Launch event for research report ‘Feeling supported, not stuck: rethinking intervention orders for children and young people’
Transcript
[Opening slide with text: Feeling supported, not stuck – Rethinking intervention orders for children and young people]
Joanna Fletcher Executive Director - Family, Youth and Children's Law: For those who don't know me, my name's Joanna Fletcher. I'm the Executive Director of Family, Youth and Children's Law at Victoria Legal Aid, and I will be your MC for today. Before we get started, just a couple of housekeeping things for people in the room. Bathrooms are located out there into the right. And is Cass standing by the door or Hannah? There's a pass. You have a pass? Yes, there's a pass there. You'll need to grab a pass from Hannah, in order to get back in. Please, can you keep your phones on silent? And in the event of an emergency, I'm really hoping that some of my colleagues will know what to do. And you will follow them to the exits that are marked, and we will help you along with that.
So, thank you everyone for joining us for the launch of our research into young people's experiences of responding to intervention orders. Supported, not stuck rethinking intervention orders for children and young people.
I begin today by acknowledging and paying my deep respects to the Wurundjeri people of the Kulin nation, the Traditional Owners and custodians of the lands where we are at 570 Bourke Street. I extend that acknowledgment to the many Traditional Owners of the various lands those online are joining from today. I pay my respects to elders, past and present, and I extend that respect to all First Nations people who are here in the room today and online. I recognise that sovereignty has never been ceded. I support and acknowledge the critical importance of treaty in moving towards self-determination across all aspects of economic, social and cultural life.
Today, you'll hear from a panel of expert speakers including researchers, legal practitioners and practitioners working with children and families. Followed by some time to connect over refreshments, which I think we'll all need after this heat. But first I'll hand over to our CEO, Toby Hemming. Toby will give us a quick overview of VLA and why we undertook this important research. After that, you'll get me back for a bit just to walk through some of the key findings before we go on to the panel. Please join me in welcoming Toby.
Toby Hemming Chief Executive Officer - Victoria Legal Aid: Thank you, Joanna and thank you everyone, for joining us here In Bourke Street and also online. I understand there are hundreds of people online, which is wonderful. I'd also like to acknowledge The Wurundjeri people of the Kulin Nation. I pay my respects to elders, past and present. And I extend that respect to all First Nations people who are here today. With Joanna, I also recognise that sovereignty has never been ceded and I also support and acknowledge the importance of treaty.
So, I'm really pleased that we're joined today by so many people working across so many different sectors. As this research highlights, we know that a single sector approach, that is a legal approach, just doesn't adequately deal with the complex issues that are raised in this important new report. Just to help place that report in some context, I'll start with the basics. Victoria Legal Aid is an independent statutory authority that's responsible for providing legal advice, information and education, as well as non-legal advocacy services to members of the Victorian community. And relevant to today's discussion, 12 per cent of our clients are under the age of 19.
In addition to providing legal and other assistance, the Legal Aid Act says that legal aid should ‘use innovative means to reduce legal need and improve access to justice and thus deliver better outcomes for individuals in the community’. One way that we do this — and this is also set out in our legislation — is by pursuing improvements to law and policy. To that end, we use our experience and from that, a strong evidence base to seek to address systemic issues and inequality. And we do this through a variety of means, including through strategic litigation and through thoughtful and impact advocacy. Which brings me to today. So, we started this research because our lawyers told us that they had observed an increasing number of intervention order applications against child respondents.
An objective analysis of the data confirmed that they were right, as you would expect. Indeed, our data showed that since 2018, there had been a 34 per cent increase in the number of child clients with family violence or personal safety intervention orders against them.
The voices of children and families we've worked with are at the very centre of this research. As you will see from the report, we heard very strongly from clients that the system response they received left them feeling hopeless and stuck. Our work with children and young people, has demonstrated that focusing on diversion and support are by far the best ways to prevent and address offending and harm, and this research shows that indeed, there are opportunities to strengthen the current approach to young people using violence or engaging in challenging behaviours at home and at school.
And that's by focusing on increased supports for children and families. The research here comes at a really critical time as Victoria implements the new Youth Justice Act and as it begins the work of responding to the Yoorrook Justice Commission's final reports and recommendations, all of which call for a fundamental shift in how we treat young people and children in the justice system.
The research also points to a better way forward, and it shows very clearly, I think, that a more child centred and therapeutic response is not only possible, but urgently required. Significantly, today's launch also marks the start of a conversation about how we can collectively respond, and respond more effectively to the needs of children and families. So, my thanks again to all of you for being here today and for being part of that conversation.
And I'll now hand back to Joanna. So, thank you.
Joanna Fletcher: Thanks, Toby. With more young people being named as respondents to intervention orders, this research highlights the need for early appropriate responses that prioritise safety, accountability, and long-term outcomes, not just legal intervention. Through our research, we saw the impacts of using an adult family violence legal framework designed to protect children, which has in some cases ended up exposing them to further harm.
This led us to our first finding: intervention orders are being used instead of supports for families in crisis. Our analysis of public and legal aid data highlights that these orders are being used against children who have unmet health and social needs. The growing number of child respondents are often also victim-survivors of family violence in their own right.
Many young people we helped were also experiencing mental health issues, neurodiversity or cognitive impairment. However, instead of receiving the much-needed therapeutic support at this point of intervention, the system provided a legal response, a response that often excluded young people's voices and put them at risk of being criminalised.
