Child Abuse and Neglect and the Judicial System: The Limits of Legal Enterprise

Addressing cumulative harm: responding to chronic child maltreatment in the context of an intensive family support service

“…In Australia and internationally, across both secondary and tertiary statutory intervention, attention is paid to the episodic model of child abuse whereby a singular event is the focus and the outcome of assessing the singular event determines if a child is safe and if protection is required (Broadley, 2014;Bryce, 2018). Within this framework, there is minimal room to consider the cumulative effects of ongoing chronic maltreatment on a child, despite the research supporting that cumulative harm very often co-occurs with other child protection concerns (Sheehan, 2019a(Sheehan, , 2019b. Additionally, secondary support services working in statutory child protection have only one option currently: to refer to the tertiary child protection authorities, furthering the likelihood of future trauma through service delivery from more services or intrusive tertiary intervention.…”

“…This can occur for several reasons, including the voluntary nature of the intervention and some families being unwilling to address child protection concerns and choosing to remain engaged superficially, with the intent of avoiding more intrusive tertiary intervention. For these families, case plan goals are often focused on seemingly lower priorities, and once those goals have been achieved, the family disengages (Sheehan, 2019a(Sheehan, , 2019b. These families are often those with chronic and intergenerational histories of maltreatment.…”

“…Addressing cumulative harm adequately through secondary intervention models of support Sheehan (2019aSheehan ( , 2019b) argued that granting a child protection order is not always a helpful endeavour as there is minimal guarantee that interventions will alter circumstances for a child who has cumulative harm experiences. Meaningful change to address cumulative harm through intervention, practice models, policy and legislation begins with due attention being paid to the child's experiences and the accumulated harm that has occurred.…”

“…Prolonged and persistent experiences of child abuse and neglect, occurring over various developmental periods, can cause cumulative harm and have a profound and exponential impact on a child’s life (Bromfield et al , 2007; Frederico et al , 2008; Miller, 2007). ACEs that are consistently endured over sustained periods of time result in an accumulation of childhood adversity and are often referred to in the literature as cumulative harm (Bromfield et al , 2007; Broadley, 2014; Bryce, 2018; Sheehan, 2019a, 2019b).…”

“…To assess the availability of cumulative harm measurement tools, the authors have conducted extensive database searches; reviewed current scholarly reviews and comparisons of cumulative harm assessment, practice and legislation (Bromfield et al , 2007; Frederico et al , 2008; Price-Robertson et al , 2013; Broadley, 2014; Bryce, 2018a, 2018b; Sheehan, 2019a, 2019b); examined the small but significant cache of resources that were developed in response to the labelling of cumulative harm between 2007 and 2014 (Victoria Government, Department of Human Services, 2007; Miller, 2007; Bromfield and Miller, 2007; Government of Western Australia, 2008; Benevolent Society, 2014); as well as drawing on their practice knowledge. Prior research has focused predominately on establishing the concept and terminology of cumulative harm (Bromfield et al , 2007), identifying the ambiguities of acknowledging cumulative harm in the legal and statutory system (Broadley, 2014; Bryce, 2018a, 2018b; Sheehan, 2019a, 2019b) or discussing the complexities of holistic risk assessment in child protection practice generally (Goddard et al , 1999; Price-Robertson et al , 2013).…”