Influences on decision making in NZ child protection
What influences decision making variability in the Aotearoa New Zealand child welfare system? (Seminar with Emily Keddell)
Thursday 22nd June 2017 4 – 5pm
Venue: Room N614, Epsom Campus
Location: 74 Epsom Avenue, Auckland
Host: The School of Counselling, Human Services and Social Work
In many countries, the complex nature of decision-making in relation to children who have been neglected or abused leads to variable decisions regarding their care, even when case characteristics, family circumstances and levels of harm are similar. This leads to a justice problem, as both children’s right to protection, and parental rights to maintain the care of their children, should be enforced in a consistent manner by legal and regulatory systems.
Drawing on the decision-making ecology concept, this talk outlines the complex context that generates decision outcomes, and presents the first findings of a mixed methods, exploratory study that set out to answer the question: what contributes to decision making variability in the Aotearoa New Zealand child welfare system?
About Emily Keddell
Emily is a senior lecturer in the department of Sociology, Gender and Social Work, University of Otago. She has practiced in a variety of child and family social work positions in Aotearoa and the UK. Her research covers aspects of child and family social work policy and practice, including constructions of risk, decision-making, the use of big data, and the relationship between inequalities and contact with the child protection system. She is involved in translational activities as a member of the Reimagining Social Work collective and an associate member of Child Poverty Action NZ.
Remember that this is a “no prisoners” no forgiveness event.
There will be a month long debrief afterwards, at the boozer, run by the late Chairman Fred.
Maybe a good start is to read this.
Obviously looking for our media to publish something similar.
I won’t hold my breath. Might be fatal.
So why is it that the vast majority of parents excluded from a child’s life are men?
Looking back alost 20 years when Clark and her collaboration took power, fathers’ groups were getting past their infancy, They had become a nationwide asset even though they weren’t seen that way, and seldom received any funding.
Worse still we saw women demanding that men be removed from the National Child Welfare Forums being held in Wellington.
They weren’t joking – these Feminists held the view that men had no place in decision making in child welfare – their hostility was real. How much of that agenda still exists today, I can’t say, but it would be interesting to hear whether the anti-male climate is still thick with hatred and bitterness.
1, Yes I agree its a good start.
Then perhaps we can then ask why it is that cyfs (or whatever they’ve morphed into now to hide from all responsibility of thier failures) workers and supervisors, how many are male and how many are female.
I imagine the answer is hundreds or thousands of females and 0 males.
Only a women can understand a childs needs, is that what we are expected to believe?
And lets not forget the the golden mythological chestnut that the reason these most responsible roles go to women because men might abuse the position and assault or abuse the children.
Just as females are more likely to be violent to their children, those responsible for overseeing child welfare and security are ignoring the majority of the risk element.
Instead fathers are removed in a heartbeat.
Perhaps the problem also is that men are too passively putting up with this shit because I’ve yet to see one rock fall on one roof over this systematic abuse.
Let it rain is my call.
They generally take several hundred hours of classroom instruction and are contracted to follow apprenticeship standards for a period of between three and six years, during which time they are paid as a percentage of the Journeyman’s pay.