MULTIVARIATE OR 95% CIs

Carer alcohol abuse 36.2 1.40*** 1.14*** [1.08, 1.21]

Male child 50.5 1.04 1.03 [0.98, 1.09] Age of child 0-3 (ref) 31.6 4-11 43.3 0.69*** 0.77*** [0.72, 0.82] 12+ 25.1 0.71*** 0.93 [0.87, 1.01] Accommodation status Own/buying (ref) 20.2 Renting 30.7 1.41*** 1.07 [0.98, 1.17] Public Housing 39.7 2.05*** 1.38*** [1.26, 1.51] Caravan 1.3 2.39*** 1.54*** [1.22, 1.94] No Fixed Abode 3.8 3.43*** 2.00*** [1.72, 2.32] Other 4.4 2.02*** 1.29** [1.12, 1.50]

Family income type

Sole Parent Pension (ref) 43.8

Unemployment Benefit 10.6 1.15** 1.15** [1.04, 1.27] Other Benefit 5.6 1.28*** 1.33** [1.18, 1.50] Other Pension 10.0 1.14** 1.16** [1.05, 1.27] Wage/Salary High 1.2 0.31*** 0.46*** [0.33, 0.64] Wage/Salary Low 12.9 0.69*** 0.88* [0.80, 0.97] Wage/Salary Medium 14.5 0.47*** 0.70*** [0.62, 0.78] Other 1.4 1.31* 1.41** [1.13, 1.75] Family type

Intact Family (ref) 27.8

Blended Family 13.7 1.35*** 1.37*** [1.16, 1.62]

Extended Family – Couple or one person 2.9 0.89** 0.90* [0.82, 0.98]

Sole Parent – Father or mother 48.0 1.05 0.98 [0.90, 1.07]

Stepfather or Stepmother Family 5.5 1.02 1.12 [0.98, 1.28]

Other adults - Couple or one person and other 2.2 1.44*** 1.52*** [1.26, 1.84]

Carer history of:

Abuse as child 23.5 1.62*** 1.35*** [1.27, 1.43]

Domestic violence 55.9 1.20*** 0.95 [0.90, 1.01]

Other drug abuse 40.3 1.85*** 1.44*** [1.35, 1.52]

Mental illness 24.6 1.32*** 1.23*** [1.15, 1.30]

ALCOHOL’S INVOLVEMENT IN CHILD PROTECTION CASES 91

While the relationship between alcohol reporting and substantiation has been the subject of considerable research, the association of alcohol with what happens next has not been previously studied. This study shows that a large proportion of the 12,771 Victorian alcohol-related cases studied go on to receive more intensive attention – 51 per cent to protective interventions and 28 per cent to court orders (see Table 8.4) – and that carer alcohol misuse is predictive of this further progression through the system.

Carer alcohol abuse was thus significantly associated with intensification of handling through to the more serious stages of child protection actions, after taking into account a range of other factors. These findings are consistent with the high prevalence of carer alcohol abuse reported in court-involved cases (Murphy et al. 1991), and support analyses that implicate problematic drinking in progression through the system. Carer alcohol abuse may have played a causal role in numerous cases, but could also, in turn, be a consequence of maltreatment in others. For example, some research suggests that women victimised by an intimate partner may turn to alcohol to cope (Wingood et al. 2000), and it is plausible that a parent may turn to alcohol because they cannot cope with the fact that they themselves or others maltreat the child. Even so, this is only likely to worsen the situation for the child. Problematic drinking may also interfere with caregivers’ ability to successfully follow a CPS plan for remediation, and thus make more serious intervention from the CPS system more likely. If a parent continues to drink alcohol problematically the drinking may well play a causal role for more serious outcomes.

Overall, the models presented in this chapter show that the odds of more serious outcomes were also increased for cases involving younger children, families that were not intact, and families in worse living conditions and who were unemployed or on other benefits, suggesting disadvantage was important. The results in Tables 8.5 and 8.6 suggest the youngest age group of children is more likely than older age groups to be the subject of more serious interventions, after adjusting for all other factors. This is consistent with the international and Victorian evidence discussed in the previous chapter, and evidence that infants aged 0-4 years are at a higher risk of more severe outcomes than other age groups (Jordan & Sketchley 2009). However, it differs from the results of the 2008 HTO Survey that found carers were more likely to report that older children were affected by others’ drinking (Laslett et al. 2010).

Child protection workers may be particularly concerned about combinations of child and carer risk factors. Indeed, that alcohol use, child’s age group and other factors all remain significant in the model suggests that child protection workers do take these factors into consideration in their decisions regarding interventions. Other drug abuse, parental history of abuse as a child, and caregiver mental ill-health were linked even more strongly than carer alcohol abuse to higher odds of cases receiving further protective interventions and court orders. These findings of independent effects of these variables suggest that numerous factors are part of the causal chain and are taken into account when interventions are undertaken and court orders implemented: carer risk factors appear to play a strong role in the decisions child protection workers make. Regarding the relationships identified between predictor and outcome variables, there are two possibilities. It is possible that the CPS worker’s coding of these variables, for example, carer alcohol abuse, influences the handling of the case in a way which results in a more severe outcome. Alternatively, the carer’s drinking may directly influence the child in a more serious way.

One outcome of the child protection system not explicitly highlighted in the previous analysis is the very serious step of removal of the child from the family and placement in out-of-home care. Figure 8.1 illustrates the substantial numbers of children across Australia in out-of-home care and that these numbers have been growing. While the level of alcohol involvement in these cases in each of these years is unclear, other work by Delfabbro et al. (2012) indicates that 69 per cent of children in out-of-home care have parents or carers with substance abuse problems.

40,000 45,000 30,000 35,000 20,000 25,000 10,000 15,000 5,000 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Figure 8.1 Number of children in out-of-home care in Australia 2000–2013

Source: Delfabbro et al. 2012

8.5 ALCOHOL’S INVOLVEMENT IN REPEAT CASES OF CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT

Twenty-nine per cent of the children who experienced alcohol-related child abuse or neglect in Victoria between 2001 and 2005 experienced repeated abuse or neglect (Laslett et al. 2013). Table 8.7 presents the distribution of the number of times children experienced maltreatment. The majority of children (77 per cent) appeared in the Victorian data system (CASIS) only once, and on average, children appeared 1.3 times in the system over the five year period studied. Children from families where carer alcohol abuse was identified were less likely to experience a single substantiation (71 per cent versus 79 per cent for others,

ʖ2 _{= 219.63, p < 0.001), and more likely to experience re-substantiations (a second or further substantiation}

once the case has been closed in the five year period) (Laslett et al. 2012). The final column in Table 8.7 shows that as the number of recurrences increased, carer alcohol abuse was more likely to be reported (using Poisson regression, p < 0.001). Overall, 31 per cent of children (and 33 per cent of cases) were from families where one or more carers had been identified with alcohol abuse.

Table 8.7 Substantiations of child maltreatment with and without carer alcohol recorded as a risk factor#_{, Victoria, 2001-2005}

NUMBER OF