No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
All Responsibility and No Care
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2024
Extract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
The theme of this Conference is All Care and No Responsibility while the title assigned to this paper is All Responsibility and No Care. Consistent with what I understand to be the focus of this title, the paper will examine various aspects of the system of governmental and no governmental care for the child deemed to be in need of some protective care from the state. The paper will concentrate on the present arrangements for admitting a child to wardship and consider possible alternatives to wardship and alternatives to institutional care for wards.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1976
References
1.
Rodham, H., “Children Under the Law” (1973) 43, iv. Harvard Educational Review. 487, 487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.
Titmuss, R., Social Policy: an Introduction (1974) Allen & Unwin
52-4; Titmuss, R., Commitment to Welfare (1968) Allen & Unwin, 64-7.Google Scholar
3. These were particularly in evidence in the period 1703-1717: Pinchbeck, I.
Hewitt, M., Children in English Society Vols. I & II, (1973) Routledge & Kegan, Paul, Vol. 1, 105.Google Scholar
5.
Pinchbeck,
et al., I Children in English Society op. cit., 95. (these programmes were instituted in the early C16).Google Scholar
5.
Op. cit., 140-141.Google Scholar
7.
In re Fynn (1848) 64 E.R. 205, 212. “Before the jurisdiction can be called into action (it must be shown) that the lather has so conducted himself … as to render it not merely better for the children, but essential to their safety or to their welfare, in some very serious and important respect … If the word ‘essential’ is too strong … it is not much too strong”: ibid.Google Scholar
8. The predecessor of s. 63 Crimes Act 1958 Vic.Google Scholar
9. Infants Custody Act 1839 (U.K.); Pinchbeck et al. op. cit. Vol. 1, 369 ff.Google Scholar
10.
Kewley, T., Social Security in Australia (2 ed 1973) Syd. U. Press, 14 Victoria, Survey of Child Care in Victoria (1964) Gov. Printer, 71-2.Google Scholar
11. This was still reflected in the 1901 Victorian Aged Pensions legislation: Old Aged Pensions Act 1901 (Vic.) ss.8(1)(m)(n), 16(3), 32.Google Scholar
12. Neglected and Criminal Childrens Act 1864 (Vic).Google Scholar
13.
Ibid., s. 13.Google Scholar
14.
Ibid., s. 16; this was finally removed in 1887 by section 19 of the Juvenile Offenders Law Am. Act, permitting a reformatory term (for children over 12) or committal to the Department of Neglected Children (for children under 12) in lieu of a normal sentence.Google Scholar
15. Neglected and Criminal Childrens Act 1864 (Vic.) s.10); (repealed in 1881 by act No. 693).Google Scholar
16. Social Services Act 1947-1976 (Aust.) ss.59(1) (3) definition of “widow” (including a dependent female) (as am. by s.7 Act No. 110, 1975) 83 A A G (i) (b) (supporting mother).Google Scholar
17.
Ibid., s.83 A A G (b) (requiring a beneficiary to notify the Director General within 14 days of commencing to live with a man on a bona fide domestic basis.Google Scholar
18. U.K., Report of the Committee on One-Parent Families (1974) Cmnd. 5629, H.M.S.O., (The Finer Committee Report), Volume 1, para. 5.269.Google Scholar
19.
Loc. cit.
Google Scholar
20. U.K., Report of the Committee on Abuse of Social Security Benefits (1973) Cmnd. 5228, H.M.S.O. (The Fisher Committee).Google Scholar
21.
Ibid., para. 324.Google Scholar
22. Fisher Committee Report op. cit., paras. 335, 336, 338 (a)-(c).Google Scholar
23. Fisher Committee Report op. cit., para. 330(b).Google Scholar
24. Fisher Committee Report op. cit., para. 343ff; Finer Committee Report op. cit., paras. 5.274, 5.276.Google Scholar
25. Except in Tasmania, but then only after a one year qualifying period: Maintenance Act l967(Tas.)s116(1).Google Scholar
26.
Rutter, M., Maternal Deprivation Reassessed (1972) Penguin, 48, 64, 125; Finer Committee Report op. cit., Vol. 11, 386.Google Scholar
27.
Finer Committee Report op. cit. Volume II 46-7 (Apparently the male is required to pay his own way and make a contribution to the rent in the normal case.)Google Scholar
28.
Fisher Committee Report op. cit., para. 328. The scheme was rejected because of administrative difficulties which the bureaucracy claimed would arise and for the policy reason that the scheme would eliminate a major incentive for the man to support the mother (to avoid her falling into poverty): Ibid. para. 328.Google Scholar
29.
