Bringing-Them-Home-Report-Web

law prevents them giving much weight to [these] issues’ (Nicholson 1995 page 11).However, following the 1995 case In the marriage of B and R, the court is morelikely to understand the profound difficulties faced in adolescence and later life by thegreat majority of Indigenous children brought up in non-Indigenous families. The court inthat case rejected the ‘equality’ argument as based on a misunderstanding of the truenature of equal treatment. It would in fact be unjust to treat as equals people who are not.… all people should be treated with equal respect. By recognising that this represents theessential content of the ideal of equality, one realises that equal justice is not always achievedthrough the identical treatment of individuals (B and R page 621).In B and R the Full Court of the Family Court held that ‘the Aboriginality of a childis a matter which is relevant to the welfare [now best interests] of the child’. The courtsummarised a wide range of research on the subject (page 605).A. In Australia a child whose ancestry is wholly or partly indigenous is treated by the dominantwhite society as ‘black’, a circumstance which carries with it widely accepted connotations of aninferior social position. Racism still remains a marked aspect of Australian society …B. The removal of an Aboriginal child from his/her environment to a white environment is likelyto have a devastating effect upon that child, particularly if it is coupled with a long termupbringing in that environment, and especially if it results in exclusion from contact with his/herfamily and culture.C. Generally an Aboriginal child is better able to cope with that discrimination from within theAboriginal community because usually that community actively reinforces identity, self-esteemand appropriate responses …D. Aboriginal children often suffer acutely from an identity crisis in adolescence, especially ifbrought up in ignorance of or in circumstances which deny or belittle their Aboriginality. This islikely to have a significant impact upon their self-esteem and self-identity into adult life.The court concluded that, because of the relevance of the child’s Indigenousancestry to his or her future well-being, the Family Court should order the appointment ofa special ‘separate representative’ for every Indigenous child involved in a parentingdispute. The role of the separate representative (that is, separate from the legalrepresentatives for the mother and father or other family) would include ‘to examinethese issues and ensure that all relevant evidence and submissions are placed before thecourt’ (page 624).The court refused to import a presumption that, all other things being equal, anIndigenous child’s interests are best served by living with the Indigenous parent or other