This is a story of child protection gone wrong. It is set in Tasmania, and is disturbing. It is a current situation, and lives are at risk. Real names, dates and other identifying features cannot be used for legal reasons.

*     *     *     *     *    *     *     *     *     *

C is a mother of two children, K and B. She is single after her relationships with her children’s respective fathers each fell apart amid serious domestic abuse. Both of her former partners have criminal records, and the courts had granted C sole custody of older boy K, and primary care of younger girl B.

The years of trauma, court proceedings and single parenting have left C unable to work much, so even though she is smart and capable, and a qualified childhood educator with no criminal record, she has had to survive largely on welfare. She has raised her children vigilantly, hyper-aware of the trauma they suffered from witnessing violence in their early lives.

Her son K in particular was occasionally hard to handle from an early age, showing signs of dysregulation and impulse control. C worried that without any good male role models in his life, her son might have a troubled adolescence. She noted that he also suffered from anxiety and other psychological issues, some of which were diagnosed, others suspected.

In an effort to introduce him to a healthy outdoor lifestyle and good male role models, C enrolled her son in a local youth program. For a while young K spoke positively about it, and he spent more and more time there. At the same time, his mother noticed significant behavioural shifts. He started displaying over-sexualised behaviours, occasionally threatening others. He was receiving expensive gifts from one of the youth workers, who would also show him special treatment in other ways, as well as trying to charm the young boy’s mother.

There was lots of one-on-one time between the boy and youth worker, and casual physical contact, as well as signs that K’s new mentor was undermining his mother’s authority. Soon K was going on overnight trips and staying at the abode of the youth worker.

By this stage, C was deeply concerned and started to suspect her son was being groomed. She became increasingly alarmed by accounts of her son’s behaviour at school, and by the fact that he was turning on her, as if someone were putting poisonous ideas into his head.

He occasionally became violent towards her. Her fears became full-blown panic when she realised, after her son had spent a night away with the youth organisation, not only had he been smoking drugs (and probably not for the first time) and possibly drinking alcohol but that another youth staying there had overdosed on drugs that same night.

Soon afterwards, K seriously assaulted his mother. The police arrived, and the distraught mother asked police and social workers for help with K. She felt she had lost control of him, and needed someone to take him into psychiatric care for assessment and treatment. She needed a break. She needed to look after her daughter too.

Her son was picked up from the police station by the youth worker his mother was so concerned about, who allegedly stated that he had temporary guardianship of the child before delivering the boy to a crisis shelter. (The police released K into the custody of the youth worker despite there being no guardianship orders or legal justification to do so.)

Triggered by the assault, C made mandatory reports to the appropriate authority about her son’s possible grooming and drug-taking, trusting they would be treated seriously and confidentially. Instead she hit a brick wall. The youth organisation was government funded and had regular dealings with the Child Safety Service (CSS), and from what she could tell her reports went nowhere. There was no obvious response.

Instead, and despite her allegations and reports of grooming, CSS continued to entrust her son to the very person she feared the most.

A few days later, K was shifted out of the crisis shelter, this time going to stay with the same youth worker. During this time, K underwent a psychiatric evaluation. Two independent assessors noted K’s dysregulation and propensity to violence against his mother. They also noted his mother’s request that he be admitted to a mental health ward.

On the logic that a history of family violence had played a key role in his behavioural problems, and that his tendencies to violence were most pronounced in the presence of his mother due to his disorganised attachment, the psychiatric evaluation then pronounced that it was unlikely to be safe for him to return home to live with his mum. It advised that his care, housing and support be entrusted to the CSS.

However the psych assessors appear unaware of allegations that K was being groomed – presumably because they had not been informed of the allegations by CSS. This aspect was not canvassed in their report nor evidently was it a subject of inquiry or consideration.

If the assessors had known that K was being chaperoned by this same youth worker at the time, their evaluation of the risks to the boy would surely have been markedly different – that is, if they had chosen to proceed with the evaluation at all.

K was then shifted to more permanent shelter accommodation hundreds of kilometres away, and also started attending – and occasionally getting suspended from – a new school, having only irregular and difficult mediated contact with his mum, who continued to insist that he have no further contact with the youth worker (a continuing presence in her son’s life).

For understandable reasons, C had become frantic with fear and rage. By this stage she believed her son had been sexually abused. K was still under her legal guardianship, but the state had seen to remove him from her. It was also being circulated within CSS that she was unstable, unfit to parent, and had been making up stories about her son being at risk. The CSS had seemingly turned on her.

A few months after the major altercation with her son, without any warning or prior contact with C, the CSS sought, and was granted, two Care and Protection orders. They authorised the removal of both of C’s children from her.

One order gave the department full custody and guardianship of her son for twelve months minimum, promising to ensure his immediate safety and ongoing care – albeit in shelter accommodation hundreds of kilometres from home. The other order took C’s daughter, and put her back in the primary custody of the very father who had lost these rights (courtesy of the Federal Circuit and Family Court) due to domestic abuse concerns.

