The recent decision of the English judicial hierarchy in Re B (a minor) (wardship: sterilisation) raises many of the issues which are involved with the difficulties inherent in attempts compulsorily to sterilise apparently incapable minors. The article contrasts the decision in Re B with the earlier English decision of Re D and the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Re Eve. It continues by discussing the policy issues which are raised by the case and by the literature.

A broader range of health and welfare workers are now expected to appear in court in child abuse and neglect cases. This article examines some of the reasons for tensions between lawyers and welfare workers. The paper is written to assist workers in preparing for court, and includes guidance on writing reports and dealing with cross-examination.

In this paper I intend to examine ways in which the problem of child poverty might be remedied by legislative reform. The legislative activity taking place at present means that this is a matter of current, as well as social, importance (1). The paper is not intended as an arid academic exercise, but as a contribution to the debate about the future direction of reform in this area. The emphasis of the paper is on the effect of legislative provisions outside the court-room. When more than 90% of divorce disputes are not resolved by judicial adjudication, it is vital to an understanding of the law to examine its out-of-court operation (2). This demands that we consider how the provisions of the Family Law Act are used in negotiations, and the effect of the relationship between parents' rights against each other, and parents' rights against the State. But therefore considering ways in which the interests of children might be protected on divorce, it is necessary to give a brief introduction to the nature of the problem of child poverty and its relationship with matrimonial breakdown.

The effects of professional intervention in family life and relationships has been questioned by a number of writers who maintain that this involvement has led to the undermining of parental authority and a lessening of parental competence and confidence. By contrast, others see this involvement as supplying necessary skills to family members.

Amongst the programmes which professionals have implemented are parent education programmes, many of which are conducted in groups and which are valued by both practitioners and writers. As part of the broader debate about the relationships between professionals and the family however, some critics suggest that parent education programmes can have adverse effects on parents' confidence in their parental role and on their self-reliance in deciding how best to raise their children.

A research project is being put into effect in Melbourne to explore these issues.

A history of children's welfare services in Australia demonstrates the significant and on-going role of the non-government sector. This is particularly true within New South Wales. Many programmes, frequently under the auspice of mainstream religious institutions, were established early in response to critical social needs. These programmes routinely developed in isolation from each other, often with primary ties only to the auspice body and the local community. Some things are slow to change.

Today the non-government sector is an amorphous collective of agencies with highly variable philosophical under pinnings, welfare ideologies, resources and competency levels.

We have learned a great deal about the needs of children, the process of change, and competency in service delivery (within a specific statutory umbrella). Our new knowledge is yet to be consistently reflected in practice.

Is it support from the community to the family?

This could be construed as voluntary support, possibly emphasising the “charitable model” whereby the more able and financially independent people in the community assist those less able and more disadvantaged.