Hagar Cohen: The number of babies and children being removed from their families around Australia is increasing dramatically. In New South Wales figures are particularly high, nearly a 10% increase in the past 12 months. Today Background Briefing is investigating a rather new phenomenon: babies taken from their mothers at birth, sometimes, it is said, too hastily.

The increase in this instance, is 70%.

A lawyer in the Children's Court is Robert McLachlan.

Robert McLachlan: It's a concern amongst me and my colleagues, because I'm seeing an inconsistent approach. You see some officers that simply remove, and don't really fully investigate; you see some officers that say, 'Well something seems to be improving', but don't really fully investigate it. I think a proper ground would be once they're aware of a mother being pregnant, and a birth coming up, to go out and make those inquiries, so that the parent is aware of where the matter is going and why it's going.

Hagar Cohen: You're with ABC Radio National, and I'm Hagar Cohen.

Lawyer Robert McLachlan again.

Robert McLachlan: I believe most caseworkers strive very earnestly and honestly to achieve the best result for children, but wherever there's a lot of pressure being exerted, you never know what the consequences are.

Hagar Cohen: Of course DoCS are in an invidious situation. Many babies and children are abused and at risk. DoCS have limited staff and resources, and the decisions they have to make are often heart-wrenching. However, there have been enough question marks now about the system in general, for the New South Wales Minister, Linda Burney, to implement a $750-million reform to overhaul the system.

Linda Burney: The reason that we have implemented extraordinary reforms in the New South Wales child protection system, were because of the very issues that you're highlighting. In the past, it was impossible for community services to adequately deal with every case that was put in front of them. The new system is about giving community services caseworkers the capacity to work more intensely and more closely with families that are really in dire straits.

Hagar Cohen: One thing at issue is an amendment to the legislation in 2006 which meant mothers with a history of previous child removal could quite easily have any subsequent children removed at birth. There is no obligation by DoCS to check whether circumstances have changed in the meantime. It was an attempt to address the fact that in 2005 alone, 104 children had died, all of them known to the authorities.

But it is now felt there is sometimes an over-reaction, and in one case that went right to the Supreme Court, the parents are now suing the Department for $18-million in compensation. We'll call the father Richard.

Richard: I have confidence. We'll just see what happens with the courts. There's reasonable grounds for us to be compensated, and hopefully the courts will see that.

Hagar Cohen: The names of both parents and children, and some of the professionals in this program, have been changed to protect everyone concerned.

Richard's two children have been given the pseudonyms Georgia and Luke.

In 2007, DoCS removed Georgia at birth, because of unsubstantiated allegations that mother Liz neglected her antenatal care, and was acting aggressively.

Two months later, the Children's Court ordered that Georgia return to her parents. But the parents committed in return to go to anger management classes, undergo regular urinalyses, and accept regular visits by caseworkers.

Luke was born a few months later.

Once when DoCS dropped by, court transcripts show there was an argument where Liz's low weight was questioned. Liz was rude in return.

Liz: I don't walk up to a woman and say 'Oh gee, it looks like you've put on a hell of a lot of weight', when I know they struggle with weight issues. DoCS knew I was a very thin lady, and they felt that it was appropriate to insinuate I'd lost weight, that there must be drug usage. So I guess I became rude for a couple of reasons. One, they gravely imperilled the safety and livelihood of our children, and they were in essence, personally attacking me.

Hagar Cohen: A short time after this incident, DoCS returned to Liz and Richard's home with two police officers. Georgia and Luke were removed immediately.

Later at the Children's Court, DoCS claimed the children were at immediate risk because of the parents' alleged drug use, the mother's history with mental illness and domestic violence. Liz and Richard took their fight all the way to the Supreme Court. Judge Palmer dismissed all those allegations and said the DoCS caseworkers seriously abused their power. But what happened before the final judgment was a long and tiring process, says Richard.

Richard: We didn't have no money. We already exhausted all our finances in the Children's Court process, through the 28 Children's Court hearings that we had been put against in the matter of 16, 17 months, which is nearly a court hearing every two weeks. Very powerless in the Children's Court. Just every time we went in there we got smashed. We just managed to borrow some money off my father who was kindly enough to give us his credit card, and that's the way we got down there, on a song and prayer, and with his credit card.