We heard through our interviews with children and families that the current system let them feeling, less safe. All of the families we spoke to said they wouldn't call the police again after an intervention order was made.
We spoke to a family based in regional Victoria whose son, Charlie, developed mental health issues and started self-harming during the pandemic. During an argument between Charlie and his parents. Charlie broke a window and threatened to jump out. Charlie's parents called police out of desperation for his safety.
While the police were able to calm Charlie down, Charlie's parents say that they weren't listened to when they told officers they didn't want an intervention order. Charlie's parents didn't think the order would stop another incident from happening and didn't think it was fair to be put in the position of having to report a breach. His parents told us that what the family needed was a circuit breaker and support, not an intervention order, and that it had little impact.
An interim order was made at the first mention of the matter. Neither Charlie nor his parents were at court when the order was made. Three months and much uncertainty and distress later, police agreed to withdraw the application. We also spoke to Maggie and Amy, a First Nations family. Amy has multiple cognitive and behavioural diagnoses. When adolescence hit, Amy started to struggle with regulating her emotions.
Maggie tried to get services in to support her and Amy, but they said they couldn't help. One afternoon, when Maggie saw that Amy was trying to start a fire on their property, Maggie made the difficult decision to call police for help. She said police came, but then later made a family violence intervention order application against Amy and arrested her for kicking a police officer.
Police took Amy at 13 years of age to the station in the back of a police van. Police charged Amy with breaching the order at least six times. Maggie said she felt helpless. After about six months of a drawn-out legal process, the intervention order and related charges were dropped. Both Charlie's case and Amy's case illustrate how the law is not working to assist the most at-risk families and to support the best interests of children.
This research shows how intervention orders are being used to respond to issues between school students. It also shows this legal response can disrupt children's education and compound existing disadvantage. Intervention orders are commonly made without prior opportunities to mediate the dispute to address the underlying issues, despite this being Parliament's express intent when introducing the legislation. Our research also shows that many intervention orders are being made against children and young people before they have a chance to get legal advice, and when they are not even present at court.
This puts them at risk of breaching an order that they may not understand, and means their perspectives on the incident aren't heard when important decisions are made. Our client, Spencer, told us how he felt when he found out about an order that had been made without him knowing about it.
‘I felt like I didn't deserve it to be on me. It just didn't feel right. It made me feel anxious and pretty angry as well.’
With assistance of a lawyer, the application was re-heard and the order eventually withdrawn. Through this research, we clearly saw the benefits of legal assistance for children and young people. Those who received legal help were much less likely to have a final order made against them, or to breach an interim order.
But we also highlighted a significant gap in young people who receive legal assistance for their intervention order matters. The findings provide a strong foundation for policy, practice and legal reforms that are more developmentally appropriate and trauma informed.
So now to help us reflect on the findings and where we go from here. We've brought together a fantastic panel of experts who each bring a unique perspective to this complex issue.
They are people who have worked closely with young people caught up in the legal system, who understand the challenges families and schools face, and who are pushing for more developmentally appropriate and effective responses. We're joined by, on the far end, Elena Campbell, Associate Director at the Centre for Innovative Justice. Elena will be known to most of you, probably, but Elena led the groundbreaking PIPA project, one of the first national studies into adolescent violence in the home, and has continued to lead research, policy and system reform efforts.
Next to her we're joined by Genevieve Higgins, Manager and Restorative Practitioner at Jesuit Social Services. Genevieve is a strong advocate for non-legal, restorative responses to conflict and is leading JSS's innovative pilot exploring early intervention and mediation options for young people at risk of being drawn into the intervention order system, particularly in school and family settings. So directly on point. We also have with us next to Genevieve, Kathy. Kathy Prior Director of Statewide Residential Services and Youth Engagement at the Victorian Aboriginal Child and Community Agency - VACCA.
Kathy's work in child and family services, child protection, homelessness and family violence over 25 years, has shaped her pursuit of innovative programs and services which ensure holistic, tailored supports are available to those most at risk.
And finally, Elicia Savvas is our Associate Director of Children's Law, who brings a wealth of legal expertise and frontline insight into how intervention order matters play out for children and families.
Our panel will be moderated by Alma Mistry, who is the Strategy Manager in our Family, Youth and Children's Law Directorate. Alma has worked on some of VLA’s key strategic advocacy and law reform initiatives and led this research project. So we've asked our panel to share their reflections on the research, the realities they see on the ground, and the changes they believe are needed.
Each of them brings deep insight into how we can shift away from adult centred legal responses that too often miss the mark, and towards approaches that recognise children's needs, rights and potential. Please join me in welcoming the panel.
Alma Mistry Strategy Manager - Family, Youth and Children's Law: Thanks for that, Joanna. I'm going to start, first by asking Elicia. So our research today Joanna just highlighted looked at both family violence and personal safety intervention orders. And there are some key differences in how these orders seem to play out for children and young people. But broadly, what are the problems we're seeing and how are they affecting children and young people and their families?
Elicia Savvas Associate Director - Children's Law: Thanks, Alma. So, across the board with both types of intervention orders, we saw that intervention orders were affecting, children who were particularly disadvantaged and the data really showed that children with disability and neurodiversity were particularly, picked up by the intervention order system.
