Failure To Protect

Historically speaking, prior to the industrial revolution and urbanisation of modern societies children were seen as another part of the family unit, an economic resource and a support for domestic chores. Whereas, in current western neoliberal culture, the child’s economic value has been replaced with an anxiety manifestly around children’s vulnerability. Correspondingly, this vulnerability has given rise to a social responsibility to protect the child from the risks of moral corruption, realised in the form of legislation (Foucault 1978). Similarly to Foucault, Meyers draws attention to historian Philippe Aries notion that ‘the child is a legally constructed identity, historically and politically contingent’ (2007, p. 52), and in this way

This cultural discourse for collective accountability around child abuse, reflected in Failure to Protect, I suggest is emblematic of Ulrich Beck’s concept of ‘risk society’ (Gillingham referencing Beck 2006, p. 87). Gillingham deliberates the implication of a cultural discourse centred on risk is problematic as ‘Social problems become reconstructed as individual responsibilities and, consequently, governments are able to avoid risk to themselves’ (2006, p.87). In this fashion we can see the responsibility rests on those operating in the social welfare system in the form of risk based assessments (McDonald et al. 2011, p. 14; Gillingham 2006, p. 90). While the responsibility is further evidenced in the penalties of failing to report sexual abuse, which extend from the staff member or members being removed from working with children to incurring a five-year jail term (Vic). The main criticism I have with the Failure to Protect law is that in simply charging individuals within the welfare system for neglecting their role of responsibility to their client; attention is drawn away from the underlying dominant discourses or as Gillingham notes ‘the process of socialisation that leads adults to harm children’ (2006, p. 91). I want to stipulate further that legal

As she has already disclosed to the nurse and myself the nature of her relationship with Akmal, the organisation has a legal duty to report the abuse to the police. To avoid becoming another oppressive figure in Hanifi’s life I aim to restore autonomy and control through asking her how she would like to go about reporting, whether she would like me to initially speak to the police or sit with her while she makes the report. Recognising the little control she has in police involvement, to facilitate empowerment and agency within Hanifi, I would explain that she does, however, have the option to choose from a range of homeless legal services such as Crisis Help Network, Justice Connect and Victoria Legal Aid if she chooses to charge Akaml or dispute our intervention (Archibald 2016; Justice Connect 2016 & Victoria Legal Aid 2016). Anticipating what it means for Hanifi to report Akmal and the effect it will have on her life will allow me to reflect on how to approach the issue with her and what she may need in the short term and long term. Along these lines I would inform Hanifi of her options for access to housing agencies such as the foster care program through Child Protection (Victoria State Government Human Services 2016) and further counselling services through the drop in centre if she required it. Through informing Hanifi of her options I focused on enabling her to ‘access