Families SA out of our labour wards [Archive] - Bub Hub Pregnancy & Parenting Forum

cenasangel

06-09-2006, 12:13

It's with great disapointment that i have discovered that mandatory reporting has to take place from 35 weeks pregnant onwards in South Australia... Yes thats right they can preemptively report you for neglect or putting your baby at risk before the baby has even been born and you have not had the oppertunity to even do anything wrong as yet. This disgusting piece of legislation means that you can be reported for asking for say an induction for no medical reason ( Social) if the doctor thinks it's an unreasonable request or you refuse medical intervention. Also if you have had kids taken by welfare previously or if your on drugs or subject to domestic violence.

This means that the woman no longer has choices in labour or pregnancy anymore for fear that social workers will decend soon as she asks for something or refuses something that goes against the grain, thus giving doctors and midwifes more power and leverage to intervene in the birthing and pregnancy process by using threats and calling in "mucsle" to get whatever they desire out of the birth. Birthing is a very intimate and personal affair between the mother and the child and as far as im concerned no branch of social services has the moral or legal right to intervene in this process, before the baby is even born. It not only takes away womens choices but it degredates women and pushes womens rights to what happens to their own body back into the stoneage.

The result of this legislation means that some women maybe scared to seek proper antenatal care from a health professional for fear that they may get in trouble for what they have not even done yet or for even thinking differently. This will lead to antenatal complications or worse because the woman is too scared to seek help, knowing that her baby coulkde be taken away because she dared to ask for something the staff does not agree with or refused intervention. Id like your thoughts about this disgusting and vile piece of legislation and wether your hyappy to live under this dictatorial regime.

the_queen

06-09-2006, 12:21

I haven't read that specific piece of legislation. But I like the sound of it. I don't think that it is "degradating" women's rights, and I don't think it's dictatorial. It sounds as though it is just putting the child's best interests at the centre of the issue. If a woman asks to be induced at 38 weeks because she wants the birth to fit in with her schedule, then frankly she has a lot to learn about parenting. Babies never fit in with your schedule!!

Can you post a link to the legislation, or a link to an article which outlines it in more detail, please?

cenasangel

06-09-2006, 13:03

Im sorry i don't have a copy of the all myseterious "act" and would be willing to pay a handsome sum for anyone that could give me a copy. Secondly...... yes thats right i agree it would be unreasonable if a woman wanted a induction because of her schedule, having said that "he who has the gold makes the rules" meaning that the doctor is in full control of the induction so he says no theres no induction end of issue. This should not be paramount to an offence because she dared to ask or even because she thought of it in the first place.

the_queen

06-09-2006, 13:10

Umm... I'm not sure I understand your point? Doctors will and do perform inductions when they beleive there is a medical reason to do so. The doctor is NOT in "full control of the induction" - if a woman wants to be chemically induced then of course she has to have the co-operation of a medical doctor.

Can I just ask, why is it so important to you that women be allowed to induce labour prematurely?

cenasangel

06-09-2006, 13:21

This issue is very important to me because i feel that a woman should be able to get the antenatal care that she wants and need because she may be subject to madatory reporting because of something she "thought off" or verbalised a desire to have no medical intervention for example. It's not just inductions at question here but to requests but refusal as well. I find it scary that a woman could very well be reported for refusing an epidural or stirrups for example which puts the doctor at 100% control of the situation and 100% control over the womans body which is immoral and unjust.

sam's mum

06-09-2006, 13:28

I would like to see the legislation too, I have done a search, but can't find it...

tweedledee*tweedledum

06-09-2006, 13:31

Without reading the act it is hard to judge on the induction issue, I am aware about the drug issue however. I feel this is a great step towards prevention of child abuse and neglect and to be honest if the mother or father is taking illegal drugs during her pregnancy and is found out, then I don't see there being any problem with that child being taken away from her immediately until she is fully detoxed. I can't stand reading about children dying at the hands of their parents, as I am sure most of you aren't, so any forward thinking preventions that are in the best interest of he child should be facilitated. Having said that, there does need to be a boundary of when, where, how and why these tests are conducted. To my knowledge only those with a prior history with the police or social services are being tested mandatorily.

cenasangel

06-09-2006, 13:31

Of course you can't find it sam....... ive been looking for a copy for a year now and still can't find one. The reason you cant get one ??? knowlage is power.

p.s i found out this infomation the other night as a side3 conversation with a midwife from a hospital in Adelaide.

the_queen

06-09-2006, 13:33

I HIGHLY DOUBT that a woman could be "reported to DOCS" for refusing stirrups.

Many women freebirth without interference from child welfare authorities.

I personally welcome the child welfare authorities into my home - I have no reason to feel worried that they're going to "take my children away" so what do I have to hide?

"Choice" in ante-natal care is a bigger issue than just mandated reporting. How many homebirth midwives are there in Queensland? Why can women choose to be induced early, or choose to have a cesarian, but cannot choose to have a homebirth?

cenasangel

06-09-2006, 13:43

As it was explained to me..... anything that puts an unborn baby at risk (even if it is asking for something or thinking something) is a mandatory reporting offence so that could well mean that refusing an epidural could be percived as putting the unborn child at risk or disagreeing with a doctor over a management pan, or as you mentioned having a homebirth and a doctor not agreeing or beliving in that type of thing which many do not. Of course the "act" is not fedral so every state has different legislation, however in southg australia thats the way things are.