Hagar Cohen: Here's now an excerpt of a reading from the Supreme Court findings. The children are known as Georgia and Luke.

Reader: There is no evidence whatsoever to ascertain that the parents have ever abused Georgia and Luke physically or emotionally. There is no evidence that the children have been neglected or have failed to thrive.

Hagar Cohen: And elsewhere the judge makes this statement, slightly edited.

Reader: This is a serious abuse by certain DoCS officers of the department's power to take children into custody under the Act. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that these officers grossly over-reacted to the parents' hostility to DoCS' unjustified insistence that the children were at risk of harm. I regret to say that I am driven to only one conclusion: an intransigent refusal to acknowledge mistakes, regardless of the consequences to the children.

Hagar Cohen: And -

Reader: The circumstances which I have recounted amount in my opinion, to a gross abuse of power on the part of the DoCS' officers concerned. The result has been to remove young children from the care of good and nurturing parents.

Hagar Cohen: Both children are back with their parents now. The family has recently moved out of their small neighbourhood to live in another State. They say it was uncomfortable living in their old area. They kept bumping into child protection caseworkers at the shops, for instance.

Liz: The shame and stigma that's attached with any sort of child welfare dealings, most people sort of think that when you have dealings with child welfare and the police, that they are validated. So you have to prove your innocence. And when you've got an almighty government body and authority stating the opposite, it's very, very hard to hold your head up and to keep on going. And the stigma of being associated with DoCS, having your children removed, is enough to almost render us useless.

Hagar Cohen: Richard and Liz have decided to pursue the matter further. They are asking for $18-million compensation for the emotional trauma and loss, says Richard.

Richard: Well we've sent them a letter of demand back in January of last year after the Georgia and Luke judgment was handed down, saying that we want $18-million for damages that they've done to the family, and pretty much after sending that letter of demand, all we got, a letter back was saying 'You are aware that your children have been returned, and if you'd like to discuss anything else about your case, please phone the local CSC office.' And that was all we got, we never got an apology, we never got any sort of compensation, or any restitution, all they did was just return the kids, dumped a couple of suitcases of clothes on the back of my ute, and that was it.

Hagar Cohen: When the Supreme Court judgment was tabled in late 2008, many child protection lawyers were stunned by the strong words that the judge used when he talked about the children and why they should be returned.

Representing the children, Georgia and Luke, in the upcoming compensation case is lawyer Hal Ginges.

Hal Ginges: It's very uncommon to find a judgement like Georgia and Luke, and it's one which we lawyers who advocate for the parents in these cases, find very gratifying.

Hagar Cohen: I understand there was also an allegation of mental illness and the Supreme Court decided that there was no substance to this allegation. How was it possible that the Children's Court took that evidence essentially?

Hal Ginges: Well what happens of course is there are many of these cases before the Children's Courts, which are busy courts, and certainly the magistrates read the material before them, but what they have before them until the later stages in the cases, is just the material being put by the Department of Community Services. As a consequence, the courts don't often have before them the whole story. They get one side of the story, it may take some time for the other side to be put to the court. In the meantime, the court understandably has a duty to protect children and its function always is to err on the side of safety, and that's perfectly understandable. But the consequence is that very often children are kept away from their parents longer than they really ought to be.

Hagar Cohen: And I suppose how common are these scenarios where unsubstantiated allegations pass in the Children's Court and then don't go further to the Supreme Court?

Hal Ginges: I think that is fairly common, sadly. I have been involved in cases, and seen many cases in which parents are so humiliated and exhausted by the proceedings in the Children's Court that after that round of things, they give up. As it happens, the parents in the case of Georgia and Luke were not like that; they are determined fighters.

Hagar Cohen: Lawyer, Hal Ginges.

The compensation case is currently before the courts.

Mandatory recording means that certain professionals like teachers, hospital staff and police officers must report any instance they suspect could be child abuse. This results in a huge rise in risk of harm reports to the welfare authorities. In the past five years, there's been a 30% increase in the number of such reports. Typically, 7 in 10 reports are not substantiated and don't go any further.

Background Briefing is not saying that there aren't instances where it is right for a child to be removed from danger, or for a baby to be taken at birth. We are reporting on the issue that decisions are too often hasty, and there's no in-depth investigation of the family before such drastic action.

