Stability refers to the achievement of continuity and certainty in the child's care. All case plans must include a stability objective.
Legislative requirement that each case plan includes a stability objective
All case plans must include a stability objective (s.166, CYFA). Practitioners must determine which one of the following stability objectives is in the best interests of the child. The stability objectives are listed in order of preference under s.167 of the CYFA:
- 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
- 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 the parent
- permanent care – the objective of arranging a permanent care placement of a child with a permanent carer or carers
- long-term out of home care – the objective of placing the child in –
- a stable, long-term care arrangement with a specified care or carers, or
- if an above arrangement is not possible, another suitable long-term care arrangement.
The purpose of the hierarchy is to promote the child’s best interests by preferencing care by parents where this is safe, followed by stability 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.
Determining which stability objective is in the best interests of the child
When making a decision about whether a stability objective is in the best interests of a child, the practitioner must consider the best interests principles set out in section 10 of the CYFA, including the need to protect the child from harm, to protect his or her rights and to promote his or her development.
All relevant best interests principles in s.10 must be considered in determining the stability objective.
In particular, s.10(3)(f) requires decision-makers to consider:
- the desirability of continuity and stability in the child's care, including stable and enduring arrangements for care and parental responsibility, and
- the child having physical stability, cultural stability and relational stability
In practice, this requires practitioners to consider the desirability of:
- 'legal stability', meaning legal arrangements that provide the child with a sense of long-term stability in their care
- stable living arrangements, which support a child's connection to their community
- the child maintaining an ongoing connection to, and understanding and learning of, culture, family, tradition, language, religion, beliefs, values and stories
- the child maintaining positive, loving, trusting and nurturing relationships and emotional connection with significant others, such as parents, siblings, friends, family and carers.
This requires practitioners to consider stability as a holistic concept which includes multiple elements, which are to be considered together when making decisions in relation to a child.
For most children involved with Child Protection, the most appropriate stability objective will be to remain in the care of a parent. For those children who come into care, family reunification will almost always be the preferred stability objective.
For a small proportion of children with whom Child Protection intervenes, a permanent care placement will be required to ensure their safety and wellbeing. It is important the decision about whether this is the case, is made as soon as possible and within a timeframe that promotes the child’s developmental and emotional needs.
Family preservation
Family preservation is listed first in s.167 of the CYFA as it is the preferred stability 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 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 care have been directed to resume full parental responsibility and the child has returned home.
Where a child is placed in care voluntarily, the appropriate stability objective is family preservation, because the parents retain full parental responsibility for the child. Family preservation is an appropriate stability 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 care under an order, family reunification should first be considered as the stability objective.
Family reunification will be the appropriate stability objective where:
- a child is subject to an interim accommodation order to any form of 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 and reunification remains in the child’s best interests. Where an order is nearing its conclusion, it will be relevant to have regard to the factors the Court will consider in assessing whether an extension is in the child’s best interests:
- any previous extension of the family reunification order and the duration of each extension
- the extent to which a parent of the child has engaged with services and supports necessary for the safe reunification with the child
- any circumstances that have impeded the progress of a parent's safe reunification with the child including circumstances preventing timely access to services and supports necessary for reunification
- a child is subject to a care by Secretary order, and where there are 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 is incarcerated for a crime unrelated to their parenting capacity and, having shown progress in addressing protective concerns during their incarceration, on release there is intention to work towards reunification
- a parent is expected to recover from an extended illness or other circumstance that has prevented them from caring for their child, with positive progress having already been made to address protective concerns
- if there is instability/breakdown in a placement whilst the child is on a care by Secretary order, and the parent/s have since shown positive progress in addressing protective concerns, reunification may be reassessed as being in the child’s best interests.
Family reunification will not be the appropriate stability 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 current available evidence shows that 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 and should be informed by your SAFER risk assessment.
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, the stability objective must be changed.
Following the decision to change the stability objective via a case planning process which includes the child and the parents, a court order consistent with the new stability objective must be sought within six weeks.
Likewise, if a stability objective of long-term out of home care or permanent care is no longer in the child’s best interests and there is new information or circumstances which indicates a change to the stability objective to one of reunification, the case planning process must be changed and an application to the court for the appropriate order must be sought within 6 weeks.
Where family preservation or reunification is not an appropriate stability objective, it is important to make alternate care arrangements to maximise the continuity and stability in the child’s care and the child’s opportunity to form secure attachments with their carer/s.
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 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, where available, should be arranged as soon as it seems likely permanent care will be the appropriate stability 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 assist them with the application. The CYFA includes provisions enabling this process. Consult with CPLO or divisional legal representative.
Long-term care
Long-term care involves the Secretary having ongoing parental responsibility for the child, rather than the person caring for the child. The stability objective of long-term care may be appropriate when the other stability 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 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 or kinship carer with whom they will live until they are 18 under a long-term care order.
Long-term care will be the appropriate stability 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 care is the least preferred stability 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.
Stability planning begins immediately after protective concerns are substantiated following a risk assessment or review risk assessment. Identifying a stability objective, enacting it and reviewing and changing the objective where necessary, is an important 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 supported to contribute to the decision-making process, and that their views are given proper consideration in a fair and transparent collaborative process (s.11, CYFA). This fair process must include parents and children being aware of their rights to apply for a review of a decision (such as ss 331 and 333, CYFA).
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 be involved in the process and having regard to the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle (ss.12-14, CYFA).
Family Reunification and timely service provision
It is important to explain to families, children and carers that if the child is placed in care with the objective of family reunification, all efforts should be made by the department to reunify the child as soon as possible, noting the timeframe of the child’s order.
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. The Court is restricted from making any future order for a child to remain out of parental care if the department has been unable to evidence that all reasonable steps have been taken to provide the services necessary in the best interests of the child. (s276, CYFA).
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. Practitioners must continue to pursue and progress the efforts to enable service access and to maintain contact between the child and their parents in line with the objective.
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.