ABSTRACT

Major permanency planning-based reforms transformed the New South Wales (NSW) out-of-home care (care) system between 2012 and 2022, in the face of strong, sustained opposition from First Peoples. Permanency, attachment and related notions, including the best interests of the child are all constructs central to permanency planning and crucial factors in judicial decision-making about children’s permanent care arrangements. Doctoral research conducted by the author, a Wiradjuri legal scholar, explored Aboriginal community member understandings of these concepts. With a focus on restoration, this article provides a critical commentary on aspects of the legislative changes implemented in NSW. Outlining literature relating to the reforms, the author notes the substantial lack of evidence from First Nations’ perspectives in support of the legislative changes made. Implications for both First Peoples and for social work are discussed. The article seeks to prompt reflection by social workers on how such evidence vacuums can cause harm to First Nations children and young people in statutory care. Social work spheres within child welfare and associated scholarship must centre First Peoples’ knowledge and experiences. If not, crucial conceptual and practice-related issues will remain poorly understood and profound child welfare system-related trauma caused to First Nations children and families will be perpetuated.

IMPLICATIONS

• System reform relating to permanent care arrangements of First Nations children and young people must be grounded in First Nations-led evidence, including on permanency and attachment, and it must centre First Peoples’ perspectives and lived experience.

• Understanding and taking into account the perspectives of First Peoples is an important action social workers and other practitioners from non-Indigenous backgrounds must take in supporting First Nations children and families involved in care matters. Hence, there is a need for critical reflection in the social work sphere, about how child protection policies and legislation may benefit, or create harm to, First Nations communities.

• Advocacy for systems change is an important action social workers can take, when governments propose policies that First Peoples view as detrimental to support the long-term wellbeing of First Nations children.

摘要

2012 年至 2022 年间，尽管原住民强烈、持续的反对，基于永久性规划的重大改革改变了新南威尔士州 (NSW) 的户外护理（护理）系统。永久性、依恋和相关概念，包括儿童的最大利益，都是永久性规划的核心概念，也是关于儿童永久性照料安排的司法决策的关键因素。作者（Wiradjuri 法律学者）进行的博士研究探讨了原住民社区成员对这些概念的理解。本文以恢复为重点，对新南威尔士州实施的立法变革的各个方面进行了批判性评论。概述与改革有关的文献，作者指出，从原住民的角度来看，支持立法改革的证据严重缺乏。讨论了对原住民和社会工作的影响。本文旨在促使社会工作者反思这种证据真空如何对法定照料的原住民儿童和青少年造成伤害。儿童福利和相关奖学金中的社会工作领域必须以原住民的知识和经验为中心。否则，关键的概念和实践相关问题将仍然得不到充分理解，并且对原住民儿童和家庭造成的与儿童福利系统相关的深刻创伤将长期存在。本文旨在促使社会工作者反思这种证据真空如何对法定照料的原住民儿童和青少年造成伤害。儿童福利和相关奖学金中的社会工作领域必须以原住民的知识和经验为中心。否则，关键的概念和实践相关问题将仍然得不到充分理解，并且对原住民儿童和家庭造成的与儿童福利系统相关的深刻创伤将长期存在。本文旨在促使社会工作者反思这种证据真空如何对法定照料的原住民儿童和青少年造成伤害。儿童福利和相关奖学金中的社会工作领域必须以原住民的知识和经验为中心。否则，关键的概念和实践相关问题将仍然得不到充分理解，并且对原住民儿童和家庭造成的与儿童福利系统相关的深刻创伤将长期存在。

影响

• 与原住民儿童和青少年永久照料安排相关的制度改革必须以原住民主导的证据为基础，包括永久性和依附性，并且必须以原住民的观点和生活经验为中心。

• 理解并考虑原住民的观点是社会工作者和非原住民背景的其他从业者在支持参与护理事务的原住民儿童和家庭时必须采取的一项重要行动。因此，社会工作领域有必要对儿童保护政策和立法如何使原住民社区受益或造成伤害进行批判性反思。

• 当政府提出原住民认为不利于支持原住民儿童长期福祉的政策时，倡导制度变革是社会工作者可以采取的一项重要行动。