Bringing-Them-Home-Report-Web

seen as pathological or dysfunctional’ (page 43). One 1990 file note recorded,Concerns were expressed around the number of people who may attend the home while thechildren are present [for Christmas]. Mrs A agreed to request that all extended family membersother than her mother, will be asked to leave while the children are there (quoted by Thomas1994 on page 43).Thomas concluded from her review of the 1990 files,Extended family contact is construed as the source of potential conflict and abuse, and as suchmust be tightly controlled by the Department. In contrast with Aboriginal demands which labelstate practices isolating children from their families as abusive, Departmental concerns lie withthe extended family itself (Thomas 1994 page 42).‘Normal’ Aboriginal practice signals a problem to many welfare workers. The filescreated in 1990 continued to demonstrate welfare workers’ perception of Aboriginality asa cause of delinquency and problems. Behaviour in both periods was frequentlystereotyped in a racist way.Potential foster mother can already sense that she may already have Aboriginal tendencies, as shecan be happily playing in the school ground with the other children and all of a sudden cut offand ‘go walkabout’.I think failure as human beings may be an issue which will come up as that is a commonexperience with Aboriginal people (Thomas 1994 page 38).Attitudes in 1990 were contradictory. In some files the child’s Aboriginality andrelationship with the community are seen as central and in others they are ignored. Whilerecognition of the child’s Aboriginality had improved by 1990, there was a continuingfailure to contextualise the child’s needs. There was also a failure to address racism in theeducation system, housing problems, lack of family relations where placement with anon-Indigenous family had broken down and more generally poverty and structuralfactors resulting in interventions.A study of 335 children’s case files in WA found that the exercise of discretion bywelfare officers affects Indigenous children in an adverse manner (Thorpe 1994 page170). Definitions of neglect are more subjective and culturally particular than definitionsof abuse. This may contribute to the large number of Indigenous children found to beneglected. There has been no specific research into whether cultural bias contributes tothe high percentage of substantiated neglect cases. However, cultural bias within welfaredepartments suggests that this is likely. A further factor is the high level of poverty inIndigenous communities.