Bringing-Them-Home-Report-Web

It is not surprising, given the experiences of present and earlier welfare policy and practices, thatAboriginal perceptions of the current role of DCS [NSW] remain overwhelmingly negative.Despite the employment of Aboriginal field workers most interviewees expressed suspicion ofand antipathy towards, DCS. Despite changes to policy and legislation, DCS practice remains, inthe opinion of those interviewed, culturally inappropriate (Learning From the Past 1994 page 58)Families are concerned that any contact with FACS [SA] may result in their children beingremoved. Hence for programs involving the well-being of Aboriginal children to be successful,they need to be managed by and operated from Aboriginal organisations (SA ACCA submission347 page 37).Evidence to the Inquiry confirms that Indigenous families perceive any contact withwelfare departments as threatening the removal of their child. Families are reluctant toapproach welfare departments when they need assistance. Where Indigenous services areavailable they are much more likely to be used.Failure to address serious problems within communities has been identified as being‘fuelled’ by systemic problems with the provision of child welfare services to Aboriginalcommunities (Atkinson and Memaduma 1996). Cultural distortion together withincapacity to cope with the extent of the problems has led to Aboriginal childrenremaining in abusive situations which non-Aboriginal children would not be left in.Further it has prevented a constructive approach being taken to addressing ‘crisis’situations.… too frequently in the area of child abuse, and similarly in the area of domestic violence there isa covert ideology that because these concerns are so significant among Aboriginal communities,their existence is presumed to be culturally sanctioned. This form of cultural reductionism, acts asa form of cultural apology, perpetuating and exacerbating the crises of child abuse in Aboriginalcommunities. Such a view has several critical attitudinal consequences amongst workers in theirservice understanding and intervention response.The cultural apologist position enables planners and workers to adopt a position of inevitableresignation over the problem of child abuse in Aboriginal communities, ‘what else can youexpect, that’s the way Aboriginal people go on – you cannot expect any better’. Such an approachis clearly, an extreme form of cultural determinism, where child abuse is seen as a function ofAboriginal culture and not a consequence of the structural context of Aboriginal life in thiscountry (pages 13-14).Welfare officers may feel uncertain about when it is appropriate to intervene in anIndigenous family in crisis. The Sydney Aboriginal Mental Health Unit complained ofintervention occurring too late.There is a failure to involve appropriate Aboriginal professionals at an early notification stage,involvement is always later …