REVIEW OF CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES

REVIEW OF CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES: 4.

Mdm Halimah Yacob asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) whether the Ministry has completed the review of the Child Protection Services that was announced in June this year; (b) what are the gaps that have been identified; and (c) when will the changes be implemented.

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: My Ministry had initiated the review of the Child Protection System in May this year. We did this in order to assess the adequacy and robustness of our Child Protection System. The work is being undertaken by an inter-agency Workgroup comprising MCYS officers, representatives from various Government agencies, as well as external members who are familiar with the Child Protection System. We have also engaged two overseas consultants to carry out an independent review of the service, paying specific attention to the effectiveness of our internal processes, our training systems and our resourcing of officers, as well as inter-agency partnerships. In order to understand the inter-agency challenges better, we conducted several focus group discussions with key stakeholders: namely, the hospitals, schools, Police, voluntary children’s homes and Family Services Centres.

The findings of the consultants and the focus group discussions are still being deliberated by the inter-Ministry workgroup. So I am not in the position to give definitive outcomes. But I can share that there have been some preliminary findings, which we re-affirm first the need for closer collaboration and co-ordination between the Child Protection Services on one hand, and the other partnering Government and community agencies on the other hand. We also need to provide more training for all stakeholders. Training specifically in the detection, prompt reporting and handling of reports of child abuse. We are also evaluating the need to develop more specialised services to support children who may have been victims of abuse. We expect the review to be completed by March next year, and I will have more things to say about it, at that point in time.

Mdm Halimah Yacob: Sir, I have a couple of supplementary questions. The major concern is the lack of co-ordination among the agencies, such as MCYS and the Police, in handling cases of abuse victims. For example, there was a recent case of the girl who was molested by her father. Upon his release, he went back home and repeatedly raped her. MCYS was not informed by the Police and it was not clear whether the Police has it as part of the SOP that they need to inform MCYS for such cases.

I have a few supplementary questions. First, could the Minister give some ideas as to how the Ministry proposes to have better co-ordination with the other agencies, especially the Police, on cases involving victims of abuse. Secondly, would the Minister consider making counselling mandatory for the abusers as well as the mother of the victim? Sometimes, the mother may be in state of denial, especially if the perpetrator is her own husband. Thirdly, could the Minister consider putting in place an alert system, whereby at least six months before an abuser is due to be released, the prison authorities will inform the relevant agencies, such as MCYS, family service centre if one is involved, the school – the child should get the support from the school – and other relevant agencies, perhaps the hospital, to supervise the child's well-being?

Dr Vivian Balakrishnan: Mdm Halimah Yacob is absolutely right that there is a great need for close collaboration and communication amongst all the stakeholders. As I said earlier, the initial points of contact can be the school, hospital, family service centres, sometimes members of public or neighbours, or other family members. So the initial warning signs can come through different channels. We already have a system. For instance, in hospitals, the moment the child is admitted and detected as having a non-accidental injury, doctors and nurses have an SOP. I can tell Members this from personal experience. We know that a report needs to be lodged, the report goes to the Child Protection Service, and the Child Protection Service could then embark on a separate investigation into the social circumstances of that particular family. The point is that it is not as if we are starting without any basis for collaboration and co-ordination. There is. But having said that, as the Member has pointed out the one terrible example, there will always be occasions when we could have done more or better. That is specifically what we are looking at.

Some of the Member's suggestions are suggestions which we certainly intend to pursue. For instance, tagging certain cases that would remain of concern, even after their release from prison. When we tag that case, in the sense we have to tag that family. That family has to remain under surveillance or monitoring by our social agencies. The Member's other suggestion about having an alert system before the person is released from prison or hospital or any other treatment facility: the family and the community services supporting that family need to be kept informed.

The Member's other suggestion about the need for counselling is also something which we are pursuing. It is not just counselling for the perpetrator, but for the victim and to strengthen the self-resilience of the family to be able to cope with the initial trauma, as well as to put in the safety mechanisms to prevent future recurrence of such threats. This will always be work-in-progress. Even as we uplift the standards of co-ordination and communication, we will do our best to minimise things like this from occurring and cases slipping through the cracks. I cannot tell and give the Member a guarantee that child abuse will never occur or that we can prevent every single case before it happens, very often in the privacy of the home. But we will do our best.