A seven-year-old boy with high needs has been taken away from the “diligent, loving and adept” foster carers he called mum and dad after a court found the Caucasian Australian couple could not deliver the “cultural immersion” required for the boy’s South Sudanese ethnic heritage. The case has prompted criticism of both the West Australian government and the state’s Department of Communities, with the foster parents, the state opposition and the magistrate who made the order all finding fault with the way the boy’s situation had been managed by authorities. It has also sparked debate over the laws that drove the court’s decision, while the foster parents – who have looked after more than 20 mostly high-needs children over 14 years – have vowed to never again take another child into their home. The boy, who for legal reasons can be identified only by the initials KJA, has been placed with his maternal grandmother despite deep concerns from both a psychologist engaged by the department and a lawyer appointed to represent the boy’s interests about whether the woman – who does not write and cannot read text messages – has the ability to deliver the intense care needed to manage his conditions.
Despite Children’s Court magistrate Andree Horrigan recommending a “gentle” and “sensitive” transition away from his foster carers, and warning that the Department of Communities had a “solemn responsibility” to preserve KJA’s primary attachment to his foster carers, the foster mother told the media he was taken away a week after the decision was handed down. She said they had not been allowed to see KJA in person since, and her family had been left heartbroken by events. KJA was an “amazing boy” who loved to play outside around the family’s 2ha property, she said. “He just loved life, but he was a very complex child and had a strong attachment to us. It sends me into a spiral of emotions when I start to think of him and what he would be going through.” KJA was placed with the foster parents when he was four months old after his biological mother was unable to look after him.
He suffers from a multitude of conditions, including Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, a mild intellectual impairment, separation anxiety and a serious skin condition, ichthyosis, that leaves him at elevated risk of infection. He was raised alongside two foster siblings and had formed close bonds with them and his foster parents, who can be identified only by their initials, JAH and ADH. The foster parents had always been supportive of reunifying KJA with his biological mother, who lives in Brisbane with her youngest child. KJA began seeing his maternal grandmother and two of the boy’s older brothers in her care from 2022 onwards, spending every other weekend with those relatives. In August 2024, the Department of Communities was granted a protection order giving it parental responsibility over the boy, with the department then flagging it would move KJA into the care of his maternal grandmother.
That prompted the foster parents to apply for their own special guardianship order, which if successful would have allowed them to continue to manage the boy’s care while also maintaining his contact with his biological family. The foster parents cited the boy’s significant medical needs – which currently cost the department around $280,000 a year to manage – his strong attachment to the foster parents, and the specific arrangements to maintain contact with his biological family and culture in their case. Clinical psychologist Lisa Dominguez had repeatedly assessed the suitability of KJA’s grandmother for both the department and the court and found she would not be a suitable carer “even with a raft of services” provided by the department. Ms Dominguez in November 2023 wrote that the grandmother minimised and did not understand the boy’s medical needs and could struggle with managing those needs because of her cognitive functioning, while the boy would likely find a transition to his grandmother overwhelming because of his attachment to his foster parents and his own vulnerabilities.
Ms Horrigan’s decision also noted that the grandmother had once been subject to a criminal prosecution over interactions with her daughter, KJA’s mother. The department in 2025 found that the grandmother met the required competencies to become a carer, a decision the court found was made without reviewing the parenting capacity assessment prepared by Ms Dominguez. Under cross-examination during the trial, however, Ms Dominguez conceded the biological family home would be the “better place” for KJA if the grandmother were able to meet his medical needs. The department also found that while the foster carers provided a “nurturing and loving home” for KJA, the department was “not confident” the boy would be fully supported by them to be part of the South Sudanese community. It also argued that the foster parents were “overly protective” of the boy and had on multiple occasions put barriers in place to prevent him from spending time with his biological family.
