Introduction:

In New South Wales., Australia, as it is elsewhere in the country and in other countries overseas, the notification of a child to a child protection agency is mandatory at the 'merest suspicion' of abuse. Here is NSW., children are notified to the Department of Community Services (DoCS) and, following the notification of the child to DoCS a child protection planning/investigation meeting is usually convened by the DoCS worker to discuss the allegation/ confirmation of abuse and to make formal arrangements with the parents for the ongoing assessment and protection of the child. 

According to the 'Interagency Guidelines For Child Protection Intervention' (IGFCPI) (p.76)

"The protection planning meeting is a critical interagency process which provides a forum for the pooling of the skills, knowledge and expertise of agencies and an opportunity to combine and coordinate these resources for the protection of the child.

Judgement is therefore required to ensure that those who can assist in developing the protection plan are involved....As a general principle parents should be involved in protection planning meetings. They should have support available to them and the purpose and the outcome of the meeting should be explained to them."

From our in-depth investigation of several MSBP cases in one major children’s hospital in New South Wales, which subsequently led to a DoCS review into the DoCS’s handling of one of these case, it has been found that in some of these cases child protection planning meetings: 

This is occurring even though: 1) it is an offence under the Children (Care and Protection 1987 Act not to notify the child to DoCS at the merest suspicion of abuse, 2) when it runs counter to NSW Health child protection policy and guidelines, and 3) when it runs counter to one of the practice principles for working with families namely that families:

".... have a right to contribute their views about services which effect them and to have these views taken into account" (IGFCPI: p. 76)

In respect of the MSBP case that DoCS reviewed, the report found that while:  

'The Interagency Guidelines suggest that it may be appropriate to meet without the parent's participation under certain circumstances at Investigation Planning meetings. Parents are however normally part of a Protection Planning Meeting to which  (the ********'s ) were not invited. The decision to not have the (**********'s ) or their support persons present at the meetings, including the current treating doctors was made by the Assistant Manager at Corrimal CSC. The explanation given was that SCH wanted to discuss a newspaper article describing (the child) as sick and so the investigation was still being undertaken; there was resistance to the (parents) involvement from the SCH." (see de-identified version of the DoCS review report)

In respect of child protection planning meetings, F.R.A.M.E has identified the following steps to get the best out of child protection planning meetings.

Step 1: Child Protection Act, policies and procedures.

One of the first things that we recommend you to do is to familiarise yourself with the aim and process involved in child protection planning meetings by reading those sections of the Department of Community Services and the Health Department's policy and procedural manuals and interagency guidelines that make reference to child protection planning meetings, and make sure that these are followed. 

These manuals and interagency guidelines can normally be obtained from the respective agency’s websites or through the State libraries.

Step 2: Attending the child protection planning meetings.

When you are informed that your child has been made the subject of a notification, it is absolutely crucial that you seek to attend all of the child protection planning meeting(s) that are held in respect of the notification. There will be at least one, if not several child protection/ investigation meetings held in relation to the notification and it absolutely imperative that you attend all of them. You need to ask your DoCS worker when and where they will be and if your child's DoCS worker:  

Contact the DoCS worker’s line manager and seek a written explanation for your planned exclusion form the meeting.

From our experience, and we cannot stress this enough, it is absolutely essential that you attend all of the child protection planning/investigation meetings and take a credible and skilled support person/note taker with you who is willing, and able to take concise and reliable minutes of the meeting. Ask for a postponement of the meeting if your support person/note-taker cannot attend on the day/time set by the DoCS worker. If you value your child, THIS IS NOT THE TIME TO SCRIMP AND SAVE. It is absolutely essential that this minute taking is accurate.

Alternatively, seek to have the meeting recorded and make back-up copies of all recordings or minutes taken. Supply a copy of the recording or the minutes to the DoCS case manager and in the case of the minutes, seek written verification from the DoCS officer that these minutes were an accurate reflection of what was said at the meeting. Finally, seek to have your child's DoCS worker send a copy of the minutes of the meeting to all of the attendees at the meeting and seek to have them sign copies of the minutes verifying their accuracy of the minutes. Do not allow two sets of minutes of the meeting to be taken without checking on the accuracy of the second set of minutes. If this occurs, seek to have the second set of minutes photocopied straight after the meeting and have the DoCS case-manager sign them if they are accurate.   