What we found, and this is consistent with research that, Elena’s research, and Kate Fitz-Gibbon here as well, her research as well. Our research also found that young people with intervention orders against them had really strong experiences of family violence or trauma in their background. We found that 30 per cent of children and young people had child protection involvement and over 50 per cent of them were named as someone needing protection on an intervention order. So that's probably really under-reporting because we know that so many young people aren't named on intervention orders yet they have that experience of family violence.
So, in terms of the family violence intervention orders, families, we saw that families are really calling police as a last resort to get help in a crisis situation to help manage their child's behaviour. And instead, what they found was that their child is put through a court process that wasn't designed for that purpose at all.
So, in terms the types of issues we're seeing, intervention orders are also being used for outbursts, for challenging behaviours or in a mental health crisis. And it's really vastly different from the kind of family violence issues that we might see with the intervention orders in the adult system, as well. So, a really common example we saw was parents, seeking help to manage, when they're trying to deal with screen time. So, managing their child screen time, that was leading to outbursts and they're trying to get help with that. So, I think it's quite shocking to think that, in seeking help for managing that behaviour, their child is ending up in the court system. That use of technology came through really strongly as well. So, you know managing screen time, but also cyberbullying as well.
And these are really common social issues that we see all across Australia. But the young people who are getting caught up with intervention orders on these issues are particularly marginalised young people. So, it's really the people with those orders are picking up is quite different. We saw that there are services out there, but they're under-resourced and they're not easily accessible.
So, families aren't able to get access to those services at the time they need them. So, it's really driving a crisis response and police are becoming involved, and it's throwing people into that court system. And again, at that point there's still no access to services as well.
Alma Mistry: Elena, as Joanna has mentioned, and Elicia just mentioned, you led national research back in 2020 or came out in 2020 about the legal response to adolescent violence. Really groundbreaking research that really had a lot of parallels with what we're still seeing. And since then, there has been a growing focus on child maltreatment and responding to children who are victim-survivors of family violence, trying to prevent them from going on to use behaviours of concern.
But quite shockingly, as the team and I saw in our file reviews and our data, we're still seeing this blunt legal response that is primarily affecting children with trauma who are who have been previously applicants and also children with disability and neurodiversity. So it's a big question, but can you give us any insights on you know, why haven't things changed and what how can we systemically start making some changes here?
Elena Campbell - Centre for Innovative Justice RMIT: Alma, it's such a good question. And I just want to sort of take license to say how thrilled I am to be here today because, yeah five years ago we launched some research called the PIPA Project. Unfortunately, we had a big launch, like three days, maybe one week, before we all went into lockdown in 2020.
And, what we sort of then saw as we all kind of struggled and floundered with the experiences of COVID, was an increase not only in the kind of rates that which young people's use of violence in the home was being identified, but all of the issues that are compounding young people's distress and trauma, such as the pressure, the isolation from school that we all know is still having a kind of really big tail end effect on young people throughout Victoria in particular, as well as the kind of lagging distress of the sort of compounding effect of social media just generally growing presence in young people's lives.
So, there are sort of external factors, and then there are systemic and policy factors that we just haven't grappled with. And that's because at the heart of it, we have a tension between wanting to take a zero tolerance approach to what we identify as family violence, and grappling with the fact that not everything that the system scoops up as family violence either even satisfies that definition or is very, very complex and nuanced.
So, we have this deeply blunt response that we developed you know, in 2008. I was there, I was in government helping to progress that what we then thought was really, really groundbreaking Family Violence Protection Act where we were using a really expanded definition of family violence to recognise the diversity of victim-survivor experiences. But what we weren't thinking about was how that was going to inadvertently scoop up a lot of people where it didn't quite fit really what was designed to address not just adult family violence, but adult intimate partner, cis-gendered heterosexual violence. That was what the Act was really trying to do, even though it sort of had a broad definition. We also have a policy, we struggle at a policy level because I still see it all through government particularly, an assumption that if an intervention order is in and of itself an inherent good, that it iequates to safety.
And I hear it all of the time across the system and including in the courts, that sort of because everyone's thinking about ‘I've got the oh, the police have come in with the risk basketball and oh, now they've thrown it to me, now I'm holding it. Holy crap. I better make a decision because I've got to think about the risk’.
We get an order in place. Get an order in place. That's the expression I hear all over, all the time, over and over. Get an order in place. Because then people will be safe. And at a policy level, particularly when we're disconnected from the practice, there is just an assumption. And so when you do that, well, of course, an intervention orders are great. That means safety.
So, when you challenge and you start to say actually as legal practitioners, as lawyers, we are appalled to see an intervention order imposed against a child who is 13 might have neurodiversity, doesn't have a hope of understanding or complying with the order. But the other thing that we've got going on in Victoria is two very, very proactive systems. The Family Violence Protection Act in particular, is so zero tolerance that it doesn't require the court to consider whether the respondent can understand or comply with the order, as opposed to the personal safety intervention order act that does. And then we have a very particularly proactive police response.
So while in other jurisdictions, you know, the definition varies, but where there is a similar, similarly broad definition in other jurisdictions, you don't have the same proactive policing response kind of crashing into that and then therefore pushing young people who are invisible as victim-survivors to suddenly skew them as hugely visible as respondents to intervention orders.
