In theory, the Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) exists to protect vulnerable children, support struggling families, and uphold justice in the community. But in practice, for many Australians, it represents a cold, bureaucratic machine that punishes the powerless, separates families unnecessarily, and perpetuates cycles of trauma under the guise of “care.”
The DCJ’s failures are not simply administrative — they are deeply human. They damage lives, destroy trust, and make it nearly impossible for those caught in the system to escape it.
1. Bureaucratic Mismanagement and Systemic Neglect
Despite repeated government reviews, the child protection system continues to suffer from structural dysfunction. Reports from the NSW Ombudsman and Family Is Culture review (Davis, 2019) have documented widespread failures, including poor record-keeping, failure to follow protocol, cultural incompetence, and an overreliance on removal rather than family support.
In one analysis, over 80% of children reported as at risk to child protection services were known to the system previously — but failed interventions meant they cycled back in (AIHW, 2023). Instead of investing in early, sustained, trauma-informed family support, the DCJ often acts only when crisis hits — too late, too aggressively, and with little accountability.
2. Targeting Marginalised Families, Especially First Nations
The overrepresentation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care remains a national disgrace. As of 2022, Indigenous children were 9.7 times more likely than non-Indigenous children to be in care (AIHW, 2023). The system disproportionately targets vulnerable families, often based on socio-economic and cultural bias.
The Family Is Culture report (Davis, 2019) highlighted how DCJ workers failed to engage with families, ignored community-led solutions, and operated with a default mindset of removal rather than reunification.
3. No Transparency, No Oversight
Internal reviews are rarely published. Complaints processes are complex and unresponsive. Families often report feeling gaslit — dismissed as uncooperative or mentally unwell when they challenge the system. This lack of transparency shields departments from scrutiny while silencing those most impacted.
As noted by the NSW Law Reform Commission (2020), there is a pressing need for independent oversight mechanisms to monitor the use of coercive powers by the DCJ and ensure that vulnerable individuals are not subject to arbitrary or biased decisions.
4. The Psychological Toll of the System
Being entangled with DCJ processes is psychologically devastating for families. Parents report symptoms akin to post-traumatic stress — hypervigilance, despair, loss of identity — as they try to navigate an opaque system that assumes guilt and resists reconciliation (Broadhurst & Mason, 2017).
Children, too, are often traumatized by the instability of multiple placements, the loss of familiar caregivers, and the stigma of being “in care.” The system rarely supports long-term healing or family reconnection once separation has occurred.
5. Alternative Models Exist — So Why Aren’t They Used?
Evidence supports holistic, community-led, trauma-informed approaches to child and family support — yet these are underfunded or ignored in favour of reactive, punitive interventions (Arney & Iannos, 2021). Parenting mentoring, cultural connection programs, early intervention support, and family-group conferencing have all demonstrated promise in reducing removals and promoting safe reunification.
But entrenched bureaucracy resists change. The current system protects itself rather than the people it claims to serve.
What Needs to Change
- Legislative reform to strengthen oversight and require transparent reporting of departmental actions.
- Investment in community-led, culturally appropriate support services rather than removal-first policies.
- Independent complaints processes with real power to investigate and enforce accountability.
- Training in trauma-informed practice, cultural competence, and family systems theory for all DCJ workers.
How Practice Makes Permanent Can Help
We don’t wait for government systems to fix themselves. At Practice Makes Permanent, we offer education-based, brain-informed mentoring that helps families rebuild agency and break free from systemic traps. Whether you’ve been affected by DCJ interventions, court-mandated programs, or bureaucratic roadblocks, we provide tools for resilience, emotional regulation, and relational repair.
We believe that change doesn’t come from labels or punishment — it comes from practice. And practice makes permanent.
References
- AIHW (2023). Child protection Australia 2021–22. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Retrieved from https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/child-protection/child-protection-australia-2021-22
- Arney, F., & Iannos, M. (2021). Alternatives to out-of-home care: Supporting families to stay safely together. Child Family Community Australia.
- Broadhurst, K., & Mason, C. (2017). Birth parents and the collateral consequences of court-ordered child removal: Towards a comprehensive framework. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 31(1), 41–59.
- Davis, M. (2019). Family Is Culture: Independent review into Aboriginal children and young people in out-of-home care in NSW. Retrieved from https://www.familyisculture.nsw.gov.au/
- NSW Law Reform Commission. (2020). Open justice: Court and tribunal information: access, disclosure and publication. Retrieved from https://www.lawreform.justice.nsw.gov.au/