Australian Child Protection Accused of Repeating Sins of Stolen Generations

World Australia Members of Grandmothers Against Removals protesting against indigenous over-representation in child protection on the steps of the Parliament House of New South Wales in Sydney on Feb. 13, 2014. Ian Lloyd Neubauer

In 2008, then Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd made history when he issued a formal apology to the Stolen Generations Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island children forcefully removed from their families for placement in institutions and homes where they put to work as laborers, farmhands and servants.

The injustices of the past must never, never happen again, Rudd said of the 19th century policy born of the eugenics-based view that blacks were morally inferior and couldnt properly care for their offspring. Once removed, children could be brought up white and assimilated into broad society so that in time there would be no more indigenous people left in Australia.

On that account it failed. However, by the time forced removals were stamped out in the 1970s, the policy had extinguished the kingship connections, land titles, language, customs, spirituality and identity of an estimated 50,000 Aboriginals and islanders. Trapped between two cultures but fitting into neither, members of the Stolen Generations suffer poorer health, worse housing, shorter life spans, higher unemployment and higher incarceration rates than other indigenous Australians.

But now, child protective systems that err on the side of caution, coupled with the legacies of the Stolen Generations, are allegedly replicating the cruel dynamics of Australias colonial past. The situation is far from clear-cut, however, and many of those involved in child protection both non-indigenous and indigenous staff strenuously deny any such heavy-handedness exists today. Nevertheless, in the state of New South Wales nearly 6,300 or 10% of indigenous children are wards of the state. In comparison, only 1.6% of non-Indigenous children in NSW live in out-of-home care.

I cried on the day of the apology because my grandmother, who was taken to a Catholic mission when she was five, didnt get to hear it, and because my grandson was taken that same year, says Mary, an Aboriginal woman from the central coast of NSW whose real name cannot be revealed because of laws banning the identification of wards of state. Adds her daughter: They said sorry to Aboriginals for the Stolen Generations but they are still doing it today.

The court order authorizing the removal of her son cited lack of hygiene, the threat of domestic violence, based on the fathers protracted criminal record, and neglect. Defined by the NSW Department of Family and Community Services (FaCS) as a failure to provide things needed for proper growth a nutritious diet, dental care and supervision accusations of neglect are present in 40% of indigenous child removals, whereas sexual abuse and physical abuse are present in only 5 and 10% of cases respectively.

Depending on the degree, neglect certainly is a cause for removal as it impacts on a childs ability to attend school, to make friends, their health and general wellbeing, says Raeleen McKenzie, a psychologist working in child protection in the state of Victoria for more than 25 years. In NSW there have been several cases in the past where children who needed intervention werent removed and died. So when a child is severely at risk, something has to be done.

Yet critics argue FaCS assessments of neglect are often made on spurious grounds that fail to take Aboriginal culture into consideration. The classic example is the way Aboriginal children are raised not just by a nuclear family but collectively by grandparents, uncles and neighbors, says University of Technology Sydney senior researcher Paddy Gibson. Just because Aboriginal kids are on the streets at night doesnt mean they arent being watched.

Gibson says a lot of FaCS decisions are opinions based on hearsay or the assumption of neglect. And once those decisions are made, he adds, FaCS is under no obligation to prove it in court because the standards of evidence that apply in criminal court do not apply in childrens court. A severe lack of resources for families trying to get their children returned only compounds the issue. Either they dont have a lawyer or they get a public defender who doesnt have time to properly prepare their case, says Gibson.