Alma Mistry: So just as a follow up, Elena you mentioned the policy settings, the legal settings, where do you think - and we've pointed to the need for change across multiple systems - what do you think should be prioritised? I mean, we heard from families again and again that they were told, they would get some supports through the intervention order process and it didn't happen.
Or there are calls currently for alternative first responders for people in mental health crises. And we did see cases like that. So there seemed to be a few, there are solutions out there, but how what do you think we should be prioritising?
Elena Campbell: Well, I personally think we should be prioritising a review of the Act. And we needed, you know, the Attorney to refer the Act to the Law Reform Commission some time ago and it didn't happen. And so there is a small kind of own motion community reference being run by the Law Reform Commission into certain aspects of the legislation.
But we thought it was groundbreaking however many years ago - nearly 20 - but we need to revisit because our understanding of family violence has evolved since then. While at the same time, some of our other system settings, such as our bail laws for example, meaning that the stakes are so much higher for young people if they're pushed into what you know, we think civil order. ‘Oh, that's good. That's not a criminal response’. Oh yes, it really is very quickly a criminal response because of the rate at which young people are going to breach.
So yes, legislative reform. Yes, definitely and understanding that, police need more discretion, police want more discretion. They feel like that — so many police have told me ‘we're damned if we, we damned if we don't’. We're really stuck because we kind of are told if we see any risk, we have to act in this way. Right? That's not happening in other jurisdictions. The idea of police bringing an intervention order application against young people in another jurisdiction just doesn't happen, right. So Victoria is an outlier. The pendulum has swung way too far.
But the other thing I would say is, if we're at this stage of an intervention or application, we're intervening ten years too late. And that's what the PIPA project found. And that's what we know from, you know, thinking about between PIPA launched in 2020 and now, we have had a huge injection, relatively speaking, of funds into support services, to which families and children should be getting referred much earlier, but there's not enough of them still. Huge growth, but there's not enough of them still. So we sort of need to think about it from a legal perspective, from a policing perspective and a support service perspective.
Alma Mistry: Thanks, Elena I'm going to turn and talk to you now, Kathy. So the data, the stories in our report, some of which Joanna went through, point to a diversity of support needs that families have. Kathy, you've worked in child and family services at Berry Street and now at VACCA. Can you tell us about the supports children and families need and the importance of getting those supports in a in a timely way, like when they actually need them?
Kathy Prior - Victorian Aboriginal Child and Community Agency: Before I start, I'd like to acknowledge that we are meeting on Aboriginal land and that's land that was unceded
In my experience — it's probably 35 years that I've been working the sector let's be clear. I was seven when I started. I think what's in your report, it was really interesting to see comments like that you know, the argument to have children recognised as victim-survivors in their own right, which is still an argument that, you know, is happening. And, you know, I think I worked in a program years ago that that was our role to bring that to the fore.
And so systemically, when we have gaps where we aren't recognising children as victim-survivors of their own right and bringing the supports forward, you know, that's where we're going to see the systemic gaps continue to happen. And that's why we're seeing rises in family violence or the responses not being put in at the right time, at the right place. You know, those earlier interventions bringing supports back to the early intervention, whether it's early intervention in time or in age or earlier in the problem. You know, I think there's lots of different arguments about early intervention means, but it could be all of those things.
So, thinking about what is the experience of children growing up in families where there might be violence, where they're being you know, harmed themselves or whether they're being exposed to particular situations and thinking about what supports we need to bring forward. In my program at the moment, I'm managing the residential care program at VACCA and so, you know, where I think about how we do that. But it's at the tertiary end.
So, you know, thinking about where, supports are in our schools have come up, in the report, and we see, the opportunity to wraparound within that school system. And as a protective factor, school is often a protective factor and has been thought of like that for a really long time. So I think, again, what are the things that we can put in place, to make sure that we're identifying needs, that we're recognising complexity, diversity, intersectionality, you know, talking about Aboriginal children and young people and, and family, you know, the intersectionality of intergenerational trauma, and the impact of that, you know, is what we need to be start thinking about more systemically, but also not shying away from understanding that that's going to be impacting over generations.
We're probably at the fifth, sixth generations of child removals, for Aboriginal people. And we've got children in our care who are part of that system. So again, you know, one of the resources that are needed to really think about what's, what's needed. So I honestly think bringing up earlier into the problem is key. And thinking about, you know, family violence programs, consent programs, all the holistic ways that we need to be thinking about, and also think about the diverse, neurodiverse groups, and all the other intersectionality that kind of a present as well for families and young people.
Alma Mistry: Yeah. Thank you, Kathy. And of course, for First Nations families accessible and wrap-around and First Nations led supports are crucial. Can you tell us about some of the programs at VACCA that VACCA runs to assist children and young people and their families, and the kinds of supports they offer?
Kathy Prior: Yeah, I think one of the things that we're doing, in a broad way, with Section 18 and the handover or transfer of services from minor mainstream to Aboriginal community controlled organisations, is recognising that community led responses is really important, that culture and healing is where we need to start. So thinking about the intergenerational impacts of trauma and colonisation.
So, at VACCA there's a lot of Aboriginal led models that are being developed across, you know, out of home care programs, like we've got the child protection response through Nugel and in addition to that, it's thinking about the family want specific programs as well. So we've got Choose Deadly, which is specifically for adolescents using violence in the home.
