Australian Social Work

Vol. 64, No. 1, March 2011, pp. 96!112

Rethinking the ‘‘Best Interests’’ of the Child: Voices from

Aboriginal Child and Family Welfare Practitioners
Maureen Longa & Rene Sephtonb
a
Social Work and Social Policy, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Victoria, Australia; bVictorian
Aboriginal Child Care Agency, East Brunswick, Victoria, Australia

Abstract
In Victoria, recent reforms to the child and family welfare system, through the
introduction of the Children Youth and Families Act (2005), have significantly
strengthened the principle of the ‘‘best interests’’ of the child. Giving substance to the
principle, this legislation defines a set of standards and a practice framework to guide its
application. How this is to be applied is of particular interest to the Aboriginal child and
family welfare sector, given that the principle of best interests has historically
underpinned the removal of thousands of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
from their families on the basis of their race (Bamblett, 2006). This paper presents the
findings of a qualitative research study that aimed to identify an Aboriginal perspective
on the best interests principle as it applies to Victorian Aboriginal children. In-depth
interviews were conducted with six experienced Aboriginal child and family welfare
practitioners. The outcomes of this study highlight the distinct cultural perspectives that
inform Aboriginal child and family welfare practice and raise a number of concerns in
regard to an ongoing ethnocentric application of the principle by mainstream service
providers. Key findings of the study are discussed, including the importance of increasing
understanding of Aboriginal child-rearing practices, recognising that there is a distinct
Aboriginal understanding of what constitutes a best interests framework, and the
implications of this for both Aboriginal and mainstream child and family welfare
practice. The paper discusses these findings within the context of recent Victorian
legislative reform, which promotes Aboriginal self-determination, and argues that more
work is needed to ensure Aboriginal perspectives are incorporated into service provision
to Aboriginal children and families if we are truly to meet the best interests of Aboriginal
children.

Keywords: Best Interests Principle; Indigenous; Aboriginal; Child and Family Welfare

It is estimated that tens of thousands of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

children were removed from their families and raised in institutions or fostered-out
to non-Aboriginal people. This was seen as a way of promoting the ‘‘best interests’

Correspondence to: Dr Maureen Long, School of Social Work and Social Policy, La Trobe University Bundoora,
Victoria 3086, E-mail: [email protected]
Accepted 24 October 2010

ISSN 0312-407X (print)/ISSN 1447-0748 (online) # 2011 Australian Association of Social Workers
DOI: 10.1080/0312407X.2010.535544
 Australian Social Work 97
of the child. It made little difference what the Aboriginal family situation really was
or how the children were cared for, because being Aboriginal was, in itself, seen as a
reason to regard children as ‘‘neglected’’. (Bamblett & Lewis, 2006, p. 43)

The way in which the best interests of Aboriginal children have been understood
and acted upon in Australia has been the cause of much pain and shame in our
history. The introductory quote clearly identifies the impact this principle has had
historically for Australian Aboriginal families. Using the guise of the principle, acts of
colonisation were carried out through successive policies and practices that,
according to the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Children from their Families (1997), resulted in the forcible removal of
10 to 30% of Aboriginal children between 1910 and 1970. The belief that it was in the
best interests of Aboriginal children to be removed from their families and
assimilated into ‘‘white’’ society is a clear indication of the way the principle can
be interpreted by the values of a decision maker or society at any given time. As
pointed out by D’Souza (1993), the fact that this system has largely been dismantled
does not mean that the child and family welfare service system has rid itself of this
history. Among other intimations, the rate of child protection intervention in the
lives of Aboriginal communities and their children still continues at a dispropor-
tionate rate to that of non Indigenous children (Australian Institute of Health and
Welfare, n.d). More concerning is the prevalence of second (or subsequent)
generation removal occurring in more than one in three cases of parents who were
themselves removed as children (National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families, 1997). It is thus of utmost
importance that there is a shift towards a system that breaks rather than repeats the
cycles of trauma and removal present within Aboriginal communities since invasion.

The Best Interests of the Child

The United Nations (UN) endorsed the Declaration of Human Rights in December
1948, but it was 11 years later before it was decided that special protections were
required to protect the interests of children, with the development of the Declaration
of the Rights of the Child (UN, 1959). A further 30 years later, the UN adopted the
International Convention of the Rights on the Child (UN, 1989). The 1989
Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) embodies four general principles:
(a) the best interests of the child as a primary consideration in all actions affecting
children; (b) no discrimination; (c) the child’s right to life, survival, and
development; and (d) the right to express their views freely. However, the UNCRC
does not offer a ‘‘precise’’ definition, nor explicitly outline common factors of the best
interests of the child, but stipulates that:

The best interests must be the determining factor for specific actions, notably
adoption (Article 21) and separation of a child from parents against their will
(Article 9). (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR], 2008)
98 M. Long & R. Sephton
The application of the principle of the best interests of the child with its myriad
interpretations has influenced practice in human rights law, family law, and child and
family welfare, both nationally and internationally (Alston, 1994; Freeman, 2007;
Goldstein, Freud, & Solnit, 1973; Mnookin, 1975). The indeterminacy of the
principle, the subjectivity of its application, and the implications of this across
diverse cultures and contexts has received wide attention as part of the ongoing
process (Alston, 1994; Freeman, 2007; Lynch, 2001; Ralph, 1998; Young, 2003).

