Cumulative Harm in Child Protection: The Hidden Concern

ABSTRACT

Cumulative harm remains a significant child protection concern yet effective responses across the protective and legal domains in Australia are negligible. This article reports on a study of cumulative harm in the Victorian child protection system and the factors contributing to recognition of such cases for intervention and decision-making, and how they moved both through the child protection system, and were responded to by the courts. An audit of case files from Victorian child protection offices and a series of focus groups was conducted April to October 2017. Cumulative harm cases generally closed at intake because no immediate or significant risk to the child, in legal terms, could be established or support for ongoing statutory concern justified. Greater clarification around the definition and urgency of cumulative harm in legislation and best interest principles is suggested, to allow a more holistic understanding of harm and the impacts of long-term maltreatment, emphasising early intervention before there is cumulative impact.

IMPLICATIONS

• The study findings recognise the significance of cumulative harm as a major child protection concern needing better accommodation by legislative and judicial contexts.

• Child protection practice must address the significance of cumulative harm and implement more effective and earlier protective interventions.

• Child protection, community agency, and legal frameworks must be better aligned to remove the uncertainty and ambiguity around cumulative harm and the lack of priority given to the best interests of this cohort of vulnerable children.

累积伤害一直是儿童保护方面的一个重要关注，但保护领域和司法领域并没有出现有效的响应。本文研究了维多利亚儿童保护体系中的累积伤害：哪些因素有助于认定此类案子从而进行干预并作出决断，案子如何通过儿童保护体系，法院又是如何应对。2017年4月到10月对维多利亚儿童保护办公室的案卷以及一系列核心小组讨论做了审定。累积伤害案一般会在接案时停止，因为法律上，对儿童的伤害除非直接或重大，是不能立案的，持续的法律支持也不被认可。作者提出要在立法领域对持续伤害的界定和紧迫性做进一步的澄清，并建议采用最佳利益原则，要对伤害以及长期虐待的影响有更完整的理解，要在累积影响产生之前就进行早期干预。

KEYWORDS:

• Child Protection Practice
• Cumulative Harm to Children
• Children’s Courts
• Legal and Welfare Decision-making

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge Claudia Bidstrup, Research Assistant, and DHHS Child Protection Offices and Staff who participated in the study.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

ORCID

Rosemary Sheehan http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2818-1563

Additional information

Funding

This study was funded by the Office of Professional Practice, Department of Health and Human Services, Victoria.