M O P

06-09-2006, 13:49

As it was explained to me..... anything that puts an unborn baby at risk (even if it is asking for something or thinking something) is a mandatory reporting offence
That's a good thing isn't it?

the_queen

06-09-2006, 13:51

I think maybe you're over-reacting to this legislation a little bit? Until we've read it, we can't really say whether we agree with it or not. Plus, if (like you say) it's been in place for over a year, well I myself "should" have been reported for a few things during my last pregnancy:
* I didn't see a doctor at all.
* I declined to have the GBS swab test.
* I refused to give the baby vitamin K after the birth.
* I refused to have him vaccinated against Hep B after the birth.
* I took the baby and went home 6 hours after the birth, even though the paediatrician said perhaps we should stay overnight to keep an eye on things.

Any legislation about mandated reporting is a GOOD thing because it's protecting the children. And it takes a lot to have your children "taken away from you" anyway - I know a little boy who has been beaten, tied to a tree in the backyard, is exposed daily to IV drug use, often has nothing to eat, and yet the authorities say he is not a "priority" and won't take him away.

tweedledee*tweedledum

06-09-2006, 13:52

Any legislation about mandated reporting is a GOOD thing because it's protecting the children. And it takes a lot to have your children "taken away from you" anyway - I know a little boy who has been beaten, tied to a tree in the backyard, is exposed daily to IV drug use, often has nothing to eat, and yet the authorities say he is not a "priority" and won't take him away.

:eek: :eek: :eek: What??????

cenasangel

06-09-2006, 13:59

the_queen

06-09-2006, 13:59

:eek: :eek: :eek: What??????

Exactly what I said. This kid is in the custody of his father, because the mother was having lots of problems when he was a baby. He's now 9. The mother has turned her life around completely, the father however has sunk into the world of drugs. The mother reported all this to FAYS and asked if there was any way her son could come stay with her while the report was investigated - but because there's a court order for the dad to have custody, she wasn't allowed to. And then FAYS basically said "we've got more pressing issues to deal with at the moment". It's an absolute joke.

So, to connect this with the OP, I don't think the welfare authorities even have the time/resources to deal with doctors reporting pregnant women who refuse to use the stirrups.

the_queen

06-09-2006, 14:02

well queen in South Australia they can very well report you for doing all the things listed above. Saying they very well does not mean they will however but the power is there and the legislation is there to back that up, if it's so desired to be used to cease control of a situation they don't like going on or to put the fear of god into a woman who is not "doing as she is told"

Secondly theres nothing saying they are going to take away the baby just for that. H9owever they can investigate you and leave you hanging, which in any case is never a plesant experience to say the very least.

Obviously you've had a bad experience with welfare authorities? Perhaps the legislation (that none of us have read ;)) is a bit "heavy handed" but I'm sure the focus would be on women who are drinking excessively, or women who are using heavy drugs, or women who openly admit they're going to dump the baby with the neighbours.

cenasangel

06-09-2006, 14:45

I personaly have not have had a bad experience with welfare as such but i do however live in the area that this piece of legislation is aimed at so obviously ive seen stuff and have heard stuff. Secondly like all child protection legislation it's broard as to include all types of situations, so therefore any one can be subject to it for any of the said reasons.

sam's mum

06-09-2006, 15:12

I don't understand how this legislation is not able to found. If it has been legislated then has been tabled in parliament (what is the state equivalent of Hansard in SA). If it has been tabled in parliament it is available to the public. Have you tried going to local member and asking for a copy or a link?

If you are basing your information on the legislation on what one midwife has said, I would be inclined to question if it says what she is saying that it does.

Mandatory reporting for activities that endanger the child - yes, but for failing to use stirrups...

cenasangel

06-09-2006, 15:25

Mandatory reporting for activities that endanger the child - yes, but for failing to use stirrups.

It CAN be used in that context if the doctor was really determined that you should do so. It does not mean he will it does not mean he wont, it simply means he has the power to do so if he so desired too.

don't understand how this legislation is not able to found. If it has been legislated then has been tabled in parliament (what is the state equivalent of Hansard in SA). If it has been tabled in parliament it is available to the public. Have you tried going to local member and asking for a copy or a link?

It's quite simple Sam..... If this "act" was readily available then it would give the people the knowlage and the power to do something about it. As it is ignorance is bliss and if people don't know then how can they do anything about it. Thats why you cant get a copy of it.

sam's mum

06-09-2006, 15:57

It CAN be used in that context if the doctor was really determined that you should do so. It does not mean he will it does not mean he wont, it simply means he has the power to do so if he so desired too.

how do you know it can be used in that context if you haven't seen it. You are taking one persons word on that.

It's quite simple Sam..... If this "act" was readily available then it would give the people the knowlage and the power to do something about it. As it is ignorance is bliss and if people don't know then how can they do anything about it. Thats why you cant get a copy of it.

I don't know how else to say this other than what I have already said. Um - In Australia, we don't get to have secret legislation. Legislation has to be tabled in parliament. We get access to what is tabled in parliament. This is how our parliamentary system works. Your local member works for you, and should have been present at the vote. Ask them for a copy!!

the_queen

06-09-2006, 16:05

MamaSage

06-09-2006, 16:10

This new 'act' is sounding dubious...

DB&O

06-09-2006, 16:13

This new 'act' is sounding dubious...