The inherent subjectivity [of the application of the best interests test] renders it
particularly susceptible to the criticism that it legitimises cultural bias, by allowing
decision makers, who are generally members of the dominant culture to impose
family values that may be inconsistent with those of a minority group, such as
Aboriginal people. (Walter, Isnegger, & Bala as cited in Ralph, 1998, p. 140)

The diversity of opinions on what is ‘‘good’’ for children is thus a common theme
in the literature on this issue (Alston, 1994; An-Na’im, 1994; Freeman, 2007; Lynch,
2001; Parker, 1994; Ralph, 1998; Young, 2003). Mnookin (1975) summarised the
dilemma as follows:

Deciding what is best for a child poses a question no less ultimate than the
purposes and values of life itself. Should the judge be primarily concerned with
the child’s happiness? Or with the child’s spiritual and religious training? Should
the judge be concerned with the economic ‘‘productivity’’ of the child when he
grows up? Are the primary values of life in warm, interpersonal relationships, or in
discipline and self-sacrifice? Is stability and security for a child more desirable than
intellectual stimulation? (Mnookin, 1975, p. 260)

Such questions will elicit diverse responses depending upon the values, beliefs,
culture, and context of the respondents. In this sense, the indeterminacy of the
principle is in many ways appropriate. According to Alston (1994), such
indeterminacy was in fact a characteristic of international human rights standards
that, by remaining vague and indeterminate, avoids rigidity and paralysis and instead
allows the emphasis on both the importance of institutions in interpreting the
principle and the importance of doing this in accordance with cultural and
contextual factors. Parker (1994) argued that this is where the role of localised
conventions and institutions within those localised contexts comes in, namely, to give
substance to the understanding of the principle.
Application of the Best Interests Principle in Victoria
Current child and family welfare policy in Australia has done much to move away from
its historic failure to protect or respond appropriately to Aboriginal children. The
current Victorian legislation addresses the indeterminacy of the best interests principle
by defining a set of best interests standards, which includes notions such as: the need to
strengthen and preserve the family, the desirability of continuity and stability in a
child’s care arrangements and, significantly for Aboriginal children, the importance of
the protection and promotion of their cultural identity and their connection to family
 Australian Social Work 99
and community (Children Youth and Families Act, 2005). Furthermore, the new
practice framework, developed to support a consistent application of the standards,
specifies the need for child and family welfare practitioners to attend to children’s
safety, stability, and development through the lens of their age, stage of life, culture, and
gender. The legislation also specifies a number of additional decision-making
principles particular to Aboriginal children including: (a) the need to protect and
promote the cultural and spiritual identity and development of Aboriginal children
and to maintain and build connections to their Aboriginal family and community; (b)
adherence to the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle (ACPP), which specifies the
order of priority when placing Aboriginal children in out-of-home care; and (c)
adherence to the principle of Aboriginal self-determination, which specifies the
involvement of Aboriginal agencies and the child’s community in decision-making
processes and allows the secretary of the Department of Human Services to transfer her
functions and powers in relation to a Protective Order for an Aboriginal child to an
Aboriginal Principal Officer of a gazetted Aboriginal agency.
As Bamblett and Lewis (2007) have highlighted, this Victorian legislation is in fact
the first real attempt in Australia to develop a culturally competent service system
built on the principle of Aboriginal self-determination. The challenge now is ensuring
that these new reforms are practically applied and are translated into a culturally
competent service system that truly meets the best interests of Aboriginal children.

