❓ Hon. Sue Ellery questions the Department of Child Protection regarding the placement of children in a home with a convicted sex offender. The response details a case audit, findings, and potential criticisms of the Department's handling of the situation.
AnsweredQoN 2604Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
I refer to the case which attracted some media attention in April 2010, of the placement of two children in a house, in which a man convicted of sexually abusing their mother (his daughter), when she was a child in his care, and I ask -
(1) Has an external independent investigation been conducted, into the circumstances and decisions that led to that placement, and into the continuation of the placement, even after concerns were raised by community members in November 2009?
(2) If yes to (1), without revealing the identities of those involved directly in the case, -
(a) who conducted the investigation; and
(b) what was the outcome of the investigation, in respect of any changes to decision making systems or supervision?
(3) If no external independent investigation was conducted, why not?
(4) Has an investigation of any kind been conducted into these matters, since 9 April 2010?
(5) If yes to (4), -
(a) what was the nature of that investigation; and
(b) what was the outcome of the investigation?
(6) If no investigation of any kind has been conducted; why not?
(1) Has an external independent investigation been conducted, into the circumstances and decisions that led to that placement, and into the continuation of the placement, even after concerns were raised by community members in November 2009?
(2) If yes to (1), without revealing the identities of those involved directly in the case, -
(a) who conducted the investigation; and
(b) what was the outcome of the investigation, in respect of any changes to decision making systems or supervision?
(3) If no external independent investigation was conducted, why not?
(4) Has an investigation of any kind been conducted into these matters, since 9 April 2010?
(5) If yes to (4), -
(a) what was the nature of that investigation; and
(b) what was the outcome of the investigation?
(6) If no investigation of any kind has been conducted; why not?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
10 August 2010
Responded by
Minister for Child Protection
Response time
40 days
(1) No. A case audit was undertaken by the Department's Director of Case Practice, Dr Lucy Davies.
(2) Not applicable
(3) This case is longstanding. The review needed to be undertaken by an experienced and skilled senior officer of the Department to make judgements within the historical context of case practice and legal decision making.
(4) Yes. A case audit was undertaken by the Department's Director of Case Practice, Dr Lucy Davies. On 19 April 2010 a detailed report of the case was forwarded to the Director General who then provided the report and his advice to the Minister.
(5)
(a) All the case material was examined and critical case practice decision making was identified against a timeline, and analysis was provided at each point. This analysis considered the Department's practice frameworks and legal requirements at the time, and described the factors the Department took into account in its assessment, decision making and planning.
(b) The review found that the Department faced invidious decisions at each key point.
The prime cause was the initial view that the family placement was in the best interests of the children. The Department's decision making was initially influenced by the mother's wishes. This was prior to Working With Children (WWC) checks.
The children then established strong relationships with their grandparents that external specialist psychological advice considered paramount to their future wellbeing. File evidence shows the Department commissioned external specialist reports to inform their ongoing decision making.
The Department acted promptly when a Negative Notice was issued under WWC and removed the children from the grandparent's care. The Department took the matter back to the Children's Court which on an interim basis placed the children back into the grandmother's care. At the time of these court hearings there were no allegations of child abuse or reported incidents of poor parenting. The children were legally represented independently.
The review noted that the Department continued to actively monitor the children and when it had gathered sufficient evidence of the grandparent's erratic behaviour and poor parenting, removed the children.
The Director General advised the Minister that possible criticisms in hindsight were that:
· The placement should not have occurred in the first instance in 2001.
· In late 2008, the Department should have opposed placement arrangements with the grandmother, notwithstanding that it considered it had little prospect of achieving an alternative court order.
· Subsequently, the Department could have acted earlier to remove the children following the concerns expressed in late 2009, notwithstanding the need to accumulate sufficient evidence to act in contradiction of the existing court orders.
(6) Not applicable
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
(2) Not applicable
(3) This case is longstanding. The review needed to be undertaken by an experienced and skilled senior officer of the Department to make judgements within the historical context of case practice and legal decision making.
(4) Yes. A case audit was undertaken by the Department's Director of Case Practice, Dr Lucy Davies. On 19 April 2010 a detailed report of the case was forwarded to the Director General who then provided the report and his advice to the Minister.
(5)
(a) All the case material was examined and critical case practice decision making was identified against a timeline, and analysis was provided at each point. This analysis considered the Department's practice frameworks and legal requirements at the time, and described the factors the Department took into account in its assessment, decision making and planning.
(b) The review found that the Department faced invidious decisions at each key point.
The prime cause was the initial view that the family placement was in the best interests of the children. The Department's decision making was initially influenced by the mother's wishes. This was prior to Working With Children (WWC) checks.
The children then established strong relationships with their grandparents that external specialist psychological advice considered paramount to their future wellbeing. File evidence shows the Department commissioned external specialist reports to inform their ongoing decision making.
The Department acted promptly when a Negative Notice was issued under WWC and removed the children from the grandparent's care. The Department took the matter back to the Children's Court which on an interim basis placed the children back into the grandmother's care. At the time of these court hearings there were no allegations of child abuse or reported incidents of poor parenting. The children were legally represented independently.
The review noted that the Department continued to actively monitor the children and when it had gathered sufficient evidence of the grandparent's erratic behaviour and poor parenting, removed the children.
The Director General advised the Minister that possible criticisms in hindsight were that:
· The placement should not have occurred in the first instance in 2001.
· In late 2008, the Department should have opposed placement arrangements with the grandmother, notwithstanding that it considered it had little prospect of achieving an alternative court order.
· Subsequently, the Department could have acted earlier to remove the children following the concerns expressed in late 2009, notwithstanding the need to accumulate sufficient evidence to act in contradiction of the existing court orders.
(6) Not applicable
Notice: This document is created or edited using unregistered or evaluation copy of rtLib valid for testing or development purposes only. To use it for productive or any other purposes please register it. You may purchase the license on
http://www.rtlib.com
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.