03/02/2026
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1KCTyPZuY9/
๐๐๐๐ฃ โ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐๐๐จ๐ฉ ๐๐ฃ๐ฉ๐๐ง๐๐จ๐ฉ ๐ค๐ ๐ฉ๐๐ ๐๐๐๐ก๐โ ๐๐๐๐ค๐ข๐๐จ ๐๐ฃ ๐๐ข๐ฅ๐ฉ๐ฎ ๐จ๐ก๐ค๐๐๐ฃ.
In recent months, the Department of Social Development (DSD) has removed children from childrenโs homes and places of safety with little or no notice and without basic transitional safeguards.
Children have been collected by unfamiliar officials and transferred to new facilities without preparation, without emotional support, and without the involvement of their long-term caregivers. Ripped away without preparation, without explanation, without dignity.
The result is predictable and documented: distress, fear, and psychological harm to children.
One example โ among many:
A child who had lived in the same home for almost nine years was removed following a last-minute notification. There was no panel discussion, no consultation with the child or caregivers, and no transition plan. The responsible social worker was not present. The child was visibly distressed.
The childโs primary caregiver was not permitted to accompany him, nor allowed to hand over critical information relating to his medical, emotional, and developmental needs. She was instructed to leave and prohibited from further contact.
This approach fails the most basic test of child-centred care.
DSD is legally obligated to act in the best interests of the child. That obligation includes minimising trauma, preserving attachment where possible, and ensuring continuity of care โ particularly where a child has spent many years in a stable placement.
Let us be clear:
This is not about being adversarial.
This is about the rights, dignity, and emotional safety of children.
Children are not files. They are not objects to be moved around at will. They are human beings with attachments, histories, and hearts.
When decisions are made with power instead of compassion, it is the child who pays the price.
Established child development research consistently recognises that abrupt, unsupported separations from primary attachment figures significantly increase the risk of long-term emotional and relational harm.
It is also widely recognised that unmanaged childhood trauma has long-term consequences. Sudden, unsupported separations can contribute to attachment disruption, emotional dysregulation, and difficulty forming trusting relationships later in life. When such trauma is repeated or ignored, it does not end in childhood โ it follows individuals into adulthood and, ultimately, affects families, communities, and society as a whole.
When systems normalise preventable trauma to children, they risk creating broken support structures that echo across generations.
We therefore call on DSD to act immediately and transparently and literally IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD!
Our suggestions:
1. Immediate suspension of non-emergency removals without a documented, child-centred transition plan.
2. Mandatory caregiver handovers for all placement changes, including the transfer of medical, behavioural, and emotional information.
3. Advance notice and preparation appropriate to the childโs age, history, and length of placement.
4. Independent oversight of placement decisions involving long-term care, including review by a multidisciplinary panel.
5. Meaningful participation of long-term caregivers in decisions affecting the child, as provided for in law.
6. Written reasons for placement changes, provided timeously to affected parties.
7. Enforcement of trauma-informed practice standards across all DSD placement decisions.
Children are not administrative units. They are not movable assets. They are human beings whose futures are shaped by these decisions.
If we fail children now, we will carry the consequences for generations.