You took the words right out of my mouth Carlia :yes:

Ciao,
Brooke.

cenasangel

06-09-2006, 16:59

In about 20 seconds, I found the Children's Protection Act 1993 (http://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/Internet/DesktopModules/Display.aspx?CALLER=legsearch.htm&IS_QUERY={phrase}mandatory%20reporting{/phrase}&IS_PAGE_SIZE=20&SEARCH_PAGE=legislation_search.asp&DOC_INDEX=1&HIGHLIGHT_HITS=True&RESULT_COUNT=1&DOC_URL=http://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/catalog/legislation/acts/c/1993.93.un.htm&DOC_TITLE=), which was the only Act found using the search term "mandatory reporting" on the website http://www.parliament.sa.gov.au (http://www.parliament.sa.gov.au/)
__________________

LMAO...... that act is 12 years old !!!! it's 2006 now so that act would be dead and buried in the water by now given the fact that new legislation is being added all the time. I want a copy of the current act thats relevent for now..... this year.

Missus S

06-09-2006, 17:19

LOL - we are still governed by Acts that are probably 200 years old now..........they don't have use by dates!

To be reported for not wanting an epidural :laughing: - Medicare would be happy to save on the cost of providing an epidural!

SilverStarfish

06-09-2006, 17:31

LOL - we are still governed by Acts that are probably 200 years old now..........they don't have use by dates!

That's exactly right.

And as Sam's Mum said earlier up the thread "we don't get to have secret legislation. Legislation has to be tabled in parliament. We get access to what is tabled in parliament". If this legislation had been offically passed then it WOULD be available for the public to see.

And it seems highly unlikely unlikely to me that any potential legislation as controversial as that one would be would have passed parliment without major media exposure. Even in South Australia ;)

(ok, I'm kidding about the last comment! :D hugs to all my SA friends)

grubindi

07-09-2006, 16:59

i agree with the "new" legislation that noone can seem to find anywhere. i agree that if they are drug takers whether it be the mother or father then they should be watched by docs until the birth and then definately after.

I have had a daughter who was premmie have to stay in NICU and there was a scrawny looking feral chick with her girlfriend (yes romantically attached) with her baby in the NICU and this poor bub cried and screamed in pain from the withdrawal of the stupid mothers drug use. then she would go out for a few hours and come back high so she had got a hit whilst out of the hospital and came back to see her premmie drug withdrawal baby. so yes if it prevents baby's having to withdraw off the mothers drug use then it is good that poor kid should not have to live with druggos.

sam's mum

07-09-2006, 17:22

LMAO...... that act is 12 years old !!!! it's 2006 now so that act would be dead and buried in the water by now given the fact that new legislation is being added all the time. I want a copy of the current act thats relevent for now..... this year.

This simply means that the Children's Protection Act was created in 1993, any changes that they make will be amendments to this Act, but don't change its date of creation. An example of this is the Tax Administration Act 1953. This was created in 1953, but still covers things such as GST because of amendments that have been enacted, so this act is still current, even though it is 53 years old.

cenasangel

08-09-2006, 08:48

If thats true then id like to see the FULL act and not just the condensed version thats tells nobody anything on the rules and regulations of what you are and are not allowed to do.

sam's mum

08-09-2006, 21:22

If thats true then id like to see the FULL act and not just the condensed version thats tells nobody anything on the rules and regulations of what you are and are not allowed to do.

Too easy. go to your local member and see if they have access to a copy. Your state library should have a copy. Other than that the government printer will have copies.

When legislation is printed each year the current legislation is printed with a subset highlighting any amendments and showing the previous wording.

On the internet there is a summary at the end. The summary tells you section by section what was amended, when it was gazetted and when it was effective from.

cenasangel

09-09-2006, 10:52

I fully intend on doing this

TigerBlueBear

10-09-2006, 18:34

There was a case similar to this concept in QLD last year. A young woman (who I know personally) wanted to have a VBA2C against the advise of a couple of obstetricians.

At the last minute she decided to change hospitals to one she had seen for a 2nd opinion who said they would support her in a VBA2C. I can't remember exactly how the first hospital found out but when she was in early labour they sent two child welfare officers around to her house to tell her she had to go to hospital now to have her baby. After some unpleasant discussion and her confirming she was going to hospital (in her own good time) they left.

Nothing further came of it except a huge media furour and an article on Extra or Current Affair (can't remember which one now) saying how the state was harassing her.

Incidentally she had a totally easy VBA2C.

I would like to read the full text on this too but I hope whatever it says it does not lead us down the road of the USA where women are forced into having caesareans and other procedures they do not want.

cmd'smum

14-09-2006, 00:21

Too easy. go to your local member and see if they have access to a copy. Your state library should have a copy. Other than that the government printer will have copies.

When legislation is printed each year the current legislation is printed with a subset highlighting any amendments and showing the previous wording.

On the internet there is a summary at the end. The summary tells you section by section what was amended, when it was gazetted and when it was effective from.

This is right.

also try

www.austlii.edu.au

When I was still working as a lawyer, I used this database quite abit. It should be there.

cmd'smum

14-09-2006, 00:25

how do you know it can be used in that context if you haven't seen it. You are taking one persons word on that.

I don't know how else to say this other than what I have already said. Um - In Australia, we don't get to have secret legislation. Legislation has to be tabled in parliament. We get access to what is tabled in parliament. This is how our parliamentary system works. Your local member works for you, and should have been present at the vote. Ask them for a copy!!