We have that across a range of areas. But there's certainly capacity for more, in that space. We've also got, you know, Deadly Lovin’ and so thinking about other kind of allied kind of programs that relate to, supporting young people to understand what that some of their behaviours may be seen as family violence. So including when they're going to first relationships, as well. And then there's the, AFPR and Family Services responses alongside our family violence response that includes, a therapeutic response. So, you know, we've got counsellors that work alongside the family violence specialists as well. Again, recognising that for many Aboriginal people calling police and the risk that kind of creeps up and up and up because of not wanting to contact police not wanting the justice system to get involved, not wanting child protection to get involved in actively avoiding that where they can. But, you know that means that the risk is sometimes potentially creeping up as well.
So, to think about the wrap-around is, is really important. Those specific programs that we're looking at are key. And even the primary prevention or early intervention right through to the more tertiary space, we're still thinking about how we engage community and, and what programs are needed to ensure, and community engagement. So that's bringing more Aboriginal people into the organisation, engaging more Aboriginal people in the supports as well.
Alma Mistry: Thanks, Kathy. They sound like really wonderful programs. But obviously not accessible to everyone around the state. And in, this, one of the stories that Joanna raised. Amy and Maggie. Maggie, Amy's mum, had been trying for some time to reach out in the regional area they lived in for anyone to assist with what she said was her daughter's escalating behaviour, and they just couldn't get the supports in place.
And that did lead to intervention orders, which was terrible for that family. I want to move now to our findings about rising personal safety intervention orders, where we have seen, an almost doubling over that six year period. And the strong evidence that came through that school related disputes are really driving this. And it was a a real range of issues that we saw.
I mean, we did see instances of, of physical harm, but we also saw a lot of one-off sort of verbal fights and the presence of, of course, online incidents and social media. And it just does seem this, this big rise does seem to point to a real lack of creative programs that can work on mediation and conflict resolution and restorative solutions in schools.
And so we're really lucky to have Genevieve here from JSS who has worked for a long time in the field of restorative practice, including a new program that is going to be working in schools. So, Genevieve, because I think a lot of people might see these sort of school disputes and, and they either are quite minimised, like it's just sort of kid stuff or it's seen as like extreme violence and a sign that, you know, the youth that there's a big problem and that's not necessarily what we're seeing but, Genevieve can you tell us how restorative practice can be used in these, peer to peer, conflicts and some of the work you're doing?
Genevieve Higgins - Principal Practitioner Lotipadhan; Yeah, absolutely. And I’m pleased use the term restorative practice because it isn't just about responding to harm. It's about building and maintaining and deepening the opportunities to repair right relationships. So when we think about adolescent family violence and we think about work in schools, the thing that actually makes them similar is that these are ongoing relationships.
And that's where conflict is always going to exist and there's things that are going to pop off. But in reality, the approach in terms of restorative practices that we're seeking to try and understand, everyone's experiences, look to I guess, imagine a better way forward and I guess put those insights into action. And, one of the things that you've mentioned in the report is Restore, which was a project that we ran back in 2018, and it was a court based intervention but interestingly, the work all happened outside of that, and it was a program supporting families where there's an intervention order against a young person to be able to sort of find a way forward, in their conversations, in their relationships, by identifying the source of conflict, the issues that might be going on. And the interesting thing about that particular piece of work was there needed to be an enormous amount of flexibility. There needed to be an enormous amount of fitting in with family, to be able to work with people in such a way where that we were, I guess, not biased, but we needed to have some partiality across everyone's needs to be able to bring about a group process and the similar things. Was a project we did in 2018 called Engage.
So, you mentioned the Legal Services Board grant, that we've got recently to work with schools, but that's on the back of work we did back in 2018 to support schools to embed restorative practice and to build that capability within the teachers to deal with conflict. And so from those two approaches, the I guess the use of restorative practice has been enormously beneficial because for the Restore project, what we found was that there was a decrease in, breaches. Families were reporting that they found a greater sense of agency and capacity to communicate more effectively and resolve issues. And the group process, which seemed to be the kind of event was really important in being able to get everyone to share and speak, I guess, about their experiences what happened to understand them more deeply and to actually problem solve. So how do we move these things into action.
And with Engage, what was slightly different and what was extremely unique about this project was rather than this kind of group process, which was similar to Restore, what we found was when teachers were learning the skills and we were coaching and supporting them in the schools, they deployed them in a different way, which was more about how can we do more proactive engagements, circle time, one on one conversations. If students are being excluded from the classroom, how do we have those, how do we embed those skills, understand those skills, bring to mind the structure to have that conversation in a safe way? And the big lesson from that experience and Engage — and I think this speaks to that point around the PSIOs —is you don't want to get to a point where it's this critical issue and there's this enormous need and has been protracted, and it's just been going on for such a long time.
We want to be able to intervene earlier, and we can do that in a very relational way. And that's essentially the job of restorative practice: to be proactive and relational, which centres voice agency and connection. And you can do that in really unique ways, which is just about managing relationships in a healthy and supporting, supportive way. So, from the lessons of engage and certainly from restore, this current project we've got is I think we're looking at a lot more how we can co-design the work with schools, looking at their different sort of settings, the different ways in which they actually manage their structures and hierarchies and relationships, how they intervene.
