First Nations Children and Families and Permanency Planning Reform: The Evidence Counts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Major permanency planning-based reforms transformed the New South Wales (NSW) out-of-home care (care) system between 2012 and 2022, in the face of strong, sustained opposition from First Peoples. Permanency, attachment and related notions, including the best interests of the child are all constructs central to permanency planning and crucial factors in judicial decision-making about children’s permanent care arrangements. Doctoral research conducted by the author, a Wiradjuri legal scholar, explored Aboriginal community member understandings of these concepts. With a focus on restoration, this article provides a critical commentary on aspects of the legislative changes implemented in NSW. Outlining literature relating to the reforms, the author notes the substantial lack of evidence from First Nations’ perspectives in support of the legislative changes made. Implications for both First Peoples and for social work are discussed. The article seeks to prompt reflection by social workers on how such evidence vacuums can cause harm to First Nations children and young people in statutory care. Social work spheres within child welfare and associated scholarship must centre First Peoples’ knowledge and experiences. If not, crucial conceptual and practice-related issues will remain poorly understood and profound child welfare system-related trauma caused to First Nations children and families will be perpetuated. IMPLICATIONSSystem reform relating to permanent care arrangements of First Nations children and young people must be grounded in First Nations-led evidence, including on permanency and attachment, and it must centre First Peoples’ perspectives and lived experience.Understanding and taking into account the perspectives of First Peoples is an important action social workers and other practitioners from non-Indigenous backgrounds must take in supporting First Nations children and families involved in care matters. Hence, there is a need for critical reflection in the social work sphere, about how child protection policies and legislation may benefit, or create harm to, First Nations communities.Advocacy for systems change is an important action social workers can take, when governments propose policies that First Peoples view as detrimental to support the long-term wellbeing of First Nations children.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.049 | 0.122 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".