Rethinking the Best Interests of the Child for an Indigenous Context

While there has been no other research in Australia that specifically examines
Aboriginal perspectives on the best interests of the child, an increasing body of
knowledge is developing in Australia, which suggests the urgent need for an in-depth
examination of this perspective. The notion that cultural perspectives may influence
an understanding of what is good for children is clear in a recent report on the
wellbeing of Aboriginal children (Bamblett, Frederico, Harrison, Jackson, & Lewis,
2009). Examining the growing body of literature that describes Aboriginal
perspectives on wellbeing, Bamblett et al. (2009) identified a clear distinction
between conventional understandings of health and wellbeing and the more holistic
approach of Aboriginal cultures that sees the physical, emotional, mental, spiritual,
and cultural health of both the individual and the community as inextricably linked.
Therefore, as this report highlighted, definitions of the socioemotional wellbeing of
Aboriginal children can extend from their connection to land to mainstream
understandings of serious mental health issues. This distinction may affect what one
looks for when trying to assess the best interests of an Aboriginal child.
However, other research both in Australia and internationally has focused on
different interpretations of what one actually sees. For example, child-rearing
practices, particular to the culture and context in which they are practiced, have
been considered fundamental to any understanding of the best interests of the child
(Alston, 1994; An-Na’im, 1994; Armstrong, 1994; LeVine & Miller, 1990; Neckoway,
100 M. Long & R. Sephton
Brownlee, Jourdain, & Miller, 2003; Young, 2003). One comparative ethnographic
study that focused on the differences between Aboriginal (in this case Nunga) and
Anglo child-rearing highlighted the way in which Nunga families encourage the
independence, self-regulation, and self-reliance of their children and imbue them
with a sense of responsibility towards other members of the family, particularly
younger siblings (Malin, Campbell, & Agius, 1996). This study demonstrated the way
in which some of these characteristics were negatively viewed by non Indigenous
families. For example, if a young child briefly wandered out of sight of the mother, it
was seen as neglectful by the non Indigenous mother, whereas from the Nunga
mother’s perspective, it was both a sign of trust of her child’s capabilities and trust in
the older siblings’ ability to look out for their younger sibling, as well as an effective
way of preparing her children for the realities of life. This example echoes the findings
of the Bringing them Home report, which highlighted that while definitions of abuse
are more easily applied across cultures, definitions of neglect are more subjective,
malleable, and culturally particular (National Inquiry into the Separation of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families, 1997).
Another theme common in the literature is that of attachment, with a number of
authors arguing that the collective nature of many Aboriginal families, coupled with
the emphasis on independence and autonomy in child-rearing can influence the way
in which Aboriginal children express attachment in their relationships (Lynch, 2001;
Ralph, 1998; Yeo, 2003). This aspect again echoes studies internationally, which have
argued that attachment theory has been wrongly assumed as being universal and has
been applied uncritically across cultures (LeVine & Miller, 1990; Neckoway et al.,
2003). Furthermore, attention has been drawn to the hierarchy of values between
attachment and affiliation. Ralph (1998) argued that in most child and family welfare
decisions, attachment is given much greater prominence than affiliation. However,
this goes against traditional Aboriginal child-rearing, where affiliation can be equally
if not more valuable.
With the collective nature of Aboriginal family life clearly a common element of
difference in all the examples cited, it is not surprising that the individualist
underpinnings of the principle of best interests have been highlighted as a concern.
Similar to findings among cultures that are structurally more collectivist in nature
(Armstrong, 1994; Rwezaura, 1994), Lynch (2001) argued that any consideration of the
best interests of an Aboriginal child must involve a consideration of both the ‘‘rights and
interests of the child in his or her community and culture and the rights and interests of
the Aboriginal community and culture in its children’’ (p. 535). As an example, the
Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 in the USA has recognised that ‘‘there is no resource
more vital to the continued existence and integrity of Indian tribes than their children’’
(p. 537). Thus, the USA has a direct interest in not only protecting Indian children, but
also promoting the stability and security of Indian tribes and families.
Finally, resoundingly clear in the literature are the specific needs of Aboriginal
children as members of a minority community within an often racist society
(Bamblett et al., 2009; Lynch, 2001; Malin et al., 1996; Ralph, 1998). Unanimous in its
 Australian Social Work 101

message, this literature focuses on the reality of racism towards Aboriginal children in
Australia today, the importance of a strong cultural identity to counteract this, and,
ultimately, the detrimental effect that the removal and the severing of ties between
Aboriginal children and their families and communities has on both the child and
their community.
As is evident from this brief overview of the literature related to the best interests of
Aboriginal children, cultural perspectives on what is good for children and cultural
factors that influence the daily realities of Aboriginal children may both have a
significant influence on our understanding of relevant best interests. The current
paper describes a study that attempts to give voice to Aboriginal child and family
welfare practitioners on these particular best interests.

Background and Aims of the Study

The research described in this paper was undertaken as part of a final-year social work
honours program undertaken by the authors (Sephton supervised by Long), following
the completion of a social work field placement with the Victorian Aboriginal Child
Care Agency (VACCA). During this placement, the author (Sephton) had been part of
an organisational working group whose purpose it was to examine The Best Interests
Framework for Vulnerable Children and Youth (Department of Human Services, 2007)
and its appropriateness for application to Aboriginal children. Key issues identified
were that: (a) while this framework guides practitioners to utilise a ‘‘lens of culture’’
when assessing a child’s safety, stability, and development, there was little material
available to articulate exactly what the use of a lens of culture may look like in practice,
raising a similar dilemma to the indeterminacy of the best interests principle itself; and
(b) the very existence of a ‘‘consistent’’ or ‘‘universal’’ framework for determining the
best interests of the child posed important questions in regard to the principle of
Aboriginal self-determination.
As two non Indigenous women were conducting the research, ensuring that
objectives matched the needs of the community was essential to the study’s integrity.
In this respect, the research developed out of the established relationship between
both authors and VACCA, and research objectives were guided by questions
identified within the agency itself. The objectives of the study were to: (a) identify
an Aboriginal perspective on the ‘‘best interests of the child’’ in Victoria; and (b)
assess the applicability of the current Department of Human Services (2007)
framework within an Indigenous context. As the lead Aboriginal community-
controlled agency for Aboriginal child and family welfare in Victoria, VACCA was
seen as a prime site for the research. With programs across child protection, family
support services, placement services, and program and policy development, as well
as strong values in maintaining the agency’s Aboriginality, embedding culture into all
aspects of service delivery, and most importantly working towards meeting the best
interests of Aboriginal children throughout the State, the uniqueness of the service
102 M. Long & R. Sephton
provided a key opportunity to undertake research to hear the voices of Aboriginal
child and family welfare professionals.