To the besieged mother, both orders were unjustifiably extreme reactions to her cries for help and support.

The reasons for the removal of two children from their single mother were alarmingly vague and insubstantial. Even though the department’s own records asserted it was her son who had attacked her, the mother was cited over the altercation, and this was then used as evidence she couldn’t care for either of her children. The verbal fights she had with her son were quoted out of context, and described as “emotional abuse”. Without any formal assessment of her, the department cited her mental health as being the key risk to her children.

Her vigilance about her children’s mental and physical health was interpreted as her making things up, because she didn’t have documentation to back up some of the diagnoses she mentioned, and because the allegations she made hadn’t been investigated; whereas unsubstantiated claims by unidentified other sources were used repeatedly in departmental reports to defame her. Claims made by the youth worker that she most feared were cited to undermine her fitness as a parent.

There was little acknowledgement that such circumstances would take a mental toll on any human being. Indeed, the fact that a mother was severely stressed (“heightened presentation”) in the battle to regain custody of her son was used against her, and listed as a possible threat to her daughter’s health and safety. And even though the department cited her mental health as the key risk to her children’s welfare, they offered her no support or counselling, nor even a family conference, instead proceeding straight to child removal. No alternative care arrangements appear to have been explored, and C’s treating practitioners were not contacted for clinical advice.

As to what could be substantiated against C: there was no evidence of physical abuse by her against her children, no evidence of proven longterm incapacity or serious neglect other than that her daughter was missing too much school during the most stressful period of her son’s removal. There was no evidence that C took drugs, drank or gambled – in short, nothing that would reach a normal threshold of removing children from their mother.

Indeed, C believes her children were removed in retaliation for the reports she made against the youth worker and organisation. (The youth worker and organisation have denied any wrongdoing and labelled any allegations as unfounded threats and abuse. None of the allegations have yet been the subject of charges or findings by authorities, but they are currently being investigated.)

*     *     *     *     *    *     *     *     *     *

Meanwhile, K started disappearing from his shelter accommodation for days on end. He was regularly seeing the youth worker his mother feared. On one occasion he went missing for weeks. He stopped going to school, and wasn’t getting enough money or food to live off, so would lapse into stealing food.

Not receiving sufficient medical or mental health care, he was self-medicating with street drugs and alcohol when his prescriptions ran out. Staff at the shelter were seriously concerned, and unable to handle his worsening behaviour, so he was sent to another shelter. He feared being sent to the dreaded Ashley Youth Detention Centre.

With the same problems re-emerging at the new accommodation, the boy started contacting his mum more regularly, admitting to depression and suicidal ideation. He needed money, phone credit, medication and above all was desperate to see his little sister, whom he hadn’t seen for months. And he wanted to come home to his mum.

By this stage his mother had been blocked from speaking to either her son’s shelter or his school, and was not authorised to take on his health care. She had commenced legal action, hoping to have an opportunity to argue in court that she had never “lost” her son like the CSS had; she had got him to school and the doctor, and had fed and housed and loved him. She’s his mother – and she had done a hell of a lot better job looking after him than the government was doing.

Her other major concern, of course, was her daughter. Previously, a mandatory reporter had noticed bruising and grazing and told the CSS. That time, her father explained it was from a fall. After B’s removal, during a supervised visit her mother saw what she thought were new signs of abuse on her daughter’s body. She reported it but the response by authorities was seriously inadequate, and certainly not in line with the checks and procedures supposed to be followed in such a situation. Her grave fears remain unaddressed. (This is not to allege any wrongdoing by the father.)

In the meantime, her son had been moved out of the latest shelter, and was placed in a supervised unit – and still not attending school. He had gone from a situation in which he was attending school full-time, living at home with his family, receiving his medication and seeing a lifelong GP and paediatrician, and not using illicit drugs, to one in which he had unstable accommodation, wasn’t attending school, wasn’t medicated properly, regularly went hungry, had irregular contact with family, and was at risk of abuse and falling into criminality.

Normally, neglect like this would justify removing a child from their guardianship.

While living in his unit, K was interviewed by police in relation to allegations against the youth worker. Without a child advocate present, or a CSS case worker or legal representative – without any support or guardian at all – he was interviewed by a solo police officer. He told the police that the youth worker took every opportunity he could to kiss and touch the boys in his care, that he had supplied them with drugs and alcohol, that K and others had slept in this youth worker’s bedroom – and that he was a paedophile.

A second interview followed soon afterwards, this time in the presence of a CSS case worker. These allegations remain unproven, but either way K is at significant risk, for which the state appears responsible. The state ignored warnings about an alleged perpetrator, took a child from his mother without reasonable justification or due process, and placed him in the hands of his alleged abuser. K has informed the state that he wishes to live with his mother, but his request has thus far been denied.

The state also overrode Federal Circuit and Family Court orders on the care and protection of C’s daughter.