This is right.:yes:

As a lawyer, if I had a client who wanted me to represent them or provide advice in relation to this Act, I would definately need to have access to the Legislation to do so.

cmd'smum

14-09-2006, 00:39

Well, I had a quick look at these SA Acts:

CHILD PROTECTION REVIEW (POWERS AND IMMUNITIES) ACT 2002
CHILDREN'S PROTECTION ACT 1993
CHILDREN'S SERVICES ACT 1985
FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES ACT 1972
MEDICAL PRACTICE ACT 2004

Nothing.:detective:

gnight :sleeping:

Missus S

14-09-2006, 07:40

Yes it's absolutely nothing to worry about. I mentioned it to my neighbour who is a midwife and she said OB's have always had control of the delivery 'if they wanted it', it's always been that way.........................nothing has changed.

Tam-I-Am

19-09-2006, 12:02

Please keep this conversation on-topic, non-personal and pleasant. If you can't do that, the thread will be closed.

The original post was:

It's with great disapointment that i have discovered that mandatory reporting has to take place from 35 weeks pregnant onwards in South Australia... Yes thats right they can preemptively report you for neglect or putting your baby at risk before the baby has even been born and you have not had the oppertunity to even do anything wrong as yet. This disgusting piece of legislation means that you can be reported for asking for say an induction for no medical reason ( Social) if the doctor thinks it's an unreasonable request or you refuse medical intervention. Also if you have had kids taken by welfare previously or if your on drugs or subject to domestic violence.

This means that the woman no longer has choices in labour or pregnancy anymore for fear that social workers will decend soon as she asks for something or refuses something that goes against the grain, thus giving doctors and midwifes more power and leverage to intervene in the birthing and pregnancy process by using threats and calling in "mucsle" to get whatever they desire out of the birth. Birthing is a very intimate and personal affair between the mother and the child and as far as im concerned no branch of social services has the moral or legal right to intervene in this process, before the baby is even born. It not only takes away womens choices but it degredates women and pushes womens rights to what happens to their own body back into the stoneage.

The result of this legislation means that some women maybe scared to seek proper antenatal care from a health professional for fear that they may get in trouble for what they have not even done yet or for even thinking differently. This will lead to antenatal complications or worse because the woman is too scared to seek help, knowing that her baby coulkde be taken away because she dared to ask for something the staff does not agree with or refused intervention. Id like your thoughts about this disgusting and vile piece of legislation and wether your hyappy to live under this dictatorial regime.

Please ensure further discussion relates to this. Thank you.

draught

19-09-2006, 19:41

Can I just step in to back up what cmd's mum has said. The legislation is all available on the internet - I am a lawyer who works for the government and can assure you that if it isn't on the government website, it isn't there. The copies on the internet are complete (no matter what year the Act says it was enacted in) as all amendments are incorporated into the one piece of legislation. It isn't a summary - the full text is there. Given that a number of people with experience in searching for such things have looked and cannot find any legislation that addresses what the original poster has been told second hand, the more likely scenario is that the legislation does not exist and that people are spreading urban myth and misinformation in an effort to scare members of the community who wouldn't be subject to it even if it did exist,

cenasangel

21-09-2006, 10:51

It does exist because i rang welfare and asked the socxial worker on duty.

jessgray

21-09-2006, 11:06

i dont see what is so bad about something that has the childs best intrests at heart.

cenasangel

21-09-2006, 13:46

tweedledee*tweedledum

21-09-2006, 13:56

I think the point that you are forgetting to add is that this "act" is designed at the moment solely for those who have been brought to the attention of police or protection services agencies for abuse, drug issues, alcohol issues etc. before and are people that they look at "with interest". The idea is to try and prevent anything terrible happening to these children once they are born, given that the parent/s have a history. It is not aimed at every person giving birth, at least not at this stage.

sam's mum

21-09-2006, 14:02

It does exist because i rang welfare and asked the socxial worker on duty.

Can you please let me know which section of which act it is, I would like to have a look at it and see what it says.

thanks

zenifa

21-09-2006, 14:50

It's not the fact that it does or does not have the childs best interest at heart, it's the fact that

1. It begins at 35 weeks gestation which means that you can have welfare on your back before the childs born and you even have the oppertunity to do anything wrong by the child in the first place.

2. Anything that is deemed to put a child at risk (even though in the eyes of the law the child does not become a person until it is born. This means that like in the case that tigerbluebear mentioned, it can technicaly be used to take away your choices if a certain health professional was passionate about it. Birthing is suppose to be about giving women choices in labour. Do we really want a situation where we have social workers interfering in this process and making "obstetrical" decisions about what is risk to the child and what is not when they are not qualified to do so ??

3. You can be reported if it is deemed you can't physicaly look after the baby. I have a problem with this bit paticulary as ive had a fair bit to do with the disabled ( my little boy is autistic) and i think it's discriminatory to label one group or minority as being unable to look after the baby, where if you have 2 perfectly good arms or legs or whatever then it's ok. Im all for promoting disabled women in their quests to have children and be able too keep them with out fear of loosing them because they have a physical problem. (theres a documentry called Belinda's baby if anyone wants to see it to explain more where im comming from on this issue).

