General who would be able to provide care and protection to the children.
D: Develop a plan of action and implementit- As a caseworker in Department of Family and
Community Services, a house visit shall be done for the assessment and the findings shall be
reported to Director General who will further investigate the matter. He can also use the report of
6

healthcare professional and the statement of neighbor as additional evidence. This evidence will
help the Director-General in the investigation and a strong case against the parents of Mary and
Rachel about negligence could be framed. By using the findings of the case, Director General
may take necessary actions against the parents.
E: Evaluate and monitor the solution- When the matter reaches in the hands of Director
General, he shall investigate the matter and take the actions required for protection and care of
children. Director-General based on the circumstance may order a medical examination of
children, inspection of their house, in-house or out of the house care and assistance to the
children. The Director-General shall take all the actions to ensure that the children do not feel
negligence any further and are given due care and protection.
7

Conclusion
After due analysis of the case and the negligence faced by the children, Mary and Rachel, it can
be concluded that the children due to actions shall always be taken against the parents and the
caretakers of children who fail to perform their duty of taking care of their children. The children
when young need special attention and care and it is the duty of parents and caretakers to make
sure that their safety and well-being is not compromised. Children must not be compromised of
any physical or psychological needs. The negligence of children in young age leads them to the
path of becoming a criminal. Here, in given case, Mary is suffering from down syndrome and
therefore needs extra attention. Let be extra attention, she is not given any attention at all by her
parents. Therefore, it can be concluded that actions shall be taken against parents as the physical
and psychological needs of the children are not being fulfilled and they are being neglected. The
father is also alleged to threaten the children in a drunken state. The children require proper
protection and care.
8

Question 2
Issue
The given case is based on the statutory child protection workers to protect Deidre and her
children from the behavior of tom, the father of children. Tom served a custodial sentence for
breaching a domestic violence order with his wife Deidre. The caretaker Lorissa assists the
children and handling some household chores. She was also suffering from breast cancer and
undergoing chemotherapy so she was not able to do further with Deidre. Apart from that Deidre
also suffered from Anxiety, mental health concerns and she was worried about the children.
9

Rule
According to the Section 9 of Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998
provides that, this Act is regulated under the principle of decision and action related to the
particular young person and child, the welfare, security and protection of the young persons and
child are paramount.
In accordance with the subsection (1), the related legislative principles are applicable in the legal
administration Act are as mentioned;
 Wherever a young person and child arecapable to form his opinions and views on the
matter related to safety, well-being and welfare. The concerned person provided an
opportunity to present the views and opinion in a free manner and such views are given
weight as per the capacity development of the young person and child in certain
circumstances.
 In all decisions and actions laid down in this Act, whether administrative and legal
process that majorly affects a young person and child, explanation must be related to the
disability, social values, linguistics, sexuality, and religion of the young people and child,
if relevant with the responsibility of parents for the young person and child
 In determining the kind of action is necessary to put on whether administrative and legal
process in order for the safety of young person and child from harmful activities, the way
to be undertaken should be the less invasive action in the young person and child to
promote the development of them (Children Court Home, 2017).
 If a young person and child is permanently and temporarily deprived of her or his
environment of family and cannot be allowed to exist in the environment for their best
interest, the young person and child are entitled to get the assistance and special
protection from the situation, on his and her name, language, identification, religious and
cultural ties must be protected and preserved.
 When Young people or child is placed out of home care facilities are framed in
accordance with the way, to ensure proper keep and secure, stable and nurturing
atmosphere which recognizes the young and child person circumstances. It is clear that
young child required more need for the safety and protection of permanent placement
(Sheehan, 2018).
10

 If a young candidate or child is placed out of house care services then theory are allowed
to provide more safe, stable and nurturing environment unless it is against the best
interest, a considering into account the demands of young candidate and child. It will
cover the retention of the young candidate and child of a relationship with different
people significant to the young person and child with the addition of parents, extended
family, siblings, family, community, friends, and peers (Brocklehurst, 2017).
 If a young person and child are placed out of the home care, then stable principles of
placement are the guide of all works and decisions created under the Act in respect to the
permanent placement of the young candidate and child.
11

