Neoliberal reforms and ring-wing ideologies have seen the ideal of the social security ‘safety net’ take a hammering in the UK, USA and Australia. While the gap between rich and poor has widened, and demand for welfare payments increased, politicians, certainly in Australia, have generally neglected low income families, preferring to twiddle the economic dials affecting middle and upper income earners instead. Of course, tussling over who pays tax, how much, what constitutes useful expenditure, and who receives welfare services and benefits is not new – these questions have attended the modern welfare state from its inception. But the welfare safety net that most of us, grudgingly or otherwise, concede to be necessary for collective social harmony is no longer proving as effective as we would wish. Even with a battered and frayed, but still ostensibly functional systems of welfare payment and support offered in Australia, the number of people experiencing perpetual disadvantage is rising, with intergenerational poverty – its increase and impacts on children – of particular concern.

We are in agreement with some of the points made in the recent article by Tregeagle, ‘Weighing up the evidence and local experience of residential care’ (Children Australia, 42(4), 240–247). For example, there can be no dispute about the high costs of residential placements or that achieving a stable residential environment is very challenging. Table 1 provides a three state cost comparison of residential placements (Ainsworth, 2017).

Debate on Australian policy and practice about residential care is to be welcomed as it has important implications for the care and wellbeing of vulnerable young people, as well as the allocation of resources to care and protection systems. I therefore welcome the commentary provided by Ainsworth and Holden on the arguments offered in ‘Weighing Up the Evidence and Local Experience of Residential Care’. Whilst these reviewers of my Practice Commentary have accepted many of the points made, I wish to take this opportunity to reinforce my arguments in light of their critique.

While it may, at first, appear absurd to associate Stockholm syndrome with situations other than those involving kidnapping or hostage relationships, it is quite tenable to do so. In fact, research has shown that a variety of different psychological issues and forms of captivity are best explained as instances of Stockholm syndrome. Originally, Stockholm syndrome was typified as a disorder resulting from situations involving negative face-to-face contact between captors and captives. The resulting environment is one of extreme fright or terror to victims, rendering them helpless and, over time, totally subservient to their perpetrators. Typification helps to shed light on the connection between abusive athletic coaches and consequential victimisation of young athletes, which can lead to Stockholm syndrome. This correlation supports the view that Stockholm syndrome relates to victimisation of young athletes in a paradoxical, but very real way. This concept paper addresses the potential for domain expansion of Stockholm syndrome into the area of youth athletics. It develops the theory that once youth begin to rationalise the actions of abusive athletic coaches, they begin to sympathise and defend the actions of the abusive coach leading to a pattern of events which can be labelled as indications of Stockholm syndrome.

This article reviews developments in the NSW child protection system which aim to reduce the number of children in state care. The first development was changes to the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1988 made in 2016 that created a permanency hierarchy for children who have been removed and not restored to parental or extended family care. Under Section 10A of the Act, guardianship and adoption becomes the priority if restoration is not possible, although Aboriginal children are exempt from adoption to some extent. The more recent development, during 2017, is the purchase by the Department of Family and Community Services (FaCS) of a license for two US models, namely Multi-Systemic Therapy for Child Abuse and Neglect (MST-CAN®) and Functional Family Therapy through Child Welfare (FFT-CW®). US studies have shown that these models reduce the number of children being taken into care. Related to this effort is the recognition by FaCS that the cost of out-of-home care (OOHC) is increasingly unmanageable given the 16,843 children in care in NSW. Added to this is the knowledge, confirmed by the Minister, that for many children in OOHC the outcomes are dismal. Finally, the article turns to the issue of poverty and seeks to address the established correlation (not causality) between poverty and child abuse and neglect. This remains the key issue that underscores child abuse and neglect that has to be addressed if a significant reduction in the number of children taken into state care is to be achieved.