I can't comment on the SA legislation as I have not read it, but I can give you some insight into practice in Qld with regards to
1. At any time in a woman's pregnancy (ie before 35 weeks gest), if there concerns about the welfare of the unborn child and welfare of the mother-to-be, Dept of Child Safety (& other organisations) can become involved, to assess the situation and ideally to provide supports to the mother, in order to assist her, as part of early intervention and prevention of child protection concerns. 'Having welfare department on your back' doesn't mean that the department will be removing the child at birth.
I disagree that 'you cannot do anything wrong by the child until after it is born'. Having worked with mothers who misuse substances like alcohol, and illicit drugs, who receive no antenatal care, have poor hygiene and diet, etc this does directly impact on the child in utero. If you've seen a newborn withdrawing from drugs, you may reconsider this initial statement (ie the child was harmed before he/she was born). Combined with some terrible social circumstances like homelessness and domestic violence, this does put an unborn child at increased risk.

2. Protecting a child and reducing the risk of child abuse and neglect is a totally separate issue to the one of giving women choices and have them actively particpate in the birthing of their children. I am in favour of both!!
I personally (& professionally) found it offensive that you would suggest that social workers would want to interfere in the process of birthing and make obstetric decisions. Hospital social workers and those working in child protection are looking at the best interests of the child and also the mother in this context.
Issues regarding induction, use of stirrups, pain relieving drugs, vaginal vs caesarean birth etc, are all issues for midwives and obstetricians to deal with, not one where any professional and qualified social worker would even think of making an assessment of a woman's ability to parent and provide adequate care and protection of a child. The birth is separate to the parenting of a child.

3. An ability to look after a baby and care adequately for a child is a multifaceted concept that can include one's physical, psychological, cognitive, emotional, financial, and social capacity. In most cases where a person has an impairment or disability, 'welfare' would initially try to put in as many services and supports to enable the child to remain with his/her parents and have all his/her needs met.
Remember we are focussed on the best interest of the child, not necessarily the best interests of the parent, in these situations. Its very complicated and I don't want to generalise.

Eileen

22-09-2006, 17:57

The information I am hearing is this piece of legislation does not exist. However I am all for some legislation similar to that in QLD. I have seen firsthand experience what drugs violence etc can do to a newborn. My SIL is a drug addict she has had 8 children.
The first 4 were born with no apparent problems. The fifth a speed baby with learning difficulties, the six was taken away from her at birth with a hole in his heart and underdeveloped organs he was given 6 months to live.
The seventh appeared fine, the eight she delivered at home by herself and died earlier this year. All her children have now been taken off her by welfare. Four live with there Grandmother and three are in and out of her care and foster care. She has had numerous reports against her and the father about abuse.
Legislation to stop them in the beginning would be a god sent, she has children because of the baby bonus and the welfare money. She has also recently learn't with her last child that if they die she is intitled to another $2000 dollars and funerals for children under 5 are free with some funeral companies.
So I can safely say so what if a few women feel perhaps they might be a bit imposed...if you are doing the right thing then you shouldn't be worried.

cenasangel

22-09-2006, 18:50

'Having welfare department on your back' doesn't mean that the department will be removing the child at birth.

Noone ever disputed that it was the case, however i can imagine it would be a very stressful and upsetting experience. Causing that sort of stress must not be very healthy or good for the child.

I disagree that 'you cannot do anything wrong by the child until after it is born

I didn't say you could do anything wrong i said before one has the oppertunity to do anything wrong. Just because your depressed for instance does not mean your going to harm your child when its born, the same as someone who maybe mentaly or intellectually disabled. All im saying is that preempting what's going to happen in the future is fruitless and pointless exersise. If the mother does something to the baby after birth then by all means she is fair game.

Combined with some terrible social circumstances like homelessness and domestic violence, this does put an unborn child at increased risk.

Women choose to stay in domestic violence relationships for a veriety of reasons. Living in a domestic violence relationship does not mean your getting bashed every night and theres nessacerily a risk to the baby. If theres evidence that the relationship is violent and the woman expresses a desire to do something about it then there might be a case for welfare involvement for support services.

I personally (& professionally) found it offensive that you would suggest that social workers would want to interfere in the process of birthing and make obstetric decisions. Hospital social workers and those working in child protection are looking at the best interests of the child and also the mother in this context.

I would bring into question the legitamacy of the role of child protection in this matter. Medical issues should be adressed by medical personel only, not social workers with no medical experience or qualifications to make judgement calls on issues they could not know anything about. Secondly i take objection to medical personel using welfare as a tool to get things their own way or to step in as a mediator in disputes. This is not what child protection is for and this wastes time and money that could be spent on a genuine child in need. A social worker told me once that 90% of call outs turn out to be dead ends or revenge notifications, people who do use child protection for this purpose , regardless of if they are a health professional or not really **** me off.

cenasangel

22-09-2006, 18:57

cmd'smum

22-09-2006, 19:04

Can you please let me know which section of which act it is, I would like to have a look at it and see what it says.

thanks

Me too please.

draught

22-09-2006, 20:00

But not every person that has been done by welfare is found to be guilty
or indeed proven to have done anything wrong at all so what happens to those people ???

I think saying that people have been "done" by welfare is again missing the point that social service agencies are there to protect and support the vulnerable, not to "do" people. Isn't the point that if they investigate a claim and find it to be unfounded, then nothing happens and everyone goes on their merry way?

Again - without anyone being able to see the legislation this is all speculation and conjecture and not particularly helpful.

cmd'smum

22-09-2006, 20:39

I think saying that people have been "done" by welfare is again missing the point that social service agencies are there to protect and support the vulnerable, not to "do" people. Isn't the point that if they investigate a claim and find it to be unfounded, then nothing happens and everyone goes on their merry way?