Method
Design and Sample
As non Indigenous researchers, we selected a qualitative approach to ensure that the
voices of the Aboriginal child and family welfare practitioners would be at the centre
of the findings, and we designed the study to ensure that they were active participants
in the research process. The study used purposive, judgment sampling, as it was
aimed at accessing ‘‘information rich’’ cases with a specific knowledge-base (Rice &
Ezzy, 1999). The primary sampling frame was experienced Aboriginal child and
family welfare professionals working at VACCA, who had been in the field for over
three years and identified strongly with their Aboriginality. Six Aboriginal child and
family welfare professionals voluntarily took part in the study. They were all current
employees of VACCA and held a variety of positions, including direct practice and
management across four different programs*Family Services, Link-Up, Aboriginal
Child Specialist and Support Service, and the New Initiatives and Policy Unit. There
was a gender balance with three females and three males, and participants ranged in
age from their late 20s to early 50s.

Procedure: Data-gathering and Analysis

Individual semistructured interviews were conducted with each participant. Liam-
puttong and Ezzy (2005) described this type of interview as a meaning-making effort
that is approached as a partnership between the researcher and participants. Thus,
the interviews were a form of collaborative enquiry where participants were fully
informed of the purpose, process, and intended outcomes of the study and were
active subjects in the research process. Questions were designed primarily to be open,
allowing participants to guide the conversation towards themes that they identified
themselves. Initial open-ended questions covered three themes: participants’ own
description of the best interests of the child; the comparison of mainstream and
Aboriginal perspectives on what is good for children, and their reflection on the Best
Interests Framework for Vulnerable Children and Youth (Department of Human
Services, 2007). Directive questions were also included where participants were asked
to respond to ideas that had emerged from both literature and other participants.
The interviews were face-to-face, semistructured, and designed to resemble ‘‘deep
conversations’’. They took between 1.5 and 2.5 hours and were audio-recorded and
transcribed. Transcripts were analysed using a thematic, inductive data analysis
process and, once organised into key issues and recurring themes, the data were
presented to a focus group. While only three of the initial six participants were able to
attend this group, all participants were given a summary of the themes that had
emerged from the interviews and were asked to give feedback. The focus group
 Australian Social Work 103

considered the various themes that had emerged in the interviews, explored them in
more depth, and drew out meaning together in response to the research questions.
The focus group was also audio-recorded and transcribed. The final analysis involved
a thorough examination of the data emerging from both interviews and focus groups
and focused on the voices of the participants.

Results and Discussion

In presenting the findings from this study, voice is given to participants’ perspectives
on the best interests of the child. Each of the participants shared stories, both
personal and professional, which highlighted and challenged a number of the themes
already present in the literature. A sense of distinct cultural understanding of what
was in the best interests of Aboriginal children emerged as they shared their
perspectives. Approaches surfaced that, as one participant termed it, were ‘‘unique to
the (cultural) Way’’ (P1). Quotations from a number of participants have been used
selectively in this section to illustrate the overarching themes that grew out of their
stories. Unless otherwise specified as an individual’s or a number of individual’s
viewpoints, these themes were those that were confirmed by the three participants
present at the focus group, and the individual feedback provided by other
participants unable to attend the focus group.

Affirming the Principle of the Best Interests of the Child

In describing their perspectives on the best interests of the child, participants
emphasised the universality of those most fundamental elements such as love,
nurture, safety, stability, and care and spoke passionately about the importance of
prioritising the child’s needs above all else:

I think it makes it quite clear. I think it makes it easier because it means that you are
not trying to satisfy competing needs because it is about the child, about the child’s
needs. What’s best for the child and that’s it. (P3)

The best interests of the child, as a child welfare service, we need to push that really
hard. There should be no gimmies on any of that, it’s just, we do it, we don’t make
any exceptions for anything. (P5)

Unlike literature that suggests that the individualist underpinnings of the principle
could conflict with the beliefs and values of collectivist communities (Armstrong,
1994; Rwezaura, 1994), participants’ responses demonstrated an uncompromising
focus on the child with no intimation of discord between community values and an
individualised attention on the child. Instead, participants highlighted the focus on
the child as a core foundation of their cultural values and beliefs:

You belong to a family, you belong to a community and you have a very special and
unique place in that community, you have a very special and unique place in your
104 M. Long & R. Sephton
family . . . . . . . Children are very much loved and valued. Little Bubs, and children,
they come first. You know, you feed them first; you make sure they are alright. (P3)

In this way, participants made it clear that the general principle of the best interests
of the child was given utmost regard in their work and the needs of Aboriginal
children for those fundamental elements of care were much the same as for any other
child. However, how these elements were assessed and the hierarchy of value given to
each of these elements was much more complex, with each participant affirming that
there were definitely ‘‘different eyes’’ when it came to the principles interpretation
and application.