On the other side of the story are department caseworkers. Their job is to visit homes, and assess whether a child is safe or not. Many of their cases are complex, and there are no clear-cut conclusions. So making a decision is always tough. A caseworker in Victoria before she left the service, Mary, explains.

Mary: The day-to-day stuff within the Child Protection system isn't always about high level risk that you hear about in the media. On a daily basis, you can be dealing with everything from a teenager who won't go home because they've had a fight with their parents about their curfew, right through to somebody who's low to medium level drug use who can't quite get their kids to school on time.

Hagar Cohen: How difficult is it to make a decision in these kinds of cases?

Mary: It can sometimes be incredibly difficult, because as we see, all too often, if you don't remove a child and something happens, you're damned; and if you do remove a child, then it's considered too early to remove the child, you're damned. So really, you can't win.

Hagar Cohen: And does the attitude towards dealing with a case change say once a report comes out which criticises the Department, you know a death case for example?

Mary: I think whenever there's a death that involves a child protection case, there's always a heightened sense of awareness, and you do tend to double-check, but never have I ever experienced any pressure in terms of making a decision to remove a child purely based on media activity.

Hagar Cohen: Mary says the decision to remove a child is never taken lightly. No-one likes doing it, because dealing with the parents in these situations is always an emotional struggle.

Mary: There's always that real challenge, because you understand that at a really base, innate human nature level, that they're going to defend themselves, and defend their family unit. But then sometimes they just don't accept that there are concerns when there is clear evidence that there is. So of course when you start saying the child will be removed, they become very threatening, threatening verbally, threatening physical violence. You know, just before I left, and I was really, really at breaking point, a colleague of mine came screaming through the office going, 'I've just been hit. I've just been hit!' Somebody had actually punched her in the face in reception at our office. So there was huge levels of risk.

I had a young person that I knew quite well, a lovely young man, ended up in the juvenile justice system, held a knife or a sharp object to my throat, and threatened me. That was just towards the end of my time in the Department as well. And they're the sort of things we deal with on a daily basis.

Hagar Cohen: Is that why you left, by the way?

Mary: That particular incident? No, it was cumulative. We often talk to women of domestic violence saying 'You should not be accepting this verbal abuse and you need to get out.' Yet on a daily basis, people within child protection and similarly for other emergency services, police and ambulance, on a daily basis, you're being verbally abused. And you start questioning your own self-worth, and you start having a very skewed view of the world, and it can leave you feeling quite depressed.

Hagar Cohen: Mary is now a journalist in Victoria.

BABY CRYING

Hagar Cohen: In a small country town in New South Wales, Lyla gave birth to a baby girl. She says she was horrified when two hours later, nurses told her that DoCS officers were coming to take the baby away.

Lyla quickly contacted her partner and he returned to the ward. With DoCS agreement, he recorded the conversation on his mobile phone.

Caseworker: Are you right for me to go on? OK. So we've come up to talk to you about the Department has an order, what's called an assumption order, which places her in the Department's care.

Hagar Cohen: This means that the baby would be taken away immediately, and Lyla will have to argue her case in the Children's Court. Lyla is told this is related to her past history. Also in the room, her partner is asking what is meant by past history.

Partner: Can you explain what the past history is please?

Caseworker: Well some of the concern.

Partner: No, not the concerns, what the past history is

Caseworker: I know, the past history concerns, that's what I'm saying, well basically... Could you read it to me please because I haven't got my glasses...

Hagar Cohen: The case worker explains that Lyla's pregnancy was flagged when it was revealed that her first daughter, from an earlier relationship, was removed from her and is now living with Lyla's mother. It was a result of a Family Court proceeding from five years ago. She's also saying that Lyla's received minimal antenatal care, and that there's an AVO against the partner.

Caseworker: There may some other issues that you've got that would counteract that. I guess at the moment we can only go in the information that we've got now, at this point in time. I know that it's a distressing thing to have somebody come in when you think that everything's going OK, and do that to you. But we've explained to you what's going to happen, so this matter will go to court on the Monday, or will be lodged, as we put documents into the court on the Monday.

Hagar Cohen: The caseworkers explain that the evidence and counter-arguments can only be used after their newborn is removed from them. Lyla is heard asking why she wasn't told about their intention earlier, or given a chance to defend the allegations against her during the actual pregnancy.