And we also want to look more at a system level. How can we influence the ways in which not just how people respond on the ground, but what are the documentations or policies or guidances that can support people to actually continue to do that well? So, I mean if you work in a school, you know, there's a pedagogical learning system, there's coaching and mentoring and support, and we say an opportunity not to add another program to already exhausted teachers who do a lot. We want to fine tune the skills that are already there to support them, to do the work that they know. Well, might not know at this point how to use, but will learn to use.
Alma Mistry: That was that was going to be my follow up. I mean, I think it's well well known and indeed a parliamentary report found, that schools are expected to do everything in our community. And we certainly sympathise with teachers. So in those programs that you have run where you're building capacity with teachers, how did they respond to that? How did how did they say it's changed their practice?
Genevieve Higgins: Well, in Engage interestingly, we did a lot of training and the training was just — what I love, I love a healthy sceptic. You got to have people in there who are going to ask those really difficult questions. ‘I don't have time’. ‘This is just more to do’. ‘I might lose my power in this situation if I'm vulnerable’. All of these things need to put out there.
And what's really interesting and what young people get, and I think the training in that capacity building we did is that I think people started to realise that this is actually fair. This is a process that's fair. You're not losing your authority or power. You're being asked to describe and explain your experiences to help young people understand and for them, conversely, to share as well.
And when you get that understanding, you can reach that opportunity to problem solve. And so I think the teachers really welcomed the learning. And as I said before, the fact that they naturally move towards ‘I need to use these proactively in the moments where I'm in front of this situation and address it directly’ and look what happens. In Engage, there was a reduction in suspensions and expulsions. Because if we do it proactively, we have less issues at the end.
Alma Mistry: Thanks for that, Genevieve. You're clearly a real advocate and an amazing practitioner in this space. I should have I was remiss and in about ten minutes there will be time for questions. So I hope people online are popping questions in the chat. And, this is your cue as the, audience to think of questions. Elicia, so despite these matters mostly being heard in our Children's Court, children often are not at court when an order is made.
And even if they are there, the process doesn't often link them to supports. You've just done a Churchill Fellowship on children's participation in legal processes. Why is it so important for children to have a stronger voice in these matters?
Elicia Savvas: Yeah. Thank you. I'll start with the lawyer answer first of all. And it is because children have the right to participate in legal proceedings. So the law is really clear that they do have that right. To have a say in important decisions that affect their lives and to understand the restrictions that are going to be placed on them.
And procedural fairness is such a core part of our legal system, and that requires people in court cases to be able to have a say in those decisions. So, in that sense, ex parte orders — for those non lawyers, decisions being made without the person present — they should really be the exception to the rule. But what we are saying is that they are the norm. So really frequently children are not there when decisions are made about them in court.
And this is because we're not creating the opportunity for children to be able to join in and participate in that decision making. So in terms of why it's important though, there's a couple of reasons. So firstly, it's really important because it gives the court information that they need to make good decisions.
So if a court only gets information from police they've only got half a picture. It's really difficult for a court to make a decision about is this the right decision? Is this needed and is it going to be workable? Is it going to increase safety? And is it appropriate for the circumstances? So, you know, they can’t also think about things like is this order going to be shutting a child out of their education? Is it going to be putting them in contact with someone who's unsafe? They can't do that without that information. So that's the first reason.
A second reason is that participation promotes safety. So, our research and all the previous research shows that the prevalence of young people with intervention orders against them having their own experiences of family violence, whether that's in the past or actively experiencing family violence, if we don't speak to those young people who are named as respondents on intervention orders, we're closing the door on speaking to them about their experience of the violence. So we're not able to find out what they need in terms of their safety, and we're not able to connect them with services that might address the trauma that have experienced. And I think this is most concerning in cases where young people are misidentified as the person using violence. And that's really deeply concerning in those circumstances. I think people often worried about children being involved in the court process. Sometimes we want to protect children from court processes but I think what this research really showed us is that young people want to have a say. It's really devastating for them to think that these decisions about them are being made without them. So, it's about us doing that in a safe way.
Alma Mistry: Yes and I remember speaking to one of the, community organisations across this research and they talked about, you know, a young person that had had a lot going on in their life, like most of the clients we see, and they were a victim survivor in their own right and, in a sort of systems abuse process, a family member took out an order on them, and they just described that their shoulders dropping. Even though it's kids are often told it's just civil. We hear that quite a lot, but it sits really heavily on their shoulders and it is a burden.
Elicia Savvas: Yeah. That's right. And I think the other thing that's really important is if we if the purpose of an intervention order is to change behaviour or to stop something happening, it's impossible to do that without involving that person. So you can't talk to them, make sure they understand what an order means. You can't refer them to services as well.
So I think all those things compound for those young people. And really a justice response that doesn't have a therapeutic aspect to it is just criminalising children.
Alma Mistry: Thanks, Elicia. My last question which is probably a bit mean is that you know we've discussed many complex issues here, but I just thought perhaps we could if I could just get all of you to just give a plug for one issue or initiative that you think the audience should take away from this discussion, and seems like we're starting with Elena.
Elena Campbell: This is not necessarily the issue, but I would be very cross with myself if I hadn't mentioned it. What Elicia has been describing is how, when young people get to the point of court involvement, the sorts of things and the kind of intervention that can occur that can start to address their safety, because potentially, for the first time in their life, they have encountered somebody to whom they can make a disclosure.
