Permanency planning 1980-present
Permanency planning is the making of a plan that aims to provide a child with a stable and secure long-term placement following removal from their family. The principles of permanency planning first emerged in the 1970s in the United States of America and the United Kingdom.
The movement was a response to the concern of children drifting between a number of unstable fostering arrangements for long periods of time ().
During this same period, social workers in Australia began to accept that Aboriginal children were best placed with Aboriginal families. However at that time few Aboriginal foster families formally applied for adoption. Some have suggested that this is partly because Aboriginal people were ‘alienated by the process of form filing, numerous interviews and home visits’ ().
It was only in 1987, through the Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987 (NSW) (), that placement principles for Aboriginal children were first enshrined in law. The Act expressed a preference for Aboriginal children to be placed with Aboriginal families.
Through the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) (), those placement principles were expanded so that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families, kinship groups, representative organisations and communities were given the opportunity to participate in the decisions made concerning Aboriginal children. The principles became known as the Aboriginal Child Placement Principles (ACPPs). See SUB0354 on the development of the ACPPs.
The Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) () later required the ACPPs to be applied when placing Aboriginal children into adoption.
In 2001, the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Amendment (Permanency Planning) Act 2001 (NSW) () implemented permanency planning provisions in NSW for the first time. Under these provisions, which are still in effect, the Department must prepare a 'permanency plan’ that aims to provide a child with a stable placement with long-term security.
Importantly, for Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander children, the permanency plan must show how the plan has attempted to place the child with family or kin (in line with the ACPP).
The Department must also ensure that the placement of an Aboriginal child is made in consultation with a local, community-based and relevant Aboriginal organisation, and a person approved by the Department or nominated by the child’s parents, extended family or kinship group. The 2001 amendments also required timeframes to be included in the permanency plans.
Further changes were made to the Adoption Act 2000 (NSW) () in 2008, so that parental consent to adoption was not required where the child is over 12 years of age and had been in the care of the proposed adoptive parents for at least two years (prior to the amendments, this requirement was for at least five years).
In 2014, amendments () to the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 (NSW) introduced adoption of Aboriginal children as a ‘last resort’. These amendments clarified that adoption of Aboriginal children to non-Aboriginal persons was the final option for permanency planning.
These changes were heavily criticised by Aboriginal communities, with representatives stating that ‘adoption through the statutory child protection system will never be an acceptable or appropriate solution for Aboriginal children’ ().
The permanency planning preferences are restoration to the birth parents, long-term placement with family, kin or community; open adoption; and finally, long-term foster care (). Since 2022, permanency plans made in relation to Aboriginal children attract additional requirements, including that they must comply with the ACPPs and the Aboriginal Children and Young Persons Principle and include a cultural plan that sets out how their connection to their family, community and identity will be maintained ().
In 2018, the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Amendment Act 2018 (NSW) () made it possible to adopt an Aboriginal child from the state foster care system without parental consent and made it more difficult for an Aboriginal parent to apply to the Supreme Court regarding the adoption of their child. The amendments also imposed a 24-month time limit on orders for restoration during which a parent was required to address care concerns, which was criticised at the time as unfairly impacting Aboriginal children and families who are most likely to have complex needs that may require more time to address ().
The insistence on permanency planning has been challenged by some commentators who argue it should not be given prominence over family unification. In particular, it has been argued that permanency planning and adoption ‘presents an unacceptable risk to children’s identity, safety and wellbeing in circumstances where Australia’s service and support systems are failing to keep children connected to family and culture’ (). Similarly, it has been argued that permanent care orders and adoption simply create more options for Aboriginal children to be removed from their families ().
SNAICC – National Voice for our Children (SNAICC) has previously submitted that permanency for Aboriginal children is ‘tied to existing identity, kinship relationships, and connections to culture and country’, rather than ‘inflexible permanency planning measures’ that are informed by child development theory and non-Indigenous concepts such as attachment theory and the nuclear family which do not reflect Aboriginal ways of knowing, being and doing (). SNAICC has stated:
for an Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander child, their stability is grounded in the permanence of their identity in connection with family, kin, culture, and country … by a broader communal sense of belonging; a stable sense of identity, where they are from, and their place in relation to family, mob, community, land and culture ()
The law and policy in this subject is accurate as of 1 June 2024.