Lyla: Before you take a child and do what you're doing, which is very damaging for my both my daughter and myself, and my partner, look into it first.

Caseworker: Look, as I tried to explain to you earlier, we're on the after hours team. We get given this job, we get rung up by DoCS by the higher-up in DoCS, and that's what we've been asked to do, to come, to give you the papers, to explain to you what's going to happen. Now a caseworker will contact you on Monday, and they're going to be the person that will work with you. You will get legal representation for court, there will be an investigation, but for tonight, the baby is going into care now, so you will need to say goodbye.

BABY YELLING

Partner: Your names are on that, both your names?

BABY YELLING

Hagar Cohen: Lyla and her partner decided to fight. And after four months the baby was returned to them. To do this, Lyla had to counter allegations that went back to the 1990s. When still single, she says she smoked cannabis regularly. She says she'd experienced a psychotic episode so frightening, it made her stop the habit forever. Since then, she says, there were no more mental health issues. The assumption order, which is the document Lyla received in the hospital which details the reasons for removal, had an allegation that Lyla is paranoid schizophrenic, and had a possible drug problem. It was based on that same incident from the '90s.

About six months after the birth, we met Lyla in a café to hear more about her story.

Lyla: In the hospital itself, I was still in the ward with my partner, I was haemorrhaging, I was still having after-labour pains, I was breastfeeding my daughter, her colostrum, and the social worker from the hospital came in and said that the Department of Community Services are here and they want to talk to me about my daughter.

There's no lower feeling than to be in a hospital and be surrounded by other mothers and happy parents with their babies, and nurses looking at you after DoCS workers have given them paperwork saying that you're schizophrenic, and paranoid and a drug addict and violent, and incapable of looking after your child. There is no feeling to explain that. It's horrendous.

Hagar Cohen: Background Briefing has seen a copy of a DoCS affidavit that lists among the many allegations, a domestic violence incident. This is common in child protection proceedings. Obviously domestic violence in the presence of children can have detrimental effects on the child's development. But Lyla says that domestic violence incident, was exaggerated and taken out of context. Lyla says she called police one night when her partner came back drunk from the pub.

Lyla: Because he came home drunk when I was about 8 months pregnant. I was a little bit shirty with him, because he should have been able to drive me to the hospital if I went into labour. So I locked him out of the yard and he broke the gate. He was carrying on, and he came up the stairs and I called the police, and he broke the window, and the police turned up and arrested him. And I asked for an AVO, and I believed that I did the right thing in calling the police because you're supposed to call the police for help, but in doing so, I've contributed to my own Risk of Harm Report for my own daughter, which was then used against me to take my daughter.

Hagar Cohen: That sounds pretty extreme though, I mean you were obviously scared about your own safety when you rang the police.

Lyla: Well I thought I was doing the right thing, but clearly a message is being sent that if there is domestic violence you shouldn't call the police or the services because they'll use it against you to take your children away.

Hagar Cohen: So do you feel protected now with your relationship with your partner?

Lyla: Yes, our relation's fine. It always was. He picked me on a bad day and I put my foot down, and he thought he could bully me and he didn't.

Hagar Cohen: Later, when it was decided that Lyla would get her daughter back, it was noted in a DoCS written document that this incident demonstrates Lyla's good judgment. It reads:

Reader: During a discussion with the Department, 'Lyla' advised departmental officers about the above incident of domestic violence and the actions she took. They are consistent with the information that was provided by New South Wales Police under subpoena. They demonstrate that 'Lyla' acted appropriately calling police for assistance.

Hagar Cohen: Lyla says she was not given the opportunity to clarify her situation while still pregnant, and in this way could have avoided this traumatic experience.

There were changes to the legislation in New South Wales in 2006 which meant babies could be taken more easily at birth if they have an older sibling already living in out-of-home care. It happened after many children died, and nine of them bad a brother or sister already removed from the care of their parents. Here in 2006, is the then Community Services Minister, Reba Meagher, talking about the reasons.

Reba Meagher: We've learned lessons from those nine children that died last year. Those nine children would benefit from these laws, because they come from families where siblings had already been removed. These changes are about ensuring that we can deliver a standard of protection immediately for those children that are born to deadbeat parents.

Hagar Cohen: Now, four years later, it is recognised some children may be taken rather too hastily.