In Their Own Words: Participants’ Perspectives on the Best Interests of the Child
In describing what was in the best interests of Aboriginal children, participants
continually highlighted the need for a holistic approach, with the majority of
participants (n "5) directly criticising mainstream services for taking a narrow
approach in understanding Aboriginal children’s needs. Participants highlighted the
need to understand each of the elements of a child’s needs, not only in relation to the
physical needs of children, but also their spiritual and cultural needs:

I guess the first thing is their physical safety, and then it’s their spiritual safety, their
cultural and emotional needs. So there is the physical and then there is the spiritual.
(P3)

One way in which these cultural and spiritual needs were expressed by participants was
the idea of children being given the opportunity to grow into and become themselves,
that is, the importance of children knowing ‘‘where they’re from’’, being ‘‘who they are’’,
and becoming ‘‘who they are meant to be’’:

That the child grows in an environment that encourages and supports that child
to reach their full potential. . ..that they grow and they be the best that they can
be, but they also be who they are, culturally, spiritually, who they are as a person.
I mean you might have Aboriginal people, you might have Kuku Yalanji people,
but for each person there’s ‘‘the Way’’, and then there is their way of the ‘‘Way’’.
(P1)

These understandings seemed to directly reflect aspects of Aboriginal childrearing

practices and beliefs around the role of parenthood.

It’s a nurturing way of bringing up children. You’re not imposing what you want
them to be, you’re nurturing them to be who they are meant to be. (P3)

Notably, this notion of meeting the best interests of the child as the fostering of a
child’s ‘‘growth into themselves’’ is diametrically opposed to how one participant
described the historical understanding and application of the best interests principle
in Australia, an understanding that he highlights as still persisting today:
 Australian Social Work 105

It was a term that was abused for Aboriginal people. ‘‘For their own good’’ is
something that, said wrong, Aboriginal people will resist . . . . . . . . . because you are
teaching me out of me, you are teaching me out of myself . . . . . . .that’s our history,
yesterday they called it assimilation, as recent as 2007 they called it integration. The
only way for Aboriginal people to move forward is to integrate into mainstream
society. Whether you call it assimilation, integration, cultural mutilation, mind
manipulation, it all equates to one thing, us not being us. (P1)

Thus, participants were all unequivocal in asserting the importance of a strong

cultural identity, particularly in light of the pervasive racism and general absence of
positive images of Aboriginal cultures and peoples in mainstream society today. For
all participants, this was a reality that all Aboriginal children faced and from which
they needed to be protected:

You wear it like a jacket; you think that other peoples’ ideas of you is your reality.
And because you don’t have that cultural grounding or that support base you start
to become like a shadow, where that negative stuff sticks more, and then changes
your whole perception of you, and your people, and what you have to offer, and
your worth . . . . and I see that all the time, they become these half people, like
shadows. (P1)

Different Eyes: Comparing Black and White Perspectives

But there are different ways of working . . . . . . .there are definitely different eyes.
(P1)

Participants (n " 4) who had experience working in direct practice alongside

mainstream services, shared stories of times when their perspective on what was in
the best interests of a child differed. A number of participants (n "3) spoke of times
where they felt that behaviours or practices that were considered ‘‘normal’’ in their
own families and communities were negatively perceived by mainstream services:

Some of those things (co sleeping, extended households, low on tucker) really come
across when I was working in that job, because I’d be thinking oh dear, if you’d have
come to my house, you’d probably be removing my kids. . ..because that’s just
the way we did things. . ..so I struggled with the department’s perception on the
way you’re supposed to live. (P4)

Examples began to emerge with participants speaking about different approaches

to sleeping arrangements, such as co sleeping even with children over two years,
parents sharing bedrooms with younger children, and siblings and cousins sharing
bedrooms or mattresses, or both. While participants shared their experiences of these
sleeping arrangements being negatively perceived by mainstream workers, they
highlighted them as positive parenting techniques that helped to establish attach-
ments between the child and their family members. Similarly, participants spoke
about the notions of ‘‘overcrowding,’’ and the ‘‘parentification’’ of older siblings
towards their younger siblings as common concerns of mainstream workers, whereas,
106 M. Long & R. Sephton
in contrast, they themselves considered extended households and the teaching of
responsibilities to older siblings as important tools for children’s socialisation with
kin and community and the development of their social and family responsibilities.
Although in identifying these differences participants strongly advocated greater
understanding from mainstream services around these aspects of Aboriginal child-
rearing, it was also clear that participants were equally critical of a ‘‘black and white’’
approach, no matter which side of the black and white divide one was on. Identifying
the complex layers of contemporary Aboriginal cultures today, participants described
the way in which the many ‘‘poisons’’ (e.g., historical trauma, drug and alcohol abuse,
racism) were impacting on many Aboriginal families today. For instance, co sleeping
and extended households, when in accordance with the cultural Way, were seen as
healthy and even in the best interests of children. However, where these poisons were
impacting on this Way, risks were immediately identified:

