A systems perspective on child abuse and neglect: If we care about the child, care for the birth family

Abstract

A commitment by policymakers and practitioners to the best interests of the child is uncontroversial. The child's right to be with their birth family is enshrined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, unless ‘separation is necessary for the best interests of the child’ (Article 9). But how do we understand 'best interests of the child'? Does this encompass only childhood or extend across life? Can 'best interest' be determined by ideology or principles alone? How does the permanency principle interact with best interest? For children exposed to serious abuse or neglect and removed, will ‘locking-in’ long-term care arrangements yield best outcomes in childhood, adolescence, adulthood, parenthood? Should reunification be prioritised? In this opinion piece, I argue that evidence must inform understandings of whether specific child and family support strategies are likely to do more good than harm and that this must consider the child's full life trajectory, including parenting capacity—the driver of intergenerational outcomes—and pay attention to the entire family. In the context of child removal, support and healing for the parent—with the possibility for reunification—will enhance the wellbeing of the entire family, including the removed child and any siblings (including those yet to be born). To achieve the desired response, budget allocations must be aligned with aims. In Australia, budget allocations massively favour child removal over intensive support for birth family, and also favour spending to address the harmful consequences of child abuse and neglect rather than disrupt the harm cascade. A refocus on birth family is critical. Treating birth parents with compassion is a good idea for the child, for the family, for society and the budget bottom line.