Rich Katherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Rich Katherine: Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:618;Page:13769] 
9.  
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
 to the  
Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) 
: Was the Department of Child Youth and Family Services monitoring the care of the 6-week-old baby boy reported to be in Starship Children’s Hospital in a critical condition and had the department been doing so since the baby’s birth? 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF)) 
: 
 The baby’s two siblings are in foster care and therefore when the baby was born a new assessment was automatically initiated. The identified risks to the baby did not indicate that his immediate removal was necessary. His mother did not have a history of either physical or sexual abuse of her own children. The factors that caused her other children to be taken into care were not their physical or sexual abuse but were due to the detrimental living environment she was in at the time and that situation had changed in the intervening time period. 
Katherine Rich 
: Given that the Department of Child Youth and Family Services had deemed that mother to be unfit to look after her two children because of her neglect of them why suddenly was she deemed able to look after a baby? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The mother did not have a history of either physical or sexual abuse of her own children. I am sure that in this instance as in any other instance the considerations are very difficult for social workers to go through. But they identified the risks to that baby and did not decide that immediate removal of that child was necessary. 
Sue Bradford 
: Can the Minister advise on what improvements have occurred in the department’s social work practice as a result of the employment of around 90 or more additional social workers and the expenditure of up to an additional $127 million by the Government? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Yes I can report a number of very positive moves that the Department of Child Youth and Family Services has been able to initiate with the recent employment of over 90 social workers and with a further 56 coming into the department from 1 July including a reduction in the number of unallocated cases on the department’s case list despite record numbers of notifications over the last 6 months. 
Judy Turner 
: Why has the department ignored the lessons of the Aplin Jetson and Burrows cases where reports on those deaths stressed the vital importance of assessing the danger to other children in at-risk situations or is the department still stuck in the dangerous mode of having “a single incident focus” that was lamented by the baseline review team? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: In the particular instance raised in the primary question I do not think it is fair at all to say that the lessons of the Aplin and Jetson case have been ignored. In my view this would have been a very difficult decision for the social workers concerned to make. But it does reflect what I am sure all members of this House would want the department to be working towards and that is not a situation whereby whenever a parent who has been neglectful in the past says he or she is now trying to be a good parent we say no that person will never be a good parent. We will try to do everything we can to improve the parenting skills of those parents and to change and improve their lifestyles so that they can be good parents in the future. 
Dr Muriel Newman 
: In light of section 39 of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act which enables the Department of Child Youth and Family Services to remove a child if there is any likelihood at all that the child could suffer from harm what investigation is under way to determine what went wrong in this case and when will the results be available? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: As I said the initial assessment of the potential risk to the baby was initiated as soon as the baby was born due to the fact that his two siblings are already in foster care. Monitoring was then undertaken in collaboration with the nursing staff from the local hospital. Two social workers visited the baby at his home on the day after he arrived home. A nurse also visited the baby on that day at a different time. She visited again 3 days later and reported to the social worker that the child appeared well. It was when the nurse visited a third time—8 days after he went home—that the injuries were seen and arrangements were made immediately for his admission to Starship Children’s Hospital. As in all these cases a report on the incident and the practices concerned will be delivered in due course. 
Katherine Rich 
: Did the department regularly monitor the baby’s care since birth given that the department had already removed two siblings from that mother because of serious neglect and how many times did a social worker personally visit see the baby and view its care? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: For the first 6 weeks or so of the baby’s life he was in hospital because he was born prematurely. He was discharged home 8 days prior to his admission to Starship Children’s Hospital. He had visitors from social workers on the first day after he arrived home. A nurse also visited on that day at a different time. She visited again as arranged with the Department of Child Youth and Family Services 3 days later to ensure that both the medical needs of the premature baby and the assessment of the risk factors for the mother were considered and the nurse reported to the department’s social worker that there appeared to be no difficulties in the parenting arrangements that were in place. The nurse then visited for a third time 8 days afterwards. The social worker was scheduled to visit later that day but in the intervening time the baby was admitted to hospital. 
Sue Bradford 
: Can the Minister advise what kinds of systems if any are in place for Department of Child Youth and Family Services social workers to advise support and perhaps educate parents who have had their children removed into statutory care and prior to them having another baby or taking on the care of another child? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: I frankly think that is an area in which we do not have enough strength in the department. Of course it is not the department’s primary responsibility to deliver such services itself but I believe that better engagement with other social service agencies that do provide parenting programmes and support is warranted. 
Judy Turner 
: Does the Minister agree that had the 26-year-old mother in this case had access to the full range of voluntary and community services that would have been provided through a family support coordinator as proposed by United Future’s proposal to reform the Department of Child Youth and Family Services then at least those voluntary agencies might have picked up on the risks to the 6-week-old when her department failed and these tragic events might have been avoided; if not why not? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: It does seem as though additional support was warranted. It is very difficult to assess the impact that additional support would have had if it had been provided but obviously any engagement with organisations that are providing parenting support education and advice is a good idea. 
Katherine Rich 
: Will the Minister rebut concerns that the Department of Child Youth and Family Services has made a huge mistake in allowing this baby to be cared for by a mother who has already had two children removed due to serious neglect and that it should have removed the child under section 39 of the Act or at the very least kept the baby’s care under constant supervision over the 8 days it was in the mother’s care? 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: On the information that I have to date—and obviously a fuller report will be coming to me eventually—it does appear as though all the risk factors were correctly assessed and the risk to this child was not considered such that his immediate removal from the family home was justified.