Kadish, S.H., “Legal Norm and Discretion in the Police and Sentencing Processes” (1962) 75 Harvard Law Review 904, 929.Google Scholar
30.
Loc cit.
Google Scholar
31. Such as is provided by, the as yet unproclaimed, section of the British legislation: Children & Young Persons Act 1969 (U.K.) ss.4, 34;Google Scholar
32.
Australian Law Reform Commission, Criminal Investigation (1975) A.G.P.S. paras. 30-34.Google Scholar
33. Preferably by requiring a joint decision by the police and welfare agencies (infra). See also Treger, H., et al “A Police-Social Work Term Model …” (1974) 20 Crime & Delinquency
281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
34. Rodham, H., “Children Under the Law” op. cit., 490.Google Scholar
36. These requirements are more fully elaborated in Rose, R. J., “Symposium on Juvenile Justice in Arizona: IV Adjudication” (1974) 16 Arizona Law Review
325, passim.Google Scholar
37.
Rossett, A., “Discretion, Severity and Legality in Criminal Justice” (1972) 46 Southern Californien Law Review 12, 19.Google Scholar
38.
Wexler, S., Discretion — the Unacknowledged Side of Law” (1975) 25 University Toronto Law Journal
120.Google Scholar
39. See for example Colliver, S., “The Recognition of Clients' Rights in the Implementation of Welfare Policy” in Carney, T., & Epstein, J., Welfare & Law (1975) Monash, 10; Hufford, H.M., “Symposium on Juvenile Justice in Arizona: Part 1 Intake” (1974) 16 Arizona Law Review 239, 245.Google Scholar
40. Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (U.K.) Part III ss.30-58; Children & Young Persons Act 1974 (N.Z.) ss.13-19; Juvenile Courts Act 1971 (S.A.) ss.12-16. The statistics on the operations of the South Australian Juvenile Aid Panels indicate that in 1972-3 1.615 (79.5%) of the 2032 appearances resulted in a warning or counselling and 371 (18%) in some form of contractual agreement: S.A., Report of the Director General of Community Welfare for year ended 30 June 1973 (1974) Government Printer, 16.Google Scholar
41.
Fisher, E.A., “Community Courts: an Alterntive to Conventional Criminal Adjudication” (1974-1975) 24 American University Law Review
1253.Google Scholar
42.
Loc cit.Google Scholar
43. Appearance before informal bodies may be equally, or more, stigmatizing than appearances before formal bodies: Schur, , Labelling Deviant Behaviour (1971) Harper & Row, 87.Google Scholar
44. Departure from the simple dictum that like cases should be treated alike can foster a sense of grievance.Google Scholar
45.
Supra, p.4.Google Scholar
46.
Infra p.Google Scholar
47. Children's Court Act 1973 (Vic.) s.23(2) (a).Google Scholar
48.
Ibid., s.12(2).Google Scholar
49. Compare the provisions of the British law on this point: Children and Young Persons Act 1969-1975 (U.K.) ss.32A, 32B; See also Family Law Act (1975) (Aust.) s.65.Google Scholar
50. Family Law Act 1975 (Aust.) s.64(1) (b) (requiring the child's consent unless there are “exceptional circumstances”.)Google Scholar
51. Children's Court Act 1973 (Vic.) s. 15(1)Google Scholar
52. Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (U.K.) ss.32A, 32B (inserted by Children Act (1975)(U.K.)s.64).Google Scholar
53. Children & Young Persons Act 1974 (N.Z.) s.42(1).Google Scholar
54. Children's Court Act 1973 (Vic.) s.25(2).Google Scholar
55. Children's Young Persons Act 1974 (N.Z.)s.40.Google Scholar
56. See the discussion of the present law regarding the capacity of a child to make a decision on this matter by Thompson, D., “An Aspect that Needs Reform?” (1976) A.C.L.D. 142. Compare the solution advocated by the draft Canadian legislation for legal or other advice to be provided prior to acceptance of a plea: Young Persons in Conflict with the Law, cl. 11(2).Google Scholar
57. Hambly, D., “Balancing the Interests of the Child. Parents and Adopters: a Review of Australian Adoption Law” (Feb. 1976) mimeo. (paper delivered to First Australian Conference on Adoption) 22-28.Google Scholar
58.Children Act 1975 (U.K.) ss (10)3, (11)4, (33)3, 37. CF. Children's Court Act 1973 (Vic.) S.26(1) (g) C.f .s.27 (a)Google Scholar
59. These deficiencies are elaborated more fully in Leaper, P., Children in Need of Care and Protection (1974) op. cit., exp. 92, 222, 226–233.Google Scholar
60. Children's Court Act 1973 (Vic.) ss.27(c) (confining the jurisdiction) 41 (specifying the nature of the order).Google Scholar
61. Children and Young Persons Act 1974 (N.Z.) ss.36(i) (ii), 46.Google Scholar
62. Victoria, Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Assembly, 26 November 1975, 9490-92. Taking the figures for children (rather than applications) 66% were admitted to care; 18% dismissed; and 6% of cases placed on probation, with a similar percentage adjourned: Ibid.Google Scholar
64. Vic: S.W.A. s.31(k), (a) & (d) respectively. In addition, s.31(1) (truancy) and (j) (likely to lapse); (b) (found wandering) should be repealed. This proposition was very cogently argued by Paul Tappan over thirty years ago and cannot be improved upon despite the passage of time: see Tappan, P., Juvenile Delinquency (1949) McGraw Hill, 310.Google Scholar
65.