Because we saw certainly in our research that it is a revelation to many young people to realise that, ‘oh, you can't pass on the information that I tell you about my experiences unless I tell unless I let you’. Because there have been so many experiences of schools disclosing (with the best of intentions), child protection disclosing (with the best of intentions), services feeling like they need to seek the consent of the perpetrator parent for them to for the child to participate. So, we have this, it's a magic moment. We want to avoid getting there - at all costs. We want to avoid as all of the things. But the one thing I would say is to this audience never assume that the value of legal assistance is understood outside our very, very small circle. Okay? Just like there is an assumption that an intervention order is in and of itself a good, there is very low understanding of the value of legal assistance and what, what it can do. So, it's an important point just to keep on, you know, essentially advocating because we see through, you know, youth laws here today and we, did an evaluation of their program and seeing that what happened when there was connection with the legal service and with, specialist casework, well, youth workers, so that their experiences could be understood. And we did an evaluation of the program and we expected to see like a reduction in breaches. What we saw was just the removal of all but one order in that sample, because the court understood. ‘Oh, right’.
Alma Mistry: And that came out very strongly in our, file review and our data as well. The value of legal assistance, both for linking families in with the support they said they actually wanted and having orders withdrawn or the right or the right conditions put on them, or the fact that that meant the young person was facilitated to have a voice through the process.
Elena Campbell: Yeah. So, it's something that even though we kind of assume and, and understand at a quite a granular level, I feel like I've been saying the same thing for over 25 years. So, where we just keep on needing to an understanding of this is not is not there in government at the moment.
Genevieve Higgins: I would say more restorative programs or perhaps funding of ones that aren't continuing at the moment. That point in your report, we use the word stuck. We talk a lot about that in our restorative practice — stuckness. And it's actually quite existential. You know, it's the feelings of being disenfranchised, unheard, not being able to have a voice, not being able to respond to certain things, not being able to share, not being able to get in the room and have these conversations.
And so these sorts of experiences of stuckness, I think, is where restorative practice sits and is where it's strengths, because we're working with everyone, including the systems around families to, I guess, coordinate those resources to be able to, I guess, ensure that everyone's on the same page because I'm sure that, you know, what's been borne out in that report also is, is that it's not just in the families, but the systems around in terms of the service offerings and how poorly coordinated things can be and how non collaborative a lot of services are.
So, I remember parents saying to me once, you know, I'm fighting fires on many fronts. And I thought that was such an apt reflection around the things that people are grappling with in these conflicts. And in relation to personal safety intervention orders. It's ripe for a program and a project and I'm here and willing and able and so is JSS.
But I'm not here to malign schools, I actually think the majority of my experience of schools, they've actually been really open and willing and interested. I think the challenge is that when any place is hierarchical and where you're grappling with authority and power and sometimes restorative practice rubs up against that. But there's an enormous benefit to everyone getting on the same level and just having a conversation.
Kathy Prior: Choices. Bringing the support where it's needed at the point in time when it's needed. You know, we talked in prep for this around intervention orders being put in place or, occurring when a crisis happens. And sometimes that's just when it's needed. I think we've had young people come into our care who have had intervention orders and we've had to support them to get the exclusion from the home part removed so that they could have contact with their family because they were already doing that so the breaches or risk of a breach was there.
So just I think we've got to not set and forget. So having, you know, any intervention setting and forgetting and not reviewing outcomes or decisions that are made and bringing services to the point where they're needed.
You know and again thinking about Aboriginal families and you know have the aversion to wanting to actually contact and get support from police or other systems that we need to think about what that actually looks like in practice then, and again no understanding what the consequences of that for that family might be in an ongoing way intergenerationally.
Elicia Savvas: I think, that families need early access to services. But that's not just a one time, one opportunity. So, if they don't get it before they ring the police, they should get access to services when they call the police. If they end up in court, they should get access to services when they're at court. So, it's something that's always got to be available.
It's not. It's something we've got to continually build into the system. I think probably my key takeaway for from this research and, you know, thinking to the future is for those cases that do need to go to court is really looking at a specialist children's court model and really embedding that opportunity that we create as professionals working with children to make sure that they have a voice in it and we're thinking about their needs throughout that process. So really, we've got an opportunity now with specialist courts to really move on that. So that's I think we can do that.
Alma Mistry: Thank you so much. It's now time for questions. Have we had any questions. Are there any is there any ones in the room. Yep.
Online Question: Questions from online. The first one I think might actually be for Alma or Elicia. It is, were there any insights in the data about location of intervention orders, say regional or metro?
Alma Mistry: We certainly saw intervention orders being made statewide. Similar to, I think, Sentencing Advisory Council research from a few years ago, we did find an over-representation of children living in regional Victoria. And that's, also we really saw strongly now when we spoke to young people and their families in those areas, you know, along with the kind of well known phenomenon of postcode injustice, there just aren't, services around for parents to go to.
I was recently talking to a mother who said she's been waiting for two years and still waiting for an OT in regional Victoria. And when you think about children's, the need to get those things in place early as children develop and are not doing well at school, it's pretty shocking. So yes, there was an overrepresentation in regional Victoria unfortunately.
Online Question: And just one other question, I think for Elicia or maybe Elena, any thoughts on who and how children would be involved or spoken to in the restraining order court process? I know it might be done in mediation, but by who and what if mediation doesn't resolve and the matter goes to court? It's quite a long question. Sorry.