Across New South Wales, new figures show that the numbers of babies removed at birth is on the rise. In 2007 there were 215 removals from State hospitals. In 2009, that number jumped to more than 360. That's a staggering 70% increase. We put this to Minister Linda Burney.

Linda Burney: There has been an increase of newborns being taken into care. There is a focus on babies within Community Services, and that's obvious that the reason is that babies are the most defenceless, have no capacity to advocate or do anything for themselves.

Hagar Cohen: I suppose there were always the most defenceless. Why the rise?

Linda Burney: Part of that is because our systems have gotten better. Our capacity and our numbers of people actually working in the child protection system are greater. And with more numbers, more capacity and more expertise, more cases are uncovered.

Hagar Cohen: Minister, Linda Burney.

After the 2006 changes to the legislation came about, social workers in the John Hunter Hospital in Newcastle, noticed a sharp increase in the numbers of babies removed at birth.

Team leader of social workers at the hospital wrote a report in the magazine Children Australia, about these findings. Michelle Wickham.

Michelle Wickham: So in 2000, there were six. By 2009 the numbers were up to 31, and there's been seven already this year, and we're only into the seventh week of the year. So certainly the numbers are increasing very much so since the amendment has come in to the Children and Young Persons Care and Protection Act.

Hagar Cohen: Michelle Wickham is talking particularly about Amendment 106a.

Michelle Wickham: In cases where Community Services have previously removed another child in a family, under 106a, they can use that evidence as prima facie in the Children's Court. So instead of having to build a case with any new baby, they can rely on existing evidence from another child within the family. So I guess we're seeing lots of families who've had previous children removed, who are coming back to have another child and the 106a amendment applies to them.

Hagar Cohen: Is there any sort of assessment of those mothers, or does it mean that if they have one child removed from them in the past, then that's the only thing that's needed for Community Services to take action?

Michelle Wickham: Under the amendment the onus is on the parents to demonstrate change. So obviously that depends first of all on their knowledge that the amendment exists, and on whether Community Services have contacted them. I don't believe that the amendment is known very well at all, both in public and professional forums. It's something that society doesn't know a lot about I don't think.

Hagar Cohen: Those mothers who don't know or aren't told about the amendment are taken aback when a new baby is removed. They'll have to go to court to prove their parenting skills, or defuse allegations they believe to be wrong. For example, some will gather evidence to refute a mental illness charge. One way to do that is by undergoing a psychiatric assessment. A clear mental health bill can be submitted to the Children's Court in support of the parent. Meeting mothers after a baby's removal is not pleasant, says psychiatrist, Dr Tom Heint.

Tom Heint: 'Very distressed' would be the accurate description. Generally not understanding how it's happened, and why it's happened at all. This is accompanied of course with depression and an anxiety state. Often what I've found is that they have a psychiatric diagnosis made already, which may not apply, or which may not even be true. This varies from drug addiction, to bipolar illness and borderline personality disorder.

Hagar Cohen: And your view in most of these cases that the psychiatric assessment provided by DoCS was inaccurate?

Tom Heint: Not necessarily inaccurate, but perhaps exaggerated.

Hagar Cohen: You're saying that you've had mothers who came here with an assessment of a psychiatric disorder, and your independent assessment showed that this actually wasn't so?

Tom Heint: Yes, I've come across that several times where I have disagreed with the diagnosis.

Hagar Cohen: Can you be more specific? How many times?

Tom Heint: I can think of three people particularly in the past year.

Hagar Cohen: Sydney psychiatrist, Dr Tom Heint.

At the Children's Court, parents at times get legal aid, a lawyer to help them with the process. Robert McLachlan will sometimes represent parents, or their children, and sometimes he also acts in a private capacity for DoCS, so he's familiar with the complexities. He's currently collecting evidence in support of a mother who was mistakenly labelled 'mentally ill'. Robert McLachlan.

Robert McLachlan: I have a case at the moment where there appears to be this allegation this mother is suffering a mental health issue. But when I went through the material that the department had filed, and discussed it with her, there was little credence to it. It somewhere popped up in a report, and it gathers a life of its own. It gets repeated so many times, so you suddenly have 20 reports, the catalyst for which may have nothing to do with mental health but each one talks about the mental health, so the mother must have a mental health issue. Yet there's no evidence to substantiate it. That's where the system itself can feed an issue and create an issue where one doesn't exist.

