The arrival of baby Lily at Sofie’s home on a Friday evening was abrupt, accompanied by a few bags of essentials. Unfed since that morning, the infant was placed into the care of Sofie, an early childhood educator who barely knew her. Lily had only attended Sofie’s Melbourne childcare centre for a few days, a placement initiated by child protection services hoping to provide stability while they worked with Lily’s mother. Sofie, who had only offered a passing cuddle, was deeply affected by a phone call earlier that day.
A child protection worker had contacted the centre seeking immediate weekend care for Lily. Sofie, initially confused by the request, believing it might be a misunderstanding due to English being her second language, was soon confronted with the reality of the situation. The centre’s owner and manager confirmed the urgent need for a carer. What was initially presented as a weekend arrangement has now extended for over six months, with Sofie uncertain of when, or if, Lily will return to her mother.
The court had deemed Lily to be at significant risk, leading to her removal from her mother’s care that very morning. Child protection urgently needed a foster or kinship carer, stating there was no one else available and that the placement would be temporary, just a couple of days to allow for arrangements to be made.
“My heart was breaking,” Sofie recalls, her voice filled with emotion. A call to her husband, who acknowledged the significant responsibility but agreed to help if Lily had nowhere else to go, followed. Nina, the childcare centre’s owner and director, expressed their immediate desire to assist. “At that moment, we just wanted to help the situation,” Nina explains. “We were saying: how about we do this together?”
Speaking from the centre’s front room, surrounded by vibrant children’s artwork and child-sized furniture, Sofie and Nina recount the unfolding events. The joyful sounds of children playing in the garden occasionally drift down the hall. Nina, after Sofie’s emotional call to her husband, contacted the child protection worker. “I was the one that spoke to the person on the phone and said, ‘This is very short notice. The only way we can see this being done is we do this together, 50-50.’”
The case worker readily agreed, asking only for one name for the paperwork, which Sofie provided. The initial request for weekend care, likened to “babysitting,” quickly evolved. As Sofie provided her details, the timeframe extended to a week. When Nina inquired further, the possibility of a month’s care was mentioned, a detail Sofie admitted she didn’t immediately share with her husband.
The Nuances of Kinship Care
Sofie is now classified as a “kinship carer” by the department, a designation that feels unusual given her minimal prior connection to Lily. Kinship care, where children are placed with relatives or close family friends, is a prevalent form of care in Victoria. However, it is uncommon for carers to have had such a limited pre-existing relationship with the child.
Anne McLeish, director of Kinship Carers Victoria, highlights the critical need for immediate family placements. “If they couldn’t find family members and a foster carer, that child was going to go into an institution,” McLeish states. “And quite rightly, the department will do anything – beg, borrow, steal, do anything – to place a child with a family rather than have that happen.”
A spokesperson for the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing, while unable to comment on specific cases, affirmed the government’s substantial investment of $4.8 billion in the system to “improve outcomes.” The spokesperson emphasised the vital role of foster and kinship carers in providing a nurturing environment for children unable to live at home.
However, the Community and Public Sector Union’s state secretary, Jiselle Hanna, points to systemic issues, noting that “child protection workers are experiencing ongoing burnout due to chronic understaffing and pressure – this is a structural issue, not an individual one.” This pressure, Hanna argues, impacts the frequency of child visits, the speed of case resolution, and ultimately, child safety.
Lily’s Journey: From ‘Frozen’ to Flourishing
Sofie observed developmental delays in Lily almost immediately. The infant struggled to sit unaided and had difficulty holding a bottle, appearing almost “like a toy, a frozen baby,” Sofie describes. Lily’s medical history was vague, with conflicting information regarding her allergies. When Sofie and Nina sought clarification from child protection, their concerns were met with general advice to “do the best thing for the child.”
Despite the lack of specific guidance, Sofie began feeding Lily based on her own experience as an educator. Lily’s appetite surged, and she began sleeping through the night, indicating she had been profoundly hungry. This was one area of remarkable progress.
Other situations proved more challenging. Sofie was assured Lily’s vaccinations were up-to-date, yet records showed they were overdue. Specialist referrals for crucial blood tests and X-rays, which case workers had promised to arrange with Lily’s mother, languished for months. Despite multiple changes in Lily’s case management team, these essential tests were only conducted after Sofie took the initiative to organise them herself.
Basic necessities like a cot and car seat, which were supposed to be provided by the department upon Lily’s arrival, were delayed for months. The case worker who dropped Lily off refused to leave the car seat, suggesting Sofie purchase her own and await reimbursement, which took three months. Lily slept in a borrowed cot from the childcare centre for the first night, and a departmental bed was not provided for six months.
Lily had regular supervised visits with her mother during business hours, facilitated by departmental workers. Sofie and Nina noted that these workers were frequently different, appeared to have little knowledge of Lily’s specific needs, and sometimes arrived with expired identification, lacking working-with-children checks, or no identification at all. “It just feels like they haven’t been properly trained and the child doesn’t feel like a child; it feels like a file to them. It just gets passed on,” Nina observed. McLeish attributes these administrative delays and frequent case worker changes to ongoing cuts in child protection staffing.
The shared care arrangement initially proposed was abandoned within the first week due to disputes with Lily’s case worker, leaving Sofie and her husband as Lily’s primary carers.
The Financial Strain and Blurred Boundaries
The issue of childcare fees presented another hurdle. Sofie’s full-time employment necessitated Lily’s enrolment at the centre for five days a week. Nina found that case workers seemed unaware of the gap fees payable even with federal subsidies and were unclear about who was responsible for payment. A bill of nearly $900 remained unpaid for months until Nina threatened to withdraw Lily’s enrolment. Sofie is set to take over the subsidy soon but worries about being held responsible for additional unaffordable fees.
The financial implications have also impacted Nina’s centre. Two other children under child protection orders ceased attending without notice, leading to Centrelink reclaiming subsidies and the centre losing over $22,000 in unpaid fees due to prolonged departmental paperwork delays.
The situation also raises questions about the department’s perception of the women’s work and the capacity in which they are acting. Sofie and Nina, both educators, feel the lines between their professional roles and their personal caring responsibilities have become blurred. Sofie receives the lowest carer payment and had to take unpaid leave to care for Lily when she was ill, having exhausted her paid leave after her own hospitalisation.
Despite their deep affection for Lily, the immense strain of dealing with the department led Sofie to consider stepping back. During Sofie’s hospitalisation, Lily stayed with Nina. Upon their return, Lily’s joyous reunion with Sofie and her husband prompted a change of heart. In the car, Sofie and her husband, tears in their eyes, decided they could keep Lily for a while longer.
The ultimate goal remains Lily’s reunification with her mother. However, the thought of Lily moving to another foster home causes Sofie anxiety, fearing she may not receive the same level of care. Lily has undeniably thrived under Sofie and her husband’s care, now walking, talking, playing, and laughing. As Sofie puts it, “You treat her like your own child.”
