Section 168(1) of the Children, Youth and Families Act (CYFA) requires a case plan to be prepared for every substantiated case. Section 166 requires every case plan to include a permanency objective. When considering a permanency objective, the child’s best interests must remain paramount at all times.
The permanency objectives are listed in s. 167 of the CYFA, in order of preference as determined to be appropriate in the best interests of the child:
a) family preservation—the objective of ensuring a child who is in the care of a parent of the child remains in the care of a parent;
b) family reunification—the objective of ensuring that a child who has been removed from the care of a parent of the child is returned to the care of a parent;
c) adoption—the objective of placing the child for adoption under the Adoption Act 1984;
d) permanent care—the objective of arranging a permanent placement of the child with a permanent carer or carers;
e) long-term out of home care—the objective of placing the child in-
(i). a stable, long-term care arrangement with a specified carer or carers; or
(ii). if an arrangement under subparagraph (i) is not possible, another suitable long-term care arrangement.
The purpose of the hierarchy is to promote the child’s best interests by preferencing security and continuity of care arrangements, thereby minimising harm caused by disrupted attachments and uncertainty about care arrangements, while ensuring the child’s safety and wellbeing are promoted. The CYFA provides that where out-of-home care is required, preference is to be given to placing children with suitable kin where possible, and if not, with another suitable carer or carers.
Family preservation
Family preservation is listed first in section 167 as it is the preferred permanency objective where it is consistent with the child’s best interests. It is the appropriate objective in all cases where a child remains at home
- as part of a case plan following substantiation where protective intervention is occurring by agreement, including where the child is in a voluntary placement, or where a protection application by notice has been issued
- where the child is subject to an interim accommodation order and family preservation would be in the child’s best interests
- where the court has made a family preservation order and the circumstances have not changed since the order was made
- after the parents of a child who has been in out–of-home care have been directed to resume full parental responsibility and the child has returned home.
Where a child is placed in out-of-home care voluntarily, the appropriate permanency objective is family preservation, because the parents retain full parental responsibility for the child.
Family preservation is only an appropriate permanency objective where remaining in parental care is consistent with the child’s best interests, including meeting their safety and developmental needs.
Family reunification
In the first instance where a child has been placed in out-of-home care under an order, family reunification should first be considered as the permanency objective.
Family reunification will be the appropriate permanency objective where:
- a child is subject to an interim accommodation order to any form of out-of-home care (including with a suitable person), unless a family preservation order or other order or outcome placing a child in parental care is being recommended to the Court
- the court has made or extended a family reunification order and the circumstances have not changed since the order was made, unless the order is nearing its conclusion and a further extension of the family reunification order would not be in the child’s best interests
- a child has been in out-of-home care for more than 24 months and is subject to a care by Secretary order, and where there are exceptional circumstances justifying a belief that it is in the child’s best interests. This recognises that children’s circumstances can be complex, and allows practice to have sufficient flexibility for decisions to be made in the best interests of each child. Such circumstances may arise where despite the time that the child has spent in care, a parent is expected to be able to safely care for their child and this is in the child’s best interests. Examples may include where:
- parents have actively engaged in services to support reunification, despite delays, and are expected to be able to resume care of their child
- a parent who is otherwise capable of providing adequate care is incarcerated for a crime unrelated to their parenting capacity and on release from prison will resume care,
- a parent is expected to recover from an extended illness or other circumstance that has prevented them from caring for their child.
Family reunification will not be the appropriate permanency objective where it is not in the child’s best interests. Examples may include where:
- the child has older siblings already placed in permanent care and the child’s parents’ circumstances have not changed
- the child’s parents are dead or significantly incapacitated, or the child has been abandoned,
- the parents insist they do not wish to resume care of the child and want other arrangements made for their child’s care.
As in all other aspects of Child Protection practice, the child’s best interests are the paramount consideration.
Changes in circumstances
If changes have occurred since the order for a family preservation or family reunification (including an order to extend a family reunification order) and the risk assessment identifies that family preservation or reunification is no longer in the child’s best interests as a result, the permanency objective is to be changed. Following the decision to change the permanency objective, a court order consistent with the new permanency objective must be sought within six weeks.
