SA child protection workers erred in 'informal' removals of three children, Ombudsman finds

Report finds department disregarded mothers' disagreement in safety plan placements

By LineZotpaper AI staff

Published26 October 2026

Read Time2 min

South Australia's Ombudsman has found that child protection workers acted in error when they 'informally' placed three children in the care of family members against their mothers' wishes, without exercising formal statutory powers.

In a report released this month, Ombudsman Emily Strickland investigated three separate complaints and concluded the SA Department for Child Protection's approach involved 'administrative error'. She wrote that in each matter, the department 'appeared to have disregarded the clear and persistent disagreement of one of the parents', which was inconsistent with internal policy requiring genuine collaboration with parents.

The department used 'safety plans' to place two of the children with another parent or close family member. Strickland noted that safety plans are ordinarily collaborative agreements, and where agreement cannot be reached, the department must consider formal statutory removals under the Children and Young People (Safety) Act. In the two cases, mothers 'clearly and consistently disagreed' to the proposed plans. In the third case, an infant was removed and placed with the father without a safety plan or formal powers; the mother reluctantly agreed but Strickland said it was not open for the department to seek that agreement to effect a removal.

Strickland added that there were 'explicit expectations' in department policies for engagement and independent support, and those expectations were not met.

In a statement, Darian Shephard-Bayly, Acting Chief Executive of the Department for Child Protection, welcomed the report and said the agency had taken steps to implement recommendations, including updating its manual of practice on safety plans. He said safety plans are regularly developed in partnership with families to implement short-term protective measures, and that keeping children connected to families remains a priority.

RSS

The Daily Edition

The front page in your inbox each weekday morning: the lead, the picks, and why each one earned its place.

Analysis

Why This Matters

The report highlights a systemic failure to respect parental rights in child protection decisions, undermining trust in the department's processes.
It clarifies the legal boundaries of 'safety plans', which are meant to be voluntary agreements, not substitutes for formal removal powers.
The department's commitment to implement recommendations will be watched by advocacy groups and families affected by similar practices.

Background

The South Australian Ombudsman is an independent office that investigates complaints about state government agencies. Emily Strickland is the seventh person to hold the role since 1972. The Department for Child Protection is responsible for safeguarding children at risk of harm, and its policies require collaboration with families before informal arrangements are made.

Key Perspectives

Ombudsman Emily Strickland: The department acted with administrative error by disregarding clear parental disagreement and using safety plans or informal placements without exercising formal statutory powers. The expectations for genuine engagement were not met. Department for Child Protection (Acting Chief Executive Darian Shephard-Bayly): The department welcomes the report and has begun implementing recommendations, updating practice manuals. Safety plans are developed with families to keep children safe and connected to their communities, avoiding unnecessary formal intervention.

What to Watch

The department's updated manual of practice on safety plans and how it enforces genuine collaboration with parents.
Whether further complaints or legal challenges arise from similar cases where parents' wishes were overridden informally.
The Ombudsman's follow-up review of the department's implementation of recommendations.

Sources

Child protection 'informally' removed SA children against mothers' wishes · ABC News

Checked

12 claims in this story checked against 1 source: 11 supported.

Show each claim

SupportedThe Ombudsman found that child protection workers erred in informal removals of three children.Just In: “Child protection workers acted in error when they "informally" placed three South Australian children in the care of family members”
Partly supportedThe report found that the department disregarded mothers’ disagreement in safety-plan placements.Just In: “In each matter, the department appeared to have disregarded the clear and persistent disagreement of one of the parents”
SupportedThe workers placed the children with family members against their mothers’ wishes, without exercising formal statutory powers.Just In: “the SA Department for Child Protection removed the children without exercising formal statutory powers.”
SupportedStrickland said the department’s approach in each matter involved “administrative error”.Just In: “She wrote the department's approach to removing each child involved "administrative error".”
SupportedStrickland said the department appeared to have disregarded a parent’s clear and persistent disagreement, contrary to internal policy.Just In: “"In each matter, the department appeared to have disregarded the clear and persistent disagreement of one of the parents," Ms Strickland stated. "This was inconsistent with clear internal policy that required genuine collaboration and agreement with parents, guardians and caregivers."”
SupportedThe department used safety plans to place two children with another parent or close family member.Just In: “the department used "safety plans" to place two of the children in the care of another parent or close family member.”
SupportedStrickland said that where agreement cannot be reached, the department must consider formal statutory removals.Just In: “Where agreement cannot be reached, the department must consider alternative approaches to addressing safety concerns, including formal statutory removals under SA's Children and Young People (Safety) Act.”
SupportedIn the two safety-plan cases, the mothers “clearly and consistently disagreed” with the proposed plans.Just In: “"In the two cases involving safety plans, the mothers clearly and consistently disagreed to the proposed plans," Ms Strickland wrote.”
SupportedIn the third case, an infant was placed with the father without a safety plan or statutory removal powers; the mother reluctantly agreed, but Strickland said it was not open to the department to seek that agreement to effect a removal.Just In: “the department removed an infant from their mother and placed them in the care of their father without the use of a safety plan or statutory removal powers. ... "Although she eventually reluctantly agreed, the Ombudsman did not consider it open for the department to have sought that agreement to effect a removal without the use of its formal powers."”
SupportedStrickland said the department’s policies set explicit expectations for engagement and independent support, and that these were not met.Just In: “Ms Strickland wrote that for each case, there were "explicit expectations" in the department's policies for how the department ought to have engaged with the parents. "The expectations for genuine engagement and independent support were not met," she wrote.”
SupportedActing Chief Executive Darian Shephard-Bayly said the department welcomed the report and had taken steps to implement recommendations, including updating its safety-plans manual.Just In: “In a statement, the Department for Child Protection's Acting Chief Executive Darian Shephard-Bayly welcomed the Ombudsman's report and said the agency had taken steps to implement recommendations, including updating its manual of practice on the use of safety plans.”
SupportedShephard-Bayly said safety plans are regularly developed with families for short-term protective measures and that keeping children connected to families remains a priority.Just In: “He said safety plans were regularly developed in partnership with families to "implement short-term protective measures to keep a child or young person safe"”