Analysis
According to the provision of section 9 of the Care and Protection Act 1998, it is analyzed that
Children are not capable to present their views about their security, well-being and development.
All of the children Jai, Kevin and Steven are not mature and able to understand their good and
bad. It is the responsibility of parents to take care of the children, but Tom has a cruel behavior
and Deidre is suffering from anxiety, they are not capable of the well-being of children. The
administrative and legal action taken by the mental worker of Deidre for the security and welfare
of children from the department of family and community services and the department made a
referral to local Early Intervention service which provides the services to Deidre and her children
where they live. The department of family and community services is the NSW government
agency which is accountable for applying the laws and regulations to keep the children safer
from harm in the Children and Young Persons (Care and protection) Act 1998(Children Court
Home, 2017).
According to the department of family and community services, it was better for the Deidre and
her children to provide local aid services and protection where they live. The children are not
mature enough to understand the good and bad situation, and it is the duty of the administrative
and legal department to protect the safety and health of children according to their nature,
behavior, cultural and religious environment. All the three children are less than ten years so it is
the duty of community and family services and local health care services to protect with more
safety. This action of department world means a lot for the Deidre and her children from the Tom
when he came out of the jail and there will be much protection needed because Deidre is also
unable for the proper safety of children due to her mental issues (Decker, 2016).
In the given case, the department allowed to local early intervention service for the protection
and safety of children at their local place so the provision of placed out of home care services are
not applied, but the nurtured and stable environment are provided to children from the harmful
activities of Tom. The local early intervention is also responsible for the health and safety of
Deidre in accordance with the provisions of section 9 of the said Act (Lushey& Munro, 2015).
12

Conclusion
It is concluded from the provisions of section 9 of the Children and Young Persons (Care and
Protection) Act 1998 that the Department of Community and Family Services are responsible for
the protection of safety children under the age of 18 years from the harm caused by parents and
others. The department allowed to Early Intervention service that provides a service to the
children and Deidre at their local place. The healthcare services are responsible for the
protection, safety, well-being at all time from the Tom and rude behavior of Deidre as she was
suffering from anxiety and mental issues. The best treatment is provided as per the nature,
language, cultural and religious behavior of the family (Parton, 2014).
13

Conclusion
It is concluded from the above assignment and the provisions of Children and Young Persons
(Care and Protection) Act 1998, that Department of the family and community services is the
main NSW government agency which is accountable for executing the laws and provisions of up
keeping the children health and their safety from the harmful activities. The cases are
commenced by filling the application to the registry of children Court. The administrative and
legal processes are to be undertaken by the department of the safety and well-being of children as
per their regulations. The section 23 and section 9 of the care and Protection Act are considered
in the case, and it is concluded that department and regulatory authority are accountable for the
security and wellbeing of children from the harmful activities caused to them.
14

References
 Brocklehurst, H. (2017). Who's afraid of children?: Children, conflict and international
relations. Routledge.
 Children Court Home, (2017). Care and Protection Cases [Online] childrenscourt.justice.
Available at:
http://www.childrenscourt.justice.nsw.gov.au/Pages/typesofcase/care_protection/
care_protection.aspx. [Accessed on 7 June, 2018]. \
 Decker, S. H. (2016). International handbook of juvenile justice. N. Marteache (Ed.).
Springer.
 Fernandez, E. and Atwool, N., (2013). Child protection and out of home care: Policy,
practice, and research connections Australia and New Zealand. Psychosocial
Intervention, 22(3), pp.175-184.
 Lushey, C. J., & Munro, E. R. (2015). Participatory peer research methodology: An
effective method for obtaining young people’s perspectives on transitions from care to
adulthood?. Qualitative Social Work, 14(4), 522-537.
 Mathews, B.P. and Walsh, K.M., (2014). Mandatory reporting laws. In Families, policy
and the law: Selected essays on contemporary issues for Australia (pp. 131-142).
Australian Institute of Family Studies.
 Parkinson, S., Bromfield, L., McDougall, S. and Salveron, M., (2017). Child neglect: Key
concepts and risk factors.
 Parton, N. (2014). Social work, child protection and politics: Some critical and
constructive reflections. British Journal of Social Work, 44(7), 2042-2056.
 Parton, N. (2014). The politics of child protection: Contemporary developments and
future directions. Palgrave Macmillan.
 Schreiber, J.C., Fuller, T. and Paceley, M.S., (2013). Engagement in child protective
services: Parent perceptions of worker skills. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(4),
pp.707-715.
 Sheehan, R. (2018). Magistrates' decision-making in child protection cases. Routledge.
15

 Zanoni, L., Warburton, W., Bussey, K. and McMaugh, A., (2013). Fathers as ‘core
business’ in child welfare practice and research: An interdisciplinary review. Children
and Youth Services Review, 35(7), pp.1055-1070.
16