Hagar Cohen: But these kinds of scenarios were never the intention of the legislation, says Robert McLachlan. He says that department officers have an obligation to investigate a situation properly, before taking action.

Robert McLachlan: I guess as a matter of reality, the department is now focused, because flags raise, they have a report and they immediately go into action. There's been a number of cases where I think complaints have been raised, that they haven't carefully looked at the facts, and really re-assessed the parents to see if a change has occurred. That's where parents have complained, 'Look, we now have to prove things when if the department had taken reasonable steps to investigate, before birth, before removal, perhaps they wouldn't have taken that action.

Hagar Cohen: And is that a concern of yours, that this actually happens?

Robert McLachlan: I think it is a concern. It's a concern amongst me and my colleagues, because I'm seeing an inconsistent approach. They're just moving in and taking children, and then looking to see whether any change has occurred, rather than investigating before they take that action.

Hagar Cohen: This is Background Briefing on ABC Radio National. I'm Hagar Cohen. There's a comments box on the Background Briefing site where you can put your points of view, and debate the issues raised here with other listeners.

A few years ago, life was a bit of a struggle for Campbell. She was homeless for some time, living in her car and in refuges with her baby, Rose. She was offered accommodation in a building that had once been a brothel, and gratefully took it in exchange for being a caretaker. She says she didn't know there were others in the building doing drugs. Campbell was reported to DoCS, and the baby Rose was removed immediately. This incident, Campbell says, was the catalyst for her mental breakdown. So in a last attempt to save herself from what she says was a dead end, Campbell went to hospital, begging for help.

Campbell: I had no mental health issues until they actually took my daughter a year ago, and I was so distraught, yes, I actually did turn to drugs, in a period of two weeks. And I just spiralled out of control. To have a child extracted, and certain accusations made, damning accusations, I actually went to hospital, and I was not well. And they turned me away.

Hagar Cohen: Why were you not well, how did you feel?

Campbell: Well notwithstanding the fact that I was pregnant at the time, but I didn't know, I had never used assistance before, so I had no idea where to actually get help, and I knew I needed help. And they continued to turn me away. So the only way I felt I could get the help that I knew I needed, was to tell them that I was going to kill myself, and that's when they admitted me to the psychiatric ward.

Hagar Cohen: The staff at the hospital reported her pregnancy to DoCS, as they are legally obliged to do. Campbell suspected this was going to affect her chances to keep her new baby once she's born. So she's asked the hospital workers to help her change. Campbell applied and received permanent accommodation from the Department of Housing. She also went to drug and alcohol counselling, and to a number of courses to improve her parenting skills. Nevertheless the newborn was removed a few hours after birth.

Campbell: I had actually worked so long trying to get assistance from the Department, in order for her not to be taken. It did take me by surprise because all my support workers and myself had worked so tirelessly throughout the pregnancy, everybody assumed that it would have been enough to keep Grace in my care.

Hagar Cohen: You concede that you actually had problems?

Campbell: Yes, I've made mistakes. I'm trying to rectify those mistakes and the Department are simply not allowing me to do that. If they watched me with my children, they would see that I'm just simply not the person that I've been made out to be. Of course taking drugs is wrong, but to be called a prostitute and a junkie is just so far from the truth, it's unbelievable.

Hagar Cohen: You realise though that once your baby's removed at birth, the responsibility is on you to prove that you are a fit mother?

Campbell: Yes. You would expect it would be a legal requirement that somebody steps in, and does an assessment of you and your ability to parent. But I have not been allowed that privilege.

Hagar Cohen: Background Briefing has seen documents submitted by DoCS to the Children's Court, confirming Campbell has undergone drug urine tests, which were requested by her local DoCS office. All of which came back clear. The document also notes that even though urinalysis was no longer required, Campbell continued arranging more checks for herself. Campbell's drug and alcohol support officer wrote a letter in her support which reads in part:

Reader: 'Campbell' presented as authentic and was open about her past failed relationships ... There was no evidence of drug cravings, withdrawal or recent drug use. There have been a number of drug urinalysis reports shown to me in support of this. In my professional opinion, 'Campbell' presents as not drug dependent.