CSS have responded by telling the boy that he is not allowed to see his mother outside of weekly supervised Family Time. Officers have directly contradicted each other in the trivial and refutable reasons they have given for this decision. CSS has not yet responded to the concerns about K’s suicidality if he is not allowed to see his mother. They have so far ignored his other disclosures about abuse.

*     *     *     *     *    *     *     *     *     *

C doesn’t profess to be perfect. She is a woman who has lived a life of deep trauma. She is also articulate and intelligent, and has had her children removed by state services that she believes have been uncaring, arbitrary, irresponsible and lacking in process or evidence. As an inevitable result, her health has suffered and she has at times lost her temper at those responsible. Who wouldn’t? In these circumstances, perfect is impossible. With astonishing resilience, she fights on.

Unfortunately the odds are stacked against C. How can a single mother compete with the resources of an entire government department seemingly set against her? What is she supposed to do? What is the department doing? It’s hard to comprehend how it could have been so negligent.

Nick Feik is a writer and journalist, and the former editor of The Monthly magazine. https://nickfeik.substack.com/

Media release – Jack Davenport, social worker, 21 June 2025

‘Things have to change’ – child protection allegations deeply alarming, says independent candidate

Child protection in Tasmania needs extensive reform and restructure, with a call to break up the Child Safety Service into smaller, community-based services. That’s the view of Jack Davenport, independent candidate for Bass, responding to an allegation of serious failures reported today.

An article appearing in the Tasmanian Times, written by journalist Nick Feik, details the experience of an anonymised family, where two children were taken into care, but allegations of abuse in care and poor decision-making dominate their experience. The article includes allegations that one of the children was kissed and touched by a youth worker, and supplied with drugs and alcohol, but also that the Child Safety Service ignored warnings.

Mr Davenport, who has over 15 years experience as a social worker in child protection including in Tasmania, says the allegations are deeply worrying and need further investigation.

“It’s very difficult to read about the experiences of this family,” says Mr Davenport, “But it is a pattern that is all too familiar to me. These are incredibly serious concerns that need urgent investigation.”

Mr Davenport believes that the allegations highlight wider problems about the structure of statutory child protection in Tasmania.

“The system is bound up in centralised offices, which increases the risk of disconnection from the families and communities that workers are meant to be supporting.

“What we need to see is early intervention driven by workers embedded in the communities they are supporting, not operating at arm’s length. We also need to see a complete separation of the investigation side from family support, because the lines blur too much.”

Mr Davenport believes networks of multi-disciplinary teams, including child protection, health, education and community services, would be in a better position to support families before issues come to the attention of statutory services. Child safety support for children in out-of-home-care could also operate on a similar basis Mr Davenport believes, with specialised assessment and investigation teams only being called upon for instances where children may be at risk of serious harm.

“Things have to change. I think everyone understands we need to take critical action to investigate abuse concerns, but we need a separation of powers in child protection, so that the statutory system doesn’t compromise the trust between families and localised workers needed to build safety earlier.”

For further comment contact Jack Davenport, Tel. 0422 052 259

Further information:

  • The Tasmanian Times article – A Story of Child Protection Gone Wrong – can be found here, and was published today 21 June 2025.

  • The Commission of Inquiry into the Tasmanian Government’s Repsonses to Child Sexual Abuse in Institutional Settings made 191 recommendations for reform in 2023. However, the Commission did not widen its inquiry to look at the whole child protection system.

  • Jack Davenport made a submission to the Commission of Inquiry into the Tasmanian Government’s Repsonses to Child Sexual Abuse in Institutional Settings in 2021, appearing in person in 2022 to give evidence.

  • He gave in-person evidence to the Tasmanian Commission of Inquiry Recommendations Scrutiny Committee in February 2025.

  • He is a qualified social worker, with over 15 years of experience in child protection, and currently employed as a school social worker with the Department for Education, Children and Young People. He is representing his personal view, based on professional experience.

  • Data from the Report on Government Services 2024 shows that the proportion of children in care who were the subject of a substantiation of sexual abuse, physical abuse, emotional abuse or neglect in Tasmania has doubled between 2021/22 and 2023/24.

The number of children with a current, documented case plan in Tasmania has dropped from 57.3% in 2022 to 32.2% in 2024. Unlike some other states (such as Western Australia), there is no legal requirement for children in care to have a care plan reviewed annually.

Tasmania has ceased to report the length of time to commence and complete investigations from notification of a concern since 2021/2022 (in that year 64.5% of investigations took over 90 days to be completed from notification – the target is 28 days).

Tasmanian Times (TT) is a community-based news and current affairs service covering the island state of Tasmania. It exists to provide a diverse view of Tasmanian issues. TT creates and supports independent media content utilising the best of modern technologies and tried-and-true practices of public-interest journalism.

Support us in expanding our coverage and developing new content by and for Tasmanians. 

New initiatives on the way include:

  • a weekly podcast covering current affairs
  • a revamped website
  • a monthly cartoon competition
  • a user-friendly app for both Android and Apple devices
  • a weekly roundup of key stories