Victorian Department of Human Services apologises to family after children removed, lawyers pay for emergency accommodation
By Stephanie FerrierVictoria's Department of Human Services (DHS) has apologised in court for its treatment of a family whose Melbourne home was gutted by fire last week.
Child protection workers took four of the family's seven children into out-of-home care after the blaze, citing inappropriate supervision and unsafe living conditions.
A Children's Court magistrate ruled the children be returned to their mother, but DHS then refused to pay for the family's motel accommodation.
The family's lawyers banded together to pay for their first night in a motel and also offered money for a meal.
The magistrate, who cannot be identified due to restrictions on the reporting of Children's Court cases, severely criticised the department's actions.
"I just think that is appalling, I just want it on the record that I think it is absolutely appalling," she said.
"I think it is ludicrous that we're in a situation where private practitioners are paying so that the children can all stay with the mother and the department isn't.
"I just think that is an indictment on the whole system."
The judge acknowledged she could not force the department to pay for accommodation and thanked the lawyers for providing finance so the children were not unnecessarily separated from their mother.
But she added "it's not your job to be providing accommodation for this family".
"It's the State Government's job through their department, this is ridiculous.
"I am incredibly disappointed and I hope that the matter is raised in other areas."
Lawyers provided accomodation, food for family
One of the children's lawyers, Ian Porter, said DHS had failed to ensure the children were provided shelter - one of the most fundamental forms of protection.
"I think it's completely outrageous and to pursue the matter by not being willing to provide accommodation shows an indifference to the wellbeing of the children," Mr Porter said.
"It's... bureaucratic indifference, a sort of computer says no situation where they say 'well, we don't want the children to be with the mother because of this fire, so we won't assist them with accommodation until, or unless, we get our way'."
He said he stayed behind with three other lawyers and court staff after the hearing to find a motel that would accommodate the family.
All that was left was the clothes they were standing in so they had...no money and nowhere to go.
"All that was left was the clothes they were standing in so they had nothing and no money and nowhere to go," Mr Porter said.
"They could easily have been walked out of court and stood on the street and be looking for somewhere to stay.
"And we also organised some money for food as well because they had no money at all."
He said protection officers had originally asserted that the mother had breached a supervision order, citing inadequate supervision after one of the children started the fire with a cigarette lighter and concerns about unsafe living conditions as a result of the fire.
But family lawyers had argued in court the fire was accidentally lit and there was no unacceptable risk of harm to the children being cared for by their mother, apart from the fact that she was now homeless.
"If the accommodation hadn't been provided by us, we believe [the children] would have been separated and placed into either foster care or residential units," Mr Porter said.
"Any lawyer at the Children's Court would say that being split up is damaging in and of itself; in the context of being traumatised by a fire that would be even worse and they are a very, very close-knit family, the children are close to each other.
"Of course, the other aspect of it is that there's a risk of them being placed in residential units.
"They're potentially very vulnerable and they would be exposed to children that may have lived in the residential units for a long time, there could be violent children, and sexually active children and therefore they would be potentially, and I stress potentially, victims of further abuse within that system."
Department reversed its decision, issues apology
The department's lawyer told the magistrate it would argue for the children's removal from the mother's care, but when the hearing continued a day later it reversed its position.
Another DHS lawyer, Teresa Porritt, told the court it was content for the children to remain with the mother.
We regret that funding for interim accommodation wasn't immediately provided...This was a mistake.
She said the department wished "to express its sincere apologies" to the court and the mother for the conduct of the case.
She added that it would pay for the family's emergency accommodation until the mother was provided with new government housing.
Mr Porter was circumspect about the change of position.
"I believe it was an apology but I don't think there was any sorrow behind it," he said.
A DHS spokeswoman said the family had moved into a new home provided by the department on Monday.
"The family is also being supported to source replacement furniture and other items," she said.
"We regret that funding for interim accommodation wasn't immediately provided for the night of the 9th October. This was a mistake.
"The department has reimbursed this cost and ensured hotel costs were covered over the weekend."