Answer

Interagency Cooperation in Child Abuse Cases

Name

Table of Contents

1. Introduction. 2
2. Background. 2
3. Options. 5
4. Recommendations. 7
5. References. 8

1. Introduction

One of the core tenets of governance is protection of the rights and welfare of children. It is undisputed that “childhood is entitled to special care and assistance” (United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child [UNCRC], Preamble). Whereas that is the case, this report recognizes that the above stated mandate has not been fully realized since numerous child death and critical incident reviews have shown that lack of effective collaboration between agencies has led to the failure in protecting children from violence and negligence. This report places heavy reliance on the findings laid out by James L. Herbert and Leah Bromfield in a paper dubbed National Comparison of Cross-agency Practice in investigating and responding to severe child abuse. The report provides an illustration of the state of interagency collaboration in various states in Australia. It is imperative that the government takes all appropriate measures to protect children from all forms of violence, abuse, or neglect (UNCRC, Article 19). In this regard, the government’s mandate to protect children from all forms of violence and negligence can only be fully realized through an interagency cooperation in child abuse cases. This paper highlights the gaps expressed in the above stated report and provides recommendations thereto.

1. Background

In most cases of child abuse and neglect wherein a police investigation is required, there is often an apparent need for collaboration between the police and the child protective services (Herbert and Bromfield 2017, p.2). The two bodies among other agencies are often required to “work together to conduct their investigations into whether there has been criminal conduct, and whether the child is safe in their present setting” (Herbert and Bromfield 2017, p 2). Whereas all the professionals that operate in such a scenario are required to place the highest regard to the principle of the best interests of the child, there may be variances with respect to the interpretation of this principle. These variances in the interpretation of the principle and the consequent lack of communication between the agencies often results in poor response, confusion, as well as, distress for the children along with their families (Herbert and Bromfield 2017, p.2). Apart from the stated precipitant effects of poor collaboration, it is important to recognize the fact that poor coordination and communication between agencies also often present fatal consequences where child related risks are improperly identified and managed (Herbert and Bromfield 2017, p.3). From this backdrop it is apparent that the need for interagency cooperation in child abuse cases cannot be overemphasized.

Interagency collaboration in child abuse cases involves the working together of various teams of professionals (McPherson, Macnamara, and Hemsworth 1997, p. 21). When it comes to the protection of children from violence, abuse, and neglect; there are a number of agencies that are actively involved thereto. The police are charged with the mandate of conducting investigations that would eventually lead to prosecution of any persons that are involved in child abuse or neglect. Child protective agencies on the other hand are engaged in the provision of services that aid in providing present and continuous safety to the children who have been vulnerable to abuse or neglect (Hetherington 1999, p.120). Whereas these agencies may operate independently, effectiveness in the protection of children can only be fully achieved when there is collaboration. Interagency collaboration is premised on the acknowledgment of the fact that there are “multi-dimensional impacts of abuse and the needs of children and families affected by abuse” (Herbert and Bromfield 2017, p.3). Collaboration, therefore, comprises the coming together of the various professionals from different agencies and disciplines “to discuss, plan and carry out a response to cases of child abuse” (Herbert and Bromfield 2017, p.3). Collaboration between agencies for the purpose of protecting children from violence, abuse and neglect often occurs between the police, child protective services, and the healthcare providers. The effectiveness of collaboration in this regard cannot be underestimated. For instance, health care providers are usually the ones who are charged with the task of conducting forensic medical examination. When there is collaboration between them and the police, the police will receive pertinent evidentiary information that would be useful in the course of trial. Similarly, when there is effective collaboration between the child protection services and the police, abuses will effectively be reported and investigations will conclusively be conducted.

This report recognizes the fact that collaboration and cooperation between agencies presently exists. Collaboration and cooperation has indeed been practiced in a number of occasions. In various jurisdictions within Australia, there is collaboration between the police, child protective services, and the healthcare providers. A concern that, however, arises is that in essence, there are a number of variations when it comes to the degree of integration or cooperation. There are instances when broad agreements and arrangements are adopted between the agencies. This often means that information sharing is ambiguous and optional. The main reason behind the ambiguity in information sharing is the non-existence of a uniform governing framework that must as a requirement be complied with (Herbert and Bromfield 2017, p.8). This means that agencies are left with the discretion of determining whether or not they will share various facets of information and the extent to which they will share them. In instances where there are preexistent frameworks that have been laid out with respect to information sharing between agencies, they still opt to operate and make decisions independently since there is no mandatory applicability with respect to compliance with the pre-existent framework (Grace et al. 2019, p.197).