Elicia Savvas: So, when it comes to the point of court proceedings, children's a lawyer who has skills and expertise in working with a child is the probably the person who's most appropriate to speak to that person. So, I mean, I think that's something we're really mindful of at VLA and having specialist children's services that we have training in understanding child development, children's experience of trauma and doing and working with them in a really, safe way because their participation in those processes won't be effective unless it's done safely. So in that court setting, I think that's right. I mean, there's other ways for children to participate in processes but for court I think that's right. Got anything to say?
Elena Campbell: And I would just simply. Oh, sorry. I would just simply add that element if is if you can link children also with a specialist, you know, social work support or casework support at that point, like courts are terrible. We don't nobody wants to get to court. But it's also an opportunity if it's used correctly, to link people with support and services and where you build that trust: ‘I've got a lawyer who's not going to tell anybody else what I'm going to tell them. And now I've got this other person who seems to be working with that lawyer. Well, seems to be kind of good mates with them and understand and we're all speaking the same language, and they're going to help me with all this other stuff - all right, you know, off we go’
So there's a real opportunity there if we understand that integrated responses and trauma informed and child informed responses can really make a difference, even at that point that we none of us want to reach.
Alma Mistry: Are there any quick questions in the room? I'm sorry you're going to need Hannah's bringing your mic.
Question from Audience: There seems to be a consistent theme around inappropriate responses to crisis. So that sense of teachers or parents, you know, not having any other option and calling and then leading to an intervention order. Have you or anyone here seen, you know, effective alternatives to responding to crisis? So other than the police I guess.
Genevieve Higgins: Restorative practice. And I'll just make that point around the responses more I noticed in schools and certainly with parents and carers, is that it seemed to be that the default to a punitive response was in the absence of actually the skills to be able to intervene helpfully. And so understanding that has made it much more easy to engage with families, to engage with schools and staff, to have that conversation about how we can approach this thing in a different way, but also to bring to mind what the skills you already have and actually be really intentional about that work.
So I, I think that restorative practice has a place, mediation has a place. They’re different disciplines. And the point around integration in terms of services and court systems, I think as long as we have all that stuff at least working a little bit more cohesively, we'll have a far better and more effective intervention because you've got the legal fraternity dealing with the issues at hand, and you've got the colleagues on the side being able to then take that opportunity and work with people before they go back before a magistrate when an intervention order is 12 weeks in.
So it has a place at court when they land. We want to intervene earlier. But in the fact, the fact that we're there, there are real opportunities to intervene helpfully, because the vast majority of applications made are the police, the parent or carer is not doing it. And when we get to court and say the parent or carer and we make that suggestion around, well, how about we meet at your home, fit in with your life, have a conversation about where you're at and what you need. You're immediately in because you're not disrupting everything with all the fires they're fighting on many fronts already.
Alma Mistry: I think Elena wanted to add one last thing, and then, unfortunately, we'll have to wrap.
Elena Campbell: I just wanted to say something encouraging that, you know, we do see really great responses at that crisis point, including with police. You know, there are particular unfortunately, it tends to be a little bit regionally determined in terms of who is in particular role and also the way in which the regional commander kind of directing the resources and the policy.
But when police are working with services, when police are connecting family members and saying, oh, not only does this young person, we might work with a bit of respite, get brokerage, look at shared positive experiences that the family can have and think about strengths instead of deficits. Link this sibling actually is experiencing significant mental health issues because they've been hiding in their bedroom for ages. We're going to link them with a positive experience and a support service. And there are youth resource officers. I know it seems very strange for a lawyer to say this, but I have some very I'm very fond of particular police who do this and who then follow up on the referrals. So, it is possible and but we just have to recognise that there's an opportunity and a, you know, a corresponding responsibility that we all have to recognise. That what we've got at the moment ain't working.
Alma Mistry: Thanks, Elena. And we do call out a couple of these co-responder models in the report. So of course, I would say I do urge everyone to have a have a read. But I'll throw back to Joanna now.
Joanna Fletcher: Thank you. For those who are able to squeeze in a question, I'm very hopeful that our panel will, stick around for the refreshments and maybe you might be able to ask them more questions over refreshments. For those in the room. Sorry, people online, but we can follow up afterwards if possible. I really want to thank the panel for your really thoughtful reflections and for the work that you actually are doing on this issue every day.
So, could you please join me in thanking the panel? [applause]
But I really also want to acknowledge and, thank the small but mighty strategy team in Family, Youth and Children's Law. And I am going to name the three people who have made this report or done the lion's share of the work on this report and really driven it, in the face of, some frustrations at times, but they've just kept on going.
So, Alma Mistry, obviously. Katie Bates is over there. And Hannah Fearnside standing up in the corner here. So, as well as the amazing strategy team at FYCL, we also did this report in collaboration with the child protection program and FYCL with youth crime. With the family violence team, also in Family, Youth and Children's Law with data reporting. And then at the very end piece with getting things out into the media, also with our comms team.
So, thanks to everyone who has assisted with this. I think we really do have a fantastic evidence base, a stronger understanding of, of the issues, and a real platform to advocate for where change is needed. So, thank you.
And please join us for refreshments which are happening there, there, there, there. Okay. That's it. Thank you.
[Closing slide with text: Feeling supported, not stuck – Rethinking intervention orders for children and young people]
Updated