1. Newborns taken from addicted mums
Nearly 13,000 babies aged under one have been removed from their mothers in the past eight years — but there are questions as to whether this punitive move is having any affect on assisting those mothers.
The figures, released at the Australian Institute of Family Studies conference in Melbourne this week, showed that 192,600 children of all ages have gone into out-of-home care in the same period.
In Victoria alone, 446 babies under the age of one were removed from their mothers in the last financial year, compared with just 119 in 2004-05.
The Herald Sun reports there is anecdotal evidence that an increasing number of babies were removed from maternity wards.
Dr Stephanie Taplin, from the Institute of Child Protection Studies at the Australian Catholic University, told News Limited: “many of the women affected were abusers of substances including illicit drugs, alcohol and tobacco.“
The conference heard that despite the increases there was no evidence of this move having any assistance.
“You can take the children away but we know this is going to do the mother damage and she may just go on to have more children, who might also be removed,” she said. “Is it better for the baby? We just don’t know. There is a desperate need for more data tracking individual children over time.”
She also said this increased focus on reporting was keeping women away from government assistance because of concerns their child might be taken away.
Top Comments
The doctor in number 5-what an absolute genuine hero,
Finally, an appropriate use of the word "hero".
The bit about kids backgrounds determining school results seems pretty obvious to me but I would like to know if the study controlled for the kids classmates background.
A kid with parents who value education will do well in a private school or a public school in a rich area because they will be surrounded by like minded kids. Will the same kid do as well in a poor public school when surrounded by kids who don't want to be there. Or in other words is a good background enough to make a kid study or does the kid need a good peer group too.
Stats are fun.
I have 4 kids who have attended a primary school in a low socio economic area. My girl had one close friend, eldest boy none, 2nd boy 2 and 3rd had 1. At school they were polite to everyone but had no interest socialising with naughty kids. 3 have been Dux with my last set to take out Dux this year so I'm told. 3 in a low socio economic high school now and thriving incredibly, socially as well because there are 2 or 3 kids in each of their classes who value education like they do and they've all become extremely bonded. Until last year we as a family have scraped by on the bones of our arse their whole school lives. We have really done it tough but we value education, respect & empathy for others, which comes across in the kids. It all starts with the attitudes of parents and home life. You don't need money to put on a clean pressed uniform, do your hair, brush your teeth, grab your healthy lunch then go and get a free education, even in a class full of disruptive kids.
That sounds great and if the stats support it would definitely call into question the value parents get from their billions of dollars of private fees.
I guess the flip side of the question and probably one of the biggest arguments against private education is whether a good peer group will make up for a poor background. Whether the kids with poor backgrounds benefit from being around kids like yours.
My kids are from a financially poor background : ) I gave up a great job to raise them so its been tough on one wage but if its taught them one thing its never define yourself with money & things.I think a lot of factors come into play and there isn't one single answer. I did have much the same conversation with the principal one day. He told me my kids stand out in the school. Always well dressed and groomed, exceptional behaviour and always kind to other kids even though mine have no interest socially in kids who are disrespectful and just generally misbehaved. He said much the same thing when I told him my boy was struggling with behaviour in the class in his first couple of months of starting high. He thought I should encourage my kids to hang with misbehaved kids as it may have a positive effect on them. I told him I could see his point but it could go many different ways so it wasn't something I would encourage. I worked really really hard on my kids. That day was the first time I had ever sat in the principals office with an issue. Any time they have had problems I've given them the coping tools, rather than jump up and down about other kids. It's worked a treat, they have developed much patience and resilience but not enough to cope with the class full of wild kids my boy had. Once he found he had 2 kindred spirits in his class it was up & up and they've done great things together. When they were all in primary a principal there told me he thought it makes all the difference being a SAHM. I completely disagree with this as SAHM or not won't teach your kids respect and values, you've got to have those things yourself, along with a lot of love and discipline. My kids are from a financially struggling background but we have a happy fun life... I think balanced would be the best word. I'm back at work now and Dad has just scored an amazing promotion. It won't change the way we live but it will give us a chance to help them with cars and University which will be lovely.