I’ve had people put in notifications about overcrowding in houses . . . but you’ve
got to look at it in a cultural way. Our families, that’s the normal thing, having a lot
of people in the family home. Always that sharing and kinship care stuff. So you
look at that in one way and think the kids can’t do anything, but then you look at it
in another way and think the kids are socially interacting with everybody . . . but it’s
about unpacking risks and what is culturally appropriate. So, one family were
smoking yarndi (marijuana) and drinking, up till all hours of the night, so, that’s a
risk, there is no cultural aspect of that, drinking and carrying on and smoking
yarndi is not part of our culture. (P5)

Thus, what participants highlighted as essential was a careful examination, on a

case-by-case basis, of the multitude of factors that can influence child-rearing
practices in Aboriginal families. A broad understanding of Aboriginal child-rearing
practices needed to be accompanied by:

. an understanding of, or preparedness to, listen to the Way of different Aboriginal

cultural groups, the structures that surround these various ways, and the many
protective factors that are inherent in them;

. an understanding of what one participant termed the ‘‘Wound’’ (P1), or in the

words of another participant, the ‘‘introduced destroyers of culture’’ (P6),which
have impacted on Aboriginal child- rearing today, including surface poisons (e.g.,
drugs and alcohol) and subsurface poisons (e.g., historical trauma), thereby
creating a ‘‘bastardised culture’’ (P6), and;

. an understanding of how to assess the Way according to its appropriateness in the

contemporary setting, looking at environmental factors (e.g., urban setting) and
social factors (e.g., breakdown in the ‘‘collective’’ structure of many Aboriginal
families.
 Australian Social Work 107

Distinguishing between the Way and the Wound, and between what is appropriate
in a traditional setting and what is appropriate in an urban setting was therefore
considered to be a large element in meeting the best interests of Aboriginal children.
Participants felt that this posed a challenge for mainstream service providers, who,
according to participants, generally did not have adequate knowledge of the Way and
the protective factors that surrounded that Way. Take the case of the 14-year-old girl
who is carrying the baby around: A lot of the observations from the protective
workers are ‘‘Oh, that child is definitely parentified’’, but I say ‘‘Not necessarily; that
behaviour aligns with the Way, as I know it’’ (P1). For participants, there was a clear
distinction between behaviour that was based upon the Way in which the 14-year-old
had been nurtured into her roles and responsibilities in looking after her younger
siblings through the careful guidance of family members or, on the other hand, the
Wound that forced her into taking on a ‘‘parenting’’ role due to her parents’ inability
to parent.

Looking to Future Best Interests Through a ‘‘Cultural Lens’’

While participants spoke emphatically about the best interests of the child as the
paramount consideration, the interconnectedness of child, family, and community
were resoundingly clear in their interpretation of the best interests of the child. All
participants felt strongly that ultimately it was in the best interests of the child to
be with their family. Removing a child who is at significant risk was viewed as
absolutely essential, and the emphasis on supporting families as much as possible
with their parenting, finding placements within kinship networks, and keeping
connections with kinship networks while placed elsewhere was clear. The need to
work with whole families and communities was particularly highlighted in the
context of the pervasive intergenerational trauma that has impacted on Aboriginal
families. One participant described a case example of a family where each
generation in the family, from the grandmother onwards, had been removed as
children. In attending the funeral of one of the daughters, she recalled looking
around the room and seeing ‘‘every welfare service you could think of ’’ in the
room*this was a young woman who had tried ‘‘absolutely everything’’ to give up
the drugs and get her children back. However, also in the room, she noted were
more people ‘‘chained up to somebody,’’ and more prison vans than she had ever
seen before. The layers of trauma were evident. As the participant described:

These were her networks, her supports, her friends, her family. . .she lived in an
environment that was a risk to her . . . So the system, and way of working is to work
only with her and her children but not to work with her brothers, sisters, aunts and
uncles around her to protect her and I think that that way of working with families
is not in the ‘‘best interests of children’’ . . . we really need to think more broadly
than what’s happening for mum and the child, but what’s happening for grandma,
and all those other supports. (P6)
108 M. Long & R. Sephton
As well as the need to consider and work with family and community in meeting the
best interests of children, there was also a clear and powerful feeling of an overarching
drive that was based on a strong collective vision for the future of Aboriginal peoples:

I believe there can be a brighter day for Aboriginal peoples, I believe we do that
through children, so we have to put in today, and plan for tomorrow, prepare for it.
(P1)

This idea was reiterated again and again when exploring the importance of passing
on culture. Not only was it seen as in the best interests of children, but also in the best
interests of the future, given that Aboriginal cultures possess intrinsic values that
should be maintained in their own right:

You have a sense of keeping your children safe because they are the future
generation of our people. (P5)

In addition to their intrinsic value, participants also spoke about Aboriginal

cultures as precious alternatives to contemporary Western cultures, criticising
ongoing preoccupation with materialism, individualism, and the increasing isolation
of people from any sense of community. Participants particularly highlighted the
impact of these things on children and families, speaking of the intrusion of
technology into family life, the increasing lack of respect from young people towards
their Elders, and the increasing sexualisation of children in the media. With an
unequivocal message that such a society was not their vision for the future of their
peoples, the passing on of culture, and the development of physically, emotionally,
culturally, and spiritually strong children was seen by many as a responsibility to be
upheld by all, including children, for the future of Aboriginal peoples.

