This paper is based on a keynote address given at the first Australian Family Preservation Conference in Ballarat in November 1992 and addresses questions which need to be considered when transplanting programs from one service system context to another. A number of Australian States are in the process of introducing Intensive Family Preservation Services following the widespread adoption of such programs in the United States. These short term, intensive, home based therapeutic programs serve families whose children are at imminent risk of removal or who are being reunited with their family after being in out of home care. This paper argues that while such programs have the potential to provide more effective interventions with such families, placement avoidance on its own is an inappropriate outcome measure. Moreover, if the introduction of such programs is done by redirecting resources from other services, counterproductive effects may occur.

This paper will address the overall approach of the present government to the provision of Aboriginal children's services in the context of the social indicators about Aboriginal children within Aboriginal society and non-Aboriginal society. It will then outline the proper and appropriate frameworks for the development of services for Aboriginal children.

This paper is based on a presentation at the Mission of St James and St John Forum ‘Protecting Our Children: Where Do We Draw the Line?’ in Melbourne on June 18, 1993. It provides an analysis of why inter-agency collaboration has often remained an elusive goal and identifies some of the structural obstacles to collaboration which are particularly relevant to the current context of child welfare in Victoria. While many of the obstacles to inter-agency collaboration are beyond the domain of the individual practitioner and agency, some suggestions are offered for strategies which can be pursued by practitioners and agencies.

Where Rights Are Wronged: A critique of Australia's compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child was published in March of this year. It is a report of the National Children's Bureau of Australia for the Children's Rights Coalition by consultants Graeme Brewer and Phillip Swain.

The present interest in US style family preservation services is the focus of this article. The article sounds a cautionary note in relation to the development of these services in Australia. It does this by drawing attention to a recent influential evaluation of these services and to the differences between social work and child welfare practices in America and Australia.

Interviews with children aged from 5 to 8 highlighted their vulnerability to molestation. This vulnerability is based in part on children's developmental levels. These include a limited capacity for abstract thought which renders some well intentioned attempts at child protection ineffective. Designers need to consider these developmental limitations when they develop child protection programs. Common parenting practices are also implicated in the perpetuation of children's vulnerability. These practices make it unlikely that a child would have the confidence to report adult-initiated sexual misbehaviour to a parent. Education is necessary to inform parents about ways in which they can reduce children's vulnerability by changing their own practices.

The first section of the paper makes some observations about young people, crime and the police, and the particular vulnerability of Aboriginal youth coming to the attention of the police. Two issues, the maintenance of public order and juvenile offending, provide the framework for the discussion here. The second section looks at the nexus between the pre-trial conference - a recent innovation in the Children's Court in Perth - police prosecutors, and Aboriginal youth.

A sample of 422 students (212 males; 210 females) ranging in age from 5-15 years completed an interview regarding their experiences of victimisation at school. Conservatively, 6% were bullied ‘once a week or more’, while 91% of the sample had witnessed incidents of bullying at school. Nearly one fifth of the sample felt powerless to stop bullying. The findings also indicated a relationship between victimisation and external locus of control suggesting that one outcome of victimisation is a feeling of powerlessness or helplessness. The findings were discussed in terms of the mental health outcomes for victims of bullying.

The important link between family life and youth health and wellbeing is widely acknowledged in research and literature. Equally, it is noted that the nature of relationships youngsters have with their parents, necessarily impact on the psychological wellbeing of parents.

In the majority, current parent education programs focus on younger children, and largely advise parents on child development and child management. Depending on the theoretical orientation of the program, either the child's troublesome behaviour is focus for change or parents are required to change their behaviour or parenting techniques. The limitations of these approaches have been noted. While prescriptive parent education programs are clearly inappropriate where teenagers are the focus, few suitable group programs have been developed with a practical alternative orientation.

This paper reports on one form of parent education being developed at Springvale Community Health Centre which serves to explore the practical relevance and benefits of a family systems approach in support-group programs for parents of adolescent children. Essentially, the family systems approach locates the parent-teenager relationship in the context of the family. Using key notions such as context, connectedness, continuity and change an attempt is made in the group to facilitate personal growth and the emergence of an alternative vision of family dynamics and parenting relationships.

A study of the meaning of adoption and permanent placement disruption for parents and social workers confirmed that the experience is extremely stressful over a long period of time.

Powerful themes evident through the process of the study were the influence on the placement of stress in the parents’ backgrounds; the maintenance of the family boundary; triangulation of relationships; the nature and quality of interactions between parents and social workers; relinquishment of a placed child; the immobilisation of possible support; and research as intervention.

In an earlier article in this journal (Bates, 1992), I suggested that, ‘Legislation and traditional legal principle seems to have been used to obfuscate, rather than enhance, the fact finding process.’ The cases discussed in that article (Minister of Community Welfare v B.Y. and L.F. (1988) F.L.C. 91-973; In the Marriage of Y and F (1990) F.L.C. 92-141; In the Marriage of D and B (1991) F.L.C. 92-226) documented that administrative processes were far from satisfactory in the way in which they dealt with allegations of child sexual abuse and so, perhaps, was the way in which the courts viewed expert evidence. Unfortunately, the process does seem to be continuing and must, therefore, be appropriately documented.

An assumption commonly found in the literature on parents of children with disabilities is that discrepancies between their perceptions of their children and their ‘ideal’ children are greater than those of parents whose children are nondisabled. Another assumption relates to their parenting experiences, which have been regarded as being different to that reported by parents of children without disabilities. Given that there is little empirical evidence to support these assumptions, a comparison of 58 mother-father dyads of children with intellectual disabilities and 24 mother-father dyads of children who did not have disabilities was undertaken. The findings of the present study revealed that parents of children with disabilities (a) perceived significantly greater discrepancies between their children and their ideal children, (b) perceived significantly greater limitations on their family, (c) reported significantly more worries concerning their children's development, (d) reported significantly more frequent disappointment in relation to their children's development, and (e) reported significantly greater impairment in emotional and physical well-being. In contrast, there were no significant differences in levels of reported happiness in parenting their children during the previous year. Furthermore, there were nonsignificant differences in the perceptions held by mothers and fathers. The findings have relevance to both counselling and service provision.

This paper describes the development of the Family Life Education Programme, an innovative group approach to parenting issues. The programme aims to (i) utilise the strengths of a multidisciplinary allied health team and (ii) to avoid focusing on the limited issues of child management and discipline. Previous styles of parent education groups are discussed, together with their shortcomings and the authors’ frustrations with such approaches. The rationale for the format of the new programme is described, and the detailed structure outlined. Two innovations are highlighted. Firstly, the programme focuses on issues from both the child and parent perspective (eg, child's play/parents’ recreation). Secondly, the six-week programme uses professionals from various disciplines as weekly consultants, while one member of the team provides week-to-week continuity as an anchor. The programme is evaluated in terms of the impact on the multi-disciplinary team, and the feedback from participants. It is argued that the Family Life Education Programme offers a balanced approach to the many issues confronting parents of young children and it could be implemented not only within multi-disciplinary teams, but also co-operatively across agencies.