Thursday, 12 May 2022

Child protection

Mr QUILTY (Northern Victoria) (18:14): (1915) My adjournment debate tonight is for the Minister for Child Protection and Family Services. I have been contacted by a concerned couple who have court-directed full custody of their young grandchild. Their ordeal to this point has been costly, both mentally and financially. During the ordeal they have had firsthand experience of a child protection system that has no real interest or incentive in working for the safety of children. Their grandchild has been regularly exposed to physical violence and drug use when in his mother’s care. Interestingly, child protection’s reports and actions have encouraged reunification, regardless of his risks of harm. Just last Christmas he was exposed to his mother being assaulted by her current partner. It should come as no surprise that this young child is regressing, but child protection’s response is to close the case because he is voluntarily in the care of his grandparents. On this point child protection has done very little, as his grandparents voluntarily took care of their grandchild after his mother abandoned him.

Almost four years on and after multiple incidents occurring when he has been in his mother’s care they still cannot access kinship care payments. It is as if they have been punished for being proactive and voluntarily protecting their grandchild. His grandparents are technically classified as informal kinship carers, which makes them ineligible for support from government and non-government agencies. It begs the question: how many voluntary kinship carers are ineligible for support due to stepping in to take care of vulnerable children?

They are stepping in to take care of children who could otherwise become another domestic violence statistic on our news. Why are we punishing these people who are stepping in to do child protection’s job when they will not do it? As kinship carers are appointed by the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing, I am sure child protection’s eagerness to close cases regardless of risk has ensured that many kinship carers are left in the informal boat. Minister, why must extended family networks watch on and wait for children to be traumatised and abused before they can get an acceptable response from child protection?

The action I am seeking from the minister is that he investigates and reports on the number of children who are currently in voluntary kinship care arrangements in the state of Victoria; identifies from those how many carers have requested financial support by the kinship carers payment; identifies how many of those have been successful in receiving the payment, and of those who have been unsuccessful and have not received support; identifies the length of time at-risk children have been in their care; and provides an estimate of the financial cost being placed on voluntary kinship carers.

It is good that family members step in to help children at risk, and if they can afford to care for them themselves, that is fine. But many family members struggle under the financial burden. Kinship carers should not have a financial incentive to leave children at harm until the government gets around to intervening.