Implications for Application of a Best Interests Framework in an Indigenous

Context
Although exploratory and limited in its scope, the present study has provided some
important insights into the perspectives of Aboriginal child and family welfare
professionals on the best interests of Aboriginal children. In identifying
these perspectives and examining them within the context of the Victorian Best
Interests Framework, it is clear that more work is necessary in developing this
framework to meet the best interests of Aboriginal children. While the framework is
certainly compatible with the perspectives of participants, it in no way captures the
breadth and complexities of the best interests of Aboriginal children as shared by
participants. Nor could it represent the vision and values of the Aboriginal
professionals interviewed. The framework overtly specifies the need for a ‘‘cultural
lens’’ to be used. But the examples, given by participants of the ‘‘different eyes’’ used
in interpreting and applying the principle of the best interests of the child, highlight
the urgent need for more emphasis to be placed on what it means practically to work
 Australian Social Work 109

with a cultural lens. Work is underway to achieving this end, with the introduction of
the Victorian Aboriginal Cultural Competence Framework (VACCA, 2008). But a
major challenge in fully accomplishing this approach is the lack of research in areas
vital to its development (e.g., Aboriginal child-rearing, Aboriginal attachment
patterns, and the impact of racism on Aboriginal children). Aboriginal professionals
have continued to argue for cultural differences and needs to be acknowledged.
However, without a concrete evidence-base to back up their voices, they continue to
face the difficulties of proving their validity against a set foundation based on years of
Western research.
A further challenge lies in capturing the complexities of working with a cultural
lens. The present study reflects the minimal existing research on themes related to the
best interests of the child. One striking feature is the way participants’ responses
reflected an intense awareness of diversity and complexity in working with Aboriginal
children and families. Other literature has highlighted the collective attachment
patterns of Aboriginal children (Yeo, 2003), the fluidity of child care arrangements in
Aboriginal child-rearing (Lynch, 2001), and the emphasis on the independence and
autonomy of Aboriginal children (Malin et al., 1996). Nevertheless, participants in
this study were remarkably careful to avoid black and white statements; for instance,
they provided examples of where fluidity of child care arrangements was in the best
interests of the child and where, in other circumstances, it was incredibly detrimental
to their wellbeing. If the use of a cultural lens is to be anything more than a token
attempt at culturally sensitive practice, it is these complexities that need to be
unpacked.
The development of knowledge in Aboriginal child-rearing, Aboriginal attachment
patterns, and related areas can assist mainstream services to gain a greater
understanding of the realities of Aboriginal children and the diversity of those
realities, but this also has its limitations. If we are to truly recognise the principle of
Aboriginal self-determination, then the use of a cultural lens must extend beyond
mere understanding to a place where culture informs the way in which we actually
value what is good for children. In this way, the notion of working with a lens of
culture will have different meanings for mainstream service providers and Aboriginal
community-controlled services. As demonstrated in participants’ responses, there is
most definitely a ‘‘lens’’ of each worker that is based on their own cultural affiliations
and informs how the best interests of the child are determined.
For the Aboriginal professionals who participated in this study, the need for a
holistic approach that focuses on the physical, emotional, cultural, and spiritual
needs of the child was not represented in the Victorian Best Interests Framework for
Vulnerable Children and Youth (Department of Human Services, 2007). Similarly the
framework, while highlighting the role of family and community in the best interests
of the child, could not represent the very particular importance of community within
Aboriginal cultures. Some previous literature has suggested that the ‘‘individualistic’’
underpinnings of the best interests principles do not sit with more ‘‘collectivist’’
cultures (Armstrong, 1994; Lynch, 2001; Rwezaura, 1994). However, it was clear from
110 M. Long & R. Sephton
participants that the focus on the individual child did not conflict with their
cultural beliefs about the interconnectedness of child, family, and community.
Rather, it confirmed the cultural belief that children are sacred and central to family
and community. The very tangible reality, that without children there would be no
future for Aboriginal peoples, clearly added an important layer to how the best
interests of the child was understood. With these elements in mind, it is
recommended that effort be given to supporting and promoting Aboriginal services
to articulate and document these very particular perspectives on the best interests of
the child, so that practice and future policy development can be informed more
fully from this point on.

Conclusion
The present research project has identified some important perspectives in
understanding what is in the best interests of Aboriginal children and has
highlighted the way in which ‘‘different cultural eyes’’ may result in varying
outcomes in applying the principle of the best interests of the child. These
differences were not only informed by the different realities for Aboriginal children,
but also by differences in what were seen as good for the children. Furthermore, it
has drawn attention to the way in which the specific context of Aboriginal child
and family welfare, with all the remnants of the trauma of colonisation, as well as
the urge towards a decolonisation in which Indigenous peoples’ ‘‘collective’’ rights
to self-determination are upheld, added an important layer of understanding to the
principle. This study can only provide part of the picture, but it is crucial that
more research into the best interests of Aboriginal children is conducted. The
history of the best interests principle and its application to Aboriginal children in
Australia has been one of great pain and shame, where the principle was defined
and applied by the dominant culture and Aboriginal perspectives were silenced.
With the recent reforms to the child and family welfare system, a powerful
opportunity to set right this historic imbalance has arrived. The wealth of
knowledge and experience shared by Aboriginal child and family welfare
professionals in this study provides a strong example of the potential for this
change to occur, if we can just listen.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge Lance James, Bev Murray, Sylvia Terare,
Nathan Fenelon, and Matthew Duggan for their invaluable contributions to this
paper. Also very special thanks to Aunty Muriel Bamblett for her input and for
opening the doors of the Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency for this research to
take place.
 Australian Social Work 111