Hagar Cohen: To further prove her case, Campbell's counsellors were trying to check her into rehab. Not because they thought she needed help with a drug addiction, but because they thought it might satisfy the department's concerns. But that wasn't successful. The staff at several different rehab centres would not accept Campbell because she didn't fit their guidelines, that is, she has no drug problem.

But Campbell and her support officers, didn't give up. Her counsellor, who we'll call Christine, says everyone involved went to great lengths to convince DoCS that Campbell is a fit mother.

Christine: We were taking a holistic approach, and looking at the areas that have come up in the affidavit, as matters that should be looked at, I went to a case management meeting with the case workers and Campbell, to try and work out a case plan to address the matters DoCS felt that needed addressing, so we could actually address them constructively.

Hagar Cohen: How did that meeting go?

Christine: Well I think very badly. Very frustrating. I wasn't able to get any constructive input from the two case workers that were present on what Campbell should address, how she should address them, what support should be put into place.

Hagar Cohen: Why are you saying that? What did the case workers actually tell you?

Christine: Basically they wanted a court order placing the children under the care of the Minister until they're 18.

Hagar Cohen: Regardless of whether Campbell had agreed to make any changes in her life?

Christine: Absolutely. They wouldn't enter into a dialogue about it. They would give me nothing to work with at all. And I remember saying during the meeting, 'Give me something, give me something to work with so we can help this family.

Hagar Cohen: I suppose the Department doesn't have to tell you what are all their concerns. Do you think that perhaps there is something in Campbell's past that you're not aware of and may indeed affect the way in which the Department is treating this case?

Christine: Maybe. Maybe.

Hagar Cohen: And that would be legitimate, do you think?

Christine: Well, how can you make things better if you don't know what you're dealing with? The trouble is, the months pass on and in the eyes of the court it's the next hearing. From a baby's perspective its six months, and six months between zero and six months is a lifetime.

Hagar Cohen: Christine's concerns are mirrored across the different parts of the child protection sector. They say that mothers should be given a chance to prove that they've changed. And that caseworkers need to be more thorough in their investigations. Background Briefing asks Minister for Community Services, Linda Burney if she accepts this criticism.

Linda Burney: Look I've heard that criticism and clearly any sort of observation like that is something that would concern us. And this is the Holy Grail really of child protection, is the balance that we have to make between putting in measures with a family that may be struggling, to keep their child with them.

Hagar Cohen: If the Department is aware that there is a risk, talking about a pregnant mother, is it the Department's responsibility to talk to the mother about these concerns?

Linda Burney: Well that's exactly what happens. I would be very surprised where there is the decision that a child needs to be removed at birth, that there hasn't been engagement with Community Services. That does not happen. I mean if the decision is going to be made that a child's life and wellbeing is in danger, and the child is removed at birth, that can't happen out of the ether.

Hagar Cohen: Different hospitals will take different approaches to when it is required for them to report a mother to DoCS. One metropolitan Sydney hospital has come up with a special program. It identifies at-risk mothers at the first stages of pregnancy. Then, the staff will draft a case plan to help the mother make necessary changes that prevent baby removal.

A social worker in this hospital, who we'll call Jane, says that in the eight years she's worked at the hospital, there were only five removals. She's part of a team at the hospital that makes assessments of mothers at risk.

Jane: Well a woman who has had children removed before, one has to ask why. And sometimes the woman will be honest about that and sometimes she will minimise the reasons why that happened. In those cases, she might be now in a position where she feels she can better look after a child, and is able to demonstrate that with her life circumstances. Perhaps she's in a new relationship. Perhaps her mental health has improved. In those cases I would not tell community services.

Hagar Cohen: So even if she had a previous child removed, you will not report her?

Jane: Not if her situation is much better than it was in the past.

Hagar Cohen: And how can she show you that the situation is much better?

Jane: Often it's not that difficult to tell when she's being genuine.

Hagar Cohen: The attitude is important as well, isn't it?

Jane: Most certainly, yes. If she wants to address the issues and accepts the help or accepts referral to another agency, that can help. We would see that as very positive. I want to help the woman as much as I can, and it's up to community services. If it's not to be successful with this baby, it's their decision, not mine. And often it's a bit of a race to help the woman improve her life circumstances sufficiently so that community services don't have any concerns by the time the baby is born. I have about six months in which to do that.

