doi.org/10.1017/S1035077200001127

Article type: Original Research

PUBLISHED 1 January 2010

Volume 35 Issue 3

Confidentiality in child protection cases Who benefits?

Frank Ainsworth and Patricia Hansen

name here
Frank Ainsworth1 ORCID logo

name here
Patricia Hansen2

Affiliations

1 James Cook University, frankainsworth@hotmail.com

2 Australian Catholic University

Contributions

Frank Ainsworth -

Patricia Hansen -

CITATION: Ainsworth F., & Hansen P. (2010). Confidentiality in child protection cases Who benefits? Children Australia, 35(3), 1759. doi.org/10.1017/S1035077200001127

download full pdf
https://childrenaustralia.org.au/journal/article/1759
go to url

Abstract

Child protection legislation in every Australian state and territory prohibits the disclosure of the identity of a person who acts as a mandatory reporter. There is also provision in most child protection legislation that prevents the naming of children and families in protection cases. It is argued that disclosure is not in the interests of the child, the family or the general public. Children's Court proceedings in most states and territories in Australia are closed to the public so that, unlike in most other jurisdictions, interested parties are not able to observe the proceedings. Child protection authorities also have considerable power to collect information about children and families from many sources. This power to obtain information is compounded by legislation which removes confidentiality provisions from professional codes of ethics. Furthermore, the rules of evidence do not ordinarily apply in the Children's Court. This article uses New South Wales as the exemplar state and raises questions about all of these issues.

This PDF has been produced for your convenience. Always refer to the live site https://childrenaustralia.org.au/journal/article/1759 for the Version of Record.