Cratchley v. Power (1976) A.C.L.D.
94. The decision takes account of the child's economic background in interpreting the “sufficiency” of his means within section 72 (b) Child Welfare Act.Google Scholar
66. The broad charters conferred by the N.Z. and U.K. legislation provide a model: Children & Young Persons Act 1969 (U.K.) s.1; Children & Young Persons Act 1974 (N.Z.) s.27(3).Google Scholar
67. The New Zealand legislation goes much further in this regard than the rather pious provisions of the Victorian legislation: Children & Young Persons Act 1974 (N.Z.) ss.5, 6; cf. Social Welfare Act 1970 Vic. SS.5., 13.Google Scholar
68. Child Welfare Am. Act 1975 (Ontario) s.22a.Google Scholar
69.
Vinson, T., et al “A Community Study: Newcastle” in Community Services: Tour Studies (1976) A.G.P.S. (Poverty Enquiry Research Paper) 16; 17.Google Scholar
70. Vic: S.W.A. S.35; The avenue was originally confined to the child of a family so poverty stricken that it was beyond their capacity to care for the child; to ensure that families were pushed to the limits of self reliance provision was made for a magisterial enquiry: see for example Child Welfare Act 1954 (Vic.) s.20.Google Scholar
71. In 1971-2, 57 children were admitted while in 1973-4, 117 were admitted: Victoria: Annual Reports Social Welfare Department, June 30 1973, 59; June 30 1974, 66.Google Scholar
63. Leaper advocates a narrower set of amendments, while the Ontario Law Reform Commission opted to support the status quo subject to placing on record their concern at the scope of these provisions: Leaper, P., Children in Need of Care & Protection (1974) Crim. Dep. Melb. Uni., esp. 209-210, 221; Ontario Law Reform Commission, Report on Family Law, Part III Children (1973) Info. Canada 67-9.Google Scholar
72. Comment, “Montana's Child Neglect Law — a Need for Revision” (1970) 31 Montana Law Review
201, 209 and draft clause 6 at page 215.Google Scholar
73. Child Welfare Am. Act 1975 (Ontario) ss. 23a(3), (4), (imposing a twelve month limit on the wardship).Google Scholar
74. S.23a(b).Google Scholar
74a. See also Hafford, H., “Symposium on Juvenile Justice in Arizona: I Intake” (1974) 16 Arizona Law Review 239, 250; U.S. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime (1967) Govt. Printer, 21.Google Scholar
75. The hearing panel İs rejected because of the derogation from essential procedural protections and the stigma which is largely unavoidable in such a setting; the Family Court is rejected because it is likely to be identified not as a welfare body nor a court but something more akin to the adult perceptions of the Conciliation and Arbitration process.Google Scholar
77.
Canada, Law Reform Commission
Working Paper on Diversion (1975) Info.