Where family preservation or reunification is not an appropriate permanency objective, it is important to make alternate care arrangements to maximise the continuity and permanency in the child’s care and the child’s opportunity to form secure attachments with their carer/s.
Adoption
The Adoption Act 1984 sets out the legal requirements for adoption, including the requirement of parental consent to adoption. Adoption is not proactively pursued or recommended by Child Protection as a matter of policy in Victoria.
In very rare cases where adoption is the permanency objective, see 2108 Adoption - advice for the process for obtaining an adoption order. If a case plan is made with a permanency objective of adoption, and the child is not already subject to a care by Secretary order or a long-term care order, an application is to be made to the Children's Court as soon as possible for an order that is consistent with the permanency objective.
Permanent care
Permanent care provides a safe and secure care arrangement with specific carers until the child is 18 years old. It is the preferred means of providing alternate permanent care for a child in most instances.
This objective may be appropriate where a child is already placed with a kinship or foster carer who is available to become the child’s permanent carer, or where a permanent carer is yet to be identified.
See the Permanent Care Manual 2020 for further information about identifying a permanent care placement.
If the current carer is not willing or able to become the child’s permanent carer and is not a suitable carer under a long-term care order, other appropriate permanent carers will need to be identified and the child matched with new carers. In all instances, alternative permanent carers in the child’s kinship network should be identified and considered first. A consultation with a permanent care team should be arranged as soon as it seems likely permanent care will be the appropriate permanency objective, and a referral should be made immediately after the decision is made.
An alternative to a permanent care order that may be considered in some cases is an order of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. This may be an appropriate means of transferring parental responsibility to a kinship carer until the child is 18. The process involves a carer being prepared to be the applicant for the order, and the department may have to assist them with the application. The CYFA includes provisions enabling this process. Consult with CPLO or divisional legal representative.
Long-term out-of-home care
Long-term out-of-home care involves the Secretary having ongoing parental responsibility for the child, rather than the person caring for the child. The permanency objective of Long-term out-of-home care may be appropriate when the other permanency objectives have been considered but cannot be achieved or are otherwise assessed as not in the child’s best interests.
The most secure long-term out-of-home care option should be considered in the first instance. One that is enduring and preferably consists of the placement of a child with a home-based carer with whom they will live until they are 18 under a long-term care order.
Long-term out-of-home care will be the appropriate permanency objective where:
- the preferred carer is willing to be the child’s long-term carer but does not consent to a permanent care order, or
- a permanent care order would not be in the child’s best interests, but long-term care is required.
Long-term out-of-home care is the least preferred permanency objective, because it involves the state having on-going parental responsibility for the child, rather than the person caring for the child. There is a greater chance that long term care arrangements for a child may be less secure and enduring.
Permanency planning begins immediately after protective concerns are substantiated. Identifying a permanency objective, seeking its achievement, and reviewing and changing the objective where necessary, is part of the case planning process. This should comply with the decision-making principles set out in the CYFA by ensuring the child, their parents and their carers are enabled to contribute to the decision-making process, and that their views are given proper consideration in a fair and transparent collaborative process (s. 11).
Where a child is Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander, additional principles apply including that members of the child’s community and an Aboriginal agency should also be involved in the process and having regard to the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle (ss. 12 - 14).
Family Reunification and timely service provision
It is important to explain to families, children and carers that if the child is placed in out-of-home care with the objective of family reunification, all efforts should be made to reunify the child as soon as possible, noting legislative timeframes.
It is important to take all reasonable steps to provide the services and supports necessary to achieve the objective of sustainable family preservation or family reunification. Failure to provide services in a timely way is contrary to the child’s best interests. If services cannot be provided in a timely way due to waiting lists or lack of availability, the case planner should be informed as a matter of urgency so operational managers can seek ways to address the issue.
Carers should be encouraged to consider how they will support reunification and whether they will be able to offer ongoing care if family reunification cannot be achieved in a timely way.
Progress towards reunification should be closely monitored and adjustments made to assistance being provided where this will promote timely achievement of the objective. Regular review of the risk assessment will assist in determining whether the services and support provided to the family has increased safety and protection and decreased the consequence and probability of harm to the child and therefore informs what progress is being made toward reunification.