Again - without anyone being able to see the legislation this is all speculation and conjecture and not particularly helpful.

I agree. This is the has to be the most difficult piece of Legislation to find, since my study/career in Law.

jessgray

23-09-2006, 10:48

I would bring into question the legitamacy of the role of child protection in this matter. Medical issues should be adressed by medical personel only, not social workers with no medical experience or qualifications to make judgement calls on issues they could not know anything about. Secondly i take objection to medical personel using welfare as a tool to get things their own way or to step in as a mediator in disputes. This is not what child protection is for and this wastes time and money that could be spent on a genuine child in need. A social worker told me once that 90% of call outs turn out to be dead ends or revenge notifications, people who do use child protection for this purpose , regardless of if they are a health professional or not really **** me off.

child protection workers have a hard job,can you imagine what they would be seeing on a normal day? abused children,neglected children :( how can you question the legitamacy of their role. they have a childs best intrests at heart. and if you do your research on the role of child protection you will find they actually consult with medical proffesionals to determine what is best outcome.they dont just run in take a child and thats it.
i was a child under child protection unit of DHS and i think at the time they did what was best for me and my siblings.they had consulted with my mum's gp and her counsilor and my school before placing us in foster care. they did this over several months.
so before you jump up and down about a piece of legistration that i believe will help many children you should do some homework.

mythreelittlemonkeys

23-09-2006, 11:21

I actually from personal experience think that DCD dont do enough, they dont intervene here in WA until tragically it often too late...and either something really awful happens or the children are permannently scarred mentally...I believe that social workers are there to protect the children & also to support the families and it is their duty to investgate even a whisper of neglect/abuse (which here in WA they dont) if there is nothing to hide surely you shouldnt be upset by them wanting to make sure the children are safe and that the family is supported? In the UK social workers intervene a lot more to protect children from neglect that sadly I see every day occuring here with noone there to protect or improve the support system for those families. The UK equiv of child health nurses also have the ability to involve social services if they are worried about the environment a baby in ie: alck of utilities, smoke, drugs etc which my CHN said sadly unless it really bad here in WA they wont intervene...I dont see social workers as bogeymen... in fact here wish the department had less of a let it be/shouldnt get involved approach...

cenasangel

23-09-2006, 18:52

cenasangel

23-09-2006, 18:59

child protection workers have a hard job,can you imagine what they would be seeing on a normal day? abused children,neglected children :( how can you question the legitamacy of their role. they have a childs best intrests at heart. and if you do your research on the role of child protection you will find they actually consult with medical proffesionals to determine what is best outcome.they dont just run in take a child and thats it.
i was a child under child protection unit of DHS and i think at the time they did what was best for me and my siblings.they had consulted with my mum's gp and her counsilor and my school before placing us in foster care. they did this over several months.
so before you jump up and down about a piece of legistration that i believe will help many children you should do some homework.

I'm not disputing their le3gitamacy as child protection workers...... if you took the time to read what i said in context i questioned their legitamacy and qualifications in making obstetrical decisions on what is putting a child at risk or not. Quite frankily i don't beloive it's their job to do that and i don't belive money should be wasted on stuff like that.

mythreelittlemonkeys

23-09-2006, 19:13

actually from personal experience think that DCD dont do enough, they dont intervene here in WA until tragically it often too late...

This is because they have no mandatory reporting in W.A which i think is great.

can I ask why? I may misunderstand what you writing but how is it great that kids are neglected etc and noone intervenes?? if I have misunderstood then sorry...I am talking about children being left alone for hours (young children) and DCD not wanting to get involved or red tape making it impossible...

M O P

24-09-2006, 07:20

This is because they have no mandatory reporting in W.A which i think is great.

Can I also ask why you think this is great?
Unless you've something to hide. I don't see why if you're doing everything right as a parent you'd even be worried about it at all.

ps if you hit the quote button on the bottom of the box it will show it as a quote so you're quoting posts won't be so confusing.

mythreelittlemonkeys

24-09-2006, 08:36

Can I also ask why you think this is great?
Unless you've something to hide. I don't see why if you're doing everything right as a parent you'd even be worried about it at all.

[/SIZE]
I agree wholeheartedly kazza...

cenasangel

24-09-2006, 10:14

I belive it should be up to the whole discretion of the notifier if he/she belives the case is warranted to call welfare. Not doing it because he/she has a half hearted hunch that something is going on then has to report it for fear of penalties.

mythreelittlemonkeys

24-09-2006, 10:43

ok I get what you are saying...yes I can see your point...but wouldnt it be awful if it wasnt reported and then that hunch actually was a truth?? I afraid I kinda feel better safe than sorry adn as we said if nothing to hide shouldnt really be a problem...my sadness is that when the notifier does report in our state nothing is done... in fact their is a big crisis in the DCD in WA at the moment as too little is done by often unqualified child protectors in the department...and children and babies being found dead, injured and totally neglected, when too late, despite numerous reports by concerned relatives, independent witnesses etc...children are left in the care of offenders as it considered in the best interests of the child by the government...and the onus is put on the other parties to spend thousands of $'s in family courts to try and get custody of these children...anyway...