Canada, 24. It is worth noting that the Research Studies Commission, as part of this project, found that 43% of the contacts between police and juveniles involved conduct which was not an offence: Canada, Law Reform Commission, Studies on Diversion (1975) Info. Canada, 15.Google Scholar
78. Present arrangements for funding capital works and staffing homes in Victoria tend, with respect to capital works, to favour localities able to attract charitable donations (or with exisitine links with an established agency) and, with respect to staffing, io foster progression towards, but also regression back to, a lowest common denomination in terms of staff ratios.Google Scholar
79. The Co-operation Act structure might be modified to incorporate the best elements of the A.A.P., Councils of Social Service and Community Health Centre Committees.Google Scholar
80. Australia, Law Reform Commission, Criminal Investigation (1975) A.G.P.S. para. 266, 267.Google Scholar
81. This is the point at which the recent N.S.W. scheme slots in legal assistance from private solicitors rostered for each court (in metropolitan areas) or duty counsel (in country areas). The scheme, which is available for both offenders and neglect cases without any means test or contribution, came into operation on 26 May 1975: see (1975) 49 A.L.J. 602; Legal Practitioners (Legal Aid) Act 1970-1975 (N.S.W.) s.3A (1) (2) (a) (b) (inserted Act No. 15, 1975); Legal Aid Regulations 135 S.R. 1975 rr.2, 8(1), 8(2) (a) (b).Google Scholar
82. Children & Young Persons Act 1969 (U.K.) s.5; Children & Young Persons Act 1974 (N.Z.) s. 26; Muir, A., Report to Minister for Youth and Community Services on Certain Parts of the Child Welfare Act (1975) 35.Google Scholar
84. The practice is governed by order 311 and 654(4A) Police Standing Orders and was foreshadowed in 1940, and introduced for children under 12, in 1946. Since then it has slowly expanded and by 1972, 2,251 children (or 22% of the cases on notice to the police) were cautioned: Harmen, W., Juvenile Delinquents and the Role of the Police in Victoria (1975) (LL.B. Honours thesis Monash) 49, 56. The Canadian study (supra n.77) found that 10% of police juvenile contacts were of a cursory nature, while 45% took the form of a caution or similar section but it must be borne in mind that the Victorian figures relate only to formal cautions. Ibid., 15.Google Scholar
86. Figures calculated from information tabled in answer to a question on notice for the Melbourne Children's Court June 1974 – June 1975: Victoria Parliamentary Debates, Legislative Assembly 26 November 1975 9490-92.Google Scholar
96. Social Welfare Act 1970 s.40, (subject to the best interest test: s.41 Social Welfare Act 1970.)Google Scholar
97. Such as is provided in South Australia by section 47(2) Community Welfare Act 1973 (S.A.).Google Scholar
98.
Children in Conflict with the Law, draft clauses 36(1) (2).Google Scholar
99. Ibid., clauses 30-34, 36.Google Scholar
87. New sections 32A. 32B Children Act 1948-1975 (inserted by s.64 Children Act 1975 (UK).Google Scholar
88. Children Act 1975 (UK) s.3; Children Act 1948-1975 new s.12(1), (1A).Google Scholar
89.
Rodham, H., “Children Under the Law” (1973) 43, iv. Harvard Educational Review, 487, 507.Google Scholar
90. Children Act 1975 (UK) s.8(6).Google Scholar
92. Muir Report op. cit. iv, recommendation 15; p.44-5; Contra
Ontario Law Reform Commission, Report on Family Law Part III (1973) Info. Canada 74*Google Scholar
92. Vic (C.C.A.) s.20(1) (2) contains a model of what is required. The recent ruling in the South Australian case (allowing a welfare report in from the outset, subject to access to the child, his parent or legal representative and to cross-examination of the author of the report), is less satisfactory: Porter v. Sinnott (1975) unreported decision Walters, J., Supreme Court S.A. (noted (1975) A.C.L.D.
259). See also Y.P.C.L. (Canada) Cl. 17(7).Google Scholar
93. N.Z. S.42 provides a good model of what is required.Google Scholar
94.
Rodham, H., “Children Under the Law” (1973)43 iv, Harvard Educational Review, 487, 513.Google Scholar
1. See Children's Court Act 1973 (Vic.) s. 18.Google Scholar
2.
Ibid., S.48. See also Family Law Act 1975 (Aust.) s. 121.Google Scholar
3. Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (UK) s.49 (as am. by CY.P.A. 1969 s. 10). Children and Young Persons Act 1974 (NZ) s.23(9), 24(2), See also (1975) 9, i, Family Law Quarterly, passim for the American provisions.Google Scholar
6. Australia, Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, 2 June 1976, 2858 (Bowen shadow A.G.) 2861 (Ellicott A.G.). It was suggested that section 121 (supra n.2) provides adequate protection.Google Scholar
7.
Supra p.Google Scholar
8.
Supra p.Google Scholar
9. See for example the Muir Report op. cit. Canadian Young Persons in Conflict with the Law (draft) clause 31(1); Child Welfare Act 1965-1975 (Ontario) s.23a(4).Google Scholar
10. These issues are well canvassed in: Silbert, J.D., Sussman, A., “Rights of Juveniles Confined in Training Schools” (1974) 20 Crime and Delinquency, 373
passim.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
You have
Access