In her affidavit tendered to the court, the grandmother said she did not want KJA to feel like “an outsider amongst his own black family and community”. “I do not want KJA to be confused as to his identity, I do not want him to feel socially isolated if he is cared for by white carers, I do not want him to not know who he is and who he identifies with,” she said. “This will occur if KJA continues to live with his carers. “KJA is black like his brothers and me. His carers are white. KJA is my grandson, he is family and family take care of their own.” Ms Horrigan noted that under changes in the Children and Community Services Amendment Act that came into effect in May 2022, she was required to consider culturally informed practice and placement principles when considering Indigenous children or children of a culturally and linguistically diverse background. On that front, she found that while the foster parents had been “excellent” carers, they had not done enough to immerse KJA in South Sudanese culture.
“I find that the carers have not prioritised, nor actively embraced, his exposure to South Sudanese culture whilst he has lived in their care … [The carers are Australian Caucasian people, and they participate fully in Australian Caucasian culture. They have no knowledge of the South Sudanese community and traditions,” she wrote. The foster parents’ proposal for an order spelling out how and when KJA could have contact with his biological family if the foster parents were given the special guardian order was labelled “restrictive, limited, overly controlling and patronising” by Ms Horrigan. She was satisfied that the grandmother could ensure KJA’s safety, protect him from harm and meet his complex needs, supported by the case management team and South Sudanese community. “This will enable KJA to experience life with his siblings and maternal family in a manner that is safe, culturally appropriate, and which will preserve and enhance KJA’s connection with his culture and traditions,” she wrote.
While Ms Horrigan ultimately rejected the foster carers’ application for special guardianship, she was highly critical of several aspects of the department’s conduct. She said the delays in making decisions about KJA had worked against his best interests, and the cultural plans contained in the department’s care plans for KJA “were inadequate and largely meaningless rhetoric”. “They contained motherhood statements and hopes with no active plan to enrich and develop KJA’s cultural knowledge and experiences”, she wrote. She also questioned the department for its criticism of the foster mother at the trial over her practice of emailing the Key Assets foster care agency with feedback after any visit, medical appointment, schooling or contact: “Had the carers not reported their concerns to Key Assets, I suspect this too would have given rise to further allegations and criticism by the department.”
The foster mother, meanwhile, said she was so disillusioned by the department that she and her husband would no longer take other children into their care. “We’re done, we’re out. We would never, ever be able to trust the department again,” she said. She said she now realised that the changes to the act prioritising cultural considerations meant the foster family “never had a chance”. She said the department appeared to have shown little regard to the magistrate’s recommendation for a “gentle” transition and for the foster family to have an ongoing presence in KJA’s life. “On one particular day we had an email from the case manager saying ‘Please be assured the transition is going to be taking place slowly, we value your ideas and thoughts around this’; less than an hour later we received an email from our agency saying the district director has made a decision that he will be removed next week and there’s nothing we can do,” she said.
“We ended up saying ‘Let’s do the transition that weekend’ because we all need to be part of it. Our other children that he has grown up with need to say goodbye … And we haven’t seen him since.” Child Protection Minister Jessica Stojkovski and a spokeswoman for the Department of Communities said they were unable to comment on individual child protection matters. “Reunification is a key aim for children within WA’s child protection system but only occurs in circumstances where safety planning has been completed and demonstrates it is in the child or children’s best interests,” Ms Stojkovski said. “The final decision always rests with the Children’s Court. “Foster carers are an essential part of the child protection system. I am grateful to each and every family that opens their home in support of a child, or children in need.” The Department of Communities spokeswoman said the safety and wellbeing of children was the state’s highest priority at all times.
Opposition child protection spokesman Nick Goiran said the case had exposed systemic issues for the government. “The court expert concluded that his psychological, emotional, social and intellectual wellbeing would be best supported by remaining with those carers. Yet, despite the court expert’s evidence that ‘stability is the foundation upon which cultural identity can be meaningfully supported’, the court ultimately dismissed the foster parents’ application and recommended that the child be sensitively transitioned via a plan to his grandmother,” he said. “In fact, Magistrate Horrigan specifically said the transition should be planned ‘in a sensitive manner’ and called for a ‘gentle approach’. Yet I understand the department removed this little boy within a week and has allowed no in-person contact with his foster parents since. “That is not a transition, that is not a plan, and that is certainly not sensitive.”
Source: Compiled by APN from media reports
Print This PostAustralian News will not be published next week to allow editorial staff to take a short break.