Hagar Cohen: Social worker, Jane.

Bonnie, mother of one, found it extremely difficult when a few years ago she gave birth to Louise, who was a failing to thrive baby. She had a relationship with an abusive partner, and when things got scary, she says she rang police.

Police are considered mandatory reporters, which means that if they are called to resolve a domestic violence situation and there's a child involved, they must ring DoCS. In fact, police generate the highest amount of what is called risk of harm reports. In Bonnie's case, her call for help was used in the Children's Court as evidence that she's unable to protect her child.

Bonnie has linked up with other mothers who've had children removed, and she now runs a campaign. Mothers in the group are advised to keep their mouth shut about domestic violence, or lose their child.

Bonnie: Unfortunately none of us has a perfect relationship, and those of us that do try to reach out for help will ring the most appropriate service available, which is the police department. However, when you ring the police department, you generate a mandatory Notice of Risk Report to DoCS.

Hagar Cohen: So does that make some of the women that you've been in touch with, reluctant to contact police?

Bonnie: Very much so. I've actually advised them not to contact police and we will sort it out another way.

Hagar Cohen: Don't you think that's a dangerous thing to say?

Bonnie: Absolutely. Unfortunately though, it's pretty much a 98% chance that you're going to get DoCS intervention, and there's quite a lot of circumstances they will remove your child, because it's deemed unsafe, you're a high risk parent.

Hagar Cohen: So what's the alternative, if not police?

Bonnie: Mothers would call me. I will come over, get them, and have them stay in my home, but nobody condones violence; it's something I certainly don't condone.

Hagar Cohen: It's not really safe though isn't for the mothers to come and stay with you?

Bonnie: It's not, but when it comes to the children, my main concern is that the children are safe, and I cannot allow a child to be in an unsafe environment.

Hagar Cohen: Background Briefing is not advocating this course of action. Domestic violence is dangerous and the best course of action is to report it to police. We are reporting on the issue that parents are reluctant to get help when they need it, because of the threat that their child will be removed from them.

This parents' group organised by Bonnie, is growing by the day, and there are already three underground safe houses available for parents in need. They communicate on internet forums, meet from time to time to share their stories, and think up ways to lobby politicians.

Background Briefing meets Bonnie and her lawyer, George, on their way to a meeting with the Shadow Community Services Minister, Pru Goward. They're now in the elevator, on their way to Ms Goward's office. Here's Bonnie.

Bonnie: I'm pretty excited actually. We've been waiting for this meeting for a long time. I'm just so relieved that the politicians are taking this seriously.

We hope.

MEETING PRU GOWARD

Hagar Cohen: Pru Goward is responsive, and says she's familiar with the concerns Bonnie and George raise.

Pru Goward: Look, I think the Department has often abused its powers. They are amazing powers, and in the hands of people who don't always have children themselves. And who aren't mature. I have a lot of parents come to me who have had their children removed, and who say, 'Actually I rang DoCS because I needed some respite care because I've been sick' and within six months they've lost their child. But look, I don't know how much of it's happening, because when I then asked to see the case notes and I remember one particular case where it did seem odd that the child was being removed, on the parents' story, but when I asked to see the case notes and the parents brought them in, there's a long history of physical and sexual abuse and drug and alcohol abuse.

Hagar Cohen: Bonnie says she agrees some parents are abusive. And from her personal experience as a child, she says, that sometimes when intervention is needed, DoCS won't help. It's an inconsistent approach, says Bonnie.

Bonnie: I'm concerned that the Department ten years ago was fantastic. They were a helpful department, but they weren't removing enough children. I don't want to say that because I'm coming from the wrong angle, but they didn't remove enough children, but now they're going the other way.

Pru Goward: They certainly are, ever since the death of Ebony, I think they have become very careful and the safest way to protect children they think, is to remove them. Whereas we all know that there is quite a lot of long-term damage associated with that, and certainly the non-government sector is very worried about it. So am I. I mean the opposition has already pledged to reduce the number of children in out-of-home care in our first term.

THEME

Hagar Cohen: Background Briefing's Co-ordinating Producer is Linda McGinness. Research, Anna Whitfeld. Technical operator this week is Michelle Goldsworthy. Our Executive Producer is Kirsten Garrett. I'm Hagar Cohen, and this is Background Briefing on ABC Radio National.