Child protection 'informally' removed SA children against mothers' wishes

A report by SA's Ombudsman has found that three South Australian children were placed in the care of family members contrary to their mothers' wishes.

The report found the child protection workers responsible acted in error.

The Department for Child Protection says it welcomes the Ombudsman's report and that the agency has taken steps to implement recommendations.

Child protection workers acted in error when they "informally" placed three South Australian children in the care of family members, against their mothers' wishes, the state's Ombudsman has found.

In a report released this month following an investigation into three separate complaints, Ombudsman Emily Strickland found the SA Department for Child Protection removed the children without exercising formal statutory powers.

She wrote the department's approach to removing each child involved "administrative error".

"In each matter, the department appeared to have disregarded the clear and persistent disagreement of one of the parents," Ms Strickland stated.

In her report, Ms Strickland noted the department was responding to "serious concerns" for the children's safety and wellbeing.

She stated the department used "safety plans" to place two of the children in the care of another parent or close family member.

According to Ms Strickland, safety plans are ordinarily "collaborative" agreements between a child's parents or caregivers and the department.

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.

"In the two cases involving safety plans, the mothers clearly and consistently disagreed to the proposed plans," Ms Strickland wrote.

"Despite this disagreement, the department did not exercise formal powers of removal and instead adopted the safety plans either with the child's other parent or with other family members."

In the third case, Ms Strickland found 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.

She wrote the department held "serious concerns" for the mother's mental health at the time.

"The mother also clearly disagreed with the proposal that her child be placed in their father's care," she wrote.

"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."

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.

"Each matter under investigation culminated in the department informally altering the care arrangements of a child without agreement from the parent from whose care the child was removed."

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.

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", including where they could be safely cared for by family members without the need for formal intervention.

"Keeping children safely connected to their families, communities and culture remains a priority," the statement read.

"The department and government and non-government partners work with families to address child protection concerns wherever possible to prevent children entering care."