BrokenButterfly

21-10-2006, 23:21

i can understand the need to protect an unborn child - it is however quite very sad that child welfare now has permission to protect the unborn child from the parents, but any other person can kill the unborn baby and only be charged with offenses such as causing an illegal abortion- the unborn child is only made safe from their parents, not from the many other potential threats as legally they are not considered a child.

mandatory reporting is total utter bull****.

if you disagree with a doctor (or nurse or midwife etc), even if you are more informed and educated on the specific topic, they can accuse you of "abusing" yourh child - and its not just unborn children, but any child.

i've just recently had this trouble with dentists. i can't afford a "real" dentist and so put my daughter's name down in the public system. i was repeatedly told by the local dental clinic, that unless she was in severe pain, they would not see her. i begged, pleaded and told them she desperately needed dental care. they told me to go away because she was too young despite the fact that i kept telling them that poor teeth run in our family.

she is finally old enough to see the school dentist this year and the school dentist accused me of neglect because i didn't get her teeth looked at sooner and when they start mentioning the "n" word (neglect) then they are seriously thinking about contacting family services.

and it's not the first time. my daughter's childcare centre accused us of neglecting for not getting treatment for my daughter's hip condition - but the specialist doctor she sees refuses to do a thing about it and not just him, but the second opinion i sought too also said leave it til she's older.

doctors aren't always right and they don't always agree.

unfortunately family services will only take the word of a doctor who makes a complaint and not the ten other doctors who back the parents' decisions.

oh and one other thing, i don't get what business domestic violence is of family services when it only effects the adults. obviously its not a good situation for anyone to be in, but why should a woman be threatened with having her children taken away because a partner abuses her when the kids aren't around???

they aren't being victimised or even witnessing anything, so family services has no right sticking their nose.

maybe in an ideal world, women could leave partners who abuse them, but the reality is, there aren't enough shelters, there are still some places where there aren't shelters, some shelters are even worse than the DV situation, and my big beef on the subject (because i know someone in the situation).... there aren't shelters suitable for some disabled victims.

a women with for example physical disabilities can't just rock up at a shelter and be able to be cared for. the disability pension (if the woman is lucky enough to be able to jump through centrelink's hoops to get it in the first place) certainly does not pay enough for women with no savings or family support to pay for a carer, nor are there any free services suitable to support disabled women who need a carer long term (and not many short term either).

these women are often stuck with abusive people for support - and not just partners, sometimes it's parents, or "friends" or other relatives. they have no where to go and quite often not taken seriously because some have intellectual disabilities and many suffer from depression and therefore just dismissed as "crazy/delusional/attention seeking" if they report being abused.

it's a sad society where women who are being victimised by domestic violence are only further victimised by family services and other services like the police who just tell them it's their own fault and threaten to take their children if they don't leave a partner even when they literally have nowhere to go except the streets - which of course would guarantee having their children taken away.

cenasangel

22-10-2006, 09:59

I certainly know how you feel and its a terrible situation when you can't get quality healthcare and are further blamed for not being able to do so. I myself experienced the same thing last year and now have to pay 130$ per visit and travel to the other side of Adelaide just to get my daughter seen too by a quality pediatrician. This as you can imagine puts quite a big strain on us

Im currently at the moment taking action against the Lyell Mcewin hospital and the staff there but i don't expect anything to come off it.

Tren

22-10-2006, 13:04

Cessangel,

You are correct in what you heard. Good on you for saying it in public ,keep fighting of what you believe in. I do have to say I am 100% behind you in being angry.

The "secret service" of the system including SA's new one too stinks. But they will not be honest and tell you (the public) exactly what is going on or whatever, before you know it some poor ladies everwhere will have lost their newborns and she will not know or be told why. They have the one rule for all. Be aware.

For but for the Grace of God go I.

cenasangel

22-10-2006, 13:19

Yes Tren it is true and they don't tell you and do hide it. I never saw it written in the infomation booklet that they gave me when i booked into my hospital that i could be subject to mandatory reporting from 35 weeks onwards. Secondly why do they give you that little questionaire on your first visit to fill out. It's not because they want to identify those at risk of post natal depression (those ladies get reported as part of the course anyways) but to suss out anyone who is putting their child at risk and that infomation is given to welfare. Anyone who does not belive so is a fool.

pookiesossige

22-10-2006, 14:38

oh and one other thing, i don't get what business domestic violence is of family services when it only effects the adults. obviously its not a good situation for anyone to be in, but why should a woman be threatened with having her children taken away because a partner abuses her when the kids aren't around???

they aren't being victimised or even witnessing anything, so family services has no right sticking their nose.

Have to admit, I don't know many people who 'missed' the fact that one of their parents were abusing the other just because they were trying to sleep in another room and therefore not an actual 'witness'. Saying that it has no impact on the child is absurb and I'm sure that many bubhubbers who have been the child in this situation will back me up.

Hmmm.... So, Cenusangel, where is this act? So you went to the library and had a look at it? Got a photocopy even? I'd like to hear what it says, seeing as it's legal and all... and apparently exists to begin with...
So far all this has just been based on word of mouth, nothing more. People who really know about the law- lawyers- have even commented in this thread that something vital is missing from this discussion to begin with... A law!

pookiesossige

22-10-2006, 14:43

On page three of this thread, Sam'sMum posted the following to help you back up your claims:

...go to your local member and see if they have access to a copy. Your state library should have a copy. Other than that the government printer will have copies.

When legislation is printed each year the current legislation is printed with a subset highlighting any amendments and showing the previous wording.