Family violence is endemic. It has a dramatic and negative impact upon the victims and the family systems in which it occurs. While there is a growing evidence base to support our understanding, prevention and treatment of family violence, little is known about some of its “hidden victims” (e.g., kinship carers). In 2017, Baptcare commenced research with 101 kinship carers in Victoria to gain a better understanding of how family violence, perpetrated by the child's close family member once the placement started, was impacting on children and families. In this context, family violence means any act of physical violence, emotional/psychological violence, verbal abuse and property damage. The study utilised a mixed design methodology that specifically targeted kinship carers who had direct experience of family violence. Findings from this study demonstrated that (1) many kinship carers, and the children in their care, experienced family violence early in the placement, (2) that the violence occurred frequently and (3) the incidents of violence did not occur in isolation. Carers sought support from multiple sources to deal with the family violence, however, the study illustrated that the usefulness of these supports varied. Additionally, findings highlighted reasons why many kinship carers felt reluctant to file a report to end the violence. The study described in this paper is the first step in understanding and exposing this multifaceted issue and delineates some of the major issues confronting Victorian kinship carers experiencing family violence – and the support required to ensure the safety of them and the children they care for. This paper will describe the approach that Baptcare is taking to address family violence in kinship care in western metropolitan Melbourne. This is the second paper in a three-part series relating to family violence in kinship care.

There is growing evidence to support our understanding of adolescent violence in the home, however, there is a paucity of research about child-perpetrated violence that occurs within the context of kinship care. In 2017, Baptcare commenced research with 101 kinship carers in Victoria to gain a better understanding of how family violence was impacting on children and families. This research included a focus on child-perpetrated violence directed towards carers once the kinship placement commenced. In this context, family violence means any act of physical violence, emotional/psychological violence, verbal abuse and property damage caused by the child. This study utilised an online survey and semi-structured interviews that specifically targeted kinship carers who had direct experience of family violence. Findings demonstrated the disturbing types of child-perpetrated violent and aggressive behaviours kinship carers experienced. The data indicates that incidents of violence occurred early in the placement, they occurred frequently, and carers experienced multiple acts of violence from the child. The impact of the violence on the carer's household is significant in terms of the carer's health, wellbeing and placement stability. Further, the findings highlight the transgenerational nature of family violence in the context of kinship care in Victoria. The study described in this paper is the first step in understanding and exposing this complex issue and draws attention to some of the significant issues confronting Victorian kinship families experiencing family violence. This paper will describe the approach that Baptcare is taking to address family violence in its kinship-care programs.

Child welfare policy making is a highly contested area in public policy. Child abuse scandals prompt critical appraisals of parents, professionals and the child protection system creating a tipping point for reform. One hundred and six transcripts of debates in the West Australian Parliament from August until December 2006 relating to child welfare and child deaths were analysed using qualitative content analysis. The analysis found that statistics about child deaths were conflated with other levels of childhood vulnerability promoting blame, fear, risk and an individual responsibility theme. The key rhetorical strategy was the use of numbers to generate emotion, credibility and authority to frame child maltreatment narrowly as a moral crime. Rhetoric and emotions is about telling causal stories and will remain ubiquitous in social policy making. So, in order to guide policy debate and creation, ground their claims and manage ambiguity and uncertainty, policy makers, researchers and practitioners working with complex social issues will do well to step into this public and political discourse and be strategic in shaping more nuanced alternative frames.

This paper reports on recently completed research which explores the key question of whether public child protection practice requires a vision embedded in family empowerment. The principle objective of the study was to promote our understanding of the experiences families have with child protection services. The project progressed in two different phases. In phase one, a qualitative in-depth interviewing method was applied to explore the experiences and views of the families. The findings were then thematically analysed through a critical theoretical process. For the second phase, we developed an empowerment framework to analyse and map the key themes from the findings, which outlines the families’ difficulties to engage with, and their alienation from, the services in all stages of interventions. The mapping outcomes indicate a link between the process of empowering the families and the process of improving the child protection service.