When information sharing is optional and the importance attached to it is questionable the consequences thereto are self-evident. A distinctive consequence in this regard is duplicity. When agencies operate independently, they end up conducting parallel investigations on the same facts. This resultantly means that more government resources are used to perform similar functions. Another distinctive consequence of poor collaboration is that the quality of services that are offered to children and their families becomes questionable. This is particularly so because agencies will primarily be concerned with “their investigative and safety imperatives” (Herbert and Bromfield 2017, p.3).

1. Options

As illustrated above, there are distinctive variances with regard to the degree of integration and cooperation between various agencies that are involved in the investigation of any allegations appertaining to harm to children. In some instances there are broad or ambiguous agreements between agencies; with the acknowledgement of the apparent need to share information (Herbert and Bromfield 2017, p.2). What this means is that the concept of information sharing is partially optional and its importance in practice is blurry. An option that can be taken up in this regard is institution of a legal framework for collaboration. There is need to put in place clear guidelines and procedural rules that are to be complied with in the process of collaboration between agencies. The disadvantage of this option, however, is that pertinent security related information will be divulged to individuals who are not in the policing discipline.

Another option that is available in this regard is the passage of a federal governing framework which will have applicability in the whole Australian jurisdiction. The disadvantage of this option is that it will distort the autonomy that is currently being enjoyed by the states. The advantage is that it will harmonize the operational modality in the country. Presently, for instance, every jurisdiction has its own legislation or legal framework in place to govern matters relating to information sharing between agencies (Herbert and Bromfield 2017, p.7). The variance in the legal framework has also led to variance with respect to the practice of information sharing in the distinctive jurisdictions. For instance, in South Austria, New South Wales, and the Northern Territory, comprehensive schemes have been put in place which governs exchange of information between various agencies particularly when the information appertains to the welfare of a child (Herbert and Bromfield 2017, p.8). In Western Austria and Queensland, on the other hand, more restrictions have been placed on information sharing and specific government and non-governmental agencies are allowed to share information (Herbert and Bromfield 2017, p.8). In response to the fragmentation, there is need to pass a federal framework that will provide a blueprint which will be utilized in the various jurisdictions according to the unique circumstances in the various states

Interagency cooperation can be utilized uniformly with regard to all child abuse cases. When there is no uniform applicability, the lack thereof is breeding ground for ambiguity and discretion with respect to the extent of interagency cooperation. Presently, there are a number of limits that have been placed with regard to the types of child abuse cases that will be considered for cross-agency response. For instance, in Tasmania, only the cases that have been “accepted by the Criminal Investigation Branch can prompt the use of information-sharing arrangements between police and Child Safety Services” (Herbert and Bromfield, 2017, p.16). In this jurisdiction, agencies make their referrals independently and only reference each other when the need arises. In the New South Wales jurisdiction, however, cases that are usually admitted for cross-agency response involve extreme neglect or suspected child sexual abuse (Herbert and Bromfield 2017, p.8). The approach adopted by Western Austria is completely different. Herein all child abuse matters are eligible investigation and action through the cross-agency response. In the Northern Territory, on the other hand, complex matters involving children such as those that are likely to illicit continuous police investigation and child protection fall in the category of matters that are handled through cross-agency collaboration (Herbert and Bromfield 2017, p.7). This illustration essentially speaks to the fact that there are fragmented standards with respect to the applicability of interagency cooperation for various cases in various states in Australia. This fragmentation serves to foster ambiguity and discretion since there is no clear-cut blueprint that is to be followed by the various jurisdictions in Australia. An option that can, therefore, be explored in this regard is the passage of a federal legal framework governing interagency cooperation with regard to child abuse cases. The framework should indicate that all child abuse cases are to be handled through the interagency cooperation mechanism.

1. Recommendations

Considering the pros and cons of the above options, the recommendation herein is the passage of a federal governing framework which will have applicability in the whole Australian jurisdiction. States can then be provided with the mandate of tailor-making their rules in this regard, while recognizing the federal governing framework. Presently, the rules with respect to interagency cooperation are fragmented. There is no clear-cut formula or blueprint that can be relied upon by the states even as they formulate their own frameworks. Instead, every jurisdiction has its own legislation or legal framework in place to govern matters relating to information sharing between agencies. There is, therefore, a clear need to put in place a federal governing framework with respect to interagency cooperation in child abuse cases.

succeeding [] ]