References
Alston, P. (1994). The best interests principle: Towards a reconciliation of culture and human rights.
International Journal of Law and the Family, 8, 1!25.
An-Na’im, A. (1994). Cultural transformation and normative consensus on the interests of the
child. International Journal of Law and the Family, 8, 62!81.
Armstrong, A. (1994). School and salsa: Custody and the best interests of the child in Zimbabwe.
International Journal of Law and the Family, 8, 151!190.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (n.d). Children and youth: Overview. Retrieved January
27, 2010, from http://www.aihw.gov.au/indigenous/community/child.cfm
Bamblett, M., & Lewis, P. (2006). A vision for Koorie children and families: Embedding rights,
embedding culture. Just Policy, 41, 42!46.
Bamblett, M., Frederico, M., Harrison, J., Jackson, A., & Lewis, P. (2009). Not one size fits all:
Measuring the social and emotional wellbeing of Aboriginal children. Unpublished manuscript,
Melbourne: La Trobe University; Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency, Berry Street - Take
Two. Berry Street - Take Two Program.
Bamblett, M., & Lewis, P. (2007). Detoxifying the child and family welfare system for Australian
Indigenous peoples: Self determination, rights and culture as the critical tools. First People’s
Child and Family Review, 3, 43!56.
Children Youth and Families Act 2005.
Department of Human Services. (2007). The best interests framework for vulnerable children and
youth. Victoria: Department of Human Services.
D’Souza, N. (1993). Aboriginal child welfare: Framework for a national policy. Family Matters, 35,
40!45.
Freeman, M. (2007). Article 3. The best interests of the child. In A. Alen, V. Lanotte, J. Verhellen, E.
Ang, F. Berghmans, & M. Verheyde (Eds.), A commentary on the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child (pp. 1!73). Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Goldstein, J., Freud, A., & Solnit, A. (1973). Beyond the best interests of the child. New York: The Free
Press.
Indian Child Welfare Act, 1978.
LeVine, R., & Miller, P. (1990). Strange situations in other cultures: An anthropological view of
infant-mother attachment. Human Development, 33, 73!80.
Liamputtong, P., & Ezzy, D. (2005). Qualitative research methods (2nd ed.). South Melbourne:
Oxford University Press.
Lynch, P. (2001). Keeping them home: The best interests of indigenous children and communities
in Canada and Australia. Sydney Law Review, 23, 501!542.
Malin, M., Campbell, K., & Agius, L. (1996). Raising children in the Nunga Aboriginal Way. Family
Matters, 43, 43!47.
Mnookin, R. (1975). Child custody adjudication: Judicial functions in the face of indeterminacy.
Law and Contemporary Problems, 39, 226!293.
National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their
Families (1997). Bringing them home: Report of the national inquiry into the separation of
aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families. Canberra: Australian Human
Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Retrieved 11 May 2010, from http://www.
hreoc.gov.au/social_justice/bth_report/report/index.html
Neckoway, R., Brownlee, K., Jourdain, L., & Miller, L. (2003). Rethinking the role of attachment
theory in child welfare practice with Aboriginal people. Canadian Social Work Review, 20,
101!115.
Parker, S. (1994). The best interests of the child: Principles and problems. International Journal of
Law and the Family, 8, 26!41.
112 M. Long & R. Sephton
Ralph, S. (1998). The best interests of the Aboriginal child in family law proceedings. Australian
Journal of Family Law, 12, 140!149.
Rice, P. L., & Ezzy, D. (1999). Qualitative research methods: A health focus. Melbourne: Oxford
University Press.
Rwezaura, B. (1994). The concept of the child’s best interests in the changing economic and social
context of Sub-Saharan Africa. International Journal of Law and the Family, 8, 82!114.
United Nations (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child. Office of the United Nations Higher
Commissioner for Human Rights Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989. Retrieved 11
May 2010, from http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm
United Nations (1959). Declaration of the Rights of the Child. United Nations Declaration of the
Rights of the Child (1959). Retrieved 11 May 2010, from http://www.un.org/cyberschoolbus/
humanrights/resources/child.asp
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR] (2008). Guidelines on determining the
best interests of the child. Retrieved 10 May 2010, from http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/
48480c342.html
Victorian Aboriginal Cultural Competence Framework [VACCA] (2008). Victorian Aboriginal
Child Care Agency.
Yeo, S. S. (2003). Bonding and attachment of Australian Aboriginal children. Child Abuse Review,
12, 292!304.
Young, C. (2003). Best interests of the child: The directors of Indian child and family services speak.
Canada: The University of Regina.
Copyright of Australian Social Work is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied or emailed
to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However,
users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.