On the internet there is a summary at the end. The summary tells you section by section what was amended, when it was gazetted and when it was effective from.

Your response was "I fully intend on doing this"

I'd love to know what the outcome of your investigation was.

cenasangel

22-10-2006, 15:04

Have to admit, I don't know many people who 'missed' the fact that one of their parents were abusing the other just because they were trying to sleep in another room and therefore not an actual 'witness'. Saying that it has no impact on the child is absurb and I'm sure that many bubhubbers who have been the child in this situation will back me up.

There are many types of domestic violence and it's not always physical. There are many reasons why a woman chooses to stay in an abusive relationship and the reasons outlined are just one. Just as long as the kids are not involved then as far as i can see there is no problem. It's not for anyone to say how she should or should not live, even though one may not agree with their decision.

pookiesossige

22-10-2006, 17:14

Are you implying that emotional or finacial abuse is any 'better' then physical? And easier to live with? And easier for children to live with? Many victims of such abuse will say that these forms of abuse is what REALLY tears them apart- much more so then the physical side of what they suffer!

pookiesossige

22-10-2006, 17:35

Anyway, back to the OP (sorry, I diverged), how did you go getting hold of the Act you mentioned earlier?

Tren

22-10-2006, 17:36

Censagenal,

You are 100% correct. Good on you for bringing it out in the open.

Tren

22-10-2006, 17:49

Ladies,

Let me tell you something. Believe me or not I don't care, but I do know these things to be fact.

1. You cannot fight the "system" (ie. once you are in trouble). Their opinion no matter how outrageous goes. You will NEVER get answers or theories from the DOCS regarding their legislation. They will never tell anyone this as it is there system. Lawyers will not know this either. I have even known a Family Court Judge to be oblvious as to how the "system"works. He is not even allowed to get answers.

2. The reason being is that the DOCS make the laws themselves and submit the rules directly to parliament. To which it automatically gets approved. It doesn't go anywhere else to be approved, it is not censored or theoried to be socially acceptable. It is the DOCS FACTS and that is that. The reason why they have one rule for all is quite simply they DO NOT have the resources to take each case on its on merit. They even admitted this to me themselves.

3. Hospitals, doctors and the like are them given "guidelines" to which they must adhere to whether they even like it or not. If they don't correctly "assume" an outcome of a situation they will themselves later be investigated and I am afraid I know myself of a lot of medical personel who would rather give a negative view of a situation than lose their liscence.It seems to be too much hassle to be investigated later.

cenasangel

22-10-2006, 18:17

Tell it like it is Tren

Tren

22-10-2006, 18:33

Live as if you were to die tomorrow.

Learn as if you were to live forever.

sam's mum

22-10-2006, 18:36

2. The reason being is that the DOCS make the laws themselves and submit the rules directly to parliament. To which it automatically gets approved. It doesn't go anywhere else to be approved, it is not censored or theoried to be socially acceptable. It is the DOCS FACTS and that is that. The reason why they have one rule for all is quite simply they DO NOT have the resources to take each case on its on merit. They even admitted this to me themselves.

This is NOT how laws are made. Government departments do not get to have the law rubber stamped. All bills are brought to parliament by a member of the house to be voted on. SA has two houses of parliament and the bill must progress through both (receiving a majority vote) and then receive royal assent before it becomes law.

Tren

22-10-2006, 18:38

here are many who are so naive.

Unfortunately, with this view of how you think it works there are and will be so many people misinformed and taken to hell and back unnecessarily.

sam's mum

22-10-2006, 18:52

not naive, informed and experienced. I am a career public servant with 17 years experience. I KNOW how laws are made. I have studied and witnessed it. I have also seen bills written and prepared for enactment, that never made it through parliament. With one we were a long way down the road of publicity and taking claims, and it didn't get through. Parliament does not always pass bills just because they are submitted to them. Pretty much the only rubber stamp is the royal assent, and even that was dicey on one bill I was working on many years ago.

The government is not all powerful, and neither are its staff.
Public servants are people too - if you ***** us, do we not bleed - we are people who do our best among cost cutting from above and abuse from outside.

I know that it is hard to live with the law sometimes, I have had to enforce it even when I haven't wanted to, but we have laws so that maybe 99% of the time it works for 99% of the people. There is no way to legislate for every possible situation.

ps, we still haven't heard from cenasangel if this even is a law.

draught

22-10-2006, 18:58

Tren - From your profile I see that you do not live in South Australia. Despite your obvious passion for the topic you have added no facts to this thread - just more supposition and innuendo. The Departments in each state have different resources but their overall agenda is not to remove children but to keep families together - often to the frustration of those trying to protect children.

Re domestic violence - how can anyone seriously say that children aren't affected by it? They may not witness it, but it affects the parent who cares for them and their ability to parent properly. If you want to know what is happening in a house - ask the kids - they are the ones cowering under their blankets at night "asleep" and listening to everything that goes on.

The reason that domestic violence gets reported so that people can provide support and ensure that children are safe? One reason is that the abused parent is often so demoralised that they are no longer able to protect their children, another is that international studies have shown that children who are exposed to traumatic events, including witnessing DV, in their first 3 years of life actually have different neurological pathways in their brains - their brains rewire themselves and affect their coping mechanisms for the rest of their lives. Why else do we witness the endless cycle of abuse - children of abusers becoming abusers themselves? Surely these children have a right to be protected and to grow up as happy and healthy members of our society? And don't their parents deserve support to help them end the violence??