From F.R.A.M.E's experience of  case study 1, the Independent Commission Against Corruption (I.C.A.C.) was able to obviate it's responsibility to investigate the parent's claim that the doctors involved in the notification and child protection planning meetings had maliciously notified their child to DoCS and had consistently and knowingly provided false, misleading, contradictory and inaccurate information to DoCS in respect of these processes by bringing into question the reliability and veracity (or legal standing?) of the minutes taken by the DoCS officer during a child protection planning meeting.

"Apart from expert medical evidence, Mrs *******'s complaint of corruption turns on circumstantial evidence, principally around the timing of the child at risk of notification to the Department of Community Services. She maintains there was a 10 month delay from Dr ********'s first diagnosis and suggests that the explanation for the delay must be malicious motivation (sic). This appears to be based on notes of a case meeting on 5 February 1999 apparently taken by a DOCS officer, to the effect that Dr. ****** "quickly" picked up Munchhausens. (sic). The accuracy of these notes as evidence of the matters discussed at the meeting is open to question given the time and circumstances under which they were taken." (Kieran Pehm Deputy Commissioner I.C.A.C June 14, 2001)  (Our bold highlight).            

(F.R.A.M.E's comment: 

What is significant about I.C.A.C's decision is that there is no evidence to suggest that: 1) the minutes of the meeting had not been written contemporaneously, and 2) that the 'circumstances' under which they were taken was in any way unusual. According to the legal advice that F.R.A.M.E has received, minutes of child protection planning meetings that are taken as part of DoCS's 'business' are admissible as evidence in the prosecution of any doctor conveying false, misleading, and contradictory information to DoCS  during these meetings.

Hypocritically, it would seem that 'accountability' and 'transparency of decision making' do not appear to be a feature of I.C.A.C's process, despite I.C.A.C's promotion of these ideals within other government departments. At the time of writing, the family are still awaiting an account of Deputy Commissioner Pehm's rationale for I.C.A.C's  decision. 

As a footnote however, the family have nothing but praise for the professional competency, diligence and personal integrity of Ms Michelle Calvert, the I.C.A.C senior investigation officer involved in this case and the person who conducted the preliminary investigation of this complaint and was planning to visit the family to see the information that they had obtained under subpoena before her untimely departure from I.C.A.C for another government position. Her professionalism exemplified the ideals promoted, but not adhered to by I.C.A.C ).

Step 3: Attendees at the meeting.

Make sure that all of the child's current and significant past treating health professionals are at the meeting and involved in the notification process.

Take note of who has been invited/made aware of the child protection investigation/planning meetings and ask them why they are there, especially if they have had no involvement in the child’s care. They might have been invited to make it appear that there is a consensus of opinion and that there are a large number of people who are involved in and in agreement with the accusation/confirmation of abuse or the notification. Ask the attendees at the meeting who invited them to the meeting, and why they are there. Bring this fact to DoCS officer’s attention and ask for an explanation. Seek to have this questioning and the resultant answers included in the account of the meeting. 

Take note of anyone who is likely to acquiesce to what is being said as a result of a relatively junior position to the accuser, one who is weak (emotionally and/or socially), one who adheres to collegial alliances, and anyone who is new to the treatment team. Ask them directly if they have ever met or have ever treated your child, or have any personal information that would refute or contradict the suspicion or confirmation of abuse and have this inserted in the minutes of the meeting. 

Take note of who has not been invited, or is not in attendance at the meetings and if they have had any significant involvement in your child's care seek to have them attend the next meeting. 

Step 4: Ensuring the availability, reliability and veracity of the information at the meeting.

Seek to have the child's clinical file and any health practitioner's private medical file at the meeting, and ask them to support their accusation with reference to these files. Advise the attendees that should this matter be referred to the children's care court (or equivalent) that you will subpoena their private clinical files.

Advise the attendees at the meeting of their responsibility under section 16 of the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998, which states: